The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

PS: but don't forget, Labour can do the same process with other parties too, spo where the SNP might be difficult demanding a more-left (but also more stupid) policy, the chances are that they'll be enough support elsewhere for it to go thru.

The naive view is yours, where you're seeming to think that 3.7% snippers get a veto over UK govt. It's laughable.

[LJS]

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?

The point is to make Labour betteer which will benefit the entire UK. Oor wee Nic has made it clear that her aim will be to act for the benefit of both Scotland & the UK.

Of course, that requires the SNP to be realistic in what they demand for Scotland. I'm guessing we'll disagree on the probability of that, so don't pmsling yourself again :)

Edited March 17, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

PS: but don't forget, Labour can do the same process with other parties too, spo where the SNP might be difficult demanding a more-left (but also more stupid) policy, the chances are that they'll be enough support elsewhere for it to go thru.

The naive view is yours, where you're seeming to think that 3.7% snippers get a veto over UK govt. It's laughable.

You are correct...depending on the post election maths, other combos are of course possible.

& I said nothing of a veto.

[eFestivals]

The point is to make Labour betteer which will benefit the entire UK.

yeah, cos "better" is only voting for something good if you've been bribed to do the right thing.

Meanwhile, Labour is better than the SNP, as the Labour policies prove and you'd know if you did facts and not fantasies.

Oor wee Nic has made it clear that her aim will be to act for the benefit of both Scotland & the UK.

and to do that she'd first need to have some policies which would be good for the UK.

Get back to me when she gets around to finding even one.

Of course, that requires the SNP to be realistic in what they demand for Scotland. I'm guessing we'll disagree on the probability of that, so don't pmsling yourself again :)

We know what their main demands are (even if we don't know the detail of th0ose demands).

1. no Trident renewal - with 3.7% of the population trying to set the defence of the UK, with all of that movement based within their own false myths.

2. greater devolution than Smith, when only 30% of Scots think Smith doesn't go far enough, and where the majority of Scots don't support the SNP's position.

3. spend more money we don't have - tho that idea is an absolute necessity for t5he SNP to go with, else their inddie dream is fucked via the huge public spending cuts Scotland would need to balance its books.

So we have a demand to be bribed to do the right thing, the tail wagging the dog, anti-democracy, and financial ineptitude.

And that's your "principled" and "better", is it? :lol

I say the average kipper has a greater sense of realism.

[eFestivals]

& I said nothing of a veto.

and yet you're saying that if Labour don't bribe the SNP the SNP will bring Labour down.

It's both a claim at a veto of being able to stop the UK govt enacting policy if it's not to Scottish satisfaction, and your clear support for corrupt political methods.

And you claim that as "principled" and "better".

Can i have some of what you're taking please?

------

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there are not "better" SNP policies, only vacuous idiocy that thinks the books don't have to be balanced, and that robbing the poor tpo create even bigger debts on the poor is somehow a good thing.

Edited March 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Minority governments the world over work by negotiations between large & small parties to reach agreements on what the smaller parties will support. If you believe this process is effectively "bribes" for the smaller parties, I suggest it is time you reconsider your support for PR, because under PR will open up a wealth of opportunities for "bribery"

...or let me guess, it's only bribery when it's the SNP.

Off to look out my incontinence pants as I await your reply.

Edited March 18, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Minority governments the world over work by negotiations between large & small parties to reach agreements on what the smaller parties will support. If you believe this process is effectively "bribes" for the smaller parties, I suggest it is time you reconsider your support for PR, because under PR will open up a wealth of opportunities for "bribery"

...or let me guess, it's only bribery when it's the SNP.

Off to look out my incontinence pants as I await your reply.

I'm simply pointing out that it *IS* bribery, and so via that the SNP are anything but the "principled" you're claiming for them.

Got it?

They are just another grubby set of self-interested individuals where the purpose is power and not doing good.

If they planned to do good things for Scotland, they wouldn't be campaigning to make you poorer but keeping that part unsaid.

You can fall for their bollocks if you like, it's your right. But I'm going to laugh at your self-centred naivety, where your factually-baseless hatred of Labour clouds everything of your intelligence.

[LJS]

I'm simply pointing out that it *IS* bribery, and so via that the SNP are anything but the "principled" you're claiming for them.

Got it?

They are just another grubby set of self-interested individuals where the purpose is power and not doing good.

If they planned to do good things for Scotland, they wouldn't be campaigning to make you poorer but keeping that part unsaid.

You can fall for their bollocks if you like, it's your right. But I'm going to laugh at your self-centred naivety, where your factually-baseless hatred of Labour clouds everything of your intelligence.

