BS: From someone who rarely starts threads

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 May 15 - 05:22 PM

We are a UK,"
well hardly united, judging from this "what about the squirrells, what about the squirrells indeed sir" to quote peter sellers

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 15 - 12:54 PM

"Jim, this here squirrel..."
I believe it was heard muttering something like "Those feckin' reds are at it again".
Ask Keith - they're near neighbours.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Musket
Date: 06 May 15 - 11:33 AM

Jim, this here squirrel...

Was it wearing a red beret it bought from a pound shop?

Did it only store nuts that are living, nutting in the last twenty years and are eminent in a tree like manner?

Did it squeak anti immigration rants re grey squirrels?

Did it claim "statistics" allow it to vilify dormice who can colour coordinate interior soft furnishings and make acorn soufflés?

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 May 15 - 09:54 AM

poem by Catherine Scott of Hull

There's a plot
The government expects the British people
To be law abiding, hard working people
To be unassuming, non complaining,
Ever modest, self effacing
Prepared to work until they drop
And not withdraw from the pension pot
The government knows your average Brit
Will shrug their shoulders and moan a bit
Then roll up their sleeves and get on with it
Smile and make the most of it:
There's a plot
We're told to work for charity
For the greater good of society
I notice the fat cats don't work for free
They happily charge an exorbitant fee
Telling us they're adding to the GNP
It feels to me like a conspiracy
They've closed the factories and the corner shops
So for normal folks there aren't any jobs
There's far less haves than there are have nots
Who are resorting to alcohol and betting shops:
There's a plot
Here's the plot:-
Make people feel grateful for having a job
And it really doesn't matter what
If they're off the dole and earning a wage
They can keep on working to a ripe old age
Keep the masses in their places
We can't have them getting airs and graces
And as for the old, unwell or plain exhausted
They're just a drain on the country's resources
We can't be doing with those who whinge
People like that they make us cringe
They should get stuck in and not make a fuss
Because frankly my dear we don't give a fuck
So the poor will pay a bedroom tax
Whilst the rich observe, sit back and relax
Chuckling with the bankers behind our backs
Conniving together for the next cut backs
And that my dear is the Conservative plot

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,#
Date: 06 May 15 - 09:41 AM

The Province of Alberta has in its provincial legislature 87 seats. For the first time in 43 years Alberta voters have turfed the Conservatives (in Canada, a right-wing party) and installed a 53 seat majority government by voting in the New Democratic Party (center-left) under the leadership of Rachel Notley. On October 19, 2015, we hope to turf the federal Conservatives. They are crooks, liars and scum, although not always in that order. Change can come, but seldom as quickly as many would like. If I learned anything from the Alberta election it is this: Vote your conscience. The morning the polls opened (yesterday) the news/poll pundits still had no idea what to predict. By 8:00 PM the votes had all been cast. The result was a shock even to the NDP. The adage to remember is an old computer saying: GIGO. The only poll that matters is the one counted on election day. IMO and YMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 May 15 - 09:17 AM

Almost a parody but very sadly similar to the Sun's leader yesterday. And still they fall for it...

Oh, and well said, crumbled :-)

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 15 - 09:16 AM

The Times this morning reports the sighting of a rare black squirrel in the Hertford area - a boost for Farrage's arguments no doubt !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,Bloody cookie crumbled
Date: 06 May 15 - 08:06 AM

I say a similar thing about UKIP and certain Tory MEPs. Why take the Brussels rake off if you have no intention of delivering a better Europe?

But, here's the thing.. The Salmond question is different. SNP may well wish to run an independent Scotland and have that as a key deliverable at some point in the same way The Conservative and Unionist Party wish to retain the union with the same passion and ultimate aim..

But SNP have made it clear that they are standing for Westminster as is their right as a UK party and their manifesto is based on UK politics.

