The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

So, sorry Neil, you have taught me nothing other than ...

... what I've just taught you, that you've just admitted I've taught you.

Which makes you starting off saying "you've taught me nothing" ridiculous.

I didn't know it because she didn't do it. read her words - there is no instruction.

OK, not an instruction.

It's her desire that people in England split the anti-tory vote and so cause more tory MPs to get el;ected.

Is that any better? That it's her desire that the anti-tory vote is split so that the tories win.

She has very certainly and very clearly expressed her desire that people in England don't vote Labour.

And we all know what result her stated desire will cause.

She wants a tory govt.

Absolute pish. She has made it explicitly clear that she does want a labour government

except when she states her desire that people don't return Labour MPs.

You seem to have missed that part out of what she's said. Why is that?

Are you trying to hide her dupliciousness, just perhaps?

& wants to work with it.

You're not even right about that.

She's not said she "wants" to work with a Labour govt. She's said she will work a Labour govt, a different thing.

And she's said she'll only work with them if they do everything she asks, which then proves wrong her claim that she'll work with them.

The polls have hardly shifted at all over the past few weeks which is when all the anti SNP trash has been running. You got all excited when one poll showed the Tories 6 points ahead. It proved to be totally atypical,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/poll-tracker

And the anti-SNP stuff has been running for more than 6 weeks months now. It started with that poster of Miliband in Salmond's pocket on 9th March - the very moment when the gap started to close (and is now running about even), as that BBC graph shows.

I don't like the control-freakery of the SNP & have said so before. I don't quite recognise your description of the process though. I do think all major parties are guilty of it though.

The SNP are the only party that has anything like the SNP's 'pledge'.

A party only needs a internal formal anti-criticsm rule if what it advocates can't stand up to even internal scrutiny.

I've criticised the SNP many times & will continue to do so.

I think you should take up the comedy professionally.

Edited April 26, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

All the nasty rich people in Edinburgh are English I thought?

That's what the nationalists usually come out with

[eFestivals]

Miliband has ruled out all deals with the snp, now.

That leaves the SNP with the options of either voting on policies they support or bringing about a Tory govt.

Spot on, Ed!

[LJS]

... what I've just taught you, that you've just admitted I've taught you.

Which makes you starting off saying "you've taught me nothing" ridiculous.

You taught me two facts which you only know because you read the Sunday Times Rich List (or Wherever you got them from) it you want to claim that that makes you more knowledgeable, well done, you've earned the crown.

OK, not an instruction.

It's her desire that people in England split the anti-tory vote and so cause more tory MPs to get el;ected.

Is that any better? That it's her desire that the anti-tory vote is split so that the tories win.

She has very certainly and very clearly expressed her desire that people in England don't vote Labour.

And we all know what result her stated desire will cause.

She wants a tory govt.

If I was running the SNP (Ah, if only!!! ) & I wanted a Tory government I would certainly not be running the campaign the way the SNP are. I would be making far more explicit demands for my support and I'd probably engineer a couple of leaks which said the kinds of things the Tories are saying. The reason the polls ain't shifting is that the vast majority of people who buy the Tory nonsense are already voting Tory. if you look at the polls Labour voters are much less impressed. As a tactic for getting Independence, bringing about another unpopular Tory Government makes sense. But it's not the only tactic that makes sense & the way the SNP are campaigning makes it clear (to meat least) that it's not their tactic.

except when she states her desire that people don't return Labour MPs. You're repeating your lies again, Neil.

You seem to have missed that part out of what she's said. Why is that? because it's pish!

Are you trying to hide her dupliciousness, just perhaps? no I'm pointing out your duplicity & ability to make up words

You're not even right about that.

She's not said she "wants" to work with a Labour govt. She's said she will work a Labour govt, a different thing.

Oops, you got that wrong too.

"The SNP would support a Labour government at Westminster even if Conservatives had 40 more seats than Ed Miliband’s party, Nicola Sturgeon has said."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/nicola-sturgeon-says-the-snp-would-prop-up-a-labour-government-even-if-the-tories-had-a-40seat-lead-10200407.html

"In a clear attempt to set the path for a long-term alliance with Labour at Westminster, Sturgeon insisted her party would be “a constructive force” by working collaboratively with Labour and other centre-left parties."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/20/nicola-sturgeon-reaches-out-to-labour-at-snp-manifesto-launch

And she's said she'll only work with them if they do everything she asks, which then proves wrong her claim that she'll work with them.

