The 2015 General Election Megathread

[Thunderstruck]

Why?

We're those not the words of the Grand Panjandrum (before he knew the result)?

[luckydug]

Only 37% of the electorate were sufficiently motivated to vote for independence.

 

Would you accept "No" means NO after two ballots, 3 ballots, 4 ballots?

 

But, even if you could conjure up another 14%, what then?

 

Do you accept that those who voted "No" could press for another vote and attempt to overturn the result?

 

The question was put to the people and the people answered with a "No" and that should be that "for a generation".

 

No currency, no oil, no plan but we will be better off. Fantasy.

 

So he was claiming the non voters as NO

That is all I wanted to know.

Just like 1979.

FWIW  I do not want a referendum not yet anyway. My belief has always been that the path to independence will follow a similar path as the path to devolution. Failure at first then resounding victory. Only a matter of time.

[2NaFish]

We're those not the words of the Grand Panjandrum (before he knew the result)?

 

Sure they were. You're not implying that we're bound by the words of a politician though, are you?

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Sorry? I don't get your point.

 

I honestly don't care if your a Nat, a unionist, a devolutionist or euroskeptic. Its the wider policies you champion which matter.

 

To me its questionable how left wing the SNP are.

 

But that's not the point I was making.

 

The SNP may well have played their hand far far too early. Partly for ruling out any deal with the Tories. Cameron would've gave up FFA if it ended Barnett and removed Scots votes on English issues.

Your gaffer says he's going for a majority we know this is very unlikely (much like a 12" boabby.) The polls haven't shifted meaning the "45" whether the unionists think they're the under class voters or not, they voted to leave and I don't think many will have a late change of heart now making the SNP the most relevant party in Scotland. Well see wits on offer if they need the SNP. Federism kills Indy stone dead IMO

[Thunderstruck]

Sure they were. You're not implying that we're bound by the words of a politician though, are you?

I hope not or a lot of Scottish voters are going to be very disappointed although I expect that will be the fault of someone else.

[2NaFish]

I hope not or a lot of Scottish voters are going to be very disappointed although I expect that will be the fault of someone else.

 

So we're agreed that it's not closed for a generation simply because someone said it?

[aussieh]

So we're agreed that it's not closed for a generation simply because someone said it?

I think you may have just blown their once in a generation chat to bits. splendid Edited April 26, 2015 by aussieh

[Thunderstruck]

So we're agreed that it's not closed for a generation simply because someone said it?

Cannot agree, the general consensus was that the vote last year was to settle the issue. I simply highlighted one particular politician to highlight the hypocrisy that is never far from him.

 

That it was a generational event was the stated opinion of the majority on both sides of the argument, not just politicians.

 

Are you content that we squander more public money on this - as many times as it takes to get a "Yes"?

 

Would you accept it settled if we get another No or would you be pushing for a third or fourth vote (and so on, ad infinitum)?

[JamboX2]

Your gaffer says he's going for a majority we know this is very unlikely (much like a 12" boabby.) The polls haven't shifted meaning the "45" whether the unionists think they're the under class voters or not, they voted to leave and I don't think many will have a late change of heart now making the SNP the most relevant party in Scotland. Well see wits on offer if they need the SNP. Federism kills Indy stone dead IMO

I don't think it does. Federalism and independence are distinct and very different. No federal or devolved settlement will quench the independence die hards.

 

The power that the Scottish government and parliament hold is the most of any non-independent country and state in Europe and more than states in Canada and Australia. And that isn't enough at present. So what counts as federalism?

 

Should the UK government control only foreign affairs and defence? Because if so just go independent.

Should they still raise taxes from Scotland with some tax devolved?

Should they still administer certain welfare elements like pensions, unemployment benefit? Or none of that?

 

When you hear the SNP talk no federal settlement would make them happy. So independence would always survive as an argument. Plus federalism is hard to imagine with one part of the 4 being a nation of 50 million as that would be as concentrated a seat of power as Westminster is at present. So where's the change?

 

As for the "45". They're passionate and eager for transformative change in Scotland. If the SNP don't make thE changes or achieve the influence they promised what then? Because I reckon they may not get all they want from the SNP once it gets tough and people are expecting big change.

