2015 General Election

I thought it was interesting that Ed Miliband said

Mr Miliband said his party had been overwhelmed by a "surge of nationalism".

Now, when seen in the context of England I think that's quite apt. Labour has been overvhelmed by a rise in nationalism, just look at UKIP at 11% of the votes, a xenophobic, anti immigration, euro sceptic, nationalist party. That seem to reflect a general change n attitude in the UK, and from the outside it looks quite scary. You now have have a majority governement that has pledged to hold a referendum on EU membership andis talking about repealing the European Convention of Human Rights, because less accountability for a nation and it's governement and lessening the basic rights of the individual is of course a good thing.

I don't really see such nationalism and isolationism leading to much good in the long run, but that's the governement you as a country voted in with a majority. So, what do I know..

In the words of Oberyn Martell.

"If you would wed, wed,” the Red Viper had told his own daughters. “If not, take your pleasure where you find it. There’s little enough of it in this world. Choose well, though. If you saddle yourself with a fool or a brute, don’t look to me to rid you of him. I gave you the tools to do that for yourself."

If Scotland is still part of the UK in 2017, which they almost certainly will be, then they will stay or leave the EU along with the rest of the UK. Sub-national units don't get to join international organizations separately from their parent state, not the sort of organization the EU is anyway. - Eldo

I know that! But if it triggers an indy referendum and Scotland votes to leave what happens for the several years it takes for that to happen - dos Scotland have to leave as part of the Uk and come back, does it remain as the successor state? And what happens to projects and funding from Europe that are ongoing- how would the Fisheries work inbetween times?


'Labour has been overvhelmed by a rise in nationalism, just look at UKIP at 11% of the votes, a xenophobic, anti immigration, euro sceptic, nationalist party.'- Blue

One of the odd things about different types of nationalism is that UKIP worry and scare me in equal measure for what they stand for, and I vote SNP for what they stand for. Nationalism both, but very different flavours.

One of the odd things about different types of nationalism is that UKIP worry and scare me in equal measure for what they stand for, and I vote SNP for what they stand for. Nationalism both, but very different flavours.

that is utter bollocks and you know it. nationalism is nationalism and your lot can be just as low down and nasty as any UKIP voter

Im not talking about voters- never mentioned voters- I am talking about the parties and what they stand for.

The SNP stands for Scottish Independence- but in a Scotland of equal partners, pro-europe, pro-immigration, pro-friends with England. They don't want to throw anyone out the country, they don't say anyone doesn't belong here, or have a right to live here. They stand for equality, fairness and representation of the people.

UKIP on the otherhand stand for Britain withdrawing from Europe, they have talked about repatriating immigrants, they want to seperate people between those who have a 'right to belong' and those who dont.
There has been a long line of their party members who have had to be sacked for racist, sexist abuse.

At its very base the SNP want Scotland to be independent and equal to other nations.

UKIP at their base want England to separate themselves from foreigners.

They couldn't be more different in their basic premise.


Not all nationalism is the same- today we commemorated the end of WW2 and remembered the Fallen- a sense of nationalism got the homefront through the war.

I get what you mean now, Petty. Hopefully the EU (and British parties) will be willing to address the issue instead of the mix of people pretending there was precedent and others saying "wait and see" because they benefited from the uncertainty.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Im not talking about voters- never mentioned voters- I am talking about the parties and what they stand for.

The SNP stands for Scottish Independence- but in a Scotland of equal partners, pro-europe, pro-immigration, pro-friends with England. They don't want to throw anyone out the country, they don't say anyone doesn't belong here, or have a right to live here. They stand for equality, fairness and representation of the people.

UKIP at their base want England to separate themselves from foreigners., they have talked about repatriating immigrants, they want to seperate people between those who have a 'right to belong' and those who dont.
There has been a long line of their party members who have had to be sacked for racist, sexist abuse.

At its very base the SNP want Scotland to be independent and equal to other nations.

UKIP at their base want England to separate themselves from foreigners.

They couldn't be more different in their basic premise.


Not all nationalism is the same- today we commemorated the end of WW2 and remembered the Fallen- a sense of nationalism got the homefront through the war.

