Meanwhile in England:
Ukip already has four seats ‘in the bag’, says leading expert Matthew Goodwin
Associate professor of politics at Nottingham University says that Ukip will “indirectly damage” the Tories in 69 seats at the election, and Labour in 59 constituencies
Ugh, actually, forget what I said, go back to talking about the SNP 
The proposed debates which Cameron is seeking to wreck are so out of date. We do not have a presidential system. Both major parties are open to replacement of their leaders following a poor showing in May. This usually happens following a failure to form a government but may happen to either side if their then current leader is an obstacle to forming a coherent and stable government.
Because we have a system reliant on a two party system rather than PR, we have a skewed approach to elections, treating them as presidential rather than collegiate.
Surely what the election debates should be about is about how power will be shared in any potential coalition. Rather than having a leadership debate, we should have a debate between the potential negotiators from the relevant parties- excluding potential PMs but using policy wonks who will actually negotiate any future government.
We should insist that all parties put their real red lines on the table so that people are not surprised by the results of negotiations in the last three weeks in May.
So, what should the red lines of each party be if they need to negotiate a minority or majority government in May?
How much should the Tories give to DUP and UKIP to gain the Prime Ministership?
How much should Labour give to the SNP and Greens?
What would Labour and Conservatives have to give up to form a Grand Coalition?
Two of those are already UKIP seats due to recent defections & elections, so you would expect them to stay UKIP. Thanet South is where Farage is standing, so it’s had a huge amount of focus. So that only leaves Thurrock in the “OK, I wouldn’t necessarily have guessed that” category.
The bigger question of how many votes they can pinch in other seats is more interesting because that could lead to an effective swing between Tories and Labour. He suggests the Tories are more at risk, which makes sense given the distribution of their constituencies and the theoretically smaller divide between the parties. If that eats in to the apparent gains the Tories have made in the polls recently, then it may be good news for Labour.
But it’s still a big question: even looking just at England, why aren’t Labour doing any better than they are? There aren’t that many people thrilled with the last 5 years - why can’t Labour tap into *any *of that. They were polling 40% a couple of years ago, which would give them an England majority comfortably. Acknowledging that polls were always going to tighten, they’ve still let something slip badly.
Obviously Miliband is a factor, but it’s a general failure to engage. And, I suspect, a grassroots problem.
I agree that the televised debates are dumb, but are they unique to Britain and America? I know it’s a poor example, but watching Borgen, Denmark seems to have the leader-debates as well. Absolutely no idea if this demonstrates Danish politics that accurately, but I’d be surprised if they put it in for laffs.
I’d much rather we have parties form electoral coalitions before elections, actually, so the public can vote on what coalition they would like, rather than being dismayed at whatever results.
They certainly have debates in other countries, but their electorates are more experienced in coalition politics; no one in those countries would have reacted against a libdem like party that had to change its education policy on entering a coalition. Electorates there understand that there are more than two possible answers to the question of what a programme of government should be.
The future of the major parties in Scotland over the next decade is interesting. The libdems may well come back naturally in their fringe constituencies in the 2020 elections because of a natural anti-Tory anti- socialist ethic there which leaves them normally even anti the leftist SNP. For Labour and Conservatives to survive they may need to take the CSI/CDU option in Bavaria where the German conservative parties have agreed to split the right sing vote geographically rather than politically with the more right wing CSU in Bavaria and the more moderate CDU in the rest of Germany. Perhaps we will see a Scottish Labour Party and Scottish Christian Democrat party, both parties being to the left of their respective English cousins.
John Curtice, politics pundit and professor has just stated on BBC News that following the consistent polls of the last four months with Labour and Tory neck and neck and the SNP headed to take the vast majority of Scotland’s seats, that he cannot see how any government can be formed without at least the acquiescence of the SNP, and consequently the stability of any future government is dependent on an accommodation being made with the SNP’s demands on home rule and trident.
A government could be formed by Labour and the Tories, if they agreed to it. It’s extremely unlikely after the coming election, but if things change permanently, and extremist parties keep getting votes, it may become feasible.
