Well the debate here seem s paralyzed so I will just restate my opinion once more before bowing ou.
Even if a bare majority polls as Yes at the moment, the vast majority don’t want another referendum within the next 5 years.
SNP majority in general opinion polls says almost nothing about how well they do in a riding by riding first past thepost general election. Projecting a near sweep is ppremature to say the least.
Nope. Just an ability to read your posts for comprehension.
Here’s a thought. If you consider that my interpretations of your posts are straw men, perhaps you should stop posting in that way. For example, you could clearly acknowledge that the Scottish people decisively rejected independence when asked, and admit that Salmond and the SNP lied about saying independence would be financially better for Scotland.
If you can’t say those things, then my arguments are not straw men.
The only change is the leader of one political party. That’s not enough to justify ignoring the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people to remain part of the Union.
I accept that the result of the referendum was a rejection on that date of Independence; that does not preclude a collective change of mind in the next decade that may need to be addressed.
Salmond exaggerated the positive side of the economic situation for Scotland in the same manner that Better Together exaggerated the negative side. That’s politics.
Back to your straw men then…
Not just the election of Sturgeon. But opinion polls on independence, further devolution and referenda; quadrupling of SNP membership; apparent annihilation of the Labour vote in the central belt.
Hardly. You still won’t say that the Scottish people want to remain part of the Union, or that Salmond and the SNP lied about Scotland’s financial prospects as an independent country. Both of which are facts, not opinions, and facts that you refuse to acknowledge. Until your arguments include those facts, they are worthless.
Oh and as for this, no. They are members of national, not regional, parties, and have some legitimate interest in English matters.
That the SNP would break its pledge to not vote on English matters purely to prevent a democratically elected Tory government in England from functioning is disgustingly hypocritical. It’s no wonder that English Votes for English Laws needs to be tied to Scottish devolution, as the SNP are forcing that to happen.
If the SNP want a presence in England, they should stand for election here.
The polls are irrelevant, as is party membership, and as far as I can tell, most MPs in that belt are Labour. Despite what you seem to think, polls don’t supplant the actual, democratically expressed, wish of the people. Which, in case you’ve forgotten, is to remain in the Union.
But polls are moderately predictive of election results. Currently they show a massive (nearly 20% swing from Labour to SNP- a result never seen before. Although some commentators predict a wipe out for Labour in its current central belt seats, most other commentators se the seats being divided almost fifty fifty between Labour and the SNP.
Only four months until we know for sure. And the campaign is already underway!
What a load of bs.
The SNP has said quite clearly that it does not want to be involved in making decisions about English matters. But if elected they will want to have a say over the governance of the UK. If this involves voting to support a government led by a victorious Labour Prime Minister in a minority government, that is just democracy until the West Lothian question is solved.
If the political parties had addressed the question of an English parliament earlier, we would not have this problem. I have no problem with a federal stricture (in fact I have supported this for fifty years) but until we have such devolution we still need to make a government for the entire UK.
As a self admitted Tory, would you object to the Ulster unionist parties supporting a Conservative minority government?
Obviously not, as they have made it clear from the start that they will, and they are not standing against the Tories. My objection is to having separatists in parliament, having control over English matters. The Irish nationalist parties don’t sit in parliament.
Hopefully West Lothian can be settled this parliament. You’ve repeatedly said you don’t want it to be, though, I wonder why that is?
I know someone who has a commemorative mug produced by the Labour party celebrating victory in 1992. Sounds like an artefact you should ponder the significance of.
You just cannot help yourself, can you? Another straw man covered by my post a few up page where I state that I am a federalist.
I have no problem with federal parliaments for the UK, but I do object to the pig headed refusal to set up an English Parliament should be used to argue against a government for the UK being formed involving minority parties.
If we had one federal parliament for international concerns and financial distribution and local parliaments for devolved issues there would be no problem.
As should you consider your ideas in light of the overall general accuracy of opinion polls over the last fifty years- more often right than wrong on the great majority of cases. Even in 1992 the final polls indicated that Major would be returned.
If the exit polls suggest an SNP landslide, I’ll believe it. Until then, it’s kvetching. Pretty much everyone expected a Labour victory in 1992 until days before the election.
And you have repeatedly opposed a solution to West Lothian, going as far as to say it’s a breach of “The Vow”. The UK isn’t a federation, and there’s no real need for it to become one. The last thing needed is another layer of government on top of the 4 or so we already have (EU, UK, County and Local governments). The only possible way it could work would be to have regional parliaments instead of county councils, but that would hardly increase democracy.
You are swerving from straw man to outright misrepresentation. I have NEVER said that federalism or any other solution to the West Lothian question breached the Vow.
In a very British pragmatic, convention manner, the UK is becoming a federation. Wales, Northern Ireland and especially Scotland have their own national policies on most of the important functions of government. Scotland’s position is about to be made irrevocable by convention. I see no problem with an English parliament or local parliaments with powers similar to Scotland’s, together with an upper chamber as a federal parliament. The only thing missing is the English components.
HA ha ha ha ha! Do you even read your own posts? You repeatedly quoted with approval the SNP’s claims that attempting to enforce English Votes for English Laws in this parliament is a breach of “The Vow”. Obviously you never said federalism was, as no-one but you is even considering it. The English don’t really want another Parliament, as we have a perfectly serviceable one at the moment. It’s not really our problem if a few minority groups don’t want to recognise it’s authority and instead negotiate their own - unless those same groups start to hypocritically try to control English affairs.
That the SNP, that has for so long campaigned for fair representation for Scots (not that they ever lacked it) would then want to deny that to the English is disgusting hypocrisy.
Speaking of misrepresentation, no it isn’t. The devolved powers will continue to remain in the gift of the national government, as chosen by the people, exercising the power of the Monarch. Convention isn’t established by decree, but by time and precedent.
Which isn’t to say that Scottish powers are likely to be removed, the only way I could see it being politically acceptable would be if Scotland used those powers to the detriment of the UK as a whole.
You really don’t understand the British political system at all, do you?
Facts, again really not your strong point.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1987-1992
Of the four polls the day before the election two showed a Labour lead (3 and 1 points), one showed a Tory lead (half a point) and one showed them equal.
In the week before the election two of the sixteen polls showed a Tory lead.