Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Gorgiewave]

Or maybe I've just made your previous post look a bit silly?

 

 

Trapper John nailed it. The SNP is based on bitterness, resentment and division. When Labour wakes up it, being a party with a real purpose, will blow the SNP away.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Gorgiewave

[jack D and coke]

Trapper John nailed it. The SNP is based on bitterness, resentment and division. When Labour wakes up it, being a party with a real purpose, will blow the SNP away.

Trapper John nailed you man he's miles away from being right about me. You looked silly but I won't hold it against you

 

Labour might well get it back and if they do I might vote for them. As it is im enjoying seeing them take a doing.

[Don Draper]

Blahblahblah ['Labour is wonderful', various bitter falsehoods, desperately tedious and ludicrous Salmond-bashing, jealous seething at the fact that other folk might actually believe in something worthwhile] blahblahblah

 

My goodness, it takes some going to shoot to the top of the Worst Post of the Year standings at this late stage, but you managed it.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

You 'absolutely loathe' Labour? You sound like a lover spurned.

 

It seems to me the root of this 'hatred' of Labour lies in those very particular Scottish faults of intolerance, despising change, looking to the past and the glorification of failure.

 

Do you remember the era of the Benn/Healey feud of the early 80's? The party were unelectable. Then they produced Michael Foot as leader... The rest is history. That was the Labour party you should reserve your contempt for. Idiots like that and Hatton, Heffer etc were one of the main if not the main reason why there was 18 years of Thatcher/Major.

 

Are you really that stuck in the 1970's? The world and even the Scottish people have moved on since then. You obviously haven't. As for all that pining for true socialism...there never was any. The Labour Party had to plot a pragmatic course in the 90's or face oblivion. The grew up in a sense. They had to.

 

The Scots have a authoritarian streak running through them where the English have a libertarian one. I know which side I prefer. We saw how intolerant the Yes campaign was to anyone who opposed their ideas. And if you believe the  'BBC' was biased, you're deluded. If anything, they pussyfooted around Salmond and co far too much.

 

And as for the 'chasm' Salmond has leaped into, you're right. Except it isn't a chasm, it's a political vacuum that many extremists find a place in from time  to time. The SNP have no policies other than appealling to the Middle Classes and business. Free Prescriptions? Nonsense. Frozen Council Tax? The working class are the ones who have paid the price for that idiotic policy as the middle class are less reliant on services. The mess they have made of the NHS in Scotland and college placement belies the myth of good 'SNP' governance. Oh, we won't mention the oil price shall we?

 

in 80 years what has the SNP given the Scottish people? Absolutely nothing. Zip. Zero. What has Labour given Scotland over 80 years? You know the answer to that.

 

There is nothing between Farage and Salmond. One is a Little Englander and the other a Little Scotlander. Both appeal to sentiments that are highly unattractive in people but win support because they appeal to the lowest common denominator: division, xenophobia, arrogance and intolerance.

 

They will both fail because the world has moved on. The referendum result was a great moment for Scotland. It proved we're a grown up people, in the main content with who we are and our place in the world. And a people who believe in sharing and at the same time retaining the emotional ties built up over centuries of living together.

 

You should be celebrating this fact.

 

Edited December 10, 2014 by Joe Biden's Aviators

[2NaFish]

Funny how some folk were extremely annoyed at (their illusory conception of) scottish exceptionalism, but will laud a post that goes down the same path only painted a different colour

 

As for "what has scottish labour given scotland in the last 80 years"? Dear god.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Trapper John nailed it. The SNP is based on bitterness, resentment and division. When Labour wakes up it, being a party with a real purpose, will blow the SNP away.

Bitterness, resentment and division is being demonstrated by quite a few posters on this thread.

 

It's funny how it's demanded of Yes voters that they accept the result of the referendum, build bridges with their peers who voted No, and move on; yet some on the No side cannot help but finger point, castigate, and delegitimise their fellow Scots because they had the temerity to vote Yes.

 

Why is one side bound by one set of rules which the other side can openly flounce?

[Gorgiewave]

Bitterness, resentment and division is being demonstrated by quite a few posters on this thread.

 

It's funny how it's demanded of Yes voters that they accept the result of the referendum, build bridges with their peers who voted No, and move on; yet some on the No side cannot help but finger point, castigate, and delegitimise their fellow Scots because they had the temerity to vote Yes.

 

Why is one side bound by one set of rules which the other side can openly flounce?

