Agreed. Outposts like Newcastle and Cornwall might turn, but l don't think there's a great desire elsewhere.
At least until London starts asking for passports . . .
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
Agreed. Outposts like Newcastle and Cornwall might turn, but l don't think there's a great desire elsewhere.
At least until London starts asking for passports . . .
IdreamofHIME
Member
This Sturgeon stuff is so scary. Clearly it's fake, but the intentions behind it are so sinister. Either it's planted by Labour who are betting the farm on this gaining them some seats or the Tories are pretty much kissing good bye to the Union just to remain in number 10.
Why not?
killer_clank
Member
I think it's the Lib Dems in the Scotland Office. Supposedly they had the memo and the Foreign Office weren't aware of it existing. Labour wouldn't see it since they're not in Govt, I can't see why the tories leaking it would be good for them since they want the SNP to do well, where as the Lib Dems are almost definitely going to lose at least 9 seats in Scotland and have nothing to lose. Can just imagine some special advisor almost definitely out of a job come may 8th saying "fuck it"
Shouldn't it be the opposite? The smaller something is the larger the percentage error.
Not sure that it suits the UK, (or evwn English) method of opemess towards people feom outside. No matter what is said about immigration, the UK remains almost uniquely open to new and estabilshed movement, both intra and internationally.
Not sure that further fracturing or legislation will assist with that at a political, social or even economic level.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Well, it's larger as a proportion of the population. +/- 1.58 percentage points when your population is 7% means that your MoE is about a fifth of your measured result, where as +/-3.14 percentage points when your population is 50% means that your MoE is about a fifteenth of your current result. In absolute terms, the error margin gets smaller as the expected population size decreases, but relative to the population size it gets larger.
#maths
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
...I don't see how that impacts anything? It's not like the North-Eastern Parliament will require passports for entry from the North-Western one.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Why does labour hate SNP so much? Miliband always sounds as though he's on the verge of beating up Sturgeon.
benjipwns
Banned
They compete over a lot of the same seats.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Oh that makes sense. Aside from the Scotland issue, and nuclear weapons, it sounds as though both have a lot in common. Certainly more than they would with the Tories. SNP seems to acknowledge this, but it feels as though Labour is still angry about the Scottish gain of SNP.
Jezbollah
Member
Maybe I'm hyperanalyzing it or something, but could it be run by the Telegraph to get the SNP's reaction to distance itself from those "comments" - and get them to reinforce their alignment with Labour (thus reinforcing the Tory SNP/Labour coalition narrative)? Sturgeon has already come out to offer such a coalition..
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
The SNP have played a very long game focused on destroying Scottish Labour and supplanting them as the dominant force in Scottish politics. And there's nothing that Labour can do to stop it.
I cringe up whenever I see the "Christian" card being played in British politics. It's No. 2 on the conservative checklist for blatantly desperate pandering (No. 1 is to call your opponent/opponent's policies "Stalinist").
Miles Quaritch
Member
Ah, was wondering when religious pandering would rear its ugly head.
Id hope it falls on deaf ears, but I've learnt not to hope for such things any more...
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
IIRC, ten years ago they were planning to provide regions of England with greater devolution. But when the north east of England voted against it they scrapped the whole thing.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
they remind him who his party was before John Smith died
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Part of the reason why the SNP decimated the unionist parties is because they don't have a puppeteer directing their moves. Labour and - yes, even - the Tories could easily become relevant again in Scottish politics if they split off from the Westminster party and acted independently without the baggage of Westminster.
Someone in the Scottish Conservatives floated this idea a while back, but obviously nothing came of it. Which is a shame, because a lot of Scottish people would vote for a centre-right party that lacked the establishmentarian baggage of the Conservative party.
And the fate of Johann Lamont was essentially the death of any hope of getting a relevant and forward-thinking Scottish Labour ever again. For those outside of Scotland: Lamont was the leader of Scottish Labour and complained that she was essentially being asked to be the administrator of a branch office of the Westminster Labour party. She was replaced by the living embodiment of what she complained about.
But this would never happen. As Labour and the Conservatives both see any greater autonomy for their Scottish offices to play directly into the SNP's hands - both in a PR battle and also the fact that by splitting their Westminster and Scottish parties they'd be essentially encouraging greater autonomy for Scotland itself.
Someone in the Scottish Conservatives floated this idea a while back, but obviously nothing came of it. Which is a shame, because a lot of Scottish people would vote for a centre-right party that lacked the establishmentarian baggage of the Conservative party.
