This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Ok, so its been catastrophic for the tories but what of the SNP? It was even worse for them.
Should she now disappear?
Post edited at 08:03
10
10
6
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Surely it is a tale of 2 Conservative parties nationally a very bad night but in Scotland it looks like a great night for them bbc showing nearly 14% increase in the vote share.
13 conservative MPs in Scotland...never seen that one coming.
On the Sturgeon point i think she needs to drop the referendum idea losing that many MPs is a bad night regardless of whether or not it is the 2nd best GE performance ever.
Surely it is a tale of 2 Conservative parties nationally a very bad night but in Scotland it looks like a great night for them bbc showing nearly 14% increase in the vote share.
13 conservative MPs in Scotland...never seen that one coming.
On the Sturgeon point i think she needs to drop the referendum idea losing that many MPs is a bad night regardless of whether or not it is the 2nd best GE performance ever.
Post edited at 08:23
4
2
19
3
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
No. We need more political leaders who share their names with fish.
T.
No. We need more political leaders who share their names with fish.
T.
30
In reply to Big Ger:
Really? I didn't think the Krankies were still going.
> She's always got her other job to fall back on.
Really? I didn't think the Krankies were still going.
20
3
In reply to Stichtplate:
She's the living proof they are.
> Really? I didn't think the Krankies were still going.
She's the living proof they are.
2
2
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
What is it she's good at?
> No; she's very good at what she does. And I didn't vote SNP.
What is it she's good at?
3
4
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Probably not.
13 Tories is a bit of national disgrace. Hopefull it won't last
Probably not.
13 Tories is a bit of national disgrace. Hopefull it won't last
13
4
In reply to tony:
Blaming everything that's crap in Scotland on the English, sweeping SNP failings under the carpet and dressing up as a 9 year old schoolboy.
.... no, sorry , after losing all those seats you can scratch the first 2.
> What is it she's good at?
Blaming everything that's crap in Scotland on the English, sweeping SNP failings under the carpet and dressing up as a 9 year old schoolboy.
.... no, sorry , after losing all those seats you can scratch the first 2.
12
11
In reply to tony:
Speaking on the telly.
Tory vote 's really just a backlash against indepence. Nothing she can do about that really...
> What is it she's good at?
Speaking on the telly.
Tory vote 's really just a backlash against indepence. Nothing she can do about that really...
5
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I hope not.
Clearly not a good night for the SNP, but to put it in perspective it's still their second best Westminster result ever, still winning over half the Scottish seats, and remaining the third largest party in the UK despite only standing in Scotland.
It's too early to know, but I think the SNP lost a lot of votes to Corbyn's Labour (probably mostly younger voters), and probably quite a few brexiteer votes to both the Tories and to Labour. And lost the support of a lot of voters who quite liked the SNP, but didn't want another referendum.
The SNP have been a moderate, centre-with-a-dash-of-left, mostly liberal, outward-looking party under Nicola. I desperately hope we won't see a shift to a more UKIP-like style of nationalism here, but I fear we might, as there seems to be some pretty strong evidence that it works.
I hope not.
Clearly not a good night for the SNP, but to put it in perspective it's still their second best Westminster result ever, still winning over half the Scottish seats, and remaining the third largest party in the UK despite only standing in Scotland.
It's too early to know, but I think the SNP lost a lot of votes to Corbyn's Labour (probably mostly younger voters), and probably quite a few brexiteer votes to both the Tories and to Labour. And lost the support of a lot of voters who quite liked the SNP, but didn't want another referendum.
The SNP have been a moderate, centre-with-a-dash-of-left, mostly liberal, outward-looking party under Nicola. I desperately hope we won't see a shift to a more UKIP-like style of nationalism here, but I fear we might, as there seems to be some pretty strong evidence that it works.
15
2
In reply to tony:
She's been great at channeling some very dangerous urges into something much better. I fear that may be over, now.
> What is it she's good at?
She's been great at channeling some very dangerous urges into something much better. I fear that may be over, now.
6
3
In reply to skog:
Can you expand on that? Particularly the 'dangerous urges' and the 'something much better'? Not being picky, but I'm interested in the ideas.
> She's been great at channeling some very dangerous urges into something much better. I fear that may be over, now.
Can you expand on that? Particularly the 'dangerous urges' and the 'something much better'? Not being picky, but I'm interested in the ideas.
4
In reply to tony:
In short, compare the SNP to UKIP. You won't have seen Nicola standing in front of any 'Breaking Point' style posters.
I think the difference is principally one of leadership. Nationalism is really dangerous, but rather than whip up xenophobia, the modern form of the SNP have tried to dampen it, to keep the idea of Scotland as a welcoming, outwards-looking place alive.
They've tried to make Scotland be better (successfully or otherwise), rather than pick on minorities and blame them. (Admittedly made easier by having the rather amorphous 'Westminster' to blame for many things.)
In short, compare the SNP to UKIP. You won't have seen Nicola standing in front of any 'Breaking Point' style posters.
I think the difference is principally one of leadership. Nationalism is really dangerous, but rather than whip up xenophobia, the modern form of the SNP have tried to dampen it, to keep the idea of Scotland as a welcoming, outwards-looking place alive.
