The 2015 General Election Megathread

[aussieh]

SG

50

Congrats, atleast someone has believes in themselves.

[The Comedian]

I did not deny that more oil may exist, but I work in the oil industry.     The area is almost fully explored, fields are on decline, and no major new discoveries will be made.      You can, like Alex, fabricate some imaginary new fields that are yet to be discovered, but that wont happen.    Exploration in the UK NS is almost finished.  Check for yourself the number of Exploration wells drilled in 2015.   Hardly any, and none have announced discoveries.  The oil Companies are selling out and moving away.     Dream on if you think somehow they will suddenly find more massive fields to get 24 billion barrels out of.  

 

But don't let the truth get in the way of your fantasy.

 

Fully explored (it's not) but not fully developed. The mariner field was discovered in the 80's but hasn't been tapped and will be by 2019. Same with the Clair ridge.

 

It's not what it once was but it has a better future than you think IMO.

[pablo]

Nonsense.

Why is wanting to run our own country being hoodwinked.

Why dont the UK government move the nuclear base to the Thames.

Afterall, all their enemies come from the east.

And we can pump the oil out of the clyde.

It's the socialists who've been justifying their switch to the SNP/Yes as following the path to a fairer left of centre Scotland, who have been hoodwinked.

 

That lot love a slogan, love to wear a right on badge. Imagine not being able to use the phrase Red Tory anymore because Labour are being led by a proper old school leftie like Corbyn.

 

Just as the SNP get handed even more powers. They'll do the right thing, won't they?

[aussieh]

It's the socialists who've been justifying their switch to the SNP/Yes as following the path to a fairer left of centre Scotland, who have been hoodwinked.

 

That lot love a slogan, love to wear a right on badge. Imagine not being able to use the phrase Red Tory anymore because Labour are being led by a proper old school leftie like Corbyn.

 

Just as the SNP get handed even more powers. They'll do the right thing, won't they?

Youve got to love the, handed more power pish, like we're some charity case given scraps by our WM masters.

Ruled and owned by England/UK/Britain take your pick its just like the language, different words with the same meaning.

[aussieh]

They probably doctored the indyref result.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

They probably doctored the indyref result.

 

You need a YouTube video for this!

[JamboX2]

Imagine not being able to use the phrase Red Tory anymore because Labour are being led by a proper old school leftie like Corbyn.

 

Pretty much my thoughts. Should Corbyn win Labour would adopt genuinely left wing policy positions from nationalising utilities, expanding welfare, higher taxes on the well off and back increasing wages.

 

The SNP don't actually stand up on any of that. They're policy platform is very centrist. Lets not forget their position on selling Scotrail to the Dutch rather than take into public ownership and their selling off of Calmac routes.

 

Corbyn would open up space on the left for Labour in Scotland and Wales against the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Which would be a direct attack on their leftist credentials.

 

Labour proposing use of the new powers to come next year radically and dynamically on welfare for example could hole the SNP fairness agenda with their triangulating policies on keeping middle class and richer voters content on tax whilst boosting spending on welfare, which is something they struggle with.

[Thunderstruck]

You are being obtuse, the vast majority of countries without oil are doing fine.

Seriously, why would Scotland be different? Answer me that without referring to any SNP claims, their economic case during the referendum debate was daft, just take the question to its simplest form, why couldn't Scotland prosper like other nations its size?

If oil is only a bonus, why are so many of the Yes camp desperate to find oil, to believe in mystery/secret fields or to resort to the power of wishful thinking in terms of restoration oil prices to Salmondesque levels?

 

They will not believe the evidence in front of them, listen to anyone who has industry experience or read anything authoritative on the subject (for the record, that does not include "Wings").

 

Of course Scotland could be independent but that is not the issue. Instead, the pro-Independence camp should ask themselves what would an independent Scotland look like, how long would it take to stabilise and what cost (monetary and social) would it incur.

 

What is now as clear as day is that the dream outlined in the fiction that was the White Paper was only that - a dream. It was fatally flawed even before the oil price tanked and was simply a potmess. Even senior SNP figures quietly concede that it would not have worked.

 

Like many shocks, we are now seeing the denial phase - " how could it have be a No vote", "it can't be right", "somebody must have rigged it" and "let's make it best-of three". It will take time but many will come to see that the vote was taken, the democratic will of the people was established and there the matter should rest.