 

Anyway, Eddie and Call me Dave will not win a majority. They'll have to survive as minority governments either way. That doesn't mean the SNP hold the upper hand as Salmond and Sturgeon have been saying.

[GBJambo]

Cannot agree, the general consensus was that the vote last year was to settle the issue. I simply highlighted one particular politician to highlight the hypocrisy that is never far from him.

 

That it was a generational event was the stated opinion of the majority on both sides of the argument, not just politicians.

 

Are you content that we squander more public money on this - as many times as it takes to get a "Yes"?

 

Would you accept it settled if we get another No or would you be pushing for a third or fourth vote (and so on, ad infinitum)?

Also if it was a yes vote can the no push for another referendum. Where does it end?

[2NaFish]

Cannot agree, the general consensus was that the vote last year was to settle the issue.

 

Well, that's just an invention to suit your point. The rest of your post is just absurd extremism, but the basis is a fabrication so i needn't go any further than that.

[Nookie Bear]

Also if it was a yes vote can the no push for another referendum. Where does it end?

Civil War !

[Psychedelicropcircle]

So we're agreed that it's not closed for a generation simply because someone said it?

You'd think WM politicians stick to their word all of the time!

[Thunderstruck]

Well, that's just an invention to suit your point. The rest of your post is just absurd extremism, but the basis is a fabrication so i needn't go any further than that.

Hardly but if you wish to dodge the question in the manner of La Sturgeon, so be it. I will just take your refusal to answer to be an indication that you will never take "No" for an answer.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

I'll answer the rent control points later, but not before I pull apart this:

 

Only 37% of the electorate were sufficiently motivated to vote for independence.

Would you accept "No" means NO after two ballots, 3 ballots, 4 ballots?

But, even if you could conjure up another 14%, what then?

Do you accept that those who voted "No" could press for another vote and attempt to overturn the result?

The question was put to the people and the people answered with a "No" and that should be that "for a generation".

No currency, no oil, no plan but we will be better off. Fantasy.

 

So, say the SNP include another referendum in their manifesto for the 2016 Holyrood elections, and the Scottish people give them another majority - would you refuse the people of Scotland another referendum purely because of something Alex Salmond said?

[freddiemac]

Their will not be a referendum at all both near future. The nats are going to rumble up as many people as possible in Westminster in the hope of pissing everybody off so much that we get Indy. Unfortunately for snp the 55?31% are still shouting a resounding no.since September the oil price,crime ,school classroom numbers,nhs the horrendous running of the economy ,ffa,british transport police,unemployment.so much has worsened under snp that no sane person would change their mind and vote yes.

  

If i recall the vote was 55%-45%. Are you claiming the non voters as No votes ?

It would only take a 5% swing to overturn the result.

Look at the swing towards the SNP in recent months to see how quickly things can change.

the actual result of the referendum was 55.31% no. 44.69 yes . I had a healthy wager that yes would poll 45% or less. So I had to pay attention to the actual result .most satisfying bet for a long time

[ToadKiller Dog]

F

Edited April 26, 2015 by ToadKiller Dog

[Boab]

We've been over this a few times have we not?

If the SNP feel they have a mandate i.e. majority government in Scotland, they will continue to push for Indy.

The time scale is debatable but push they will.

[freddiemac]

I'll answer the rent control points later, but not before I pull apart this:

 

 

 

So, say the SNP include another referendum in their manifesto for the 2016 Holyrood elections, and the Scottish people give them another majority - would you refuse the people of Scotland another referendum purely because of something Alex Salmond said?

sturgeon is also on record as saying it would be once in a lifetime chance to get Indy. As in Greece today the public can be easy misled with impossible to deliver promises.so a country can vote in a rogue party and a few years later can empty them .if you have a referendum every couple of years you only need to get unlucky once and we are all f***** God help us

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

sturgeon is also on record as saying it would be once in a lifetime chance to get Indy. As in Greece today the public can be easy misled with impossible to deliver promises.so a country can vote in a rogue party and a few years later can empty them .if you have a referendum every couple of years you only need to get unlucky once and we are all ****** God help us

 

Would you like like to answer the question, or are you just going to post a useless diatribe?