Really?, link?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/poll-tracker

And the anti-SNP stuff has been running for more than 6 weeks months now. It started with that poster of Miliband in Salmond's pocket on 9th March - the very moment when the gap started to close (and is now running about even), as that BBC graph shows.

Yeah & I cannot see the poll movement you can - maybe 1% to the Tories - and unless there is much greater movement than that, it is very hard to see how the tories can form a government

http://may2015.com/featured/election-2015-polls-this-is-how-ed-miliband-gets-to-323-seats-and-becomes-prime-minister/

The SNP are the only party that has anything like the SNP's 'pledge'.

A party only needs a internal formal anti-criticsm rule if what it advocates can't stand up to even internal scrutiny.

& I disapprove. Whether other parties have a "pledge" I have no idea but they certainly try & impose loyalty in much the same way. what chance woudl Tony Benn or Dennis Skinner have of being selected as a candidate for the Labour party today?

I think you should take up the comedy professionally.

Praise indeed coming from master like yourself

[LJS]

Miliband has ruled out all deals with the snp, now.

That leaves the SNP with the options of either voting on policies they support or bringing about a Tory govt.

Spot on, Ed!

That makes him an idiot.

Under the fixed term parliament act the SNP can oppose any individual piece of legislation it wishes without any danger of bringing down the government.

So, unless he really believes this is going to win him a load of votes, he is only making life deliberately more difficult for himself.

I watched Ed just now - have a watch yourself & ask if there is wriggle room there.

When asked about needing SNP support to extend the A320 (or some road) - he failed to answer, ,merely repeating it would be a labour government & a Labour queen's speech.

If he is serious about this & believes it is a vote winner he will repeat it clearly & specifically again & again. If he doesn't do that, the he wants his wriggle room.

[LJS]

All the nasty rich people in Edinburgh are English I thought?

That's what the nationalists usually come out with

Russy, we have have nasty rich people too. Our weather is so shit that most of them fuck off to warmer climes.

[LJS]

Neil & Russy, I know it really frustrates you that I appear not to be interested in addressing your fully funded £7.6bn black hole. Neil thinks this proves I'm terribly duplificarious...or something like that.

I'm going to have one final try to explain why.

More often than not, it would appear Scotland runs a relatively larger deficit than England. This is not a good thing. No one on the unionist side seems to suggest this is particularly likely to change. Now, you can argue that this doesn't really matter while Scotland remains part of the UK.

Alternatively, you might wonder If the UK is holding Scotland back, either because the economic success of Scotland is (quite rightly) not their priority, or because it doesn't suit them for Scotland to succeed. However you look at it, if you accept the official figures, Scotland is not paying its way.

What is slightly odd is that the entire political establishment seems to be perfectly happy with this state of affairs.

No one appears to be in the slightest bit bothered that a part of the UK that year on year contributes more than its fair share of tax revenue is apparently a constant drain on England.

But, that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about the viability of an independent Scotland. And when people try & assess the financial viability, what do they do? They take the current situation & project it forwards. But that misses the point entirely. The whole argument for independence rests upon us doing things differently.

I've never pretended there's any guarantee that we will ride off into the sunset into a world where the streets are paved with gold. I just happen to think we might make a better fist of running our own country if that was our first priority & we didn't have to tailor our policies to suit the city of London or worry about the impacts of our policies on London property prices.

My reasons for seeking independence are not economic. Your objections are all economic.

Edited April 26, 2015 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

Neil, condemning the leader of the SNP for not urging people to vote for a party that they are up against days before a vote is fantastic stuff. Fair play to you.

You really don't think Scottish folks deserve a say in this election. The irony when you look at the thread you are posting this in is delicious ☺

She does not want a tory government. She wants to lock dave out. Labour are her rivals in Scotland. She has went as far as is sensible to say that she will join with anti tory MP's. I think her line is, support ed and keep labour honest.

Going by the polls,which could of course change,we may all be relying on NS to keep dave out. At the last election the SNP only got 6 seats and we know what happened.

[LJS]

Neil, condemning the leader of the SNP for not urging people to vote for a party that they are up against days before a vote is fantastic stuff. Fair play to you.

You really don't think Scottish folks deserve a say in this election. The irony when you look at the thread you are posting this in is delicious ☺

She does not want a tory government. She wants to lock dave out. Labour are her rivals in Scotland. She has went as far as is sensible to say that she will join with anti tory MP's. I think her line is, support ed and keep labour honest.

Going by the polls,which could of course change,we may all be relying on NS to keep dave out. At the last election the SNP only got 6 seats and we know what happened.

Great result for your team yesterday Comfy. Almost safe! Edited April 26, 2015 by LJS

[russycarps]

Neil & Russy, I know it really frustrates you that I appear not to be interested in addressing your fully funded £7.6bn black hole. Neil thinks this proves I'm terribly duplificarious...or something like that.

I'm going to have one final try to explain why.

More often than not, it would appear Scotland runs a relatively larger deficit than England. This is not a good thing. No one on the unionist side seems to suggest this is particularly likely to change. Now, you can argue that this doesn't really matter while Scotland remains part of the UK.

Alternatively, you might wonder If the UK is holding Scotland back, either because the economic success of Scotland is (quite rightly) not their priority, or because it doesn't suit them for Scotland to succeed. However you look at it, if you accept the official figures, Scotland is not paying its way.

What is slightly odd is that the entire political establishment seems to be perfectly happy with this state of affairs.

No one appears to be in the slightest bit bothered that a part of the UK that year on year contributes more than its fair share of tax revenue is apparently a constant drain on England.

But, that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about the viability of an independent Scotland. And when people try & assess the financial viability, what do they do? They take the current situation & project it forwards. But that misses the point entirely. The whole argument for independence rests upon us doing things differently.

I've never pretended there's any guarantee that we will ride off into the sunset into a world where the streets are paved with gold. I just happen to think we might make a better fist of running our own country if that was our first priority & we didn't have to tailor our policies to suit the city of London or worry about the impacts of our policies on London property prices.

My reasons for seeking independence are not economic. Your objections are all economic.

You can't just ignore the economy though. Unless you are part of the rich elite the economy is of vital importance.

'doing things differently' means massive cuts in public spending or massive tax rises. There is no other way for a country like scotland.

You just want to take a punt and ignore the economics. Well that's not good enough for the millions who will be shafted by your punt.

Your emotional independence dream comes with the price of plunging living standards. The already poor will be even poorer.

That's why I call you selfish. You know this but pursue the dream anyway.

[kaosmark2]

Scotland is not paying its way.

What is slightly odd is that the entire political establishment seems to be perfectly happy with this state of affairs.

No one appears to be in the slightest bit bothered that a part of the UK that year on year contributes more than its fair share of tax revenue is apparently a constant drain on England.

The reason it's acceptable - although somewhat less so with the rise of English nationalism in response to the rise of Scottish nationalism (and I object to both heavily) - is that areas where it is harder to fund good quality public services should get money redistributed to them. That's part of being a larger state: Cornwall doesn't pay it's way, Cumbria doesn't pay it's way, East Anglia doesn't pay its way.

The key thing though, is that this doesn't matter. It doesn't matter a jot, unless you're talking about the quality of life any of these areas could have as an independent state.

Money, wealth and tax revenue are, in general, generated in cities, and redistributed around society. Scotland is more rural than England, so it gets a larger share. I'm fine with that. I also don't expect Scots to be ever-grateful for English benevolence, what I do expect is an understanding of the realities of the benefits of the union.

[kaosmark2]

Your objections are all economic.

Nope:

I object to separatist ideals.

I object to following the divide and conquer desires of the powerful (eg. Murdoch).

I object to nationalist propaganda, particularly with degrees of hatred included.

I object to the "principle" of abandoning others to what you believe is a corrupt and irredeemable institution of government.

I object to the claim that independence should be sought as a solution to problems, rather than for its own ends.

I object to a two-faced agenda that attempts to manipulate and deceive.