UKIP at their base want England to separate themselves from foreigners. UKIP at their base want England to separate themselves from foreigners.

pure unadultered rank hypocracy. YOU want to withdraw from the UK, you want separation from the English. YOU want to turn the rest of the UK into foreigners.
and its about time you gave up the poor Scot under the thumb of the Evil Empire schtick, because it doesn't wash any more. without Cameron and his evil mates we would still be wallowing in the terrible mess that places like Greece now find themselves. think yourselves lucky you live next door to competent economists.

YOU want to withdraw from the UK. You want separation from the English.- Figg

No not really. We want Scotland to be an independent nation standing as an equal nation to the others of these islands- we dont want to seperate from them, we want to take back political control from the UK level and return it to the Scottish people at a more local level.
England will still be our neighbour, still our biggest trading partner, people with English friends and family (myself included) will still have them afterwards. There is no separation save for the political.
Noone is saying english should be thrown out- anyone English who lives here got to vote in the referendum.
Last night (well this morning) a UKIP member was saying they want to ensure immigrants cant vote in the EU referendum as they have a vested interest in the EU.

The two are just not comparable.



think yourselves lucky you live next door to competent economists.- Figg

Then how do explain the Scottish Parliament balancing their books every year and Westminster running up massive debts every year?

During the referendum debate The Economist said this about if Scotland independent could survive on its then current tax take-

"Canada,Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey and the US — all of whose governments get by on collecting less tax, as a share of GDP, than Scotland does. "

In my view John Swinney is the best Finance Minister in the UK. Makes Balls and Osbourne look like amateurs.
So I dont feel that Scotland needs to take any advice on finance from a literally bankrupt Westminster.

I'd say ou both have a point, as, one, nationalism is nationalism, and both UKIP and the SNP are nationalist at heart, but, two, everything coupled with that nationalism is different. Or perhaps rather what reaction nationalism leads you to, the consequenses nationalism has. That's not to say the helpfulness of the nationalistic side of the SNP can't be discussed. And I would say as much of my positive feelings for them as a party comes from their general policies, as their stance on independence.

I would say though, that by the complete political divide betwen Scotland and the rest of the UK, the case that the political status quo can't continue is kind of making itself. Whether the answer is further devolution or independence is what we'll find out in the next couple of years, I guess.

Then how do explain the Scottish Parliament balancing their books every year and Westminster running up massive debts every year?

then how do you explain food banks? surely those lovely SNP people don't let people starve on the streets.

For me Blue the difference comes down to starting points- UJUIP starting point is a sor tof lieelt-englande mentality, insulated and afraid of change and of johnny-foreigner.
The SNP were born out of a perceived political deficit. A lack of political voice.
One leads to negative outcomes the other to positive.

That's not to say that you dont get idiots who confuse the two- you do, but so afr in Scotland they are completely in the minority and not endorsed by either the SNP or wider society in general.

UKIP are anti-immigration but the SNP are not anti-English and never have been. They are anti-Westminster however because their whole reason for existing is a political one not a social one.



Just to further clear up this myth that England subsides Scotland- this is from Business for Scotland- a group of leading Scottish businessmen who support independence so they have an agle, but you can check these figures yourself as they come form the UK Government Treasury-

'Last year, for example, Scotland generated 9.9% of the UK’s total tax revenue with only 8.4% of the UK population. When you add in the Barnett Formula, our share of the UK expenditure rises to around 9.3% last year, £4.4 billion short of the figure that Scotland would have had to spend if we had received 9.9%.'

In short, we paid in more than we got back. And Scotlands tax per head of population ha sbeen higher than in England for the past 38 years.

Not to mention all the oil money squandered, or the fact the UK government covere dup the wealth of Scotland using the Official Secrets act for 30 years, as their report at the time stated that - 'An independent Scotland's budget surpluses would be so large as to be "embarrassing".
Scotland's currency "would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian Kronor."
Scotland would be in a position to lend heavily to England and "this situation could last for a very long time into the future."


So when Westminster tells us we are too wee, too poor, not good enough you will excuse me if I dont believe the proven lying bastards.

then how do you explain food banks? surely those lovely SNP people don't let people starve on the streets.- Figg

The rise in foodbanks is down to two things- firstly and in fairness to the coalition, Labour deliberately didn't count them, the coalition did which is how we ow how many there are now.

Secondly austerity- Scotlands budget is set by Westminister according to the Barnett Formula- cuts in England equally mean cuts in the Scottish block grant so cuts here too.

