[Closed] Election Campaign

Thus the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Westminster want to prevent Scots having representation.

I don't think that's the case at all - what they don't want is anything to upset the fragile economic state. A volatile & vocal SNP is, sadly, looking likely to only disturb that.

Muddy, would you be happy with a fully devolved parliament in each of the 4 home nations plus a UK wide parliament? No EVEL bodges, a proper fix to a broken system?

English electorate can do nothing about that.

The irony of (potentially) England not getting the government it voted for any complaining long and hard about will probably best lost on those complaining, but I enjoy it.

what they don't want is anything to upset the fragile economic state. A volatile & vocal SNP is, sadly, looking likely to only disturb that.

Bollocks. The SNP wouldn't command that much power, and even if they did, scuppering the UK economy will only harm Scotland, not help it. Other things like scrapping Trident would free up a huge amount of cash for spending on Welfare etc which the other parties seem so keen to curb.

a proper fix to a broken system?

Well it wouldn't be a proper fix if there was one parliament for England. The population of London is greater than the population of Scotland. 53 million people deserve regional parliaments.

muddydwarf - Member

What NS considers valid voting points isn't particularly the case, its what the English constituencies consider valid that will be the flash points.

What you basically seem to be saying is "the snp shouldn't be allowed to vote on things that english people think are english only, even if they're actually not". If a line's to be drawn, it has to be drawn on a factual basis.

Ironically, or perhaps suspiciously, this is actually something that evel can deal with incredibly easily. You just throw in a clause that where a devolved matter would have a financial impact on Scotland, a correction will be made to cancel that out. At a stroke, the argument is neutralised, both in spirit and in fact.

But the people shouting for evel aren't proposing that- they're pushing for an obviously flawed evel that the nationalists can reasonably oppose. Who's got their cynical hats on tonight? There's political capital to be made from a flawed evel argument that can't be made from a good one.

Just as an aside, I think Ed Miliband made a decent point on this. Cameron proposes to deal with the English Question as basically an everyday manifesto and government matter- we'll decide what to do, write a law, pass it, done. The government of the day decides how government is done for everyone.

Miliband says constitutional change is too important for that, it should be done with a constitutional convention, with wider public input and contribution across parties and stakeholders, considering all options. Who thinks that's unreasonable?

Bollocks. The SNP wouldn't command that much power, and even if they did, scuppering the UK economy will only harm Scotland, not help it. Other things like scrapping Trident would free up a huge amount of cash for spending on Welfare etc which the other parties seem so keen to curb.

Easy now, no need for the language. Lets try & be adult.

I agree with you to an extent, however the markets didn't....when the referendum was taking place the concern could definitely be felt.

Whatnobeer - I would be happy(ish) with a fully federal system.
England has not had the govt it voted for remember? Scotland voted for Labour more than England over the last two parliaments so dont give that lazy line out. Scotland now ALWAYS gets the govt it votes for yet still expects to influence areas of English policy .

ernie_lynch - Member
Well it wouldn't be a proper fix if there was one parliament for England. The population of London is greater than the population of Scotland. 53 million people deserve regional parliaments.

That depends. Do people in England generally identify most strongly with an overall English identity, or with their regional identities? A federal system would have to reflect that sense of identity. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are devolved entities not because of their population sizes but because of how their citizens identify themselves.

A decent federal solution wouldn't be an easy thing to achieve but I feel it would be the right thing to achieve. Its structure would need to balance the differing sizes of the member populations. As I understand it that's part of why the US federal government has a senate with 2 senators per state and a house of representatives where congressmen are apportioned according to each state's population. Granted the approximately 10:1 population ratio between England and the other countries in the UK make it a harder square to circle but again, I think it's worth working out.

Plus it should be within England's rights to further devolve powers to its regions if it wants to. 🙂

North wind - I'm saying that perception is more dangerous than reality. And that its not about SNP, its about any Scots MP's.
Fix the solution and let it be known and it would hopefully solve the problem.

however the markets didn't....when the referendum was taking place the concern could definitely be felt.

I think you'll find that the concern was the effect of a separate Scotland, not whether the SNP were in government.

Anyway since when has it been up to the markets to dictate who should have political power ?