 

It's not for voting Yes, it's saying they would accept the result and it would settle the matter for a generation (or more). Then they continue the next day because (i) "you cannae make me" and (ii) they didn't accept the result and therefore didn't respect the voters, who were dismissed as cowards.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

It's not for voting Yes, it's saying they would accept the result and it would settle the matter for a generation (or more). Then they continue the next day because (i) "you cannae make me" and (ii) they didn't accept the result and therefore didn't respect the voters, who were dismissed as cowards.

 

You're as bad as those people who generalise that No voters are cowards.

 

The majority of Yes voters have accepted the result. You and others have leapt on a number of (bampots) who have continued to beat the drum, and made out that these people represent a whole diverse movement, and used this as a stick for party political battles.

 

It's just hypocrisy. 

[JamboX2]

Salmond anti-establishment? He is the Scottish political establishment as is his party. Establishments are bad and self protecting wherever they are from and whoever represents them.

 

What's interesting is that with no voters voting SNP it lends a belief to yes voters that its just one final push away. It's not. It's off the table for some time.

 

I can't see the rational in the SNP at times. There will be issues they'll face going forward if they get this huge whitewash they expect. One is credibility and reliability as a supporting party. They need to be realistic and flexible. Walking into Westminster with a demands list will be laughed at. The Labour party could easily get LibDem votes, Green votes and NI party votes and leave the SNP sitting around scratching heads and arses if they don't play ball or act flexibly.

 

Can you imagine Salmond between 2007/11 bending over backwards for Goldie or Gray or Scott or Harvie? No neither can I. They got support from parties being flexible.

 

Remember they were predicted to run Labour close in 2010. That worked out well. Lost a seat and had 6 overall. I'll go on record and say 25 max. Tories to gain a couple Liberal seats. Kennedy to hold in, maybe Alexander too. High turnout too.

[TheMaganator]

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/425975/unionist-party-supporters-urged-to-keep-salmond-out-of-westminster/

 

Fighting talk from oor Willie.

 

Good quote from Salmond in there too

 

"Mr Salmond has said he would work ?to keep hope alive? for people who voted for independence if he is elected to Westminster"

 

But, aye, moved on and accepted the result etc etc

[Psychedelicropcircle]

It's quite apparent on here there is no labour Tory divide in these threads, its unionists/ unionism V nationalist / nationalism.

[Gorgiewave]

Could you summarise the article? Apparently I've reached my monthly limit, which must be 0.

[djf]

Might be worth checking out the full quote and not relying on the journalistic integrity of the Press & Journal but I dunno

[The White Cockade]

Alex is Scotland's top politician

If he wins a seat he will respresent his constituency and country well

an erudite Jambo who will give the tired twosome something to think about

what's not to like?

[Boris]

Trapper John nailed it. The SNP is based on bitterness, resentment and division. When Labour wakes up it, being a party with a real purpose, will blow the SNP away.

But they can only do that in an Independent Scotland. As long as they are chasing middle England's swing seats, policy will be dedicated to them. Not their "heartlands".

[Boris]

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/425975/unionist-party-supporters-urged-to-keep-salmond-out-of-westminster/

 

Fighting talk from oor Willie.

 

Good quote from Salmond in there too

 

"Mr Salmond has said he would work ?to keep hope alive? for people who voted for independence if he is elected to Westminster"

 

But, aye, moved on and accepted the result etc etc

So you equate to accepting the result of the referendum as never mentions independence again? Really?

[Gorgiewave]

But they can only do that in an Independent Scotland. As long as they are chasing middle England's swing seats, policy will be dedicated to them. Not their "heartlands".

 

The more people move towards "middle England" (not physically) the better. Some people yearn for silicosis and other industrial delights.

[Gorgiewave]

So you equate to accepting the result of the referendum as never mentions independence again? Really?

 

Why say the matter would be settled for a generation and then change his mind within about 10 hours of the result. Why not just say, "I'll keep campaigning and dividing until I convince enough people to become embittered and sanctimonious, at which point it will suddenly be the real, permanent, unalterable will of the gowd"?

[djf]

I think we can only relent to your experience on the topic of bitterness.

[djf]

John Curtice quite eloquently summing up why the SNP are riding a post-referendum crest of a wave on Scotland 2014. Catherine McLeod puts head in sand. 

 

What major policies differ Labour from the SNP?

Well, I don't have a crystal ball.

 

With friends like that....

[3fingersreid]

This isn't a pop at the yes voters I'm just trying to settle a debate but what was mr salmonds prediction for the price a barrel of oil ?

[Auld Reekin']

You're as bad as those people who generalise that No voters are cowards.

