Scot Nationalists' march on Westminster may be GOOD for UK IT The Scottish National Party had an astonishing election night. It previously had six Westminster seats; it now has 56 of Scotland’s 59 MPs, some elected on swings in excess of 30 per cent, with most of its seats gained from Labour. It already runs the Scottish Parliament as well as 11 of Scotland’s 32 councils, although some in …
"One non-starter SNP policy involving technology is its vehement opposition to a new generation of Trident nuclear submarines based on the Clyde."
We really should look at relocating these anyway, as at some point it may happen that the do get enough power to prevent them, so should plan a new base now.
And as they are so opposed to it, they should also be completely removed from any bidding process to build anything, and I mean anything to do with it.
"We really should look at relocating these anyway"
I'd agree with all the points you make, and add another one, which is simply to question whether we need a submarine based deterrent, and would be better served by cheaper distributed land based (final) solutions?
Submarines have low serviceability (which is why we need three or four to maintain one on station) and this makes them expensive. With no maritime patrol capability courtesy of the last "strategic" "defence" review, we've no way of knowing that they aren't already routinely tailed by foreign powers, dramatically reducing the invulnerability claims of the boat jockeys. And the original Cold War mk 1 theory of deterrence and MAD has been proven to be cobblers in Ukraine. First of all, the Russians no longer have an ideological drive to invade Western Europe. And if they were to nibble off bits of Poland or the Baltics, would we all want to die a nuclear death over those bits of Eastern Europe?
All we need these days is a deterrent capable of wiping out a second tier attacker with one or a handful of nukes, who wouldn't have the capability to plaster the entire UK, but might consider that they could wave a stick at London. And that potential retaliation could be delivered by cruise missile, land launched ICBM, or internationally based air launched cruise missiles.
... well, if Ukraine had kept it's "share" of ex-Soviet nukes, you might be right. But since Ukraine isn't a nuclear armed state, one can hardly say that its current difficulties are due to a failure of MAD, however else you might describe them.
"... well, if Ukraine had kept it's "share" of ex-Soviet nukes, you might be right. But since Ukraine isn't a nuclear armed state, one can hardly say that its current difficulties are due to a failure of MAD, however else you might describe them."
Au contraire, the point being made was that the UK and US guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty. When the civil war broke out in Ukraine and Russia made a land grab, despite their guarantees and their nuclear arsenals, the UK and US decided to do nothing - they weren't going to risk a war to defend the crooks in Kiev. It is precisely because the UK, US and Russia have nuclear weapons that the Russians (correctly) surmised they would not end up in a major international conflict. Even if Ukraine had nuclear weapons, would that have stopped Russia? I doubt it - either through forcible neutralisation, or by a calculated gamble that Kiev don't want to die.
So I come back to the issue, where's the value to the UK in a full fat submarine launched deterrent? In particular, the underlying principle of MAD was detente, which is only possible if you have a full suite of escalating conventional military and tactical nuclear options before your strategic deterrent. Our conventional military forces cannot field a single aircraft carrier, have no naval surface forces above the scale of a destroyer, comprise a bare handful of antiquated Tornado strike aircraft and some new build but ancient design concept Typhoons. Our army has a tiny handful of attack helicopters and collectively the military have trivial numbers of transport helos and transport aircraft (of which the newest are currently grounded). The army has been reduced to a size where the Horseguards outside Buck House are probably imposters employed by Crapita, or carrying Equity cards.
I think we should retain nuclear strike capabilities. But we don't have the capabilities necessary to support MAD via detente (that only ever really worked against a major, imposing enemy, rather than numerous, diverse, rapidly changing threats), and we can't afford to replace Trident. So it seems that we need to cut our cloth according to our circumstances and yet still offer our military the equipment it needs to do the duties we ask of them. I simply don't see a new submarine launched ICBM system as being a good "investment", compared to a cruise launched system that could be deployed in a greater number of submarines, launched from ships, silos or air-launched. And that would leave a lot of money for conventional military kit, rather than disappearing into the coffers of large defence contractors.
There is an argument to be had about the utility or otherwise of a nuclear deterrent to the UK. Currently Government policy is that we should have such a capability. The A in MAD stands for "assured". Current state of the art is four ICBM boats so that at least one can be at sea, on station, ready to launch at all times.
Like most military capability you train and equip to defeat the most violent, biggest, baddest enemy and other roles can be undertaken with ease. "All we need these days is a deterrent capable of wiping out a second tier attacker with one or a handful of nukes...." is a surrender to Putin's Russia and an invitation to attack Poland, Estonia etc, who, unlike the Ukraine, are NATO members with treaty guarantees.
PS. I call Godwin on your "land based (final) solutions".
"Like most military capability you train and equip to defeat the most violent, biggest, baddest enemy and other roles can be undertaken with ease"
This, my son is self evident rubbish, and I can't believe you typed it. No matter how many SSBN's we have, they make not one jack of difference to the conflicts that the UK (and allies) have been embroiled in fairly continuously for the past few decades. And in a budgetary constrained environment, if you splash your cash on a sea based nuclear deterrent, you find (as the clowns found out at the last SDR) that you can't afford the strike aircraft and attack helicopters for your wars of choice. You can't afford a decent highly mobile army with tactical and strategic transports. You can't afford the maritime reconnaissance fleet upgrade to police your own waters. You can't afford aircraft for your carriers.