They've tried to make Scotland be better (successfully or otherwise), rather than pick on minorities and blame them. (Admittedly made easier by having the rather amorphous 'Westminster' to blame for many things.)
Post edited at 09:54
21
2
In reply to skog:
I'd agree with a lot of that, but I'm not sure how much can be laid at the door of Nicola Sturgeon. I think we're in a very different situation in Scotland compared with England - we don't have the same population pressures that exist south of border, and I think it's much harder to drum up resentment against minorities, simply because we don't have the same numbers of minorities and migrants.
I have a pet theory, entirely untested, that many of the 'Little England' problems of xenophobia can be blamed on the fact that England feels so crowded, which is always likely to throw up problems.
> In short, compare the SNP to UKIP. You won't have seen Nicola standing in front of any 'Breaking Point' style posters. I think the difference is principally one of leadership. Nationalism is really dangerous, but rather than whip up xenophobia, the modern form of the SNP have tried to dampen it, to keep the idea of Scotland as a welcoming, outwards-looking place alive.They've tried to make Scotland be better (successfully or otherwise), rather than pick on minorities and blame them. (Admittedly made easier by having the rather amorphous 'Westminster' to blame for many things.)
I'd agree with a lot of that, but I'm not sure how much can be laid at the door of Nicola Sturgeon. I think we're in a very different situation in Scotland compared with England - we don't have the same population pressures that exist south of border, and I think it's much harder to drum up resentment against minorities, simply because we don't have the same numbers of minorities and migrants.
I have a pet theory, entirely untested, that many of the 'Little England' problems of xenophobia can be blamed on the fact that England feels so crowded, which is always likely to throw up problems.
16
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Why? She wasn't standing in these Elections, the Leader of the SNP in UK Parliament lost his seat so their will need to be new Leader of the SNP in Parliament, that is all.
For all the rhetoric neither Sturgeon, Davidson or (the absymal) Dugdale are affected by this, although they will all use the change in nr of UK MP's of their party to their own uses.
If only Scottish Labour could get rid of Dugdale, then perhaps their could be change in Scotland.
Why? She wasn't standing in these Elections, the Leader of the SNP in UK Parliament lost his seat so their will need to be new Leader of the SNP in Parliament, that is all.
For all the rhetoric neither Sturgeon, Davidson or (the absymal) Dugdale are affected by this, although they will all use the change in nr of UK MP's of their party to their own uses.
If only Scottish Labour could get rid of Dugdale, then perhaps their could be change in Scotland.
1
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
Are you mourning the loss of Alex Salmond?
> No. We need more political leaders who share their names with fish.T.
Are you mourning the loss of Alex Salmond?
5
9
1
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
But mostly fish by name, and that is what you wanted, more fish names
> No. In this as other things, he was always a nearly-but-not-quite man.|T.
But mostly fish by name, and that is what you wanted, more fish names
1
In reply to tony:
Some of it, I think. A lot may depend on who replaces her, if she's forced out. (And I don't think that's a given.)
I don't know, really. I think a lot of it could be down to the mismanagement of migration, at least - allowing certain areas to become overcrowded without improving the services there.
But if I recall correctly, there was actually a strong tendency for the brexit vote to be higher in areas with -lower- migrant populations.
> I'm not sure how much can be laid at the door of Nicola Sturgeon.
Some of it, I think. A lot may depend on who replaces her, if she's forced out. (And I don't think that's a given.)
> I think we're in a very different situation in Scotland compared with England - we don't have the same population pressures that exist south of border, and I think it's much harder to drum up resentment against minorities, simply because we don't have the same numbers of minorities and migrants. I have a pet theory, entirely untested, that many of the 'Little England' problems of xenophobia can be blamed on the fact that England feels so crowded, which is always likely to throw up problems.
I don't know, really. I think a lot of it could be down to the mismanagement of migration, at least - allowing certain areas to become overcrowded without improving the services there.
But if I recall correctly, there was actually a strong tendency for the brexit vote to be higher in areas with -lower- migrant populations.
In reply to skog:
But what went wrong?
Was it their anti Brexit stance the voters did not like?
Or only their pro independence stance?
But what went wrong?
Was it their anti Brexit stance the voters did not like?
Or only their pro independence stance?
1
In reply to skog:
Certainly agree with that.
Hmm, good point. I may have to revisit my theory.
> I think a lot of it could be down to the mismanagement of migration, at least - allowing certain areas to become overcrowded without improving the services there.
Certainly agree with that.
> But if I recall correctly, there was actually a strong tendency for the brexit vote to be higher in areas with -lower- migrant populations.
Hmm, good point. I may have to revisit my theory.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
When you have 95% of the seats in an area the only way to go is down. The only reason the SNP had that many in the first place was that Labour pissed off a lot of their voters during the indyref campaign.
I think this is just back to business as usual - the last election was the freak result, not this one.
When you have 95% of the seats in an area the only way to go is down. The only reason the SNP had that many in the first place was that Labour pissed off a lot of their voters during the indyref campaign.
I think this is just back to business as usual - the last election was the freak result, not this one.
