I have just caught up with this thread so forgive me for commenting on a post some distance back. Akenaton stated that he tells it as it is. That is monstrous arrogance. He tells it as he sees it. He is not omniscient.
In conversations I have had it has been interesting to note that a number of people who I would consider moderate and reasonable (these are virtues in my estimation) have reservations about the SNP; these seem to centre around the primary aims of the party. In among their various centre left, socially progressive policies lies the principle upon which they are founded (check their name).
I can entirely sympathise with someone voting SNP with the expectation that the party will concentrate its efforts on improving the lot of Scotland and the Scots, for the party not to do so might even be seen as a dereliction of duty. The problem is that a majority of the population of the UK do not live in Scotland. Can a party founded on the principle of independence for one part of the UK be trusted to act in the interests of the whole of the UK?
I really do not know the answer to that but the fact that a political party which could have a significant impact after the election stands only in one clearly defined part of the UK seems somehow out of kilter with democracy - even if I cannot quite explain why.