I have no idea of the reasons that any of those three [Gloag, Souter, Murdoch] have for claiming, or otherwise, to support the SNP.
Did you read the articles linked to? Souter wanted a knighthood; Souter and Gloag wanted protection from further public regulation of buses; Murdoch wanted protection from public obstruction of the BSkyB deal. They all got them from 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/
😆 how is scotland going to solve russias homophobic (and racist attitudes, i saw the same documentaries) or even the uk or europe for that matter?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/
Well, okay, let's imagine for a moment that Brian Souter's knighthood was [i]entirely unconnected[/i] to his promise to give £500,000 to the SNP not long before. (You'll notice how limited in scope the "inquiry" cited was: "Lord Fraser came to his conclusion after writing to the head of honours and appointments in the Cabinet Office, who replied that he could find no written communication from Mr Salmond or any evidence that the First Minister had approached his office, directly or indirectly.").
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.
My money is on the beast. After all my new SNP MP is an attention seeking ex-Tory and Dennis knows how to deal with them. Makes you think about how inappropriate the "Red Tory" jibe actually is....
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.
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?
Hassle? Is Ireland being hassled by Russia? Is Denmark? Malta? New Zealand?
I notice you didn't mention Finland, Sweden, Australia or Cyprus, let alone Georgia, Ukraine or Moldova. They're all examples of less influential countries being hassled by Russia.
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.
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 - MemberNo 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.
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. Unless of course you imagine me to be wealthier than Murdoch, Gloag, Souter or the Weirs - which is a lovely daydream for me but far from accurate.
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.
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 - and neither does your suggestion that the SNP is just a single-issue transitional lobby group. It's the party of government in Scotland, it's not just a caretaker before independence and it has a full platform of policies.
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.
I think what's happening in Scotland is a model for that, SNP membership has boomed and people are paying their membership fees. I don't agree that business holds all the power, the fact is that many working people understand that having a job is essential and political parties which appear "anti-business" are doomed and that's not because of donations.
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
Relative to the alternatives available it is but yes they are all broadly RW centrists with slightly different flavours of "leftism" thrown in
the whole point is that the SNP is just another party which serves the interests of its wealthy donors.
Being a bit unfair here
They all need to get donations from wealthy donors in order to be able to fund their activities. I am not sure that this fact alone is conclusive proof they are beholden to them and have to do their bidding.
The reverse is also true. The labour party gets a lot of funding from the Unions but this fact does not make Labour in the back pockets of the union nor does it make them the pawns of the unions.
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
@ben fixed that for you
@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
Well given Labour has all but been wiped out I am not sure his analysis is incorrect
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].
Introduced the minimum wage ? 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.
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.