 

The majority of Yes voters have accepted the result. You and others have leapt on a number of (bampots) who have continued to beat the drum, and made out that these people represent a whole diverse movement, and used this as a stick for party political battles.

 

It's just hypocrisy. 

 

 

 

It's bizarre: I almost preferred the immediate post-referendum triumphalism from the hard-line unionists to the deeply-embittered sniping about what a bunch of arseholes we are and how crap a country Scotland is that certain of them seem to be indulging in now. Neither stance was edifying, but the former was more understandable than the latter.

[JamboX2]

But they can only do that in an Independent Scotland. As long as they are chasing middle England's swing seats, policy will be dedicated to them. Not their "heartlands".

But we're looking at this through the Scottish Labour prism and as a Scottish electorate. It's not Middle England they need its middle Scotland and winning it back off the SNP. Either way the core vote is ignored. The SNP don't go chasing the left wing CND pro Indy vote. It's theirs. Scottish Labour never chased their core vote in the largely the inner city and central belt post industrial areas. All parties are guilty of it. Scottish Labour lost middle Scotland and now it's core vote is under attack, that's the issue. The SNP would face similar issues if they lost their core vote.

[leginten]

It's bizarre: I almost preferred the immediate post-referendum triumphalism from the hard-line unionists to the deeply-embittered sniping about what a bunch of arseholes we are and how crap a country Scotland is that certain of them seem to be indulging in now. Neither stance was edifying, but the former was more understandable than the latter.

Snap. World record levels of bitterness on show. Thank God they won - just imagine what they would be like if they'd lost.

[Don Draper]

Snap. World record levels of bitterness on show. Thank God they won - just imagine what they would be like if they'd lost.

 

 

It really doesn't bear thinking about.

[TheMaganator]

This isn't a pop at the yes voters I'm just trying to settle a debate but what was mr salmonds prediction for the price a barrel of oil ?

The fantastical promises made in the White Paper were based on either $113 or $130 per barrel - can't remember which.

 

It was a ludicrous prediction anyway and just showed the utter contempt they have for the voters - saying or doing anything to try & win. The price is currently in the $60/70 per barrel range.

[Pans Jambo]

This isn't a pop at the yes voters I'm just trying to settle a debate but what was mr salmonds prediction for the price a barrel of oil ?

Not defending him here on that score but Saudi Arabia were being hurt by the USA shale gas & fracking industries when the oil price was high. A high oil price means that its commercially viable for there industries to exist. As oil is now getting close to around $70 USD a barell, its just as cheap (or even cheaper) to buy the oil/gas on the international markets. This is why the Saudi's are refusing to slow down production so the other OPEC countries can then get a price hike. They are out to try & kill off the competition.

Who seen that coming???

[Pans Jambo]

The fantastical promises made in the White Paper were based on either $113 or $130 per barrel - can't remember which.

 

 

It was a ludicrous prediction anyway and just showed the utter contempt they have for the voters - saying or doing anything to try & win. The price is currently in the $60/70 per barrel range.

Wasnt nearly as ludicrous as "the vow".

See where that went.

[TheMaganator]

Wasnt nearly as ludicrous as "the vow".

See where that went.

You mean on-target and on-spec?

 

Watch the 'This Week' from (I think) 28 November where Salmond is put in his place for his grievance politics in that regard. The Vow has delivered - the SNP signed off on the Smith report. They agreed with what was in it. They are saying it doesn't go far enough to stoke up resentment from the 45. It is textbook SNP. Grievance, grudge.

 

I agree with Gorgiewave - in time there will be many who look back on this period and cringe at what they have let themselves become fooled by.  The history books will not read well for the nationalists - they never do. 

[JamboX2]

I agree with this. All parties try and make themselves more attractive to swing voters that's how they win elections and get into power.

 

I get the argument about direction being influenced by voters they are trying to swing. However, I think if political parties were so sure of their ideology (I use the term loosely) and their capabilities they would let the electorate decide. Thats democracy after all.

 

Being successful and running the country well is probably the best way to convince people to vote them. Certainly for the main parties anyway, arguably something the snp has proved.

 

Politics seem quite cyclical to me, essentially the electorate are happy for a while (economy good), get pissed off with party in power has the economic cycles goes into downturn or just gets bored with same faces. Blame everything on the party in power and jump to other side.

 

We had long period of cons, then lab and I suspect now some form of coalition.

 

I also wonder due to the global nature of the economy, how much influence the govt have on the economic success or otherwise. I get that sounds really strange and stupid but external factors sometimes seem to have a bigger influence to me.

