In the pub tonight most people said they favoured Nicola Sturgeon. What a pity this is S E UK..

[Nylock]

<snip> Jockmacgeddon </snip>

ftfy












*i'll get my coat...

 

[Metal Malcolm]

I'm fascinated by the idea that the SNP would hold a Labour govt. to ransom. I mean, clearly the Lib Dems have been holding the Tories to ransom for the last five years, so that's the only likely outcome...

 

[DotCommunist]

I'm fascinated by the idea that the SNP would hold a Labour govt. to ransom. I mean, clearly the Lib Dems have been holding the Tories to ransom for the last five years, so that's the only likely outcome...

they did direct coalition whereas a lab-snp link will be 'confidence and supply' I.E no formal coalition but lab voting causes supported or not on a vote by vote basis by SNP

I think

 

[Metal Malcolm]

they did direct coalition whereas a lab-snp link will be 'confidence and supply' I.E no formal coalition but lab voting causes supported or not on a vote by vote basis by SNP

I think

In other words, they'd have no cabinet members, no direct part in government, no ability to propose laws...and yet somehow this means they'd be more powerful than the Lib Dems were.

 

[DotCommunist]

In other words, they'd have no cabinet members, no direct part in government, no ability to propose laws...and yet somehow this means they'd be more powerful than the Lib Dems were.

are you sure you understand how it all works?

 

[danny la rouge]

Yet here you are on this thread...

Oh that's right, I remember now, "if you don't vote, that means you have no right to say anything at all ever".

I'll just go back and start deleting all my posts from the last 13 years.

 

[danny la rouge]

In other words, they'd have no cabinet members, no direct part in government, no ability to propose laws...and yet somehow this means they'd be more powerful than the Lib Dems were.

Haven't you read the papers? They'll RUIN THE COUNTRY!

 

[Up the junction]

you spent 13 years writing stuff like that on a message board?

 

[danny la rouge]

you spent 13 years writing stuff like that on a message board?

No, usually I reply to people without quoting or tagging them, because I'm passive aggressive.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Shit on the menu. This kind of shit or that kind of shit. How dare you choose nothing. how dare you complain about there being only shit on the menu.

If you don't choose the shit sundae over the shit sandwich, there'll be no more ice cream for anyone ... !

 

[danny la rouge]

Lol.

 

[Metal Malcolm]

are you sure you understand how it all works?

Honestly? No. But i'm not exactly getting a clear and concise explanation of why i'm wrong, and every time I see Sturgeon referred to as 'Dangerous' or 'wanting to destroy Britain' in various forms of media, it makes me wonder why they're so desperate to give that impression without any real facts to back it up...

 

[butchersapron]

Two pieces (from different perspectives) both arguing that the just launched SNP manifesto is in fact a labour manifesto - not historic labour (the labour party your parents voted for) but actual contemporary labour. (Note, posting this is not an endorsement of either article or perspective).

The second-longest suicide note in history

But she took neither route. Instead, she took the one guaranteed (whatever the English tabloids claim) to minimise her party's influence in Westminster; that is, the one entirely in keeping with the outlook of the average member of the parliamentary Labour party. Reading the SNP manifesto, your correspondent was overwhelmed by a single impression: no document in recent British history has better epitomised the instincts of the average Labour MP. Like Labour, the SNP would: raise the top rate of tax to 50p, abolish the "bedroom tax", increase the minimum wage, reintroduce the bankers' bonus tax, boost house-building and support for the disabled, decentralise political power, overhaul the House of Lords, mandate lower energy prices, accelerate progress towards carbon-reduction targets, increase female representation on company boards, cut (but not abolish) tuition fees across Britain, support EU membership, uphold Britain's international aid commitments, oppose the "privatisation" of the NHS and boost apprenticeships. As the Resolution Foundation notes, the two parties' fiscal plans are eminently reconcilable. The only major difference—the SNP would abolish Trident where Labour might not—invites as much prevarication over the next five years as did the coalition agreement between the pro-Trident Conservatives and the Trident-sceptic Liberal Democrats in 2010. And (whisper it softly): those two parties got on just fine.