If any elected politician wants to screw the markets they have every right to do so, the electorate, if they so wish, can remove them.

If you struggle with that concept you haven't got to grips with what democracy means.

The really odd thing in all of this is watching the 2 big unionist parties putting so much effort into doing the greatest possible damage to the union, while the SNP are offering an option that could actually strengthen it and being rebuffed.

No really 😉

If any elected politician wants to screw the markets they have every right to do so, the electorate, if they so wish, can remove them.

Right may be, ability not. Politics may succeed in the ST but economics and reality prevail in the end. Dilma is the latest proof

Anyway Bolly, Montrachet and Fluerie inhibits any more, good night.

muddydwarf - Member
... and we now have a political grouping coming to Westminster that are willing to abuse the anomalies for their own political ends and the English electorate can do nothing about that...

Let's see, over democratically elected 500 MPs in Westminster, and of those maybe 40 SNP MPs, and you're saying that the SNP are abusing the system.

There's nothing to stop the English MPs overpowering the Scottish MPs with weight of numbers any time they like.

The simplest answer is for you to get on the blower to your MP and tell them to expel the Scots from the Union because they are unfairly using democracy against England.

I'm sure we in Scotland would quietly accept our fate.

A federal system would have to reflect that sense of identity.

Not at all. Most western democracies operate some form of federal system, do you think the states in the US or Australia for example are based on a sense of identity? London is the only English region to have some vague form of devolved power, do you think this is because it reflects a sense of identity?

That's a reasonable argument muddydwarf but it's not the argument being made by the political parties or the national press, so probably drifting off the point.

There's only one counterargument against a good evel law, which is making the case for proper english devolution and the removal of regional matters from the national parliament. And that's a longer term project, so it's entirely reasonable to build a stopgap.

But there's lots of arguments against a bad evel law and that's where we are right now- with the government proposing a bad law then feigning outrage when people point out its faults.

And just to loop it back- I think I'm right to say that Sturgeon has said only that the SNP would vote on devolved matters where there's still an impact on Scotland, which makes it an entirely moot point.

And I am definitely right to say that David Cameron says that SNP MPs shouldn't be allowed into the government of our country, full stop. It's not an evel issue.

But Cameron is an idiot playing to the idiot gallery.
No one reasonable really thinks Scots MP's shouldn't play a role in the direction of the UK - its having then play an unelected role in English matters whilst English MP's cannot play that role in Scotland.
If devolved powers are the sole right of the Scottish Parliament then the very same should be true for England. Until that happens you are going to see a rising anger about the SNP meddling in English affairs.

its having then play an unelected role in English matters whilst English MP's cannot play that role in Scotland.

Scottish MP's are elected to the same Parliament as everyone else, so you can't say their unelected. And as far as Westminster is concerned, there's no such thing as 'English' matters. If England wants to sort this out they need to ask for the same situation as the other 3 nations have - their own Parliament. As long as Westminster is the seat of the UK government anyone is it should be entitled to vote on anything that comes before it.

Cameron is an idiot playing to the idiot gallery.

Fully agree with this though :p

I think you'll find that the concern was the effect of a separate Scotland, not whether the SNP were in government.

Anyway since when has it been up to the markets to dictate who should have political power ?

If any elected politician wants to screw the markets they have every right to do so, the electorate, if they so wish, can remove them.

If you struggle with that concept you haven't got to grips with what democracy means.

How unbelievably patronising......you are usually far less so & worth reading/the better for it!

In your first & second line you are correct, but don't think for a second that govt doesn't get concerned when the economy gets the jitters over a political decision. That's just being naive.

That's just being naive.

How patronising, I would have expected better from someone who just accused someone else of being patronising.

In your first & second line you are correct

Oh thank you.

It shouldn't be surprising that the UK GE thread has morphed into [u]another[/u] Scotland indie debate !

No it shouldn't be considering what an issue the Tories have made of the SNP. I've just heard Cameron on the telly being interviewed declaring that the SNP wants to destroy the country - indeed they don't want it to exist!

BBC up to its usual tricks - Spot the subliminal message

[IMG] [/IMG]

kimbers - Member
It shouldn't be surprising that the UK GE thread has morphed into another Scotland indie debate !

