SNP could hold the balance of power at Westminster
Discussion
This has got to be a load of guff comming from the Fish named idiot!!!
How realistic is this. Have we not had enough of the Scotts Running UK PLC. They dont have the greatest track record of late in getting things right.
How realistic is this. Have we not had enough of the Scotts Running UK PLC. They dont have the greatest track record of late in getting things right.
Daily Record said:
ALEX Salmond claimed yesterday that the SNP could hold the balance of power at Westminster after next year's general election.
The First Minister told his party's annual conference it would make no difference to Scotland if Labour or the Tories won.
And he said he was hoping for a hung parliament, with a bloc of at least 20 SNP MPs to "protect" Scotland from the spending cuts both the main UK parties were planning.
Salmond was greeted by rapturous cheers from 500 party activists in Inverness.
He told them: "In the SNP's 75-year history, we have never been closer to our objective of independence for our nation."
He vowed to use the conference as a "launchpad" for next month's Glasgow North-East by-election, and the general election that's expected next May.
Salmond said: 'In that general election, our objective is clear. We are going to make Scotland's voice heard.
"We are going to see a Scottish bloc of at least 20 SNP MPs. If we achieve that, Scotland will not only be heard, Scotland's demands will be met. Tory, Labour, Labour, Tory - it makes no difference.
"The only difference is how severe the cuts will be and the timescale on which they are to be implemented.
"A key objective will be to protect Scotland in a way only a Scottish bloc of MPs will be able to do."
Salmond echoed the theme of his speech in a party political broadcast shown to delegates and aired last night.
He again hit out at the cuts he said were planned by Labour and the Tories. And he insisted: "It will make no difference to Scotland if Labour or the Conservatives wield the knife.
"The Labour and Tory battle is the phoney war. The real battle is for Scotland and we have what it takes to win."
Salmond is hoping for a hung parliament come despite polls which suggest the Tories are on course for an outright majority. And his dream of holding the balance of power has been attacked by Labour, who accused the SNP of being prepared to prop up a Tory government.
Salmond claimed at the conference that Scotland was two thirds of the way to independence, after establishing the Holyrood parliament and choosing a Nationalist government.
He said: "Step three is going from government in Scotland to achieving national independence for Scotland."
Salmond also hit out at Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems for refusing to back his plans for an independence referendum.
The Nats want a place for Salmond at the TV general election debate which could be held between the main UK party leaders.
And the conference passed a motion urging the telly companies to give in to their demands.
Snp Westminster leader Angus Robertson claimed the debate would have to include Salmond if it wanted to be "relevant".
He said: "It would be entirelyunacceptableand unfair to broadcast to a Scottish audience and exclude the party that and 37 forms the government in Scotland."
The SNP's struggling Scottish Futures Trust, set up to build schools and hospitals, will come under fire today from a right-wing thinktank.
Reform Scotland will call for a new version of Labour's Public Private Partnerships, but with governments allowed to borrow at cheaper rates than those offered by the banks.
The Futures Trust has failed to match the school and hospital building programmes of the previous Labour-Lib Dem administration. And Reform Scotland chairman Ben Thompson said: 'We desperately need a new vehicle to get momentum back."
The First Minister told his party's annual conference it would make no difference to Scotland if Labour or the Tories won.
And he said he was hoping for a hung parliament, with a bloc of at least 20 SNP MPs to "protect" Scotland from the spending cuts both the main UK parties were planning.
Salmond was greeted by rapturous cheers from 500 party activists in Inverness.
He told them: "In the SNP's 75-year history, we have never been closer to our objective of independence for our nation."
He vowed to use the conference as a "launchpad" for next month's Glasgow North-East by-election, and the general election that's expected next May.
Salmond said: 'In that general election, our objective is clear. We are going to make Scotland's voice heard.
"We are going to see a Scottish bloc of at least 20 SNP MPs. If we achieve that, Scotland will not only be heard, Scotland's demands will be met. Tory, Labour, Labour, Tory - it makes no difference.
