How will the economy be affected by SNP MPs; will it be for richer or for poorer and

browniej

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No you didn't. You vaguely asked me to back up my assertions on who disagreed with the Tories voting down that amendment. 1.6 million Yes voters.. and those No voters that voted No on the basis of the Vow

No I'm afraid I was quite specific in what I asked you to back up with facts. Go back and read Post 375 again.

Just to remind you;

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And a fair swathe of No voters who also would on balance now, probably disagree also.

browniej wrote: »

Facts to back up that assertion?

No mention of yes voters, no mention of anyone who disagreed with the Tories but just a question on those No voters who you thought would disagree now.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

A poll taken immediately after the referendum stated that about 25% of No voters cite the Vow as THE reason for voting No. One taken more recently, states that 3.4% cite the Vow as A resason for voting No. So I guess it depends what poll you want to believe. Or any of them come to that ( given polling's recent performances ).

Ah - so it seems you chose to believe the earlier poll rather than the more recent poll when you made your assertion regarding No voters. Ok fair enough but at least be honest about it rather than trying to suggest I was asking something which i very clearly was not.

Shakethedisease

browniej wrote: »

No I'm afraid I was quite specific in what I asked you to back up with facts. Go back and read Post 375 again.

Just to remind you;

No mention of yes voters, no mention of anyone who disagreed with the Tories but just a question on those No voters who you thought would disagree now.

What facts would you like me to provide you with if not polls ?

Ah - so it seems you chose to believe the earlier poll rather than the more recent poll when you made your assertion regarding No voters. Ok fair enough but at least be honest about it rather than trying to suggest I was asking something which i very clearly was not.

Nope. I don't believe either of them to be correct. One's sample size was probably too small, the other was badly worded imo. Probably somewhere inbetween.

The fact that the Yes vote was 45%, but at the more recent General Election the SNP took 50% of the vote..who would never in a million years countenance Westminster dissolving Holyrood..may also be a strong indicator.

The Devolution Committee not finding the Scotland Bill, as it is, fit for purpose.. what are your thoughts on that ? ( apart from it's some sort of weird cross-party but SNP 'ruse' ).

elantan

Was that 50% not including 16\17 year olds and also those green pro independence supporters .... And let's not forget this that didn't vote but want both SNP and independence

zagubov

Rinoa wrote: »

The 'Vow' never mentioned Devo max, home rule or FFA.

If only the media were as conscientious as you are.:o
This article sums up how the media presented it with that precise term.

However, the Devo Plus website shows that what Scotland was offered was a modest version of Devo Plus, not Devo Max. Of course the unionist parties who set this up have let that website expire so we have to use the wayback machine to find it.;)

skintmacflint

elantan wrote: »

Was that 50% not including 16\17 year olds and also those green pro independence supporters .... And let's not forget this that didn't vote but want both SNP and independence

True but MR Sheridan urged every non SNP voter who attended his Independence Hope Over Fear rally in Glasgow a week or so before the GE to lend their vote to SNP.

In addition with Mdme Sturgeon clearly stating an SNP GE vote didn't equate to a vote for Independence then the numbers probably balance out. And a government can be changed very 4 or 5 years, so it's not quite the same thing. IMO of course.

There is no way she will risk another Referendum, until she is sure she can win with about 60 % of the vote. It was madness but typical Salmond to think either Yes or No voters would be happy with winning or losing with less than a 60 majority . As has been demonstrated.

The GE results show support is nowhere near these figures. I do expect SNP to sweep the board at the 2016 HR elections. Seems a near single party run state with even less effective opposition will be Scotlands democratic stupidity.

By next year the only thing to keep SNP in check will be the fact they haven't yet garnered enough support for Independence.

elantan

Yep Tommy did, SSP is another Yes party here so I reckon its safe to assume that those that listened to Tommy want independence

However, you do make a valid point there are people that vote SNP that don't want independence, many of them actually, fascinating how its not just the SNP that want independence, also fascinating how many SNP voters don't want independence, its almost like people are able to work out that the two are separate issues or something

Personally speaking I would like to see a green and yellow HR next year, I think Patrick Harvie would make a brilliant leader of the opposition ( obviously Maggie Chapman would be as well but I don't tend to know much about her)

Tromking

Scotland does now run the risk of sleep walking into Ulster style binary choice politics in my view. Unionists in Scotland will eventually en bloc choose one of the options currently available to them, or we may even see a new Unionist party formed as a vehicle for those opposed to nationalism in Scotland.

elantan

Tromking wrote: »

Scotland does now run the risk of sleep walking into Ulster style binary choice politics in my view. Unionists in Scotland will eventually en bloc choose one of the options currently available to them, or we may even see a new Unionist party formed as a vehicle for those opposed to nationalism in Scotland.

I find it very interesting that you state this, many have, what interests me is the whole, cybernat, SNP bad people and yet when the No vote came through the cybernats and SNP hooligans didnt go out and start an Ulster style Scotland, on the 19th September George Square was taken over by hatred, none of whom were cybernats, separatists or SNP Hooligans...

And yet we are now being told when we get independence Scotland will become a new Ulster,( not you per say but many others have threatened it) so it makes me wonder, who exactly is going to cause this trouble? wont be those nasty cybernats, seperatists or the SNP hooligans cause they havnt done so yet and they will have had their way so will be happy ... Will it be those unionists... those well behaved people that when they got their win turned George Square into hatred?

Should we as a country stop evolving and becoming better because of these people... the same people that say the separatists need to accept their defeat and yet continually go on and on and on about the referendum? Should we be ruled by these people? would people further south accept being ruled by these people? should we all run scared from the hatred?

Does make me wonder who exactly are the bad apples

I also dont think it will be a binary choice, as i stated previously I imagine in the future the CW will form a party WFI will probably dilute and change and form a party, RIC already are thinking about it, SSP will get bigger and more will evolve, in Scotland everyone has thier own idea of what they want their country to be and a lot are willing to put the leg work in to get it now... lets be honest, WM was a binary choice for a long time itself as well

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

skintmacflint wrote: »

Seems a near single party run state with even less effective opposition will be Scotlands democratic stupidity. .

Indeed.

Then we can all sit back, grab some popcorn, and wait for public opinion to turn on the SNP when they become the distrusted and disliked establishment party.

Given by the next GE they'll have been the Scottish govt for a decade or more, the cracks will start to show.

elantan

I had a feeling you would be joining me with popcorn Hamish