The winners and the losers
Of tonight’s debate.
WINNERS
1. Nicola Sturgeon
Ran away with the debate, far more so than any of the previous ones. Polls without exception gave her the victory, mostly by huge margins. Deftly handled a couple of potential banana skins when talking about Trident and immigration in front of a UK audience without compromising any principles, and her attack on Miliband over working to keep the Tories out made lead quote on the news.
Her performance was universally praised across the media, and even managed to turn an English audience member away from voting UKIP. A flawless night.
2. Natalie Bennett and Leanne Wood
Both women were largely side-shows, in truth, but Bennett in particular continued her recovery from a bad start to the election campaign, avoiding any gaffes on any of the Greens’ zanier policies and managing to get in a couple of strong hits on Miliband on welfare and immigration.
3. The BBC
Needed a win after the Sunday Politics disaster, and pulled it off. A lean, snappy format was tightly controlled by Dimbleby, who had little barbs and traps waiting for everyone but didn’t try to make himself the focus of events. A good referee is invisible, and he came about as close as possible.
4. David Cameron
Was taking a kicking from everyone on the stage and gifting Miliband a chance to look Prime Ministerial by not turning up, making Miliband the most “senior” figure present. Then Miliband made a complete pig’s ear of it at the end, enabling Tory pundits to say there’d be “chaos” if he tried to form a government, as he rejected everyone’s offers of co-operation if he’d be just a little more left-wing.
Cameron will also have been relieved at Nigel Farage’s failure to make any significant impact (see below).
LOSERS
1. Ed Miliband
So close. Needing only to avoid defeat rather than win, the Labour leader swam the Channel then hitched a lift on the Costa Concordia for the last mile.
He was doing well for almost the whole show, looking like a mature, consensual, sensible and even gentlemanly alternative PM. But then right at the death (and possibly under pressure from Scottish Labour) he launched into two suicidal attacks on Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, appearing to suggest he’d walk away from Downing Street in a huff if he needed SNP support to form a government. It looked small, petty and churlish when he needed to be statesmanlike.
His final address was poorly-judged too, focusing on himself rather than policies and demanding a one-on-one with Cameron that isn’t going to happen. Most polls put him second-last and only just ahead of Farage, though a single Survation one did give him a narrow win over Sturgeon.
2. Nigel Farage
Was largely sidelined by the Sturgeon-Miliband battle, marginalised politically by four opponents to his left, and stumbled and stuttered when he did get some airtime, even attacking the audience at one point early on (never really getting them back). By the end, in all honesty, we’d actually forgotten he was there.
3. Jim Murphy, Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie
The debate was calm, civilised and substantial, with only a couple of very brief moments of people talking over each other. Sturgeon being part of that shifted the blame for three bad-tempered, shouty Scottish debates firmly onto them.
4. Danny Alexander
Had clearly written his script well before the debate, and didn’t have the wit to improvise after it didn’t turn out to be the “rabble” he claimed. Dug himself deeper into a hole with every second he spoke.
5. Jon Pienaar
The BBC’s man in the spin room made a complete boorish oaf of himself, with undisguised partisanship and rudeness. Behaved disgracefully towards Humza Yousaf of the SNP in particular.
survation snap poll has miliband as winner!
Given that I didn’t watch the debate and relied almost solely on your tweets for my information, I find nothing to disagree with in your assessment! 🙂
It felt like the whole audience slapped itself on the forehead when Ed fell down on Nicola’s offer.
Agreed with that, and was very annoyed at John Pienaar.
On a side note, my neighbour (I’m in Dundee) had his flower of Scotland track on after the last debate in England and he sang along with it repeatedly for hours, Just heard it on again so think I’m in for another sing-song tonight, lol!
Yes
I think Leanne Wood was better than Natalie Bennett. But pretty much spot on.
Nicola was just amazing towards the end. Just going to put this out there – Alec Douglas-Home spent 20 days as Prime Minister in the 60s without being a member of the House of Commons OR the House of Lords…
Pretty accurate Stu, as I saw it.
Danny Alexander post match comments – what a fu==ing laugh.
Ed standing strong with Nigel on Trident, in the minority, was a telling moment.
I wish St Johnstone could win games as frequently as Nicola does debates.
Posted on last thread but better here.
https://twitter.com/blurrtuk
Nicola scooshed it – Cue the smears from the Westminster propaganda machine.
Pretty well spot on Rev,
Yea, J Pienaar was, as you indicated, a complete oalf, showed a complete disregard towards Humza, and by association the S.N.P.
John Pinarr was shocking. Asked Humza a question and talked over him and pulled the mic away. Is this BBC policy when interviewing an SNP member. Brewer does exactly the same.
The balls in your court Ed will you prop up the Tories. Open net for Nicola she couldn’t believe her luck!
Mr Pienaar practically interviewed himself when talking AT Humza Yousaf. He posed scenarios and asked questions which he then proceeded to answer himself.
Car crash journalism.
On the rest?
Spot on as usual Rev.
Fair assessment of debate, John Pienaar extremely rude, speaking to people and turning away as they answered. Nicola definitely No.1.
What a fabulous screen grab. Says everything.
It gives me great pleasure to repeat that I do not have a TV License because I prefer to get the correct version of events from pages like these, rather than from the BBC (British Brainwashing Corporation).
I pretty much agree with that assessment Rev Stu. Sturgeon was the winner by a wide margin. Bennett did well again, I thought she was better than Leanne Wood, who I thought struggled a little bit tonight to make an impact. I think her and Bennett have helped Sturgeon’s performances, because in the Scottish debates NS is up against the three Scottish unionist amigos on her own. Farage was absolutely awful, easily the worse performance. The comments about the audience were suicidal.
I was pleasantly surprised by Dimbleby, I thought he handled the debate very well.
just said on itv news that Ed won by 4.
Wow! read some of the comments on the debate polls, shit! they don’t like it upem. Ncola more dangerous than Thatcher or Hitler??
Suck it up you a***holes
It was the ladies wot won it
Worst thing about Farage was his choice to attack the audience and imply that they are idiots.
Nicola smashed Miliband with her “will you put the Tories in power rather than work with the SNP.
What a First Minster 10/10
Are you watching this unbelievable bastard on Scotland 2015 (Tim Reid?). Basically highlighted the ONLY poll that had Milliband leading and mumbled about every other one. Then started prattling on about a COALITION; not once but a number of times trying to make the SNP look irrelevent because one wasn’t goign to happen. Appalling.
Add that onto Pienaar’s performance and it really is the last straw for this shower of lying, cheating, biased filth.
It is continuing with Dame Smith but I have given up. Bedtime.
Raging.
I also noticed Natalie Bennett made a very good move at the end to snatch the libdem vote, it may succeed.
I have to agree with Mosstrooper there the screen grab is amazing.
You can just about see a bubble coming out of Ed’s head ” Oh shit! I’ve really blown it … AGAIN! I hope Jim will not be too upset with me tomorrow.” 😀
I agree with Stu’s assesssment of the winners and losers tonight as well. I think Nicola just walked that debate by a country mile and Leanne and Natalie were following. That said I think both Leanne and Natalie were always starting from a lower starting point.
Poor Ed will be going home tonight and his wife will be asking him about all the bruises on his *ahem* broken body tonight. 😛
As for Farage … well what is there to stay other than glad to see he hasn’t lost that “I hate foreigners” attitude. It certainly worked well for him tonight … NOT!
Nice to see Beaker carrying on with the line started by his boss yesterday … the S.N.P. are an illigitimate force to be in government in the U.K. Well if that is his assessment here is mine … Alexander is illigitimate as are all the rest of the Lib Dem EX M.P.’s in Scotland!
I think that tonight could just about be the night that sees the vote percentages for the S.N.P. in the upcoming opinion polls begin to go atmospheric!
Can’t but agree with every word Rev.
It was definitely ladies night once again and I think those three ladies are influencing minds right across the UK.
The winds of change are blowing. Politicians had better learn to go with the prevailing wind or be blown away.
Did anyone else notice that D Dimbleby was wearing a tie with a fish pattern….. could he be a secret Sturgeon fan….?
And guess what? The only post debate poll STV quotes is the Daily Mirror one Stu mentions as the only one which put Miliband ahead.
We’re on to you too, STV. Unionist Central along with your chums over the road.
Kate Devlin of the Scottish Herald thought Ed Miliband won the debate. She agreed with the Labour leaning Daily Mirror poll showing Miliband won it with 35%, Nicola on 31%.
What debate was Kate Devlin watching. Not the same debate I watched, surely?
Question time with Angus robertson in london.
Cue the shite 🙁
Pretty happy with that tonight. Nicola did particularly well. It was her 5th in two weeks – not sure where she gets the energy.
Yvette Coopers Labour Largest Party lie slapped down by Angus on Question Time
Bravo
BBC post match analysis….
shows clip of Nicola saying ” I think it’s a disgrace that David Cameron is not here tonight to defend his record” ..
Reeta Chakrabarti then states .. ” Nicola Sturgeon, quite aggressive…”
Aggressive!!?? WTF?
send John Pienaar round to my house and I’ll show you aggression!
I thought it was a good debate and well chaired.I think Nicola was the only one who may have done better than consolidate her position.
Jon Pienaar was ill mannered and unprofessional.The difference in his attitude to Humza Yousaf and Douglas Alexander was there for everyone to see.
I thought the debate was well handled but thought the ‘discussion’ afterwards in the spin room was truly awful.
If the Tories and LibDems could not be bothered to take part why were they given time, without interruption, to make their points.
I thought Ms Sturgeon was the clear winner and the passion and obvious sincerity of her opening statement stood in telling contrast to Mr Milliband’s wooden delivery.
There was also a moment later when he was obviously talking down to Ms Sturgeon in a very patronising way that I thought to myself – well there goes the women’s vote Mr Milliband.
Why were the women debaters able to outshine the Lab and UKIP schlubs though? BBC r4 news had Lesley Riddoch on who said that Milliband had to sell Labour to right wing majority England.
Two different countries, two different politics and then that audience UKIP voter interviewed by a BBC disgrace of a tv reporter, said Sturgeon had made him change his mind maybe. WTF
I thought Leanne Wood was better than Natalie Bennett tonight, she was able to articulate her arguments better, though Ms Bennett did land one good knockout on Miliband.
Nicola goes from strength to strength, and I hope continues to provide strong leadership when she’s in Holyrood and Salmond is sitting on the green benches.
One thing I think no one will disagree on tonight, John Pienaar made a complete arse of himself.
Jo Swinson…really…how did folk like she and Danny Alexander get elected?
That screen grab ideally should be the front page of tomorrow’s National.
It really does say it all.
Thought Natalie edged Leanne on performance tonight. Leanne took a week bit of time to get going and might have been not as fluent in her answers, and by the time she got going it had become the Sturgeon-Miliband battle.
Sturgeon was immense for me, my wife said she didn’t think she was THAT good, But it came out a bit huffy. I really need to stop prattling on about Nicola so much in the house…
Angus Robertson “Yvette..will you let the Tories in?”
And The answer came there none..
The three moirai …or we as know them, the three sisters.
That picture is beyond words. It says so much …and if I were Ed …I would be taking serious note of it. These women represent Hope. To deny them, would be to deny most of the nation.
Fortune favours the brave, Ed …having 3 other reasoned voices may help your premiership if you were to take it. Those who took absolute control such as Thatcher, Blair and Brown have all been remembered for the worst of reasons.
And that is something, you should beware of Ed. Take note.
@MoJo says: 16 April, 2015 at 10:52 pm
“Did anyone else notice that D Dimbleby was wearing a tie with a fish pattern….. could he be a secret Sturgeon fan….?”
Aiblins yon were Salmon an no Sturgeons, MoJo?
Remember Dan Sath they still think Alex is the leader.
Miliband should simply say that he’s in this election to win rather than overly aggressive non-denials about deals with the SNP afterwards. He could categorically state that there will be no deals of any kind with the SNP but he has not done so because of course there will be deals. Instead he uses the old trick of using lots of words that sound like denials but actually aren’t.
It’s dead simple: do away with the General Election entirely.
Put Sturgeon, Bennet and Wood in charge of the UK. They’ll get this mess sorted, then we can carry on.
@Erin T
Worst thing about Farage was his choice to attack the audience and imply that they are idiots.
I cannot remember seeing a politician in a major debate effectively telling the audience they are tools. Very odd.
2 Ts in Bennett.
On that Mirror poll, James Kelly says that the Scottish sub sample has Nicola 68% Ed 17%
A win for Nicola where it matters I think.
I’ll agree with Rev Stu 100%.
Now the BBC have set-up a crazy viewer choice – BBC 1 Question Time – BBC2 Newsnight and I haven’t set up to record anything.
@ErinT says: 16 April, 2015 at 10:42 pm:
“Worst thing about Farage was his choice to attack the audience and imply that they are idiots.”
I saw that as Nigel attacking the BBC for stacking the deck with a biased audience. Thing is Bumblebee obviously took it that way too. First time I ever agreed with the self centred, pretentious numptie.,
The re-writing of history and the propaganda campaign starts early.
Reuters declare Millibland the winner in tonight’s debate.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/16/us-britain-election-debate-poll-idUSKBN0N72QB20150416?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
I am obviously not in the same alternative parallel universe as Reuters reporter William James and editor Andrew Osborn. Is anybody else?
Caz M – Kate Devlin is a unionist mouthpiece at the Herald! I am only sorry I share her Surname!
Funny immediately after the debate in the spin room she said Nicola was the best. Few phone calls later from Slabour Branch office obviously!
O/T – It’s telling that there is uproar in England that 40 SNP MPs might be able to influence the governance of the UK but Grant Chapps can admit on QT that 11,300 people voting differently in 23 constituencies in England will give a Tory majority and no one blinks an eye.
Agree with your analysis and would rename the BBC as UK BBC for this purpose. I would include BBC Scotland as losers due to their inherent anti-SNP being exposed.
Danny Alexander looks more drawn and worried every time I see him now. “It takes a Worried Man”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhqFrtr7Zcs
Rev
You might want to add DUP into winners as getting lots of “NI now has a major influence” soundbites.
(I assume Sinn Feinn will renounce the Queens Speech)
John Pienaar looks completely wrong for this job. Keep having visions of him hanging off an apache helecopter with a fcuking great gattling gun.
Wrong! Wrong! Just Wrong!
I suspect that Milliband is caught between a left-wing rock and a Tory hard place – if he is seen to be tacking too close to ‘the left’ he runs the risk of losing the Labour centre to the LibDems. That also explains why their pitch is to “working families”, and not people on benefits.
The point is that the appeal of ‘the left’ in England may not be as strong as we would like to think – Tony Blair did not win three elections by channeling Tony Benn or Neil Kinnock.
Also, at the end the leaders all trotted off to shake hands with the audience whilst Farage walked away in a huff.
Heedtracker – Linking UKIP with SNP that’s the old BBC blur the lines,put the nationalists in one pot agenda. No way does someone go from extreme right wing to SNP. It stinks! He was probably paid by John Penis!
Brilliant Stu
What a screen grab. JLT got it bang on the money they are the picture of HOPE.
We are baised on Wings. Unashamedly so. 🙂
But i agree with the article . Nicola Sturgeon is a classy clever woman. Big winner but the biggest losers are the men .
These ladies have vision. Things are changing and the men should face up to the fact . Twitter going nuts on Nicola .
Angus doing his usual best in London. A mature honest guy. We have some cracking people out there folks. if we only bit the bullet and backed them up fully we would be unstoppable .
We invented the modern world. Re-inventing our country would be a dawdel.
Nicola won by a country mile.What did you expect from the unionist press.?Honesty?
Is it just me or did Ed look sick at the thought of an anti-Tory alliance? That is just not the way the union works, folks!
I suspect that whoever ends up the biggest party (groan!) will attract the Lib Dems (= 300 votes) and then there will be a false “breakaway” group of 30 or so MPs from either Blue Tories (wets) or Red Tories (blairites) to make up the necessary numbers.
All to “prevent the most dangerous woman in Britain” from “breaking up the country.”
Lead image shows Sad Ed in now-familiar stance – just a different angle, minus the door:
http://s3-ak.buzzfeed.com/static/2014-11/13/10/campaign_images/webdr06/this-might-be-the-saddest-picture-of-ed-miliband–2-27858-1415893426-0_dblbig.jpg
Oh! Wow! Angus Robertson has just informed informed Question Time that the Scottish NHS is totally different from that of England – Dimbleby, with a look of stark amazement on his face and actually with his mouth hanging open asked, “How do you mean, different”?
Jings! Anyone would thing Scotland was a different country or something?
Err! Err! Err! Oh! Wait up! …
It may be helpful if people stop saying Jon Pienaar made an arse of himself and start calling him what he is ‘ a senior BBC journalist’, or ‘ a trusted BBC journalist’
Never separate the bad apple from the barrel as far as the BBC is concerned.
Reuters- Even Miliband’s Mother would have agreed that Nicola Sturgeon kicked his backside for him!
He gave no detail on where his cuts are coming from, but you can bet it will be the poorest to the working classes that bare the brunt of it.
He lied about not voting side by side with Tory and Lib Dems for
an extra £30 Billion of austerity cuts, and just how dumb is he if he thinks he is going to get a majority government, even though every poll for months has confirmed there is no chance.
I did think it was really weird that Pienaar (himself a left over from Spitting Image) managed to pull two UKIP supporters out of the audience when Nigel got barely a single clap. How the hell did he manage that?
Having watched both the debate and the analysis, I can only say that establishment politicians drone. And how they drone. On and on and on until your brain starts looking for nourishment. ‘What’s that person wandering around in the back of shot doing?’, ‘Is that nasal hair?’, ‘His forehead is a bit shiny’.
Pure soundbites fired at the viewer rapid-style, the same words we’ve heard time and again so is it any wonder we glaze over? Then there was our FM – clear, concise and economical with the verbiage. Less than 3 weeks to go.
What a great pic at the top of this article! Have a little faith in them (to paraphrase John Hiatt)
Angus Robertson, who I have a lot of time for was caught on Question Time unable to answer why the percentage growth in expenditure in the NHS in Scotland has been lower than that in England.
I am sure I gave heard a suitable argument about this elsewhere.
On such an important and emotive topic, please don’t get caught out so easily SNP.
Macart says:
16 April, 2015 at 10:31 pm
Whit he said!
Macart we have to have that pint!
Pretty much agree with what others said about John pienaar, but in his defence he did state later on the 10.00pm news that Nicola Sturgeon again walked away with the Oscar for best performance.
Didn’t watch but never doubted Nicola and her lady allies would whomp the living daylights out of the rest.
The idea of having to listen to Farage or Beaker was enough to put me off and save a claim on the house insurance for a new TV.
Now getting ready to watch how the usual subjects in the media convert this into a disaster for Nicola and the SNP.
Must be about time for an enraged, Uncle Tom, hyberbolic bellowing from the Cochrane about how undemocratic it is for democratically elected SNP MPs to have a vote in the UK Parliament’s democratic processes, the ones he spent two and half years saving from the SNP.
A case for him, McTernan, McDougall and that bitter man Mr Massie of the Biter being bit.
Vince,
Got to agree I thought Angus was poor tonight.
Owing to my law abiding nature and my refusal to fund the BBC – I’ve just watched Question Time on aye-player.
If Sturgeon won the BBC debate 3-1, Angus Robertson won QT 3-0
Donald Urquhart says:
shows clip of Nicola saying ” I think it’s a disgrace that David Cameron is not here tonight to defend his record” ..
Reeta Chakrabarti then states .. ” Nicola Sturgeon, quite aggressive…”
Surprising her husband is a Scot, from Glasgow
Love the photo. The winners are the three anti austerity leaders. Very interesting Battleground April result on respected Electoral Calculus website….
SNP CHOOSE THE WINNER AND LOOSER…
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
EXCELLENT 🙂
Vince, Paul
Re Angus..on 2 occasions Dimbleby refused him right to reply and didnt demand Yvette Cooper answered Angus’ question to her regards Labour willing to let the Tories in.
Nicola superb, better, if possible, than on previous debates. Well done, Alex and the Party for giving her the time, opportunity and nurturing she needed to develop her personality and ideas which have completely fitted her for the Leadership. She is a magnificent successor to Alex Salmond. A brilliant Scottish female politician and an inspiring and engaging role model for Scottish women. She really is in a class of her own. Je Suis Nicola!
http://caltonjock.com/2015/04/16/austerity-condem-labour-policy-let-them-eat-stovies-snp-policy-we-exist-to-serve-the-nation-not-to-be-serviced-by-it/
That photo sums up the state of the ‘United’ Kingdom.
It can’t last much longer.
Rev, a brilliant picture.
Harmony! We can and will work together fuck the Tories and Labour.
A picture paints a thousand words…
I hope that this the day that British Politics changed for the better?
Natalie Bennett.I realise she has to try to be relevant in this election campaign,but I find it a bit disappointing that she isn’t pushing the environmental arguments more.Not because I’m particularly green,but because it would make a fine and interesting change from The Deficit.
Leanne Wood.Good.Likeable.Nicolas presence is maybe a double edged sword for her.
Nigel Farage.Dont much agree with him but he used to stir things up a bit atleast.I’m bored with him now but his pitch tonight was to his core support and I think it would work for them.
Ed Miliband.Not very inspiring.A bit insipid.Will definitely need the SNP to give him backbone.Better than a blue Tory.I suppose.
Nicola Sturgeon.Winner.
Portillo just called Nicola, Leanne and Natalie ‘oddballs’
Possibly the best compliment they’ve ever had.
The picture reminds me of The Three Graces. Quite apt.
@Clootie & Macart
“Macart we have to have that pint!”
1st May Counting House, Glasgow?
Honestly just heard Michael Portillo refer to Nicola Sturgeon as an oddball! Totally dumbstruck!
Awe shit, Nicola Sturgeon has been spotted by the Telegraph going into the French Embassy in London.
Only Joking…..I think!
Probably the North Korean Embassy by Saturdays exclusive “secret document uncovered” story.
Hector, 12.15 – totally agree.
Training Day 12.17 Hope you are right.
I have posted that picture to my timeline on Facebook and I would urge all of you on FB to do likewise. Spread the word of our wonderful Nicola and allies.
Excellent analysis Stu…
Nothing to add to it
desimond at 12.11
Yes. I thought Angus didn’t get back in when he should have to answer Piers Morgan and Jo Swinson
It is also about time that we started pointing out that “our country” is Scotland
Impressed with Natalie Bennett.
Missed the debate but will catch up tomorrow. Sounds like it will be worth it.
Why have Cameron down as a winner when he didn’t participate? Sounds to me as though he was irrelevant.
RT has an article on Tories bankrolled by offshore hedge funds. Probably won’t be on the BBC or Telegraph. Or Express. Is he for sale to the highest bidder?
http://rt.com/uk/250325-tories-bankrolled-hedgefunds-industry/
Dave McEwan Hill says:
17 April, 2015 at 12:57 am
desimond at 12.11
‘…..It is also about time that we started pointing out that “our country” is Scotland….’
Isn’t it just so telling that each and every unionist politician thinks Britain is a country and that Scotland has just kinda morphed into a region of England?
I really don’t know how you could answer such a nonsensical statement/proposition and I’m sure our Robert Peffers would be apoplectic and that’s not even going where our wee Welsh darling is also getting it all wrong on the Barnett Formula and Scotland’s apportionment.
As for Farage – there’s no point in trying to correct his ‘understanding’ of the loads of money that he’ll immediately stop coming Scotland’s way via Barnett. Plonkers never learn!
Nicola won the debate hands down – and boy she didn’t miss anybody in her sights either.
It depends how you define “wining”. Nicola sturgeon was undoubtedly the best debater tonight and on that basis won (although she was helped by a number of nifty assists by Bennett and Wood).
But from looking at it from a different prospective I would say that Leanne has been the biggest winner. There was a voter recognition poll conducted in Wales six months ago, only about 35% of those polled recognised Leanne (only 45% recognised what’s his name? – the Labour FM) if a similar poll was held tomorrow Leanne would, probably, be the most recognisable Welsh politician.
It might seem paltry in comparison to SNP polling predictions but Plaid started this election campaign scoring 9% in the (very few) Welsh opinion polls – after the last leaders debate Plaid went up to 12% a 25% increase and enough to change the party’s prospects from having 2 or 3 MPs to having 5 or 6, if Leanne’s appearance last night consolidates that surge she has “won” the debate if it causes another 25% increase in Plaid support she will have absolutely slam-dunked it. And whatever the result in the Westminster election Leanne has given Plaid one heck of a kick start to the more important Senedd election next year.
Loving the way that the panicky unionist parties and media are going on about the potential SNP massacre of labour in Scotland and the ignorant language used to describe any influence in WM.
At this rate the tories will be on the phone to labour begging Milliband to give us independence, never mind anything else we might extract for support !!
What did they expect after the referendum from a nation who has people who punch out burning terrorists !!
Scots will never get to the “back of the bus” ever again, so time WM dealt with it.
Forgot to add.
When Ed tried to hack up the 7.6 billion line Nicola completely ignored him, the audience didn’t react and he never mentioned it again !
Considering Murphy is going large on this till polling day, was this a massive slap from Ed to Murphy again ?
I agree entirely with your analysis of the debate, but the great difficulty is that the majority of the population did not watch it. A larger number of people will get their impression from the utterly biased media analysis of what happened.
That is why the ground war – canvassing and leafleting – and social media remains so important to us, even when things seem to be going so well. We all need to redouble our efforts. I am feeling guilty that I have done very little canvassing so far.
Miliband and wee Willie Haig have smart (expensive) tailors, but off the peg rhetoric. Would be Emperor Miliband looks as though he has left his cubicle and forgot his swimming trunks. Nicola fairly demolished him. He just could not put enough distance between him and Cameron to matter.
Miliband has obviously been briefed not to repeat Murphy’d boorish behaviour and pretended to listen to his opponent, mainly oor Nicola.
I put the debate on for less than 10 minutes. After this wee belter – “the Labour leader swam the Channel then hitched a lift on the Costa Concordia for the last mile.” I think I’ll watch it tonight.
S’fumny, the BBC only mentioned the Survation poll (giving Ed the winner’s rosette)
@ Clootie
Getting thirsty right enough. 🙂
Pienaars interviewing technique was train wreck stuff.
I have never seen a more boorish example of self centric journalism in my entire life.
Yes Nicola stole the show……..but she did it by asking the questions of Niliband that any and every competent hack should have been asking him since the election was called.
If I had to pick a PM out of that panel it wouldn’t be Ed.
Most polls put him second-last and only just ahead of Farage, though a single Survation one did give him a narrow win over Sturgeon.
And guess what poll the BBC decided to mention. You would think that there were other polls out there, and to think that all those other polls declared that Sturgeon won it by a country mile.
If Miliband, as you say Stuart, did listen to Jim Murphy, then he’s not helping his case. If it turns out that Ed listened to Jim, then what it portrays is a man who can be easily led down the garden path by far, far weaker members of his party. It plays right to the heart of the Tory masses as well as the Undecideds that Sturgeon, Robertson and Salmond will play him so sweetly like a maestro with a violin. It literally was snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Surely someone in the Labour Party must be telling him that Scottish Labour are toxic and that he needs to quietly dump them. He can revolutionise the Scottish Labour Party from within by clearing house if he does do a deal with the SNP, and thus if his government does great things for the people throughout the UK, then it can only re-ignite Scottish Labour. What he did last night was give an image to Scotland that he prefers the Tories in power rather than work with the SNP. He may as well have laid a wreath out on stage for the Scottish Labour party.
Miliband should have said something on the lines that, ‘I will listen to the UK Electorate and see what they suggest’. With that, he is asserting that the people are in control, and that he will listen to them. To say that he personally, won’t work with the SNP is seen to be arrogant. Just as he demands that Nicola veto any future Referendum in Scotland (and we know she can’t because authority lies with the people), he should have done the same when Nicola offered him a coalition deal by saying that he will listen to the UK electorate (and thus once again, proving that authority lies with the people). All he did was say that ‘I’m in control. You’re all wrong. End of!’
Seems he has forgotten one of the key things about power and authority.
X_Sticks says:
The picture reminds me of The Three Graces. Quite apt
Aaargh!!! That was it! I couldn’t remember the term for it last night, and called them the three sisters.
Damn you, X-Sticks …damn you LOL You beat me with the correct terminology! Salute!
The majority support Nicola in the rest of the UK. The SNP policies are the one’s they want. The majority in the UK want a fairer more equal society where the vulnerable are taken care of and Health/Education are protected. That is what the ConDems promised. Not an idealogical drive to cut taxes, target the vulnerable and increase the wealth of the wealthiest that caused the crash.
Since the CibDems came to power they have lost tax revenues of £134Billion a year. Enough to protect NHS/Education and to pay off the deficit. They are raising the tax threshold to £12,500. The most vulnerable students, pensioners and the sick, live on less than £10,000 a year. The increased threshold will not help them and there will be no funds to help them and protect NHS/Education.
Farage doesn’t say where the people are migrating from to Europe. The Middle East. It is Germany who takes 20% of the migrants. UK/US and France have responsibility for the problems in the Middle East and the migration into Europe.
The SNP has never offered a Coalition Gov just support to form a Gov. Then vote by vote.
State Broadcaster Breakfast and Good Morning Empire stating Milliband clear winner. I must’ve been watching something else.
Update – true to form Good Morning North Britain saying Milliband winner in polls and social media.
Mojo says @ 10.52pm
“Did anyone else notice that D Dimbleby was wearing a tie with a fish pattern….. could he be a secret Sturgeon fan….?”
What do you think his chat up line would have been?
your plaice or mine?
Ah’ll,eh get ma sou’wester. 🙂
___________________________________________________
David Wardrope says @11.03pm
“Sturgeon was immense for me, my wife said she didn’t think she was THAT good, But it came out a bit huffy. I really need to stop prattling on about Nicola so much in the house…”
See where your going with that one fella,
that could be the reason my wife is not too enamored with Leanne Wood, maybe its the drool running down my chin and my (soto voce) humina humina humina that gave me away? 🙁
____________________________________________________________
JLT says@ 11.05pm
“The three moirai …or we as know them, the three sisters.”
Or the the three graces even?
http://tinyurl.com/o7nlxbo
Ooh er missus. 🙂
_________________________________________________________
FairFerfochen says@ 11:22 pm
John Pienaar looks completely wrong for this job. Keep having visions of him hanging off an apache helecopter with a fcuking great gattling gun.
Wrong! Wrong! Just Wrong!
Or like this maybe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxJjvBJvCpQ
_____________________________________________________________
Handandshrimp says @ 11.42
“I did think it was really weird that Pienaar (himself a left over from Spitting Image) managed to pull two UKIP supporters out of the audience when Nigel got barely a single clap. How the hell did he manage that?”
Just like that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHYnahPkJI8
______________________________________________________________
Boris says (respec)@12.10
“Reeta Chakrabarti then states .. ” Nicola Sturgeon, quite aggressive…”
Surprising her husband is a Scot, from Glasgow”
She’ll be used tae gettin a Glesca kiss then. 🙂
____________________________________________________________
Donald Anderson says @5.34am
“Miliband and wee Willie Haig have smart (expensive) tailors, but off the peg rhetoric.”
Ooh thats good can I use it? 🙂
Great screengrab Rev.
Reminds me of the three graces sculpture in the Scottish National Gallery.
@Jim McIntosh says: 16 April, 2015 at 11:21 pm:
“O/T – It’s telling that there is uproar in England that 40 SNP MPs might be able to influence the governance of the UK but Grant Chapps can admit on QT that 11,300 people voting differently in 23 constituencies in England will give a Tory majority and no one blinks an eye.”
Whoa! Jim, Let’s just examine that – but let’s also look at the real facts and not with Establishment linguistic tricks and propaganda phrases that you seem to have fallen for the latter.
First you state, “uproar in England”..
You follow that with, “governance of the UK”.
Then swap back to, “23 constituencies in England”.
Now consider this – by keeping the Westminster Parliament as the, (unelected as such), de facto parliament of England it is really not the governance of the UK in the middle statement it is the governance of England and that is why they are up in arms about it.
Likewise this, “English votes for English matters”, Unionist caper that also sounds reasonable. That is it’s reasonable only if the United Kingdom Parliament were not already actually the de facto parliament of England.
That is not my imagination for that de facto parliament of England funded a Civil Service published paper that claimed the United Kingdom actually is the Kingdom of England Parliament. Remember David Mundell quoted it as, “The Treaty Of Union extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as the United Kingdom”.
There might be a case to argue that, by a marriage between the two equally sovereign kingdoms, it extinguished BOTH former kingdoms but no argument whatsoever that only one was extinguished and the other changed its name.
That, though, is exactly what the propaganda linguistic tricks of conflating the terms England, United Kingdom, Great Britain and Britain is designed, and constantly forced upon us, is intended to achieve.
By Scots, Welsh and N. Irish also using these terms wrongly they not only do the Establishment’s propaganda for them but show they accept it.
There is no doubt that the United Kingdom Parliament really is the Parliament of England and the 533 MPs from English Constituencies are English Parliament members but Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish Members are also members of the Parliament of England. Which is why Englanders want them debarred from interfering it the English Parliament’s business.
That worked well,
NOT 🙁
http://tinyurl.com/l4nyood
At first I couldn’t think what Milliband was doing, more or less rejecting the SNP out of hand. It seemed that he was leaving himself no room to manoeuvre. Of course he is under pressure from the English electorate to avoid any dealings with a party that would “break up Britain”‘ but there had to be more to it than that. It wasn’t until I saw the latest poll findings later on that I realised how close he is to being able to form a rainbow coalition whigh excludes the SNP. On these figures it would take only a few fewer losses for Labour in Scotland, a few more gains in England, a few fewer losses to the LibDems across the UK , the cooperation of Plaid Cwmry and the Greens and a majority could be achieved which could defeat both the conservatives and the SNP. Milliband hasn’t rejected the possibility of an arrangement with any of them in such a definite way. That’s what he’s gambling on. Furthermore, it would put the SNP in the impossible situation, as far as Scotland is concerned, of having to side with the Tories to defeat Labour.
@ X_Sticks
My badge is on order donchaknow. 🙂
There would not need to be £7Billion of spending cuts in a year in Scotland. That is a deficit because of Westminster policies. Scotland raises and spends £54Billion. £35Billion block Grant, £16Billion (UK) Pensions/benefits and £3Billion Defence. Scotland could raise even more and spend less. Oil in the West, cut Trident/illegal wars, tax on ‘loss leading’ drink. Corp tax which goes through UK HQ’s, tax on non productive land (estates) – land is exempt from tax etc. – £10Billion.
Scotland only has a Defict because the rest of the UK raises (pro rata) less in tax £412 and borrows £90Billion. (more pro rata)
Hstorically Westminster has secretly taken the equivalent if £Billions from Scotland. The McCrone Report kept secret for over 30 years. Thatcher ‘This must be kept secret’ written on documents released last year. Thatcher took all the Oil revenues spent them on London S/E and destroyed the Scottish economy.
Survation poll in Scotland gave Nicola 78% Miliband 17%
Another plain to see, common sense show by Nicola.
The simple answer to the question:”Will you mr Milliband..join with SNP to keep the tories out if there is a hung parliament”?..Answer : It does not matter which of these two parties are in power as they are both owned by the same nameless people, who don’t have the ordinairy peoples interest at heart.This is why he is not biting Nicola’s hand off at the wrist with this front door key to no.10.
You can just see Milliband saying
“can I have a hug”?
What is with these people insisting that we clearly want a Labour government so we should simply vote for one?
What part of NO WE FUCKING DONT does he not get but his party is the one we can manipulate so suck it up pal,
YOU ARE NOT OUR FRIEND AND NO YOU CANT HAVE A HUG!
I thought Nicola skooshed it, and the other two females did OK also, Angus more than held his own on Question Time, especially considering he was sat next to that odious, pretentious prat of an ex Sun editor Piers Morgan!!!
@JimW
Whit ???
“Furthermore, it would put the SNP in the impossible situation, as far as Scotland is concerned, of having to side with the Tories to defeat Labou” ?
No sooner said than sourced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Graces_(sculpture)
Here tae help. 🙂
Mags Curran on BBC r4 news with Jim Naughty explaining that Scots polls are closing and there will be no coalition with SNP and Sturgeon is a right meany to SLabour, all of which Naughty thanks her for. So that’s it bish bosh BBC etc.
Neither Mags or Jim sound that confident their Scotland region polls are closing though.
Wow
there are just days when you shouldn’t have gotten out of bed John
DAMMIT
take 27
http://tinyurl.com/mdys2ok
From the looks of that screen grab, I think Ed just wanted a group hug too. Aw.
Labour are still exploiting the lie it was the SNP who abstained letting Thatcher into No 10.
I need only recall the image of Hapless Gordon welcoming her back to No 10, and Blair saying how much he admired her, to know who handed over the UK to brutal neo-cons.
I noticed a sharp shift in BBC commentary this morning at around quarter to eight.
Prior… Miliband rejects offer of coalition(time and time again)
Post… Miliband rejects offer to work with
It only took ten hours for them to get it right. Biased broadcasting corporation.
Take seriously Miliband’s ‘No deal with SNP’.
He means it.
Westminster has used Scotland as a private bank for decades, in resources and people, and now blocks our democratic rights to remind us we are not really or ever were part of the UK. Those who voted NO now understand what they voted for.
You cannot get a better example of a criminally anti-democratic bunch of hoodlums at work as Westminster’s idea of who runs Greater England.
Only thing that is closing is the expenses free for all shop, that scottish labour have been operating for god knows how long.
Tick tock.
Miliband can say all he wants, but people in scotland just don’t believe him, I doubt the english do either.
It’s a bit like them selling the whole ‘you can’t use the pound’ thing during the ref, no one really believed them.
For those scattering the road to Westminster with rose petals this is worth a read:
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/slipping-in-westminster-slop/
That is one great screengrab.
Miliband’s body language reeks of one who knows the game’s up.
It’s all in the picture, and you’ve got an absolute classic there… The three graces in a huddle, and cousin Dis.
John Pienaar unfortunately is just like a lot of the people in the BBC: smug and arrogant. Someone with basic manners would know that you interview the person who has been waiting to speak the longest but instead Pienaar ignored Humza Yousaf and went straight to The Penguin and then had the nerve to cut off Humza when he tried to speak. An absolute oaf of a man.
Many years ago I used to comment on the BBC The Editors blog and the sheer arrogance and ignorance shown by the people in the BBC, before they cut off all the comments, just beggared belief. Impartial and objective? You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at that.
Chalks says
“It’s a bit like them selling the whole ‘you can’t use the pound’ thing during the ref, no one really believed them.”
I think enough people did chalks.
Grouse Beater says:
17 April, 2015 at 8:34 am
Labour are still exploiting the lie it was the SNP who abstained letting Thatcher into No 10.
Takes you back though, AC/DC were great back then too, Bon Scott still hadn’t chocked on his own vomit etc
From now on though, BBC and all UKOK meeja say vote SLabour Scotland region, you wont get a coalition and you will let Cameron back in, and it will be all your fault too small, stupid, poor little Scotland region.
BBC r4 news full on headline now, vote SNP get Cameron. All of it shows how wildly desperate they are now.
To be fair Professor dandruff declares Sturgeon the winner
https://archive.today/n0fXb
Debate being discussed on Radio Scotland now
Call 0500 92 95 00. Text 80295.
Email morningcallscotland@bbc.co.uk
I see above that the idea is that labour can form a coalition with the lib dems, plaid, greens and uncle tom cobbley. I saw nothing to suggest that plaid or greens are up for that, and I do not see that a coalition with the lib dems will help labour in any way. Don’t think that people see them as different from the tories, really, and I am not detecting any enthusiasm for them in coalition with anyone. It might happen, but I think it would be electoral suicide for labour in the long run. It comes back to the focus on the swing voter, which has been logical in the past: but it is not logical if it alienates the core vote, which is now taken for granted. Because they, too, can change, as we see in Scotland.
Can’t really imagine Jim,Willie and Ruth pulling off the post debate 3 graces hug. Or Dave,Nick and Ed for that matter.
“There is still a lot to play for in Glasgow,” he insists. “Scottish Labour are the only party being honest and upfront with voters by funding our plans through fair taxes on those at the top, and that we’ll use those taxes to deliver additional investment, with an extra £1bn in our NHS and £1bn in our young people. Elections are about choices. The choice in this one is clear. Glasgow can protest against the Tories by voting for lots of different parties but the city can only help change the government by voting Labour.”
Creepy Murphy gets lovely boost from red tory The Guardian. Which part of creepy Jim talk is actually true? “Elections are about choices” and that’s true I suppose.
Creepy old ragin Jim, he worked so hard with the tory party last year and now cant understand why its all over for SLabour now, maybe.
Imagine the pressure all the BBC shills are under in Pacific Quay right now. Jacky Bird on extra extra strength botox, Sir Gordon Brewer on even stronger anti anxiety/sweat tabs, that wet fart Cooke hiding under his bed from vile separatists.
JimW 8:04am
Thats an interesting scenario. Seems unlikely, unless Lab and Libdem both do better than forecast. Then if the SNP do as well as forecast, it would be effectively locking Scotland out of WM. There would be no point even turning up.
Now WM would hope this would encourage us to vote ‘correctly’ in future, however I hope it would raise the question in more peoples minds ‘Whats the point of Westminster?’
Anyway sod all this speculation, Ive got a day off and hundreds of houses to leaflet 🙂
In polls Labour are improving, perhaps even edging ahead in rUK.
Milliband has been doing better in debates than perhaps expected.
Constituency boundaries and spread of votes mean that if Con are 2% ahead of Lab, they can expect similar number of seats – if they are on the same percentage, Lab can expect 20 more seats.
On current polling, Lab are about 40 short of a majority. If they gain a few more points in rUK AND the SNP only take half of Lab’s Scottish seats, we might see Lab with a small majority.
Even if short of a majority, Lab could turn to what’s left of LibDems to sneak over the winning line.
There would seem to be a very real possibility Lab may rule without SNP support.
To ensure SNP strength at WM we all need to get out and take as many Lab seats as possible!,
9.15 am Why am I stuck on the last posting Mr Obycyek 8.36 am
anybody having problems getting the site upadated.
@Macart
“My badge is on order donchaknow.”
Aye, I ken, but don’t know if Clootie knows about the CH 😀
I thought it was a mistake that David Cameron was not going to attend the debate – but, after watching, it may well have been a masterstroke.
There stood five leaders of their parties – and all of them (maybe with the exception of Farage but he is unlikely to have any relevant number of seats), they were united in one thing. They will work together, regardless of their differences, to ensure that there is absolutely not, under any circumstances, a Conservative (or Con/Dem) government.
To paraphrase, every party represented in the debate is determined to ensure that the party that will have a majority in England – will not get into government.
Whilst I am not expecting sympathy, I think you will at least agree that an anti-english coalition will have considerable repercussions for the future.
I watched some of the debate and hoped Milliband would show some backbone for once.
Absolutely no glimmer of empathy, only the hard working need look to labour for succour. If you are disabled or sick you can look elsewhere.
A bought and paid for politician, abject waste of space. I would’nt give him the keys to the cludgie let alone the keys to No 10.
Obvious from the joke of an ‘after debate spin room bullshiting tory style’ the country is led by city spivs.
Sooner we get the hell out of this union the better.
The point, sensible dave, is that that party will not have a majority in the UK. And that is the parliament to which this election pertains. If you want an english parliament then the solutions is in english hands.
But sensibledave, you sound like a NO voter.
You got your wish . We are still in the UK and our votes count the same as English votes, so democracy says the largest likeminded group will form the government of the UK.
Now if you really want English votes to carry the day for the Conservatives then there is only one answer and that is removing Scottish voters from the equation.
Maybe soon.
Had a look at Question Time – and Angus did well
Sensibledave says @9.27
“Whilst I am not expecting sympathy, I think you will at least agree that an anti-english coalition will have considerable repercussions for the future.”
And the Scots who have ONE Tory MP in Scotland should care about that why precisely?
How in GODS name do you equate the total lack of support in Scotland for the Tories as being somehow anti English?
surely having them foist Tory polices on a country that has resisted them at every turn for most of my 60 years of life makes them anti Scottish,
But I suppose that doesn’t count in your veiw.
@9.27 un-sensibledave says:
“Whilst I am not expecting sympathy, I think you will at least agree that an anti-english coalition will have considerable repercussions for the future”
You really must try harder 👿
Also the last time I checked it was the English Green Party. How very anti-English!
Better luck next time 😀
“Whilst I am not expecting sympathy, I think you will at least agree that an anti-english coalition will have considerable repercussions for the future.”
sensibledave says: Project Fear won the day last time, it will this time. Sensibledave, teamGB pleaded and threatened Scots to vote NO and stay in this farce union, so you can hardly now keep threatening us to vote how you want.
How naive am I sensibledave says:D
“Whoa! Jim, Let’s just examine that – but let’s also look at the real facts and not with Establishment linguistic tricks and propaganda phrases that you seem to have fallen for the latter.”
Robert Peffers @8:02
Robert I take your point re linguistic tricks, and I agree it’s in their interests for us to fall into a trap and conflate the terms used. Additionally after reading many posts of yours on here I would never argue with you on constitutional issues :), however my use of England and UK in my post was deliberate.