The hysterical tantrums from the leaders of the Labour and Tory party about the dangers of 40 Scottish MPs holding a poor cowering 400+ English MPs to ransom has made it so.

Basically they do not want Scottish representation in their "English" parliament, so yeah, thats worth a mention.

Indeed, and this is a good thing for the rest of the UK too - without the SNP, would the Greens and PC have been in the debates? The original proposals were for the 3 main parties plus UKIP. Without the SNP's huge rise, there would have probably been no-one on TV who wasn't a wealthy white man in a suit, calling for more austerity.

So its ok that policy over affairs that are not the responsibility of Westminster in Scotland can be proposed/affected/implemented by MP's whose constituencies are not affected by those policies?
Let us then dissolve the Scottish Parliament if all MP's are to be equal.

Why is it so hard to understand why English voters are feeling upset about this? For me its immaterial what party those MP's represent as it is a principle of unfairness. For others its that they do not trust the SNP, the anti Westminster rhetoric during indyref was widely seen as being anti English (whether it was seen like that from Scotland matters not) and many simply do not trust the SNP to have any interest in working for the good of the UK.
The idea of a veto for English MP's is a sticking plaster, the HoC should become (again) the English Parliament & we create a Federal Parliament in the Lords.

its having then play an unelected role in English matters whilst English MP's cannot play that role in Scotland

Its interesting to note the unionists are less keen on this principle[ including the Tories ] when the shoe is on the other foot and Scotlands tail wags the rUk dog and its only fair when they are doing the "undemocratic" bit.

Pleased you are coming round to seeing the weakness of a union though

As for EVEL if they want it get your own parliament Dont use westminster for this task. Its the same manner as which england play the UK national anthem ..it has to be separate and "english" not the UK one.
If the english want devolution let them have it I say

The hysterical tantrums from the leaders of the Labour and Tory party about the dangers of 40 Scottish MPs holding a poor cowering 400+ English MPs to ransom has made it so

Stay in the union and get who we give you says rUIK...PS we are better together and we love you.

[img] ?oh=3682450bbb0d2cdc32c6baa0ff9e7d9e&oe=55C47EF3[/img]

From the Guardian:

...Never mind that in the union there’s no such thing as England-only legislation, because the money financing it is supplied by the UK as a whole. Never mind? These are insurmountable difficulties.

If England wants England-only votes, then it’s going to have to have an England-only electoral mandate. At the moment, only Scotland appears to understand this....

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/01/scotland-is-sending-a-curveball-not-just-labour-it-will-hit ]The whole article.[/url]

This UK really needs properly devolved governments in each part if it is to survive. The question is why aren't the English doing something about getting it in their own country?

May have skipped your attention whilst you were all wrapped up in the referendum, but no one got the govt they voted for - why is Scotland special?
Why should Westminster be left out of it? It was the seat of the English Parliament for centuries.
BTW - I'm not a Unionist as I was really hoping for a yes vote to avoid all this.
EDIT: I am of the opinion that the Union should not survive, at least in its current form.

It's not just the election campaign. Since the morning after the referendum, When he stood on the Downing Street steps, Dave has used the Scottish 'issue' as the most cynical, nasty and divisive piece of party political opportunism I have ever seen.

It's absolutely disgusting what he, and his friends in the right wing press are doing! It's deliberately stoking up petty nationalism for his own narrow political ends.

And if anyone can give me any of examples where that's ever ended well, I'm all ears....

muddydwarf - Member
May have skipped your attention whilst you were all wrapped up in the referendum, but no one got the govt they voted for - why is Scotland special?...

Because we believe that in a democracy you don't have to get the govt that the political donors paid for.

Have told us that they will not engage with our chosen representatives

No they haven't!

In fact Andy Burnham couldn't have been much clearer in saying that 'of course' there would be dialogue with the SNP, but that there was no possibility of coalition or deals with thrm.

ninfan - Member
...In fact Andy Burnham couldn't have been much clearer in saying that 'of course' there would be dialogue with the SNP, but that there was no possibility of coalition or deals with thrm.

Is he leader of the Labour party yet?

