The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

SNP in crisis as support plummets to 56%.

 

PS ... you couldn't help yourself but bullshit about the fall, either.

 

It's fallen to 55%, not 56%.

[LJS]

PS ... you couldn't help yourself but bullshit about the fall, either.

It's fallen to 55%, not 56%.

I believe the most recent poll by survation for the Mail had SNP support at 56% , however 1% is neither here nor there.

Polls do of course fluctuate so you will always be able to find a couple of polls that "show" a reduction in support. The more significant point is that their support is consistently higher than it was at the last election for both parliaments.

I made it clear that the figures I quoted are for party support. Support for Indy appears to be running 1-2% higher than Indy ref do no significant change. Although listening to all your doom mongering about oil & Greece, it is surely surprising that support for Indy has not plummeted.

Edited July 15, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Polls do of course fluctuate so you will always be able to find a couple of polls that "show" a reduction in support. The more significant point is that their support is consistently higher than it was at the last election for both parliaments.

as Curtice points out in one of his latest blogs, everyone loves a winner.

So it's a bit more mindless than you're recognising.

 

I made it clear that the figures I quoted are for party support. Support for Indy appears to be running 1-2% higher than Indy ref do no significant change.

 

I'm struggling to find any indie intention poll post-Sept 18th. Curtice doesn't list one.

 

So I'll ask you your favourite question. Link?

 

 

Although listening to all your doom mongering about oil & Greece, it is surely surprising that support for Indy has not plummeted.

 

Get back to me when there's actually been a post-Greece poll.

There's going to be all sorts of nasties come off the back of the Greece situation. It's exceedingly clear that plenty who a few weeks ago would have voted 'yes' to staying in the EU are now saying they'll be voting no. How great that 'plenty' is is yet to be seen.

 

There's certainly some who are grounded enough to relate oil prices to SNP claims.

 

And I'm absolutely sure that they'll be some in Scotland who have managed to join up the dots between what's happened in Greece and SNP policy. Again, how great that 'some' is is yet to be seen.

[LJS]

i know this rant was aimed at comfy but i'm sure you will let me reply too...

Do you believe that (just) Scotland should vote on Scottish matters, comfy?
 

 

 

Of course & we have our own Parliament that allows us to do so to some extent. If England wants to vote on its own matters it should get its own parliament .

 

 
Do you believe that corporate welfare is a bad thing?
 

 

yes, but only because it benefits corporations. removing it in a way that penalises the poorest is worse than keeping it. 

 

 
Do you believe that Corp Tax cuts are a bad thing?
Do you believe that bankruptcy is a bad thing?
 

 

 

in most cases, yes to both but in certain circumstances they may be justified 

 

 
Do you believe that the poorest should be supported to get out of poverty?

Or do you believe that the bad bits don't count?

 

 

Of course the poorest should be supported to get out of poverty. Quite how increasing their wages while making them poorer (as the Tories are doing achieves this, I'm not quite clear.)

 

Yes the bad bits count. The bad bits are what makes the current government's policies an outrage. 

 

 

There's opposition for opposition's sake, and then there's reality.

Mind you, the SNP like the tories Corp Tax cuts. Presumably they're supporting those? Or are they supporting hypocrisy instead?

And the SNP like the corporate welfare that even the tories don't like.

 

 

 

Yup & there is being too scared to oppose because you put electoral popularity above principle.

 

You say the SNP like the corporation tax cuts. This is a clear lie & you know it is. 

 

The SNP have been in the vanguard of introducing the "real" living wage which in itself would reduce corporate welfare. 

 

 

The party you support are not standing up for what you believe in ... or do you support corporate welfare? Do you support bankruptcy? 

 

 

 

your use of language is really interesting. You have suddenly started referring to tax credits as "corporate welfare" as if they only benefit businesses. Do you think I am stupid enough to buy your bullshit? Yes they effectively subsidise employers but removing them will hurt the poorest much more than it will hurt big business. Is that a good thing? 

 

Oh & who introduced them?

 

I oppose bankruptcy, particularly your moral bankruptcy!!

[LJS]

just in case you've missed the falling SNP support...

 

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-use-your-constituency-vote-in-a-scottish-parliament-election#line

 

I'm pretty sure the next one will show a further drop, as people mull over what's happened with Greece and why.

 

I cannot believe you have used that graph to try & prove a fall in snp support. You are not stupid & you know how polls work. one lone poll showed a 60% support. 

 

you really are insulting our intelligence now. 

 

An apology would be in order.

[LJS]

 

 

I'm struggling to find any indie intention poll post-Sept 18th. Curtice doesn't list one.

 

So I'll ask you your favourite question. Link?

 

 

Always happy to oblige

 

http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/W7181w1st.pdf

http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Full-SDM-tables-1c0d8h4.pdf

[eFestivals]

a bit of light relief....

 

Remember that in the indyref, one view was that indie would take Scotland outside of the EU?

 

You've heard of the Grexit for Greece, and the Brexit for Britain....

 

I've just come across someone talking about the Joxit.

 

It made me laugh, anyway.

[eFestivals]

Of course & we have our own Parliament that allows us to do so to some extent. If England wants to vote on its own matters it should get its own parliament .

so what you're saying is that Scotland will act immorally unless England forces it to be nice...?

(except of course it's not 'Scotland', it's the SNP).

 

yes, but only because it benefits corporations. removing it in a way that penalises the poorest is worse than keeping it.

what about corporate welfare that doesn't impact on the poorest but which is *only* a benefit to corporations? Do you have a reason for why the SNP has voted against those?

 

 

Of course the poorest should be supported to get out of poverty. Quite how increasing their wages while making them poorer (as the Tories are doing achieves this, I'm not quite clear.)

and when the SNP target the poorest to benefit the better off?

You've always lauded it as a good thing!

 

Yes the bad bits count. The bad bits are what makes the current government's policies an outrage.

but never the SNP when they do all the same, in your eyes.

 

You say the SNP like the corporation tax cuts. This is a clear lie & you know it is.

yet it's the exact cut the SNP were themselves proposing less than a year ago.

To fuck up a favourite snipper phrase: tories bad, SNP good?

 

The SNP have been in the vanguard of introducing the "real" living wage which in itself would reduce corporate welfare.

they have, and that's a good thing, but also very recent.

It's a shame there's so little to cheer after eight years of the best govt ever, eh?

 

your use of language is really interesting. You have suddenly started referring to tax credits as "corporate welfare" as if they only benefit businesses. Do you think I am stupid enough to buy your bullshit? Yes they effectively subsidise employers but removing them will hurt the poorest much more than it will hurt big business. Is that a good thing?

 

It's not only corporate welfare, it's corporate welfare that acts directly against paying worker's well.

 

As I've already explained to you, I'd prefer if it's withdrawal didn't impact on the poor - but you just keep on ignoring that part, so you can present a false version, a lie. ;rolleyes:

 

This is a tory govt. Anyone who thought their £12Bn welfare cuts wouldn't cut welfare payments is a fruitcake!

 

I welcome not that promised cut to welfare, but I do welcome the end of that welfare system that does nothing good for long term workers welfare, and the small payback - a bonus - the tories have brought in with it.

 

Oh & who introduced them?

 

Brown, a *Scot* who was Labour leader, and when there was no longer a Scottish Labour leader there was no longer a Scottish Labour vote.

 

(Now, if such things went on around other ethnic groups...? )

It was always a shit policy that created welfare dependency, and *THAT* is what has caused the current pain of its withdrawal. It should never have happened, and some of us have said all along it should never have happened because we saw where it went and what would happen to extract ourselves from it.

The tories are only hurting people because Brown started hurting people first. That's the truth of this policy, the policy you support.

 

There much more to a good policy than just handing out money.

 

I oppose bankruptcy, particularly your moral bankruptcy!!

 

says the man cheering SNP indie financial policy and all the lies to the Scottish people which are needed to make it look viable (which it isn't)

Edited July 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Always happy to oblige

 

http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/W7181w1st.pdf

http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Full-SDM-tables-1c0d8h4.pdf

Thanks. I'd say they make very painful reading for those with your dreams.

 

The movement is tiny even tho everyone loves a winner (the mindless vote, everywhere has it, just check the Curtice blogs), and of course the counter arguments aren't being put forwards at the mo to counter the cultural revolution; unlike with the tory vote in Scotland, they'll be no packing up and going home because they see the fultility.

 

It's looking to me like peak-poser has been and gone.

Edited July 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

so what you're saying is that Scotland will act immorally unless England forces it to be nice...?

(except of course it's not 'Scotland', it's the SNP).

 

 

No, that's not what I'm saying. It's what you are saying.

 

 

 

 

what about corporate welfare that doesn't impact on the poorest but which is *only* a benefit to corporations? Do you have a reason for why the SNP has voted against those?

 

 

 

 

 

no idea what you are talking about here, Would you care to supply an example?

 

 

 

 

and when the SNP target the poorest to benefit the better off?

You've always lauded it as a good thing!

 

 

 

 

 

I am not aware of anyinstances of the SNP "targetting" the poor.  I am aware of many instances of you exaggerating wildly.

 

 

yet it's the exact cut the SNP were themselves proposing less than a year ago.

To fuck up a favourite snipper phrase: tories bad, SNP good? 

 

 

You are using SNP policy for an independent Scotland in an argument about Westminster. Current SNP policy is not to cut UK corporation tax. If you are going to drag up past policies, you won't find Labour's record to be too good either.

 

 

they have, and that's a good thing, but also very recent.

It's a shame there's so little to cheer after eight years of the best govt ever, eh? 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that recent

 

 "The requirement to pay a living wage was introduced in the Scottish Government’s pay policy in 2011-12, benefiting approximately 6,000 workers. This new rate of £7.45 will potentially benefit up to 3,300 workers."

http://www.gov.scot/News/Releases/2012/11/Livingwage051112

 

 

It's not only corporate welfare, it's corporate welfare that acts directly against paying worker's well. 

 

As I've already explained to you, I'd prefer if it's withdrawal didn't impact on the poor - but you just keep on ignoring that part, so you can present a false version, a lie. ;rolleyes:

 

This is a tory govt. Anyone who thought their £12Bn welfare cuts wouldn't cut welfare payments is a fruitcake!

 

I welcome not that promised cut to welfare, but I do welcome the end of that welfare system that does nothing good for long term workers welfare, and the small payback - a bonus - the tories have brought in with it.

 

 

 

I disagree. There is no point in a good thing if you deliberately couple it with a bad thing that more than makes up for the good thing. The fact that the Tories told us they were making the cuts & we know they are c~nts does not in any way remove my right to point out the immorality of their actions. 

 

You seem to believe that tax credits have been holding employers back from paying their staff more. Can you supply any evidence to support this? As I have said before, the thing that will encourage employees to pay more is full employment. 

 

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

no idea what you are talking about here, Would you care to supply an example?

the cutting of windfarm subsidies. 

 

Do note that the SNP's objection was financial and nothing about green energy production. It was a complaint at less money coming over the border to fatten Scottish corporate pockets.

 

I am not aware of anyinstances of the SNP "targetting" the poor.  I am aware of many instances of you exaggerating wildly.

Cutting uni grants targeted at the poor to pay for free uni to benefit the better off.

 

FFS, how many fucking times?

Here's betting just like last time you won't argue back because you've got no stand up argument, and then in a few days we'll go round all these again, just as we did last week.

Pathetic!

 

You are using SNP policy for an independent Scotland in an argument about Westminster. Current SNP policy is not to cut UK corporation tax. If you are going to drag up past policies, you won't find Labour's record to be too good either.

Oh FFS, that was tax cuts for the richest in SNP-fantasy-financeland, where not only that benefit to the rich would be paid for by the poorest, but they'd be more-than-tory austerity too.

Meanwhile, the squirrel of Westminster is used to hide the liberal/neoliberal tendencies of the SNP.

