Labour and the SNP

[Hobbit]

You do your fellow countrymen no good with these constant postings that emminate so much hidden hate.
We get it, you don't like the government and you think the sun shines out the snp and they never lie.
if you posted facts and sensible discussions I could understand but what you post mostly embarrasses yourself.

Now that is as mild a understatement as I've ever read on here. The U-rating forbids me to posty thoughts on Doon's rabid, thinly vieled racism hidden behind progressive politics, not forgetting his oft trotted out "I've got an English wife and daughter." A poor excuse for a tolerant Scot

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Just the right sort of chappy you want on the Scottish Affairs Committee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope

Talk about extracting the urine:angry:

Well he should be a fair match for your own bile and intolerance.

 

[alexbrownmp]

And while I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment, your own inability to spell emanate, or even use it correctly, does your own argument no favours!

I'd also question whether someone can suggest that somebody's action has embarrassed them - surely that's for the individual them to decide!

I'm sure there are many of DfT's 'fellow countrymen' that have similar feelings to his - and also many that don't! But I fail to see what 'no good' the postings are doing! Can you clarify what damage, or whatever you mean by 'no good', is being done?

With respect to the post you quoted...In this instance, I'm actually inclined to agree with DfT!

Is this a serious post?

auto and spell check does cause issues but I'm spot on with the use.

you on the other hand appear to be the forum stalwart for mixing the silage with a stick.

The quoted post post is in regard to his general postings but I had to quote a singular post. You of course knew that yet chose to pretend you didn't, or maybe you are actually very dim in which case I apologise.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

And while I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment, your own inability to spell emanate, or even use it correctly, does your own argument no favours!

I'd also question whether someone can suggest that somebody's action has embarrassed them - surely that's for the individual them to decide!

I'm sure there are many of DfT's 'fellow countrymen' that have similar feelings to his - and also many that don't! But I fail to see what 'no good' the postings are doing! Can you clarify what damage, or whatever you mean by 'no good', is being done?

With respect to the post you quoted...In this instance, I'm actually inclined to agree with DfT!

From your final comment I assume that, like the aforesaid DfT, you think the Conservative Party is the only one arguing amongst themselves.

If so then you are overlooking the argument within the Labour Party between Old & New, an argument that has simmered since Blair replaced Smith.

Also the greatest opposition to the pro-Europe vote in 1975 came from the Left and many of those attitudes and suspicions still linger.

My question re: the SNP and the realisation of its impotence remains valid.

However, I do not expect an answer to this from DfT as it does not fit with his tartan-hued version of utopia.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Now that is as mild a understatement as I've ever read on here. The U-rating forbids me to posty thoughts on Doon's rabid, thinly vieled racism hidden behind progressive politics, not forgetting his oft trotted out "I've got an English wife and daughter." A poor excuse for a tolerant Scot

Just because I don't like the Tories and support the SNP I am branded a racist....aye right.
My views are fairly mild compared to my wife's.:lol:
In your mind does that make her a racist against her own 'race'.

 

[M1ke]

A general rule of thumb on forums is to never discuss Religion and Politics. This thread has descended into an embarrassing series of insults which should really be brought to an end.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Just because I don't like the Tories and support the SNP I am branded a racist....aye right.
My views are fairly mild compared to my wife's.:lol:
In your mind does that make her a racist against her own 'race'.

Oh! the irony. A response that, yet again, makes reference to your wife, exactly as quoted by Hobbit.

Your posts are negative, repetitive, bigoted, one-eyed and tiresome. but if it makes you happy, what the heck! carry on.

 

[Foxholer]

From your final comment I assume that, like the aforesaid DfT, you think the Conservative Party is the only one arguing amongst themselves.

By no means at all! They all do it, just some more quickly and/or overtly than others!

 

[Doon frae Troon]

From your final comment I assume that, like the aforesaid DfT, you think the Conservative Party is the only one arguing amongst themselves.

If so then you are overlooking the argument within the Labour Party between Old & New, an argument that has simmered since Blair replaced Smith.

Also the greatest opposition to the pro-Europe vote in 1975 came from the Left and many of those attitudes and suspicions still linger.

My question re: the SNP and the realisation of its impotence remains valid.

However, I do not expect an answer to this from DfT as it does not fit with his tartan-hued version of utopia.

You must realise that if and when the Tories implode the 56/7 SNP votes could be quite crucial to the management of the UK.

Hence my OP
I really do think that the prospective Labour leaders are missing a trick by failing to see some form of working alliance with the the third party.
Lord Bragg stated today that they will be in the wilderness for many years.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

You must realise that if and when the Tories implode the 56/7 SNP votes could be quite crucial to the management of the UK.

Hence my OP
I really do think that the prospective Labour leaders are missing a trick by failing to see some form of working alliance with the the third party.
Lord Bragg stated today that they will be in the wilderness for many years.

Firstly there is no event in history to suggest The Conservative Party will implode. They were more divided in 1990 yet still pulled together to win the'92 General Election.

Secondly and as stated at the time of the last election, any party entering into an agreement with the SNP would, in England, be signing their own political death warrant.

Have you now realised that a party with only 56 seats out of 650 has no power and, therefore, you want an alliance with Labour in the hope of securing some influence at Westminster?

 

[Foxholer]

You must realise that if and when the Tories implode.....

Not going to happen!

Notwithstanding that the only significant issue that causes friction in the Conservatives is Europe - for which the planned referendum is actually, imo, a moderating influence - the tiny majority they have is much more likely to tend to keep them in line than promote rebellion.

There will, of course, be lots of rumblings from them because that is part of their nature - and something that the media latch onto!

...
The quoted post post is in regard to his general postings but I had to quote a singular post. You of course knew that yet chose to pretend you didn't...

Both of these statements are simply wrong!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Of course looks like we're going to be stuck with a Tory government until Kingdom come now that EVEL will make it very difficult indeed for the Labour Party to ever have a majority in Westminster.

But hold on - if miracles did happen and Labour and SNP swapped electoral positions in Scotland sometime down the line - and Labour managed a decent recovery in England then the Labour Party could well find themselves with a majority and in government in Westminster. But if the Labour majority was less than 59 (number of Scottish Westminster MPs) then with EVEL in place and no votes for Scottish MPs on many Westminster matters, a Labour government could be defeated left, right and centre by the opposition. Now that would be a bit of a Westminster mess. But hey - Davie promised on EVEL and what Davie promises...

 

[SocketRocket]

Of course looks like we're going to be stuck with a Tory government until Kingdom come now that EVEL will make it very difficult indeed for the Labour Party to ever have a majority in Westminster.

But hold on - if miracles did happen and Labour and SNP swapped electoral positions in Scotland sometime down the line - and Labour managed a decent recovery in England then the Labour Party could well find themselves with a majority and in government in Westminster. But if the Labour majority was less than 59 (number of Scottish Westminster MPs) then with EVEL in place and no votes for Scottish MPs on many Westminster matters, a Labour government could be defeated left, right and centre by the opposition. Now that would be a bit of a Westminster mess. But hey - Davie promised on EVEL and what Davie promises...

Many people are happy with that projection.

 

[DCB]

You must realise that if and when the Tories implode the 56/7 SNP votes could be quite crucial to the management of the UK.

What's is this 56/7 all about, thought it was only 56 seats they won ?

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Of course looks like we're going to be stuck with a Tory government until Kingdom come now that EVEL will make it very difficult indeed for the Labour Party to ever have a majority in Westminster.

But hold on - if miracles did happen and Labour and SNP swapped electoral positions in Scotland sometime down the line - and Labour managed a decent recovery in England then the Labour Party could well find themselves with a majority and in government in Westminster. But if the Labour majority was less than 59 (number of Scottish Westminster MPs) then with EVEL in place and no votes for Scottish MPs on many Westminster matters, a Labour government could be defeated left, right and centre by the opposition. Now that would be a bit of a Westminster mess. But hey - Davie promised on EVEL and what Davie promises...

From your previous comments it is clear that you are happy with devolved powers and, perhaps even independence . for Scotland and yet you would deny similar self-determination to the English electorate.

Remember it was a Labour politician, Tam Dalyell, who, at the time of devolution, raised the "West Lothian" question and pointed out the inherent unfairness that devolved powers would give rise to.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

What's is this 56/7 all about, thought it was only 56 seats they won ?

Carmichael's seat is being disputed by his constituents due to the lies he told before the election and the failure of the then government to investigate it before the vote.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

From your previous comments it is clear that you are happy with devolved powers and, perhaps even independence . for Scotland and yet you would deny similar self-determination to the English electorate.

Remember it was a Labour politician, Tam Dalyell, who, at the time of devolution, raised the "West Lothian" question and pointed out the inherent unfairness that devolved powers would give rise to.

Problem is that if the current parliament fail to deliver on 'The Vow' but deliver on EVEL we then have the West Lothian question, and it's inherent unfairness in total reverse.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Problem is that if the current parliament fail to deliver on 'The Vow' but deliver on EVEL we then have the West Lothian question, and it's inherent unfairness in total reverse.

How do you work that out? Any powers that aren't devolved won't be subject to EVEL, will they?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

My point is simply that with EVEL you can have a Labour government as they have the majority of MPs, but a government that could and probably would be defeated whenever it tried to implement key 'England-Only' legislation (whoever decides what that is and upon what criteria - does anyone actually know?). Doesn't that make a nonsense of a Westminster government if the party in government with a majority can't enact key policies. Do they have a majority or not? Sometimes they do - sometimes they don't.

So a majority Labour government wants to increase foreign aid budget (which is supported by it's Scottish MPs) by cutting the education budget. It can do the former as it isn't devolved and so has the necessary majority, but may not be able to do the latter as education is devolved and so it might not have a majority to get it through. You'll have an minority opposition determining what aspects of government policy can be implemented. Regardless of the detail - that sort of scenario is a bit of a nonsense.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

My point is simply that with EVEL you can have a Labour government as they have the majority of MPs, but a government that could and probably would be defeated whenever it tried to implement key 'England-Only' legislation (whoever decides what that is and upon what criteria - does anyone actually know?). Doesn't that make a nonsense of a Westminster government if the party in government with a majority can't enact key policies. Do they have a majority or not? Sometimes they do - sometimes they don't.

So a majority Labour government wants to increase foreign aid budget (which is supported by it's Scottish MPs) by cutting the education budget. It can do the former as it isn't devolved and so has the necessary majority, but may not be able to do the latter as education is devolved and so it might not have a majority to get it through. You'll have an minority opposition determining what aspects of government policy can be implemented. Regardless of the detail - that sort of scenario is a bit of a nonsense.

So what that sounds to me, is that devolved powers don't work. May as well give all powers back to Westminster!

I don't see how you can be a fan of devolved powers for Scotland, but not for England? Your point about a minority opposition deciding what the government can do, is no different to having a different party in power in the Scottish parliament to the Uk Gov. Why should a Labour gov (in your example) be able to cut the education for only England, and not for Scotland?