General Election May 2015

[Tarrel]

I heard someone complaining today (I think it was Boris Johnson on the Andrew Marr show) that the SNP in Westminster will be representing Scottish interests rather than those of the whole of the UK. If every MP represents the interests of the "whole of the UK" then local representation is effectively dead. And, after all, that is who we elect; a local representative.

I don't see anything wrong with a block of MPs representing the interests of one major geographical area.

The trouble is, the asymmetric nature of population and wealth distribution in the UK is causing more people to think about separation and federalism, but ur political systems are designed around this. We either need to embrace federalism and design the systems to accommodate it, or do something fast to address the inequalities in the UK and help a larger proportion of the population to feel part of the picture.

Maybe, just maybe, a left-leaning coalition or association of parties can start us on this journey.

[Little John]

.....Maybe, just maybe, a left-leaning coalition or association of parties can start us on this journey.

God help us, I hope so. Though, I am bound to say, none of the potential members of such a coalition have polices I can even remotely agree with on immigration. However, they at least go some way towards addressing to a limited extent the other half of my major political concerns,

[Tarrel]

We just got back from a local SNP supporters' meeting this evening. Our constituency is geographically huge (covering everything north of Inverness to the coast) but with a relatively small voting population of around 50,000. The meeting was packed; well over 100 people plus a Jack Russell. Not bad for a snowy Sunday evening.

John Swinney was the speaker; Deputy First Minister and Finance Minister in the Scottish Parliament. Bearing in mind he was talking to "insiders", he made it clear that the SNP's objectives in Westminster would be; first and foremost, the ending of austerity as a method of reducing the deficit and, secondly, standing up for the interests of Scotland. Independence was not mentioned. Neither was disruption. There were no plaid-clad heathens with blue faces and no cries of "Freedom!". Many of the folks there had English accents.

Local hustings on Tuesday. A chance to see the SNP candidate go head-to-head with the incumbent Lord Thurso (Lib Dem). Should be worth turning out for on my birthday!

[AutomaticEarth]

If the Scots choose to elect the SNP to the majority of those seats, it is their democratic right. If the English choose to split theirs roughly equally between tories and labour, that is also their choice.

Indeed. I'm not saying that they shouldn't.

Still, it looks like some SNP MPs are looking forward to causing carnage come May 7th:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... tmare.html

It is going to be funny watching Labour squirm come May 7th when they have to agree to all kinds of deals with the SNP

[Tarrel]

Twitteratti both sides of the border have responded to Theresa May's comments in the Mail on Sunday about the prospect of a Labour/SNP government being "The worst constitutional crisis since the abdication", using the hashtag "#WorstCrisisSinceTheAbdication".

Some of my personal favourites:

Dog has taken most of the couch. #WorstCrisisSinceTheAbdication

Piece fell jammy side down..... #WorstCrisisSinceTheAbdication

Finding yer auld knickers doon the leg a yer trousers, while yer sitting on the bus #WorstCrisisSinceTheAbdication

Missed the DFS sale #WorstCrisisSinceTheAbdication

Accidentally bought low sugar Heinz baked beans #WorstCrisisSinceTheAbdication

And finally, John Prescott's:
I had to eat fish and chips without vinegar tonight #WorstCrisisSinceTheAbdication
...There are many more.

I suppose an absurd comment deserves mockery in response.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think there is a limit to what sort of deal Labour might do with the SNP. While it may look very attractive to do such a deal immediately after the election, Labour will be acutely aware of the possible the long-term consequences of doing so.

There's two problems.

Firstly, if Labour are seen by English voters as having given preferential treatment to the Scots in order to secure power, it will provide the Tories with very dangerous ammunition next time round, because instead of empty scaremongering, they'll genuinely be able to say that if you vote labour in England, you'll end up being shafted by the SNP. This will make it harder for Labour to win marginal seats in England.

Secondly, people in Scotland will be sure that voting SNP is likely to lead to a Labour government being propped up by the SNP, which is considerably better for them, as Scots, than a Labour majority government. This will make it even harder for Labour to hold on to seats in Scotland.

So they've got to be very careful. Any deal with the SNP that looks like it benefits Scottish people at the expense of the English will be toxic to Labour's future electoral prospects. That doesn't mean a deal won't happen, but it does mean the SNP's promises to represent everybody in the UK, rather than just Scots, has to be reflected in the negotiations. If they behave like nationalists then a deal will be very hard to arrive at.

[Tarrel]

I think there is a limit to what sort of deal Labour might do with the SNP. While it may look very attractive to do such a deal immediately after the election, Labour will be acutely aware of the possible the long-term consequences of doing so.

There's two problems.

Firstly, if Labour are seen by English voters as having given preferential treatment to the Scots in order to secure power, it will provide the Tories with very dangerous ammunition next time round, because instead of empty scaremongering, they'll genuinely be able to say that if you vote labour in England, you'll end up being shafted by the SNP. This will make it harder for Labour to win marginal seats in England.

Secondly, people in Scotland will be sure that voting SNP is likely to lead to a Labour government being propped up by the SNP, which is considerably better for them, as Scots, than a Labour majority government. This will make it even harder for Labour to hold on to seats in Scotland.

So they've got to be very careful. Any deal with the SNP that looks like it benefits Scottish people at the expense of the English will be toxic to Labour's future electoral prospects. That doesn't mean a deal won't happen, but it does mean the SNP's promises to represent everybody in the UK, rather than just Scots, has to be reflected in the negotiations. If they behave like nationalists then a deal will be very hard to arrive at.

I don't see why any policies that benefit Scotland should be at the expense of the English. It's not a zero-sum game.

If they behave like nationalists then a deal will be very hard to arrive at.

Agreed.

[peaceful_life]

I think there is a limit to what sort of deal Labour might do with the SNP. While it may look very attractive to do such a deal immediately after the election, Labour will be acutely aware of the possible the long-term consequences of doing so.

There's two problems.

Firstly, if Labour are seen by English voters as having given preferential treatment to the Scots in order to secure power, it will provide the Tories with very dangerous ammunition next time round, because instead of empty scaremongering, they'll genuinely be able to say that if you vote labour in England, you'll end up being shafted by the SNP. This will make it harder for Labour to win marginal seats in England.

Secondly, people in Scotland will be sure that voting SNP is likely to lead to a Labour government being propped up by the SNP, which is considerably better for them, as Scots, than a Labour majority government. This will make it even harder for Labour to hold on to seats in Scotland.

So they've got to be very careful. Any deal with the SNP that looks like it benefits Scottish people at the expense of the English will be toxic to Labour's future electoral prospects. That doesn't mean a deal won't happen, but it does mean the SNP's promises to represent everybody in the UK, rather than just Scots, has to be reflected in the negotiations. If they behave like nationalists then a deal will be very hard to arrive at.

I don't see why any policies that benefit Scotland should be at the expense of the English. It's not a zero-sum game.

If they behave like nationalists then a deal will be very hard to arrive at.

Agreed.

'My fears: the nationalist parties'
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... t-parties/

'And what I cannot see happening is the SNP using its position in Westminster to secure independence. Why do that when it can stand in Scotland on that platform in 2016?

So, the nationalist issue is a real one. If embraced it could be a force for good. It could enhance parliament and its effectiveness. It could enhance politics.

The problem of nationalism is inherent in the mindset of the English nationalist who believes they have a right to rule that has resulted in the alienation of the Scots, the rise of the SNP, and the undermining of democracy in the UK because of the unwillingness of too many to accept that the Scots can and should make their own choices'

Besides...this isn't really about the SNP or nationalism (of the civic notion), both of which are merely symbolic and emotional conduits of a far deeper rooted direction.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think there is a limit to what sort of deal Labour might do with the SNP. While it may look very attractive to do such a deal immediately after the election, Labour will be acutely aware of the possible the long-term consequences of doing so.

There's two problems.

Firstly, if Labour are seen by English voters as having given preferential treatment to the Scots in order to secure power, it will provide the Tories with very dangerous ammunition next time round, because instead of empty scaremongering, they'll genuinely be able to say that if you vote labour in England, you'll end up being shafted by the SNP. This will make it harder for Labour to win marginal seats in England.

Secondly, people in Scotland will be sure that voting SNP is likely to lead to a Labour government being propped up by the SNP, which is considerably better for them, as Scots, than a Labour majority government. This will make it even harder for Labour to hold on to seats in Scotland.

