Socrates Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 What can they offer Yes voters except policy though? Policy between the three or four big Scottish parties is minimal. Each tones it differently, Labour make it more socially just, Tories more business like and tight money wise, Liberals a bit more about freedom than the rest and the SNP make it a Scottish issue. So how do you appeal to that? Out Nat the Nat? I think it's a slow process, but there are some things that might start to help. Firstly, stop being the most miserly with respect to more powers. When you get people like Gordon Brown saying we can't have total control over income tax, because then Scottish MPs couldn't vote on UK income tax levels, he looks like he's solely trying to preserve the electoral position of the Labour Party. Secondly, you look at people who you can detach. There are many Yes voters who aren't natural SNP types, but who voted Yes as they felt it was a route (in a lot of cases, the only route) to a fairer Scotland. Spending a good chunk of time looking at what you can do with the existing powers and those that are likely to be devolved to improve people's lives would help. Findlay seems to have some ideas that would at least get Labour into that conversation. At present, all the people I know who I would describe as radical, lefty, socialist, anything like that, would vote for one of the Greens, the SSP or the SNP. The last time I heard anyone like that talking about voting Labour was in 2010, and that was purely to try and keep the Tories out. To be fair, I think the SNP have similar issues there. There's are just less pressing because they have much better poll ratings. I would say thirdly, don't elect Jim Murphy. I think he's politically toxic for a lot of Yes voters, and when you have issues to do with relations with Labour in the rest of the UK, I don't think electing an MP who's historically been on the right and the pro-unionist wings of the parties. Related to that, just doing some stuff that London wouldn't like would help with the perception that, if push comes to shove, Scottish Labour will do what the UK party wants. Fourthly, I might go and look quite closely at what worked in Wales. Obviously what works there might or might not work here, but they seem to have managed to establish an authentically Welsh voice that people feel represents them. From the outside, you don't seem to have as many issues with different factions, conflicts between MP and assembly members and so on. I'm not sure what the lessons from Wales might be, but I think it would be worth a look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Former SNP leader Gordon Wilson has a book out saying the Yes campaign was a passive punchbag that narrowly avoided total disaster. Political retribution was inevitable despite the bluster and denial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Nobody takes him seriously. He's spent the past 25 years whining as Salmond took the SNP from the irrelevant fringe where Wilson had led it to the natural party of government in Scotland and the verge of independence. The only reason we ever hear from him is because newspapers that don't like the SNP give him a platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo1185 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Nobody takes him seriously. He's spent the past 25 years whining as Salmond took the SNP from the irrelevant fringe where Wilson had led it to the natural party of government in Scotland and the verge of independence. The only reason we ever hear from him is because newspapers that don't like the SNP give him a platform. I agree, but he's right that Yes failed to do enough to win the economic argument and help swing enough of the middle class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Nobody takes him seriously. He's spent the past 25 years whining as Salmond took the SNP from the irrelevant fringe where Wilson had led it to the natural party of government in Scotland and the verge of independence. The only reason we ever hear from him is because newspapers that don't like the SNP give him a platform. I think he is saying that the SNP never took us anywhere near the verge of Independence. Indeed it is possible that the removal of the threat of independence is a prime reason for the surge in support for the SNP in opinion polls for Westminster and Holyrood. I read somewhere that the SNP envisaged A 65% Yes vote and got 45%. A bitter pill and campaign failure methinks. Edited November 5, 2014 by jambos are go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I agree, but he's right that Yes failed to do enough to win the economic argument and help swing enough of the middle class. Obviously, Yes didn't get enough votes. I don't think that this referendum was ever likely to be a Yes win, given the relatively low level of support for independence at the start of the campaign. To get from 2-1 against to 55-45 on the day, with a huge new cohort of activists, party members and so on is a substantial achievement, as is the way that they appear to have completely upended the normal voting patterns in Scottish politics. Whether they can now build on that and move forward to independence is the real question. I think he is saying that the SNP never took us anywhere near the verge of Independence. Indeed it is possible that the removal of the threat of independence is a prime reason for the surge in support for the SNP in opinion polls for Westminster and Holyrood. I read somewhere that the SNP envisaged A 65% Yes vote and got 45%. A bitter pill and campaign failure methinks. Nobody in the world thought that Yes would get 65%. A newspaper claimed that 65% was a target for Yes, rather than what they thought they would get. As far as I'm aware, no evidence to support this claim has been produced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 At least one opinion poll recently had Independence sitting above 60%. The only way to remove the threat of Independence for any considerable amount of time is to give us proper Devo Max, then many 'Yes'/SNP potential voters will be satisfied and wonder what the point is of going further. I agree re proper Devo Max, but for me at least, I also want constitutional reform at Westminster i.e. PR voting, an elected second chamber, and an English parliament/regional parliaments in England. It's not just about Scotland. If the rest of the UK isn't brought up to parity, then we may as well go it alone. IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I agree re proper Devo Max, but for me at least, I also want constitutional reform at Westminster i.e. PR voting, an elected second chamber, and