 

No election system is perfect and no matter what you have you are going to get large groups of people who are unhappy.

 

A couple random points I have no political allegiance and will be voting in future not for a party but the candidate who I believe can best serve me and constituents. That's what they're are fundemtally here for as opposed to be a cheerleader for a political party.

 

The yes or no voters not getting over the result is pretty much bolloxs. The vast majority have moved on its just a few extremists who like to try and wind each other up. That said it is getting pretty tedious imo, particularly on the terrace.

Agree with all your points. I have a great LibDem MP. Active, always willing to listen. I've tactically voted for him in the past at Westminster as the party I prefer stood no chance. Sadly that's the consequence of the system.

 

I also agree with your moving on point. It's worth remembering thsi was initially about the pros and cons for the SNP of Salmond going to Westminster. Not a rehash of the oil prices affecting the White paper or the Vow and whether you believe it to have been fulfilled - imo it has as there was again no structure to 'near federalism' like in 2011 Devo!ax had no shape and has become filled with competing ideas of what it is or means.

 

The best thing in Westminster and Holyrood going forward are hung parliaments. You'll get no disagreement from me there. It increases the scope for real changes to be agreed. I'd like the 'demands' of the SNP to perhaps be more realistic. Opening up Smith after legislation is drafted is going to delay implementation. So why bother. Why not aim for electoral reform, Lords reform and concessions on the speed of Living Wage implementation and immigration policy or on defence spending?

 

My issue isn't yes/no. It's that the SNP seem to be setting a bar too high to be workable. You could see that difference on Newsnight on Monday where the Greens were more open to talking through issues on an issue by issue basis and that the SNP were more black and white and not open to discussion. That attitude is my issue as it's not helpful for anyone going forward.

[Pans Jambo]

You mean on-target and on-spec?

 

Watch the 'This Week' from (I think) 28 November where Salmond is put in his place for his grievance politics in that regard. The Vow has delivered - the SNP signed off on the Smith report. They agreed with what was in it. They are saying it doesn't go far enough to stoke up resentment from the 45. It is textbook SNP. Grievance, grudge.

 

I agree with Gorgiewave - in time there will be many who look back on this period and cringe at what they have let themselves become fooled by.  The history books will not read well for the nationalists - they never do. 

It was mentioned earlier that SNP supporters dont question what the party does however; it seems to me that ANYTHING the Westminster government does "you lot" support and endorse. The truth is they are a mob of self interested liars that dont want change as it affects their privileged standing. Yes the SNP signed off the the Smith report but what was the alternative? they were backed into a corner and had nowhere to go.

Salmond and the new additional SNP MP's will be doing their best to stick up for Scotland at Westminster. Who is doing that now?

During the Indy Ref you a few on here poo pooed the NHS Privatisation claim that Salmond and the Yes side claimed was happening in fact, a few may have even alluded to the SNP being the ones actually doing the privatisiation but look at at whats happening down south now.

a Third of all NHS contracts since 2013 have been awarded to private companies, 64 tory MP's and 7 Lib Dem Mp's (the government players) have financial links to companies that are bidding for NHS contracts (where do you think this will end up). 

Scotland needs a voice in Westminster as some folk in Scotland think its OK to be continually lied to by the old tie brigade. Wake up!

[TheMaganator]

It was mentioned earlier that SNP supporters dont question what the party does however; it seems to me that ANYTHING the Westminster government does "you lot" support and endorse. The truth is they are a mob of self interested liars that dont want change as it affects their privileged standing. Yes the SNP signed off the the Smith report but what was the alternative? they were backed into a corner and had nowhere to go.

Salmond and the new additional SNP MP's will be doing their best to stick up for Scotland at Westminster. Who is doing that now?

During the Indy Ref you a few on here poo pooed the NHS Privatisation claim that Salmond and the Yes side claimed was happening in fact, a few may have even alluded to the SNP being the ones actually doing the privatisiation but look at at whats happening down south now.

a Third of all NHS contracts since 2013 have been awarded to private companies, 64 tory MP's and 7 Lib Dem Mp's (the government players) have financial links to companies that are bidding for NHS contracts (where do you think this will end up). 

Scotland needs a voice in Westminster as some folk in Scotland think its OK to be continually lied to by the old tie brigade. Wake up!

I am awake, pal. 

 

Health, as you know, is devolved. Any privatisation that takes place will be down to Holyrood. Not Westminster. 

