The General Election 2015 Thread

[Oddquine]

As a response to the oft repeated fallacy that the SNP wants to get down to Westminster to break up Britain, WGD has an article which explains exactly why so many pro-indy voters are not getting back in the box with the lid marked subservient BritNats, as was expected after the NO vote.

 

From https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/the-ministry-of-dont/

 

We’re awake and we’re dreaming of a country where our voices are heard, where our demands are met, where our governments do what we tell them to do. Openly, in front of us. No back doors, no secret meetings, no duplicity, no underhand dealings.

 

If we can't get that in an independent Scotland just yet...why should we not have the right in a "democracy" to try and get it in the UK, for once....a Scottish voice for Scotland, and the disadvantaged,  instead of a Scottish voice for the UK and the continuation of the elite Westminster duopoly which cares more about the money in their pockets than the well-being of the people who vote for them.

[IBM]

Danny Alexander has called on voters to form a unionist alliance to stop his and other Liberal Democrat seats falling into the hands of nationalists, according to the Scotland on Sunday.  Getting worried now!

[robbylad]

The lines blur and the colours run...... they're all the same really. "Doesn't matter who you vote for, just so long as it's anyone but 'them'". Who's being divisive now?

Edited March 15, 2015 by robbylad

[IBM]

A hereditary peer was giving his opinion when a newby left-winger accused him of never having used a bus. The peer said he'd rectify that at the end of proceedings that very day.

"Sure enough, he was seen to leave the House and go to the nearest bus stop. He got on the first bus that arrived and said to the driver, '24 Russell Square, please'."

Think about who you vote for!

[+DoofersDad]

If people wonder why folk in the rest of the UK are concerned with some of the nationalistic rhetoric coming from Scotland, you only have to read Oddquine's latest offerings to understand why.  In her first offering she states:-

 

"Almost makes one wish we had emulated Ireland and killed for independence, instead of trying to be civilised about it against an opposition who couldn't even spell civilised, far less act it. Unionists are really bad winners......and there is nothing worse, imo."

 

What an utterly appalling thing to say!   It is nothing to do with Unionists being bad winners but everything to do with Nationalists being very bad losers.  In her second post Oddquine includes a link to "weegingerdug" - a rabid wee ginger dug by the sounds of things.  I read the blog and it really is pathetic.  The blogger echoes Oddquine's thoughts (without the shameful killing thoughts) and goes on to whinge about "our" demands not being met and that "we" have been patient for a long time. He goes on to say that his patience has now run out but doesn't elaborate on what that means.

 

But who is this "we" they refer to?  Anyone would think that for years a large majority of Scots have been clamouring for independence and their wishes have been denied by an oppressive UK Government.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The majority of Scottish voters do not want independence and never have done.  And remember, in the referendum, all that was needed to get independence was a simple majority of those who voted at a single point in time.  There was no requirement for a majority of the electorate as a whole and no consideration was given to the fact that for as long as anyone can remember, support for independence has been very low until very recently.  The Government really couldn't have made it any easier for nationalists to get their way.  Let's be quite clear about this.  It is not the Government that has stood in the way of independence, it is majority of the Scottish people who have always wanted to remain part of the Union and who confirmed that view in last years referendum.

 

So when Oddquine says "Almost makes one wish we had emulated Ireland and killed for independence", just who would she be considering killing?  Agents of a UK Government who offered independence on a simple majority of those voting, or some of the majority of her fellow citizens who happen to disagree with her and who want Scotland to remain within the UK?  Now, I have no issue with folk who are passionate about independence continuing to campaign and argue the case, but please, please, please, respect the democratic process and remember that "we", the electorate of Scotland, voted to stay in the Union.  You may not like the majority view but that's democracy.  The alternatives are anarchy or tyranny.

 

Bizarrely Oddquine then goes on to quote Hugo Rifkind saying  “It's slightly mad that Unionists oppose the SNP being in coalition at Westminster. Is that not what ought to happen? In a union?”  Well, no, Hugo.  It isn't.  What is supposed to happen in a Union is that the partners work together for the good of the Union.  The reason why Unionists oppose the SNP being in coalition at Westminster is that the SNP wish to see Union broken up!

