General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

One will do mate. Just one.

why not find an example of me having done it first? After all, you jumped on something just above in a completely different way to anything I actually said in that post.

[Comfy Bean]

I take it then that I have in fact never said that. I`m guessing you had a quick look, happy to move on but my suggestion to quote me stands

I didn`t mean to " pull you up " on anything but I`m not 100% sure what you mean. If your talking about the post when you said " you " and " your " I was trying to point out that on one hand we were all discussing whether " Scotland " should be referred to like it is some sort of block vote and then you appeared ( to me ) to be doing just that. I quoted the bit that Mark said....which you upvoted....and it seemed ( to me ) to be a bit of a contradiction.

[LJS]

The issue though, isn't that, it's the "government Scotland votes for" line (which I think was brought up again by LJS). The government Scotland votes for doesn't matter a damn because Scotland is part of the UK and it's the UK government that people in Scotland are voting for, or for their specific constituency. What MPs are returned in the region of Scotland doesn't matter any more that what MPs are returned in London, Sussex, East Anglia, Yorkshire, Wales, Cornwall, whatever.

What matters is what appears in Westminster, and 6 months ago Scotland voted to continue that.

Strangely though, many in England appear unhappy that the mp's elected by the voters in the "Scottish Region" of the UK may actually excercise some influence in the UK government. Apparently that wasn't what you had in mind at all.

[kaosmark2]

Strangely though, many in England appear unhappy that the mp's elected by the voters in the "Scottish Region" of the UK may actually excercise some influence in the UK government. Apparently that wasn't what you had in mind at all.

I detest this idea that Scottish MPs shouldn't be allowed to vote on certain issues. It's horribly divisive and is being done to appease the twattish English voters who are begrudging Scots any attention. There's twats both side of the border, but that doesn't stop me wanting to work together with the sensible ones north of it.

[eFestivals]

I take it then that I have in fact never said that. I`m guessing you had a quick look, happy to move on but my suggestion to quote me stands

my comment back assumed you didn't mean "all English" as I'd not said "all Scots".

You're certainly guilty of saying similar to what I do sometimes, of saying "them" when we both mean "just some of them".

I've no idea why you're trying to pick an argument around a concept I'd not used.

I didn`t mean to " pull you up " on anything but I`m not 100% sure what you mean. If your talking about the post when you said " you " and " your " I was trying to point out that on one hand we were all discussing whether " Scotland " should be referred to like it is some sort of block vote and then you appeared ( to me ) to be doing just that. I quoted the bit that Mark said....which you upvoted....and it seemed ( to me ) to be a bit of a contradiction.

The second time I said "many Scots", nothing for you to get upset about unless ypou deny there's many scots like that. Given i've met thousands of them online from England, I would laugh at lot if you did deny their existence.

[eFestivals]

Strangely though, many in England appear unhappy that the mp's elected by the voters in the "Scottish Region" of the UK may actually excercise some influence in the UK government. Apparently that wasn't what you had in mind at all.

There's fuck all of that, and you know that.

It's not that you're voting for representatives, it's the representatives you'll vote for. They're little different to Sinn Fein in many ways.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, care to point out the uproar when Scottish MPs caused purely-English laws to be passed into law? No? That's because there wasn't any uproar.

[LJS]

Gosh you've all been having such fun while i've been hard at work to ensure the Bankers get their 10% or 8% or whatever it is.

Can I make a couple of suggestions?

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.

2: Can we keep speculation about the viability of an Independent Scotland to the Dirty Independence thread where it belongs? As far as I am concerned, Independence is not a major issue at this election. Usually you get into trouble for going off topic - I guess that doesn't apply when you run the site!!!

Ignoring these two points, I would again challenge Neil's assertions about Nicola Sturgeon's anti austerity policies. He is right, in my opinion, to suggest that the Tories wish to cut too much. So, clearly we need to cut less. How much less is clearly a matter of opinion not fact. he seems to take the view that the Labour Party have magically picked the perfect number and anything with more cuts is evil Tory anti poor austerity max - & anything with less cuts is throwing money at the bankers. This is clearly an imbecilic interpretation of the situation but sadly typical of the man - if you don't agree with Neil you are a brain dead imbecile (PMSL).

On taxing the rich - I have linked a piece which says Nicola Sturgeon is minded to do so & asked Neil to back up his claim that the SNP want to throw money to the rich - his answer is he can't find anywhere where they say they won't throw money at the rich therefore they must be intending to do so. Well by this logic, I have been unable to find the Labour Party anywhere saying they are opposed to the legalisation of Cannibalism or the reintroduction of slavery so I hereby condemn their clear support for these measures.

The plain fact is that whether the SNP specifically commit to taxing the rich or not, their only possible role in the next government would be in some sort of arrangement with Labour & there is no way they will oppose such tax increases.

