[Closed] anyone on here voted SNP. why?

bencooper

I don't want Trident

more free Uni places

The alternative is? Given the current level of Russian military activities who is going to defend us and with what if we are to gain Devo?

The alternative is having good international relations and not going to war. Seems to work for many other small countries in the world.

wanmankylung - Member
The alternative is? Given the current level of Russian military activities who is going to defend us and with what if we are to gain Devo?
The alternative is having good international relations and not going to war. Seems to work for many other small countries in the world.

The horse has surely bolted on that one given we are currently part of the UK

Well leaving the UK can go some way to improving international relationssurely, no?

There's plenty recognition of borders or differences in culture and approach. Scotland will do fine and dandy.

There's plenty recognition of borders or differences in culture and approach. Scotland will do fine and dandy.

If ISIL reach Hadrian's wall there's something gone wrong and your point is moot because they've already defeated rUK.

When the first Russian warship sails to a Scottish port the response will be "lets get pissed" and see who can handle their drink the most. US warships would be welcome by some, so why not Russians or Chinese?

Current level of Russian aircraft activity flying over any part of these islands is a big fat zero, so yes the current level of activity will be allowed to continue.

So if ISIL or whoever reach Hadrians wall or see the Welcome to Scotland signs the will stop and say "whoaha the Scots support us let's turn around"......Yeah, right!!
Putin seems to be another who recognises Borders
When the first Russian warship or sub sails up and docks in Leith or the Clyde what will be the reaction?
Are we going to allow the current level of Russian aircraft activity to fly over our lands without intervention given our proximity to the rUK?

Russians at our borders? What the hell have you been smoking john?.

In answer to the OP's question, I voted for the Scottish national party as I agree with more of their policies than all of the other parties put together.

Never understood people who are lifelong voters of one party, blind faith is bizarre.

Nobeerinthefridge - Member
Russians at our borders? What the hell have you been smoking john?...

I wonder why Scotland will be invaded by the Russians when they have neglected nearly 100 years of opportunities to invade Ireland.

I think some people have been reading way too much Tom Clancy...

Yes Scotland likes to bring up examples of Russia encroaching on UK airspace in Scotland to show that we are not well enough protected against Russia whilst being a part of the UK. Make your effing mind up. I do agree though that Putin probably would not invade Scotland as Salmond has admiration for him.

Funny that your apparently tolerant stance is at odds with Russia's often homophobic, racist outlook. In reality it is difficult to do business on the global stage and not get your hands dirty.

And your point is?

Murphy gone! The greatest advert for the SNP since some grocers wean.

And your point is?

It's possible to, at the same time, think that Russia aren't going to invade Scotland and also think that the UK's priorities in therms of defence are very skewed. That was Yes Scotland's point about the Russians - they're really not going to invade us (we've got nothing they want, and they're not that stupid), but we should have some kind of patrol vessels and aircraft, instead of relying on a fisherman tweeting the MoD.

And why does Russian politics have anything at all to do with this?

Russian politics is not important to you, as Scotland will be a small country you can happily bury your head in the sand. An independent Scotland will have to deal with these countries on an international stage. That is when your principles will go out the window to avoid hassle from a larger country.

Hassle? Is Ireland being hassled by Russia? Is Denmark? Malta? New Zealand?

Russian politics is important to me in that I care about human rights - I don't think it's relevant to the discussion about Scottish independence.

Edit

Oh, if only we could ignore the result - we'd be free of the Tories.

I don't mean hassle from Russia, rather hassle from your own conscience. Just saw an interesting but surely biased exposee(BBC) regarding Russian homophobia. Don't know how it played put in Ireland?
I just don't wish to see a country throw out it's beliefs because it is wee. You may wish that though!!

So, let me get this straight, Scotland being independent is bad because Russia has some fairly nasty political stuff going on?

I suppose that means Greenland is bad because Robert Mugabe is a dick and El Salvador can't be trusted due the ongoing situation in North Korea.

This is certainly the most interesting argument I've heard yet.

I have no idea of the reasons that any of those three [Gloag, Souter, Murdoch] have for claiming, or otherwise, to support the SNP.

I don't mean hassle from Russia, rather hassle from your own conscience.

