anyone on here voted SNP. why?

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.

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 we were too wee, to poor, too stupid. 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.

https://twitter.com/anntreneman/status/600657707541082114

New Labour invaded other countries illegally.

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.

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.

you waffled this nonsense as if it was fact on the independence thread as well.

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?

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

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 opinion 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.

Taking money in itself isn’t any cause for alarm, what they had to do to get it, if anything, would be cause for alarm.

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

You can still be “progressive” and take money from **** 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.

Greens refuse non-dom millionaire’s £7,000 donation as ‘unethical’

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.

Taking money from a well known homophobe, but legalizing same sex marriage, suggests to me that promoting homophobia wasn’t part of the deal.