The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

absolutely!

The tories have played it extremely well from their point of view. What's so astounding (or perhaps not) is that those self-proclaiming themselves as the most politically astute in the UK can't see even a smidgen of what's going on and how they're being played.

And it's not only the tories who are playing them. Their own heroes are taking the piss out of many Scots to no less of a degree.

Oh dear. We can see whats going on alright. Some on here have been saying we were being played for around a year, maybe longer. Remember the final scene. Was it not played out at 7am by Dave on the steps of Downing Street on the morning after. Darling begged him not to and then walked. The Labour leader plus her deputy walked. The " establishment " won the day as we all thought would happen all along. We were told how we would be better together. We should know our place and fall back into line. Every Lord and his Supermarket / Bank had their say. You joined in Sir !!!! Too small, too poor etc your still at it

There was a way that we could of ended the Tories ruling over us. You argued against us going down that road. Labour have taken Scottish voters for granted for decades. LJS tried to tell you months ago about the old red rosette on a monkey line. They have abandoned us trying to chase middle englanders. Scotland became a " Branch Office " according to their Leader remember. Not my words.

Surely you didn`t urge us to stay as you were also assuming " we " would still vote for Labour and save us all from the Tories ?

You said back then that we would be looking at new Labour Govt in May. Now you know that might not be the case as the good folks in England maybe don`t fancy it.

IF......we return a majority of Labour MP`s from the seats up my way but the good folks in England vote Tory, who will you blame then ?

I still think that will happen ( Labour majority up here ) and then Labour will claim a great victory for Jimbo. He is never off the BBC and the Record love him so he has has a good chance as the Labour majorities in some areas are massive.

I think the big test for him will be in our elections the year after and I honestly expect Labour to get hammered in that one. Some talk that Jim might not stand in the GE. I still think he will. He has a massive majority but I think an element of doubt is creeping in ( not like him ). Clearly it would be a disaster for him if he lost. Maybe him and Salmond will miss out.

Edited January 25, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

No-one really knows but we may well have been on a different " path " .....

we might have been, tho that would require a sound economic approach. I've yet to see any UK politician advocate one that actually fits within reality. Salmond certainly hasn't given one at any point in the last 30 years.

But for going forwards, that's a pointless discussion anyway. The 80s and its oil money are long gone, and what any indy Scotland will need is a workable plan for tomorrow.

[eFestivals]

I think you are now in a position where whatever the SNP do you will refuse to accept that it could be a good thing.

Whoa!!! ....

You were using that SNP policy as a way to try and demonstrate that a UK version of the same policy is worse.

I merely pointed out that each version has to work within a different reality (the borders it operates within) - the very basis of devolution or indy for Scotland that you support!

You have posted on page after page about how the SNP take take take from the poor and give to the rich.

that's not what I've said. anyone might wonder why you feel the need to mis-represent what I've said, if the case for indy is so good and strong.

The SNP take from the poorest to benefit the middle classes - the very thing that Labour have done which you've said has been so abhorent.

I don't laugh at the SNP as much as I do those who blindly support them without giving the SNP the same scrutiny as they do other parties.

You have ignored ( or moved goal posts ) the fact that the SNP mitigated against the bedrrom tax

and yet they couldn't be bothered to vote against in Westminster.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why they say it's a bad thing to Scottish audience but actually act to ensure it remains officially in place from Westminster?

If you stopped for a moment and considered that, you could not reasonably conclude anything but that Salmond is playing the people in Scotland.

He's not playing the Scottish people for the advantage of the Scottish people; he's playing the Scottish people for his own advantage.

You failed to see the good when the SNP provided money to insulate the homes of folk living in fuel poverty

when there's been pretty much that policy in England for the last 10+ years I can't see it as a big deal. I've spent more time fending off cold calls from people offering to insulate my home for free than it would have taken to carry out that insulating.

(PS: no fuel poverty needed to get the freebie in England, it's (been?*) available to any homes in need of insulation.).