[Boab]

sturgeon is also on record as saying it would be once in a lifetime chance to get Indy. As in Greece today the public can be easy misled with impossible to deliver promises.so a country can vote in a rogue party and a few years later can empty them .if you have a referendum every couple of years you only need to get unlucky once and we are all ****** God help us

Bit na?ve there, Freddie, no? What was Sturgeon to say.."We're having one of these till you all say Yes".

There will not a referendum every two years but they would need to be bonkers to stop when their sail is high. It won't always be.

[luckydug]

It seems to me that Westminster politicians wanted Scotland to play a part in the Union as long as we return Unionist politicians to Westminster.

Just because a large percentage of the Scottish electorate wish to elect SNP candidates we are now being treated as troublemakers.

The difference now is that Scotland will send MPs to Westminster who will stick up for Scottish interests. Another referendum may come at some point in the future but at the moment it should be a case of Labour and SNP being BETTER TOGETHER to help run a fairer UK.

[JAYEL]

Taxi for Alexander...........

 

 

[luckydug]

sturgeon is also on record as saying it would be once in a lifetime chance to get Indy. As in Greece today the public can be easy misled with impossible to deliver promises.so a country can vote in a rogue party and a few years later can empty them .if you have a referendum every couple of years you only need to get unlucky once and we are all ****** God help us

 

Nobody is asking for a referendum every couple of years. As for getting unlucky, voters in Scotland are well used to that scenario and have now decided enough is enough and are finally doing something about it. In case you hadn't noticed this is a General Election. You and your Unionist allies are the ones who keep reliving the referendum.

Talking about the GE surely we should be debating the merits of each party. Which party do you favour as it is only clear which one you dont want.

[IMac]

Taxi for Alexander...........

 

 

god help us.

[Guest Trapper John]

Another celebrity Nat supporter crawls out from under his stone.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ian-brady-moors-murderer-announces-his-support-for-ukip-and-the-snp-10204872.html

[Boab]

Another celebrity Nat supporter crawls out from under his stone.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ian-brady-moors-murderer-announces-his-support-for-ukip-and-the-snp-10204872.html

 

New winner in the most ridiculous post category.

This is now getting silly.

[jambo1185]

Why?

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/11/9348/1

 

Do you accept that if there was never any intention for the referendum to be a once in a generation event as stated dozens of times and even in the forward to the white paper, then this lie (because that's what it is) was a cynical and deliberate attempt to coerce and emotionally blackmail people into voting yes on the threat that they might not get the chance again?

 

And before anyone responds with the usual crap of 'aye but Westminster bla bla bla' yes, i completely agree that the no campaign were guilty of project fear and emotional blackmail (disappointingly so). But thats not an answer to the question I'm asking. This is about a statement made over and over by the Yes campaign and the SNP. Another broken promise to add to the pile.

 

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/9/4/1409844625184/Alex-Salmond-and-Nicola-S-014.jpg

 

"One opportunity" per what? 5 years?

 

If its in the manifesto and they get a majority there will be a mandate for a referendum and it will go ahead. But thats a separate point to whether its right for it to be in the manifesto at all for a "generation", or whether voters were misled/lied to during the last campaign.

 

Sturgeon is clever enough to not make it an outright promise of a referendum. It will be conditional on vague circumstances of her choosing so if public support is still below what it was last time her hand isn't forced.

Edited April 26, 2015 by jambo1185

[Guest Trapper John]

New winner in the most ridiculous post category.

This is now getting silly.

 New winner in the most sanctimonious post category.

 

 When was this thread anything less than silly?

[luckydug]

god help us.

 

Why do you say that ?

[freddiemac]

Nobody is asking for a referendum every couple of years. As for getting unlucky, voters in Scotland are well used to that scenario and have now decided enough is enough and are finally doing something about it. In case you hadn't noticed this is a General Election. You and your Unionist allies are the ones who keep reliving the referendum.

Talking about the GE surely we should be debating the merits of each party. Which party do you favour as it is only clear which one you dont want.

I why would any no voters actually want to prolong a result which went in our favour .we are only replying to the many yes voters including prospective snp mps who would like a referendum asap. You are correct their is one particular party I don't want in power ,for obvious reasons . Snp want Indy at any price ,much to detriment of the good people of scotland. Edited April 26, 2015 by freddiemac

[luckydug]

 New winner in the most sanctimonious post category.

