Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There's a truly hilarious narrative emerging around the upcoming May 2015 General Elections here in the UK. For those not paying attention, Scotland voted 55-45 to stay in the UK(a shame, but that's the end of that for now), a large plank of the No campaign particularly in the closing days was the rhetoric of "Home Rule"; we were promised devo-max, devo-SUPER-max, full-Home Rule, even devolution so extensive it would be "akin to Federalism". We're not getting anything of the sort of course, because the entire reason the British Establishment opposes Scottish independence is it would be a reduction of their own power and influence, and proper Home Rule/Federalism would do exactly that only to a slightly smaller degree. Anywho, the result the Unionist parties were expecting/hoping for, ie the collapse of the SNP and all those lefty, anti-austerity types getting tucked nice and safely back inside the box marked "Scottish Labour, open only in case of failure to achieve majority in England & Wales" is stubbornly failing to materialise. All the caveats about polling and two months to go etc aside, the SNP are polling around 40-50% up here in Scotland and Labour, the party that's dominated Scottish politics for over 60 years, is consistently around 20 points behind them. If those numbers bear out come May 7th, the SNP could take anywhere from 25 to 50 of Scotland's 59 seats depending on local swings(they hold 6 presently), potentially including several seats in Glasgow that have been held continually by Labour for decades - at the upper end of that estimate, and if the expected Lib Dem collapse happens, the SNP would be the UK's third-largest party.

And that scenario has the Westminster parties cacking their pants. Which leads us to the hilarious emerging narrative:

According to Labour, if we vote SNP we'll get Tories.
According to the Tories, if we vote SNP we'll get Labour.
According to the Lib Dems, if we vote SNP we'll get UKIP(in coalition with Tories).
According to UKIP, if we vote SNP we'll resurrect Stalin in the body of Alex Salmond and install him as Permadictator of the New People's Republic of Britistan.

Indeed, apparently the only thing you won't get if you vote SNP is the SNP

Seriously though, it's slightly odd all of the main WM parties are taking this line. It's been a big success for Labour in past general elections, but a few things are different these days. For a start, the idea of no proper majority and multiple parties having to work together probably isn't as terrifying a prospect to Scots as it once was, given we've had a parliament with a form of proportional representation working along those lines for 16 years now. As a strategy, it also rather relied on people seeing Labour as an actual alternative to the Tories, which is a struggle for a lot of folks now in the wake of Blairite New Labour, the fact the present party under Miliband back most of the austerity measures being proposed by the coalition government, and of course the fact that more recently they were campaigning shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tories during the independence debate(and even if it's unfair, that will be held against them by a lot of people). For the Lib Dems, highlighting the possibility(remote thought it may be) of a Tory/UKIP coalition rather relies on people believing a Tory/UKIP coalition would be any worse than the present Tory/Lib Dem coalition to an appreciable degree, which is by no means a certainty. I can understand it coming from the Tories, because frankly it doesn't affect them at all; they have 1 Tory MP in Scotland now, they're likely to have 1 Tory MP in Scotland after the election, their reputation up here can't really get any worse, and their vote-share has been stable for many years, but they can play the "don't let them stinkin' Jocks come down here and tell us what to do!" line to chivvy up a few extra votes down in targeted English marginal seats. UKIP...well, they're UKIP, you're more likely to discover a way to make cheese out of wood than you are to figure out what they're on about.

What's that proverb about interesting times again?

As a Scot on the other side of the independence debate (really glad we stayed in) I agree this election is going to be interesting

especially as I agree with you that the Scottish Parliament has not been given all the new powers the Westminster parties promised them

although this has not been helped by the SNP trying to suggest they were promised even more..... come on folks you can show the other parties are being les than honrable without getting grabby

I think you (and the pollsters) are right that Scotish labour is going to get slapped around at the election (and will we see 0 seats for the liberals and conservatives I wonder?)

but even if that does happen I don't really see the SNP being able to exert any major leverage, they can't get independence (no matter how attractive it might be to a minority conservative administration to get rid of us I think they're too recently tied to a yes vote to agree), and anything else is going to look like a loss to those that voted for them so I suspect a significant fration of their new seats will slowly revert to labour (especially if they chose to more further to the left in search of votes)

 Yodhrin wrote:
If those numbers bear out come May 7th, the SNP could take anywhere from 25 to 50 of Scotland's 59 seats depending on local swings(they hold 6 presently), potentially including several seats in Glasgow that have been held continually by Labour for decades - at the upper end of that estimate, and if the expected Lib Dem collapse happens, the SNP would be the UK's third-largest party.

It's interesting that you say that. I think most polls show UKIP having around 10-15% support, and even if they only get half that number, say 6% of the seats, that would be 39 seats in the House of Commons, rivalling the SNP already. The problem you then end up with is that neither UKIP nor SNP would have enough leverage on their own, and joining with Conservative/Labour respectively would put them at the whim of the larger party, rendering them irrelevant.

The Tories can barely seats in Scotland anyway. A flood of people turning to SNP will divide labour's vote a lot more than the conservatives meaning a conservative government is more likely.

If the Lib Dem vote falls flat, it could lead to very interesting suggestions for coalitions.

1. There was no specification of the powers that would be offered.
The SNP likes to consider that as a defacto promise of devo-ultramax, which is a little dishonest frankly.

2. The SNP is 'good for Scotland' in the same way the Lib Dems are 'good for local government'.
Lib Dems score very highly in local elections in constituencies which return a Tory or Labour MP, this is not about the lack of proportional representation as the Lib Dems claim but due to a large number of people purposely voting Lib Dem locally but not in general elections, This is mainly due to a perception of what the party is good at.
The SNP will get the lions share of the votes, and a lot of No supporters will vote them in, the SNP will fight Scotland's corner stronger than the other parties, mainly because a large number vocally don't give a gak about anywhere else . I totally expect the SNP to see this as a pro independence comment and try to make waves.

