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.
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.
There's no reason why a UK government should be representative of all its regions. The interests of some regions are incompatible with others. The needs of some regions are unmeetable - either because the causes are unsolvable, or the other regions have no wish to pay out that much from their resources to deal with them. Thats entirely democratic. When only a very few people live in a small region , like Scotland, its people are almost certain not to get everything they want . Beyond a certain amount of subsidy from everywhere else , there's a limit to what they should expect. When the region also has a dominant political philosophy, that was rejected by the rest of the country, and nearly every other state, 30 years ago, its even less likley to get what it wants. Democracies can't cater for people who want impossible things, or 2 and 2 to make 5, or someone else to pay their bills.
Its difficult to think of anything much less democratic than a Labour and SNP coalition. It would represent less than 40% of the voters - when at least the last coalition got over 50% support , the Scots would be vastly over-represented compared to the Englsh, N irish, and Welsh, and both parties would rule on seats that should have been merged into others by overdue boundary changes. Labour would have to abandon its manifesto commitments, and abandon dealing with the debt, and agree to leave the country defenceless gainst nuclear attack, or the SNP would have to forget those and many of its other sillier ideas. That would hardly be democratic at all - tuition fees would be a tiny change in policy by comparison.
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
It can't happen. Doing anything more in the regions , other than employing more politicians, at a cost, requires significant amounts of extra money. Poor regions can't create their own money. Raising more tax locally , will make them poorer. Without more money , though, all else is tinkering - to little effect. The South East and London, however, are already fed up of subsidising the very same poor regions - and regional democracy there, will mean more demand for more to be spent at home, not more gifts to places people never venture.
Thats apparent in the current debate. The SNP relies on a money tree, provided by oil , to back its promised spending - but the tree seems to be dying off. The first thing northern Labour councils demanded, when they recently came out in favour of more regional power, was more tax revenue from the centre. Its not going to happen. Whats more likely to happen is that the South East will demand to keep more of its own money, and regions, like the NE and Wales, will start noticing that Scotland is getting a far better deal than they are. Meanwhile, within the regions, the first thing that will happen is that cities x and z will notice that more , and more, of the money is going to the regional centre in city y , and rural areas will notice more going to cities x, y and z.. It will be region against region, sub region gainst sub region - with more upset voters, and no more money to spend.
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?
I'm not suggesting anything but I do wonder what it is you Nats actually want from this?
Do you want more powers for Scotland or do you want to change things for the better in the UK?
It is politics after all, so what do you want from it, or think the SNP want from it?
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.
The question of this thread seems to suggest that Scots want a Labour SNP coalition.
My question to all of those that do is to ask why Scots would want this? Given that some folk think the SNP will get over forty seats in Scotland then why on earth would the SNP, who oppose the Red Tories get into bed with them?
Why would it actually be good for Scotland to have the SNP in a UK Government?
The question of this thread seems to suggest that Scots want a Labour SNP coalition.
My question to all of those that do is to ask why Scots would want this? Given that some folk think the SNP will get over forty seats in Scotland then why on earth would the SNP, who oppose the Red Tories get into bed with them?
Why would it actually be good for Scotland to have the SNP in a UK Government?
The whole thing stems from a misleading headline in the Daily Record (aka the Daily Labour) which said that Scots wanted a Lab / SNP coalition even though that was only 35%
Still, what this thread shows is that a common theme is "sod Better Together, you miserable Scots had better get back in your box because you had your day in the sun"
I'm not suggesting anything but I do wonder what it is you Nats actually want from this?
Do you want more powers for Scotland or do you want to change things for the better in the UK?
It is politics after all, so what do you want from it, or think the SNP want from it?
Depends whether you think the SNP really think that jumping off a cliff labelled independence is a sane thing to do
If they really want it their need is to demonstrate that staying in the UK is intolerable - as all their demands are rejected by both major parties, or their success in Scotland only produces another Conservative government. If they are left out of any ruling coalition, the more they push their demands, the more they are rejected, the more support they may get for another referendum.
If they do get a coalition with Labour, it may prove fatal to Labour and produce a Conservative government in the next election - as SNP policies would mean economic disaster, and England will react massively to Scots setting their taxes, and demanding more of their money. Its unlikely that Labour will agree to suicide in England.
If Labour is the biggest party and governs , but is sane and avoids the SNP, the SNP will take votes- because Labour will continue to upset its Scottish left wing base. Labour will be blamed for everything. If the SNP is out of a coalition, and holds enough seats to stop any coalition achieving a working majority, the SNP can be as destructive as they can - in a bid to make the rest of the Uk want rid of them. .
