Jump to content

The Holyrood Election thread


DoofersDad

Recommended Posts

Well, into election week, and whilst I sense a slight move away from the SNP, it will be far too little and far too late.  I do sense the other party leaders have become a little more assured as the campaign has progressed whilst Sturgeon has become a little less so. There is an unpleasant hard edge to her when rattled - a bit like Thatcher. 

I think the penny is finally beginning to drop with people that the SNP have been blaming others for things they should be held accountable for.  They are also wondering why, if the SNP are so opposed to austerity, they are not using the newly devolved powers to add to increase public spending instead of simply aping the Tories at Westminster.  Assuming the SNP do get elected, we can at least take some consolation from the fact that they will not get away with blaming the Tories for their under-funding of public services in 5 years time.  We may then once again get a Government that puts the interests of the Scottish people top of their agenda.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎31‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 8:34 PM, ed said:

So who should we vote for up here?  I don't like the SNP and I could never vote for a nationalist party.  Far too authoritarian for me. Named person scheme, offensive behaviour at football act etc.

 

I am not very impressed with the other parties though.  Who to vote for.  hmmmm.

Not long to go now and poor 'ed' didn't get any advice on here who to vote for despite all the anti SNP rants!

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kingsmills said:

Yip...told repeatedly who not to vote for without any coherent reason why...

I would have thought that fundamental and longstanding incompetence allied with a status not so much as a real political party but more as an irritating and noisy single issue pressure group, hellbent on conning the electorate into making a single decision on one completely broken and discredited policy, should do for starters.

  • Disagree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there have been a lot of reasons given for why not to vote for the SNP.  What has been seriously lacking is the lack of any coherent reason why anyone should vote for them - this despite the fact that there are clearly a lot of SNP supporters who have been reading this thread.

IBM, who to vote for?  To be honest, I don't know.  If I were a supporter of any one of the other parties specifically then I would have done what you and all the other SNP supporters have failed to do and made a case.  Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens all support making use of the new powers to raise revenue to address the consequences of the Tory / SNP austerity programme of recent years so I will be voting for one of them.  By the way, wasn't Ed making the case for the Tories?

 

  • Disagree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add to my earlier post that there is also no point in voting for people who don't actually do anything because they are more concerned about using the electorate as a source of grievance so instead blame other poeple for problems which they should themselves be addressing - some of these with the powers they screamed about getting but now seem reluctant to use.

  • Disagree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/05/2016 at 7:53 PM, DoofersDad said:

Well, into election week, and whilst I sense a slight move away from the SNP, it will be far too little and far too late.  I do sense the other party leaders have become a little more assured as the campaign has progressed whilst Sturgeon has become a little less so. There is an unpleasant hard edge to her when rattled - a bit like Thatcher. 

I think the penny is finally beginning to drop with people that the SNP have been blaming others for things they should be held accountable for.  They are also wondering why, if the SNP are so opposed to austerity, they are not using the newly devolved powers to add to increase public spending instead of simply aping the Tories at Westminster.  Assuming the SNP do get elected, we can at least take some consolation from the fact that they will not get away with blaming the Tories for their under-funding of public services in 5 years time.  We may then once again get a Government that puts the interests of the Scottish people top of their agenda.  

 

The SNP do sensible, unlike the Tories, the Greens, RISE, Labour and LibDems, who can make any promises they like, because they will never have to implement them. The SNP, from current poll showings, if you believe polls, is the party which will have to put our money where their mouths are, so have to practise the art of the possible, within a system which, currently, does not allow them to increase any single tax band without increasing all others by the same amount,and with no facility to raise the income tax bands to compensate lower earners.

There is also the problem of private sector business people, in the higher tax bands particularly, if they are able to do so, either clearing off over the border, and back to the 45% rate, or moving a part of their annual income from salary to dividend on profits. As Scotland has no dibs on Dividend/savings income, just on income from salaries, that would mean that the Westminster coffers would get the benefit of the dividend tax and Scotland would lose a chunk of the expected tax on a salary which had been thus reduced. Just another of the tax loopholes carefully built in to the plethora of pages of the UK tax code for the wealthy, even down to getting the first £5000 of dividend income tax free.

