2015 General Election

the nitty gritty of legal technicalities is all good and reasonable. The general public don't normally understand the subtleties, all they do see is one armed hate preaching terrorists laughing at them all the way to the bank because of the EU Human Rights convention. its simple really, it might be coming from a place of ignorance stoked up by UKIP but that's what they see as regards what it actually means in practical terms.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Sturgeon lays out the SNP position on Andrew Marr today-

I don't need a video to know her position. Its as Salmonds ventrioquist dummy.

Mrs Figg wrote:I don't need a video to know her position. Its as Salmonds ventrioquist dummy.

It's not like Salmond founded the SNP or came up with the idea of Scottish independence. Not sure what makes you think Sturgeon is a puppet.

Agree that the Russia comment is just pure opportunism (and whataboutism) to try to distract from their actions in Ukraine.

I appreciate the lengthy post about the EU and ECHR, Blue. I've grown increasingly skeptical of the EU over the years, but I do think there's something to be said for international guarantors of human rights.  Especially considering the issues that have arised as a result of the War on Terror (which are largely old issues just resurfacing again, such as torture, which apparently the ECHR went after Britain for during The Troubles). I do understand the discomfort from people who are concerned about the erosion of national sovereignty (although sovereignty has never been quite as inviolate as some people suggest; I do understand though), but I think the court's record has on the whole been as a force for justice.

they realised lots of people didn't take to Salmond and it was hurting their game plan to win as many seats as possible so he stepped down and she took over as the reasonable nice face of nationalism. To do her credit she is very good at the game. but he is pulling the strings and is firmly in control.

Thats just nonsense. Salmond was the most popular and most trusted politician in the UK when he was head of the SNP. He resigned because he lost the referendum which he led. That wasnt a plan, the plan was to win the referendum and for Salmond to run as head of the SNP to be the first First Minister of an Independent Scotland.

To say they planned to lose all along just so Salmond could resign and Sturgeon take his place in some sort of cunning ploy is just ridiculous and ignores very single piece of recent history.

Neither is there a single scrap of evidence that Salmond is pulling Sturgeons strings- quite the contrary in fact with reports having surfaced that the reason we didnt hear much from Salmond during the campaign proper was because Sturgeon told him to keep a low profile and he did what he was told.

The SNP is her party now and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest she is not in full control of it.

Blue - I assume that to officially be a subscriber to the convention, you have to accept the courts rulings? I think that is the problem and why the suggestion of withdrawing from the convention comes up. Not that we disagree with the principles but more the interpretation taken by a far removed court that is sometimes seen as insulting the majority in favour of not offending the minority. Or what are often seen as giving the perpetrators more rights than victims.

No specific examples I have right now as I dont keep track.. that is just the opinion that seems to hold sway.

Lance I have to take issue with something you said earlier about people scrounging benefits and the welfare bill needing to come down.

According to the governments own figures the percent of tax spent on Welfare is 25%

But what that figure doesn't tell you is what t goes on- and the vast bulk of what it goes on is paying state pensions.

If you remove state pensions from the total the amount being paid in working age benfits like the dole, working tax credits, child credit, disability ect is 14%

Now to win the grey vote the Tories before the election ring fenced pensions from cuts- so the biggest part of the welfare bill they cant touch- that just leaves that 14%- benefits paid to the poorest in society to cut.

When the BBC broke the figures down further they found that only 6% of the bill goes to the unemployed.
5% to the disabled the rest of the bill goes to giving benefits to people who are in work but on low incomes.

The scroungers living the good life on benefits is a handy political myth, but it has no basis in the figures.

Given the government is about to cut 12billion from the welfare budget it has to fall in one of those three areas as pensions are protected- the unemployed- only 6% of the bill, or the disabled, or those on tax credits in low income jobs.
I dont see how hitting any of these people with further cuts is right, moral, or in any way or shape a defensible way of growing an economy- on the broken backs of the poor.


The present government has so far spent 12.8billion just on the IT for the new system to pay the benefits. That's .8 billion more than the cuts they are proposing to make to the benefits.

Well big surprise I don't think Farage, who pledged to quit as leader of UKIP if he lost Thanet lost Thanet, quit as leader and now today, he's back as leader.
So much for his straight talking 'do what I say, say what I mean' persona!

Cameron has announced the new Scottish Secretary- not much surprise here as there wasn't really a choice- its gone to the 1 Scottish Tory MP left standing, David Mundell.
But the SNP have called for the scrappin gof the Scottish Office which doesn't really serve any meaningful power under devolution and would save 7million immediately that could be better spent elsewhere.

And the SNP have announced that Angus Robertson will remain in his position has head of the SNP members at Parliament.
Salmond will be on the back benches.

