Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Ah, I checked alexa again. Its still so wee.

Wee wee wee wee wee. And it always will be.

Is not properly live till Monday. And I'd think about some tena lady pads for that repetitive wee prob of yours.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Agreed.

20% of previous SNP voters voted No in the referendum.

Voters from 2010, or from 2011 ? 40% of Labour one's voted Yes ( no idea which election ). They show no signs of returning 'home' at the moment.

A significant proportion of SNP support today will be voting SNP safe in the knowledge that this matter is settled for a generation and a vote for a decent local SNP candidate to represent a constituency is NOT a vote for a Neverendum.

What a shame the media at the moment seem to be taking such great pleasure in whipping it into one then eh ? They're good at that. And while I agree with you re May 2015.. voting in 2016 for a decent SNP candidate may be yet another story.

Seems unlikely to be Jim Murphy though who's chickened out and is standing in Westminster again. I'm betting if he keeps his seat ( as looks likely ).. he'll resign as Scottish Labour Leader and be back down south before Xmas. Especially if Milliband is out ( depending on how Labour does UK wise ).

elantan

I really hope he doesn't keep his seat ... But tbh some of the SNP candidates make me go !!!!!!

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Seems unlikely to be Jim Murphy though who's chickened out and is standing in Westminster again. I'm betting if he keeps his seat ( as looks likely ).. he'll resign as Scottish Labour Leader and be back down south before Xmas. Especially if Milliband is out ( depending on how Labour does UK wise ).

I stopped being a Labour supporter, when they became the welfare and bureaucracy party, instead of the working party. Poverty is not cured by a single factor.

But unless I'm mistaken , are you not being a bit SNP biased in your phrasing. To continue as Leader of the opposition in Labour does he not have to be either an MP or MSP. He can't stand for an SNP seat until 2016 . And if he has a chance of winning a Westminster seat why would Labour want to risk it.

Salmond resigned his leadership role while still an MSP and MP. I don't really see the difference. Salmond said his reason was for the benefit of SNP, and I'm sure Murphy will say the same. I don't really see the difference here despite it not being the real reason for either of them.

Tromking

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Agreed.

20% of previous SNP voters voted No in the referendum.

A significant proportion of SNP support today will be voting SNP safe in the knowledge that this matter is settled for a generation and a vote for a decent local SNP candidate to represent a constituency is NOT a vote for a Neverendum.

The 'Johnny come lately`s' to the nationalist cause from the central belt on here are over playing the ramifications of the burgeoning SNP support we are seeing now in my view. To many SNP voters electing a representative to protect Scottish interests (ie. the English subsidy!) is way more important than independence.
The irony of course is that the more SNP dominates the further Scotland devolves and is more responsible for raising the money its spends, then the myth of social democratic Scotland dissipates in favour of the more pragmatic and some say more realistic mentality toward public spending we have in England.
The SNP can be all things to all people with English cash but it can`t so much when its only got what it raises at home.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

I stopped being a Labour supporter, when they became the welfare and bureaucracy party, instead of the working party. Poverty is not cured by a single factor.

But unless I'm mistaken , are you not being a bit SNP biased in your phrasing. To continue as Leader of the opposition in Labour does he not have to be either an MP or MSP. He can't stand for an SNP seat until 2016 . And if he has a chance of winning a Westminster seat why would Labour want to risk it.

The editor of the Herald said yesterday that he thinks polling has shown that Labour might lose the seat unless Murphy stands. And that they're just 'firefighting' and dealing with one problem at a time. Fair do's there. Obviously they couldn't persuade anyone ( MSP ) to stand aside for him earlier.

Salmond resigned his leadership role while still an MSP and MP. I don't really see the difference. Salmond said his reason was for the benefit of SNP, and I'm sure Murphy will say the same. I don't really see the difference here despite it not being the real reason for either of them.

The problem is that Jim Murphy has stated on record a few weeks ago that he had absolutely no interest in being an MP and MSP at the same time. And was devoting his energies into being elected First Minister in 2016.

Also there was no Westminster election between Salmond standing as an MSP while being an MP. His constituencies overlapped/were virtually the same as both MP/MSP. And he left at the end of his MP term. Murphy has the unenviable task of trying to 'sell' to his constituents, the possibility of standing down after just a year in the job. Or if he stays on, admitting he was telling porkies.

All in all a bit of a shambles really, over what Murphy says he's doing, and what he actually does.

It's always been my own opinion that Murphy has little interest in being an MSP. And was only dispatched north as a 'big hitter' in order to blitz the media with policies/press releases/tv appearances etc etc and attempt to stem the flow of voters heading Sturgeon's way. May 15 is his real goal for himself and Labour. I don't think he's got anything much in the way of plans Scotland wise after that. Most especially if Milliband loses the election and he HAS managed to retain a lot of seats in Scotland. He'll be eyeing a leadership contest I would think if that scenario plays out. But he may surprise me yet.

Ashcroft has been polling in his constituency.. Will be interesting to see the results there. It's usually a Labour/Tory fight there with SNP a poor third.

.string.

Leanne wrote:

.string. wrote:

It's what you get from the SNP policy of blaming all sorts of imaginary troubles on Westminster, aka the UK, and deliberately provoking hostility in this otherwise neighbour-friendly Island. It's their policy, not mine, not the UK, but part of the grand strategy of divide and rule by the nats. A deliberately contrived consequence.

