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

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, the amendments were in their manifesto. And what people voted for.

I doubt whether more than one in 100 SNP voters bothered to read their manifesto. They just turned on the telly and said "She's a nice lady, we'll vote for her."

Either way it wasn't in the Conservative manifesto - and more people voted for them. That's democracy for you.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Interesting to note that Mr Swinney blames Westminster for the problem of falling oil revenue.

It's a strange position to be in : on the one hand you need additional Westminster support to help those affected by the drop in oil revenues ; on the other you need to maintain the political narrative of an out of touch political elite based hundreds of miles away.

elantan

Rinoa wrote: »

I doubt whether more than one in 100 SNP voters bothered to read their manifesto. They just turned on the telly and said "She's a nice lady, we'll vote for her."

Either way it wasn't in the Conservative manifesto - and more people voted for them. That's democracy for you.

See I would disagree with you here, I was on many forums and facebook groups where people dissected the manifesto line by line, and there were many more than 100, we like to get into the nitty gritty now

Rinoa

elantan wrote: »

See I would disagree with you here, I was on many forums and facebook groups where people dissected the manifesto line by line, and there were many more than 100, we like to get into the nitty gritty now

Well, you're debating it on this forum, and there's usually less than a dozen or so reading at any one time. Even if there were 10,000 debating it on forums (doubtful) that's still far less than 1 in every 100 scots.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Well, you're debating it on this forum, and there's usually less than a dozen or so reading at any one time. Even if there were 10,000 debating it on forums (doubtful) that's still far less than 1 in every 100 scots.

There are well over 100,000 fully paid up SNP members. So there were probably more than 10,000 gave the manifesto more than a quick skim through. It also went out on Twitter, Facebook and all the other outlets.. and was re-tweeted and shared/debated either in full or in part for debate for weeks after it was published.
Then of course you had the newspapers/tv etc who took great delight in dissecting and dissing every part of it 24/7 in the Scottish media. FFA in particular. So, yes, I'd say the manifesto was something most Scots voters were pretty much up to speed on. However they voted.

1,454,436 however did vote for it. 707,147 for Labour's, 434,097 for the Conservative's and 219,675 for the Lib Dems. In other words, for every 1 person who was thrilled to vote for the Tory manifesto. There were 3 people who voted for the SNP's one. And two for every 1 person who voted for Labour's..

Yes the Conservatives got a majority in Westminster. But I suspect as even Nick Clegg confirmed yesterday. That a lot of that was down to the 'threat' of SNP MP's rather than anything gobsmackingly wonderful in their manifesto either.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There are well over 100,000 fully paid up SNP members. So there were probably more than 10,000 gave the manifesto more than a quick skim through. It also went out on Twitter, Facebook and all the other outlets.. and was re-tweeted and shared/debated either in full or in part for debate for weeks after it was published.
Then of course you had the newspapers/tv etc who took great delight in dissecting and dissing every part of it 24/7 in the Scottish media. FFA in particular. So, yes, I'd say the manifesto was something most Scots voters were pretty much up to speed on. However they voted.

1,454,436 however did vote for it. 707,147 for Labour's, 434,097 for the Conservative's and 219,675 for the Lib Dems. In other words, for every 1 person who was thrilled to vote for the Tory manifesto. There were 3 people who voted for the SNP's one. And two for every 1 person who voted for Labour's..

Yes the Conservatives got a majority in Westminster. But I suspect as even Nick Clegg confirmed yesterday. That a lot of that was down to the 'threat' of SNP MP's rather than anything gobsmackingly wonderful in their manifesto either.

You're kidding yourself if you think the vast majority of scots carefully studied every line of each party's manifesto and voted accordingly.

Some can't even write their own name, both english and scots.

elantan

I wouldnt say vast majority, but I certainly wouldnt say no one either... Lots of us did, lots of us keep up to date daily with the goings on ...

.string.

In PM question time today, the SNP used all their questions along the lines of, why are Scottish MPs going to be 2nd class MPs and why are they stopped from voting on issues which affect the money that goes to Scotland and will the Prime Minister confirm to the Scottish People that this will not be the case.

Cameron's answer was to refer to the several Scottish - only issues where English participation was not allowed (in the Scottish Parliament) and reminding SNP members that they were involved in the discussion since they would be able to participate in the debates, including the third reading. It would need a majority of English MPs, however, to approve a motion.

That was what I have long favoured, except that my proposal was that, in the event of a vote being agreed by English MPs but against the wishes of a majority of non-English MPs then that would give cause for the motion to be reconsidered.

It appears, however, that what is on Cameron's mind indeed extends beyond the simplistic "one vote and that's it" approach. In reply to the last SNP question he stated that some mechanism would be necessary to deal with a vote blocked by the English tally.

We shall see in due time.

But why did the SNP ask this question?

The questions were a good example of the SNP collective mind-meld in action and all fabricated to excuse a good whinge about unfair treatment etc. That was clearly an aim of the tactic, as evidenced, for sound bite purposes, by their frequent utterance of the words "Scottish People." I can already anticipate the remark "It will play well back home". Yes it will if you regard Scots as Sheeple 'Sheeple', as Robertson referred to them once.

Another thing that would have been in the SNP mind would have been the fact that the decision will critically damage any dreams the SNP might have had on holding the "balance of power" in any future Labour Government.

Another thing might have been genuine concern on the principle, but I doubt it.

Methinks the single minded approach to PM's Question Time shows up a certain lack of scope of interest and individuality of the SNP MPs.

Rinoa

Cameron once again made the point that it's time for SNP's to stop debating the process and state what welfare changes they envisage and what taxes they will raise to pay for them under FFA.

Of course there is zero chance of that happening.

.string.

I saw an interview on the Marr show this Sunday with the deputy leader of the SNP Mr Hosie. One subject was about the intent to have English MPs having a deciding veto in parliamentary motions about English only matters.

I have always been cynical about the SNP's lately awakened opposition to the proposals (in the past it was their policy not even to vote on such matters). I ascribed the SNP's policy to just three SNP "druthers" ; first to find a reason, any reason, to stir up anti-English feelings in Scotland, secondly to be able to vote against anything that could concievably decrease the Scottish budget while voting for anything that would put it up, all that being irrespective of the merits of what was being proposed, and thirdly to have an artificial leverage to influence policies on other matters. The latter was, of course, their daydream should Labour have won the recent GE.

Nothing came out of that interview which changed my view and in thinking again about the whole thing, I really can't see any validity in the SNP's concerns. Maybe there is someone here who can put the SNP viewpoint in more intelligible terms than could Hosie.

For example, suppose the NHS is being discussed about a proposal which would result in savings being made, or the converse which would result in the need for more funding. If that particular proposal would be passed, the English "Veto" not having been applied (remember that Scottish MPs would have debated and voted), any changes in the overall NHS budget would not necessarily be dealt with at the same time (if it was to be the case then the motion would not involve the English Veto) but would be agreed or not by a vote concerning all parts of the UK in which there would be no Veto.

Even if the exact mechanics of what is proposed for EVEL are not yet finalised, all that seems so trite and obvious, even, surely, to the SNP, that I have to stick to my cynism.

So what on earth is the SNP rabbiting on about?