[aussieh]

Pretty much my thoughts. Should Corbyn win Labour would adopt genuinely left wing policy positions from nationalising utilities, expanding welfare, higher taxes on the well off and back increasing wages.

 

The SNP don't actually stand up on any of that. They're policy platform is very centrist. Lets not forget their position on selling Scotrail to the Dutch rather than take into public ownership and their selling off of Calmac routes.

 

Corbyn would open up space on the left for Labour in Scotland and Wales against the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Which would be a direct attack on their leftist credentials.

 

Labour proposing use of the new powers to come next year radically and dynamically on welfare for example could hole the SNP fairness agenda with their triangulating policies on keeping middle class and richer voters content on tax whilst boosting spending on welfare, which is something they struggle with.

I think you forget somethings, Slab and better together.

[aussieh]

If oil is only a bonus, why are so many of the Yes camp desperate to find oil, tot believe in mystery/secret fields or to resort to the power of wishful thinking in terms of restoration oil prices to Salmondesque levels?

 

They will not believe the evidence in front of them, listen to anyone who has industry experience or read anything authoritative on the subject (for the record, that does not include "Wings").

 

Of course Scotland could be independent but that is not the issue. Instead, the pro-Independence camp should ask themselves what would an independent Scotland look like, how long would it take to stabilise and what cost (monetary and social) would it incur.

 

What is now as clear as day is that the dream outlined in the fiction that was the White Paper was only that - a dream. It was fatally flawed even before the oil price tanked and was simply a potmess. Even senior SNP figures quietly concede that it would not have worked.

 

Like many shocks, we are now seeing the denial phase - " how could it have be a No vote", "it can't be right", "somebody must have rigged it" and "let's make it best-of three". It will take time but many will come to see that the vote was taken, the democratic will of the people was established and there the matter should rest.

Dennis Healy Edited August 5, 2015 by aussieh

[deesidejambo]

Fully explored (it's not) but not fully developed. The mariner field was discovered in the 80's but hasn't been tapped and will be by 2019. Same with the Clair ridge.

 

It's not what it once was but it has a better future than you think IMO.

I already stated that there are some further Developments to come.    Clair Ridge is targetted at 640 million bbls and Mariner about 250 million.     Both of these are at very high development costs and dont even reach one billion, let alone 24 billion.       The tax take from both these fields will be low and there are significant industry doubts as to the stated recoveries from both these fields.    BP are stating publically that they are "targetting" 640mmbbls recoverable, but thats not what they have booked internally. 

 

Dream on about 24 billion barrels.

[aussieh]

Stolen.

Wont lose the next one.

[JamboX2]

I think you forget somethings, Slab and better together.

If that is the case then the soft Nos on the left and soft yes vote on the left aren't voting for a left of centre government they are voting for nationalism and independence.

 

The point remains though that a Corbyn Labour or a lefty Labour would expose the Blairite SNP.

[deesidejambo]

Stolen.

Wont lose the next one.

Tenner on it?

[Boris]

It's the socialists who've been justifying their switch to the SNP/Yes as following the path to a fairer left of centre Scotland, who have been hoodwinked.

 

That lot love a slogan, love to wear a right on badge. Imagine not being able to use the phrase Red Tory anymore because Labour are being led by a proper old school leftie like Corbyn.

 

Just as the SNP get handed even more powers. They'll do the right thing, won't they?

 

Well, I kind of agree with you.  I suspect many who voted YES were of the Left and voted YES not out of Nationalistic sentiment, but for the opportunity to create a better society, like a Phoenix rising from the ashes of our currently discredited society.  It certainly puts the SNP in a position, depending on what a Corbyn led Labour Party would offer in terms of proper constitutional change e.g. changes to the Westminster electoral system, federalism etc.  However, it may be that those who jumped ship to the SNP, hoodwinked as you say, by left of centre social democratic sentiment (it's not socialist in a Marxist sense) or perhaps "Old" Labourism, will take control of the party itself?  

 

Pretty much my thoughts. Should Corbyn win Labour would adopt genuinely left wing policy positions from nationalising utilities, expanding welfare, higher taxes on the well off and back increasing wages.

 

The SNP don't actually stand up on any of that. They're policy platform is very centrist. Lets not forget their position on selling Scotrail to the Dutch rather than take into public ownership and their selling off of Calmac routes.

 

Corbyn would open up space on the left for Labour in Scotland and Wales against the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Which would be a direct attack on their leftist credentials.