Now you've completely lost me. If Scotland was independent we wouldn't be able to threaten Russia with nuclear weapons, so they'd be nastier to gay people, and that should be on my conscience, is that what you're saying? Seriously?

What we can do for gay rights in Russia isn't threaten them with nuclear weapons, it's lead by example:

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/1320036-scotland-named-best-country-in-europe-for-lgbti-legal-equality/

Souter wanted a knighthood

I'm not an expert on the affair, and I'm not a SNP member so have no interest in defending them,but wasn't this investigated?

http://news.stv.tv/politics/282982-inquiry-clears-salmond-of-influencing-souter-knighthood/

athgray - Member
I don't mean hassle from Russia, rather hassle from your own conscience. Just saw an interesting but surely biased exposee(BBC) regarding Russian homophobia.

Should an independent Scotland invade russia to protect it's minorities? 😆 should the uk, should europe? 😆

Souter wanted a knighthood

I'm not an expert on the affair, and I'm not a SNP member so have no interest in defending them,but wasn't this investigated?

http://news.stv.tv/politics/282982-inquiry-clears-salmond-of-influencing-souter-knighthood/

How does one reconcile multimillionaires giving money and support to the SNP and receiving protection from government regulation of public services in return with the idea that the SNP is a social democratic party?

I don't need to reconcile it, I'm not a SNP member. They've done a bunch of things I'm not a fan of, like cosying up to Donald Trump, but nobody's perfect.

How does one reconcile multimillionaires giving money and support to the SNP and receiving protection from government regulation of public services in return with the idea that the SNP is a social democratic party?

You see your wife - do you like everything that she does, or does some of it get right on your tits? Nobody is perfect - the SNP are no different.

SNP are a means to an end for me- a fairer society, which I think would come about in an independent Scotland.

Will probably vote Green at the 2016 elections

The thing that puzzles me, is that in all the litany of disasters that are promised us by the antis, yet none of them have pointed at how Ireland which has no oil and which shares a land border with the UK is desperately begging to come back into the warm clutches of the UK.

Oh, it isn’t…. 🙂

@eipc Ireland was a very poor country and received significant EU funding. The EU paid for the road to Dublin airport as the country couldn't afford it. The country set up a tax haven for banks to attract business and then required a massive bailout as their economy imploded during the financial crash. Is that your model for Scotland ?

Anyway, SNP MPs spent hours and hours sitting in an empty House of Commons in the normal seat of Dennis Skinner just so they could prevent him sitting there. Glad they are using their time productively. How very pro-democracy that is bullying what is now quite an elderly man with a bit of a sit-in. Oh yes and they did the same to sit behind the Labour front bench, oh how very radical that is, end to the Westminster order eh ? Fortunately the voting system remains the same, one MP one vote.

The thing that puzzles me, is that in all the litany of disasters that are promised us by the antis, yet none of them have pointed at how Ireland which has no oil and which shares a land border with the UK is desperately begging to come back into the warm clutches of the UK.

It doesn't puzzle me, what with the situation being totally 100% different and all, but then I'm not pulling spurious crap out of my arse to justify a pre-conceived point of view 🙂

SNP MPs spent hours and hours sitting in an empty House of Commons in the normal seat of Dennis Skinner just so they could prevent him sitting there. Glad they are using their time productively. How very pro-democracy that is bullying what is now quite an elderly man with a bit of a sit-in.

The beast saw them off - takes more than hot air and flufff

Yes, that was childish. However you've missed out the context - Labour didn't want the SNP to sit in the seats usually used by the third party, so they pinched Labour seats instead.

jambalaya - Member
@eipc Ireland was a very poor country and received significant EU funding. The EU paid for the road to Dublin airport as the country couldn't afford it. The country set up a tax haven for banks to attract business and then required a massive bailout as their economy imploded during the financial crash...

That's my point.

They still prefer to be independent.

The UK is not exactly a paragon of fine economic management either, is it?

How does one reconcile multimillionaires giving money and support to the SNP and receiving protection from government regulation of public services in return with the idea that the SNP is a social democratic party?

You see your wife - do you like everything that she does, or does some of it get right on your tits? Nobody is perfect - the SNP are no different.

