[Closed] anyone on here voted SNP. why?

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.

It is a fact an independent Scotland would be much worse off financially. The only way that wouldn't be true was if over a period of time the country somehow went on to outperform the UK to the extent it made up the deficit and then overtook the UK. Even if you did believe that (fantasy) in the interim it would be worse off.

Yes, whatever Souter thought he was doing, he didn't get very far pushing his homophobic views.

Just as me voting SNP doesn't mean I buy into all their views, the SNP accepting money from Souter doesn't mean they agree with all his views either.

It is a fact an independent Scotland would be much worse off financially.

It is a fact that anyone who says they can make predictions about the future of a country decades down the line is talking through their hat.

jambalaya - Member
It is a fact an independent Scotland would be much worse off financially. The only way that wouldn't be true was if over a period of time the country somehow went on to outperform the UK to the extent it made up the deficit and then overtook the UK. Even if you did believe that (fantasy) in the interim it would be worse off.

It is a fact an independent Scotland would be much worse off financially.

Not this shite again....

Nobeerinthefridge - Member

It is a fact an independent Scotland would be much worse off financially.

Not this shite again....

Same shite but in a different scenario like saying if UK is out of EU we would be worst off. 🙄

bencooper - Member

Just as me voting SNP doesn't mean I buy into all their views

No of course not. I have repeatedly said that if I was living in Scotland I would almost certainly have voted SNP in the GE.

But I am fully aware that the SNP isn't a left-wing party, you seem to dismiss that fact as unimportant or simply want to brush it under the carpet.

I disagree, I think it's very important because it's important that people fully understand what they are voting for, and because mislabeling the SNP as left-wing undermines genuine left-wing parties/politicians.

opinion!

I do find it genuinely stunning people think Scotland with a population of 5m could be better off financially if it where independent

Anyway as I posted the SNP continue to disrupt the opposition benches, oh the irony of criticizing negative referendum campaign tactics as all the SNP have offered so far is seating disruption. They can't seem to see all they are doing is reinforcing the UKs belief they are nothing but trouble makers with no positive contribution to make

No of course not. I have repeatedly said that if I was living in Scotland I would almost certainly have voted SNP in the GE.

I do find it genuinely stunning people think Scotland with a population of 5m could be better off financially if it where independent

Either way his point was you cannot be certain, which is clearly true.

Sooner or later its going to dawn on Scottish voters that voting SNP will ensure a Tory government

Small countries can be well off.

However it does not follow that Scotland in particular, with its economic profile, after splitting from the UK would be better off, or indeed well off. No-one was able to figure that out, it seems.

How does that work?

The theory is that more people in England and Wales would've voted Labour if it weren't for the SNP.

It also meant middle englanders voted to ensure there was no labour SNP coalition

Its one of the ironies that increased SNP support made it more likely that what they wished for least happened.

Had this not been a factor I think labour would have fared better....it was a double whammy to use a tory phrase.

The theory is that more people in England and Wales would've voted Labour if it weren't for the SNP.

Also, I think you'll find that fewer people in Scotland would have voted for the SNP if if it hadn't been for Blue Labour.

jambalaya - Member
opinion!

How many pages of spreadhseets would you need to see before it would be considered a fact. Actually I think I know the answer, it would be an infinite amount, ie you'd never admit it. Even if Scotland was independent I have no doubt the "good times / independence bonus would be just around the corner"
I do find it genuinely stunning people think Scotland with a population of 5m could be better off financially if it where independent

It is my opinion, that yes scotland would be financially better off than being in union as a country that seems hell bent on giving the US a run for it's money in terms of deficit and debt levels. entirley depends on who is running it mind you, but as I've said a million times, I'm willing to give it a go.

So we shouldn't be allowed to vote for who we want to in case it scares you?

We are simply telling you what happened in our countries its not our fault you dislike the answer given.

Either way his point was you cannot be certain, which is clearly true.

@BigButt, as @JY says in his post above the fear of an SNP/Labour coalition helped to firm up the Tory vote in England and won them some key target seats especially from the Lib Dems. I posted here I "despised" the SNP after their referendum shenanigans, I'd certainly now do all I could to keep them from a position of influence at Westminster. This was not a view I held 2 years ago, I think was naive in that regard back then

Yes Labour surr lost your vote because of that 😆

So we shouldn't be allowed to vote for who we want to in case it scares you?

What the hell?

I simply said that is a theory about how the SNP affected the vote in England. If you think that's passing comment on the way you voted then you've got some gigantic chips on your shoulder.

😀 Actually it certainly was a factor, just not a major one. This time round Labour where un-electable on their own "merits" for me. I voted in Eastleigh which went from Lib Dem (2010 comfortable, then by election narrow-ish hold) to a Conservative landslide.

"It is a fact an independent Scotland would be much worse off financially."

Not this shite again....

It's interesting because that shite seems to have got through to Nicola Sturgeon and others in the SNP.

During the referendum campaign the SNP claimed that full "independence" could be achieved within a timetable of 2 years.

Now according to Nicola Sturgeon full fiscal autonomy would take [i]"years to implement".[/i] I think she might be getting cold feet.