 

Labour proposing use of the new powers to come next year radically and dynamically on welfare for example could hole the SNP fairness agenda with their triangulating policies on keeping middle class and richer voters content on tax whilst boosting spending on welfare, which is something they struggle with.

 

 

If that is the case then the soft Nos on the left and soft yes vote on the left aren't voting for a left of centre government they are voting for nationalism and independence.

 

The point remains though that a Corbyn Labour or a lefty Labour would expose the Blairite SNP.

 

I think many on the left voted SNP and certainly voted YES, not out of nationalistic sentiment but, as I said above, for the perception that the UK is a busted flush and the only way to get a proper democratic society now, would be via independence.

 

Until proper constitutional change, elected second chamber, PR at Westminster, an English parliament or several English regional parliaments on the same level as Holyrood (with Wales & NI being raised to this level too i.e. proper federalism) is on the agenda at Westminster, independence will still be an attractive option to many.

 

Also, even if Corbyn does win the Labour leadership, if he can't win at Westminster to enact his manifesto, then it doesn't really change anything.  Are people in Scotland going to gamble on that?

[AlphonseCapone]

If oil is only a bonus, why are so many of the Yes camp desperate to find oil, to believe in mystery/secret fields or to resort to the power of wishful thinking in terms of restoration oil prices to Salmondesque levels?

 

They will not believe the evidence in front of them, listen to anyone who has industry experience or read anything authoritative on the subject (for the record, that does not include "Wings").

 

Of course Scotland could be independent but that is not the issue. Instead, the pro-Independence camp should ask themselves what would an independent Scotland look like, how long would it take to stabilise and what cost (monetary and social) would it incur.

 

What is now as clear as day is that the dream outlined in the fiction that was the White Paper was only that - a dream. It was fatally flawed even before the oil price tanked and was simply a potmess. Even senior SNP figures quietly concede that it would not have worked.

 

Like many shocks, we are now seeing the denial phase - " how could it have be a No vote", "it can't be right", "somebody must have rigged it" and "let's make it best-of three". It will take time but many will come to see that the vote was taken, the democratic will of the people was established and there the matter should rest.

I genuinely don't know why both sides are obsessed with oil. Scotland can't base it's economy on oil which is why the SNP should never have made any the daft claims it did but their entire economic case was daft encapsulated by the currency issue.

 

It sounds like you are saying Scotland could be a prosperous independent country but it might take years to get there and be a bit painful on the way? If so I agree, for me though, that hard times would bare fruit for our children and grandchildren.

 

I voted yes for two main reasons; I think a Scottish parliament with full responsibility and powers would serve the 5 million people living here better than Westminster ever could and I've never felt any attachment to Britain, I don't hate it or anyone in it, I just don't feel anything to it. The economic argument was a sideshow as even David Cameron has said Scotland could be a flourishing independent country, the SNP didn't help with their white paper though granted.

 

But you are right, no won the day so that's that. I hope Corbyn wins and Labour become a proper centre left party, they'd likely get my vote. I still believe independence will happen in my lifetime, I think the wheels are in motion and it's too late to put on the brakes.

[Boris]

I genuinely don't know why both sides are obsessed with oil. Scotland can't base it's economy on oil which is why the SNP should never have made any the daft claims it did but their entire economic case was daft encapsulated by the currency issue.

 

It sounds like you are saying Scotland could be a prosperous independent country but it might take years to get there and be a bit painful on the way? If so I agree, for me though, that hard times would bare fruit for our children and grandchildren.

 

I voted yes for two main reasons; I think a Scottish parliament with full responsibility and powers would serve the 5 million people living here better than Westminster ever could and I've never felt any attachment to Britain, I don't hate it or anyone in it, I just don't feel anything to it. The economic argument was a sideshow as even David Cameron has said Scotland could be a flourishing independent country, the SNP didn't help with their white paper though granted.

 

But you are right, no won the day so that's that. I hope Corbyn wins and Labour become a proper centre left party, they'd likely get my vote. I still believe independence will happen in my lifetime, I think the wheels are in motion and it's too late to put on the brakes.

 

Good post.  Pretty much where I am at.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

The generality that is your first sentence is incorrect as, clearly, not all countries that are independent are "doing fine"; c/f Greece.

 

Are you certain, on the basis of the proposition laid before the Scottish people last year, that Scotland would prosper outwith the UK and by April next year?

