The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

Thanks LJS.

anything the islands like then, as lonbg as it's SNP approved - which means not everything the islands might like.

What happened with the teachers thing, btw, where the SNP were trying to force local councils to run up bigger debts because the SNP have taken their money for pet projects?

Don't be so dumb. No devolution of powers ever gives the devolvee (?) everything they want.

The SNP are certainly not unique in being overly protective of their own powers.

I can't speak for any other part of the UK, but in Scotland, I would suggest Holyrood has a better reputation & is more transparent than many local authorities.

Edited March 16, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

you'd think so, wouldn't you?

But there's nothing as greedy as the unprincipled with their eyes on power, so the tories and SNP are a perfect pairing.

The SNP version of 'supply' is one where they get a deal of some sort, of something in return for their support.

That was made 100% clear by Sturgeon's "we're prepared to compromise over Trident" statement of a week or so ago. If it's just voting for what they support and against what they don't, there'd have been no need for those Trident words.

So the SNP are now painted into a corner, where they have to be the lackies of one or other party. The tories will offer FFA for SNP support, tho it's hugely amusing that the SNP are likely to turn it down despite it being what they claim to want - because then the SNP's need for cutting spending would get exposed, and then the indie idea is fucked for all time.

So all that's left is "Vote SNP, get marginalised".

If the SNP enter any into sort of deal with the Tories, they are even crazier than you think they are.

As to what if anything they can extract from Labour, that remains to be seen. You may assert that they'll get nothing: funnily enough it's not up to you.

It's certainly true that their hands is weakened by ruling out any deal with the Tories. Quite admirable actually. Principle before the naked pursuit of power.

[eFestivals]

Labour have confirmed categorically that they will not form a coalition with the SNP & there will be no SNP ministers in a future Labour government. Which is fine except no one was suggesting either of these things was at all likely... Except for the Tories & some barmies in the English press.

the likes of you have suggested it as possible, while i've always said it was impossible.

"The BBC's assistant political editor Norman Smith noted that Mr Miliband had not ruled out a more informal arrangement whereby the SNP could offer a Labour minority government support on a vote-by-vote basis, known as "confidence and supply"."

That could mean one of two different things....

1. that the SNP are offered some titbiits for their support

or

2. the SNP get nothing, and are left to vote for or agaionst any policy as might suit them.

Version one is what the SNP did with the tories from 2007 to 2011.

Version two is what's on offer from Labour, which means nothing at all is on offer.

So the SNP have a choice of putting the tories into power, or being Labour's suckers. That'll do me.

[eFestivals]

If the SNP enter any into sort of deal with the Tories, they are even crazier than you think they are.

I don't think they will, tho the tories will quite happily screw them and expose them, if there's a tory govt.

All the tories need to do is to offer FFA, and the SNP and all chances of indie are screwed forever. It'll drive home just how big a hit Scotland would take by going indie, and too few will have the appetite for that.

As to what if anything they can extract from Labour, that remains to be seen. You may assert that they'll get nothing: funnily enough it's not up to you.

It's certainly true that their hands is weakened by ruling out any deal with the Tories. Quite admirable actually. Principle before the naked pursuit of power.

PMSL - one moment you're saying how screwed the SNP will be if they tied up with the tories, and the next you're claiming they're avoiding the tories as a principle.

The claimed "principle" is shown as bollocks by what the SNP did from 2007 to 2011.

So they're clearly not working from principle, and are instead working on the basis of electoral support and not principle.

You are welcome to keep dreaming that Labour will make it rain money in Scotland for the SNP. I'll keep on saying that's bollocks, and you'll have to face your own bollocks on 8th May.

Mind you, that electoral calculator I linked to the other day says that Labour don't need the SNP at all. That said that Labour and the LibDems will have enough seats for a majority.

(sadly, it's not a great reflection of the current opinion polling, as it still had Labour in the lead via a timed-running average - when recent polling has the tories with a clear lead over Labour, which hasn't worked thru to those averages as yet).

