SNP in Scotland

Steep said:
The SNP and Labour seats combined are not enough to match the Tories so this notion that the SNP caused all the bad stuff just doesn't wash.

Your statement about 'poor deluded fools' is incredibly insulting. 1.4+ million people exercised their democratic right to vote SNP, most of whom knew exactly what they were doing and why. You have no right to denigrate them for their choice just because you disagree with it.
Click to expand...
It's convenient for poor losers to blame the SNP instead of looking at their own partys failings.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
It's convenient for poor losers to blame the SNP instead of looking at their own partys failings.
Click to expand...

Losers?? and what party would that be??
 
BRASH said:
Whether I voted or not, I still have the right to voice an opinion, perceived cheeky, moaning or other wise. It's called freedom of speech, which is allowed in our democracy, as is the choice to vote or not without hindrance to said right.

My father alway told me, never tell anyone who you vote for (if you vote) and never let anyone see your wage slip. Both valid doctrines.

My point being the poor deluded fools that were suckered into voting SNP on a tidal wave of I'll judged nationalism will, within the next five years, realise what a huge mistake it was. Spungegun and her cronies have helped assign us to another 5 years of Tory misrule. At least the Lib Dems have been sussed as the bunch of limp noodle, jump into bed with anyone who offers a sniff of power, political prostitutes that they are.
Click to expand...

Apart from the crap about the SNP, I can definitely agree with your comments on the LibDems and my dad told me exactly the same as yours about keeping your vote and wages secret.

However to rant on about folks reasons for voting, if you didn't, means your opinion means absolutely nothing!

" End of " :mad:
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
No independence referendum should happen for 80 to 100 years IMHO
Click to expand...
We should apply the same logic to the EU referendum - so we'll have it in about 2050-2070.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
It's convenient for poor losers to blame the SNP instead of looking at their own partys failings.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Brash was right about the Lib Dems selling their principles to the highest bidder and they paid for it but Labour failed in a huge way for similar reasons. They gave up the socialist left to court middle England, if they'd stuck to their principles no amount of SNP tidal wavism could have shifted them.
 
Llamaman said:
UKIP. Farage blamed them (SNP) for his defeat in Thanet.
Click to expand...


UKIP?? Now the third biggest vote winners in the land as far as I understand. Only one seat tho.
 
HuntingMartians said:
There has been studies that show the vow had no impact on the referendum result.

I hate it when people say "the people of Scotland". When they really mean a minority of people of Scotland. But don't let that get in the way.

I know of no one that wants further powers devolved.

I am Scottish therefore I am the people. I want to see the Scottish parliament abolished forever.
Click to expand...

Studies? You mean polls of a few hundred people? I don't know anyone who has been polled and asked but I know a fair few people who did buy into the "Vow" I don't really think it made much of any difference to the result though back in Sept.
I certainly have never tried to say that the SNP represent the whole of Scotland, any more than Labour or anyone else does.
 
OldCarlos said:
Mmmmm, we'll see. :rolleyes: I guess when/if oil price goes back up substantially, that will be one `material change` the SNP will spout about. ;)
Click to expand...

Like others have said the only thing I can really see in the short term is the EU Vote. Not sure what else could be legitimately described as "material"
 
chrism_scotland said:
Studies? You mean polls of a few hundred people? I don't know anyone who has been polled and asked but I know a fair few people who did buy into the "Vow" I don't really think it made much of any difference to the result though back in Sept.
I certainly have never tried to say that the SNP represent the whole of Scotland, any more than Labour or anyone else does.
Click to expand...
Nope university studies and not polls. These showed that the vow had no impact. And the vow can be interpreted many ways.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Like others have said the only thing I can really see in the short term is the EU Vote. Not sure what else could be legitimately described as "material"
Click to expand...

And that would be dependent of how the people of Scotland vote in any referendum on the EU
 
Keith W said:
And that would be dependent of how the people of Scotland vote in any referendum on the EU
Click to expand...
Good point! It's easy to assume that the Scots would vote to stay in the EU, but it's a lazy assumption.

If I were Cameron presiding over an EU referendum, I'd make sure I arranged it so that it wasn't possible to disaggregate the figures. It's the UK who would be voting on whether to stay in the EU, not any smaller group. If Chipping Sodbury votes differently to the rest of the country it's irrelevant, and it's equally irrelevant if Scotland votes differently, or if London (which has a far bigger population than Scotland!) votes differently.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
Good point! It's easy to assume that the Scots would vote to stay in the EU, but it's a lazy assumption.

If I were Cameron presiding over an EU referendum, I'd make sure I arranged it so that it wasn't possible to disaggregate the figures. It's the UK who would be voting on whether to stay in the EU, not any smaller group. If Chipping Sodbury votes differently to the rest of the country it's irrelevant, and it's equally irrelevant if Scotland or London vote differently.
Click to expand...
Why is it irrelevant?
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Why is it irrelevant?
Click to expand...
Because that's how democracy works. We all vote, we all respect the result. We don't go trying to find a clique of like minded souls and claiming that the result shouldn't apply to us.
 