I welcome the idea of SNP in Westminster in the same way as any other party that gets the most votes in an election, but on the basis they wish to be constructive, as SNP indicate they do in Westminster, as opposed to UKIP not wanting to be constructive in The EU.

Anyway. As the election gets nearer, I find myself wanting a Labour government supported bill by bill by other parties such as SNP and Lib Dem in order to ensure thorough debate before parliamentary division. A clear majority can lead to complacent dogma turning into law. In an ideal world, having to convince those not subject to your party whip should lead to better acts of Parliament.

The recent coalition got it wrong by forming a joint government, as both sets of whips may well have been one whip in a majority government for all the good it did. It also meant they could rip up both manifestos...

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 06 May 15 - 07:14 AM

Mind though Musket the West Lothian Question is not what the issue is. Yes the devolution settlement is half cooked so needs sorting out. But some senior Tories have been saying, and using inflammatory language in the process, that SNP members would have no legitimate place in having any influence on a UK gvt. That is a different matter from the West Lothian Question.

Anyone can say "we don't want to work with a certain party" so there is no issue with that - but suggesting that certain parties have no legitimate place is attempting to disenfranchise half the population of Scotland.

Not that it matters in the scheme of things but my own mother-in-law, who is English but living in Scotland tried to tell me that Alex Salmond and other SNP members shouldn't even be allowed into the Houses of Parliament! The didn't want to be in the union so why should they be allowed into the UK parliament? She didn't seem to think there was anything undemocratic about taking that view - then wonders how she sometimes gets a frosty reaction from other people here! You've got to wonder sometimes?

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Musket
Date: 06 May 15 - 05:06 AM

We are a UK. I have no issue whatsoever with MPs from Scotland or Surrey voting on national affairs. Neither are within 200 miles of me but conversely my local MP is the same distance to them.

The problem, as Tartan Tam pointed out years ago, is where legislation being voted on does not affect the constituency of the MP voting to the extent that completely different legislation may be in place where that MP sits.

It is a dog's dinner and to ensure Westminster is relevant, areas of England would need regional assemblies, which as tax payers know too well, judging by the size of the car parks in Leith, Cardiff and Belfast, not cheap...

In the meantime, mealy mouthed scare bollocks from Cameron, Akenaton and Farage are the cost of flawed democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: akenaton
Date: 06 May 15 - 03:26 AM

I would be interested in what you think of my view, that post election, the Westminster parties will close ranks and squeeze out the SNP voice.....This could be a formal, or informal arrangement, to stop any minority govt being voted down?

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 06 May 15 - 03:18 AM

I've seen Labour been cowed by the Tory/UKIP tactics and fail to stand up for the idea of "better together" but not really actually join in on it. Brown is campaigning for Labour and aiming his criticism at the SNP but he has every right to do that. As anyone has. The difference is the likes of Theresa May etc have been deliberately stirring up resentment against Scots and suggesting that SNP influence on any gvt would not be legitimate. That is the idea I am criticising.

For instance one of the recent polls had the result very close with the Tories only two seats in front of Labour with the SNP on about 53. So any reasonable person who claimed to believe in the union must concede that a combined Labour/SNP block would be legitimate in that scenario. It is not a two party system and the members from across the UK have the same rights etc. Of course there are other parties to consider too but that was an easy comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 15 - 05:32 PM

Don't forget Labour and Gordon Brown, Allan.....he doesn't like to be left out.....They don't call them the "red Tories" for nothing.

We can't trust any of them!

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 05 May 15 - 04:56 PM

It isn't distracting or disproportionate to Scots! And let's face it the only reason it is disproportionate in the UK as a whole is because the Tory/UKIP lot have decided to make it so by suggesting, incorrectly, that Scottish members are somehow less legitimate than English members.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/05/election-death-of-the-union-snp-let-scotland-go?CMP=share_btn_fb

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 May 15 - 12:39 PM

there is nothing pernicious about any nation, to say so is racist and stereotyping.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 05 May 15 - 11:55 AM

It does seem quite strange that some leading English Tories seem to think that a party who (hypothetically lets say Labour) get 48% of the seats in England and perhaps something like 10% in Scotland working alongside another party (ie the SNP) who get let's say 85% of Scottish seats would have no legitimacy - whilst another party who got let's say 52% of seats in England but none in Scotland would be perfectly legitimate!

