SNP. You LOST, get over it

Thing is, SNP have done just what they did last time and shot their bolt too early

Mary Doll has announced that the cost of coalition with the Labour Party would be Trident out of Faslane

There’s no way that Ed or the rest of the Labour Party can agree to that, as capitulation to such a demand would be politically toxic as the blatant blackmail it would be.

Of course it was also interesting to hear Salmon slagging off the Smith commission conclusions, given that the SNP played a full part in the formation of, and signed off on, the final agreed version…

Why is getting rid of Trident so toxic? A vote winner up here,thats for sure. That is the price that Labour will have to pay…Of course they could be principled and say…actually scrub that.

Picking Trident is an interesting one as that’s quite likely to split Labour as they are by no means universal in their support fot it.

ninfan – Member
…There’s no way that Ed or the rest of the Labour Party can agree to that, as capitulation to such a demand would be politically toxic as the blatant blackmail it would be…

Politically toxic, eh? Is that because it would then have to move to a port in England?

Be fun to see how much enthusiasm the Unionist hawks could muster for Trident if it had to be parked near their seaside homes.*

Atomic NIMBYism?

Which region of England has the most disposable population? We may find out.

*I’d sooner see it scrapped though.

No, the politically toxic aspects are

I) cost
Ii) unilateral disarmament (see Labour party history for that one)
Iii) voters and party members opinion on capitulation to blackmail by the SNP as a minor coalition partner

I do wish the scots would get over the canard of thinking that having nuclear weapons located in England was some sort of big political sensitivity down here, they seem to forget that Aldermaston and Burghfield are in the middle of The south of England, and most of the rest of it was dotted with USAF strike bases and GLCM sites.

ninfan – Member
…I do wish the scots would get over the canard of thinking that not wanting nuclear weapons relocated to England was some sort of big political Sensitivity down here, they seem to forget that in Aldermaston and Burghfield are in the middle of The south of England

Oh, good. So there will be no opposition to moving the nuclear subs down there. Think of the jobs, the blast radius, the fallout patterns, the mutant children….

Och, check it out for yourself
[/url]

yes, look at the huge opposition ove the years to the two nuclear submarine servicing sites at Pompey and Davenport

And the crowds of people outside Aldermaston demanding they remove the warheads, the place is literally ringed with protesters

OK. You want them, you have them.

Labour is for Trident, its a national commitment to NATO, US etc. Faslane is the best place for the subs to allow them to slip out into the North Atlantic with lowest chance of detection. For the SNP to make it a condition is non-nonsensical. AS only concern is more powers for Scotland, he won’t get hung up on any details like Trident. He will make he argument that once they are independent they can do what they want. Interesting the Yes support is so far from the base really isn’t it.

Epic,, but you lot voted to keep them.

Democracy eh, what a bugger 😆

@epic – we do have them. Faslane is in the UK 😉

Is the cost of moving them more than the cost of replacing them? I doubt it. Of course was it not you who said Engerland,sorry rUK should just annexe faslane? 🙄
I am starting to believe you do belong in a village Jambalaya,getting rid of the subs is not just a SNP thing,you know;a bit like independence…But carry on spouting shite,you have already admitted on this thread that you are more interested in seeing the SNP put in it’s place than anything else.

ninfan – Member
Epic,, but you lot voted to keep them.

Democracy eh, what a bugger

Democracy is a bugger, it’s outdated and needs refreshed. The idea of having to agree to a conjured up set of arbitrary proposals conjured up by a party is ridiculous. (Pretty much why I’ve shy-ed away from joining any party).

The technology is there to set up a real democracy where we can vote issue by issue and do away with party politics.

Bit of a scandal, if you ask me, that we stick to an outdated archaic version of democracy.

As for nukes, I don’t particularly care where they are stored, their location is irrelevant, I just don’t think we should be paying for them.

The SNP lied all during the campaign but it got it’s just desert, see the Telegraph quote above, it was AS’s insistence of failing to answer the obvious major questions like currency which lead to him steering them to defeat. It’s my view the “opinion polls” showing the contest was close where nonsense (it’s easy to sway the result by picking the question, how and whom you ask). Referendum was a clear loss. Both the Scots and the UK dodged a bullet because a yes would have meant lose (UK) and lose big (Scotland)

The map clearly shows Glasgow and Dundee where for independence and everywhere else against. I can see why an industrial city dependent upon it’s port would do anything for change, the fact Edinburgh would have lost big would probably have been a plus too for them.

Glasgow is dependent on it’s port? do you know anything about Glasgow? 😆

A 200k swing is close.

The technology is there to set up a real democracy where we can vote issue by issue and do away with party politics.

You really want direct democracy?

Including on issues like Europe, immigration, international aid and capital punishment?

ninfan – Member
The technology is there to set up a real democracy where we can vote issue by issue and do away with party politics.
You really want direct democracy?

Including on issues like Europe, immigration, international aid and capital punishment?Direct democracy, regionalized and localised further where possible. Obviously under the banner of a union somethings need to be common.

But things like immigration, scotland needs a vastly different policy from the rest of the uk. And regions should have a veto on the leaving europe issue. Capital punishment, that’s off the table. international aid, probably something to be kept at union level, but there should be some form of democratic veto, to stop aid developing into war.

What do you think the result would be if they ran the poll again tomorrow, with Devo Max on the card? I’m thinking a lot less than 45% would want independence.

If they run another poll in the next 20 years surely the folks at westminster wouldn’t be stupid enough to leave that option off the table, which would mean there would have to be a much bigger swing than 200000 votes.

Independence aint happening any time soon, certainly not in my lifetime.

pbiker – Member
What do you think the result would be if they ran the poll again tomorrow, with Devo Max on the card? I’m thinking a lot less than 45% would want independence.

If they run another poll in the next 20 years surely the folks at westminster wouldn’t be stupid enough to leave that option off the table, which would mean there would have to be a much bigger swing than 200000 votes.

Independence aint happening any time soon, certainly not in my lifetime.

It’s a fairly irrelevant question though, since the Smith commission is ment to be delivering devomax.

I’d suggest if there’s a new poll having a 3 question referendum would be viewed with suspicion, as we’re supposed to have devomax, as close to federalism as you can get..

Glasgow is dependent on it’s port? do you know anything about Glasgow?

I meant historically, plus I think we both know the answer to your question. Glasgow is where the plane lands before you go somewhere interesting like Loch Lomond, Ben Nevis or the Western Isles !

Being a cynic/realist about politics the chances of Scotland being offered another referendum must be close to zero. Aside from the fact the last one dragged on for 2 years, it was only granted as Cameron thought there was no chance Yes could win. As for referendums on this that and everything they have them in Switzerland every 5 mins, seems a bit toublesome

The SNP lied all during the campaign but it got it’s just desert,

Far too wet for any deserts up here, old chap.

Just or otherwise.

What do you think the result would be if they ran the poll again tomorrow, with Devo Max on the card? I’m thinking a lot less than 45% would want independence.

It depends how the vote was structured. If it was one only from the status quo, devomax or independence then my guess is that none would come close to a majority but that independence would get the biggest share of the vote. If it was either/or then I’d suggest independence would get about the same as last time and devomax would probably be the most popular option.

Independence aint happening any time soon, certainly not in my lifetime.

You are probably correct however depending on what happens with UK politics there may well be another referendum in your lifetime (although whether it’s sanctioned or unsanctioned will be interesting). Especially if Westminster politics continues its drift to the right.

A Tory/UKIP coalition would make another referendum very likely, as would a Tory majority government. A Labour majority in the UK but without a majority in England might also do it, as might Labour having to rely on SNP support.

tpbiker – Member
…Independence aint happening any time soon, certainly not in my lifetime.

I’m sorry to hear about your impending demise… 🙂

jambalaya – Member
From the Telegrapgh (quite an interesting article if I may say so) link: AS wants back in

Allan Cochrane is not an objective commentator. If you care to check out his writings you may even suspect him of being a major BS artist and regard his utterances on even those he does support with equal scepticism.

Direct democracy would be terrible, you’d have people voting based on what hashtag was trending on Twitter and how many likes an MP had on Facebook.

jambalaya – Member
As for referendums on this that and everything they have them in Switzerland every 5 mins, seems a bit toublesome

Maybe, but the current system is not democratic, I’d rather trust the people than the charlatans we have in charge.

Party politics is outdated and increasingly irrelevant.

plyphon – Member
Direct democracy would be terrible, you’d have people voting based on what hashtag was trending on Twitter and how many likes an MP had on Facebook.

Aye it’s much better to leave politics to the few that know what they are doing eh! 😆

come on, politics has lead us to a choice of Milliband or Cameron. It’s broken.

incidently, direct and localised democracy also answers the west lothian question if it was done right..

But things like immigration, scotland needs a vastly different policy from the rest of the uk. And regions should have a veto on the leaving europe issue.

So, you don’t really want direct democracy for everyone then

Capital punishment, that’s off the table.

Why should it be off the table in a democracy?

international aid, probably something to be kept at union level, but there should be some form of democratic veto, to stop aid developing into war.

Eh, so you don’t want democracy when it comes to how much aid is given to poverty stricken countries (for example those withnuclear weapons and their own space programme) but you do want us to ask everyone before going to war?

It’s a very mixed up version of pick and choose direct democracy you appear to be suggesting here, really it appears that you only want democracy on the issue where you are confident everyone else will agree with you…

ninfan – Member
Capital punishment, that’s off the table.
Why should it be off the table in a democracy?

Nothing should be completely of the table, if you can gather enough support for it, we’ll have a referendum. I think you’ll struggle though, but batter in.

But things like immigration, scotland needs a vastly different policy from the rest of the uk. And regions should have a veto on the leaving europe issue.
So, you don’t really want direct democracy for everyone then.

Eh, so you don’t want democracy when it comes to how much aid is given to poverty stricken countries (for example those withnuclear weapons and their own space programme) but you do want us to ask everyone before going to war?
It’s a very mixed up version of pick and choose direct democracy you appear to be suggesting here, really it appears that you only want democracy on the issue where you are confident everyone else will agree with you…

Yes I do, democracy could easily be compartmentalised on a regional basis. There is no contradiction in having parts regionalised and parts of it nationalised or allowing that to be fluid.

I think it’s obvious that there is not central solution to everything.

Do you honestly believe only having a say every 5 years is acceptable?

ninfan – Member
…So, you don’t really want direct democracy for everyone then

Yes it is difficult to decide exactly how to set up a democracy. Put it down to lack of experience of democratic government.

The UK govt is a travesty.

It seems to me people here want the definition of democracy to be a government that supports their views and if this means a smaller and smaller voter base (ie constituency/country) then so be it. This misses the point that the most successful countries very much tend to be the large ones. Scale and consistency outdoes small vested interest groups.

IMO the developed world is moving politically more and more to the right. The traditional left leaning workers are moving into different sorts of jobs and their work is now done elsewhere in a lower cost location like Asia.

I do see it as very interesting the dominance of Glasgow and Dundee in the referendum votes for a Yes.

I think it’s a true-ism that some of the least content don’t vote as they don’t see the point, however they are perpetuating their own situation. Add this to unreasonable expectations and you have a recipe for a life of grumbling.

@epic – how is the UK Govt a travesty, the Labour party presided over a financial disaster, whether this was strictly their fault or not there was always likely to be a change. The Labour party was spending money we didn’t have and in an environment where the banks/markets where not prepared or indeed able to keep lending. There had to be a change.

the most successful countries very much tend to be the large ones

What is a successful country to you?

Have to laugh I don’t like democracy because I don’t like the system of handing a proxy to 1 person for 5 years. 😆

I’m quite happy to lose on issues. Smaller direct democracy will not always agree with me.

Love how this resorts back to the tribalness. Labour presided over a fanancial disastor. Well the debt was 500b when they left. It’s now 1.5 trillion.

Neither of them have a Scooby what they are doing. (That’s my kind analysis, I think we all know the reality is more selfish)

One measured by most normal standards, quality of life, wealth, security, opportunity.

But @seosamh had the Tories kept spending as Labour had done the debt would be much much larger.

What is a successful country to you?
[/quote]
1. Denmark
2. Norway
3. Switzerland
4. Netherlands
5. Sweden
6. Canada
7. finland
8. Austria
9. Iceland
10 Australia

Look at all those global superpowers 🙄

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/10301496/Denmark-the-worlds-happiest-country.html

UK was #22.

Nice list there scotroutes.
But the doubters on here think the lights would go out if Scotland were to go it alone

jambalaya – Member

@epic – how is the UK Govt a travesty

This sort of thing:

Anyone making an objective assessment of democracy would be appalled by an unelected upper house full of billionaires who have bribed their way in to a position of influence, Anglican priests, appointed political hacks, and hereditary born to rule types.

There’s a couple of examples of travesty.