Precisely because we tool up for Armageddon with Russia, we find that we don't have the resource or equipment to do other roles "with ease".
Ledswinger,
The first sentence of my post was "There is an argument to be had about the utility or otherwise of a nuclear deterrent to the UK." I made no comment about whether having a strategic deterrent is a good or bad thing for the UK. If we have one it must fulfil the requirements of deterring. I see no "self evident rubbish" in saying that it should be built to deter Russia rather than, say, Argentina. A strategic deterrent that only just deters Argentina will be a bit rubbish when Russia decides it wants Eastern Europe back.
Traditionally the funding of the nuclear deterrent was a Treasury responsibly, not the MOD's. This was to avoid just what we see now, the expensive strategic capability preventing the deployment of effective non-nuclear forces by sucking the defence budget dry.
Brown or Balls decided to change this previously effective funding split. (Not all they got wrong.)
The need for a strategic nuclear deterrent is a political, not a military, decision. I don't know but I think it is by no means certain that, left to its own devices, the MOD would maintain the missile submarines.
"Good luck finding an area of England with a deep enough inlet and happy to host nuclear reactors and warheads."
The Thames is ideal, tad of dredging required, but far from impossible. Probably St Katherine's Docks, after 1 or 2 minor tweaks. Nice and central, I'm sure the sailors would love it, there's a starbucks, a tesco express and a slug and lettuce.
"Good luck finding an area of England .... happy to host nuclear reactors and warheads."
Come off it, a few short years back nuclear armed strike aircraft (and indeed the Nimrods) dotted the English countryside, with the weapons routinely carted across the country for maintenance. And before that we briefly had land launched ICBMs, then a large fleet of V bombers scattered at stations across the green and pleasant land. The Yanks kept a sizeable fleet of nuclear weapons on UK soil. The nuclear powered attack submarines routinely berthed at the English naval ports, even Derby was graced by a submarine nuclear reactor for development purposes.
The only people who had a problem were CND and the hippies of Greenham Common.
The problem is not depth for the submarines, they are actually fairly shallow draft vessels when surfaced. The problem is access to sufficiently deep waters into which they can disappear shortly after leaving their berths. Such exist just off the West Coast of Scotland.
The need for this rules out the entire North Sea coast, far too shallow. It rules out any Irish sea coasts such as Cumbria or Cymru (even if PC did not represent a further threat). It also rules out much of the Channel. The Cornish peninsula offers the only alternative but there pretty much every usable harbour has a fishing village on it. So to base the subs there at least one and probably several (the subs need the maintenance base and the rearming base to be separate for safety reasons, Faslane and Coulport respectively atm).
And as they are so opposed to it, they should also be completely removed from any bidding process to build anything
What does "they" refer to in your comment? The SNP, those who voted for the SNP, or anyone in Scotland including engineering companies who couldn't give a toss about the SNP. Your comment smells of xenophobia, whether intended or not.
The BBC indicates they got 50% rather than 35%:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland
That said, a good deal* of 'no' voters voted SNP this time because people seem to be sick of the growing disconnect between the electorate and those chosen to represent them. I agree that secession isn't realistically on the cards though.
* for a given value of 'good deal'
50% of a 77% turnout is 35%. The number of votes cast for the SNP in the election was about the same as those that voted Yes in the independence referendum, and that was *BEFORE* the collapse in the Oil price.
Personally if I was David Cameron I would ram fiscal independence down Sturgeons neck. I would have it coming into full force in April 2017, which is slower than Salmond wanted, because he was going for *FULL* independence in May 2016. When faced with the reality of devastating cuts to public spending and/or massive tax rises that fiscal independence would bring the SNP might just not do as well next May. Of course if the SNP did not win next May you could back peddle on it :-)
Business taxes is the difficult one, we know the SNP plan is to have a lower rate than England so they can leach taxes from England by getting multinational corporations to relocate their headquarters to Scotland. Two solutions to that in my view, the simpler one is just match anything the SNP do and play a game of chicken that Scotland will loose. The more complex one is say force companies with a profit over say £1m to make up the difference lower Scottish taxes based on percentage of turnover generated in the rest of the UK removing the benefit of a multinational relocating to Scotland to avoid tax and sinking the SNP's taxes plans before they get out of harbour.
The other thing I would do is ram another independence referendum down the SNP's throat. When the loose for a second time they are going to have a hard time calling a third for decades, by which time there should be no oil left and their economic plans will be in complete tatters.
Stirring the pot in Scotland causes quakes over the irish sea (personally I think they'd be better as a part of Scotland than the rest of ireland as the cultures are closer related even taking into account the sectarian divisions).
If both Scotland and north ireland go, there's nothing preventing first the welsh and later the north of england to begin clamouring for more 'devolution'.
Then what's left might as well be Belgium, 'cause it sure won;t have as much clout left.
(that's belgium as in Zaphod Beeblebrox's 'belgium' mostly).
"If both Scotland and north ireland go, there's nothing preventing first the welsh and later the north of england to begin clamouring for more 'devolution'."
Gosh yes, we wouldn't want those uppity Welsh getting more control over what happens to and in their country, when Westminster already has their best interests at heart.
So long as we don't need to be subsidised by the rest of the UK disproportionately to our own contributions, what's the problem? Ditto Cornwall & North England to be honest.
You do know that the phrase 'March on Westminster' is figurative?
What this means is they are not actually going to be coming down you street anytime soon with 20,000 or so kilted yaksmen and bagpipes to raid your home of porridge oats.
So you can stop building barricades and planning war.
Yup, the more I look at the events of Thursday / Friday morning the more I think that FPTP is not providing anything approaching democracy. On a constituency level, of course, works brilliantly, the candidate with the most votes wins. But that simply doesn't translate itself to a fair way of populating a legislative body. Still, I'm pissing in the wind here, it's suited the Tories perfectly. So it's staying.
In the interests of some balance: with three successive parliaments and some pretty large majorities during that time, I failed to notice Labour implementing any significant changes to the electoral system if they felt that the future of our democratic system should be enhanced and ensured. Perhaps banning hunting (just as an example) or the three thousand or so other new criminal offences codified were more important.
Also now they've only got around 8% of the vote, calls from the Lib Dems for PR are few of late. If we had PR, or something approaching it, the likelihood would be a Conservative/UKIP coallition, with UKIP being about one in four of the ruling coalition. Would those criticising the Conservative party and its electors consider this a more palatable alternative?
Hiya, yep, I hear you. PR would also vomit some odd stuff, like smaller parties having a proportionate amount of seats, but possibly a disproportionate amount of 'power', due to deals being done etc. It's a pickle.
However. For me, looking at the raw figures, it's really hard to justify.
SNP 4.7% share of vote = 56 seats in parliament.
UKIP 12.6% share of vote = 1 seat.
All these points are moot. Parties who benefit from FPTP historically normally gain a majority. Therefore they wont change it.
SNP only had candidates for 59 seats, UKIP was campaigning for 624. Even if they only got 5% of the vote in each of those regions, this would swamp the SNP who got an average of 50% of the vote across all of Scotland.
A more useful number would be the percentage of votes per seat they got. While it's not entirely accurate (population count varies between different regions a bit), 650 seats at westminster means around 71,423 voters per seat (based on an electorate of 46,425,386)
UKIP got a total of 3,881,129 across their 624 seats, which would average at 6,220 votes per seat
SNP got a total of 1,454,436 across their 59 seats, which would average at 24,651 votes per seat
So yeah, per seat ran the SNP got a couple hundred short of 4 times the votes which UKIP got in the regions they ran in, it's just that UKIP ran in more places, giving their "total votes" an artificial boost if you use the total electorate as your metric of success
@M7S
I don't find UKIP particularly palatable, but I'd rather we had a proportional system, which would very likely require rather more consensus on a lot of matters - there are quite a few areas where the stated policy of the fish people is not in line with the Cons, after all.
I also tend to the view that you may as well give people rope, and see what they do with it. So what if we have UKIP MPs? If they turn out to be the same quality as the people they send to Brussels, they will be spectacularly ineffective, and very likely a one parliament wonder. They could surprise us and turn out to be diligent constituency representatives - in which case, if people vote for them, what's the problem?
@arrbee:
I think even more than the case of the SDLP, this election has highlighted the problems in the current system, not least because there are more extra parties. But also in the way the election is fought in a tiny number of marginals.
The Labour vote share was, in fact, up by 1.4% over 2010, yet they still lost 27 seats.
The Conservative vote was up by half that, 0.7%, and they gained an extra 24.
In essence, the Labour votes were in the 'wrong' place (as were those of others), while the Tories did better and targeting the seats they needed to win.
In my local seat (Hackney North), the Labour share was up 7% at 62%; also remarkable was that the Greens went up to 14.6%, just 0.1% behind Con. But those increases for the two left of centre parties made no difference.
PR has been something that, certainly, SDLP/LD types have wanted for ages, but I think the raised profile of three extra parties this time round - SNP, Green, UKIP - has opened the eyes of many more people to the flaws in our system.
I can see your point with a UKIP and Cons coalition, however I think with proportional representation you might find people becoming more interested at grass roots level and people might feel more motivated to vote for candidates.
You might have an unpalatable coalition this time, but I would wonder what would happen the next election when people actually start feeling like their vote can make a difference.
FPTP suited Blair and Gorgon Brown well enough in 2005 when they got what was it 35.2% of the votes yet a rather good for them (and possibly bad for many others) majority by getting 55.2% of the seats. So did that reflect 'the will of the people'?
*= Tax And Waste party
In general I agree, although if you take a more MP-centric view of politics it is less clear.
However, proportional representations systems tend to come with top-up MP's from party lists. And
"candidates" on those lists who are well connected with their party hierarchy can find themselves happily ensconced and repeatedly returned to Parliament, irrespective of how the actual voting public regards them.
If party lists were designed so as have residence limits (eg only two terms), or if top-up MPs were chosen (eg) from the pool of unsucessful electorate MP's with the most personal votes I might be more forgiving. But, as far as I know, party list schemes never are.
Just look at the Italian systems... they are designed so parties bosses and their entourages always get a seat, and others need to be puppets if they want one. In Italy the system changes more or less every ten years, but it is always designed to favour the ruling party, and its top members. No risks here to lose your seat, or to have to resign after a defeat... and very little control, or no control at all, like in the past system, about who you vote. Keep your system, may not be the best, but there are so many worse ones...
I honestly have never heard any of them say that. They complain about how Westminster manages things and that the policies quite often benefit London at the expense of the rest of the UK, but they include cities like Liverpool and Manchester getting a raw deal in that. There seems to be some strange narrative about how the SNP, and Scots who supported them, hate the English, when really they just disagree on the politics of Westminster.
Also I'm not sure how coalition = fix the votes, even if it's an informal coalition
Turnout was quite high in Scotand
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32624405
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/the-one-map-that-shows-how-nonvoting-would-have-won-the-general-election-if-it-were-a-party-10238290.html
(no figure for N.I. - dammit - that would have been interesting)
The number of seats they would have achieved if a more proportional system would have been less, as would have most of the other parties that fared well. With the Lib dems in the doldrums, the only person crying about that just now is Mr Farage.
@ J J Carter
"FPTP flattered the YeSNP last week. They got about 35% of those eligble to vote, same as in the indyref. So yes about a third of Scots are malcontents who think Braveheart is a documentary, but that'll never be enough to swing it for secession."
I think I see why Scots might be discontented...
<aside>
malcontents implies that they might not have anything to be discontented about...
</aside>
I agree with John 110. To jabuzz and the others on this thread, if you treat people as the enemy then they will behave like one. Politically messing with the SNP is acceptable. Materially screwing over the entire Scottish electorate and taking the Union to the brink is crass stupidity. Hopefully call me Dave is smart enough to determine a reasonable cut off between the 2, unlike half the commentards on here.
People seem to forget that Scotland joined the Union reasonably voluntarily due to a number of push-pull factors, anyone who seeks to create divisions to undo that unnecessarily should hoik themselves off to a desert island with the racist loons from UKIP.
People seem to forget that Scotland joined the Union reasonably voluntarily ...
No it didn't. Scotland joined the union because it was basically bankrupt after the folly of the Darien Scheme.
with the racist loons from UKIP
Come again?
I don't vote UKIP and am unlikely to do so - Conservative voter right here - but I utterly fail to see why lefties bang on about their being racists when there seems scant evidence for that position. Care to explain your view? From where I'm sitting, the SNP seem considerably more racist (against the English) than the SNP are against, well, anyone.
Actually Scotland joined the union because the nobility bankrupted themselves (the Darien Scheme was a private venture, not a state one) and were offered the chance to sell out the country in exchange for their debts being expunged and a seat on the House of Lords. This being before we were a democracy, the nobility were able to do this without public support (the nobles who supported it themselves estimated about 75% opposition by the Scottish population and there were riots across the whole country as a result)
I quite agree with your post - that it was a private venture among the nobility rather than a state scheme, but that doesn't alter why Scotland joined the union, only to who derived the most direct benefit - the reason remains, bankruptcy.
I'd like to see an indepentant Scotland, but I fear that would take a 20 year cross party plan - fiscal independence cannot be achieved in any shorter time, regardless the SNP figures. Politicians of all hues are somewhat shorter sighted than a 20 year plan would allow. And, in fairness, the toxic vitriol against the English during the referendum was unacceptable and has eroded the goodwill that would be required from England.
"And, in fairness, the toxic vitriol against the English during the referendum was unacceptable and has eroded the goodwill that would be required from England."
It was entirely unacceptable. And it was also by a very small minority. The rest of us got on with our days, and on referendum day turned up, voted, and went to work quietly. I didn't want to hear the big "YES" party going on in The Meadows in Edinburgh - it was distracting me whilst I was trying to get stuff done. I also didn't want high-profile campaigners on either side to be subject to some of the hatred that arose (whatever you think of JK Rowling, for example, there was no excuse for some of the crap hurled her way).
Some of us up here in Scotland were pointing out throughout that the YES campaign's plans seemed to rely a lot on the goodwill of England (in particular), which may not be forthcoming given the expense that would be incurred if we dropped out of the Union.
So I'm not surprised that many in England are bored of it, or repelled by the nastiness. Still, two points to be made here:
1) Unlike some muppet's suggestion above, there are about 5.5 million people in Scotland. Not 3 million.
2) If we did leave the Union we wouldn't be subjected to nineteen-sixty-fucking-six football pish *every* *fucking* *four* *years*. You think England's bored of Scotland going on about something?...
1) Unlike some muppet's suggestion above, there are about 5.5 million people in Scotland. Not 3 million.
I made reference to fewer than 3 million, as an approximation the YES share of the referendum vote, not the population of Scotland.
2) If we did leave the Union we wouldn't be subjected to nineteen-sixty-fucking-six football pish *every* *fucking* *four* *years*. You think England's bored of Scotland going on about something?...
Try being German and you'll be getting "Two world wars and one world cup" instead. Unfortunately, English football sucks, and we're unlikely to win anything of note in the whole of my life.... all we have is the songs of yesteryear. So yeah, you'll be getting those either way.
I hail from a "border town" of sorts, one which prior to the referendum would likely (given a free choice) have voted to go with an independent Scotland. Post referendum, at my last visit, I'd not heard so much anti-Scots sentiment expressed, so if the goodwill has gone from there, it's unlikely to be found in abundance as far south as I now reside.
Rather than expecting to rock up at Westminster and start "wagging the dog", the SNP "tail" would be better served by turning up with some humility and good graces, and seeking to repair some of the damage they have done. With independence will come competition, and England has more people, better infrastructure, deeper pockets, and a history of winning; Scotland would need a lot of goodwill to avoid an embarrassing and destructive bankruptcy. And that goodwill will have to be earned, not demanded.
If we did leave the Union we wouldn't be subjected to nineteen-sixty-fucking-six football pish *every* *fucking* *four* *years*.
I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say, but the ranting tone and foul language seem to be an example of exactly the kind of toxic behaviour you are deprecating.
True, I thought the additional detail was worth mentioning though
Honestly I didn't see much in the way of anti-English sentiment amongst the pro-Independence crowd. There was some I don't doubt, but mostly when people mentioned England in relation to independence it was to clarify that it wasn't England they didn't like, it's being run by Westminster. There was a lot of complaint about how London media companies covered it too, largely that they seemed to claim existance of a lot of anti-English sentiment without really showing any evidence of it, but except for a few outliers most people didn't have any time for that kind of nonsense
"Honestly I didn't see much in the way of anti-English sentiment amongst the pro-Independence crowd"
The vocal minority were busy directing all that venom at the "No" voters. At least, from this outsider's observations.
Dislike for how Westminster runs things is pretty much it when it comes to independence, more devolution or any devolution at all.
Though wrt English upset at anti-English sentiments, you have the small minority of colonialist knobs in your midst to thank for that. Sorry to say.
@SolidSquid
Actually Scotland joined the union because the nobility bankrupted themselves (the Darien Scheme was a private venture, not a state one)
What sort of state venture do you imagine might have existed in late 17th Century Scotland? If the beneficiaries of the bail-out were posessed of sufficient power to "sell out the country", then they were to all intents and purposes the state.
Even so, I think after 215 years it's probably time to forget about the Darien episode.
That would be the post-war "one nation" Conservative party, patrician and rather patronising but with its heart in the right place. Long gone.
The major parties are primarily influenced by the City nowadays; apart from the prospect of personal future prosperity I assume this is on the basis of the City being a major contributor to export earnings - of course the quoted value of said earnings is entirely dependent on figures provided by the City, but its not as though they're the kind of people who would fiddle the numbers to benefit themselves.
Maybe we should have a 0% VAT rate for all financial transactions as a way of making our "invisibles" visible ?
So yes about a third of Scots are malcontents who think Braveheart is a documentary, but that'll never be enough to swing it for secession.
Completely agree, but any future vote within living memory of the last MUST be afforded to the whole UK, not only the Scots. There are simply no votes in it for either Conservative, or now Labour, so allowing any further voting while denying England a say will consign their party to the history books. I know it's good politics for the SNP, but England is weary of the noise & disruption coming from what.... less than 3 million people? It's a rounding error.
Most of England is, at this point, probably quite happy to leave the UK. It'd allow the Scots and Welsh to remain in the EU while England departs, dropping the three largest drains on its finances in one hit. We've propped up both countries for generations, and yet still receive naught but hostility in return.
@LucreLout
I keep hearing how "England is weary of the noise" and other such stuff, but only from people on forums. Where are these English people who hate the Scottish so much, or just want them to go away?
I've never met any such person in real life, so I really doubt that "most of England" is happy to end the Union. That sounds to me, often, as a view that echoes around the internet in much the same way as the conviction that Ed M. would be PM was doing last week.
Where are these English people who hate the Scottish so much, or just want them to go away?
We don't hate them, and we don't particularly want them to go away, we just want them to be quiet. Scotland is not, in effect, a country rather it is a very large city, and it has considerably fewer people than does London: It's time the Scots accepted such and stopped creating such a song & dance.
I know when the SNP look in the mirror they see Braveheart, but all we see is Rab C Nesbitt.
@Nigel Whitfield
I keep hearing how "England is weary of the noise" and other such stuff, but only from people on forums. Where are these English people who hate the Scottish so much, or just want them to go away?
I've never met any such person in real life
So we can disregard your view because it comes from one of the "people on forums"?
At the risk of falling foul of the same self-denying ordinance, permit me to say that I am very, very weary of the noise. I don't "hate the Scottish". What I do hate is narrow sectional interests that want to get everybody else dancing to their tune. I don't care if it's the SNP, the TUC, the RAC, Arthur Scargill or the Society for the Independence of Pimlico.
The SNP received 1,454,436 votes out of an electorate of more than 46,353,900. A lot more than Arthur Scargill, admittedly, but still less than 0.7%. I call that noise.
This post has been deleted by its author
Oh dear Scotland, you have just voted for the biggest band of left wing loonies since Derek Hatton and co in Liverpool. You will be Greece within a week of independence.
I hope basic physics is taught in Scottish schools as every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction, be prepared for the rise of English Nationalism and all the unpleasant consequences that arise when the word Nationalism is used. I recall a certain German party of the 1930s got into power with a tiny share of the national vote.
"a certain German party"
Godwin strikes again, but I may as well go with the theme:
I'm sure Sturgeon will make a nice little Fuhrette, although that dreadful 1980's dress sense will have to be attended to. Anybody who's been watching the Beeb's "Dark Charisma of AH" series will have realised that true national socialism is all about pomp, presentation, image and really, really good uniforms. Would Ms Sturgeon look good in a uniform with jodhpurs?
Ooh, and a really shouty leader telling people what they want to hear.
Alternatively, the reaction may be instead a split in the SNP into left and right leaning parties; both "nationalist" to some nontrivial degree, but otherwise mimicing the left/right split of most western countries. Or maybe the Scottish Conservative party will part company from the UK Conservative party, call themselves the "New Scottiish Progressives" or somesuch, start wearing kilts and Saltires, and so present a Scottish version of the centre-right, whatever that might turn out to be.
It may be generally agreed that the Scots are more left leaning than the rest of the UK, but I'd be surprised if the current level of SNP electoral success is sustained over the long term over the whole of Scotland.
You're really set on this left/right thing.
As if the universal will unbalance in some cataclysm if politics doesn't somehow mirror the universal harmony of labour vs. conservatives.
It's not Yin/Yang you know. It's merely a carry over from the class divide which is barely even relevant today, and the only sign of it is when one of the parties want to pander to a 'demographic' they're statistics suddenly show being underepresented in the hopes of tapping a large quantity of votes.
Well, as I said, it's commonly observed in most western democracies. But I agree it isn't the only possible distinction - it might be the dominant split in Scottish politics turns out to be more along a pro- and anti- UK line, or whatever other distinction makes sense to the Scottish electorate.
Perhaps there'll be a Scottish Tea Party vs Scottish Not-Had-Your-Tea Party distinction :-)
1. Salmond inherited Trump's golf course from Jack McConnell. Having found no watertight reason to refuse it, he then plopped an offshore wind turbine testing centre right next to it and fully visible from it. Trump in high dudgeon went to Holyrood, and was refused entry as he has no standing here in Scotland. 'Twas a windy day in Auld Reekie and his tonsure was cruelly dealt with to the amusement of all.
2. Salmond met Murdoch twice on official business. Murdoch was thinking of building a tech centre here. Salmond has never met him socially, become godparent to his kids or gone horse riding with his executives and has publicly stated that he has no desire to.
But let's not let facts get in the way of smearing and propaganda.
Salmond was pro-business, backing both Murdoch and Trump (two noted socialists), and the SNP's policies have broadly favoured the middle class rather than the poor.
It was McConnell who sucked up to Trump. Salmond got rid of that bampot in short order after Labour got booted out of Holyrood, and noised him up into the bargain with an offshore windfarm within sight of his precious golf course.
Pure speculation here, but I'm minded to think Murdoch was the one sucking up to Salmond, not the other way round. Salmond probably rues the day he stupidly let the dirty digger get within a hundred feet of him.
They're basically Blairite.
That might've been worthy of consideration as valid criticism if the SNP had ever invaded Iraq. To the best of my knowledge they have never done this.
Either that or the English electorate is surprised to find that the SNP, and Scotland as a whole, actually supports the idea of England getting to vote separately on it's own issues (it's actually a party policy for the SNP) and would strongly support moving towards a more federalist system like that.
Also the SNP have been pretty clear that they aren't going to push for another referendum for a while (a "generation" they said, which is usually considered around 20-25 years), with possible exceptions if Westminster tries to push through Europe independence since that violates the Scotland Act and the Good Friday Agreement to boot (actually even the Welsh can get in on that iirc). Generally the SNP seem to have accepted we're staying in the UK and want to do what they can to make sure their constituents are better represented in Westminster instead, which is kind of the point of having a representative democracy
Greece == Fraudulent accounting. So whatever Scotland will be, unless it invites the same people from the London City to balance its books (or is taken over by for same purpose) it is not going down the Greek route.
What happened in Greece happened in several other countries during that period too and was unsuccessfully attempted in many more. It is a variety of the asset stripping private buyout ops run by various infestment funds. Just at country scale and lower cost of entry - all you need is to buy the politicos, instead of buying off a company. Bonus points for buying an "old royal family heir" and using it as a national unity figurehead (I can point to exact dates when this was done or attempted in various eastern european countries).
What makes Greece stand out is that the operation started earlier and continued longer.
So Scotland is not going the Greek route (unless it invites the same people to run its accounts).
"So Scotland is not going the Greek route (unless it invites the same people to run its accounts)."
Nah it will.
If you go independent you won't be able to stay in the Euro once the oil runs out. The English can look forward to nipping over the border of the Republic of Scotistan to load up on fags and booze at bargain prices as the value of the Scottish Groat plummets...
The SNP got 50% of the vote in Scotland
The Conservatives got 37% of the vote in England&Wales, 14% in Scotland.
The turnout in Scotland was much higher than in England & Wales
Going purely on voter percentage which of those two parties better represents their constituents?
The sheer hatred towards the SNP and blatant, often deliberate, misrepresenting their position even by some Scots simply strengthens their position.
Cameron is already trying to roll back the rhetoric (which is really just a fancy word for lies) he used during the election. I suspect he realises he may have gone too far and just further endangered the union. He will not want to be remembered as the man in charge when the Union finally collapsed.
@ real big AL
If PR was used instead of 1stPPP the SNP would see their number of seats halved and UKIP on about 80 seats, Lib dems about 50 seats and with the greens picking up a few. There's a good article here at the beeb:
@ Anonymous Coward
Sturgeon has already said she would back a move to PR. It was England, not Scotland, that backed away from the (admittedly horrible) Alternative Vote system.
What's needed is a regional list top up system on top of a constituency, similar to what's used already use for Holyrood.
You could even reform the House of Lords and have it's voting members dictated by the results of the list system
Possibly even increase it's powers of oversight to include anything affecting UK wide budgets,
Increase the powers at Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont
and make the HoC EVEL only
Probably way too radical....
He's got a bit of a problem there, even if he does try and pull back the retoric. Both the EU referendum (if the vote goes for leaving in England but not Scotland) and scrapping the Human Rights Act have the potential to force the UK to split, as both would involve Westminster being in breach of the Scotland Act, the Good Friday Agreement and another I can't remember off hand which applies to Wales (sorry Wales), as all three countries were guaranteed the EU courts as an appeals route
It doesn't matter "who you talk to", all those in a position to influence the decision, from the EU President downwards, agree that a newly independent Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU (the fact that Salmond's only response was to stick his fingers in his ears and shout "la, la, I'm not listening" doesn't change anything). And since there are several nations in the EU with fissiparous tendencies (Spain, France, Belgium and Italy are obvious examples, but I'm sure there are others) who would not wish to set a precedent, and it only takes one to veto any new entrant ..
I doubt that being outside the EU would result in famine and disaster in Scotland, as there's plenty of wealthy countries that aren't in the EU, and a few poor ones inside it.
What puzzles me about the SNP stance on the EU, is that they don't want to be "governed from Westminster" but they're more than happy to become part of an ever more integrationist EU, with government from Brussels, where the the EU Commission are not elected at all, and where in the EU parliament the Scots would have 6 representatives out of 750 or so.
A fairly significant chunk of those who supported independence (and those who opposed it actually) were actually in favour of a federalist system where international issues could be dealt with by Westminster and local issues could be dealt with by local parliaments. If Westminster were running with a similar structure to the EU (limited remit largely covering international issues) then it'd resolve 90% of the complaints Scots have had with how they've managed things
"all those in a position to influence the decision, from the EU President downwards, agree that a newly independent Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU"
But that was on the basis of Scotland seceding from the UK and its treaty obligations. In the event of the English voting "out" in an EU referendum and the Scots, Welsh and Irish voting "in", England could effectively have to secede from the UK while Scotland, Wales and NI would inherit the EU membership?
"England could effectively have to secede from the UK while Scotland, Wales and NI would inherit the EU membership?"
Sounds good to me. Given that Salmond was threatening to secede but take no debt, presumably if it happens the other way round he'll be in favour of the Scots Welsh and Nornirons keeping the full pile of £1.5 trillion of UK national debt when England secedes?
Basic science:
Cause:
Nicola Sturgeon said she wanted to help lock the Conservatives out of Downing Street through a deal with Labour and other left-wing parties.
Effect:
But the Conservative party surprised most, by winning a small majority of 12. It can govern on its own.
It's as simple as that.
@ yugguy
You may have something there. I thought at the time 'why say that' just as I wondered about the denials about DUP backing the conservatives.
However, saying that may have assured scottish voters that a vote for the SNP was not going to contribute to another conservative government, bolstering confidence.
So maybe only a secondary effect then.
Close.
Cause:
Salmond repeatedly boasted in public that he would blackmail the labour party, insisting he would write both the queen's speech and their budget and give them no choice but to accept them.
Effect:
Thousands of Labour voters get scared by this strange scary man talking like a playground bully and they don't vote Labour, so the Tories get a majority.
You wrote: "After last September’s rejection of independence, the SNP said it would not seek another referendum for a generation."
This is entirely untrue. What the SNP, Alex Salmond I think, said (I don't have the exact quote) was something like "This is a once in a generation opportunity.". It was not a pledge, it was a warning: "If you vote no now, you'll not get another chance in a long time.".
Of course, Scotland did indeed vote no last September, to a large extent on the strength of "the VOW" for devolution-max announced by Gordon Brown on behalf of the unionist parties, and surprise, surprise, that now looks unlikely to materialise to any notable degree. As Ian Hamilton, the man who led the project to recover the Stone of Scone in 1950, once wrote: "I did not, do not and never will trust an Englishman in political office. Nice people as they are, they carry power as badly as a Scot carries drink.".
" to a large extent on the strength of "the VOW" for devolution-max announced by Gordon Brown on behalf of the unionist parties, and surprise, surprise, that now looks unlikely to materialise to any notable degree"
Well if you will get suckered in by that sort of 'promise' you deserve all you get.
"the man who led the project to recover the Stone of Scone in 1950"
By recover, I assume you mean steal?
Yup, "steal" is fine. Don't give a monkeys what you want to call it, really. Indeed, perhaps the Greeks should stop being polite about it and just "steal" the Elgin Marbles back and the Australian Aboriginals should just "steal" back their dead from our museums?
"[Ian Hamilton,] the man who led the project to recover the Stone of Scone in 1950. By recover, I assume you mean steal?"
Not at all. To steal means "to permanently deprive the rightful owners of [property]". The Stone of Scone was looted in 1296 and reset[*] in Westminster Abbey. Who is the rightful owner of looted property? Nothing could have been further from the minds of the project members than theft - a short time later, Hamilton freely returned the Stone to the authorities.
[*] Scottish legal term. Look it up!
Well....he returned a stone to the authorities. Just not the real one. It was broken removing it from the throne in Westminster Abbey and repaired by a stone mason in Glasgow by inserting a steel rod. He also made a couple of copies just in case.
The real stone was never handed back and lay under the hand of one of those involved in the taking, the Rev Nimmo in a church in Dundee until about 10 years ago when it was moved for safe keeping. I viewed it often.
It is telling that on recovery the authorities have always declined to x ray the stone as the original had a distinctive pin placed inside during the repair.
Just as well that the good burghers of Scone gave Edward I the lid of the St Marys Covent cesspit in 1296 in the first place.
Various theories and legends exist about the Stone's history prior to its placement in Scone:
One story concerns Fergus, son of Erc, the first King of the Scots in Scotland, whose transportation of the Stone from Ireland to Argyll, where he was crowned in it, was recorded.[2]
Some versions identify the stone brought by Fergus with the Lia Fáil used at Tara for the High King of Ireland. Other traditions contend the Lia Fáil remains at Tara.[3][4] (Inis Fáil, The Island of Destiny, is one of the traditional names of Ireland.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone
Despite the claim on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_F%C3%A1il
The Lia Fáil (Irish pronunciation: [ˌlʲiːə ˈfɔːlʲ], meaning Stone of Destiny), not to be confused with the Stone of Scone, is a stone at the Inauguration Mound (Irish: an Forrad) on the Hill of Tara in County Meath, Ireland, which served as the coronation stone for the High Kings of Ireland. It is also known as the Coronation Stone of Tara.[1] In legend, all of the kings of Ireland were crowned on the stone up to Muirchertach mac Ercae c. AD 500.
The oldest Irish written sources actually claim it was lent to the Scots and not returned. Obviously the one at Tara is for the Tourists and how could you sit on it anyway?. Irish legend claims also it was Jacob's Pillow AND brought by the Tuath Dé from their city when they invaded Ireland (it can't actually be both, the Jacob's Pillow is a typical later Christian insertion).
The real stone was never handed back and lay under the hand of one of those involved in the taking, the Rev Nimmo in a church in Dundee until about 10 years ago when it was moved for safe keeping. I viewed it often.
Sorry, but I don't believe you.
Anyone smart enough to steal it and prepare the fake would be smart enough to carry their secret to the grave, as opposed to showing off the real one to ... well... anyone on the internet.
He said started the response you are talking about with "In my view" which rather specifically excludes any further binding on the SNP as long as Salmond is not in charge.
It's being spun in the media all across the UK as a commitment made by Sturgeon.
Actually I'm talking about Nicola Sturgeon (who's now taken Salmond's position as party leader), who reiterated this after the referendum and since then has been consistent in saying she doesn't intend to push for another referendum (although she raised objection to David Cameron claiming he could prevent a second one)
I see we have a number of Little Englenders on here who have escaped from the Daily Mail comments page. I was hoping for a better discussion than some of the comments on here.
Why are the Little Englenders so outraged that the Scots want to take more control of their own decisions ?
No mention of the Scottish financial sector? It's huge and it would emigrate within 24 hours of independence. Don't believe that? Take a look at the oil sector. Prices are down, exploration has stopped and extraction and refining are fast grinding to a halt.
The Scots are sensible people. They will not vote for independence.
Which leaves Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon in a more precarious negotiating position than the media suggest. They pretend now to advocate the merits of socialism which have done so much for life expectancy in Glasgow.
Will Salmond and Sturgeon stand on a "next stop Venezuela" ticket?
No. They're too sensible. See above.
They'll do the best they can by their constituents. Which is as it should be. And that's it.
It will be interesting to see how the new SNP MPs, many of whom are relatively new to professional politics and had real jobs until recently, handle the verbal abuse they will get in the Commons.
Incidentally, the SNP are more riding a wave of popular activism than creating it, primarily on the basis of being the only option to vote for in Scotland if you don't want someone who ultimately has to follow the orders of their bosses in Westminster.
The vitriol on here is to be expected but a bit sad. Please get used to the idea that a good percentage of us up here in Scotlandshire (45% at the last count) wish you well but don't want to be part of your state. You may have your opinions about what a mess we would make of it but it would be our mess, not yours. Like a good portion of the world (India, Australia, USA, Canada, Ireland..to mention a few) we'll have fond memories but don't think we would regret the separation.
I don't know why Westminster don't just give Scotland the tax raising powers they want. I think what bugs non-Scots is Scotland seen to be getting "better" services (no university fees, etc) but the rest of us paying for them. So if they want to spend the money then they raise the cash, simple got no problem with that at all, pays the money takes the choice!
No idea about economics have you ? You can't give Scotland fiscal freedom and be left to carry the currency can. I'd be quite happy to see the back of Scotland and when they come back broke as they did 1707 we'll buy them for £1. In fact the RBS is already broke and mostly owned by English tax payers.
hmmmm "The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services." If its that easily accounted for why don't they account for it in the article rather than just pluck the figure out of thin air. How have the government underspent on defence in Scotland for example???
might be but plenty of "English" regiments and bases have also closed. And Scotland gets more than its fare share of Naval spending the new Asute class sub's going to Faslane when the Trafalgar subs they're replacing are based at Devonport. And of course Trident is based there, ermmmm oppppsss hang on a minute!
Remove the requirement for a deep water inlet (questionable) and there are a number of obvious choices for basing the Trident replacement, from Barrow (where they are built), to Falmouth, Plymouth and Portland. More interesting would be whether the SNP really does want to lose the jobs from Clydeside and Rosyth. The Royal navy predates the Act of Union.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
