How many seats would that equate to - 12-14?

First past the post means there's basically no way of knowing, but Labour ~29-30% is the rough threshold below which the SNP really start destroying us.

Independence isn't a Tory-exclusive position. You may as well say vegetarians are siding with Hitler.

 

Indeed but there's reason why wrapping labour in the Union Jack infected them with Toryism in the eyes of the Scottish people.

 

Also being Irish led to that opinion as it's more easy to link Toryism and unionism over hear as that's the reality even though most Irish nationalist have backgrounds that are quite to the right economically and socially but nationalism is always associated with left politics here.

You only have to look at Irish politics to see that it was always an illusion that nationalism led to progressive outcomes.

Indeed and who caused the violence - UK government policy.

After the focus groups I'm beginning to think Jim Murphy may be the Michael Howard of Scottish Labour - literally the only option available for avoiding a total morale obliteration in the face of disaster (and he's running by far the most professional campaign a Scottish Labour leader has run), but sadly defined too much in opposition to the people he has to win back to make much headway. Findlay was so utterly useless that he wouldn't be doing better, but it's really difficult to see what other options are available at the moment, short of Gordon Brown.

Kezia Dugdale does a fairly decent job as leader of the MSPs. Far rather her be in charge than Murphy.

 

Although all of them this side of the border are a limp and uninspiring lot.

 

 

There's basically zero chance the Tories would've allowed that option. We're talking about the party that thought the most appropriate response to the referendum result was changing the subject to England to try and get the upper hand over Labour, for crying out loud.

That was a ridiculously clever election move by slime ball Cameron. It pissed off Scotland enough to really solidify the pro-SNP feeling and give them the upper hand coming out of the referendum despite the No vote.

 

 

It was always going to be tough for Labour, but pretty much anyone else could've probably salvaged about 25-30% I reckon, even Johann Lamont. Considering Scottish Labour were being deserted for being too much like the Tories / for taking part in the negative anti-independence campaign / for being too focussed on Westminster / for having such uncharismatic leaders compared to the SNP, selecting a Blairite Westminster MP who was fresh off being one of the main faces of the independence campaign and who had no discernible charisma couldn't have been a more laughably misguided choice if they tried. He literally confirms every single thing that the SNP are using as arguments against Labour.

Dunno if Blairite is the right brush to taint him with. He's a Tory economically speaking and appears just happy with the way the two morons in the Treasury have been driving this country into the ground for the past 5 years but he's trying to win an election in a left wing country. His little ploy is so transparent he's basically invisible. He contradicts himself constantly, makes up shit on the spot in front of press/voters that it thinks they want to hear and it comes across that way. URGH. I really really hope the SNP take his seat.

 

When we eventually become independent (even Murdoch admits it's a when, not an if) I'm petitioning the government to ship him to westminster and ban him from the country.

Does anyone else think that the national feelgood factor of a new royal princess arriving may favour the Tories?

Does anyone else think that the national feelgood factor of a new royal princess arriving may favour the Tories?

There is no evidence whatsoever of events within that family of parasites having any effect on the polls. Where is this feelgood factor?

Dunno if Blairite is the right brush to taint him with. He's a Tory economically speaking and appears just happy with the way the two morons in the Treasury have been driving this country into the ground for the past 5 years but he's trying to win an election in a left wing country.

LOL. Where the fuck did you get this from? Thinking the least off would be worse off if Scotland were independent =/= supporting the Tories' economic plans.

Indeed and who caused the violence - UK government policy.

That wasn't really the point I was making (although it's still only half true - the Irish Civil War was kind of a thing.). Nationalism in Ireland didn't lead to a progressive country, much as the nationalists tried to sell that vision.

LOL. Where the fuck did you get this from? Thinking the least off would be worse off if Scotland were independent =/= supporting the Tories' economic plans.

 

But until his recent hilarious conversion, he was all in favour of yet more spending cuts.

 

I have to admit I wouldn't've expected Scottish voters to know about him being right-wing (I thought his personality and him being a high-profile part of the Better Together campaign would be the main reasons for his unpopularity), but the focus groups from Ashcroft and the Financial Times the other day had people apparently spontaneously saying how right-wing they thought he was for a Labour leader.

 

As for the bit about him being successful with his "tour" during the independence campaign - he might well be more engaging in the flesh, but on TV, he comes across terribly, would you agree?

Edited May 2, 201510 yr by Danny

That wasn't really the point I was making (although it's still only half true - the Irish Civil War was kind of a thing.). Nationalism in Ireland didn't lead to a progressive country, much as the nationalists tried to sell that vision.

 

I would rather a free and independent Ireland which makes its own decisions and mistakes even if the country as a whole elects conservative politicans. It's up to ourselves alone (see what I did there) to convince the people of the merits of progressive politics. Britain was hardly a progressive country at various stages in the last 200 yrs.

 

And the Irish civil war was basically an arguement over a republic vs a free state within a commonwealth and having to swear an oath to the king of England. This arguement venerated from bad uk governance throughout the 19th century. The majority if Irish people aren't republican or anti British naturally they were moved toward those positions by events.