Oddquines post continues:- Rifkind went on to point out that the electorate have voted for UKIP in EU Parliament elections despite the fact they want to exit the EU, and the Liberal Democrats have representatives in the House of Lords despite wanting to abolish it. Why is any of this different to the SNP scenario at Westminster? 

 

Again the answer is really very, very simple.  People voting  for UKIP in EU elections is comparable to people voting for the SNP in UK elections.  It is not remotely comparable with the representatives elected forming part of the Government.  Nobody, as far as I am aware, is questioning the right of voters in Scotland to vote for the SNP in the UK elections or for SNP candidates elected as a result to argue their case for Scottish interests within Parliament.  But being part of a coalition that Governs the country is self evidently a very different matter indeed.

 

 

[Oddquine]

Danny Alexander has called on voters to form a unionist alliance to stop his and other Liberal Democrat seats falling into the hands of nationalists, according to the Scotland on Sunday.  Getting worried now!

 

That is the biggest problem with the abysmally undemocratic FPTP system, nobody votes for what they want......just against what they don't want. Comes to something when the choice is just to vote for the least bad option. At least an SNP vote is a vote for something....maybe not something Westminster wants....but something worth a try.....and it makes a change having a chance to try making a difference for Scotland, even if it is still in a UK situation.

 

Nowadays, it doesn't really matter which Unionist Party you vote for, because you'd be hard pressed to get a Rizla between their policies.  There's got to be something wrong with a system which fights elections on policies aimed at gaining/retaining a few marginal seats, claims a majority even though they don't get more than 35% of the popular vote and is then able to dictate the lives of the majority of the population.   Might make for "strong and decisive" Government....but that doesn't make it good, fair or democratic Government...makes it more of a dictatorship by the few for the few.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Oddquine

[+DoofersDad]

I think that Danny Alexander would agree with your first sentence there as the Lib Dems have consistently argued for PR over the years.  But first past the post is what we have and whether the SNP like the system or not, you can be sure that they will exploit it for all they are worth after the May election and I certainly won't criticise them for that.  Whether they hold the balance of power or not, they are likely to have a far greater percentage of Scottish MPs than their share of the popular vote.

 

FPTP is not very democratic in the sense that representation can be pretty skewed but there is no simple alternative.  What is usually considered to be a major benefit of the FPTP system is that a relatively small local area has it's own representative at Westminster.  In order to retain some level of local representation, multiple representative constituencies have been established for the Holyrood parliament whereby the person who tops the poll is elected and other representatives are elected according to the proportion of the vote for each party and their position in the party list.  The downsides of this are firstly that in order to accommodate some representation from parties with a smaller share of the vote, the constituencies have to be too large for meaningful representation.  And secondly, the electorate gets to know next to nothing about some of the candidates on the list.

 

In practise it doesn't seem to me to work very well.  If you have an issue you want to write to your MSP about, who do you write to?  The winner of the poll?  A particular MSP who you think will be more likely to take up your point?  All of them?  I have tried all those approaches and have never got a reply back from any of them with the exception of a former MSP who I know personally.  I have had acknowledgements from the offices of MSPs to say they would respond in due course and I have twice been asked to provide some further detail which, of course, I provided, but all to no avail.  This contrasts sharply with my experience of Westminster MPs (Russell Johnston, Dave Stewart, Angus Robertson and Charles Kennedy) who have invariably replied 

 

But despite my personal experience on the aspect of local representation, I do think that the FPTP system is fundamentally flawed. A system that can deliver the same party in power for term after term with less than 50% of the popular vote must be wrong. But, of course, what a PR system would do is to make coalitions the order of the day. It therefore really is ironic that nationalists who are so supportive of the principle of PR seem to be the most hostile toward the Lib Dems for entering into coalition with the Tories. 

[Charles Bannerman]

I can't actually spot her original post to this effect, but DD - presumably perfectly reliably - tells us that Oddqine at one point said: "Almost makes one wish we had emulated Ireland and killed for independence, instead of trying to be civilised about it ....."

 

So let's get this straight. At a time when the SNP is positively chuntering with selfrighteous indignation at this UKIP chap dubbing one of their blokes "Abu Hamza", Oddquine is ruminating over the prospect of looking out her smuggled German Mauser rifle and murdering a few Tommies!

That is an absolutely appalling statement to make! It also gives a chilling insight into the sick depravity which has never been far away from the separatist lobby - not so much your classic, certifiable nationalist nutters like Willie Bell but something altogether much more sinister.

Let's not understate what we are seeing here because it appears that Oddquine sees some merit in committing murder in an attempt to achieve an outcome which was firmly rejected six months ago by a majority of the electorate in a poll insitagted by the SNP.

That is an affront to any civilised society and this kind of thinking does make you wonder how many deranged cybernats there are out there, sitting in front of their screens and fantasising about some kind of violent attempt to overturn the will of the electorate.

So what next? Beating up English people in the streets? Smashing the windows of businesses headquartered south of the border? Publicly burning copies of Shakespeare and Milton?

How much more often to I have to try to explain to Oddquine -

* You insisted on having a vote on separation.

* It took place at a time of your choosing and under your rules.

* You lost.

 

So presumably you are now resorting to "romantic" nostalgia for murder in the streets of Cork and Galway as a means of showing your contempt for the decisive and democratic will of the Scottish people.

Oddqine... you and your fellow travellers had your 15 minutes of fame last September so let's just leave that in the past and move on to choose a government for the UK of which we all remain part?

And let's have no further advocacy of resorting to terrorism as a means of achieving your aims.

[Alex MacLeod]

Agree with DD and CB that Oddquines choice of words are not what people of the 20th / 21st centuries would ever have wanted to hear. We done our killing in 1715 and 1745 in the hope of regaining our independence and the result of that attempt was that we became an oppressed nation with many being deported to the colonies and the remainder treated as third class citizens and cannon fodder for many years after.

I am a nationalist and I believe Scotland will eventually win its independence, not by acts of violence but by acts of UK government politicians.

[Charles Bannerman]

We done our killing in 1715 and 1745 in the hope of regaining our independence and the result of that attempt was that we became an oppressed nation with many being deported to the colonies and the remainder treated as third class citizens and cannon fodder for many years after.

 

Alex.... for goodness sake check up the history before you make totally inaccurate statements like that! I know that the '15 and especially the '45 are both valued parts of Nationalist Grievance Folklore, but this really is so much tosh.

What the 5 Jacobite risings across the period 1689 to 1746 were about is exactly what it says on the tin - Jacobite... Jacobus... James... James the II and his progeny..... OK I'll also call him James the VII to avert further nationalist chunterings. Nothing to do with independence for Scotland at all.

At the end of 1688 James got the heave for being a despot and a Catholic since the Reformation had not yet been fully resolved in the UK (and still hasn't been in Scotland judging by Orange Walks etc).

There then followed various attempts to restore the Catholic Stuart dynasty which had been replaced by Protestants - initially from 1688 to 1714 by James's immediate family and after 1714 by his more distant relations from Hanover. These attempts started when Scotland and England were both still separate countries and owe much of their existence to the French wanting to create a diversion and internal division during their wars with Britain.

But let's be absolutely clear about what Jacobitism was - a series of religious and dynastic conflicts where it so happened that much, but not all, the Stuart support was Scottish, principally because Catholic clansmen were forced into service by their Catholic chiefs who in turn were leaned on by the Stuarts as part of the primitive feudal system which still operated in the Highlands. There were plenty of Scots on the other side as well - Protestant clans like the Campbells and also Lowland Scots, many of whom were as nasty as the next man in the aftermath of the '45.