 

 When was this thread anything less than silly?

 

Its got a lot sillier now .

its a bit like when the office bore goes on holiday. Every one else feels as if they have had a holiday.

[Boab]

 New winner in the most sanctimonious post category.

 

 When was this thread anything less than silly?

Cheers.

 

It could be less silly....pretty easily.

[freddiemac]

Would you like like to answer the question, or are you just going to post a useless diatribe?

I was answering your suggestion that it was only salmond who was telling the world that this was a once in a lifetime /generation chance to vote on Indy .going by your comments you sound about as loyal to the referendum vote as salmond and sturgeon.

[IMac]

Why do you say that ?

Best part is the pseudo reporter pretending to be neutral (clearly an snp supporter/Yes man)

 

Money taken off folks. SNP idea that people should live on benefits. unreal. these people do not want to change peoples lives. they want to get elected and sound like they are standing up for people. All they care about is getting elected and seeing how this allows them to keep their agenda further down the line. The SNP are establishment they are in it. They will not change things. Just because we put up someone that doesn't fit our idea of an MP doesn't make it better. 

 

She talks about offering change. What change do the SNP offer. they simply do not. 

 

I will say she is very good at sticking to talking points. 

Edited April 26, 2015 by IMac

[Thunderstruck]

I'll answer the rent control points later, but not before I pull apart this:

 

 

So, say the SNP include another referendum in their manifesto for the 2016 Holyrood elections, and the Scottish people give them another majority - would you refuse the people of Scotland another referendum purely because of something Alex Salmond said?

I thank those who posted after this for answering the point more succinctly than I could. I can now go and attend to grass that is not going to cut itself.

[2NaFish]

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/11/9348/1

 

Do you accept that if there was never any intention for the referendum to be a once in a generation event as stated dozens of times and even in the forward to the white paper, then this lie (because that's what it is) was a cynical and deliberate attempt to coerce and emotionally blackmail people into voting yes on the threat that they might not get the chance again?

 

And before anyone responds with the usual crap of 'aye but Westminster bla bla bla' yes, i completely agree that the no campaign were guilty of project fear and emotional blackmail (disappointingly so). But thats not an answer to the question I'm asking. This is about a statement made over and over by the Yes campaign and the SNP. Another broken promise to add to the pile.

 

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/9/4/1409844625184/Alex-Salmond-and-Nicola-S-014.jpg

 

"One opportunity" per what? 5 years?

 

If its in the manifesto and they get a majority there will be a mandate for a referendum and it will go ahead. But thats a separate point to whether its right for it to be in the manifesto at all for a "generation", or whether voters were misled/lied to during the last campaign.

 

Sturgeon is clever enough to not make it an outright promise of a referendum. It will be conditional on vague circumstances of her choosing so if public support is still below what it was last time her hand isn't forced.

Wait! Politicians lie and coerce people? Quick go tell the media. You can't keep this to yourself! Its too important.

 

Christ, some of you people have disengaged your brains and let your emotions run wild. Stop. And then think, 'is this thing I'm writing interesting, novel, germaine or atleast not wildly hypocritical?' If it doesn't tick one of those boxes just close the browser.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

god help us.

I've heard he's SNP as well....welcome back tripper since you've been got Jims been exposed as a branch manager and the polls have increased against him!

[Boab]

Wait! Politicians lie and coerce people? Quick go tell the media. You can't keep this to yourself! Its too important.

 

Christ, some of you people have disengaged your brains and let your emotions run wild. Stop. And then think, 'is this thing I'm writing interesting, novel, germaine or atleast not wildly hypocritical?' If it doesn't tick one of those boxes just close the browser.

You're right. The naivety on here is something to behold.

I think some on here don't realise how murky politics can be and the lengths some politicians will go to save their skins.

[luckydug]

Best part is the pseudo reporter pretending to be neutral (clearly an snp supporter/Yes man)

 

Money taken off folks. SNP idea that people should live on benefits. unreal. these people do not want to change peoples lives. they want to get elected and sound like they are standing up for people. All they care about is getting elected and seeing how this allows them to keep their agenda further down the line. The SNP are establishment they are in it. They will not change things. Just because we put up someone that doesn't fit our idea of an MP doesn't make it better. 

 

She talks about offering change. What change do the SNP offer. they simply do not. 

 

I will say she is very good at sticking to talking points. 

 

Why did you bother watching with a closed mind ?

One thing in your favour at least you are up front and are prepared to speak up for the party of your choice.

The other SNP bashers  seem to forget that there are other parties in this GENERAL election.

[RosscoC]

Another celebrity Nat supporter crawls out from under his stone.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ian-brady-moors-murderer-announces-his-support-for-ukip-and-the-snp-10204872.html

Ian Brady has gone right down in my estimation today.

[IMac]

Why did you bother watching with a closed mind ?

One thing in your favour at least you are up front and are prepared to speak up for the party of your choice.

The other SNP bashers  seem to forget that there are other parties in this GENERAL election.

 

I'm very frustrated with the inability of politicians and the media to actually talk about the issues. As I have said I actually think my party have a very good proposal for the electorate. However nobody is listening to what anyone is saying. It has all gone a bit tribal.

 

I also think Danny Alexander would be a big lose to westminster but hey maybe he can rid labour of Jim in 2016.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Not one comment on Miliband ruling out a confidence and supply deal with the SNP!

[JAYEL]

Best part is the pseudo reporter pretending to be neutral (clearly an snp supporter/Yes man)

 

Money taken off folks. SNP idea that people should live on benefits. unreal. these people do not want to change peoples lives. they want to get elected and sound like they are standing up for people. All they care about is getting elected and seeing how this allows them to keep their agenda further down the line. The SNP are establishment they are in it. They will not change things. Just because we put up someone that doesn't fit our idea of an MP doesn't make it better. 

 

She talks about offering change. What change do the SNP offer. they simply do not. 

 

I will say she is very good at sticking to talking points. 

 

 

Douglas Alexander out laboured by a 20 year old girl.

 

 

[2NaFish]

Not one comment on Miliband ruling out a confidence and supply deal with the SNP!

File alongside 'lies told by politicians prior to elections to coerce voters: see Once In A Generation'

 

Its the sort of thing simpletons fall for and intelligent zealots choose to get angry about when the inevitable flip is flopped.

 

Practically, it makes milliband look strong, goes some way to defusing Tory SNP = Bad stories and gives millliband a decent starting point when negotiations actually begin with Sturgeon.

[IMac]

File alongside 'lies told by politicians prior to elections to coerce voters: see Once In A Generation'

 

Its the sort of thing simpletons fall for and intelligent zealots choose to get angry about when the inevitable flip is flopped.

 

Practically, it makes milliband look strong, goes some way to defusing Tory SNP = Bad stories and gives millliband a decent starting point when negotiations actually begin with Sturgeon.

 

This is an issue for after the election. 

 

What polices would you like to see the next government enact or not?  anything you want overturned?

[2NaFish]

This is an issue for after the election.

 

What polices would you like to see the next government enact or not? anything you want overturned?

The inevitable negotiations are part of the general election, so we can discuss it here if we wish, thanks.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

File alongside 'lies told by politicians prior to elections to coerce voters: see Once In A Generation'

 

Its the sort of thing simpletons fall for and intelligent zealots choose to get angry about when the inevitable flip is flopped.

 

Practically, it makes milliband look strong, goes some way to defusing Tory SNP = Bad stories and gives millliband a decent starting point when negotiations actually begin with Sturgeon.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, Miliband is daring the SNP to do their worst. If he falls short of the Tories, knowing that Cameron won't get a Queen's Speech passed, then he is saying to the SNP that if you don't back my Queen's Speech then we are back to the polls. Do the SNP want that, given the media headlines it would engender? I say they wouldn't.

[2NaFish]

Or perhaps, just perhaps, Miliband is daring the SNP to do their worst. If he falls short of the Tories, knowing that Cameron won't get a Queen's Speech passed, then he is saying to the SNP that if you don't back my Queen's Speech then we are back to the polls. Do the SNP want that, given the media headlines it would engender? I say they wouldn't.

It gives the SNP something to mull over, sure.

[luckydug]

 

 

I also think Danny Alexander would be a big lose to westminster but hey maybe he can rid labour of Jim in 2016.

 

Danny Alexander is your man.

Douglas Alexander is the soon to be ex Labour MP about to be emptied by a 20 year old girl.