an English parliament/regional parliaments in England. It's not just about Scotland. If the rest of the UK isn't brought up to parity, then we may as well go it alone. IMO. Totally agree, EVEL for me is a non-starter, it has to be a separate English Parliament to match those in the other countries of the UK. Then the Lords can just be scrapped as everyone will already be covered by two chambers. Labour is offering an elected second chamber. What is the SNP's position on that issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Labour is offering an elected second chamber. What is the SNP's position on that issue? I suspect they don't have one! What the Referendum has shown up, for me at least, is how antiquated and unfit for purpose Westminster and that political system actually is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Elected Second Chamber. Pretty strong views have been published by them on the issue. I am not sure that quote goes as far as an elected Chamber. It just says they don't nominate for the House of Lords. It'd be interesting to see what their policy actually is - given its looking like they will romp the WM elections. They will have the real chance to change things if they are acting as King makers. Will they take it or will they put their fingers in their ears and push for independence rather than adapt the current system? I suspect they don't have one! What the Referendum has shown up, for me at least, is how antiquated and unfit for purpose Westminster and that political system actually is. As is Holyrood (though maybe not antiquated). The committee system does not work - or it certainly doesn't work when their is a majority government in charge. What have you seen in Holyrood during this term that has offered substantial change and benefit to Scotland - rather than a slagging match between the parties? Massie ( ) wrote a great piece on our failing education system. You may not agree with his solution - but the problem isn't being addressed by Scottish politicians http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/educational-apartheid-is-scotlands-greatest-national-disgrace/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 At least one opinion poll recently had Independence sitting above 60%. The only way to remove the threat of Independence for any considerable amount of time is to give us proper Devo Max, then many 'Yes'/SNP potential voters will be satisfied and wonder what the point is of going further. Just to clarify, a recent poll shows 60% in favour of Independence? Source etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I am not sure that quote goes as far as an elected Chamber. It just says they don't nominate for the House of Lords. It'd be interesting to see what their policy actually is - given its looking like they will romp the WM elections. They will have the real chance to change things if they are acting as King makers. Will they take it or will they put their fingers in their ears and push for independence rather than adapt the current system? As is Holyrood (though maybe not antiquated). The committee system does not work - or it certainly doesn't work when their is a majority government in charge. What have you seen in Holyrood during this term that has offered substantial change and benefit to Scotland - rather than a slagging match between the parties? Oh, Holyrood isn't perfect and had we voted for independence I for one would have wanted a second chamber. We need checks and balances. Massie ( ) wrote a great piece on our failing education system. You may not agree with his solution - but the problem isn't being addressed by Scottish politicians http://blogs.spectat...ional-disgrace/ I'm not sure that poor educational attainment is wholly down to the system, per se. There may be other factors at play, such as environment and parenting. Some comparative figures on attainment over the last 25 years would have been interesting too. That said, public sector reform is not something to be feared unless of course it really means letting private companies take over, as I think Massie's article was suggesting regards academies. I may of course have picked that up wrong. What we are seeing, imo, is the cumulative effect of massive underinvestment in all sections of the public sector since 1979 onwards. If kids live in happy homes (publically or privately owned) and have parents with proper careers and incomes then I suspect educationally they may do better. Simple things like free school meals for all would help too, imo. I do think that education does need looked at, but it is something that should always be the preserve of the state to provide. (IMO!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 At least one opinion poll recently had Independence sitting above 60%. The only way to remove the threat of Independence for any considerable amount of time is to give us proper Devo Max, then many 'Yes'/SNP potential voters will be satisfied and wonder what the point is of going further. At least one opinion poll recently had Independence sitting above 60%. The only way to remove the threat of Independence for any considerable amount of time is to give us proper Devo Max, then many 'Yes'/SNP potential voters will be satisfied and wonder what the point is of going further. A referendum 6 weeks ago of 85% of the electorate put support for the Union at 55%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Sorry, why should Scots say that EVEL is not acceptable to them? It is none of your fecking business how the English choose to govern themselves! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I think if you do a Google search then their position is pretty clear. I'm not trying to be difficult - I just cant find it stated anywhere. They are against the Lords, I get that. So - in the WM elections do you think they'll propose an elected second chamber and scrapping of the Lords? Sadly, I don't think the majority of those voting for them will really care much about his sort of thing. If the SNP accept the will of the Scottish people - which they promised they would - then they accept that WM and our part in it stays. As they may be King makers they have a real chance to change the system that we are now a part of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Sorry, why should Scots say that EVEL is not acceptable to them? It is none of your fecking business how the English choose to govern themselves! It's a non-starter because it's a daft idea that's easily manipulated by politicians - Governments without an English majority would make sure all bills have some UK implications so they can get them through, and without radical reform then