General Election 2015

[viberunner]

However the SNP clearly stated they wanted a labour led government and then acted in a way which made that less likely. The SNP rhetoric was welcomed by the conservatives and a huge inconvenience to labour.

Instead of Labour accepting it with open arms, agreeing they are a progressive party, etc., Labour played into the bigotry that the SNP are not to be worked-with under any circumstances at any cost.

The SNP should not be apologising for who they are, what they want, or what they have achieved, because London Labour want to scaremonger the English voters.

[pink_triangle]

Instead of Labour accepting it with open arms, agreeing they are a progressive party, etc., Labour played into the bigotry that the SNP are not to be worked-with under any circumstances at any cost.

The SNP should not be apologising for who they are, what they want, or what they have achieved, because London Labour want to scaremonger the English voters.

The reality is that the English electorate were scared of the SNP having significant power in government. England have the most seats and to accept that offer with open arms would have been political suicide.

The SNP said they wanted to work with labour and lock out the conservatives. Yet acted in a way which handed ammunition to the man they claimed they were trying to dispose, while damaging the man they claimed they were trying to help. As said previously the SNP acted in the best interest of the SNP and I have no problem with that. However any claim that they had the best interests of the rest of the UK doesn't fit with their actions in my view. If SNP had said that a huge increase in MPs in Westminster and a tory government was their best route to independence, I would have no problem and would commend their honesty.

[LJS]

The reality is that the English electorate were scared of the SNP having significant power in government. England have the most seats and to accept that offer with open arms would have been political suicide.

The SNP said they wanted to work with labour and lock out the conservatives. Yet acted in a way which handed ammunition to the man they claimed they were trying to dispose, while damaging the man they claimed they were trying to help. As said previously the SNP acted in the best interest of the SNP and I have no problem with that. However any claim that they had the best interests of the rest of the UK doesn't fit with their actions in my view. If SNP had said that a huge increase in MPs in Westminster and a tory government was their best route to independence, I would have no problem and would commend their honesty.

I've written at length trying to explain why playing a constructive role in Westminster was absolutely in the interests of the SNP.

The fact is the SNP did little more than campaign to win as many seats as they could which is the general idea.

The Tories aided and abetted by the right wing press made them out to be some sort of alien threat and painted this bizarre picture of Miliband being somehow controlled by Salmond and/or Sturgeon. the BBC & ITV etc played their part. Every time he was interviewed he was repeatedly asked about it and, as all politicians do, he dodged the issue. But the questions wouldn't stop & eventually ed gave in & said "no deal", but by this time that only made him look weak.

In terms of political strategy, the Tories played it brilliantly, but at what cost? They are in danger of unleashing anti-Scottish sentiment that may in the end jeapordise the union just as much as the SNP landslide had. This from the party that a few short months ago was telling us how much the Union want to them.

Just for clarity, because Neil often accuses me of mixing up anti SNP & anti Scottish. What the Tories said was generally anti SNP. The mail, express, telegraph etc. Took it much further.

Edited May 9, 2015 by LJS

[lost]

During the independence campaign Salmond said he wasn't going to take Scotland's share of the national debt then during the general election Sturgeon's proposed anti-austerity budget effectively doubles the national debt.

I guess for alot of voters in Britain its a tricky one, if you think think your partner is thinking of leaving you and has maybe found someone else do you start emptying the joint bank account and cancelling the credit cards?

[viberunner]

The reality is that the English electorate were scared of the SNP having significant power in government. England have the most seats and to accept that offer with open arms would have been political suicide.

However any claim that they had the best interests of the rest of the UK doesn't fit with their actions in my view.

Yet it turns out the English are entirely comfortable having a lot of influence over Scottish, Welsh, and Irish affairs. :-/

By "best interests" they meant an end to austerity, against tuition fees, etc. The trouble is Red Ed treated these like insane concepts. He was too busy trying to be like a 6th form debater trying to be both a Capitalist and a Socialist and ended up coming over as somebody who didn't know who he was or what he wanted.

I don't like Cameron, but I know what he's about and he clearly "knows himself". Same with Nick Clegg (he'll take it up the arse from anyone for a ministerial job and he's very clear about that). I know what the SNP are about, hell I even know what UKIP and the Greens are about.

Ask me what Ed Miliband or 2015 Labour (London or Scottish) are about and the best I can answer is what I would like them to be about. The set-in-stone tombstone was a perfect example... he'd set in stone a list of meaningless platitudes with no measurables.

I think the line he should have used about himself is "I I don't want to quibble about whether nor not I'm beige or taupe, my café-au-lait policies are for everyone who is politically a light creamy brown".

[pink_triangle]

As much as we wish the right wing press didn't dominate the written press, the reality is they do and are here to stay. I know sturgeon lives the other side of the border, but am pretty sure she was aware how they work before talk about making deals with Labour.