SNP manifesto 2015: A document drafted in weakness

So the end result is a position of electoral strength and political weakness at Westminister, and as a result the SNP’s manifesto will leave the reader with a sense of déjà vu. A commitment to restore the 50p rate of income tax, a raid on bankers’ bonuses, the end to the married couples’ tax allowance, the abolition of non-dom status and further taxes on expensive homes: these are all Labour policies.

Far from offering a radical left alternative, it feels as if it is the SNP being pulled leftward by Ed Miliband. These are, for the most part, policies that have long been championed by the Labour leader but opposed by the Nationalists. There are areas where the Labour leader has been outbid; a minimum wage of £8.70 an hour as opposed to £8. But on housing, the SNP fall badly short, promising half (100,000 a year) the new homes that Labour offer (200,000 a year). Tax breaks for businesses paying living wage has been Labour policy for several years now, and is in fact already being implemented by Labour-controlled local authorities in England.

 

[mauvais]

Some sort of, I dunno, Northern League perhaps?

I'd much rather a Northern Alliance.

 

[weepiper]

She's addressing the STUC conference just now. https://twitter.com/forabetterway is live-tweeting it

 

[danny la rouge]

Honestly? No. But i'm not exactly getting a clear and concise explanation of why i'm wrong, and every time I see Sturgeon referred to as 'Dangerous' or 'wanting to destroy Britain' in various forms of media, it makes me wonder why they're so desperate to give that impression without any real facts to back it up...

The barbarians are at the gates!

The theory goes like this: the Lib Dems were in government. They had an agreed agenda, they had cabinet collective responsibility, they were tied into that programme. Whereas the SNP are "Tartan Trots" who will not take collective responsibility, but from a position of no responsibility will simply vote against anything they don't like, which will mean Labour will be reduced to a minority government on those occasions.

Now, that makes no sense if you look at the issues the SNP will vote against Labour on: they're all issues that the Tories will vote *with* Labour on, making them the majority on those issues. (Eg Trident).

That said, the SNP could make trouble if they play their hand well. But will they?

 

[danny la rouge]

What the Mail et al fear is a Parnellite campaign of filibuster and disruptive use of parliamentary procedure. Which the SNP have tried in the past (late 80s, when they had even fewer MPs than currently). It'd be nice, but I have my doubts personally.

 

[youngian]

Meanwhile Murdoch edges his bets on anyone who's not Ed Miliband

 

[danny la rouge]

Two pieces (from different perspectives) both arguing that the just launched SNP manifesto is in fact a labour manifesto - not historic labour (the labour party your parents voted for) but actual contemporary labour. (Note, posting this is not an endorsement of either article or perspective).

The second-longest suicide note in history



SNP manifesto 2015: A document drafted in weakness

There's actually quite a bit of nonsense in both, but they are both right about two things: the SNP is not a "Tartan Marxist" party (not news), and the things they might vote against Labour on (Trident, or trying to get stronger devolution than Labour wants to give, for example) are things the Tories will gladly vote along with Labour on.

But neither article knows what the SNP's longer term strategy is. I personally doubt that it's to cause parliamentary mischief along Parnellian lines. (They did in the 80s on occasion, but that was different times: there was no prospect of devolution on the horizon, they weren't trying to look responsible in Holyrood - there was no Holyrood Parliament, only a Palace - and with so few MPs, it was the only way they could get coverage).

The scares in the Mail are about the Union being torn apart this way. Well, let's hope so. But I'm not sure what the mechanism would be.

 

[danny la rouge]

Meanwhile Murdoch edges his bets on anyone who's not Ed Miliband

Note that that's the Scottish edition. The Sun wants to sell papers. Its closest rival is the Daily Record which is backing Labour, as Captain Smith backed the Titanic. Market positioning.

 

[weepiper]

Note that that's the Scottish edition. The Sun wants to sell papers. Its closest rival is the Daily Record which is backing Labour, as Captain Smith backed the Titanic. Market positioning.

Even the Record has an air of rats eyeing a sinking ship today

 

[danny la rouge]

Even the Record has an air of rats eyeing a sinking ship today

View attachment 70519

Hadn't seen that. This is interesting.

