General Election 2015

[LondonTom]

1: Let's park the "is Scotland a Nation" thing? It is a completely pointless discussion - I am 57 - for my entire life since i was able to speak, if you asked me what my nationality was I'd have said Scottish . My parents were anything but Nationalists & indeed, I am only a recent convert to Indy. No amount of dictionary definitions or comparisons to Wessex will change my view & I suspect Comfy is the same. I son't for a minute expect to change any of your views either. Although I have no doubt they exist I have never heard any Scot claiming that Scotland is a region not a Nation. So. let's not waste our breath on that one.

Sorry that was partly me again, I never questioned if Scotland was a nation or not as it really doesn't matter much for the general election does it?

I was just curious to why you and Comfy really seem to believe its unfair that 5 million out of 64 million don't get the goverment they voted for?

You both keep bringing it up that you don't get the goverment you voted for but surely for the UK parliament its no different to London returning more Labour MPs and being governed by the tories.

But you can ignore regional differences all together really, as most of the UK population as a whole don't get the government they voted for with current voting percentages? So why does one selection matter more?

[eFestivals]

Sorry that was partly me again, I never questioned if Scotland was a nation or not as it really doesn't matter much for the general election does it?

I was just curious to why you and Comfy really seem to believe its unfair that 5 million out of 64 million don't get the goverment they voted for?

You both keep bringing it up that you don't get the goverment you voted for but surely for the UK parliament its no different to London returning more Labour MPs and being governed by the tories.

But you can ignore regional differences all together really, as most of the UK population as a whole don't get the government they voted for with current voting percentages? So why does one selection matter more?

yep. around 65% of people don't get the govt they voted for from any normal election. In fact last time no one at all got the govt they voted for.

And meanwhile, in an indy Scotland, many of the islands won't get the govt they voted for - and the govt they'll get will tell them no devolution and no referendums, making that wonderful new Scottish govt less democratic than Hated Westminster, but let's just ignore that part, eh?

[LJS]

yep. around 65% of people don't get the govt they voted for from any normal election. In fact last time no one at all got the govt they voted for.

And meanwhile, in an indy Scotland, many of the islands won't get the govt they voted for - and the govt they'll get will tell them no devolution and no referendums, making that wonderful new Scottish govt less democratic than Hated Westminster, but let's just ignore that part, eh?

Was someone talking about an independent Scotland?

[LJS]

Sorry that was partly me again, I never questioned if Scotland was a nation or not as it really doesn't matter much for the general election does it?

I was just curious to why you and Comfy really seem to believe its unfair that 5 million out of 64 million don't get the goverment they voted for?

You both keep bringing it up that you don't get the goverment you voted for but surely for the UK parliament its no different to London returning more Labour MPs and being governed by the tories.

But you can ignore regional differences all together really, as most of the UK population as a whole don't get the government they voted for with current voting percentages? So why does one selection matter more?

Just to be clear I understand & have no problem at all with not getting the government I voted for.

Because me comfy & a fair few others see our country as Scotland, we believe our country is not getting the government bit votes for. I fully accept that to anyone who believes Scotland is a mere region, this argument makes no sense.

[eFestivals]

Was someone talking about an independent Scotland?

It's a very good way of demonstrating that the idea of "a govt I didn't vote for" is being selectively applied, to suit the SNP's agenda and for no other reasons.

In fact, few in Scotland thought about whether they got "the govt they voted for" in that way until the SNP told you that you should - for their benefit, not for yours.

It's fair enough if you like the game that's being played and want to go along with it, but at least have the sense to see it as the game that it is. There's nothing rational behind any of this aside from to drive the SNP's agenda.

[eFestivals]

Because me comfy & a fair few others see our country as Scotland, we believe our country is not getting the government bit votes for. I fully accept that to anyone who believes Scotland is a mere region, this argument makes no sense.

and it does makes sense that you didn't think in this way until the SNP told you that you should - tho not as a point of democratic principle, but as a point of SNP self-interest (but shhhh, don't mention the lack of money else the whole thing is fucked ).

[LJS]

and it does makes sense that you didn't think in this way until the SNP told you that you should - tho not as a point of democratic principle, but as a point of SNP self-interest (but shhhh, don't mention the lack of money else the whole thing is fucked ).

Yeah, I am incapable of independent () thought.

Just as I have been opposed to the FPTP lottery for years - guess I must have been brainwashed by the liberals.

[kaosmark2]

Just to be clear I understand & have no problem at all with not getting the government I voted for.

Because me comfy & a fair few others see our country as Scotland, we believe our country is not getting the government bit votes for. I fully accept that to anyone who believes Scotland is a mere region, this argument makes no sense.