Now the SNP do what they can to offset the most obnoxious of these- take the Bedroom Tax for example, no one in Scotland pays it because the SNP thought it so unfair and cruel they refused to put it on the people, but as its not devolved so it still has to be paid- so the SNP use a chunk of that block grant to pay everyone's bedroom tax to Wesmtinister for them. They are doing what they can to protect the poorest in our society from this unfair tax.
But that comes as a cost as its a block grant, money they allocate to covering the tax has to come out of other services, so the pain still hits somewhere.
What the SNP try to do is deflect who feels the pain away from those already suffering the most.

It is actions like these, doing what they said they would and protecting the most vulnerable in society from the excesses of Tory malice, that has won them so many voters.
And by saving the poorest the extra burden of paying that tax that frees at least a small amount of money back up in their pocket and they can perhaps spend it on food and not have to use a food bank.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:For me Blue the difference comes down to starting points- UJUIP starting point is a sor tof lieelt-englande mentality, insulated and afraid of change and of johnny-foreigner.
The SNP were born out of a perceived political deficit. A lack of political voice.
One leads to negative outcomes the other to positive.

That's not to say that you dont get idiots who confuse the two- you do, but so afr in Scotland they are completely in the minority and not endorsed by either the SNP or wider society in general.

UKIP are anti-immigration but the SNP are not anti-English and never have been. They are anti-Westminster however because their whole reason for existing is a political one not a social one.

True. Different starting points. Different goals. That's not to say that notionalism isn't still divisive at it's heart. Even if it's not so based on etnisticity.

So, I think it's somehting one can discuss, as it is something that can be problematic. As you know I feel Scottish independence has the best reasons for it. But it's something one should be aware off, and if it starts not to have it's best reasons for it something one should be vary off. It shouldn't be allowed to float into the areas that nationalism in the UKIP sense entails, but that is always a danger.

I think its the same with any strong allegiance- you see the same thing with football fans- most just support their team, but some will kill people who support a rival team- there is nothing inherently wrong in supporting a football team and being passionate about it, but its possible to turn from that into the crazy sort.
That's equally true of nationalism. Which at root is just another tribal allegiance only to an idea rather than necessarily a person. But because the aims of the SNP are so explicit, the sort of nationalism that hates ,and sets one type of person against another as the enemy simply cant get any grip.
When people have stepped out of line, got abusive in the name of Scottish nationalism the first people to attack them for it are usually fellow Scottish nationalists supporters.

For so long is that is far and away the prevailing attitude in the country I am comfortable with the sort of nationalism the SNP present to the country.

If it turned to the other sort I'd be off the band wagon sharpish and opposing it.



Just a figure to throw out there- The North Sea oil and gas industry as a whole contributed £35 billion to the UK Treasury in 2014.

And there is only 5 million Scots. I am sure we could manage given we don't need oil, our economy of tourism, high tech industry, whisky and food exports is enough already, its a bonus, but 35 billion is not a bad bonus to have. For a start its 15 billion more than the Tories planned cuts to public services for the next five years.

Hi all. Been busy since I have been back, dropping by every now and again but not too much time to post.

On this subject, I voted Tory again this time around.

There are 2 main reasons:

- despite everyone saying the Tory plan has failed, I think it takes longer than 1 term to get things rolling, especially in a coalition government. I think they deserve a chance for another 5 years at which point they can be judged more fairly.

- I just couldnt see any other party leader representing the U.K. i couldnt bear to think about Miliband, Farage or Clegg standing with other world leaders and carrying our torch. Much like Gordon Brown before!

People have made the point about UKIP being evil. I think some of their policies made sense, they just seemed to attract a lot of people who couldnt quite go as far as BNP. We do have an immigration issue but it is of no more or less problem than self entitled 'home grown' money sponges that are just as big a drain on the economy. The welfare system overall needs sorting.

Blue - you mentioned the U.K withdrawing from the Human Rights convention. In my opinion, if rulings from the EU keep on getting more ridiculous then I agree, we should withdraw. The EU, I think, is in desperate need of reform from top to bottom. I believe we are better off together if (and a big if) the bloc can modify itself to todays world. I dont think it is fit for purpose any more.

considering that Scotland has the total population of Manchester or there abouts, if there are still poor people using foodbanks and have the worst diet in Europe its down to the failure of the SNP. after 7 years they should have remedied the situation on the ground,

Lancebloke wrote:

- despite everyone saying the Tory plan has failed, I think it takes longer than 1 term to get things rolling, especially in a coalition government. I think they deserve a chance for another 5 years at which point they can be judged more fairly.