3. Frankly more SNP is more disaster, they have stealth fethed Scotland. More powers to Holyrood has also fethed Scotland, the powers have gone to Holyrood not Scotland. What I mean by that is Scotland is very centralised, especially in terms of fiscal control of local government. Analysts discovered that iScotland would have had a more centralised government than anywhere else in the western world, and approaching some totalitarian states. That is bad for civil liberties and de-centralisation. The irony is Scottish local government has far less autonomy now than before devolution, Scots have less control over their own lives, not more, but the illusion of more the Scottish parliament proports disguises the actual less.
With the SNP now taking an active partisan role in national politics while maintaining a regional stranglehold will make the next term of parliament uncomfortable to say the least.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
As a Scot on the other side of the independence debate (really glad we stayed in) I agree this election is going to be interesting

especially as I agree with you that the Scottish Parliament has not been given all the new powers the Westminster parties promised them

although this has not been helped by the SNP trying to suggest they were promised even more..... come on folks you can show the other parties are being les than honrable without getting grabby

I think you (and the pollsters) are right that Scotish labour is going to get slapped around at the election (and will we see 0 seats for the liberals and conservatives I wonder?)

but even if that does happen I don't really see the SNP being able to exert any major leverage, they can't get independence (no matter how attractive it might be to a minority conservative administration to get rid of us I think they're too recently tied to a yes vote to agree), and anything else is going to look like a loss to those that voted for them so I suspect a significant fration of their new seats will slowly revert to labour (especially if they chose to more further to the left in search of votes)

Point of fact; I'm not at all convinced Labour will suffer a full-on wipeout. I think it's more likely that a combination of cold-feet and the usual media focus on the two "real" parties in the closing weeks of campaigning will result in the SNP getting something more like 15-25 seats, perhaps one or two of them in Glasgow(*crosses fingers* please get rid of Maggie Curran, please get rid of Maggie Curran... ).

I don't see Mundell losing his seat; the perception of the SNP has been moving steadily away from the "Tartan Tories" idea pushed by Labour back in the 90's, and most people now recognise they're a very-slightly-left-of-centre party - not a threat to a solid Tory seat, particularly given Nicola Sturgeon's decision to focus the party's campaigning around gender balance in the economy and the failure of austerity economics. The Lib Dems is an odd one, I suspect they'll hold their Island seats and lose the mainland, although some of those will go Labour rather than SNP.

Regarding powers, I think that particular problem is one the Westminster parties made for themselves; sure, when you look at the detail of the proposals made prior to the vote, it was obvious we'd be getting a few welfare bits and bobs here, a tax varying power there, but that wasn't the language the No campaign used. Indeed at the time it was independence supporters who were trying to point out the limited nature of the actual offer being made, and the No campaign insisting they were offering the Scottish people a revelatory new constitutional settlement(remember, they did actually use phrases like Home Rule and devo-super-max repeatedly). That the SNP is now trying to turn their own language against them to maximise what we can actually get isn't surprising, and as someone who originally supported actual Federalism and only came around to independence after I was convinced that's a pipe-dream, I'm OK with them taking that line.

As for the SNP being unable to gain independence; I think you'd be surprised about how folk who voted Yes and will vote SNP in May will react. Sure, there will be a hardcore of "identity nationalists" who will go mental if the SNP take 50 seats and don't immediately pull a UDI, but they're a tiny minority; most people I've been talking to/articles I've been reading seem fairly evenly split between people who're willing to settle for wringing the maximum amount of devolution out of Wesminster possible, and people who're disappointed by the result of the referendum but are so cynical about the British state they believe it will only be a few years before holding another referendum has majority popular support, so are willing to bide their time. I think success at Westminster will be dangerous for the SNP certainly, you only have to look at the Lib Dems to see what a minefield it is being the smaller party that "holds the balance of power", but depending on how the seats shake out down south I think the SNP have a good chance at extracting a really good deal from Labour providing they allow a few face-saving concessions.

Of course given how hysterical the commentariat and party spindoctors are getting at the moment, there's always the chance Labour and the Tories might write off Scotland completely and try painting any large SNP showing as a major crisis that justifies forming a Great Depression/WW2 style "National Government" - afterall these days, in policy terms, they agree on more than they disagree.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
If those numbers bear out come May 7th, the SNP could take anywhere from 25 to 50 of Scotland's 59 seats depending on local swings(they hold 6 presently), potentially including several seats in Glasgow that have been held continually by Labour for decades - at the upper end of that estimate, and if the expected Lib Dem collapse happens, the SNP would be the UK's third-largest party.

It's interesting that you say that. I think most polls show UKIP having around 10-15% support, and even if they only get half that number, say 6% of the seats, that would be 39 seats in the House of Commons, rivalling the SNP already. The problem you then end up with is that neither UKIP nor SNP would have enough leverage on their own, and joining with Conservative/Labour respectively would put them at the whim of the larger party, rendering them irrelevant.

The problem(which I'm somewhat hypocritically thankful for in this instance, since I think UKIP are madder than a bag of cats) is the FPTP electoral system. In England and Wales, UKIP's present levels of support nationwide isn't actually enough to take more than a handful of seats - 2 most likely, 5 at the outside. The reason the SNP are facing the prospect of gaining nearly all the seats in Scotland(not likely IMO as I say above, but within the realms of possibility) is that they're polling high enough across a broad enough geographical area that FPTP could work in their favour for a change. Consider; across Scotland, the Tories consistently take 12-16% of the vote in both Holyrood AND Westminster elections, yet at Westminster they have only a single Scottish MP out of 59. The positions of Labour and the SNP are usually reversed; at the 2010 elections Labour took 41% of the vote in Scotland, but they took 41 out of 59 seats, while the Lib Dems and the SNP both took 20% of the vote, but the Lib Dems got 11 seats and the SNP only got 6.