But the Scottish people, as proven 6 months ago, do not wish to see Scotland having a government it votes for, instead of one the UK votes for.

[eFestivals]

Yeah, I am incapable of independent ( ) thought.

that's why you and the whole of Scotland is moving as one...?

[LJS]

But the Scottish people, as proven 6 months ago, do not wish to see Scotland having a government it votes for, instead of one the UK votes for.

55% voted against Indy. There were many reasons for these votes. I would suggest wanting unrepresentative governments was not high up on the list of reasons.

Look, we disagree on this point & we have established this through exhaustive debate in the dirtindy thread.

I respect your view & your right to hold it. I just happen to hold a different view.

It's one of any reasons I won't vote for any party that supports the current way this country (UK or Scotland, take your pick) is governed. Westminster is not fit for purpose & I can't see it being reformed. Labour have had plenty of chances & chosen to do nothing.

[eFestivals]

55% voted against Indy. There were many reasons for these votes. I would suggest wanting unrepresentative governments was not high up on the list of reasons.

while that's a fair assumption, it also works the other way - that those 55% fully accepted that the system we have is the one they prefer over indie, warts and all of the system we have (even if they might prefer that it 'modernised' in some manner).

So if they think shit Westminster is better than indie, how low do they regard Salmond's indie?

It's one of any reasons I won't vote for any party that supports the current way this country (UK or Scotland, take your pick) is governed. Westminster is not fit for purpose & I can't see it being reformed. Labour have had plenty of chances & chosen to do nothing.

And the huge numbers of the Scottish population that have flocked to be SNP members could have got involved ion the Labour party and helped change it but chose to do nothing.

The fault isn't just in one place. Westminster is not some mythical creature that no one can get near, but an institution made up of people.

And even so, Labour are more to the left than they were in 2010 when Scotland found them acceptable. The only thing they've done since to offend your sensibilities is taken a different line to you over indie. Nats have cooked up the 'red tories' myth to sustain the death of sense.

[kaosmark2]

Look, we disagree on this point & we have established this through exhaustive debate in the dirtindy thread.

I respect your view & your right to hold it. I just happen to hold a different view.

Yes, but you keep repeating that view. You keep spouting the line "the government Scotland votes for" and similar, and I think it's an utter irrelevance, and I intend to call you out on it every time you repeat it. I feel you're making a flawed argument, and being persistent in doing so, in the hope that eventually people will accept it as worth a damn. That may not be your intention, but by emphasising that belief of yours, it makes me believe it is important to emphasise the counterargument.

Stop saying that what Scotland votes for in a UK GE matters, and I'll stop telling you that it doesn't.

[kaosmark2]

And even so, Labour are more to the left than they were in 2010 when Scotland found them acceptable. The only thing they've done since to offend your sensibilities is taken a different line to you over indie. Nats have cooked up the 'red tories' myth to sustain the death of sense.

Also, on the AV vote, the current senior figures in the the Labour party all campaigned for AV. Ed believes strongly in electoral reform, it was only a few outspoken dinosaurs like Prescott that objected to it within Labour.

[LJS]

Yes, but you keep repeating that view. You keep spouting the line "the government Scotland votes for" and similar, and I think it's an utter irrelevance, and I intend to call you out on it every time you repeat it. I feel you're making a flawed argument, and being persistent in doing so, in the hope that eventually people will accept it as worth a damn. That may not be your intention, but by emphasising that belief of yours, it makes me believe it is important to emphasise the counterargument.

Stop saying that what Scotland votes for in a UK GE matters, and I'll stop telling you that it doesn't.

I am totally in favour of dropping this part of the discussion as it is fruitless, which is why I posted this

1: Let's park the "is Scotland a Nation" thing? It is a completely pointless discussion - I am 57 - for my entire life since i was able to speak, if you asked me what my nationality was I'd have said Scottish . My parents were anything but Nationalists & indeed, I am only a recent convert to Indy. No amount of dictionary definitions or comparisons to Wessex will change my view & I suspect Comfy is the same. I won't for a minute expect to change any of your views either. Although I have no doubt they exist I have never heard any Scot claiming that Scotland is a region not a Nation. So. let's not waste our breath on that one.

Unfortunately, London Tom responded thus...

Sorry that was partly me again, I never questioned if Scotland was a nation or not as it really doesn't matter much for the general election does it?

I was just curious to why you and Comfy really seem to believe its unfair that 5 million out of 64 million don't get the goverment they voted for?

You both keep bringing it up that you don't get the goverment you voted for but surely for the UK parliament its no different to London returning more Labour MPs and being governed by the tories.

