Buried in paragraph 11
…of a story in the Scottish Sun today is something rather important.
Those are the words of David Cameron as he launched the Scottish Tories’ manifesto in front of a heavily-vetted invited audience in Glasgow yesterday. They make the pages of a couple of other papers, including the Guardian (which hides them even further down the page than the Sun does), but it’s only the Herald that picks up on their significance, leading its article with the unequivocal lines:
And that’s weird, because it’s actually pretty big news.
Because as we know, the last straw Scottish Labour have been clutching at is the alleged “£7.6bn black hole” that FFA would leave in the Scottish Government’s accounts. But as Labour themselves have said explicitly that they’d vote against any such move, the only shred of credibility it had as a threat was if both the SNP and the Conservatives would vote FOR it – something the Tories had avoided making an unambiguous statement on thus far, leaving the way clear for Labour to hint menacingly at it.
By finally removing that danger, Cameron has deftly yanked the rug out from underneath Scottish Labour. The party is now doomed to spend the last three weeks ranting about something everyone knows isn’t going to happen.
(The SNP had wisely begun to quietly backtrack on the idea anyway, booting it into the long grass when Scotland’s finances are likely to be stronger, but right now it’s as dead as Labour’s “biggest party” lie.)
Scottish Labour can come up with as many dubious, unimplementable promises as they like for the next 19 days. But the truth of the matter is that on the eve of the big battle, Jim Murphy’s been left firing blanks.
Firing blanks from a spud gun ?
SNP suffer the mighty Jim Murphy roar of a full ‘fiscal’ volley of blanks from New Labour ‘spud’ gun.
I like the fact that DC also recognises the nature of the UK as a Union of Nations.
He twists in the wind to fit in his argument. The Country he loves is the UK, it is a Union of Nations.
WTF!
Nicola Sturgeon said that, for the SNP to consider offering another independence referendum in their 2016 manifesto, something significant would have to change. I’m getting the impression that she’s spoiled for choice.
The unionist argument seems to be,the less power over their affairs the Scots have,the better for them because the Scots are useless.Murphy,Davidson and Rennie are hammering home that message.But not so many Scots are prepared to listen to their too wee,too poor,too stupid rubbish these days.
Someone in the tories is expertly setting up and destroying the labour party, everything they say and do seems to end up being one big trap they walk right into , don’t they ever look a few steps ahead.
Nicola’s canny, Cameron’s canny, but Labour just cannae. 🙂
I see the Tories backed by Ukip and Libs forming the next grubby coalition. Miliband will sulk and greet in his tea. Like Brown he will let partisan ideology get in the way of keeping the Tories out.
The Liberals will do anything and say anything pre election. Post election they are opportunists with no morals,scruples or ideas of their own.
joe macfarlane, have to agree with you there and considering the Tories are known as the stupid party what does that make Labour.
For 60 years I’ve fought this fight and never have I felt so close to victory. I can almost taste it. I have no complacency but a burning desire to win and win decisively. No more of their lies, their demeaning treatment I want them crushed and crushed completely. But then that’s me.
I expect support in Scotland for FFA, already a majority, will skyrocket. The trigger will be all this nonsense about any (minority government) deal involving the SNP being totally unacceptable. The message more and more Scots are taking, correctly, is that our votes at WM are deemed worthless. Our votes don’t really count, so don’t dare get any ideas about influencing policy.
I mentioned on the previous thread about the Kay Burley interview and the placement of a book titled REICHS kept in shot
Now i should say it’s a book by Kathy Reichs but on the telly that’s not all that clear and the big letters are Reichs
Kathy Reichs is of course known for being an anthropologist as well as a fiction crime writer but most folk wont know that from their big toe ( Pun Intended )
I think using the title this way plays into exactly what the media want to portray and we all know what that is
Doing the best for the most
I try to give all politicians the benefit of the doubt. I assume that they got involved in politics for the right reasons and want to make life better for as many of the inhabitants of the UK as possible.
So when we consider that they all want to do the best for as many people as possible we start to define the problem.
Politics in the UK is London centric, this is an undeniable fact. When we start to think about doing “the best for the most” we start at Westminster and begin to spread out. By the time we get to Birmingham we have already defined where most people live 50%, by the time we get to Manchester we have defined where 80% of the population live. Doing “the best for the most” therefor gives initially a London and then an England centric outlook. Well meaning politicians can deliver “best for most” without considering anyone outside England, they will have achieved their altruistic aim, salved their conscience and maintained control in England, by the English and mostly for the English.
I believe that this all takes place mostly subconsciously and without malice. The only way the outlying population can get noticed is when extreme depravation and poverty comes into the equation and the handouts begin, these handouts are then seen as subsidies because it doesn’t fall into “the best for most” category.
There are two solutions one is to move the centre of focus away from London, Manchester for example “the best for most” then covers a much larger geographical area and redistributes resources without it being measured as subsidy and handouts. This also frees up Westminster to be an England only devolved parliament.
The second option is that those on the outskirts take control of their own resources and focus them on local priorities.
The first is unlikely ever to happen.
Helena Brown.
The Tories were known as the stupid party in the 19th century, after being described as such by the Liberal MP John Stuart Mill. The mantle has long since passed to Labour.
Dr.Jim,
I believe , as you do, that the broadcast media are wildly biased against the SNP, however Kay Burley’s interview with Nicola was balanced and basically friendly, and I don’t think the book in shot by Kathy Reichs was anything other than a coincidence.
Sometimes we can be too sensitive.
sionnach,
Excellent!
Something else important in that paragraph.There is the admission FFA would be bad for the UNITED KINGDOM. The question that needs answered is why?
To me this is an admission that the UK needs Scotland to survive. During my working life,when dealing people,I always honed in on any assertion they were doing something purely for my benefit.It was a sure indicator something was being hidden.
This statement is such an indicator.