(* I'm unsure if it's still running, I've not had a call for 6 months or so now).

and now folk that can afford to buy a big hoose will pay 12% in tax up from 7%.

Well, it's a policy, yeah .. but when perhaps a mile away a person could pay just 7% and save themselves £50k for each million they spend, there's a risk of driving the wealthy out of Scotland and making Scotland's already-bad financial position even worse.

These are the problems with devolution. Ultimately it only brings about a race to the bottom by putting parts of an island in competition with each other (precisely why NI has had to submit to the inevitable and lower its tax base even more, with corp tax to match the Eire rate).

And actually, i'm not a big fan of high purchase taxes for properties, as it makes those expensive properties cheaper while making mid-range ones more expensive as the changed market conditions works its way thru all of the market, causing the costs to ultimately be borne by the poorest when they purchase a cheap house.

Much better would be a rating system very similar to the one of old that is based on land/property value that charges for use and not for purchase - because, after all, one person's use of valuable land denies all others use of that land, and as all land is everyone's everyone must be compensated for what they're being denied.

Serious questions : do you think this increase is a good move ? Do you recognise that NS is getting somewhere on the living wage ? I`ll assume your happy with the Bedroom tax being binned along with the end of rates exemptions for shooting estates. Surely these should make us all pleased or are you sticking with Salmond eats too much and has a smug coupon

Just think how much more England could do if it didn't give its money to Scotland.

Just think how much more England could do if it had 20+% more to spend on each person as Scotland has.

There are different things that England could do with the current money it has, sure - but it does not have the same options open to it as Scotland, because it does not have as much to spend.

But ... England has better support services for the poor, because it's not robbed them as much as Scotland has in recent years to give new privileges to the middle classes.

You are not comparing like with like, and until you do the evaluations you're making are not so great.

[russycarps]

it's ok, haggis exports have gone up a massive 51% to a whopping £4.85million. I seem to recall one of the raving Yes voters in this thread citing haggis as one of the exports the scottish economy would be depending on if they went independent.

this would more than cover the shortfall from the fall in oil revenue right? Right?!

[eFestivals]

We were told how we would be better together.

Scotland was, yep. And most of Scotland agreed that it was better together. Those who agreed that they were better together are happy together.

Those who do not wish to be together are the on-going problems. One day you might notice what you're causing.

When you vote for a not-together party, is that you trying to be together with England?

And when you vote for not-together, are England meant to not notice?

It's one thing to go along with 'together', it's another thing entirely when there is little chance of together.

Will the SNP represent 'together'? Or will they, as they've explicitly said, try and get the best deal for Scotland without regard for the impact on the rest of the UK?

Care to tell me how that's together?

The right response from any together-ist to someone who ridicules and undermines together while saying together isn't there and ensuing that it isn't is to tell that separatist where to go.

You the splitter don't like that? Oh well, together-ists don't like splitters much either. Together only works with those who want to be together.

We should know our place and fall back into line.

Almost. You should know that your place is as part of a togetherness, and not be acting like a spoilt tory 2 year old saying "me me me" as Scotland does.

There's more than Scotland in the UK. Within the UK, there is no Scotland.

You joined in Sir !!!! Too small, too poor etc your still at it

The joining in I'm seeing is you joining in with Salmond's lies - you know, the man responsible for those "Too small, too poor" words, and who repeats them enlessly as many nats do (you've just joined in!).

I've said many times that Scotland is perfectly able to be a viable country, but you only have lies like those above as a comeback to an inconvenient truth.

Nigeria is also a viable country.

Viable covers everything. Unfortunately for Scotland, the money it has available to spend doesn't cover everything it would like to spend on.

So that means cuts in public services (15+% more than tory cuts) to make it viable.

Did Salmond offer you that truth about Scotland, or did Mr-Scotland-who-stands-up-for-scotland bullshit the people of Scotland and not do his best for the people of Scotland?

Vote indie if you wish, but know what you are voting for. Salmond will not tell you, but the numbers will do.

There was a way that we could of ended the Tories ruling over us.

