Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

The SNP have a new member. Apparently they'll accept absolutely anyone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/12030871/Ex-footballer-Stan-Collymore-quits-Labour-and-joins-SNP-over-Syrian-air-strikes-vote.html

That was a few hours after the vote after midnight. He tweeted his Labour card cut up, and a pic from the SNP website.

I doubt the SNP membership offices are on standby 24/7.

Oh and for those who want to discuss the airstrikes and the implications re Syria/war etc. With respect..Could you mabye start another thread to discuss the specifics/debate ? This one is veering off on a tangent a bit imo.

I thought Salmonds comments today would have been up here by now.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Well, anyway, to get back on topic, I simply cannot believe that the SNP reflects Scottish opinion on this, Scots are not quiescent in these things. Voting against taking some direct action is not something I would expect, nor do I suspect it against every SNP member .. to me it smells of a Party Policy decision, cynically enacted to be seen to be acting against the Tory Party and hype up another policy clash.

It stinks.

They do reflect public opinion.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/14121275.SNP_petition_against_air_strikes_in_Syria_receives_over_62_000_signatures_in_10_hours/?ref=rss

It's 82,917 signatures now. Anyway, as someone said yesterday. Public opinion at the start of these things. Isn't usually the same as at the end. Once all the tub thumping is over.

ps thanks for steering things back to simply slagging off the SNP.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

Well, anyway, to get back on topic, I simply cannot believe that the SNP reflects Scottish opinion on this, Scots are not quiescent in these things. Voting against taking some direct action is not something I would expect, nor do I suspect it against every SNP member .. to me it smells of a Party Policy decision, cynically enacted to be seen to be acting against the Tory Party and hype up another policy clash.

It stinks.

Surely it is just a coincidence that every single SNP MP agrees with the great leader.
I see that the nice Mr Corbyn, who likes a gentler sort of politics, will be using the young cadets to cleanse the party of all opposition.
Maybe he could get a few tips from Nicola.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They do reflect public opinion.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/14121275.SNP_petition_against_air_strikes_in_Syria_receives_over_62_000_signatures_in_10_hours/?ref=rss

It's 82,917 signatures now. Anyway, as someone said yesterday. Public opinion at the start of these things. Isn't usually the same as at the end. Once all the tub thumping is over.

ps thanks for steering things back to simply slagging off the SNP.

I don't believe you Shakey, nor does the SNP petition prove anything other than SNP''s capacity to use any pretext to stir up division, using a very serious issue for purely party political purposes.

Such a petition could be organised anywhere in Europe, let alone the UK and many would sign it for all sorts of reasons,

Some would have valid views for being against air strikes, some not. I don't believe for one moment that "valid" applies for the SNP,

You've let the cat out of the bag there Shakey.

chris_m

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They do reflect public opinion.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/14121275.SNP_petition_against_air_strikes_in_Syria_receives_over_62_000_signatures_in_10_hours/?ref=rss

It's 82,917 signatures now.

So where's the corresponding petition in favour of air strikes?

Without that for comparison, there is no way that you can say what the overall public opinion is, nor that the petition you've linked shows public opinion, nor that the SNP view reflects public opinion..

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
Oh and for those who want to discuss the airstrikes and the implications re Syria/war etc. With respect..Could you mabye start another thread to discuss the specifics/debate ? This one is veering off on a tangent a bit imo.
...

It never was on topic / on tangent.

Every time someone like Generali quotes some figures, the usual response is to post a twitter comment or dismiss the source of the figures.

Leanne1812

A good friend of mine, I'd describe him as a staunch unionist has said it is the first time he has ever agreed with the SNP on anything. I understand the SNP do not speak for all scots but they do for many of us in this instance.

I've also noticed there is no criticism of the tories voting as they were told but outrage that the SNP may have done the same. Anyone care to tell me what the difference is?

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

A good friend of mine, I'd describe him as a staunch unionist has said it is the first time he has ever agreed with the SNP on anything. I understand the SNP do not speak for all scots but they do for many of us in this instance.

I've also noticed there is no criticism of the tories voting as they were told but outrage that the SNP may have done the same. Anyone care to tell me what the difference is?

The Tories were whipped as well as the SNP: I disapprove of both on such a matter which should be individual conscience.

Otherwise it's good to see the SNP and the Tories in agreement for a change.

One might note that some Tories disobeyed their whip : no SNP MPs dared.

But to be unambiguous: I do hereby criticise the Tory decision to whip.

.string.

The SNP Petition states

(

The SNP believes that the UK should not repeat the mistakes of the past, and engage in military action without a comprehensive and credible plan to win the peace.

Sounds wonderful BUT it is typical of the SNP's approach of making impossible demands and then complaining when they are not met.

There is a plan behind the UK Parliament's approach (I gave the gist of part of it a few posts back) but there is no way the UK could define on a comprehensive way what should happen in Syria being only a small part of the range of counties now involved in the political peace process ... They include Russia, U.S., France, China and the UK. The UK contributes to but cannot dictate the decisions of the U.N. Security Council, for that is essentially what we have there. So how on earth can a comprehensive plan be found before things are thrashed out? There is already plan enough available on the political front already. A similar remark can be made about the other issues, like preventing funding etc.

What was under discussion was basically the UK legitimizing its role in influencing in modest measure these heavy duty matters, and extending its contribution to the full arena to the destruction of Daesh. It was not about the UK solving the whole business by itself.

The petition is based on an infantile proposition.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I don't believe you Shakey, nor does the SNP petition prove anything other than SNP''s capacity to use any pretext to stir up division, using a very serious issue for purely party political purposes.

Such a petition could be organised anywhere in Europe, let alone the UK and many would sign it for all sorts of reasons,

Some would have valid views for being against air strikes, some not. I don't believe for one moment that "valid" applies for the SNP,

You've let the cat out of the bag there Shakey.

Scottish Labour were against airstrikes too ? No-one came out publically FOR them anyway. It's almost as if... they knew it wouldn't be a good move re Scottish public opinion.

You get what you see with the SNP. There's only 56 of them. Most of them will have joined in the first place knowing the SNP's historic stances on Iraq, Libya etc. They certainly didn't going the SNP because they're a party that routinely votes in favour of military action that's for sure.

We'll also never know for sure how the Scottish public felt re airstrikes last night. Because there was never a full Scottish poll done. So you have your opinion, and I'll stick with mine.