- I just couldnt see any other party leader representing the U.K. i couldnt bear to think about Miliband, Farage or Clegg standing with other world leaders and carrying our torch. Much like Gordon Brown before!

People have made the point about UKIP being evil. I think some of their policies made sense, they just seemed to attract a lot of people who couldnt quite go as far as BNP. We do have an immigration issue but it is of no more or less problem than self entitled 'home grown' money sponges that are just as big a drain on the economy. The welfare system overall needs sorting.

.

I agree with that Lance.

Glad to see you around again, Lance! Always nice to hear your perspective on political issues especially.

I will try and pop on a bit more again if I can.

Also, not gonna get in to the SNP debate all over again. One thing I will say is that MPs need to take this election as a big warning. They need to stop spending their time in London and get out to the people in their constituencies and find out what is going on. I think that is why Labour lost so badly everywhere....they have lost the trust of the public. The conservatives picked some of that up because people were scared to vote otherwise (England and Wales) and the SNP picked the rest up because they are close to the people there.

I also think the 3 parties that lost their leaders really need to look at who they appoint next. As much as I disagree with the whole independence angle from Sturgeon, right now she is the only leader that has any gravitas about her (even with her funny head movements!). Cameron has the top job now, but I also don't think he is the right person to lead.

its funny to think that if there had been proportional representation, UKIP would be the third most powerful party not the SNP.

The SNP supported the alternative vote referendum in 2011 which, while not about proportional representation, still would have benefited smaller parties, especially ones with geographically dispersed supporters.  The SNP has always benefited from having dense local support, but hopefully they'll continue to support electoral reform even now that they've crossed over to being a large party that benefits from FPTP (winning 95% of the Scottish seats on 50% of the Scottish vote).

The SNP have always supported a form of PR- we have that for voting to Scottish elections, and even with a majority in the Scottish Parliament there has never been even the slightest hint of a rumble that they have any intention of changing that.
Whenever it has been possible to vote for a PR system the SNP have done so.


In other news got to hand to the Ruskies and their attempts to stick their 'big spoon of stirring' into things-

"According to Russia's top electoral official, it gives evidence that the independence referendum was rigged.

"It confirms our position, that the outcome of the independence referendum in Scotland was a total falsification," Vladimir Churov, head of the Central Electoral Commission, told the Tass news agency. The election results, he said, "show that the SNP, which fought for a yes in the referendum, won far more votes now than it did then. We doubted that the referendum had been organised cleanly and we had observers there," Churov continued. He felt that the scale of the SNP's success in Scotland "gives further cause to examine the referendum".- BBC

that lot need to lay off the uranium tea.

Sturgeon lays out the SNP position on Andrew Marr today-

Lancebloke wrote:Blue - you mentioned the U.K withdrawing from the Human Rights convention. In my opinion, if rulings from the EU keep on getting more ridiculous then I agree, we should withdraw. The EU, I think, is in desperate need of reform from top to bottom. I believe we are better off together if (and a big if) the bloc can modify itself to todays world. I dont think it is fit for purpose any more.

Just to clarify, so we keep our cards straight here. The EU and the European Convention of Human Rights are two different and seperate systems of supranational law. Criticism has certainly been levelled at both, with more or less validity.

The European Court of Justice handles the application and codification of EU law in national law. The EU has the ability to make community law in the legal areas the Union covers with binding effect for the member states. This is either done by regulations or directives. Regulations have to be adhered to exactly, directives can be implemented by what means the country itself deems right and the country can also go further than the EU in the case of directives, which I would say is a good thing in areas like consumer law.  

The British criticism of EU law seems a bit odd to me, as Britain does have a large say in the decisions and legaslation the EU enacts. There has also been consistent work to increase the democratic accountability of the EU system, with the rise of the European Parliment, but obviously the democratic input is going to be less in a system that represents about 400 million people in 30 odd nations. But the European Parliment is not the only place Britains voice is heard and heard loudly. Britain also has a central position in the European Council adn the Council of the European Union. Obviously there are problems witht the system, but let's at least drop the criticism that EU law is made by bureaucrats in Brussels. That's at best a very simplified view of affairs. (I'm not saying that is a criticism you've made, but it is of repeated in the Brittish media.)