The snp were already in line for the huge result in Scotland before Sturgeon talked about Labour working with them to keep Torys out. The only way of achieving that outcome was a decent Labour performance in England. Therefore to put them on the defence in England seems odd if you believe what politicians say, note I don't!

[pink_triangle]

Yet it turns out the English are entirely comfortable having a lot of influence over Scottish, Welsh, and Irish affairs. :-/

The SNP want England to have less say over their affairs, they want an independent Scotland. I think they believe A tory government puts them in the best position to achieve that. I have no problem with that, just think a bit of honesty would be nice.

[viberunner]

During the independence campaign Salmond said he wasn't going to take Scotland's share of the national debt then during the general election Sturgeon's proposed anti-austerity budget effectively doubles the national debt.

More precisely, said he'd walk-away from Sterling debut if not allowed to use Sterling.

“All the debt accrued up to the point of independence belongs legally to the Treasury, as they confirmed last month - and Scotland can’t default on debt that’s not legally ours. However, we’ve always taken the fair and reasonable position that Scotland should meet a fair share of the costs of that debt. But assets and liabilities go hand in hand, and - contrary to the assertions today, Sterling and the Bank of England are clearly shared UK assets.”

Which is not an unreasonable legal position.

If rUK wants default monopoly on Sterling and all the benefits then it should have a monopoly on all of Sterling's debts. But he strongly argued he wanted to be party to the benefits of Sterling (which Scotland has contributed to over the decades and centuries) and thus wanted to be party to the debt burden too.

[viberunner]

The SNP want England to have less say over their affairs, they want an independent Scotland. I think they believe A tory government puts them in the best position to achieve that. I have no problem with that, just think a bit of honesty would be nice.

They've never denied a preference for Independence, but they have said - and hoped as all polls were predicting - to be after this election in alliance of some sort with a progressively-minded Labour party.

[lost]

More precisely, said he'd walk-away from Sterling debut if not allowed to use Sterling.

Which is not an unreasonable legal position.

If rUK wants default monopoly on Sterling and all the benefits then it should have a monopoly on all of Sterling's debts. But he strongly argued he wanted to be party to the benefits of Sterling (which Scotland has contributed to over the decades and centuries) and thus wanted to be party to the debt burden too.

Yep but I think if the issue does come up again the result will be the same, the UK would be mental to allow an independent Scotland to use sterling. So as things stand if the end game is indy then Sturgeon knows she can promise freebies that she never has to pay for and equally the Tories would be better to clear the deficit and cut taxes to compete against the Scottish economy when attracting investment from around the world.

[viberunner]

Yep but I think if the issue does come up again the result will be the same, the UK would be mental to allow an independent Scotland to use sterling.

Why would it be "mental"?

Currency union would require strong regulation and would be inherently biased in favour of the rUK as the largest member. But it would give Scotland incentive to fiscal discipline, we'd take on our share of the debt, and England could continue the massive amount of cross border trade without currency conversion costs.

[kaosmark2]

pink triangle talking sense. viberunner talking nonsense. Shocker.

[viberunner]

pink triangle talking sense. viberunner talking nonsense. Shocker.

What I don't get is why it is assumed that the Scots using Sterling is so obviously nonsense it doesn't even require explanation.

Unless it's just general "well, if you're leaving me I'm keeping the fucking car, bitch" type mentality in which case I guess that's why Farage and the Tories got over 50% of the English electorate voting for them.

Edited May 10, 2015 by viberunner

[pink_triangle]

They've never denied a preference for Independence, but they have said - and hoped as all polls were predicting - to be after this election in alliance of some sort with a progressively-minded Labour party.

Well I know that's what they said, I think we all know that political parties of all persuasions aren't always honest about what they say.

The snp said one thing and acted in a way to make the opposite happen. The right wing press took advantage of an open goal the way they always would, there was no genius about it.

A tory government suits the snp in terms of creating a climate to achieve their aim of independce. I completely understand how they acted.

[LJS]

Well I know that's what they said, I think we all know that political parties of all persuasions aren't always honest about what they say.

The snp said one thing and acted in a way to make the opposite happen. The right wing press took advantage of an open goal the way they always would, there was no genius about it.

A tory government suits the snp in terms of creating a climate to achieve their aim of independce. I completely understand how they acted.

Of course you are correct in the sense that the SNP can use the very powerful and accurate argument that there is such a big difference in the priorities between Scotland & England that the union cannot work. The Scots voted to increase public spending, raise taxes on the better off & scrap trident. You guys voted for more austerity, no tax rises & nice new shiny WMD's.