StewartR said:
If I were Cameron presiding over an EU referendum, I'd make sure I arranged it so that it wasn't possible to disaggregate the figures.
Click to expand...

One of the jobs the SNP would hope to do would be to make sure any vote is done on a nation by nation basis precisely because the Scots are likely to vote to stay whereas England could well vote to leave. Getting dragged out of Europe against our 'majority' will would be a sure fire trigger for an indyref.
 
StewartR said:
Because that's how democracy works. We all vote, we all respect the result. We don't go trying to find a clique of like minded souls and claiming that the result shouldn't apply to us.
Click to expand...
It's hardly democratic to force a country to leave the EU if it overwhelmingly votes to stay in. As seperate countries with their own governments, why shouldn't the other countries that make up the United kingdom be entitled to have their own say?
 
Steep said:
One of the jobs the SNP would hope to do would be to make sure any vote is done on a nation by nation basis precisely because the Scots are likely to vote to stay whereas England could well vote to leave. Getting dragged out of Europe against our 'majority' will would be a sure fire trigger for an indyref.
Click to expand...
There's no guarantee that the Scots would vote to stay though, but I think each of the countries that make up the UK should be able to hold their own referendums.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
There's no guarantee that the Scots would vote to stay though, but I think each of the countries that make up the UK should be able to hold their own referendums.
Click to expand...

True, though the polls all say we would. I'm sure I could get a few hundred thousand to vote to stay if I told them it would annoy Steve ST4.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
It's hardly democratic to force a country to leave the EU if it overwhelmingly votes to stay in. As seperate countries with their own governments, why shouldn't the other countries that make up the United kingdom be entitled to have their own say?
Click to expand...
What's special about being a "country"? Scotland is not a sovereign state.
 
Steep said:
Getting dragged out of Europe against our 'majority' will would be a sure fire trigger for an indyref.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Which is why Cameron has a clear interest in arranging things so that there are no geographical breakdowns of the vote. He may not choose to do that, he may not be able to do that, but the incentive is clear.

Suppose the UK as a whole votes to leave, but London votes to stay. Should they be allowed to? If so, why? If not, why not?
 
Steep said:
Getting dragged out of Europe against our 'majority' will would be a sure fire trigger for an indyref.
Click to expand...

That's going to be like a broken record from now on.

I actually reckon just about anything unpopular will result in the risk of certain people wanting another referendum.

Tory leader leaves wet towel on Edinburgh hotel bathroom floor - Indyref !
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
That's going to be like a broken record from now on.

I actually reckon just about anything unpopular will result in the risk of certain people wanting another referendum.

Tory leader leaves wet towel on Edinburgh hotel bathroom floor - Inyref !
Click to expand...
There's a lot of broken records at the moment.
 
Elmer_fudd25 said:
Far too many seats for far too few people. I too get annoyed by the poor us from the scots. They have a chance to be independent they have far too much say in what happens south of the boarder. If we was as racist about them as they are about us we would never hear the end of it.
Click to expand...

pretty sure with a majority government the 56 SNP MPs make no real difference to votes.

I'd be interested to see where and when the snp have been racist?
 
Blaming the SNP for Labour's failings is utterly disingenuous. Labour fought a woeful campaign, failing on multiple counts to challenge spurious accusations made by the Tories - particularly on the economy. Their message was foggy in an age of short attention spans where concise messaging rules. They let themselves be bullied and Miliband lacked the charisma to carry his good intentions.

Had Labour won every seat in Scotland, they'd still be behind the Tories, and they've no one to blame but themselves. Sturgeon and the SNP, by comparison, conducted a positive and impressive campaign.

As for the non-voters, I have absolutely no respect for their political opinion. A non-voter is nothing, politically, and doing a disservice to a democratic right that was so hard fought. Don't like any candidates? Turn up in numbers and spoil your vote - show the country that there is a swathe of people willing to vote, but lacking representation. That's active politics - the sort of thing that can inspire new policy, better candidates and even new parties.
 
decigallen said:
As for the non-voters, I have absolutely no respect for their political opinion. A non-voter is nothing, politically, and doing a disservice to a democratic right that was so hard fought. Don't like any candidates? Turn up in numbers and spoil your vote - show the country that there is a swathe of people willing to vote, but lacking representation. That's active politics - the sort of thing that can inspire new policy, better candidates and even new parties.
Click to expand...

Such utter hypocrisy, the democratic right so hardly fought for entitles us to choose whether to vote or not. A non voter has every right to have a political opinion and that opinion is just as valid and worthy of respect (whether or not you agree with it or not) as that of any one who does vote. Spoiling your ballot paper is just a meaningless leftie, anarchic lot of nonsense, it proves nothing, provides no meaningful purpose. They are recorded and spoiled papers and binned. Nobody really gives too much of a toss what's behind it. If folk are not happy about the selection of candidates, then go out and take the lawful options open to you and do something about it. That's how new political movements are formed, not by childishly scribbling on a ballot paper that no one's going to pay any attention to.
 