Under FPTP your national vote share is essentially irrelevant until you pass the 40% threshold, all that matters is whether you have enough voters in any particular seat. Once you do pass the threshold, it's then statistically likely your voting base is spread over a wide enough area that you'll also poll as the largest party in many of the individual seats.

As for the SNP's strategy if they do end up as the UK's third-largest party, they seem pretty thoroughly set against the idea of coalition, and rightfully so in my view. I think the party's stated preference for supporting Labour on an issue-by-issue basis is doable, and I doubt Nicola Sturgeon would be daft enough to enter into a former coalition with Labour unless they were offering pretty much full Home Rule, on a rapid timetable. I suspect if that situation does arise, there will be a lot of fudging here and there - Labour will make some concessions on austerity in the budget in exchange for the SNP supporting it, but they'll spin it as their idea; Labour will throw the Trident replacement out for "further consultation" that puts it into the next Parliament in exchange for the SNP not kicking up a fuss about Faslane during any negotiations etc. Again though, I think it's more likely the SNP will land somewhere around 20 seats, in which case their only play is to keep the pressure on in rhetorical terms while looking for opportunities to barter their support for issues where the main parties are expecting a lot of rebels.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The Tories can barely seats in Scotland anyway. A flood of people turning to SNP will divide labour's vote a lot more than the conservatives meaning a conservative government is more likely.

If the Lib Dem vote falls flat, it could lead to very interesting suggestions for coalitions.

Well no, actually, it doesn't make a Tory government more likely. Scotland voted Labour in 2010, 1992, 1987, 1983, and 1979 yet the UK still got Conservative governments(and arguably we voted Labour in 1997, 2001, and 2005 and got Tory governments as well, the ministers just wore red ties). Not one of Labour's majorities during the Blair/Brown years depended on Scottish votes for its majority. This was one of the core arguments that persuaded me independence was a desirable alternative to federalism; Scottish votes almost never matter, England decides the government of the UK by simple virtue of the fact you have 80% of the UK's population, and we can either agree with the choice you make or disagree with it and live with it anyway.

Arguably, since voting Labour doesn't actually change the likelihood of a Tory government, a large contingent of SNP MPs who's main goals would be securing further devolution and making the party look good in Scotland for the 2016 Holyrood elections would do better for us than electing another wadge of Labour MPs who'll head down to London and immediately capitulate to the party whip(and worse, occasionally be used by the party leadership as a kind of political Territorial Support Group, to put down objections to party policy by English Labour MPs).

EDIT: Oh, and Orlanth, just so you don't waste your time; I've had you on ignore since you started your wee spittle-flecked ravings during the independence debates, and that will not be changing.

Yodhrin 636708 7610628 7e83b8c770c85dbbf9c18826fd4f055b.jp wrote:

EDIT: Oh, and Orlanth, just so you don't waste your time; I've had you on ignore since you started your wee spittle-flecked ravings during the independence debates, and that will not be changing.

A badge of honour.
What you call "wee spittle-fecked ravings" were in fact reasoned arguments that you couldn't refute, and largely necessary to post as you would say anything, no matter how untrue if it served the Yes camp cause and it seemed important to refute them in case someone came along and was hoodwinked into thinking you had an honest opinion.
It was admittedly fun posting quote after quote from reliable sources refuting your gak, if that was 'raving' then there are a lot of mad statesmen and analysts about as I backed my word with their time and again.
Yet somehow during this you kept saying defending Alex Salmond with a straight face, if anyone was raving he was, just how do you do it.

Interesting stuff Yodhrin. I will be watching the UK elections with interest.

I definitely agree as an outsider that the pro-independence scots have been screwed by a lying establishment, but that was predictable, sadly. You can't trust Westminster. I do hope it comes back to bite the establishment in the arse of course, but I'm not hopeful. I'd also like to see some more movement towards regulating the City and doing something about the criminal banks the UK is harboring these days

I'm also curious how things across the water in the North might impact this. Sinn Féin are on a meteoric rise in the Republic (unfortunately) and might be grabbing a few more seats up North. Since the Unionists basically always back the Tories, any Unionist seats lost can be seen effectively as Tory seats gone. And since Sinn Féin don't take their seats in Westminster (just all their expenses, hurr hurr) that effectively reduces the total number of seats available.

 Da Boss wrote:


I'm also curious how things across the water in the North might impact this. Sinn Féin are on a meteoric rise in the Republic (unfortunately) and might be grabbing a few more seats up North. Since the Unionists basically always back the Tories, any Unionist seats lost can be seen effectively as Tory seats gone. And since Sinn Féin don't take their seats in Westminster (just all their expenses, hurr hurr) that effectively reduces the total number of seats available.

Sorry that is too distant an outsiders viewpoint.

Sinn Fein is racking up vote in Eire because the Republic is poor and angry and looking for someone to blame, Sinn Fein will always turn that into blame the Union because Northern Ireland is far wealthier.

Sinn Fein will NEVER take seats from the Ulster Unionists, or vice versa. The Ulster Unionist parties might change who they vote for internally but will never vote for any nationalist party. As the constituencies are highly polarised the only possible outcome changes are in constituencies with heavy representation of both nationalists and unionists. In those constituencies people will vote tactically to keep the other faction out.

You can expect the unionist communities to switch vote to Sinn Fein about the same time as ISIS declares itself pro-Israeli.

I think you'll find Sinn Féin can gain seats in the North, because the hardline is diminishing. There is a sizeable amount of the North that is not strongly republican or unionist, and just wants to move on from the past. Sinn Féin have been moderately successful in marketing themselves as a reasonable party of compromise. I wouldn't say I'm that distant an outsider, having lived for 24 years in the Republic and spent six months living in the North.

Sure, plenty will never ever vote for them (same in the Republic). But they can still gain ground. I think your last statement is pretty hyperbolic, and not supported by recent evidence.

Btw, Éire is sometimes seen as a bit of a patronizing name for Ireland. Most Irish people call it the Republic or just Ireland.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think you'll find Sinn Féin can gain seats in the North, because the hardline is diminishing. There is a sizeable amount of the North that is not strongly republican or unionist, and just wants to move on from the past.

The factional balance remains 35% will vote for nationalist parties, 65% for unionist parties. Which flavour varies but the balance will not.

 Da Boss wrote:

Sinn Féin have been moderately successful in marketing themselves as a reasonable party of compromise. I wouldn't say I'm that distant an outsider, having lived for 24 years in the Republic and spent six months living in the North.

You think, Sinn Fein's growth is on the back of an anti-austerity ticket, which is a gimic frankly.
As is happening in Greece trying to apply anti-austerity when facing severe financial penalties within the Euro is difficult.
It may be populist and Adams is counting on that, but he has to pass his squandering plans by the European bank, good luck with that.

 Da Boss wrote:

Sure, plenty will never ever vote for them (same in the Republic). But they can still gain ground. I think your last statement is pretty hyperbolic, and not supported by recent evidence.

There have been clashes in Stormont over Sinn Fein's rejection of austerity, and with similar moves elsewhere its divisive. Sinn Fein are not as popular as you make out, austerity makes more sense than anti-austerity, as the Unionist parties and Nationalist parties will never agree it meant that unionist population have been firmly pro-austerity, in part because Sinn Fein is not.

Remember that Sinn Fein's inclusion on the peace process is all about gravy training, they were bought out effectively. Consequently they are opposed to cuts of any kind. As 95% of Stormonts budget is allocated from UK Treasury (though this figure doesn't take into account national taxation from revenues raised in Northern Ireland).

The four year budget was passed in 2014 and has made some savings, only the far left has been dissatisfied with the outcome. Sinn Fein moved on and concentrated on the same policy in Dublin, where it meets with more support.

 Da Boss wrote:

Btw, Éire is sometimes seen as a bit of a patronizing name for Ireland. Most Irish people call it the Republic or just Ireland.

I am going to ignore that bit of offense. Say Ireland, some get upset, say Eire others do. Its their way. So the best option is not to pander to hair trigger sensibilities and speak freely and clearly, so long was we know which country we are talking about that is enough for me.

Its a factual term after all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éire

Its also easier when refering to politics which stride the divide to be clear and distinctive.

 Orlanth wrote:
1. There was no specification of the powers that would be offered.
The SNP likes to consider that as a defacto promise of devo-ultramax, which is a little dishonest frankly.

2. The SNP is 'good for Scotland' in the same way the Lib Dems are 'good for local government'.
Lib Dems score very highly in local elections in constituencies which return a Tory or Labour MP, this is not about the lack of proportional representation as the Lib Dems claim but due to a large number of people purposely voting Lib Dem locally but not in general elections, This is mainly due to a perception of what the party is good at.
The SNP will get the lions share of the votes, and a lot of No supporters will vote them in, the SNP will fight Scotland's corner stronger than the other parties, mainly because a large number vocally don't give a gak about anywhere else . I totally expect the SNP to see this as a pro independence comment and try to make waves.

3. Frankly more SNP is more disaster, they have stealth fethed Scotland. More powers to Holyrood has also fethed Scotland, the powers have gone to Holyrood not Scotland. What I mean by that is Scotland is very centralised, especially in terms of fiscal control of local government. Analysts discovered that iScotland would have had a more centralised government than anywhere else in the western world, and approaching some totalitarian states. That is bad for civil liberties and de-centralisation. The irony is Scottish local government has far less autonomy now than before devolution, Scots have less control over their own lives, not more, but the illusion of more the Scottish parliament proports disguises the actual less.
With the SNP now taking an active partisan role in national politics while maintaining a regional stranglehold will make the next term of parliament uncomfortable to say the least.

Gordon Brown promised as close to home rule as possible (or words to those effect) so frankly, talk of the SNP being dishonest is wide of the mark. Detractors will say that Gordo, only being a backbench MP, didn't have the authority to offer this, but Cameron Clegg, and Miliband, didn't call him out on it. If anything, they gave Gordo their blessing.

You make a fair point about centralised government, but miss overlook the fact that the UK is the only Western Democracy without a written constitution.

And you miss the elephant in the room. In May, every single voter could vote for Labour (highly unlikely) and still be saddled with a Tory government, due to the unfair, centralised, imbalance of the union. Scotland only having 59 seats out of 600+ for any foreign dakka member who doesn't know.

Now how's being highly centralised: Holyrood, or Westminster who refuse to entertain a federal system which is the only thing that will save the UK in the long run.

 Da Boss wrote:
Interesting stuff Yodhrin. I will be watching the UK elections with interest.

I definitely agree as an outsider that the pro-independence scots have been screwed by a lying establishment, but that was predictable, sadly. You can't trust Westminster. I do hope it comes back to bite the establishment in the arse of course, but I'm not hopeful. I'd also like to see some more movement towards regulating the City and doing something about the criminal banks the UK is harboring these days

I'm also curious how things across the water in the North might impact this. Sinn Féin are on a meteoric rise in the Republic (unfortunately) and might be grabbing a few more seats up North. Since the Unionists basically always back the Tories, any Unionist seats lost can be seen effectively as Tory seats gone. And since Sinn Féin don't take their seats in Westminster (just all their expenses, hurr hurr) that effectively reduces the total number of seats available.

Sadly true re Westminster, although it's encouraging to note that polling in recent months shows support for another indyref within the next 10 years is up to about 60%(and "at some point" is 80%), with Yes trending up and No trending down, but then the latter was true during the campaign itself as well until WM abruptly switched strategy in the closing weeks from "yer poor, yer rubbish, bugger off and let the grown-ups run things" to "WE WUBBLES OO SCOTWAND! <3 <3 <3 Pleeeease stay, you'll get super-ultra-awesome-mega-homeruledevolution, we double-triple-pinkie-swear it!", so if a second referendum were held in the next few years I think WM would have to pull some pretty heinous crap in between in order to solidify those "regretful No's" into actual Yes voters in the booth.

As for the banks, I'm afraid that's a fruitless hope; the SNP are only slightly left of centre, social democrats really, so even if they were in a position of huge power and influence I doubt they'd go as far as a lot of folk think is necessary, certainly nowhere near pre-Thatcher, pre-Blair levels of regulation. The Tories are the Tories, and the Lib Dems have proven themselves to be a mixture of spineless weasels and Tories that don't have the sack to actually call themselves that, so if anything they'll push us further into over-reliance on a monstrously under-regulated financial sector that's sucking the life out of the country, both in terms of the rest of the economy and our social services. Labour have suffered total "elite-capture" - they're an establishment party now every bit as much as the Tories, and the current Shadow-Chancellor Ed Balls has "Blairite" written through his core like a stick of rock, so they'll do knob-all. UKIP are a bunch of mad relics and "respectable racists"(the "I'm not racist, but..." types) led by Farage who, despite his "pint & a smoke" everyman routine, is a privately-educated former commodities trader, so yeah. About the only party that have a halfway sensible policy on banking are the Greens, but they're still carrying a lot of baggage to do with their irrational GM/nuclear policies and support of questionable environmentalist groups, plus they're terrible at "messaging" so have little appeal in working class areas despite the fact they have the best socio-economic plan for ordinary people, so they won't be in a position to anything about it either.

Britain will be remaining a protectorate of the transnational banks for the foreseeable future I'm afraid.

I have to admit I'm woefully uninformed when it comes to Irish politcs, can you recommend any particular sites/blogs that would help me get up to speed?

Cue the Conservatives winning by a landslide and the working class/immigrants/whoever they feel like blaming this week for the union's problems taking even more hits. Great place to live the UK is now. Hey maybe they'll try and sell off the national parks for logging again? =P

If the working class didn't want to be blamed they should just stop being working class then shouldn't they*.

*This might be sarcasm.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Gordon Brown promised as close to home rule as possible (or words to those effect) so frankly, talk of the SNP being dishonest is wide of the mark. Detractors will say that Gordo, only being a backbench MP, didn't have the authority to offer this, but Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband, didn't call him out on it. If anything, they gave Gordo their blessing.

Gordon Brown speaks for himself.
The issue of extra powers has also been addressed. The SNP will always demand more.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You make a fair point about centralised government, but miss overlook the fact that the UK is the only Western Democracy without a written constitution.

The UK doesn't have a single constitutional document, it has several.
Constitutions are also no guarantee, they can be broken, and they can hamper reform of themselves.

Also the Scottish constitution as proposed included economic points as well as legal rights. A constitution can establish rights, but when those rights include fiscal promises then it becomes 'unconstitutional' not to balance the budget. That is setting up failure, it also enshrines socialist policy as national right, which is doctrinarian.
Constitutions are supposed to enshrine liberties, we have managed without and founded most of those modern libertiesv, the documentation offered to Scotland enshrined SNP economic policy, which is somewhat different.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And you miss the elephant in the room. In May, every single voter could vote for Labour (highly unlikely) and still be saddled with a Tory government, due to the unfair, centralised, imbalance of the union. Scotland only having 59 seats out of 600+ for any foreign dakka member who doesn't know.

Why should 5% of the electorate dictate which government is in power? Scotland is 5% get if we assume they vote consistently Labour they get their choice of government 50% of the time, more or less. That isn't bad going.
Scots are determining the outcome of events for a Union several times the size of Scotland alone.
One may as well ask why we should tolerate a Scottish Prime Minister, when 95% are not Scottish. Yet that can and does happen.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Now how's being highly centralised: Holyrood, or Westminster who refuse to entertain a federal system which is the only thing that will save the UK in the long run.

We are already heading towards federalism, and the change has been for the worst. Until very recently the consistent trend was for unity, however Labour thought it would gain partisan benefit by offering devolution, and kicked a wasps nest.
The biggest problem with the referendum was that it consisted of the topic, what is best for Scotland, rather than what is best for all. The division is already set in. Scots are being taught to think only for themselves, your above comment about Scots getting Tory governments is evidence of this. This ignores the larger picture, as the UK has been taught the opposite.

Federalism the cause of this mess not the solution, and it came from New Labour in Westminster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

...., with Yes trending up and No trending down, but then the latter was true during the campaign itself as well until WM abruptly switched strategy in the closing weeks from "yer poor, yer rubbish, bugger off and let the grown-ups run things" to "WE WUBBLES OO SCOTWAND! <3 <3 <3 Pleeeease stay, you'll get super-ultra-awesome-mega-homeruledevolution, we double-triple-pinkie-swear it!"

Thats fairly racist outlook you have of politics south of the border, and that doesn't surprise.
Would it hurt your cause too much to actually quote what Better Together and the Westminster party leaders actually said rather than to re-iterate a twisted version in a rather derogatory fashion.
I had/have no love for Alex Salmond, but when refuting his doctrines and promises was careful to quote him properly.


Also the pledge was a trap played on the Labour party, which is finding it difficult to justify offering full devolution without also accepting that English issues should be handled without partisan interference by Scottish MPs.

Maybe UKIP should get closer with SNP.
Both parties though seem to have contradictory approaches to their core goals. They're both broadly based on nationalist sentiment yet both support multi-culturalism and I don't think either has an upper limit on foreign immigration so you have to wonder why they exist in the first place.

Computron wrote:
Maybe UKIP should get closer with SNP.
Both parties though seem to have contradictory approaches to their core goals. They're both broadly based on nationalist sentiment yet both support multi-culturalism and I don't think either has an upper limit on foreign immigration so you have to wonder why they exist in the first place.

