SNP. Why Are They Thriving?

[Hope]

I think Labours best strategy to fight back would be to expose the lies of the SNP.

Isn't that the best strategy for any political party, regardless of the context?

[jakswan]

Oh Jak, wake up boy Labour aren't an alternative to anything (not even the tories!) they are a shambles.

Dugdale and her crew are just pumping out the same dribble as Murphy and co with the classic "we wont just slag off the SNP anymore that gets us nowhere"... oh hold on yes we will because we have nothing else did they not learn from that strategy which got them humped the last time!!

Policies? No we don't have policies but we are against austerity although we voted for it with the tories (and will do again) and we are are against trident but it will never become our policy and we don't like to talk about it 

The SNP don't even have to try any more Labour are an embarrassment north and south.

Keep going though Jaky your attempts at slagging off the SNP and talking up labour are pure comedy gold!! 

I know you like to rant but suggest you engage with what I said rather than what you think I said. I do not support Labour I'm LibDem.

[jakswan]

I think Labours best strategy to fight back would be to expose the lies of the SNP.

Isn't that the best strategy for any political party, regardless of the context?

You would think so but the Nationalists seem to blinded by rabid fanaticism.

[Anchorman]

I think Labours best strategy to fight back would be to expose the lies of the SNP.

Isn't that the best strategy for any political party, regardless of the context?

The problem there, Hope, is that Slab have veen churning out their major policy statement "SMP bad, SNP bad, SNP, bad, " for yonks now - with disasterous results.
Dugdale and the minnows have yet to bring anything to the fore which gels with Scots enough to trust them in any way, shape or form.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you need at least give some idea of how you would do better. Proving lies in politics is quite hard., showing bad performance is easier. As KO has covered part of the issue with SLAB is that it has effectively cried wolf too much - as in the case when it complained about an SNP budget not covering enough about apprenticeships, and when the budget was adjusted to take into account the Labour proposal voting against the proposal.


This was due to the Bain Principle named after the ex MP Willie Bain that Labour in Scotland should have nothing to do with any SNP proposal even if they agreed with it.

[jakswan]

Proving lies in politics is quite hard.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32641174

Sturgeon's anti-austerity message for Westminster...

Is a lie, the SNP support austerity long. Also recall something about 'once in a generation'.

Don't get me wrong I think the SNP are a fantastic political party, masters of spin, using the independence of Scotland as a political football to great effect and have some great speakers. However they are Premier League their opposition in Scotland isn't able to compete.

[Nearly Sane]

You see the problem with this being a lie is that austerity is not a set of facts and it can be argued that austerity long, as you state it, is not austerity. This is why it is better to stick to showing bad performance which can be factual.

[Nearly Sane]

And on the once in a lifetime, the problem with that being a lie is you would have to prove the possibility of a further referendum was intended at the time of that statement. I don't think that is clear at al and things changed when 80,000 joined the SNP following the referendum and then they had 56 MPS elected. There was a time when it was said by Tory politicians that a simple majority of SNP MPs was a de facto declaration of independence. I don't think they lied, rather that circumstances had changed.

It's rather like I don't think Nick Clegg lied when he made his pledge about tuition fees, just made a foolish statement. I think the once in a lifetime was much less foolish since the change in circumstances was such that it would be foolish not to change. The tuition fees was a mistake about being in power
 

[ProfessorDavey]

And on the once in a lifetime, the problem with that being a lie is you would have to prove the possibility of a further referendum was intended at the time of that statement. I don't think that is clear at al and things changed when 80,000 joined the SNP following the referendum and then they had 56 MPS elected. There was a time when it was said by Tory politicians that a simple majority of SNP MPs was a de facto declaration of independence. I don't think they lied, rather that circumstances had changed.

It's rather like I don't think Nick Clegg lied when he made his pledge about tuition fees, just made a foolish statement. I think the once in a lifetime was much less foolish since the change in circumstances was such that it would be foolish not to change. The tuition fees was a mistake about being in power

But there is a big difference between the Clegg 'tuition fee' statement and the SNP 'once in a lifetime' statement. The LibDems were never in a position to deliver on their statement as they were junior partners in a government where the senior partner was committed to raising tuition fees. That isn't the case with the SNP - whether or not to call for a further referendum is entirely within the control of the SNP - so they can freely live up to their 'once in a lifetime' statement should they choose to - let's face it, no-one else is going to force them to go back on that statement, are they.

So they aren't equivalent. My view being that the LibDem statement was naive, perhaps foolish and not deliverable given that the LibDems if in government were always going to be a junior partner. The SNP 'once in a lifetime' statement was much more cynical and disingenuous - an attempt to scare the electorate into voting 'yes' on the basis that there would never be another chance. Yet they darned well know that provided they were in government in Scotland (and lets face it there aren't many alternatives lining up at the door) they could call a referendum whenever they want, however often they want until they get the 'right' result.

[Nearly Sane]

How is it entirely within their control given that they had to get elected? Are you saying that the Labour Party in Scotland were being disingenuous or foolish arguing that they would (a) keep their seats in Westminster and (B) win back Holyrood? Do you think that the SNP have no duty to their 400% increased membership, or those who voted for Westminster giving them 50 new seats, or that that somewhat substantial change made no difference?

[Nearly Sane]

I should, of course, note here that what is being discussed is the best way to fight against the SNP. I think, as already stated, that going down the lie route a difficult one, and given the current court case with Alistair Carmicheal's admitted lie, certainly not one for the Lib Dems.

This is neither saying that no one in the SNP has lied nor that there is not stuff they can be attacked on, just that the attack is better focussed on areas where the Scottish Govt can be argued as failing such as education, policing, and slightly less clearly the NHS.

[ProfessorDavey]

How is it entirely within their control given that they had to get elected? Are you saying that the Labour Party in Scotland were being disingenuous or foolish arguing that they would (a) keep their seats in Westminster and (B) win back Holyrood? Do you think that the SNP have no duty to their 400% increased membership, or those who voted for Westminster giving them 50 new seats, or that that somewhat substantial change made no difference?

Given that the SNP have been in control of Holyrood since 2007 and in overall majority since 2011 it isn't an unreasonable expectation for the SNP to consider that they will have regular opportunities to call referendums in Scotland that are under the control of the Scottish parliament.

Given that, at the time if Cleggs comment the LibDems had never been in power in the UK the Liberals not for about a century and even now neither has come close to being the largest of majority party, it isn't unreasonable to consider that the LIbDems wouldn't have the chance to implement their policy even if in government as a junior partner.

That's the difference.

And actually there was absolutely nothing to stop the SNP calling a referendum again for this autumn or even now to do so for next spring. The notion that there was no way another referendum could happen for a lifetime was clearly nonsense given that they were in complete control to call one a year or 18 months later.

[Nearly Sane]

Mmm so you do think the Labour Party in Scotland was stupid and lying, I take it then. Generally being in govt for a long period would lead to doubts about maintaining it but why not just ignore that. As to introducing a referendum before next year's election, do you have any justification that there was any likelihood of that or are you just muddying the water?

[jakswan]

You see the problem with this being a lie is that austerity is not a set of facts and it can be argued that austerity long, as you state it, is not austerity. This is why it is better to stick to showing bad performance which can be factual.

Austerity is an economic plan to cut spending levels to balance government budgets. All major political parties proposed to cut government spending relative to GDP, including the SNP.

Corbyn by the sounds of it is truly anti-austerity as he will increase taxes to reduce the deficit.

[Nearly Sane]

That would be why the Shadow Chancellor committed to following the overall spending plans of George Osborne? Austerity is essentially a poliically and rather loosely defined term which by opposing certain things such as the tax credit cuts politicians can portray themselves as anti the proposed austerity.

As I said, I find this concentration on things that are not facts very strange when there are real issues with the SNP in Scotland in govt.

[jakswan]

How is it entirely within their control given that they had to get elected? Are you saying that the Labour Party in Scotland were being disingenuous or foolish arguing that they would (a) keep their seats in Westminster and (B) win back Holyrood? Do you think that the SNP have no duty to their 400% increased membership, or those who voted for Westminster giving them 50 new seats, or that that somewhat substantial change made no difference?

Given that the SNP have been in control of Holyrood since 2007 and in overall majority since 2011 it isn't an unreasonable expectation for the SNP to consider that they will have regular opportunities to call referendums in Scotland that are under the control of the Scottish parliament.

Given that, at the time if Cleggs comment the LibDems had never been in power in the UK the Liberals not for about a century and even now neither has come close to being the largest of majority party, it isn't unreasonable to consider that the LIbDems wouldn't have the chance to implement their policy even if in government as a junior partner.

That's the difference.

And actually there was absolutely nothing to stop the SNP calling a referendum again for this autumn or even now to do so for next spring. The notion that there was no way another referendum could happen for a lifetime was clearly nonsense given that they were in complete control to call one a year or 18 months later.

If independence is off the agenda then the appeal of the SNP would be damaged. Vote to leave the EU and dump Scotland out of the Union I say!

[Nearly Sane]

That seems a bit confused, are you saying if Scotland is independent then the SNP are unlikely to be the Govt? If so then certainly in the second election after independence I think that is certainly true but so what?

[jakswan]

That seems a bit confused, are you saying if Scotland is independent then the SNP are unlikely to be the Govt? If so then certainly in the second election after independence I think that is certainly true but so what?

No I'm saying that now the SNP have to keep independence on the Agenda, the neverendum. I think the neverendum is going to be toxic for the UK and possibly give rise to English nationalism, it won't make the NHS better, improve education or employment.

A vote the leave the European Union could easily result another vote for Scotland to leave British Union and settle the matter once and for all.

[Nearly Sane]

No I'm saying that now the SNP have to keep independence on the Agenda, the neverendum. I think the neverendum is going to be toxic for the UK and possibly give rise to English nationalism, it won't make the NHS better, improve education or employment.

A vote the leave the European Union could easily result another vote for Scotland to leave British Union and settle the matter once and for all.

  I think you are mistaken here - the refernedum was not on the agenda in 2007 and had there not been the increase in SNP memebership by 400% and the 56 MPs elected, and were there not a real chance of a vote out in the EU ref  - i.e. if after the referndum nothing changed, it wouldn't be even a possibility for the elections next year.  The voters are what really determines if there will be another referendum


As to the referendum itself, of course it won't make education better - and I've never met anyone who has said it will (Are you channelling Vlad?). The people that believe in independence, for the many different reasons they might do so, believe that independence will make a difference though.  The point is that much of the talk of referndums comes from the unionist parties, and I think it is counter productive. There is real damage to be done to the SNP, if they went after thme for bad decisions, rather than this approach of the bad decisions are all because they are distracted by the referendum. I think it would play much better if they were to say in the current set up we will impriove it by doing x, y and z, and instead of stoking up discussion of possible referendum, ignore it as irrelevant to current issues.  They should approach it as if the SNP are just not very good rather than carrying out some Machiavellian plan as it gives an air of efficiency to the SNP that they don't deserve. Or rather it highlights that teh SNp appear efficent as against the position of just saying SNP bad.


Labour in Scotland should forget about voters coming home as it just continues the sense of entitlement that has been a substantial and ongoing part of their loss of support and just present policies. I agree with you that the possible move to a free vote on independence would be sensible but it needs to be done in such a way that downplays the significance of the decision.


 

[Nearly Sane]

 There is an to to a significant issue with the going after the SNP on the idea of lying which is that it merely becomes an argument that they are as 'bad as us'. That is not currently a vote winner since most voters have not drunk the Kool Aid but rather think that the SNP might be vaguely more efficient and also not Tories.


The more effective approach to win voters is on the idea that the SNP are just not very good at govt. There is the possibility that were the Tories to play this right they could come second in the elections. Again they should stop the referendum stuff, build on Osborne's speech yesterday and get the partial devolution of income tax in, with a clear statement of what they would do in Scotland with that power.

[jakswan]

I think you are mistaken here - the refernedum was not on the agenda in 2007 and had there not been the increase in SNP memebership by 400% and the 56 MPs elected, and were there not a real chance of a vote out in the EU ref  - i.e. if after the referndum nothing changed, it wouldn't be even a possibility for the elections next year.  The voters are what really determines if there will be another referendum

I've heard Nationalist politicians talk about other issues, this is from the telegraph.
"Alex Salmond has suggested the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons, failure to devolve more powers and “austerity to the max” are other possible triggers."

As to the referendum itself, of course it won't make education better - and I've never met anyone who has said it will (Are you channelling Vlad?).

I never claimed anyone said it will either.

The people that believe in independence, for the many different reasons they might do so, believe that independence will make a difference though.  The point is that much of the talk of referndums comes from the unionist parties, and I think it is counter productive. There is real damage to be done to the SNP, if they went after thme for bad decisions, rather than this approach of the bad decisions are all because they are distracted by the referendum. I think it would play much better if they were to say in the current set up we will impriove it by doing x, y and z, and instead of stoking up discussion of possible referendum, ignore it as irrelevant to current issues.  They should approach it as if the SNP are just not very good rather than carrying out some Machiavellian plan as it gives an air of efficiency to the SNP that they don't deserve. Or rather it highlights that teh SNp appear efficent as against the position of just saying SNP bad.


Labour in Scotland should forget about voters coming home as it just continues the sense of entitlement that has been a substantial and ongoing part of their loss of support and just present policies. I agree with you that the possible move to a free vote on independence would be sensible but it needs to be done in such a way that downplays the significance of the decision.

As far as I can tell Labour have done exactly that, their position is changing.

I hope it works out for Labour, we have the Tories to represent the rich, the SNP to represent the Scots, the rest of us have politicians which simply don't seem to be very good.

[King Oberon]

All this talk of a soon to be 2nd referendum comes mainly from the SNP's opponents to stir up what they hope is some kind of 'unionist' vote.

Not many people I know who voted yes realistically think that there will be one anytime soon unless like Nicky baby says there is a massive call for it, what would be the point unless this time they are going to definitely going to win, it would be suicide!

Given what the nasty party are up to though it might happen at some time especially if England keep voting them in!! 10 years of Cameron/Osborne half of England might want independence!

Labour aren't going to make any comebacks up here anytime soon Corbin or not simply because they have second rate Scottish politicians, still seen as Westminster led despite the claims to the contrary and most importantly we actually do have an alternative to Lab/Con! (i won't even mention the libdems!)

[jakswan]

10 years of Cameron/Osborne half of England might want independence!

I don't think it will take that long for most of the rUK to want Scotland out.

[King Oberon]

I don't think it will take that long for most of the rUK to want Scotland out.

 

Hopefully before Tory jackboots get to be part of our national dress (for standing on the poor of course)!

Guess your ahead of the curve on that one Jak 

[jakswan]

I don't think it will take that long for most of the rUK to want Scotland out.

 

Hopefully before Tory jackboots get to be part of our national dress (for standing on the poor of course)!

Guess your ahead of the curve on that one Jak 

Yes the SNP where a great help to the Tories, that is why an EU no vote is essential, help Scotland on her way.