sparky88 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 So you're more than happy with him calling us spongers with the audience lapping it up? Even though it's utter nonsense and in terms of the North East of England, the opposite is actually the case? You better inform both the bookies and the pollsters of your Mystic Meg insight then you utter clown. Oh, and comment bookmarked. bookies and pollsters have said they would win a majority of seats in glasgow , not votes. Two very different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Half-way through. What is up with Bannatyne's accent? Not even the way he says "Russia" he's slurring all his words. He was like that on Dragon's Den as I recall. No fucker could make out what he was on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Exactly as with Al Megrahi, the two will certainly be confused by the stupid and the wilfully ignorant. This is not something to concern oneself with. The Conservatives cannot form a majority government. They're not getting into power. If Labour are unwilling to cede to the SNP's demands then they'll end up with a minority government of their own, and other than passing the Tories' laws for them they'll get nothing done for five years (or until whatever point that the party finally rips itself apart). I'm willing to posit that Labour needs a majority government for the sake of its very survival as a political force and that therefore they'll abandon the Bain Principle when push comes to shove. There are no circumstances under which the UK government can somehow allot the entire cost of Trident replacement again as an additional block grant to Scotland. If the situation occurs whereby the only way the Labour party can pass any bills at all is if the SNP approves of them then two things will happen: the popularity of the SNP in Scotland will skyrocket, and the Labour Party will sooner or later shatter into dust. This is Armageddon for Labour, but there's absolutely no downside to it for the SNP. If a Labour minority government gets nothing done it won't last 5 years so we will end up with tories. If SNP don't support a minority labour government they would be voting with the tories - how will that go down? It is naïve to think that there will be no negative impact on the SNP siding with tories in parliament; and if it brought the labour government down (again ) they could hardly run with the 'vote SNP to get Labour' card again. As I said, Nicola wants £180 billion over the next few years to support the economy and protect the vulnerable of he UK; but she will not accept it unless Trident is added to the deal. She wont get the latter so on 'principle' she wont get the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 If a Labour minority government gets nothing done it won't last 5 years so we will end up with tories. If SNP don't support a minority labour government they would be voting with the tories - how will that go down? It is naïve to think that there will be no negative impact on the SNP siding with tories in parliament; and if it brought the labour government down (again ) they could hardly run with the 'vote SNP to get Labour' card again. As I said, Nicola wants £180 billion over the next few years to support the economy and protect the vulnerable of he UK; but she will not accept it unless Trident is added to the deal. She wont get the latter so on 'principle' she wont get the former. When all else fails wheel out the tired old revised labour version of history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 When all else fails wheel out the tired old revised labour version of history I didn't think anyone would bite for that ! but the point is that if it wins significant seat numbers then it wont all be wielding power and great success for the SNP; some hard choices will have to be made to either support labour or be seen to be supporting the tories. The £180 billion and trident are not going to be secured so if it doesn't facilitate labour then the SNP will get neither and we will all get the tories (maybe that's what the SNP ideally wants to assist them driving a wedge between us and the UK?); or perhaps a minority labour government that the SNP will need to support by and large or be seen as opening the door to the tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 If a Labour minority government gets nothing done it won't last 5 years so we will end up with tories. And that'll be the SNP's fault... how? There's no way you spin "Labour loses vote of confidence" as "SNP let Tories get in" unless you're a drooling simpleton. If the Labour Party dissolves it'll be the Labour Party's fault. Bear in mind that in the event that Labour lost a vote of no confidence then the alternative would be a minority Tory government that has absolutely nothing in common with the SNP, and so would be passing absolutely nothing. It wouldn't last a fortnight. If SNP don't support a minority labour government they would be voting with the tories - how will that go down? Unlike Labour, the SNP do not have a policy of opposing legislation simply because of who it's written by. The SNP will support bills that it likes and oppose those it doesn't. The SNP have pledged not to form a coalition with the Tories. This is an entirely different thing from happening to oppose a bill that the Tories also oppose. Again, only a drooling simpleton would have difficulty with this. they could hardly run with the 'vote SNP to get Labour' card again It's fortunate, therefore, that the SNP is not running on this "card" in the first place. The SNP's policy is to get as many Scottish seats as possible. They're fortunate in that the tide has turned for them at precisely the same time as Westminster majority rule is ending (well, part of that is in depriving Labour of a huge chunk of seats it previously took for granted, but that's another matter). If the Tories could currently predict an overall majority things might be different, but unfortunately for you this isn't the case. As I said, Nicola wants £180 billion over the next few years to support the economy and protect the vulnerable of he UK; but she will not accept it unless Trident is added to the deal. She wont get the latter so on 'principle' she wont get the former. This is abject nonsense. The UK government has no way of providing that £180b without scrapping Trident. You're implying that a Labour government would be willing and able to both give Scotland £180b of phree munney and also keep a £180b nuclear boondoggle, and that the SNP would reject this. You might as well say that Labour would also chuck in flying cars and a cure for cancer, which would make wee Nicola's selfish rejection of this fictional offer even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Imagine the SNP does put Milliband into government as PM despite the Tories being the biggest party? The seethe from the right wing press and England in general will be absolutely glorious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 And that'll be the SNP's fault... how? There's no way you spin "Labour loses vote of confidence" as "SNP let Tories get in" unless you're a drooling simpleton. If the Labour Party dissolves it'll be the Labour Party's fault. Bear in mind that in the event that Labour lost a vote of no confidence then the alternative would be a minority Tory government that has absolutely nothing in common with the SNP, and so would be passing absolutely nothing. It wouldn't last a fortnight. Unlike Labour, the SNP do not have a policy of opposing legislation simply because of who it's written by. The SNP will support bills that it likes and oppose those it doesn't. The SNP have pledged not to form a coalition with the Tories. This is an entirely different thing from happening to oppose a bill that the Tories also oppose. Again, only a drooling simpleton would have difficulty with this. It's fortunate, therefore, that the SNP is not running on this "card" in the first place. The SNP's policy is to get as many Scottish seats as possible. They're fortunate in that the tide has turned for them at precisely the same time as Westminster majority rule is ending (well, part of that is in depriving Labour of a huge chunk of seats it previously took for granted, but that's another matter). If the Tories could currently predict an overall majority things might be different, but unfortunately for you this isn't the case. This is abject nonsense. The UK government has no way of providing that £180b without scrapping Trident. You're implying that a Labour government would be willing and able to both give Scotland £180b of phree munney and also keep a £180b nuclear boondoggle, and that the SNP would reject this. You might as well say that Labour would also chuck in flying cars and a cure for cancer, which would make wee Nicola's selfish rejection of this fictional offer even worse. The £180 bn isn't for Scotland- its for the UK. And Trident at circa £4bn a year wont pay for what Sturgeon wants which is that cash over the next 5 years........ did someone mention drooling simpleton ? No one knows what will pay for the £180bn but that doesn't seem to be important to those proposing it. The SNP are quite clearly playing the 'vote SNP get labour' card, to woo the voters who are perhaps leftish/centre and who realise that in terms of the PM after the election there is only 2 options. So on one hand you indicate that the SNP has nothing in common with the tories but you also perceive occasions when the SNP will support a minority tory government? On what kind of things would the SNP go with the tories ? But its interesting that you don't agree with the SNP that the £180 bn is practical. PS trident wont cost £180 bn - and best not to slag off others when you cant grasp the absolute basics yourself . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Imagine the SNP does put Milliband into government as PM despite the Tories being the biggest party? The seethe from the right wing press and England in general will be absolutely glorious Imagine the SNP could achieve their plans to remove the austerity planned for the next 5 years to protect the NHS, welfare, education and infrastructure projects etc but reject it over Nicola's personal hobby horse of trident! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Imagine the SNP could achieve their plans to remove the austerity planned for the next 5 years to protect the NHS, welfare, education and infrastructure projects etc but reject it over Nicola's personal hobby horse of trident! Trident is overwhelmingly rejected by the SNP, not just Nicola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Trident is overwhelmingly rejected by the SNP, not just Nicola Even at the cost of knocking back what they want in terms of policies re the economy, health,education, welfare and infrastructure ? The anti trident efforts over the last decades would suggest its hardly a priority across Scotland - let alone one worth letting the tories back in over and not diverting from austerity? Under which circumstances trident will 100% stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 The £180 bn isn't for Scotland- its for the UK. And Trident at circa £4bn a year wont pay for what Sturgeon wants which is that cash over the next 5 years........ did someone mention drooling simpleton ? No one knows what will pay for the £180bn but that doesn't seem to be important to those proposing it. We're at this point in the conversation because some fuckwit troll (I can't remember who) alleged that the SNP would veto a partnership with Labour that came with this magic £180b of phree munney. The response was that this was horseshit, and that allegations of Sturgeon being reckless over vetoing Trident should perhaps not rely on invented offers. That still holds. The SNP are quite clearly playing the 'vote SNP get labour' card, to woo the voters who are perhaps leftish/centre and who realise that in terms of the PM after the election there is only 2 options. They're only "quite clearly playing" this to the sort of person who can only see in shades of red and blue. They've said nothing of the sort. All they've actually said is that they could work with labour but won't work with the Tories. Perhaps you're confusing the Scottish National Party with Wings Over Scotland. So on one hand you indicate that the SNP has nothing in common with the tories but you also perceive occasions when the SNP will support a minority tory government? No I didn't. If you're the sort of drooling simpleton that only sees in red and blue, then what I said could be construed as the SNP "supporting" a Tory opposition by voting down a Labour bill it disagreed with. I outright said that the SNP would not "support a minority tory government" at all - they have nothing in common and would be extremely unlikely to ever vote for any Tory legislation simply on its merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 The Trident vote will occur and the Tories, Lib Dems and most, if not all, Labour MPs will vote in favour. This is indisputable. Now should 30+ SNP Mp's be returned, then a majority of Scotland will have voted for a party that has clearly vowed not to renew Trident. Then we have a situation where the majority of Scot's democratic wishes will have been overturned by all the unionist parties cosying up together at Westminster. Then what happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 We're at this point in the conversation because some fuckwit troll (I can't remember who) alleged that the SNP would veto a partnership with Labour that came with this magic £180b of phree munney. The response was that this was horseshit, and that allegations of Sturgeon being reckless over vetoing Trident should perhaps not rely on invented offers. That still holds. They're only "quite clearly playing" this to the sort of person who can only see in shades of red and blue. They've said nothing of the sort. All they've actually said is that they could work with labour but won't work with the Tories. Perhaps you're confusing the Scottish National Party with Wings Over Scotland. No I didn't. If you're the sort of drooling simpleton that only sees in red and blue, then what I said could be construed as the SNP "supporting" a Tory opposition by voting down a Labour bill it disagreed with. I outright said that the SNP would not "support a minority tory government" at all - they have nothing in common and would be extremely unlikely to ever vote for any Tory legislation simply on its merits. So its my fault that you don't have any knowledge of the costs of Trident, any knowledge of what the FM has proposed recently re the £180 bn of additional spending - aye very good. Its my fault that you though Surgeon wanted the £180bn for Scotland . But please tell me more about why the UK can't afford this £180 bn ? In terms of who will form the next government or be the principle partner in it - there is only red and blue. Absolutely naivety to think otherwise, but it helps avoid the detail and seems very refreshing and comforting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 bookies and pollsters have said they would win a majority of seats in glasgow , not votes. Two very different things. I couldn't give a toley if they don't win a majority of the votes. Although in some of Ashcroft's polls they were actually on over 50%. What a bizarre, scrambling for relevance point in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 The Trident vote will occur and the Tories, Lib Dems and most, if not all, Labour MPs will vote in favour. This is indisputable. Now should 30+ SNP Mp's be returned, then a majority of Scotland will have voted for a party that has clearly vowed not to renew Trident. Then we have a situation where the majority of Scot's democratic wishes will have been overturned by all the unionist parties cosying up together at Westminster. Then what happens? The majority could be seen as also voting for the £180 bn for the economy and vulnerable and the NHS and the poor etc. But then general elections aren't single issue voting. We recently had a single issue vote and the current arrangements were the preferred option, that needs to be accepted as was promised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 The Trident vote will occur and the Tories, Lib Dems and most, if not all, Labour MPs will vote in favour. Well, that's precisely what the SNP have threatened to prevent. The SNP will want concessions from lending Labour support over other items on their agenda, items which enjoy considerably stronger popularity within the Labour rank and file (and the country as a whole) than nuclear weapons. If Labour want to pass any sort of legislation in the next five years without having to beg it off the Tories then they'll need that support from the SNP. They're sure as f**k not going to get it if they vote in favour of Trident renewal. The Labour Party is rather fucked if in five years it never passes anything except Tory tax and spending cuts and Trident renewal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 The majority could be seen as also voting for the £180 bn for the economy and vulnerable and the NHS and the poor etc. But then general elections aren't single issue voting. We recently had a single issue vote and the current arrangements were the preferred option, that needs to be accepted as was promised. Yes but you do vote for a party that best fits your agenda. No one will be happy with 100% of the policies in the manifesto. If that party gets voted in then you have to accept that ultimately you voted for that. There are lots of SNP policies I disagree with but it is fundamentally the right party for me. Are you trying to get me to bite again with the second sentence. You should have quit while you were ahead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 His point about the SNP having any influence at Westminster is ridiculous but the danger that this new found power come May is used on the long term intent of breaking up of the Union is very real indeed. Wee Nikki is too smart to get drawn into that just yet though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Well, that's precisely what the SNP have threatened to prevent. The SNP will want concessions from lending Labour support over other items on their agenda, items which enjoy considerably stronger popularity within the Labour rank and file (and the country as a whole) than nuclear weapons. If Labour want to pass any sort of legislation in the next five years without having to beg it off the Tories then they'll need that support from the SNP. They're sure as f**k not going to get it if they vote in favour of Trident renewal. The Labour Party is rather fucked if in five years it never passes anything except Tory tax and spending cuts and Trident renewal. So you are saying that if Labour backs trident the SNP wouldn't support ANYTHING it wanted to do. A wee while ago you were saying the SNP would look at each proposal on its merits no matter which party presented it? PS you seem be avoiding why you think the £180 bn wasn't achievable ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.