You can imagine how that doesn't quite equate for many Scots - especially as Labour's cowardice gives it some ill deserved back up! Rather than falling for the divide and rule the leading SNP politicians are still saying they will happily work with Labour for the benefit of the left. The strange thing is that many of them haven't shown outbursts of real anger and resentment.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Musket
Date: 05 May 15 - 11:37 AM

I spend a fair bit of time in Scotland. Everybody I see is welcoming and friendly. English people we know (including Musket and his husband) don't recognise the stories of Scottish resentment of English moving in.

Despite what some think, even the local politicians welcome inward investment and as someone who invests in tourism through purchasing holiday lets, I have far more in Scotland than anywhere else.

That said, some of the rhetoric by many politicians whip up resentment by ignorant little people and that is the issue.

On a practical level, I also blame SNP for preferring to blame Westminster for issues rather than do something about them, which under devolved powers they could do if they wished. Again, it would suit the agenda of some to have a Tory government because it would fire up the neverendum debate yet again.

Meanwhile, back down here.. I had Jehovas Witnesses knocking on the door the other day. After giving them the usual two word reply, I got on with cooking. An hour later, another knock on the door, (they go round in relays) but I was wrong and afterwards, after checking a photo on the Internet, it appears I told our local MP to fuck off and slammed the door. Poor bugger, I had emailed last month saying how good he had been but I couldn't vote for his party.

Hey ho. God botherers giving me a bad name





Again

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 15 - 09:34 AM

Well I rather like Scotland and spent many a long summer in Wester Ross and Sutherland in my youth (I was lucky enough to be there in the vintage summers of '75 and '76, though I did see a drop of rain at other times). I don't find anything pernicious about Scotland or the Scottish people. I find plenty pernicious about the scaremongering and vilification of Scotland and its politicians (the latter a damn sight more progressive than most of ours) by the right-wing media and Tory and LibDem politicians. A Labour/SNP coalition would work quite well, but, for now, they have to keep on baring their teeth at each other. Shame really.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Musket
Date: 05 May 15 - 09:30 AM

I don't care much for tartan tat in gift shops, Russ Abbot wigs or shortcake, but the maths being what they are, constituency boundaries favour The Tory Party when Scotland is taken out of the equation, (ditto Wales for that matter judging by recent Labour form in England) so Scotland is a factor in this election.

Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if it could stand on its own two feet financially and contribute rather than be a burden on the treasury, but collective government means you can encourage but not much else...

Tanks? No, silly boy. Most of the tanks are kept around Salisbury Plain. Scotland has the nuclear submarines and men in skirts playing bagpipes for royalty and tourists at the tattoo.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 15 - 09:22 AM

Yep, Guest of 05 May 15 - 08:50 AM. It is all part and parcel of the smoke and mirrors that politics has become, or maybe always has been!

To paraphrase an old joke, A politician, a Scotsman and and Englishman in a room with 10 biscuits on the table. The politician eats 9 of them and says to the Scotsman, "Look out, that imperialistic bastard is after your biscuit..."

I can't really blame the politicians for trying as long as idiots keep believing them :-(

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 May 15 - 08:53 AM

Bingo!

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 15 - 08:50 AM

Scotland has become a perniciously distracting and disproportionate issue.
The tories are certainly grand masters at 'divide and rule' politics.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 15 - 08:24 AM

"It would be nice if the BBC had its grammar and punctuation right, though"
Tharr'l be the day!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 May 15 - 07:52 AM

The right-wing press are talking up a putative "right" for the party with the most seats to have first dibs on forming a government. This would be close to a coup (over cucumber sandwiches and tea).

THE correct legal position is stated by the BBC, although, in my view, insufficiently emphasised, namely

"The only test for whether a government can be formed is whether it has the confidence of the House of Commons: in other words, "Can it assemble the votes it needs to get its programme of proposed new laws passed in the Queen's Speech?" The date of the Queen's Speech is Wednesday, 27 May."

It would be nice if the BBC had its grammar and punctuation right, though.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 15 - 07:42 AM

I think the Scottish/English divide is being artificially created and the nationalistic element is falling for what is fed to them by the media hook, line and sinker. The revolt linked to would have been put down with equal force had it have been in Glasgow, Liverpool, Belfast or anywhere in the UK. As it was almost a hundred years earlier in Manchester. Those who follow the line and believe that one group of working folk is responsible for all their ills are part of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 15 - 07:24 AM

I found this helpful

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32235317

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 15 - 07:22 AM

This is getting very silly.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 15 - 07:07 AM

Do not for one second imagine that the UK will happily give away Scotland. If we were of no value we would have been cast adrift years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 15 - 07:03 AM

Steve, the constitutional issues arising presently, are as important to the UK government, as was the the socialist revolt in Glasgow almost one hundred years ago.

Troops and tanks were used to intimidate the workers and their firepower would certainly have been used had not the union leader ship capitulated.

In doing so, many lives were probably saved, but the system had shown its fangs, and the working class were absorbed.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 May 15 - 06:54 AM

A post from Planet Zog perhaps.

The definition of Planet Zog from the Collins dictionary is "a place or situation that is far removed from reality or what is currently happening" That seems to fit with Akeaton's thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 May 15 - 06:36 AM

And what was the point of that link?

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 15 - 06:33 AM

"Lest we forget"

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 May 15 - 04:53 AM

I would be amused if the SNP got every Scottish seat but it would be a disaster for left-of centre politics.

It is very sad that my constituency, once represented (with different boundaries) by the excellent Bob Marshall-Andrews, now appears to be a fight between UKRAP and the con-servatives.

It is very alarming that people outside the top 5% in terms of income or wealth have been so brainwashed by foreign-owned media that a substantial number are prepared to vote for the con-servatives.

And speaking of foreign-owned media, I think it is a poor show when a foreign owned website - one where in most cases the US absolutist view of freedom of speech prevails - plans to and actually does censor the vilification, by the people whose polity is actually suffering them, of the right-wing as the scum they are.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Musket
Date: 05 May 15 - 03:12 AM

I love how people are still wanting to impose something on the people of Scotland that they firmly rejected.

I love the bit about tanks though. The garage in one of my holiday lets in Kingussie might be big enough to hide a tank if the army want to be prepared by stealth.

Having lost the referendum, someone appears to have lost the plot too.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: BobL
Date: 05 May 15 - 03:07 AM

It used to be so simple.

You* voted Tory to fix the mistakes made by the previous Labour govenment, and because they were better at creating wealth.

You voted Labour to fix the mistakes made by the previous Tory government, and because they were better at distributing wealth.

With a few exceptions, you voted Liberal as a protest vote.

* (the floating voters at least)

:(

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 15 - 07:25 PM

Now we really are taking this conversation into territory that should have rational minds beginning to question their own sanity... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 15 - 06:36 PM

"I wouldn't go for UDI in any event.....I don't have a death wish. The UK govt would immediately send in the troops and the tanks, "to protect our defence installations"

Ridiculous. If an SNP Government was daft enough to make a unilateral declaration of independence they would run out of money and starve within months if not weeks. The flight of capital, businesses, jobs and expertise would be a stampede, the likes of which has never been seen. The SNP after having eight years to prepare for their referendum couldn't even get their act together to answer even the most basic questions related to the running an independent country, they still to this day have not addressed any of those questions, they were clueless then and they are clueless now - oil price then 110 US$ per barrel now just over half that, and they are still living in cloud cuckoo land.