So when did we demand FFA thats a new one on me.
they are both playing to their voters over we wont work with the SNP but when the crunch comes expect the tories to come chapping at the SNP door they would sell their own grannies for power plus lets not forget if DC fails to be PM he will be replaced.
i so wish i was Nicola getting to tell them to get lost i am so jealous lol
As for spuds north branch they are a busted flush ,Ed will deal what choice does he have,it might actually be good for him to have the ladies on side he might even go down as a good PM in history, something his predecessors can not claim.
Heh, Finis. 🙂
Which ,If my understanding of the financing of UK is correct means that all the London,British Unionist parties don’t want to repatriate £ 7.6 billion from Scotland to the other side of Hadrian’s Wall next year to spend there,or alternatively reduce their precious deficit.Think of the Brownie points they’d get from rUK electorate if they did this..
Aye right..David has done his sums and knows they are ripping the arse out of Scotland and can’t give it up,just like the rest of the Brit Nats
How often do we have to say it? The UK is not “a country” – it is a state comprising two countries, a principality (or, arguably, a third country) and a province. Cameron’s and Miliband’s love is for a state, a political unit, onto which they seek to graft the homogeneity of a country or nation. In no way can the Scots and the other groupings within the UK be said to share a meaningful degree of historical, cultural or even political homogeneity.
Scott Borthwick says:
Nicola Sturgeon said that, for the SNP to consider offering another independence referendum in their 2016 manifesto, something significant would have to change. I’m getting the impression that she’s spoiled for choice.
I think we all know what that “something significant” is as well Scott … the result of Cameron’s *ahem* promised E.U. referendum. If England vote NO to the E.U. but Scotland votes YES to the E.U., as has been said by Nicola herself, that could be the trigger for another independence referendum in Scotland. 😉
The only outstanding question left, in my view, is if Cameron wins on May 7th will he still have the courage to actually call the referendum or will he just skulk away into his wee corner? 😀
First EVEL then this. I don’t like David Cameron but I’d like to hand it to him. His P45.
Taxi.
Well, all those people who voted no because they thought they were going to get FFA will now realise that instead they will get SFA. They now have a choice. Either to give up altogether on getting more powers for Scotland, or come over to the independence side.
Is it me, or have broadcasters not bothered broadcasting Murphy’s manifesto launch this morning?
Closest I’ve seen is a Sky reporter standing outside the venue after the ‘event’
Did see the usual Labour faces, such as Malcolm Chisholm and a waddling Jim Hood coming out, behind the reporter
Could somebody explain what is full fiscal autonomy exactly? I mean Scotland is still making more money than the UK despite the oil crisis, so isn’t FFA still positive or does it not include all of Scotland’s production?
He is wrong in the last sentence ref ” we are a family of Nations”
We are an occupied Nation, the Unionist actions make it abundantly clear, no democracy allowed in Scotland.
An abused family?
Nicola’s “something significant” could easily be the failure to deliver “Home Rule”, “near Federalism”, “Devo Max”, as promised in the referendum campaign.
See the Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp article on FFA in today’s National:
link to tinyurl.com
Mosstrooper says:
No it is not just you, it is us!
sionnach says:
17 April, 2015 at 12:08 pm
Nicola’s canny, Cameron’s canny, but Labour just cannae. 🙂
Yes. And Nicola ken’s it. Davie ken’s it even Patsy Kensit.
Taxi.
Cameron will turn it into a vote on the new negotiated deal rather than a in out referendum we all know that the Tories can’t be trusted. Ukip had better brace themselves for the full power of the state being turned against them the only advantage that they have is that the Express is clearly on their side unlike the Yes movement who had none of the press(I don’t count the Sunday Herald) on board.
I guess we can all start calling the EU a country then.
The quickest Winger living in England who wants to play for
Scotland.Whit?
Must point out also The Slog, David Ward on why the Tories are not shouting from the roof tops about Gatwick oil find.
I see also that the referendum rigging allegations are fairly building up with Democratic Socialist federation.
“Best Video Scottish Vote Rigging by MI5”
Something significant?
If Scotland sends 40-50 SNP MPs to Westminster and those MPs could help form a stable government but Labour and the Tories refuse to work with them….
How much more significant do you want? Scotland votes to stay in the union, but our elected representatives aren’t wanted in that union.
Indyref 2 on the 2016 Manifesto, thank you.
But Mr Cameron, you distort the treasury figures that show Scotland paying more into Westminster’s coffers per head than any other country, so that you make Scots appear to be subsidy junkies.
I don’t want a subsidy, I’ll make a good life for me and my country if I can get control of my own destiny.
You most certainly would want rid of Scotland, if you were not making money out of us. Fact!
We can all keep the United Kingdom if Scotland has FFA and we share Foreign Policy and Defence. So why isn’t that an option that Red and Blue Tory will consider?
All Westminster parties lie about their love of the Scots and beg us to stay, but don’t you dare think that your elected MP’s should vote on matters relating to the “United” Kingdom.
Another reason I want to destroy all contact with Westminster is the decades long corruption and cover up for the paedophile rings in Parliament, Police, and even Judges. I’d be happy to reduce my own expenditure to remove these evil predators from my country.
Just look at the BBC.Is that double figures for known paedophiles that they employed and covered up for OVER 50 years.
How many chief’s of police had clear warnings of these activities only to take no action whatsoever?
Even the Canadian Police sent details of 2,000 UK residents using illegal child porn sites. Convictions after 2 years- 1 only. Must have filtered out the elitist group first.
Sheffield Police suggest that didn’t react to Paedo reports from their Social Work Dept as they had been given other priorities?
Asian Paedo ring left to run riot as police feared they might be called racists?
Inquiry on Leon Britten delay due to some dumb ass situation where his friend would lead the investigation.
When obvious objections were raised, they tried to put a second friend of his in charge of the lip service event. Then the dear man died of old age while waiting for any action to be raised during his lifetime?
Recently 4 x Judges resigned with very large pensions when found to be using child porn sites. How insane is it that they are not in prison without pensions?
Now we have a Labour “Lord” a suspect for many years deemed too ill to stand trial for all the young lives he destroyed? Sorry I don’t care how ill he is as prisons have perfectly good hospitals and psychiatric wards.
Old Maggie Thatcher’s body guard has reported that she know about her secretary and Cyril Smith’s illegal activities but she chose not to take any action?
Please clear my country of these horrible beasts that Westminster are will to protect no matter what!!!!!!!!!!!!
link to bellacaledonia.org.uk
Funny.
Biggest party wins! nope.
£7.5 bn black hole! nope.
Back to huffing paint stripper creepy Morphy.
Are you surprised? BBC report that…
———————————————————
Seven Aberdeen councillors have been cleared of breaching their code of conduct after they sent a letter to council tax payers saying the city would be better off as part of the UK.
Five Labour and two Conservative members faced allegations they had used council facilities for party political purposes.
The letter was sent in the run-up to last year’s independence referendum.
They have been cleared following a hearing of the Standards Commission.
———————————————————
PS:
Margaret Curran screeching on BBC radio Scotchland and Murphy too.
Baically SNP bad: A road block to a labour WM government.
What no’the largest party gets to be the government’… 🙂
I’ve just watched Stairheid Rammy on Daily Politics lie non stop about the voting record of the SNP. She twisted the intent and content every of vote and amendment on the motions highlighted.
Regardless of Cameron’s statement Stairheid and Dim Jim will step up the lies as it has worked for them in the past.
In reality the Labour branch office has nothing left except their Bitter Together expertise of negative campaigning.
(They still have the BT unionist pals at the BBC and MSM who will print the lies)
Reading that link in the article that you cite, Rev., of kicking FFA into the long grass is not quite as clear as that. Nicola says as long as we are under Westminster, we want Barnett, because anything else would be used against us.
I’m still saying there is a strategy, as yet not fully clear, that SNP,and writers are keeping FFA in play. The only obvious one at the moment, is it causes unionists to foam at the mouth, but it may be in play for some other strategic purpose down the track after the GE outcome.
Sturgeon and the SNP, nevertheless, have to push for FFA if only to get the Unionist parties to vategorically reject it. Once she has that categorical rejection (which cCameron has now given her–thanks Dave), then she can tell the poeple of Scotland that the only way we will ever be able to manage our own economy is with full independence. That has now been made abundantly clear.
O/T
BBC News’ Hung Parliament Game has a nice chapter headed ‘Who gets first chance to form a government?’
Karmanaut says:
Something significant?
If Scotland sends 40-50 SNP MPs to Westminster and those MPs could help form a stable government but Labour and the Tories refuse to work with them….
I think wee Nickie Clegg inferred this the other day when his wee *ahem* gang revealed their *cough* manifesto Karmaaut.
When he was interviewed by Faisal Islam from SKY the question was put to him about working with the S.N.P. and the gist of his response was, at the very least implied if not exactly implict, the S.N.P. are illigitimate in terms of helping to form a government!
Well my response to him is this … the Liberal Democrats are illigitimate!
If only Jim Murphy’s dad fired blanks. What a wonderful world this would be.
A few have touted the idea that the SNP should be frozen out of Westminster activity as unwelcome interlopers.
That in my view would be a significant change in circumstances. Democracy broken.
The problem with the block grant is that people in Scotland have got used to it, and the danger is enough people think we are dependent on Westminster to prevent independence or FFA.
If the SNP start giving the impression that they are against FFA, then unionists will say how can you then argue for independence? As long as we are in the union, the SNP has to argue for the greatest amount of change. To fail to do so gives legitimacy to the unionists’ too wee, too poor, too stupid arguments.
[…] Buried in paragraph 11 […]
I might be wrong here.
But I think the SNP have got to keep pushing for FFA. Remember the third option Salmond asked for in the referendum?
Remember what everyone thought the Vow was. Devo Max/FFA.No point in them not campaigning for this. Sometimes the gradualist approach is painfull to watch. But if Salmond hadn’t embraced devolution. Scotland would still be watiing for a parliament never mind a referendum.
We need to keep chipping away and take the powers when we can. Independence will come and FFA will hasten it not delay it.
Would it be fair to say that FFA = home rule?
As, in my view, this story above would amount to a reversal of their ‘vow’ and so a significant change, warranting a second independence referendum.
Sorry for the OT but.
Yesterday 16th April was the 269th anniversary of the battle of Culloden. (16 April 1746) that makes today the 17th the 269th anniversary of the bayoneting of the Jacobite wounded at Culloden.
No so fecking cocky noo are you Ian Davidson former Labour MP!
Does anyone know the Tory Freepost address in Banff & Buchan?
I agree big Jock.
[…] …of a story in the Scottish Sun today is something rather important. Those are the words of David Cameron as he launched the Scottish Tories' manifesto in front of a heavily-vetted invited audien… […]
Ooops
Just to repeat that last statement, “he might even have retreived some Scottish votes”… Comedy gold award for Toynbee!
She was on Daily Andrew Neil show today too but last year same progressive liberal/nutcase said to Ligger Neil
“that even were Scotland to vote No in September’s independence referendum, it would be unthinkable for any Scot to ever again lead a UK political party, or hold any of the great offices of state.”
link to wingsoverscotland.com
These are the lying maniacs that consider themselves Scotland’s imperial masters. Oh and progressive Polly’s boss came into Guardian HQ last week and demanded that all oil and gas reserves must now stay in that there soil. Or as the vain glorious git waffled for pages, Guardian journalists can save the planet.
Next week news, rancid Grain says save the orphans, wont UKOK journalism save the orphans.
Interesting that in Alex Salmond’s book, The dream shall never die, he writes of ‘Scotland’s spending advantage’, noting that what he calls the ‘three other nations’ have a ‘public spending advantage’ over England – which shoots down the usual SNP claim that Scotland subsidises England.
The Name of the Game
On September 19th, with a winning margin of 10 points, Cameron believed it was all over and that the Union had won. He then wanted “everything to settle down” so that The Establishment could continue their dominance in the UK while channeling the serious money into their own pockets.
But it’s not over. The game is still being played, and at fever pitch, as is evident in the voices of the players and supporters. Scotland remains the prize and it is still up for grabs.
Why else would Cameron and his Unionist team from Westminster be so incredibly mean spirited with the promised powers for Scotland. And why turn broadside nasty against Scotland all of a sudden at the prospect of democracy from Scotland turning up at the Palace of Westminster.
Is it because they feel the game is slipping away from them, and having had one hand on the trophy, they now feel their grip loosening. You bet it is.
We are not in a normal General Election, even though the tickets for it have been sold and everyone’s talking about it. The Referendum game isn’t finished yet, and until it is, the GE will simply be a part of that unfinished business. All the main players know that, it’s just that they can’t say as much; nor can the media. As for the English electorate, judging by the TV audiences, they haven’t much of a clue about what is going on. And that’s the way Westminster will want to keep them.
The key is what happens to the SNP. The game hinges on the number of MP’s the SNP send to London on May 27th. The Polls are clear; the SNP will hold the balance of power at Westminster. What happens after that is the $64,000 question.
If Labour come to an arrangement with the SNP which enables Ed Milliband to become PM and form a Government, then a stronger Scotland will result and Independence will take a step closer. That will lead to five years of stormy politics at Westminster. But if the Tories can’t hack that deal, then we can expect something as yet unheard of in British politics, as Cameron tries desperately to cling on to power.
Whatever it is that Cameron tries will almost certainly border on the illegal; but it’s amazing what you can get away with when National Security is alleged to be at stake.
Should that happen, then we will have a different ball game altogether; one that has no mention of democracy in the rule book. If there is a rule book.
So the second half of the battle for Scotland is underway.
Don’t be surprised if extra time or a replay is required, but at this stage, it’s very difficult to predict.
One thing’s for sure, the battle for Scotland could well turn out to be the ‘Game of the Century’!
the problem i see with FFA (as they see it) is we will still be part of the UK ,it will not remove WMD or stop us having to pay for it or teamGB wars ,we would have no control over Mod budget so they could increase our share and we cant say boo to it.
Yes it will help show the people we can do this on our own but could also derail the indy movement but that is all irrelevant as it will never be given and we can not take it,its another team GB big lie.
The only true FFA is independence.
Rog- Yes I think FFA can be described as Devo Max. Bearing in mind we would be generating and spending all our own taxes and revenues. The social security system would go along with FFA which is a biggie for Scotland.Not forgetting the oil would be a geographic share not a demographic percentage as some people wrongly assume.
Devo Max is everything bar foreign affairs and defence. So Scotland would still have to set aside finances for their share of defence, and embassies etc. Lets not forget New Zealand quickly moved to independence following Devo Max.
Well I am glad of this. I would like to see FFA, but one post-election scenario was the Conservatives offering, in exchange for EVEL, a sub-optimal deal on further autonomy that the SNP would feel duty bound to accept, despite the deal being carefully crafted to extract even more money from Scotland than the present arrangements.
The Conservatives seem to have manoeuvred Labour into slitting their own throats, so I would not want to underestimate their ability to lay similar traps for the SNP.
@birnie says: 17 April, 2015 at 12:38 pm:
“How often do we have to say it? The UK is not “a country” – it is a state comprising two countries, a principality (or, arguably, a third country) and a province.”
Nearly right, Birnie. You are, though, still conflating realms with countries. The British Countries are Scotland, Wales, Ireland, England, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The realm, (Princdom), of Wales was annexed by the Kingdom of England by the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284. The realm, (kingdom), of Ireland was annexed by the Kingdom of Ireland in 1542 by the Crown of Ireland Act.
In both cases of Wales & Ireland this came after the defeat of the Welsh & Irish Royalty in battle. The cases of Man, Jersey and Guernsey left the Kingdom of England as protectors of them but did not add them to the Kingdom of England. Scotland was never taken in war and remained a kingdom in its own right.
There was no Union of the Crowns in 1603 and both existing kingdoms remained independent. In 1688, however, the English parliament deposed the crown head they shared with Scotland and imported King Billy & Queen Mary of Orange but removed from them the Royal veto over parliament. As Scotland was still an independent kingdom their claim to have replaced the monarchy of Scotland was rubbish. That was why there was Jacobite Uprisings until 1745, (long after the Treaty of Union).
That was why they needed a Treaty of Union in 1706/7 – why a treaty if there had been a union of crowns? So in 1706/7 there was only two equally sovereign kingdoms but between them four countries. With The two Baliwicks and Man as protectorates.
There couldn’t be an actual Treaty of union with N. Ireland in 1800/1 as N.I had been part of the English Kingdom since 1542 and is still part of the country of Ireland even yet. So the truth is that anything describing itself as a Kingdom, united or not, need not also be a country and the United Kingdom describes itself as a Kingdom. It is thus formed by only two, equally sovereign Kingdoms, and neither has precedence. There are only two signatory Kingdoms on that Treaty Paper.
So the present UK parliament is a legally bipartite contract but is being run by Westminster as a quadratic union of four countries but with Westminster claiming to be the Parliament of England and the United Kingdom. That is until the document funded by Westminster that claims, “The Treaty of Union extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as The United Kingdom”.
That is the present claim of the Establishment but in fact the Treaty of Union did no such thing and if Scotland pulls out of the union the legal Status Quo Ante is a return to the situation on the last day of April 1707 – Two independent Kingdoms one containing a single country and the other three countries one of which has partitioned with part of it now a Republic and republics cannot be part of a kingdom. Ireland, though still remains a partitioned country.
link to caltonjock.com
Should have mentioned that the lib/dems have turned from nice fluffy cuddly mogwia to the rabid gremlins if you feed them after midnight or leave out in the rain or if their WM seats are in jepoardy .
Really nasty that Danny and Clegg and as for that Malcolm Bruce, how many disillusioned voters have seen the light.
Westminster is corrupt and is collapsing, heard on the radio the other day about financial investors talking the same language as the Greens about the future of oil, or should I say there is no future in hydro carbons. Change is happening the old political system will implode, we are just helping it to happen sooner than later.
Ed: Sorry Nicola..we wont give you FFA or Trident so no deal possible
Nicola: Ed, Ed..patience..lets talk broadcasting..
If Labour walk away from the table get all your money on Yvette Cooper being leader within 6 months.
call me dave says:
17 April, 2015 at 2:06 pm
Should have mentioned that the lib/dems have turned from nice fluffy cuddly mogwia to the rabid gremlins if you feed them after midnight or leave out in the rain or if their WM seats are in jepoardy.
LOL. That’s the best description of a frustrated/outed LibDem politician ever. They are certainly showing their true character now, and it ain’t pretty.
ot
dancing swedish cop.
link to youtube.com
@manandboy – great post
“The game hinges on the number of MP’s the SNP send to London”
Totally agree – that’s why my big concern is the revelation in the poll last week that 29% of voters (39% in Glasgow) are yet to make up their mind.
Does anyone know if earlier polls came up with the same figures?
Jim Murphy and Scottish Labour today remind me of classic Scotch & Wry sketch when a hungover Rikki Fulton gets told hes lost his car playing Poker the night before:
What did he have?
A full house!
What did i have?
Mrs Bun the Bakers Wife!
Just cannot see the British establishment allowing the SNP any where near the reins of power in London. I’m certain something will happen to stop it.
joe macfarlane says:
17 April, 2015 at 11:58 am
“Someone in the tories is expertly setting up and destroying the labour party…”
Bang on and they’re doing a great job.
I wish Sturgeon hadn’t been so quick to rule out a deal with the Tories but I’m guessing there’s more to it than I know — the meeting she had with Cameron in London a few weeks ago is shrouded in questions and mystery.
That said, I don’t rule out anything and if a deal along the lines of devo max was offered by the Tories in return for short term SNP support, dismantlement of the Barnett formula, and a further reduction in the number of Scottish MPs in the Commons, I think Sturgeon would be obliged to consider it.
There’s a few possibilities there and nothing that the SNP or The Torise have said about deals will prevent some sort of agreement being reached.
We should forget the idea of propping up the Labour Party; they are soon going to be as irrelevant as Tories up here. And they’re untrustworthy scumbags.
If this pans out as I expect it will, we are all in for a few surprises when the horse trading begins.
Your point about the population distribution starting in Westminster is a good one and explains much. It underlies American complaints about the ‘Beltway mindset’ of their politicians as well. Back in NZ it is less evident because Wellington the capital is the second biggest city, not the biggest and it is situated in the geographical rough centre of the country. The far South with relatively few people can feel forgotten, but so can the far North ditto.
Those here in Scotland who live some distance from the Central Belt can also feel neglected, especially if there’s water in the way. Something politicians in Edinburgh need to keep in mind even while we congratulate ourselves that Glasgow is not the capital. If you take the M8 between the two you can think there’s a high empty moor between them. If you ignore the offramps to the settelments north of the road. Take the M9 and the population of the Central Belt becomes more evident.
It is also interesting how people here in Dundee would see the Central Belt as being south of us, those living further north lump us in with it, the dividing line to the north essentially being the Highland Line.
O/T as usual -I noticed this morning BBC radio several times used the phrase ‘the SNPsapparent lead in the polls’.
I dont recall ever hearing that word ‘apparent’ used for poll leads before. Does anybody else? A poll lead is just a poll lead, how can it be ‘apparent’? Preparing us for a disappointment perhaps?
Will Podmore
your faculties of/for critical thinking abandoned no less.
salmond assumes that others are aware of the background to his writings, ie he doesn’t treat others, as if, they’re idiots.
Preparing us for a disappointment perhaps?
After all we have been through, there is no way that the people of Scotland are going to sit back and take another five years of Tory/LibDem rule. That’s for sure.
Jim Murphy at 1:19:58
link to youtu.be
youtu.be/wWkrz3lHH50
Aceldo Atthis says:at 12.26pm
I wish Sturgeon hadn’t been so quick to rule out a deal with the Tories but I’m guessing there’s more to it than I know — the meeting she had with Cameron in London a few weeks ago is shrouded in questions and mystery.
There is no way a deal with the tories is on the table as it would be political suicide.
Scotland has one MP
David Gordon Mundell is a British Conservative politician and, since 2005, he has been the only Conservative Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency at Westminster.
Think about it.
😕
Glamaig – Yes interesting term from BBC for an SNP lead of up to 20%.
Apparent lead?
Apparent -Definition:
“seeming real or true, but not necessarily so”
What the Ferk! These guys need to stay of the Hallucinigenics!
joe macfarlane says:
at 11:58 am
“Someone in the tories is expertly setting up and destroying the labour party”
… and they’ve been at it for more than a year! Someone is using the ‘Scottish constitutional situation’ to cause damage to Labour.
I’d like to know whose idea it was for Labour and the Tories to get into bed together as BetterTogether. Labour was stitched up! IMO there was a Tory agenda to use the referendum campaign to destroy Labour in Scotland.
Now anti-Scottish feeling down south is being channeled towards Labour UK wide as the SNP threaten to support Labour against Tories.
All we can hope is that England doesn’t give Con+Lib+Others a majority.
I suspect they won’t. Milliband is doing better than expected in debates. Many in England realise they will only now get the support of the enchanting Ms Sturgeon is if they vote Labour! And, boundaries plus voter distribution give Labour a 2% bonus which is significant when polls are close.
@ Glamaig says:”I dont recall ever hearing that word ‘apparent’ used for poll leads before. Does anybody else? A poll lead is just a poll lead, how can it be ‘apparent’? Preparing us for a disappointment perhaps?”
Good spot, Glamaig. The strategy is usually to sow doubt first thereby softening the public belief. ‘Apparent’ does this by undermining the evidence value of the polls.
With twenty days to go, the timetable is right for a major PR offensive by Labour/Unionists against the SNP.
The Better Together team is still intact and they will stop at nothing, with UK Gov backing, to get as many Labour MP’s elected.
Expect the same tactics – attack the pensioners, scare the middle classes, threaten immigrant workers and students etc; and finally attempt to bribe the undecided to vote Labour. Many will fall for it.
But let’s be in no doubt whatsoever – this is the critical fight; this is the key area in this UK wide election.
We have to put everything into the next 3 weeks.
For the Unionists certainly will.
jackie g says:
“There is no way a deal with the tories is on the table as it would be political suicide.”
Well, that depends on what the deal amounted to. This is what I’m talking about — people pre-judging and ruling out deals before any sort of negotiation has taken place…
There would be nothing politically suicidal with a deal that gave Scotland devo-max, even if that deal involved us giving token support to the Tories. There are other bargaining chips on the table too, like another referendum with Westminster’s consent, Trident, etc.
At the the end of the day, we need to stop looking at all this through the prism of Westminster politics and the usual zero-sum logic.
As for your reference to the lack of Tory MPs in Scotland, that shouldn’t be an issue in any negotiations — we are talking about a deal that would effectively remove us from that stuff anyway so what does it matter how many MPs they have?
And if the polls are right, Labour could be reduced to a handfull of MPs too — are you suggesting we don’t do a deal with Labour too?
@Aceldo Atthis
I disagree.
I want FFA and I want independence. I do not accept the argument so often adduced which suggests that the scots have a responsibility to save the rest of the UK from the preferences of a largely english tory vote. Nevertheless I do not think it right to help that party to further impoverish their citizens, as is their aim.
If the SNP do a deal with the tories I will never vote for them again. Politics is about more that self interest and that is where I draw my line.
Greetings all,
I keep wondering why, when there is any mention of the Barnett formual and the increased amount per capita that Scotland receives compared to England and Wales, no mention is ever made of the amount that N Ireland receives, which appears to be higher than Scotland receives.
Fiona, I’ll be honest, I’ve never heard such ill-considered political naivety in all my life.
You talk in lofty moral terms about impoverishing the rest of the UK by making a deal with the Tories — you even say that it’s the aim of the Tories to impoverish them.
Are you forgetting the voting tendencies of the English people — go back say 30 years, it wasn’t Scotland that voted the Tories in, it was England.
Now the point I am making isn’t vindictive although it could be. The point I am making is that the English by and large like the Tories, so we aren’t forcing them on them — the majority of English people have voted for Tories repeatedly over the last 30 years. We haven’t.
And what you say becomes even more ridiculous and naive when you consider that Scotland leaving the Union would go a long way towards helping the Tories win elections well into the future. if you have any qualms about that, I would suggest you vote with your feet now.
Let’s be clear, by leaving the Union we are more or less ensuring that the Tories win General Elections in the rest of the UK for all eternity. We shouldn’t feel any remorse about that and if you do then you are confused — the fact is the English like Tories.
It’s for that reason that most Tories would be quite happy to see the back of Scotland, if they were honest about it. In political terms, Scotland and England have very different tendencies and cultures.
And, so, in short, if acheiving independence or devo-max means leaving Westminster to be dominated by Tories, who the hell cares? That’s down to who they vote for, if it happens. The problem for us was/is that we were being lumped with governments that we didn’t vote for and that’s why we want out.
You need to think your politics through.
Glamaig
Yes, I heard this remark this morning too and thought I had misheard. An ‘apparent lead’ of 20% or so. Must be a mistake. Then it clicked that every pundit has said over the past months that ‘the polls suggest’ the SNP are in the lead.
Rather like Tiny Taylor banging on about ’emphasis’ to cover up the Murphy lies, he was rattling on about the [illegal?] Murphy Manifesto at lunchtime on Reporting Colony and not a single word about our First Minister’s second taking England by storm debate.
It is really propaganda of the first order.
@ Aceldo Atthis.
Gee, thanks :D.
I do think it is the aim of the tories to impoverish the majority of the people. Can’t see any doubt about it, actually. They have actively pursued increased inequality since 1980, and there is nothing accidental about it.
I do agree that the english do want this, at least in sufficient numbers to ensure that the tories get a majority in that country quite often. I do not agree that is inevitable, nor that absent scotland they would have a permanent majority. We have discussed this many times on this board, and it just isn’t true.
Nor do I agree that leaving the union would have that effect: I believe it will do exactly the opposite. TINA is a lie: but it has to be shown to be a lie. Scottish independence has the chance of doing just that and I think that would alter the political complexion in england over time as well. Labour calculated that they could not win in England without adopting the plutocratic stance: I think that they are wrong and I think the outcome of the 1997 election shows they are wrong. People did not vote for Tony Blair because he is a plutocrat (though he is): they voted for change. Sadly Labour did not deliver that change and folk gave up. The reception of the anti austerity parties in england shows that there is a hunger for a different approach there too.
I cannot see any evidence at all that “most tories would be quite happy to see the back of Scotland”. The opposite seems to me to be true. Though I do not have access to the sources of information which lead you to that conclusion. What are they? Can you link, please?
Independence and Devo Max are not the same things. I am perfectly content to leave the union, and whatever follows in political terms in rUK will be none of my business. But I cannot take the same view of FFA or Devo Max, for in that case I will remain a part of the union and needs must take account of what the tories do if supported by the SNP. For they will be doing it to us as well as to other parts of the UK.
I think it is you who is naive, frankly.
Yeah, I’m naive. Yet you are concerned about the consequences of the English people voting for Tories, as they always have.
Can someone do some film clip editing with the please stay Scotland because we love you.. pre ref and the hateful bile being spouted now post ref and pre GE vote.As it will be in colour ..it has to be true.
@ Aceldo Atthis
Yes I am concerned about supporting the tories. They have damaged the UK and Scotland and they will continue to do so. There is not one single policy of theirs I can think of that I would vote for. I fail to see what the SNP could offer, in the circumstances. What do you think they should help the tories get through in return for any amount of devo max?
Re Luigi and worthless votes. It isn’t only Scottish votes that are devalued. Just as in 1992 and other years only a few thousand votes in a few marginal constituencies really matter. It’s time we had proportional representation or some other voting system that values everyone’s vote equally.
All you need to win, but not handsomely, if luck is in your favour, is assess a few dozen panels in the relevant constituencies, find out what the swing voters think is important, and tailor your (probably impossible to immplement) promises to sway their thinking.
Simples. But not democracy.
They promised full fiscal autonomy/Home Rule/Federalism. Where is it. Another Referendum?
The only deficit in Scotland is because of Westminster policies.
More nonsense from Jim
The Feeble Fifty
I just love the ‘apparent’ 9% lead that Lord Ashcroft shows for the SNP in EAST RENFREWSHIRE.
link to scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk
Fiona, forget who the English people might vote for after we achieve independence. It’s got nothing to do with us and it’s their choice.
You’re confusing politics with missionary work.
Most won’t read about this or care.
Murphy is useful to Milliband in that he can be quoted as saying those things a future PM would be embarrassed by later.
What I’m saying is that Murphy is unlikely to stop lying now. It the ‘the biggest party gets to…’ all over again.
Murphy drops his bombshells and moves on. By the time the public get to hear that he was lying about the last thing, he lying about the next thing.
Murphy’s position would be utterly untenable were he an MSP or holding office in Westminster. The thing is, does Jim KNOW he’s disposable??
@ Aceldo Atthis
You misunderstand. I explicitly said that who they vote for after independence is none of my business. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about supporting tories while we are within the union. On what? Can you outline what you think the SNP should support in return for FFA? I can’t think of anything at all.
Actually, Fiona, you were talking about the consequences of England being governed by a party that the majority of English voters support. The principle of what you argued is ridiculous whether we are independent or not.
An agreement with the Tories needn’t necessarily involve SNP support. It could, for example, involve abstention.
Nope. I was talking about: Nevertheless I do not think it right to help that party to further impoverish their citizens, as is their aim.
Within the union those citizens include you and me.
And abstention is of no help at all: that is support if it allows them to govern.
You are very keen to dismiss other points of view as ridiculous, but you still have not said which tory policies you believe that the SNP should support (or not oppose) in order to secure FFA.
Will Podmore reply. You are obviously very unhappy with the recent turn of events within Scotland. You are truly going to require some serious sedation when the main events kick in. Are you already receiving treatment for your current condition?
Fiona, you are selectively quoting your own words — after saying you don’t think its right to help the Tories impoverish their own citizens you say “If the SNP do a deal with the tories I will never vote for them again.”
Without any need or requirement to get into specific policy areas, this is just naive. Actually, there’s a point at which childish naivety crosses a line and becomes ridiculousness.
It’s very easy to imagine a scenario where, in return for abstaining rather than opposing a Queen’s speech, for example, Scotland achieves devo-max through an agreement with the conservatives.
You seem to think that would be unacceptable and are threatening to get on your moral high horse and disown the SNP. Utterly bizarre.
You could actually argue that it would be wrong for the SNP to oppose the Tories and stand in their way in circumstances where a majority of English people had voted for them. I wouldn’t, but it holds more water than your argument and makes more sense.
What you need to get your head around is this; 1) the English people have a right to a Tory government that a majority of them vote for, regardless of your idealistic misgivings, and 2) politics and life often involves dealing with people you are at odds with.
My expectation is that the SNP and Scottish people will have a better chance of getting a meaningful deal that takes us in the right direction out of the Tories than Labour. The Labour Party will never let us go because they think they own us politically. I trust the Tories more than the Labour Party for that reason.
I think it was a mistake of Sturgeon to rule out a deal with the Tories but, in saying that, it’s all just words, nothing is in stone, and I don’t rule it out even now.
Dearie me, Aceldo Atthis, can you be any more patronising if you try just a wee bit harder?
It is a fact that if we are within the union then we are citizens of the UK and subject to the legislation passed by the government. If the SNP do a deal with the tories that government will be tory.
I have now asked you twice, what policies do you think the SNP should either support or help to pass by not opposing, in doing such a deal? I am waiting for an answer.
It may come as something of a surprise to you, but the SNP does not own my vote, any more than the labour party does. There is no “moral high horse” here. I am voting for the SNP because they are closer to the kind of social democratic/socialist policies I want to see implemented. If they stop being that I will vote for someone else.
It seems to me that it is you who is rather naive, though perhaps you are a tribal SNP supporter in the same way many are tribal labour supporters. I am not like that: I am interested in what they do, not what they are.
The SNP have stated they will not do a deal with the tories. They have not fudged it nor left any wriggle room, and I expect them to keep to that. If they do not then I will not vote for them in the future. It is perfectly simple and it is perfectly essential. If parties do not hold to their manifesto commitments there is no basis for voting for them at all: and that is how we got into this mess of a sham democracy in the first place.