Hassle? Is Ireland being hassled by Russia? Is Denmark? Malta? New Zealand?

neither did you mention that Russia has been hassling Malta about gay adoption and only didn't hassle New Zealand because NZ refused to implement sanctions on Putin's cronies after the invasion of Ukraine. NZ exports $250m of mostly foods to Russia every year, those who sanctioned Russia were banned from exporting foods there. Perhaps that's the kind of "don't annoy Russia and they won't hassle Scotland" ethical foreign policy you were thinking of.

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/32526/minister-stresses-importance-of-eu-russia-relations-20131220#.VVqKl9kazTo

Ah, so the reason the UK isn't being hassled by Russia is that we have nuclear weapons? Without them, Russian agents would be murdering dissidents in London?

Oh wait, they did.

The reason Russians like the UK is that we're a tax haven for them, and they can sue each other in our courts.

In your Malta scenario, how would it help if Malta had nuclear weapons? Would they threaten to nuke Moscow if the Russians didn't allow gay Maltese couples to adopt Russian babies?

And really, if that's "hassling" then every country does things like that. The USA is also keen on trying to export it's sexual morals, holding back aid if it's going to contraception groups and the like.

konabunny - Member
...So is it fair to say that despite the SNP taking significant support from multimillionaire capitalists to block public regulation of their businesses, you still believe the SNP is a social democratic party?

The SNP is an independence party first and foremost and attracts support from across the spectrum. We're not really interested in the buzzwords as long as it continues to do a decent job, and it appears more Scots think so than don't.

We can fragment into various parties once the job is done.

It would be good if the same scrutiny to sources of funds and potential conflicts of interest was paid to the current UK govt. That's a bit mind boggling.

Yup, I also remember a lot of snobbish comments when the Weirs gave money to the SNP.

We're not really interested in the buzzwords

Buzzwords? Lol.. Details, you mean.

No issue with Souter or the Wiers making donations to the SNP as far as I am concerned. I am sure the Labour Party would love to have some wealthy personal doners like them.

@ben I hadn't heard that back story

We're not really interested in the buzzwords.....

Social democracy is hardly a 'buzzword', it's a term used for over a hundred years with a clear definition.

We can fragment into various parties once the job is done.

So you are pushing the line that the SNP won 56 of the 59 seats in Scotland only because Scots desperately want 'independence' and other considerations were of little consequence. What spectacular nonsense.

It would be good if the same scrutiny to sources of funds and potential conflicts of interest was paid to the current UK govt.

I don't know why you are pretending that it isn't.

jambalaya - Member

No issue with Souter or the Wiers making donations to the SNP as far as I am concerned.

Well that's hardly surprising since you are a Tory supporter and given the Tory Party's long history of accepting money from dodgy people.

yawn, same old same old

Well that's hardly surprising since you are a Tory supporter and given the Tory Party's long history of accepting money from dodgy people.

The Weirs aren't dodgy - in fact a lot of the snobbery was precisely because they're ordinary people who got lucky on the Lottery, not businesspeople or landed gentry.

Yup, I also remember a lot of snobbish comments when the Weirs gave money to the SNP.

The SNP...attracts support from across the spectrum. We're not really interested in the buzzwords...It would be good if the same scrutiny to sources of funds and potential conflicts of interest was paid to the current UK govt.

You can dismiss examining what the SNP actually stands for as "buzzwords". If you vote for the SNP because you describe yourself as interested in socially progressive policies and you can't engage with the fact of seriously nasty multimillionaires buying the SNP's protection for their business...that's some serious cognitive dissonance. I wonder - having totally self-deluded in the run up to the referendum - whether some people here will ever have a "wakey wakey" moment about the SNP.

And as for your last suggestion - that sources of funding for other parties be examined - a) that's classic whataboutery and b) the other parties' funding is examined in the same way as the SNP. And guess what - it's just the same as the SNP - the whole point is that the SNP is just another party which serves the interests of its wealthy donors.

Which presumably goes on to highlight how in the modern world the businesses hold all the power, and governments have no choice but to dance to their tune. Otherwise they'll take their money somewhere else.