9
In reply to Jim C:
No one thing. As I said above,
It's too early to know, but I think the SNP lost a lot of votes to Corbyn's Labour (probably mostly younger voters), and probably quite a few brexiteer votes to both the Tories and to Labour. And lost the support of a lot of voters who quite liked the SNP, but didn't want another referendum.
No one thing. As I said above,
It's too early to know, but I think the SNP lost a lot of votes to Corbyn's Labour (probably mostly younger voters), and probably quite a few brexiteer votes to both the Tories and to Labour. And lost the support of a lot of voters who quite liked the SNP, but didn't want another referendum.
In reply to Jim C:
Or alternatively, the 2015 result was a one-off, hardly likely to be repeated. The surprise was the strong resurgence in the Tory vote. I think there are some regional issues at play - in the north-east, the fishing communities were strongly anti-EU, so Salmond and Robertson were always going to be at risk with a pro-EU agenda.
> But what went wrong?Was it their anti Brexit stance the voters did not like?Or only their pro independence stance?
Or alternatively, the 2015 result was a one-off, hardly likely to be repeated. The surprise was the strong resurgence in the Tory vote. I think there are some regional issues at play - in the north-east, the fishing communities were strongly anti-EU, so Salmond and Robertson were always going to be at risk with a pro-EU agenda.
2
In reply to davidbeynon:
Yup, couldn't agree more - the unified pro-independence vote and the split anti-independence vote combined with the FPTP system gave us a very odd result last time.
The new result is significantly closer to what Scots actually voted for (though probably with a bit of a pro-Tory bias due to their success in promoting themselves as the party of the union.)
> the last election was the freak result, not this one.
Yup, couldn't agree more - the unified pro-independence vote and the split anti-independence vote combined with the FPTP system gave us a very odd result last time.
The new result is significantly closer to what Scots actually voted for (though probably with a bit of a pro-Tory bias due to their success in promoting themselves as the party of the union.)
Post edited at 10:51
2
In reply to Big Ger:
I'm not sure it's a question of credibility. Pulling off an act as a 10 year old schoolboy isn't easy. It's not just about the shorts and cap it's an art.
I think she would do better as a droid in the next Star Wars film, or possibly an airfix test pilot.
> She's always got her other job to fall back on.
I'm not sure it's a question of credibility. Pulling off an act as a 10 year old schoolboy isn't easy. It's not just about the shorts and cap it's an art.
I think she would do better as a droid in the next Star Wars film, or possibly an airfix test pilot.
6
9
In reply to subtle:
Scottish Labour is a mess, and it's not just Dugdale. Let's not forget about the sainted Ian Murray - who resigned from the Shadow Cabinet rather than serve with Jeremy Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/ianmurraymp/status/840604117806518274?lang=en : "Often asked why I resigned from Shadow Cabinet. Ladies & Gentlemen I give u Jeremy Corbyn. He's destroying the party that so many need."
Just great.
> .... If only Scottish Labour could get rid of Dugdale, then perhaps their could be change in Scotland.
Scottish Labour is a mess, and it's not just Dugdale. Let's not forget about the sainted Ian Murray - who resigned from the Shadow Cabinet rather than serve with Jeremy Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/ianmurraymp/status/840604117806518274?lang=en : "Often asked why I resigned from Shadow Cabinet. Ladies & Gentlemen I give u Jeremy Corbyn. He's destroying the party that so many need."
Just great.
2
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
On what grounds can winning more of the seats they contested than all the other parties combined be considered as catastrophic?
> Ok, so its been catastrophic for the tories but what of the SNP? It was even worse for them.Should she now disappear?
On what grounds can winning more of the seats they contested than all the other parties combined be considered as catastrophic?
7
2
In reply to skog:
This.
> I hope not.Clearly not a good night for the SNP, but to put it in perspective it's still their second best Westminster result ever, still winning over half the Scottish seats, and remaining the third largest party in the UK despite only standing in Scotland.It's too early to know, but I think the SNP lost a lot of votes to Corbyn's Labour (probably mostly younger voters), and probably quite a few brexiteer votes to both the Tories and to Labour. And lost the support of a lot of voters who quite liked the SNP, but didn't want another referendum.The SNP have been a moderate, centre-with-a-dash-of-left, mostly liberal, outward-looking party under Nicola. I desperately hope we won't see a shift to a more UKIP-like style of nationalism here, but I fear we might, as there seems to be some pretty strong evidence that it works.
This.
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I think sturgeon should go if she refuse to tone down her independence mission. The population are voting for UK parties, which should give her a clue that there is no appetite for indef2.
I think sturgeon should go if she refuse to tone down her independence mission. The population are voting for UK parties, which should give her a clue that there is no appetite for indef2.
3
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Should Sturgeon stay or Sturgeon go now?
If she goes, there will be trouble
And if she stays it will be double
Should Sturgeon stay or Sturgeon go now?
If she goes, there will be trouble
And if she stays it will be double
3
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Yes! Get rid! Get the SNP to focus on getting the country right for independence, not getting independence and then figuring out what to do.
Make Scotland's education the best in the world, go over the top on it, raise pay for teacher's?, reduce class sizes and get off their backs.