 

I am not. I wasn't before last year and I think we dodged a bullet thanks to the majority of Scots voters being smart enough not to be gulled by the emotive but economically naive plans of SNP/Yes. Plans that, in the space of only a matter of weeks, were shown to have been wildly inaccurate/optimistic/negligent.

In the meantime we are now smashing the poor be it welfare or working, selling banks back their shares at a loss, running a privatisation programme that outdone thatcher. Basically unless your middle class or above no party represents you. #broken Britain

[Cade]

http://newstoad.net/2015/08/04/disabled-people-honoured-to-subsidise-rbs-sell-off/

 

[deesidejambo]

I genuinely don't know why both sides are obsessed with oil. Scotland can't base it's economy on oil which is why the SNP should never have made any the daft claims it did but their entire economic case was daft encapsulated by the currency issue.

 

It sounds like you are saying Scotland could be a prosperous independent country but it might take years to get there and be a bit painful on the way? If so I agree, for me though, that hard times would bare fruit for our children and grandchildren.

 

I voted yes for two main reasons; I think a Scottish parliament with full responsibility and powers would serve the 5 million people living here better than Westminster ever could and I've never felt any attachment to Britain, I don't hate it or anyone in it, I just don't feel anything to it. The economic argument was a sideshow as even David Cameron has said Scotland could be a flourishing independent country, the SNP didn't help with their white paper though granted.

 

But you are right, no won the day so that's that. I hope Corbyn wins and Labour become a proper centre left party, they'd likely get my vote. I still believe independence will happen in my lifetime, I think the wheels are in motion and it's too late to put on the brakes.

For me its not the obsession with oil that was my point.

 

The point is that Salmond is misleading the electorate by making silliy claims of fiscal income.    If he is telling porkies about the oil income, how do you know he is being straight about the rest?

[aussieh]

For me its not the obsession with oil that was my point.

 

The point is that Salmond is misleading the electorate by making silliy claims of fiscal income. If he is telling porkies about the oil income, how do you know he is being straight about the rest?

Aye, cause the tories are pure dead honest folk.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Aye, cause the tories are pure dead honest folk.

Whataboutery

[Boris]

Whataboutery

 

As was Deeside's comment, tbf.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

As was Deeside's comment, tbf.

Fair call

[aussieh]

Whataboutery

Who uses this.

[deesidejambo]

As was Deeside's comment, tbf.

Eh?

 

I made a specific point, backed up by public domain evidence, that Salmond is telling porkies about the fiscal income to be generated from oil revenues.    No whataboutery there - the evidence is there for all to see, except of course to those who don't want to see it.

[Boris]

Eh?

 

I made a specific point, backed up by public domain evidence, that Salmond is telling porkies about the fiscal income to be generated from oil revenues.    No whataboutery there - the evidence is there for all to see, except of course to those who don't want to see it.

 

I wasn't referring to that.

 

I was referring to your comment, "If he is telling porkies about the oil income, how do you know he is being straight about the rest?"

[AlphonseCapone]

For me its not the obsession with oil that was my point.

 

The point is that Salmond is misleading the electorate by making silliy claims of fiscal income. If he is telling porkies about the oil income, how do you know he is being straight about the rest?

That's why I don't just take what someone tells me at face value because people lie and politicians lie more. All of them, not just Salmond.

 

And it also goes down the independence vote was all about Salmond route that infuriated me, I mean the vote was about something that would likely last hundreds or thousands of years, Salmond will be lucky to see 20.

[Hasselhoff]

That's why I don't just take what someone tells me at face value because people lie and politicians lie more. All of them, not just Salmond.

 

And it also goes down the independence vote was all about Salmond route that infuriated me, I mean the vote was about something that would likely last hundreds or thousands of years, Salmond will be lucky to see 20.

 

If we do go independent, there should be a referendum every 2 years to get back into the UK and we can keep having it until it's a yes. 

[deesidejambo]

I wasn't referring to that.

 

I was referring to your comment, "If he is telling porkies about the oil income, how do you know he is being straight about the rest?"

I see.   Well using the evidence that he was indeed telling porkies about the oil, and that these are so inflated as to be ludicrous, then his credibility when making other economic assertions is compromised.     If you take the view that "all politicians lie" means that Ecks porkies are therefore OK, then so be it.

[AlphonseCapone]

If we do go independent, there should be a referendum every 2 years to get back into the UK and we can keep having it until it's a yes.