Because the idea of self-government doesn't necessitate xenophobia? The SNP are civic nationalists; "the people of Scotland" are nothing more or less than the people who make their life here, regardless of where they were born, most of the "blood and soil" nutjobs have long since been forced out of the party, and if any remain they're smart enough to know they're a tiny minority with nothing useful to say so they should keep their atavism to themselves. I believe the SNP want a points-based immigration system, they just want to set the targets based on what Scotland needs rather than what the whole UK needs, and they don't see the need to demonise asylum seekers and imprison children in "detention centres" - I'm not sure what UKIP's policy on immigration is this week, I've seen more variations on that theme than I have broadcast apologies by Farage when a UKIP member's said something stupid in public again.

EDIT: Oh aye, and that aside, in terms of policy perhaps the only "main" parties(ie likely to take seats) less suited to "get closer" with UKIP than the SNP are Plaid and the Greens. This is the Political Compass charting the parties in the 2015 election:



Hardly a match made in heaven.

Hey Yohdrin i remember seeing your wee yes logo during the referendum. Good to see you're still staying interested.

You are spot on about this being very interesting but deep down I'm sure you know were getting tory whether we want it or not and as we usually do anyway. Red or blue. All I'm hoping for is a good wad of SNP MP's to put the fear right into them about another future referendum. It's probably the best we can hope for TBH.

My shout would be on a tory/someone coalition again. If we get more than 20 SNP seat's I'll be ecstatic.

Hope everyone's ready for 5 more year's of tory tax cut's for the rich.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Gordon Brown promised as close to home rule as possible (or words to those effect) so frankly, talk of the SNP being dishonest is wide of the mark. Detractors will say that Gordo, only being a backbench MP, didn't have the authority to offer this, but Cameron Clegg, and Miliband, didn't call him out on it. If anything, they gave Gordo their blessing.

Aside from anything else being discussed, Gordon really did not have any power to grant anything. He was no longer in office, and his party was not even in government. Saying that his views should be considered as binding upon the government of Great Britain unless they specifically contradict/denounce what he says is a ludicrous perspective. If we were bound to everything Tony Blair says in his spare time, he'd still basically be running the country, he wades into debates on any/everything so frequently.

If Ed Miliband, being the Labour leader, had said what Gordon did, perhaps then you'd have a smidgen of a leg to stand on (although only a smidgen, considering he wasn't in government either). But Gordon Brown holds as much legitimacy/relevance on this subject at this point (and indeed, during the referendum) as John Major did.

Not to mention the fact that anyone who would be swayed by that two-faced, self-serving git at this stage is daft enough that their opinions are most likely not ones worth paying attention to.

Man parliamentary politics are so weird, Im amazed that yall have a working government... then again, looking at my own countries government Im surprised that any form of government actually works, period.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Gordon Brown promised as close to home rule as possible (or words to those effect) so frankly, talk of the SNP being dishonest is wide of the mark. Detractors will say that Gordo, only being a backbench MP, didn't have the authority to offer this, but Cameron Clegg, and Miliband, didn't call him out on it. If anything, they gave Gordo their blessing.

Aside from anything else being discussed, Gordon really did not have any power to grant anything. He was no longer in office, and his party was not even in government. Saying that his views should be considered as binding upon the government of Great Britain unless they specifically contradict/denounce what he says is a ludicrous perspective. If we were bound to everything Tony Blair says in his spare time, he'd still basically be running the country, he wades into debates on any/everything so frequently.

If Ed Miliband, being the Labour leader, had said what Gordon did, perhaps then you'd have a smidgen of a leg to stand on (although only a smidgen, considering he wasn't in government either). But Gordon Brown holds as much legitimacy/relevance on this subject at this point (and indeed, during the referendum) as John Major did.

Not to mention the fact that anyone who would be swayed by that two-faced, self-serving git at this stage is daft enough that their opinions are most likely not ones worth paying attention to.

Now come on man, anyone who was paying serious attention to the nitty-gritty of the indyref knew from the moment he opened his gob Gordo was talking nonsense and had no authority behind his claims, but lets not pretend for even a moment that he just spontaneously put together a ready-for-live-BBC-broadcast press conference under his party banner without the knowledge or approval of the party leader or the other Labour figures like Darling and Blair McDougall who were running Better Together. It was a calculated propaganda exercise; shove the "big beast" up on stage to waffle on about how many amazing powers we'd get if we voted No, meanwhile the main campaign used the same basic terms(home rule, devo-max etc) without specifying what they meant by that, follow up with a few softball puff articles in your party's tame newspaper(topped off by "The Vow"), and they created the impression in people who mainly get their info from "traditional media" that Brown's soapboxing was an accurate presentation of the actual campaign, knowing they can wash their hands of it entirely after the fact.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Computron wrote:
Maybe UKIP should get closer with SNP.
Both parties though seem to have contradictory approaches to their core goals. They're both broadly based on nationalist sentiment yet both support multi-culturalism and I don't think either has an upper limit on foreign immigration so you have to wonder why they exist in the first place.

Because the idea of self-government doesn't necessitate xenophobia? .

