I'm sorry but your talking rubbish now and obviously trying a subtle wind up.
Of course any main UK party can enter a coalition with any other party that's centred in one part of the UK only that goes without saying.
However, as I suspect you know, the Tories stand in the whole of the UK despite the fact that they may not gain any seats while the SNP only stand in Scotland.
NI has it's own parties and the Tories and Labour don't have any real electoral presence there, similar to Scotland with the Tories as I'm sure you are more than aware.
The Scottish people won't be electing a party at the GE they will be electing MPs to parliament.
Westminster is representative of the whole of the UK and so parties who are successful in Wales and NI should not automatically get a seat in the government as that would not be democratic.
They'll MP's from the party that they choose to back, not from the one MP they select but for the party they would like to see in power.
Westmisnter, time and time again has show that it's not representative of the UK as whole but one of the nations of the UK; England. In a union of different nations where there is such a massive divide in voting trends the complete rejection of a party like the Tories by a nation would be acknowledged. It's a failing of the UK that it's so unable to do that.
All three countries that have devolution in the UK are already advantaged over the remaining one as they have a means of choosing a different path that suits their local circumstances.
Are they hell!
it's not English nationalism that's obvious here but your little Scotlander views on every subject. It really is about time you realised that Scotland isn't that different from the rest of the UK when it comes to attitudes to the majority of things.
No it's about time you became a democrat and stopped backing an old fashioned centralised and undemocratic electoral system.
I'm not a fan of the SNP as you might have guessed but even I can see that entering a coalition with any of the two main parties will more than likely ruin the SNP than anything else. How on earth can they govern the whole of the UK in partnership with Labour and oppose them in Holyrood? I'm sure the SNP leadership realise this more than any daft Nats that think it will be a good idea and it won't break up the UK.
The last thing I want to see is a SNP-Lab coalition but I will defend their right to enter into a coalition until the day I die. I'm disgustingly democratic and un-British in that respect.
Would this also include a committment to resolving the West Lothian question? Any coalition that gave the SNP any significant power would seem.. strange in a representative democracy where the SNP would represent such a small minority of the UK.
Shouldn't really have to say much more.
Of course in this hypothetical scenario, and going by the polls, the SNP will represent Scotland, Labour England and Wales and, perhaps, a more socialist party representing Northern Ireland. Or do you really object to a UK wide government actually being representative of the whole of the UK?
Surely a Labour SNP coalition is the most likely election result as the Lib Dem vote is decimated and UKIP fail to pick up more than 2 or 3 seats - but take enough votes away from the Tories to allow Labour to have a few more seats than them, but not a majority.
The SNP would be much harder taskmasters than the Lib Dems in the current coalition and the resultant sharp lurch to the left and Scottish favouritsm policies would probably make Labour pretty unelectable south of the border for years to come
I know what you're trying to say, but again, a party that stands in a substantial part of England alone is more important than the SNP, who continue to limit themselves to the 5 million in Scotland.
Of course in this hypothetical scenario, and going by the polls, the SNP will represent Scotland, Labour England and Wales and, perhaps, a more socialist party representing Northern Ireland. Or do you really object to a UK wide government actually being representative of the whole of the UK?
In that case, why shouldn't England get regional representation? The common issue with these attempts at devolution/representation is that Scotland/Wales/NI get their own thing, serving a few million people each, and then England is expected to lump along with an even lesser solution for its 55 million. The whole of England can't be represented by one party
In that case, why shouldn't England get regional representation? The common issue with these attempts at devolution/representation is that Scotland/Wales/NI get their own thing, serving a few million people each, and then England is expected to lump along with an even lesser solution for its 55 million. The whole of England can't be represented by one party
Correct me if I am wrong but was this not offered and rejected in the North East? However, I don't think you will get much argument from the Scots in this thread about England going down that road.
I know what you're trying to say, but again, a party that stands in a substantial part of England alone is more important than the SNP, who continue to limit themselves to the 5 million in Scotland.
If the NI Conservatives are standing in the GE, then all due respect to them. I remember arguing in the 1970s in Student Union debates that the mainland parties should stand in NI to help get rid of sectarianism.
However the post I was replying to said that the Conservatives represented all parts of the UK, not just one country and I was pointing out that they only represented 3 countries out of the 4, so it's a matter of degree rather than absolutes. I think only UKIP and the Greens currently put up candidates in all 4 countries, but I could be wrong (and am sure I will be corrected:)!)
NI has it's own parties and the Tories and Labour don't have any real electoral presence there, similar to Scotland with the Tories as I'm sure you are more than aware.
Ni is different politically and Im sure always will be.
They'll MP's from the party that they choose to back, not from the one MP they select but for the party they would like to see in power.
Not sure I understand what you mean here?
Westmisnter, time and time again has show that it's not representative of the UK as whole but one of the nations of the UK; England.
Please provide a few examples to back up this claim that Westminster only represents England? I thought it was a UK government?
In a union of different nations where there is such a massive divide in voting trends the complete rejection of a party like the Tories by a nation would be acknowledged. It's a failing of the UK that it's so unable to do that.
Not really, If you look around at similar populations in the NE or NW of England you might find the same sorts of representation.
No it's about time you became a democrat and stopped backing an old fashioned centralised and undemocratic electoral system.
What on earth gave you the impression that I wasnt forward looking? Ive never once said I supported the First Past the Post system and have no idea what a centralised electoral system is, are you making it up?
The last thing I want to see is a SNP-Lab coalition but I will defend their right to enter into a coalition until the day I die. I'm disgustingly democratic and un-British in that respect.
Im not questioning their right to a coalition at all. It simply doesnt make sense.
Can you imagine an SNP/Labour coalition governing the UK while at the same time being somehow in opposiiton in Scotland all for what? Trying to stop a Trident replacement?
They simply wouldnt be able to work with each other in practical terms and the SNP would sacrifice its long term popularity.
If I was a Labour leader in Scotland my cry for the 2016 Scottish election would be simple - vote Labour. Voting SNP gets a Labour Government anyway.
I have no doubt a formal coalition will be very damaging to both parties and they would be extremely foolish to enter into one.
If the SNP are going to look out for Scotland before the Party then the obvious choice for them in the long term would be to enter a coalition with the Tories as this would get more powers for Scotland than Labour are willing to give.
Of course in this hypothetical scenario, and going by the polls, the SNP will represent Scotland, Labour England and Wales and, perhaps, a more socialist party representing Northern Ireland. Or do you really object to a UK wide government actually being representative of the whole of the UK?
But the SNP wont represent Scotland they will represent a small portion of the UK.
The UK is of course one state and so your logic is flawed. Its like saying the Lib Dems represent Devon and should be given cabinet seats because of this.
If I was a Labour leader in Scotland my cry for the 2016 Scottish election would be simple - vote Labour. Voting SNP gets a Labour Government anyway.
I have no doubt a formal coalition will be very damaging to both parties and they would be extremely foolish to enter into one.
For once you say something I agree with. Who would have thought it?
If the SNP are going to look out for Scotland before the Party then the obvious choice for them in the long term would be to enter a coalition with the Tories as this would get more powers for Scotland than Labour are willing to give
No matter how many times it has been said this will not happen? Yet you still push this line from, who was it again? The Labour Party. I do wonder why. Funny how in the first quote you suggest that a Labour/SNP coalition would be such a disaster yet then go on to say that if they put Scotland first they should enter a coalition with the Tories?
Correct me if I am wrong but was this not offered and rejected in the North East? However, I don't think you will get much argument from the Scots in this thread about England going down that road.
The north east thing wasn't really a proper assembly, it was just a talking shop for Labour politicians.
If various English regions got anything close to what Scotland/Wales/NI have it'd be a step forward. I don't agree with any single English Parliament plan though. But I suspect that'll be what we get, because England is thought of as one unified bloc and not 55 million people with different regional issues and political stances.
Or worse, Manchester and Birmingham might get something closer to what London has, but the rest of England will get ruled from Westminster as it is now
Can you imagine an SNP/Labour coalition governing the UK while at the same time being somehow in opposiiton in Scotland all for what? Trying to stop a Trident replacement?
They simply wouldnt be able to work with each other in practical terms and the SNP would sacrifice its long term popularity.
It's really quite simple. The way things stand at the moment Labour are set to gain 321 seats and the SNP 49. 10 of Labour's seats are in Scotland. If the SNP stick to their historic tactic of not voting on matters already devolved to Holyrood then Labour will have 311 seats out of 591 which gives them a clear working majority except when dealing with UK wide issues. That'd most definitely give the lie to the idea that Labour need Scotland for a majority. Perhaps it'd be an uncomfortable coalition but given the prediction is that only Labour and the SNP would have seats in Scotland it's the only arrangement that's at all viable.
And I'm well aware that we had a referendum and that the unionists won, that doesn't mean that we will tolerate being treated like some backwater fiefdom fit only for supplying lobby fodder.
No matter how many times it has been said this will not happen? Yet you still push this line from, who was it again? The Labour Party. I do wonder why. Funny how in the first quote you suggest that a Labour/SNP coalition would be such a disaster yet then go on to say that if they put Scotland first they should enter a coalition with the Tories?
I have no trouble with being able to see what would happen in any case, I still think it would be damaging to the SNP to enter a coalition with the Tories but if they want to get the most out of it for scotland then however damaging it might be a coalition with the Tories would gain the most powers.
If I was in charge of the SNP and was genuinely out to get the most for Scotland in a coalition then I would choose the Tories. Then again if I was in charge of the SNP and wanted what's best for he party I would choose neither.
It's really quite simple. The way things stand at the moment Labour are set to gain 321 seats and the SNP 49. 10 of Labour's seats are in Scotland. If the SNP stick to their historic tactic of not voting on matters already devolved to Holyrood then Labour will have 311 seats out of 591 which gives them a clear working majority except when dealing with UK wide issues. That'd most definitely give the lie to the idea that Labour need Scotland for a majority. Perhaps it'd be an uncomfortable coalition but given the prediction is that only Labour and the SNP would have seats in Scotland it's the only arrangement that's at all viable.
And I'm well aware that we had a referendum and that the unionists won, that doesn't mean that we will tolerate being treated like some backwater fiefdom fit only for supplying lobby fodder.
I see your another person living in Nat dreamworld then. I see the Nats have changed their tune from the referendum where they continually stated that Scotland never matters in UK elections, now they're saying that Scotland matters so much it can dictate policies and form governments;-)
Since when has Scotland been a backwater in UK politics? From MacDonald to Brown Scots have featured highly in UK politics.
I know what you're trying to say, but again, a party that stands in a substantial part of England alone is more important than the SNP, who continue to limit themselves to the 5 million in Scotland.
Says on the page that they're a "fresh" party. In other words they don't really expect to get elected but aren't going to let the UKIP claim to be the only party to stand candidates for election in the whole of the UK to go unchallenged. Just as I said previously, if all it takes is the SNP to put up candidates outwith Scotland for them to be regarded as more than simply a regional party and thus included in national debates then so be it. It might actually be to their advantage to do so if it increases the amount they're allowed to spend.
But the SNP wont represent Scotland they will represent a small portion of the UK.
The UK is of course one state and so your logic is flawed. Its like saying the Lib Dems represent Devon and should be given cabinet seats because of this.
If the SNP had a candidate in Berwick would they then be considered a UK wide party, or would you insist on one in Wales and NI as well?
If the SNP had a candidate in Berwick would they then be considered a UK wide party, or would you insist on one in Wales and NI as well?
The qualifying bar according to the regulators is candidates in 1/6th the seats. So another 51 should about cover it. If there's quibling about chances of getting elected or even about percentage of electorate it might be worth reminding those doing so that the UK as a whole rejected a for of PR and by the logic of FPTP that means they're willing to accept the winner takes all philosophy that, should predictions bear out, would mean the SNP will be the third largest party at Westminster.
Im not insisting on anything here but the fact is they dont have candidates outside Scotland but if they did then yes it would be more valid.
The fact is, the SNP is not a UK wide party.
So? What of it? The clue is in the name. Are you saying in the event (however unlikely) that the SNP get 40+ seats that they are less valid than say 35 Lib Dem seats? As Westminster is for the whole of the UK why suggest that the Scottish voice is of less importance?
So? What of it? The clue is in the name. Are you saying in the event (however unlikely) that the SNP get 40+ seats that they are less valid than say 35 Lib Dem seats? As Westminster is for the whole of the UK why suggest that the Scottish voice is of less importance?
But as was seen on the thread about should the Greens be invited to debate, or rather not when UKIP are, it's all about perception. UKIP got where they are in part by being promoted by the media, including the BBC. Some might argue that that was a calculated attempt to split the right wing vote in order for Labour to win the next election. They might even be correct. On the other hand the few Bye-Elections they've won are no guarantee that come election day a Conservative Party that's adopted some subset of their policies might not find themselves receiving more votes than expected.
Comments
NI has it's own parties and the Tories and Labour don't have any real electoral presence there, similar to Scotland with the Tories as I'm sure you are more than aware.
They'll MP's from the party that they choose to back, not from the one MP they select but for the party they would like to see in power.
Westmisnter, time and time again has show that it's not representative of the UK as whole but one of the nations of the UK; England. In a union of different nations where there is such a massive divide in voting trends the complete rejection of a party like the Tories by a nation would be acknowledged. It's a failing of the UK that it's so unable to do that.
Are they hell!
No it's about time you became a democrat and stopped backing an old fashioned centralised and undemocratic electoral system.
The last thing I want to see is a SNP-Lab coalition but I will defend their right to enter into a coalition until the day I die. I'm disgustingly democratic and un-British in that respect.
Shouldn't really have to say much more.
Of course in this hypothetical scenario, and going by the polls, the SNP will represent Scotland, Labour England and Wales and, perhaps, a more socialist party representing Northern Ireland. Or do you really object to a UK wide government actually being representative of the whole of the UK?
The SNP would be much harder taskmasters than the Lib Dems in the current coalition and the resultant sharp lurch to the left and Scottish favouritsm policies would probably make Labour pretty unelectable south of the border for years to come
http://www.niconservatives.com/where-we-stand ?
I know what you're trying to say, but again, a party that stands in a substantial part of England alone is more important than the SNP, who continue to limit themselves to the 5 million in Scotland.
In that case, why shouldn't England get regional representation? The common issue with these attempts at devolution/representation is that Scotland/Wales/NI get their own thing, serving a few million people each, and then England is expected to lump along with an even lesser solution for its 55 million. The whole of England can't be represented by one party
Correct me if I am wrong but was this not offered and rejected in the North East? However, I don't think you will get much argument from the Scots in this thread about England going down that road.
However the post I was replying to said that the Conservatives represented all parts of the UK, not just one country and I was pointing out that they only represented 3 countries out of the 4, so it's a matter of degree rather than absolutes. I think only UKIP and the Greens currently put up candidates in all 4 countries, but I could be wrong (and am sure I will be corrected:)!)
Ni is different politically and Im sure always will be.
Not sure I understand what you mean here?
Please provide a few examples to back up this claim that Westminster only represents England? I thought it was a UK government?
Not really, If you look around at similar populations in the NE or NW of England you might find the same sorts of representation.
What on earth gave you the impression that I wasnt forward looking? Ive never once said I supported the First Past the Post system and have no idea what a centralised electoral system is, are you making it up?
Im not questioning their right to a coalition at all. It simply doesnt make sense.
Can you imagine an SNP/Labour coalition governing the UK while at the same time being somehow in opposiiton in Scotland all for what? Trying to stop a Trident replacement?
They simply wouldnt be able to work with each other in practical terms and the SNP would sacrifice its long term popularity.
If I was a Labour leader in Scotland my cry for the 2016 Scottish election would be simple - vote Labour. Voting SNP gets a Labour Government anyway.
I have no doubt a formal coalition will be very damaging to both parties and they would be extremely foolish to enter into one.
If the SNP are going to look out for Scotland before the Party then the obvious choice for them in the long term would be to enter a coalition with the Tories as this would get more powers for Scotland than Labour are willing to give.
But the SNP wont represent Scotland they will represent a small portion of the UK.
The UK is of course one state and so your logic is flawed. Its like saying the Lib Dems represent Devon and should be given cabinet seats because of this.
For once you say something I agree with. Who would have thought it?
No matter how many times it has been said this will not happen? Yet you still push this line from, who was it again? The Labour Party. I do wonder why. Funny how in the first quote you suggest that a Labour/SNP coalition would be such a disaster yet then go on to say that if they put Scotland first they should enter a coalition with the Tories?
The north east thing wasn't really a proper assembly, it was just a talking shop for Labour politicians.
If various English regions got anything close to what Scotland/Wales/NI have it'd be a step forward. I don't agree with any single English Parliament plan though. But I suspect that'll be what we get, because England is thought of as one unified bloc and not 55 million people with different regional issues and political stances.
Or worse, Manchester and Birmingham might get something closer to what London has, but the rest of England will get ruled from Westminster as it is now
And the Conservative dominated South want what is best for them.
The idea that Westminster looks after Scottish interests is absurd as evidenced by the way they run fast and loose with the oil industry.
It's really quite simple. The way things stand at the moment Labour are set to gain 321 seats and the SNP 49. 10 of Labour's seats are in Scotland. If the SNP stick to their historic tactic of not voting on matters already devolved to Holyrood then Labour will have 311 seats out of 591 which gives them a clear working majority except when dealing with UK wide issues. That'd most definitely give the lie to the idea that Labour need Scotland for a majority. Perhaps it'd be an uncomfortable coalition but given the prediction is that only Labour and the SNP would have seats in Scotland it's the only arrangement that's at all viable.
And I'm well aware that we had a referendum and that the unionists won, that doesn't mean that we will tolerate being treated like some backwater fiefdom fit only for supplying lobby fodder.
I have no trouble with being able to see what would happen in any case, I still think it would be damaging to the SNP to enter a coalition with the Tories but if they want to get the most out of it for scotland then however damaging it might be a coalition with the Tories would gain the most powers.
If I was in charge of the SNP and was genuinely out to get the most for Scotland in a coalition then I would choose the Tories. Then again if I was in charge of the SNP and wanted what's best for he party I would choose neither.
It's not rocket science.
I see your another person living in Nat dreamworld then. I see the Nats have changed their tune from the referendum where they continually stated that Scotland never matters in UK elections, now they're saying that Scotland matters so much it can dictate policies and form governments;-)
Since when has Scotland been a backwater in UK politics? From MacDonald to Brown Scots have featured highly in UK politics.
Says on the page that they're a "fresh" party. In other words they don't really expect to get elected but aren't going to let the UKIP claim to be the only party to stand candidates for election in the whole of the UK to go unchallenged. Just as I said previously, if all it takes is the SNP to put up candidates outwith Scotland for them to be regarded as more than simply a regional party and thus included in national debates then so be it. It might actually be to their advantage to do so if it increases the amount they're allowed to spend.
The qualifying bar according to the regulators is candidates in 1/6th the seats. So another 51 should about cover it. If there's quibling about chances of getting elected or even about percentage of electorate it might be worth reminding those doing so that the UK as a whole rejected a for of PR and by the logic of FPTP that means they're willing to accept the winner takes all philosophy that, should predictions bear out, would mean the SNP will be the third largest party at Westminster.
Im not insisting on anything here but the fact is they dont have candidates outside Scotland but if they did then yes it would be more valid.
The fact is, the SNP is not a UK wide party.
So? What of it? The clue is in the name. Are you saying in the event (however unlikely) that the SNP get 40+ seats that they are less valid than say 35 Lib Dem seats? As Westminster is for the whole of the UK why suggest that the Scottish voice is of less importance?
Or if this prediction is to be believed, http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html ,
SNP get 49 and LDs get 19.
But as was seen on the thread about should the Greens be invited to debate, or rather not when UKIP are, it's all about perception. UKIP got where they are in part by being promoted by the media, including the BBC. Some might argue that that was a calculated attempt to split the right wing vote in order for Labour to win the next election. They might even be correct. On the other hand the few Bye-Elections they've won are no guarantee that come election day a Conservative Party that's adopted some subset of their policies might not find themselves receiving more votes than expected.
Of course it was fine for the Ulster Unionists to get plenty of policy decisions going their way in return for their 6 votes when Major was PM.
It's called politics. Sometimes it works for you, sometimes it doesn't.
When it works for you it is time to make hay when the sun shines.