Changing that is going to require way way more than simply voting in a different party.

Neatly put KB, but I fear the truth will take some time to sink in, at least now we will have some decent scrutiny of SNP actions not the fluffy rhetoric

jambas - the pill is particularly bitter to swallow, especially being wiped out by fluff merchants!!

Changing that is going to require way way more than simply voting in a different party.

tmh 🙂

The line being espoused by some on here is that the SNP is a leftist party, a social democratic party, a progressive party that favours government protection of the weak and the beneficiary of latent leftist sentiment in Scotland. None of those claims stands up to scrutiny

the whole point is that the SNP is just another party which serves the interests of its wealthy donors.

Over egging the pudding somewhat

I don't think "snobbery" is quite the right word to describe skepticism about fantastically wealthy people giving money to a party in return for getting protection from public regulation.

What public regulation are the Weirs getting protection from?

I don't agree that business holds all the power

I can't see how you can say that... explain.

ernie_lynch - Member
"We can fragment into various parties once the job is done."
So you are pushing the line that the SNP won 56 of the 59 seats in Scotland only because Scots desperately want 'independence' and other considerations were of little consequence...

Surely that is QED

I don't think independence was the only consideration - though obviously for the 45% who voted Yes in the referendum it was a big one. Another big consideration was being totally, utterly disillusioned with Westminster politics.

That's not unique to Scotland, of course - in England it manifested itself in an increased Green vote and 3.5M people voting for the "I'm Not Racist But..." party.

But in Scotland, it especially affected the Labour Party - for generations, despite the evidence, people have really believed that Labour were on their side, working for them. The Referendum pulled away the curtain, revealing Labour standing side-by-side with the Tories to tell us we were too wee, to poor, too stupid. I know loads of older people, Labour voters down the generations, who all had an epiphany at the same time - and they all decided they'd never vote Labour again.

The Referendum pulled away the curtain, revealing Labour standing side-by-side with the Tories to tell us [s]we were too wee, to poor, too stupid.[/s] the truth

@molgrips we live in a democracy, businesses don't vote. Businesses do hire people though and people care about that.

So you are pushing the line that the SNP won 56 of the 59 seats in Scotland only because Scots desperately want 'independence' and other considerations were of little consequence...
Surely that is QED

What?

revealing Labour standing side-by-side with the Tories to tell us we were too wee, to poor, too stupid.

OMFG that's ridiculous. You are bitter and extremely one-eyed. You need to open the other one, you really do.

Amazing - have people really forgotten the Better Together campaign?

Or are you agreeing that Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid for independence?

No @ben I am not saying that Scotland is any of those things, what I have said repeatedly is that an independent Scotland would be poorer not least as it would be a small country. That's different than saying it's impossible to be independent

OMFG that's ridiculous. You are bitter and extremely one-eyed. You need to open the other one, you really do

Whether you agree or disagree with the sentiment is a different matter and perhaps you need to open both eyes.
the red tories line clearly got a lot of traction in Scotland.

I don't think there's much point going over the independence arguments again - the point still stands that people saw Labour standing alongside the Tories, together putting Scotland down. Even if they were telling the complete truth, that's still what killed the Labour Party in Scotland.

The sad thing is that Labour know it too. They did try to remind us of all the stuff they did - Keir Hardie, workers' rights, the NHS. But all that did was draw attention to how much they've failed their predecessors. Old Labour founded the National Health Service, New Labour invaded other countries illegally.

Or are you agreeing that Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid for independence?

Who me?

Who me?

I meant Jambalaya.

More SNP radicalism as now they are sitting on the Labour front bench. I suppose we know now what they meant by an end to Westminster politics of old.

[url] https://twitter.com/anntreneman/status/600657707541082114 [/url]

New Labour [s]invaded other countries illegally[/s].

Even by SNP standards the spinning of the too wee etc narrative is absurd. But if that is how it is perceived then god help everyone - the EU debate is likely to be worse.

The issue is/was Scotland's best interests served within to outside the current union. The referendum vote addressed that. It's an amazing, albeit seemingly successful, jump to take this to the sectarian-type argument that labour deserve what's coming to them for the simple reason that they sided with the nasty party. What a crock.

jambalaya - Member
No @ben I am not saying that Scotland is any of those things, what I have said repeatedly is that an independent Scotland would be poorer not least as it would be a small country.