But you can ignore regional differences all together really, as most of the UK population as a whole don't get the government they voted for with current voting percentages? So why does one selection matter more?

& I felt it would be rude not to answer his point ... & so it all began again.

I am happy to park this issue - In truth it belongs more in the dirty Indy thread. I accept the result of the referendum & am not viewing the forthcoming election as likely to directly advance the inevitable arrival of independence. (although as I've posted before some of the reaction from the Tories & the Tory press down your way may well advance "the cause".

Although I am ultimately in favour of Independence, we didn't vote for that in September & my vote in May will be decided by what I believe is in the best interests of both Scotland & the UK as a whole. And, if, in my judgement, the SNP are not prepared to play a constructive role in UK politics, they won't get my vote. I know Neil will experience bladder problems when he reads this (sorry Neil not trying to take the piss!) as he apparently equates the SNP with Isis & Guy Fawkes and appears to believe they can do nothing other than plot the downfall of Westminster, England, the UK & no doubt the Ravens in the Tower of London.

I take a different view and early signs are that Sturgeon is determined to make a serious contribution to UK politics. I am not yet convinced but am watching with interest.

[kaosmark2]

I am totally in favour of dropping this part of the discussion as it is fruitless, which is why I posted this

OK

[eFestivals]

I've pointed out on many occasions that the SNP's no-UK leading principle makes them an unsuitable partner for any UK govt, but I will do Sturgeon the courtesy of me recognising that she's acted to remove the biggest issue around the SNP's inclusion in govt, regarding Trident.

After all, it would be an extremely partisan person who couldn't recognise that the UK's long-term defence plans shouldn't be decided by a party that has no interest in the future of the UK in even the short term. Sturgeon backing down over Trident would certainly make the SNP more palatable within govt for many.

How palatable they might be tho is always still undermined by their guiding principle, that they have no interest in acting in the best interests of the UK. Even if the UK was run with 100% perfection, the SNP could not say that it was.

[eFestivals]

I take a different view and early signs are that Sturgeon is determined to make a serious contribution to UK politics. I am not yet convinced but am watching with interest.

So they're changing their policy position by 180 degrees, and renaming the party as the SUP?

[eFestivals]

So they're changing their policy position by 180 degrees, and renaming the party as the SUP?

Let's face it LJS, even if this doesn't apply to you personally, the main reason so many in Scotland might vote SNP is because they're still fighting the war they've just lost, and unthinkingly hope that they can restart the war and win via returning SNP MPs.

It's got so fucking ridiculous too, with claims of "how dare you say that our choice of MPs won't be accepted" - completely forgetting that a large minority of MPs are not acceptable to any govt, and that there's no rule that says that can't also be a majority that happens to.

And so very laughable, the "majority" those people will scream they now have will be via the system they say they despise, proving them as always self-interested in the position they take (rather than principle-driven) as the worst tory.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the real prospect of indie is much further away than it was with September's vote. The economic argument has collapsed, and September's vote showed that Scotland will not countenance voting itself poorer.

[LJS]

I've pointed out on many occasions that the SNP's no-UK leading principle makes them an unsuitable partner for any UK govt, but I will do Sturgeon the courtesy of me recognising that she's acted to remove the biggest issue around the SNP's inclusion in govt, regarding Trident.

After all, it would be an extremely partisan person who couldn't recognise that the UK's long-term defence plans shouldn't be decided by a party that has no interest in the future of the UK in even the short term. Sturgeon backing down over Trident would certainly make the SNP more palatable within govt for many.

How palatable they might be tho is always still undermined by their guiding principle, that they have no interest in acting in the best interests of the UK. Even if the UK was run with 100% perfection, the SNP could not say that it was.

But democracy demands that we have a government that can command a majority in the house of commons either on an ongoing basis or on an issue by issue basis.

There is of course no obligation on any party to make any arrangement within any particular lesser party, indeed the SNP have ruled out any deal with the Tories as have Labour.

If Labour were to cut any sort of deal with the SNP, it would clearly need to one that does not undermine the UK. As it happens it looks increasingly likely that Labour will be forced to rule out any deal with the SNP before the election. This may protect their vote south of the (pretendy) border but, if anything, is likely (in my view) to harden opposition in Scotland.

If that happens its hard to be sure where it leaves us. Assuming their strategy works in shoring up Labour's English vote and assuming the libdems don't stage a remarkable recovery, we could easily be in a position where no party can form a workable government.

As to how you would reconcile the SNP's overarching aim of independence with being part of a UK government. Easy. It's a perfectly logical position to work for a fairer & better UK whilst we remain part of it.