And according to SNP MP George Kerevan : [i]"For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide".[/i]

So without the rest of the UK bailing out Scotland if need be full fiscal autonomy would be "economic suicide" for Scotland, according to a SNP MP.

It seems as if this shite is spreading onto both sides of the argument.

You seem to be telling us what happened in our countries because you disliked the answer given.

more people in England and Wales would've voted Labour if it weren't for the SNP

IMHO Milliband shot himself in the foot over the SNP. He let the Tories drive the narrative and looked weaker and weaker because of it.

What he should have done when asked about coalitions and or deals is say something like:

"Of course we are working towards a Labour majority, but if we fall short then we would be willing to work with other parties with which we share common cause or agree on policy areas. What we wouldn't be prepared to discuss is any referendum that threatens the future of the Union.

"Can the conservatives state what their intentions would be in the event of them not securing a majority?"

The Tories hypocrisy on potential coalitions was as clear as day, the gap in their position was so huge you could have driven a bus through it, yet rather than point this out Milliband just folded and drove the "Scottish Nasty Party" narrative for his opponents.

If he had been willing to have a mature conversation about potential coalition partners he might have neutralised what was the Tories main election campaign tactic against him.

Ernie depends how you interpret those comments. Full fiscal autonomy is not independence, its a lot more complex than simple independence. As it would have to have factors built into it, yes that allow Scotland to be helped out, and second allowed Scotland to pay its fair share towards the imbalances elsewhere as required in the uk. Either that or it is just independence, not full fiscal autonomy.

So no, no great change. Just different opinions on different circumatances. FFA and independence are not one and the same.

So, it's our fault because we voted for who we wanted making you vote for who you didn't want to. Really?

FFS

Honestly, you are in a different conversation to the rest of us. I simply made an observation about voting patterns. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. There's clearly a Tory government because more people voted Tory.

This is simply speculation about how the SNP might've influenced voting patterns outside Scotland. Blame for anything has absolutely nothing to do with it.

n fact even better, it wasn't the way we voted that had you keechin' yer breeks

And what the hell is this 'you' business? It's got **** all to do with me. Why are you making this into a personal battle? Why are you calling the English 'you' as if they are somehow of one mind?

Ernie depends how you interpret those comments.

Not really. Here's a fuller quote from the SNP MP :

[i]"Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula... We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit.

For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide.

However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross-subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish home rule."[/i]

It's clear what he meant : without the Barnett Formula Scotland would face a significant budget deficit, for Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt system of subsidies would be tantamount to economic suicide.

He wants to have "mechanisms for cross-subsidising regions". That's because he wants Scotland to receive subsidies, not because he wants Scotland to subsidise other regions - obviously.

He is clearly unconvinced that Scotland can stand on its own two feet economically without subsidies from the rest of the UK. I suspect he's probably right.

Again rich you also seem to dislike the message rather than negate it.
You have a number of posters, from very different political persuasions and regions, telling you what happened as a result of the SNP rise.

it's our fault because we voted for who we wanted making you vote for who you didn't want to. Really?

I have not seen any attempt by you to negate it. Ridicule it yes, negate it no. I dont like this fact any more than you do.

You could easily interpret than to mean loads of things. Personally I would put it down to a distrust of what FFA means(it is not set in stone what it means in the slightest, loads of room for variation.

BTW you are allowing your pro union bias to colour your opinions on this matter. That much is obvious.

BTW he's only echoing gordon browns claims of the Tory trap FFA is.

One of these consequences was to make a Tory govt more likely due to the fear of the SNP.

You could easily interpret than to mean loads of things.

Not really, the bloke is no idiot, he is obviously quite capable of expressing himself. He is making some very specific points very clearly. No reasonable person could read that quote and think "Oh, I wonder what he means?".

I think the problem is that you are embarrassed by the quote from a SNP MP so you are trying to suggest that it doesn't say what it very clearly says.

.

BTW you are allowing your pro union bias to colour your opinions on this matter. That much is obvious.

Well of course my pro-union bias colours my opinions on this matter. What a strange thing to say.

I chose a quote from a SNP MP which backs up a point I want to make, did you want to post something which doesn't back up my opinion ffs ?

I'm embarrassed? Why am I embarrassed? I'm not the one that's holding on to a point that Scotland would have a budget deficit as some kinda golden point. Of course Scotland would have a budget deficit, it would have 9/10% of the uk deficit. It's a bit of a no brainer.

Which leads me to the conclusion that if the guy is suspicious of FFA it's got bugger all to do with deficits but other factors within that.

btw your bias it's not a strange thing to mention at all, it's fairly clear you forget sometimes.

This was particularly funny! 😆

He wants to have "mechanisms for cross-subsidising regions". That's because he wants Scotland to receive subsidies, not because he wants Scotland to subsidise other regions - [b]obviously[/b].

Fact is Scotland wouldn't have a deficit because of how Scotland would be run at the start, it would start with a deficit because of years of mismanagement at a uk level, that allowed the deficit and the debt to get ridiculously out of control.

An independent Scotland, or a FFA Scotland wouldn't just have a deficit, it'd have a shitload of debt to go along with that. If you want the latter (FFA), you need to have a come and go arrangement.