My point about the concern being raised in England over potential SNP involvement in a UK government is not specifically about EVEL, There is increasingly hysterical & unpleasant stuff about England (a region of no particular significance I take it?) being governed (partly) by a party it didn't vote for (oh the beautiful irony!)

The terrifying prospect of the Scots ruling England is now all too real: MAX HASTINGS on nightmare scenario facing Britain after the Election

By MAX HASTINGS FOR THE DAILY MAIL

To borrow the most incendiary saying of all: If Scotland rules England, I can foresee the Thames foaming with much blood

By ALLAN MASSIE FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY

I ken its only the Daily Mail but apparently some people read it.

Edited March 9, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

Neil makes great play of the fact that according to polls the Scots (or residents of the Scottish region of the UK) are pretty much as much opposed to immigration as the rest of the UK & he's right - It depresses me to see these results and I must admit is surprises me a wee bit too because it doesn't chime with my experience. [just to be clear, I am not and never have denied that there is racism in Scotland - there is & I have seen it myself and even, when I'm feeling particularly brave challenged it]

So I thought I'd look into it a wee bit further because there are tow things that matter when people are asked questions on issues. The first is their opinion (which is what is always quoted) and the second is how important the issue is to them ( which is rarely quoted)

To quote an extreme example if you conducted a poll & asked people if they were for or against an invasion from Zombie werewolves from Saturn, I guess pretty much 100% would be opposed. If you asked them how important this issue was to them it would probably rank well down the list behind the NHS, the Economy & who wins the X Factor.

So I went looking for how important immigration is as an issue in Scotland as opposed to the UK.

First i found a poll conduced in February this year (http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/which-if-any-of-these-issues-are-important-to-you-for-how-you-will-vote-in-the#table) which shows that immigration is the ninth most important issue for Scottish voters.

For the UK as a whole (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/na190nomoq/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Issues(2)-Most-important-issues-030315.pdf) immigration was the number one most important issue.

Incidentally i used the first poll i could find for each country (or region, take your pick) ... in other words I didn't spend ages searching for lots of polls to ensure my figures were consistent, but then neither did I pick through lots of polls to find the ones that best suited my argument.

So to sum up if you push us we are just as opposed to immigration as the rest of you but we are a lot less bothered about it.

[kaosmark2]

we

the rest of you

Clearly the divide and conquer attempt has worked. You see it as us and them, I see the UK as the UK, not Scots as separate to be disparaged and criticised.

[LJS]

Clearly the divide and conquer attempt has worked. You see it as us and them, I see the UK as the UK, not Scots as separate to be disparaged and criticised.

I'm not sure you are being entirely fair to me here but it does lead nicely into this ...

"Every Tory attack on the SNP is another blow to the union"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/09/tory-attack-snp-union-labour-snp-government

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article, I think the basic point that the line being taken by the Tories is a real threat to the Union, has some merit to it.

They are certainly more guilty of "us & them" than i'll ever be.

Edited March 9, 2015 by LJS

[kaosmark2]

I'm not sure you are being entirely fair to me here but it does lead nicely into this ...

"Every Tory attack on the SNP is another blow to the union"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/09/tory-attack-snp-union-labour-snp-government

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article, I think the basic point that the line being taken by the Tories is a real threat to the Union, has some merit to it.

They are certainly more guilty of "us & them" than i'll ever be.

I agree, the tories are driving the divide and rule ideology, both in general and regarding Scotland specifically, but the SNP are buying into it. They want the divide, so they can rule over a portion of it.

[eFestivals]

On taxing the rich - I have linked a piece which says Nicola Sturgeon is minded to do so & asked Neil to back up his claim that the SNP want to throw money to the rich - his answer is he can't find anywhere where they say they won't throw money at the rich therefore they must be intending to do so. Well by this logic, I have been unable to find the Labour Party anywhere saying they are opposed to the legalisation of Cannibalism or the reintroduction of slavery so I hereby condemn their clear support for these measures.

and then yes-ers wonder why the mainstream often treats them like fruitcakes.

[eFestivals]

My point about the concern being raised in England over potential SNP involvement in a UK government is not specifically about EVEL, There is increasingly hysterical & unpleasant stuff about England (a region of no particular significance I take it?) being governed (partly) by a party it didn't vote for (oh the beautiful irony!)

It's not that you're voting for representatives, it's the representatives you're voting for. As I keep pointing out to you, that's fuck all to do with anything - but don't let the truth stop you inventing fantasies.

I'm sure you'd think that if Scotland voted for ISIS they should be welcomed into the UK govt too.

[LJS]

and then yes-ers wonder why the mainstream often treats them like fruitcakes.

Neatly (?) dodging the point that you are making up SNP policies specifically so that you can argue against them.

Carry on.

[LJS]

It's not that you're voting for representatives, it's the representatives you're voting for. As I keep pointing out to you, that's fuck all to do with anything - but don't let the truth stop you inventing fantasies.

I'm sure you'd think that if Scotland voted for ISIS they should be welcomed into the UK govt too.

Could you please explain exactly what Isis have to do with anything? I can't imagine you are comparing the SNP to them? That would be the sort of talk that if it came from the nationalist side you would be the first to condemn.

Vote no because we value you & want you to play your part on the great UK democracy.

P.s. unless you vote SNP of course.

[eFestivals]

So to sum up if you push us we are just as opposed to immigration as the rest of you but we are a lot less bothered about it.

And that's because....?

Scotland has a tiny fraction of the immigration that England is currently getting.

UK immigration research shows 50% of English population lives in high migration areas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London#Ethnic_breakdown

one in eight - 13% - of England & Wales residents were born outside UK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdom

In comparison, Aberdeen has 16% born overseas (but plenty of nice rich Americans & Canadians), and Edinburgh has 15%, and Glasgow 12% ... and the rest of Scotland, not a lot. There's a total of 7% across Scotland, and a greater proportion of those immigrants to Scotland compared to England are also white-skinned, and so less noticeable to those who have a fixed-dislike of immigrants.

So few in fact, the SNP complain (that makes a change ) that "the UK government's restrictive immigration policies are damaging Scotland's economy", tho it's of course nothing to do with the huge number of immigrants to the UK not wanting to live in Scotland ... perhaps the UK govt should put a gun to their heads?

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2013-12-16/scotlands-immigrant-population-doubles-in-a-decade

[eFestivals]

Neatly (?) dodging the point that you are making up SNP policies specifically so that you can argue against them.

Carry on.

No, I'm pointing out that the SNP do not want to "tax the rich". If they did, they'd say it. Even the LibDems say it, and they've got less chance of leading the UK than the SNP have.

Being "minded" simply means that Nicola will do it as long as she can wash her hands of all responsibility for it, so that she can later blame nasty English Eton-stuffed Westminster for it.

FFS.

[eFestivals]

Could you please explain exactly what Isis have to do with anything?

They want to destroy the UK as it exists today.

On that part of things, can you spot the difference? No, neither can I.

[gary1979666]

Can't claim the below as my own sadly, but here's a bit from a Times opinion piece today, made me chuckle.

If David Cameron doesn’t want to appear on television, the broadcasters should revive an old format and host An Audience With Ed Miliband. I love the idea of Ed doing progressive capitalism gags before a crowd of invited celebrities. “I think Tess Daly has a question on inequality. Hi Tess.” It would be quite a moment in television history.

As Father Dougal said when he was told that Father Ted was going to have an audience with the Pope: “Oh, I love those programmes. Did you see the one with Elton John?”

[eFestivals]

Can't claim the below as my own sadly, but here's a bit from a Times opinion piece today, made me chuckle.

while it's amusing, it's also a squirrel - attempting to trivialise Cameron's refusal to engage with the democratic process. He works for us, the public.

And, as usual, the tory party have turned on the BBC, saying "how dare a public broadcaster act in the public interest".

It really is pathetic. Cluck-cluck.

[gary1979666]

It was an opinion piece from a very pro labour columnist - think he was speech writer for Blair - and he has said similar to you on this. I posted it for a giggle (more for the father ted reference really).

I reckon he's going to have to do all three. Another columnist described it as potentially being Cameron's 'bacon sandwich moment' if he doesn't.

Personally, would rather just listen to the Today interviews when they get properly grilled by Humphey's, rather than the debate-lite formats of 2010. The 7 headed debates are going to be pretty poor viewing - there'll be a lot of repetition and talking over each other. Still should go ahead, but hopefully will prompt a rethink for the next election. The head to head one will be worth a watch though, as a lot less noise going on and can cover a lot more ground (i.e. hopefully get to the detail of things).

Thinking about it - if the head to heads are a week before the elections and assume (big assumption) that they both do a solid job (i.e. no gaffes (and assuming DC turns up)) - could this knock the protest parties back a bit? As it shows a choice between Lab and Con - maybe focuses the mind about what we're voting for.

[LJS]

They want to destroy the UK as it exists today.

On that part of things, can you spot the difference? No, neither can I.

You can't spot the difference between a terrorist org & a democratic political party?

[gary1979666]

You can't spot the difference between a terrorist org & a democratic political party?

Have jihadi john and sturgeon ever been seen together? Makes you wonder if they're one and the same! hmmm?

[eFestivals]

The 7 headed debates are going to be pretty poor viewing

that's the very point of the 7 headed debate, as far as Cameron is concerned.

[eFestivals]

You can't spot the difference between a terrorist org & a democratic political party?

Yes I can.

Can YOU recognise a threat to the continuation of the UK?

Meanwhile, that whole "vote Labour get SNP" thing is only a different version of the "red tories" thing that Scotland's been singing for more than a year.

You need to get down the docks and get the fish to go with it, I reckon.