"The only difference is how severe the cuts will be and the timescale on which they are to be implemented.
"A key objective will be to protect Scotland in a way only a Scottish bloc of MPs will be able to do."
Salmond echoed the theme of his speech in a party political broadcast shown to delegates and aired last night.
He again hit out at the cuts he said were planned by Labour and the Tories. And he insisted: "It will make no difference to Scotland if Labour or the Conservatives wield the knife.
"The Labour and Tory battle is the phoney war. The real battle is for Scotland and we have what it takes to win."
Salmond is hoping for a hung parliament come despite polls which suggest the Tories are on course for an outright majority. And his dream of holding the balance of power has been attacked by Labour, who accused the SNP of being prepared to prop up a Tory government.
Salmond claimed at the conference that Scotland was two thirds of the way to independence, after establishing the Holyrood parliament and choosing a Nationalist government.
He said: "Step three is going from government in Scotland to achieving national independence for Scotland."
Salmond also hit out at Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems for refusing to back his plans for an independence referendum.
The Nats want a place for Salmond at the TV general election debate which could be held between the main UK party leaders.
And the conference passed a motion urging the telly companies to give in to their demands.
Snp Westminster leader Angus Robertson claimed the debate would have to include Salmond if it wanted to be "relevant".
He said: "It would be entirelyunacceptableand unfair to broadcast to a Scottish audience and exclude the party that and 37 forms the government in Scotland."
The SNP's struggling Scottish Futures Trust, set up to build schools and hospitals, will come under fire today from a right-wing thinktank.
Reform Scotland will call for a new version of Labour's Public Private Partnerships, but with governments allowed to borrow at cheaper rates than those offered by the banks.
The Futures Trust has failed to match the school and hospital building programmes of the previous Labour-Lib Dem administration. And Reform Scotland chairman Ben Thompson said: 'We desperately need a new vehicle to get momentum back."
I thought the Wail was bad, but do we really have to start quoting the Daily Record now? 
Realistic? I don't know. Without comming out for or against independance, the SNP would give (what they see as) Scotlands interests a higher priority than any of the British parties which are largely extensions of the Westminster versions. Plus they can use independance as a bargaining chip.
Not saying any of it is good/bad, but the SNP are pretty savvy at the whole media thing, and the Tories/Labour have given them lots of ammunition. Not sure they'd do so well without Salmond, though. So yeah, I can see the SNP becomming bigger (though not the third-biggest). I'm not sure how well having a big block of SNP politicians would sit with their current refusal to vote on English matters, though.
I don't think it's right to be incredulous about this. Histronics on either side of a divisive question arent conductive to a good outcome. All our parties seem to be devoid and self-perpetuating right now. That the SNP seem to stand for something makes them pretty attractive to some.
Realistic? I don't know. Without comming out for or against independance, the SNP would give (what they see as) Scotlands interests a higher priority than any of the British parties which are largely extensions of the Westminster versions. Plus they can use independance as a bargaining chip.
Not saying any of it is good/bad, but the SNP are pretty savvy at the whole media thing, and the Tories/Labour have given them lots of ammunition. Not sure they'd do so well without Salmond, though. So yeah, I can see the SNP becomming bigger (though not the third-biggest). I'm not sure how well having a big block of SNP politicians would sit with their current refusal to vote on English matters, though.
I don't think it's right to be incredulous about this. Histronics on either side of a divisive question arent conductive to a good outcome. All our parties seem to be devoid and self-perpetuating right now. That the SNP seem to stand for something makes them pretty attractive to some.
Edited by glazbagun on Saturday 17th October 21:55
Basically he's saying that in the event of a hung parliament (or close call) if the SNP have a significant number of MPs they would be able to "negotiate" certain concessions (i.e. discussions on scottish independence and greater powers going towards the scottish parliament) in order for them to support either of the 2 main parties. To be fair to the SNP, they couldn't give a flying fvck about English-only issues so its certainly of no real concern to the UK as a whole.