You could actually say that by their negativety to Europe, to the EU, right wing Brittish politicians are lessening the possibility of Brittish impact on the legislature of the EU. They are in other words making a self fullfilling prophecy by undermining and lessening their own influence in the decision making process of the Union. In that sense their continued criticism of Brussels to me seems a bit hollow.

Actually us Norwegians have a lot more grounds for complaint, as we through the EEA agreement acept a whole lot of European legislation without any form of demcratic input on the legislation enacted.  

Now is the criticism of the supranational quality of the EU and EU law justified. I'd say there are certainly issues to the EU system. You can say a lot about democratic accountability. I think to me the largest problem with the EU is a democratic deficit, but not in the sense people usually consider. The real problem of the EU is that it allows the sitting governement of a nation and not the elected representatives of a nations parliment have the strongest voice. It is the elected governement of a nation that has a seat on the Eurpean  And it is in some cases in danger of sidestepping constitutional democratic control. A lot of countries dosn't as a norm have majority governements like Brittain. As decisions made by the executive branch of the governement in the context of the EU might not be the one choosen by the majority of the parliment that those governement have their basis in.

The EU has it's obvious problems, not least among which that it has it's basis in a capitalist big moeny friendly trade agreement. Those values aren't necessarily the ones of best interest to Europe as a whole. But the criticism to me often seems out of context and removed from the realities of the Union and it's actual failings.

The European Court of Human Rights handles the application of The European Convention of Human Rights which sets a basic standard for national legislation and the application of that legislation when it comes to human rights. It is also a rarity among human rights conventions as it has a court that allows individuals to bring cases for it, when all nationals remedies has been exhausted, with the ability to make binding decision for the contracting parties. The convention itself functions on two levels, as part of national law, and as international control with national law and it's application. One can only bring a case for the court when all relevant national legal remedies has been exhausted. The court itself therefore functions as a court above the supreme court of a contracting party in the area of the rights codified in the convention. National courts can either ask for advisory opinions form the court or individuals can bring what htey deem breaches for the convention after national court treatment has been exhausted.  

The most marked criticism against the court and the convention has been of their so called "dynamic interpretation" of the convention. This basically means that the court interprets the convention in relation to the changes in time. They do not simply adhere to the meaning put into it by the contracting nation states when it was originally put into effect after the Second World War. This means that certain of the human rights the court protects now go further than what the contracting parties originally might have meant them to. The general criticism leveled at the court here is that this is undemocratic and it goes too far into the area and competence of national parliments, limiting their ability as lawmakers.

A EChR judge put it like this.

"Our judgments tend to fall into two categories. It's either: we don't question your norms, but your system has malfunctioned. Or it's: sorry, we can't accept your norms. States generally accept the first quite readily. They don't much like the second."

Two things are good to point out here. One, the court to the largest degree possible leaves it up to the nation states how they adhere to the convention. As long as they do that they are compltely free of any interference. This is refered to as the states "margin of appreciation". Further it leaves to the nation states how to deal with breaches of the convention. Often a middle solution betwen the complaint and the states solution will adhere to the convention.

I find it hard to buy into much of the criticism against the ECHR. It codifies fundational and basic human rights, holds states accountable to them at a supranational level, allows indivdual complaints of breaches from more than 800 million people in the larger European area. Put shortly it holds nations accountable and is a safeguard for the individuals basic human rights. And I for one think Europe has solved this problem better than anywhere else in the world. A court with the power to make binding decisions is a blessing for any supranational human rights system. The faith in the nation state to uphold the rights of the indivual has been shown even in our highly evolved Western European democratic societies to in cases have been to high. I rather than a problem see it as something Europe should be proud of. A result of a advanced faith in the rights of humanity and the rights of the individual. Does the rights of the convention in the pratice of the court sometimes go too far? I would say there is valid criticism to be made in some areas. I think for instance the right to privacy and family life is weighed to heavily against the right to freedom of speech in some cases. But in my opinion you have to take some bad with the good here. And the good far outweighs the bad. And with the convetion a dynamic instrument these things that we now consider problematic can change with the advancement and the changes in society and time. The court is certainly not the monolitic unchanging institution many likes to paint it as. It does take criticism of it very seriously.  

For anyone interested in a comprehensive look at the British view of the ECHR this article is really a rewarding read.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/22/britain-european-court-human-rights

Eldorion wrote:Glad to see you around again, Lance!  Always nice to hear your perspective on political issues especially.

Always interesting to hear different opinions.