I know most of you won't read it, but it is explained well on  Wings

As I have said all along, devolution within the UK is a poisoned chalice, intended to cut the feet from under the SNP and nothing else.

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth my seat prediction is;

SNP                            67 seats

Labour                        27 seats

Cons                           22 seats

Greens                          7 seats

Lib Dems                       6 seats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Oddquine said:

The SNP do sensible, unlike the Tories, the Greens, RISE, Labour and LibDems, who can make any promises they like, because they will never have to implement them. The SNP, from current poll showings, if you believe polls, is the party which will have to put our money where their mouths are, so have to practise the art of the possible, within a system which, currently, does not allow them to increase any single tax band without increasing all others by the same amount,and with no facility to raise the income tax bands to compensate lower earners.

There is also the problem of private sector business people, in the higher tax bands particularly, if they are able to do so, either clearing off over the border, and back to the 45% rate, or moving a part of their annual income from salary to dividend on profits. As Scotland has no dibs on Dividend/savings income, just on income from salaries, that would mean that the Westminster coffers would get the benefit of the dividend tax and Scotland would lose a chunk of the expected tax on a salary which had been thus reduced. Just another of the tax loopholes carefully built in to the plethora of pages of the UK tax code for the wealthy, even down to getting the first £5000 of dividend income tax free.

I know most of you won't read it, but it is explained well on  Wings

As I have said all along, devolution within the UK is a poisoned chalice, intended to cut the feet from under the SNP and nothing else.

The SNP don't do sensible. They do whatever it is they judge will best further the cause for independence.  It is they who are making any promises they like because they think they will be able to blame their failure to deliver on Tory austerity.  It is the SNP who are making bigger and grander promises than than those parties who have the guts to recognise that to reverse the impact of the Tory/SNP austerity of recent years, the Scottish Government needs to raise more money by putting taxes up.

And what nonsense to claim that devolution is "intended to cut the feet from under the SNP and nothing else".  This, I suppose is why the SNP were so vocal and forceful after the referendum in getting further devolved powers that we, the electorate have never had the opportunity to say whether we wanted or not.  After months of outraged bleating the SNP now have these devolved powers yet refuse to use them.  This is not sensible Government.  If the SNP think there are factors which prevent the new devolved powers from being used effectively, then how utterly incompetent and irresponsible of them to have agreed to them.

  • Disagree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Kingsmills said:

For what it's worth my seat prediction is;

SNP                            67 seats

Labour                        27 seats

Cons                           22 seats

Greens                          7 seats

Lib Dems                       6 seats

I don't think you will be far wrong.  I think the SNP may be 2 or 3 more than that but I also think that Labour will beat the Tories and that the Greens will edge the Lib Dems for 4th.  UKIP don't deserve any seats but it may be that the proximity of the EU referendum will have raised their profile a bit. However, I don't think it will be quite enough to sneak a seat somewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course devolution was designed to cut the feet from the SNP. George, now Lord Robertson boasted as much, "devolution will kill the SNP stone dead".

What the unionists failed to do was to take into account that the SNP would govern so competently and generally popularly that the population would entrust them with what looks like an unprecedented three consecutive terms two of which with outright majorities that those that set up the voting system didn't consider remotely possible.

Further, the general degree of satisfaction with the way the SNP governed has and is continuing to convince an increasing proportion of the population at large that we will be equally capable of managing our own affairs as an independent nation. When the SNP first came to power support for independence was hovering around 30% it is now around 47% and still edging up. If the SNP were not governing well that would not be the case.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Renegade said:

Christ on a bike, Wings Over Scotland?  I wouldn't give any hits to a bitter bigot like him.