I think the SNP will increase their numbers in westminster, but don't think it'll be anywhere near a hung parliament - the tories will win by a large margin, somewhat aided by the SNP denting Labour's traditionally strong support in Scotland. Tactically the SNP are good for the tories.
I think the SNP will increase their numbers in westminster, but don't think it'll be anywhere near a hung parliament - the tories will win by a large margin, somewhat aided by the SNP denting Labour's traditionally strong support in Scotland. Tactically the SNP are good for the tories.
The Ben said:
glazbagun said:
I thought the Wail was bad, but do we really have to start quoting the Daily Record now?
Ahh im not that familiar with the Daily Record. I'll keep that in mind though 
He now reads a mix of Times, Telegraph and Possibly the Observer, but I'm yet to introduce him to PH as the worlds finest news source.Edited by glazbagun on Saturday 17th October 22:07
As things stand at the moment a hung parliament is a distinct possibility. There is an inbuilt pro labour bias in the system that means the tories need approximately a 10 % higher share of the vote than labour to have an overall majority. A small hardening of the labour vote and a slight weakening of the tory position (both more than a possibility) would in all probability lead to a hung situation. A 20 seat block for any of the minor parties could put them in a very strong position if the tories were unable or did not want to do a deal with the lib dems.
The Ben said:
This has got to be a load of guff comming from the Fish named idiot!!!
How realistic is this. Have we not had enough of the Scotts Running UK PLC. They dont have the greatest track record of late in getting things right.
The fish-named idiot is a professor of economics - what's your qualification?How realistic is this. Have we not had enough of the Scotts Running UK PLC. They dont have the greatest track record of late in getting things right.
Would be great if the English could rule themselves, but look at the candidates.
Just what is the problem here ?
All my life I was misguided I thought the union was good we could all benefit each other.
Now I see I was incorrect.
The Scots should have independence - then all the bleating s
t will go away and when they can't afford naff all of feck all because the West Lothian "we spend much more money per capita on you than anyone else in the union" question will be gone.
The Scots just don't get it, now you can get real, get on with life and join in with a union that gives as well as takes or you sink and shrivel.
If you go away you will suffer long term damage.
All my life I was misguided I thought the union was good we could all benefit each other.
Now I see I was incorrect.
The Scots should have independence - then all the bleating s
t will go away and when they can't afford naff all of feck all because the West Lothian "we spend much more money per capita on you than anyone else in the union" question will be gone.The Scots just don't get it, now you can get real, get on with life and join in with a union that gives as well as takes or you sink and shrivel.
If you go away you will suffer long term damage.
summit7 said:
Just what is the problem here ?
All my life I was misguided I thought the union was good we could all benefit each other.
Now I see I was incorrect.
The Scots should have independence - then all the bleating st will go away and when they can't afford naff all of feck all because the West Lothian "we spend much more money per capita on you than anyone else in the union" question will be gone.
The Scots just don't get it, now you can get real, get on with life and join in with a union that gives as well as takes or you sink and shrivel.
If you go away you will suffer long term damage.
That's something for the independence thread more than this one, I think. But to answer your question, I feel the rise of the SNP in recent years is more to do with increasing dissatisfaction with Labour, the Lib-Dems and Tories (IE: Westminster) than any anti-union sentiments. The English have the same problem, but don't really have a fourth party. Maybe they should vote SNP, too? All my life I was misguided I thought the union was good we could all benefit each other.
Now I see I was incorrect.
The Scots should have independence - then all the bleating s
t will go away and when they can't afford naff all of feck all because the West Lothian "we spend much more money per capita on you than anyone else in the union" question will be gone.The Scots just don't get it, now you can get real, get on with life and join in with a union that gives as well as takes or you sink and shrivel.
If you go away you will suffer long term damage.
FWD is expressing a view (as you know) that a degree of people within the union who have seen a proportion of money being paid to Scotland have had enough of their posturing and are now calling for "put up or shut up" when it comes to the Scots.
