SNP in Scotland

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 is like a person with tooth ache that doesnt go to the dentist. sure they can complain but people will ignore them.



people that spoil their ballot papers are morons
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
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?
Click to expand...
In that case it would be up to the people of London to organise politically to protest the decision or make a case for secession.
Just as it would in Scotland.

The difference is that Scotland already has a very strong popular movement that could fulfil this role.
 
crofter said:
I didn't vote,am I allowed to be pleased with the outcome ? which I am.
Click to expand...

You are indeed allowed to be pleased, it's the rant bit that would lose you any credibility.

Mind and say thanks to all the folk who did your job for you though! :rolleyes:
 
Cobra said:
And not forgetting of course the Blues got 51% of the votes, that still leaves 49% of the country disgruntled with the result ;)
Click to expand...
Only in their dreams, wet ones at that.

The tories won 51% of the seats not the votes cast, that was nearer 37%.
 
crofter said:
What rant is that,I don't rant,I leave that up to the whingers as I do my voting, can't be arsed with any of it,life is too short.
Click to expand...

Never said you did, thus the word "would" !

I take it that means no full-page spread giving your thanks to the folk that voted then?o_O
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
Only in their dreams, wet ones at that.

The tories won 51% of the seats not the votes cast, that was nearer 37%.
Click to expand...
Which was nearly 21% more than the votes of the party in second place ;) Pretty decent gap...
 
dejongj said:
Which was nearly 21% more than the votes of the party in second place ;) Pretty decent gap...
Click to expand...
But still not representitive of the other 63% ;)

Thats a bit disingenuous of you old chap. Whilst 21% sounds good, there was only 7% of the popular vote between them, and that still leaves 63% of the electorate, almost 2/3rds who, didn't vote for them :)
 
jakeblu said:
But still not representitive of the other 63% ;)

Thats a bit disingenuous of you old chap. Whilst 21% sounds good, there was only 7% of the popular vote between them, and that still leaves 63% of the electorate, almost 2/3rds who, didn't vote for them :)
Click to expand...

Nothing disingenuous about it, pure mathematical facts....Beside all the stats the Tories won outright, they got the votes that mattered....Everything else is interesting and fun but rather pointless...
 
dejongj said:
Nothing disingenuous about it, pure mathematical facts....Beside all the stats the Tories won outright, they got the votes that mattered....Everything else is interesting and fun but rather pointless...
Click to expand...
Thats a little bit disrespectful for the other 19 million votes cast by the rest of the electorate. One day it might come back and bite us on the bum :)
 
jakeblu said:
Thats a little bit disrespectful for the other 19 million votes cast by the rest of the electorate. One day it might come back and bite us on the bum :)
Click to expand...
I honestly don't get why it is disrespectful? The whole point of an election is that there is a winner. What is wrong with pointing that out. Another party would have won if more people voted for them. But even if Scotland didn't go all in for the snp that would still not have made up for the difference. Whilst the outright majority maybe just enough, it is enough and a heck of a lot more than any other party established.

I like winners.
 
jakeblu said:
Only in their dreams, wet ones at that.

The tories won 51% of the seats not the votes cast, that was nearer 37%.
Click to expand...
You are quite right of course my mistake :)
In that case, more than half the country is miffed at the result ;)
 
Cobra said:
It bought it to your attention at least ;)
Click to expand...

Here was me thinking that it was because the SNP is now the third largest party in Westminster and they definitely want PR :eek:
 
I've been watching some of the stuff today about the future of the Labour Party. I can't actually see how they can both win back voters in England and Scotland, the SNP appear to occupy their position in Scotland and its hard to see a way back for them.

I can actually see the Tories becoming the second party in Scotland to the SNP at Holyrood next year.
 
People say if Labour had won the SNP seats in Scotland then they wouldn't have enough seats to rivals the Torys (all true) but I think it's also the case a lot of people in England/Wales voted Tory as they didn't want a Labour/SNP collation/deal that would have probably come if Labour had more seats.

Labour with the Scottish seats and more English ones could have rivalled the Torys.

So I personally feel the rise of the SNP (who didn't want the Torys in, let's face it) actually helped the Torys in by weakening Labours position in both England and Scotland.
 
Possibly, I think the irrational hatred for tories and the drive and focus on getting them out by both Labour and SNP has cost them dearly (well not SNP but it is on a national scale still pointless)....They were doing ok yet highlighting how bad they are just demonstrated irrational and irresponsible behaviour to the majority of the electorate....Remember they are always right :)
 
dejongj said:
Possibly, I think the irrational hatred for tories and the drive and focus on getting them out by both Labour and SNP has cost them dearly (well not SNP but it is on a national scale still pointless)....They were doing ok yet highlighting how bad they are just demonstrated irrational and irresponsible behaviour to the majority of the electorate....Remember they are always right :)
Click to expand...

I don't think they had done too badly in goernment but I think the Liberal Democrats in coalition had been a moderating force over the last 5 years and thats something that shouldn't be forgotten.
 
I'd like to think that too, but we'll never know....And moderate to what exactly? I mean it is not like the Conservative manifesto is filled with nasty stuff...
 
And that is why we can vote (well done can and some can only with their feet like me) some you'll win some you'll loose.

I don't see that as nasty, I see it as a necessary evil.
 
Also...

