This just makes me hope even more for a Tory government. Then there’ll be no need to “buy off” a tiny minority of malcontents, who want to get everything they want and have someone else pay for it. Of course, as soon as English dissatisfaction does increase, there’ll be a majority government of some stripe that will act for the Union, not against it’s interests for the sake of a shrill minority.
There’s what, something like 2% of the population of the UK that are actually Scottish nationalists? That might be enough to swing a contested election, but nowhere near enough to hold power.
If the opinion polls are to be believed, SNP voters are about 4% of the population- they took almost half the votes in 2010and could well do the same in 2016. Last night Newsnight revealed their rolling seat prediction using modern mathematical modelling rather than two party swing. Its main prediction was that both main parties would be fifty seats short of a majority with the SNP and LibDems having about thirty seats each. It said that considering all likely events there was less than a one on ten chance of a result other than a hung parliament. We shall see.
If a stable coalition or Confidence and Supply agreement is reachedt, it would be five years before there would be a further election (If either party forms a stable government I expect them to embrace the fixed term parliament)
Five years influencing a Labour rainbow coalition would result in persistent devolution in order to keep the SNP happy. At the end of five years I would expect the ratchet effect to have moved Scotland so far that any retrenchment would be politically impossible.
There isn’t going to be a stable coalition. Further, if Labour accept an SNP confidence and supply measure from the SNP then Labour are finished in England. SNP’s anti-English rhetoric will be dug up and spread across every newspaper headline in England. Miliband brought into power by the people that brought us the term “southern English cancer” and were threatening to walk away from debt that paid for hospitals and roads in Scotland and stick the English working man with the bill? Nope. Political poison in England.
Secondly, on current polling Cameron has as much chance of cobbling together a rainbow coalition as Miliband does, and by convention Cameron is still PM until it is clear he cannot command a majority.
Agreed that it would cause rancour in England, but probably no worse than it is already under the Barnett formula and Oil!
And Labour would likely be in power for five years until May 2020 if they play their cards right.
On current polling (both Newsnght’s super projection service and poll of polls), Labour and Conservatives are neck and neck in terms of seats with far more possible parties available to Labour (SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, LibDems, Ulster Unionists) Than Conservatives (Ulster Unionists, LibDem, UKIP).
Cameron would be PM until he lost confidence or supply, but would not be able to call a further election and would have to hand over the reigns on his first such failure.
It is also possible that the Conservatives might offer a federalist solution to the Nationalist parties whereby there was an all union assembly and equal National assemblies as a goal. Stranger things have happened when politicians have been faced with losing or gaining power.
Plaid, Green and UKIP are set to win 6 seats at the most between them. DUP are traditionally Conservative leaning. Their entire platform is euroskeptic and social conservative. Not sure where you are getting them as a possible Labour coalition member from. The Liberal Democrats are also lead by a group of Orange Bookers.
Further, Labour’s lead is declining by the week. The Tories may well enter the election with a lead in the polls, especially given the habit of people swinging back to the status quo in the run up to elections. Look at this graph.
Yeah, in terms of the UK Parliament, the determiner here is not the SNP, it’s UKIP vs the Lib Dems in my view. The more parties in a coalition the more unstable it is. If, by some miracle, Labour were to clinch a majority by making a rainbow coalition, I simply can’t see it lasting long. It would collapse with but a nudge.
The DUP was in open talks with Labour early december discussing what their policy would be if they gained DUP support. LibDems will ally with either party if they can influence them- a period of Labour support would detoxify their last five years in coalition.
Cite for Labour’s lead declining week by week - what base date are you using?
So, essentially even steven since October. It is recognised that due to failure to review boundaries, the Conservatives need an additional 2-3% on a uniform swing to win the same seats as Labour.
Last night’s Newsnight summary gave SNP 30ish, LibDems 30ish and UKIP 3.
Given the refusal of the SNP to support the conservatives, my money is on the Conservatives having a mountain to climb if there is an evenly hung parliament.