Last edited:
Spoiling your vote is far from meaningless. A spoiled vote is counted and entered into the record. If all those who claim to not vote in protest actually turned up and spoiled their vote it would make a difference. A million spoiled votes would indicate to those within politics that there are a sizeable amount of people WILLING to vote but feeling unrepresented. These willing voters can and would be targeted by parties and candidates who will endeavour to represent them or at least win over their vote by policy.

A non-vote is precisely that. Nothing. You're the same as a person who didn't vote because the 'can't be bothered' or forgot to register, or stayed at home because it was raining. You're classed as apathetic. No party will strive too hard to win your vote - they'll strive to win the votes of those who will show up. Policy is and always will be geared towards the active electorate.

I stand by my opinion. A non-voter has no right to complain about the outcome of any election. I don't value their political opinion if they don't have the respect of process to participate. 'They fought for our right not to vote' argument is twisted logic.
 
BRASH said:
UKIP?? Now the third biggest vote winners in the land as far as I understand. Only one seat tho.
Click to expand...
And no "major" party will vote to change to a fairer system of election because it'll be them that will lose, out.
And not forgetting of course the Blues got 51% of the votes, that still leaves 49% of the country disgruntled with the result ;)
 
I wonder why you put major in quotes?
 
BRASH said:
Such utter hypocrisy, the democratic right so hardly fought for entitles us to choose whether to vote or not. A non voter has every right to have a political opinion and that opinion is just as valid and worthy of respect (whether or not you agree with it or not) as that of any one who does vote. Spoiling your ballot paper is just a meaningless leftie, anarchic lot of nonsense, it proves nothing, provides no meaningful purpose. They are recorded and spoiled papers and binned. Nobody really gives too much of a toss what's behind it. If folk are not happy about the selection of candidates, then go out and take the lawful options open to you and do something about it. That's how new political movements are formed, not by childishly scribbling on a ballot paper that no one's going to pay any attention to.
Click to expand...

A non voter certainly has that right.
He has put aside his democratic rights
And has no moral right to complain about the resulting implications of those votes.

However I see spoiling a ballot paper differently, such a person is not too lazy to go to the polling station or is apathetic.
They can be certain that every candidate sees that spoilt paper at the count..
The returning officers shows them to all candidates and asks for opinions about each one individually, before deciding if they are spoilt.
Some times doubtful voting papers are accepted. As are ones with ticks rather than crosses, if the intention is clear.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
A non voter certainly has that right.
He has put aside his democratic rights
And has no moral right to complain about the resulting implications of those votes.

However I see spoiling a ballot paper differently, such a person is not too lazy to go to the polling station or is apathetic.
They can be certain that every candidate sees that spoilt paper at the count..
The returning officers shows them to all candidates and asks for opinions about each one individually, before deciding if they are spoilt.
Some times doubtful voting papers are accepted. As are ones with ticks rather than crosses, if the intention is clear.
Click to expand...

Or penises which are clearly drawn within the box!
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
A non voter certainly has that right.
He has put aside his democratic rights
And has no moral right to complain about the resulting implications of those votes.

However I see spoiling a ballot paper differently, such a person is not too lazy to go to the polling station or is apathetic.
They can be certain that every candidate sees that spoilt paper at the count..
The returning officers shows them to all candidates and asks for opinions about each one individually, before deciding if they are spoilt.
Some times doubtful voting papers are accepted. As are ones with ticks rather than crosses, if the intention is clear.
Click to expand...

Don't think that is widely known. Just imagine if there were thousands of spoilt papers. It would take weeks to examine them all .............. :LOL:
 
decigallen said:
Spoiling your vote is far from meaningless. A spoiled vote is counted and entered into the record. If all those who claim to not vote in protest actually turned up and spoiled their vote it would make a difference. A million spoiled votes would indicate to those within politics that there are a sizeable amount of people WILLING to vote but feeling unrepresented. These willing voters can and would be targeted by parties and candidates who will endeavour to represent them or at least win over their vote by policy.

A non-vote is precisely that. Nothing. You're the same as a person who didn't vote because the 'can't be bothered' or forgot to register, or stayed at home because it was raining. You're classed as apathetic. No party will strive too hard to win your vote - they'll strive to win the votes of those who will show up. Policy is and always will be geared towards the active electorate.

I stand by my opinion. A non-voter has no right to complain about the outcome of any election. I don't value their political opinion if they don't have the respect of process to participate. 'They fought for our right not to vote' argument is twisted logic.
Click to expand...
I didn't vote,am I allowed to be pleased with the outcome ? which I am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top