I had mercifully neither thought nor heard of the execrable Reverend Whinge for long enough until Oddquine mentioned him there. Is he still down there peddling his twisted bile from England, which would surely remain a comfortable refuge for him should his desire for the economic Apocalypse which is separation ever descend upon the rest of us up here in Skintland? Yup the ultimate hypocrite, the Reverend Whinge. Makes it his life's mission to impose on other people a political outcome which he himself chooses to avoid.

Oh, by the way I perhaps shouldn't dismiss ALL politicians as unprincipled. It seems that some do have principles which they stick to. This afternoon, on the Distributor Road, I spotted this plethora of Green Party placards progressing towards me. Closer examination revealed that they were all, seven or eight of them, either on the body of, or on the bodywork of the bike ridden by a classically bearded Green Party activist.

Only a photo, which I don't unfortunately have, could convey how ridiculous this looked but fair play to the guy for making his contribution to saving the planet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kingsmills said:

Of course devolution was designed to cut the feet from the SNP. George, now Lord Robertson boasted as much, "devolution will kill the SNP stone dead".

What the unionists failed to do was to take into account that the SNP would govern so competently and generally popularly that the population would entrust them with what looks like an unprecedented three consecutive terms two of which with outright majorities that those that set up the voting system didn't consider remotely possible.

Further, the general degree of satisfaction with the way the SNP governed has and is continuing to convince an increasing proportion of the population at large that we will be equally capable of managing our own affairs as an independent nation. When the SNP first came to power support for independence was hovering around 30% it is now around 47% and still edging up. If the SNP were not governing well that would not be the case.

Of course Robertson will have hoped that devolution would have killed the SNP stone dead but that does not mean that devolution was granted simply as an anti-SNP measure.  Devolution was granted because it was felt that it was what the Scottish people wanted (and it was - we voted for it!) and that the benefits of a devolved parliament within the UK would reinforce the long held wish of the Scottish people to be part of the Union.  The SNP, however have embraced devolution not because it is good for Scotland, but because they correctly recognise that once in place it gives the UK Government less and less room to hand over any further powers without full independence.  They have also recognised that if application of devolved powers leads to palpable benefits to Scotland then there will be no appetite for further change (if it ain't broke, don't fix it).  Hence the terrier like pursuit of further devolution post-referendum followed by the failure to actually use those powers to any meaningful extent.

When the SNP are no longer successful in blaming Westminster for the problems in Scottish society, the SNP will become less popular and the support for independence will drop.  Incidentally, whilst the current level of support for independence is, of course, a good bit higher than when the SNP came to power, it has been broadly static since the referendum and has been generally in the low 40s.  It is certainly not edging up.

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how running public spending budget deficits of over £100 billion year after year can be labelled as "austerity". Seems the elections up here come down to an argument over who'll borrow and spend the most money. It certainly belies the stereotype of the miserly Scotsman. 

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

Of course Robertson will have hoped that devolution would have killed the SNP stone dead but that does not mean that devolution was granted simply as an anti-SNP measure.  Devolution was granted because it was felt that it was what the Scottish people wanted (and it was - we voted for it!) and that the benefits of a devolved parliament within the UK would reinforce the long held wish of the Scottish people to be part of the Union.  The SNP, however have embraced devolution not because it is good for Scotland, but because they correctly recognise that once in place it gives the UK Government less and less room to hand over any further powers without full independence.  They have also recognised that if application of devolved powers leads to palpable benefits to Scotland then there will be no appetite for further change (if it ain't broke, don't fix it).  Hence the terrier like pursuit of further devolution post-referendum followed by the failure to actually use those powers to any meaningful extent.

When the SNP are no longer successful in blaming Westminster for the problems in Scottish society, the SNP will become less popular and the support for independence will drop.  Incidentally, whilst the current level of support for independence is, of course, a good bit higher than when the SNP came to power, it has been broadly static since the referendum and has been generally in the low 40s.  It is certainly not edging up.

A bit off topic but while you are entitled to your own opinion you are not entitled to your own facts.

According to Professor John Curtis, something of an authority on the matter, there have been 25 polls on the matter of independence conducted by reputable pollsters. After stripping out the don't knows, the average for yes is 48 % and for no 52 %. Not a dramatic change since the referendum but a definite 'edging up'. but fear not dear Unionist, unless the UK votes to leave the EU with Scotland voting the other way by a significant majority the question of another referendum in the course of the next parliament will not arise despite the Unionist parties attempt to make it otherwise it is not an immediately current issue whilst, the economy, the health service, education, law and order and transport to name but a few are and that is why we are likely to wake up to another five years of 'Separatist' rule tomorrow morning.

  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the excellent - and constantly up-to-date, What-Scotland-Wants website does indeed reflect a >47% YES vote on average, for polls conducted this year.
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-the-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-a#table

I agree, with Kingsmills that (although the opportunity has not been ruled-out, in their manifesto) although/despite the SNP being overwhelmingly voted in again today, that in itself, is not sufficient to 'trigger' another Independence Referendum. As acknowledged by Sturgeon, it would only happen if the support for Independence was considerably above 50% and over a prolonged period of time (assuming the EU referendum opportunity goes against them).
It could well resurface - indeed, the bookies are 'offering' a 50/50 chance of 'IndyRef2' happening before 2022, which is virtually the equivalent of this term of the Holyrood Parliament.
We'll see what transpires.
I'll try to stay up for a bit tonight to watch the reaction and results as they filter in - butt will enjoy Prof. John Curtis as always - he really is excellent!

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexJones said:

Lol red dot but no rebuttal. Typical political craic. Best to eschew this type of thread. More heat than light etc.

Don't worry about it Alex. Red dots in this section are rites of passage. If any of my posts fails to get at least one, I start worrying that I haven't been abrasive enough!

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AlexJones said:

Not sure how running public spending budget deficits of over £100 billion year after year can be labelled as "austerity". Seems the elections up here come down to an argument over who'll borrow and spend the most money. It certainly belies the stereotype of the miserly Scotsman. 

It isn't how much a deficit is which defines austerity...it is the use to which the deficit is put.  The UK Government defines austerity as wealthy people having less to leave to their descendants, big businesses getting less in profit, company managers (and bankers) even when making losses, get less in bonuses, political parties(mostly conservative) getting less in donations, and the UK not being able to strut the world, waving their nuclear threat and taking part in wars to get more resources to make more profit for arms manufacturers.  Seen in those terms, we don't have austerity.......which is why it makes a mockery of the weasel words "We are all in this together"..because we are not.  

Austerity for the less elite who actually suffer it, comes when the UK Government tries to reduce the deficit by making lower level Civil Service staff redundant, while increasing the numbers of those on senior Grades Six and Seven;  when the UK government spends annually £1.25 billion+ in paying salaries, expenses etc for our Cabinet, MPs and plethora of Lords, for SPADS, and for running the elite club which is the Houses of Parliament, and making a stab at paying for it by targeting sanctions at job-seekers who are wasting £2.4 billion trying to keep their heads above water.  Austerity for the less elite comes because it is much more important to keep 520 employed in polishing Trident and others planning its currently un-authorised replacement, and keeping a reserve specially so we can bomb brown people in foreign countries at the behest of the USA (and Israel), than using that money to prevent people having to use foodbanks, or to remove the perceived need to take aids away from the disabled and to stop under 21 year olds from accessing housing benefit etc.   

The problem up here is that those who are wanting to spend more money to pursue their pet policies are those who probably won't have to suffer the consequences in their pockets.....and given they are talking about playing about with tax and spend in the first year of a new tax set-up which doesn't allow them to tax single bands, or spend on anything remotely useful, bar hand money back to Westminster to pay them for the likes of bedroom tax, and without knowing how any of their brainfarts will impact on next years block grant, it seems to me particularly sodding stupid to be doing anything more than holding the line in the meantime....and being pragmatic. 

Anyhow, who would vote for any political party which has Jackie Baillie as its financial spokesperson?

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 3
  • Disagree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy