SNP. Why Are They Thriving?

[Nearly Sane]

The argument, such as it is, is not about Tory or Labour seats in Scotland but Lib Dems. It could be that the Libs lose 9 of their seats in May and there is a good chance that these would be picked up by the SNP. The blue Tory argument is that this would be a block more likely to make a Labour govt as the SNP are committed to not supporting the Tories. As previously discussed, just being the largest party doesn't mean you get to form the govt and if a majority block could be created of other parties, would be entirely academic.

[Anchorman]

Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.

[Aruntraveller]

Dear Mr. trent,
Is my loving my American kin folk, Americans in general and their nation a problem for you? You write about me going ahead and playing my friends are better than yours thingy. I'm not doing that at all. Just how do you know I think my American kin folk are better than who ever your friends are? Exaggerations and lies should never be left unchallenged. Smart people know that. (smilies) No it's you on you soap box, looking down you nose, that is the game being payed. Your game sucks by the way.

Oh, and what does world poverty got to do with the SNP trent. Too funny

No problem with you loving your American kin folk (how quaint).

On all the other things if you care to re-read my posts - instead of what you think my response was - I was pointing out  the ludicrous situation that we live in wealthy nations - that still contrive to have poor people living amongst them - how that is looking down my nose at anyone, apart from perhaps our elected governments I don't know.

As to what world poverty has to do with the SNP, I don't know - but as I was responding to your post that talked about the relative levels of poverty in nations - perhaps you could say why you were talking about it originally.

[ProfessorDavey]

Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that a strong Labour vote in Scotland in 1997, 2001 and 2005 lead to a Labour government in Westminster.

[Nearly Sane]

Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that a strong Labour vote in Scotland in 1997, 2001 and 2005 lead to a Labour government in Westminster.

Factually incorrect for 97 where there was an absolute majority with solely Labour English seats. Effectively incorrect in 2001 when with the speaker and Sinn Fein sears removed, there was an absolute majority from English seats.

[ProfessorDavey]

Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that a strong Labour vote in Scotland in 1997, 2001 and 2005 lead to a Labour government in Westminster.

Factually incorrect for 97 where there was an absolute majority with solely Labour English seats. Effectively incorrect in 2001 when with the speaker and Sinn Fein sears removed, there was an absolute majority from English seats.

I didn't mean that the seats in Scotland were required to ensure that there was a Labour majority - merely that the result in Scotland reflected the overall result. Actually it is very difficult to justify your point - so in 2005 was it the 41 Labour seats in Scotland that resulted in Labour getting a majority, or the 44 they won in London - or perhaps those they won in the North West.

My comment was to counter AM's rather limited view that Scotland have sometimes voted one way and ended up with a government in Westminster that is different to how they voted.

Of course the same is true for pretty well all parts of the UK. So for example in 2010 London voted 'Labour' rather than 'Tory' both in terms of vote share (36.6% to 34.5%) and seats won (38 to 28), yet they ended up with a Tory lead government in Westminster. You can find countless other examples - e.g. the South East voted strongly Tory in 1997, but ended up with a Labour landslide in Westminster.

That's what happens if you look at regions of the country, unless, of course the country is totally homogenous in terms of voting (which will never be the case).

[Nearly Sane]

Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that a strong Labour vote in Scotland in 1997, 2001 and 2005 lead to a Labour government in Westminster.

Factually incorrect for 97 where there was an absolute majority with solely Labour English seats. Effectively incorrect in 2001 when with the speaker and Sinn Fein sears removed, there was an absolute majority from English seats.

I didn't mean that the seats in Scotland were required to ensure that there was a Labour majority - merely that the result in Scotland reflected the overall result. Actually it is very difficult to justify your point - so in 2005 was it the 41 Labour seats in Scotland that resulted in Labour getting a majority, or the 44 they won in London - or perhaps those they won in the North West.

My comment was to counter AM's rather limited view that Scotland have sometimes voted one way and ended up with a government in Westminster that is different to how they voted.

Of course the same is true for pretty well all parts of the UK. So for example in 2010 London voted 'Labour' rather than 'Tory' both in terms of vote share (36.6% to 34.5%) and seats won (38 to 28), yet they ended up with a Tory lead government in Westminster. You can find countless other examples - e.g. the South East voted strongly Tory in 1997, but ended up with a Labour landslide in Westminster.

That's what happens if you look at regions of the country, unless, of course the country is totally homogenous in terms of voting (which will never be the case).