And the fate of Johann Lamont was essentially the death of any hope of getting a relevant and forward-thinking Scottish Labour ever again. For those outside of Scotland: Lamont was the leader of Scottish Labour and complained that she was essentially being asked to be the administrator of a branch office of the Westminster Labour party. She was replaced by the living embodiment of what she complained about.
But this would never happen. As Labour and the Conservatives both see any greater autonomy for their Scottish offices to play directly into the SNP's hands - both in a PR battle and also the fact that by splitting their Westminster and Scottish parties they'd be essentially encouraging greater autonomy for Scotland itself.
CyclopsRock
Member
5 is a pretty low turnout
I'm so glad we dont have a significant religious voter bloc in this country.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
5 is a pretty low turnout
I'm so glad we dont have a significant religious voter bloc in this country.
I mean, every single leader is usually keen to stress the Christian nature of Easter, Christmas, etc, which suggests that they're worried about antagonising them. But we are extremely fortunate to not be on the same level as Republicans. Despite Farage's best efforts.
JonathanEx
Member
So is it fair to assume - in the conversation, Sturgeon had doubts over how Prime Ministerial Miliband is (as many have) - this got written up badly from third-hand reporting as that she prefers Cameron, which then got leaked to the Telegraph?
He denied it live on Sky News.
IdreamofHIME
Member
Speaking as a civil servant myself, the chances to get anything to a minister now its all been dissolved is pretty low. It would have to go through someone at Director level to stand a chance. Therefore it would be piss easy to find the leak.
If anything, I would say this was through a Union to a Labour politician (very easy to leak and difficult to track). It was kind of funny that alot of the Scottish Labour party just so happened to be on twitter when it broke is kind of a giveaway
The SNP have a history of stabbing labour in the back over not getting their way. The SNP opened the door to thatcherism in 79 (by withdrawing support of the minority labour government) as a result of losing the Scotland Act referendum.
Many believe that history repeats itself in politics.
No. Labour hate that anyone would stand against them and they hated losing Holyrood to the SNP.
They ushered in the Torys in the 80s and now apparently want to do it again.
The public voted for the Tories and it's clear they won't support a Tory gov.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Just to be clear, the public hadn't actually voted for the Conservatives at the point the SNP helped bring down the Callaghan administration; the election followed as a result of them doing so. Not their finest hour.
EDIT: Having said that, in '79 Scotland voted proportionally more Conservative than England did. How times have changed.
EDIT2: Nope, I can't read, that was '59.
The Scottish public didn't vote for Thatcher/Tory for 18 years, but the SNP put her there.
And Labour stopped a Scottish Assembly despite a referendum that favoured doing so. That is why they lost the support of the SNP.
Of course parliament was only 5 months (at maximum) from dissolution anyway so it didn't really make much of a difference. Labour were in disarray and a Tory victory was inevitable.
The referendum failed primarily due to voter turn out - with the stipulation that 40% of voters must say yes. its true that 51% of those who voted, voted yes. Can't say I agree with such stipulations, which were introduced by Labour to help get the Tories, who opposed the bill, to agree (otherwise it wouldnt have happened at all).
But my point stands, you couldn't trust the SNP the to support labour in 79', and you can't in 2015. When it comes to the SNP in Westminster, they have a single objective. It would be niave to assume they wouldn't be compelled to do everything they can to achieve their goal.
I'm not a labour voter myself anymore - i just cant help but point out the obvious.
Sorry I don't understand, why would the Labour Government need Tory support for the Scotland Bill if the backing of the SNP gave them a majority? It was a Labour MP who put in the 40% stipulation.
The SNP actually called for the confidence vote first, feeling the Labour government had betrayed the will of Scotland, Thatcher rode on their coattails.
Labour were on their last legs regardless of whether the election was in May or October.
Callighans leadership was a minority government (EDIT: and required the support if several minority parties), there was lots of opposotion and attempts to amend the way the referendum was adminstered before it went through.
Thatcher was waiting to pounce and the SNP knew it. She snapped at the opportunity as soon as their intentions were signalled.
My point regarding the SNP still stands.
The fact is that Callaghan couldn't control his MPs let alone work with the smaller parties and the only reason he kept them in line during confidence votes is that they feared getting the boot at an election. The months before the vote are known as The Winter of Discontent.
Also if you hadn't noticed the SNP is a very different party to that of 1979.