The best result for a yes vote, is probably a coalition Conservative led government - where the SNP can be as disruptive as possible , blame the Conservatives for everything, get the English supporting a yes vote, and claim that Labour can't win, and wouldn't be any better if it did.
If they don't want to leave the UK, they can win anyway.. A Conservative government offers less say in UK affairs, but more control over Scotland, and strong arguments for not voting Labour in Scotland. A Labour government offers more money to spend in Scotland, as it tries to get its votes back.
The clue to which they want may be in the choice of policies to demand. Unilateralism and an end to austerity, suggest they don't want to be in coalition - as no major party is insane enough to support either. The SNP can't give on those demands , so they look like inbuilt deal breakers.
That's democracy. if people down here weren't prepared to accept it, then they should have vocally supported the Yes side in the Scottish referendum (and most of the major politicians and civil servants from Westminister were not neutral in it nor did they even pretend to be).
The serious answer would be I suspect that a coalition with Labour might be better for the UK but a coalition with the Tories would bring the SNP more powers for Scotland as they seem to be offering the most devolution.
The SNP and Labour are fundamentaly the same with minor differences.
The serious answer would be I suspect that a coalition with Labour might be better for the UK but a coalition with the Tories would bring the SNP more powers for Scotland as they seem to be offering the most devolution.
The SNP and Labour are fundamentaly the same with minor differences.
So seriously what do the Nats want?
You haven't answered the question. You do realise that don't you?
The serious answer would be I suspect that a coalition with Labour might be better for the UK but a coalition with the Tories would bring the SNP more powers for Scotland as they seem to be offering the most devolution.
The SNP and Labour are fundamentaly the same with minor differences.
So seriously what do the Nats want?
You know full well that a coalition with the Tories will not happen so why do you persist in bringing it up?
The question of this thread seems to suggest that Scots want a Labour SNP coalition.
My question to all of those that do is to ask why Scots would want this? Given that some folk think the SNP will get over forty seats in Scotland then why on earth would the SNP, who oppose the Red Tories get into bed with them?
Why would it actually be good for Scotland to have the SNP in a UK Government?
I don't know anyone who fancies a Lab/SNP coalition.
As for why it would be good for Scotland, that is obvious. If the party has enough seats then the majority party will need their support to pass bills. That co-operation comes at a price. That price could be anything from deals to locate business/institutions in Scotland to policies being passed that devolve more powers.
All depends on how much support the majority party needs to get their agenda through.
You know full well that a coalition with the Tories will not happen so why do you persist in bringing it up?
I'm sure you do understand the question and the premise though?
Why would the SNP go into a coalition with the party that will bring it the least powers for Scotland when they claim to be the party for Scotland.
Why also are they entertaining the notion of entering into a coalition with a party they branded the Red Tories for over two years?
I believe they will never have a coalition with the Tories because it would damage their party up here in Scotland even though it would be a better option for Scotland in the long term.
People keep on telling me the SNP are the party for Scotland but if they truly were they would go for the Blue Tory option instead of the Red Tory option.
I'm sure you do understand the question and the premise though?
Why would the SNP go into a coalition with the party that will bring it the least powers for Scotland when they claim to be the party for Scotland.
Why also are they entertaining the notion of entering into a coalition with a party they branded the Red Tories for over two years?
I believe they will never have a coalition with the Tories because it would damage their party up here in Scotland even though it would be a better option for Scotland in the long term.
People keep on telling me the SNP are the party for Scotland but if they truly were they would go for the Blue Tory option instead of the Red Tory option.
Can't see the SNP going into any formal coalition with any of the unionist parties.
It would probably be on a bill by bill basis.
If I was leading the SNP that is what I would do. Bit like how the Ulster Unionists supported the Major government.
Much has been made of the concessions to Ulster MPs during the protracted revolt over pit closures. That crisis passed when the Government won the final vote comfortably, Ulster Unionists deciding against opposing it after a pounds 10m deal was struck to secure concessions for heavy electricity users in Ulster. Earlier, they had been promised an electricity interconnector cable to Scottish Power.
I'm sure you do understand the question and the premise though?
Why would the SNP go into a coalition with the party that will bring it the least powers for Scotland when they claim to be the party for Scotland.
Why also are they entertaining the notion of entering into a coalition with a party they branded the Red Tories for over two years?
I believe they will never have a coalition with the Tories because it would damage their party up here in Scotland even though it would be a better option for Scotland in the long term.