I know the Nats love to portray the Jacobite Rebellions as sort of Scotland v England games since this fabrication fits beautifully into the Nationalist Grievance Culture. The trouble is that this is total nonsense.

Because the reality is that the best concise description of these rebellions is, not Scotland v England but a series of Old Firm games. Their basis was religious - a Protestant versus a Catholic claimant to the throne of what became GREAT BRITAIN during the conflicts.

 

I really do worry about how many Yes voters there may be wandering about there, substantially inspired by a mistaken understanding of what Jabobitism was or having seen Braveheart!

Edited March 16, 2015 by Charles Bannerman

[Oddquine]

Agree with DD and CB that Oddquines choice of words are not what people of the 20th / 21st centuries would ever have wanted to hear. We done our killing in 1715 and 1745 in the hope of regaining our independence and the result of that attempt was that we became an oppressed nation with many being deported to the colonies and the remainder treated as third class citizens and cannon fodder for many years after.

I am a nationalist and I believe Scotland will eventually win its independence, not by acts of violence but by acts of UK government politicians.

 

Ach, Alex, haven't people become awfy precious and professional offence-takers in the 21st Century.   I wasn't advocating violence.....just commenting, as I have more than once before.. on the difference between the attitude of Westminster to the Scottish civilised, violence-free, political attempt to gain independence, regarding the consequences to be imposed, compared to the result achieved by Ireland, on becoming independent from the same entity, after fighting for it.  Seemed to me as fair a comparison as the one of the abused wife, the controlling husband and a rancorous divorce.........particularly in an era in which the definition of domestic abuse is not confined only to physical violence.

 

When I first landed on the internet, I used to say that when/if I got a terminal illness, I would, before I died, acquire a gun, make my way to London and assassinate Maggie Thatcher...and nobody then thought I was planning to do it...or trying to encourage others to do it.....they knew it was just an off the cuff remark......just like the one about which comments are being made, in which I am making a comparison as to the attitude of Westminster to two different methods of achieving the same aim. If I was advocating emulating Ireland, I'd have said "really wish" or even "why don't we try".

 

Sheesh!

[+DoofersDad]

Oddquine's lame excuse for her shameful remark simply doesn't wash.  Whilst I fully accept that she was not advocating killing in support of the cause, to say that she almost wishes the independence movement had killed for the cause clearly indicates some sympathy for the concept.  What she could have said was that it seemed unfair that campaigning in a non-violent way has not achieved independence whereas other independence movements (such as the Irish) have got what they wanted by resorting to violence.  That would have made the point without any suggestion of sympathy with the use of violence in such situations.

 

She could have said that, but she didn't - even when challenged.  But if if she had said that it would still have been an absurd comment in the context of the current situation.  The situation in Scotland today is totally different to the pre-independence situation in Ireland for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, the people living in what is now the Republic of Ireland were strongly supportive of independence whilst the people of Scotland have indicated recently in a referendum that they do not want independence. Secondly, despite the fact that the Irish people did want independence, the British Government acted unjustly to suppress the independence movement. Today in Scotland, people are perfectly free to promote the case for independence and, as Charles and I have pointed out, in stark contrast to their stance over Ireland, the Government have freely agreed that Scotland can have independence if the people wish it.

 

Oddquine should reflect on the fact the use of violence by the independence movement in Scotland would mean violence to supress the wishes of the democratic majority.  Isn't that exactly what the British Government she so despises did in Ireland?

 

When, oh when will Oddquine wake up to the fact that the reason Scotland is not an independent nation is nothing to do with an oppressive, dictatorial regime at Westminster?  The reason Scotland is not an independent nation is that Oddquine's fellow citizens do not want Scotland to be independent. 

[Charles Bannerman]

 

When, oh when will Oddquine wake up to the fact that the reason Scotland is not an independent nation is nothing to do with an oppressive, dictatorial regime at Westminster?  The reason Scotland is not an independent nation is that Oddquine's fellow citizens do not want Scotland to be independent. 