Good luck getting the UK to agree if we voted yes.

[Thunderstruck]

In the meantime we are now smashing the poor be it welfare or working, selling banks back their shares at a loss, running a privatisation programme that outdone thatcher. Basically unless your middle class or above no party represents you. #broken Britain

Maybe you should take a long, hard look at why we have a Conservative Government with a majority. Who were the main players in that process and what was their agenda.

 

You should also bear in mind, as the SNP moves towards a decade in power, their record in elimination of the worst ills in our society - it is hardly much to write home about. In fact, in terms of the definition, they have been implementing their own austerity.

 

And, before you cite Westminster restrictions, they have backed away from using their power to apply differential and marginal tax and they have arbitrarily (and in a regressive manner) limited income that would otherwise have been spent of local jobs, facilities and services.

 

They, the champions of the NHS, see fit to divert nearly 10% of NHS funding away from the front line (GPs, Hospitals, etc).

 

The list goes on.

[jambo1185]

From uber-New Labour chap John McTernan

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784458/In-2015-Labour-should-not-be-thinking-about-nationalisation.html

[Boris]

I see.   Well using the evidence that he was indeed telling porkies about the oil, and that these are so inflated as to be ludicrous, then his credibility when making other economic assertions is compromised.     If you take the view that "all politicians lie" means that Ecks porkies are therefore OK, then so be it.

 

Not saying I disagreed with you, merely saying that Aussieh's assumption regards Tories is as much whataboutery as yours.

 

*adopts Loyd Grossman voice*

 

Let's look at the evidence.  

 

Former Tory PM being investigated for child abuse.  Former Tory PM hushed up enquiry about child abuse.  Aussieh casts doubt on Tory honesty.

[Thunderstruck]

From uber-New Labour chap John McTernan

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784458/In-2015-Labour-should-not-be-thinking-about-nationalisation.html

The link within that makes for interesting reading on "austerity".

http://labourlist.org/2015/08/labour-lost-because-voters-believed-it-was-anti-austerity/

 

On Railways: If they intend to look at the structure of Rail in the UK, they could do worse than look at SNCF or Deutsche Bahn to see good examples of State Owned Enterprises. These are not operations that in any way resemble BR as was.

 

You have to marvel at the ability of the French who completed around 90 miles of the Rhine- Rh?ne LGV in 6 years between 2005 and 2011. Contrast that with a similar length of high speed infrastructure between London and Birmingham which is expected to take 10-12 years (for Phase 1) and at a cost of ?20bn (the French line cost ?3bn). Granted, Southern England is more densely populated and there are more built-up areas but exclusion of the cost of land acquisition/compulsory purchase (?2.7bn) still leaves an almighty gulf.

[GBJambo]

If we do go independent, there should be a referendum every 2 years to get back into the UK and we can keep having it until it's a yes.

It will be a best of three.

[Thunderstruck]

It will be a best of three.

Or five if it is "No" for a second time.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Maybe you should take a long, hard look at why we have a Conservative Government with a majority. Who were the main players in that process and what was their agenda.

 

You should also bear in mind, as the SNP moves towards a decade in power, their record in elimination of the worst ills in our society - it is hardly much to write home about. In fact, in terms of the definition, they have been implementing their own austerity.

 

And, before you cite Westminster restrictions, they have backed away from using their power to apply differential and marginal tax and they have arbitrarily (and in a regressive manner) limited income that would otherwise have been spent of local jobs, facilities and services.

 

They, the champions of the NHS, see fit to divert nearly 10% of NHS funding away from the front line (GPs, Hospitals, etc).

 

The list goes on.

I've asked and all I can come up with is a majority of *****. Until we're federalised the blame game will continue. Edited August 5, 2015 by Psychedelicropcircle

[Hasselhoff]

Every time I hear the word 'referendum', it's either coming from the mouth of a unionist or a SNP member/supporter responding to a question from a unionist/journalist.

 

SNP know that the time is not right, much like most of the new members, and they appear happy to wait this out for a while.

So Martyn Day (SNP MP) this week saying that Scotland should be able to call a snap referendum any time it wishes is the SNP happy to wait it out a while? They might want to tell him the plan. Unionists wouldn't be mentioning it at all if the Yes side weren't so bitter in defeat that they claiming we were duped and we should have another asap.

 

A vow was broken alright - the vow that no matter what, the decision would be respected.