"The UK needs us much more than we need them"

Don't really think so Akenaton.

So Akenaton what is your currency after declaring UDI?
Scottish trade within the rest of the UK (predominantly with England) amounts to 80% of your trade. Everything England gets from Scotland can be sourced elsewhere so who is UDI-Scotland going to trade with?

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: akenaton
Date: 04 May 15 - 06:08 PM

Allan, I wouldn't go for UDI in any event.....I don't have a death wish. The UK govt would immediately send in the troops and the tanks, "to protect our defence installations"...any opposition would be swiftly dealt with and politically we would move back fifty years.

As I said before, this is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning, there are huge obstacles to overcome.
The UK needs us much more than we need them, as can be seen from the bribery, threats and soon military force, if we look as if we are about to gain independence.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 04 May 15 - 06:05 PM

Radio 4 interviewed some 'public'' today I think...
One guy pointed out
"You can't trust politicicians, they tell you lies. They just tell you what you want to hear."

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 15 - 06:05 PM

It may have escaped your attention that I am referring to a need I perceive in myself to do some tactical voting, in the hope that sufficient forces will be amassed to prevent another Tory prime minister. I don't give a damn about the bloody LibDems and their expedient and shifting ideologies.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: akenaton
Date: 04 May 15 - 06:00 PM

But Steve, the Lib Dems have been in cosy coalition with the Tories for the last number of years....In fact it can be said that they have provided cover for the Tories, enabling the attacks on the very poorest in society, and ensuring that the financial criminals got off .

What's the difference......ideology?

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 May 15 - 05:45 PM

Great sentiments, Nick. Our circumstances have been quite similar to yours. I can't see that it would make much difference to us whoever got in. One difference is that the LibDems are in serious danger of losing this seat to the Tories. I'm damned if I'll play even the teensiest part in allowing that to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Nick
Date: 04 May 15 - 02:22 PM

I live in a constituency that has been held by the Conservatives (and the Unionists before them - unopposed in 1915!) for over 100 years.

It will be won by the Tories. It's the only time in my life that I will have an MP who I actually know as a nodding acquaintance oddly. There is not a way in the world that I would vote for him or the conservatives for the rest of my life (or UKIP).

I will still vote even though it might seem pointless historically. Though the current Conservative MP was elected on a turn out of 50% - so perhaps there is always a small forlorn hope.

To myself personally, it won't make a lot of difference whether the Conservatives or Labour win - unless either of them decides to totally abolish pensions which I haven't spotted on any of the literature but would make things harder for us. I am like quite a lot of over 60's approaching retirement. We are lucky to have no debt and some savings PURELY based on house price inflation. Our children have now left home and are independent and self sufficient. I am probably better off than at any time in my life as we have relatively small outgoings. I think we inherited a couple of thousand quid along the way when one of the parents died but have never relied on outside money. We decided when we had children that my wife would rather be at home and look after children and we decided that rather than bigger houses and holidays we'd like to help where we could with University fees etc not to land them with more debt than they needed to have.

I realise that others have not had the same chances or have not been as lucky. Most of our luck has been that we were able to afford a house. That house we bought when I earned £8000 and my wife £6000 cost £31,600 and we lived in it for only 6 months as I moved with a job. It was sold a year + ago for £560,000 and will be worth over £600,000 now. It's a 2 bed semi with no parking and a downstairs bathroom.

What gets to me is the chronic unfairness that exists and has grown over my lifetime. I earned reasonably under Thatcher (over average wage for a while but always less than 40k a year) but watched a world getting more unfair. When the labour party came in I thought they would create some sort of balancing act. They didn't. And it strikes me that they would now all sell their principles for power - most of them have over the last years.