any changes in English policy that result in changes in public spending impact on the rest of the UK through the Barnett formula. Then you get into the technicalities of who can vote on English-only amendments to UK-wide bills, or whether UK matters can be considered as part of an England-only bill. Trying to use Westminster as both a UK and English Parliament is really difficult to do. That's a separate issue from demands for English devolution, which are entirely legitimate and should be enacted if that's what the people of England want. I would suggest that thinking out what they want properly would be beneficial, but it's really England's issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 If they are going to use the UK Parliament to do it then we all have a say. Why? If they want to house it there, so what? I'm sure they can convert another room to a chamber if they need to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 It's a non-starter because it's a daft idea that's easily manipulated by politicians - Governments without an English majority would make sure all bills have some UK implications so they can get them through, and without radical reform then any changes in English policy that result in changes in public spending impact on the rest of the UK through the Barnett formula. Then you get into the technicalities of who can vote on English-only amendments to UK-wide bills, or whether UK matters can be considered as part of an England-only bill. Trying to use Westminster as both a UK and English Parliament is really difficult to do. That's a separate issue from demands for English devolution, which are entirely legitimate and should be enacted if that's what the people of England want. I would suggest that thinking out what they want properly would be beneficial, but it's really England's issue. Whether it is a daft idea is moot. The point is it should be up to them, daft or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 That is a seperate Parliament/Chamber you are talking about, EVEL is about English MPs sitting in the commons voting on English issues, that is unworkable. The only reason I said a separate chamber was if it was felt EVEL had to be voted on away from the Commons. Either way, Scots should have zero input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I'm not trying to be difficult - I just cant find it stated anywhere. They are against the Lords, I get that. So - in the WM elections do you think they'll propose an elected second chamber and scrapping of the Lords? Sadly, I don't think the majority of those voting for them will really care much about his sort of thing. If the SNP accept the will of the Scottish people - which they promised they would - then they accept that WM and our part in it stays. As they may be King makers they have a real chance to change the system that we are now a part of. If the SNP have independence in their WM manifesto and they win the majority of Scottish seats, then they have the will of the Scottish People to start negotiating separation, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 The only reason I said a separate chamber was if it was felt EVEL had to be voted on away from the Commons. Either way, Scots should have zero input. I think other parts of the country have a right to a say on devolution if it's going to cause problems for the governance of the UK as a whole - not the "devolution leads to independence" argument, but "this devolution proposal will lead to an absolute shambles for us all". Having an English Parliament with similar powers to the Scottish Parliament works, as would having regional assemblies/parliaments, but EVEL with one set of ministers and one Parliament would be a mess, and while that Parliament and those ministers are UK-wide then everyone gets a say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 But EVEL changes the terms and conditions of the Union of which we voted to stay in, it directly affects the MPs we elect and send to Westminster, of course we should get a say. If it as a devolved parliament, then we get no say. Yet the corollary is that the present system maintains the whole West Lothian question if EVEL is not allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Yet the corollary is that the present system maintains the whole West Lothian question if EVEL is not allowed. No one is saying that EVEL shouldn't happen, it's about the arena for it. Westminster elections are about electing a government of Great Britain & NI, not a side show for one part of the country. This debate highlights how out of touch and out of date the Westminster political system actually is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB52 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 IMO Westminster is basically finished. I always said the most likely way that Scotland will get Independence is by the English voting for their own parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) http://news.stv.tv/s...e-celebrations/ Edited November 5, 2014 by TheMaganator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Marsh Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 http://news.stv.tv/s...e-celebrations/ Salmond will be absolutely loving this. He really is a very popular guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah O Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Grim scenes with that eck effegy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Salmond will be absolutely loving this. He really is a very popular guy. The highlight - the quote from the FM's spokesman "The Tory-controlled East Sussex County Council obviously view the First Minister - and the 45 per cent of Scots who voted Yes - as as big a threat to the Westminster establishment as Guy Fawkes, although it's unclear why poor Nessie has been targeted. "It's a typical Tory attitude to Scotland, whether north or south of the border." They burned one of Cameron in 2010! Grievance. Grudge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costanza Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8067/8160662529_7ebe43bf10_z.jpg All bit of harmless fun....actually they seem a bunch of *rseholes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Draper Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 http://news.stv.tv/s...e-celebrations/ Has your account been hacked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 The highlight - the quote from the FM's spokesman "The Tory-controlled East Sussex County Council obviously view the First Minister - and the 45 per cent of Scots who voted Yes - as as big a threat to the Westminster establishment as Guy Fawkes, although it's unclear why poor