[GBJambo]

So Martyn Day (SNP MP) this week saying that Scotland should be able to call a snap referendum any time it wishes is the SNP happy to wait it out a while? They might want to tell him the plan. Unionists wouldn't be mentioning it at all if the Yes side weren't so bitter in defeat that they claiming we were duped and we should have another asap.

 

A vow was broken alright - the vow that no matter what, the decision would be respected.

Yep. It's only being brought up because the snp can't accept that the majority of scottish people are opposed to independence.

[Boris]

So Martyn Day (SNP MP) this week saying that Scotland should be able to call a snap referendum any time it wishes is the SNP happy to wait it out a while? They might want to tell him the plan. Unionists wouldn't be mentioning it at all if the Yes side weren't so bitter in defeat that they claiming we were duped and we should have another asap.

 

A vow was broken alright - the vow that no matter what, the decision would be respected.

The decision has been respected. That doesn't mean the question can't ever be asked again.

[Boris]

Yep. It's only being brought up because the snp can't accept that the majority of scottish people are opposed to independence.

Can you blame them though, given their overwhelming result at the General election and would appear to being on course to an increased majority at Holyrood? Not disputing the lack of increase in a wish for Independence, but it is rather contradictory to the electoral success of the party advocating such.

[Thunderstruck]

Sturgeon's 'triple-lock' is a fair approach. Unionists seem to ignore the premise that the SNP have no plans unless mitigating circumstances dictate otherwise.

So the "settled for a generation" agreement has fallen by the wayside.

[JamboX2]

Are we not at risk of getting into "neverendum" politics here? The idea that the question itself hangs over us so much that it covers the failings of government, of our institutions and how we shape our nation.

 

The issue over "Home Rule" is that it's rather undefined. Much like "Devo-Max" was. It's something different to everyone! That's the issue. It was the issue over a hundred years ago with the Irish and it's the same now. Although, the Irish never had such an integrated and expansive British state that we do now to contend with.

 

The Smith Commission attempted to find common ground, and it did. ALL parties backed it, all made presentations, all made concessions and all signed the deed at the end of it. It's now going through Parliament and amendments are being lodged, debated and I reckon it will be expanded on again. However, the process was undermined by the SNP who brought their own proposals out as a manifesto weeks before it was agreed. So an attempt at a base of powers to work on for the benefit of scots has resulted in more debate over what is Home Rule and what is devolution. Salmond again a prime agitator here, his party signed up to the Home Rule of Smith, not his own view of it.

 

The vow has been delivered, or is being delivered. The vow was a knee jerk reaction. But it is delivering more power. Power which opens up greater freedom for government to raise and spend money. That is beneficial and should be broadening the debate of what Scotland looks like, yet we are still descending into neverendum debates - this SNP MP the latest to do so.

 

In effect, power is being debated, not use of power. One is a debate of nationalism and governance and doesn't help people, the other is a debate of how power is applied to reform, empower and strengthen people's lives and support many to do more.

 

Frankly, the only questions which should be getting asked are "what will you do on x?", anyone who begins that answer with "If I had Y..." Should be pushed for an actual answer quite frankly.

[JamboX2]

No. The SNP agreed to the original Smith Commission, which was immediately watered down by Cameron et al. A google search 'Smith commision watered down' provides numerous links confirming this.

 

The vow has already been broken, it never made it as far as the first paragraph.

No. The smith commission was agreed, the Scotland Office drafted the proposals, these proposals were in the run-up to the election, and expanded upon, and are now being implemented in law.

 

What has been watered down?

 

The ability to levy income tax? To create new taxes? To establish new benefits? To top up existing benefits? To run employment welfare services and the jobs programs? The expansion of control in transport and justice? To make reforms to Holyrood without the Scotland Office? The duty of both governments to consult one another on joint or shared matters? The expansion of joint-ministerial structures?

 

The point remains. The SNP undermined it whilst it was on going, by saying in public they weren't happy ignored the process that was ongoing. It was a process designed to seek a unanimous agreement which all would back. Not a process to meet one group over another's wants.

 

Fact remains people wanted to remain in the union, the major flaw was the lack of a real constitutional convention for the union in the aftermath. What we should've had was either an open and transparent civic convention on devolution either for Scotland alone or for the UK as a whole. Instead we got a politicians cabal and a quick fix for all which allows the SNP to maintain a pretence of betrayal and the Labour and Tory parties can bemoan them for saying so. It's beggars belief. None of these parties are focusing on us and our issues, on declining social mobility in Scotland, on a corrupted police force, on falling education standards, NHS crises and housing shortages. Much easier to cry foul and debate power rather than act.

[JamboX2]

It's not a decade in power though is it? They had a minority government in 2007, relying on other parties to support their proposals.

 

They've done a sterling job the short period that they've ran Scotland. That's why people voted them in firstly as a minority government, then as a majority government and now soon-to-be a landslide government in 2016? If they were crap, then surely they'd have been turfed out by now.

That's a matter of opinion on a sterling job. Competent government yes. But I'd argue they've been uninspiring and overseen a decline in social mobility, educational standards and a series of regressive budgets robbing Peter to pay Paul in terms of their council tax freeze.

[Thunderstruck]

Can you link anywhere she said that? I think you may be mis-quoting her.

The vow promised a permanent parliament, which has already been voted down, and extensive new powers. Another referendum should be called immediately if the full terms are not met as many people voted no on the basis of the vow.

A reference for you (it's as easy as typing 4words into Google)...

 

http://t.email3.telegraph.co.uk/res/telegraph_t/meter_pin1.html

 

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the "Vow" was instrumental in swinging the vote. John Curtice has already demonstrated that it made no measurable difference to the outcome as the split was pretty much the same before and after.

[JamboX2]

Those three areas that you mentioned represent different sections, arguably, of the electorate. And yet, they continue to vote for the SNP in numbers. Most of the opinion that they aren't all that bad.

People elected a Conservative government in May. A fair share were scots regardless of seat distribution from a shan system that fptp is not reflecting that. Doesn't mean they do a good job in office :haha:

 

There is a lack of a credible opposition or an opposition offering more than third way centrism that the SNP is dominating politics with. That's partly the fault of Labour and partly of the Tories up here being the only two credible alternatives for the past 8 years. The fact people vote for a party offering an easy ride doesn't make what they do right or beneficial to most people. I'd argue Scotland is sliding backwards and has been through the referendum period. Centralisation and the current system (one we've had unchecked since the 1970s) in health, social services and education is failing massively and needs radical and long term reform. That isn't coming from that lot anytime soon.

[Thunderstruck]

It's not a decade in power though is it? They had a minority government in 2007, relying on other parties to support their proposals.

They've done a sterling job the short period that they've ran Scotland. That's why people voted them in firstly as a minority government, then as a majority government and now soon-to-be a landslide government in 2016? If they were crap, then surely they'd have been turfed out by now.

List their achievements then.

 

Explain the diversion of 10% of NHS funding away from "Front Line".

 

Explain the parlous state of GP services.

 

Explain the reluctance to use the existing tax varying powers to get a head start on their fairer society.

 

Explain the implementation of "austerity" by their own hand - reduction in public spending by regressive adjustment to local taxes.

 

Explain the fiasco that is the creation of Police Scotland (we can come back to breaking "spy scandal" when we know more and we know who knew what and who ordered it).

 

Explain the trend to centralisation of powers and "Big Brother" policies such as the Named Guardian and the National Personal Database.

 

Explain the Free Further Education policy that has the effect of limiting places for Scots at Scottish Universities and Colleges.

 

Tge list goes on.

[Thunderstruck]

That was a telegraph subscription link.

The official figure was around 4% in that research I believe, yes, no impact on the final result but still a swing of around 100k votes. The sample was also small, it shouldn't be considered as definitive.

Research has found consistantly that around two-thirds of Scots want more powers in the form of further devolution. I'm sorry but considerably more people must have voted no on the assumption that extra powers will be delivered, detailed on the vow or otherwise.

To save you looking, Salmonds words were that "the matter was settled for a generation, perhaps even a lifetime."

 

Curtice referred to the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey - the largest such survey and an enduring survey.

 

Yes, Scots want more powers and, interestingly, Scots want more powers devolved WITHIN Scotland - to the Highland, the Islands, the Borders. Unfortunately, that would appear to go against the grain for SNP.

 

I tend towards a federal UK but having seen the proposals for England, I am not sure if Scotland is the right geographic, economic or social division to best exploit or deliver these decentralised powers. Scotland as a whole will be dominated by Greater Glasgow - that is an inevitability as half of the population lies within 30 mins by rail from Central Station. Is that best for Argyll, for the Northern Isles, for Aberdeen or for the Lothians. I would suggest not.