Of the 13 countries above the uk on measures of prosperity, only 1 country has a larger population than the uk.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-30-most-prosperous-countries-in-the-world-2014-11

Introduced the minimum wage ?

Yup. Yet they're still very unpopular. Labour's ability to turn their natural advantages in Scotland into a resounding defeat was amazing to watch.

Sooner or later its going to dawn on Scottish voters that voting SNP will ensure a Tory government as they are very unpopular South of the border and this just galvanizes the Tory vote.

It's dawned on Scottish voters that we get a Tory government whether we like it or not, and if the union is so broken that English voters will vote Tory out of fear of us, that's England's problem not ours.

teamhurtmore - Member
The referendum vote addressed that.

You would like it to, but it didn't.

jambalaya - Member

No issue with Souter or the Wiers making donations to the SNP as far as I am concerned.

ernie_lynch - Member

Well that's hardly surprising since you are a Tory supporter and given the Tory Party's long history of accepting money from dodgy people

bencooper - Member

The Weirs aren't dodgy

So you agree that Souter is dodgy then. And Souter donates to the SNP. The SNP accepts money from dodgy people. Why?

Oh, good grief. I don't agree with his views, but he has a perfect right to donate to whoever he likes within the law. I was focusing on the Weirs because they were being lumped in with the other donors, but they're not trying to get anything out of it.

I don't think the SNP are above criticism - as I've said before, Salmond was far too fawning over Donald Trump. But that's not a good enough reason not to vote for them in this election.

So you agree that Souter is dodgy then. And Souter donates to the SNP. The SNP accepts money from dodgy people. Why?

You would like it to, but it didn't

Indeed Joe, it's was only a one way thing wasn't it?

Oh, good grief. I don't agree with his views, but he has a perfect right to donate to whoever he likes within the law.

.......I don't think the SNP are above criticism

Well make your mind up - is the SNP right to accept money from Souter or not?

Konabunny makes a valid point and it is perfectly reasonable to expect some sort of explanation from people who claim that the SNP is progressive as to why it accepts money from a well known homophobe.

And no one suggested it was anything other than "within the law" btw.

@seosamh - as a newly independent country of 5m Scotland would have been foo-barred even with oil at $110 a barrel never mind $65. With 100% certainty it would have had to take the euro and all the implied liabilities, the independence plan didn't even have a plan for a treasury/central bank never mind all the other civil service / government departments required to operate independently. The index you linked to has all sorts of wishy washy factors which are created to skew the results.

Show me your index that has no small countries on it?

Btw you are still doing it, passing opinion of as fact. Do you even know the difference?

We could argue all day, as my [b]opinion[/b] differs from yours and likely always will.

Why are you playing a silly point scoring game with someone that isn't even an SNP supporter?

There's no silly point scoring game here. Konabunny made a valid point about the SNP concerning how 'progressive' it is. It's reasonable to expect those dismiss his claim to explain why they do.

ernie_lynch - Member
There's no silly point scoring game here. Konabunny made a valid point about the SNP concerning how 'progressive' it is. It's reasonable to expect those dismiss his claim to explain why they do.

Do you have a valid "if anything" to bring to our attention?

You can still be "progressive" and take money from ****s just like you can be a **** and take money just from saints

FWIW i think the claim slightly left of the others is still valid. I am not sure anyone has said anything more "radical" for them [ its STW i am sure someone has but you get the point]

If you take money from a well known homophobe it throws in doubt your "progressive" credentials. That was Konabunny's point, I agree with him. I also agree with him that the SNP isn't left-wing, not beyond its rhetoric imo.

And btw sometimes parties refuse to accept money when to do so contradicts their principles.

[url= http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1412136.ece ]Greens refuse non-dom millionaire’s £7,000 donation as ‘unethical’[/url]

ernie_lynch - Member
If you take money from a well known homophobe it throws in doubt your "progressive" credentials. That was Konabunny's point, I agree with him. I also agree with him that the SNP isn't left-wing, not beyond its rhetoric imo.