There is a decent oral history of the SNP's role in the vote here
I don't see where we disagree on Callaghan. the first bill was rejected at the second reading by the tories and it was axed altogether that year. The following year it was reintroduced and various amendments were implemented to appease the opposition as it was nessasary to get it through parliament.
Don't start quoting blogs at me you just so happened to google in the past 20 minutes. I'm not disagreeing over the state of Labour in the 70's - my point is regarding the actions of these MP's supposedly representing Scottish interests.
All parties are very different to the 1979 versions. But if you think you can rely on the SNP to support Labour and lock out the Torys I fear for your sanity.
You are the one who said that you can't trust the SNP because they brought down Labour in 79
Why are you relying on actions in 1979 to assert what the SNP will do in this parliament? Nicola Sturgeon has publicly pledged to vote against any Conservative Queen's speech, why shouldn't I believe her, the next election for the SNP is 12 months away where they will be defending their Holyrood majority.
As for a blog I googled 20 minutes ago. I (sort of) know the author in that we were at university together but were in opposite political circles. He was part of a group of Socialists who specialised in failed rebrands every year. I also use Bing.
I said they stabbed labour in the back and were happy to usher in Thatcherism in 1979, this was in response to a question asking why Labour dislike the SNP. Not that they were wholly responsible for bringing down labour.
I have a hard time believing the words of any politician to be honest, and tend to rely on the party's record to form my opinions. I could say the same thing as Ed Milliband, but I won't touch labour now because of the actions of Blair.
The leaked Sturgeon memo just seems to make blindly obvious sense to me. It's not like she is standing for a Westminster seat which is meaningless to her future vision of Scotland. Why wouldn't she lie to the British public? She has an genda.
I apologise for the google/bing mix-up.
CyclopsRock
Member
I dont want this thread getting too serious, so here's this from maybe the best episode of TTOI out there.
"What's the news? Just - What? Just tell me what the fucking news is and I'll put it on the front page. It's not like we're The Independent, we can't just stick a headline saying "Cruelty" and then stick a picture of a dolphin or a whale underneath it. I mean, that's just That's just fucking cheating, that's rubbish."
"What's the news? Just - What? Just tell me what the fucking news is and I'll put it on the front page. It's not like we're The Independent, we can't just stick a headline saying "Cruelty" and then stick a picture of a dolphin or a whale underneath it. I mean, that's just That's just fucking cheating, that's rubbish."
Chemical Rampancy
Banned
This is politically naive, nothing remains constant in UK politics.
Jezbollah
Member
I dont know if anyone's seen this (is it OP worthy?)
FiveThirtyEight's Predictions
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/
Con 283
Lab 277
SNP 40
LD 26
FiveThirtyEight's Predictions
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/uk-general-election-predictions/
Con 283
Lab 277
SNP 40
LD 26
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Nate was so badly wrong about the UK last time (120 Lib Dem seats? yeah...) that I'm not sure it counts as OP-worthy.
EDIT: They're using electionforecast.co.uk's prediction, it isn't a new one.
Jezbollah
Member
Cheers for validating it Crab. I'll very much take that site with a pinch of salt re our election then.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
What kind of bullshit is that?
Cornwall is as much English as anywhere else...just because a few pasty munching , class warfare wankers with a Scot's sized chip on their shoulders like to try and convince the world otherwise won't change that.
Non English....fucks sake, some of the shit you read in this thread.
The SNP did what they did in 79 because Callaghan couldn't keep up his end of the deal in terms of the agreed Scotland Bill. When Labour MP Cunningham put in the turnout amendment and a number of Labour MP's voted for it, Callaghan's government was over. Callaghan could still have allowed devolution but the anti devolutionalists in Labour made it clear that wouldn't be welcome. He needed the SNP votes to keep his government in power due to the fall out with the Libs. The SNP may have put the first motion, but as soon as Thatcher had checked with the Libs that they'd still vote for any no confidence motion, she produced her own opposition motion which was actually voted on.
Regardless of the questionable impact to Independence of a another Tory government, the SNP will have to stick to their promise to vote any Tory queens speech down. They'd lose too much of the ground they've gained in Scotland to do otherwise so they won't. They might not vote for Labour Queen's speech depending on its content and the prevailing situation (i.e if Labour and Lib Dems have the numbers and an agreement then I could see the SNP abstaining from the vote, mainly because if the Lib Dems and Labour are agreeing there will be some stuff the SNP won't like in the speech)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked