Forum menu
It is all this tosh about a "fairer" society that puts me right SNP.
It is so subjective, and ultimately meaningless.
I'm against the idea of Scottish independence (and am not a Scot) but I can see that the SNP propose a lot of things that offer some interest to those that have been left behind by the 'New Labour' centralist stance. I could see the beginnings of a new socialist party that has influence in Scotland (obv) but also North England, particularly if they can avoid a split along the lines mentioned earlier in the thread between those who like the socialist side of the SNP and those who are more interested in the independence angle.
No mention of independence in their manifesto other than "The SNP will always support independence - but that is not
what this election is about. It is about making Scotland stronger" FWIW
At this election, we have the opportunity to shake up
the out of touch Westminster system so that it serves
Scotland better.
A vote for the SNP on May 7th is a vote for MPs who
will always stand up for Scotland's best interests.
It is a vote to make Scotland's voice heard at Westminster
more loudly than it has ever been heard before. And it
is a vote for more progressive politics.
The SNP will use our influence at Westminster to help
deliver positive change for the benefit of ordinary
people, not just in Scotland, but across the UK.
We propose a real alternative to the pain of austerity,
an end to unfair policies like the Bedroom Tax, a higher
minimum wage and protection for our NHS and vital
public services.
Instead of even deeper Westminster spending cuts,
we want to see more investment in our economy,
to create more and better paid jobs.
And we want the precious resources of our country to
be invested in building a better future for our children,
not on a new generation of nuclear weapons.
The SNP will never put the Tories into power.
Instead, if there is an anti-Tory majority after the election,
we will offer to work with other parties to
keep the Tories out.
And we will then use our influence to demand that
Labour delivers the real change that people want and
need - instead of just being a carbon copy of the Tories.
A vote for the SNP will make Scotland's voice heard -
loudly and clearly.
And it will help deliver new, better and more progressive
politics at Westminster for everyone.
My vow is to make Scotland stronger at Westminster.
With your support, we can secure a better future for
you, your family and Scotland.
More seriously, London is allegedly the biggest Scottish city in the UK by population.
North Sea oil is one thing but I reckon claiming that London is a "Scottish city" is pushing it a bit.
Will that be your last territorial claim ?
Bloody Immigrants!!! 😀
The SNP's primary policy stance in not an independent Scotland. It is a fairer and more just society. They see the only way of achieving that in the long term is to become an independent nation.
@wan, I see it 100% the other way round, the way they can get themselves into power with an independent Scotland is to promise things they cannot possibly deliver. Let's see how they do with the utopian vision with the power they have at Holyrood, of course failing means they can just keep blaming Westmister/Tories/The English
New Labour is in the center as that's where you have to be to win an election (nationally) and where it makes sense to be from an economic policy standpoint.
He had a theory that in time, if independence is not forthcoming, the SNP will lose some of their momentum as they are increasingly closely associated with "the establishment".
That is exactly what's happened to Plaid Cymru, their vote is down >20% in Westminster elections and down ~32% in Welsh Assembly elections over the last two decades.
Once you strip away the nonsensical policies only rabid nationalism is left.
I'm not particularly saying otherwise but plenty don't agree with me.
Scotland? I've heard of it and seen it on the news. Is it up North near London?
Yours,
Concerned from Dorset (near France)
The SNP are sick of all policy being made in London and the South East, exclusively for the benefit of London and the South East.They're certainly not alone there.
The SNP aren't sick of that at all as it plays to their "blame the English" agenda. The SNP have significant power and policy levers at Holyrood and have done a wonderful job of blaming everyone else / diverting attention from the fact they haven't achieved anything.
London pays £34bn more in taxes than is spent there and Westminster governments have moved large amounts of public sector jobs to the regions. It's simply not true that Westminster populated by MPs from throughout the UK is running the economy for the benefit of the South East
Of course not. They're doing it for the benefit of themselves and their mates regardless of where they live 😉
It's simply not true that Westminster populated by MPs from throughout the UK is running the economy for the benefit of the South East
Oh yeah... I forget about George's Northern Powerhouse!!! I believe we're getting a new choo choo train to Londoninium too 😆
I reckon the SNP strategy now is to get loads of MPs into Westminster and make such a complete and utter pains of themselves blocking votes and playing games to hold up decision-making, that after a couple of years we beg Scotland to leave UK if only to get rid of SNP from Westminster...