Beautiful, I'm being lectured on principle in politics by a man who says I should vote labour, the party that has abandoned pretty much every principle it ever stood for in the pursuit of power.

I see they now say they don't represent the unemployed or people on benefits.

[eFestivals]

Beautiful, I'm being lectured on principle in politics by a man who says I should vote labour, the party that has abandoned pretty much every principle it ever stood for in the pursuit of power.

and that's different to the SNP how exactly?

At least the Labour party had some principles in the first place, so even on that they beat the SNP hands down.

But lets forget making claims at each other, let's talk policies. Why are Labour nasty and the SNP so very much nicer LJS?

No bullshit in the reply, please, just references to stated policies.

(PS: "spend more money" is not a policy without having a policy for how to pay it back and who pays it back).

I see they now say they don't represent the unemployed or people on benefits.

Do they? Link.

Or might it be just another fruitcake snipper fantasy, as nutty as anything UKIP say?

Edited March 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Do they? Link.

Or might it be just another fruitcake snipper fantasy, as nutty as anything UKIP say?

"However, Reeves said Labour did not want to be seen to be the party of the welfare state. We are not the party of people on benefits. We dont want to be seen, and were not, the party to represent those who are out of work, she said. Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.

Reeves is treading in difficult political territory, eager to highlight the fallout from the governments austerity policies without appearing to be soft on the rising cost of welfare.

Shortly after being appointed, 18 months ago, Reeves said Labour would be tougher than the Conservatives on cutting the benefits bill; this week, she said she had robust policies to ensure that the spending would reduce."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/17/labour-vows-to-reduce-reliance-on-food-banks-if-it-comes-to-power

I shall be happy to debate policies with you once I've seen both parties' manifestos.

As you should be aware, I am not commited to vote snippy although I am more than happy to be their "spokesdude" on here as otherwise life would be terribly dull.

[eFestivals]

care to tell me which party is offering free money, so that they won't be "tough" on people on benefits in exactly the same way?

Labour don't want those people on benefits. They want them working, as a working person's party.

There's no contradictions there, and there's nothing nasty. It's playing to the right while trying to play to a thinking brain on the left.

It talks about cutting "the benefits bill", it doesn't talk about cutting benefits.

Spot the difference? Nope, you didn't, because cos you've turned off.

I bet you haven't even read the whole article, which is 180 degrees different to that snippet you've pulled out as a total mis-representation. The article is called "Labour vows to reduce reliance on food banks if it comes to power" FFS.

Read the fucking thing.

Don't make it up.

[eFestivals]

here's the meaningful part, rather than snippers bullshit, LJS....

“The big savings to be had are by tackling the root causes of the benefits bill,” she said. “If every young person who can work is working and if people are paid a wage that they can afford to live on, so they don’t have to draw down on housing benefit and tax credit, then that’s going to save a lot more money than all the talk in the world about shirkers and scroungers.”

[LJS]

care to tell me which party is offering free money, so that they won't be "tough" on people on benefits in exactly the same way?

Labour don't want those people on benefits. They want them working, as a working person's party.

There's no contradictions there, and there's nothing nasty. It's playing to the right while trying to play to a thinking brain on the left.

It talks about cutting "the benefits bill", it doesn't talk about cutting benefits.

Spot the difference? Nope, you didn't, because cos you've turned off.

I bet you haven't even read the whole article, which is 180 degrees different to that snippet you've pulled out as a total mis-representation. The article is called "Labour vows to reduce reliance on food banks if it comes to power" FFS.

Read the fucking thing.

Don't make it up.

You think I didn't read it? I may have selectively quoted ( I know, you would never stoop so low ) but Unless Ms Reeves has been misquoted she clearly & deliberately said what is in my quotes. I, for one, am not happy with a Labour Party that feels the need to say these things. There is no one standing up & saying "I'll tell you what, life is pretty fucking shit for most folk on benefits. We'd like to get as many of them off benefits as we can & when we can afford it we would like to increase benefits to the poorest." There is no one with the balls to point out how many benefits claimants are in work and no one with the bottle to say people are unemployed because "all us politicians fucked you all over."

All they can do is scapegoat them. Maybe you have faith in this Labour party to do something meaningful about it. I look at their record in government & I cannot share your faith.

You will no doubt tell me that they have no choice because public opinion would turn against them. How does anyone know this? Credit to Ed the Red. He stood up to all the anti business stuff in the past couple of weeks & stuck to his guns. Did it do him any harm? Not that I can see. I've posted recently an article pointing out that the two parties whose support has grown fastest in the UK are pro-imigration (you kind of avoided that one).