That would be interesting for England, but would probably sign the death warrant for the Union if Scotland once again found itself ruled by a neo-liberal government against its wishes and in an obvious pincer movement to remove Scottish influence from forming a government. Unionism in Scotland- whatever is left of it- would be destroyed.
As I keep saying, if English Unionists want to save the Union, there are areas that British politics must avoid- grand coalition against Scotland’s interests would be a major blunder.
It’s firmly in Scotland’s interest to remain in the Union, and the majority of Scots voted to do so. The SNP neither represents the wishes nor the interest of the Scottish people, nor that of the Government it is attempting to control. Stopping extremists like that is what a good government should do, and if that eventually leads to Scotland leaving due to an unwillingness to play nicely with everyone else, it will be extremely unfortunate, but less of a problem long term than any local minority holding government of the Union hostage.
As I keep saying, you are making assumptions well away from any contact with the culture that will make the decision about its treatment in the voluntary union with a larger country.
I can assure you that a political deal to cause the exclusion of virtually all Scottish MPs from influence in government formation would be the greatest gift the unionist parties could give to the nationalists. Remember that it only takes a change of 2.5% of the votes to overturn the NO vote. The membership of the SNP has increased by more than that since September, and SNP support has increased by over 100% since then.
As I said, if they are unwilling to play nicely, then they can ultimately leave. They shouldn’t do so, as it would be destructive to Scotland and damaging to the rest of the Union, but still better for the rest of the Union than having our government held hostage by them.
If they want to have their voices heard at Westminster, they should shut up about not wanting to be governed from there, and actually participate in UK politics for the benefit of the UK as a whole.
The basic problem is that most Scots want considerably more freedom within the Union than they are being offered currently. They would be happy in a federal union where there was internal democracy and devolution of most issues other than monetary policy, international relations and such.
The problem for the unionists is how much they are willing to resist this and whether they are willing to lose the benefits of Union (oil, gas, renewable energy, Faslane and Coulport, RAF Lossiemouth etc.)
The ball is very much in the unionists court.
One would think, if this is truly the case, that they would not be planning to vote in large numbers for a party opposed to that. If the SNP stood for devolution, instead of continually talking about independence, then their presence in Government would not be objectionable.
They would be minor losses compared to what Scotland would lose, though, especially as the military assets won’t be surrendered immediately.
Not quite. The ball belongs to the Union, and the Scots should be expected to play by the same rules as everyone else.
The general feeling is that they have not been offered sufficient freedom. As all the unionist parties worked as a coalition and colluded to keep devomax or home rule off the ballot paper, they have lost the confidence of many Scottish people. Given no half way house try are flooding to the SNP as the best means of achieving further freedom.
The current SNP strategy is to ride this wave and hope that it leads to unstoppable demands for a further referendum.
A really clever unionist response would be to offer considerable further devolution to Scotland giving all those soft unionists who can no longer vote for strong unionist parties a good reason for withdrawing their support for an independence determined party.
A stupid unionist response would be to ignore the surge of support for freedom and force soft unionists to become solid nationalists.
It is just possible that a LibDem, SNP, Labour government in Westminster might be able to allow the Scots sufficient freedom to avoid a further independence referendum for a generation or two.
A Conservative based government is only likely to compound the problem and lead to separation. This especially if they threaten Scottish involvement in the EU.
An example of the sea change in Scottish Politics
My home constituency is the only Tory one in Scotland
In 2010 the result was
Con 38
Lab 29
LibDem 20
SNP 10
Lord Ashcroft’s poll last week
SNP 34
Con 34
Lab 18
LibDem 7
The Labour vote in the north of the constituency on the Glasgow edges has collapsed and the centrists in the south that were split between One Nation Tories and LibDems have deserted and all have gone to the SNP.
Even I am surprised.
Independence for Scotland would mean leaving the EU, so SNP voters clearly aren’t that bothered about it.
The more interesting question is, why is there no party in Scotland campaigning for devolution?
Leaving the EU but with transitional status equivalent to Norway or Iceland or Switzerland all of which were grandmothered in via EFTA. We may not have full membership but would be no more disadvantaged than any other comparable associate. And as noted before, those of us electing to retain our British citizenship would retain their European citizenship.
I am not sure how the EU would cope with a country populated by European citizens being cut off from the EU.