How the SNP introducing a country wide police force carry guns can be classed progressive? Further cuts to the tuition fees has been found to benefit the middle classes at a cost to the lowest.
Councils have seen budgets cut by 8.5% resulting in significant debt levels, with the SNP limiting their ability to raise council tax to make up the difference. And they moan about austerity elsewhere?
Councils have seen budgets cut by 8.5% resulting in significant debt levels, with the SNP limiting their ability to raise council tax to make up the difference. And they moan about austerity elsewhere?
Ah.....you've noticed a flaw.
Putting money where your rhetoric is, is not the SNP way.
Do people still eat white rolls? I'd forgotten what they look like. Must be a Scottish thing.
@wan, I see it 100% the other way round, the way they can get themselves into power with an independent Scotland is to promise things they cannot possibly deliver. Let's see how they do with the utopian vision with the power they have at Holyrood, of course failing means they can just keep blaming Westmister/Tories/The English
This tells me that I am on the correct side - the opposite one to you.
More seriously, London is allegedly the biggest Scottish city in the UK by population."ernie_lynch - Member
North Sea oil is one thing but I reckon claiming that London is a "Scottish city" is pushing it a bit.
Will that be your last territorial claim ?
Nicely done.
Territorial claims? How about a high speed rail corridor from Scotland (stopping en route in York obviously) by passing London straight though the channel tunnel and ending in the Alps?
Bunch of cowards, had the chance and chickened out. How some can sing the national anthem now without feeling shame I don't know.
Still the oil price bombed so perhaps for the best.
Reckon the quality of SNP leadership would do well at Westminster give the lack luster bunch of leaders from other parties. It would be a valid choice for some Welsh & English constituencies to have an SNP candidate.
Which chance was that mt?
This tells me that I am on the correct side - the opposite one to you.
That's democracy for you, we can both be right. Let's wait and see what sort of "revolution" the SNP can deliver from Holyrood. They had a referendum and they blew it big time failing to have an answer to the simplest questions, like what currency and EU membership.
To answer the original question, the SNP aren't standing in the UK as they offer nothing outside of their call for independence and as a consequence would get zero votes
the SNP aren't standing in the UK as they offer nothing outside of their call for independence and as a consequence would get zero votes
Only that's not actually true is it.
It increasingly looks like the SNP would actually run any Labour government so perhaps the SNP are standing in the UK after all
[img] 
[/img]
SNP didn't introduce a police force with weapons. It was sir Stephen House, majority of his career spent outside Scotland, and he has apologised for that action.
SNP don't blame the English either. Westminster, yes, but not the English and its not England they want independence from its the UK.
SNP didn't introduce a police force with weapons. It was sir Stephen House, majority of his career spent outside Scotland, and he has apologised for that action.SNP don't blame the English either. Westminster, yes, but not the English and its not England they want independence from its the UK.
As if either of these facts will stop the rhetoric coming from usual suspects here and in the media.
It makes sense to have permanently armed police covering large expanses of very remote countryside where there is a high proportion of gun ownership in the community. The alternative is to have twice as many officers ie an armed and an unarmed cadre in each area - very expensive...or delay whilst an ARV gets to say Bonar Bridge from Glasgow.
It makes sense to have permanently armed police covering large expanses of very remote countryside where there is a high proportion of gun ownership in the community.
Even when there is little to no gun crime?
in Scotland the only question that will be asked of senior police after a slow response to a firearms incident will be "after Dunblane how could this be allowed to happen?"
Scottish police firearms decisions should be seen in that context.
Police Scotland have about 10 armed officers per 1000 on shift. Not exactly a show of paramilitary force.
in Scotland the only question that will be asked of senior police after a slow response to a firearms incident will be "after Dunblane how could this be allowed to happen?"