You tell me what I need to get my head around, in your adorably arrogant way. Well thanks for that. Unfortunately for your argument, I have no confusion of the sort you imagine. I have stated explicitly that it is no concern of mine how the english vote if we achieve independence. I believe that many of them do want tory government and that is absolutely none of my business after independence. They might vote for perpetual tory rule, though I don’t happen to think so: but it is their own affair. That is not true while we are within the union, however. For the tories they vote for, if in government, govern Scotland as well.
As to “politics and life often involves dealing with people you are at odds with”. No kidding? Such things you tell me! However it happens that there is no middle way between good and evil, and those who compromise their principles have no raison d’etre. One can compromise in order to further your ends, but not at the expense of pursuit of those ends in its entirety.
You clearly think that independence is the sole end, and any action is justifiable if it furthers that goal. I happen to think that independence is a means to an end: the end of a fairer and more democratic society. This may be an irreconcileable difference, and there is nothing wrong with that. We agree that we need independence; but this is a broad church and we do not necessarily agree about why we need it. Those differences are not for now. They are absolutely central to the arguments we will have once independence is achieved.
I notice that you say that you think we have a better chance of a meaningful deal with the tories than with labour, for you believe that labour thinks they own us and the tories don’t. I have no idea what leads you to that conclusion. It is not labour supporters in the main who literally own Scotland: that would be very wealthy people like the Duke of Buccleugh and I do not think he votes labour, do you?
Fiona, if you had said this “it happens that there is no middle way between good and evil”, it might have saved us both a lot of time. It reminds me of the sort of thing GW Bush said.
I can see that you think by typing lots you strengthen your argument. This isn’t the case. In short you are saying any dal with the Tories would be a betrayal. It might be but it wouldn’t be a betrayal of the English people who voted for them.
Your argument has now evolved into ‘the SNP would be betraying us, SNP supporters, if they were to enter into a deal with the Tories.’ That’s not the argument you started with.
The goal of Yes supporters and SNP supporters is to achieve as much independence as possible vis a vis Westminster. We might acknowledge that full independence is not on the menu in this GE. Our limited goal here, then, is to win what we can towards increasing powers for Scotland, powers that were promised to us by lying Labour MPs last year but not delivered.
If we can achieve devo-max through dealing with the Tories after the GE, why should we have any concern for leaving the English people to a government that the majority voted for? Because you have some childish notion of right and wrong that, when you think about it, is actually more insulting and damaging to the rights of the English than anything I have said?
I have already given an example where cooperation between the Tories and the SNP might work — the Queen’s speech. If by abstaining in that vote we allow the Tories to form a government, with the Tories the largest party in Westminster, and in return we are promised devo-max in that very Queen’s speech, I don’t see where your moral questions arise.
In the above scenario, the English get the government most of them want, we get vastly increased powers, and everybody lives happily ever after. Except you and the Labour Party.
Och suit yourself, Aceldo Atthis.
I am tired of your arrogance and your wilful misunderstanding of my position, but this difference does not matter, for the SNP have ruled out any such deal and I expect them to stick with it.
Hi Fiona.
“…the SNP have ruled out any such deal and I expect them to stick with it.”
I believe there’s a lot of people feel the same way. I think the SNP knows that if it did support the Tories in any way, next year’s Holyrood election would see possible (probable?) SNP support going in the direction of other parties.
Deservedly so, IMO.
It actually doesn’t matter if you agree with the policy or not. What is central is trust. If a party does not see itself as bound by the manifesto and the promises it makes you have absolutely no basis for deciding how to vote: for you have no idea what they will actually do in office or in opposition.
Many say that all politicians are the same, you can’t trust a word they say, and that the manifesto’s don’t matter. That is not true…yet. We are moving in that direction, certainly. Do please think about who that narrative serves. It comes directly from the neoliberal agenda, because the song they sing is that politicians are always and everywhere incompetent at best; and corrupt or venal more usually. They then set out to make that true, by buying influence directly or through lobbying. Then they justify shrinking the state by suggesting that corporates and the wealthy are better in every way: not least in honesty and trustworthiness. At least, they say, you know what the elite want, and that is money. You can trust them on that. That is a manifesto pledge by any other name: but so is “trickle down”, and that one is a straightforward lie.
The centralisation of power, sold under the narrative of increased localism which merely serves to atomise opposition and to dismantle any alternative power base, has furthered this. And it includes the government, because we become increasingly “presidential” as part of the process: it is no accident that we hear an awful lot about “leadership” these days; for which read rendering back bench MP’s impotent. When back benchers have nothing real to do they become troughers: why wouldn’t they? They are not saints.
But the electorate are complicit. All parties should know for certain that if they break their pledges they WILL be punished: that is the only way to counter the power which says if they do what their friends and masters want they will reap big rewards.
We have the power to do this: but so long as we shrug our shoulders and say “what can you expect” we will not use it: suits the plutocrats very well indeed
Support for independence means, to me, support for better politics: and it starts with the manfesto. It is no accident that trust in the SNP is high on their agenda: they know it matters and they say so.
This is also why I am not so happy with PR as many here are. I am not dissing it: but in this country it is not established and we have seen what coalition means to the existing political class: it means never having to say you are sorry. It means that you cannot know what they will do in office and it means that if you complain about that you will be told this is “grown up politics”.
PR works all over europe, so there are ways of dealing with that: but I don’t hear those arrangements much discussed. Lately there is some talk of “red line issues” and perhaps that is enough if stated plainly enough. I am not confident.
In any case we do not have PR: we have FPTP and in a hung parliament we do not have the mechanisms which safeguard the minority party manifest in a meaningful way. So we must rely on their commitment to those manifestos. In the case of the SNP, I do. I do not agree with them on some issues: not at all in fact. But I do at present trust them to do what they say, and they are closer to my aspirations than any other party.
Play fast and loose with those pledges, both those I agree with and those I don’t, and they will not get my vote again. It is as simple as that for me. Manifestos matter!