So it pans out as "bad rich English good UK poor, good rich Scottish bad Scottish poor". And you keep pretending not to notice.

 

I disagree. There is no point in a good thing if you deliberately couple it with a bad thing that more than makes up for the good thing. The fact that the Tories told us they were making the cuts & we know they are c~nts does not in any way remove my right to point out the immorality of their actions. 

If a policy change is overall-financially neutral, there will be both losers and winners. That's simply the fact of change.

 

Your take on things either pans out as "all change is bad" or at best "change can happen as long as no one gets poorer (but some will be getting richer)". Take your pick but you're getting a bit too close to Dundee bakeries.

 

 

You seem to believe that tax credits have been holding employers back from paying their staff more. Can you supply any evidence to support this? As I have said before, the thing that will encourage employees to pay more is full employment. 

If an employer increases the pay of someone on tax credits, does the employee benefit by the amount extra the employer gives, or not?

 

And so the employer doesn't benefit back from his extra money, either, via more-contented staff.

To the employer it ends up as nothing different to being taxed heavier - because that employer doesn't get back an equal benefit to what he puts in.

 

And the employee is only minutely richer, and feels like the employer might as well not have bothered.

 

Meanwhile, good luck with getting the public to stump up for full employment. You're in fantasy land if you think they will. You're in fantasy land if you think they will in an indy Scotland.

 

There's big but empty dreams, and then there's reality. You're in for only disappointments in life by the sounds of things.

Edited July 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

the cutting of windfarm subsidies. 

 

Do note that the SNP's objection was financial and nothing about green energy production. It was a complaint at less money coming over the border to fatten Scottish corporate pockets.

I see you were struggling a bit to find an example here, Neil. the SNP clearly argued on business employment and environmental grounds against the cutting of these subsidies. And in any case, it is part of the role of any government, local or national to safeguard local jobs. 

Cutting uni grants targeted at the poor to pay for free uni to benefit the better off.

 

I don't entirely disagree with you here  - although i support free education, I would have preferred them to keep or even increase grants to the less well off. However to say they funded the abolition of tuition fees in 2008 with a reduction in student grants in 2012 requires a degree of time travel than even St Alec & the Blessed Nicola would struggle with.

 

FFS, how many fucking times?

 

Dunno, you tell me. you are the one who keeps on banging on about it.

Here's betting just like last time you won't argue back because you've got no stand up argument, and then in a few days we'll go round all these again, just as we did last week.

Pathetic!

 

Sorry to disappoint you

 

Oh FFS, that was tax cuts for the richest in SNP-fantasy-financeland, where not only that benefit to the rich would be paid for by the poorest, but they'd be more-than-tory austerity too.

Meanwhile, the squirrel of Westminster is used to hide the liberal/neoliberal tendencies of the SNP.

So it pans out as "bad rich English good UK poor, good rich Scottish bad Scottish poor". And you keep pretending not to notice.

I repeat, the SNP oppose the reduction in corporation tax: you are the one who keeps bringing up the White paper squirrel which has no relevance to this debate. Carry on defending the tories by all means - but not by making stuff up.

If a policy change is overall-financially neutral, there will be both losers and winners. That's simply the fact of change.

 

That is correct and I accept that. However this is entirely irrelevant to our discussion as the the Tories' policy changes are not financially neutral. Indeed the whole point of them is to reduce expenditure, and although there will still be a few gainers - they will almost entirely be relatively better off than the losers. 

 

Your take on things either pans out as "all change is bad" or at best "change can happen as long as no one gets poorer (but some will be getting richer)". Take your pick but you're getting a bit too close to Dundee bakeries.

 

My take on things is we need fucking change but not for its own sake for the sake of making this country fairer place. The Tory proposals which you support (at least in part) will achieve the precise opposite.

 

 

If an employer increases the pay of someone on tax credits, does the employee benefit by the amount extra the employer gives, or not?

 

No, depending on various factors they will lose some benefits when they get a pay rise. Currently for each pound extra you lose 41p - under the Tories plan you will lose 49p (or even it all if your pay rise takes you over the threshold.  

 

And so the employer doesn't benefit back from his extra money, either, via more-contented staff.

 

To the employer it ends up as nothing different to being taxed heavier - because that employer doesn't get back an equal benefit to what he puts in.

 

And the employee is only minutely richer, and feels like the employer might as well not have bothered.

 

So your solution is to make the poorest poorer. That's a big improvement.

 

Meanwhile, good luck with getting the public to stump up for full employment. You're in fantasy land if you think they will. You're in fantasy land if you think they will in an indy Scotland.

 

the public doesn't stump up for full employment. Economic growth leads to full employment. 

 

There's big but empty dreams, and then there's reality. You're in for only disappointments in life by the sounds of things.

 

Yup. Like the Tory budget we've just had. You're lucky that you don't see it as disappointing. 

 

[eFestivals]

I see you were struggling a bit to find an example here, Neil. the SNP clearly argued on business employment and environmental grounds against the cutting of these subsidies. And in any case, it is part of the role of any government, local or national to safeguard local jobs.

I wasn't struggling at all, I was always referring to this. And even you highlight the business side more than the environmental side (exactly as was the case with the SNP).

It's corporate welfare, plain and simple, and the SNP want it to continue because it's all about Scotland and nothing about what's good for the UK.

 

 

I don't entirely disagree with you here  - although i support free education, I would have preferred them to keep or even increase grants to the less well off. However to say they funded the abolition of tuition fees in 2008 with a reduction in student grants in 2012 requires a degree of time travel than even St Alec & the Blessed Nicola would struggle with.

 

They targeted the poor - my point proven.

And you're hiding behind the 'one big bucket of money' idea to cover up how the costs of that free uni - which benefits the rich at the expense of the poor - is paid for.

 

I repeat, the SNP oppose the reduction in corporation tax:

Only because it's not being done by them.

 

That is correct and I accept that. However this is entirely irrelevant to our discussion as the the Tories' policy changes are not financially neutral. Indeed the whole point of them is to reduce expenditure, and although there will still be a few gainers - they will almost entirely be relatively better off than the losers.

You're back to "give us free stuff" again.

Be adult. Recognise the reality and give a plan, and not a want list.

 

My take on things is we need fucking change but not for its own sake for the sake of making this country fairer place. The Tory proposals which you support (at least in part) will achieve the precise opposite.

 

I support the good bits. Don't y0ou?

 

Would you rather just have the bad bits?

 

Or if you don't want any of the bad bits, you need to say something more substantial than "don't want them", because this is the real world and nothing is free.

 

So your solution is to make the poorest poorer. That's a big improvement.

 

No your solution is to lie each time things get a bit complex, to avoid the complex and pretend it's easy.

It's very boring LJS.

 

the public doesn't stump up for full employment. Economic growth leads to full employment.

And growth happens how? Not by borrowing money. Not by magic. How?

Is growth infinite?

Can any economy be sustainably grown at all times?

What happens when resources run out? Can new ones be magiked?

Or is the reality that there's no magic bullet, particularly at a time when money is evaporating (yes, really!) and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it?

Yup. Like the Tory budget we've just had. You're lucky that you don't see it as disappointing.

It's a tory budget. They're like all tory budgets. Where's the fucking surprise?

[pink_triangle]

I think response to the speech is a bit ott. I have heard the likes of Hague and Jacob Rees mogg make great speeches even though I thought they were speaking crap.

Great speeches may make good tv, but have little influence on how the country is run. There are however speeches that may seem dull, but sway someone who is undecided in a close vote. I hope she is also capable of making these.

[LJS]

I wasn't struggling at all, I was always referring to this. And even you highlight the business side more than the environmental side (exactly as was the case with the SNP).

 

No I didn't. I highlighted nothing. 

It's corporate welfare, plain and simple, and the SNP want it to continue because it's all about Scotland and nothing about what's good for the UK.

 

In line with the second clause in their constitution which according to you they don't really care about. 

 

 

They targeted the poor - my point proven.

