General Election 2010

[Steven H]

To call Grants points hyseria of any sort is not fair WJ, they may be dated views and in your opinion not really valid due to the time that has past since the days of the bum scratcher...BUT the last time a Tory Government came into power they ripped the heart out of Scotlands economy. Working-class people were hung out to dry and people will remember that, and be able to relate some of Camerons policies due to the similarity between what he says and what Thatcher done/said.

 

I havent read through this whole thread so I apologise if these points have been made before, but the main issues of this election have gone unchallenged because the 3 mian parties have a shared agenda on them and do not want to make it public knowledge. Trident and the fact that all 3 parties are not disclosing somewhere between 74% and 82% (?) of the cuts they will need to make are big issues but they havent been challenged on them to the degree they would have done if another party was involved in the Leaders Debates. The house of Lords is expensive and pointless, Tory policies on Family Tax credits smack of ensuring the rich get richer while the poor at best stay where they are, yet no-one challenged these things to any great degree. We could also say the 'war' in Iraq is another issue where all three parties hold similar views while most of the country hold a different one, yet it wasn't challenged because they all sort of agreed with each other. How many times did we hear "I agree with Nick/David/Gordon" during these debates? Alex Salmond would have ripped their policies to bits which is exactly why they were excluded from the debates and exactly why the 3 main parties would not have done it if the SNP were involved. Considering the number of issues that are devolved to the Scottish GOVERNMENT (it hasnt been Executive for 3 years now WJ, tut-tut ), and considering this was a National debate, the failure to involve the SNP was disgraceful.

 

I have always voted Labour in Westminster elections, mainly due to the views held by Grant as my old man and older relatives have the same views, but also because I believed in what Tony Blair said (and imo he done a great job as PM and unfortunately his legacy will not be the improvements made under his leadership, but will be on the farcical invasion of Iraq and his 'special relationship' with that muppet Bush). In Scottish elections I have voted SNP (except one year where I voted for the Socialists, a party that could potentially have made a major difference to Scottish politics yet imploded because they couldn't work together for the greater good)but for the 1st time ever I voted SNP in this Westminster election. Why? Because the other 3 parties have shown themselves as incapable of dealing with the important issues mentioned above.

 

May 6 2010 should be re-named 'National Not Voting Tory Day' in Scotland as far as Im concerned...bring on a balanced parliament

Edited May 3, 2010 by Steven H

[Woodstock Jag]

So many inaccuracies it is hard to know where to start.

 

You lived from 0-6 years under a Tory government. I doubt that nursery and Primary 1 and 2 covered too many lessons in politics. I certainly dont remember being too concerned about Wilson & Heath.

 

Life wasn't that bad in the 1990s compared with now. Certainly the early years of New Labour brought about specific improvements, but there's no evidence that the Tories would back-track on what has been done beyond their non-implementation of such reforms while they were in office. It's equivalent to, for instance, the Tories trying to argue against a Labour government on the grounds that they would renationalise all industry. It's just not got any basis in fact.

 

Interesting how you talk about oil revenues being used for the maximim benefit of all the UK. Does that mean the millions wasted on Trident and illegal war in Iraq.

 

I didn't actually say that. Re-read my post. I said the oil money didn't benefit Scotland to the maximum extent (i.e. we didn't just "get" all of the oil revenue) but that the money was spread across the UK for benefit of a far greater number of people. I didn't say that the UK Treasury hasn't wasted money; far from it, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny the suggestion that oil reserves just happening to be in Scottish waters entitles Scotland to an exponentially higher rate of public expenditure per capita than England.

 

At least Mediocre Pundit knows what he is talking about with respect to living under the Tories. While I dont agree with his opinion, I can at least respect it.

 

My parents lived under the Tories and did just fine for themselves. The same applies to my grandparents, and my great grandparents. It's not as though they don't have complaints about how the country was run during that time, but they do at least have the perspective to realise that the Tory party as it is now is not the same one of the 1980s in exactly the same way that the Labour Party of Tony Blair is not the same as the one of Jim Callaghan.

[Jaggernaut]

Anybody who thinks that Scotland has done well out of oil revenues because it's within the UK, think of this: The British Government received European grants for the Channel Tunnel infrastructure in part because they said that high-speed trains would run all the way to Scotland. They lied. The trains were delivered, but put in cold storage in Nottingham or somewhere like that, and they are now used for spare parts for the south of England rail network. The UK government never had any intention of running fast trains to Scotland. Even now, when new plans have been announced for high speed trains, they will run to Manchester, and Scotland might be considered for inclusion in 30 years.

 

And yet people still think we get a good deal from Westminster.

 

It almost beggars belief.

[Jaggernaut]

Anybody who thinks that Scotland has done well out of oil revenues because it's within the UK, think of this: The British Government received European grants for the Channel Tunnel infrastructure in part because they said that high-speed trains would run all the way to Scotland. They lied. The trains were delivered, but put in cold storage in Nottingham or somewhere like that, and they are now used for spare parts for the south of England rail network. The UK government never had any intention of running fast trains to Scotland. Even now, when new plans have been announced for high speed trains, they will run to Manchester, and Scotland might be considered for inclusion in 30 years.

 

And yet people still think we get a good deal from Westminster.

 

It almost beggars belief.

 

 

Oops, Dunno why this appeared twice.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Jaggernaut

[Woodstock Jag]

To call Grants points hyseria of any sort is not fair WJ, they may be dated views and in your opinion not really valid due to the time that has past since the days of the bum scratcher...BUT the last time a Tory Government came into power they ripped the heart out of Scotlands economy. Working-class people were hung out to dry and people will remember that, and be able to relate some of Camerons policies due to the similarity between what he says and what Thatcher done/said.

 

Cameron doesn't really have any policies though! And the ones he does are just variations of Labour and LibDem ones with respect to the economy. People are happy enough to say "booh hiss the Tories made big cuts in the past so they're going to do it again" but they conveniently ignore that all major economic analysts say that exactly the same sort of levels of cuts would ensue under a Tory administration as a Labour or a LibDem one! This can be typified in the 2nd leadership debate when Gordon Brown claimed that the Tories weren't going to protect the winter fuel allowance, free eye-tests for pensioners and various other things, and Cameron exposed these claims as perpetuated lies! As I said earlier, it's the equivalent of the Tories trying to claim that the renationalisation of the banks is the edge of a cliff to renationalisation of the railways, gas, steelworks, coalmining. It's got no basis in fact.

 

I havent read through this whole thread so I apologise if these points have been made before, but the main issues of this election have gone unchallenged because the 3 mian parties have a shared agenda on them and do not want to make it public knowledge. Trident and the fact that all 3 parties are not disclosing somewhere between 74% and 82% (?) of the cuts they will need to make are big issues but they havent been challenged on them to the degree they would have done if another party was involved in the Leaders Debates.

 

The reason the parties have not disclosed all the cuts they'd have to make is because it would be electoral suicide. The Tories tried being honest when they talked about the age of austerity and their poll ratings plummeted. Labour lied saying they would make no cuts to public services and their poll ratings rocketed. They admitted there would be cuts, with Darling saying they'd have to be deeper than Thatcher (on a point of economic fact) and they plummet again. It's as much the fault of the electorate for saying they're receptive to honesty, but then punitive of the honest.

 

The house of Lords is expensive and pointless

 

I'd abolish it or at least radically reform it, hence my inclination to vote LibDem. None of the parties have a good track record of HOL reform, though, with Labour not even having implemented their 1997 manifesto pledge for an elected HOL.

 

 

Tory policies on Family Tax credits smack of ensuring the rich get richer while the poor at best stay where they are, yet no-one challenged these things to any great degree.

 

Really? The Tory proposal (similar to the LibDem one) is to reduce tax credits for families over a certain income (I can't profess to know the threshold off-hand), so that some of the savings can be redirected to those below the threshold. It makes sense not to give a tax credit to a family earning £50k a year while a family on £15k a year gain virtually no additional benefit from the current scheme.

 

We could also say the 'war' in Iraq is another issue where all three parties hold similar views while most of the country hold a different one, yet it wasn't challenged because they all sort of agreed with each other.

 

The LibDems championed against the War in Iraq!

 

Further, the whole House of Commons was mislead by misleading intelligence in the hands of a Labour government...

 

How many times did we hear "I agree with Nick/David/Gordon" during these debates? Alex Salmond would have ripped their policies to bits which is exactly why they were excluded from the debates and exactly why the 3 main parties would not have done it if the SNP were involved.

 

Got to disagree with this. The reason Alex Salmond wasn't included in the debates is because his party is insignificant on the UK stage, and this is a UK election. The first debate, the parties certainly came out quite similar, but in the 2nd and 3rd (especially) debates, they spent the entire time exemplifying their differences. From Clegg's immigrant amnesty to Brown's points system and Cameron's unspecified cap to the National Insurance rise. It's a popular mantra to say they're all the same, but when you get into the detail, I certainly get the impression that, unlike perhaps 3 or 4 years ago, they really aren't at all!

 

Considering the number of issues that are devolved to the Scottish GOVERNMENT (it hasnt been Executive for 3 years now WJ, tut-tut ), and considering this was a National debate, the failure to involve the SNP was disgraceful.

 

The reason I refer to the Scottish Executive is because whilst they now self-style themselves as the Scottish Government they are still technically the Scottish Executive for purposes of the Scotland Act, which created it. I think it was fair enough not to include the SNP as a minor party in the UK election. The whole point of the Scottish Parliament was to redress the democratic deficit, and it's worthwhile remembering that whilst the SNP has influence over social policy in Scotland through that means, it would be undemocratic to include their voice in a debate which would be irrelevant to at least 80% of the electorate, given they're only contesting seats in Scotland. It was a reasonable compromise to include them in the debate between Scotland Westminster spokespeople as it relates to the future interaction between Holyrood and Westminster.

 

I have always voted Labour in Westminster elections, mainly due to the views held by Grant as my old man and older relatives have the same views, but also because I believed in what Tony Blair said (and imo he done a great job as PM and unfortunately his legacy will not be the improvements made under his leadership, but will be on the farcical invasion of Iraq and his 'special relationship' with that muppet Bush). In Scottish elections I have voted SNP (except one year where I voted for the Socialists, a party that could potentially have made a major difference to Scottish politics yet imploded because they couldn't work together for the greater good)but for the 1st time ever I voted SNP in this Westminster election. Why? Because the other 3 parties have shown themselves as incapable of dealing with the important issues mentioned above.

 

What I don't buy into is the notion that because the 3 main parties don't look like being able to deal with all the important issues convincingly, that somehow a regional party with 6 or 7 seats is going to be any better. A difference of opinion, perhaps, but one I'm willing to respect.

 

May 6 2010 should be re-named 'National Not Voting Tory Day' in Scotland as far as Im concerned...bring on a balanced parliament

 

Most Tories would agree with you as they'll have to vote tactically to keep Labour out.

[Mediocre Pundit]

Make no mistake, a vote for the Tories is a vote to let these kind of people into Government.

Hmmm...okay Grant, I'll wade into this one too!

 

I don't agree with her views (or certainly the views expressed in the article - it's the Guardian after all) but they're certainly not views held only by her. From reading about her she has a deep-down desire to help people and whatever the motivation for that it has to be a good thing.

 

Regarding homosexuality/transsexuality being the devils work, I don't agree, but I do feel that offering help to confused and vulnerable youngsters to make sure that they make the correct choices in life can only be a good thing. I can only imagine the trauma that could be caused by someone being abused when in this situation.

 

A line is crossed when rather than helping someone to make their own educated decision you try to influence them to make the decision you want them to take instead. I'm sure it's a tough line to tread.

 

Anyway, she's my local MP (although I forgot to change my vote so I'm still postal voting in Chryston) so I hope she wins!

[GrantB]

Hmmm...okay Grant, I'll wade into this one too!

 

I don't agree with her views (or certainly the views expressed in the article - it's the Guardian after all) but they're certainly not views held only by her. From reading about her she has a deep-down desire to help people and whatever the motivation for that it has to be a good thing.

 

Regarding homosexuality/transsexuality being the devils work, I don't agree, but I do feel that offering help to confused and vulnerable youngsters to make sure that they make the correct choices in life can only be a good thing. I can only imagine the trauma that could be caused by someone being abused when in this situation.

 

A line is crossed when rather than helping someone to make their own educated decision you try to influence them to make the decision you want them to take instead. I'm sure it's a tough line to tread.

 

Anyway, she's my local MP (although I forgot to change my vote so I'm still postal voting in Chryston) so I hope she wins!

 

What exactly are the correct choices in life? Does this mean trying to 'correct' their sexuality?

 

These are views that belong in a prehistoric age and I had hoped had disappeared from mainstream British politics. And before anyone wades in mentioning Brian Soutar, he disgusts me every bit as much as this Tory woman.

[Woodstock Jag]

What exactly are the correct choices in life? Does this mean trying to 'correct' their sexuality?

 

These are views that belong in a prehistoric age and I had hoped had disappeared from mainstream British politics. And before anyone wades in mentioning Brian Soutar, he disgusts me every bit as much as this Tory woman.

 

A agree with everything in this post.

[Steven H]

Cameron doesn't really have any policies though! And the ones he does are just variations of Labour and LibDem ones with respect to the economy. People are happy enough to say "booh hiss the Tories made big cuts in the past so they're going to do it again" but they conveniently ignore that all major economic analysts say that exactly the same sort of levels of cuts would ensue under a Tory administration as a Labour or a LibDem one! This can be typified in the 2nd leadership debate when Gordon Brown claimed that the Tories weren't going to protect the winter fuel allowance, free eye-tests for pensioners and various other things, and Cameron exposed these claims as perpetuated lies! As I said earlier, it's the equivalent of the Tories trying to claim that the renationalisation of the banks is the edge of a cliff to renationalisation of the railways, gas, steelworks, coalmining. It's got no basis in fact.

 

Firstly, it is clear that whichever party is in Government will have to make the same level of cuts, Im not disputing that. However, when the axe swings, which of the 3 main parties are historically more likely to make the most swinging cuts in Scotland (especially considering thay are only the 4th party up here)? Thats where the Scottish concern lies I think.

 

Secondly, my understanding of the 2nd debate (and reading what was said in the leaflets discussed) was that voting Tory would put those things at risk. The logic behind this claim was because the Tories never said they would protect them (if they did intend to protect them why not mention it in your manifesto?) and only in discussing this at the 2nd debate did Cameron then say 'fine we will ensure these things remain, now will you retract those leaflets'. To me that was him being backed into a corner and saying what he had to say, it wasnt lies to say you risked losing these things because the Tory manifesto never said these things would be protected. Subtle difference between saying your risk losing something to saying you will lose something.

 

 

 

The reason the parties have not disclosed all the cuts they'd have to make is because it would be electoral suicide. The Tories tried being honest when they talked about the age of austerity and their poll ratings plummeted. Labour lied saying they would make no cuts to public services and their poll ratings rocketed. They admitted there would be cuts, with Darling saying they'd have to be deeper than Thatcher (on a point of economic fact) and they plummet again. It's as much the fault of the electorate for saying they're receptive to honesty, but then punitive of the honest.

 

I don't dispute that, but reiterate that Scotland will see the Tories as the party to make the most swinging cuts in Scotland.

 

I'd abolish it or at least radically reform it, hence my inclination to vote LibDem. None of the parties have a good track record of HOL reform, though, with Labour not even having implemented their 1997 manifesto pledge for an elected HOL.

 

It should be abolished imo

 

 

Really? The Tory proposal (similar to the LibDem one) is to reduce tax credits for families over a certain income (I can't profess to know the threshold off-hand), so that some of the savings can be redirected to those below the threshold. It makes sense not to give a tax credit to a family earning £50k a year while a family on £15k a year gain virtually no additional benefit from the current scheme.

 

Yes but if a family is making £50k they are still entitled to tax credits, in a time of economic depression is that fair? The family on a lower income need to make sacrifices in order to survive and tax credits helps, but, in terms of percentage of 'budget cuts' a family needs to make, the family with less has to make a bigger sacrifice. When the parties are looking to make cuts then this is an area where more can be made, but they won't do it to the level they should because most voters are not working-class people therefore they risk less when it comes to self-preservation.

The LibDems championed against the War in Iraq!

 

Further, the whole House of Commons was mislead by misleading intelligence in the hands of a Labour government...

 

We were all misled! yes the LibDems were against the war but their policy now is similar to that of Labour and Conservative...maybe there is no other way, maybe we do need to see the job through. However, when we are looking to make cuts, this is another area where they could be made without impacting severely on British people...but like I said, maybe there is no other way.

 

Got to disagree with this. The reason Alex Salmond wasn't included in the debates is because his party is insignificant on the UK stage, and this is a UK election. The first debate, the parties certainly came out quite similar, but in the 2nd and 3rd (especially) debates, they spent the entire time exemplifying their differences. From Clegg's immigrant amnesty to Brown's points system and Cameron's unspecified cap to the National Insurance rise. It's a popular mantra to say they're all the same, but when you get into the detail, I certainly get the impression that, unlike perhaps 3 or 4 years ago, they really aren't at all!

 

They are all the same in the issues I spoke about in my original post, the issues I see as big when it comes to reducing the financial deficit. However if the SNP are insignificant on the UK stage then Scotland is insignificant, he is the leader of the Scottish parliament and most voters in the last Scottish election voted SNP (even if it was a small majority) therefore the SNP speak for the Scotish people. It would also have helped in discussions where powers are devolved to Scotland as at times I wondered what was and what wasnt relevant to Scotland. We were largely irrelevant, therefore insignificant as a nation...Salmond would have changed that imo.

 

The reason I refer to the Scottish Executive is because whilst they now self-style themselves as the Scottish Government they are still technically the Scottish Executive for purposes of the Scotland Act, which created it. I think it was fair enough not to include the SNP as a minor party in the UK election. The whole point of the Scottish Parliament was to redress the democratic deficit, and it's worthwhile remembering that whilst the SNP has influence over social policy in Scotland through that means, it would be undemocratic to include their voice in a debate which would be irrelevant to at least 80% of the electorate, given they're only contesting seats in Scotland. It was a reasonable compromise to include them in the debate between Scotland Westminster spokespeople as it relates to the future interaction between Holyrood and Westminster.

 

See my previous answer.

 

 

What I don't buy into is the notion that because the 3 main parties don't look like being able to deal with all the important issues convincingly, that somehow a regional party with 6 or 7 seats is going to be any better. A difference of opinion, perhaps, but one I'm willing to respect.

 

Not at all what I voted for them for. I fully expect a balanced parliament and considered voting LibDem, but in the event of a balanced parliament I want Scotland to have as much influence as possible. The constituency where I live has always been a Labour strong-hold but in the Scottish elections they were run very close by the SNP, I know Scottish and UK elections are different but, if the people are still voting the same way then the SNP have a half a chance of winning the seat. Just my logic and may well be well off base with it!

 

Most Tories would agree with you as they'll have to vote tactically to keep Labour out.

 

Risky, they should vote tactically to keep LibDems out

[Mediocre Pundit]

What exactly are the correct choices in life? Does this mean trying to 'correct' their sexuality?

 

These are views that belong in a prehistoric age and I had hoped had disappeared from mainstream British politics. And before anyone wades in mentioning Brian Soutar, he disgusts me every bit as much as this Tory woman.

Nope, the correct choices in life are doing exactly what you want to do. But it's important that potentially confused young people (which I'm sure a lot of youngsters struggling with their sexuality are) can get help properly understanding their feelings to make the correct lifestyle choice. If that means they're gay then great, they're gay.

[yoda-jag]

 

Anybody else see his reaction on the Scottish Leaders Debate last night when asked about his "flipping" of homes? He didn't like it one bit.

 

 

That was a cracking debate last night, the way all the other debates should have been - with Glenn Campbell jumping in with extra questions he made sure every leader was really put on the spot, and they suffered several awkward and embarrassing squirmy moments, as well as ensuring their policies and what they were saying was really put under the spotlight at times.

[GrantB]

Nope, the correct choices in life are doing exactly what you want to do. But it's important that potentially confused young people (which I'm sure a lot of youngsters struggling with their sexuality are) can get help properly understanding their feelings to make the correct lifestyle choice. If that means they're gay then great, they're gay.

 

 

Glad to hear it. Not the views of your Tory candidate though. The whole grassroots of the Tory party is full of these kind of people. You only have to look at the Conservative candidate for Ayrshire North for evidence.

[Mediocre Pundit]

Glad to hear it. Not the views of your Tory candidate though. The whole grassroots of the Tory party is full of these kind of people. You only have to look at the Conservative candidate for Ayrshire North for evidence.

I'm sure that if you look at all the personal views of all the candidates of all the parties you'll find a good cross-section of ones you strongly disagree with. This is something everyone has to take into account when voting for their own MP. But it's one thing holding these views yourself, and another entirely in making them a key aspect of your time in office. There are doubtless plenty of MP's that vote for acts that they don't personally agree with because they appreciate that it's what the majority of the people they are elected to serve want.

[Woodstock Jag]

Firstly, it is clear that whichever party is in Government will have to make the same level of cuts, Im not disputing that. However, when the axe swings, which of the 3 main parties are historically more likely to make the most swinging cuts in Scotland (especially considering thay are only the 4th party up here)? Thats where the Scottish concern lies I think.

 

I think that's an overly cynical view to take and is self-perpetuating. The Tories didn't "target" Scotland for cuts last time they were in power; they targeted unprofitable public sector industry. That it was present in Scotland was incidental and not the underlying reason for the cut. Scotland no longer has a significant industrial sector, and if any cuts are coming, it's been proposed to be in managerial posts and quangos, which will affect Scotland no more than any other part of the UK. Indeed, the presence of Devolution would actually, as I've said before, leave the decisions re where to cut in the public sector to the Scottish Executive, who if they so desired could choose to make cuts elsewhere.

 

Secondly, my understanding of the 2nd debate (and reading what was said in the leaflets discussed) was that voting Tory would put those things at risk. The logic behind this claim was because the Tories never said they would protect them (if they did intend to protect them why not mention it in your manifesto?) and only in discussing this at the 2nd debate did Cameron then say 'fine we will ensure these things remain, now will you retract those leaflets'. To me that was him being backed into a corner and saying what he had to say, it wasnt lies to say you risked losing these things because the Tory manifesto never said these things would be protected. Subtle difference between saying your risk losing something to saying you will lose something.

 

That's not how it actually panned out. There were several things like the winter fuel payments which the Tories had guaranteed, but Labour leaflets (and Gordon Brown) claimed they wouldn't. There were some things they hadn't mentioned, but as they pointed out, if they listed everything they were going to keep, it wouldn't be a manifesto but an encyclopaedia.

 

I don't dispute that, but reiterate that Scotland will see the Tories as the party to make the most swinging cuts in Scotland.

 

Which begs the question why? It's a victimisation on the wrong grounds.

 

Yes but if a family is making £50k they are still entitled to tax credits, in a time of economic depression is that fair? The family on a lower income need to make sacrifices in order to survive and tax credits helps, but, in terms of percentage of 'budget cuts' a family needs to make, the family with less has to make a bigger sacrifice. When the parties are looking to make cuts then this is an area where more can be made, but they won't do it to the level they should because most voters are not working-class people therefore they risk less when it comes to self-preservation.

 

The point is, Stephen, that whilst Labour are in favour of this (very very expensive) universal tax credit system, they actually end up wasting a lot of money on people who don't need it, such as people on £50k a year. The whole point is to effectively tax those over a certain income more by not giving them a rebate (which is what a tax credit basically is). The poorest won't suffer under the Tory and LibDem proposals in this area, indeed some of the increased tax revenue will actually make them slightly better off than they would be under Labour!

 

We were all misled! yes the LibDems were against the war but their policy now is similar to that of Labour and Conservative...maybe there is no other way, maybe we do need to see the job through. However, when we are looking to make cuts, this is another area where they could be made without impacting severely on British people...but like I said, maybe there is no other way.

 

I think you're maybe confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. We've not got forces in Iraq any more, and that was a war based on a false premise. Afghanistan was largely supported by the British public and all three parties have slightly different views on the long-term future there. War is inherently unpopular and people's failure to differentiate between Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't help the current task, but the reason that they've got (relatively) similar Afghanistan policies is because it's right. The SNP are proposing a timed withdrawal, which leaves the potential of dissidents being able to take Afghanistan back again, and potentially cause trouble in the mountainous borders of Pakistan, which let's remember has a nuclear weapon.

 

They are all the same in the issues I spoke about in my original post, the issues I see as big when it comes to reducing the financial deficit. However if the SNP are insignificant on the UK stage then Scotland is insignificant, he is the leader of the Scottish parliament and most voters in the last Scottish election voted SNP (even if it was a small majority) therefore the SNP speak for the Scotish people. It would also have helped in discussions where powers are devolved to Scotland as at times I wondered what was and what wasnt relevant to Scotland. We were largely irrelevant, therefore insignificant as a nation...Salmond would have changed that imo.

 

Just to clear up a few things: none of the parties (the SNP included) have been honest about the cuts that would be necessary to balance the books.

 

The SNP are not Scotland. They don't represent Scotland either. They polled under 1/3 of the vote in the Holyrood elections, form a minority administration (not a majority as you said) and less than 18% of the vote in the last General Election. Despite the myth they peddle, they cannot claim to be the unanimous, majority or unique voice of the Scottish people.

 

In the debates, the chairpersons always made it clear when the discussion of an issue would not apply to the Devolved constituents. This is a UK election where the parties are canvassing for UK support. It would be wrong to imply that the Scottish voice was somehow distinct by including Salmond in the Prime Ministerial debates. That his party aren't even standing in 1/10 of constituencies means that short of a 45% independent swing in England, his party wouldn't even get a plurality of votes, let alone a plurality of seats or anything near it.

 

Not at all what I voted for them for. I fully expect a balanced parliament and considered voting LibDem, but in the event of a balanced parliament I want Scotland to have as much influence as possible. The constituency where I live has always been a Labour strong-hold but in the Scottish elections they were run very close by the SNP, I know Scottish and UK elections are different but, if the people are still voting the same way then the SNP have a half a chance of winning the seat. Just my logic and may well be well off base with it!

 

Don't get me wrong, I think people should do anything they can to annihilate Labour in Scotland, but I don't see what a handful of SNP MPs could actually do at all at Westminster even if there was a hung parliament

 

Risky, they should vote tactically to keep LibDems out

 

But I don't mind the LibDems

[Woodstock Jag]

That was a cracking debate last night, the way all the other debates should have been - with Glenn Campbell jumping in with extra questions he made sure every leader was really put on the spot, and they suffered several awkward and embarrassing squirmy moments, as well as ensuring their policies and what they were saying was really put under the spotlight at times.

 

It was an absolutely terrible debate last night. Mud slinging, no intellectual debate of political philosophy and sensationalist playing to the crowd. Salmond was the least unimpressive of a horrific bunch.

[Mediocre Pundit]

Actually, I'll throw in one example. John Cowan. Thrown out of the Lib Dems, refused by the Tories, and he wound up a Labour candidate. A whole string of unsavoury behaviour (which Labour were made aware of months ago) and he was only sacked when the details became public.

 

He's much worse than Stroud by the way, who at least means well (even if I don't agree with her personal views and methods). But you don't have me on here claiming that the Labour grass-roots is full of people like Cowan.

[GrantB]

Actually, I'll throw in one example. John Cowan. Thrown out of the Lib Dems, refused by the Tories, and he wound up a Labour candidate. A whole string of unsavoury behaviour (which Labour were made aware of months ago) and he was only sacked when the details became public.

 

He's much worse than Stroud by the way, who at least means well (even if I don't agree with her personal views and methods). But you don't have me on here claiming that the Labour grass-roots is full of people like Cowan.

 

Of course grassroots Labour has plenty people with questionable views. Scottish Labour for example is full of horrible small minded people which is one of many reasons why I would never vote for them.

[Jaggernaut]

If you're wondering whether it's worth giving the Tories your vote, well, would you really want to follow the advice of this incompetent?:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/scotland/8657486.stm

[Mediocre Pundit]

If you're wondering whether it's worth giving the Tories your vote, well, would you really want to follow the advice of this incompetent?:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/scotland/8657486.stm

I saw that. Thank God I've voted already!

[Mediocre Pundit]

Of course grassroots Labour has plenty people with questionable views. Scottish Labour for example is full of horrible small minded people which is one of many reasons why I would never vote for them.

I'm sure the Lib Dems and SNP are every bit as bad (albeit a little less corrupted by power since they have always had a little less of it)

[Steven H]

WJ I am prepared to accept you have far more incite into this political blah blah, in short my views are based on my knowledge and understanding of what I hear and see...that forms my opnions. What is fact? What is opinion? Doesn't really matter, all that matters to me is that we dont have a Tory Government. Closed minded maybe, lacking a deep knowledge/understanding probably...but that's how a lot of voters make their choices, as oppossed to deep-rooted examination of who says what and why.

 

Like politics itself, we could go round and round in circles and I agree to disagree with regards to voting Tory, they have a long long way to go before Scotland forgives (Poll Tax anyone?).

 

One wee pick-up tho, when I spoke about majority regarding the SNP I meant in terms of who polled the most votes/won the most seats, not who has a majority government (I know its a minority/hung parliament)...didnt word it well but knew what I meant. I think every extra seat in Westminster for the SNP is a good thing for Scotland, but accept it's not going to have major influence in a UK...but it will be one less seat for the main 3 parties and that suits me fine

[alx]

(Declaration of affinity: I'm a life-long Scottish Nationalist, only ever voted SNP and wil never vote for anyone else, a party member, and hang about the Tartan Army SNP folk that people are always complaining about). Here's a theory on the election result... the way that Scotland voted all the Tories out was based on a lot of tactical voting. I think the English are about to do the same thing to pick on the Labour Party. That doesn't bother me as I hate them with a passion. I was going to 'not do' the whole night watching the results thing this time (the SNP will probably do okay but nothing exciting), but you've got to say that it's getting interesting. Role on election night.

[GrantB]

WJ I am prepared to accept you have far more incite into this political blah blah, in short my views are based on my knowledge and understanding of what I hear and see...that forms my opnions. What is fact? What is opinion? Doesn't really matter, all that matters to me is that we dont have a Tory Government. Closed minded maybe, lacking a deep knowledge/understanding probably...but that's how a lot of voters make their choices, as oppossed to deep-rooted examination of who says what and why.

 

Like politics itself, we could go round and round in circles and I agree to disagree with regards to voting Tory, they have a long long way to go before Scotland forgives (Poll Tax anyone?).

 

One wee pick-up tho, when I spoke about majority regarding the SNP I meant in terms of who polled the most votes/won the most seats, not who has a majority government (I know its a minority/hung parliament)...didnt word it well but knew what I meant. I think every extra seat in Westminster for the SNP is a good thing for Scotland, but accept it's not going to have major influence in a UK...but it will be one less seat for the main 3 parties and that suits me fine

 

 

I think you are doing yourself a disservice. Just because someone is able to type up a couple of pages worth of drivel, it doesn't mean they have more insight into the issues.

 

My views are fairly fixed when it comes to the Conservative party, as I said to MP, my Dad was a massive Tory and we used to have endless political debate when I was in my late teens (he died when I was 21). I think even he would have been questioning their policies if he'd lived through the '90's.

 

Anyway, it's been my considered opinion for a long time now that Scotland needs to stand on it's own two feet. I'm not interested in people who blame England for Scotland's problems, I want to see a confident Scotland taking it's place in the European Union as an equal partner.

[GrantB]

I'm sure the Lib Dems and SNP are every bit as bad (albeit a little less corrupted by power since they have always had a little less of it)

 

True. I've always said there are people who are involved with the SNP who I'd much rather weren't. Brian Soutar being the obvious example.

[Mediocre Pundit]

Anyway, it's been my considered opinion for a long time now that Scotland needs to stand on it's own two feet. I'm not interested in people who blame England for Scotland's problems, I want to see a confident Scotland taking it's place in the European Union as an equal partner.

I'd actually like this too, if there was a proper centre-right party for Scotland. The problem for me is that Scotland is too centre-left. Out of every ten workers in Scotland, six work in the public sector. That's ridiculous for a capitalist country (to be fair it's better than Northern Ireland where it's 7) and far too much of our taxation is to employ civil servants on generous pay and (especially) benefits to do jobs that our government thinks it can do more efficiently and effectively than the private sector. Public sector employees believe they are entitled to these jobs and benefits while too many people are on long-term unemployment, again believing that they are entitled to their benefits. I don't believe they are. I believe the government of this country has a responsibility to shrink the state, free up finance for small business, and get this country creating value again. Sadly any Scottish government to do this would be unelectable for the foreseeable future due to the scale of "creative destruction" (Turkeys don't vote for Christmas) so it will never happen unless it is conducted from London. So I vote Tory.