Is there a reason why you chose 2005 which I didn't mention?

[ProfessorDavey]

Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that a strong Labour vote in Scotland in 1997, 2001 and 2005 lead to a Labour government in Westminster.

Factually incorrect for 97 where there was an absolute majority with solely Labour English seats. Effectively incorrect in 2001 when with the speaker and Sinn Fein sears removed, there was an absolute majority from English seats.

I didn't mean that the seats in Scotland were required to ensure that there was a Labour majority - merely that the result in Scotland reflected the overall result. Actually it is very difficult to justify your point - so in 2005 was it the 41 Labour seats in Scotland that resulted in Labour getting a majority, or the 44 they won in London - or perhaps those they won in the North West.

My comment was to counter AM's rather limited view that Scotland have sometimes voted one way and ended up with a government in Westminster that is different to how they voted.

Of course the same is true for pretty well all parts of the UK. So for example in 2010 London voted 'Labour' rather than 'Tory' both in terms of vote share (36.6% to 34.5%) and seats won (38 to 28), yet they ended up with a Tory lead government in Westminster. You can find countless other examples - e.g. the South East voted strongly Tory in 1997, but ended up with a Labour landslide in Westminster.

That's what happens if you look at regions of the country, unless, of course the country is totally homogenous in terms of voting (which will never be the case).

Is there a reason why you chose 2005 which I didn't mention?

Because it is the election where there is the most credible claims that the Scottish vote tipped the balance, although as I pointed out you can make the same claim for a number of other UK regions just as strongly.

But the key point I was making was that AM had conveniently forgotten to mention the recent cases where the Scottish vote was reflected in the government that ended up in Westminster.

[Anchorman]

A fisherman died and went to Heaven. As he stood in front of the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, 'What are all those clocks?'
St. Peter answered, 'Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone who has ever been on earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie, the hands on your clock move.'
... 'Oh', said the man. 'Whose clock is that?'
'That's Mother Teresa's', replied St. Peter. 'The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie.'
'Incredible', ...said the man. 'And whose clock is that one?'
St. Peter responded, 'That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abraham told only two lies in his entire life.'
'Where's the clock for the Labour party?' asked the man.
St Peter replied, 'We’re using it as a ceiling fan.

[Nearly Sane]

Blue Tories and Red Tories

http://wingsoverscotland.com/scottish-labours-new-policy-vote-tory/

[OH MY WORLD!]

Not sure which thread to put this on?

"Britain's electoral system  The breaking point"  Economist mag

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21644142-two-party-political-system-under-unprecedented-pressure-breaking-point

[Anchorman]

With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html

[jakswan]

With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html

Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.

[jakswan]

Historically, the Scots voting for the Red Tories like Turkeys voting for Bacofoil is useless....we voted for them in the late seventies, eighties and most of the nineties as well as the last election....and ended up with the mess of Thatcher, bumbling of Major, and misery of Cameron.
A Labour vote for Westminster in Scotland is, therefore, a wasted vote.

The same thing applies to your fellow countrymen in English regions.

[Anchorman]

With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html

Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.

-
Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.

[jakswan]

With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html

Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.

Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.

Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?

[Nearly Sane]

Since neither party of red or blue Tories is going to get close to a majority of votes, either party getting a majority because of our voting system would be bad in my view.

[Anchorman]

With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html

Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.

Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.

Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?

-
Our country?
The good of my country and that of the rUK are not the same, Jakswan.
As far as my ciuntry goes, if the SNP can get all the powers from the miserable Smith report - and add to them, using the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster - even if it means 'supply' to a minority government, that's fine by me.
What SNP will not do is either enter coalition with the Tories or support policies which endorse the cuts already promised by the Labour/Tory love in party.

[ProfessorDavey]

With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html

Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.

Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.

Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?

-
Our country?
The good of my country and that of the rUK are not the same, Jakswan.
As far as my ciuntry goes, if the SNP can get all the powers from the miserable Smith report - and add to them, using the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster - even if it means 'supply' to a minority government, that's fine by me.
What SNP will not do is either enter coalition with the Tories or support policies which endorse the cuts already promised by the Labour/Tory love in party.

Just imagine how incensed the petty Nats would be if another part of the country, e.g. South West, or London effectively said they couldn't give a damn about the rest of the UK, all they were interested in was feathering their own bed in their own little area in the UK.

What an appalling attitude, and more so from someone who I think is broadly left of centre in politics - what ever happened to the collective good eh AM - or does it somehow cease to exist beyond an arbitrary line drawn on a map hundreds of years ago. If so I feel sorry for you. We need to be more outward looking as a country and as a global population. We need to understand that ultimately a benefit to your neighbour pays back and that dividing the world into tiny arbitrary 'countries' that selfishly defend the primacy of the nation state (or really just their nation state) over the broader collective good is the road to ruin and a dangerously failed and outmoded concept.

[jakswan]

With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html

Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.

Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.

Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?

Our country?
The good of my country and that of the rUK are not the same, Jakswan.
As far as my ciuntry goes, if the SNP can get all the powers from the miserable Smith report - and add to them, using the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster - even if it means 'supply' to a minority government, that's fine by me.
What SNP will not do is either enter coalition with the Tories or support policies which endorse the cuts already promised by the Labour/Tory love in party.

Yes obviously I was referring to the country of the UK of which you and I are both citizens. So your position in this election is not guided what is the best for the British people as a whole but only one part of it.

Not much of a socialist are you.

[ProfessorDavey]

With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html

Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.

Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.

Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?

Our country?
The good of my country and that of the rUK are not the same, Jakswan.
As far as my ciuntry goes, if the SNP can get all the powers from the miserable Smith report - and add to them, using the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster - even if it means 'supply' to a minority government, that's fine by me.
What SNP will not do is either enter coalition with the Tories or support policies which endorse the cuts already promised by the Labour/Tory love in party.

Yes obviously I was referring to the country of the UK of which you and I are both citizens. So your position in this election is not guided what is the best for the British people as a whole but only one part of it.

Not much of a socialist are you.

Kind of a rather more succinct version of my post

[Anchorman]

With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html

Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.

Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.

Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?

Our country?
The good of my country and that of the rUK are not the same, Jakswan.
As far as my ciuntry goes, if the SNP can get all the powers from the miserable Smith report - and add to them, using the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster - even if it means 'supply' to a minority government, that's fine by me.
What SNP will not do is either enter coalition with the Tories or support policies which endorse the cuts already promised by the Labour/Tory love in party.

Yes obviously I was referring to the country of the UK of which you and I are both citizens. So your position in this election is not guided what is the best for the British people as a whole but only one part of it.

Not much of a socialist are you.

Kind of a rather more succinct version of my post

-
I'm a nationalist.
That means I put my nation first - before a corrupt undemocratic mess in Westminster.

[ProfessorDavey]

With the obvious caviat that opinion polls are not always reliable, this ste nevertheless reflects what must be a worry for the labour branch office in Scotland....
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls_scot.html

Should the follow through in the UK election then we will have the Scots to thank for the role they played in not providing us with a Labour majority government.

Since the red Tories promise to maintain the cuts initiated by their Tory bedfellows, what's your point?
A majority red Tory government will do Scotland no favours.

Would a majority Tory or majority Labour govt be better for our country?

Our country?
The good of my country and that of the rUK are not the same, Jakswan.
As far as my ciuntry goes, if the SNP can get all the powers from the miserable Smith report - and add to them, using the numbers of MPs elected to Westminster - even if it means 'supply' to a minority government, that's fine by me.
What SNP will not do is either enter coalition with the Tories or support policies which endorse the cuts already promised by the Labour/Tory love in party.

Yes obviously I was referring to the country of the UK of which you and I are both citizens. So your position in this election is not guided what is the best for the British people as a whole but only one part of it.

Not much of a socialist are you.

Kind of a rather more succinct version of my post

-
I'm a nationalist.
That means I put my nation first - before a corrupt undemocratic mess in Westminster.

Exactly the same words could have come out of the mouth of Farage or other UKIPers, merely with 'Westminster' changed to Brussels.

Petty nationalists - the same the world over. For the record I am more interested in people than in arbitrary lines drawn on maps hundreds of years ago. Which is why I am not a nationalist - add to that, of course, the appalling track record of nationalism in relation to conflict down the centuries.

[Rhiannon]

I don't often feel moved to criticise the beliefs of others, but to support the shafting of the ordinary people of the rUK in order to grab more of the goodies for one's own isn't  a particularly Christian attitude.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't often feel moved to criticise the beliefs of others, but to support the shafting of the ordinary people of the rUK in order to grab more of the goodies for one's own isn't  a particularly Christian attitude.

Nor is it a particularly socialist or left of centre attitude, and I thought AM was left of centre in his politics. Just goes to show how nationalism can distort priorities etc.