Noone has knocked on the door or canvassed at all, perhaps it is pointless for them to waste their time and they are just going through the motions. We had a UKIP leaflet through today so I think we have a full set now. I think it is right to read what people put through not least to laugh at some of the lies and some of the misleading bits. Fracking is an issue round here and the phrasing of the Tory candidates leaflet is interesting - when he gets elected he'll I'm sure get told how to vote on the subject. My wife's experience through her work at the lying and cheating that people do routinely in their daily life to maximise their income at the expense of others is often there - the same people often bemoaning the scroungers and have nots.

Based on the 50% turnout last time - anyone could win if people bothered to vote. A quick check and mental arithmetic over the last century of a rock solid seat suggests that if any of the elections had 100% turnout they could have had pretty much any outcome.

My choices are Independent, Green, Lib Dem or Labour - all of which will not change anything here in the short term - apart from I will have indicated what this particular voter thinks is right and by vote will be counted. I'm still floating a bit as the Labour party have been a let down.

If I get one thing from this election so far it is about whether you want to do something towards a fairer world or not. And that's worth voting for as things do change.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 May 15 - 01:47 PM

i think unfortunately, it will be a tory landslide

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 May 15 - 12:59 PM

How about predictions for what we will wake up to on May the 8th? Here is mine.

Labour will have more seats than the Tories but will need the help of others. I think they will be able to do it with a number of loose partnerships rather teaming up with a specific minority for coalition. Wishful thinking I suppose but it could see the end of party politics as we know it.

On a more specific level, Al Murray will take enough votes away from Nigel Cabbage to keep him out. Bez will do well in Salford and keep his deposit at least.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 May 15 - 12:50 PM

well this says it all now...

mrs punkfolkrocker just read me an email she got from some election news feed she follows...

"tories declare they should vote tactically for liberals to keep Labour out"...!!!

.. now where did we hear something a bit like that before ...????😣

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 04 May 15 - 12:26 PM

Seat belts on, folks. I think we're in for a very bumpy ride after May 7th.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 04 May 15 - 12:20 PM

Musket yes the SNP are talking about changes within the UK at this election but read their manifesto they state that they do still and always will support independence. That is the long term goal and they have the democratic right to follow that goal and others have the democratic right to vote for them - but when a proposal for a new referendum is put forward (if it ever is) it will be in a manifesto for the Scottish elections and not the UK general election.

In this election they want the Smith Commission proposals as a bare minimum - that would pretty much be demanded - but they state they would like to take it further and move to full fiscal autonomy. That is unlikely to happen at the moment as all the major parties are against it. Obviously it would be another step nearer towards independence.

I understand that you are against independence - but unless a suitable balance is struck which is truly accepted by Scots in enough numbers the road to independence still looks likely. I won't say inevitable as situations might change and the bottom could fall out of the SNP popularity. Even demographics are against the unionist parties. The over 70s voted in great numbers to retain the union and their votes are as important as anyone else's but it is a problem for the unionist parties that natural passage of time is going to greatly weaken the unionist cause - unless there is a sea shift back to unionism amongst the younger age groups.

Yes Ake their raison d'etre is independence but the facts are facts the vote was narrowly lost. You can't go for UDI on the back of that! It has to be done, when it is done, democratically.

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 15 - 12:19 PM

The left may be fragmented, but is simply untrue that they are non-existent.
That sort of statement really doesn't help.
There may be no Left organisations that fight immigration "for the sake of us British people" (as some would have it, or oppose "the gay plague"... or all the other "evils of modern society", but to say they don't exist is nonsense and incredibly reactionary.
That is to suggest the British working person is quite happy to bend over and be shafted by the establishment.
Not as active as I would like - but that's me
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: From someone who rarely starts threads
From: akenaton
Date: 04 May 15 - 12:03 PM

PFR....the "left opposition" is non existent, there are no parties which speak for the poor or underprivileged.

All support the capitalist system which demands, especially in these difficult times, sacrifices by the low paid and those who are redundant to its needs.