Yes DD... but Nationalist psychology dictates that somebody has to be blamed and resented for their perceived misfortunes.

So since we don't have Black and Tans........

[Sneckboy]

 

We done our killing in 1715 and 1745 in the hope of regaining our independence and the result of that attempt was that we became an oppressed nation with many being deported to the colonies and the remainder treated as third class citizens and cannon fodder for many years after.

 

Alex.... for goodness sake check up the history before you make totally inaccurate statements like that! I know that the '15 and especially the '45 are both valued parts of Nationalist Grievance Folklore, but this really is so much tosh.

What the 5 Jacobite risings across the period 1689 to 1746 were about is exactly what it says on the tin - Jacobite... Jacobus... James... James the II and his progeny..... OK I'll also call him James the VII to avert further nationalist chunterings. Nothing to do with independence for Scotland at all.

At the end of 1688 James got the heave for being a despot and a Catholic since the Reformation had not yet been fully resolved in the UK (and still hasn't been in Scotland judging by Orange Walks etc).

There then followed various attempts to restore the Catholic Stuart dynasty which had been replaced by Protestants - initially from 1688 to 1714 by James's immediate family and after 1714 by his more distant relations from Hanover. These attempts started when Scotland and England were both still separate countries and owe much of their existence to the French wanting to create a diversion and internal division during their wars with Britain.

But let's be absolutely clear about what Jacobitism was - a series of religious and dynastic conflicts where it so happened that much, but not all, the Stuart support was Scottish, principally because Catholic clansmen were forced into service by their Catholic chiefs who in turn were leaned on by the Stuarts as part of the primitive feudal system which still operated in the Highlands. There were plenty of Scots on the other side as well - Protestant clans like the Campbells and also Lowland Scots, many of whom were as nasty as the next man in the aftermath of the '45.

I know the Nats love to portray the Jacobite Rebellions as sort of Scotland v England games since this fabrication fits beautifully into the Nationalist Grievance Culture. The trouble is that this is total nonsense.

Because the reality is that the best concise description of these rebellions is, not Scotland v England but a series of Old Firm games. Their basis was religious - a Protestant versus a Catholic claimant to the throne of what became GREAT BRITAIN during the conflicts.

 

I really do worry about how many Yes voters there may be wandering about there, substantially inspired by a mistaken understanding of what Jabobitism was or having seen Braveheart!

 

What happened to the "I'm trying to keep out of this thread"?!!

Not 'going back' on a VOW, surely?

I knew you'd get sucked into it, CB! But, who wouldn't - I'm not huge on politics but the referendum stoked an interest for me - and I'm really looking forward to what's going to be the most interesting GE in recent times. Nobody is certain of the outcome - even the bookies!

 

Wednesday's budget will be the 'starting pistol' to what is hopefully 7 great weeks of debate!

Will maybe get the odd loon popping literature through my post-box, the odd laddie canvassing in the street and the odd quine......

[Alex MacLeod]

Thanks for the history lesson I didn't actually need Charles. I chose two significant dates that were after 1707 but if you want to use that period as being a predominately religious war then so be it. Remember also that protestantism was imposed on the Scots by threats and acts of violence some two hundred or so years previous yet, although there were many battles, both in Scotland and England, the ultimate objective of reforming the church and converting all from Roman Catholicism failed as can be seen by the near 50/50 split of Catholic and Protestant of today.

[Charles Bannerman]

 

What happened to the "I'm trying to keep out of this thread"?!!

 

 

I did say "trying" Sneckboy but when I see murder being contemplated to overturn the democratic verdict of the ballot box and when I see history distorted to suit the Nationalists' grievance obsession, keeping out becomes just that bit more difficult.

I'm not huge on politics either, in that it's a business which has far too many self interested party apparatchiks but I would welcome a few canvassers of whatever hue knocking on my door.... just so I can wind them up!

