UK - Election 2015

[malicus]

When I moved to the UK from NZ the Labour party was briefly in favour of nuclear disarmament. It might be a hundred years too early for them to be going back to that but maybe one day . . .

75% of prospective parliamentary candidates for the Labour party oppose renewal of Trident.

May be closer than you think. However, as you might expect, now that it's here it is a whole different ball game getting rid of it.

 

[ddt]

Trident is still apparently a red line for the SNP which would mean they couldn't make a coalition with either Labour or Conservatives as any defence budget will include provision for trident.

But a defence budget which includes Trident would be supported by the Tories anyway, and enough of Labour to achieve a majority. Politics is about what's doable, and you can agree to disagree on some points.

But there's another way to look at it. In 2016, a decision has to be made about new submarines for Trident. What does it cost extra to build infrastructure for those submarines in Portsmouth or Devonport, instead of upgrading the infrastructure up the Clyde? That way, they'd at least be gone out of Scotland. The SNP has gotten a nuclear-free Scotland, and the other parties still their nuclear phalli. Win-win.

Absolutely. And for this I cannot see how a formal coalition including the SNP would form. Labour are certainly not going to cede 'defence of the realm' in any negotiation. It would be political suicide to give that away in any deal.

You did get the memo that Britannia doesn't rule the waves anymore, nor does it control 25% of the globe's land area anymore?

 

[ddt]

Tories give up half the country to greedy Commie Union-Jack-hating Jocks? They'd be lucky to save their deposits.

Their deposits at the RBS would be quite safe in such a scenario.

Yes, I know which deposits you mean. But if they do it quickly after the elections, the voters have all forgotten about it by the time of the next elections.

 

[Darat]

I'm going to assume it is either Lib-Lab-SNP or Con-Dem will scrape another win.

I think SNP would form a coalition with Labour and Lib Dems if asked, but would have a good bargaining position. Another referendum? A greater commitment to DEVO MAX? They presumably could demand something big.

Here's another possibility that may be a bit conspiratorial:

SNP would go into coalition with Conservatives who will agree to Scottish independence as a reward. Tories will get an outright majority in the RUK elections.

The SNP had said the independence referendum was a one in a generation chance so they'll not be going back on that.....

 

[Peter May]

But a defence budget which includes Trident would be supported by the Tories anyway, and enough of Labour to achieve a majority. Politics is about what's doable, and you can agree to disagree on some points.

But there's another way to look at it. In 2016, a decision has to be made about new submarines for Trident. What does it cost extra to build infrastructure for those submarines in Portsmouth or Devonport, instead of upgrading the infrastructure up the Clyde? That way, they'd at least be gone out of Scotland. The SNP has gotten a nuclear-free Scotland, and the other parties still their nuclear phalli. Win-win.


You did get the memo that Britannia doesn't rule the waves anymore, nor does it control 25% of the globe's land area anymore?

The UK is one of three nations which insures the protection of several small European states including your own, who do not have the wherewithal to provide their own defence.

 

[Francesca R]

^Indeed.

The idea that after some decades of peace, defence can be massively scaled back and the money spent elsewhere--tempting as it is--sounds awfully like the one about still running fiscal deficits at the end of the longest peacetime economic expansion because boom and bust has been "abolished".

 

[Craig B]

The SNP had said the independence referendum was a one in a generation chance so they'll not be going back on that.....

What do you mean? That they said they'd give up supporting the idea for a generation, and do nothing for a generation to obtain independence? I think they meant they didn't think they would get another chance for a generation. But in view of the seeming disintegration of the political establishment, they may well get another chance sooner than they thought. In that case they'll take it.

And rightly so. If there is a revulsion against the union, or if the terms of the "Vow" are not fulfilled, there may be renewed calls for independence. The unionists can then defend their own Union, not expect the independence proponents to do it for them.

 

[Darat]

Yawn

 

[Craig B]

Yawn

Quite so. Have a nice rest.

 

[Francesca R]

there may be renewed calls for independence.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this. Is my prediction.

 

[Craig B]

The SNP had said the independence referendum was a one in a generation chance so they'll not be going back on that.....

The SNP leader's view is given by BBC news. It's more or less as I stated.

@ Francesca R. It depends entirely on the Unionist parties. They have promised us many things. Vowed them, even. Now let them deliver.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The UK is one of three nations which insures the protection of several small European states including your own, who do not have the wherewithal to provide their own defence.

Who wants to invade the Netherlands, now?

 

[The Don]

A couple of interesting cases of politicing over the last 24 hours.

Labour's move to get rid of non-dom tax status was an interesting one. The economic merits no doubt can be argued until the cows come home but Labour seem to be trying to paint the Conservatives into a corner where they appear to be pro-1%. Personally I think many people do abuse the non-dom arrangements but reform may be the answer. Then again maybe British society would be better off without 140,000 super-rich people skewing property values and so on.

Trident, and the SNP's opposition to it has also been a factor. Although Labour has a pro-renewal of Trident policy there are a significant number of Labour supporters who are anti-nuclear weapon. Personally I find it difficult to understand the military effectiveness of spending on Trident over spending on conventional weapons but I understand how this gives the UK a seat at the "big table" geo-politically

 

[MikeG]

.......If there is a revulsion against the union......

Anyone would think the national election were all about Scotland.

As for the quote.....obviously a percentage of the Scottish population hold such revulsion. It's likely a percentage of the English population feel the same about Scotland/ the Scottish. However, a convincing majority of your countrymen have just rejected the notion of independence. It was a landslide. This is a fact which you appear to have trouble remembering.

 

[Craig B]

Anyone would think the national election were all about Scotland.

As for the quote.....obviously a percentage of the Scottish population hold such revulsion. It's likely a percentage of the English population feel the same about Scotland/ the Scottish. However, a convincing majority of your countrymen have just rejected the notion of independence. It was a landslide. This is a fact which you appear to have trouble remembering.

It was no "landslide". Why we are discussing it is this: current opinion polls give the separatist party a strong lead in the voting intentions in the coming election, and suggest that the pro-Union parties will be reduced to a small minority. The separatist party has quadrupled its membership. It has brought itself to the attention of the UK electorate in general.

If there is a huge and permanent landslide majority for Unionism in Scotland you don't have to worry, because nobody is suggesting, or is capable of, imposing independence on Scotland against the will of its people.

 

[Darat]

The SNP leader's view is given by BBC news. It's more or less as I stated.

@ Francesca R. It depends entirely on the Unionist parties. They have promised us many things. Vowed them, even. Now let them deliver.

That can't be right, the BBC are completly biased when it comes to reporting about Scotland, or so I've been told many times. Plus we all know that the once in a generation was simply part of the yes campaign's scare tatics, anyone with an ounce of sense knew they wouldn't accept a no vote, Scotland must keep voting.... until it gets the answer right, then the referendums can stop.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Apparently, the government spends about £1000 a head more in Scotland than it does in the rest of the UK despite taxation per head being about the same. That's... um... an interesting level of subsidy.

 

[Craig B]

Apparently, the government spends about £1000 a head more in Scotland than it does in the rest of the UK despite taxation per head being about the same. That's... um... an interesting level of subsidy.

As stated in the right wing press: the inhabitants of Jockistan live off the hard working English taxpayers, fools that they are. Heh heh!

ETA But see also here, published during the referendum campaign. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...lly-sucking-up-a-massive-subsidy-9723797.html

 

[Darat]

Apparently, the government spends about £1000 a head more in Scotland than it does in the rest of the UK despite taxation per head being about the same. That's... um... an interesting level of subsidy.

Wouldn't you expect that if the intent is to provide a fairly consistent level of government spend over the population nationwide given the geography of Scotland? I think using such statistics really don't make much sense, fairness shouldn't simply be a matter of the same amount of money.

 

[Craig B]

Wouldn't you expect that if the intent is to provide a fairly consistent level of government spend over the population nationwide given the geography of Scotland? I think using such statistics really don't make much sense, fairness shouldn't simply be a matter of the same amount of money.

The right wing press problem is that the hard working English taxpayers are forking out for Jockistan's prodigal overgenerosity in the matter of tuition fees and prescription charges.

ETA Like this.

“[Scotland] have the luxury of taking this view at the expense of the English taxpayer, who sends £24 billion a year up to Scotland in subsidies, and funds a parliament whose principal role appears more and more to be to exploit the larger neighbour to the south. This is untenable.” Simon Heffer, Daily Telegraph, 10 May 2011.

The Telegraph’s Associate Editor used his column in the paper to yesterday criticise the public spending ‘subsidy’ paid to Scotland by English taxpayers, which he argued allowed them to make unfair spending commitments, such as offering free university places to Scottish students and free prescriptions.

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/Sim...ett_formula_Scottish_spending_settlement-2693