My point. You can challenge the received wisdom that the Sun sets the political agenda & all must follow. You can stand up for principle & still win votes. Maybe what we need is a party to actively campaign for causes they believe in. Labour has fuck all vision - all they offer is some tinkering at the edges of the UKCon project.

There... rant over. I feel much better now

p.s. I am not saying the SNP are much if at all better on most of these issues although they do at least appear to do the vision thing a bit better

[Comfy Bean]

Read the fucking thing.

Don't make it up.

I had missed the comments by Rachel Reeves until now. She did say “We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen, and we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work.” " from what I can see. Are you saying she has been misquoted Neil ? As you point out, she also goes on to say the stuff you mentioned above but these do look to be her words . Who is she trying to appeal to with this kind of talk and why are you defending it ?

This, to me, seems to be a bit like the convo we all had on here when you defended Labour`s words on immigration. Here we are in the run up to the election where the UK has just been put through 5 years of Tory cuts and Labour are talking about immigration and not being the party of folk on benefit. FFS you can see nothing wrong with Labour ? and blame everything on the SNP. Your only card remains " vote SNP get Tory " you are Jimbo Murphy, where do I claim my fiver

I was having a look earlier at the possibility of Scotland, Wales and Norn Ireland returning zero Tory MP`s and the Tories still forming the next Government. I know that it is a UK General election, I understand, that but surely even the biggest Unionist Rule Britannia types would be a bit affronted with that scenario.

I wonder who you will blame if we see the not so " grand coalition " ? I know you won`t blame Labour....even though that will lead to them being as dead as they appear to be in Scotland ( Polls still holding up although I still can`t see 45+ SNP MP`s when there are currently only 6 and we just had the NO vote ).

I remember in this very thread you were saying vote NO as the Tories will be out come May

Attached a couple of articles from Labour people on the benefits and immigration stuff......

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labour-have-said-they-dont-want-my-vote-so-where-am-i-supposed-go-now

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-risks-alienating-black-voters-with-nhs-immigration-leaflet-10014644.html

Edited March 18, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

Last, desperate, roll of the dice for Danny as he calls for a Unionist Alliance to save his seat. Not sure the donation " sting " will help his chances

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/danny-alexander-asks-tories-to-save-his-skin-1-3719004

[Comfy Bean]

The point is to make Labour better which will benefit the entire UK. Oor wee Nic has made it clear that her aim will be to act for the benefit of both Scotland & the UK.

Yip, that`s how I see it. It has been said that Labour M.P`s down South are not to upset at the prospect of this happening and I would imagine it is favorable to ANY type of deal with the Tories. The fact that SNP M.P`s are not interested in any " fancy " cabinet jobs with Milliband will of course free up lots of opportunities for said English Labour M.P`s.

So, that and less austerity.........whats not to like

[kaosmark2]

Maybe you have faith in this Labour party to do something meaningful about it. I look at their record in government & I cannot share your faith.

I agree with you about new-labour's record, but I don't actually think it's fair to associate the current Labour party with them TOO closely. Obviously there are ties, but I don't think they're necessarily so strong as to deny any hope in the current Labour administration doing anything decent.

Also, for all the faults of new-labour, they did introduce the minimum-wage, tax credits (albeit an incredibly flawed system that ultimately subsidises multinationals), childcare subsidy, and a number of other good policies that often get taken for granted now.

I think New-Labour did more harm than good, but I also think they did more good than a tory government would have done, and that their achievements shouldn't be glossed over because of the Iraq war, the recession, tuition fees and the other bad stuff they have responsibility for.

[LJS]

I had missed the comments by Rachel Reeves until now. She did say We are not the party of people on benefits. We dont want to be seen, and were not, the party to represent those who are out of work. " from what I can see. Are you saying she has been misquoted Neil ? As you point out, she also goes on to say the stuff you mentioned above but these do look to be her words . Who is she trying to appeal to with this kind of talk and why are you defending it ?

This, to me, seems to be a bit like the convo we all had on here when you defended Labour`s words on immigration. Here we are in the run up to the election where the UK has just been put through 5 years of Tory cuts and Labour are talking about immigration and not being the party of folk on benefit. FFS you can see nothing wrong with Labour ? and blame everything on the SNP. Your only card remains " vote SNP get Tory " you are Jimbo Murphy, where do I claim my fiver

I was having a look earlier at the possibility of Scotland, Wales and Norn Ireland returning zero Tory MP`s and the Tories still forming the next Government. I know that it is a UK General election, I understand, that but surely even the biggest Unionist Rule Britannia types would be a bit affronted with that scenario.

I wonder who you will blame if we see the not so " grand coalition " ? I know you won`t blame Labour....even though that will lead to them being as dead as they appear to be in Scotland ( Polls still holding up although I still can`t see 45+ SNP MP`s when there are currently only 6 and we just had the NO vote ).

I remember in this very thread you were saying vote NO as the Tories will be out come May

Attached a couple of articles from Labour people on the benefits and immigration stuff......

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labour-have-said-they-dont-want-my-vote-so-where-am-i-supposed-go-now

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-risks-alienating-black-voters-with-nhs-immigration-leaflet-10014644.html

Well said. Comfy. The new statesman article hits the nail on the head.

[LJS]

I agree with you about new-labour's record, but I don't actually think it's fair to associate the current Labour party with them TOO closely. Obviously there are ties, but I don't think they're necessarily so strong as to deny any hope in the current Labour administration doing anything decent.

Also, for all the faults of new-labour, they did introduce the minimum-wage, tax credits (albeit an incredibly flawed system that ultimately subsidises multinationals), childcare subsidy, and a number of other good policies that often get taken for granted now.

I think New-Labour did more harm than good, but I also think they did more good than a tory government would have done, and that their achievements shouldn't be glossed over because of the Iraq war, the recession, tuition fees and the other bad stuff they have responsibility for.

Indeed, they should be given credit for the minimum wage. "saving" the NHS & delivering Scottish devolution & a few other things. But they got worse over time & never really did anything significant to challenge the right of centre consensus in UK politics.

If I lived in England, in a marginal Tory/Labour seat. I would probably vote for them to keep the Tories out. We don't have any seats like that in Scotland.

Not any more.

[kaosmark2]

Indeed, they should be given credit for the minimum wage. "saving" the NHS & delivering Scottish devolution & a few other things. But they got worse over time & never really did anything significant to challenge the right of centre consensus in UK politics.

If I lived in England, in a marginal Tory/Labour seat. I would probably vote for them to keep the Tories out. We don't have any seats like that in Scotland.

Not any more.

The thing is though, your phrasing suggests you're prejudging the current Labour figures on the records of people they have limited ties to.

Unless something drastic changes, I won't be voting Labour in the GE, but I think the "Labour are bad" idea is excessively prevalent amongst a number of groups, with Scots, anyone who can't remember pre-97, and people distrustful of Ed personally being the prominent ones. I'd be perfectly happy voting Labour if I didn't live in a constituency where the Greens have a real chance, and I think it's a shame that so many instinctively reject them for no reason based on current policies.

[russycarps]

lol

SNP promise: £8bn.

Real life: £600m.

WOW. What a utter outrage. And to think, the raving yes mob in this thread actually campaigned under this lie! they tried to convince the ill informed that this was actually going to happen!

And the best bit? THEY ARE STILL GOING TO VOTE FOR THESE LIARS!

You couldn't make it up (unless you're in the SNP)

*********warning torygraph link**********

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11481010/SNPs-whopping-exaggeration-on-oil-revenues-laid-bare.html

[eFestivals]

I notice the SNP have shown themselves as the same grubby self-serving fuckers as everyone else.

And the snippers DON'T go "greedy c**ts".

Funny that, eh? It's nasty to ignore the people using foodbanks, unless it's the SNP spending money on themselves, the middle classes, or dead and pointless nationalistic things.

It's only the non-snippers that are self-serving. Oh, and the voting snippers of course.

The SNP themselves, they're just perfik.

[eFestivals]

lol

SNP promise: £8bn.

Real life: £600m.

WOW. What a utter outrage. And to think, the raving yes mob in this thread actually campaigned under this lie! they tried to convince the ill informed that this was actually going to happen!

And the best bit? THEY ARE STILL GOING TO VOTE FOR THESE LIARS!

You couldn't make it up (unless you're in the SNP)

*********warning torygraph link**********

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11481010/SNPs-whopping-exaggeration-on-oil-revenues-laid-bare.html

13% of Scottish govt revenues, flushed away in a moment via SNP lies.

And the SNP would increase public spending. :lol: :lol:

[MichaelsBeard]

lol

SNP promise: £8bn.

Real life: £600m.

WOW. What a utter outrage. And to think, the raving yes mob in this thread actually campaigned under this lie! they tried to convince the ill informed that this was actually going to happen!

And the best bit? THEY ARE STILL GOING TO VOTE FOR THESE LIARS!

You couldn't make it up (unless you're in the SNP)

*********warning torygraph link**********

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11481010/SNPs-whopping-exaggeration-on-oil-revenues-laid-bare.html

Probably, almost definitely England's fault though.

Amazing the SNP are never held to account for their bullshit. Especially when their supporters are so gleeful in chucking mud at the others.

[eFestivals]

You think I didn't read it?

either that, or your brain has died, or lies are all you do. Take your pick.