Grow Scottish manufacturing so that the country can stand on it's own two feet in the event of independence.
The first will lead to the second, but the SNP need someone with the skills to revamp education in Scotland, not someone that is good at petty jibes.
Yes! Get rid! Get the SNP to focus on getting the country right for independence, not getting independence and then figuring out what to do.
Make Scotland's education the best in the world, go over the top on it, raise pay for teacher's?, reduce class sizes and get off their backs.
Grow Scottish manufacturing so that the country can stand on it's own two feet in the event of independence.
The first will lead to the second, but the SNP need someone with the skills to revamp education in Scotland, not someone that is good at petty jibes.
2
In reply to Jim C:
A number of things I think. There definitely is a weariness about endless referendums. That said, while you will hear a lot of people saying that Scotland doesn't want another indyref, in my experience I'm only hearing it from people who voted No in the last one. The SNP have, as far as I know, made a pigs ear of education which is still valued and taken very seriously up here. There is also a narrative that they have concentrated on indyref2 and neglected the actual job of government, how fair or accurate this is I do not know but I have quizzed a few people who have made this allegation and as yet (education aside) no-one has qualified it. I very much doubt it was their anti-brexit stance, I'm sure you know that any form of brexit has minority support in Scotland and the infantile way that the May govt is pursuing it will not make it any more popular.
As to the OP, Nicola S should stay, she is good at being a party leader and holds her own in an extremely hostile environment (the tabloid press and indeed some on here think that a passing resemblance to wee Jimmy Krankie is qualification that she shouldn't be taken seriously). Any tory gain in Scotland is big news, so obviously last night appears seismic, but it isn't as if the SNP have been wiped off the map. I do think that a mandate for indyref2 is toast for now. There could easily be a swing back when the May/DUP monster gets under way though.
> But what went wrong?Was it their anti Brexit stance the voters did not like?Or only their pro independence stance?
A number of things I think. There definitely is a weariness about endless referendums. That said, while you will hear a lot of people saying that Scotland doesn't want another indyref, in my experience I'm only hearing it from people who voted No in the last one. The SNP have, as far as I know, made a pigs ear of education which is still valued and taken very seriously up here. There is also a narrative that they have concentrated on indyref2 and neglected the actual job of government, how fair or accurate this is I do not know but I have quizzed a few people who have made this allegation and as yet (education aside) no-one has qualified it. I very much doubt it was their anti-brexit stance, I'm sure you know that any form of brexit has minority support in Scotland and the infantile way that the May govt is pursuing it will not make it any more popular.
As to the OP, Nicola S should stay, she is good at being a party leader and holds her own in an extremely hostile environment (the tabloid press and indeed some on here think that a passing resemblance to wee Jimmy Krankie is qualification that she shouldn't be taken seriously). Any tory gain in Scotland is big news, so obviously last night appears seismic, but it isn't as if the SNP have been wiped off the map. I do think that a mandate for indyref2 is toast for now. There could easily be a swing back when the May/DUP monster gets under way though.
Post edited at 12:47
3
1
In reply to jonnie3430:
You listening to radio 2 as well?
No.
Why? Have they just played it and said the same rubbish joke?
You listening to radio 2 as well?
No.
Why? Have they just played it and said the same rubbish joke?
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
No reason for Sturgeon to go, the previous result was always unsustainable but the new normality is the SNP are by far the largest party in Scotland.
Right now Sturgeon's policy of IndyRef 2 in the event of hard Brexit is unpopular but the timing of this election was calculated to match peak support for Brexit. Sturgeon's IndyRef2 policy will be far more popular in 18 months if it looks like the Tories/DUP are taking the UK into an economically disastrous variant of Brexit. It is pretty optimistic to think the DUP will be a force for moderation. She needs to play a waiting game. not make a pre-emptive decision.
> Ok, so its been catastrophic for the tories but what of the SNP? It was even worse for them.Should she now disappear?
No reason for Sturgeon to go, the previous result was always unsustainable but the new normality is the SNP are by far the largest party in Scotland.
Right now Sturgeon's policy of IndyRef 2 in the event of hard Brexit is unpopular but the timing of this election was calculated to match peak support for Brexit. Sturgeon's IndyRef2 policy will be far more popular in 18 months if it looks like the Tories/DUP are taking the UK into an economically disastrous variant of Brexit. It is pretty optimistic to think the DUP will be a force for moderation. She needs to play a waiting game. not make a pre-emptive decision.
Post edited at 12:53
5
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Of course not. Her mandate as MSP and first minister remains unchanged.
Of course not. Her mandate as MSP and first minister remains unchanged.
8
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Dunno. In the context of her party losing a third of the seats they held yesterday maybe?
> On what grounds can winning more of the seats they contested than all the other parties combined be considered as catastrophic?
Dunno. In the context of her party losing a third of the seats they held yesterday maybe?
2
2
8
9
1
1
In reply to skog:
The SNP is referred to in some quarters these days as "the Tartan Tories”. I think it's been a while since the party has been discernably left of centre to those looking in from the outside.
> The new result is significantly closer to what Scots actually voted for (though probably with a bit of a pro-Tory bias
The SNP is referred to in some quarters these days as "the Tartan Tories”. I think it's been a while since the party has been discernably left of centre to those looking in from the outside.