[Charles Bannerman]

Thanks for the history lesson I didn't actually need Charles. I chose two significant dates that were after 1707 but if you want to use that period as being a predominately religious war then so be it. Remember also that protestantism was imposed on the Scots by threats and acts of violence some two hundred or so years previous yet, although there were many battles, both in Scotland and England, the ultimate objective of reforming the church and converting all from Roman Catholicism failed as can be seen by the near 50/50 split of Catholic and Protestant of today.

Quite frankly all that is of concern to me about Protestants and Catholics is their unfortunately mutually hostile coexistence. The individual merits of different versions of the same thing (Christianity) are of no interest although, given how much elements of each variety seem to deplore the other, I wonder what their attitude to Shinto, Buddhism, Islaam etc is likely to be?

 

Overheard in a Glasgow street....

"Ur yee a Catholic or a Protestant, Jimmy?"

"No, no, no.... I'm a Buddhist!"

"But ur yee a Protestant Buddhist or a Catholic Buddhist?"

[robbylad]

Thanks for the history lesson I didn't actually need Charles. I chose two significant dates that were after 1707 but if you want to use that period as being a predominately religious war then so be it. Remember also that protestantism was imposed on the Scots by threats and acts of violence some two hundred or so years previous yet, although there were many battles, both in Scotland and England, the ultimate objective of reforming the church and converting all from Roman Catholicism failed as can be seen by the near 50/50 split of Catholic and Protestant of today.

Quite frankly all that is of concern to me about Protestants and Catholics is their unfortunately mutually hostile coexistence. The individual merits of different versions of the same thing (Christianity) are of no interest although, given how much elements of each variety seem to deplore the other, I wonder what their attitude to Shinto, Buddhism, Islaam etc is likely to be?

 

Overheard in a Glasgow street....

"Ur yee a Catholic or a Protestant, Jimmy?"

"No, no, no.... I'm a Buddhist!"

"But ur yee a Protestant Buddhist or a Catholic Buddhist?"

Please... not politics and religion!! Wouldn't want things getting heated. Hehe

[Charles Bannerman]

"Almost makes one wish we had emulated Ireland and killed for independence, instead of trying to be civilised about it ....."

 

During my afternoon snooze I was suddenly translated from the streets of Munich in 1923 to the streets of Aberdeen 91 years later and a vision of Oddquine and Alex Salmond marching down Union Street at the head of a horde of saltire shirted cybernats.

The coup was ultimately abortive and a judge with nationalist leanings let OQ off with a warning, whilst sentencing Salmond to an absurdly short length of time in Peterhead Prison, during which he wrote his rambling justification of nationalism entitled "Mein Banff".

 

Then I woke up to realise that in the real world, Nicola Sturgeon had been making another of her trips to London which she fulfilled, as ever, with all the cordiality of Cruella de Ville visiting a dogs' home.

[Kingsmills]

I was shocked and disappointed when UKIP gathered enough votes in the European Parliamentary elections to send a Scottish representative to Brussels given their racist leanings and utterings over the years. Frankly, ashamed that sufficient of countrymen shared such views.

 

Whilst utterly reprehensible, it came as no shock when said representative, David Coburn made disgusting and disgraceful racist and islamaphobic comments about Glasgow born and bred, Humza Yousaf. He was rightly and unanimously censured by all right thinking politicians in Scotland as well as the president of the European Parliament.

 

UKIP themselves, including their leader Mr Farage, in contrast, have glossed over the whole thing dismissing the outrage as 'a joke'.

 

Contrast that with the steps taken by the SNP today to immediately suspend an ordinary and unelected party member for tweeting homophobic abuse directed at Conservative leader Ruth Davidson and, at the same time, unequivocally condemning it's author. To be fair, I suspect all of the mainstream parties would have done the same.

 

UKIP are not just covertly racist and islamaphobic but apparently happy to be seen as overtly so. There seem to be those on this site who have leanings towards supporting these little Englanders in the forthcoming general election. I would urge them to think a little more deeply about what they are endorsing unless, of course, they too are covertly or overtly racist.