But until his recent hilarious conversion, he was all in favour of yet more spending cuts.

Silas's statement was that Jim 'is a Tory economically speaking'. Last time I checked Jim's never advocated for spending cuts to fund tax cuts. And it would be utterly laughable to try and claim that Ed were a 'Tory economically speaking' with the same claim. Or that Keynes were a 'Tory economically speaking'. Characterising someone's entire economic worldview on the basis of whether or not they're in favour of spending cuts during a time of growth with a historically huge deficit is a bit reductive really.

I would rather a free and independent Ireland which makes its own decisions and mistakes even if the country as a whole elects conservative politicans. It's up to ourselves alone (see what I did there) to convince the people of the merits of progressive politics. Britain was hardly a progressive country at various stages in the last 200 yrs.

 

All that may well be the case. Again, my argument:

 

You only have to look at Irish politics to see that it was always an illusion that nationalism led to progressive outcomes.

Hence, it's a bit of a cheek to argue with the implication that you can't be a progressive *and* oppose nationalism when you freely admit that sovereignty is your concern rather than progressive outcomes.

 

And the Irish civil war was basically an arguement over a republic vs a free state within a commonwealth and having to swear an oath to the king of England. This arguement venerated from bad uk governance throughout the 19th century. The majority if Irish people aren't republican or anti British naturally they were moved toward those positions by events.

I'm well aware of why the Irish Civil War happened - my point was that Ireland's problems or violence aren't and weren't wholly down to Britain. It annoys me that this would doubtless be the next argument if independence ever came to be in Scotland and (shock! horror!) utopia didn't result despite the SNP's fairytales.

Silas's statement was that Jim 'is a Tory economically speaking'. Last time I checked Jim's never advocated for spending cuts to fund tax cuts. And it would be utterly laughable to try and claim that Ed were a 'Tory economically speaking' with the same claim. Or that Keynes were a 'Tory economically speaking'. Characterising someone's entire economic worldview on the basis of whether or not they're in favour of spending cuts during a time of growth with a historically huge deficit is a bit reductive really.

 

If being in favour of yet more spending cuts to the poor's safety net at a time when the super-rich's wealth is enough to pay off the deficit about 10 times over, does not make someone a Tory, then what does?

If being in favour of yet more spending cuts to the poor's safety net at a time when the super-rich's wealth is enough to pay off the deficit about 10 times over, does not make someone a Tory, then what does?

I must have missed the bit where welfare was the only spending we had, or where Ed Miliband ruled out increasing the top rate of tax and said tax avoidance wasn't a concern for him.

 

 

When we eventually become independent (even Murdoch admits it's a when, not an if) I'm petitioning the government to ship him to westminster and ban him from the country.

 

 

You're gonna be waiting a looooooong time.

 

And besides you'd have more pressing issues like raisining money, Russian intimidaton and stayibg a 1st world country to deal with dirst oops.

All that may well be the case. Again, my argument:

 

Hence, it's a bit of a cheek to argue with the implication that you can't be a progressive *and* oppose nationalism when you freely admit that sovereignty is your concern rather than progressive outcomes.

I'm well aware of why the Irish Civil War happened - my point was that Ireland's problems or violence aren't and weren't wholly down to Britain. It annoys me that this would doubtless be the next argument if independence ever came to be in Scotland and (shock! horror!) utopia didn't result despite the SNP's fairytales.

 

Yeh I agree with your point of you can be progressive and oppose nationalism fair enough. I don't agree all Irish problems in this eg are Britain but the Westminster system was so inefficient and unequal it inevitably became a source of protest hence the gradual development of democracy/Irish interest parties through the 19th century. The famine became the watershed and the point where violence by some traditions became acceptable in a way. I oppose political violence but understand WHY some turn to it. You just have to look at the current deputy first minister in N.Ireland I oppose the violence he was in loved in and don't think he was born with a gun in his hand but when you grow up in his environment totally understand where his views come from.

I wouldn't say I always oppose violence - it's often the only option in times of systematic oppression (hence I think the War of Independence was justified but the Civil War wasn't, and De Valera was a fucking snake for what he did to Michael Collins.).

 

It's a moot point though - I wouldn't say the situations of Ireland in the 19th century, Catholics in Northern Ireland in the 20th century, and Scotland now have much to compare themselves other than secession being offered as a solution. Certainly Scots aren't being systematically oppressed right now - quite the opposite since devolution and the Barnett formula.

There is no evidence whatsoever of events within that family of parasites having any effect on the polls. Where is this feelgood factor?

 

 

Not a Royalist I see Suedy. Well it's a bit like when England do well in the World Cup or Euros. Very rare I know but they say there's a "feelgood factor" and that tends to favour the encumbent.

Not a Royalist I see Suedy. Well it's a bit like when England do well in the World Cup or Euros. Very rare I know but they say there's a "feelgood factor" and that tends to favour the encumbent.

I wouldn't say there's that much excitement for it to be a feelgood effect. I don't think there was a noticeable boost for the government after the Royal Wedding or George being born.