They remind me of the Greeks who voted in the current government, all take and no give.
As a Tory you should appreciate people voting for their own self interest.
Utter nonsense, and pretty nasty nonsense at that. The SNP, and the Green parties wish Scotland to become independent. That may be a view that you don’t share, but it is a perfectly valid political view.
Are you planning to behead all the “traitors”?
It’s not a valid view to want to break up a country against the wishes of its population. There is no reason to think the the population of the UK want to break it up, and the small amount of them actually asked voted against it.
Sometimes I wonder about your logic, history and politics.
You believe that “It’s not a valid view to want to break up a country…”
Let us examine that humble opinion:
Algeria should still be part of France.
Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, should still be part of Russia
Poland should be part of Prussia
Poland should be part of Russia
The Czech Republic should be part of Czechoslovakia
Slovakia should be part of Czechoslovakia
Serbia should be part of Yugoslavia
Kosovo should be part of Serbia
Pakistan should be part of India
Texas should be part of Mexico
AND
The whole of Ireland should be ruled from London.
You ignore logic, history and politics.
Add the Scottish Socialist Party, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, the SDLP Mebyon Kernow, and many individuals of no party at all. And the members of Unionist parties who vote for Independence.
And how about the mainly Conservative, UKIP, and others who support English Nationalism from EVEL to casting off the Celtic fringe.
We have signed a treaty to create an “ever closer union” of European nations with the clear intent of forming a super state with its own laws, currency and political system.
At which point does that become irreversible.
Were the aims of the Southern States not ‘valid’ in the US civil war?
Back on topic: Nicola Sturgeon has written to the Cabinet Office insisting that the SNP be involved in the pre-election briefings that are traditionally given to opposition parties in a position to be part of a future Government.
How many of those were due to invasion (meaning there may well be a moral “right” to go back to how they were pre-invasion) as opposed to a peaceful coming together of nations?
Is this a sneak attempt to imply that England (and it is England, you seem to only moan about them and never Wales or Northern Ireland) is acting in a “neo-colonial” manner by drawing parallels between the UK and the actions of various empires? You know, that thing you were warned not to do anymore.
At the time when Scotland and England entered a union, the nation state was a rarity. There were empires and stateless.
Nation states were largely a product of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as the passed into and out of control of empires.
And to return to the original point which I was countering- the claim that a campaign for independence makes those parties not ‘valid’, the Westminster accord stated clearly that in the view of both Westminster and Holyrood, the decision of the Scottish people in a referendum would be sufficient in itself for Scotland to assume sovereignty as an independent state, and the views of the rest of the UK were to be of no matter in deciding the issue.
Statelets, not stateless. Damned spell check.
Those that have followed my posts on the future path to Independence will be aware of my belief that Scotland will proceed to independence not for entirely rational reasons. I am a reluctant supporter of Independence, preferring Home Rule on a federal system, but over the past decade living in Scotland I have developed an understanding of the psychology that drives the pressure for independence, and that psychology is founded on the difference of nuance between the view of many Scots and many English on the nature of union. Issues that are seen as normal and natural to English unionists are seen as threats to Scottish identity by nationalists. Recent history from the bodged referendum in the early years of Thatcher, overturned by her insistence on a super majority, through many perceived sleights over the decade seen as demeaning Scotland.
One recentassault has been the current bodge of EVEL which in England is seen as natural and fair and in Scotland is seen as a way to enforce right wing governments on the UK and consequently on Scotland. Rather than set up a separate English Parliament it has been proposed to have a bastard system that will make it difficult to have an effective left of centre government in the UK.
The latest affront occurred yesterday where the House of Lords Constitutional Committee is seeking to question the cross party decision to allow Holyrood to determine electoral affairs for Scottish elections, specifically dropping the voting age to 16. Should this become a major issue, this will be seen a further threat to Scotland’s sovereignty.
I suspect that a continuing series of such clashes between English and Scottish sentiment to pave the way for a majority for independence within a decade. All will depend on which of the two sides, Unionists and Nationalists plays the best political cards.
My money is on Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond!
In other news, Straw and Rifkind have been busted selling influence to lobbyists in the kind of story that supports Russell Brand-esque anti-politics: They’re all the same, they’re all in it for themselves and will happily screw you over to get theirs, so why bother voting? Corrupt old rich white men who can’t even see their corruption, or acknowledge the extent to which they’ve betrayed the trust implicit in their position, do not make a good case to vote.
It’s not, sadly, an outrageous, earth-shattering scandal scandal - it’s easy to think of this as business as usual - but it does have a corrosive effect on trust in politicians and in politics as a process. Will it effect the election? A few of those on the fence about voting at all - who would tend to be younger, and poorer, and non-white - might be more likely to stay at home, given this. It does play into the hands of anti-politics parties (this sort of thing is meat and drink to Farage) who can use it to whip up a protest vote from older voters. It might be worth a percentage point or two in UKIP’s strongest seats?
Another question is whether Labour or the Tories could turn this to their advantage. The Tories I would say not - they’re seen as the party of business, and wealth, and lobbying; Labour have a slim chance, but it would take: expulsion of Straw and removal of his predicted seat in the Lords, a strong policy proposal and ruthless dealing with any other skeletons in closets. I don’t really see Milliband going for that, because as we’ve just seen re: tax avoidance attempts to seize the moral high ground often come unstuck.
I take it back: Ed’s written to Cameron:
The cap on outside earnings is apparently 15%. Not 0.
The latest BBC poll of polls confirms Labour and Tories neck and neck with about a third of voters each - still headed for a hung parliament with ten weeks to go.
It is likely the poll showing a good Tory lead last week was an anomaly.
Back to coalition?
Rifkind resigns as chair of ISC and stands down as PPC for Kensington and Chelsea.
Boris must be spitting teeth. He’s already planted his flag in Harrow, of all places, which is a) outside Zone 1 and b) close enough to Heathrow that he’s having to reverse-ferret his previous vocal opposition to a second runway there. And now that he can’t back out, K&C pops open for some lucky bastard.
In other news, Natalie Bennet of the Greens has just given cripplingly embarrassing interview to LBC, where she demonstrated exactly zero knowledge of some very basic questions about her flagship policies. If the Greens can’t look even vaguely credible, Labour or the Lib Dems may benefit slightly.
Uxbridge and South Ruislip is Boris’ new quest. It is a fairly safe Tory seat, it and it’s predecessors having returned a Tory since 1971.
The Greens will make local advances much as UKIP will, and the LibDems did in the seventies and eighties, all without coherent policies. Their vote is made up of true believers and ‘anyone but in the above.’ The SNP benefits from this boost in Scotland.
Of course it’s a safe seat. He wouldn’t be in it if it wasn’t a safe seat. But it’s not as convenient for Westminster as K&C, and it has forced him to backtrack on his Heathrow opposition:
Sure, that’s the core vote. But they had been trending up, and some of those new people who thought a Green vote was a reasonable protest vote will be now be asking themselves if they really want to vote for complete incompetents. It won’t eliminate their vote and they weren’t going to take many seats at all but if this saves a few hundred Labour/LibDem votes in a few key constituencies it could make all the difference.
Caroline Bennett had a disaster of an interview earlier today. I doubt this will hurt the Greens as much as it would a traditional party. Still it’s always fun to hear a politician mentally break down on air.
edit: Natalie Bennett