 

[coley]

Now if Cameron had a smidgin of sense, he would offer the SNP full fiscal autonomy for the duration of the next parliament, ( excepting defence,)in the event of a hung election that is, in return for keeping their noses out of Westminster.
And a new referendum on independence 6 months prior to the next election.
That would allow the SNP the chance to prove they are fit to govern what would be technically an independent Scotland.
But they would have to finance Scotland out of their own revenues and without the support of the Barrett formula and without any British guarantees on loans they might seek to raise.

 

[danny la rouge]

in return for keeping their noses out of Westminster.

If the SNP is returned in anything like the numbers predicted, why should they be prevailed upon to (and why would they agree to) "keep their noses out of Westminster"? Is the Scottish electorate not allowed to choose who to send to Westminster?

All the UK parties campaigned for a No vote to keep Scotland in the Union, sending MPs to Westminster.

Well, there was a No vote, so there will be Scottish MPs at Westminster. And it looks like most of them will be SNP.

 

[JTG]

If the SNP is returned in anything like the numbers predicted, why should they be prevailed upon to (and why would they agree to) "keep their noses out of Westminster"? Is the Scottish electorate not allowed to choose who to send to Westminster?

All the UK parties campaigned for a No vote to keep Scotland in the Union, sending MPs to Westminster.

Well, there was a No vote, so there will be Scottish MPs at Westminster. And it looks like most of them will be SNP.

The Unionists really do want to have their cake and eat it as well. Keep the UK together but deny Scotland its full rights as a member.

I'm starting to think these people actually do think the UK = England

 

[coley]

If the SNP is returned in anything like the numbers predicted, why should they be prevailed upon to (and why would they agree to) "keep their noses out of Westminster"? Is the Scottish electorate not allowed to choose who to send to Westminster?

All the UK parties campaigned for a No vote to keep Scotland in the Union, sending MPs to Westminster.

Well, there was a No vote, so there will be Scottish MPs at Westminster. And it looks like most of them will be SNP.

NS and the SNP want an independent Scotland I believe? Well my idea would give them everything they want on an 'experimental ' basis
What's there not to like?

 

[danny la rouge]

NS and the SNP want an independent Scotland I believe? Well my idea would give them everything they want on an 'experimental ' basis
What's there not to like?

What's not to like is suggesting they "keep their noses out of Westminster".

Let's get this right. You want Scotland to stay in the UK but not be represented at Westminster? (Or, at least, only to be represented at Westminster if Scottish voters behave and vote for "proper" parties).

 

[danny la rouge]

What's not to like is suggesting they "keep their noses out of Westminster".

Let's get this right. You want Scotland to stay in the UK but not be represented at Westminster? (Or, at least, only to be represented at Westminster if Scottish voters behave and vote for "proper" parties).

And let's be specific about this. That is exactly the message that's coming across. That's how people here are hearing Lord Tebbit's call for Scots to vote Labour.

And hearing that message makes people think "fuck them. I don't particularly support the SNP, but how dare you tell us we can't vote for them if we want to".

I was speaking to an old school friend yesterday. He was a Labour voter and a No voter. He said (I may be paraphrasing slightly): "In all the years the Scottish working class voted Labour nobody paid us any attention. Now the media is talking about us all day every day and we haven't even voted SNP yet".

How do you think he's planning to vote?

 

[coley]

What's not to like is suggesting they "keep their noses out of Westminster".

Let's get this right. You want Scotland to stay in the UK but not be represented at Westminster? (Or, at least, only to be represented at Westminster if Scottish voters behave and vote for "proper" parties).

No, now it seems there is an overwhelming move towards the SNP in Scotland and the SNP wants independence? my suggestion is that they are given a 'trial run'
My suggestion gives them the cake and lets them eat it, the only precondition is that as an 'experimental independent Scotland' they have no involvement in the governance of the rest of GB.
Where's the problem?

 

[danny la rouge]

Where's the problem?

The problem is that this is a Westminster election to decide which MPs go to Westminster. Scotland looks like it wants primarily SNP MPs to go to Westminster. Read that again: to Westminster.

So, they don't want the SNP to be "keeping their noses out" of it, but to be putting their noses in it.