People keep on telling me the SNP are the party for Scotland but if they truly were they would go for the Blue Tory option instead of the Red Tory option.
Because things move on Black Sheep and if Labour wanted to form any sort of government you will find that they may well offer a whole lot more than they did before. To put it crudely, the SNP would have hold of Labour by the bollocks and for SNP support for various bills there would be benefits for Scotland.
There is a huge difference between the way the Labour party let their voters down in the indy debate and what the SNP would do at Westminster. Sturgeon and Salmond are not daft and any deals that are done will put Scotland first. No doubt you will somehow not like that but you my man are in the minority
Because things move on Black Sheep and if Labour wanted to form any sort of government you will find that they may well offer a whole lot more than they did before. To put it crudely, the SNP would have hold of Labour by the bollocks and for SNP support for various bills there would be benefits for Scotland.
There is a huge difference between the way the Labour party let their voters down in the indy debate and what the SNP would do at Westminster. Sturgeon and Salmond are not daft and any deals that are done will put Scotland first. No doubt you will somehow not like that but you my man are in the minority
I cant see it happening myself and tend to agree with other posters. I maintain that it will be ruinous for both parties in to enter a formal coalition.
You cant pre-guess what the SNP will do after a General Election though and as far as Im aware Salmond is out of the picture, unless he is somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes?
However, I dont think Im in a minority as I want the best deal for Scotland but Im not wanting that at the expense of the rest of the UK.
Im sure living in Windsor you will appreciate that it might be a wee bit bad to support a Labour Government that might just bring in measures that will affect you in England while protecting me up here in Scotland from those same measures with some sort of deal?
So should the SNP vote with a Labour Government on devolved measures that wont affect Scotland so as to give them a Majority over the Tories who might otherwise win that vote?
I cant see it happening myself and tend to agree with other posters. I maintain that it will be ruinous for both parties in to enter a formal coalition.
I can't see it happening but it is technically plausible.
You cant pre-guess what the SNP will do after a General Election though and as far as Im aware Salmond is out of the picture, unless he is somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes?
I don't think Sturgeon is the type to have her strings pulled.
However, I dont think Im in a minority as I want the best deal for Scotland but Im not wanting that at the expense of the rest of the UK.
There seems to be majority support in Scotland for full fiscal autonomy. That shouldn't be at the expense of the rest of the UK.
Im sure living in Windsor you will appreciate that it might be a wee bit bad to support a Labour Government that might just bring in measures that will affect you in England while protecting me up here in Scotland from those same measures with some sort of deal?
Surely people in England are grown up enough to support Scots forging their own path within a much looser and more financially accountable union? Also, who in Windsor votes Labour?
So should the SNP vote with a Labour Government on devolved measures that wont affect Scotland so as to give them a Majority over the Tories who might otherwise win that vote?
At the end of the day solidarity with working people across borders is one of the few benefits of the UK. So we shouldn't feel bad about helping workers across England keep out the Tories.
At the end of the day solidarity with working people across borders is one of the few benefits of the UK. So we shouldn't feel bad about helping workers across England keep out the Tories.
I'm sure there are decent folk in the South who vote Tory as well you know. I'm not in the business of writing ordinary people off anywhere even if they do vote Tory.
After all even people in Windsor who vote Tory will have ordinary working jobs as not everyone who votes Tory must be rich and live in a Mansion. If the Tories only appealed to rich toffs they would get less votes than the Lib Dems:D
I'm sure there are decent folk in the South who vote Tory as well you know. I'm not in the business of writing ordinary people off anywhere even if they do vote Tory.
Of course there are and not just ordinary people. Sometimes with people it's just best to leave politics to one side. In some ways I'm starting to lose interest in the whole debate.
After all even people in Windsor who vote Tory will have ordinary working jobs as not everyone who votes Tory must be rich and live in a Mansion. If the Tories only appealed to rich toffs they would get less votes than the Lib Dems:D
The Daily Mail has a lot to answer for!
Do you want to keep out the Blue or Red version?
My conscience tells me that a Labour Government will be better for everyone, if only marginally so but the prospect is only slightly less depressing than a Tory majority. Get back to me in 2017 and if there is to be an EU referendum I'll probably be back in fighting mode.
Comments
There's no reason why a UK government should be representative of all its regions. The interests of some regions are incompatible with others. The needs of some regions are unmeetable - either because the causes are unsolvable, or the other regions have no wish to pay out that much from their resources to deal with them. Thats entirely democratic. When only a very few people live in a small region , like Scotland, its people are almost certain not to get everything they want . Beyond a certain amount of subsidy from everywhere else , there's a limit to what they should expect. When the region also has a dominant political philosophy, that was rejected by the rest of the country, and nearly every other state, 30 years ago, its even less likley to get what it wants. Democracies can't cater for people who want impossible things, or 2 and 2 to make 5, or someone else to pay their bills.
Its difficult to think of anything much less democratic than a Labour and SNP coalition. It would represent less than 40% of the voters - when at least the last coalition got over 50% support , the Scots would be vastly over-represented compared to the Englsh, N irish, and Welsh, and both parties would rule on seats that should have been merged into others by overdue boundary changes. Labour would have to abandon its manifesto commitments, and abandon dealing with the debt, and agree to leave the country defenceless gainst nuclear attack, or the SNP would have to forget those and many of its other sillier ideas. That would hardly be democratic at all - tuition fees would be a tiny change in policy by comparison.
It can't happen. Doing anything more in the regions , other than employing more politicians, at a cost, requires significant amounts of extra money. Poor regions can't create their own money. Raising more tax locally , will make them poorer. Without more money , though, all else is tinkering - to little effect. The South East and London, however, are already fed up of subsidising the very same poor regions - and regional democracy there, will mean more demand for more to be spent at home, not more gifts to places people never venture.
Thats apparent in the current debate. The SNP relies on a money tree, provided by oil , to back its promised spending - but the tree seems to be dying off. The first thing northern Labour councils demanded, when they recently came out in favour of more regional power, was more tax revenue from the centre. Its not going to happen. Whats more likely to happen is that the South East will demand to keep more of its own money, and regions, like the NE and Wales, will start noticing that Scotland is getting a far better deal than they are. Meanwhile, within the regions, the first thing that will happen is that cities x and z will notice that more , and more, of the money is going to the regional centre in city y , and rural areas will notice more going to cities x, y and z.. It will be region against region, sub region gainst sub region - with more upset voters, and no more money to spend.
I'm not suggesting anything but I do wonder what it is you Nats actually want from this?
Do you want more powers for Scotland or do you want to change things for the better in the UK?
It is politics after all, so what do you want from it, or think the SNP want from it?
The question of this thread seems to suggest that Scots want a Labour SNP coalition.
My question to all of those that do is to ask why Scots would want this? Given that some folk think the SNP will get over forty seats in Scotland then why on earth would the SNP, who oppose the Red Tories get into bed with them?
Why would it actually be good for Scotland to have the SNP in a UK Government?
Still, what this thread shows is that a common theme is "sod Better Together, you miserable Scots had better get back in your box because you had your day in the sun"
Depends whether you think the SNP really think that jumping off a cliff labelled independence is a sane thing to do
If they really want it their need is to demonstrate that staying in the UK is intolerable - as all their demands are rejected by both major parties, or their success in Scotland only produces another Conservative government. If they are left out of any ruling coalition, the more they push their demands, the more they are rejected, the more support they may get for another referendum.
If they do get a coalition with Labour, it may prove fatal to Labour and produce a Conservative government in the next election - as SNP policies would mean economic disaster, and England will react massively to Scots setting their taxes, and demanding more of their money. Its unlikely that Labour will agree to suicide in England.
If Labour is the biggest party and governs , but is sane and avoids the SNP, the SNP will take votes- because Labour will continue to upset its Scottish left wing base. Labour will be blamed for everything. If the SNP is out of a coalition, and holds enough seats to stop any coalition achieving a working majority, the SNP can be as destructive as they can - in a bid to make the rest of the Uk want rid of them. .
The best result for a yes vote, is probably a coalition Conservative led government - where the SNP can be as disruptive as possible , blame the Conservatives for everything, get the English supporting a yes vote, and claim that Labour can't win, and wouldn't be any better if it did.
If they don't want to leave the UK, they can win anyway.. A Conservative government offers less say in UK affairs, but more control over Scotland, and strong arguments for not voting Labour in Scotland. A Labour government offers more money to spend in Scotland, as it tries to get its votes back.
The clue to which they want may be in the choice of policies to demand. Unilateralism and an end to austerity, suggest they don't want to be in coalition - as no major party is insane enough to support either. The SNP can't give on those demands , so they look like inbuilt deal breakers.
Surely Boris Johnson will become Deputy PM if the Tories won a majority?
That's democracy. if people down here weren't prepared to accept it, then they should have vocally supported the Yes side in the Scottish referendum (and most of the major politicians and civil servants from Westminister were not neutral in it nor did they even pretend to be).
The serious answer would be I suspect that a coalition with Labour might be better for the UK but a coalition with the Tories would bring the SNP more powers for Scotland as they seem to be offering the most devolution.
The SNP and Labour are fundamentaly the same with minor differences.
So seriously what do the Nats want?
You haven't answered the question. You do realise that don't you?
You know full well that a coalition with the Tories will not happen so why do you persist in bringing it up?
I don't know anyone who fancies a Lab/SNP coalition.
As for why it would be good for Scotland, that is obvious. If the party has enough seats then the majority party will need their support to pass bills. That co-operation comes at a price. That price could be anything from deals to locate business/institutions in Scotland to policies being passed that devolve more powers.
All depends on how much support the majority party needs to get their agenda through.
I'm sure you do understand the question and the premise though?
Why would the SNP go into a coalition with the party that will bring it the least powers for Scotland when they claim to be the party for Scotland.
Why also are they entertaining the notion of entering into a coalition with a party they branded the Red Tories for over two years?
I believe they will never have a coalition with the Tories because it would damage their party up here in Scotland even though it would be a better option for Scotland in the long term.
People keep on telling me the SNP are the party for Scotland but if they truly were they would go for the Blue Tory option instead of the Red Tory option.
I thought with the SNPs continued push for home rule, that they wanted to make Scotland worse off and the rUK better off...
Can't see the SNP going into any formal coalition with any of the unionist parties.
It would probably be on a bill by bill basis.
If I was leading the SNP that is what I would do. Bit like how the Ulster Unionists supported the Major government.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ulster-unionist-mps-will-keep-major-in-power-1484006.html#
Much has been made of the concessions to Ulster MPs during the protracted revolt over pit closures. That crisis passed when the Government won the final vote comfortably, Ulster Unionists deciding against opposing it after a pounds 10m deal was struck to secure concessions for heavy electricity users in Ulster. Earlier, they had been promised an electricity interconnector cable to Scottish Power.
That's how it works.
Because things move on Black Sheep and if Labour wanted to form any sort of government you will find that they may well offer a whole lot more than they did before. To put it crudely, the SNP would have hold of Labour by the bollocks and for SNP support for various bills there would be benefits for Scotland.
There is a huge difference between the way the Labour party let their voters down in the indy debate and what the SNP would do at Westminster. Sturgeon and Salmond are not daft and any deals that are done will put Scotland first. No doubt you will somehow not like that but you my man are in the minority
I cant see it happening myself and tend to agree with other posters. I maintain that it will be ruinous for both parties in to enter a formal coalition.
You cant pre-guess what the SNP will do after a General Election though and as far as Im aware Salmond is out of the picture, unless he is somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes?
However, I dont think Im in a minority as I want the best deal for Scotland but Im not wanting that at the expense of the rest of the UK.
Im sure living in Windsor you will appreciate that it might be a wee bit bad to support a Labour Government that might just bring in measures that will affect you in England while protecting me up here in Scotland from those same measures with some sort of deal?
So should the SNP vote with a Labour Government on devolved measures that wont affect Scotland so as to give them a Majority over the Tories who might otherwise win that vote?
I can't see it happening but it is technically plausible.
I don't think Sturgeon is the type to have her strings pulled.
There seems to be majority support in Scotland for full fiscal autonomy. That shouldn't be at the expense of the rest of the UK.
Surely people in England are grown up enough to support Scots forging their own path within a much looser and more financially accountable union? Also, who in Windsor votes Labour?
At the end of the day solidarity with working people across borders is one of the few benefits of the UK. So we shouldn't feel bad about helping workers across England keep out the Tories.
I'm sure there are decent folk in the South who vote Tory as well you know. I'm not in the business of writing ordinary people off anywhere even if they do vote Tory.
After all even people in Windsor who vote Tory will have ordinary working jobs as not everyone who votes Tory must be rich and live in a Mansion. If the Tories only appealed to rich toffs they would get less votes than the Lib Dems:D
Do you want to keep out the Blue or Red version?
Of course there are and not just ordinary people. Sometimes with people it's just best to leave politics to one side. In some ways I'm starting to lose interest in the whole debate.
The Daily Mail has a lot to answer for!
My conscience tells me that a Labour Government will be better for everyone, if only marginally so but the prospect is only slightly less depressing than a Tory majority. Get back to me in 2017 and if there is to be an EU referendum I'll probably be back in fighting mode.