Scrapping Human Rights Act
12bn of welfare cuts
Real-term cuts to education
Derisory commitment to house building
Non-existent infrastructure plan

Bit other than that, great! (/sarcasm)
 
Lol so negative, driving down the structural deficit by controlling spending is a pretty good goal. Making it worthwhile to go to work is another great one. Taking the lowest paid out of tax all together is super and kind. Anyway it is there in the manifesto.
 
dejongj said:
Lol so negative, driving down the structural deficit by controlling spending is a pretty good goal. Making it worthwhile to go to work is another great one. Taking the lowest paid out of tax all together is super and kind. Anyway it is there in the manifesto.
Click to expand...

If you are suggesting that the severe cuts early in the tories last term were a good thing, the majority of economists would disagree with you.

I wish more people understood that macroeconomics is very different to household budgeting and stopped drawing analogies between the two, I see it repeatedly brought up by the public that the government needs to be tightening its belt, and nobody is repudiating this nonsense.
 
dejongj said:
Lol so negative, driving down the structural deficit by controlling spending is a pretty good goal.
Click to expand...
Reducing the deficit is a good goal, but cutting spending is not the only way of doing so.
The fact is, the Conservatives promised to eliminate the deficit in a single term and failed - badly - to do so. Why? Because if you slash spending, you put the brakes on economic recovery, leading to lower tax take... and so a deficit. Ooops. The only solution is to keep cutting spending, again... and again... until there is no State left.

I'm not saying spurging money on the welfare state is a necessarilly a good idea, but large-scale infrastructure investment is a proven way of building economic recovery, yet the Tories refused to even countenance it - despite the fact that there are glaring gaps in Britain's infrastructure that desperately need investment. Businesses understand that borrowing money is perfectly acceptable - even desirable - as long as it's invested in projects that give a positive return. Yet our government keeps banging on about the "nation's credit card", ignoring the fact that there are no similarities between personal debt and the national deficit.
It's a golden opportunity wasted - and the decision was made purely for ideological reasons.
 
Last edited:
Dale_tem said:
Newspaper reader? Just quoting a headline without understanding whats going on?
Click to expand...
No, I've read the Conservative proposals paper. But thankyou for your condecension.
 
Changed from EU to Europe, keeps it simple

Not condescending, just used to people spouting stuff and not understanding it.
 
Dale_tem said:
Not condescending, just used to people spouting stuff and not understanding it.
Click to expand...
I trust that the irony of making the fundemental error of not knowing the difference between the CoE/ECHR and the EU, and then of stating "just used to people spouting stuff and not understanding it" is not lost on you?
 
Dale_tem said:
Rather than going into detail, here is a few highlights...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-plans-to-scrap-human-rights-act-9767435.html

It is removing rights from criminals and removing controls from Europe. It is not about removing the "human rights" and treating people like animals as people keep saying but almost a UKIPesque removal of power from Europe.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEpeTgQW8AAFMa_.jpg:large
Click to expand...

Point 5 of your second link says that the Conservative proposal will "limit human rights law to the most serious cases".

Indeed Liberty (the source of your second link) say: -

The plans are clearly intended to diminish the rights of everyone in Britain
Click to expand...

Quite different from your assertion that it is not about removing human rights. Perhaps you didn't fully read the link before you posted it, and maybe it is you that doesn't fully understand it?
 
Liberty are against it, but highlighted the points raised by the Conservatives.

Racpscallion & llamaman - Either way, I'm happy with the new bill and the removal of the human rights bill.
 
I did wonder why he posted the Liberty link, which was pretty scathing of the Conservative's plans.

Perhaps he'd also like to link to Dominic Grieve (former UK attorney general)'s views on the matter. "Car crash" was how he described it.
Oh, and Ken Clark will probably rebel over this too - Cameron could face a very real risk of losing the commons vote on his first major bill. A majority of 13 (one assumes UKIP will back them on this issue) may not be enough if there's a minor revolt from the more centrist Tories.
 
Dale_tem said:
Either way, I'm happy with the new bill and the removal of the human rights bill.
Click to expand...
Are you happy with the threat of denouncing the Convention and leaving the ECHR (which the plans state the UK will do if they don't agree to the proposals), and the likely ramifications of that?

For those that don't follow this too closely, a brief explanation;
The Tory proposals state that if the ECHR don't agree to the new Bill of Rights, the UK will leave the ECHR. This will put the UK in breach of the Good Friday Agreement, which is legally binding and lodged with the UN. Leaving the ECHR will almost certainly mean the UK will have to leave the Council of Europe too.
This is turn, will have an effect on our membership of the EU. There is an implicit understanding within the EU that all members have to be members of the ECHR to join the EU. It follows that continued membership is also a requirement. Furthermore, the EU has the right, under the Lisbon treaty, to join the ECHR in it's own right, which it is intending to do. Obviously, this creates a conflict, since the EU would be required to recognise the ECHR's authority over the EU, and the UK would have to recognise EU law under the authority of the ECJ. Spot the problem? The UK has a right to veto the EU accession to the ECHR, but to do so would put as at odds with the rest of the EU's membership and could result in our suspension.

In short, if we quit the ECHR, we're probably on the fast-track to EU exit - regardless of what happens in that much-vaunted referendum. Democracy in action, n'est pas?

Some good analysis here;
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.ch/2014/07/would-uks-withdrawal-from-echr-lead-to.html
but there's loads of other discussions elsewhere on the internet. It's a really interesting point of law.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top