Or is this yet another bit of deniable enticement? (eg like "The Vow" or Brown's "pledge")

Because we believe that in a democracy you don't have to get the govt that the political donors paid for.

Aaah hahaha!

Cos of course, the Scots are pure and honorable and would never stoop, unlike those despicable English..

Can you point to an example of any of the parties saying they would not engage with the SNP?

And that poster - wtf? No representation? You've got as much representation as I've had for five years.. Unless you think snp mps will be denied a vote?

Should everywhere that doesn't return an mp from the governing party leave the union? You don't seem to understand how this works. Even without a deal your snp mps will still vote either yes or no in any given vote. How is that not representation the same as everyone else?

May have skipped your attention whilst you were all wrapped up in the referendum, but no one got the govt they voted for - why is Scotland special?

PS why are you objecting to no one getting the govt they voted for but it having the SNP in it

Can you point to an example of any of the parties saying they would not engage with the SNP?

Why should Westminster be left out of it? It was the seat of the English Parliament for centuries.

BTW - I'm not a Unionist as I was really hoping for a yes vote to avoid all this.

The main point here is that the unionist parties are doing the SNP's work for them. All the SNP have to do is continue portraying themselves as the good guys, willing to work for the good of the UK, while the other parties continue to portray the SNP (and by implication - rightly or wrongly - the Scots as a whole) as the forces of evil that must be opposed at all costs.

For the Tories it's a reasonable approach as they've already been comprehensively rejected in Scotland so pandering to the xenophobes in their party (who maybe see Scotland as one of the few remaining corners of the English empire) has no downside for them. Labour are in a more complicated situation as no-one is yet clear whether the rejection of them in Scotland is a permanent thing (i.e. as it has been in the last few Scottish elections) or whether there might be a swing back in the next week or even in the next few years. Labour also need Scottish seats in a way that the Tories don't.

Junkie - I was referring to the physical place called the Palace of Westminster, not the political entity.

As for Scotland, I simply feel we would be better off apart & that then both Nations could have a grown up dialogue. It certainly isn't happening now is it?
I love how if Scots want an end to the Union they are progressive forward looking citizens & if English people want an end to the Union they are xenophobic inwards looking bigots.

Imagine a scenario.

Every constituency in Scotland votes for a SNP MP.
The Tories get an overall majority and get in power.

People's shit will flip

yourguitarhero - the more Daves ramp up this ridiculous, small-minded and nasty English nationalism, the more likely that scenario becomes. As even many senior Tories have pointed out, this is a very very dangerous game that Dave is playing

And in typical fashion, its all for his own incredibly cynical, short term political gain, without even caring what the long term implications are for us all as a country.

It seems that Dave's survival as PM and Tory leader means anything is a price worth paying.

Coming out of Europe? The break up of the UK? All fair game to be laid at the alter of his monumental arrogance, and hideous sense of entitlement

It's interesting to look at how honest the SNP are.

One of their key election pledges is "anti-austerity" and they also make ludicrous claims about English NHS spending impacting on the Scottish NHS.

The NHS in Scotland is fully devolved and has been heading towards crisis for the last 4 years - the SNP say it needs more money but aside from chump change have not actually funded it.

The Scottish Parliament (controlled by the SNP) already has powers to increase tax by up to 3p via the variable levy but has never done so.

So basically the SNP are "for" additional public spending, complain about current funding (despite Scotland already receiving significantly higher captitated payments for public services than the rest of the uk), have the powers to raise tax but have never used them.

It's difficult not to conclude therefore that the SNP want higher public spending but only paid for by England as they have the powers to make Scots pay for their own public services but haven't used them.

just5minutes - Member
...It's difficult not to conclude therefore that the SNP want higher public spending but only paid for by England as they have the powers to make Scots pay for their own public services but haven't used them.

eh? Utter bovine exhaust.

What the SNP want is to have control of all revenue in Scotland so we can pay for the services we want ourselves, and incidentally stop subsidising England.

What the SNP want is to have control of all revenue in Scotland so we can pay for the services we want ourselves, and incidentally stop subsidising England.

The SNP (and Labour) are committed to higher public spending. They already have the powers to raise the tax from Scots needed to pay for this spending. So why haven't they done it?