And no doubt to some extent they'll use that argument. But, this is not the only route to Indy & I genuinely believe sturgeon was being honest when she said she wanted to work constructively with Labour Apart from anything else, I genuinely don't think she wants another Indy ref in the next 5 years. In addition, if her aim had been to get another Tory government, she would have made far more explicit & unreasonable demands & she would undoubtedly have unleashed Salmond. He was virtually invisible during the main campaign.

Anyway, much of this is based on this crazy notion that Labour might have won if it hadn't been for the SNP which is mathematical nonsense & ignores the large gains made by the Tories in local elections

Were the SNP responsible for them too?

interestingly, most of the saner voices within the Labour party are not blaming their woes on the SNP.

Incidentally, if it's true that the rest of the UK is terrified by Scottish voters electing mp's from a moderate centre left party, maybe the union is not working anymore?

Edited May 10, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

No, and you clearly still haven't read what I said.

Look, I'll make it easy for you. When you have a sgred of evidence of any link between anyone in a position of authority in the SNP & Murdoch sence the Leveson report, I'll be interested. Until then, I'll leave you in peace to rant away!!!

So what you're saying is that it's wrong to call the SNP corrupt because it's 4 years since it was proven they'd sold the party to Murdoch?

I guess from now on you'll be calling the tory party paragons of virtue because you don't have any evidence to the contrary apart from old stuff..

Or perhaps you're just defending the indefensible, and showing just how little principles both snippers and the party they support have?

[LJS]

So what you're saying is that it's wrong to call the SNP corrupt because it's 4 years since it was proven they'd sold the party to Murdoch?

Yes*

*this answer should not be interpreted as me endorsing everything contained in the question.

[eFestivals]

some interesting points here as to why Labour lost.

anything to try and avoid facing up to what you were told would happen: vote SNP, get tory.

As I've said, if you think what the SNP did had no impact on how people voted in England, you don't understand the people of this island.

[eFestivals]

NS .... offered a hand of friendship to labour and promised to join them to kick dave out on his arse.

duplicitous bullshit.

She said "don't vote Labour anywhere in the UK", and you call that friendly.

Well, I think you're a thick shit. But don't worry, they're words of friendship.

[LJS]

anything to try and avoid facing up to what you were told would happen: vote SNP, get tory.

As I've said, if you think what the SNP did had no impact on how people voted in England, you don't understand the people of this island.

Sorry, if putting up candidates & campaigning to have them elected & arguing for a fairer country is so offensive to the English, it's clearly time to end this sham of a union.

Enjoy the Fox hunting.

Edited May 10, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

duplicitous bullshit.

She said "don't vote Labour anywhere in the UK", and you call that friendship

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

It makes you an arse.

[pink_triangle]

Anyway, much of this is based on this crazy notion that Labour might have won if it hadn't been for the SNP which is mathematical nonsense & ignores the large gains made by the Tories in local elections

Were the SNP responsible for them too?

interestingly, most of the saner voices within the Labour party are not blaming their woes on the SNP.

Incidentally, if it's true that the rest of the UK is terrified by Scottish voters electing mp's from a moderate centre left party, maybe the union is not working anymore?

I haven't said it cost us a Labour victory, I said it helped contribute to conservative majority, instead of minority which would have been a less worse option.

Of course council elections were heavily influenced by national issues. Due to increased turnout, due to people already being in the polling station.

I don't think that it is the left/right thing that worried people south of the border. More the fact of a party who want to break the country up influencing government and potential to push resources to Scotland at others expense, knowing others can't vote them out.

[eFestivals]

In a genuine attempt to reflect on where it went wrong for Labour in Scotland I would like to offer...

the hand of friendship, yet again?

Why do you think a bunch of people committed to something else are the right people to point out where Labour went wrong? I guess that means you'll be accepting of outside opinions of the SNP as utterly valid?

The SNP won in Scotland because they campaigned on the tories message, and the tories won in England because they had the SNP campaigning for them.

And one of us is closer to the truth than the other. I wonder which of us it might be?

[eFestivals]

SNP are an independence party using progressive policies as a means to an end.

they're not a progressive party, and they have no progressive policies.

They have a policy of "if it's money from the people of Scotland, Scotland doesn't need more money, but if we can get the suckers in England to pay we need shit loads of money from outsiders".

Or has the last year passed you by?

[eFestivals]

Fair enough mate. As you know the SNP took 56 seats. The folk up here know where they stand on independence. They didn`t get enough support for Independence last year but we now know that " some " no voters and previous labour voters are now right behind NS.

I had no issue with Salmond but I appreciate a lot of people in Scotland did. NS is winning rave reviews across the UK. More so in Scotland.

I suspect the SNP voters know exactly what they are voting for and are becoming more and more comfortable with it.

The folk up there don't have a clue where the SNP stand on anything.

Their stated policy is "if the English are paying give us more money, but otherwise it's austerity-Max for Scotland".

It's in the SNP's manifesto. It's what you voted for.