PMSL

Vote SNP, get tory.

The tories even have a poster saying that.

They have abandoned us trying to chase middle englanders.

which is very different to the SNP abandoning the poor to chase middle Scotlanders.

Who do you think these new SNP voters are? The polls get to prove that only a tiny percentage are ex-Labour.

Surely you didn`t urge us to stay as you were also assuming " we " would still vote for Labour and save us all from the Tories ?

I assumed nothing.

I was hoping that Scotland wasn't stupid enough to punch itself in the face, but it looks like that hope is misplaced.

Oh well, the left-ists of England will have to suffer the result caused by the Thatcherites of Scotland.

It's taken a while for Thatcherism to hit Scotland, and the Scottish thought the English version was bad? PMSL.

You said back then that we would be looking at new Labour Govt in May. Now you know that might not be the case as the good folks in England maybe don`t fancy it.

If Labour get the expected 33%+ plus of the UK vote with little of those votes from Scotland, then the good folks of England will certainly be fancying it.

And then people like you in Scotland will hand over the win to the tories.

IF......we return a majority of Labour MP`s from the seats up my way but the good folks in England vote Tory, who will you blame then ?

It depends. If the SNP turncoats like you have caused a Tory victory when Scottish 2010 voting would have caused a Labour victory, then i'll be blaming you.

And laughing at you for punching yourself in the face.

[Comfy Bean]

But for going forwards, that's a pointless discussion anyway. The 80s and its oil money are long gone, and what any indy Scotland will need is a workable plan for tomorrow.

Indeed. That`s what I said. An Indy Scotland may have built on and invested any surplus during the 80`s or equally they may have pissed it into the wind. Like what actually happened ! but as I said in the post you were replying to......I`m not sure there`s much to be gained from discussing the 80`s.

I agree, it`s pointless.

[Comfy Bean]

Honestly don`t know what you mean by " SNP turncoats like you " ?

We`ve been over and over the Bedroom Tax. As I`ve said before, the SNP paid any shortfall it caused in folks rent HB deductions via the Scottish Welfare Fund. You keep banging on about the vote. I`m assuming you know the context of that. I accept you think Salmond was all for the Bedroom Tax. I`m assuming anyone who suffered as a result of it and lives in Scotland will know the truth. I have no issue with you thinking I continue to make this all up. I won`t raise the way the SNP dealt with the Bedroom Tax or comment on it again. Lets agree to disagree

I understand the arithmetic of your arguement in that any seats Labour lose to the SNP won`t help them get the total number they need in WM but I`m confused by some of the stuff you say around it. All this " punch yourself in the face " talk seems a bit unnecessary

Do you think that everyone should vote tactically ?

Is someone voting Green in a Labour marginal punching themselves in the face ? What if the environment is a key issue for them, Perhaps someone is going to frack the feck out of a field behind where they live ?

Would you prefer we only had 2 options, just do away with the smaller parties ?

Do you agree that it gets harder and harder to tell the difference between the big 2. What will it be like in 10 years if things at Wm stay the same.

I`m not sure how many seats the Tories need to " win " as I need to look into what North Ireland seats mean in all this but say the Tories need 300 + and they get them all in England. Does this mean your whole SNP / Labour arguement is irrelevant ?

Not sure how things will turn out in May but I have been concerned for a while that Dave might do enough to get over the line.

I take it we ALL agree that an Independent Scotland would NOT have been ruled over by a Tory Government ?

[eFestivals]

Honestly don`t know what you mean by " SNP turncoats like you " ?

you say you want a govt of the left, but are determined to vote in a way that lessens what you say you want from happening.

Your desire for what just you want - you know, the Thatcherist cry of "me me me, just me, only me, always before you" - without regard for what others want has you prepared to punch yourself in the face to stop what you know is a better life for others, the others you claim to stand side by side with - but very clearly do not!!!

I see you for what you are.

I`m assuming you know the context of that.

Yep. It's the same context as everything the SNP do. Their primary function is to create division, not to to what is right.

Which is why they say they're against the bedroom tax, but in their very real actions (rather than empty words) they support its continuation.

And in doing so they deny Scotland extra block grant money, and so do the worst for the Scottish people by all measures you might make.

But you just pretend they always do the best for Scotland, yeah?

I accept you think Salmond was all for the Bedroom Tax. I`m assuming anyone who suffered as a result of it and lives in Scotland will know the truth.

It makes no difference to anyone hit by the bedroom tax in Scotland if it's abolished by Westminster or Holyrood.

It DOES make a difference to all of Scotland tho where that abolishon takes place. If it's abolished by Salmond it's paid for out of the block grant, and if it's abolished in Westminster the block grant goes up and Scotland benefits.

Work it out. Can you work out Salmond's duplicity which you unthinkingly support?

I understand the arithmetic of your arguement in that any seats Labour lose to the SNP won`t help them get the total number they need in WM but I`m confused by some of the stuff you say around it. All this " punch yourself in the face " talk seems a bit unnecessary

yo9u say you don't want a tory govt. You could vote to 100% ensure you doin'#t get a tory govt.

But instead you'll punch yourself in the face by causing yourself to have what you say you don't want.

It's very very simple.

But perhaps too simple for someone who still can't see how Salmond would have bankrupted Scotland?

Do you think that everyone should vote tactically ?

I think people should vote for the ideas they support.

And those who'll vote like you clearly support a tory govt ruling over Scotland more than they do a Labour govt ruling over Scotland, because otherwise they wouldn't be using their vote in a way that benefits the tories and works against Labour.

Cos it's not like you're getting an SNP govt ruling over Scotland from the vote you'll make in May, is it?

Is someone voting Green in a Labour marginal punching themselves in the face ?

Yep - unless voting Green is more important to them than the consequences that will come onto them via the election result.

What if the environment is a key issue for them, Perhaps someone is going to frack the feck out of a field behind where they live ?

Ones a Green, ones a Thatcherite nimby, but both vote Green.

And in Scotland there's SNP supporters those who want indie and then there's the Thatcherites who consider "me me me" as the most important thing to vote for ... and both of those are the same thing.

How you vote says nothing of you. It's the why of your vote that reveals all.

[eFestivals]

Would you prefer we only had 2 options, just do away with the smaller parties ?

if I get the choose the options, I'll choose a much better set-up than that.

But I don't get to choose the options, I get no choices at all beyond my vote - a vote that has never once given me the representative I've voted for BTW (so Scotland gets a better deal than me already!!).

I only get to live under the result, and what I want is the least bad result that's available to live under ... and that's not the fucking tories which your vote will help support.

Do you agree that it gets harder and harder to tell the difference between the big 2.

Nope. And that's because I'm listening to what both are proposing, rather than relying on what I 'believe' that I've made up from the bollocks in my head contrary to all known facts.

That's rather similar to how I read the Scottish white paper and you didn't - and instead you went with what you wanted to 'believe' the white paper said and not what it actually said.

What will it be like in 10 years if things at Wm stay the same.

when the SNP are the party with proposals for changing Westminster as opposed to splitting Scotland from Westminster you might have a point there.

Not sure how things will turn out in May but I have been concerned for a while that Dave might do enough to get over the line.

and if he does, your vote will have taken him over the line.

Mine will not have. My vote will be an anti-tory vote, your vote will be a me-first vote.

Me-first is Thatcherism at its finest so it will be very appropriate that SNP voters give themselves the tories as their govt.

[russycarps]

Basing an economy on a product that poisons millions of people a year to death. Shame on you scotland....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-31003387

[eFestivals]

could someone tell me please - cos i genuinely don't know - if the "full fiscal automony" which is the SNP's planned demand of a Labour govt would include a Barnet-style top-up as a part of that demand, or not?

[Comfy Bean]

Basing an economy on a product that poisons millions of people a year to death. Shame on you scotland....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-31003387

Why is there a green 1 upvote thingy against this. I`m assuming your tongue was firmly in your cheek here Russ?

Looks like you caught one from an unexpected pond

[Comfy Bean]

could someone tell me please - cos i genuinely don't know - if the "full fiscal automony" which is the SNP's planned demand of a Labour govt would include a Barnet-style top-up as a part of that demand, or not?

Evening Neil. It`s an ever moving feast as you know. News today ( link attached ) that the SNP won`t need to demand anything ! Labour making another pledge.

From the article today : Milliband " This will be rule home rule for Scotland in the 21st century, giving Scotland the powers it needs ".

More polls out and this does remind me a bit of what happened before the Indy vote when Labour made the original vow.

I`m still thinking that the SNP won`t get anything like the 40+ seats being predicted but Jimbo certainly hasn`t enjoyed much of a bounce ( so far ). I`m guessing that the SNP will stick to the no deal with Tory and no deal with Labour unless they scrap Trident. This will see them avoid going into bed ( lib dem style ) with any of the 2 of them.

[Comfy Bean]

In other news today........

“I always believed the Labour party stood for social democracy but sadly, I no longer believe they do and, as I say, it is with deep sadness that I am resigning from the party – a party I believed in but has now failed in the last few years to live up to its basic principles.

“I feel the Scottish National party is the party taking forward values of social justice and represents Scotland’s best interests and that is why I have, like many other Labour supporters, decided to become a member of the SNP.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/29/actor-brian-cox-quits-labour-join-snp

Reminded me of the words I heard in our town hall from Jim Sillars last year. One of the reasons he wanted an Independent Scotland was that he believed that it was the only way he could imagine ever voting for the Labour Party again.

Edited January 29, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

Heard a rumour today from our Union guy at work that Unite " could " support the SNP in the Scottish election next year. This may of course not be the case ( nothing on google ) but they are losing members and have also for a while ( not just since the indy vote ) been getting requests from new and also long standing members to remove the donation to the Labour Party from their subs. As everyone is entitled to do.

This will not happen before the GE but will be interesting to see what happens after. He reckons not till July for various reasons. Sorry if a bit vague . Seemed relevant after the words earlier today from the actor fella who used to do the Labour party ad voice overs.

We had a blether on here about Scottish Labour not going with the Union man Findlay in the leadership election.

Edit : Found this from Unite from November last year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11230007/Len-McCluskey-Labour-will-lose-general-election-if-Jim-Murphy-is-elected-Scottish-leader.html

Edited January 29, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

Can I ( dare I ) return to the subject of " punching in the face ". I see you have ignored my suggestion that this seems an overly aggressive form of words to use in our friendly debate . Along with " people like you ", when you don`t actually know the people you are referring to. Most unneccesary. I much preferred you referring to me as a 2 year old Tory....now that was funny....wrong on both counts as fine you know....but it made me chuckle

Anywayz, what if your GE voting intentions previously have been different. You know ( as I`ve told you ) that I have never voted for the Tories in any election ever but what if you change your mind Neil ?

What if in the future ( or the past ) you decide the Labour Party was totally useless and you didn`t like their policies and ( bare with me ) you found yourself more aligned to what you were hearing from the Tories. If you change sides and were voting for the Tories, would that mean that all of the people in Scotland currently " punching themselves in the face " according to your view, stop punching ( in your view ) and all the folk on the other side of the fence then become the ones doing the punching because they disagree with what you want ( at that moment )

There must have been an easier way for me to explain that but it`s beyond me ( as you know )

I`m not understanding why you think that someone who is voting for the Greens, as the environment is the most important issue for them, can be " punching themselves in the face " just because their one vote is not for the same party as your one vote ? Surely they are voting for what they believe in ?

Edited January 29, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

I see the poster has been updated.

[MichaelsBeard]

Why do a lot of yes supporters believe 'the vow' wasn't carried out because they weren't given full home rule? At no point in the vow did it ever mention giving Scotland that. It merely said we'd be given new powers on a set timescale. So far it's being followed through word for word.