Claiming that the Scots are "subsidising" England in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary has about as much logic to it as claiming the sun draws power from the moon.

From Channel 4 Fact Check:

Scottish Executive figures for 2009-10 show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words, spending in Scotland was £1,030 - or 10% higher - per head of population than the UK average.
What about revenues? The same source shows Scottish total non-oil tax revenues coming in at £42.7bn in 2009-10, or £8,221 per head, which compares with total public expenditure attributable to Scotland of £59.2bn, or £11,370 per head.
Incidentally, these numbers include not just the so-called "identifiable" public spending that took place in Scotland, on schools, roads and the like, but also more amorphous parts of the budget like defense and debt interest.
On this basis, Scotland 'got' £16.5bn more in UK public spending in 2009-10 than it contributed to total UK revenues - or a 'subsidy' of around £3,150 per head.

just5minutes - Member
The SNP (and Labour) are committed to higher public spending. They already have the powers to raise the tax from Scots needed to pay for this spending. So why haven't they done it?

Because they can't. It's a catch-22 setup.

Claiming that the Scots are "subsidising" England in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary has about as much logic to it as claiming the sun draws power from the moon.

Read the tax per head produced versus tax per head spent anytime in the last 30 odd years. Or even back in the Imperial days

3 times in the last 15 years

[url= http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/full-fiscal-autonomy-for-dummies.html?m=1 ]FFA analysis[/url]

mefty - Member
3 times in the last 15 years

FFA analysis

Mmm, does that allow for the taxes currently being paid by companies HQed in England but operating in Scotland? Those taxes would then be paid in Scotland.

The assumptions seem to include Scotland continuing the same path as England.

It probably illustrates why it should be full independence rather than FFA so we're not tied to UK spending habits such as imperial delusions.

Based on Scottish Government figures which use the following methodology

GERS apportions a share of UK corporation tax revenues based on the economic activity undertaken in Scotland and not the location of companies’ headquarters. Public corporations’ and North Sea corporation tax revenues are excluded from the analysis and are apportioned to Scotland separately.

So yes

On this basis, Scotland 'got' £16.5bn more in UK public spending in 2009-10 than it contributed to total UK revenues - or a 'subsidy' of around £3,150 per head.

Just going to jump on this - yes, there's a difference. It's because the UK borrows money, and spends it. Some of that money is spent in Scotland. So it's not a subsidy at all, it's our share of UK borrowing that the Westminster government borrows on our behalf.

If you look at percentage of tax revenues vs. percentage of spending, then Scotland contributes 9.5% of revenues and receives 9.3% of funding. In other words Scotland is a net contributor to the UK.

If you look at percentage of tax revenues vs. percentage of spending, then Scotland contributes 9.5% of revenues and receives 9.3% of funding. In other words Scotland is a net contributor to the UK.

Nope - look at your own government's numbers they are all in [url= http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/full-fiscal-autonomy-for-dummies.html?m=1 ]here[/url]

Imagine a scenario. Every constituency in Scotland votes for a SNP MP. The Tories get an overall majority and get in power. People's shit will flip]

And the Scots [i]still[/i] get to play the victim card because they didn't get the government they voted for 😆

just5minutes The Scottish government has never used those tax varying powers for 2 reasons. Income tax rises are never popular and importantly as Douglas Fraser tells us it would not work as the cost of collecting the tax would use most of the extra money collected http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26630498

Let's not get too deflected into an independence discussion, much as I love them 🙂

The real issue seems to be EVEL.

So if EVEL, then SVSL is ok, and each side refrains from voting on the others issues?

It should keep even the English extreme right happy - right up to the point where the Scottish MPs vote for independence...

Nope - look at your own government's numbers they are all in here

Interesting blog, but written by a very strong No supporter, so perhaps not entirely unbiased 😉

This is another interesting overall view:

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0044/00446179.pdf#page=7

Oh thank you.

Come off it ernie, I'm agreeing with you & you know that - playing the wounded soldier doesn't wash.

As for patronising? It's not nice is it??

just5minutes The Scottish government has never used those tax varying powers for 2 reasons. Income tax rises are never popular

This is precisely the point - the Scots are "anti austerity" so long as someone else is paying the extra tax.

You can be as patronising as you want mrlebowski, it doesn't bother me - on the contrary it amuses me. I particularly like it when THM starts falling back on the patronising tactic, when that happens I know that he's feeling under pressure and that he's losing his grip on the argument.

So anyway you agree with me? God I hate that. It always makes me feel uncomfortable.

I love how if Scots want an end to the Union they are progressive forward looking citizens & if English people want an end to the Union they are xenophobic inwards looking bigots.

It's interesting to look at how honest the SNP are.

It's difficult not to conclude therefore that the SNP want higher public spending but only paid for by England

IIRC the UK is more than just england. even Farage avoids that trap

ernie_lynch - Member
You can be as patronising as you want mrlebowski, it doesn't bother me - on the contrary it amuses me. I particularly like it when THM starts falling back on the patronising tactic, when that happens I know that he's feeling under pressure and that he's losing his grip on the argument

Oi, leave me out of your patronising ping pong - amusingly ironic though it is 😉

Back on the theme of Scottish spending - simply look at what happens in practice rather than the tosh that comes out of SNP mouths - try those important things like health and secondary education, or student grants (and note what Edinburgh Uni says about whether more poorer people go to Uni or not as a result), or look at the centralisation of power that occurs under their rule or, heaven forbid, Stop and Search policies. About as LW as Farrage's old gran!

Still the ends justify the means. Be careful what your vote for.

With the a few days ago, the election stands out for being tight and very sweaty.

Anybody already voted then? My postal vote went yesterday. I just hope he's grateful enough to buy me a pint.....

[img] [/img]

😀

No, the local red council lost my postal ballot papers ... I suspect something fishy there to be honest.

I should receive the ballot papers again on Tuesday and if I still don't get them then I am going to the council to see them in person. Yes, I will.

😡

Not cutting & pasting because I'm on my phone.
Junky, Scotland is not independent so is still subject to the UK govt & that means MP's from all the UK.
The difference between England & Scotland is that Scotland has devolved powers & that means Scottish MP's have the potential to vote on things that do not affect their constituencies, English MP's cannot do that in the Scottish Parliament. That is the problem, nothing more or less. It doesn't matter who Scottish constituencies send to Westminster, the fact they will be SNP doesn't matter to me - it is the idea they may vote a measure through that does not affect their constituents & therefore be unanswerable to those affected that I find disturbing. Can you not see why that is wrong in principle?
It is that, plus the unpleasantness off the indyref that makes me want the dissolution of the Union as I can see no other alternative.

muddydwarf - Member
...It doesn't matter who Scottish constituencies send to Westminster, the fact they will be SNP doesn't matter to me - it is the idea they may vote a measure through that does not affect their constituents & therefore be unanswerable to those affected that I find disturbing. Can you not see why that is wrong in principle?...

Of course it's wrong in principle. Welcome to what Scots have been complaining about for over 100 years.

But that's exactly how the Labour and Tory party have been using and would use the votes of their Scottish MPs. If Labour were to get their usual bulk vote from Scotland that would be happening again.

Ironically it is the SNP MPs who do not vote on English only issues, and will continue to hold to that principle.

That's despite what the overseas billionaire press owners and their tame puppets in the main parties are telling you.

And any time the English MPs agree on an issue they can outvote the Scottish MPs anyway, so your problem really lies with the English parties and how they co-operate or otherwise.

According to the Guardian’s latest projection of polls, the Tories are projected to win 276 seats, Labour 267, the SNP 55, the Lib Dems 27, the DUP nine, Ukip three and the Greens are set to retain their one seat.

So a vote for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.

If the Scots want their vote to count in Parliament, the only logical vote is for Labour.

I'll be helping the Greens retain their seat 😀

I believe spending on the NHS in Scotland has gone down under the SNP.

Ironically it is the SNP MPs who do not vote on English only issues, and will continue to hold to that principle.

Not anymore they are not, because they argue there is no such thing.

mefty - Member
'Ironically it is the SNP MPs who do not vote on English only issues, and will continue to hold to that principle.'
Not anymore they are not, because they argue there is no such thing.

Care to support that with a quote from Nicola Sturgeon?