 

Some has already taken place under the stewardship of the SNP. You cannot blame Westminster for that. It is the fault of the Scottish parliament. People need to start realising that we need to be accountable for the decisions we take as a Scottish parliament. The SNP don't though, they just blame the bogeyman of Westminster and the 45 lap it up.

 

Governments work with budgets - all do. The SNP prioritised free bus passes and prescriptions for the wealthy, council tax freezes that benefit the middle classes disproportionately and free tuition that also benefit the middle classes more. Those are decisions that the SNP have made. Nobody else. They did that to try and win the referendum realising they needed the middle class vote to get through it.

 

I do not support all that Westminster does, far from it. You can try and deflect all you want.

 

Can you name anything the SNP has done since they have been in power that you do not agree with and are critical of them for?

 

You can deflect and try and blame Westminster all you want. Health is devolved. What happens up her is up to us. There is no getting around that. 

[Pans Jambo]

I am awake, pal. 

 

Health, as you know, is devolved. Any privatisation that takes place will be down to Holyrood. Not Westminster. 

 

Some has already taken place under the stewardship of the SNP. You cannot blame Westminster for that. It is the fault of the Scottish parliament. People need to start realising that we need to be accountable for the decisions we take as a Scottish parliament. The SNP don't though, they just blame the bogeyman of Westminster and the 45 lap it up.

 

Governments work with budgets - all do. The SNP prioritised free bus passes and prescriptions for the wealthy, council tax freezes that benefit the middle classes disproportionately and free tuition that also benefit the middle classes more. Those are decisions that the SNP have made. Nobody else. They did that to try and win the referendum realising they needed the middle class vote to get through it.

 

I do not support all that Westminster does, far from it. You can try and deflect all you want.

 

Can you name anything the SNP has done since they have been in power that you do not agree with and are critical of them for?

 

You can deflect and try and blame Westminster all you want. Health is devolved. What happens up her is up to us. There is no getting around that. 

My point was that there was a denial that NHS privatisation was happening when in fact a full third has went that way in England in the last year. There will be Barnett consequential's because of this and where does Scotland go when it does? Cut budgets or hive off what we need to Lockheed Martin, Serco & Virgin in the hope we can maintain what we have. When the Smith thing kicks in and we can raise income tax that will be another cut and then you will have Scots paying more for the same.

He who holds the purse strings controls the spending. Scots have a very small hold on that and because of that, we are on a hiding to nothing and there's no getting around that!

[TheMaganator]

My point was that there was a denial that NHS privatisation was happening when in fact a full third has went that way in England in the last year. There will be Barnett consequential's because of this and where does Scotland go when it does? Cut budgets or hive off what we need to Lockheed Martin, Serco & Virgin in the hope we can maintain what we have. When the Smith thing kicks in and we can raise income tax that will be another cut and then you will have Scots paying more for the same.

He who holds the purse strings controls the spending. Scots have a very small hold on that and because of that, we are on a hiding to nothing and there's no getting around that!

If money is being spent on private firms, that is still being paid for by the taxpayer. It just means someone else is organising the service. Why will there be Barnett consequentials?

 

I don't think anybody denied that there is some privatisation taking place - the debate was around the nature and extent of it

[Boris]

But we're looking at this through the Scottish Labour prism and as a Scottish electorate. It's not Middle England they need its middle Scotland and winning it back off the SNP. Either way the core vote is ignored. The SNP don't go chasing the left wing CND pro Indy vote. It's theirs. Scottish Labour never chased their core vote in the largely the inner city and central belt post industrial areas. All parties are guilty of it. Scottish Labour lost middle Scotland and now it's core vote is under attack, that's the issue. The SNP would face similar issues if they lost their core vote.

 

But in respect of Westminster elections, Scottish Labour is supine to the national party.  It makes no difference as long as Miliband and his acolytes move policy to a centre right agenda.  That's where the SNP have them over a barrel.  The Scottish party can "bleat" on about Scottish Labour this or Scottish Labour that, but in terms of Westminster....they are ovine.

[Pans Jambo]

If money is being spent on private firms, that is still being paid for by the taxpayer. It just means someone else is organising the service. Why will there be Barnett consequentials?

 

I don't think anybody denied that there is some privatisation taking place - the debate was around the nature and extent of it

 

Its been well documented.

 

The concept of privatisation is so the UK govt spends LESS on the NHS (saving money). Barnett is a fixed % of what England spends therefore, when they spend less, the % paid to Scotland will be less = Consequential's.

