Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [5]

[azriel]

Who ?? Martin Freeman ?

[Pettytyrant101]

Yeah Daily Mail ran a big smear story on him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3020564/Red-Ed-s-celebrity-phoney-Hobbit-star-wouldn-t-vote-Labour.html

Usual Mail stuff.

[azriel]

Ooo^ooo
Oh well, I guess he changed his mind ?


Out of the woodwork creep all the vermin & pestilence of life.

[Pettytyrant101]

If he was a staunch Labour guy then I perfectly understand him refusing to vote for Blair's New Labour, it was more right of centre than Cameron's current Conservatives are.
Blairs New Labour experiment is one of the main factors in the death of Labour in Scotland- they are no longer a social democratic party, just Tory lite.

[Mrs Figg]

this is the first time in my life I wont and cant vote for Labour. For a start that muppet Milliband would ruin the economy and any English person who votes for them knowing Salmonds divide and rule pledge, would have to be out of their mind. I cant imagine the utter horror of knowing the SNP is holding the whip hand. I cant vote for the Tories either, on principle, Lib Dems can fuck off after tuition fees so I may have to do a protest vote and vote for the Greens or UKIP.

[azriel]

Ive been looking deeper & longer at the parties agenda's & each one stinks ! I dont want to NOT vote, so, IL be doing the same, probably vote for the GREENs,

[Pettytyrant101]

Vote Green- they've agreed a 'progressive government pact' with the SNP and Plaid Cymru

[Mrs Figg]

so its UKIP then

[Eldorion]

[quote="Mrs Figg"I may have to do a protest vote and vote for the Greens or UKIP.[/quote]

I'm not sure I understand your thought process here.  If I may ask, what do the Greens and UKIP have in common in their platforms that they'd be your two finalists?  They hold opposite positions in nearly every policy area.  The two biggest exceptions I noticed were that they both hate the bedroom tax and they're both skeptical of the EU, although for somewhat different reasons.  But otherwise they're pretty much as far apart as any two parties in this election are.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29642613

[Mrs Figg]

[quote="Mrs Figg"I may have to do a protest vote and vote for the Greens or UKIP.

I'm not sure I understand your thought process here.  If I may ask, what do the Greens and UKIP have in common in their platforms that they'd be your two finalists?  They hold opposite positions in nearly every policy area.  The two biggest exceptions I noticed were that they both hate the bedroom tax and they're both skeptical of the EU, although for somewhat different reasons.  But otherwise they're pretty much as far apart as any two parties in this election are.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29642613[/quote]

they don't need to have anything in common with each other, they just need to be an alternative to the main 3 parties. I don't want to vote for the 3 main parties therefore either the Greens or UKIP will do, but as the Greens seem to be in bed with the SNP, its narrowing down to UKIP or the Monster Raving Loony party.

[Mrs Figg]

decisions decisions

[Eldorion]

I am fond of the Monster Raving Loonies.

I think I see your point about wanting to cast a protest vote, Mrs Figg.

[Mrs Figg]

[Pettytyrant101]

I dont get why Figg if you were thinking of voting Green you would be put off with them wanting to work with the SNP and others on progressive policies.

If the SNP were not for Scottish Nationalists but otherwise had all the same policies they currently do, they are exactly the sort of arty traditional Labour voters in your north of England neck of the woods would love to have to vote for.
The Greens want to work with them because the SNP are big on wind and wave energy and anti-Trident. Not because they want to break up the UK.

The notion that you hate the SNP so much you would switch your vote from a left of centre, socially conscious party like the Greens to a right of centre group of barely concealed racists boggles my mind.

'I cant imagine the utter horror of knowing the SNP is holding the whip hand.'

And I find that line frankly offensive. We were told repeatedly in the referendum debate that if we stayed our voice would be taken seriously and would be heard. So if we send a bunch of democratically elected MP's to make sure our voice is heard, as we were promised, its 'horror' for any English person?
How is that a Union?
Its this sort of borderline racist reaction to Scottish involvement at Westminster that has led to the SNP having such a commanding position in the first place.

[Mrs Figg]

first off how can it be racist when we are of the same race?

secondly Salmond made no bones about taking over by stealth votes, drip by drip he wants to grab what he wants from the union and doesn't care what happens to the English as by product. Such as lax Scottish immigration policies. After all Salmond did to break up the union it would be a kick in the teeth and humiliating to have him smug in Westminster calling the shots. I would rather have UKIP than the SNP. Theres no way in a snow balls chance in hell I will vote labour with this threat hanging over England.

[Pettytyrant101]

1. Salmond is not leader of the SNP, or even an MSP or an MP right now. Nicola Sturgeon is the Leader. Stewart Hosie is the Deputy Leader and Angus Robertson is head of the SNP MP's at Westminster.

2. Immigration- Scotland needs more working age immigration- the immigration problem is in England not Scotland- we need more people not less to balance the tax revenues. England deciding it doesn't want any more is damaging the Scottish economy and society by denying us people we badly need- for example right now foreign students come here, get educated at our universities and we a have a ton of hi-tech firms desperate to hire them- but under Westminster rules as soon as they finish Uni we have to kick them out- thats madness when we need exactly those sort of people to stay. What the SNP want is for Scotland to have more control over immigration to Scotland- not to England or the rest of the UK.

"In 2010, the most recent year that allows direct comparison of Scotland to other world regions, migrants made up a lower share of Scotland’s population (6.3%) than they did in Europe as a whole (9.8%)"- MigrationObservatory

Net interntional Migration 2012 (last full figures available) England 128,000 Scotland 14,000- Office for National Statistics

3. Sturgeon has laid out her case with regards the rest of the UK-

"I think I can safely say that we do still want Scotland to be independent.
But at this general election - with the power of the big parties weaker than ever before - I say this to people of progressive opinion all across the UK.
As long as Scotland remains part of the Westminster system, we will be your allies in seeking to shake up and reform that outdated and discredited system once and for all.
Westminster needs to change. To be more responsive to the needs and demands of ordinary people, wherever they are in the UK.
So to people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I make this promise. The SNP stands ready to work with you in making that positive change for all of us."- Sturgeon

4. The notion that Scotland having a fair voice in the UK and for it to be a part of the making of law at Westminster is 'a threat hanging over England' is offensive.
What you are basically saying is its ok if we stay in the Union but only so long if we put up and shut up and dont have a say in how the country is run.

You should perhaps stop getting your version of the SNP from the Daily Mail.

[Mrs Figg]

I read The Times. But I wouldn't have to read the Daily mail to understand Salmonds plans with a Labour victory, he is quite open about it.

[Pettytyrant101]

Then I can only assume either they misreport just as badly or they dont report much at all on the SNP- as your views on what they are standing for at this election is completely at odds with the reality and seems to lack the basic facts (like immigration levels, or the fact Alex Salmond isnt running anything) which underpin the policies.

[Mrs Figg]

its not misrepresentation if its coming straight from Salmond himself.

[Pettytyrant101]

Salmond currently has no position in the party- he is doing the tv circuits flogging his book- thats like saying anything Tony Blair or Gordon Brown says is Labour policy- thats just mad.

And what Salmond said is simply fact anyway- if there is a minority government and the SNP hold the balance then they hold the power- he knows that because unlike any other UK leader of recent memory he has actually run a minority government in Scotland and knows how you have compromise and make deals to get results.
When the SNP were the minority government they relied on Tory votes to pass the budgets (hence Labours name calling of the SNP as 'Tartan Tories' and they relied on the Greens and independents to pass green energy policy, and they relied on Labour to pass reforms to social policies) its jut how minority government works, you have to make compromises you have to take on board some policies favourable to other the parties to get legislation passed, thats not a threat its just reality.

[Mrs Figg]

from The Guardian
“If you hold the balance, you hold the power”: so said Alex Salmond on the Andrew Marr Show. In a general election not expected to deliver a straightforward Commons majority to one party, this pithy maxim may yet prove the defining principle.

Ed Miliband is not yet on course for the 326 seats a party needs to govern alone – not least because of the SNP surge in its Scottish heartlands. It is Salmond’s explicit hope that the tartan tail will soon be wagging the red dog. On the Labour side, there is much talk of “legitimacy” and of how a deal with the SNP, however loose-knit, might be perceived.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/22/snp-tartan-labour-election-scotland

from International business Times

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/labour-snp-uk-459199
Miliband told supporters in Inverness that Salmond preaches "a narrow nationalism that thinks the way Scotland prospers is in a race to the bottom across the UK, cutting corporation tax rates for powerful companies while doing nothing for working people.

"And a narrow nationalism that says if it is in the interest of the SNP then it is OK to do cosy deals with Rupert Murdoch."

from the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32095398

from the Evening Standard
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32095398
When Salmond talks of planning to hold a weak Miliband government to ransom, that doesn’t just scare people south of the border, it scares many, many Scots too.

He is simply doing what nationalists do: trying to conflate the national interest with his own narrow, ideological one and paint anyone who disagrees as unpatriotic. It’s cheap, dirty politics designed to send out the message that everyone north of the border is equally Scottish but some are more Scottish than others. The majority of people in Scotland want no truck with this version of divide-and-rule.

While Salmond may have said on The Andrew Marr Show that whoever holds the balance, holds the power — and gloated over votes yet to be cast — he would do well to remember that nationalism is (and has always been) a minority pursuit in Scotland.

from The Spectator
But Salmond has some bad news for the Prime Minister: not voting on devolved matters, he said, is ‘my choice. But of course in that position we would, obviously, be prepared to listen to other counsel.’ In other words, the SNP would, for a price, be prepared to vote with Labour on English legislation. He is also quick to list examples (health reform and tuition fees) where the SNP has already defied its own rule.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/12/why-alex-salmonds-help-could-hinder-labour/


as you will notice these were not the Daily Mail

[Mrs Figg]

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/03/salmond-camerons-strategic-enemy-salmond-camerons-tactical-friend.html

This is the point of Alex Salmond’s New Statesman interview today, in which he says that the SNP will vote against any Queen’s Speech which David Cameron puts forward. As Salmond suggests, it follows that the party would also vote against a Conservative (or Conservative-led) Government in any no confidence vote. He goes on to float a confidence and supply deal with Labour, or even a fully-fledged Labour/SNP Coalition. But the details are less important than the message, which is: the SNP wants Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.

The interview is thus crafted to fit the SNP’s task of destroying Labour in Scotland at the coming election. “Look,” Salmond is saying to natural Labour voters in the central belt. “You can have the best of both worlds – a Labour Government in Westminster to keep out the Tories, and us in place there as the guardian of Scotland’s interests.” Those Tory posters showing Miliband in his pocket are thus doing the SNP’s work in Scotland: Salmond might as well have sat down with Lynton Crosby and sketched them himself.
And if the consequence is that the Conservatives defeat Labour in England while the SNP defeats it in Scotland, so much the better for the party. It will then have a Tory Government in place – the perfect backdrop against which to garner more support from voters for independence before Scotland’s own elections of 2016. An SNP landslide, an English electorate weary of its demands (especially the Conservative and UKIP-voting bits of it), and a second independence referendum – at which Scotland would vote to leave. Such is Nicola Sturgeon and Salmond’s game plan.

Her language has been more cautious than his, which may reflect tactical differences about the degree to which SNP should seek, at any given moment, either to prop up Labour at Westminster or simply cause chaos – maximising its own vantage and demonstrating its own strength in either event. But the strategic direction is crystal-clear. And like Miliband, Cameron doesn’t have a clue how to respond. In this context, watching the current election campaign is like watching two rabbits paralysed by the approach of a weasel.

[Pettytyrant101]

Nor are those extracts anything like the ful story.

I already explained the power comment- its simply the facts of the situation- its how minority government has to work- you need the numbers to pass legislation, that means making compromises and giving other parties stuff they will back and vote for.
In the SNP's case that is not affecting England- its ensuring that the promises of Home Rule made during the referendum are kept to.

"a narrow nationalism that thinks the way Scotland prospers is in a race to the bottom across the UK, cutting corporation tax rates for powerful companies while doing nothing for working people."

The SNP have along standing desire to cut corporation tax in order to boost inward investment and increase jobs, and thereby tax revenue- its perfectly sensible fiscal policy for Scotland and in fact the deal just agreed between Westminster and NI allows their devolved parliament to do just that and to alter corporation tax- the SNP also want to have the power to reduce airport tax to encourage more travel into and out of Scottish airports- another sensible fiscal policy.
As to doing nothing for working people- increased childcare, increased health budget, mitigation of the obnoxious bedroom tax (no one in Scotland has to pay it- our government pay Westminster for us- but that has to come out of other budgets so is effectively a cut in services- which is why they want rid of it) free education right through to university, free travel for the elderly anywhere in Scotland, free prescriptions. Scots didn't vote them in as a minority government, then with a small minority, then with a landslide majority because they were doing a shit job. We aren't stupid you know.
The SNP haven't stolen Scottish Labours position by doing nothing for working people- the very voters who have rallied to them.

"he would do well to remember that nationalism is (and has always been) a minority pursuit in Scotland."

A minority yes, but not by much- 45% of Scots voted for Independence, and recent polls show if the referendum were held now that would be over 50%.
SNP membership is the third highest of any party in the UK, despite only standing in Scotland with 5 million people, far less than just the population of London (8.3 million).

"in other words, the SNP would, for a price, be prepared to vote with Labour on English legislation. He is also quick to list examples (health reform and tuition fees) where the SNP has already defied its own rule."

Health and tuition fees have a knock on effect to the money allocated to Scotland through the Barnett Formula- it would be failing to do their job if they did not challenge changes in England which would directly lead to budget cuts in Scotland. Voting on these matters is entirely legitimate.

[Pettytyrant101]

You are quoting from the Conservative home page- and you dont htink that might be a bit biased?

[Mrs Figg]

seemed like a pretty good summation of the situation, Conservative or not.