So if we wake up with a Conservative government next week, we know who to thank eh!

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30917414 ]yep[/url]

That's despite what the overseas billionaire press owners and their tame puppets in the main parties are telling you.

Murdoch's Scottish Sun supports the SNP

Murdoch's Scottish Sun supports the SNP

No, Murdoch wants Miliband to loose as many seats as possible

mefty - Member
yep

That affects health funding in Scotland so of course we'll vote on it.

Try another.

And no one here is fooled by Murdoch. He's just having a go at Milliband for standing up to him. Murdoch doesn't give a stuff for the SNP.

It's one of the things Milliband could do something about if he was in govt with the backing of the SNP.

Precisely my point, they argue every English decision has an indirect effect on Scotland so they are entitled to vote - clear change in policy

And no one here is fooled by Murdoch. He's just having a go at Milliband for standing up to him. Murdoch doesn't give a stuff for the SNP.

Murdoch spent more time with Salmond than any other UK politician.

mefty - Member
Precisely my point, they argue every English decision has an indirect effect on Scotland so they are entitled to vote - clear change in policy

It's a very direct connection. Try again.

Murdoch did indeed spend some time with Salmond before the referendum. He could have come out for us then but didn't. I don't know why, but I suspect that Salmond was not prepared to give him what he wanted.

It is plain simple business good sense for Murdoch to support the SNP now. When your sales have been plummeting and over half the population refuse to buy your product, then it makes sense to try to support them rather than continue to attack and slur them.

There are quite a few businesses still being boycotted because of their interference in the referendum.

futon river crossing - Member
I believe spending on the NHS in Scotland has gone down under the SNP.

And then check education spending....all those things that the LW is suppose to treasure. No, really.

Folk need to have their eyes open (and their ears closed to the BS) when they go to vote.

Rhetoric and reality are uncomfortable in this election. No wonder it's getting so, so sweaty.

It's a very direct connection. Try again.

Nope - no line by line link between English and Scottish expenditure everything goes through the block grant - however, if she believes what she is saying the policy to not vote on English only matters is absolutely worthless as following her logic there is no such thing.

And then check education spending....all those things that the LW is suppose to treasure. No, really.

When the money in your pot is reduced, then you have no option but to spend less on NHS and education.

Except England managed to do exactly that - they increased NHS spending despite the money in the pot reducing even more!

[i]2. Between 2009-10 and 2015-16 spending on the NHS in England will, on currently announced plans, have risen by about 4% in real terms despite an overall fall of 13% in English departmental spending.
3. Over the same period the vagaries of the Barnett formula mean that Scotland will have had to cut overall public service spending by less – by about 8% rather than 13%. But the Scottish government has chosen to protect the NHS in Scotland slightly less than it has been protected in England. Spending on the NHS in Scotland has fallen by 1%.[/i]

Sauce - [url= http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7366 ]IFS[/url]

Spending per head of population on health in Scotland is still around 10% more than it is in England though.

Rupert Murdoch isn't the only super rich individual which the SNP has sought to have have a cosy relationship with, the other obvious one is well known homophobe Brian Souter.

On the NHS yes the SNP sees it as an area where it can cut back its financial commitments :

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29213416 ]NHS in Scotland 'faces £400m funding gap'[/url]

[b][i]"The status quo and preservation of existing models of care are no longer an option given the pressing challenges we face."

"There is a complete gap between policy announcements about care in the community and more money for primary care, and the announcements and commitments which continually increase the cost of acute care."[/i][/b]

And then check education spending....all those things that the LW is suppose to treasure. No, really.

You mean stuff like this ?

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/28/scottish-student-borrowing-soars-record-levels ]Scottish student borrowing soars by 69% to record levels [/url]

[b][i]Scottish students are being forced to take out record levels of debt after the Scottish government cut the grants they could claim by 40%.

The heaviest burden is being carried by the poorest students after ministers cut overall spending on grants for living costs from £89.4m to £53m last year, and introduced far less generous funding bands which penalised low income applications.

The average loans taken out by students from the lowest income families averaged out at £5,610 a year, compared to £4,340 for students from better off homes, said Lucy Blackburn Hunter, a former civil servant who specialises in higher education policy.[/i][/b]

And then there are local services :

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/05/scottish-councils-pile-up-record-debt ]Scottish councils pile up record debt[/url]

[b][i]The Guardian has established that Scottish councils owe more than twice as much per head than English and Welsh local authorities, equal to debts of £6,166 per household, compared with £3,100 per home in England and £2,825 per household in Wales.

The overall debts have surged in the past eight years after councils borrowed more heavily than before to help offset continuing cuts in revenue and capital funding from the Scottish government, often with heavy encouragement from civil servants.[/i][/b]

Then there is the much trumpeted SNP commitment to the Living Wage in the public sector, but unlike Labour the SNP has made no commitment to contract compliance. So that in case of civil servants which are generally paid sufficiently not to be affected it will have no bearing, while cleaners, whose work in generally contracted out, will not receive it.

Then there is austerity. The SNP talks a fine talk with regards to austerity but according to the independent and non-political Institute for Fiscal Studies :

[b][i]The SNP’s fiscal numbers imply the same reduction in borrowing over the next parliament as Labour, although the reduction in borrowing under their plans would be slower. While their plans imply a slower pace of austerity than those of the other three parties, they imply a longer period of austerity.

Their proposed tax giveaways appear to be offset by their tax takeaways, while they would increase the generosity of the social security system. As a result, even though they propose increasing total spending in real terms each year, departmental spending would need to be broadly frozen between 2014–15 and 2019–20, and departmental spending outside of the NHS and aid could be facing a cut of 4.3%. The SNP’s manifesto states that “We reject the current trajectory of spending, proposed by the UK government and the limited alternative proposed by the Labour Party”. There is a considerable disconnect between this rhetoric and their stated plans for total spending, which imply a lower level of spending by 2019–20 than Labour’s plans.[/i][/b]

[url= http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7726 ]IFS Press Release[/url]

And :

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/09/snp-fails-to-account-for-billions-in-welfare-and-pensions-pledges ]SNP fails to account for billions in welfare and pensions pledge, says IFS[/url]

On the nationalisation while Labour is pisspoor only offering :

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/18/public-control-more-rail-network-promises-labour-dugher ]Public to control more of rail network, promises Labour[/url]

The SNP won't even match that preferring to hand Scottish franchises to private monopolies.

I fully agree with THM assertion that the SNP is not left-wing beyond its rhetoric. And I also fully accept Labour's claim that the SNP's figures don't add up and would in fact lead to even greater cuts than they are proposing.

Someone earlier on the thread asked me to provide evidence that the SNP on many issues was more right-wing than Labour, at the time I quite frankly couldn't be arsed to tap out a long thread but the stuff above is enough to be getting on with.

The SNP is not a left-wing party. It is a populist nationalist party which has identified the hostility towards the Tories which has built up over more than three decades, and the growing disillusionment with Labour since its dramatic lurch to the right.

And having done so has very successfully seduced many traditional Labour voters, including a fair few on here who lack class identity, with their left-wing rhetoric.

Having said that I personally feel that Labour getting wiped out in Scotland by the SNP will be the most exciting recent development in British politics.

IMO Labour has reached a point where it is beyond redemption, it can't be saved, it's finished. But if by some miracle it was to abandon its right-wing neoliberal agenda and once again become the party of ordinary working people this could only happen as the result of electoral failure. There is zero chance that it will change if it wins elections.

The right-wing which now fully controls the party have created the conditions in which their grip is self-perpetuating. Electoral defeat is only means by which their power and influence can stand any chance of being wrestled from them.

How much better that this defeat should be at the hands of those who espouse left-wing rhetoric than a right-wing party of loonies fruitcakes and closet racists such as UKIP.

Britain desperately needs a party which represents the interests of ordinary working people and which has a direct connection with them, like it once had. This won't happen as long as Labour are seen as the solution. Today's Labour Party, Thatcher's proudest achievement, is the problem, not the solution.

I'm looking forward to next Friday morning and the new confidence I hope it will bring to the rest of the UK 🙂

ernie
Why do you think the right wing controls the Labour Party?
It's a democratic organisation after all isn't it?

It's a democratic organisation after all isn't it?

😆

EDIT : You were joking?