The uproar over potential SNP influence is in England.
You may be right that it is the ‘de-facto’ English Parliament but our SNP MPs are going down to represent our interests in the UK parliament
Grant Chapps did mention the 23 constituanvies were in England.
@Vince says: 16 April, 2015 at 11:55 pm:
“Angus Robertson, who I have a lot of time for was caught on Question Time unable to answer why the percentage growth in expenditure in the NHS in Scotland has been lower than that in England.
Perhaps you missed what Angus said, Vince?
He made the point that you cannot use just funding to judge between two so dissimilar organizations. The two organizations work in totally different manners. There’s far more funds diverted in the English NHS from both surgical and medical to bureaucracy.
Not to mention medications and other prescription items. You can only make straight comparisons between things identical or closely comparable. Angus did make that point.
The fact that there is something called a spin room just highlights everything that is wrong with the establishment and their media lackeys. The late great Jimmy Reid summed up spin perfectly.
@Nana Smith
I agree with you about Miliband. New Labour keep talking about working people but what about everyone else? A true leader looks after everyone in society. There are many reasons why people might not be able to work and to demonize them and make out that they are all just workshy lazy bums is not just morally wrong but factually wrong as well. Ed Miliband comes across as a stage managed robot. “Let me answer your question directly” he keeps saying as if there is any other way you are supposed to answer a question! He is just so fake just like Jim Murphy and just like so many people in New Labour and in the main parties. In Scotland it at least seems like a lot of people are finally beginning to see them for what they are.
If I hear the phrase “hard working people” one more time I think I will scream. The assumptions behind that phrase are just plain sickening.
@boris says: 17 April, 2015 at 12:10 am:
“Reeta Chakrabarti then states .. ” Nicola Sturgeon, quite aggressive…” Surprising her husband is a Scot, from Glasgow”
Aye!! Boris but Jim Murphy is also a Scot from Glasgow. ‘Nuff said.
@sensibledave
If the “repercussions” result in Scotland never being governed by the Tories again, I think I can live with that.
Or are you suggesting something more sinister?
Although I would also add Humza Yousa to the list of losers. The exchange with Pienaar was unedifying for both, and Yousa came across as very aggressive.
@ fireproof @John @Black etc
I did say that I didn’t expect much sympathy!
Just to correct a few themes above:
1. On balance, I would have prefered the Scots to vote for Independence.
2. I didnt plead with the Scots to stay
3. The people of Scotland voted in a free and fair referendum to reject Independence
4. The english didnt plead and threaten the Scottish electorate.
On the generality of your themes where, to paraphrase “the english are gonna get what they deserve” demonstrates a revealing degree of contempt and antipathy for the normal english voter. It comes as no surprise – but it is somewhat shocking seeing it written down so excitedly.
@Dave McEwan Hill says: 17 April, 2015 at 12:57 am:
” … It is also about time that we started pointing out that “our country” is Scotland
More to the point, Dave, it is long, long past time we told them, “their country”, was neither Britain, Great Britain nor The United Kingdom.
@10:26 sensibledave says
“4. The english didnt plead and threaten the Scottish electorate.”
Hahahahahahaha 😀
Time to ignore the 👿
Once again, sensibledave, you attribute things to people here which they do not say: and calling it a “paraphrase” cannot disguise the fact you are making things up. This is quite a bad habit with you, and you should try to break it. It does nothing to further your argument.
It is a fact that that Scotland has been ruled for the last 5 years by a party which has no legitimacy at all here. And that is true for many of the years since 1980. It is quite hard to see why it is a problem now, particularly when the suggested outcome does not result in an england ruled by a party almost wholly without elected representation. If you think that pointing that out is tantatmount to saying “the english are going to get what they deserve” you are wrong. It is merely to point out that there was no apparent feeling of unfairness when this was the outcome in Scotland: so it is they height of hypocrisy to kick up a fuss now
In face of those outcomes in Scotland, the people campaigned for and secured a scottish parliament. Imperfect, from the point of view of many of us, but at least a legitimate democratic response. English people could do precisely the same thing, if they chose to. It seems they do not want that, but if they do not then they have no case at all, so far as I can see.
If you cannot understand that then it seems to me that is because you are incapable of listening to what is actually being said, and that seems to be because you filter it through your prejudice and your certainty that somehow english people are being done down. I do not wish to overgeneralise, but that is a recurring theme in the english political debate on many issues: I often wonder why there is such a tendency to claiming victimhood, and such a wish to “level down” rather than improve things, within that polity.
You are right you will not get any sympathy: and that is because you are not being disadvantaged in any way at all. If things turn out the way we are discussing you will merely be having a turn at something which is routine in this country. It is a consequence of the way our constitutional arrangements work and of our electoral system. If you do not like it, then change it by securing an english parliament.
Where’s that wally, Carmichael; is he still in hiding?
Also, can someone tell me why right to buy is so wrong when it gave people a chance, due to the discount, to buy a home they may not have afforded otherwise.
More houses need to be built due to a shortage which is not the fault of those that exercised that right to buy.
sensibledave at 10.26
I don’t think anyone is pointing the finger at the average English person. They were (and continuously are) hugely misinformed about Scotland and somehow believe that English tax payers for instance are paying for stuff for Scotland. Scotland has in fact paid more into the UK exchequer that it has had back for the last 34 years as is plainly recorded in official government figures.
Sadly the better Together campaign managed to frighten the less well informed Scot that this was the case and suggest that UK was hanging onto Scotland to subsidise it. Fat chance of that.
Your number 3 point requires some expansion. The election was “free and fair” only if you believe that virtually all the media and,quite disgracefully, the BBC railed against the YES campaign on a daily basis with a collection of scaremongering,distortions and downright lies and gave very little balanced coverage to the YES campaign.
Many people have now wakened up and seen this. Many others don’t believe the recorded result and this worry is growing.
I suspect the 7th May will see Scotland’s revenge on the cheats and liars – and the Labour Party (founded on Home Rule for Scotland) that played for the other side.
Mr Milliband maybe a nice guy. Scotland doesn’t hear anything he is saying.
So what’s you problem sensibledave says? Vote NO, Vote Creepy Jim and once and for all, shut up vile separatismists? Dickhead.
Jim – It’s not wrong to own your house or have the right to buy in theory. The Scottish goverement abolished it for one reason.
Right to buy meant that local authority housing stock became private overnight in the 80’s. It’s a question of supply. If local authority housing is taken away then the goverment and local authorities have to keeo replensihsing stock removed fro the local authority. It means stock housing supply diminishes and the year on year cost to replace is astronomical.
The private housing and local authority housing must be kept that way. If people want to buy a house then do so on the private market.That leaves the utility stock for those that need housing or want to rent.
Germany has one of the highest local authority and rental stock in europe. Germans se no real value in home ownership. They have a different philosophy than the UK has.
MrObycyek says: “The fact that there is something called a spin room just highlights everything that is wrong with the establishment and their media lackeys.”
ITV also called it a spin room after their debate. The difference was that the people they interviewed afterwards were pundits being asked – not unreasonably – “Who do you think won the debate?”. The BBC, by contrast, led with interviews with representatives from to parties what had not bothered to turn up.
geeo says: 17 April, 2015 at 1:50 am:
“When Ed tried to hack up the 7.6 billion line Nicola completely ignored him, the audience didn’t react and he never mentioned it again”
The point about all these claims is that they all rely upon the methods used by the Establishment to, “Explain”, (for explain read complicate), how the United Kingdom, (for United Kingdom read England), is funded.
Their explanations always rely upon them making false or imagined claims. Sometimes omitting figures or assigning to England or the United Kingdom things that actually should not be included as such. It really is Creative Accounting. If anyone takes the time to decipher the twisted logic and reduces the actual arithmetic to simple arithmetic it suddenly all becomes clear.
They can produce screeds of convoluted English language explanations and further screeds of complex figures to prove any damned thing the want but in doing so the are deliberately confusing the issues and diverting away from real simple calculations. The system is chosen to make it complex.
In the end the calculations are as simple as this : –
(a) – Identify properly what item is assigned to each United Kingdom country by an equal set of rules.
(b) – State properly the cost of that item.
(c) – properly identify if it is a positive or a negative
(d) – add together the positives and also do so with the negatives.
Take the negatives away from the total and you have either a positive or negative answer.
Fact (using ONS figures) – The Scottish per capita GDP is higher than that of any other UK country. Thus on a per capita basis Scots pay most into the United Kingdom coffers.
Having watched the 2 National (UK) debates, the 2 Scottish debates and last Sunday’s shouting shambles I got to wondering how Eck would have done compared to Nicola if he had still been FM and Leader.
Much as as I admire Eck’s debating ability and general political talents I find it difficult to see how he could have done better than Nicola in the 2 National debates – in particular as regards the positive reaction to Nicola south of the border.
As regards the 2 Scottish debates I reckon there would be little to differentiate between their performances while Eck would have taken Murphy apart in Sunday’s shambles and just wouldn’t have put up with Brewer’s non-existent moderation.
@Jim
I will tell you what I think about the “right to buy”, if you are interested.
Your question implies that it is self evident that home ownership is a good thing for everyone, but you do not spell out why you believe that. These unquestioned assumptions are irritating, so perhaps you can actually say what the benefits of home ownership are?
I will lay out some of the downside, since that is my responsiblity in deciding to respond to you.
1. Broadly based social renting was the norm in Scotland before 1980 and it meant that the pattern of our communities was very different from what we see now. Where I grew up there were teachers and dustmen and the unemployed and tradesmen all living side by side and this had the benefit of making it harder to divide and rule: you knew a little more about the circumstances of those who were not in your own income bracket and that bred a sense of inclusiveness. I think the destruction of that may have been unintended, but part of me suspects it was deliberate, for as I understand it the attitude to home ownership was always very different in the south east. Council housing was always a last resort there, and that meant it was always the ghetto. I am not saying we did not have awful council estates in Scotland, btw: we did and some of the planning errors after WW2 left a sad legacy: but they were not nearly so bad as the factored lets which went before, with toilets on the stairhead and overcrowded single ends. We forget the hope with which people were housed in properties with inside toilets and rooms on the basis of need.
2. When a young couple got a council house, they were apt to get a small flat. But when they had children they would get a house suitable to the size of their family. That could take some time, for there were never enough houses, but it was a right and it would happen. Those same young couples who were encouraged to buy the original flat could not actually afford it – hence the discount. What that meant was that they could not move to bigger houses when they had children. Certainly they could make a profit when they sold the small flat: but not enough to cover the cost of a bigger house, because they could not buy it outright and wages were not high enough to cover the shortfall in the form of a mortagage, in many cases. Thus many low paid and unemployed couples ended up in overcrowded accommodation, and so were in a worse position than they would have been in council housing
3. Many people bought into the idea that they would at least have something to leave to their children, and that was heavily promoted at the time. Since the policy itself has resulted in very high house prices interest rates are kept low, of necessity. That has meant that those who have some surplus have few options if they wish to behave responsibly in terms of saving and providing for themselves in later life: property is the only form of saving which has offered a return equal to or greater than inflation. But the fact is that this idea of having something to leave is a lie for most: the value of the house is considered as wealth when it comes to paying for care in later life, and there is nothing left for the children at the time of death. It was just a con.
4. Those same children do not have access to good quality social housing because those are the properties most likely to be sold off. The outcome of that is that they must pay very high rent to private landlords, either directly, or through housing benefit. The quality of the houses they can rent is not good, and the rents mean that they are not able to save to buy in the long run, as some who lived in council housing in the past could do. We are apt to think very short term, but these consequences are very evident now with “generation rent” being noticed for the first time. Those who opposed the right to buy were very well aware of these things when it was first promulgated, but it seems they were not clear to a majority at the time: but we cannot claim ignorance now.
5. When housing is provided by the public sector the repairs are the responsibility of the council. Many people who bought those houses were not in a position to cover those costs, and were not used to thinking about them. So we see the housing stock deteriorate when repairs are not done. Again there were often delays in the council maintenance of the stock, but they did get done: now they don’t.
6. It is reasonably common for councils to undertake extensive refurbishment programmes on their housing stock: so, for example, my mother benefitted from this, and double glazing, new bathroom and kitchen, new roof and central heating etc were all done, maintaining the value of the property, reducing energy consumption, and generally ensuring she participated in improvements which have become normal expectations these days. But those who bought those same houses do not benefit from those initiatives and they cannot afford to make the same changes. So their living standards are lower and their energy consumption etc is worse.
I could go on. I won’t. But those are a few of the things I think about on the question of housing. I look forward to your outline of the benefits as you see them
@ Fiona 10.45
Just a couple of examples:
1. regarding Blackdouglas 10.44 “the English didn’t threaten the Scottish electorate – haaaahaaahaaa!”
– As you seem to be one of the more reasonable commenters, can you tell me how the “english” threatened you?
regarding Heedtracker “teamGB pleaded and threatened Scots to vote NO and stay in this farce union, so you can hardly now keep threatening us to vote how you want”
-Team GB is, I assume, a reference to the Party leaders – whereas the use of the word “you” is clearly aimed at me specifically or perhaps, more broadly, the english voter?
In what way did I threaten anyone to vote how I want? How would an unbiased arbiter interpret those sentiments? Would he/she be wrong to detect some broadstroke stereotyping of the “english” voter?
It is the use of insidious, lazy, stereotyping (bordering on racism) where the terms “the English”, “Westminster”, “Cameron”, “Miliband” are used almost interchangeably. The objective being to paint them all together as bogeymen and as being the enemy of the Scottish voter.
In addition, it is gobsmacking, when SNP supporters here seem to hold everyone else responsible for Scotland remaining part of the Union – other than the majority of Scots that voted for it!
Economist cites Sturgeon as strongest performer and Cameron as a loser on the grounds of his being seen as “Too Posh to Push”: https://archive.today/p4UCG
Un-sensibledave @ 11:38
1. Pleading http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9qjomKLtBA
2. Threatening https://archive.today/ObUAy
Now, if you’re to be taken seriously please evidence your allegations otherwise you are just another here today gone tomorrow 👿
“In what way did I threaten anyone to vote how I want? How would an unbiased arbiter interpret those sentiments? Would he/she be wrong to detect some broadstroke stereotyping of the “english” voter?
It is the use of insidious, lazy, stereotyping (bordering on racism) where the terms “the English”, “Westminster”, “Cameron”, “Miliband” are used almost interchangeably. The objective being to paint them all together as bogeymen and as being the enemy of the Scottish voter.”
sensibledave says: all a load of union jack pants. How do you know voters like me are not English sensibledave, or half English or a quarter etc?
That’s pretty all you need for an answer sensibledave. Oh and this is still a fcuking democracy sensibledave says: whether all you bettertogether but vote who we say clowns like it or not.
#Dickhead
‘john king says:
17 April, 2015 at 9:01 amChalks says
“It’s a bit like them selling the whole ‘you can’t use the pound’ thing during the ref, no one really believed them.”
I think enough people did chalks’
I disagree entirely and I’d also wager that the intervention by osborne pushed thousands into the yes camp.
It was the first unveiling of the curtain to people and once people got upset about the gall of them, they didn’t stop on their voyage.
Some may have been affected by it, but certainly not an amount that would have made us win.
Such an intervention only heightened the disbelief labour supporters were in after seeing their own party back osborne.
Now look at us.
@sensibledave
In your own post you stated :
I think you will at least agree that an anti-english coalition will have considerable repercussions for the future.
Firstly, no coalition is on offer, I’m sure you are aware of that. Even so, it what way could any coalition with any party be “anti-English” when the majority in that coalition are English?
These “repercussions” you speak of are implied threats to the people of Scotland, or am I mistaken. What type of “repercussions” do you forsee if Labour and the SNP form a loose vote by vote allience?
It seems to me Dave that your difficulty is that you assume anti-establishment and anti neo-liberalism is the same thing as anti-English. Sorry, but that is pish.
I assume that ALL English are my friends until I find out through personal interaction that they are not.
I can be and am friends with people that vote Tory, it is though their politics I despise. So you see, it has NOTHING to do with the person or the birthplace of that person, only their political view that I may disagree with.
We can hate Westminster without hating the people that put them in power. Can you understand that?
Robert Peffers 11.21
I agree with your summary. Clearly though, the Union is not supposed to be about each country getting back what they contributed.
Let us, for the sake of this discussion, just accept that both Scotland and England generate above the union average revenues.
It is the job of “Westminster” to distribute and share the total receipts to the individual countries, using some formula (currently that is the Barnett formula), on the basis of the perceived special needs/requirements of each of the countries in the Union.
Currently the spending per capita (in descending order) is NI 10.9k, Scotland 10.1k, Wales 9.8k, England 8.5k.
It is clear therefore that the rest of the Union would struggle if Scotland left the Union?
I am therefore left wondering why the lady from Plaid is so pleased with herself and so pally with Ms Sturgeon?
Scottish Independence would certainly hurt Wales. Unless of course she thinks that Wales and NI per capita spend would stay the same whilst the english spend would drop?
The increasingly-rubbish and frantically anti-SNP, anti-Scottish independence, pro-Brit Establishment Guardian with great excitement announced Ed Miliband as the debate winner citing the pro-Labour Mirror outlier poll.
Labour propagandist, Polly Toynbee, predictably had Ed as the standout winner debating against “a lineup of the second division”.
She fawned over Miliband being: “Calm, relaxed, even laughing sometimes, he hit all the buttons.”
And this cracker: “His deadly opponent was Nicola Sturgeon. He could have been easy meat for her deft jibes, but with a powerful defence of the union, he more than survived; he might even have retrieved some Scottish votes.”
Just to repeat that last statement, “he might even have retreived some Scottish votes”… Comedy gold award for Toynbee!
Nicola was superb last night, with very solid support from both Leanne and Natalie that served both her and the broader concept of strong rainbow Left influencing Labour in Westminster. A friend down south messaged me to the effect that the three women between them had influenced her to vote Green, which is interesting in itself.
There is no doubt the format and make-up favoured Nicola, but she equally there’s no denying she made the very best advantage of that good fortune – certainly those factors were not any intentional design by the BBC. Her proximity to the reptilian Farage even turned out a bit of a boon as she was best placed to smack him down as his poison farted from his mouth. Even the subsequent snow job by Pineaar, QT and Portillo / Neil smacked of sour grapes and not a little desperation too.
Miliband steered his course reasonably well for most of it and definitely floundered in those closing exchanges, but I’m not sure it will be spun and perceived that way down south. He could have handled it better but I don’t know it’ll do him any harm in terms of his objectives of swinging waverers to vote Labour. For me the biggest loser was Cameron. His team must be ruing their decision to stay out of it, though their strategy of “coalition of chaos” and Etonesque dismissal of the others as “rabble” was clearly set, it made Cameron look arrogant, weak and frit.
Arrogant, weak and frit. That’s definitely a necklace Labour could hang round Cameron’s neck.
As far as the SNP goes, the 20 days remaining will require every ounce of their capacity to bring home those seats. I don’t detect (too) much complacency, but have a slight worry about fatigue amongst the troops who’ve been on the frontline for nearly two years now.
An historic victory is within Scotland’s grasp. Let’s take it.
@Blackdouglas 12.42
You just dont get it do you. Your antipathy is so ingrained now that you are probably beyond redemption.
Let me try just once more. Eddy Izzard is not “the english”. Richard Wilson (a Scot!) is not “the english”, etc, etc. They are just some people that took part in a video for “better together” campaign. They, for whatever reason, choose to air their feelings for the No campaign (money, celebrity, fame, conviction – who knows?).
Nobody asked me! Nobody asked “the english” what they thought about scottish independence. We didnt have a referendum.
Your implicit assumption that “the english” wanted to beg you to stay in the Union is just totally wrong. Most people I spoke to wanted whatever the Scots wanted. The Scots for voted for the Union. So be it.
With respect to “threats” – you pointed me to an article in the Daily Mail. Is that what you think is “the english”? Really?
…. I give in!
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.”
http://wingsoverscotland.com/no-jocks-please-were-british/
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.
Un-sensibledave @1:23
“Your antipathy is so ingrained now that you are probably beyond redemption.”
Antipathy to what?
Why do 👿 always try to play the anti-English card many of the posters on this site who wish to see an Independent Scotland are from all walks of life and nationalities.
It is called civic nationalism but I suppose that is beyond the comprehension of a British ethnic nationalist(see how easy it is to make assumptions about people)
Have a nice weekend and enjoy your righteous indignation. 😀
@heedtracker 12.52 Wrote:
“Oh and this is still a fcuking democracy sensibledave says: whether all you bettertogether but vote who we say clowns like it or not.
#Dickhead
Fiona? Are you still there?
Checkout Heedtracker above. Heaven forbid that i might smear him by suggesting he is guilty of lazy stereotyping. His logic is – I am english, therefore I wanted Scotland to stay part of the Union and am therefore part of the westminster establishment hell bent on continuing oppression of the sweaty socks. Such a reasonable and sensible person!
sensibledave says:
17 April, 2015 at 2:01 pm
@heedtracker 12.52 Wrote:
I’m not following your bleh sensibledave but once again, you won the referendum and now Scotland seems to be voting SNP by a large majority. If that’s upsetting you sensibledave , tough luck. Anyway why do you even bother trying to out creep the vast array of vote SLabour or else gits at the BBC or every newspaper in this farce union.
sensibledave, let the referendum hardened pros like Jacky Bird and Sweaty Brewer get on with their Project Fear 2.0 campaign, is my advise.
@ sensibledave.
It is interesting how you ignore the log in your eye.
You will recall, I am sure, that you have said in the past that the english will not tolerate a strong Scottish influence in parliament. Today, again, you have said
“To paraphrase, every party represented in the debate is determined to ensure that the party that will have a majority in England – will not get into government.
Whilst I am not expecting sympathy, I think you will at least agree that an anti-english coalition will have considerable repercussions for the future.”
From the time when I first became aware of your presence on this board, this has been the burden of your song. It is not we who are making this about the english and the scottish in opposition to each other: it is you.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that you do not actually mean to do that: we are none of us as precise in our language as we should be at all times. But having said that, it is quite hard to believe that you are not expressing your thought clearly since you make a definite distinction between scots and english when talking about the composition of the UK parliament after this election. You have done this so consistently that I am driven to conclude it is in fact what you think. Like it or not, that makes you an english nationalist, in my view.
In reality there is one UK parliament. Every member of that parliament is elected on the same terms. Every member represents a UK constituency. Every member is entitled to seek to represent that constituency to the best of his or her ability, and to take what power they can get in pursuit of that end. If one party gets an overall majority they will govern: and it does not depend on where they have seats. Thus tories have governed for much of the last 4 decades, without any significant representation in Scotland. You raised no objection to that at all. Which can only mean that you consider the UK to be one polity, I assume. But can you not see that raising an objection when the position alters is hypocrisy? Now you are claiming that it is not one polity, to be governed by whichever grouping can command a majority in the HofC, as has been the position for as far back as anyone can remember: for some reason you see it as unfair, all of a sudden, and for no logical reason that I can see.
You have said that someone else has prejudice so engrained he cannot see it: you appear to be describing yourself.
Is it impossible for you to understand that this is not about your narrow conception of nationalism? I don’t give a toss about nationality, as it happens. Some people who care about scottish independence do care, it is true: just as you yourself care about it as is clearly evidenced in your posts.
What I care about is the kind of society I wish to live in: and it is not the neoliberal hell hole which is on offer from all of mainstream Westminster parties. I believe that a great many in england and wales and NI and indeed every part of the world share my view. They do not have the option of expressing that view easily in england, because there is no party they can vote for which represents that position (with the possible exception of the Greens, though their central concerns are rather different).
The two debates in england showed that very clearly. Despite how the media have portrayed the SNP, once exposed to the reality many in england felt that sense of relief which comes from cracking the spiral of silence which bedevils political debate. You say that england is a natural tory heartland, and you may be right: support for labour in the north suggests to me that you are not right, however, and there are also labour constituencies in London and the South East: so even that is not a total geographical split.
Many in Scotland and on this board are erstwhile labour supporters: we did not come to support for independence lightly nor easily. But it has become obvious that labour does not represent social democratic values at all. They have become plutocrats. They have talked one thing and walked another and have relied on class and family loyalty to obscure that fact. Faced with an option of a party which actually embodies those historical values a great many voters are making a move: and some of them are opposed to independence even yet, as you say. Not surprising: independence is a very radical shift for most left wingers. They are imbued with a tradition of internationalism which is very strong and largely unexamined in its implications. But it is being examined now, and it is found wanting.
If the same option were available in england I have no doubt that many would embrace it there too. If labour had not changed its spots, or if england had managed to produce its own alternative, I do not think we would even be having the independence debate. But they did, and england didn’t. So here we are.
You have chosen not to address the points I have tried to raise with you, but rather to continue with your irritating certainty about what all this is about. You do not understand and you are blinded by your nationalism so far as I can see. It leads you to insult us, though I suspect that is not willful. It happens to us a lot in discussion with people who do not live in scotland, and are persuaded, for whatever reason, that they are being victimised. It is a phenomenon also displayed by many americans who are apt to meet any criticism with a presumption that it founds on some elusive concept called “anti americanism”. In both cases it is arrogant and it is annoying. Please stop it
@ sensibledave (2:22 pm)
“Oh and this is still a fcuking democracy sensibledave says: whether all you bettertogether but vote who we say clowns like it or not.
#Dickhead
The part you quote from heedtracker is not entirely clear to me (sorry heedtracker). I think there has been an insertion of “sensibledave says” in the middle of it which renders the meaning unclear.
But if we take that out then the language is intemperate, but the argument is not “anti english” in any way, for reasons which I hope are made clear in my previous post.
You have rendered it thus
His logic is – I am english, therefore I wanted Scotland to stay part of the Union and am therefore part of the westminster establishment hell bent on continuing oppression of the sweaty socks. Such a reasonable and sensible person!
I do not know if heedtracker knows you are english. there is nothing in the part quoted to suggest that he does and it could equally apply to people like Alistair Darling or Gordon Brown or Jim Murphy, all of whom are Scottish. They were all part of “better together”
Nor is there anything to suggest that heedtracker thinks all english people wanted Scotland to remain part of the union. No-one who was actively engaged in the referendum campaign could possibly think that, because there was a strong thread of “widen the vote to england and you will certainly gain independence” which was a part of that debate, and it came largely from england. It existed alongside those english people who tried to persuade us to stay in the union, and although I cannot recall any celebs who took that stance it was very common below the line in place like the Guardian’s CIF feature.
Nothing in heedtracker’s quoted statement says that you are part of the Westminster establishment either. It just isn’t there. Do you ever ask yourself why you are so touchy?
If forced to do so (forgive me heedtracker, this is probably wrong and I await your correction where it is) I would render his or her position thus:
“This is still a democracy, and your argument that there will be adverse “repercussions” if the tories are locked out of government by a grouping which includes labour and the SNP is profoundly undemocratic in itself. From where I am standing it seems that you typify a stance seen in “better together” which argued that we should stay in a union but does not like the way we apparently intend to vote within that union”
Heedtracker does attribute to you support for better together at the time of the referendum. I fully accept your word that you held no such position, then or now.
But that is not anti english in any way, as I hope is now clear. It is true that you appear to object to people like me voting as we think best if the outcome is to exclude the tories from government through the absolutely standard workings of our political system: and whether you realise it or not, that does feel like an attempt to influence the way we vote, backed up by the “threat” of “repercussions”
Would you care to outline what those “repercussions” might be so that we can all see that there is no threat intended?
If forced to do so (forgive me heedtracker, this is probably wrong and I await your correction where it is) I would render his or her position thus:
You’re doing a fine job Fiona. Sorry about my language too.
Brilliant Fiona. 🙂
If i ever get nicked your the first my first call for help.
Unsens/Dave. Picky and glad to get his point over. Heedtracker should ignore him but like many he’s sick to death of the BS from some. We have all been there.
I gave up reading his dross when he argued that we DIDN’T get bullied or abused by the Better Together mob. Selective bugger eh ??
HeedTracker thumbs up from me buddy. Fiona WOW what an addition you’ve become on Wings. More please. 😉
Troll.
maybe you should go back to the Mail or Cif where you might be welcome by the Brit-Nats . Now theres a bunch of Nazi’s for you.
Seconded YESGUY…beautiful deconstruction Fiona…as ever. Heed’s frustration completely understandable…we’re aw tired on a very deep level methinks.
I’m so grateful for Wings and Wingers…not long now people…hold steady.
‘@Yesguy wrote:
“maybe you should go back to the Mail or Cif where you might be welcome by the Brit-Nats . Now theres a bunch of Nazi’s for you.”
For those of you unable to comprehend basic text:
I DID/DO NOT CARE WHETHER SCOTLAND VOTED YES OR NO.
I ONLY WANT WHAT THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND WANT (although I am running out of steam on that one).
I DID NOT VOTE IN THE REFERENDUM – THE SCOTS DID.
There, for those who have a problem getting their heads around even the simplest concepts, I hope that clarifies matters for you.
@sensibledave
I think I asked you two questions which so far you have failed to address.
Now’s your chance:
1. Firstly, no coalition is on offer, I’m sure you are aware of that. Even so, it what way could any coalition with any party be “anti-English” when the majority in that coalition are English?
2. These “repercussions” you speak of are implied threats to the people of Scotland, or am I mistaken. What type of “repercussions” do you forsee if Labour and the SNP form a loose vote by vote alliance?
Have you the balls? I’d like to see them, or do you work for the 77th?
*waits*
Milliband, being leader of a party with approx 35% in the polls, should easily win in a debate against minor parties representing less than 20% of the electorate.
He DID win the vote but only just edged it. He’ll be bricking it.
@thepnr 5.43
Its all right for you lot – you each write one comment then I get 10 to respond to!
With respect to your first point, my “anti-english” coalition comment was in response to the debate last night where all the party leaders (with the exception of Farage, who will be irrelevant) were lining up and stating their main objective as being keeping the Tories out of Office. Yes? The english will most probably vote for a Tory majority. Agreed? Then a coalition/agreement between Labour, SNP, Plaid and the Greens (who have nothing in common other than an anti tory stance) will work together to ensure that The Tories don’t get in? Correct? Hence my comment about anti-english. Not they all hate the english – they hate what the english want.
regarding your second point the “repercussions” was not a threat (why are you so sensitive?) it was an honest observation. Two points. a) Ask yourselves honestly, do you think the situation would tenable where the Scots have their own Parliament, The Welsh and NIs have their Assemblies with various levels of devolved powers – and the English have nothing as well as non English MPs voting on English only matters? Do you think that the English might want change too? There’s one repercussion. Secondly, as stated previously, If Miliband goes into coalition/agreement with the SNP, which both parties have every right to do, then there will, in my view, be repercussions for Labour in England medium term.
Do you disagree with anything I have written.
Finally, Whilst my balls are indeed very attractive, I have no intention of letting you have even the sneakiest peak – you will just have to dream – you saucy minx!
There is nothing anti english about any of that. But that has already been explained to you. You can’t hear it because you don’t want to hear it, so far as I can see. As I said, it is you who is making this about nationality: it comes out of your own head, nowhere else.
An english parliament is not a “repercussion”: it is something devoutly to be wished. You have been told that before, too.
As to what the labour core vote in england make of cooperation between Labour and the SNP: something, almost certainly. I imagine they will also make something of it if it does not come to pass and Labour are not in government in consequence of that decision. Either way, that is none of our business.
@ Fiona 7.38
Hmm, for reasons I don’t understand, you seem intent on splitting hairs on this one Fiona. You are reading things into a word that are simply not there. A repercussion is simply an outcome. It is not a threat, it can be either positive or negative. Synonyms of “repercussion” include Spin-off, fallout, result, effect, reverberation. For instance, a repercussion of a Lab/SNP coalition/agreement might be that Labour never win a majority in England again.
… we dont need to cover further old ground.
PS have a word with “Thepnr” for me. I am pretty resilient but I draw the line at unwanted and overt sexual advances.
@sensibledave
Can I just ask out of interest how much time you have spent in Scotland?
@sensibledave
Labour, SNP, Plaid and the Greens (who have nothing in common other than an anti tory stance) will work together to ensure that The Tories don’t get in? Correct? Hence my comment about anti-english. Not they all hate the english – they hate what the english want.
Oh Dear, because you believe that the English will vote for the Tories in the main, and even though that vote might be less than 34% of the UK electorate you believe that is “what the English want”. Somehow I doubt that is what the English want.
The fact that the SNP, Plaid and the Greens will work together means thay hate what the English want. Surely your having a joke here? Well I guess you are serious but it is a pathetic arguement. All three parties are far more democratic than either the Blue, Yellow or Red Tories.
In fact Dave, let’s face it you have still failed to answer the actual question which is in any coalition between the SNP and any other party how can that coalition be “anti-English” when the majority are English?
FAIL on Question 1.
Regards “repercussions” without an explanation it comes across as a threat. You can’t weasel your way out of that one.
However what you appear to be saying now is that “then there will, in my view, be repercussions for Labour in England medium term.”
Truth be told I don’t give care now what the repercussions may be for Labour in the UK in the short, medium or long term.
Dave, listen closely. Since Blair the Labour party has been slowly digging it’s own grave. It needed no help from me a former member.
They abandoned their core vote in an attempt to woo the floating voter, the so called “middle ground”, FAIL.
In Scotland at least, the Labour party core vote is abandoning them at an an alarming rate, check the polls or email Jim Murphy and ask him how that has worked out for the party if you don’t already know.
@ Natasha 8.04
… a couple of holidays. A few visits to the fringe. A few rounds of golf before I gave it up as a stupid game. Various business trips to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and my favourite place, Inverness.
Why?
Sensibledave says @8.20
” a couple of holidays. A few visits to the fringe. A few rounds of golf before I gave it up as a stupid game. Various business trips to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and my favourite place, Inverness.
A couple of holidays and a few business trips and were an expert on the Scottish mindset?
No matter what you think we are Dave you couldn’t be more wrong, and to be honest it gets pretty tiresome defending ourselves repeatedly from patently false attacks which have no bearing in reality,
In the two years I’ve been commenting on this site I have never seen such a transparent provocation, looking for a bit of anti English bile you can link to with your friends to show us for what (you think) we really are.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE MOVE ALONG.
repercussion
ri?p??k??(?)n/Submit
noun
1.
an unintended consequence of an event or action, especially an unwelcome one.
“the move would have grave repercussions for the entire region”
synonyms: consequence, result, effect, outcome, by-product; More
2.
archaic
the recoil of something after impact.
Sorry if you are not a native speaker of english, sensibledave: but I am
@sensibledave
I don’t think the time that you have spent in Scotland really qualifies you to make pronouncements on the political situation in Scotland.
Unlike you, I have spent many years actually living and working in both England and Scotland, so I have a fairly good understanding of both countries and cultures. My support for independence has grown out of my experience of what it is like to be treated as an unwanted poor relation while simultaneously being ripped off for your assets. Just the general experience of every colony of the British Empire over the past 200 years, really.
I wouldn’t dream of going onto a website dedicated to Welsh or Northern Irish politics and arguing with residents of those countries about the ins and outs of their political situation, because I haven’t lived and worked in either of those places. Being a UK citizen does not automatically qualify you to understand the intricacies of every nation within the UK.
What you seem not to understand is that it is only residents of England who confuse the terms UK, Britain and England and use them interchangeably. That is because England is the dominant nation in the UK and people in the dominant nation don’t realise what it’s like to be subordinate. It simply doesn’t occur to them that the other nations are indeed separate entities and not just regions of the dominant nation. It is a viewpoint born out of a combination of ignorance, arrogance and thoughtlessness.
You have shown some glimmerings of intelligence and humour in your comments, but unfortunately you are hampered by a lack of both experience and information, driven by your innately Anglo-centric stance.
@Natasha
“Being a UK citizen does not automatically qualify you to understand the intricacies of every nation within the UK.”
Yes absolutely right, have you ever tried reading BTL on the Mail or Telegraph though?
“It simply doesn’t occur to them that the other nations are indeed separate entities and not just regions of the dominant nation. It is a viewpoint born out of a combination of ignorance, arrogance and thoughtlessness.”
That’s the Daily Mail and Telegraph readers for you. What can we, the ordinary person do other than wring their hands?
Well we could of course vote SNP and get rid of this sh*te!
@ Natasha 9.59
Sorry Natasha – but that is tosh.
1. I dont think i have made pronouncements about the political situation in Scotland other than to point out the obvious and apparent. If you have any examples where you find otherwise, point them out.
2. You write things about what I have written – but then demonstrate you haven’t comprehended anything. I have no issue at all with those that want independence in Scotland. I applaud your commitment and desire. However, as a democrat, surely you accept that once the vote has happened, and until another vote happens and a different result occurs, then the rest of the Union might expect Scotland as whole to work, in part, for the good of all of the people in the Union?
3. Nicola Sturgeon repeats loud and often that the SNP is intent on getting the best deal possible for Scotland in the next Parliament. Constitutionally, she has every right to say and do that. I, and the rest of us in the Union, also have the right to point out that we don’t think that should be the SNP’s role. Most of think that she should try and negotiate deals that are fair for Scotland – and fair for the rest of the United Kingdom too – in the context of each member country of the Union being a willing member thereof. Do you understand that difference?
3. I’ll ignore your patronising stuff.
4. You wrote “to be treated as an unwanted poor relation while simultaneously being ripped off for your assets. Just the general experience of every colony of the British Empire over the past 200 years, really”. Given the Barnett Formula, and the oft repeated comment that Scotland only takes out what it puts in, explain the “ripped off for your assets” comment please. I assume you mean that you are being ripped off by the Welsh and the Northern Irish rather than the English?
5. Other commenters here have made accusations that the referendum was lost because of the pleadings, bullying and threats (which is, poppycock) – whilst you argue you are the unwanted poor relation. Which would you like me to respond to?
6. On your general exception to me coming on the site and talking about Union politics, I didn’t realise this was a private club where only people that were on the losing side in the recent referendum were allowed to congregate. I don’t think, although I may be wrong, I have read many comments above from Unionist Scots, even though they are in the majority. Why is that?
7. Please forgive any perceived anglo-centric stance I may have displayed. Heaven forbid that I might, occasionally, express an interest in what might be good for my country.
@fiona 8.56
Ridiculous point Fiona. I wrote “it can be either positive or negative. Synonyms of “repercussion” include Spin-off, fallout, result, effect, reverberation”.
“positive or negative” ????
“… include Spin-off fall-out, result …” ???
You have simply shown negative synonyms and decided, unilaterally, that is what I meant – because you know what I meant better than I did.
Nope. I know how the word is used in English and that is the final determinant of what a word means. You can pretend otherwise, but it is not going to persuade any native speaker that your pretence is correct.
What exactly would the SNP do at Westminster that would be to the detriment of the UK? If there were a Tory vote of over 50% in England sensibledave might have a point.
@ Fiona 10.28
Ok Fiona, you wrote “I know how the word is used in English and that is the final determinant”. It doesn’t matter what the dictionary says, it doesnt matter what I say I meant. You know best. Do you spot a theme developing here Fiona? It doesnt matter that there was a referendum. It doesn’t matter what the outcome of the referendum was ….. ????
I do spot a theme, sensibledave. You are a humpty dumpty.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
I an not suggesting you said what you meant, however. I am prepared to accept that you are honestly mistaken about what “repercussions” means. That is fine and nothing hangs on it. But then the question arises why you raised the matter at all?
You now say that you consider that there will be such repercussions as a demand for an english parliament. Since you have already been told that most here would welcome such a development, why bother mentioning it? You add that it will have “repercussions” for labour in the medium to long term in England. Since we are mostly pretty pleased by the projected wipe out of Labour in Scotland, once again why bother mentioning it? It is nothing at all to do with us.
At the very least “repercussions” must affect the person being addressed. All actions have “repercussions” in the sense you now say you wish to use the word, but if you decide to buy a house the consequences of that decision are a matter of perfect indifference to me and I do not think you would bother to tell me of the “repercussions”. Why would you?
Give this up, sensibledave. It is not getting you anywhere
sensibledave
“5. Other commenters here have made accusations that the referendum was lost because of the pleadings, bullying and threats (which is, poppycock) – …”
Tell that to Blair MacDougall.
‘He said the campaign’s research showed negative tactics worked, despite newspaper columnists consistently calling for a change in strategy.’
http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/better-together-campaign-chief-we-would-have-struggled-to-wi
We accept the result. We do not accept that the result was ‘fairly’ won.
I won’t spend time boring everyone else on here with the reality of what took place, you may deny that we were ‘bullied’, ‘pleaded with’, and that the entire British state was involved in shaping the outcome:
From instructing embassies to talk up the UK, to the Treasury releasing sensitive market information to the press, stating that banks would leave Scotland if we voted Yes. That a great depression would result if we voted yes (Deutsche bank), that we would be in danger of causing armageddon if we were to ‘leave’ (Lord George Robertson). There is nothing that was not used to ensure that the vote went the way that it did.
What is astounding is that 45% seen through it all for the bullshit that it was.
What is ‘poppycock’ to you. Is reality for us. And I tell you what sensibledave; the current polling statistics back this up. This is not ‘suppose’ to be happening as far as the winners of the referendum are concerned.
They mistakenly presumed some sort of ‘protest’ vote was on its way and should have faded by now
They are facing the repercussions.
Just so we are clear, ‘they’ are the establishment parties in Scotland.
You have said and I quote “I ONLY WANT WHAT THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND WANT” (okay you have shouted). Well, although the polls are merely indicators, can you see now perhaps see what the people of Scotland may want?
Coming on here and denying the experience of those who lived through it, is arrogant dave. And quite frankly your reason for doing so is just ‘poppycock’.
@ Fiona and K1
We are going round in circles.
To change the subject slightly, what UK government in the next GE do you think would give you the best chance of another referendum – and then more importantly, a better chance of a Yes vote?
I think the SNP should pray for a Tory government!
Despite what you say, you don’t really know why the referendum ended up being so close to a Yes vote – but a loss nevertheless. Do Scots in general have a problem with the Union – or, more precisely, do they have more of a problem with the Union when there is a Tory government?
Would a Labour led government with left wing policies supported by the SNP in Westminster produce an outcome that it more attractive to Scots? I think they would prefer that and having another referendum in the next Parliament could well produce a result that is the exact opposite of what you believe.
Be careful what you wish for.
@ sensibledave
Once again you display a staggering ignorance of Scottish politics. It is honestly beyond belief.
I suggest you listen to Ms Sturgeon, for she has answered all of your questions from the perspective of her party. That is the party most here will vote for, so that is the only position which matters at this time.
We are not homogeneous, any more than are people in the rest of the UK. So there is not one answer represented on this board. That ought to be obvious to you by now. But our individual views don’t matter so much as the SNP view, for that is who we will support.
@ Fiona
… no response to my questions from you Fiona.
I asked you two questions:
1. Do Scots in general have a problem with the Union – or, more precisely, do they have more of a problem with the Union when there is a Tory government? and
2.Would a Labour led government with left wing policies supported by the SNP in Westminster produce an outcome that it more attractive to Scots?
Are those not valid questions?
1. No idea. Can’t speak for “scots”
2. No idea. Can’t speak for “scots”
@ Fiona
Well that is first!
I have had to listen to endless comments above from people (including you) who profess to know exactly what Scots think. As an example many here “know” that there would have been a Yes vote if “Scots” had not been bullied and threatened into a No vote, for instance.
Anyway, the questions I posed were to you. I’ll ask you, personally, the other question I posed. “what UK government in the next GE do you think would give you the best chance of another referendum – and then more importantly, a better chance of a Yes vote? Im not asking you to speak on behalf of all Scots, I’m asking you the question. Or are you afraid to write your answer down?
Afraid? Of what? Don’t be sillier than you have to be, sensibledave
And please, I have asked you before, will you STOP attributing things to people that they have not said. It is truly tedious.
My opinion on your question? I do not think it is anything to do with the UK government, at least not directly. I believe we will have another referendum when scottish people want that. The problem, as ever, is that there is no direct mechanism for implementing the constitutional principle of sovereignty of the people. The best proxy we have is a manifesto commitment from a political party, and the best chance of that will come from the SNP when they have some evidence that opinion has changed sufficiently to make that a worthwhile exercise.
Which, incidentally, gives the lie to your obstinate assumption that I do not accept the result of the referendum. But you probably won’t hear that either, for it does not fit your fantasy
@Fiona
Im surprised by your answer. Whilst there has always been an undercurrent of Nationalism in Scotland, the clamour and call to action came whilst there has been a Tory UK government. I don’t think the years of the Blair/Brown Labour governments produced the same level of demand. Hence the theme of my questions.
I am not trying to make any “point” here other than to use my, admittedly limited, intelligence to try and think things out. You have answered now that you don’t think the colour of the next UK government will effect the call for, or the result of, another referendum. I have stated otherwise. But it doesn’t matter what either of us think, it only matters what the majority of the Scottish electorate want.
Anyway, I have listened to BBC 5 live, watched Andrew Marr and Andrew Neil this morning and enjoyed a short discussion with you (which gives sad people like us the opportunity to air our opinions, thoughts and questions on the subject of politics when our friends are bored with us wanting to discuss politics – rather than Britain’s Got Talent or whatever irrelevant TV programme is in the news.)