[LJS]

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/13/snp-remains-course-landslide/

Was surprised to see the lib dems down as far as this in Scotland. Similarly surprised that the Tories are holding their share of the vote since the 2010 GE. Not really looked at the Scottish polls, so interesting to see.

If you look at the graph in the article you linked to , you will see that the Tory vote doesn't vary much. Post Thatcher. they are pretty much down to their hardcore supporters & most of the rest of us simply don't consider them as an option.

[eFestivals]

No idea what you're on about here, Neil. Nicola, Willie & Ruth all "confessed" to taking drugs although they didn't enjoy them (of course!) Jim Murphy "couldn't remember" although later on his memory returned (presumably after consulting Labour HQ) & a spokesdude confirmed he had not taken drugs.

So the only puritan is Murphy.

do keep up.

I'm keeping up better than you.

Murphy said he'd glue-sniffed.

Sturgeon said one puff and then she threw up, like a typical puritan.

And while she didn't say "I've taken loads of drugs" but something to suggest the opposite, reading between Ruth Davidson's words it was clear she was saying she'd taken them loads.

[eFestivals]

Don't be so dumb. No devolution of powers ever gives the devolvee (?) everything they want.

The SNP are certainly not unique in being overly protective of their own powers.

More protective of their own powers than that hated nasty Westminster which allowed an indyref.

I can't speak for any other part of the UK, but in Scotland, I would suggest Holyrood has a better reputation & is more transparent than many local authorities.

It's got a fantastic reputation from people who will never allow themselves to reference the facts, and it's certainly transparent of their centralising bent (the very same thing they criticise Westminster for).

If you're every ready to reference the facts, I'm here for a discussion about them.

[eFestivals]

PMSL

The SNP and the tories in harmony, both desperate to shore up their votes.

Within minutes of the lunchtime announcement, the SNP and Tories issued similar statements to say that Miliband’s intervention made no difference on the grounds that he had stopped short of ruling out an informal deal with the SNP.

So now that the SNP are saying "vote SNP, get Labour", perhaps their voters can stop saying that's an insult when the tories say it? Oh, no ... that would require referencing the facts.

[LJS]

I'm keeping up better than you.

Murphy said he'd glue-sniffed.

Sturgeon said one puff and then she threw up, like a typical puritan.

And while she didn't say "I've taken loads of drugs" but something to suggest the opposite, reading between Ruth Davidson's words it was clear she was saying she'd taken them loads.

Go & check again Neil. Check what Murphy said.

I'll help you Neil

JIM Murphy was yesterday forced to issue a statement saying that he had never sniffed glue after declaring that the illegal habit was “the thing” where he grew up.

The Scottish Labour leader also denied taking any drugs after the subject was raised during a debate on Thursday which saw Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie admit to taking cannabis.

The issue of personal drug use among the leaders of Scotland’s political parties was raised at a debate they took part in at Glasgow University. Hosted by the Glasgow University Political Society, the event saw all four leaders asked if they had taken cannabis.

The First Minister, the Tory leader Ms Davidson and Scottish Lib Dem leader Mr Rennie confessed to using the drug in their youth.

Mr Murphy dodged the cannabis question when it was put to him by Radio Clyde political editor Colin MacKay, saying that glue sniffing “was the thing” in the housing scheme where he used to live.

Asked if she had taken cannabis Ms Sturgeon said: “I think I am actually on record as making an admission on this – once, probably, possibly at this university, but not in this Union I have to say – but it made me awful sick, so I didn’t do it again.”

When the same question was asked of Mr Rennie, he answered: “Yes… in my youthful days”, a response that brought cheers from the audience.

Then Ms Sturgeon attempted to press Mr Murphy further by asking: “Did you?”

The Labour leader replied: “I don’t remember. It was just a working class thing to do – sniffing glue out of crisp pokes. It was a dreadful, harmful thing that was in that community at that time.”

When she was asked if she had used cannabis, Ms Davidson answered: “I went to Buckhaven High School. What do you think?”

When pressed for a more direct answer, she added: “I’m with Nicola – once or twice. It made me really sick.”

if you really want to listen to them you can do so here...http://www.clyde1.com/localnews/exclusive-party-leaders-drug-confessions/#.VQKHV1H_pjI.twitter

Edited March 16, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Go & check again Neil. Check what Murphy said.

I'll help you Neil

ah, OK. I'd only heard what he'd said originally, not his clarification.

Anyway, it was Sturgeon's and Davison's words which had tickled me - one being the boring normal expected thing for that party, while the other was anything but that.

[LJS]

ah, OK. I'd only heard what he'd said originally, not his clarification.

Anyway, it was Sturgeon's and Davison's words which had tickled me - one being the boring normal expected thing for that party, while the other was anything but that.

actually I though tthey all did ok- if you listen to the recording Nicola leaps straight in to give a direct answer, Willie is pretty clear & Ruth does ok too. I don't think any of us are naive enough to expect any leading politician to admit to any significant drug use or that they found it in any way enjoyable.

I think most of us would expect them to remember without having to consult with head office first.

[LJS]

* and before you start with "they'll never do a deal with the tories", you're forgetting the Scottish govt from 2007 to 2011 when the SNP did a deal with the tories, and the rumours flying around that discussions have already taken place with the tories around a deal for after May.

Dearie me, that old story again, You'll be trotting out the old "SNP responsible for Thatcherism" nonsense next.

Fact: the SNP led a minority government (47 out of 129 seats) so they would have been unable to pass any legislation without support from one or more other parties. The only formal arrangement was with the Greens. They got some support from time to time from the Libdems but most support from the Tories. They did, of course have to make some concessions to these parties to get their support but the concessions were not massive & there was no ongoing arrangement with the Tories who indeed opposed a number of measures including reform of local government finance.

It is believed by many that the Tories supported the SNP largely to try & undo the harm done by their opposition to devolution in the first place.

But most crucially there is a world of difference between Tories supporting an SNP government for a few concessions & the SNP propping up a Conservative Government with little or no representation from Scotland.

PMSL

The SNP and the tories in harmony, both desperate to shore up their votes.

So now that the SNP are saying "vote SNP, get Labour", perhaps their voters can stop saying that's an insult when the tories say it? Oh, no ... that would require referencing the facts.

the SNP are 19% ahead (or thereabouts) with a vote share the Westminster parties can only dream of. I hardly think their vote needs shoring up.

The SNP are primarily saying vote SNP ... get SNP. with a subtext of opposition to any Tory government.

The Tories are in fact saying vote Labour get SNP.

the only things needing shoring up around here are your arguments.

[eFestivals]

Dearie me, that old story again,

that TRUE story, of the SNP happy to work with the tories.

Another true fact that yes-ers deny.

the SNP are 19% ahead (or thereabouts) with a vote share the Westminster parties can only dream of. I hardly think their vote needs shoring up.

the SNP have the same [percentage as they did in the indieref. Fancy that, a bunch of Scots who are unreconcilable to the UK.

Which is their right of course, but don't go fooling yourself that that 45% is the voice of Scotland. It's not, it's the exact opposite.

The SNP are primarily saying vote SNP ... get SNP. with a subtext of opposition to any Tory government.

if they oppose a tory govt, they cannot do different but support a Labour govt.

Cos if they don't support a Labour govt, they'll be supporting a tory govt instead.

They're the only two options, and none of the normal weasley words from the SNP can get away from that.

The SNP have pinned themselves into irrelevance in the next govt, where they can get nothing at all - apart from a tory govt.

[eFestivals]

I learnt a new word last night, that made me laugh a lot.

Snippy.

I'm amazed that I've not come across that one before, it's so bleeding obvious.

[LJS]

that TRUE story, of the SNP happy to work with the tories.

Another true fact that yes-ers deny.

And you conveniently choose to ignore the bit where I specifically addressed this point.

the SNP have the same [percentage as they did in the indieref. Fancy that, a bunch of Scots who are unreconcilable to the UK.

Which is their right of course, but don't go fooling yourself that that 45% is the voice of Scotland. It's not, it's the exact opposite.

I don't believe I have claimed that. It is however significantly more than Labour or The Conservatives get but no doubt whichever one of these win will proclaim that "the people have spoken"

if they oppose a tory govt, they cannot do different but support a Labour govt.

Cos if they don't support a Labour govt, they'll be supporting a tory govt instead.

They're the only two options, and none of the normal weasley words from the SNP can get away from that.

The SNP have pinned themselves into irrelevance in the next govt, where they can get nothing at all - apart from a tory govt.

As usual you oversimplify things. As long as they support a Labour government in any confidence vote, they can negotiate their terms for supporting any specific piece of policy.

Under the fixed term Parliament Act dissolving Parliament is much more difficult than it was before.

[eFestivals]

And you conveniently choose to ignore the bit where I specifically addressed this point.

No, I didn't ignore the part where you attempted to brush over the facts of what happened.

The SNP are quite happy to work with the tories.

You know, the very thing that snippers falsely accuse Labour of doing.

I don't believe I have claimed that. It is however significantly more than Labour or The Conservatives get but no doubt whichever one of these win will proclaim that "the people have spoken"

you might not have claimed that, tho snippers (as a generalisation) do.

And I can't see how 3.7% of the vote is the people speaking, but you can claim anything you like when you invent your own set of rules.

As usual you oversimplify things. As long as they support a Labour government in any confidence vote, they can negotiate their terms for supporting any specific piece of policy.

What you're missing is that they can ask, but they won't get.

Will they vote against good policies, and reveal themselves as not left wing? Will they side with the toiries, and reveal themselves as tartan tories?

What will happen is that Labour will implement their more-left policies than the SNP have, and snippers everywhere will claim that as a result of SNP pressure because they've never actually read Labour's policies to know what Labour's plans are.

It's all so very bleedin' obvious.

But at an opportune time - tho near the end of the parliament, just like '79, as an attempt to disassociate the SNP from what they'll be guilty of (toryism) - the SNP will cook up a row with Labour and withdraw support, to mug the snippers who don't fiollow the facts but who swallow SNP bollocks like a porn star swallows cum.

Under the fixed term Parliament Act dissolving Parliament is much more difficult than it was before.

not difficult at all. All it would take would be for the SNP to withdraw their support for Labour, and they'll be welcoming the tories again just like 1979.

[LJS]

No, I didn't ignore the part where you attempted to brush over the facts of what happened.

The SNP are quite happy to work with the tories.

You know, the very thing that snippers falsely accuse Labour of doing.

you might not have claimed that, tho snippers (as a generalisation) do.

And I can't see how 3.7% of the vote is the people speaking, but you can claim anything you like when you invent your own set of rules.

What you're missing is that they can ask, but they won't get.

Will they vote against good policies, and reveal themselves as not left wing? Will they side with the toiries, and reveal themselves as tartan tories?

What will happen is that Labour will implement their more-left policies than the SNP have, and snippers everywhere will claim that as a result of SNP pressure because they've never actually read Labour's policies to know what Labour's plans are.

It's all so very bleedin' obvious.

But at an opportune time - tho near the end of the parliament, just like '79, as an attempt to disassociate the SNP from what they'll be guilty of (toryism) - the SNP will cook up a row with Labour and withdraw support, to mug the snippers who don't fiollow the facts but who swallow SNP bollocks like a porn star swallows cum.

not difficult at all. All it would take would be for the SNP to withdraw their support for Labour, and they'll be welcoming the tories again just like 1979.

& why would they do that? Depending on the electoral maths, Labour would probably have a choice between seeking support from either the SNP or the Tories to get each piece of legislation passed. If they fail, they couldn't get their legislation through. But unless I am reading the act wrong, they can only get another election if they lose a specific "no confidence" motion or get a two thirds majority for the dissolution of parliament. So if they want legislation passed, they will need to do a deal with someone.

Would you prefer they cut a deal with the Tories?

[LJS]

It amazes me that you, as a passionate advocate of PR, are so negative about coalition/minority governments which would be pretty much inevitable with PR.

Edited March 17, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

& why would they do that?

withdraw their support. To mug people who aren't paying attention "we're different". Not that i'm saying they're not, but it'll be about creating a sense of difference rather than anything meaningful.

Depending on the electoral maths, Labour would probably have a choice between seeking support from either the SNP or the Tories to get each piece of legislation passed.

That's based in the idea of the SNP refusing to back sensible policies.

Are they only self-interested arseholes, or will they do things because it's the right thing to do?

Simple fact is: every policy that Labour puts forward will be able to get majority support without needing a deal, unless the SNP are only self interested arseholes - which is a winner for Labour if they do that.

If they fail, they couldn't get their legislation through.

that would mean the SNP being tories in disguise.

I'm happy for the SNP to show what they are. You and other Scots, less so.

But unless I am reading the act wrong, they can only get another election if they lose a specific "no confidence" motion or get a two thirds majority for the dissolution of parliament. So if they want legislation passed, they will need to do a deal with someone.

No.

If the SNP require a bribe for supporting sensible policies, Labour are the winner.

Because if the SNP vote against Labour they're siding with the tories. This is why the SNP are now Labour's puppets, unless the SNP are going to be tory puppets.

Would you prefer they cut a deal with the Tories?

would you prefer that the SNP do?

How can the SNP vote against Labour without supporting the tories? They can't.

The SNP have the choice of backing the tories, or backing Labour, or showing themselves as c**ts. How do you think it's going to play out?

Labour now have the SNP in their pockets.

[eFestivals]

It amazes me that you, as a passionate advocate of PR, are so negative about coalition/minority governments which would be pretty much inevitable with PR.

Why am I negative about parties voting for policies they support?

You're saying voting for bribes is the only way it can work. It's you who've got it wrong.

The SNP *HAVE TO* support Labour, or they're supporting the tories.

[kaosmark2]

I'm a much bigger fan of minority government than coalition government. Minority government requires parties to be careful about each policy. Coalition is too formal, and too weighted towards the senior figures of each party.

[eFestivals]

I'm a much bigger fan of minority government than coalition government. Minority government requires parties to be careful about each policy. Coalition is too formal, and too weighted towards the senior figures of each party.

yep, me too - but only if thwe parties involved are honest and vote for policies they support, and don't become mercenary - working only to bribes - as LJS thinks would be the right thing for the "principled" ( ) SNP to do.

are the SNP so dishonest they'll only vote for a policy if they get a specific pay off? If so, they really are tories.

[kaosmark2]

Minority government is much closer to the actual ideal of the parliamentary system - each constituency votes for a specific MP to represent them - as opposed to the party politics and whips system we have. Obviously party politics will still play a major role, but it makes rebels have that much more impact, which I'm sure will be a good thing.

[LJS]

yep, me too - but only if thwe parties involved are honest and vote for policies they support, and don't become mercenary - working only to bribes - as LJS thinks would be the right thing for the "principled" ( ) SNP to do.

are the SNP so dishonest they'll only vote for a policy if they get a specific pay off? If so, they really are tories.

What a load of naive simplistic twaddle. Of course there would be cross party discussions before votes are taken. If you really think a minority Labour government will just roll up to Westminster & say "here's today's vote, chaps, take it or leave it", you really are more of a nutter than you think I am. There would be discussions & any party offering support will expect some input into the legislation in return. It's how these things work. Edited March 17, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

What a load of naive simplistic twaddle. Of course there would be cross party discussions before votes are taken. If you really think a minority Labour government will just roll up to Westminster & say "here's today's vote, chaps, take it or leave it", you really are more of a nutter than you think I am. There would be discussions & any party offering support will expect some input into the legislation in return. It's how these things work.

That's nothing of the sort of dealing your glorious leader is on about. She's on about Labour having to bribe her for her support, to give Scotland things beyond what it might otherwise get.

Input into making good laws and getting agreement for a smooth passage (if possible) is pretty much the Westminster norm anyway. All parties prefer smooth business to difficult business.

If the SNP are getting nothing extra, care to remind me what the point of the SNP would be, in all meaningful reality?