So westminster are doing a grand job of governing? I can only speak for myself but I felt a small government based Scotland looking out for 5 million citizens might actually be good. Oh, not having to subsidise the ever increasing HOL was a plus too. That's just daft though isn't it?

I think you're imagining the snp created hostility. There's always been an element but why bother with the truth eh.

Nonsense, what I charge the SNP with is stirring up discord between Scotland and the rest of the UK for it's own myopic agenda; the fact that some in the SNP already hate the English does not alter that one little bit.

In fact your post is actually an example which proves my point - no specifics, just a nudge-nudge-wink-wink-type of remark implying (yet again) that Westminster is the source of anything bad you can conceive of.

Is local government good? - of course it has its very legitimate place. Does devolved Government also have some merits? - Of course it does. But so has the central government, coordinating the common interests of the UK and providing, by virtue of the significantly greater resources that brings to the table, greater security in an improving way of life (cue for some winging there no doubt).

I'm not sure what you mean by HOL and puzzled over it. Assuming you mean House of Lords, my take is that the House of Lords needs reform although not of the type of pigs' breakfast of reform proposed by the Lib Dems a year or two back. Its chief benefit, as I see it, is to hold the House of Commons to account by providing a review process to sort out the idiosyncrasies and bad legislation that can come from the zealots in a political party; a sort of "ombudsman role". I can see why the SNP would like to avoid anything like the House of Lords that interferes with the one party state concept though.

Watermann20

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The problem is that Jim Murphy has stated on record a few weeks ago that he had absolutely no interest in being an MP and MSP at the same time.

All in all a bit of a shambles really, over what Murphy says he's doing, and what he actually does.

To me no difference between this and Salmond in 2004 when Swinney stood down as leader in 2004 , saying if he was nominated he would defer, if drafted he'd defer and if elected he would resign. Then a few weeks later changing his mind. He too was firefighting, as he was well aware by that time the only way SNP was to succeed was to steal more ground from the Labour Party, and that wasn't going to happen without him, dominating the party.

All political parties use spin and tactics to achieve their aim.SNP are no different, and perhaps worse. Because Salmond as a canny tactician, has harnessed and stirred up deep rooted physcological feelings and dissent to further his single aims.

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

Nonsense, what I charge the SNP with is stirring up discord between Scotland and the rest of the UK for it's own myopic agenda; the fact that some in the SNP already hate the English does not alter that one little bit.

In fact your post is actually an example which proves my point - no specifics, just a nudge-nudge-wink-wink-type of remark implying (yet again) that Westminster is the source of anything bad you can conceive of.

Is local government good? - of course it has its very legitimate place. Does devolved Government also have some merits? - Of course it does. But so has the central government, coordinating the common interests of the UK and providing, by virtue of the significantly greater resources that brings to the table, greater security in an improving way of life (cue for some winging there no doubt).

I'm not sure what you mean by HOL and puzzled over it. Assuming you mean House of Lords, my take is that the House of Lords needs reform although not of the type of pigs' breakfast of reform proposed by the Lib Dems a year or two back. Its chief benefit, as I see it, is to hold the House of Commons to account by providing a review process to sort out the idiosyncrasies and bad legislation that can come from the zealots in a political party; a sort of "ombudsman role". I can see why the SNP would like to avoid anything like the House of Lords that interferes with the one party state concept though.

The SNP have never made any secret of the fact that independence for Scotland is a goal so you can call it their myopic agenda all day long but that is what they stand for like it or lump it. Meanwhile, they are the Scottish Gov, elected by its citizens and are doing quite a good job thus far. The idea that people were confident enough in their ability to vote for them says something does it not? I for one have more trust in the Scottish gov than I do in Westminster. The expenses scandal, cash for honours, cash for questions, alleged pedophilia at the heart of the establishment. You tell me, what's to like eh?

I wanted a small government who would be accountable to its citizens. I'm sorry but I think Westminster is corrupt to the core. I wanted to break free. I don't think that's a bad thing. I'm in agreement for greater control for local gov, I live in hope we might start to see this after the election.

Yes I was referring to the House of Lords and while I feel a second chamber is a good idea this institution is just archaic and needs abolished or huge reform. I'm posting a link that I watched just yesterday regarding HOL if you would be interested to watch. I agree with Pete Wishart ( SNP MP) totally here.


http://youtu.be/GuTHqb-lHEc

Shakethedisease

Watermann20 wrote: »

To me no difference between this and Salmond in 2004 when Swinney stood down as leader in 2004 , saying if he was nominated he would defer, if drafted he'd defer and if elected he would resign. Then a few weeks later changing his mind. He too was firefighting, as he was well aware by that time the only way SNP was to succeed was to steal more ground from the Labour Party, and that wasn't going to happen without him, dominating the party.

Murphy unfortunately can only hope to be just a quarter as successful at stealing such ground in reverse ( it would save a lot of Labour seats ). Him standing for Westminster and his extreme reluctance to divulge his intentions afterwards doesn't inspire much confidence in his newly 'patriotic' party. I doubt his constituents are impressed either. He hasn't shown face in the House of Commons for months now.