Salmond is quoted today as saying-

'"Obviously we are seeing a major change and shift in Scottish politics. Behind the number of MPs we are seeing a seismic shift - clearly Scotland is on a journey, there's no doubt about that whatsoever.
But Nicola Sturgeon was quite right - the election result was not a mandate for independence or for a referendum on independence."
Asked how he would adjust from being first minister to a Commons back bencher, Mr Salmond added: "I loved being first minister but everything has its time and I think things are turning out not too badly." - BBC

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Well big surprise I don't think Farage, who pledged to quit as leader of UKIP if he lost Thanet lost Thanet, quit as leader and now today, he's back as leader.
So much for his straight talking 'do what I say, say what I mean' persona!

Big surprise that you have twisted that around. He quit, keeping his word. But the party refused to accept his resignation. so he has actually kept his word as ''straight talking 'do what I say, say what I mean' persona''. They realise that without Farage at the helm its not really UKIP. Not defending them, but I am defending them against falsehoods.

Doesn't matter who asked him to stay- was nothing stopping him saying 'no, I said Id resign as party leader and I'm sticking to my word.'
He was back in there like a rat up a drainpipe. Shortest resignation in political history probably.

Also its a very bad sign when a party is a 1 person band and they dont even thik they can survive without him.

nah it probably shows he is popular. unlike Salmond who really is a liability.

Yeah because the man who led the SNP to running Scotland with a majority in a parliament designed by his opponents to prevent him ever doing so, who successfully got a in out referendum from Westminster and successfully got way more powers offered to Scotland when the vote was to stay in via the Smith Commission, who whilst leader enjoyed the highest popularity and trust ratings of any UK politician and who is widely regarded as one of the best, most intelligent and canny political operators in the country is a liability. Yeah right.

I noticed nobody begged Salmond to stay on, after all he had done for the party it was by bye because theres no loyalty there that's why. Its also funny that a man who did all you said should be shunted to the background. no loyalty amongst the SNP, its because they are all career politicians with no ethics of loyalty. but why would you want him as the face of the SNP, he is one obnoxious smug git. liability.

Thats ridiculous- Salmond said before the referendum he wouldl step down if it was a no- and he kept his word, unlike Farage.
He made his own choice to leave, made his own choice to restand as an MP. And the people of his constituency voted for him overwhelmingly to become an MP-which is a bit odd for someone who according to you is hugely unpopular and a liability!
He is still a very important member of the party, and he and Sturgeon have also been friends for over 20 years.
Salmond didn't need begged back becuase he made his own decisions and always had. He resigned leadership of the SNP in 2000 to go to Westminister as an MP which he did for 4 years, before returning to Scotland to again become leader of the party.
Him returning again to Westminster, especially at this time, is certainly not shunning, its not anything of the kind.

I sometimes wonder if you actually know anything at all about Scottish politics or if you just say these things of the top of your head.

go on Einstein explain it? two party leaders say they will resign if they fail, they both resign, one is begged to remain and the party refuses to accept his resignation, the other is let go and sent to be a lowly backbencher without so much as a thankyou. the former is due to party loyalties, the second is due to career politics and disloyal ambitions. Once Salmonds was no longer useful he was discarded sent out to pasture. Stugeon put him in his place and cut him loose. nice.

the former is due to party loyalties, the second is due to career politics and disloyal ambitions.- Figg

Um no the former is because no one else is high enough profile to lead UKip and the arty seem to think that Farage is the only recognizable face of the party- and they dont think they can do as well if he leaves. Nothing to do with loyalty, its do with votes- they are politicians.

In the case of Salmond he had already appointed and approved of his own successor- his best friend and someone he had been working with as deputy of the party for decades. There is nothing disloyal about letting your own choice for leader take over the job hen you have said you are stepping down.

This is just desperate, unfounded, no basis at all in any factual events stuff, just to attempt to smear Salmond and the SNP because of your own dislike for them.

But facts they are completely absent from your assertations.

This is just desperate, unfounded, no basis at all in any factual events stuff, just to attempt to smear Salmond and the SNP because of your own dislike for them.

pot calling kettle black

Explain that. Who am I smearing?

Farage in his autobiography, published just before the election-

'"It is frankly just not credible for me to continue to lead the party without a Westminster seat. Was I supposed to brief Ukip policy from the Westminster Arms? No - if I fail to win South Thanet, it is curtains for me. I will have to step down."

Farage after losing Thanet-

"I've never felt happier." And he went on to say "a weight has lifted off my shoulders".

And now, less than a week later, he is leader again.

How you can compare that farce to the organised, planned and controlled resignation of Salmond and Sturgeon taking over is beyond me.

UKIP are doing a farce version of changing leader by not actually changing leader at all!

'Politics, religion and Who' aren't those the three things you shouldn't talk about in company?
So just be glad Figg and I don't haunt the religion thread too

its just handbags

No its not! Sporrans, yes, handbags no

I'd hate to catch a well-aimed handbag in my sporran. Seems a bit unfair to me.