 

I appreciate and respect those who do not share my political views and their democratic right to hold them but there are some things which are frankly beyond the legitimate pale...

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

Contrast that with the steps taken by the SNP today to immediately suspend an ordinary and unelected party member for tweeting homophobic abuse directed at Conservative leader Ruth Davidson and, at the same time, unequivocally condemning it's author. To be fair, I suspect all of the mainstream parties would have done the same.

 

 

On which subject, I see that the Renfrewshire Bookburners were reinstated some time ago and it is reported that one of the quartet which showed absolute contempt for a product of the democratic process (the Smith Report) to which even their own party signed up, has even been promoted.

[Kingsmills]

 

 

 

Contrast that with the steps taken by the SNP today to immediately suspend an ordinary and unelected party member for tweeting homophobic abuse directed at Conservative leader Ruth Davidson and, at the same time, unequivocally condemning it's author. To be fair, I suspect all of the mainstream parties would have done the same.

 

 

On which subject, I see that the Renfrewshire Bookburners were reinstated some time ago and it is reported that one of the quartet which showed absolute contempt for a product of the democratic process (the Smith Report) to which even their own party signed up, has even been promoted.

 

Please please tell me that you are not equating a stupid ill advised publicity stunt which resulted in censure and suspension with disgraceful and unrepentant racist and religious abuse on the part of an elected official resulting in no action being taken by his party at all...

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

 

 

Contrast that with the steps taken by the SNP today to immediately suspend an ordinary and unelected party member for tweeting homophobic abuse directed at Conservative leader Ruth Davidson and, at the same time, unequivocally condemning it's author. To be fair, I suspect all of the mainstream parties would have done the same.

 

 

On which subject, I see that the Renfrewshire Bookburners were reinstated some time ago and it is reported that one of the quartet which showed absolute contempt for a product of the democratic process (the Smith Report) to which even their own party signed up, has even been promoted.

 

Please please tell me that you are not equating a stupid ill advised publicity stunt which resulted in censure and suspension with disgraceful and unrepentant racist and religious abuse on the part of an elected official resulting in no action being taken by his party at all...

 

Correct. I'm not.

[Laurence]

I know I will be blasted for this especially given that the some of the subscriber's v on this forum are somewhat insular and narrow minded

 

Any way I shall still say my piece in the interest of democracy

 

 

 In the Uk around 27million people  vote in the General  Election , I imagine around 3 million will be from Scotland. 

Nicola Sturgeon seems to be saying her party will be a single issue party at voting time with only the interests of Scotland in the minds of her MPs

To my mind there is something immoral in this thinking. MPs have a responsibility to vote on the general good of the nation as a whole.

How would Scots feel if the London MPs decided only to protect the interests of London , or black MPs voted in the interest of their own people, or women using their influence in areas specific to them, the list is endless.

I well remember during the death throes of the Major government the Tories only managed to force through the unpopular measure of rail privatisation because the Unionists of Northern Ireland changed sides and voted with the government, after horse trading and getting special privileges on the provision of gas to their area.

 

If the SNP are to have any credibility at Westminster they should have the dignity to do the job properly and not in the hidebound sence of Scotland only. 

 

 

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

If the SNP are to have any credibility at Westminster they should have the dignity to do the job properly and not in the hidebound sence of Scotland only. 

 

 

Laurence... the SNP and fellow Nationalist travellers don't give a sh!t about having credibility at Westminster. They despise Westminster (q.v. most of Oddquine's posts) and their only purpose for being there (and indeed their only purpose in life) is as part of their campaign for separation. There is not a doubt in the world that they will use their presence at Westminster to create as much dissent and discontent throughout the rest of the UK as they have already done in Scotland. If they can get the English, the N Irish and the Welsh totally fed up with us and keen for us to leave, then that is a big asset to them. If they can make UK government unworkable, then so muich the better for them.

The SNP, I fear orchestrated by the pink Champagne-swigging author of Mein Banff but you can always hope, will simply use Westminster further to increase the international embarrassment which they have turned our proud nation into.