[eFestivals]

Evening Neil. It`s an ever moving feast as you know. News today ( link attached ) that the SNP won`t need to demand anything !

They've already said what their demands are, and that's full fiscal autonomy.

More polls out and this does remind me a bit of what happened before the Indy vote when Labour made the original vow.

are you referring to the polls which say only 30% of Scottish people want more than Smith will give them. Those polls?

------

So, no answer to what I asked? Haven't you even got a version that you 'believe' that may or may not have any relationship to what Salmond has said?

[eFestivals]

Reminded me of the words I heard in our town hall from Jim Sillars last year.

when he said about how iScotland couldn't pay it's way and would have to increase borrowing?

(he said those words!).

[eFestivals]

Can I ( dare I ) return to the subject of " punching in the face ". I see you have ignored my suggestion that this seems an overly aggressive form of words to use in our friendly debate .

it's merely some words to indicate self-harm.

You know, where you say you want one thing but then vote in a way which supports the opposite, achiveing the opposite of what you say you want.

Along with " people like you ", when you don`t actually know the people you are referring to.

last time I said "people like you" it was to the words "zip up the back".

Which seems to me to be a common(ish) Scottish phrase, because i've only ever seen Scots say it.

"people like you" are Scots. How very insulting of me to call you Scottish. :lol

Anywayz, what if your GE voting intentions previously have been different. You know ( as I`ve told you ) that I have never voted for the Tories in any election ever but what if you change your mind Neil ?

you're welcome to suggest, tho you won't find me using my vote in a way that is deliberately designed to make a tory victory more likely.

If Scotland votes SNP, Scotland gets the tories. Yes, it really is that simple.

If you chose to go along with that, it's no different to voting tory. We all know what the result a vote like that will be.

What if in the future ( or the past ) you decide the Labour Party was totally useless and you didn`t like their policies and ( bare with me ) you found yourself more aligned to what you were hearing from the Tories.

well, I guess the first Scotsman admitting he prefers the tories is at least a start with Scottish clarity.

It's still based in a falacy tho, as you've find out with the extra £5Bn of cuts you're voting yourself by voting tory and not Labour.

(mind you, it's still better than the 10% of cuts that the SNP are offering you with full fiscal autonomy).

There must have been an easier way for me to explain that but it`s beyond me ( as you know )

I`m not understanding why you think that someone who is voting for the Greens, as the environment is the most important issue for them, can be " punching themselves in the face "

If you're voting for the extract-all-the-oil-and-burn-it Scottish greens, care to tell me how that's not punching your wish for a greener world in the face?

You want to think the English parties as stupid, but you do pretty well up there all by yourselves.

just because their one vote is not for the same party as your one vote ? Surely they are voting for what they believe in ?

Your vote does not deliver you want you want in any voting system, it merely accumulates towards the overall result

If you were smart, you'd vote for an outcome you can believe in, whilst taking the views of your countrymen into account too.

That's the best that any democratic system can offer you - an *outcome* that you can believe in. Ideas that you might personally believe in mean fuck all in an election unless there's enough others with you.

Edited January 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Why do a lot of yes supporters believe 'the vow' wasn't carried out because they weren't given full home rule? At no point in the vow did it ever mention giving Scotland that. It merely said we'd be given new powers on a set timescale. So far it's being followed through word for word.

Those yes supporters won't accept anything but a yes result.

Sadly for them they've yet to wake up to the fact that they're a shrinking group, as only 30% of Scots think Smith doesn't go far enough.

And the more they shout, the more others move away from them.

[eFestivals]

could someone tell me please - cos i genuinely don't know - if the "full fiscal automony" which is the SNP's planned demand of a Labour govt would include a Barnet-style top-up as a part of that demand, or not?

so anyway .... is anyone here that says they'll be voting SNP able to tell me what the SNP want?

As they're supporting that party, surely they know what they're supporting?

Edited January 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

Can I ( dare I ) return to the subject of " punching in the face ". I see you have ignored my suggestion that this seems an overly aggressive form of words to use in our friendly debate . Along with " people like you ", when you don`t actually know the people you are referring to. Most unneccesary. I much preferred you referring to me as a 2 year old Tory....now that was funny....wrong on both counts as fine you know....but it made me chuckle

Anywayz, what if your GE voting intentions previously have been different. You know ( as I`ve told you ) that I have never voted for the Tories in any election ever but what if you change your mind Neil ?

What if in the future ( or the past ) you decide the Labour Party was totally useless and you didn`t like their policies and ( bare with me ) you found yourself more aligned to what you were hearing from the Tories. If you change sides and were voting for the Tories, would that mean that all of the people in Scotland currently " punching themselves in the face " according to your view, stop punching ( in your view ) and all the folk on the other side of the fence then become the ones doing the punching because they disagree with what you want ( at that moment )

There must have been an easier way for me to explain that but it`s beyond me ( as you know )

I`m not understanding why you think that someone who is voting for the Greens, as the environment is the most important issue for them, can be " punching themselves in the face " just because their one vote is not for the same party as your one vote ? Surely they are voting for what they believe in ?

I don't think Neil's phrase is really that far from the common expression of 'cutting your nose to spite your face'.

Apologies, but really don't understand your hypothetical.

I think the crux of all these discussions is whether you would rather have an SNP MP or a Non-Tory PM. There's a chance you can have both, but far from guaranteed. If you (Scotland constituencies) sacrifice your SNP MP, then the chances of a Tory PM are reduced.

Similarly in a English constituency where the winner is likely Green vs Lab, then a vote to Labour reduces the chance of a Tory PM.

To really simplify it - add up all the red bits of the map and all the blue bits, whoever has the most is likely to be PM. If you start substituting red for 'yellow, but not libdem yellow' then the odd change. It's just maths.

Or come May, vote SNP, but please don't come out with 'look, another tory government that we didn't vote for'

[Comfy Bean]

I don't think Neil's phrase is really that far from the common expression of 'cutting your nose to spite your face'.

Apologies, but really don't understand your hypothetical.

I think the crux of all these discussions is whether you would rather have an SNP MP or a Non-Tory PM. There's a chance you can have both, but far from guaranteed. If you (Scotland constituencies) sacrifice your SNP MP, then the chances of a Tory PM are reduced.

Similarly in a English constituency where the winner is likely Green vs Lab, then a vote to Labour reduces the chance of a Tory PM.

To really simplify it - add up all the red bits of the map and all the blue bits, whoever has the most is likely to be PM. If you start substituting red for 'yellow, but not libdem yellow' then the odd change. It's just maths.

Or come May, vote SNP, but please don't come out with 'look, another tory government that we didn't vote for'

Morning G.

Fair enough on not understanding my hypothetical. I was struggling a bit with it myself mate. I`ll try again in a minute.

I totally disagree with your point around " cutting your nose off to spite your face ". In the scenario I gave /made up, we were in a neck and neck constituency where either the Greens or Labour would win. I asked if a voter who had the environment as their key, number 1 issue and who was also faced with someone going to " frack the feck out of a field behind their home " would also be accused of punching themselves in the face by Neil. He replied " Yep ".

In what way would this green party voter be cutting their nose off ?

I`ve mentioned a couple of times that I understand the maths around Neils arguement. I thought Scotland could / should be an Independent Country but 55% disagreed with me. I am pleased that we had the vote and onwards and upwards I hope ( the dream will never die ). I have never once accused all these people who disagreed with me of " punching themselves in the face ". At this time, they didn`t think it was a good idea as they are entitled to think. My point with Neils form of words is that it could be seen as he is right beyond doubt and that anyone who disagrees with him ( and his opinion ) is punching themselves in the face. Unless he actually is always right, then there is no sense ( as I see it ) in anyone having that view of people who disagree with them. This was why I was attempting to bring in the sceario of how we should view this if Neil ( or anyone of course ) decide they want to change their views on something.....which is allowed.

Put it another way. I have never heard you saying that anyone voting for Labour in Scotland is punching themselves in the face.