General election 2010 - who will (or would) you vote for?

[RedCelt69]

My view on independence is one of uncertainty. Basically, my ultimate hope is that whatever is best for Scotland is what is decided (whenever it reaches the stage of a referendum). There's far too much of a Braveheart-mentality, for my liking. If "freedom" leads to the ruination of the country, is it a freedom worth seeking? Some might argue that it is better to die as a free man than a slave to England, but the health of the country shouldn't be dismissed so easily. There are certainly valid woes wrt Westminster's treatment of Scotland (prior to devolution) over a long period, but such things can be resolved within a UK.

I've argued with Scots friends in the past concerning the pros and cons of independence - with, in my view, the cons being too severe to make it an event I'd be happy to see come about. The footnote to those discussions was that they might well get their way if Westminster is governed by a Conservative govt again (from cons to Cons... OK, weak pun).

The current appeals for independence grew much stronger under the last lot of Conservatives (for reasons alluded to by SaorAlba89) and, despite his deals with them in Holyrood, I would imagine that Salmond would be delighted to see Cameron in power down south. A call for a referendum would be moved along the SNP's timeline by quite a healthy margin.

[RedCelt69]

Why does there need to be a UKIP policy on National Insurance, one wonders, mad or not?

I had assumed that, once they took the EU money out of the UK's cashflow - they went on a bit of a mad spending spree with all of that "unwasted" cash. N.I.? Ah, we don't need that...

[DACrowe]

The current appeals for independence grew much stronger under the last lot of Conservatives (for reasons alluded to by SaorAlba89) and, despite his deals with them in Holyrood, I would imagine that Salmond would be delighted to see Cameron in power down south. A call for a referendum would be moved along the SNP's timeline by quite a healthy margin.

I had you pegged as a nat at first, to be honest. In part because my first experience of you was your going on and on about how an University Challenge question on cricket was biased against Scottish Universities. This seemed classic 'nice folks I've met out canvassing who offered me tea and were very concerned about England stealing all our oil' territory.

I'm kind of unsympathetic to arguments of the sort 'you should have a referendum at such-and-such a time because the support will be inflated because of such-and-such'. It is what it is. One of the nationalist's main motives for independence is to escape 'English' politics which in reality means the Conservative party. My own dislike of conservatives though is primarily about social conservatives (fiscal conservatives I can understand and I think serve a useful purpose in any balanced parliament) so I'm not too happy to see the SNP cosying up to Catholic 'moral issues' candidates and voters. The thought is, if Independence means rule by Scotland's answer to Finna Fail count me out. I know a lot of soft-unionists are equally concerned about the idea of abandonning England to the Conservatives; it seems a mean thing to do with rather nice people (then again, a friend of mine (Labour) from Newcastle asked if there was an independent Scotland whether they could come too. It leads to pleasant fantasies of picking the 'good' bits of England. I'd like to push down at least as far as Manchester, but I can't see how to do that without taking Yorkshire too. And people from Yorkshire vote for William Hague and the BNP (presumably not the same people); New Scotland could be doing without them.

I'm off the track of what I was saying: it's never an acceptable reason not to hold a referendum at point (t) because if you did so you'd forseeably get the result you didn't want. Even if you can point to historical circumstances which make this the case, it seems to me (maybe I'm being uncharacteristically postmodern about this) impossible to fairly distinguish between the 'good' (unbiasing) historical factors and the 'bad' ones (there's an analogue here with discussions of 'positive liberty', if you see what I mean. What historical factors make one's rational choice less rational such that one can legitimately be saved from making it. We'd probably want to say the people voting for the Anchluss were mistaken though, right?) so you have to bar that sort of restriction. I'm not at all happy with the official party line (which Iain Smith gave at the Monday hustings) that we don't support a referendum because we don't support independence. I think the arguments I gave above, though weak, are more plausible.

[RedCelt69]

I had you pegged as a nat at first, to be honest. In part because my first experience of you was your going on and on about how an University Challenge question on cricket was biased against Scottish Universities. This seemed classic 'nice folks I've met out canvassing who offered me tea and were very concerned about England stealing all our oil' territory.

No, that was just a rant about a continuation of the BBC behaving too much like the EBC. Which, I was heartened (and saddened in equal measure) to hear Salmond repeat fairly recently. I can't help liking Salmond in some ways. He has a good sense of humour. His policies, however, are another matter entirely. If you kept him off of the subject of politics, he's one of the few politicians that you wouldn't mind being trapped in a lift with.

Unabated amusement about moving the Scottish border as far south as Manchester whilst skipping Yorkshire.

The rights and wrongs of holding a referendum at a time when the result is best likely to get the result you want... welcome to politics, DACrowe.

[jollytiddlywink]

My main image of UKIP was formed at a debate I saw in School 5 in late 2007/early 2008. The UKIP speaker insisted that the EU was going to start the First World War all over again. Everyone present laughed uproariously, and he looked genuinely surprised that we didn't all agree with him.

I have them permanently pigeon-holed as being "Divorced from reality."

[Jormungand]

My main image of UKIP was formed at a debate I saw in School 5 in late 2007/early 2008. The UKIP speaker insisted that the EU was going to start the First World War all over again. Everyone present laughed uproariously, and he looked genuinely surprised that we didn't all agree with him.

I have them permanently pigeon-holed as being "Divorced from reality."

That really is bizarre considering that one of the major advantages of the EU, and one I think people forget because it is so taken for granted, is that it has made war between Western European states unthinkable when historically such conflict has been incessant.

[wild_quinine]

That really is bizarre considering that one of the major advantages of the EU, and one I think people forget because it is so taken for granted, is that it has made war between Western European states unthinkable when historically such conflict has been incessant.

For some reason I am reminded of this bit of Blackadder Goes Forth.

[jollytiddlywink]

That really is bizarre considering that one of the major advantages of the EU, and one I think people forget because it is so taken for granted, is that it has made war between Western European states unthinkable when historically such conflict has been incessant.

For some reason I am reminded of this bit of Blackadder Goes Forth.

Yes, but I think that the EU is not the reason why no Western European states have gone to war or threatened to do so since 1945, but rather a symptom of the reasons: other big powers now hold sway on the world stage and European states are no longer setting the world agenda by themselves, and after the last two times they went to war, the experience was sufficiently horrid that there is still a very strong aversion to armed conflict, at least within Europe.

[David Bean]

I didn't even get around to checking back on this thread after originally posting it, because I was too busy out campaigning. Just for the sake of historical interest, at what point did Red Celt and co. realise that 'Labour Party' was right there in the poll between 'Independent' and 'Liberal'? I know the alphabet is a tricky thing to grasp, but really all you needed to do was to look down the list until you found it.

Oh, and when I said 'please keep it positive,' what I was trying to DIScourage was personal insults of the sort without which Mr Celt seems unable to form a post. For future reference, do consider playing the ball, not the man, there's a good chap.

[DACrowe]

...at what point did Red Celt and co. realise that 'Labour Party' was right there in the poll between 'Independent' and 'Liberal'? I know the alphabet is a tricky thing to grasp...[]
...do consider playing the ball, not the man, there's a good chap.

An imputation that a particular (named!) poster is illiterate followed by an entreaty to the same not to make personal insults: with consistency like that I think you might make a credible leader of the Labour party after all, David.

[David Bean]

Nothing of the sort! The implication that certain posters had difficulty reading English was made by their own conduct, in twice accusing me of having left Labour off a list of voting options, when it was there as plain as day. I'd submit there's a big difference between making that observation and the entirely random insults I had thrown at me from that quarter towards the start of the thread, in response to nothing at all. So no, thanks, I'm sticking with the blue team.

[RedCelt69]

Nothing of the sort! The implication that certain posters had difficulty reading English was made by their own conduct, in twice accusing me of having left Labour off a list of voting options, when it was there as plain as day.

Ahem...

Sorry David, I have raised the poll options limit, and added Labour since it was the most obvious omission. Feel free to add any others that you had cut.

It was there "plain as day" because Fawksie added it after you (thoughtfully) decided not to. If you're going to knock someone for knocking you, at least have the nous to realise that you were being knocked for good reason.

Knockers.

[Senethro]

lol

[Jormungand]

Nothing of the sort! The implication that certain posters had difficulty reading English was made by their own conduct, in twice accusing me of having left Labour off a list of voting options, when it was there as plain as day. I'd submit there's a big difference between making that observation and the entirely random insults I had thrown at me from that quarter towards the start of the thread, in response to nothing at all. So no, thanks, I'm sticking with the blue team.

I could respond in a similarly eloquent way, but I think the word 'fail' suffices.

[macgamer]

I could respond in a similarly eloquent way, but I think the word 'fail' suffices quite well.

I think you are misunderstanding David Bean. He, I believe, is referring to the presence of the option 'Socialist party (any)', which encompasses Labour.

[RedCelt69]

I could respond in a similarly eloquent way, but I think the word 'fail' suffices.

Sometimes two words are better than one: Epic fail.

I could respond in a similarly eloquent way, but I think the word 'fail' suffices quite well.

I think you are misunderstanding David Bean. He, I believe, is referring to the presence of the option 'Socialist party (any)', which encompasses Labour.

I think you are misunderstanding the Labour party.

[Jormungand]

I could respond in a similarly eloquent way, but I think the word 'fail' suffices quite well.

I think you are misunderstanding David Bean. He, I believe, is referring to the presence of the option 'Socialist party (any)', which encompasses Labour.

Oh come on, that's absurd.

The Labour party, at the time this poll was posted, was the governing party of the UK and even now is the second largest party in the United Kingdom both in seats and votes.

But you think somehow this group does not warrant a category of its own, but is instead to be thrown in with votes for the Trade Union & Socialist, Socialist Labour, Socialist Alternative, Scottish Socialist, People Before Profit, Alliance for Green Socialism, etc parties?

Pull the other one!

[RedCelt69]

Pull the other one!

I believe that (previous conversations dictating) macgamer doesn't pull any one. Onan = bad, m'kay?

[jollytiddlywink]

I believe that (previous conversations dictating) macgamer doesn't pull any one. Onan = bad, m'kay?

And I believe that macgamer doesn't pull anyone.

[macgamer]

The Labour party, at the time this poll was posted, was the governing party of the UK and even now is the second largest party in the United Kingdom both in seats and votes.

But you think somehow this group does not warrant a category of its own, but is instead to be thrown in with votes for the Trade Union & Socialist, Socialist Labour, Socialist Alternative, Scottish Socialist, People Before Profit, Alliance for Green Socialism, etc parties?

I was merely hazarding a suggestion as to how David Bean's poll malfunction came about, since his explanation was not accepted. An alternative hypothesis would be that David is so allergic to Labour that his subconscious intervened and although he thought that he had added Labour and thought that he could see it in the poll as an option, it was in reality absent.

Pull the other one!

People are more tetchy than usual on the Sinner lately, would this be a Labour / Socialist sense of humour 'fail'?

I believe that (previous conversations dictating) macgamer doesn't pull any one. Onan = bad, m'kay?

Admittedly that was quite funny.

And I believe that macgamer doesn't pull anyone.

Wearing a bit thin here.