It assumes a national culture where one doesn't exist. It's silly, as Scotland is in reality just a line on a map, it doesn't matter who lives there as you say and the culture is so similar to that of England why differentiate between the two? The only arguments I've ever heard are based on history. Well who gives a rats about that? Scottish people are those who live there at any given time and not all of them have ancestry that goes back to William Wallace or wherever, doesn't make them less Scottish. So my point is, why pretend a national identity based on some fictional past culture that doesn't represents the modern population?
Which brings me back to my earlier point about UKIP and SNP who are both civic nationalists and neither one can really define what the respective culture of their goal nation is. They both claim to support a multi-cultural future, yet you get the impression they really mean the original population and a few lucky extras.
Now you mention xenophobia, SNP resents "English" interference, UKIP resents EU interference. Maybe UKIP have a point, but after 300 years of parliamentary union and there being more people of native Scottish ancestry living in England than Scotland, it's a bit rich to suggest that Scotland doesn't get a fair say via Westminster.
Sure, there's a higher concentration of socialist voters in Scotland, hardly a reason to form a separate country.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Gordon Brown promised as close to home rule as possible (or words to those effect) so frankly, talk of the SNP being dishonest is wide of the mark. Detractors will say that Gordo, only being a backbench MP, didn't have the authority to offer this, but Cameron Clegg, and Miliband, didn't call him out on it. If anything, they gave Gordo their blessing.

Aside from anything else being discussed, Gordon really did not have any power to grant anything. He was no longer in office, and his party was not even in government. Saying that his views should be considered as binding upon the government of Great Britain unless they specifically contradict/denounce what he says is a ludicrous perspective. If we were bound to everything Tony Blair says in his spare time, he'd still basically be running the country, he wades into debates on any/everything so frequently.

If Ed Miliband, being the Labour leader, had said what Gordon did, perhaps then you'd have a smidgen of a leg to stand on (although only a smidgen, considering he wasn't in government either). But Gordon Brown holds as much legitimacy/relevance on this subject at this point (and indeed, during the referendum) as John Major did.

Not to mention the fact that anyone who would be swayed by that two-faced, self-serving git at this stage is daft enough that their opinions are most likely not ones worth paying attention to.

Now come on man, anyone who was paying serious attention to the nitty-gritty of the indyref knew from the moment he opened his gob Gordo was talking nonsense and had no authority behind his claims, but lets not pretend for even a moment that he just spontaneously put together a ready-for-live-BBC-broadcast press conference under his party banner without the knowledge or approval of the party leader or the other Labour figures like Darling and Blair McDougall who were running Better Together. It was a calculated propaganda exercise; shove the "big beast" up on stage to waffle on about how many amazing powers we'd get if we voted No, meanwhile the main campaign used the same basic terms(home rule, devo-max etc) without specifying what they meant by that, follow up with a few softball puff articles in your party's tame newspaper(topped off by "The Vow"), and they created the impression in people who mainly get their info from "traditional media" that Brown's soapboxing was an accurate presentation of the actual campaign, knowing they can wash their hands of it entirely after the fact.

An excellent point, which has been completely overlooked by Orlanth and by Ketara. If Gordo had no authority, then why didn't the three stooges slap him down? We know that Gordo was in contact with Dave before he did his speech. We know that the three stooges were in collusion before the infamous 'vow' was drafted, and we know that Gordo, with the blessing of the three leaders, promised as close to home rule as possible. No wonder the SNP, and a majority of the Scottish people (according to recent polls) are angry at this. Promises were made, which have not been kept.

As I predicted, they have been kicked into the long grass.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Gordon Brown promised as close to home rule as possible (or words to those effect) so frankly, talk of the SNP being dishonest is wide of the mark. Detractors will say that Gordo, only being a backbench MP, didn't have the authority to offer this, but Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband, didn't call him out on it. If anything, they gave Gordo their blessing.

Gordon Brown speaks for himself.
The issue of extra powers has also been addressed. The SNP will always demand more.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You make a fair point about centralised government, but miss overlook the fact that the UK is the only Western Democracy without a written constitution.

The UK doesn't have a single constitutional document, it has several.
Constitutions are also no guarantee, they can be broken, and they can hamper reform of themselves.

Also the Scottish constitution as proposed included economic points as well as legal rights. A constitution can establish rights, but when those rights include fiscal promises then it becomes 'unconstitutional' not to balance the budget. That is setting up failure, it also enshrines socialist policy as national right, which is doctrinarian.
Constitutions are supposed to enshrine liberties, we have managed without and founded most of those modern libertiesv, the documentation offered to Scotland enshrined SNP economic policy, which is somewhat different.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And you miss the elephant in the room. In May, every single voter could vote for Labour (highly unlikely) and still be saddled with a Tory government, due to the unfair, centralised, imbalance of the union. Scotland only having 59 seats out of 600+ for any foreign dakka member who doesn't know.

Why should 5% of the electorate dictate which government is in power? Scotland is 5% get if we assume they vote consistently Labour they get their choice of government 50% of the time, more or less. That isn't bad going.
Scots are determining the outcome of events for a Union several times the size of Scotland alone.
One may as well ask why we should tolerate a Scottish Prime Minister, when 95% are not Scottish. Yet that can and does happen.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Now how's being highly centralised: Holyrood, or Westminster who refuse to entertain a federal system which is the only thing that will save the UK in the long run.

We are already heading towards federalism, and the change has been for the worst. Until very recently the consistent trend was for unity, however Labour thought it would gain partisan benefit by offering devolution, and kicked a wasps nest.
The biggest problem with the referendum was that it consisted of the topic, what is best for Scotland, rather than what is best for all. The division is already set in. Scots are being taught to think only for themselves, your above comment about Scots getting Tory governments is evidence of this. This ignores the larger picture, as the UK has been taught the opposite.

Federalism the cause of this mess not the solution, and it came from New Labour in Westminster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

...., with Yes trending up and No trending down, but then the latter was true during the campaign itself as well until WM abruptly switched strategy in the closing weeks from "yer poor, yer rubbish, bugger off and let the grown-ups run things" to "WE WUBBLES OO SCOTWAND! <3 <3 <3 Pleeeease stay, you'll get super-ultra-awesome-mega-homeruledevolution, we double-triple-pinkie-swear it!"

Thats fairly racist outlook you have of politics south of the border, and that doesn't surprise.
Would it hurt your cause too much to actually quote what Better Together and the Westminster party leaders actually said rather than to re-iterate a twisted version in a rather derogatory fashion.
I had/have no love for Alex Salmond, but when refuting his doctrines and promises was careful to quote him properly.