But under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act it would take a vote of 2/3 of the Commons to cause a further election unless there was a substantive vote of no confidence. So long as Labour has more than 1/3 of the seats or retains minimal confidence, it could remain in government as a minority party for the whole term, agreeing supply on a bill by bill basis.
This means that in order to dissolve parliament early, the Conservatives would have to have a full majority in the house of commons for a no confidence motion and would have to convince the SNP and LibDems to vote with them. Previously a simple majority would have been adequate.
Unless Labour are even stupider than I think, and wish to follow the Lib Dems into oblivion, there’s more chance of a Grand Coalition than a coalition with the SNP. Hopefully the Tories feel the same way about UKIP.
As Capt Ridley hints at, most English people aren’t really aware of how much English money goes to Scotland, and how disproportionate Scotland’s representation is. If that changes - and it will if any party is foolish enough to go into coalition with Scottish nationalists - the next government would be formed by whoever would redress that, as it would become unacceptable to the electorate to continue it. That wouldn’t have to wait until five years either, all it would take is a few rebel Labour MPs from marginal seats to lose confidence in the coalition.
And, despite your claims to the contrary, no devolution is permanent, and it all could be reversed with one Act of Parliament. And a low single figure minority group couldn’t prevent that were it to become politically necessary.
I mean, hopefully I’m wrong and any SNP MPs would support a moderate agenda and not force minority interests on Parliament. But, based on their rhetoric, I doubt it.
You know I read four broadsheets and two tabloids a day, watch the BBC and Sky News, Watch Scotland 2015 and Newsnight every night and the one thing that has passed everybody’s notice is the likelihood or possibility of a Grand Coalition! It seems to be a personal fantasy of yours- and self serving at that. Perhaps you can offer some analysis and evidence that this is seen as a possible solution to a hung parliament.
I can find a piece by the City Editor in the Telegraph yesterday. Maybe that single piece is the basis for your delusion. I am aware of no major analyst on any platform who gives this idea creedence.
In your opinion if Scotland takes away so much English money then why were they so desperate to keep us?
I also note how you say ‘English money’ - so much for the union where all four countries put into the Union and it gets distributed accordingly within the Union.
You always seem really angry that a significant portion of Scots want to be independent yet at the same time you seem really angry that we are in the Union.
What would need to happen for you to be content?
If it’s changing funding then who would be next for you to vent anger towards?
Are you just as angry that NI get a good deal from the Union or is your ire reserved for the Scots? Is that anger directed at the 45% or everyone?
Actually the figures are moot as the split of oil revenues is uneven. Most figures show that the net flow between the two countries is small compared with the total budget.
Please see my note above about the effect of the Fixed Term Parliament Act which requires a two thirds vote or a confirmed vote of no confidence to call an election. If a Government started with a majority of 20 or so. it would be unlikely to lose sufficient support and fail to last a five year parliament- that was the intention of the Act and it remains in force.
The people who get the greatest net benefit from the Union are Londoners who receive considerably more tax revenue than they contribute. Perhaps the ire should be directed there?
Acceptance that Scotland is far better off in the Union, an end to the idea that nationalists belong in Parliament, and end to the idea of “Scottish Oil” at least while Scotland remains in the Union… That would do for starters. Voting Conservative would help as well, instead of voting for parties that make things worse, but I suspect that’s a non-starter.
I don’t object to the idea of taxes on rich Londoners going to any poorer parts of the UK, I have a problem with a devolved Scottish government using English money to give their portion of the NHS more funding than the English parts get, then criticising the Westminster government that allows them to do it. If Scotland wants to spend more on services, it should use its tax-raising powers to do so. Which it hasn’t - as I’ve repeatedly mentioned when talking about how the Scottish Parliament refuses to use its devolved powers, and you’ve pretended doesn’t happen.
No, I don’t want Scotland to leave the Union, as it would be bad for each side. But I don’t think paying it to remain is acceptable, either.