I find it hard to believe that some trivial sarcasm you type means that you really thnk FWD has power over our constitution to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK.
So lets get to the heart of it do you think Scotland should be independent and if they were would (maybe) even Salmond realise that before he dies that it was a mistake ?
I find it hard to believe that some trivial sarcasm you type means that you really thnk FWD has power over our constitution to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK.
So lets get to the heart of it do you think Scotland should be independent and if they were would (maybe) even Salmond realise that before he dies that it was a mistake ?
summit7 said:
FWD is expressing a view (as you know) that a degree of people within the union who have seen a proportion of money being paid to Scotland have had enough of their posturing and are now calling for "put up or shut up" when it comes to the Scots.
I find it hard to believe that some trivial sarcasm you type means that you really thnk FWD has power over our constitution to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK.
So lets get to the heart of it do you think Scotland should be independent and if they were would (maybe) even Salmond realise that before he dies that it was a mistake ?
Been done here:I find it hard to believe that some trivial sarcasm you type means that you really thnk FWD has power over our constitution to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK.
So lets get to the heart of it do you think Scotland should be independent and if they were would (maybe) even Salmond realise that before he dies that it was a mistake ?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
From the poll, it looks like twice as many Scots support the union as oppose it, while twice as many "other british" oppose the union as support it, which doesn't fit with some people's stereotype of the Scots whining about independance.
Back on topic- I think a larger SNP segment in Westminster wouldn't be a bad thing at all. They don't vote on West Lothian matters like Labour MP's currently do, their agenda is one of growth rather than supporting the status-quo, they have been consistantly anti-war (even when the media didn't like it). I still can't see them ever overtaking the Lib Dems to become the third party of UK politics, but they are certainly capable of doing good in British/Scottish politics.
And there is the conumdrum, the SNP, by their name and constitution want to be independent/free of the union, and yet at the same time say that they can influance/have say over those that they want to be free from. It really just does not compute, like many politicos, it's do as I say don't do as I do.
summit7 said:
And there is the conumdrum, the SNP, by their name and constitution want to be independent/free of the union, and yet at the same time say that they can influance/have say over those that they want to be free from..
Christ, work it out. It's called doing your best for the people who voted for you.summit7 said:
And there is the conumdrum, the SNP, by their name and constitution want to be independent/free of the union, and yet at the same time say that they can influance/have say over those that they want to be free from. It really just does not compute, like many politicos, it's do as I say don't do as I do.
I disagree. They will (based on precident) vote on British policies which affect Scotland, or the Union, but not on English-only policies which do not affect their consticuents. Where I find this might become difficult if they become sizable is that if the Opposition/whoever offer to support one of their bills (for something Scottish/British) in exchange for support on an English-only matter, then that abstention might be eroded.Their vote on British matters is legitemate becase they will represent a potion of Britain. They are still part of the democratic process. If I had a communist/dictatorial representative, I would still expect him to rock up and vote on the things that affected my life, not abstain because he didn't believe in the system- what use is that?? What alternative is there for a political party in a democracy desirous of independence? Abstaining from every vote in Westminster would be the very definition of Doing Nothing.
but they voted to be "free" whether its best for them or not, so give the voters what they voted for and see how it goes and write the new Scottish constitution that they can not join the union again. All you are asking for is to give the voters what they want I am agreeing with you so what on earth could go wrong?
summit7 said:
but they voted to be "free" whether its best for them or not, so give the voters what they voted for and see how it goes and write the new Scottish constitution that they can not join the union again. All you are asking for is to give the voters what they want I am agreeing with you so what on earth could go wrong?
What are you even talking about? The SNP can't write a new constitution any more than the Liberal Democrats can- they're a minority party in the UK parliament and a minority leadership of the devolved parliament with it's limited local powers. They are attempting to present their agenda of Scottish Independance through the democratic means by which this country runs. I have no idea what you're proposing. Unless it's some kind of constituency based thing, like removing social services from areas who vote Tory.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff