Wednesday, 6 May 2015



  1. Interesting analysis. I believe he's right about the Tories squatting in No 10 and the MSM backup to try to discredit a centre left government. Whether it works??? Tactically it's very sensible if you're thinking only about power. However, you might as well rip up the Acts of Union if it happens. I know Labour No voters who will vote yes if there is a second referendum if the Tories do that and especially if UKIP back them.

    Anyone else suffering from pre-election fatique? I'm looking forward to the outcome and the end of the shadow boxing.

    1. Well, it's all about power for them. Cameron's desperate not to be a one government leader, not that he really was, as he had to get Nick Clegg to shore him up.

      Boris is hovering (a sure way to get independence).

      For all Miliband's preotsetations, if he allows Cameron to stay on, he has to take into consideration that:

      a) He's toast, and they will have to find away of bringing back the right wing brother and getting him into parliament so he can take over. Harriet will have to be in charge for a while;
      b) He will have done Labour no service at all, and in Scotland I'd say he would have signed their death warrant.

      Yes, I and everyone I know is heartily sick of it.

      Can't wait for it to be over and the fun to begin.

      Waiting for some horrendous revelation today that Alex Salmond eats children.

  2. Panda Paws I am certainly suffering from GE fatigue, wish it was Friday already.
    I would not put it past any of them, our unwritten constitution is our downfall and may I say the lack of political will and being rounded up and put in a corner Mr Miliband.
    Someone should have taken him aside and explained about Sun Tsu and how to fight battles without actually having to. God that man is hopeless. I would agree should this happen then it will be the end of the Union, oh please do this.

    1. The more they treat us with utter contempt, the more they bring about their end.

  3. The message from Westminster to Scottish unionists is loud and clear.
    You are only welcome so long as you vote for political parties put forward by us and toe the line in terms of policy.
    London will not accept Scots having a voice in running UK affairs when it differs from theirs and have described such an arrangement as undemocratic and by extension telling Scots that having a say in the running of Scotland by Scots is also undemocratic.
    I have no doubt that if England votes the Tories back into power,Holyrood's days are numbered and we will return to having the colonial governor running our affairs.

    1. They are telling us, as you say, that we may only expect our MPs to be accepted if we vote for parties based and managed in London, which have the overwhelming interest of the English at heart. If we chose MPs based in Edinburgh who care first and foremost about Scotland, then they will be ignored.

      I wonder why they don't take the same attitude to the SDLP whose aim is to unite Ireland and get the North out of the UK.

    2. I imagine if they do try and abolish the Scottish Parliament this will not go down well even with some unionists.
      Friday seems a long way a way, I hope we are not disappointed this time. Let us hope that Labour have turned honest ( well one can hope).

    3. Before the Edinburgh agreement was signed polling showed that the very least popular option was return to London rule, with about 2% (if my memory serves) wanting that.

      Abolishing the Scottish parliament would go down badly with 98% of the population.

      (The other figures as I recall (roughly) were around 60% for devo max, 23% for independence and 15% for status quo) Maybe someone has a more accurate memory of the percentages.

  4. Seems as likely a scenario as any other but, it would destroy the union; especially if any attempt was made to abolish the legitimate governance of Scotland, voted for by the people of Scotland.
    As for blocking Scots MPs from voting on UK, Scottish or even English legislation, well that would be the end game. It would be contrary to article 19 of the act of union, not that Westminster hasn't flouted the acts before but, we live in different times; with a population more attuned to the politics of the day.

    1. Well, they can try it... if they feel brave.

      The thing is that if Dave goes and Boris takes over, who knows what madcap schemes he will come up with.

      He's already banned the bagpipes in London.

    2. Has he (banning o' the pipes), what about Jesus Hooligan? A fine noisy band from London, and a mate of mine.

    3. Yes, he has apparently.

      I wodner how the Queen feels about that. She likes a bit of pipe music.

      Ahhhh... I'm not sure about Mr Hooligan!! :)

  5. All parties have legitimacy at Westminster. Strictly speaking, Nigel Farage, should he win a seat, could be Prime Minister. How's that for a thought?!? However, the principle is sound and such a scenario has to be respected.

    Likewise, the SNP - even with 1 seat (don't panic!) have equal legitimacy. As to all other parties, however distasteful you may find their policies. It's one of the benefits of democracy. Not perfect, but far more appealing compared to some other countries.

    The numpties who are questioning the legitimacy of Scottish MPs are wrong. They are forgetting one major thing - the first priority for any elected representative is their constituents, no matter who they voted for.

    There was an interesting piece by a journalist on Radio 4 today. Very impressed with Sturgeon (easy now, it was a BBC reporter), and highlighted how disciplined the SNP campaign has been. There were no "apart from......". She has definitely matured and the general impression is that she is attracting voters Salmond didn't have a hope of getting (their words, not mine).

    Everyone I know is sick to the back teeth of elections anyway. And quite a few still don't know who to vote for (despite some less than subtle hints).

    Anyway, I'm staying up to watch the results come in. Bit of a geek but I took Friday off with the promise of both the Lib Dems and Labour getting scalped.

    1. The lone Tory scalp, would be nice too.

    2. Yes, I Nicola can reach people that Salmond could never reach. And it's hard not to be impressed with her drive, determination and ability. Her intellect too, is stunning and her ability to cut through the bull.

      This sums it up (from Scot Goes Pop)

      Do you think Nicola Sturgeon is doing well or badly as First Minister?

      Well: 75% (+7)
      Badly: 19% (-7)

      NET RATING: +56

      Do you think that Jim Murphy is doing well or badly as leader of the Scottish Labour party?

      Well: 27% (-5)
      Badly: 62% (+8)

      NET RATING: -35

    3. Och yes, Muddle wouldn't be much missed. An unspectacular man if ever there was one.

  6. snp fanatasists

    If Cameron is unable to achieve a majority of votes in the house of commons
    he will go pack his bags and into the dustbin of history.
    With all this speculation/twaddle the fact is it is the Queen who APPOINTS
    the prime minister

    ' In appointing a Prime Minister, the Sovereign is guided by constitutional conventions. The main requirement is to find someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons.

    This is normally secured by appointing the leader of the party with an overall majority of seats in the Commons, but there could still be exceptional circumstances when The Queen might need to exercise discretion to ensure that her Government is carried on.'

    No matter what rhetoric Cameron uses at the end he will do as she says
    so the idea the partys at Westminster are going fight to the bitter end
    is just doubt the sun et al would wish that to happen
    it wont.

    Nationalists at Westminster Ireland and Scotland a century apart
    April 2015

    ‘a knife to the throat of Westminster’

    The SNP’s increasingly vehement ruling-out of any alliance with the Conservatives is electorally
    advantageous: the swing voters they hope to attract will envisage a Labour-led UK government as the outcome. However, it would leave the party with no negotiating leverage: why should Labour offer any concessions to a party that has nowhere else to go? Parnell did not make this mistake in 1885, and was able to extract serious concessions from Salisbury. It was only Salisbury’s double-dealing that subsequently made the Conservatives an implausible partner. It was this that left the Irish nationalists in the hands of the Liberals, who offered them concessions only when, and for as long as, they needed them

    Today, by contrast, the SNP and the Conservatives objectively have much more in common than either would admit. In the short-term, a Conservative–SNP deal would make possible a UK government that could not be charged with illegitimacy in either England or Scotland. In the long-term, a deal somewhat similar to that offered by Salisbury might be in the partisan interests of both sides. It might start small, trading yet more tax devolution for reduced Westminster influence. However, if its eventual aim were full fiscal autonomy, such a deal would come at the price of significant constitutional risk to the United Kingdom

    1. Sorry Nico but, yer talkin pish. Typical labourite nonsense; blame anybody else but Labour; for failing the people it (Labour) purports to represent.

    2. Not at all sure what lefty Sturgeon and an increasingly right wing Tory party would have in common.

      Nothing to do with defence or foreign affairs.
      Nothing to do with environment
      Nothing to do with Welfare
      Nothing to do with the economy
      Nothing to do with the monarchy

      Can you think of something that Nicola agrtees woith Cameron about?

      Incidentally, the hypothesis above came from Owen Jones. Is he not a Labour journalist?