Edited March 11, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

But democracy demands that we have a government that can command a majority in the house of commons either on an ongoing basis or on an issue by issue basis.

Yep. But *HOW* that majority is obtained isn't defined. A majority can be obtained by a minority party via absentions of some of those who might vote, for example.

Given how the SNP have categorically stated that they won't support the tories, what are they gonna do if Labour tell them where to go? The SNP have already ensured they'll be marginalised via that - unless they want to be the ones to cause a change of govt to tory, yet again?

If Labour were to cut any sort of deal with the SNP, it would clearly need to one that does not undermine the UK.

It needs to be more than that. It needs to be what is impossible.

The SNP's very purpose is to undermine the UK. They could only move from that position if they stopped being the SNP.

The SNP can claim to be putting that aside, but who's going to believe them when even most of the people who will vote for them won't believe that, won't accept that?

As I've said many times, vote SNP get marginalised. The real influence they'll be able to wield will be tiny at best, else they'll have to bring down Labour and so cause the tories to win the election which follows.

And given that people like you are shouting now "democracy has to accept the SNP" (tho it doesn't, as I lay out above)), will they then be saying "democracy has to reject a clear majority govt of the tories"?

I absolutely guarantee the tories would win a majority in a soon-after 2nd election - and i'll happily put £500 on with you over that (and I only make bets that size on sure-things).

As it happens it looks increasingly likely that Labour will be forced to rule out any deal with the SNP before the election. This may protect their vote south of the (pretendy) border but, if anything, is likely (in my view) to harden opposition in Scotland

And that would simply be you conciously deciding to be marginalised, just to add to you being marginalised anyway.

"If you say we're stupid for doing something, we'll prove our stupidity by definitely doing it" - the cry from Scotland by Nats since the start of the indie campaign.

If that happens its hard to be sure where it leaves us.

You? Marginalised.

Assuming their strategy works in shoring up Labour's English vote and assuming the libdems don't stage a remarkable recovery, we could easily be in a position where no party can form a workable government.

and so the SNP will support the tories...?

Vote SNP all you like. The choice is tories or Labour, never SNP. One day you'll wake up to that.

As to how you would reconcile the SNP's overarching aim of independence with being part of a UK government. Easy. It's a perfectly logical position to work for a fairer & better UK whilst we remain part of it.

but less logical than undermining the UK to achieve the declared aims.

Edited March 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Heard on radio this morning that some Tory or other is saying that any empty chair debates would be illegal as wouldn't be impartial.

Trying to bully them into cancelling I reckon. Surely if Dave's invited, then it isn't impartial!

The broadcasters have of course already consulted the best lawyers about this, and their take is that impartiality exists via the invitation and willingness to accommodate reasonable wishes around availability.

If the tories take it to court they still might win in the court, but the price they'll pay win or lose will be looking like complete arseholes who are refusing to take part in the democratic process the electorate demands.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

The broadcasters have of course already consulted the best lawyers about this, and their take is that impartiality exists via the invitation and willingness to accommodate reasonable wishes around availability.

If the tories take it to court they still might win in the court, but the price they'll pay win or lose will be looking like complete arseholes who are refusing to take part in the democratic process the electorate demands.

unless they get the DUP to front the legal challenge. They keep a little distance whilst expressing support for their views. All gets mired in the courts and thats the end of it.

[eFestivals]

All gets mired in the courts and thats the end of it.

it's not the end of the tories looking chicken tho. There's only one thing that'll change that, and that's them doing the full round of TV debates.

Amusingly, the non-TV debate proposal people - to be done on Youtube - now have a firm offer that's been put to the tories which meets Cameron's stated criteria, so the ball isw back in his court. Is he going to bottle it even w3hen he's got what what he's asked for? You bet ya, he will!

[Ted Dansons Wig]

it's not the end of the tories looking chicken tho. There's only one thing that'll change that, and that's them doing the full round of TV debates.

Amusingly, the non-TV debate proposal people - to be done on Youtube - now have a firm offer that's been put to the tories which meets Cameron's stated criteria, so the ball isw back in his court. Is he going to bottle it even w3hen he's got what what he's asked for? You bet ya, he will!

Absolutely. First time Craig Oliver's comms plan to keep Dave and George from talking in any real way about the governments record comes under a bit of pressure they make a complete balls up.

[eFestivals]

So, GERS is published, and Scotland would have to have a 15% cut in public services in order to make the SNP policy of "full fiscal autonomy" work.

Is there anyone in Scotland who slags off the smaller tory-cutting plans who wants to vote themselves a bigger cut in services?

Or will they keep telling themselves lies, and that even the SNP are lying to them?

Edited March 11, 2015 by eFestivals