Also the pledge was a trap played on the Labour party, which is finding it difficult to justify offering full devolution without also accepting that English issues should be handled without partisan interference by Scottish MPs.

Ok, the UK has several constitutions, many of which are unwritten. Please tell me where I can get a copy of these unwritten constitutions?

You say that 5% of the population shouldn't dictate the government of everybody else, but why should Scotland suffer the tyranny of the majority? The poll tax was a clear example of a minority suffering from the majority. Is that fair?

You say that Federalism is the cause of this mess, but Federalism, is the only thing that can save the UK in my view.

Here's an example that will probably chime with American dakka members.

Texas is not a supporter of the democrats, they're Republican party through and through, and I doubt they're happy with Obama in office.

BUT

Because of their system, Texas gets Republican senators and congressmen (or women) because of the checks and balances in their system.

There is no such system in the UK, and in the long run, the UK will break up.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Because of their system, Texas gets Republican senators and congressmen (or women) because of the checks and balances in their system.

There is no such system in the UK, and in the long run, the UK will break up.

Last time I checked Scottish MPs represented their areas in the same way that English, welsh and northern Irish MPs do... Exactly as American congress people do for their states. Except that unliker the English, everyone else in the UK also has another layer of politicians who have certain powers over local issues.

Having a party you didn't vote for doing things you don't like is hardly a unique thing to Scotland either. I didn't vote for the Tories or lib dems - doesn't mean I should get my own country though.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


You say that 5% of the population shouldn't dictate the government of everybody else, but why should Scotland suffer the tyranny of the majority? The poll tax was a clear example of a minority suffering from the majority. Is that fair?

Because if "tyrrany of the majority!" were a valid complaint then no one would, in principle, be bound by laws. If it's OK to break a nation apart because of some percieved slight then where does one draw the limit? Can I refuse to pay taxes I don't like, claiming it represents the "tyrrany of the majority"? Can I refuse to answer a court summons because it's "tyrrany"?

Democracy inherently comes with the risk of "tyrrany" of the majority because that¨s the way the damn system works. I'm open for suggestions of alternative ways to run a country though.

Also funny how this in this "great debate" about the future of our nation - only 5% people actually got any vote in the matter - is that fair?

................and many in England are asking how much more money will we be required to send North as a result of the referendum?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Because of their system, Texas gets Republican senators and congressmen (or women) because of the checks and balances in their system.

There is no such system in the UK, and in the long run, the UK will break up.

Last time I checked Scottish MPs represented their areas in the same way that English, welsh and northern Irish MPs do... Exactly as American congress people do for their states. Except that unliker the English, everyone else in the UK also has another layer of politicians who have certain powers over local issues.

Having a party you didn't vote for doing things you don't like is hardly a unique thing to Scotland either. I didn't vote for the Tories or lib dems - doesn't mean I should get my own country though.

And unlike the US system we don't hand such overarching power to a single person they way they do to the president. The US system leaves the system crippled by political infighting and partisanship over and over. Just look the times they have gone to the brink of default just for the sake of not wanting to agree on principal. You also have to remember that in the US each state has its own governing body with much more power than the UK, but then you have to remember that if Scotland was a state of the US it would rank 22nd in population, 41st by area and 25th by GDP, and US states are much smaller chunks of the total. You can't transpose the US system to the UK. We have a totally different political setup and different situation.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


You say that 5% of the population shouldn't dictate the government of everybody else, but why should Scotland suffer the tyranny of the majority? The poll tax was a clear example of a minority suffering from the majority. Is that fair?

Because if "tyrrany of the majority!" were a valid complaint then no one would, in principle, be bound by laws. If it's OK to break a nation apart because of some percieved slight then where does one draw the limit? Can I refuse to pay taxes I don't like, claiming it represents the "tyrrany of the majority"? Can I refuse to answer a court summons because it's "tyrrany"?

Democracy inherently comes with the risk of "tyrrany" of the majority because that¨s the way the damn system works. I'm open for suggestions of alternative ways to run a country though.

The poll tax was a violation of the act of union 1707.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Because of their system, Texas gets Republican senators and congressmen (or women) because of the checks and balances in their system.

There is no such system in the UK, and in the long run, the UK will break up.

Last time I checked Scottish MPs represented their areas in the same way that English, welsh and northern Irish MPs do... Exactly as American congress people do for their states. Except that unliker the English, everyone else in the UK also has another layer of politicians who have certain powers over local issues.

Having a party you didn't vote for doing things you don't like is hardly a unique thing to Scotland either. I didn't vote for the Tories or lib dems - doesn't mean I should get my own country though.

And unlike the US system we don't hand such overarching power to a single person they way they do to the president. The US system leaves the system crippled by political infighting and partisanship over and over. Just look the times they have gone to the brink of default just for the sake of not wanting to agree on principal. You also have to remember that in the US each state has its own governing body with much more power than the UK, but then you have to remember that if Scotland was a state of the US it would rank 22nd in population, 41st by area and 25th by GDP, and US states are much smaller chunks of the total. You can't transpose the US system to the UK. We have a totally different political setup and different situation.

"You also have to remember that in the US each state has its own governing body with much more power than the UK."

So you're saying that individual US states have the same ability as the UK to declare war on another country? This makes no sense, but I'm sure Frazz would love Texas to be able to declare war on those liberal New England states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Also funny how this in this "great debate" about the future of our nation - only 5% people actually got any vote in the matter - is that fair?

................and many in England are asking how much more money will we be required to send North as a result of the referendum?

Scotland was told time and time again that if they went independent, the rest of the UK would still be the UK for the purpose of international treaties and agreements, so in effect, little would have changed for England, Wales, Northern Ireland. Also, Scotland has been a net contributor for years. Only London and the SE out performs Scotland.