The fact that I don't believe an independent Scotland will be able to fund a similar standard of living to what Scots are accustomed to is one of viability, I object to the independence movement - particularly the SNP's - on a large number of principles. But seeing as the SNP don't have principles and instead just economic lies, I think pointing out some economic truths is a valid response.

[eFestivals]

You taught me two facts which you only know because you read the Sunday Times Rich List (or Wherever you got them from) it you want to claim that that makes you more knowledgeable, well done, you've earned the crown.

No, LJS, I know because I follow current affairs & news, and hoover up and analysis facts. Better known as 'paying attention'.

If I was running the SNP (Ah, if only!!! ) & I wanted a Tory government I would certainly not be running the campaign the way the SNP are. I would be making far more explicit demands for my support and I'd probably engineer a couple of leaks which said the kinds of things the Tories are saying. The reason the polls ain't shifting is that the vast majority of people who buy the Tory nonsense are already voting Tory. if you look at the polls Labour voters are much less impressed. As a tactic for getting Independence, bringing about another unpopular Tory Government makes sense. But it's not the only tactic that makes sense & the way the SNP are campaigning makes it clear (to meat least) that it's not their tactic.

But which of the two conflicting SNP policies would you abandon?

Would it be their demand fort anti-austerity, or would it be their demand for austerity-Max for Scotland?

If I were Ed, I'd give them the second and say "you've had both of your dreams fulfilled. Thanks for alleviating austerity in England".

except when she states her desire that people don't return Labour MPs. You're repeating your lies again, Neil.

It's such a lie I gave you a quote of Sturgeon saying it.

"The SNP would support a Labour government at Westminster even if Conservatives had 40 more seats than Ed Miliband’s party,

Nicola Sturgeon has said."

As I said.

She's said she'll support a Labour govt, she's not said she wants a Labour govt.

As made clear by her suggesting voters in England don't vote Labour.

Really?, link?

How have you missed the bit where she's said she wants a deal?

Yeah & I cannot see the poll movement you can - maybe 1% to the Tories - and unless there is much greater movement than that, it is very hard to see how the tories can form a government

Blind as well as daft?

There's more than 1% movement shown on that graph, as show by the prettily coloured numbers on the graph, but don't let stop you posting a lie.

And unless the SNP back Labour unconditionally, it's very hard to see Labour forming a govt.

& I disapprove. Whether other parties have a "pledge" I have no idea but they certainly try & impose loyalty in much the same way. what chance woudl Tony Benn or Dennis Skinner have of being selected as a candidate for the Labour party today?

And yet criticism of Labour's position on certain things can be heard from all candidates, while no criticism is heard by any SNP candidates.

I guess that's because the SNP are perfection personified.

[eFestivals]

That makes him an idiot.

Under the fixed term parliament act the SNP can oppose any individual piece of legislation it wishes without any danger of bringing down the government.

So, unless he really believes this is going to win him a load of votes, he is only making life deliberately more difficult for himself.

I watched Ed just now - have a watch yourself & ask if there is wriggle room there.

When asked about needing SNP support to extend the A320 (or some road) - he failed to answer, ,merely repeating it would be a labour government & a Labour queen's speech.

If he is serious about this & believes it is a vote winner he will repeat it clearly & specifically again & again. If he doesn't do that, the he wants his wriggle room.

Ed hasn't ruled out accepting SNP support, and so nothing has been made more difficult for him.

He only gets to be PM if the SNP support him as PM, deal or no deal.

Do the SNP support him as PM? He's holding their feet to the fire and we'll get to find out. Perhaps they'll support the tories after all?

It might not win him votes. It certainly won't lose him any, and he'll keep his integrity.

If he needs SNP support to extend the A320 (or whatever), the SNP will have to support him over that. If the SNP don't, the SNP will be held to account for what they block.

And if the SNP say they'll only support stuff in Scotland, their duplicitousness is exposed for all to see. They won't be playing a constructive role in the UK govt as they've claimed, will they?

I can't say whether Ed will hold firm on this or not. I hope he does, but we'll have to see.

But how can you complain if he does? How could you object to the SNP voting in support of what they support?

Democractic govt doesn't get any more honest than parties supporting the policies they support. If you object to Ed's stance, you object to democracy.

[eFestivals]

Neil & Russy, I know it really frustrates you that I appear not to be interested in addressing your fully funded £7.6bn black hole. Neil thinks this proves I'm terribly duplificarious...or something like that.

I'm going to have one final try to explain why.

More often than not, it would appear Scotland runs a relatively larger deficit than England. This is not a good thing. No one on the unionist side seems to suggest this is particularly likely to change. Now, you can argue that this doesn't really matter while Scotland remains part of the UK.

Alternatively, you might wonder If the UK is holding Scotland back, either because the economic success of Scotland is (quite rightly) not their priority, or because it doesn't suit them for Scotland to succeed. However you look at it, if you accept the official figures, Scotland is not paying its way.

What is slightly odd is that the entire political establishment seems to be perfectly happy with this state of affairs.

No one appears to be in the slightest bit bothered that a part of the UK that year on year contributes more than its fair share of tax revenue is apparently a constant drain on England.

But, that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about the viability of an independent Scotland. And when people try & assess the financial viability, what do they do? They take the current situation & project it forwards. But that misses the point entirely. The whole argument for independence rests upon us doing things differently.

I've never pretended there's any guarantee that we will ride off into the sunset into a world where the streets are paved with gold. I just happen to think we might make a better fist of running our own country if that was our first priority & we didn't have to tailor our policies to suit the city of London or worry about the impacts of our policies on London property prices.

My reasons for seeking independence are not economic. Your objections are all economic.

It seems to have passed you by that the UK *always* has redistributive policies - for both cash, and economic development. They're perhaps not as good as they might be, but that's a slightly different thing.

But, if the nats claim of Scotland being the 2nd most prosperous place in the UK is true (I'm not sure, I've never actually checked it), then Scotland is bottom of the priority pile for development, because everywhere else is in greater need.

You've pointed out on many occasions that Scotland has a higher-than-average tax take (Scotland's huge deficit is a result of Scotland's greater spending, only dealt with by massive cuts to public spending) - and so on that angle Scotland deserves no development funds whatsoever.

As a claimed left-leaner, how could you object to Scotland being the last priority when the priority should be the greatest need? If you complain, that makes you a 'me me me' Thatcherite.

Meanwhile, the SNP's policies are in conflict. They want anti-austerity and a financially independent Scotland, and only a moron can't see the conflict there.

Which one are you voting for LJS? Anti-austerity, or SNP-austerity-max?

When you've made up your mind, perhaps hold the party you support to account and get them to change?

Do bear in mind tho that if you're anti-austerity you're anti-independence.

Oh dear.

[eFestivals]

Neil, condemning the leader of the SNP for not urging people to vote for a party that they are up against days before a vote is fantastic stuff. Fair play to you.

care to tell me which Welsh and English seats the SNP are standing against Labour in?

Sturgeon has urged people OUTSIDE of Scotland to not vote Labour you idjut. You know, urging them to cause a tory govt by splitting the 'left' vote.

You really don't think Scottish folks deserve a say in this election.

You really are utterly pathetic. When snippers resort to this bollocks they know they've lost the argument.

Vote for who you like, and get what you vote for. What is it about that which YOU don't accept?

The irony when you look at the thread you are posting this in is delicious ☺

Snippers constantly moan about getting a govt they didn't vote for.

Snippers say the UK should have an SNP-defined govt it didn't vote for.

What have you missed, dafty?

She does not want a tory government. She wants to lock dave out.

which doesn't happen via her urging a split in the left vote.

Labour are her rivals in Scotland. She has went as far as is sensible to say that she will join with anti tory MP's. I think her line is, support ed and keep labour honest.

Labour being honest is Labour carrying out the policies it advocated.

How is Labour more honest if it does different to what it advocated?

Going by the polls,which could of course change,we may all be relying on NS to keep dave out. At the last election the SNP only got 6 seats and we know what happened.

Voting SNP makes any 'left' govt less likely, and if there's still a 'left' govt, it makes it less stable and less able.

And in your mind a less able 'left' govt is a better thing than a more able one.

I fucking hate justification for the tories, which is the SNP's abhsolute desire and aim.

As you'll see on 8th May.

When you'll claim that the situation you helped bring about was fuck all to do with you. The SNP are responsible for what the SNP causes.

[Comfy Bean]

Sturgeon has urged people OUTSIDE of Scotland to not vote Labour you idjut. You know, urging them to cause a tory govt by splitting the 'left' vote.

Neil, my point is that the SNP, led by Sturgeon, are in the heat of battle in Scotland almost exclusively AGAINST Labour ( led by Jim Murphy ) as the Tories will win little or no seats up here. For this reason I believe that it is most unlikely that you will hear NS urging people ( anywhere on these shores ) to vote for Labour. I don`t really think you are thinking this through mate. She is not standing herself but is leading 59 folks who are. Are you honestly saying that the best way to lead her guys would be to be all over " our " media urging anyone to vote Labour ? Come on !

Snippers say the UK should have an SNP-defined govt it didn't vote for.

What have you missed, dafty?

Are you sure. Personally I am aware that the SNP cannot be the UK Government. I fully accept and understand this My understanding is that NS would like to lock Dave out leaving SNP MP`s to work together with Labour to lead the UK ( hand of friendship ). The people of Scotland appear to like this idea and feel that their own local interests as well as those across the UK will be best represented in this way. If they didn`t like this idea then they would obviously vote Tory like many of the good folks in England will which would probably ensure a second term for Dave.This appears to have caused a bit of a storm in England which I don`t recall happening last time when Scotland only returned 6 SNP MP`s. As you often point out it is a UK general election. I`ve no idea why so many people seem to be so interested in how my little corner will vote. We may well return zero Torie MP`s and help to remove Dave from downing street. I don`t see the problem although I can see how Gary might be a bit cheesed off but that`s democracy for you

Labour being honest is Labour carrying out the policies it advocated.

How is Labour more honest if it does different to what it advocated?

This is a fair point in the way you have used the word here.

" Honest " is maybe not the best way of puting it. My understanding of how NS used it ( this was the reason I used it - to make her point again) is that honest is meant in relation to keeping Labour honest to their own principles. As in remain true to their core values etc. For example - not 100% of Labour MP`s appear to be supporting the renewal of Trident. In my opinion the Labour party should not stand for supporting nuclear weapons ( would Ed press that button ) so the SNP " could " offer an alternative voice to the one that the Labour leadership ( certainly in Scotland ) are offering - Jim is known to be up for a bit of war and is a for sure wanting to renew our nuclear weapons ( he is on record for both ).

[Comfy Bean]

Voting SNP makes any 'left' govt less likely

Disagree.

[Comfy Bean]

Great result for your team yesterday Comfy. Almost safe!

Cheers mate. Might even take the weans on a long train trip on Saturday. Bridie country but could well be a nervous afternoon. Hope you guys make it into Burns country next season

[LJS]

Things haven’t been completely static – at the beginning of 2015 Labour did still have a consistent tiny lead that faded towards a real tie over the first couple of months. There has been a genuine drop in support for UKIP and the Green party, albeit one that is no more than a point or two, rather than a really tight squeeze on their votes.

The broad picture though, especially over the short campaign, is one of no movement. This is not necessarily unusual – the huge ups and downs of “Cleggmania” in the 2010 election were not typical. Most historical election campaigns don’t show lots of movement (and I suspect some of that we did see is just the legacy of campaigns when there were far fewer polls, so a couple of outliers could more easily create the impression of movement when there was none).

Neil claims the anti SNP blitz which started in March has caused a drop in Labour support & helped the Tories. As the above shows the drop in support he refers to took place earlier than that.

[eFestivals]

Neil, my point is that the SNP, led by Sturgeon, are in the heat of battle in Scotland almost exclusively AGAINST Labour ( led by Jim Murphy ) as the Tories will win little or no seats up here. For this reason I believe that it is most unlikely that you will hear NS urging people ( anywhere on these shores ) to vote for Labour. I don`t really think you are thinking this through mate. She is not standing herself but is leading 59 folks who are. Are you honestly saying that the best way to lead her guys would be to be all over " our " media urging anyone to vote Labour ? Come on !

FFS.

All you need to do to hear Sturgeon urging people to cause a tory govtr is listen to her words - where he urges people to NOT vote Labour in England and Wales.

When the supporters aren't even listening to what their glorious leader says, you know those supporters are insane.

Are you sure. Personally I am aware that the SNP cannot be the UK Government. I fully accept and understand this My understanding is that NS would like to lock Dave out leaving SNP MP`s to work together with Labour

She's saying "if there's a danger of England getting the govt it voted for I will stop it".

Given that YOU, and LJS, and HER all bang on about how it's outrageous that Scotland doesn't get the govt it votes for, you've just shat on your own head and undermined your own and the SNP's arguments

to lead the UK ( hand of friendship ).

friendship takes both parties.

Get back to me when Sturgeon has laid out her demands, and then we can see just how 'friendly' it is.

Until then, while she's demanding a deal in her favour but not saying what the deal is, there's nothing friendly.

The people of Scotland appear to like this idea and feel that their own local interests as well as those across the UK will be best represented in this way.

And that's fair enough.

However, if/when it doesn't pan out as you'd hoped, the error is yours alone and you only have yourself to blame for your mistaken ideas.

If they didn`t like this idea then they would obviously vote Tory like many of the good folks in England will which would probably ensure a second term for Dave.

yeah, it's just as nasty English who vote tory - just a smidgen more than the nasty Scots.

This appears to have caused a bit of a storm in England which I don`t recall happening last time when Scotland only returned 6 SNP MP`s.

Last time YOU voted them irrelevant. This time you're trying to not make them irrrelevant.

But it's not your choice. It's the choice of the people elected.

Ed has said they'll be irrelevant, but nothing of your vote is lessened by that (but it won't stop you claiming that ignoring any MP isn't allowed - unless it's an MP YOU don't like )

" Honest " is maybe not the best way of puting it. My understanding of how NS used it ( this was the reason I used it - to make her point again) is that honest is meant in relation to keeping Labour honest to their own principles.

Labour's principles are for Lab0our to advocate, and not the opposition.

Or can we expect you to alolow UKIP define the SNP's principles now?

(tho as the SNP can't define any principles for themselves, UKIP would defo do a better job)

Myths and more myths, it's all you have.

[eFestivals]

Disagree.

Do you think an informal coalition is as politically strong as a formal coalition or a majority?

If your answer is 'no', you've just voided your 'disagree; and replaced it with 'agree'.

If your answer is 'yes', you've just proven you have nothing sensible to say.

Take your pick.

[Comfy Bean]

I`m not sure I`m buying this business about people in England voting Tory because of NS. If anything, any poll I`ve seen around UK approval ratings sees her doing really well. Much higher than Ed etc maybe some folk will go the other way - biut I doubt it.

Are we to believe that down in England we had someone who had decided that they would vote for Labour policies etc and not the Torie ones suddenly decide that they would give their vote to the Tories because of the way the people in Scotland are voting. Really ?

I`d imagine most people will vote for what they believe in. Sadly ( in my opinion ) a lot of people in England have chose to vote for the Tories. It`s like that and thats the way it is. Blaming this on NS just seems like another excuse to wade into the SNP and Scottish voters. People in Scotland do not return alot of Torie MP`s. People in England do. Labour should be romping this election and the way foks vote up my way should be totally irrelevant.........................like what used to happen

[eFestivals]

Neil claims the anti SNP blitz which started in March has caused a drop in Labour support & helped the Tories. As the above shows the drop in support he refers to took place earlier than that.

1. I didn't say anything about a Labour drop of support, I said about a rise in Tory support.

2. that rise in tory support starts *exactly* on the day the tories published the 'ed in Alex's pocket' poster.

FFS.

[LJS]

Neil, why do you continue to lie about Nicola Sturgeon asking the English not to vote Labour? As far as I can see she has only given an opinion once. She said 3 things. She said there was a case for voting Green. She talked about supporting progressive Labour candidates. & she said it wasn't up to her to tell people in England how to vote.

If she really wanted to persuade the English not to vote Labour. You'd think she would try a bit harder.

Edited April 27, 2015 by LJS