 

 Since you love using emotive language, tell me this, the use of the word "targeted" clearly implies they deliberately set out to disadvantage.  the poor. There is no other explanation. Please justify that ridiculous claim. 

And you're hiding behind the 'one big bucket of money' idea to cover up how the costs of that free uni - which benefits the rich at the expense of the poor - is paid for.

 

Me no hiding behind nothing. I support the principle of free education for all. Tell you what, since you clearly don't, I presume folk who stay on at school after the age of 16 should pay fees?

 

 

You're back to "give us free stuff" again.

Be adult. Recognise the reality and give a plan, and not a want list.

 

I explained very clearly in the run up to the election why I opposed the austerity that you support. It was nothing to do with free stuff. 

  

I support the good bits. Don't y0ou?

 

Would you rather just have the bad bits?

 

I see you are really struggling with this. I'll try & help you. I am wholeheartedly in favour of anything that gives low paid people more money. Therefore I am wholeheartedly in favour of increasing the minimum wage. why? because it would improve the lot of some of the poorest in our society & as a bonus would result in the rest of us having to contribute less of our taxes to propping up our low wage society.

 

But, this is not what is happening. The lowest paid workers would be better off if the Tories had done nothing. so quite why you welcome this, I have no idea. I realise we disagree on the need for further cuts. I thought we would agree that the majority of these cuts shouldn't fall on the poorest.

 

Or if you don't want any of the bad bits, you need to say something more substantial than "don't want them", because this is the real world and nothing is free.

 

OK, lets raise the minimum wage. Let's not cut inheritance tax. Let's not cut corporation tax. let's not cut tax credits (rising wages will reduce them anyway) let's increase tax on the rich.  I don't believe there is anything here you disagree with 

 

 

No your solution is to lie each time things get a bit complex, to avoid the complex and pretend it's easy.

It's very boring LJS.

 

Sorry if I've bored you (a bit rich from the man who used the same quote 5 times in one post)

 

 

And growth happens how? Not by borrowing money. Not by magic. How?

 

I take it you do know there is no right answer to this? I'll tell you how it doesn't happen. It doesn't happen by reducing the disposable income of the poorest  -because they spend pretty much every penny they have. So ensuring they have more disposable income is a very effective way to stimulate growth. 

Is growth infinite?

 

 Wow, philosophy now! I have no idea why you have asked this question.

Can any economy be sustainably grown at all times?

 

Of course not.

What happens when resources run out? Can new ones be magiked?

Or is the reality that there's no magic bullet, particularly at a time when money is evaporating (yes, really!) and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it?

 

Of course there is no magic bullet. Again I have no idea what you are on about. 

It's a tory budget. They're like all tory budgets. Where's the fucking surprise?

 

Well stop defending it then. 

[LJS]

Thanks. I'd say they make very painful reading for those with your dreams.

 

The movement is tiny even tho everyone loves a winner (the mindless vote, everywhere has it, just check the Curtice blogs), and of course the counter arguments aren't being put forwards at the mo to counter the cultural revolution; unlike with the tory vote in Scotland, they'll be no packing up and going home because they see the fultility.

 

It's looking to me like peak-poser has been and gone.

 

Another poll highlighting the SNP in freefall

 

The SNP continues to have a "commanding lead" over Labour, according to an opinion poll released on Thursday.

The study, by TNS BMRB, found that 60% of those who gave a preference said they would be supporting Nicola Sturgeon's party in the constituency ballot in next year's Holyrood election.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/1324813-snp-continues-to-enjoy-commanding-lead-over-labour-poll-finds/

[eFestivals]

"more stuff that others pay for" is always a popular policy.

[Comfy Bean]

Their popularity is dipping, both in Scotland and in England.

The dipping popularity in Scotland is why you've not been making those "60% support" posts recently.

 

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, in Scotland...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

The SNP continues to have a "commanding lead" over Labour, according to an opinion poll released on Thursday.