So they've got to be very careful. Any deal with the SNP that looks like it benefits Scottish people at the expense of the English will be toxic to Labour's future electoral prospects. That doesn't mean a deal won't happen, but it does mean the SNP's promises to represent everybody in the UK, rather than just Scots, has to be reflected in the negotiations. If they behave like nationalists then a deal will be very hard to arrive at.

I don't see why any policies that benefit Scotland should be at the expense of the English. It's not a zero-sum game.

There's all sorts of things the Scots could demand that would benefit Scotland at the expense of the English. Money, to take the simplest possible example.

[Tarrel]

I think there is a limit to what sort of deal Labour might do with the SNP. While it may look very attractive to do such a deal immediately after the election, Labour will be acutely aware of the possible the long-term consequences of doing so.

There's two problems.

Firstly, if Labour are seen by English voters as having given preferential treatment to the Scots in order to secure power, it will provide the Tories with very dangerous ammunition next time round, because instead of empty scaremongering, they'll genuinely be able to say that if you vote labour in England, you'll end up being shafted by the SNP. This will make it harder for Labour to win marginal seats in England.

Secondly, people in Scotland will be sure that voting SNP is likely to lead to a Labour government being propped up by the SNP, which is considerably better for them, as Scots, than a Labour majority government. This will make it even harder for Labour to hold on to seats in Scotland.

So they've got to be very careful. Any deal with the SNP that looks like it benefits Scottish people at the expense of the English will be toxic to Labour's future electoral prospects. That doesn't mean a deal won't happen, but it does mean the SNP's promises to represent everybody in the UK, rather than just Scots, has to be reflected in the negotiations. If they behave like nationalists then a deal will be very hard to arrive at.

I don't see why any policies that benefit Scotland should be at the expense of the English. It's not a zero-sum game.

There's all sorts of things the Scots could demand that would benefit Scotland at the expense of the English. Money, to take the simplest possible example.

But the SNP want to achieve full fiscal autonomy, which would ultimately lead to the end of the Barnett Formula, which is widely criticised as being biased towards Scotland.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think there is a limit to what sort of deal Labour might do with the SNP. While it may look very attractive to do such a deal immediately after the election, Labour will be acutely aware of the possible the long-term consequences of doing so.

There's two problems.

Firstly, if Labour are seen by English voters as having given preferential treatment to the Scots in order to secure power, it will provide the Tories with very dangerous ammunition next time round, because instead of empty scaremongering, they'll genuinely be able to say that if you vote labour in England, you'll end up being shafted by the SNP. This will make it harder for Labour to win marginal seats in England.

Secondly, people in Scotland will be sure that voting SNP is likely to lead to a Labour government being propped up by the SNP, which is considerably better for them, as Scots, than a Labour majority government. This will make it even harder for Labour to hold on to seats in Scotland.

So they've got to be very careful. Any deal with the SNP that looks like it benefits Scottish people at the expense of the English will be toxic to Labour's future electoral prospects. That doesn't mean a deal won't happen, but it does mean the SNP's promises to represent everybody in the UK, rather than just Scots, has to be reflected in the negotiations. If they behave like nationalists then a deal will be very hard to arrive at.

I don't see why any policies that benefit Scotland should be at the expense of the English. It's not a zero-sum game.

If they behave like nationalists then a deal will be very hard to arrive at.

Agreed.

'My fears: the nationalist parties'
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... t-parties/

'And what I cannot see happening is the SNP using its position in Westminster to secure independence. Why do that when it can stand in Scotland on that platform in 2016?

So, the nationalist issue is a real one. If embraced it could be a force for good. It could enhance parliament and its effectiveness. It could enhance politics.

The problem of nationalism is inherent in the mindset of the English nationalist who believes they have a right to rule that has resulted in the alienation of the Scots, the rise of the SNP, and the undermining of democracy in the UK because of the unwillingness of too many to accept that the Scots can and should make their own choices'

Besides...this isn't really about the SNP or nationalism (of the civic notion), both of which are merely symbolic and emotional conduits of a far deeper rooted direction.

Interesting article, and I agree with much of it.

The last bit though - where he claims that Scottish independence is now surely inevitable....? I don't think so. I'm guessing he's a Scot himself. I very much doubt that any Westminster government is going to grant Scotland another referendum in the foreseeable future. Why should the nationalists get an endless number of bites at the cherry? What is reasonable about holding an endless stream of referenda until the nationalists get the result they want, at which point that result stands for all time? It's not fair, and it won't happen. IMO. Scotland will get independence when, and only when, the rest of the union is willing to grant them another referendum. They cannot simply demand it and expect to get it, regardless of how strong the SNP position in Holyrood is.

[peaceful_life]

I think there is a limit to what sort of deal Labour might do with the SNP. While it may look very attractive to do such a deal immediately after the election, Labour will be acutely aware of the possible the long-term consequences of doing so.

There's two problems.

Firstly, if Labour are seen by English voters as having given preferential treatment to the Scots in order to secure power, it will provide the Tories with very dangerous ammunition next time round, because instead of empty scaremongering, they'll genuinely be able to say that if you vote labour in England, you'll end up being shafted by the SNP. This will make it harder for Labour to win marginal seats in England.

Secondly, people in Scotland will be sure that voting SNP is likely to lead to a Labour government being propped up by the SNP, which is considerably better for them, as Scots, than a Labour majority government. This will make it even harder for Labour to hold on to seats in Scotland.

So they've got to be very careful. Any deal with the SNP that looks like it benefits Scottish people at the expense of the English will be toxic to Labour's future electoral prospects. That doesn't mean a deal won't happen, but it does mean the SNP's promises to represent everybody in the UK, rather than just Scots, has to be reflected in the negotiations. If they behave like nationalists then a deal will be very hard to arrive at.

I don't see why any policies that benefit Scotland should be at the expense of the English. It's not a zero-sum game.

There's all sorts of things the Scots could demand that would benefit Scotland at the expense of the English. Money, to take the simplest possible example.

Or maybe, the people up there agree with a fairer deal for the people down here..and elsewhere, maybe?

Before asserting what could be peoples intentions, you could always reference the content of that blog to see where the collective wealth already is going.

There's a million folk eating from foodbanks throughout the UK.

[peaceful_life]

I don't see why any policies that benefit Scotland should be at the expense of the English. It's not a zero-sum game.

There's all sorts of things the Scots could demand that would benefit Scotland at the expense of the English. Money, to take the simplest possible example.

But the SNP want to achieve full fiscal autonomy, which would ultimately lead to the end of the Barnett Formula, which is widely criticised as being biased towards Scotland.

Amongst other little titbits...

'Although Scotland enjoys public spending well above the UK average – a source of resentment among some in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the cost to the Treasury is more than outweighed by oil and gas revenues from Scottish waters'
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67 ... tml#slide0

But yes, FFA is more sensible all round in order for prioritising.

[peaceful_life]

I don't see why any policies that benefit Scotland should be at the expense of the English. It's not a zero-sum game.
Agreed.

'My fears: the nationalist parties'
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015 ... t-parties/

'And what I cannot see happening is the SNP using its position in Westminster to secure independence. Why do that when it can stand in Scotland on that platform in 2016?

So, the nationalist issue is a real one. If embraced it could be a force for good. It could enhance parliament and its effectiveness. It could enhance politics.

The problem of nationalism is inherent in the mindset of the English nationalist who believes they have a right to rule that has resulted in the alienation of the Scots, the rise of the SNP, and the undermining of democracy in the UK because of the unwillingness of too many to accept that the Scots can and should make their own choices'

Besides...this isn't really about the SNP or nationalism (of the civic notion), both of which are merely symbolic and emotional conduits of a far deeper rooted direction.

Interesting article, and I agree with much of it.

The last bit though - where he claims that Scottish independence is now surely inevitable....? I don't think so. I'm guessing he's a Scot himself. I very much doubt that any Westminster government is going to grant Scotland another referendum in the foreseeable future. Why should the nationalists get an endless number of bites at the cherry? What is reasonable about holding an endless stream of referenda until the nationalists get the result they want, at which point that result stands for all time? It's not fair, and it won't happen. IMO. Scotland will get independence when, and only when, the rest of the union is willing to grant them another referendum. They cannot simply demand it and expect to get it, regardless of how strong the SNP position in Holyrood is.

A state of consciousness cannot be granted, nor demanded.

[Tarrel]

More mirth from north of the border, this time in response to The Sun's story about Nicola Sturgeon cutting off the hair of her sister's Barbie doll when they were kids.

#dollgate