 

It was seen 2 years ago. Scots get tax raising powers, Barnett gets cut, SNP raise taxes/cut services to meet budget, Scots turn on the SNP and the old school ties move in after the next general election and the whole thing starts again.

 

Power devolved is power retained.

 

At least Salmond et-all will be at Westminster to give them a bloody nose for the next few years.

[TheMaganator]

Its been well documented.

 

The concept of privatisation is so the UK govt spends LESS on the NHS (saving money). Barnett is a fixed % of what England spends therefore, when they spend less, the % paid to Scotland will be less = Consequential's.

 

It was seen 2 years ago. Scots get tax raising powers, Barnett gets cut, SNP raise taxes/cut services to meet budget, Scots turn on the SNP and the old school ties move in after the next general election and the whole thing starts again.

 

Power devolved is power retained.

 

At least Salmond et-all will be at Westminster to give them a bloody nose for the next few years.

Governments have to raise taxes - that is just the way of things. They have to take tough decisions. Had we voted yes we'd be taking those decisions now with the price of oil having plummeted. 

 

Let's not forget that the SNP let tax raising powers lapse because they didnt want to use them - and then blamed Westminster for not giving us enough control over our tax raising ability. They have no shame. 

 

Are you unable or just unwilling to criticise the SNP for anything they have done since they formed a government?

[Cade]

Oil prices are crashing because the USA has upped its production and is due to become the biggest producer of oil by the end of the next decade. OPEC don't like this very much and have ramped up their production to maintain their place at the top of the world production table.

It's all about politics between the USA and the gulf states.

Prices will rise once this over-supply contest ends.

Oil prices are NOT going to stay this low for very long

[TheMaganator]

Oil prices are crashing because the USA has upped its production and is due to become the biggest producer of oil by the end of the next decade. OPEC don't like this very much and have ramped up their production to maintain their place at the top of the world production table.

It's all about politics between the USA and the gulf states.

Prices will rise once this over-supply contest ends.

Oil prices are NOT going to stay this low for very long

I dont think anyone really disputes that. The White Paper was drafted on the basis of an average cost of $113  though, was it not. That oil revenue was to make up c15% of our overall revenue. It is a fluctuating finite resource.

 

I think most people can accept that the White Paper, rather than a document that would 'resonate down the ages' (Salmond), was a work of fantasy. Yet that is what the SNP had said they would negotiate separation on, had we voted Yes. 

[Boris]

Governments have to raise taxes - that is just the way of things. They have to take tough decisions. Had we voted yes we'd be taking those decisions now with the price of oil having plummeted. 

 

Let's not forget that the SNP let tax raising powers lapse because they didnt want to use them - and then blamed Westminster for not giving us enough control over our tax raising ability. They have no shame. 

 

Are you unable or just unwilling to criticise the SNP for anything they have done since they formed a government?

 

Are you referring to the Scottish Parliaments ability to raise or lower the basic rate of income tax by 3p?

 

As has been explained before, this is a ham-fisted "power", originally placed to make it look like Holyrood has tax raising powers, when in fact the economic and political expediency of actually using those powers make them worthless.  

 

To have a pop at the SNP over this, when no Scottish Govt had ever used them, is a bit harsh, IMO.

 

There is no shame to asking for more control over tax raising.  The basic rate is not enough.  Higher rates of income tax, corporation tax, air passenger tax, perhaps even VAT, would allow the Scottish Govt (of whatever political hue) to better budget/improve services etc.  Again, IMO.

[Coco]

Have heard from a couple of fairly non-political friends that they intend to engage in tactical voting next May.  Will be very interesting to see the extent of that trend.

 

At the last General Election if I remember rightly the self-indulgency of the UKIP voters meant that Ed Balls kept his seat.  Will something similar happen in Gordon?  Last election turnout was roughly 66% - and there were 38k votes for 'No' parties fairly evenly shared - and 18k votes for 'Yes' parties with the vast bulk for SNP.  Can they go for a tactical voting decapitation strategy which would end the idea of the SNP forcing change from Westminster?  Or is that counterproductive?

[Pans Jambo]

Governments have to raise taxes - that is just the way of things. They have to take tough decisions. Had we voted yes we'd be taking those decisions now with the price of oil having plummeted. 

 

Let's not forget that the SNP let tax raising powers lapse because they didnt want to use them - and then blamed Westminster for not giving us enough control over our tax raising ability. They have no shame. 

 

Are you unable or just unwilling to criticise the SNP for anything they have done since they formed a government?

What's to criticise though? That they helped the middle classes and the poor (so most of us then) with prescription charges, council tax freeze, free education and bridge toll scrapping? It's about bloody time someone helped the middle classes. Its the privileged & the super rich I want to see put their hand in their pockets but you and folk like you wont support hammering the well to do though as it upsets the status-quo. All in all I think the SNP have done not too shabby considering the boot heel they have on their neck.

 

Whats an absolute disgrace is that there is even a term called "the working poor" when the government of the day turn a blind eye to the super rich, the bonus grabbing bankers and the multi-national corporations that dont pay their way.

 

Are you unable or just unwilling to see that Westminster (in any flavour) just doesn't work for the masses but just the wealth privileged few because they are that far detached from the realities of real life that they just don't know what they are doing to us?

 

I hope Salmond & Co being down there helps everyone north of the M25!

[Boris]

Have heard from a couple of fairly non-political friends that they intend to engage in tactical voting next May.  Will be very interesting to see the extent of that trend.

 

At the last General Election if I remember rightly the self-indulgency of the UKIP voters meant that Ed Balls kept his seat.  Will something similar happen in Gordon?  Last election turnout was roughly 66% - and there were 38k votes for 'No' parties fairly evenly shared - and 18k votes for 'Yes' parties with the vast bulk for SNP.  Can they go for a tactical voting decapitation strategy which would end the idea of the SNP forcing change from Westminster?  Or is that counterproductive?

 

Probably the best example of tactical voting was the 1997 election, where LD voters would go for Labour to get the Tory out, and Lab voters would vote LD to get the Tory out.

 

It is certainly something that Labour voters would vote Tory and Tory voters would vote Labour, just to stymie the SNP.  If anything, given the supposed ideological differences between these parties, that their supporters would do such only proves the "Red Tory" line that the SNP is smearing Labour with.

 

Will Labour voters accept such an unholy alliance?

 

Interesting times!

[Boris]

I get we see thing pretty differently. However, I really don't see this policy improving the quality of life for all than many people. Even with some form of enhanced level of public service.

 

Less disposable income, less investment by business and less summer holidays in warm climates!

 

If, as the SNP would like, Air Passenger Duty was decreased, then perhaps more people could afford that break in the Sun?

 

Corporation tax - I think you think I mean raise it, however if set to a competitive level it may attract more business, thus employ more people on better (living?) wages, rather than the culture of zero hour contracts.  Disposable income is relative too.  Reduce VAT and then goods are cheaper to purchase for all, counterbalance that with an increase in the higher rate of income tax, or even the basic rate (while applying new upper and lower earning limits).  Point is, if Holyrood has control over taxation, then it eliminates the cry that Westminster is still running things.  We are masters of our own destiny.

[Boris]

I read your post as higher rate of all taxes. Essentially higher taxes and here's the list.

 

On your last point as a uk citizen, I think we are masters of our own destiny ;-)

 

Hahaha - no, no, not at all - it's not just about taxing the shit out of stuff.  We need to be realistic.  Since Thatcher, income tax has become a taboo subject, however from the Thatcher years onwards stealth taxes are the way forward.  So a govt boasts that income tax is low, but if VAT is high, then that has a bigger impact on the lower earning than the rich.  Personally, I'd take tax back to year zero and recalculate stuff so that taxation is transparent and have a rationale that explains the "fairness" of such taxes.

 

You are correct, the UK is master of its own destiny (of which I am part) - I guess I was meaning that the Scottish Parliament needs to be given extra powers that actually allowed it to do things and as such be responsible, rather than having Westminster as an excuse.

[JamboX2]

It was mentioned earlier that SNP supporters dont question what the party does however; it seems to me that ANYTHING the Westminster government does "you lot" support and endorse. The truth is they are a mob of self interested liars that dont want change as it affects their privileged standing. Yes the SNP signed off the the Smith report but what was the alternative? they were backed into a corner and had nowhere to go.

Salmond and the new additional SNP MP's will be doing their best to stick up for Scotland at Westminster. Who is doing that now?

During the Indy Ref you a few on here poo pooed the NHS Privatisation claim that Salmond and the Yes side claimed was happening in fact, a few may have even alluded to the SNP being the ones actually doing the privatisiation but look at at whats happening down south now.

a Third of all NHS contracts since 2013 have been awarded to private companies, 64 tory MP's and 7 Lib Dem Mp's (the government players) have financial links to companies that are bidding for NHS contracts (where do you think this will end up).

Scotland needs a voice in Westminster as some folk in Scotland think its OK to be continually lied to by the old tie brigade. Wake up!

But like Salmond is close to Souter and McColl and proposed a corporation tax cut two of them have been calling on for years? Or like how Salmond has done nothing on re-regulating busses as proposed in 2007 as it'd hurt Souter, and the SNP's want to reintroduce competition to the Lothian bus network... All parties have interests with big business. None is any better or worse than the other. I wouldn't chuck the mud on health privatisation either. The SNP have handed contracts to the private sector to do a lot of NHS services in NHS Strathclyde and Highlands and Islands.

 

Privatisation in Scotland is and can only be pushed by the Scottish Government was the issue. The UK government can do little on that.

 

As a final point, Mag is a Tory. His politics and beliefs align with a small state, low taxes and a general feel the coalition is doing well. I don't. I don't like the coalition or their policies in general. But at least there is an ideological debate to be had. The SNP have no ideology beyond scottish nationalism. They are centre right economists with a social conscience. They are all things to all men. Blairites for want of a better word. It's hard to beat that.

 

The issue is, and you've identified it, that the SNP can do anything that polls well and say 'it's in the interests of the people of Scotland' and get away with it. As long as they say it's in Scotland's interests and we're the Scottish party it's fine. That blurs the lines of left and right and makes them all things to all men. To me it's a vacuous vote based on being Scottish rather than belief in a certain type of future. And, due to that, the SNP are ideologically rudderless to a degree.

[Gorgiewave]

But like Salmond is close to Souter and McColl and proposed a corporation tax cut two of them have been calling on for years? Or like how Salmond has done nothing on re-regulating busses as proposed in 2007 as it'd hurt Souter, and the SNP's want to reintroduce competition to the Lothian bus network... All parties have interests with big business. None is any better or worse than the other. I wouldn't chuck the mud on health privatisation either. The SNP have handed contracts to the private sector to do a lot of NHS services in NHS Strathclyde and Highlands and Islands.

 

Privatisation in Scotland is and can only be pushed by the Scottish Government was the issue. The UK government can do little on that.

 

As a final point, Mag is a Tory. His politics and beliefs align with a small state, low taxes and a general feel the coalition is doing well. I don't. I don't like the coalition or their policies in general. But at least there is an ideological debate to be had. The SNP have no ideology beyond scottish nationalism. They are centre right economists with a social conscience. They are all things to all men. Blairites for want of a better word. It's hard to beat that.

 

The issue is, and you've identified it, that the SNP can do anything that polls well and say 'it's in the interests of the people of Scotland' and get away with it. As long as they say it's in Scotland's interests and we're the Scottish party it's fine. That blurs the lines of left and right and makes them all things to all men. To me it's a vacuous vote based on being Scottish rather than belief in a certain type of future. And, due to that, the SNP are ideologically rudderless to a degree.

 

What, if anything, do you think will change the SNP's fortunes and get them on the back foot?

[JamboX2]

Probably the best example of tactical voting was the 1997 election, where LD voters would go for Labour to get the Tory out, and Lab voters would vote LD to get the Tory out.

 

It is certainly something that Labour voters would vote Tory and Tory voters would vote Labour, just to stymie the SNP. If anything, given the supposed ideological differences between these parties, that their supporters would do such only proves the "Red Tory" line that the SNP is smearing Labour with.

 

Will Labour voters accept such an unholy alliance?

 

Interesting times!

No. He party rank and file found better together hard to swallow. It's thought dissaffected Scottish Liberals will vote Tory. Moore is expected to loose to a Tory. And a highland seat is also expected to shift to the Tories.

[JamboX2]

But in respect of Westminster elections, Scottish Labour is supine to the national party. It makes no difference as long as Miliband and his acolytes move policy to a centre right agenda. That's where the SNP have them over a barrel. The Scottish party can "bleat" on about Scottish Labour this or Scottish Labour that, but in terms of Westminster....they are ovine.

Not really. Miliband has moved Labour left on many matters. As LordBJ has said parties have to fight to win the centre. So obviously you won't get the manifesto of the old Labour left. But nor will you see a neoThatcherite John Redwood manifesto for the Tories. Much like the SNP won't March to the tune of unilateral independence and nationalisation of North sea oil. All cant spook centrist voters away from their parties.

[JamboX2]

What, if anything, do you think will change the SNP's fortunes and get them on the back foot?

Winning a lot of seats and opening the back door to a Tory government would be one.

 

Bringing up the failings of their administration and proposing an alternative but appealing option would also be a good start. For example, school reform or a focus on social housing etc.