Derailing the debate slightly, but would armed officers on the street have prevented Dunblane?
I have no idea.
Probably not
in Scotland the only question that will be asked of senior police after a slow response to a firearms incident will be "after Dunblane how could this be allowed to happen?"Scottish police firearms decisions should be seen in that context.
Seeing as how the police in Dunblane were concerned about the perp's gun ownership, but were overruled by a senior officer, and the event occurred in an urban environment, not out in open, sparsely populated countryside, I'm not entirely sure what your point is, caller.
Hamilton was from Stirling, hardly a remote croft, and Dunblane has a cathedral, so officially a city.
Also, he was investigated over allegations concerning his activities with young children at summer camps he ran, but no action was taken.
Perhaps if something had been done about that, he wouldn't have had access to weapons.
Questions need to be asked about what senior police officers and the judiciary were doing, or not doing, at the time, but I doubt any more answers would be forthcoming now that they were then.
And having an armed police presence out in the countryside would be no more effective now than it would have been then, because they'd all be miles away from the actual shooting.
What a strange direction this thread has gone in. Of course you need a few armed officers spread about the place, so they can respond to any potential incident. To not have them would open themselves up to massive criticism should the worst happen and they were not able to respond for an extended length of time, vs virtually no downside of having them, save the hand wringing of a minority of worried whingers...
I'd call it a roll. (Glasgow)
Roll, Hawick.
Think the referendum and the press/UKIP simplification of the issues (if you're not for us, you're against us) along with the memories of a militant SNP of old means they'll never get a fair hearing on a local hustings outside Scotland.
Dunblane, city...
LMFAO
Makes Midsomer look like Mega City One in comparison. And yes, we did have a manned station at the time, usually looking in my schools direction.
Of course you need a few armed officers spread about the place, so they can respond to any potential incident. To not have them would open themselves up to massive criticism should the worst happen and they were not able to respond for an extended length of time, vs virtually no downside of having them, save the hand wringing of a minority of worried whingers...
No one was saying we shouldn't have armed officers, just that there's not need to have cops walking around with rifles in Aviemore or Castle Douglas.
Defo a roll, and not very good yins at that.
Some proper rolls
[img] 
[/img]
whatnobeer - MemberNo one was saying we shouldn't have armed officers, just that there's not need to have cops walking around with rifles in Aviemore or Castle Douglas.
The change in the rules didn't mean that we should have more armed officers- the difference is basically should armed officers be routinely armed or should they only be armed when there's a specific need for it. Or in other words, do you want your armed officers to be slower to respond because they're kept operationally ready or unready. I really don't like it tbh but it's a bit nuanced.
The other issue was the sending of said armed officers to non-armed-response calls. Which again, controversial but did amount to "well it's either that or they spend most of their time eating doughnuts." I think if you need a copper in a hurry, you'd rather get one fast and possibly they have a gun, rather than waiting longer for an unarmed one because the nearest one was an armed unit.
One of those things where I know what I'd like the answer to be but I don't know if I'm right...
Basically the numbers of beat officers has dropped, to keep the number of officers visible some you wouldn't normally see had to respond to normal calls.
The question becomes do you, as a trained and competent officer, leaving a live weapon in locked car or take it with you? What are the consequences of someone getting the weapon out of the car?
So a trained fire arms officer responds to a speeding call and had his weapon with him because he perceives that as the lesser of two evils.
Ooh, check me out, I live in a city, Dahlings.
Ooh, check me out, I live in a city, Dahlings.
Sadly having a cathedral does not automatically mean that a place is a city - and in this case it doesn't - very sorry to rain on your parade, time is a great healer!
One of those things that happens in England, IIUC, is that armed officers are out and about responding to normal calls. The serious kit is in a safe in their car. It's become a political hot potato in N Scotland and the media are all over it. I think this tells you more about the media than policing.
They could be sat in their base with a bored expression waiting for the phone to ring.
Has anyone seen cops walking round with rifles in Aviemore? I'm not up with the news.
nemesis - Member
Which chance was that mt?
To vote for an independent Scotland.