The study, by TNS BMRB, found that 60% of those who gave a preference said they would be supporting Nicola Sturgeon's party in the constituency ballot in next year's Holyrood election.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/1324813-snp-continues-to-enjoy-commanding-lead-over-labour-poll-finds/

 

 

Good to see your finger remains firmly on the pulse of feelings on the ground Neil  

[Comfy Bean]

[kaosmark2]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/18/mhairi-black-maiden-speech-inspiring-wonderful-wrong

 

 

I don’t doubt Black’s sincerity in extending the hand of friendship to Labour. I share her disgust at Harriet Harman’s airy announcement that Labour will back the Tories’ benefit changes. But I also find it irritating that Black’s sincerity seems to include a sincere failure to understand that the SNP is not Labour’s most natural ally in Westminster, but Labour’s most insidious opponent. The vast majority of the UK electorate doesn’t want a Labour-SNP alliance to be the chimerical alternative to the Conservatives in Britain. And the vast majority of the UK electorate can only reject Labour to stop that from happening.

 

I’m glad Scotland has found a way to refresh and reinvigorate its politics. I hope the rest of the UK finds one, too. But the rise of the SNP is a consequence of Labour’s decline; the SNP is not a helpful friend at a difficult time. I think Mhairi Black is wonderful. But you don’t join a nationalist party because you want to help the union that your party exists to dismantle.

 

Rhetoric is a fine thing. But it doesn’t feed hungry old men or hungry young children. Black’s constituency is lucky to have her. So is her party. But while she has every right to abhor Labour’s love of the centre ground, she and her party are helping to push Labour in that direction, even as they insist they are not. There is no political need for her and her colleagues to stop doing so, because the SNP can only gain from it. The sad thing about Black’s speech, among many happy things, is that it shows you can be passionate, sincere and inspiring, but also utterly mistaken.

Edited July 18, 2015 by kaosmark2

[LJS]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/18/mhairi-black-maiden-speech-inspiring-wonderful-wrong

 

This article didn't really say very much so I'm not entirely sure why you felt it was helpful to quote from it. 

 

However, this quote interested me:

 

" But while she has every right to abhor Labour’s love of the centre ground, she and her party are helping to push Labour in that direction, even as they insist they are not."

 

There is absolutely no evidence provided for this rather startling claim. Quite how the SNP are responsible for pushing Labour to the right is a mystery to me. I would say it is more a case of the SNP moving into the political area that Labour have vacated.  

Edited July 18, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

oops - double post 

Edited July 18, 2015 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

I agree that the snp are not a helpful friend for labour. They just reduced them to a single seat up my way.

But when it comes to voting against what the tories want to do its all about the numbers surely ( see the foxes)

Next up will be the vote on the tax credit changes. The snp will vote against . Surely this would be an example of a time when you would expect labour and the snp to be on the same side.

[Comfy Bean]

Hope you are well ljs.

I agree with you that the snp have moved into the space labour have vacated.

I see black is now saying what we and many others in Scotland have been saying for yonks.

Labour left us, not the other way round. Their desperate race for middle England votes doesn't seem to be going well.

In an indy Scotland they will of course be able to have a rethink.

[LJS]

Apparently there is a new panelbase poll which shows the SNP on "only" 53% constituency vote for Holyrood. (apparently Panelbase have recently been showing lower % for SNP than other pollsters). 

 

Perhaps of more interest it has figures on the EU referendum from both sides of the border...

 

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?

 

Respondents in England :

 

Yes 49%
No 51%

 

Respondents in Scotland :

 

Yes 66%
No 34%

 

 

A clear Yes in Scotland with all to play for elsewhere. .. Interesting.

 

I don't have a link for the datasets at this stage but I did find this

 

http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/W7181w1st.pdf

 

It asks a myriad of question on both sides of the border & suggests that the English are ore negative about the Scots than the Scots are about the English. Even SNP voters are only very marginally more anti _English than the English are anti Scottish.

 

It also asks whether people from other parts of the UK should be able to vote if we have a second indyref. Oddly, it found that SNP, Labour & Libdem voters were in favour whilst Tories were against. Very strange.

Edited July 19, 2015 by LJS