Nessie has been targeted. "It's a typical Tory attitude to Scotland, whether north or south of the border." They burned one of Cameron in 2010! Grievance. Grudge. They used to burn an effigy of the Pope in bygone days of yore. Maybe it shows how much contempt politicians are held in now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Surely for us to demand a say on EVEL then we should've given them one in the referendum? If we are concerned about unilateral rewrites of the constitution then aren't we being hypocritical? After all us the welsh are redrawing the map politically on power and where it lies at the minute and for the past 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I don't think anyone is saying that they shouldn't get EVEL. They are saying that it should not be used to diminish further devolution for Scotland as a political football. Which depending on your point of view is a perfectly legitimate stance or obscene trouble making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I don't think anyone is saying that they shouldn't get EVEL. They are saying that it should not be used to diminish further devolution for Scotland as a political football. Which depending on your point of view is a perfectly legitimate stance or obscene trouble making. Surely it enhances Scottish, Welsh and NI devolution. Not the opposite? To me it makes sense. But if it's to be in the same chamber then there needs to be a check. 2 days UK issues and 3 days English for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah O Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Salmonds response on the news about it was outstanding. He truly is a modern great with an underused dry wit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 sorry not having it, has to be completely separate Parliament and members, same us the other members of the UK. I'm sure your veto will be the clincher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Salmonds response on the news about it was outstanding. He truly is a modern great with an underused dry wit. You thought comparing himself to Guy Fawkes was brilliant?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 It's somewhat baffling that a small town in England seems to be comprised entirely of trolls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Surely for us to demand a say on EVEL then we should've given them one in the referendum? If we are concerned about unilateral rewrites of the constitution then aren't we being hypocritical? After all us the welsh are redrawing the map politically on power and where it lies at the minute and for the past 20 years. Given that we had to argue for th best part of a generation to get the UK Parliament to agree to devolution in the first place, I would say no, we are not being hypocritical. If we don't get to rewrite the constitution ourselves, nor does anyone else, which is not to say that there's anything wrong with a sensible scheme for English devolution that fits in with the wishes of the people of England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ortarkod Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 "If they think I'm a threat to the Westminster establishment-" dramatic pause- "they're right." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/plans-burn-super-size-effigy-alex-457634 Plans to burn the effigy scrapped after complaints by Salmond's followers. Offended by everything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/plans-burn-super-size-effigy-alex-457634 Plans to burn the effigy scrapped after complaints by Salmond's followers. Offended by everything... Imagine the seethe if it was Bath instead of Lewes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 http://www.dailyreco...igy-alex-457634 Plans to burn the effigy scrapped after complaints by Salmond's followers. Offended by everything... Can't open the link so might be missing the point here but it's a bit disrespectful to burn an effigy of a living person whose only crime is to be a politician with a strong belief. All seems a bit petty. And I am a 100% NO kind of guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Can't open the link so might be missing the point here but it's a bit disrespectful to burn an effigy of a living person whose only crime is to be a politician with a strong belief. All seems a bit petty. And I am a 100% NO kind of guy. In the past few years they've done the same with effigies of David Cameron, Clegg & Angela Merkel. It's just whoever is topical. It's a bit of fun. Only Salmond's fans moaned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micole Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 In the past few years they've done the same with effigies of David Cameron, Clegg & Angela Merkel. It's just whoever is topical. It's a bit of fun. Only Salmond's fans moaned. Well I like AS and I didn't moan ( As you say a bit of fun) and the man himself made lite of it as well, I say they should do the Queen next year and let see who moans about that Eh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Well I like AS and I didn't moan ( As you say a bit of fun) and the man himself made lite of it as well, I say they should do the Queen next year and let see who moans about that Eh! I wouldn't moan if they did it to the Queen. I would simply drive down there, round them all up, and march them to the Tower. Salmond did take it well but then bizarrely compared himself to Guy Fawkes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I wouldn't moan if they did it to the Queen. I would simply drive down there, round them all up, and march them to the Tower. Salmond did take it well but then bizarrely compared himself to Guy Fawkes! Not unsurprising given the date! A tenuous link perhaps, but certainly not bizarre, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micole Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I wouldn't moan if they did it to the Queen. I would simply drive down there, round them all up, and march them to the Tower. Salmond did take it well but then bizarrely compared himself to Guy Fawkes! Aye and there is a lot more throughout the UK who wished Guy Fawkes and his crew had succeeded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29921797 Police now investigating it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Whilst we are having a bit of fun about this I'm sure that there are certain effigies that they would never consider burning, the Queen being one. They should add some spice to the occasion next year and burn an effigy of the Prophet Hohammed. Or they can carry on acting like a bunch of posh students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.