1
In reply to Martin W:
These days? It's an insult earned in 1979!
Anyway, get with the picture, we have the Tartan Tories, the Red Tories, the Yellow Tories and the Blue Tories now.
It's almost enough to make me want to vote Green...
I've said it before and I'll say it again - pretty much New Labour, but without the foreign policy madness.
> The SNP is referred to in some quarters these days as "the Tartan Tories”.
These days? It's an insult earned in 1979!
Anyway, get with the picture, we have the Tartan Tories, the Red Tories, the Yellow Tories and the Blue Tories now.
It's almost enough to make me want to vote Green...
> I think it's been a while since the party has been discernably left of centre to those looking in from the outside.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - pretty much New Labour, but without the foreign policy madness.
1
In reply to Martin W:
'These days'?? In fact, that's a very old pejorative term for them.
However, for example, in the 2015 election the SNP were the only party in Scotland to campaign against so-called 'austerity': the Labour Party were fully onboard with that slash-and-burn agenda.
> The SNP is referred to in some quarters these days as "the Tartan Tories”. I think it's been a while since the party has been discernably left of centre to those looking in from the outside.
'These days'?? In fact, that's a very old pejorative term for them.
However, for example, in the 2015 election the SNP were the only party in Scotland to campaign against so-called 'austerity': the Labour Party were fully onboard with that slash-and-burn agenda.
3
In reply to Removed UserStuart en Écosse:
They've done about as much damage to the police in Scotland as May has done south of the border. Their Transport Minister has spent a lot of time and effort slagging off Scotrail, conveniently overlooking the fact that it's been his ministry's budget constraints which have been the major cause of most of the disruption to services in the Central Belt while the Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvement Programme has been being delivered. That's two more key devolved responsibilities that they've been making a pig's ear of recently. To cap those two, La Sturgeon had said that she wants to subsume the British Transport Police in Scotland under Police Scotland, which informed observers reckon would stuff up both portfolios even more.
There's two more examples to be going on with.
> The SNP have, as far as I know, made a pigs ear of education which is still valued and taken very seriously up here. There is also a narrative that they have concentrated on indyref2 and neglected the actual job of government, how fair or accurate this is I do not know
They've done about as much damage to the police in Scotland as May has done south of the border. Their Transport Minister has spent a lot of time and effort slagging off Scotrail, conveniently overlooking the fact that it's been his ministry's budget constraints which have been the major cause of most of the disruption to services in the Central Belt while the Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvement Programme has been being delivered. That's two more key devolved responsibilities that they've been making a pig's ear of recently. To cap those two, La Sturgeon had said that she wants to subsume the British Transport Police in Scotland under Police Scotland, which informed observers reckon would stuff up both portfolios even more.
There's two more examples to be going on with.
1
1
In reply to Removed UserStuart en Écosse:
The voters in Scotland had the following choices:-
SNP -Pro Indy vote- anti Brexit
Lib Dem - Anti Indy vote -Anti Brexit
Labour- Anti Indy Vote - Anti Brexit
Conservative- Anti Indy Vote, Pro Brexit
So voters had a choice of any of 3 anti Indy vote parties, but chose to vote mostly for the Conservatives who were both anti Indy ref, but Pro Brexit,
(whilst they could have voted for either of the other parties that were both anti Indy AND anti Brexit.
Was Sturgeon wrong on both counts, that is, many Scots did NOT want indyref2 but DID want Brexit)
The voters in Scotland had the following choices:-
SNP -Pro Indy vote- anti Brexit
Lib Dem - Anti Indy vote -Anti Brexit
Labour- Anti Indy Vote - Anti Brexit
Conservative- Anti Indy Vote, Pro Brexit
So voters had a choice of any of 3 anti Indy vote parties, but chose to vote mostly for the Conservatives who were both anti Indy ref, but Pro Brexit,
(whilst they could have voted for either of the other parties that were both anti Indy AND anti Brexit.
Was Sturgeon wrong on both counts, that is, many Scots did NOT want indyref2 but DID want Brexit)
1
In reply to summo:
It looks like her electorate have just sent her home-
'tae think again'.
> I think sturgeon should go if she refuse to tone down her independence mission. The population are voting for UK parties, which should give her a clue that there is no appetite for indef2.
It looks like her electorate have just sent her home-
'tae think again'.
2
In reply to Jim C:
In what way are Labour anti-brexit?
They've made it clear they'll carry it out, and told the Tories they'd support the invocation of article 50 without any conditions at all.
In what way are Labour anti-brexit?
They've made it clear they'll carry it out, and told the Tories they'd support the invocation of article 50 without any conditions at all.
3
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Yes, definitely, with only 35 Scottish MP's to the Conservatives 13 she has been well and truly trounced.
Labour has 7 Scottish MP's and the Lib Dems 4.
The SNP can't compete with that!
Nicola Sturgeon should never have called this general election in a vain attempt to win the two remaining seats the SNP did not hold. What was she thinking?
> Ok, so its been catastrophic for the tories but what of the SNP? It was even worse for them.Should she now disappear?
Yes, definitely, with only 35 Scottish MP's to the Conservatives 13 she has been well and truly trounced.
Labour has 7 Scottish MP's and the Lib Dems 4.
The SNP can't compete with that!
Nicola Sturgeon should never have called this general election in a vain attempt to win the two remaining seats the SNP did not hold. What was she thinking?
Post edited at 20:33
7
3
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Sturgeon should not go. She is an impressive politician. May tossed a hand grenade into the room. The blast has damaged the SNP but they have enough strength to regroup and come at things more carefully. May has knackered her own party. Why is she still here?
Sturgeon should not go. She is an impressive politician. May tossed a hand grenade into the room. The blast has damaged the SNP but they have enough strength to regroup and come at things more carefully. May has knackered her own party. Why is she still here?
6
1
3
In reply to Pete Pozman:
If sturgeon is such an impressive politician then what impressive outcomes in health, education, transport or anything really, has she managed to achieve for her electorate, with the extra £6000 a head she gets over what an English voter receives?
If sturgeon is such an impressive politician then what impressive outcomes in health, education, transport or anything really, has she managed to achieve for her electorate, with the extra £6000 a head she gets over what an English voter receives?
2
2
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Why is Sturgeon still here also, she's given the tories 12 seats despite all her rhetoric about the nasty tories - was the hand grenade indyref2 which did far more damage and almost ended up giving the tories a majority government!
Why is Sturgeon still here also, she's given the tories 12 seats despite all her rhetoric about the nasty tories - was the hand grenade indyref2 which did far more damage and almost ended up giving the tories a majority government!
2
2
In reply to Stichtplate:
If Sturgeon and the SNP have engineered an extra £6,000 per head over the English, then that is impressive. You must admit that is clever!
The funny thing is that the SNP want to go independent and lose that extra £6,000. Yet, the other major UK parties want Scotland to stay in the UK and keep that extra money. You would think that the English-based parties would want to get rid of Scotland and have more to spend on the English.
> If sturgeon is such an impressive politician then what impressive outcomes in health, education, transport or anything really, has she managed to achieve for her electorate, with the extra £6000 a head she gets over what an English voter receives?
If Sturgeon and the SNP have engineered an extra £6,000 per head over the English, then that is impressive. You must admit that is clever!
The funny thing is that the SNP want to go independent and lose that extra £6,000. Yet, the other major UK parties want Scotland to stay in the UK and keep that extra money. You would think that the English-based parties would want to get rid of Scotland and have more to spend on the English.
3
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I've said it already but I'll say it again because some on this thread seem to be a bit hard of understanding.
What we've just had is a general election. In a general election we elect MPs and a Prime Minister.
Nicola Sturgeon is an MSP and First Minister of Scotland. These posts are filled by a different election. Some of the same parties stand but it's different people doing different jobs.
What his means is that Nicola Sturgeon's mandate to be in her posts is entirely unaffected by the election yesterday.
I've said it already but I'll say it again because some on this thread seem to be a bit hard of understanding.
What we've just had is a general election. In a general election we elect MPs and a Prime Minister.
Nicola Sturgeon is an MSP and First Minister of Scotland. These posts are filled by a different election. Some of the same parties stand but it's different people doing different jobs.
What his means is that Nicola Sturgeon's mandate to be in her posts is entirely unaffected by the election yesterday.
Post edited at 23:10
8
2
In reply to skog:
Labour campaigned to stay in the EU, Corbyn reluctantly later came to accept there would be a Brexit, no one actually believes that he will not scupper it if he gets the chance, and with his tail up, and Mays down , he just might get that chance.
> In what way are Labour anti-brexit?They've made it clear they'll carry it out, and told the Tories they'd support the invocation of article 50 without any conditions at all.
Labour campaigned to stay in the EU, Corbyn reluctantly later came to accept there would be a Brexit, no one actually believes that he will not scupper it if he gets the chance, and with his tail up, and Mays down , he just might get that chance.
In reply to Pero:
The English parties want to keep control of Scotland, without giving any more money than they need to.
(but they have not been able to. They would , if they could, but they can't so they don't)
> If Sturgeon and the SNP have engineered an extra £6,000 per head over the English, then that is impressive. .....You would think that the English-based parties would want to get rid of Scotland and have more to spend on the English.
The English parties want to keep control of Scotland, without giving any more money than they need to.
(but they have not been able to. They would , if they could, but they can't so they don't)
In reply to Pete Pozman:
It appears that although the SNP have lost 20+ Seats, apparently the SNP will actually now have more influence over a self inflicted weakened Tory government.
> Sturgeon should not go. She is an impressive politician. May tossed a hand grenade into the room. The blast has damaged the SNP but they have enough strength to regroup and come at things more carefully. May has knackered her own party. Why is she still here?
It appears that although the SNP have lost 20+ Seats, apparently the SNP will actually now have more influence over a self inflicted weakened Tory government.
1
In reply to DaveHK:
Nicola Sturgeon is an MSP and First Minister of Scotland. These posts are filled by a different election. Some of the same parties stand but it's different people doing different jobs.
and how exactly was Sturgeon elected?
Nicola Sturgeon is an MSP and First Minister of Scotland. These posts are filled by a different election. Some of the same parties stand but it's different people doing different jobs.
and how exactly was Sturgeon elected?
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
Are you trying to make point with that question or would you actually like an explanation of the Scottish Parliament elections?
> And how exactly was Sturgeon elected?
Are you trying to make point with that question or would you actually like an explanation of the Scottish Parliament elections?
4
1
In reply to Jim C:
If the Barnet formula was scrapped and each area of the UK was funded equally it would lead to significant cuts in Scotland (bad) and no significant increase in the areas which are relatively poorly funded as they are much more populous. Little point in doing it really. Scotland could be viewed perhaps as a model area with better (not much) funding - if it performs better than other areas then it could be used as an argument for increasing funding more generally - if it performs badly then it could be seen as an argument that extra funding is not key.
> The English parties want to keep control of Scotland, without giving any more money than they need to. (but they have not been able to. They would , if they could, but they can't so they don't)
If the Barnet formula was scrapped and each area of the UK was funded equally it would lead to significant cuts in Scotland (bad) and no significant increase in the areas which are relatively poorly funded as they are much more populous. Little point in doing it really. Scotland could be viewed perhaps as a model area with better (not much) funding - if it performs better than other areas then it could be used as an argument for increasing funding more generally - if it performs badly then it could be seen as an argument that extra funding is not key.
Post edited at 07:21
1
In reply to Stichtplate:
I don't know if the 6000 figure you quote is correct, but to your question: free tertiary education, free prescriptions, free eye-tests are all worthy outcomes. And - to challenge the 'Tartan Tory' claim made above - are redistributive outcomes which one might normally associate with the Left.
> If sturgeon is such an impressive politician then what impressive outcomes in health, education, transport or anything really, has she managed to achieve for her electorate, with the extra £6000 a head she gets over what an English voter receives?
I don't know if the 6000 figure you quote is correct, but to your question: free tertiary education, free prescriptions, free eye-tests are all worthy outcomes. And - to challenge the 'Tartan Tory' claim made above - are redistributive outcomes which one might normally associate with the Left.
2
In reply to Jim C:
You're joking, right? There are plenty of pro-EU figures in Labour, but Corbyn certainly isn't one of them. He's at least as much of a Brexiteer as May is.
And given that a chunk of the votes Labour have just won appear to come from former UKIP supporters and other outers (after making a clear effort to target them), there's no chance he'll want to cancel the gig.
It's entirely possible that he'd go for a softer form of Brexit, but he's committed to leaving and didn't ever shown any enthusiasm for staying in the first place.
> Labour campaigned to stay in the EU, Corbyn reluctantly later came to accept there would be a Brexit, no one actually believes that he will not scupper it if he gets the chance
You're joking, right? There are plenty of pro-EU figures in Labour, but Corbyn certainly isn't one of them. He's at least as much of a Brexiteer as May is.
And given that a chunk of the votes Labour have just won appear to come from former UKIP supporters and other outers (after making a clear effort to target them), there's no chance he'll want to cancel the gig.
It's entirely possible that he'd go for a softer form of Brexit, but he's committed to leaving and didn't ever shown any enthusiasm for staying in the first place.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
They also mitigated the 'bedroom tax' and there is also free home care, my mother benefitted from that , but now she is in a residential care home her two pensions are surrendered towards her care costs.
(If she had her own home that too would have been taken into account too, so it's good, but not everything is free as some seem to think.
They also mitigated the 'bedroom tax' and there is also free home care, my mother benefitted from that , but now she is in a residential care home her two pensions are surrendered towards her care costs.
(If she had her own home that too would have been taken into account too, so it's good, but not everything is free as some seem to think.
2
In reply to Pero:
Conversely, based on purely the percentage of number of seats lost or won in Westminster (and that, ultimately, could be seen as what counts in terms of determining who has the power and therefore was the more successful), the SNP lost 37.5% of theirs whereas the Tories lost 3.9%.
Granted that's across the UK as a whole, but that's both parties' performance being measured against their pre-GE standing. Viewed from that perspective, Sturgeon's talk about TM "...losing a mandate" is therefore a bit hypocritical IMO.
> Yes, definitely, with only 35 Scottish MP's to the Conservatives 13 she has been well and truly trounced.
Conversely, based on purely the percentage of number of seats lost or won in Westminster (and that, ultimately, could be seen as what counts in terms of determining who has the power and therefore was the more successful), the SNP lost 37.5% of theirs whereas the Tories lost 3.9%.
Granted that's across the UK as a whole, but that's both parties' performance being measured against their pre-GE standing. Viewed from that perspective, Sturgeon's talk about TM "...losing a mandate" is therefore a bit hypocritical IMO.
1
In reply to DaveHK:
Are you trying to make point with that question or would you actually like an explanation of the Scottish Parliament elections?
A bit of both...
Are you trying to make point with that question or would you actually like an explanation of the Scottish Parliament elections?
A bit of both...
In reply to Fraser:
By that logic the Lib Dems, who increased their number of MP's by 33% should now have the most power in Westminster.
The Tories have the power in Westminster as they have significantly more seats than Labour. In terms of power now it is largely irrelevant what anyone had before. If this had been a scheduled election, then the Tories wouln't be too unhappy.
But, the critical factor, is that this was Mrs May's election, called at precisely the time when she thought her political opponents were at their weakest.
One rational argument therefore (and I'm sure the Tories accept it in private) is that if this was the result when the conditions were judged by them to be most favourable, they will have to be very careful if there is an election at a time when conditions are not so favourable for them.
That is the fundamental difference here between how the Tories see the result and how others see the result. This was the Tories attempt to obliterate effective political opposition, and it failed. Even though, now that the dust has settled somewhat, they are still the largest party and probably able to govern.
> Conversely, based on purely the percentage of number of seats lost or won in Westminster (and that, ultimately, could be seen as what counts in terms of determining who has the power and therefore was the more successful) ...
By that logic the Lib Dems, who increased their number of MP's by 33% should now have the most power in Westminster.
The Tories have the power in Westminster as they have significantly more seats than Labour. In terms of power now it is largely irrelevant what anyone had before. If this had been a scheduled election, then the Tories wouln't be too unhappy.
But, the critical factor, is that this was Mrs May's election, called at precisely the time when she thought her political opponents were at their weakest.
One rational argument therefore (and I'm sure the Tories accept it in private) is that if this was the result when the conditions were judged by them to be most favourable, they will have to be very careful if there is an election at a time when conditions are not so favourable for them.
That is the fundamental difference here between how the Tories see the result and how others see the result. This was the Tories attempt to obliterate effective political opposition, and it failed. Even though, now that the dust has settled somewhat, they are still the largest party and probably able to govern.
Post edited at 12:19
4
In reply to Pero:
Sorry, I worded that badly. I meant the 'number of seats' in Westminster, rather than the number of individual votes (or seat loss / gain for that matter), is what puts a party in power. The percentage seat loss was far greater for the SNP than for the Tories.
And I agree with the rest of what you say.
Sorry, I worded that badly. I meant the 'number of seats' in Westminster, rather than the number of individual votes (or seat loss / gain for that matter), is what puts a party in power. The percentage seat loss was far greater for the SNP than for the Tories.
And I agree with the rest of what you say.
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
But remember that free tertiary education is to a limited proportion of students when compared to the fee paying model in England, and there is some evidence that it disadvantages the less well off. That's counterintuitive to me, but if we look at that evidence it would suggest that the 'worthy' model is not always the better one.
> I don't know if the 6000 figure you quote is correct, but to your question: free tertiary education, free prescriptions, free eye-tests are all worthy outcomes. And - to challenge the 'Tartan Tory' claim made above - are redistributive outcomes which one might normally associate with the Left.
But remember that free tertiary education is to a limited proportion of students when compared to the fee paying model in England, and there is some evidence that it disadvantages the less well off. That's counterintuitive to me, but if we look at that evidence it would suggest that the 'worthy' model is not always the better one.
2
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Thanks. What's the evidence? If it bears scrutiny then of course we should take note of it.
> But remember that free tertiary education is to a limited proportion of students when compared to the fee paying model in England, and there is some evidence that it disadvantages the less well off. That's counterintuitive to me, but if we look at that evidence it would suggest that the 'worthy' model is not always the better one.
Thanks. What's the evidence? If it bears scrutiny then of course we should take note of it.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07096/SN07096.pdf
Inevitably lots to chew through and not as clear cut as the headlines in the press - my take home would be that to widen participation and HE uptake you need cash. In England that cash is coming from the students who are content to go into debt to allow themselves access to university. In Scotland it's coming from the Scottish Government who are unwilling to raise taxes to pay for more places and so cannot increase the number of places.
> Thanks. What's the evidence? If it bears scrutiny then of course we should take note of it.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07096/SN07096.pdf
Inevitably lots to chew through and not as clear cut as the headlines in the press - my take home would be that to widen participation and HE uptake you need cash. In England that cash is coming from the students who are content to go into debt to allow themselves access to university. In Scotland it's coming from the Scottish Government who are unwilling to raise taxes to pay for more places and so cannot increase the number of places.
1
In reply to Dr.S at work:
>In Scotland it's coming from the Scottish Government who are unwilling to raise taxes to pay for more places and so cannot increase the number of places.
True, and I have had people from England arguing that their child should be able to come to Scotland and get their child educated for the same fee as the Scottish government subsidises a limited number of places, (even though if my daughter went to an English Uni, they would be charged the full English fee - or at least the Scottish Government would. )
The huge demand from England for the limited number of 'cheap' university education places offered in Scotland could not possibly not be met by a Scottish Government subsidising English students as well.
>In Scotland it's coming from the Scottish Government who are unwilling to raise taxes to pay for more places and so cannot increase the number of places.
True, and I have had people from England arguing that their child should be able to come to Scotland and get their child educated for the same fee as the Scottish government subsidises a limited number of places, (even though if my daughter went to an English Uni, they would be charged the full English fee - or at least the Scottish Government would. )
The huge demand from England for the limited number of 'cheap' university education places offered in Scotland could not possibly not be met by a Scottish Government subsidising English students as well.
Post edited at 11:26
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...