Coalition Crisis As Libdems Reject Bid From Snp (from The Herald Election Site)

Prospects of a deal between the Scottish National Party leader and the LibDems stalled last night, after the smaller party flatly refused to give ground in its opposition to an independence referendum.

Alex Salmond today meets Green Party MSPs in formal talks about entering government together, as he moves quickly to put together a ruling partnership.

Talks with LibDems had been helped by the smaller party ruling out a deal with Labour, even if talks with the SNP fail. However, LibDem leader Nicol Stephen said last night he expected the SNP to form a minority administration, after the two party chiefs refused to shift their ground on the referendum question.

As Labour was shunned in Holyrood, the aftermath of last week's poor showing for the party throughout Britain led to Home Secretary John Reid quitting the cabinet from next month, when he said Tony Blair will step down.

His announcement yesterday that he will not contest the leadership, opting instead to support Gordon Brown as next party leader while "recharging his batteries", leaves the Chancellor without any cabinet challenger to him becoming the next Prime Minister.

The immediate aftermath of Thursday's vote left Mr Brown facing the growing likelihood that Alex Salmond would negotiate a three-party coalition with the bare minimum majority of 65 MSPs. The SNP leader had the largest group with 47 MSPs, with Labour on 46, Tories 17, LibDems 16, Greens two and Margo MacDonald as the sole Independent. She yesterday said she might stand as Presiding Officer, though the vote on George Reid's successor in that post is likely to be postponed this Wednesday, while coalition talks go on.

The moves towards a new partnership government gathered pace over the weekend, as party groups took stock, and the SNP tabled a compromise plan for a constitutional convention to help LibDems draw up detailed proposals for further devolved powers.

Labour leader Jack McConnell said he would leave space for the SNP leader to make the first moves but a spokesman said there is "still a complex game of chess over the next 28 days".

In London, John Reid's announcement that he will leave the cabinet this summer was unexpected. He said it would help Gordon Brown create a "fresh start" for Labour in government. The Home Secretary denied he was jumping before being pushed and made it clear that he would support the Chancellor, whom he praised as Labour's "pre-eminent politician".

While he described himself as Mr Brown's "friend", it is widely known the two men have not seen eye to eye. And while Mr Reid said he wanted to give the Chancellor the "maximum flexibility" to choose his new team, he failed to give precise details about why he felt he could not serve under his fellow Scot.

Tony Blair, who is expected to announce his departure timetable on Thursday, praised his Cabinet colleague as an "immense figure" in government. "Your political courage, your ability to analyse and get to the heart of an issue and your understanding of people, their concerns and their hopes, has been outstanding," he said in a letter to Mr Reid.

The revelation came as Labour continued to analyse last week's electoral hammering. A number of Labour MPs called for "radical change" from Mr Brown in a new government agenda with less spin, greater honesty and emphasis on social problems.

I think it's very disappointing that the Liberals have ruled out coalition. The next few weeks will be rather interesting...

there is no rule that says the largest party can command anyone else to govern with it. Labour were the largest party in Falirk for the last four years but the smaller SNP group ran the council with Independents. We ned to get used to the fact - as they do in the rest of Europe - that PR is about all sorts of deals. Salmond's arrogance doesn't help.

This is just negotiation, The political prostitutes were obviously not offered enough to drop their knickers. They were wise enough to stay clear of Labour.

It might be interesting if the SNP form a minority administration and get voted down at every turn, particularly the LIT. Under what conditions can a new election be called???

Aye yer right dawn and neither does anyones arrogance in defeat.

Re-run the election with clearer papers. Lets get it on !!!!

It is more arrogance of the LD's to expect the SNP to drop it's whole reason for being. It was elected on the platform of independence, so how can any coalition partner demand they drop that - rather stupid. Did they demand that Labour drop socialism when it went into coalition with them??

Has youtube got Pauline McNeill's speech for her Kelvin victory? I think her constituents should be reminded of what they have voted for as often as possible.

Will the LibDems agree to an independent judicial enquiry into Douglas Alexander's election processes? I want to know this! Will they vote for McConnel along with the Tories to be FM?

I'm starting to get very worried that Labour will create an unholy mess of our parliament. They clearly will stop at nothing. What a fantastic case in point when arguing for independence: Interference from London, anti-democratic democrats, refusing to call and congratulate the winner, a badly (fraudulently?) organised election, a compliant press. This is all hard-core Union sleaze.

John Reid is going to help Gordon Brown create a "fresh start" for Labour.After last thursday's results they are almost johnny foreigners now ,I'm sorry but coronations are so 20th century.Go back to your own country Gordon,congratulations SNP,we will get rid of these betrayers one way or another.

Alex Salmond is not arrogant. You confuse a cheery positive countenance. Arrogance is belonging to the third nay fourth largest party and dictating terms. The Lib/Dems are not asked to embrace Independence only the future prospect of a democratic referendum. I think the Trade Descriptions Act should br invoked against the Lib/Dems...they are neither.

Your quite right. The SNP should tell them where to go and go it alone.

That could be the answer. Let Alex form a minority government and propose a multi option referendum that has all the parties options available ie.

Labour - No change,
Tory - More power,
Libs - More power,
SNP - Independence

If the other parties block this then they obviously do not have much faith in their voters and fear that the people might want to govern themselves.

Not giving the people their right to vote on this including SNP and the other parties supporters will let everyone see them for what they are - repressive, and this would only benefit the SNP in the future.

Wouldn't a normal press be crucifying Labour for not congratulating Salmond? Would it not be hounding this move of anti-democratic 'democrats'? Would it not be asking searching questions about Douglas Alexander's role in the voting debacle?

Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

Alex Porter wrote:
Wouldn't a normal press be crucifying Labour for not congratulating Salmond? Would it not be hounding this move of anti-democratic 'democrats'? Would it not be asking searching questions about Douglas Alexander's role in the voting debacle? Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

I want to know where Douglas Alexander has disappeared to. Every hour he spends in hiding he looks like more and more of an electoral fraudster.

We know what all you duplicitous scheming mafiosos are up to and we intend to send you all into political oblivion at the next electoral opportunity!!

What we need now is an opinion poll to remind politicians of all varieties how much support there is in Scotland for a referendum on the constitutional future, irrespective of which outcome you prefer. Last I heard it was around 80%. A party which claims to be both Liberal and Democratic has no moral authority whatsoever to oppose such a liberal and democratic referendum. Democracy is about the people having a choice, not about parties saying "we call ourselves liberal but you can only have a vote on policies we prefer"

I think a vigil hut 2 outside the Scottish parliament may be in order.

Ha ha....Yer buggered before you even start.

The next couple of weeks are going to be great. Brng it on.

Had hoped Pauline Macneils website - http://redkelvin.org/ would feature her great victory speech. hehe

Alex Porter wrote:
Wouldn't a normal press be crucifying Labour for not congratulating Salmond? Would it not be hounding this move of anti-democratic 'democrats'? Would it not be asking searching questions about Douglas Alexander's role in the voting debacle? Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

Aye, very good, another ex pat wanting to boycott the scotish press. You can do this in Madrid very easily. Give us a break.

I wish Alex Salmond every success in forming a government. God bless him. He wont get any help from the others.

Johnny Foreigner wrote:
Ha ha....Yer buggered before you even start.

The next couple of weeks are going to be great. Brng it on.

No, we're just sorting out friends from foes. Stir the water. You know the old saying about what floats? And I see you have risen to the surface quickly.

John, are you telling me that these newspapers will not post copies of their newspaper around the world?

Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

I see bliar quick off mark with congrats to his right wing buddy Sarcozy. Think oor eck got a call ????

Brown talked about the SNP causing consitutional chaos from day 1. Labour have caused constitutional chaos before day 1.

Douglas Alexander: Where are you hiding?

[quote][bold]Craig Cockburn[/bold] wrote: What we need now is an opinion poll to remind politicians of all varieties how much support there is in Scotland for a referendum on the constitutional future, irrespective of which outcome you prefer. Last I heard it was around 80%. A party which claims to be both Liberal and Democratic has no moral authority whatsoever to oppose such a liberal and democratic referendum. Democracy is about the people having a choice, not about parties saying "we call ourselves liberal but you can only have a vote on policies we prefer" I think a vigil hut 2 outside the Scottish parliament may be in order.[/quote] Are you on something tonight? The opinion polls were right for the recent elections, were they not? And when did morals come into politics. Who told you about the 80%? Maybe one day we will engage in talking sense, from all sides of the spectrum before I may be accused of favour towards anyone.

Craig Cockburn wrote:
What we need now is an opinion poll to remind politicians of all varieties how much support there is in Scotland for a referendum on the constitutional future, irrespective of which outcome you prefer. Last I heard it was around 80%. A party which claims to be both Liberal and Democratic has no moral authority whatsoever to oppose such a liberal and democratic referendum. Democracy is about the people having a choice, not about parties saying "we call ourselves liberal but you can only have a vote on policies we prefer" I think a vigil hut 2 outside the Scottish parliament may be in order.

Are you on something tonight? The opinion polls were right for the recent elections, were they not? And when did morals come into politics. Who told you about the 80%?

Maybe one day we will engage in talking sense, from all sides of the spectrum before I may be accused of favour towards anyone.

No man is an island.....not even the mighty Mr. Salmond....

Alex nae mates. Funny how the SNP squeezed out the vote of the very parties who could save their skins right now.

How long do we give his minority government ??

[bold]The libdems are a disgrace calling themselves a democratic party. Their leader, Mr Stephens, confirmed their present undemocratic position; setting them up to be the ridiculed through out Scotland and Internationally: "I made it clear to him that unless and until the SNP removes the fundamental barrier of a referendum on independence during the next four years, there can be no coalition." This is the type of statement you would have expected to hear in a banana republic or the old USSR. Why on earth does Mr Stephens think it is his right to grant or not, a voice to the people of Scotland on Independence? He, I assume, is against this proposal and would have an opportunity to put his arguments to us for our consideration. Mr Stephens has to grow up, shake off the obvious, yet clumsy, interference of Westminster and get on with this massive opportunity to deliver most of his parties manifesto in Scotland with a stable coalition government in Edinburgh and at the same time securing the democratic principal in Scottish politics with a referendum. Anything less is scandalous and will be remembered by voters at the next election. If Mr Stephens thinks he can get away with this and have a rerun of the election at the end of May. I will predict that the Libdems will be decimated with Mr Stephens being discarded to the dustbin of Scottish politics � and rightfully so.[/bold]

The libdems are a disgrace calling themselves a democratic party. Their leader, Mr Stephens, confirmed their present undemocratic position; setting them up to be the ridiculed through out Scotland and Internationally:

"I made it clear to him that unless and until the SNP removes the fundamental barrier of a referendum on independence during the next four years, there can be no coalition."

This is the type of statement you would have expected to hear in a banana republic or the old USSR.

Why on earth does Mr Stephens think it is his right to grant or not, a voice to the people of Scotland on Independence? He, I assume, is against this proposal and would have an opportunity to put his arguments to us for our consideration.

Mr Stephens has to grow up, shake off the obvious, yet clumsy, interference of Westminster and get on with this massive opportunity to deliver most of his parties manifesto in Scotland with a stable coalition government in Edinburgh and at the same time securing the democratic principal in Scottish politics with a referendum.

Anything less is scandalous and will be remembered by voters at the next election. If Mr Stephens thinks he can get away with this and have a rerun of the election at the end of May. I will predict that the Libdems will be decimated with Mr Stephens being discarded to the dustbin of Scottish politics � and rightfully so.

Hopefully Salmond will win the nomination for First Minister and Nicola Sturgeon will get Deputy First Minister. I think they'll make a great, positive team for Scotland. And Nicola will be much better than Nicol Stephen. A minority administration may not be as difficult as some think. With the Greens on board (and perhaps given a deputy minister post - environment?), the SNP should get a tax change through. They would have had to compromise on this with the Lib Dems anyway, if they were in a coalition, so I think what we'll see is an informal coalition. Maybe they'll get support from the Tories too for some of their business policies. Salmond could still make a success of it. They won't get the referendum but that let's them get on with governing and makes the point that the Scottish people are still entitled to a referendum which other so-called democrats seem desperate to deny them. Then there's the Labour Party who seem set to turn their back on democracy altogether, so long as they can find a way of ousting the SNP. When are they going to realise that they have lost? Next thing you know Celtic will be demanding a recount of Saturday's game with Rangers.

[quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: John, are you telling me that these newspapers will not post copies of their newspaper around the world? Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/ [/quote] If you are so anti Scottish press, you should try coming back and working here and trying to argue your case. Given your repetitive message I say again ....."another ex pat wanting to boycott the scotish press. You can do this in Madrid very easily". Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn't SNP doesn't mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn't at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that's democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?

Alex Porter wrote:
John, are you telling me that these newspapers will not post copies of their newspaper around the world? Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

If you are so anti Scottish press, you should try coming back and working here and trying to argue your case. Given your repetitive message I say again ....."another ex pat wanting to boycott the scotish press. You can do this in Madrid very easily".

Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn't SNP doesn't mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn't at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that's democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?

Gregor,

Are you sure that Salmond will be voted in as FM? I'm not. I think that Brown and Ming Campbell may have made a deal to keep the SNP out of office.

And please, don't put a Green in the environment job, that would be a monumental blunder. I give you the word 'Oil' then think of the pressure on a Green environment minister to resign....

U all seem to be missing 1 vital point Lib-dems like scottish labour dont have the power to negotiate they are a london party and this is a reserved matter Labour ,Lib-dems take order from afar

John,
Where I live is totally irrelevant. Anyway, you give me a job where I can earn what I earn here and I'll be on the next plane. The press in Scotland, in no way fairly represented the parties at the election. It was a disgrace. They are all owned outside Scotland and act against the interests of Scotland making it anti-democratic and indeed anti-Scottish.

Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

Peter said....."The libdems are a disgrace calling themselves a democratic party. Their leader, Mr Stephens, confirmed their present undemocratic position; setting them up to be the ridiculed through out Scotland and Internationally":........did LibDems not state, prior to a democratic election what their stance was and the voters could base their votes on that? Hardly undemocratic. Peter said.........."Why on earth does Mr Stephens think it is his right to grant or not, a voice to the people of Scotland on Independence? He, I assume, is against this proposal and would have an opportunity to put his arguments to us for our consideration"...........you don't need to assume he is against independance, he is, as stated umpteen times prior to the election. No change in their policy. Just like the SNP said they would go to the country if they won the election, but becasue they scraped through everyone else is to blame. IF you are so sure everyone wants indepedance, why no more votes

Peter said....."The libdems are a disgrace calling themselves a democratic party. Their leader, Mr Stephens, confirmed their present undemocratic position; setting them up to be the ridiculed through out Scotland and Internationally":........did LibDems not state, prior to a democratic election what their stance was and the voters could base their votes on that? Hardly undemocratic.

Peter said.........."Why on earth does Mr Stephens think it is his right to grant or not, a voice to the people of Scotland on Independence? He, I assume, is against this proposal and would have an opportunity to put his arguments to us for our consideration"...........you don't need to assume he is against independance, he is, as stated umpteen times prior to the election. No change in their policy. Just like the SNP said they would go to the country if they won the election, but becasue they scraped through everyone else is to blame. IF you are so sure everyone wants indepedance, why no more votes

'
Embra Calling Embra Calling this is Lord , oops ah mean Sir......................calling .Can you hear me Embra. .
.

The Lib Dems' position is disgusting and indefensible, and I say that as a Lib Dem voter. (Although at this stage, I've voted Lib Dem for the last time.) Most LD voters want a referendum. Most people in Scotland across ALL parties want a referendum. The party that won the election wants a referendum. Who the hell is Nicol Stephen, leader of the LEAST popular party in the country, to stand in the way of what the Scottish people quite clearly want? And people call Salmond arrogant?

Diect London rule anyone? Oh joy.

I must concur with Alex Porter, Pauline McNeill's acceptance speech beggered belief. I was speechless, pardon the pun, at the belligerent and snarling rant that eminated from this individual. Margaret Curren's tone was equally as offensive. I do not give up my taxes for ASBO types. No matter the colour of the party rossette, I, as a Scot, do not expect my elected representatives to behave like scruff no matter what stress or fear of losing the job or perceived comments are received from the floor. Do these two act like this in the chamber or on commitee?

I'm suprised that a party that has the word democrat in its party name is not willing to afford the Scots their democratic right especially since they signed the "Claim of Right" at the Scottish Constitutional Convention which says: - "Scotland's Parliament: Scotland's Right" Their job would be:- [bold]Securing the Legislation[/bold] - In order to ensure successive Westminster Parliaments do not attempt to dismantle a Scottish Parliament the Convention expects the Westminster Parliament to move a special Declaration before passing the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament. [bold]�This Declaration will state that the Westminster Parliament will not remove or amend the Scottish Parliament without consulting directly the people of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament itself.�[/bold] [bold]A Claim of Right for Scotland �We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount. � We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends: To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland'; To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure the implementation of that scheme.[/bold] Members of the Convention include the[bold] Labour Party[/bold] , [bold]Scottish Liberal Democrats,[/bold] Scottish Democratic Left, Orkney and Shetland Movement, Scottish Green Party, Scottish Trades Union Congress, Regional, District and Island Councils and the Campaign for a Scottish Parliament. Membership also includes the main Scottish Churches, the Federation of Small Businesses, ethnic minority representatives and the Scottish Women's Forum. In 1997, Tony Blair refused to endorse the Claim of Right, declaring 'Sovereignty remains with me as an English MP and that is the way it will stay.' All quotes are taken word for word from �The Claim of Right 1988� Surely the Lib Dems and Labour should be reminded of this fact. The SNP declined to join this S.C.C. on the grounds that the question of Independence would never be part of the deliberations. I think that this shows that Lib Dems should think before making sensationalist claims. I wish Alex Salmond all the best in forming a minority administration, and I applaud the Greens for having the right attitude to play a part in coalition.

I'm suprised that a party that has the word democrat in its party name is not willing to afford the Scots their democratic right especially since they signed the "Claim of Right" at the Scottish Constitutional Convention which says: -

"Scotland's Parliament: Scotland's Right"
Their job would be:-

Securing the Legislation - In order to ensure successive Westminster Parliaments do not attempt to dismantle a Scottish Parliament the Convention expects the Westminster Parliament to move a special Declaration before passing the legislation creating the Scottish Parliament. �This Declaration will state that the Westminster Parliament will not remove or amend the Scottish Parliament without consulting directly the people of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament itself.�
A Claim of Right for Scotland
�We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount. �
We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends:
To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland';
To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and
To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure the implementation of that scheme.
Members of the Convention include the Labour Party , Scottish Liberal Democrats, Scottish Democratic Left, Orkney and Shetland Movement, Scottish Green Party, Scottish Trades Union Congress, Regional, District and Island Councils and the Campaign for a Scottish Parliament. Membership also includes the main Scottish Churches, the Federation of Small Businesses, ethnic minority representatives and the Scottish Women's Forum.

In 1997, Tony Blair refused to endorse the Claim of Right, declaring 'Sovereignty remains with me as an English MP and that is the way it will stay.'

All quotes are taken word for word from �The Claim of Right 1988�

Surely the Lib Dems and Labour should be reminded of this fact.

The SNP declined to join this S.C.C. on the grounds that the question of Independence would never be part of the deliberations.

I think that this shows that Lib Dems should think before making sensationalist claims.

I wish Alex Salmond all the best in forming a minority administration, and I applaud the Greens for having the right attitude to play a part in coalition.

the snp should govern by themselves. this parliament has a fixed term so the snp will enjoy the support of other parties on a whole raft of policies, although not at this time on the issue of independence. just as labour members campaigned against their own devolution bill in 1979, they came to support devolution during the thatcher years and will take the next step in time as well. the lib dems dont deserve any part in government. they came fourth on thursday and lost ground. as for the legal contests, there were also five labour seats where wasted ballot papers outnumbered labour's margin. they are just such bad losers. they had their observers at the count to question decisions at the time, as i was able to do at the count i attended. what i am really concerned about is the council results. although i think i understand the system very well, i can only find out results of who has been elected and who has not. four days after the election there are no published results. i have spoken to a candidate that was elected who has not even been given this information. shocking, but it was the labour government that set up the system.

the snp should govern by themselves. this parliament has a fixed term so the snp will enjoy the support of other parties on a whole raft of policies, although not at this time on the issue of independence. just as labour members campaigned against their own devolution bill in 1979, they came to support devolution during the thatcher years and will take the next step in time as well. the lib dems dont deserve any part in government. they came fourth on thursday and lost ground.

as for the legal contests, there were also five labour seats where wasted ballot papers outnumbered labour's margin. they are just such bad losers. they had their observers at the count to question decisions at the time, as i was able to do at the count i attended.

what i am really concerned about is the council results. although i think i understand the system very well, i can only find out results of who has been elected and who has not. four days after the election there are no published results. i have spoken to a candidate that was elected who has not even been given this information.

shocking, but it was the labour government that set up the system.

Pro-union parties won dramatically more seats under this absurd PR system. A system that was proposed by the SNP and the LibDems.

The people of Scotland have spoken. End ths farce of talking about independence and get on with trying to build a better Scotland.

Salmond may feel elated at winning more seats but without a coalition partner he's FUBARed.

Labour only lost 4 seats - and with a poor leader in Citizen Jack, Iraq and Blair frankly the SNP are **** in the wind if they think that independence is roond the corner.

a couple of points I live in Falkirk and I still hope that we can once again have an S.N.P. independant administration rather than the small minded bunch of halfwits that make up the local labour party.They will set our area back twenty years if they take control .
secondly I too dont like it when wee dougie is not in clear view he is usually up to something his uncle Gordies thought up. and finally
where is knuckles reid heading ? surely not back to the land of his spawning

The Lib dems wont do a deal with Labour

The Lib Dems wont do a deal with the SNP

The Lib Dems will never be the largest party.

So, what is the point of the lib dems? For are they for?

They have been given 2 opportunities to influence the governing of Scotland, giving them a platform to push their policies, and they wont take either!

People who voted for them must be mighty fed up.

The are now the Party of the Wasted Vote - "vote LIb Dem and we promise to do nothing"!

The silly billy 'argument' that if you add all the other parties together against the one that actually won in terms of more seats,councils and list MSPs i.e. The Winners - then taken to an illogical conclusion .......probably no winner would ever win?
I hope Mr Salmond pursues, as First Minister leading his winning party, the kind of positive and beneficial policies for Scottish interests that if they were to be opposed - it would make the 'opposition' parties look more like the malicious, spiteful and incompetent 'parcel of rogues' that made them unelectable on Thursday. It is almost divine retribution to think that it could have been Lapdougie Alexander, and the rest of the Lost Boys of Labour, that disenfranchised their own 'could do better' supporters by making such a pig's ear of the ballot paper design.

Wallace,
The lib Dems dont need to go into a formal coalition to excercise their power over the SNP or Labour in this parliament, they can vote for or against bills from both sides as they please, make or destroy the Lab / SNP plans coming to life or not as they wish- without the need for a restrictive coalition agreement. They can effectivle cherry pick from both sides to suit themsleves.

forgot to add above.

This way the Lib Dems can say they are satisfying their voters - vote with the SNP for local taxation plans. And vote against the SNP on a referendum bill. And they can work like that to their advantage.

Now the Nats or Labour might not like it. But it's politics, and this looks like a classical political move.

If the Lib Dems or Labour continue with this purile, immature display of "spitting oot the dummy" then it will not only damage both parties but voter confidence also this could have a very negative effect on the democratic process. If the SNP continue into minority government and the opposition prevents key policies from existing especially the abolition of the Council Tax, Removal of Student Debt in spite of the shocking tactics of the Scottish Print Media, this will only strenghten their position and 4 years from now people will probably help to ensure that they have a majority that makes the opposition parties appear amateur . Proposed legal action by Labour members will show them up as petty. The Govan Legal Centre that is also considering taking legal action is a renowned supporter of individuals who wish to disrupt the progress of democracy. All parties must have lost potential votes throughout this fiasco of spoilt ballot papers. A serious case of Labour 'sour grapes'.

If the Lib Dems or Labour continue with this purile, immature display of "spitting oot the dummy" then it will not only damage both parties but voter confidence also this could have a very negative effect on the democratic process. If the SNP continue into minority government and the opposition prevents key policies from existing especially the abolition of the Council Tax, Removal of Student Debt in spite of the shocking tactics of the Scottish Print Media, this will only strenghten their position and 4 years from now people will probably help to ensure that they have a majority that makes the opposition parties appear amateur .

Proposed legal action by Labour members will show them up as petty. The Govan Legal Centre that is also considering taking legal action is a renowned supporter of individuals who wish to disrupt the progress of democracy.

All parties must have lost potential votes throughout this fiasco of spoilt ballot papers. A serious case of Labour 'sour grapes'.

You might be shocked a little, or amused, bemused or insulted at the Economist's current web site quiz Scotland and England quiz & answers. Hard to believe that's how we're viewed, but interesting not many about England really.

http://www.economist.com/diversions/quiz.cfm?mode=mark&quizname=scotlandandenglandquiz

To Johnny Foreigner! I see your points - however it will not work out like that! The SNP and or Labour will get all the political credit for anything that meets with public approval! As for the rest of the Lib Dem programme - that will not have an earthly of being introduced! Not now! Jack McConnell and the Labour Party are deeply cynical politicians and the Lib Dems will be eaten alive by them! Also the Lib Dems have also set themselves up to be made to look like reactionary Unionists! Salmond is an infinitely more able politician than Stephen and Salmond will take the opportunity now to make him look an idiot and worse! I expect a challange now to Stephen - but it will not be Tavish Scott who was responsible for an inept election campaign! A great many Lib Dem supporters actually support a referendum - especially one that offers greater powers for Scots parliament but thier Party leadership rejected that out of hand! No they will be lucky to withstand the backlash from thier own members, because it is them who will take the flak for Mings secret deal with Brown! They were elected to look out for Scottish intersts and not Westminsters! They will not get away with it! The SNP could put forward a LIT bill that the Lib Dems dont like for reasons best known to themselves! What happens then? Will the Lib Dems support a full judicial inquiry into the elections so far they have been silent on that! Let me guess - No No No - its not in our manifesto! Is that the stance they are going to take on everything! I think that they are commiting political suicide! After English council elections they cant run and hide there as there are a lot less safe seats for them to run to! Ming might go the way of Charlie soon!? Riddance to them for all I care! They will get squeezed ruthlessly at the next general election by both Labour and Tory in what will be the dirtiest Brit election ever! No sitting on the opposition benches at Holyrood is a monumental political error! Better a coalition with the SNP than Labour - at least they get more from the SNP than Labour and more kudos with the Scots electorate before next Brit election!?

To Johnny Foreigner!

I see your points - however it will not work out like that! The SNP and or Labour will get all the political credit for anything that meets with public approval! As for the rest of the Lib Dem programme - that will not have an earthly of being introduced! Not now!
Jack McConnell and the Labour Party are deeply cynical politicians and the Lib Dems will be eaten alive by them!
Also the Lib Dems have also set themselves up to be made to look like reactionary Unionists! Salmond is an infinitely more able politician than Stephen and Salmond will take the opportunity now to make him look an idiot and worse!
I expect a challange now to Stephen - but it will not be Tavish Scott who was responsible for an inept election campaign!
A great many Lib Dem supporters actually support a referendum - especially one that offers greater powers for Scots parliament but thier Party leadership rejected that out of hand!
No they will be lucky to withstand the backlash from thier own members, because it is them who will take the flak for Mings secret deal with Brown!
They were elected to look out for Scottish intersts and not Westminsters! They will not get away with it!
The SNP could put forward a LIT bill that the Lib Dems dont like for reasons best known to themselves! What happens then?
Will the Lib Dems support a full judicial inquiry into the elections so far they have been silent on that! Let me guess - No No No - its not in our manifesto! Is that the stance they are going to take on everything!

I think that they are commiting political suicide! After English council elections they cant run and hide there as there are a lot less safe seats for them to run to! Ming might go the way of Charlie soon!?

Riddance to them for all I care! They will get squeezed ruthlessly at the next general election by both Labour and Tory in what will be the dirtiest Brit election ever! No sitting on the opposition benches at Holyrood is a monumental political error! Better a coalition with the SNP than Labour - at least they get more from the SNP than Labour and more kudos with the Scots electorate before next Brit election!?

George,

I checked out your link and i am rather angry about the one-sided nature of the quiz and their incorrect assumption in question 1 about Darien.

I emailed them with the correct response!!

I'll let you know if they reply.

The Lib/Dem in Scotland have been told what to do by those with a lot to lose. The Labour party in Scotland have been told what to do by those with a lot to lose. The Conservitive part in Scotland have been told what to do by those with a lot to lose. And none of those who would lose must be in London. - Each of the above could hold real power in an independent Scotland. The SNP are the only party whose survival as a party is in doubt in an independent Scotland. The individuals of course will survive and do well, but the party may be gone in a reorganisation of parties into the left - Labour, the right - Conservative, and the middle the National party or Lib/Dem or an amalgamation of them both. Why then the opposition to the SNP and a referendum? Clearly something else is deeply concerning party bosses in London, and the Scottish bum-boys have to obey despite where their own best interests lie. I think the answer is to do with real information being made available to the Scottish (and English) public. 35% for independence despite all that venom, bile, lies, and deceit. What is Nicol afraid of ? what is buried he wants to stay dead? what is that faint odour and shifty look ? What does he know that we don't and will find out with Salmon as FM?

The Lib/Dem in Scotland have been told what to do by those with a lot to lose. The Labour party in Scotland have been told what to do by those with a lot to lose. The Conservitive part in Scotland have been told what to do by those with a lot to lose. And none of those who would lose must be in London. - Each of the above could hold real power in an independent Scotland.

The SNP are the only party whose survival as a party is in doubt in an independent Scotland. The individuals of course will survive and do well, but the party may be gone in a reorganisation of parties into the left - Labour, the right - Conservative, and the middle the National party or Lib/Dem or an amalgamation of them both.

Why then the opposition to the SNP and a referendum? Clearly something else is deeply concerning party bosses in London, and the Scottish bum-boys have to obey despite where their own best interests lie.

I think the answer is to do with real information being made available to the Scottish (and English) public. 35% for independence despite all that venom, bile, lies, and deceit.

What is Nicol afraid of ? what is buried he wants to stay dead? what is that faint odour and shifty look ? What does he know that we don't and will find out with Salmon as FM?

Alex Porter, listen to yourself. The Lib Dems MUST do what the SNP tell them. The Greens should do the same. 33% dictate to the rest. Typical NAT arrogance. The only person stopping Salmond from becoming First Minister is himself. If the SNP drop a policy - the referendum - which they've already watered down - they'll get a deal with the Libs. But Salmond is in a position he's never faced in his life before - having to compromise. The arithmetic is simple Pro-referendum 50. Antis 79. Why doesn't he just forget about it for the next four years and get on with the job he says he wants? Now that you're back in Madrid (I thought you were coming back to Scotland for good) maybe you can tell us what happens there after elections that don't produce majorities? But if that's too embarrassing, I'll do it for you. They COMPROMISE. And if a party makes demands that others find unacceptable then even if it has the most seats it loses its chance to govern and others step in. That's what happened TWICE in succession in Catalunya when the big-headed nationalist leader Artur Mas (a bit like Eck but better looking) led the biggest party but insisted on everyone else dancing to his tune. The Left nationalists and the Catalan Greens told him to GTF and formed a coalition with the Socialists (PSC). In fact the PSC even brought back a cabinet minister from Madrid to head the government and no one complained. Now, I hear John Reid might be looking for a new job. How would that suit?

Alex Porter, listen to yourself. The Lib Dems MUST do what the SNP tell them. The Greens should do the same. 33% dictate to the rest. Typical NAT arrogance.

The only person stopping Salmond from becoming First Minister is himself. If the SNP drop a policy - the referendum - which they've already watered down - they'll get a deal with the Libs. But Salmond is in a position he's never faced in his life before - having to compromise.

The arithmetic is simple Pro-referendum 50. Antis 79. Why doesn't he just forget about it for the next four years and get on with the job he says he wants?

Now that you're back in Madrid (I thought you were coming back to Scotland for good) maybe you can tell us what happens there after elections that don't produce majorities?

But if that's too embarrassing, I'll do it for you. They COMPROMISE. And if a party makes demands that others find unacceptable then even if it has the most seats it loses its chance to govern and others step in. That's what happened TWICE in succession in Catalunya when the big-headed nationalist leader Artur Mas (a bit like Eck but better looking) led the biggest party but insisted on everyone else dancing to his tune. The Left nationalists and the Catalan Greens told him to GTF and formed a coalition with the Socialists (PSC).

In fact the PSC even brought back a cabinet minister from Madrid to head the government and no one complained.

Now, I hear John Reid might be looking for a new job. How would that suit?

McShimmy

"35% for independence"

We were told for weeks that the election wasn't about independence. Some of us said, 'aye, right, wait and see what they say if they win.'

Didn't take long, did it?

The overwhelming majority of Scots voted for political parties (Lab, LD, Cons) opposed to independence. This election is not a mandate for independence but rather a rebuke to the independence movement. Mr Salmond, get over 50% of the voting public to support independence then you've got a mandate. Well done to the LDs for sticking to their guns. Don't sell the Scottish people out for a promise of power sharing.

Stu%f, them Alex. Go it alone!

Why are all you anti-SNP folk afraid of a referendum? - brain washed by the spin doctors of the labour fear-mongers perhaps?

I've not heard one single person suggest that because the SNP won and the country needs stable government that the Tories should back them yet wit 17 seats it would be a more stable coalition than an SNP/LD deal. The largest party has no authority to demand another party joins it in government. It does have the authority to seek to form a government. Salmond's tried that with the Lib Dems but they've, quite rightly and properly, stuck to the position they made public from as far back as autumn 2006 so it shouldn't have come as any surprise to him. The SNP should stop deluding themselves that the victory was anything to do with support for indepdence. It was a vote for change - but that also means a change of the Lib Dems from government too does it not? With some humility the SNP could run a coalition government but they will need to convince the people of Scotland and other parties that they are interested in delivering better health, education and environment. At the moment it seems that they would set aside the chance to do all that in a stable government simply because they are unprepared to put these things before independence and that will make them look increasingly bad in the eyes of people who voted for them not for a referendum but for change and progress. But let's be clear the very same people who are now attacking the Lib Dems for not doing a deal are very likely the same people who've attacked them in the past for selling their soul to go in with the Labour party. You can't have it both ways and it seems the Lib Dems don't unlike some Nats.

Billy

Well said. I've got new found respect for the Lib Dems now that they've stuck firmly to their principles. I voted SNP for a change but I always assumed there would be enough Lib Dems to moderate them and stop them from taking us to independence. I voted SNP cos I thought it would be safe to do so. So yes I'm glad the SNP won but I'm even more glad the lib dems are sticking to their guns and saying no to a referendum.

I'm beginning to wonder if the SNP and their members are actually the stupidest people in Scotland. Let's for one moment take their proposition on an independence referendum. Put everything else to one side and suppose the Lib Dems agreed to do a deal including a referendum, what do you think would happen? They Lib Dems couldn't whip their group over the Christmas Day Trading bill let alone a major piece of constitutional decision making! They would at best split and there would be no majority in parliament and the Bill would fall at Stage 1. It is the most obvious point in the world. I can't believe that you have all fallen for Salmond's spin on this - it's just mindblowingly gullible! No parliamentary majority means you don't ever get a referendum on independence. Doh.

No Hugh I would suggest the stupiest people in Scotland fall into 2 categories 1. Those who did'nt vote and 2. Those who voted Labour thinking that wee Joke and his army of political pygmies will ever do anything other than line their own pockets! Enough said

And so the real horse trading begins... Not really much of a suprise the Nicol Stevenson refuses to even talk to the SNP until they drop their referendum proposal but its a very dangerous game that he is playing. There has been alot of debate about the true state of the current Scots psyche but one factor has remained constant, over 80% of the population would welcome a vote on Scotlands Constitutional settlement. For a "Democrat" to ignore this and refuse to give the option to the voters - especially from a party that just got badly beaten into 4th place - is a high risk strategy. However, there are dangers for the SNP too in its negotiations. The most persuasive argument against the SNP has been the accusation that any vote for the nationalists will provoke chaos and turmoil. A minority administration brought down within its first 6mths (especially if labour is experiancing a temporary bounce from a Gordon Brown coronation) could be a disaster for progressive politics and lead to the shelving of the "Scottish Question" for a decade. I would advise that the SNP call the Liberal Democrats bluff, park the independence referendum for the term of this parliment and instead push for a vote on a large increase in executive powers - specifically "Full Fiscal Autonomy". This is very close to the Democrats stated position and could be close to impossible for them to refuse - and if they did, completely expose them to accusations of wrecking the Parliment. People back winners, and its important that the SNP are seen in this light. A successful 4 year term in government, capped off with an overwhelming majority backing massive new powers for the parliment would be a huge step forward. I know there are hardliners within the SNP that would oppose the dropping of an independence referendum for the next 4 years, but this can be legitimately sold to them that there is a unionist alliance against the SNP that currently have the numbers to block the legislation. It should not be forgotten what is happening in England too, as there is the strong likelyhood that the Conservatives will regain power in Westminister at the next election - and that backdrop will change everything north of the border. Call their bluff Alex, and move Scotland forward!

And so the real horse trading begins...

Not really much of a suprise the Nicol Stevenson refuses to even talk to the SNP until they drop their referendum proposal but its a very dangerous game that he is playing. There has been alot of debate about the true state of the current Scots psyche but one factor has remained constant, over 80% of the population would welcome a vote on Scotlands Constitutional settlement. For a "Democrat" to ignore this and refuse to give the option to the voters - especially from a party that just got badly beaten into 4th place - is a high risk strategy.

However, there are dangers for the SNP too in its negotiations. The most persuasive argument against the SNP has been the accusation that any vote for the nationalists will provoke chaos and turmoil. A minority administration brought down within its first 6mths (especially if labour is experiancing a temporary bounce from a Gordon Brown coronation) could be a disaster for progressive politics and lead to the shelving of the "Scottish Question" for a decade.

I would advise that the SNP call the Liberal Democrats bluff, park the independence referendum for the term of this parliment and instead push for a vote on a large increase in executive powers - specifically "Full Fiscal Autonomy". This is very close to the Democrats stated position and could be close to impossible for them to refuse - and if they did, completely expose them to accusations of wrecking the Parliment.

People back winners, and its important that the SNP are seen in this light. A successful 4 year term in government, capped off with an overwhelming majority backing massive new powers for the parliment would be a huge step forward. I know there are hardliners within the SNP that would oppose the dropping of an independence referendum for the next 4 years, but this can be legitimately sold to them that there is a unionist alliance against the SNP that currently have the numbers to block the legislation. It should not be forgotten what is happening in England too, as there is the strong likelyhood that the Conservatives will regain power in Westminister at the next election - and that backdrop will change everything north of the border.

Call their bluff Alex, and move Scotland forward!

Having to work overseas, abd currently writing from the home land of rice and take-aways, I think many expats have a better grasp of Scottish and UK politics than most. (This should stir some comment) Not so many moons ago we have one of our last bastions of shipbuilding seeking the Scottish (Labour & LibDem) executive to spend money in Scotland for new vessels. Cloth ears were in evidence. The yard in question is economical, it is viable, it is competitive. We have seen a down turn in offshore activity and jobs, after Gordon threw a windfall tax the way of the companies that produce the oil. This has had a knock-on effect into the Drilling sector, the supply vessel sector, the manpower sector, the shore based supply sector, which has kept the possible activity depressed. The LibDems have sat in Holyrood with Labour for 4 years, with no inspirational, no inovational and definitely no radical political or idealistic thoughts. Here is a chance for the SCOTTISH LibDems to stand up and become a true force and be counted, and stand apart from Mings London instructions. Here is chance being squandered for their last 4 years of sharing with Labour to share their misgivings with Alex Salmond and help Scotland go onto a new plane. Election events in France where Socialists are now out and right wing is in. SNP is a mix not a right wing not a left wing, but looking to advance Scotland, with a FREE referendum, with no limit on options for the people to decide. The freedom to decide at the voter level appears to be sought to be denied by the LibDems. What do they stand for? They signed up for the options in 1990's, they have taken part in the assembly since, so why are you not prepared to allow "We the People" a free selection in 3 years time. They say a week is a long time in politics.

Having to work overseas, abd currently writing from the home land of rice and take-aways, I think many expats have a better grasp of Scottish and UK politics than most. (This should stir some comment)
Not so many moons ago we have one of our last bastions of shipbuilding seeking the Scottish (Labour & LibDem) executive to spend money in Scotland for new vessels. Cloth ears were in evidence. The yard in question is economical, it is viable, it is competitive.
We have seen a down turn in offshore activity and jobs, after Gordon threw a windfall tax the way of the companies that produce the oil. This has had a knock-on effect into the Drilling sector, the supply vessel sector, the manpower sector, the shore based supply sector, which has kept the possible activity depressed.
The LibDems have sat in Holyrood with Labour for 4 years, with no inspirational, no inovational and definitely no radical political or idealistic thoughts. Here is a chance for the SCOTTISH LibDems to stand up and become a true force and be counted, and stand apart from Mings London instructions. Here is chance being squandered for their last 4 years of sharing with Labour to share their misgivings with Alex Salmond and help Scotland go onto a new plane.
Election events in France where Socialists are now out and right wing is in. SNP is a mix not a right wing not a left wing, but looking to advance Scotland, with a FREE referendum, with no limit on options for the people to decide.
The freedom to decide at the voter level appears to be sought to be denied by the LibDems. What do they stand for? They signed up for the options in 1990's, they have taken part in the assembly since, so why are you not prepared to allow "We the People" a free selection in 3 years time. They say a week is a long time in politics.

Remember "Arbeit Mach Frei" (Work shall make you free) ? - It was written above the entry to most concentrations camps. Keep the population frightened, ignorant, and desperate and keep hammering the BIG LIE. Yet Scotand's population, despite the BIG Lie of our generation, voted for the SNP, and the SNP won. Therein lies unionist fears - truth is a terrible foe. It makes people angry and powerful. The Lib/Dems should get out from under the jackboot, help the referendum process then come what may. It will take guts. We all have to get rid of the terrible grip of Labour's BIG LIE - including McConnell and Stephen. London "Labour" and Unionist Party is the enemy -they don't care about your future or our children's future, nor what Labour once saw itself , those days have gone. They have become what Labour in the 1930s saw as vile. It is a new ruling Class of those who have the define right to rule as they see fit. Labour in Scotland still has a chance to dig itself out of smell, but at the moment I can't see it.

Remember "Arbeit Mach Frei" (Work shall make you free) ? - It was written above the entry to most concentrations camps. Keep the population frightened, ignorant, and desperate and keep hammering the BIG LIE. Yet Scotand's population, despite the BIG Lie of our generation, voted for the SNP, and the SNP won.

Therein lies unionist fears - truth is a terrible foe. It makes people angry and powerful.

The Lib/Dems should get out from under the jackboot, help the referendum process then come what may. It will take guts. We all have to get rid of the terrible grip of Labour's BIG LIE - including McConnell and Stephen.

London "Labour" and Unionist Party is the enemy -they don't care about your future or our children's future, nor what Labour once saw itself , those days have gone. They have become what Labour in the 1930s saw as vile. It is a new ruling Class of those who have the define right to rule as they see fit.

Labour in Scotland still has a chance to dig itself out of smell, but at the moment I can't see it.

Surely Stephen if the majority of people in Scotland anted a referendum on independence hey would hav voted for the SNP last week? As you suggest, the way ahead has to be compromise. Most contributors will not agree but it must be said that the Labour Party set he tone for coalition government 8 years ago, when it was in a far stronger position to go it alone than the SNP is now. Those with a hatred of all things Labour will give no credit for that and suggest it was done for the worst of reasons but in reality it delivered stable government. That is the duty which now falls to Mr Salmond. He has to acept that the great majority of Scots do not share the SNP's impatience to leave the Union but see advantages, where it make sense, in extending devolved powers. You could not change the constitution of a bowling club unless two thirds of members supported the change so how on earth does the SNP begin to believe that it is anywhere near having a mandate to initiate he biggest constitutional change in the UK for 300 years? No, the way ahead is to provide good governance for Scotland today and that means compromise and patience.

Please sign this petition on the Scotish Vote Scandal. Do more than this - forward detals to others, as many as you can. Dont let the politicians sweep this under the carpet as part of a deal. One tenth of us have been cheated of our right to vote

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ScottishVoteScandal2007/

How depressing McShimmy. The people of Scotland - by far the most of them - did not vote for the SNP and, would you believe it, they were not tricked into not doing so by the "lies" of their opponents. It is this kind of extremist language from SNP supporters which gives most Scots grave concerns over where the SNP would take us. Why are the opposing views of other parties described in such intolerant terms? I would be very careful about turning around references to the Nazi era an using them to attack, in utterly hysterical terms, people in other parties who you describe as enemies who do not care about our future. Others might equally recall a German who gained the levers of power without winning anything like a majority and who then proceeded, through the cultivation of old grievances to obtain total power.

Although I am not pro or anti independanceI cannot understand the stance that the Lib-Dems have taken.,after all it is a referendum, which will give the people of Scotland to choose or not the path they wish to go.What right have the LDs to dictate and force their views on the general public.[

Bob Linklater wrote:
Pro-union parties won dramatically more seats under this absurd PR system. A system that was proposed by the SNP and the LibDems.

The people of Scotland have spoken. End ths farce of talking about independence and get on with trying to build a better Scotland.

Salmond may feel elated at winning more seats but without a coalition partner he's FUBARed.

Labour only lost 4 seats - and with a poor leader in Citizen Jack, Iraq and Blair frankly the SNP are **** in the wind if they think that independence is roond the corner.

Hurray for Bob !

Someone with a bit of insight !

[quote][bold]Nige from France[/bold] wrote: [bold]Although I am not pro or anti independanceI cannot understand the stance that the Lib-Dems have taken.,after all it is a referendum, which will give the people of Scotland to choose or not the path they wish to go.What right have the LDs to dictate and force their views on the general public.[[/bold] [/quote] Nige you need to understand that what Mr Salmond wants is to carefully manage the timing and circumstances of a referendum for which there is no apparent need - if most Scots wanted independence hey could have voted for the SNP last week but they did not. Rather Mr Salmond's plans are not to give Scotland good governance over the next 4 years within devolved powers but to use the levers of office to create as much tension as possible between Scoland and the UK Government in the hope that there will be a sufficient groundswell of resentment to persuade the Scottish people that independence is the answer. What Mr Salmond evidently does not wan is to get on with the hard business of using the limited licence to govern - through compromise - given to his party by an electorate not brain washed by a press asking reaonable questions over the risks of major constiutional change but which has the same questions and is far fom being convinced that Scotland would necessarily be better off through independence. I do not know wheher we would or not but the worrying thing is neither does Alec Salmond yet he insists that we would. Most Scots do not share the SNP's belief and there is a difference between belief and fact. There is the growing impression that the SNP is not at all comfortable with the prospect of having to get to grips wih the difficult day to day business of Government when it will suddenly have to take all the hard decisions some of which will not please a lot of people a lot of the time, unless they are in the position of being able to hold out the prospect of jam tomorrow in the form of independence.

Nige from France wrote:
Although I am not pro or anti independanceI cannot understand the stance that the Lib-Dems have taken.,after all it is a referendum, which will give the people of Scotland to choose or not the path they wish to go.What right have the LDs to dictate and force their views on the general public.[

Nige you need to understand that what Mr Salmond wants is to carefully manage the timing and circumstances of a referendum for which there is no apparent need - if most Scots wanted independence hey could have voted for the SNP last week but they did not. Rather Mr Salmond's plans are not to give Scotland good governance over the next 4 years within devolved powers but to use the levers of office to create as much tension as possible between Scoland and the UK Government in the hope that there will be a sufficient groundswell of resentment to persuade the Scottish people that independence is the answer. What Mr Salmond evidently does not wan is to get on with the hard business of using the limited licence to govern - through compromise - given to his party by an electorate not brain washed by a press asking reaonable questions over the risks of major constiutional change but which has the same questions and is far fom being convinced that Scotland would necessarily be better off through independence. I do not know wheher we would or not but the worrying thing is neither does Alec Salmond yet he insists that we would. Most Scots do not share the SNP's belief and there is a difference between belief and fact. There is the growing impression that the SNP is not at all comfortable with the prospect of having to get to grips wih the difficult day to day business of Government when it will suddenly have to take all the hard decisions some of which will not please a lot of people a lot of the time, unless they are in the position of being able to hold out the prospect of jam tomorrow in the form of independence.

The LDs are now revealed simply as a life-support system for New Labour in Scotland, their only function being to ensure Labour government. Their refusal to join a coalition with the SNP has nothing to do with a referendum - they are obeying orders from New Labour, and the referendum is just the excuse [italic]du jour[/italic] . The Brown strategy (and that's where this is coming from) is either: (a) force an SNP minority administration, sabotage it from London (fulfilling Jack Straw's promise that Scots would 'rue the day' they voted SNP), and bring it down when it was judged that people would revert to Unionist parties just for a return to the quiet life. First clue you will see that this is the plan: Salmond wins election as FM. (b) install a Labour 'minority' government, which is actually just a re-tread of the coalition we had before, but with the LD support cloaked (some ministerial portfolios offered to Green, SNP and Margo as a smokescreen) and McConnell replaced as FM. First clue you will see that this is the plan: Labour candidate becomes FM (but wouldn't it be wonderful if it was the woeful Stephen?). The second is the better option: the SNP would probably refuse ministerial appointments and Labour could present this as magnanimity spurned. But I think that Brown, psychologically, would prefer the first - he may not be able to resist the temptation to damage the SNP rather than just fudge a way out of the problem. If Salmond decides to put himself foward for FM, and if Brown instructs his zombies to support him, here is what Alex should do: * legislate to restrict postal votes to those who genuinely cannot visit a polling station * introduce controls of postal voting similar to those used in England * ban the use of electronic counting machines * resign, forcing a new election. A fun way might be by proposing a vote of no confidence in his own administration, and watching Labour faces as they wonder if they ought to support it. Phone a friend? If all that went through, Labour would be in trouble. Given their conduct in this, the LDs could face extermination. If it doesn't go through then we have further evidence that, as far as Labour and the LDs are concerned, when the choice is between the Union and democracy, democracy gets a bullet in the back of the neck.

The LDs are now revealed simply as a life-support system for New Labour in Scotland, their only function being to ensure Labour government. Their refusal to join a coalition with the SNP has nothing to do with a referendum - they are obeying orders from New Labour, and the referendum is just the excuse du jour .

The Brown strategy (and that's where this is coming from) is either:

(a) force an SNP minority administration, sabotage it from London (fulfilling Jack Straw's promise that Scots would 'rue the day' they voted SNP), and bring it down when it was judged that people would revert to Unionist parties just for a return to the quiet life. First clue you will see that this is the plan: Salmond wins election as FM.

(b) install a Labour 'minority' government, which is actually just a re-tread of the coalition we had before, but with the LD support cloaked (some ministerial portfolios offered to Green, SNP and Margo as a smokescreen) and McConnell replaced as FM. First clue you will see that this is the plan: Labour candidate becomes FM (but wouldn't it be wonderful if it was the woeful Stephen?).

The second is the better option: the SNP would probably refuse ministerial appointments and Labour could present this as magnanimity spurned. But I think that Brown, psychologically, would prefer the first - he may not be able to resist the temptation to damage the SNP rather than just fudge a way out of the problem. If Salmond decides to put himself foward for FM, and if Brown instructs his zombies to support him, here is what Alex should do:

* legislate to restrict postal votes to those who genuinely cannot visit a polling station
* introduce controls of postal voting similar to those used in England
* ban the use of electronic counting machines
* resign, forcing a new election. A fun way might be by proposing a vote of no confidence in his own administration, and watching Labour faces as they wonder if they ought to support it. Phone a friend?

If all that went through, Labour would be in trouble. Given their conduct in this, the LDs could face extermination. If it doesn't go through then we have further evidence that, as far as Labour and the LDs are concerned, when the choice is between the Union and democracy, democracy gets a bullet in the back of the neck.

The Scottish people spoke as well as they could in this farce of an election. We were warned that the Unionast parties would oppose the SNP at every turn. Things seem to be going that way but be warned, there could be a back-lash and the Lib-Dems would be blown away through their own arrogance. Labour have held onto west-central Scotland but that could change as the rest of Scotland has shown "We can".

The Lib-Dums are too used to doing wot Labour tells them. Broon telt the Minging wan tae tell the North Brit branch to kow tow tae London Labour again.

Go to the country. See how many Lib-Dums will be left then.

[quote][bold]Macuistean[/bold] wrote: The Scottish people spoke as well as they could in this farce of an election. We were warned that the Unionast parties would oppose the SNP at every turn. Things seem to be going that way but be warned, there could be a back-lash and the Lib-Dems would be blown away through their own arrogance. Labour have held onto west-central Scotland but that could change as the rest of Scotland has shown "We can".[/quote] And what, pray, should MSPs representing opponents of independence meant to do? We might equally have been "warned" that the SNP would opose Unionism at every turn. It is now evidently arrogant to sat to Mr Salmond sorry we are not just going to make up the numbers so you can proceed as if you won a majority for independence but we are prepared to look at how we might provide stable government for Scotland for the next four years. When is he penny going to drop with passionate supporters of the indepence cause that the great majority of Scots expect our politicians to do what is needed to provide that stable governance and are not likely to be persuaded that an intransigent SNP is the injured party. Why the limited reference to Labour and the West of Scotland? Substantial parts of Scotland continue to elect Labour, Tory and Lib Dem MSPs. I suspect yet another example of an interesting insight into SNP thinking in some quarters - that those who do not vote SNP are not, like SNP voters, thinking people but are mislead by the lies of a biased media. No. Those who do not vote SNP are no less intelligent than those who do. They are simpy not persuaded that the costs of independence (and the painful process of getting there) would outweigh the benefits.

Macuistean wrote:
The Scottish people spoke as well as they could in this farce of an election. We were warned that the Unionast parties would oppose the SNP at every turn. Things seem to be going that way but be warned, there could be a back-lash and the Lib-Dems would be blown away through their own arrogance. Labour have held onto west-central Scotland but that could change as the rest of Scotland has shown "We can".

And what, pray, should MSPs representing opponents of independence meant to do? We might equally have been "warned" that the SNP would opose Unionism at every turn. It is now evidently arrogant to sat to Mr Salmond sorry we are not just going to make up the numbers so you can proceed as if you won a majority for independence but we are prepared to look at how we might provide stable government for Scotland for the next four years. When is he penny going to drop with passionate supporters of the indepence cause that the great majority of Scots expect our politicians to do what is needed to provide that stable governance and are not likely to be persuaded that an intransigent SNP is the injured party. Why the limited reference to Labour and the West of Scotland? Substantial parts of Scotland continue to elect Labour, Tory and Lib Dem MSPs. I suspect yet another example of an interesting insight into SNP thinking in some quarters - that those who do not vote SNP are not, like SNP voters, thinking people but are mislead by the lies of a biased media. No. Those who do not vote SNP are no less intelligent than those who do. They are simpy not persuaded that the costs of independence (and the painful process of getting there) would outweigh the benefits.

So the truth finally emerges, but will anybody notice!

"Snodgrass, returning officer for Cunninghame North, last night said: "Following allegations we have hand-counted the Arran ballot papers. These are in accordance with the accounts submitted by the polling stations. There are no missing papers from the Isle of Arran.""

[quote][bold]Tolerance[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Nige from France[/bold] wrote: [bold]Although I am not pro or anti independanceI cannot understand the stance that the Lib-Dems have taken.,after all it is a referendum, which will give the people of Scotland to choose or not the path they wish to go.What right have the LDs to dictate and force their views on the general public.[[/bold] [/quote] Nige you need to understand that what Mr Salmond wants is to carefully manage the timing and circumstances of a referendum for which there is no apparent need - if most Scots wanted independence hey could have voted for the SNP last week but they did not. Rather Mr Salmond\'s plans are not to give Scotland good governance over the next 4 years within devolved powers but to use the levers of office to create as much tension as possible between Scoland and the UK Government in the hope that there will be a sufficient groundswell of resentment to persuade the Scottish people that independence is the answer. What Mr Salmond evidently does not wan is to get on with the hard business of using the limited licence to govern - through compromise - given to his party by an electorate not brain washed by a press asking reaonable questions over the risks of major constiutional change but which has the same questions and is far fom being convinced that Scotland would necessarily be better off through independence. I do not know wheher we would or not but the worrying thing is neither does Alec Salmond yet he insists that we would. Most Scots do not share the SNP\'s belief and there is a difference between belief and fact. There is the growing impression that the SNP is not at all comfortable with the prospect of having to get to grips wih the difficult day to day business of Government when it will suddenly have to take all the hard decisions some of which will not please a lot of people a lot of the time, unless they are in the position of being able to hold out the prospect of jam tomorrow in the form of independence.[/quote] 1/ [bold]Last weeks election was NOT for Independence[/bold] but for the Scotttish Executive. 2/ [bold]The SNP is the biggest party by seats, votes and now local councilors.[/bold] 3/ [bold]Their policy was to ask the people of Scotland via a referendum[/bold] if they want Independence AFTER they had been given a chance to prove that they could govern the country. 4/ [bold]It was the Labour party which turned this election into an anti/pro-independence election[/bold] because they could not defend the failure of their own policies, and could not even cost their new ones!! 5/ [bold]The debacle at the voting booth would only have caused confusion for the voters.[/bold] 6/ [bold]The SNP GAINED 20 seats in a single election[/bold] , given the labour parties dominance in Scottish politics that is an incredible achievement and as such, given the nature of Scottish politics "my family has always voted labour, whit is a policy btw?", it is even more of a statement of support for the SNP than just a number. I am in no doubt that Douglas Alexander and those others who decided on the election format had what happened in mind when they set it up, knowing that it would cause confusion. I for one would not mind if there was a compromise and we waited until after the next election before having a referendum but do need some form of constitutional convention now which prohibits influence from westminster on Scottish politicians..

Tolerance wrote:

Nige from France wrote: Although I am not pro or anti independanceI cannot understand the stance that the Lib-Dems have taken.,after all it is a referendum, which will give the people of Scotland to choose or not the path they wish to go.What right have the LDs to dictate and force their views on the general public.[
Nige you need to understand that what Mr Salmond wants is to carefully manage the timing and circumstances of a referendum for which there is no apparent need - if most Scots wanted independence hey could have voted for the SNP last week but they did not. Rather Mr Salmond\'s plans are not to give Scotland good governance over the next 4 years within devolved powers but to use the levers of office to create as much tension as possible between Scoland and the UK Government in the hope that there will be a sufficient groundswell of resentment to persuade the Scottish people that independence is the answer. What Mr Salmond evidently does not wan is to get on with the hard business of using the limited licence to govern - through compromise - given to his party by an electorate not brain washed by a press asking reaonable questions over the risks of major constiutional change but which has the same questions and is far fom being convinced that Scotland would necessarily be better off through independence. I do not know wheher we would or not but the worrying thing is neither does Alec Salmond yet he insists that we would. Most Scots do not share the SNP\'s belief and there is a difference between belief and fact. There is the growing impression that the SNP is not at all comfortable with the prospect of having to get to grips wih the difficult day to day business of Government when it will suddenly have to take all the hard decisions some of which will not please a lot of people a lot of the time, unless they are in the position of being able to hold out the prospect of jam tomorrow in the form of independence.

1/ Last weeks election was NOT for Independence but for the Scotttish Executive.
2/ The SNP is the biggest party by seats, votes and now local councilors.
3/ Their policy was to ask the people of Scotland via a referendum if they want Independence AFTER they had been given a chance to prove that they could govern the country.
4/ It was the Labour party which turned this election into an anti/pro-independence election because they could not defend the failure of their own policies, and could not even cost their new ones!!
5/ The debacle at the voting booth would only have caused confusion for the voters.
6/ The SNP GAINED 20 seats in a single election , given the labour parties dominance in Scottish politics that is an incredible achievement and as such, given the nature of Scottish politics "my family has always voted labour, whit is a policy btw?", it is even more of a statement of support for the SNP than just a number.

I am in no doubt that Douglas Alexander and those others who decided on the election format had what happened in mind when they set it up, knowing that it would cause confusion.

I for one would not mind if there was a compromise and we waited until after the next election before having a referendum but do need some form of constitutional convention now which prohibits influence from westminster on Scottish politicians..

I agree with the vast majority of posters that the libdems are revealed to be utterly undemocratic. I would vote no to independance in a referendum..so at present would a majority of scots...so whats stopping the lib dems forming a co-alition which would see a majority of their policies implemented as there is a huge consensus between snp and libdem on many issues?
As all the conspiracy theorists have pointed out...it can only be with the sole intention of defending the union at all cost. Not liberal, not democratic. Please give us another election.. i would rather have 33 tories than 16 pointless libdems, but i think if the lbdems continue to support labour in scuppering the snp....many wavering scots including myself might just be persuaded that enough is enough and if that then leads to a majority of snp msps so be it.

It appears that Brown/Ming Campbell have already stitched up the Nats with a nasty agreement formulated in Westminster.
Well, the last time the LIBERAL PARTY played silly BIGGERS,inthe Twenties they were all but wiped out.
People in Scotland are fair minded and won't accept this stitch-up.
This rump party with16seats should get down on their knees and thank Alec. Salmond for giving them a chance to have a say in Scotland's affairs.
***THIS WILL COST THEM DEAR***

Now to get back to reality and dust off the wishful thinking
The following from today's Herald

"The UK's economy looks set to outpace the rest of Europe this year, according to the latest BDO Business Trends report published today.
Meanwhile, the CBI's quarterly regional trends survey shows improved optimism in manufacturing across every region of the UK for the first time in over 12 years.
The BDO report, which pulls together all the main business surveys from the UK and the euro area, suggests that the UK economy has continued to show resilience in the face of the US economic slowdown and recent interest rate hikes. The BDO Optimism Index for the UK steadied at 101.5 in April, safely above the 100 mark, implying an annualised growth rate of 3.2% in the fourth quarter of 2007, against 2.5% for the euro area."

I would rather form a coalition with Maggie Thatches Torries than the Lib Dems or Labour.. At least all Scots realised and knew she hatted Scotland and put England first! When will the Scots realise that the Libs/Labs are the same as Thatcher but they speak with a Scots accent! Also chuck the Green Facists as well they are also anti-Scottish and pro non development .
Have the conviction to go it alone Alex and watch the Jack and Niclus unionist squirm! At least move and cause Jack to flit and you move in to his auld hoose!!

I am an SNP voter, and an SNP supporter. I want what Jack fears...this election to be the first step on a long road to Independence, a road travelled at a pace Scotland is comfortable with. To deny a referendum is fundamentally non-Liberal, and will only increase the feeling in the public that they want the right to choose. McConnell kept saying during the campaign that SNP vitory was independence...give it a break, and stop patronising Scots. [bold]On the other hand, losing an independence referendum would finish the SNP, and I can't see a way they'd win it on the current mandate in the coming term.[/bold] Therefore the sensible position would be to compromise, form coalition and prove to the nay-sayers that the SNP want the best for Scotland...ie stable government, promoting change, not involving Labour. If the SNP succeed in this, then the springboard for a massively increased mandate in term 2 and a stable platform for the referendum would be clear. As far as the challenges go....isn't it funny that the 'wet votes' are from Arran...McConnell's 'home' community... ...conspiracies aside, does Allan Wilson not realise what happened in Winchester? The elections can't be re-run because they'd be used to manipulate the party numbers, and crucify democracy...but the n Tommy doesn't have a problem with that does he?

I am an SNP voter, and an SNP supporter. I want what Jack fears...this election to be the first step on a long road to Independence, a road travelled at a pace Scotland is comfortable with.

To deny a referendum is fundamentally non-Liberal, and will only increase the feeling in the public that they want the right to choose. McConnell kept saying during the campaign that SNP vitory was independence...give it a break, and stop patronising Scots.

On the other hand, losing an independence referendum would finish the SNP, and I can't see a way they'd win it on the current mandate in the coming term. Therefore the sensible position would be to compromise, form coalition and prove to the nay-sayers that the SNP want the best for Scotland...ie stable government, promoting change, not involving Labour. If the SNP succeed in this, then the springboard for a massively increased mandate in term 2 and a stable platform for the referendum would be clear.

As far as the challenges go....isn't it funny that the 'wet votes' are from Arran...McConnell's 'home' community...

...conspiracies aside, does Allan Wilson not realise what happened in Winchester?

The elections can't be re-run because they'd be used to manipulate the party numbers, and crucify democracy...but the n Tommy doesn't have a problem with that does he?

SO THE SNP HAVE GOT A ONE MEMBER MAJORITY BUT THE LABOUR PARTY AND LIB DENS WANT TO SCREW THINGS UP FOR THEM....

JUST REMEMBER THE SNP HAS COME THIS FAR WITHOUT ANY HINGERS ON AND SO SHOULD GO IT ALONE OTHERS WILL FOLLOW THEIR LEAD..

AND TOO THOSE GREETING FER A RERUN OF THE ELECTION..
REMEBER WHAT HAPPENED THE LAST TIME... SNP WENT EVEN FARTHER AHEAD SO IF THATS THE ROAD THE OTHERS WANT TO TAKE IT.. FINE BUT THE SNPS VOTE WILL INCREASE AND THE LIBDENS COULD BECOME NON EXISTANT AND LABOUR EVEN FEWER..

GOOD LUCK TOO ALL

ITS SNPS TIME

This was always on the cards. Whereas the Lib-Dems have folded like a cheap suit in the past nursing the chance of power - giving up key pledges to sleep with Labour (students/education etc) there has very obviously been some general unionist bartering here. Knocking back labour is a smokescreen to appear reasonable. Not wanting to deal with the Nats is the most damaging thing *all* the unionist parties could have wished for. I suspect this was the outcome they had settled on very early on. It now means that the SNP cannot govern in a progressive manner - in a manner that would benefit Scotland. It now leaves the inevitable prospect of Labour mocking SNP *failures* as their tabloids will doubtless support it. Everytime the SNP get knocked back, it will be a *win* for Scottish democracy etc. It's a sham - and the Lib-Dems, rather than grasping on to history, putting themselves in a position for real change, have proved they are again the most spineless bunch of politicians at Holyrood. Having sold their principles down the river before, several times, they reject a party that has a great deal in common with them - and even *offers* the choice of 'more parliamentary powers' the Libs have been banging on about for moons. To not be fooled. See it for what it is Scotland. Unionist bully-boy tactics. Let's ask the question: Why are the Lib-Dems, having campaigned on 'empowering the parliament', having seen that the SNP are willing to put the third option on the referendum paper - *not* willing to do negotiate on any terms? If the Union - as Labour would have us believe - is as safe as houses - *what* have they got to be scared of? ASK the question BBC! ASK the question Scotsman! ASK the question Herald! ASK the question people of Scotland! Why? Because the Unionist parties are scared of SNP progress at Holyrood. Actualy progress. They are scared of any 'democracy' that occurs after such progress. The SNP are willing to go for it - put it to the *people* - see if this unionist support comes through. *Why* not the Labour nad Liberal parties? I'll tell you why! The prospect of SNP success and people voting on it. They're scared that Scotland will see beyond toilet roll like the Daily Record and The Sun and start to build their self-confidence - heaven forbid - as the SNP have their chance at Holyrood. Let's out their cowardly, undemocratic, selfish, anti-Scottish, anti-people poliicies and expose these cretins for the imbeciles they are.

This was always on the cards.

Whereas the Lib-Dems have folded like a cheap suit in the past nursing the chance of power - giving up key pledges to sleep with Labour (students/education etc) there has very obviously been some general unionist bartering here.

Knocking back labour is a smokescreen to appear reasonable.

Not wanting to deal with the Nats is the most damaging thing *all* the unionist parties could have wished for. I suspect this was the outcome they had settled on very early on.

It now means that the SNP cannot govern in a progressive manner - in a manner that would benefit Scotland.

It now leaves the inevitable prospect of Labour mocking SNP *failures* as their tabloids will doubtless support it. Everytime the SNP get knocked back, it will be a *win* for Scottish democracy etc.

It's a sham - and the Lib-Dems, rather than grasping on to history, putting themselves in a position for real change, have proved they are again the most spineless bunch of politicians at Holyrood.

Having sold their principles down the river before, several times, they reject a party that has a great deal in common with them - and even *offers* the choice of 'more parliamentary powers' the Libs have been banging on about for moons.

To not be fooled. See it for what it is Scotland. Unionist bully-boy tactics.

Let's ask the question:

Why are the Lib-Dems, having campaigned on 'empowering the parliament', having seen that the SNP are willing to put the third option on the referendum paper - *not* willing to do negotiate on any terms?

If the Union - as Labour would have us believe - is as safe as houses - *what* have they got to be scared of?

ASK the question BBC!

ASK the question Scotsman!

ASK the question Herald!

ASK the question people of Scotland!

Why? Because the Unionist parties are scared of SNP progress at Holyrood. Actualy progress. They are scared of any 'democracy' that occurs after such progress.

The SNP are willing to go for it - put it to the *people* - see if this unionist support comes through.

*Why* not the Labour nad Liberal parties?

I'll tell you why! The prospect of SNP success and people voting on it.

They're scared that Scotland will see beyond toilet roll like the Daily Record and The Sun and start to build their self-confidence - heaven forbid - as the SNP have their chance at Holyrood.

Let's out their cowardly, undemocratic, selfish, anti-Scottish, anti-people poliicies and expose these cretins for the imbeciles they are.

Douglas Alexander is currently off on tour, playing Bert (or is it Ernie?) in the live stage version of 'The Bert and Ernie Story'.

The real deadline for all this may not be 28 days, but 14 days, ie a week on Thurs. By then, the first voting period for a First Minister has to be held, and that needs a new Presiding Officer to have been elected.

Agree a sordid deal in London between Ming Campbell & Gordon Brown has been done to "stitch up" coalition negotiations.

Too many people with vested interests in keeping the union.

Why do so many people believe in the union mantra, & don't think Scotland can stand proud as an independent country, like other countries can? Constantly tied to the apron strings of London?

Too many people in the "giro & dependency" culture, thinking blindly that voting for "the same old scene" is best for them, yet they live in the poverty that the union has created.

Perhaps the rest of Scotland can vote for independence from the unionist numpties in west central Scotland, that vote for Labour NO MATTER WHAT?

Another English government experimenting in Scotland, remember the Poll Tax? No one bothered until it was introduced in England. Same here - let's try out PR, let's try out STV, oh it doesn't work causes too many problems, let's not try them in England because we can't upset the English voters, but to h*ll with the Scots. Time to go it alone, wasn't pro-independence until this. Labour and Fib Dems make me sick.

Is it just me or do all these Nat supporters really realise what independance means? In all honesty Salmond doesn't really want independance cos he's costed it and he knows that Scotland can't and will never be able to afford going it alone - it's a pipe dream

The only one with a brain.

Albeit, the brain of a chimp, it seems.

Go away and please find something else to debate, perhaps there's a nursery or somesuch near your lair?

Suffice to say, you're talking cobblers - and you mutterings barely deserve an answer. ;o)

Nothing to see here folks, move along....

The Lib-Dems have let down the people who voted for them with this childish refusal to govern with the SNP.
If the Lib-dems were serious about their policies they would share power, since most of their flagship policies are shared by the SNP and a coalition would enable them to see those policies enacted.
Instead, their steadfast refusal to even consider allowing the people of Scotland to express their opinion on independence is undemocratic in the extreme. They are free to oppose independence - but who are they to tell us that we ought not to have the right to express our views on the subject?
They have had my vote at times in the past - after this, they will never have it again.

The Lib Dems have started digging.They will maybe find an Alexander at the bottom.

[quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: John, Where I live is totally irrelevant. Anyway, you give me a job where I can earn what I earn here and I'll be on the next plane. The press in Scotland, in no way fairly represented the parties at the election. It was a disgrace. They are all owned outside Scotland and act against the interests of Scotland making it anti-democratic and indeed anti-Scottish. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/ [/quote] Money is irrelevant, I along with thousands of other Scots can always earn more money if they are prepared to move. In construction at present you are getting 30/40% more to move to England? It comes down to choice, more money or happy where you are. I am not having a go becuase you choose to work in spain, that is entirley your choice. I just find it why you want to work there ans still be so anxious as to what we do in Scotland. Like I said, call the press unfair, but if you think it is undemocratic, then I don't think we could engage in proper debate. I rest my case with you being on this website. Now here is another thought, if you feel the press really are undemocratic, you take a very arrogant view of yourself, in that you feel that the rest of the nation rely on what is fed to them to vote, while clever clogs like yourself, who earns buckets more money than the rest of us, can see through this sinister tabloid nonesense. Arogance is still alive and well when fellow scots go abroad.

Alex Porter wrote:
John, Where I live is totally irrelevant. Anyway, you give me a job where I can earn what I earn here and I'll be on the next plane. The press in Scotland, in no way fairly represented the parties at the election. It was a disgrace. They are all owned outside Scotland and act against the interests of Scotland making it anti-democratic and indeed anti-Scottish. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

Money is irrelevant, I along with thousands of other Scots can always earn more money if they are prepared to move. In construction at present you are getting 30/40% more to move to England? It comes down to choice, more money or happy where you are.

I am not having a go becuase you choose to work in spain, that is entirley your choice. I just find it why you want to work there ans still be so anxious as to what we do in Scotland.

Like I said, call the press unfair, but if you think it is undemocratic, then I don't think we could engage in proper debate. I rest my case with you being on this website.

Now here is another thought, if you feel the press really are undemocratic, you take a very arrogant view of yourself, in that you feel that the rest of the nation rely on what is fed to them to vote, while clever clogs like yourself, who earns buckets more money than the rest of us, can see through this sinister tabloid nonesense.

Arogance is still alive and well when fellow scots go abroad.

quote

As anticipated the usual response from the arrogant Shortbread Tin Brigade - If that's the best you can do this country is in even more trouble!

I've yet to see a single broadcaster bake Tavish or that weasel Stephen on this issue.

Indeed, the only time it was asked directly (on newsnight Scotland pre-election) Mr.Stephen could only repeat, half-a-dozen times:

Interviewer: 'But Mr.Stephen, if the union is strong, if you've been campaigning on more powers for Holyrood, if the SNP are happy to put that third question on the referendum paper - why are you opposing this?'

Nicol Stpehen: 'We would prefer not to get more powers in that manner'.

Translated: 'We couldn't do that in case people *did* vote for independence, irrespective of todays 'support for the union' figures'.

Ask the simple question Scotland.

Good!The lib/dems on the back benches where they belong,at least the SNP will not have to pander to that bunch of nonentities for four years ,it will be hard for the SNP trying to get anything done but the people will see that whenever the SNP try to improve Scotland's lot and being continually thwarted by Labour they will know who to blame, that lot on the back benches who didn,t have the guts to face a referendum. I forecast a lib/dem wipeout next election,which may come sooner than than they think.

Hang on a wee minute, under what authority does Ming "The Destroyer" tell Scotland (via his tea boy) that they won't support a referendum on Independence?? If he and GB think that a cosy chat can put this to bed, there should be many ways found to disavow both of them of that notion. Frankly, I find it difficult to see any LEGITIMATE reason for the LibDem stance, since if they are correct and the referendum would fail........then don't they deal the Independence seekers a grievous blow that'd take many years to recover from??. Whya re they afraid to hear the people's voice, when we KNOW that some labour, LibDem and even Tory supporters would support anIndependence referendum, and indeed would VOTE for it. Now,if you will bear with me,let me then share with you another thought. IF the Scots can't have a referendum, what would the Westminster view be if the ENGLISH public , with growing views on their OWN constitutional position,decided that THEY wanted a referendum??........are we being told that Messrs. Brown and Campbell would block that also??. How would the wider UK public react to that?? That irony would be the mother and father of ALL constitutional crises, would it not? When you distill this present position in Scotland, IF GB and Ming are able to decide that we won't be ALLOWED to decide our constitutional position, doesn't that make us, in effect, SLAVES??.....slaves to a system that there is clear evidence that a large number of Scots are not happy with( majority opinion or not, that's what the referendum would decide..so let's not get hung up on the percentages here and now) . Now.... regardless of your OWN views on the matter of holding a referendum vote, (indeed it's as important to ENGLISH nationalists as well as Scots) are we happy to stand idly by and see these increasingly elderly and out of touch people (REMEMBER...Both are Scots) dictate our future??. Regardless of your personal view on Independence, surely no-one would deny that the will for freedom is a strong and powerful force welling deep inside all thinking humans...it's why we choose democracy over tyranny, ...it's why we choose debate over war, ..it's why we provide welfare for the weak,... and why we pay agreed tax in order to provide for our children, the infirm, and all who are disadvantaged in our communities. These freedoms are undeniable, even sacrosanct,.... why then is the right to democratically choose in question...'cos you can "choose to refuse" as well.. by those claiming to be both "liberal" and "democrat" Such position is neither tenable nor is it tolerable Burns was right.......(and wasn't talking about the english)...when he said "Whit a Parcel O' Rogues In A Nation". .

Hang on a wee minute, under what authority does Ming "The Destroyer" tell Scotland (via his tea boy) that they won't support a referendum on Independence?? If he and GB think that a cosy chat can put this to bed, there should be many ways found to disavow both of them of that notion. Frankly, I find it difficult to see any LEGITIMATE reason for the LibDem stance, since if they are correct and the referendum would fail........then don't they deal the Independence seekers a grievous blow that'd take many years to recover from??. Whya re they afraid to hear the people's voice, when we KNOW that some labour, LibDem and even Tory supporters would support anIndependence referendum, and indeed would VOTE for it.
Now,if you will bear with me,let me then share with you another thought. IF the Scots can't have a referendum, what would the Westminster view be if the ENGLISH public , with growing views on their OWN constitutional position,decided that THEY wanted a referendum??........are we being told that Messrs. Brown and Campbell would block that also??. How would the wider UK public react to that?? That irony would be the mother and father of ALL constitutional crises, would it not?
When you distill this present position in Scotland, IF GB and Ming are able to decide that we won't be ALLOWED to decide our constitutional position, doesn't that make us, in effect, SLAVES??.....slaves to a system that there is clear evidence that a large number of Scots are not happy with( majority opinion or not, that's what the referendum would decide..so let's not get hung up on the percentages here and now) .
Now.... regardless of your OWN views on the matter of holding a referendum vote, (indeed it's as important to ENGLISH nationalists as well as Scots) are we happy to stand idly by and see these increasingly elderly and out of touch people (REMEMBER...Both are Scots) dictate our future??.
Regardless of your personal view on Independence, surely no-one would deny that the will for freedom is a strong and powerful force welling deep inside all thinking humans...it's why we choose democracy over tyranny, ...it's why we choose debate over war, ..it's why we provide welfare for the weak,... and why we pay agreed tax in order to provide for our children, the infirm, and all who are disadvantaged in our communities. These freedoms are undeniable, even sacrosanct,.... why then is the right to democratically choose in question...'cos you can "choose to refuse" as well.. by those claiming to be both "liberal" and "democrat"
Such position is neither tenable nor is it tolerable
Burns was right.......(and wasn't talking about the english)...when he said "Whit a Parcel O' Rogues In A Nation".
.

Yuri at 9:31 am - no - I'm afraid the Lib-Dems would rather sit in the Holyrood twilight for four years than go into progessive govt. with the SNP. This is Menzie Campbell's wishes. Better that, and join the rest of the unionist parties in downing every article the SNP try to create - rather than moving on with Scotland. They will come out, four years from now, on the back of Labour tales of *SNP failure* etc and come back up to their skinny support levels, as it is now. It is disgusting. 'Democracy' is a living, breathing mandate - something you proof by way of action. It doens't matter what 'the result' was at the election. The SNP won. They now have a mandate to create a democratic article. What could be *more* democratic than putting it to the people. After all, if the union is safe, if the SNP are cutting their own throats, what is the big deal? Read between the lines son. It is the most unliberal exercise in gutlessness I have ever experienced. My parents (both Libs) have told me enough is enough - the situation is even transparent enough for them to see through quite clearly. it's the unionist agenda folks - and it is certainly *not* about giving the people of Scotland a progressive govt. Shocking.

Yuri at 9:31 am - no - I'm afraid the Lib-Dems would rather sit in the Holyrood twilight for four years than go into progessive govt. with the SNP.

This is Menzie Campbell's wishes. Better that, and join the rest of the unionist parties in downing every article the SNP try to create - rather than moving on with Scotland.

They will come out, four years from now, on the back of Labour tales of *SNP failure* etc and come back up to their skinny support levels, as it is now.

It is disgusting.

'Democracy' is a living, breathing mandate - something you proof by way of action.

It doens't matter what 'the result' was at the election. The SNP won. They now have a mandate to create a democratic article.

What could be *more* democratic than putting it to the people. After all, if the union is safe, if the SNP are cutting their own throats, what is the big deal?

Read between the lines son.

It is the most unliberal exercise in gutlessness I have ever experienced. My parents (both Libs) have told me enough is enough - the situation is even transparent enough for them to see through quite clearly.

it's the unionist agenda folks - and it is certainly *not* about giving the people of Scotland a progressive govt.

Shocking.

.....the Herald headline should read "Lib Dems reject bid from Labour" -
Tavish Scott live on BBC tv on Sunday that they would not work with Labour.
......Crisis ? - Only if SNP and Liberals don't agree during the horse trading - and we are not at that point yet.

Well to me the easy answer for both the SNP and the so called lid/DEMOCRATS would have been,work together in a coalition then after 3/4 years the snp introduce the referendum bill and the libs can have a free vote on it and not support it in this free vote.The parliament is dissolved and the people then decided in a new election?

[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: John, Where I live is totally irrelevant. Anyway, you give me a job where I can earn what I earn here and I'll be on the next plane. The press in Scotland, in no way fairly represented the parties at the election. It was a disgrace. They are all owned outside Scotland and act against the interests of Scotland making it anti-democratic and indeed anti-Scottish. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/ [/quote] Money is irrelevant, I along with thousands of other Scots can always earn more money if they are prepared to move. In construction at present you are getting 30/40% more to move to England? It comes down to choice, more money or happy where you are. I am not having a go becuase you choose to work in spain, that is entirley your choice. I just find it why you want to work there ans still be so anxious as to what we do in Scotland. Like I said, call the press unfair, but if you think it is undemocratic, then I don't think we could engage in proper debate. I rest my case with you being on this website. Now here is another thought, if you feel the press really are undemocratic, you take a very arrogant view of yourself, in that you feel that the rest of the nation rely on what is fed to them to vote, while clever clogs like yourself, who earns buckets more money than the rest of us, can see through this sinister tabloid nonesense. Arogance is still alive and well when fellow scots go abroad.[/quote] JOHN What a total load of tosh from John. Scots since time imemorial have seen fit to go out into the world and have been successful in many spheres. Perhaps it's our education system that's amiss, that can leave you John with no understanding that countries NEED to explore other countries( not in the geographic sense, but in the economic and cultural senses) to enrich their OWN culture. Who can deny that the work of Livingstone, Muir, Carnegie, etc haven't enriched us as a nation??............and what about Scots soldiers abroad??.........they are migrant workers too, aren't they? Now, it doesn't matter whether if Alex Porter is a Scot working abroad or if he's a Scot enjoying a retirement in the sun, but even if he WERE to be in the latter group, the strong likelihood is that he would pay UK tax on any pensioned income etc. Does that mean that he should be disenfranchised or that his opinions on a Scotland he clearly loves and takes great interest in carry less weight than any other Scot?. He does it because it's his homeland, he is likely to have family and friends there,he was brought up there,and he'll ALWAYS have its best interests at heart. Walter Scott wrote,.."Breathes there a Heart, With Soul So Dead, Who Never To Himself Has Said, This Is My Own, My Native Land" A sentiment that will find favour with all Scots.

John wrote:

Alex Porter wrote: John, Where I live is totally irrelevant. Anyway, you give me a job where I can earn what I earn here and I'll be on the next plane. The press in Scotland, in no way fairly represented the parties at the election. It was a disgrace. They are all owned outside Scotland and act against the interests of Scotland making it anti-democratic and indeed anti-Scottish. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/
Money is irrelevant, I along with thousands of other Scots can always earn more money if they are prepared to move. In construction at present you are getting 30/40% more to move to England? It comes down to choice, more money or happy where you are. I am not having a go becuase you choose to work in spain, that is entirley your choice. I just find it why you want to work there ans still be so anxious as to what we do in Scotland. Like I said, call the press unfair, but if you think it is undemocratic, then I don't think we could engage in proper debate. I rest my case with you being on this website. Now here is another thought, if you feel the press really are undemocratic, you take a very arrogant view of yourself, in that you feel that the rest of the nation rely on what is fed to them to vote, while clever clogs like yourself, who earns buckets more money than the rest of us, can see through this sinister tabloid nonesense. Arogance is still alive and well when fellow scots go abroad.

JOHN
What a total load of tosh from John.
Scots since time imemorial have seen fit to go out into the world and have been successful in many spheres. Perhaps it's our education system that's amiss, that can leave you John with no understanding that countries NEED to explore other countries( not in the geographic sense, but in the economic and cultural senses) to enrich their OWN culture.
Who can deny that the work of Livingstone, Muir, Carnegie, etc haven't enriched us as a nation??............and what about Scots soldiers abroad??.........they are migrant workers too, aren't they?
Now, it doesn't matter whether if Alex Porter is a Scot working abroad or if he's a Scot enjoying a retirement in the sun, but even if he WERE to be in the latter group, the strong likelihood is that he would pay UK tax on any pensioned income etc. Does that mean that he should be disenfranchised or that his opinions on a Scotland he clearly loves and takes great interest in carry less weight than any other Scot?. He does it because it's his homeland, he is likely to have family and friends there,he was brought up there,and he'll ALWAYS have its best interests at heart.
Walter Scott wrote,.."Breathes there a Heart, With Soul So Dead, Who Never To Himself Has Said, This Is My Own, My Native Land"
A sentiment that will find favour with all Scots.

Liberal stance = unionist led - NOTHING to do with offering a true progressive govt.

IF the union is strong, then a referendum - FREE WILL for the people - should be nothing to fear.

NO POLITICAN HAS THE MANDATE TO FEAR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

It could go against the SNP, but they're willing to work hard and try - nevertheless.

That is the TRUTH.

The faint whiff of Gordon Brown and Menzies Campbell is filling my nostrils.... Let me say this to them both.....

At your peril pursue your malevolent plotting and subversive influence. A bit of tinkering in the dark corners of your parties will go un noticed for now, but when your lackies in Scotland are seen to be the puppets they are, the Scottish electorate will kick you both where it hurts.

What? You mention the English and your post gets removed? They are the 800 LBS. gorrillia in the kitchen. It is they and their minions who have orcestrated the circumstances of the election that has led to the so-called chaos. It is they who continue to utilise their agents in labour to do their bibbing in regard to ongoing subjigation of the Scots. Internal colonialisim is a concept the English first perfected in Scotland. They will do anything to hang on to the resources in the North Sea and our people.

Was it a Cambell who helped the union many years ago???????????

No party, including the SNP have a mandate to push through thier election manifesto.

Lib Dems did say before the election that they WOULD NOT support a referendum, why should they suddenly drop this.

It take it that all those SNP supporters who have accused the LDs of being political prostitutes will now be apologising since they have shown that they will not reverse their policy just for office.

Or not depending on whether they really believed the claim in the first place.

There is nothing close to a majority for separation either in Holyrood or the country - if the SNP are serious about running the country they are going to have to live with it & get on with the job they stood for.

Imnoreallyhere said of the LDs
"Did they demand that Labour drop socialism when it went into coalition with them??" to which the obvious answer is that they would have had Labour not already done so.

The Lib Dems have exercised their right to refuse Salmond's offer.

So be it.

Go it alone, Alec.

As for the New Labour toadies who are crowing on here, you should be bloody ashamed of yourselves. Another 4 years of Labour? WHY? Scotland is falling to bits and you'll just sit and watch it happen?

You must either be civil servants or unemployed.

If the Lib-Dems believe that Scotland is not going to vote independence, what are they so hot & bothered about? While I am still to be convinced about independence, like many I would be very peeved off with any party that that appears to be using, a best, technicalities, and at worst, dirty tricks, to make sure I do not get my democratic right to vote on such a matter. If SNP do go on as a minority and other parties act petty and dont act in a way that is in the best interest of Scotland, I think it will come back to haunt them.

Neil 10.29 Do you respect a party who voted day in day out with a partner who endorsed an illegal war, is directly complicit in the death of our troops, manifested to retain and up date nuclear weapons in Scotland, opposed a PR system and vilified it during the recent run up to the election? Seems all you LibDems prefer your mondeos rather than your principles!

[quote][bold]Robert McClair[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: John, Where I live is totally irrelevant. Anyway, you give me a job where I can earn what I earn here and I'll be on the next plane. The press in Scotland, in no way fairly represented the parties at the election. It was a disgrace. They are all owned outside Scotland and act against the interests of Scotland making it anti-democratic and indeed anti-Scottish. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/ [/quote] Money is irrelevant, I along with thousands of other Scots can always earn more money if they are prepared to move. In construction at present you are getting 30/40% more to move to England? It comes down to choice, more money or happy where you are. I am not having a go becuase you choose to work in spain, that is entirley your choice. I just find it why you want to work there ans still be so anxious as to what we do in Scotland. Like I said, call the press unfair, but if you think it is undemocratic, then I don't think we could engage in proper debate. I rest my case with you being on this website. Now here is another thought, if you feel the press really are undemocratic, you take a very arrogant view of yourself, in that you feel that the rest of the nation rely on what is fed to them to vote, while clever clogs like yourself, who earns buckets more money than the rest of us, can see through this sinister tabloid nonesense. Arogance is still alive and well when fellow scots go abroad.[/quote] JOHN What a total load of tosh from John. Scots since time imemorial have seen fit to go out into the world and have been successful in many spheres. Perhaps it's our education system that's amiss, that can leave you John with no understanding that countries NEED to explore other countries( not in the geographic sense, but in the economic and cultural senses) to enrich their OWN culture. Who can deny that the work of Livingstone, Muir, Carnegie, etc haven't enriched us as a nation??............and what about Scots soldiers abroad??.........they are migrant workers too, aren't they? Now, it doesn't matter whether if Alex Porter is a Scot working abroad or if he's a Scot enjoying a retirement in the sun, but even if he WERE to be in the latter group, the strong likelihood is that he would pay UK tax on any pensioned income etc. Does that mean that he should be disenfranchised or that his opinions on a Scotland he clearly loves and takes great interest in carry less weight than any other Scot?. He does it because it's his homeland, he is likely to have family and friends there,he was brought up there,and he'll ALWAYS have its best interests at heart. Walter Scott wrote,.."Breathes there a Heart, With Soul So Dead, Who Never To Himself Has Said, This Is My Own, My Native Land" A sentiment that will find favour with all Scots. [/quote] Read the threads of all the comments before you you go off on a rant, it would help you and stop you typing irrelavnt comments on the debate. The other posters failed to answer my points re the comments they made about the undemocratic press, do you not have a response to that? I have said umpteen times, if you earned more money abroad then you have a right to go for it, but please spare us the tosh of pining for our homeland. It is easy to make a bold statement which is factually incorrect, and then ignore any reasonable response against it. Do we not wnat informed debates? Is this what we have to look forward to? If anyone dares questions a SNP supporter we get trashed? I am more than happy to have a debate with you if you care to follow all of the threads, don't pick on one thread and go off on one. The 1st thread was having a go at "undemocratic" press and i simply remned him he was responding on their website, hardly undemocratic?

Robert McClair wrote:

John wrote:
Alex Porter wrote: John, Where I live is totally irrelevant. Anyway, you give me a job where I can earn what I earn here and I'll be on the next plane. The press in Scotland, in no way fairly represented the parties at the election. It was a disgrace. They are all owned outside Scotland and act against the interests of Scotland making it anti-democratic and indeed anti-Scottish. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/
Money is irrelevant, I along with thousands of other Scots can always earn more money if they are prepared to move. In construction at present you are getting 30/40% more to move to England? It comes down to choice, more money or happy where you are. I am not having a go becuase you choose to work in spain, that is entirley your choice. I just find it why you want to work there ans still be so anxious as to what we do in Scotland. Like I said, call the press unfair, but if you think it is undemocratic, then I don't think we could engage in proper debate. I rest my case with you being on this website. Now here is another thought, if you feel the press really are undemocratic, you take a very arrogant view of yourself, in that you feel that the rest of the nation rely on what is fed to them to vote, while clever clogs like yourself, who earns buckets more money than the rest of us, can see through this sinister tabloid nonesense. Arogance is still alive and well when fellow scots go abroad.
JOHN What a total load of tosh from John. Scots since time imemorial have seen fit to go out into the world and have been successful in many spheres. Perhaps it's our education system that's amiss, that can leave you John with no understanding that countries NEED to explore other countries( not in the geographic sense, but in the economic and cultural senses) to enrich their OWN culture. Who can deny that the work of Livingstone, Muir, Carnegie, etc haven't enriched us as a nation??............and what about Scots soldiers abroad??.........they are migrant workers too, aren't they? Now, it doesn't matter whether if Alex Porter is a Scot working abroad or if he's a Scot enjoying a retirement in the sun, but even if he WERE to be in the latter group, the strong likelihood is that he would pay UK tax on any pensioned income etc. Does that mean that he should be disenfranchised or that his opinions on a Scotland he clearly loves and takes great interest in carry less weight than any other Scot?. He does it because it's his homeland, he is likely to have family and friends there,he was brought up there,and he'll ALWAYS have its best interests at heart. Walter Scott wrote,.."Breathes there a Heart, With Soul So Dead, Who Never To Himself Has Said, This Is My Own, My Native Land" A sentiment that will find favour with all Scots.

Read the threads of all the comments before you you go off on a rant, it would help you and stop you typing irrelavnt comments on the debate.

The other posters failed to answer my points re the comments they made about the undemocratic press, do you not have a response to that?

I have said umpteen times, if you earned more money abroad then you have a right to go for it, but please spare us the tosh of pining for our homeland.

It is easy to make a bold statement which is factually incorrect, and then ignore any reasonable response against it. Do we not wnat informed debates?

Is this what we have to look forward to? If anyone dares questions a SNP supporter we get trashed?

I am more than happy to have a debate with you if you care to follow all of the threads, don't pick on one thread and go off on one.

The 1st thread was having a go at "undemocratic" press and i simply remned him he was responding on their website, hardly undemocratic?

The electorate vote SNP
Alex Salmond turns cartwheels with glee
Til, wee shyte Nicol Stephen
Decides to get even
And scuppers the Land Of The Free..

So many sharp and rational points here, rumbling the perverse prattlings of the Non-liberal Undemocratic Party - NUMPTY - it's where the word comes from I reckon? These self-deluding panajandrums are in the huff and ought to shut-up and join their bad loser commrades on the political 'naughty mat'. Never mind the potential of independence for the moment, let's see the SNP, who even my Tory friends are delighted to see win in place of the embarassing tenure of Jack McQuackell take forward some real advantageous policies in Scotland's interests and show up the absence of integrity and effective action we have put up with for the last eight years. How can these shallow minority non-entities, howl about the undemocratic nature of the just past election, and demand that a democratic referendum in four years time with just cause is against their politics? What a shower of sycophantic charlatans. I hope they and their ex-commrades read these commentaries - I've read more good debate here than in their dodgy manifestos. Congratulations to the SNP, the Greens and the effervescent Margo!

So many sharp and rational points here, rumbling the perverse prattlings of the Non-liberal Undemocratic Party - NUMPTY - it's where the word comes from I reckon? These self-deluding panajandrums are in the huff and ought to shut-up and join their bad loser commrades on the political 'naughty mat'.
Never mind the potential of independence for the moment, let's see the SNP, who even my Tory friends are delighted to see win in place of the embarassing tenure of Jack McQuackell take forward some real advantageous policies in Scotland's interests and show up the absence of integrity and effective action we have put up with for the last eight years.
How can these shallow minority non-entities, howl about the undemocratic nature of the just past election, and demand that a democratic referendum in four years time with just cause is against their politics? What a shower of sycophantic charlatans. I hope they and their ex-commrades read these commentaries - I've read more good debate here than in their dodgy manifestos.
Congratulations to the SNP, the Greens and the effervescent Margo!

The Scottish electorate (circa 4 million) are not stupid. They knew that if they voted SNP last week then a referendum on independence would be on the cards. The fact that only 664,227 (18%) voted for SNP tells you that the people of Scotland were not sufficiently persuaded that this was the right thing to do. Now before you all cry out about that number, look at the votes cast. Of the 2,016,978 votes 664,227 (33%) were for the only party proposing independence. This figure tells us that Scots did not support the SNP's policies by a ratio of 2:1 against. Before the election, the Lib/Dem's clearly stated that they would not get into a coalition with the SNP because of the devolution issue. Now it's all over bar the horsetrading, why are you all so surprised? Why are you squawking about it and spitting poison at the Lib/Dem's? Politicians who actually stand by what they promised in the run up to an election are a rare commodity and should be respected. So now we have this (highly entertaining) minority raving and drooling about plots from London etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland rejected your policies. A minority is a minority no matter how you look at it. Thanks for the laughs guys, you've made my day.

The Scottish electorate (circa 4 million) are not stupid. They knew that if they voted SNP last week then a referendum on independence would be on the cards. The fact that only 664,227 (18%) voted for SNP tells you that the people of Scotland were not sufficiently persuaded that this was the right thing to do.

Now before you all cry out about that number, look at the votes cast. Of the 2,016,978 votes 664,227 (33%) were for the only party proposing independence. This figure tells us that Scots did not support the SNP's policies by a ratio of 2:1 against.

Before the election, the Lib/Dem's clearly stated that they would not get into a coalition with the SNP because of the devolution issue. Now it's all over bar the horsetrading, why are you all so surprised? Why are you squawking about it and spitting poison at the Lib/Dem's? Politicians who actually stand by what they promised in the run up to an election are a rare commodity and should be respected.

So now we have this (highly entertaining) minority raving and drooling about plots from London etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland rejected your policies. A minority is a minority no matter how you look at it.

Thanks for the laughs guys, you've made my day.

Thank you Robert McClair, some people just can't manage a dialogue so why bother?

1) Why hasn't Jack McConnell resigned as First Minister? He should resign and seek re-election. It would be a disgrace for him to assume power without a vote in the Scottish Parliament.

2) Why has the press not demanded the resignation of Douglas Alexander? His election was shambolic and Scotland has been shamed on the world stage. Get him out now!

3) Will the LibDems support an independent judicial inquiry into why so many people lost their votes? This should be done before any election re-run happens. If Douglas botches another we would be the laughing stock of the world's banana republics.

Why are the press not asking these questions?

Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

The present electoral sysytem was championed by the Libs (among others) as a way of giving stable concensus government. It's been one of their banner policies for years. Now given the chance to participate in a historical oppertunity to govern Scotland they suddenly go off in the huff ? Did all those people who voted for them all over the country realise they were voting for a party who will compromise on entry into the Iraq war and a replacement for Trident to get into government but NEVER compomise on a referendum of the Scottish peoples views on their future direction. Worst of all they know that it wont even happen till after the next election if at all. Alex Salmond would never push through a vote on Independence with a minority of seats, he knows he would loose at the moment. He realises his best chance will be after a succesful term in office or even two. The SNP should allow the SLD just enough time to show the Scottish people this vote thing is a red herring and their only interested in Unionist wrecking tactics then call an new election. The Libs will be anihilated and rightly so. New Labour ........ well they will still be hanging round outside their old offices wondering why the names have changed..........

The present electoral sysytem was championed by the Libs (among others) as a way of giving stable concensus government. It's been one of their banner policies for years. Now given the chance to participate in a historical oppertunity to govern Scotland they suddenly go off in the huff ? Did all those people who voted for them all over the country realise they were voting for a party who will compromise on entry into the Iraq war and a replacement for Trident to get into government but NEVER compomise on a referendum of the Scottish peoples views on their future direction. Worst of all they know that it wont even happen till after the next election if at all.
Alex Salmond would never push through a vote on Independence with a minority of seats, he knows he would loose at the moment. He realises his best chance will be after a succesful term in office or even two. The SNP should allow the SLD just enough time to show the Scottish people this vote thing is a red herring and their only interested in Unionist wrecking tactics then call an new election. The Libs will be anihilated and rightly so. New Labour ........ well they will still be hanging round outside their old offices wondering why the names have changed..........

The total confusion has arisen because of the "behind closed doors" plotting by Douglas Alexander, Jack MaCconnell and Nicol Steven around 2004. Against all the advice of the Arbuthnot Commission,they agreed to go ahead with two elections on the one day with a dual voting system. Why? Because they were convinced that they would win in both papers. So much so that Nicol Stephen calculated that HE would be the next First Minister. That is what a dreamer this guy really is! In his wildest imaginings did he really believe Scottish Labour would have allowed that? Scottish Labour were sure they would achieve an overall victory BUT if needed have the LibDems back in bed with them. With a greatly reduced vote, the brain dead in the Central belt voted for more of the same! More of Karen Whitefield, Cathy Jamieson, Margaret Curran,Duncan McNeil, Karen Gillan,Hugh Henry and heaven forbid GEORGE FOULKEs et al! Need I say more?

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS The party that won the election stood on ticket of introducing a referendum. The Labour Party and others, including the media made sure that independence was central to the election as did people on these forums e.g. 12 Billion black holes etc. These parties, their press and people on this forum told us that people were voting SNP as a protest not for independence and not they are telling us that a vote for Lab/Lib/Tory was only for their policy on the Union. What ingrained and small-minded hypocrisy. They make the case for a referendum with this partisan propaganda. I tell you this, it is now time for the wealthy and capable backers of the independence movement to buy one of these newspapers. After all these anti-democratic manouvres, I will bet that some control of the media will be on their minds. Tom Farmer, George Mathewson and others, time to go for it. There are more elections and a referendum that needs a fair democratic debate to allow all Scots to make an informed decision. Thank you Robert McClair, some people just can't manage a dialogue so why bother? 1) Why hasn't Jack McConnell resigned as First Minister? He should resign and seek re-election. It would be a disgrace for him to assume power without a vote in the Scottish Parliament. 2) Why has the press not demanded the resignation of Douglas Alexander? His election was shambolic and Scotland has been shamed on the world stage. Get him out now! 3) Will the LibDems support an independent judicial inquiry into why so many people lost their votes? This should be done before any election re-run happens. If Douglas botches another we would be the laughing stock of the world's banana republics. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

The party that won the election stood on ticket of introducing a referendum. The Labour Party and others, including the media made sure that independence was central to the election as did people on these forums e.g. 12 Billion black holes etc. These parties, their press and people on this forum told us that people were voting SNP as a protest not for independence and not they are telling us that a vote for Lab/Lib/Tory was only for their policy on the Union. What ingrained and small-minded hypocrisy. They make the case for a referendum with this partisan propaganda.

I tell you this, it is now time for the wealthy and capable backers of the independence movement to buy one of these newspapers. After all these anti-democratic manouvres, I will bet that some control of the media will be on their minds. Tom Farmer, George Mathewson and others, time to go for it. There are more elections and a referendum that needs a fair democratic debate to allow all Scots to make an informed decision.

Thank you Robert McClair, some people just can't manage a dialogue so why bother?

1) Why hasn't Jack McConnell resigned as First Minister? He should resign and seek re-election. It would be a disgrace for him to assume power without a vote in the Scottish Parliament.

2) Why has the press not demanded the resignation of Douglas Alexander? His election was shambolic and Scotland has been shamed on the world stage. Get him out now!

3) Will the LibDems support an independent judicial inquiry into why so many people lost their votes? This should be done before any election re-run happens. If Douglas botches another we would be the laughing stock of the world's banana republics.

Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

I simply cannot understand the LibDem position. They tell us that they are the libertarians supporting freedom for everyone and yet, when push comes to shove, they seek to deny a referendum. Surely a referendum is there to be won or lost and is simply to assess the given view of the people. The SNP are not asking the LibDems to endorse independence, they are not saying to the LibDems that they must support independence. No, they are simply asking for a vote on it to be put to the people. Sounds like a natural liberal point of view to me.

[quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: LIBERAL DEMOCRATS The party that won the election stood on ticket of introducing a referendum. The Labour Party and others, including the media made sure that independence was central to the election as did people on these forums e.g. 12 Billion black holes etc. These parties, their press and people on this forum told us that people were voting SNP as a protest not for independence and not they are telling us that a vote for Lab/Lib/Tory was only for their policy on the Union. What ingrained and small-minded hypocrisy. They make the case for a referendum with this partisan propaganda. I tell you this, it is now time for the wealthy and capable backers of the independence movement to buy one of these newspapers. After all these anti-democratic manouvres, I will bet that some control of the media will be on their minds. Tom Farmer, George Mathewson and others, time to go for it. There are more elections and a referendum that needs a fair democratic debate to allow all Scots to make an informed decision. Thank you Robert McClair, some people just can't manage a dialogue so why bother? 1) Why hasn't Jack McConnell resigned as First Minister? He should resign and seek re-election. It would be a disgrace for him to assume power without a vote in the Scottish Parliament. 2) Why has the press not demanded the resignation of Douglas Alexander? His election was shambolic and Scotland has been shamed on the world stage. Get him out now! 3) Will the LibDems support an independent judicial inquiry into why so many people lost their votes? This should be done before any election re-run happens. If Douglas botches another we would be the laughing stock of the world's banana republics. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/[/quote] Alex, You keep repeating yourself, can you respond to the following? "Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn't SNP doesn't mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn't at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that's democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?"

Alex Porter wrote:
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS The party that won the election stood on ticket of introducing a referendum. The Labour Party and others, including the media made sure that independence was central to the election as did people on these forums e.g. 12 Billion black holes etc. These parties, their press and people on this forum told us that people were voting SNP as a protest not for independence and not they are telling us that a vote for Lab/Lib/Tory was only for their policy on the Union. What ingrained and small-minded hypocrisy. They make the case for a referendum with this partisan propaganda. I tell you this, it is now time for the wealthy and capable backers of the independence movement to buy one of these newspapers. After all these anti-democratic manouvres, I will bet that some control of the media will be on their minds. Tom Farmer, George Mathewson and others, time to go for it. There are more elections and a referendum that needs a fair democratic debate to allow all Scots to make an informed decision. Thank you Robert McClair, some people just can't manage a dialogue so why bother? 1) Why hasn't Jack McConnell resigned as First Minister? He should resign and seek re-election. It would be a disgrace for him to assume power without a vote in the Scottish Parliament. 2) Why has the press not demanded the resignation of Douglas Alexander? His election was shambolic and Scotland has been shamed on the world stage. Get him out now! 3) Will the LibDems support an independent judicial inquiry into why so many people lost their votes? This should be done before any election re-run happens. If Douglas botches another we would be the laughing stock of the world's banana republics. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/

Alex,

You keep repeating yourself, can you respond to the following?

"Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn't SNP doesn't mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn't at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that's democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?"

[quote][bold]Mikko Takala[/bold] wrote: I simply cannot understand the LibDem position. They tell us that they are the libertarians supporting freedom for everyone and yet, when push comes to shove, they seek to deny a referendum. Surely a referendum is there to be won or lost and is simply to assess the given view of the people. The SNP are not asking the LibDems to endorse independence, they are not saying to the LibDems that they must support independence. No, they are simply asking for a vote on it to be put to the people. Sounds like a natural liberal point of view to me.[/quote] These anti LIbDEm posts are becoming futile, you may not like their stance and this is your right under a democracy, I have no issue with that whatsoever. But the FACT is: The LIbdems made their point clear BEFORE the election and they stood, and fell, on that basis. Insufficient numbers of SNP supporters voted for the alternative point of view to make it happen the way you want it. This is democracy in action. Do the SNP activists now want to turn to communism because no other party agrees with them? The SNP have won an election for 5 mins and yet we have their supporters on demanding this and that because they don't have an overall majority. Personally, irrespective what I think of the LibDem policy, i admire them for sticking to their views. Re independance, no matter what I think, the SNP are the only party wishing this. The votes counted show they majority of the country do not wish this, this is factual information. Prties can all dress up el;ections results as they wish, but the votes say it all.

Mikko Takala wrote:
I simply cannot understand the LibDem position. They tell us that they are the libertarians supporting freedom for everyone and yet, when push comes to shove, they seek to deny a referendum. Surely a referendum is there to be won or lost and is simply to assess the given view of the people. The SNP are not asking the LibDems to endorse independence, they are not saying to the LibDems that they must support independence. No, they are simply asking for a vote on it to be put to the people. Sounds like a natural liberal point of view to me.

These anti LIbDEm posts are becoming futile, you may not like their stance and this is your right under a democracy, I have no issue with that whatsoever. But the FACT is:

The LIbdems made their point clear BEFORE the election and they stood, and fell, on that basis. Insufficient numbers of SNP supporters voted for the alternative point of view to make it happen the way you want it. This is democracy in action.

Do the SNP activists now want to turn to communism because no other party agrees with them?

The SNP have won an election for 5 mins and yet we have their supporters on demanding this and that because they don't have an overall majority.

Personally, irrespective what I think of the LibDem policy, i admire them for sticking to their views.

Re independance, no matter what I think, the SNP are the only party wishing this. The votes counted show they majority of the country do not wish this, this is factual information. Prties can all dress up el;ections results as they wish, but the votes say it all.

The Lib-Dems have abandoned their voters.

Their is nothing in their manifesto stating that in the event of a coalition they should withdraw and not take the opportunity of shared government, and the implementation of their policies.

Nichol Stephen is an anti-climax. How long will he survive?

Sorry John,

You are a troll and incapable of reasoned dialogue. I'm not interested. Now please stop stalking me.

Slainte

Stephen takes his orders from Ming. Ming takes his orders from Blair. McConnell also takes his orders from Blair. Blair takes his orders from bush.

Salmond takes his orders from the people of Scotland.

Now, I know what you are thinking. Is there five or six parties in that chamber? And seeing how independence is the most powerful handgun in UK politics and it could blow your head clean off, the question you gotta ask yourself is,

"Do I feel lucky?"

Well, do you, punks?

SCOTLAND FIRST, SECOND, AND ALWAYS.

Union Jack McConnell is history- scratch that, a note in the margin.

He voted for Blair as prime minister. He reported to him once a week. (So much for devolved power.) Brown, it appears, is a "hater." He holds grudges. When Brown becomes prime minister he will install new faces and talent.

The only office left for McConnell is Motherwell Cleaner ... without portfolio, brush or shovel.

SCOTLAND FIRST, SECOND, AND ALWAYS.

Alan Smart wrote:
Please sign this petition on the Scotish Vote Scandal. Do more than this - forward detals to others, as many as you can. Dont let the politicians sweep this under the carpet as part of a deal. One tenth of us have been cheated of our right to vote

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ScottishVoteScandal2007/

Or do you mean don't know how to fill in a "simple" form 90% filled it in right and I don't hear SNP asking for a recount/courtcase on their close losses.

Mildly Amused 10.51 Your asumption is like most of LibDem thinking, " tommy rot". If the issue of the referendum was so alien to the voters why did so many vote for the SNP? Your figures are completely out of context. The process accepted in the election gave the SNP a majority . That is democracy and Churchill rightly stated that in such a contest ONE VOTE IS ENOUGH! The swing was overwhelmingly in favour of SNP candidates in the Holyrood vote and in the local election vote. That being the case who can assume that the spoiled or lost postal votes would not have followed that swing and the SNP could conceivably won even more seats? Your 18% figure is indeed "smoke and mirrors LibDem speak! Remember "free care for the elderly or abolished tuition fees" My backside! You claim the LibDems "stand by what they promise and should be respected"! You really do believe in Father Christmas! Giving succour to a party who supported an illegal war! What about their green credentials, their policy on GM crops, road charging, more aeroplanes but a lower carbon footprint, selling out the Scottish fishing fleet, giving the Germans our prawn quota in secret deals, making a mockery of the Western Peripheral Route. The list goes on....! I hope I have made your day..... a little less comfortable!

Jim, Alan isn't in the SNP and the election has been condemned as 'unacceptable' by electoral organisations around the world. Democracy is more important than partisan politics. As an SNP voter, I'd prefer to see a stable government now but if that is not possible then bring on another election but only after an independent judicial inquiry to determine the causes of the problems associated with the election we just had. Or, is it that Labour are scared that they will be found out in this inquiry? We need to protect our democracy right now. So, yes another election if a stable government can't be organised. And the Libs talked about "stable consensus government" too - they have a lot to answer for.

All coalition talks could be held in public, in keeping with the spirit of the 'new politics' of openness and accountability. Why not have any meetings in one of Holyrood's Committee Rooms with the cameras on?

How can the Liberal Democrats be so undemocratic as to oppose the referendum which, by its very nature, is democracy in action? They say that they honour the will of the people in this election, so why not in a referendum? They are free to advise people how they should use their vote but not to deny people that vote.

Just on reflection the LibDems are so popular, so principled,so trustworthy , have so much earned our respect that they are now fourth in the political league. Jings, they have made my day!

Many of the people writing here are contributing to their own subjection. For anyone with a brain, it has been clear for many years why labour does not want an independence vote, how opportunistic the LD's are and why devolution was a cynical move. One cannot be 'given' power - you either have it or you don't. Why are Scots so afraid of behaving like fully realised adults. The Irish have many jokes about the supine nature of the Scots, in relation to the British Establishment. Sounds like many Scots have neither the balls nor the brains to take responsibility for themselves. Wallowing in your own **** seems to be the preferred position of many. All I can say,' then,is you'll get what you deserve.

[bold]THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO UNIONISTS[/bold] [bold]AND[/bold] it came to pass that a small place called Caledonia lived next to its Neighbour and was sorely vexed. [bold]AND[/bold] Caledonia did speak and sayeth: Why is it that when we make one and one it maketh nothing? [bold]AND[/bold] the Neighbour answered thus: One and one maketh three. [bold]AND[/bold] Caledonia was content, but when time passed asked again: Why is it that when one and one maketh three we see neither one nor one nor another one? [bold]AND[/bold] the Neighbour answered thus: When one and one maketh three will will give thee one, and thee will say, thank you, for we surely needed one. [bold]AND[/bold] Caledonia was content, but when time passed asked again: Why is it that when [italic]we[/italic] maketh one and one we cannot keep [italic]two[/italic] unto ourselves and give [italic]thee[/italic] one? [bold]AND[/bold] the Neighbour answered thus: [italic]We[/italic] are the Chosen One. It is not for thee to covet one, nor to make false summation. [bold]AND[/bold] the Neighbour speaketh a parable unto Caledonia: "Imagine one and one is an apple pie thy mother baked for thee. We must divide that pie into two exact parts, half and half, one and one. The top half of the pie is what we need for armaments to protect thee while thee sleepeth. The bottom half of the pie is what we need for our money lenders so that they may serve thee better. And the third portion of the pie is what we gift thee so that thee may rejoice and prosper." [bold]AND[/bold] Caledonia was content knowing that it would be gifted the third portion of the two halves of the pie. But as time passed a prophet arose crying: Hud oan tha' noo! Tha' disnae make bliddy sense! [bold]AND[/bold] the people of Caledonia saw that he was wise. And verily they did sayeth unto the Neighbour: Thou liest with the fox and the wolf for one and one are indisputably two ..... and thee are a turd! [bold]Amen.[/bold]

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO UNIONISTS

AND it came to pass that a small place called Caledonia lived next to its Neighbour and was sorely vexed.

AND Caledonia did speak and sayeth: Why is it that when we make one and one it maketh nothing?

AND the Neighbour answered thus: One and one maketh three.

AND Caledonia was content, but when time passed asked again: Why is it that when one and one maketh three we see neither one nor one nor another one?

AND the Neighbour answered thus: When one and one maketh three will will give thee one, and thee will say, thank you, for we surely needed one.

AND Caledonia was content, but when time passed asked again: Why is it that when we maketh one and one we cannot keep two unto ourselves and give thee one?

AND the Neighbour answered thus: We are the Chosen One. It is not for thee to covet one, nor to make false summation.

AND the Neighbour speaketh a parable unto Caledonia:

"Imagine one and one is an apple pie thy mother baked for thee. We must divide that pie into two exact parts, half and half, one and one. The top half of the pie is what we need for armaments to protect thee while thee sleepeth. The bottom half of the pie is what we need for our money lenders so that they may serve thee better. And the third portion of the pie is what we gift thee so that thee may rejoice and prosper."

AND Caledonia was content knowing that it would be gifted the third portion of the two halves of the pie. But as time passed a prophet arose crying: Hud oan tha' noo! Tha' disnae make bliddy sense!

AND the people of Caledonia saw that he was wise. And verily they did sayeth unto the Neighbour: Thou liest with the fox and the wolf for one and one are indisputably two ..... and thee are a turd!

Amen.

This is the same Nicol Stephen who took �40,000 in mortgage money to which he wasn't entitled - and kept it when he was found out. He has no scruples and no credibility

Perhaps Alex Salmond should prevent anyone becomming first minister and taking the electoral back for another vote. The licklyhood is lines will be drawn in the sand and the independents, torys and libs will become even smaller. People will vote SNP or Labour knowing that a vote for the other 2 will result in a third election. Hopefully then SNP will have the majority they need.

Maybe not

Instead of talk about some vague "constitutional convention mark 2" how about asking, say, the Institute of Governance at Edinburgh University to explore ways forward, taking a more academic and hopefully rigourous approach to the issues? I know that, of course, the individuals involved will have their own political standpoints and that there is a danger of using academic status as a cover, but nonetheless with a carefully structured set of tasks (eg a commissioned report on the practical steps necessary to achieve indpendent self-government, or alternatively a set of recommended powers for a renegotiated devolved parliament, along with international comparisons of referenda, democratic participation, etc)it might be possible to make significant headway in a limited timescale. Of course civil society organisations should participate, but by this means we might bypass the lobbying and loading of committees by party appartchiks, etc, as well as produce some decent high quality papers on key themes relating to economics, culture and politics. Or is this just the academic in me? hah! In the meantime, of course, perhaps one, or a number, of those generous souls who made funding available to provide a "level playing field" at the election might care to look at funding a referendum in 2010, whilst the civil society organisations take the debate to the public, leaving the parties to form the "progressive coalition" and implement the other key policy issues. That would be a more participatory approach and might save years of trying to assert pressure on governing parties to support a referendum. In other words why can't civic Scotland go it alone? The constitution belongs to us all and not just the elected politicians. Democracy should be about participation not just delegation of decision making.

Instead of talk about some vague "constitutional convention mark 2" how about asking, say, the Institute of Governance at Edinburgh University to explore ways forward, taking a more academic and hopefully rigourous approach to the issues? I know that, of course, the individuals involved will have their own political standpoints and that there is a danger of using academic status as a cover, but nonetheless with a carefully structured set of tasks (eg a commissioned report on the practical steps necessary to achieve indpendent self-government, or alternatively a set of recommended powers for a renegotiated devolved parliament, along with international comparisons of referenda, democratic participation, etc)it might be possible to make significant headway in a limited timescale. Of course civil society organisations should participate, but by this means we might bypass the lobbying and loading of committees by party appartchiks, etc, as well as produce some decent high quality papers on key themes relating to economics, culture and politics.

Or is this just the academic in me? hah!

In the meantime, of course, perhaps one, or a number, of those generous souls who made funding available to provide a "level playing field" at the election might care to look at funding a referendum in 2010, whilst the civil society organisations take the debate to the public, leaving the parties to form the "progressive coalition" and implement the other key policy issues. That would be a more participatory approach and might save years of trying to assert pressure on governing parties to support a referendum. In other words why can't civic Scotland go it alone? The constitution belongs to us all and not just the elected politicians. Democracy should be about participation not just delegation of decision making.

Any one who thinks that this situation is funny is a fool, the people have spoken, however small the majority, they have spoken. For the unionists to deny a sizeable part of the Scottish electorate their democratic right is unacceptable, the SNP have already agreed in principal to having the other two options of more power to Holyrood or the status quo on a referendum, that is democracy. These actions by all of the other 3 parties displays no respect for the Scottish people to exersize their democratic right to choose their future. Like it or lump it independence is on the agenda and getting higher. The status quo is there as well as the idea of more power to Holyrood, Now we have 3 political forces in Scotland who have shown themselves to be biggoted and introspective. I have fought long and hard for the SNP because I believe passionatly in independence, I have had to live under unionist rule. I have never in my life advocated any move nor will I support any move to deny or disenfranchise the right of any Scot to hold any political view they wish, that is democracy. I have always believed in Scotlands right to reject or embrace independence, but fight for my democratic right for this to remain an option at the ballot box I will. I am today ashamed of anyone and everyone who will stalemate the political process, simply to deny a growing part of Scotland its political right to determin a new future. Shame on Labour Shame on Liberal democrats(democrats aye right) Shame on Torys We should all be ashamed of anyone who is prepared to make Scotlands people suffer in order to deny it a legitimate choice. Bloody well ashamed. If Scotland people and their varied beliefs mean so little to you unionists, I hope with all vigour the Scottish electorate wipes out your vote at the next ballot. How can any of you claim to want to serve Scotland and her people and then hold them to ransom for your own political gain. SHAME SHAME SHAME

Any one who thinks that this situation is funny is a fool, the people have spoken, however small the majority, they have spoken.
For the unionists to deny a sizeable part of the Scottish electorate their democratic right is unacceptable, the SNP have already agreed in principal to having the other two options of more power to Holyrood or the status quo on a referendum, that is democracy.
These actions by all of the other 3 parties displays no respect for the Scottish people to exersize their democratic right to choose their future.
Like it or lump it independence is on the agenda and getting higher.
The status quo is there as well as the idea of more power to Holyrood,
Now we have 3 political forces in Scotland who have shown themselves to be biggoted and introspective.
I have fought long and hard for the SNP because I believe passionatly in independence, I have had to live under unionist rule.
I have never in my life advocated any move nor will I support any move to deny or disenfranchise the right of any Scot to hold any political view they wish, that is democracy.
I have always believed in Scotlands right to reject or embrace independence, but fight for my democratic right for this to remain an option at the ballot box I will.

I am today ashamed of anyone and everyone who will stalemate the political process, simply to deny a growing part of Scotland its political right to determin a new future.

Shame on Labour
Shame on Liberal democrats(democrats aye right)
Shame on Torys
We should all be ashamed of anyone who is prepared to make Scotlands people suffer in order to deny it a legitimate choice.
Bloody well ashamed.
If Scotland people and their varied beliefs mean so little to you unionists, I hope with all vigour the Scottish electorate wipes out your vote at the next ballot.
How can any of you claim to want to serve Scotland and her people and then hold them to ransom for your own political gain.

SHAME
SHAME
SHAME

George 10.38 If you had been following the recent election you would have known that I am not a LibDem. Since the Scots parliament has no remit over Iraq there is no conflict with a coalition with Labour, even if the LDs were, in principle, opposed to illegal wars. In fact they hold no such principle. Equally there would be no disagreement in principle with a coalition with the SNP even though they retain a member, John Swinney, who was so absolutley in favour of war crimes as to criticise Tony Blair for showing a miniscule token amount of respect for the rule of law in one aspect of the KLA war.

Politics is the art of working together with people - if the SNP deserve to run the country they will have to learn it.

lets have another election, preferably not slanted by alexander and give broon, campbell a bloody nose, by the lord, they deserve to be exposed. The lib dems are beneath contempt--incidentally I am not a card carrying member of the snp.

[quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: Jim, Alan isn't in the SNP and the election has been condemned as 'unacceptable' by electoral organisations around the world. Democracy is more important than partisan politics. As an SNP voter, I'd prefer to see a stable government now but if that is not possible then bring on another election but only after an independent judicial inquiry to determine the causes of the problems associated with the election we just had. Or, is it that Labour are scared that they will be found out in this inquiry? We need to protect our democracy right now. So, yes another election if a stable government can't be organised. And the Libs talked about "stable consensus government" too - they have a lot to answer for.[/quote] Tony Blair, John Reid, next? They're starting to bail out before sh*t hits the fan. No wonder Reid won't stand for Labour leadership. Its like trying to find a Captain for the Titianic after it hit the iceberg. As first Lieutenant who has coveted the role for so long Gordon Brown now has no choice but to step in. The Titanic split it 2 before it sank as I suspect will Tony Blair's ship which, in 1997, many probably believed was unsinkable too.

Alex Porter wrote:
Jim, Alan isn't in the SNP and the election has been condemned as 'unacceptable' by electoral organisations around the world. Democracy is more important than partisan politics. As an SNP voter, I'd prefer to see a stable government now but if that is not possible then bring on another election but only after an independent judicial inquiry to determine the causes of the problems associated with the election we just had. Or, is it that Labour are scared that they will be found out in this inquiry? We need to protect our democracy right now. So, yes another election if a stable government can't be organised. And the Libs talked about "stable consensus government" too - they have a lot to answer for.

Tony Blair, John Reid, next?

They're starting to bail out before sh*t hits the fan. No wonder Reid won't stand for Labour leadership. Its like trying to find a Captain for the Titianic after it hit the iceberg. As first Lieutenant who has coveted the role for so long Gordon Brown now has no choice but to step in.

The Titanic split it 2 before it sank as I suspect will Tony Blair's ship which, in 1997, many probably believed was unsinkable too.

I can see another vigil being set up outside the Scottish Parliament if the Unionists have their way in blocking Alex Salmond running the parliament. Remember the vigil during the 90s for a devolved government!! Myself and many, many people were thrilled to see the SNP win on Friday evening. Listening to Alex Salmond talk of 'this proud and ancient nation' I felt a sense of pride in my country for the first time. Shame on those Unionist parties, you do nothing but bring down Scotland. Remember McConnell's awful saying for Scotland, 'The Best Wee Country in the World.' Uuugh!!!

[quote][bold]Mildly Amused[/bold] wrote: The Scottish electorate (circa 4 million) are not stupid. They knew that if they voted SNP last week then a referendum on independence would be on the cards. The fact that only 664,227 (18%) voted for SNP tells you that the people of Scotland were not sufficiently persuaded that this was the right thing to do. Now before you all cry out about that number, look at the votes cast. Of the 2,016,978 votes 664,227 (33%) were for the only party proposing independence. This figure tells us that Scots did not support the SNP's policies by a ratio of 2:1 against. Before the election, the Lib/Dem's clearly stated that they would not get into a coalition with the SNP because of the devolution issue. Now it's all over bar the horsetrading, why are you all so surprised? Why are you squawking about it and spitting poison at the Lib/Dem's? Politicians who actually stand by what they promised in the run up to an election are a rare commodity and should be respected. So now we have this (highly entertaining) minority raving and drooling about plots from London etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland rejected your policies. A minority is a minority no matter how you look at it. Thanks for the laughs guys, you've made my day.[/quote] It's not so funny that we have this minority with no dignity whatsoever and refuse to recognise that the political establishment have utter contempt for the people of Scotland. It's also not very funny that such people have a basic understanding of party politics and the nature of relative power balances in a multi-party parliamentary system. It's also not very funny that such people are reduced to arguing against the democratic will of the people by highlighting a low turn-out. If I were you I would stop giggling into my shirt-sleeve and wake-up to the fact that the largest party were elected on a mandate which included a referendum bill. It is not ideal for Scotland that there is a minority government. The SNP offered a reasonable and wholly acceptable concession of a multiple choice referendum with one option being greater powers. The Lib Dems ran on a manifesto for greater powers. Therefore, the Lib Dems are betraying their own voters by not accepting the concession and are betraying the Scottish people by not recognising the SNP have a mandate to govern. The Lib Dems have also demonstrated that they do not operate in the interests of the Scottish people but would rather be dictated to by Menzies and his London led Liberal lackeys fall into line one-by-one with Nicol sitting in his trouser pocket. I assume you would also have said, in the last two parliaments, that the people of Scotland rejected Labour policies because they did not get an overall majority on a low-tunout. Of course you wouldn't, so stop giggling like a wee lassie at the rightful anger the Scottish people feel about this issue. PS: To everyone else have a wee look at this link: http://www.independence1st.com/content/polls.shtml These polls are the polls they don't tell you about - NB the more than 82% of people want to see a referendum. Thus why are LibDems denying that to the Scottish people.

Mildly Amused wrote:
The Scottish electorate (circa 4 million) are not stupid. They knew that if they voted SNP last week then a referendum on independence would be on the cards. The fact that only 664,227 (18%) voted for SNP tells you that the people of Scotland were not sufficiently persuaded that this was the right thing to do. Now before you all cry out about that number, look at the votes cast. Of the 2,016,978 votes 664,227 (33%) were for the only party proposing independence. This figure tells us that Scots did not support the SNP's policies by a ratio of 2:1 against. Before the election, the Lib/Dem's clearly stated that they would not get into a coalition with the SNP because of the devolution issue. Now it's all over bar the horsetrading, why are you all so surprised? Why are you squawking about it and spitting poison at the Lib/Dem's? Politicians who actually stand by what they promised in the run up to an election are a rare commodity and should be respected. So now we have this (highly entertaining) minority raving and drooling about plots from London etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland rejected your policies. A minority is a minority no matter how you look at it. Thanks for the laughs guys, you've made my day.

It's not so funny that we have this minority with no dignity whatsoever and refuse to recognise that the political establishment have utter contempt for the people of Scotland. It's also not very funny that such people have a basic understanding of party politics and the nature of relative power balances in a multi-party parliamentary system. It's also not very funny that such people are reduced to arguing against the democratic will of the people by highlighting a low turn-out.

If I were you I would stop giggling into my shirt-sleeve and wake-up to the fact that the largest party were elected on a mandate which included a referendum bill. It is not ideal for Scotland that there is a minority government. The SNP offered a reasonable and wholly acceptable concession of a multiple choice referendum with one option being greater powers. The Lib Dems ran on a manifesto for greater powers. Therefore, the Lib Dems are betraying their own voters by not accepting the concession and are betraying the Scottish people by not recognising the SNP have a mandate to govern. The Lib Dems have also demonstrated that they do not operate in the interests of the Scottish people but would rather be dictated to by Menzies and his London led Liberal lackeys fall into line one-by-one with Nicol sitting in his trouser pocket.

I assume you would also have said, in the last two parliaments, that the people of Scotland rejected Labour policies because they did not get an overall majority on a low-tunout. Of course you wouldn't, so stop giggling like a wee lassie at the rightful anger the Scottish people feel about this issue.

PS: To everyone else have a wee look at this link:

http://www.independence1st.com/content/polls.shtml

These polls are the polls they don't tell you about - NB the more than 82% of people want to see a referendum. Thus why are LibDems denying that to the Scottish people.

[quote][bold]Greig[/bold] wrote: Any one who thinks that this situation is funny is a fool, the people have spoken, however small the majority, they have spoken. For the unionists to deny a sizeable part of the Scottish electorate their democratic right is unacceptable, the SNP have already agreed in principal to having the other two options of more power to Holyrood or the status quo on a referendum, that is democracy. These actions by all of the other 3 parties displays no respect for the Scottish people to exersize their democratic right to choose their future. Like it or lump it independence is on the agenda and getting higher. The status quo is there as well as the idea of more power to Holyrood, Now we have 3 political forces in Scotland who have shown themselves to be biggoted and introspective. I have fought long and hard for the SNP because I believe passionatly in independence, I have had to live under unionist rule. I have never in my life advocated any move nor will I support any move to deny or disenfranchise the right of any Scot to hold any political view they wish, that is democracy. I have always believed in Scotlands right to reject or embrace independence, but fight for my democratic right for this to remain an option at the ballot box I will. I am today ashamed of anyone and everyone who will stalemate the political process, simply to deny a growing part of Scotland its political right to determin a new future. Shame on Labour Shame on Liberal democrats(democrats aye right) Shame on Torys We should all be ashamed of anyone who is prepared to make Scotlands people suffer in order to deny it a legitimate choice. Bloody well ashamed. If Scotland people and their varied beliefs mean so little to you unionists, I hope with all vigour the Scottish electorate wipes out your vote at the next ballot. How can any of you claim to want to serve Scotland and her people and then hold them to ransom for your own political gain. SHAME SHAME SHAME[/quote] SNP campaigned on the referrendum SNP achieved 33% of the vote 66% of scotland voted against SNP's call for a referrendum Well done the Lib Dems for acting on behalf the majority of Scots who do not want a referrendum on independence

Greig wrote:
Any one who thinks that this situation is funny is a fool, the people have spoken, however small the majority, they have spoken. For the unionists to deny a sizeable part of the Scottish electorate their democratic right is unacceptable, the SNP have already agreed in principal to having the other two options of more power to Holyrood or the status quo on a referendum, that is democracy. These actions by all of the other 3 parties displays no respect for the Scottish people to exersize their democratic right to choose their future. Like it or lump it independence is on the agenda and getting higher. The status quo is there as well as the idea of more power to Holyrood, Now we have 3 political forces in Scotland who have shown themselves to be biggoted and introspective. I have fought long and hard for the SNP because I believe passionatly in independence, I have had to live under unionist rule. I have never in my life advocated any move nor will I support any move to deny or disenfranchise the right of any Scot to hold any political view they wish, that is democracy. I have always believed in Scotlands right to reject or embrace independence, but fight for my democratic right for this to remain an option at the ballot box I will. I am today ashamed of anyone and everyone who will stalemate the political process, simply to deny a growing part of Scotland its political right to determin a new future. Shame on Labour Shame on Liberal democrats(democrats aye right) Shame on Torys We should all be ashamed of anyone who is prepared to make Scotlands people suffer in order to deny it a legitimate choice. Bloody well ashamed. If Scotland people and their varied beliefs mean so little to you unionists, I hope with all vigour the Scottish electorate wipes out your vote at the next ballot. How can any of you claim to want to serve Scotland and her people and then hold them to ransom for your own political gain. SHAME SHAME SHAME

SNP campaigned on the referrendum
SNP achieved 33% of the vote
66% of scotland voted against SNP's call for a referrendum
Well done the Lib Dems for acting on behalf the majority
of Scots who do not want a referrendum on independence

[quote][bold]Paulo[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Greig[/bold] wrote: Any one who thinks that this situation is funny is a fool, the people have spoken, however small the majority, they have spoken. For the unionists to deny a sizeable part of the Scottish electorate their democratic right is unacceptable, the SNP have already agreed in principal to having the other two options of more power to Holyrood or the status quo on a referendum, that is democracy. These actions by all of the other 3 parties displays no respect for the Scottish people to exersize their democratic right to choose their future. Like it or lump it independence is on the agenda and getting higher. The status quo is there as well as the idea of more power to Holyrood, Now we have 3 political forces in Scotland who have shown themselves to be biggoted and introspective. I have fought long and hard for the SNP because I believe passionatly in independence, I have had to live under unionist rule. I have never in my life advocated any move nor will I support any move to deny or disenfranchise the right of any Scot to hold any political view they wish, that is democracy. I have always believed in Scotlands right to reject or embrace independence, but fight for my democratic right for this to remain an option at the ballot box I will. I am today ashamed of anyone and everyone who will stalemate the political process, simply to deny a growing part of Scotland its political right to determin a new future. Shame on Labour Shame on Liberal democrats(democrats aye right) Shame on Torys We should all be ashamed of anyone who is prepared to make Scotlands people suffer in order to deny it a legitimate choice. Bloody well ashamed. If Scotland people and their varied beliefs mean so little to you unionists, I hope with all vigour the Scottish electorate wipes out your vote at the next ballot. How can any of you claim to want to serve Scotland and her people and then hold them to ransom for your own political gain. SHAME SHAME SHAME[/quote] SNP campaigned on the referrendum SNP achieved 33% of the vote 66% of scotland voted against SNP's call for a referrendum Well done the Lib Dems for acting on behalf the majority of Scots who do not want a referrendum on independence [/quote] Wrong Paulo - the SNP campaigned on a wide range of issues and so did every other party. It was Labour who tried to turn the election into a false dilemma between Union or Independence. Labour failed because people recognise that the SNP are the party who have only Scotland's interests as the sole reson for their existence.

Paulo wrote:

Greig wrote: Any one who thinks that this situation is funny is a fool, the people have spoken, however small the majority, they have spoken. For the unionists to deny a sizeable part of the Scottish electorate their democratic right is unacceptable, the SNP have already agreed in principal to having the other two options of more power to Holyrood or the status quo on a referendum, that is democracy. These actions by all of the other 3 parties displays no respect for the Scottish people to exersize their democratic right to choose their future. Like it or lump it independence is on the agenda and getting higher. The status quo is there as well as the idea of more power to Holyrood, Now we have 3 political forces in Scotland who have shown themselves to be biggoted and introspective. I have fought long and hard for the SNP because I believe passionatly in independence, I have had to live under unionist rule. I have never in my life advocated any move nor will I support any move to deny or disenfranchise the right of any Scot to hold any political view they wish, that is democracy. I have always believed in Scotlands right to reject or embrace independence, but fight for my democratic right for this to remain an option at the ballot box I will. I am today ashamed of anyone and everyone who will stalemate the political process, simply to deny a growing part of Scotland its political right to determin a new future. Shame on Labour Shame on Liberal democrats(democrats aye right) Shame on Torys We should all be ashamed of anyone who is prepared to make Scotlands people suffer in order to deny it a legitimate choice. Bloody well ashamed. If Scotland people and their varied beliefs mean so little to you unionists, I hope with all vigour the Scottish electorate wipes out your vote at the next ballot. How can any of you claim to want to serve Scotland and her people and then hold them to ransom for your own political gain. SHAME SHAME SHAME
SNP campaigned on the referrendum SNP achieved 33% of the vote 66% of scotland voted against SNP's call for a referrendum Well done the Lib Dems for acting on behalf the majority of Scots who do not want a referrendum on independence

Wrong Paulo - the SNP campaigned on a wide range of issues and so did every other party. It was Labour who tried to turn the election into a false dilemma between Union or Independence. Labour failed because people recognise that the SNP are the party who have only Scotland's interests as the sole reson for their existence.

The SNP are a one policy party.
Independence.
The people of Scotland rejected independence last Thursday

The Bairn is using the Catalan political situation with the assumption that the parties here somehow equate to Scottish parties. The Catalan �Nationalist� party (Converg�ncia i Uni�) is actually a Unionist party. Their former leader (Jordi Pujol i Soley) and their present leader (Artur Mas i Gavarr�) have said time and again that they are against independence for Catalonia. To make them comparable to a Scottish party, they would equate to a hypothetical independent Scottish Conservative Party (with 32% of votes cast, which Mas's party received in the 2006 Catalan parliamentary elections); this Scottish Conservative Party, to continue the similarity, would feel most at ease with a fanatically pro-union British Conservative Party, on the verge of power in England, and with representation in a Scottish Parliament (12% of votes). The �Greens� are in fact the ex-Communist Party in alliance with some Greens from former Green parties which seem no longer to exist. It is true that here there is compromise, and at present a three-party coalition which prevented Converg�ncia i Uni�, the party with most votes in the 2006 election, from taking power - it was unable to persuade other parties to form a government with them. This has little to do with Castilian politics (or Spanish politics, as the Unionists here would call it), which exists on a a right-left basis; in Catalonia it is right / left, pro-unionist / independence, pro-monarchy / republican in various combinations (pro-unionist right-wing and left-wing parties; a left-wing republican independence party; but no right-wing independence movement). The Bairn says - �In fact the PSC even brought back a cabinet minister from Madrid to head the government and no one complained� The fact that Montilla is now president of Catalonia has caused and still causes many complaints, especially since it was revealed a few days ago by the former Socialist president of Catalonia, Pasqual Maragall (= head of the supposedly autonomous Socialist Party of Catalonia; = Scottish Labour Party) that the Socialist Party in Madrid (= New Labour, London) had ordered the executive of the Catalan Socialist Party to persuade him to resign. Although a Socialist, Maragall had a vision of a federal Spanish state, made up of "the four historic nationalities" - Castile, Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia - as equal partners - this was deemed to be an attack on the union (i.e. Castilian dominance). The new president has no such ideas, seeing Catalonia merely as a Castilian region.

The Bairn is using the Catalan political situation with the assumption that the parties here somehow equate to Scottish parties.

The Catalan �Nationalist� party (Converg�ncia i Uni�) is actually a Unionist party. Their former leader (Jordi Pujol i Soley) and their present leader (Artur Mas i Gavarr�) have said time and again that they are against independence for Catalonia.

To make them comparable to a Scottish party, they would equate to a hypothetical independent Scottish Conservative Party (with 32% of votes cast, which Mas's party received in the 2006 Catalan parliamentary elections); this Scottish Conservative Party, to continue the similarity, would feel most at ease with a fanatically pro-union British Conservative Party, on the verge of power in England, and with representation in a Scottish Parliament (12% of votes).

The �Greens� are in fact the ex-Communist Party in alliance with some Greens from former Green parties which seem no longer to exist.

It is true that here there is compromise, and at present a three-party coalition which prevented Converg�ncia i Uni�, the party with most votes in the 2006 election, from taking power - it was unable to persuade other parties to form a government with them.

This has little to do with Castilian politics (or Spanish politics, as the Unionists here would call it), which exists on a a right-left basis; in Catalonia it is right / left, pro-unionist / independence, pro-monarchy / republican in various combinations (pro-unionist right-wing and left-wing parties; a left-wing republican independence party; but no right-wing independence movement).

The Bairn says - �In fact the PSC even brought back a cabinet minister from Madrid to head the government and no one complained�

The fact that Montilla is now president of Catalonia has caused and still causes many complaints, especially since it was revealed a few days ago by the former Socialist president of Catalonia, Pasqual Maragall (= head of the supposedly autonomous Socialist Party of Catalonia; = Scottish Labour Party) that the Socialist Party in Madrid (= New Labour, London) had ordered the executive of the Catalan Socialist Party to persuade him to resign.

Although a Socialist, Maragall had a vision of a federal Spanish state, made up of "the four historic nationalities" - Castile, Galicia, the Basque Country and Catalonia - as equal partners - this was deemed to be an attack on the union (i.e. Castilian dominance).

The new president has no such ideas, seeing Catalonia merely as a Castilian region.

Alex Salmond could play a blinder here by reluctantly conceding the referendum in return for a stable coalition government. The Lib Dems would be caught with their pants down.

Paulo wrote:
The SNP are a one policy party. Independence. The people of Scotland rejected independence last Thursday

Type in 'SNP manifesto' into google and you'll be in for a wee shock, mate.

Solus,

eh??...No thanks!!

Only so much I can stomach of El Presidente Salmond

Poor wee Douglas in Hiding (more likley Big Bad Gordie Stalin has planted him, Stalinist not used to wrong results in elections). As for a referendum not from the unliberal undemocrates, Emporer Ming the Grey has a job to protect don't you know.

Footnote: in my previous posting, �pro-unionist� which would have read �pro-union� or �unionist� - if I�d checked the text properly before sending. Second footnote: Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya - the pro-independence party, a part of the coalition with two unionist parties (socialists and ex-communists) which governs Catalonia - has in fact (last week) formally parked one of its main demands - a referendum on independence if the Madrid government further mutiliates the revised autonomy statutes for Catalonia submitted to the central government for approval by the Catalan Parliament in 2006. It now considers a referendum a long-term gaol, and it will be brought out again as a demand when they feel that there is a majority of the population in favour of independence (ERC has about 15% of the vote at present, but support for independence seems to be higher - polls very widely). In the meantime, they hope to show themselves as a reliable and effective party in power. This strategy, which has gradually been put into effect over the past few months, has caused a massive loss of support among many of its voters, according to the opinion polls - but to what extent this is in fact true will be seen in the Local Council Elections later this month.

Footnote: in my previous posting, �pro-unionist� which would have read �pro-union� or �unionist� - if I�d checked the text properly before sending.

Second footnote: Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya - the pro-independence party, a part of the coalition with two unionist parties (socialists and ex-communists) which governs Catalonia - has in fact (last week) formally parked one of its main demands - a referendum on independence if the Madrid government further mutiliates the revised autonomy statutes for Catalonia submitted to the central government for approval by the Catalan Parliament in 2006.

It now considers a referendum a long-term gaol, and it will be brought out again as a demand when they feel that there is a majority of the population in favour of independence (ERC has about 15% of the vote at present, but support for independence seems to be higher - polls very widely). In the meantime, they hope to show themselves as a reliable and effective party in power.

This strategy, which has gradually been put into effect over the past few months, has caused a massive loss of support among many of its voters, according to the opinion polls - but to what extent this is in fact true will be seen in the Local Council Elections later this month.

[quote][bold]Solus[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Mildly Amused[/bold] wrote: The Scottish electorate (circa 4 million) are not stupid. They knew that if they voted SNP last week then a referendum on independence would be on the cards. The fact that only 664,227 (18%) voted for SNP tells you that the people of Scotland were not sufficiently persuaded that this was the right thing to do. Now before you all cry out about that number, look at the votes cast. Of the 2,016,978 votes 664,227 (33%) were for the only party proposing independence. This figure tells us that Scots did not support the SNP\\\'s policies by a ratio of 2:1 against. Before the election, the Lib/Dem\\\'s clearly stated that they would not get into a coalition with the SNP because of the devolution issue. Now it\\\'s all over bar the horsetrading, why are you all so surprised? Why are you squawking about it and spitting poison at the Lib/Dem\\\'s? Politicians who actually stand by what they promised in the run up to an election are a rare commodity and should be respected. So now we have this (highly entertaining) minority raving and drooling about plots from London etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland rejected your policies. A minority is a minority no matter how you look at it. Thanks for the laughs guys, you\\\'ve made my day.[/quote] It\\\'s not so funny that we have this minority with no dignity whatsoever and refuse to recognise that the political establishment have utter contempt for the people of Scotland. It\\\'s also not very funny that such people have a basic understanding of party politics and the nature of relative power balances in a multi-party parliamentary system. It\\\'s also not very funny that such people are reduced to arguing against the democratic will of the people by highlighting a low turn-out. If I were you I would stop giggling into my shirt-sleeve and wake-up to the fact that the largest party were elected on a mandate which included a referendum bill. It is not ideal for Scotland that there is a minority government. The SNP offered a reasonable and wholly acceptable concession of a multiple choice referendum with one option being greater powers. The Lib Dems ran on a manifesto for greater powers. Therefore, the Lib Dems are betraying their own voters by not accepting the concession and are betraying the Scottish people by not recognising the SNP have a mandate to govern. The Lib Dems have also demonstrated that they do not operate in the interests of the Scottish people but would rather be dictated to by Menzies and his London led Liberal lackeys fall into line one-by-one with Nicol sitting in his trouser pocket. I assume you would also have said, in the last two parliaments, that the people of Scotland rejected Labour policies because they did not get an overall majority on a low-tunout. Of course you wouldn\\\'t, so stop giggling like a wee lassie at the rightful anger the Scottish people feel about this issue. PS: To everyone else have a wee look at this link: http://www.independence1st.com/content/polls.shtml These polls are the polls they don\\\'t tell you about - NB the more than 82% of people want to see a referendum. Thus why are LibDems denying that to the Scottish people. [/quote] Labour only very narrowly managed to gain the backing of the trade unions prior to the election. Next time around that may change if the unions see that an SNP administration has been good for their members. Consider that probably every trade union member in Scotland will be better off under the SNP's local income tax plans

Solus wrote:

Mildly Amused wrote: The Scottish electorate (circa 4 million) are not stupid. They knew that if they voted SNP last week then a referendum on independence would be on the cards. The fact that only 664,227 (18%) voted for SNP tells you that the people of Scotland were not sufficiently persuaded that this was the right thing to do. Now before you all cry out about that number, look at the votes cast. Of the 2,016,978 votes 664,227 (33%) were for the only party proposing independence. This figure tells us that Scots did not support the SNP's policies by a ratio of 2:1 against. Before the election, the Lib/Dem's clearly stated that they would not get into a coalition with the SNP because of the devolution issue. Now it's all over bar the horsetrading, why are you all so surprised? Why are you squawking about it and spitting poison at the Lib/Dem's? Politicians who actually stand by what they promised in the run up to an election are a rare commodity and should be respected. So now we have this (highly entertaining) minority raving and drooling about plots from London etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland rejected your policies. A minority is a minority no matter how you look at it. Thanks for the laughs guys, you've made my day.
It's not so funny that we have this minority with no dignity whatsoever and refuse to recognise that the political establishment have utter contempt for the people of Scotland. It's also not very funny that such people have a basic understanding of party politics and the nature of relative power balances in a multi-party parliamentary system. It's also not very funny that such people are reduced to arguing against the democratic will of the people by highlighting a low turn-out. If I were you I would stop giggling into my shirt-sleeve and wake-up to the fact that the largest party were elected on a mandate which included a referendum bill. It is not ideal for Scotland that there is a minority government. The SNP offered a reasonable and wholly acceptable concession of a multiple choice referendum with one option being greater powers. The Lib Dems ran on a manifesto for greater powers. Therefore, the Lib Dems are betraying their own voters by not accepting the concession and are betraying the Scottish people by not recognising the SNP have a mandate to govern. The Lib Dems have also demonstrated that they do not operate in the interests of the Scottish people but would rather be dictated to by Menzies and his London led Liberal lackeys fall into line one-by-one with Nicol sitting in his trouser pocket. I assume you would also have said, in the last two parliaments, that the people of Scotland rejected Labour policies because they did not get an overall majority on a low-tunout. Of course you wouldn't, so stop giggling like a wee lassie at the rightful anger the Scottish people feel about this issue. PS: To everyone else have a wee look at this link: http://www.independence1st.com/content/polls.shtml These polls are the polls they don't tell you about - NB the more than 82% of people want to see a referendum. Thus why are LibDems denying that to the Scottish people.

Labour only very narrowly managed to gain the backing of the trade unions prior to the election. Next time around that may change if the unions see that an SNP administration has been good for their members.

Consider that probably every trade union member in Scotland will be better off under the SNP's local income tax plans

I can't believe all this . It is so obvious what has happened at this election. People fed up with Labour. They want an alternative. Most are too traditional to look past SNP, so they vote for them (shame really how
people can be hoodwinked by a man flying around in a helicopter. )
The majority of Scots DID NOT vote for SNP therefore the majority of Scots do not want Independence. It is as simple as that.
The Lib Dems have said time and again the party does not believe in Independence. They want more devolved powers for Scotland . Again quite simple.

Paulo wrote:
The SNP are a one policy party. Independence. The people of Scotland rejected independence last Thursday

Paulo since you are so clued up about the various parties policies, could you tell which party or parties are in favour of replacing the council tax with a local income tax, writing off student debt, keeping healthcare local and increasing the number of police officers?

Can everyone please ignore Paulo. He is incapable of rational thought. Obviously prefers the numpties. There has been no referendum on Independence since 1979 - see Alisdair Gray Sundayherald. Thursday was a vote for change and whether it means a vote for Independence remains to be seen. A referendum would settle that question but until then no-one can really claim to know how the Scottish people would vote. Those who do simply demonstrate their own position - a willingness to support the status quo, self interest, anti-democratic beliefs, fear and self-loathing and a pschologically suspect need for servility.

Re: Pauline McNeill's 'Churchillian speech' for her Kelvin victory.
As one of her 'constituents', despite the fact I didn't vote for her, I am thoroughly ashamed to have her representing me as my MSP, particularly after that incoherent, aggressive rant she spewed out on Friday.

Her politely spoken mask really slipped, as she presented herself as some half-mad cross between Mary Doll Nesbit and one of the rough-as-a-dogs-*ss matriarchs from Eastenders. Is this really the type of person we want representing us in the Scottish Parliament?

Neil 12.37 I'm interested in your claim re John Swinney and war crimes! When was that? I agree that the LibDems are sometimes not bothered about illegal wars (Lebanon) but in Iraq, reserved or not, then if one Scottish soldier is killed in my book that becomes a Scottish issue. This applies to Trident in Scotland! Reserved or not these WMDs are in our waters on our doorstep and as such become an issue in Scotland. Rendition flights are yet another example of "to hell with legalities in Scotland". I can't remember the LibDems wanting an inquiry when these were blatanyly been used thro' our airports! I give you more credence knowing you are not a LibDem .

JAY wrote:
Re: Pauline McNeill\'s \'Churchillian speech\' for her Kelvin victory. As one of her \'constituents\', despite the fact I didn\'t vote for her, I am thoroughly ashamed to have her representing me as my MSP, particularly after that incoherent, aggressive rant she spewed out on Friday. Her politely spoken mask really slipped, as she presented herself as some half-mad cross between Mary Doll Nesbit and one of the rough-as-a-dogs-*ss matriarchs from Eastenders. Is this really the type of person we want representing us in the Scottish Parliament?

I expect that's exactly how she will behave in the chamber, as will Bill Butler and George Foulkes on the occasions he may be sufficiently sober as to form a coherent sentence.

re lib dems
not liberal ,not democratic
no vision (to see the future of Scotland)
no guts (to stand up for Scotland )
no forgivness (from the electorate if they dont do the right thing)
no future (vote for a gutless blinkered bunch of has beens) no fear!
AT THE NEXT ELECTION THEY WILL ALL FEEL THE SAME WAY AS NORA RADCLIFFE

[quote][bold]Janet[/bold] wrote: I can't believe all this . It is so obvious what has happened at this election. People fed up with Labour. They want an alternative. Most are too traditional to look past SNP, so they vote for them (shame really how people can be hoodwinked by a man flying around in a helicopter. ) The majority of Scots DID NOT vote for SNP therefore the majority of Scots do not want Independence. It is as simple as that. The Lib Dems have said time and again the party does not believe in Independence. They want more devolved powers for Scotland . Again quite simple. [/quote] "The Lib Dems have said time and again the party does not believe in Independence. They want more devolved powers for Scotland ." In which case, ask them to stick this question on the referendum and have this over & done with. 1. No change. 2. More powers 3. Independence. Choose one. There is no way the Lib-Dems will get more powers for the parliament in a million years unless they join a coalition. Scottish Lib-dems should be pushing for this. We don't need Ming the Merciless.

Janet wrote:
I can't believe all this . It is so obvious what has happened at this election. People fed up with Labour. They want an alternative. Most are too traditional to look past SNP, so they vote for them (shame really how people can be hoodwinked by a man flying around in a helicopter. ) The majority of Scots DID NOT vote for SNP therefore the majority of Scots do not want Independence. It is as simple as that. The Lib Dems have said time and again the party does not believe in Independence. They want more devolved powers for Scotland . Again quite simple.

"The Lib Dems have said time and again the party does not believe in Independence. They want more devolved powers for Scotland ."

In which case, ask them to stick this question on the referendum and have this over & done with.
1. No change.
2. More powers
3. Independence.
Choose one. There is no way the Lib-Dems will get more powers for the parliament in a million years unless they join a coalition.

Scottish Lib-dems should be pushing for this. We don't need Ming the Merciless.

Paulo wrote:
The SNP are a one policy party. Independence. The people of Scotland rejected independence last Thursday

They also rejected Labour, Lib-dem, Tory, SSP, Greens, Independent.

Janet Falkirk 2.05 Simpleton you certainly are! What in the name of decent comment has a man flying about in a helicopter got to do with a rational debate or the way we should vote? Do no other politicians "fly about in helicopters"? The majority of votes cast voted for a party who want Independence. The rest were unwilling to get off their bottoms and vote so they do not come into the equation. Their right to an opinion has been negated by their inaction! Who really gives a **** what the LibDems want? They have been reduced to FOURTH in the political league and as Paxman studiously said they are "a bunch of political tarts who will jump into bed with any partner" to retain their ministerial mondeos! Trust a LibDem? Trust the Devil!

Breathes there ever a man so dead,
That never to himself has said,
This is mine own,
My native land!

You've got this far! Just a wee bit mair, and get rid of them altogether!
Somebody said SNP was a one policy party? But it's by far the most important policy. Fix that and the rest fall into place. Go! Scotland!

[quote][bold]george paterson[/bold] wrote: Mildly Amused 10.51 Your asumption is like most of LibDem thinking, " tommy rot". If the issue of the referendum was so alien to the voters why did so many vote for the SNP? Your figures are completely out of context. The process accepted in the election gave the SNP a majority . That is democracy and Churchill rightly stated that in such a contest ONE VOTE IS ENOUGH! The swing was overwhelmingly in favour of SNP candidates in the Holyrood vote and in the local election vote. That being the case who can assume that the spoiled or lost postal votes would not have followed that swing and the SNP could conceivably won even more seats? Your 18% figure is indeed "smoke and mirrors LibDem speak! Remember "free care for the elderly or abolished tuition fees" My backside! You claim the LibDems "stand by what they promise and should be respected"! You really do believe in Father Christmas! Giving succour to a party who supported an illegal war! What about their green credentials, their policy on GM crops, road charging, more aeroplanes but a lower carbon footprint, selling out the Scottish fishing fleet, giving the Germans our prawn quota in secret deals, making a mockery of the Western Peripheral Route. The list goes on....! I hope I have made your day..... a little less comfortable![/quote] George, I'm awfully sorry that you went to such a lot of bother to type this based on the fact that you think that I'm a Lib/Dem supporter. That just isn't the case. I was only pointing out that the Lib/Dems said before the election that wouldn't go into coalition with a party that proposed independence and that's exactly what they've done. Why are you all so surprised? I don't think that my figures are out of context just because they show that there in no overall majority for the party who proposed independence in terms of votes cast, that is fact. It's just my way of reminding the (vocal) minority that all is not what it seems. There is no doubt that the SNP won the election on the basis of taking most seats, that is also fact. Now it's up to them to go about setting up a government but all I'm hearing is that everyone else is at fault because they won't play with them. Tough. They're in the hot seat now and should deal with it. My day is just fine thanks.

george paterson wrote:
Mildly Amused 10.51 Your asumption is like most of LibDem thinking, " tommy rot". If the issue of the referendum was so alien to the voters why did so many vote for the SNP? Your figures are completely out of context. The process accepted in the election gave the SNP a majority . That is democracy and Churchill rightly stated that in such a contest ONE VOTE IS ENOUGH! The swing was overwhelmingly in favour of SNP candidates in the Holyrood vote and in the local election vote. That being the case who can assume that the spoiled or lost postal votes would not have followed that swing and the SNP could conceivably won even more seats? Your 18% figure is indeed "smoke and mirrors LibDem speak! Remember "free care for the elderly or abolished tuition fees" My backside! You claim the LibDems "stand by what they promise and should be respected"! You really do believe in Father Christmas! Giving succour to a party who supported an illegal war! What about their green credentials, their policy on GM crops, road charging, more aeroplanes but a lower carbon footprint, selling out the Scottish fishing fleet, giving the Germans our prawn quota in secret deals, making a mockery of the Western Peripheral Route. The list goes on....! I hope I have made your day..... a little less comfortable!

George,

I'm awfully sorry that you went to such a lot of bother to type this based on the fact that you think that I'm a Lib/Dem supporter. That just isn't the case. I was only pointing out that the Lib/Dems said before the election that wouldn't go into coalition with a party that proposed independence and that's exactly what they've done. Why are you all so surprised?

I don't think that my figures are out of context just because they show that there in no overall majority for the party who proposed independence in terms of votes cast, that is fact. It's just my way of reminding the (vocal) minority that all is not what it seems.

There is no doubt that the SNP won the election on the basis of taking most seats, that is also fact. Now it's up to them to go about setting up a government but all I'm hearing is that everyone else is at fault because they won't play with them. Tough. They're in the hot seat now and should deal with it.

My day is just fine thanks.

It's early day's and Alex Salmond knows the 49 Cards he holds are stronger than the 80 against him. Most of the comments on this forum are either gloating, frightened or knee jerk reactions when what's needed is a sensible analysis of what the future holds for Scotland and how to maximise it. The first failure is the 52% turnout which, if nothing else and despite all the hot air blasted on these forums, shows the antipathy felt towards the whole political process of these Islands and the democratic quagmire that process has created. Any ideology that has as its basis such a minimal and flawed foundation is by defination authoritarian and anti democratic; and for the 129 politicians just elected as Scotlands parliament not to see this as a major failing: this resounding silence of disillusionment on their integrity, sense of purpose, transparency of commitment, might just be seen by the 48% as proof that they were right not to bother. All these spurious rights claimed by political parties to take the high moral ground based on manifesto's, party creeds, acronyms of great purpose but little sense; other thanb bullshit baffling commonsense are, in essence, the very reason why half the electorate give them the cold shoulder yet the political buffons continue to play the same dyslexic gobblydegook. I can only suppose they do this because it's the only goobbledegook they understand. Which, if I'm right in my assumption. should just about limit them to Job Centre's as either customer or clerk. By their attitude to the results of May 3 it is patently obvious the three party subsidiary to the Westminster cabal are not interested in advancing the cause of democracy in Scotland. Not perhaps surprising when you consider what's at stake - 59 less Westminster MP's mainly of Labour persuasion. completely unbalancing the present executives future prospects. The L/D - Cons putting party before country as though Scotland and its people should be subject to some hostile commercial take-over bid? All of it begs the question; just what is it all of you know that you can't (or wont) explain to the Scottish people? For the immediate future it is democracy that's at stake. The SNP may not be be proven in government but all of the others have proven record of failure bordering on the abysmal. I know Alex Salmond has far greater experiance in politics than I, and I would suspect the horse trading has came as no surprise to him and, if he can engender a new dynamic into Scottish politics by fighting for Scotland without any reference to Westminster and its establishment cabals and at the same time regenerate some interest from the 48% who regard themselves as disenfranchised, I'd say Scotland has finally found a Statesman that hasn't got his head in the cloud while his feet are in shifting sand. 2010 isn't important, It's democracy that is.

It's early day's and Alex Salmond knows the 49 Cards he holds are stronger than the 80 against him.

Most of the comments on this forum are either gloating, frightened or knee jerk reactions when what's needed is a sensible analysis of what the future holds for Scotland and how to maximise it.

The first failure is the 52% turnout which, if nothing else and despite all the hot air blasted on these forums, shows the antipathy felt towards the whole political process of these Islands and the democratic quagmire that process has created.

Any ideology that has as its basis such a minimal and flawed foundation is by defination authoritarian and anti democratic; and for the 129 politicians just elected as Scotlands parliament not to see this as a major failing: this resounding silence of disillusionment on their integrity, sense of purpose, transparency of commitment, might just be seen by the 48% as proof that they were right not to bother.

All these spurious rights claimed by political parties to take the high moral ground based on manifesto's, party creeds, acronyms of great purpose but little sense; other thanb bullshit baffling commonsense are, in essence, the very reason why half the electorate give them the cold shoulder yet the political buffons continue to play the same dyslexic gobblydegook. I can only suppose they do this because it's the only goobbledegook they understand. Which, if I'm right in my assumption. should just about limit them to Job Centre's as either customer or clerk.

By their attitude to the results of May 3 it is patently obvious the three party subsidiary to the Westminster cabal are not interested in advancing the cause of democracy in Scotland. Not perhaps surprising when you consider what's at stake - 59 less Westminster MP's mainly of Labour persuasion. completely unbalancing the present executives future prospects. The L/D - Cons putting party before country as though Scotland and its people should be subject to some hostile commercial take-over bid? All of it begs the question; just what is it all of you know that you can't (or wont) explain to the Scottish people?

For the immediate future it is democracy that's at stake. The SNP may not be be proven in government but all of the others have proven record of failure bordering on the abysmal.

I know Alex Salmond has far greater experiance in politics than I, and I would suspect the horse trading has came as no surprise to him and, if he can engender a new dynamic into Scottish politics by fighting for Scotland without any reference to Westminster and its establishment cabals and at the same time regenerate some interest from the 48% who regard themselves as disenfranchised, I'd say Scotland has finally found a Statesman that hasn't got his head in the cloud while his feet are in shifting sand.

2010 isn't important, It's democracy that is.

Ian 2.23p.m. You have just conjured up a most horrendous image in my mind! The debating chamber at Holyrood next time round! A debate in which "ranting" Duncan McNeil, Cathie Jamieson, Margaret Curran, Karen Whitefield, Karen Gillan and Lord"half cut" George Foulkes all contribute one after the other! God, what a example of acceptable parliamentary excellence! The tragedy is that Labour voters believe these to be the best of the political crop! And there are more such gifted orators in waiting!

George 2.20 During the debate on the war against Yugoslavia, which was certainly more clearly against international law & certainly deliberately done to assist in the genocide by the KLA John Swinney spoke. He criticised the government for not attacking civilian ships in international waters going to Yugoslavia. The government were sticking to the legalism that such ships should not be attacked till they reach Montenegran waters.

It was, in its way, a rather silly point since all parties were quite deliberately practicing genocide but clearly Blair was looking for some minor facet he could use to "prove" his respect for law & Swinney was looking for some equally pointless way of "proving" how tough he was.

[quote][bold]Solus[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Mildly Amused[/bold] wrote: The Scottish electorate (circa 4 million) are not stupid. They knew that if they voted SNP last week then a referendum on independence would be on the cards. The fact that only 664,227 (18%) voted for SNP tells you that the people of Scotland were not sufficiently persuaded that this was the right thing to do. Now before you all cry out about that number, look at the votes cast. Of the 2,016,978 votes 664,227 (33%) were for the only party proposing independence. This figure tells us that Scots did not support the SNP's policies by a ratio of 2:1 against. Before the election, the Lib/Dem's clearly stated that they would not get into a coalition with the SNP because of the devolution issue. Now it's all over bar the horsetrading, why are you all so surprised? Why are you squawking about it and spitting poison at the Lib/Dem's? Politicians who actually stand by what they promised in the run up to an election are a rare commodity and should be respected. So now we have this (highly entertaining) minority raving and drooling about plots from London etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland rejected your policies. A minority is a minority no matter how you look at it. Thanks for the laughs guys, you've made my day.[/quote] It's not so funny that we have this minority with no dignity whatsoever and refuse to recognise that the political establishment have utter contempt for the people of Scotland. It's also not very funny that such people have a basic understanding of party politics and the nature of relative power balances in a multi-party parliamentary system. It's also not very funny that such people are reduced to arguing against the democratic will of the people by highlighting a low turn-out. If I were you I would stop giggling into my shirt-sleeve and wake-up to the fact that the largest party were elected on a mandate which included a referendum bill. It is not ideal for Scotland that there is a minority government. The SNP offered a reasonable and wholly acceptable concession of a multiple choice referendum with one option being greater powers. The Lib Dems ran on a manifesto for greater powers. Therefore, the Lib Dems are betraying their own voters by not accepting the concession and are betraying the Scottish people by not recognising the SNP have a mandate to govern. The Lib Dems have also demonstrated that they do not operate in the interests of the Scottish people but would rather be dictated to by Menzies and his London led Liberal lackeys fall into line one-by-one with Nicol sitting in his trouser pocket. I assume you would also have said, in the last two parliaments, that the people of Scotland rejected Labour policies because they did not get an overall majority on a low-tunout. Of course you wouldn't, so stop giggling like a wee lassie at the rightful anger the Scottish people feel about this issue. PS: To everyone else have a wee look at this link: http://www.independence1st.com/content/polls.shtml These polls are the polls they don't tell you about - NB the more than 82% of people want to see a referendum. Thus why are LibDems denying that to the Scottish people. [/quote] I say again that the Lib/Dems went into this election stating that they wouldn't go into coalition with a party who proposed a referendum. They did just that and kudos to them for standing by their principles. Now the because the SNP are offering concessions (and probably in-fighting about that), you expect the Lib/Dems to change their position. Why should they.? Why don't the SNP put a referendum aside for time being, form a minority government, work with the other parties on common areas where they can improve the lot of the Scottish people and demonstrate that they are capable of running the country. Then at the next election they would surely get more than 18% of the electorate to vote for them?

Solus wrote:

Mildly Amused wrote: The Scottish electorate (circa 4 million) are not stupid. They knew that if they voted SNP last week then a referendum on independence would be on the cards. The fact that only 664,227 (18%) voted for SNP tells you that the people of Scotland were not sufficiently persuaded that this was the right thing to do. Now before you all cry out about that number, look at the votes cast. Of the 2,016,978 votes 664,227 (33%) were for the only party proposing independence. This figure tells us that Scots did not support the SNP's policies by a ratio of 2:1 against. Before the election, the Lib/Dem's clearly stated that they would not get into a coalition with the SNP because of the devolution issue. Now it's all over bar the horsetrading, why are you all so surprised? Why are you squawking about it and spitting poison at the Lib/Dem's? Politicians who actually stand by what they promised in the run up to an election are a rare commodity and should be respected. So now we have this (highly entertaining) minority raving and drooling about plots from London etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland rejected your policies. A minority is a minority no matter how you look at it. Thanks for the laughs guys, you've made my day.
It's not so funny that we have this minority with no dignity whatsoever and refuse to recognise that the political establishment have utter contempt for the people of Scotland. It's also not very funny that such people have a basic understanding of party politics and the nature of relative power balances in a multi-party parliamentary system. It's also not very funny that such people are reduced to arguing against the democratic will of the people by highlighting a low turn-out. If I were you I would stop giggling into my shirt-sleeve and wake-up to the fact that the largest party were elected on a mandate which included a referendum bill. It is not ideal for Scotland that there is a minority government. The SNP offered a reasonable and wholly acceptable concession of a multiple choice referendum with one option being greater powers. The Lib Dems ran on a manifesto for greater powers. Therefore, the Lib Dems are betraying their own voters by not accepting the concession and are betraying the Scottish people by not recognising the SNP have a mandate to govern. The Lib Dems have also demonstrated that they do not operate in the interests of the Scottish people but would rather be dictated to by Menzies and his London led Liberal lackeys fall into line one-by-one with Nicol sitting in his trouser pocket. I assume you would also have said, in the last two parliaments, that the people of Scotland rejected Labour policies because they did not get an overall majority on a low-tunout. Of course you wouldn't, so stop giggling like a wee lassie at the rightful anger the Scottish people feel about this issue. PS: To everyone else have a wee look at this link: http://www.independence1st.com/content/polls.shtml These polls are the polls they don't tell you about - NB the more than 82% of people want to see a referendum. Thus why are LibDems denying that to the Scottish people.

I say again that the Lib/Dems went into this election stating that they wouldn't go into coalition with a party who proposed a referendum. They did just that and kudos to them for standing by their principles. Now the because the SNP are offering concessions (and probably in-fighting about that), you expect the Lib/Dems to change their position. Why should they.?

Why don't the SNP put a referendum aside for time being, form a minority government, work with the other parties on common areas where they can improve the lot of the Scottish people and demonstrate that they are capable of running the country. Then at the next election they would surely get more than 18% of the electorate to vote for them?

Scottish roads suffer from a lack of maintenance making them extremely dangerous to all road users.

Convicted criminals in Scottish prisons have more rights than law-abiding citizens. i.e. the smoking ban.

The Scottish election system was a humiliating fiasco in the eyes of the world.

The Scottish Parliament building looks like Legoland and the weans have no finished playing.

Scotland voted for a change!

All politicians! Start working for Scotland and make us a proud race again.

Any Lib Dem supporters out there like to explain to me why their party is opposed to referendums of any sort? I would have thought that the use of referendums could very easily be argued to be central to a healthy democracy.

George Paterson, Inverurie

Does someone wind you up at the back, sir.

This ranting is not good for your blood pressure.

I clearly am not a simpleton. I did not vote SNP.

TO THOSE WHO CROW ABOUT THE SNP WINNING BY ONLY ONE SEAT, OR THE "MAJORITY" ARE STILL CLEARLY UNIONISTS:

SLAVES RIOTED IN ROME - NOT FOR FREEDOM! BUT BECAUSE THEIR MASTERS WANTED TO GIVE THEM THEIR FREEDOM

I must say, as a LibDem voter, I'm rather aghast at my party's stance. I voted for them believing in their policies and in their ability to implement them through coalition. But now we're totally rejecting the opportunity ... and why? To block the democratic process! A coalition would be a great opportunity to implement our most important policies ... but we're choosing not to do this for the sake of blocking the democratic process. I'm ashamed. No party with "Democrat" in their name should oppose a referendum. The fear of losing the referendum among the party heirarchy, leading to an independent Scotland, is apparently greater than their love of democracy. Given that the polls have always shown more people favour independence than the status quo, I understand their fear. But the Union is not a priority of most LD voters. Three party unionism is very much a conspiracy of the political elite. Labour and, sadly, the LibDems make out that support of independence ... never mind a referendum on independence ... is an SNP thing, yet most people who support independence vote for other parties, namely Labour and the LibDems. When elections become one-issue matters about independence then I'll accept their argument. But they're not. The Scottish people have never had their say on the matter, and as a Democrat I support their right to do so. If my party continue this dogmatic stance, I will definitely contemplate ceasing to vote for them. Democracy in Scotland looks to be a sham atm.

I must say, as a LibDem voter, I'm rather aghast at my party's stance. I voted for them believing in their policies and in their ability to implement them through coalition. But now we're totally rejecting the opportunity ... and why? To block the democratic process! A coalition would be a great opportunity to implement our most important policies ... but we're choosing not to do this for the sake of blocking the democratic process. I'm ashamed. No party with "Democrat" in their name should oppose a referendum. The fear of losing the referendum among the party heirarchy, leading to an independent Scotland, is apparently greater than their love of democracy.

Given that the polls have always shown more people favour independence than the status quo, I understand their fear. But the Union is not a priority of most LD voters. Three party unionism is very much a conspiracy of the political elite. Labour and, sadly, the LibDems make out that support of independence ... never mind a referendum on independence ... is an SNP thing, yet most people who support independence vote for other parties, namely Labour and the LibDems. When elections become one-issue matters about independence then I'll accept their argument. But they're not. The Scottish people have never had their say on the matter, and as a Democrat I support their right to do so. If my party continue this dogmatic stance, I will definitely contemplate ceasing to vote for them. Democracy in Scotland looks to be a sham atm.

Janet wrote:
George Paterson, Inverurie Does someone wind you up at the back, sir. This ranting is not good for your blood pressure. I clearly am not a simpleton. I did not vote SNP.

"I clearly am not a simpleton. I did not vote SNP."

You probably made a muck of the ballot paper and did vote SNP.

Mildy Amused 2.47 Let's both have a "good day"! I agree that the current situation is "tough". And that is the consequence of the voting patterns. Because of the flawed election structures in place for the Holyrood seats, would you agree with me that a re-run would resolve the issue rather the the predictable horse trading that seems inevitable? The cost to democracy is surely worth more than the cost of the Holyrood building!

[quote][bold]george.paterson[/bold] wrote: Mildy Amused 2.47 Let's both have a "good day"! I agree that the current situation is "tough". And that is the consequence of the voting patterns. Because of the flawed election structures in place for the Holyrood seats, would you agree with me that a re-run would resolve the issue rather the the predictable horse trading that seems inevitable? The cost to democracy is surely worth more than the cost of the Holyrood building![/quote] Sorry George I don't agree that a re-run would resolve anything. I suspect that the SNP side think that they might pick up some Lib/Dem votes because public opinion might go against them for refusing to succumb to the advances of Mr. Salmond and his offer of a third option (designed in my opinion to split the pro-union vote and engineer a victory for the SNP). If a re-run produced a similar result what would happen Next? Another re-run? The party with the lowest number of votes to drop out and so on until the SNP gets the majority it needs? My view is that if they are really concerned for the people of Scotland, the parties can work together on improving the lives of many people in the areas that they all agree on (and God alone knows there's plenty to be getting on with) and then look to their own party-specific policies and campaign appropriately at the next election.

george.paterson wrote:
Mildy Amused 2.47 Let's both have a "good day"! I agree that the current situation is "tough". And that is the consequence of the voting patterns. Because of the flawed election structures in place for the Holyrood seats, would you agree with me that a re-run would resolve the issue rather the the predictable horse trading that seems inevitable? The cost to democracy is surely worth more than the cost of the Holyrood building!

Sorry George I don't agree that a re-run would resolve anything. I suspect that the SNP side think that they might pick up some Lib/Dem votes because public opinion might go against them for refusing to succumb to the advances of Mr. Salmond and his offer of a third option (designed in my opinion to split the pro-union vote and engineer a victory for the SNP).

If a re-run produced a similar result what would happen Next? Another re-run? The party with the lowest number of votes to drop out and so on until the SNP gets the majority it needs?

My view is that if they are really concerned for the people of Scotland, the parties can work together on improving the lives of many people in the areas that they all agree on (and God alone knows there's plenty to be getting on with) and then look to their own party-specific policies and campaign appropriately at the next election.

Mildly Bemused, You laugh at the strangest and weirdest things. I point out that the Lib Dems had a manifesto commitment to extend the powers of the Parliament, the SNP offered them the chance to meet their commitment, they then churlishly reject a simple compromise, and you start to p*** yourself (I presume) laughing. It's a fairly simple propsoition, within which I fail to see the inherent comedy, that the Liberal Democrats are acting undemocratically by refusing to engage properly with discussions. I don't want to tickle your ribs much further but the democratic process is about negotiation and I'm sure you'll chortle in reply that Lib Dems have a right not to accept the compromise but in so doing they demonstrate that they only have their own interests at heart and care not a jot about good governance of Scotland. The Lib Dems managed to negotiate STV voting system for Council Election with Labour even though Labour were against the proposal but Labour negotiated and the Lib Dems got their way. It's only goes to show that when negotiations take place then parties can reach a compromise. The election results were announced on Friday, this is Monday, and the Lib Dems have supposedly engaged with negotiations - aye right, Nicol is just showing himself up as a political lightweight. The obvious compromise is a multiple question ballot. That would suit both parties because negotiations are, after all, a two-way affair even though the SNP hold the power balance. You also seem to forget that the SNP are the largest party and there is no need for them to drop one of their manifesto pledges from demands from a fourth rated party who lost two seats and have now lost all credibility. You also go on about SNP not having a majority, well, for the second time, that is the nature of PR and it has been the case in the last two Parliaments that the leading party had a minority so you'll need to giggle your way through an explanation of why the SNP not having a majority is all of a sudden relevant.

Mildly Bemused,
You laugh at the strangest and weirdest things. I point out that the Lib Dems had a manifesto commitment to extend the powers of the Parliament, the SNP offered them the chance to meet their commitment, they then churlishly reject a simple compromise, and you start to p*** yourself (I presume) laughing. It's a fairly simple propsoition, within which I fail to see the inherent comedy, that the Liberal Democrats are acting undemocratically by refusing to engage properly with discussions. I don't want to tickle your ribs much further but the democratic process is about negotiation and I'm sure you'll chortle in reply that Lib Dems have a right not to accept the compromise but in so doing they demonstrate that they only have their own interests at heart and care not a jot about good governance of Scotland.

The Lib Dems managed to negotiate STV voting system for Council Election with Labour even though Labour were against the proposal but Labour negotiated and the Lib Dems got their way. It's only goes to show that when negotiations take place then parties can reach a compromise. The election results were announced on Friday, this is Monday, and the Lib Dems have supposedly engaged with negotiations - aye right, Nicol is just showing himself up as a political lightweight. The obvious compromise is a multiple question ballot. That would suit both parties because negotiations are, after all, a two-way affair even though the SNP hold the power balance.

You also seem to forget that the SNP are the largest party and there is no need for them to drop one of their manifesto pledges from demands from a fourth rated party who lost two seats and have now lost all credibility.

You also go on about SNP not having a majority, well, for the second time, that is the nature of PR and it has been the case in the last two Parliaments that the leading party had a minority so you'll need to giggle your way through an explanation of why the SNP not having a majority is all of a sudden relevant.

Buckpool Loon good post hate 6ot be pedantic ,however if you include the 100,000+ discounted votes neaer 62% actualy got off their butts and voted.
also any electoral roll at any one time is usually around 10% inaccurate so of those that could ,or did vote we are talking nearer 72%

Wee Janet 3.22 Thanks pal. Even from "behind the sofa" you saw the flaws in Janet's position! She probably and unwittingly DID vote SNP! Janet, how about an answer to the points I made to you? If you are not a simpleton that shouldn't be asking too much ! Did you maybe just get confused and really voted for a party othe than the LibDems?

Mildly 3.35 It's a fair assessment but I feel that in a re-run both the Labour and LibDem votes would be sorely depleted as neither seem to accept Salmond's democratic victory. They seem hell bent on looking after their own necks rather than their duty to the Scottish electorate.The only party of the four who is negotiating is the SNP. The others are entrenched.

I have to agree with the comments about Pauline McNeill's victory speech. It was appalling and I hope the voters who re-elected her are pleased with themselves. How different to the well spoken orators in the SNP who can put their point across without sounding like a fish-wife.

[quote][bold]JOhn[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: John, are you telling me that these newspapers will not post copies of their newspaper around the world? Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/ [/quote] If you are so anti Scottish press, you should try coming back and working here and trying to argue your case. Given your repetitive message I say again ....."another ex pat wanting to boycott the scotish press. You can do this in Madrid very easily". Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn't SNP doesn't mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn't at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that's democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?[/quote] John you refer to us as EX-pats which a definition that means ex-patriots note the definition of patriot *********************************** Main Entry: pa�tri�ot Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtes, from patria lineage, from patr-, pater father : one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests ********************************* I have never stopped loving my country nor have I ever stopped supporting it's authority and interest.. I could say, it is people like you who would rather bad mouth us for wanting stay off the dole and the fact that we moved to achieve such aims... keeps us away, but I won't. Don't slate us because we care...save your bitterness for those who [bold]have[/bold] let you down. I do hold my hand up and say...I support the S.N.P. I donated to the party and my family back home voted for same party. I also would like to point out to one and all, the Lib Dems are fools for turning down the chance to form a coalition, it was the only chance they ever had to get a sniff at governing, their refusal was nothing more than political blackmail...do it our way or we will stamp our feet blackmail..Alex is better off without them. Whether, Alex Salmond does get to lead the Scottish parliament or not ,will never take away the fact the people of Scotland roared [bold]enough[/bold] to the Labour party [bold]we won't wear your Yoke anymore[/bold] History has been made and I am proud that my fellow Scots roared like a lion than followed meekly like sheep, and no matter what you say John, you will never take that pride from me nor anyother Scot, no matter where we live. So save your bitterness for those who deserve it.

JOhn wrote:

Alex Porter wrote: John, are you telling me that these newspapers will not post copies of their newspaper around the world? Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/
If you are so anti Scottish press, you should try coming back and working here and trying to argue your case. Given your repetitive message I say again ....."another ex pat wanting to boycott the scotish press. You can do this in Madrid very easily". Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn't SNP doesn't mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn't at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that's democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?

John you refer to us as EX-pats which a definition that means ex-patriots note the definition of patriot
***********************************
Main Entry: pa�tri�ot
Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtes, from patria lineage, from patr-, pater father
: one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests
*********************************
I have never stopped loving my country nor have I ever stopped supporting it's authority and interest..
I could say, it is people like you who would rather bad mouth us for wanting stay off the dole and the fact that we moved to achieve such aims... keeps us away, but I won't.
Don't slate us because we care...save your bitterness for those who have let you down.
I do hold my hand up and say...I support the S.N.P. I donated to the party and my family back home voted for same party.

I also would like to point out to one and all, the Lib Dems are fools for turning down the chance to form a coalition, it was the only chance they ever had to get a sniff at governing, their refusal was nothing more than political blackmail...do it our way or we will stamp our feet blackmail..Alex is better off without them.

Whether, Alex Salmond does get to lead the Scottish parliament or not ,will never take away the fact the people of Scotland roared enough to the Labour party we won't wear your Yoke anymore
History has been made and I am proud that my fellow Scots roared like a lion than followed meekly like sheep, and no matter what you say John, you will never take that pride from me nor anyother Scot, no matter where we live.

So save your bitterness for those who deserve it.

R Macled, London. There you are, one man's opinion can't cover every issue.

However, if we take the electoral roll as being 10% in deficit, how does that reflect on all the number crunchers and their statistics of GDP, poverty levels, median earnings, age demographics etc?

Suggestion, we all know the constituancies are modified by whichever party are presently in office! What if the actual percentage of the total votes cast were published for each party irrespective of the seats won. Wouldn't that be a more accurate reflection of the real position of the parties?

Yes Iain from Brora, the slaves are revolting. Perhaps it would be appropriate to quote lennon here: Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV And you think you're so clever and classless and free But you're still **** peasants as far as I can see. I am happy that the SNP won Govan since it shows that there are some people in Glasgow not in thrall to Labour. I look around and see litter in the streets, too many cars on the roads, pollution, an almost laughably incompetant health service, jobs in call centres, sectarianism, racism, inadequate education, pavements in poor state of repair, conformism, the city centre full of pound shops, people in power who are cynical, indifferent, unintelligent, inarticulate, ...(feel free to add more) Above all I see people frustrated and dispirited. I think that Independence would release a new dynamic which would revive Scottish society and culture. This may not be true but there is only one way to find out. If people are open minded, a pre-requisite for dialogue, then a referendum is the only position worth taking.

Yes Iain from Brora, the slaves are revolting. Perhaps it would be appropriate to quote lennon here:
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still **** peasants as far as I can see.
I am happy that the SNP won Govan since it shows that there are some people in Glasgow not in thrall to Labour. I look around and see litter in the streets, too many cars on the roads, pollution, an almost laughably incompetant health service, jobs in call centres, sectarianism, racism, inadequate education, pavements in poor state of repair, conformism, the city centre full of pound shops, people in power who are cynical, indifferent, unintelligent, inarticulate, ...(feel free to add more) Above all I see people frustrated and dispirited. I think that Independence would release a new dynamic which would revive Scottish society and culture. This may not be true but there is only one way to find out. If people are open minded, a pre-requisite for dialogue, then a referendum is the only position worth taking.

The Lib Dems have said all along that they were not in favour of a referendum. I for one applaud them for sticking to their guns. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by going into coalition with the very inexperienced SNP. They can now vote with the SNP on issues that they agree with and are free to vote against when they disagree. There can be no accusations of selling their principles for Mondeos this time!

Karen wrote:
I have to agree with the comments about Pauline McNeill's victory speech. It was appalling and I hope the voters who re-elected her are pleased with themselves. How different to the well spoken orators in the SNP who can put their point across without sounding like a fish-wife.

Given that, along with most of Pauline's detractors, you are posting from outside Glasgow, I take it you weren't actually at the count. If you had been, you would have been aware that, as soon as she took to the lectern, she was subjected to a barracking by SNP supporters and Trots, as was every other successful Labour candidate. It's hardly surprising she reacted to it.

Happens every election, incidentally, but you never hear it on TV because the mics are at the lectern and only pick up the speeches.

Buckpool you misunderstand me I am not attacknig your very valid point I am only saying that if you include the discounted ballots and the incorrectness of the roll ( nobody's fault ) just facts peole die ,move etc .
The result was still a goodly number

To: "Tolerance"

The intention is not to compare the present with the Nazi period. The intention is to juxtapose the effectiveness of the BIG LIE and the very real possibility that there is such a thing as TRUTH. Thirty years of secrets must make even the most sincere Unionist wonder. Scots deserve the truth about our economy and the effect of London rule. They will never get it if London holds all of the strings. I am a member of the SNP because I know that some semblance of the truth will at least raise its head in a period of four years. I apologise if the reference to the Nazi period offended you - It was not the intention.

[quote][bold]Solus[/bold] wrote: Mildly Bemused, You laugh at the strangest and weirdest things. I point out that the Lib Dems had a manifesto commitment to extend the powers of the Parliament, the SNP offered them the chance to meet their commitment, they then churlishly reject a simple compromise, and you start to p*** yourself (I presume) laughing. It\'s a fairly simple propsoition, within which I fail to see the inherent comedy, that the Liberal Democrats are acting undemocratically by refusing to engage properly with discussions. I don\'t want to tickle your ribs much further but the democratic process is about negotiation and I\'m sure you\'ll chortle in reply that Lib Dems have a right not to accept the compromise but in so doing they demonstrate that they only have their own interests at heart and care not a jot about good governance of Scotland. The Lib Dems managed to negotiate STV voting system for Council Election with Labour even though Labour were against the proposal but Labour negotiated and the Lib Dems got their way. It\'s only goes to show that when negotiations take place then parties can reach a compromise. The election results were announced on Friday, this is Monday, and the Lib Dems have supposedly engaged with negotiations - aye right, Nicol is just showing himself up as a political lightweight. The obvious compromise is a multiple question ballot. That would suit both parties because negotiations are, after all, a two-way affair even though the SNP hold the power balance. You also seem to forget that the SNP are the largest party and there is no need for them to drop one of their manifesto pledges from demands from a fourth rated party who lost two seats and have now lost all credibility. You also go on about SNP not having a majority, well, for the second time, that is the nature of PR and it has been the case in the last two Parliaments that the leading party had a minority so you\'ll need to giggle your way through an explanation of why the SNP not having a majority is all of a sudden relevant.[/quote] One of the disappointing things about this forum is the need that some people have to change names in an attempt at wit. I'm honoured that my chosen name has changed into Mildly Bemused and I'm in such prestigious company as Joke McConnell , Jack McQuackell, etc. Let�s keep it grown up please. I am indeed laughing. Laughing at all of the desperate attempts by the SNP faithful to try to find something wrong with the fact that the Lib/Dems have done exactly what they said they would do weeks ago. I ask again, what's wrong with that? I have already said that the SNP are the biggest party in terms of seats won and should form a government. If it's a minority government so be it. It means that all of the parties should get down to some consensus politics and improve the lives of the people of Scotland which is the stated purpose of all of them I believe. What's wrong with that? I haven't said that they should drop their manifesto pledge of independence, I have suggested that they put it aside for now and prove to the people of Scotland that they can govern which can only strengthen their case in the next election. What's wrong with that? I accept that the last 2 governments have had a minority in terms of the number of people in the electorate but not quite as spectacularly low as 18%. (please allow me one little snicker here) In both cases they got on with forming a government and now it's time for the SNP to do the same. And you're right, it probably isn't relevant but it serves as a reminder that amongst all the crowing about who won under the current rules, there are a great number of people who didn't vote for the party that wants to go down the road of independence and it would be in the best interests of the SNP to try to take them along on this route rather than force them into something that they didn't vote for.

Solus wrote:
Mildly Bemused, You laugh at the strangest and weirdest things. I point out that the Lib Dems had a manifesto commitment to extend the powers of the Parliament, the SNP offered them the chance to meet their commitment, they then churlishly reject a simple compromise, and you start to p*** yourself (I presume) laughing. It\'s a fairly simple propsoition, within which I fail to see the inherent comedy, that the Liberal Democrats are acting undemocratically by refusing to engage properly with discussions. I don\'t want to tickle your ribs much further but the democratic process is about negotiation and I\'m sure you\'ll chortle in reply that Lib Dems have a right not to accept the compromise but in so doing they demonstrate that they only have their own interests at heart and care not a jot about good governance of Scotland. The Lib Dems managed to negotiate STV voting system for Council Election with Labour even though Labour were against the proposal but Labour negotiated and the Lib Dems got their way. It\'s only goes to show that when negotiations take place then parties can reach a compromise. The election results were announced on Friday, this is Monday, and the Lib Dems have supposedly engaged with negotiations - aye right, Nicol is just showing himself up as a political lightweight. The obvious compromise is a multiple question ballot. That would suit both parties because negotiations are, after all, a two-way affair even though the SNP hold the power balance. You also seem to forget that the SNP are the largest party and there is no need for them to drop one of their manifesto pledges from demands from a fourth rated party who lost two seats and have now lost all credibility. You also go on about SNP not having a majority, well, for the second time, that is the nature of PR and it has been the case in the last two Parliaments that the leading party had a minority so you\'ll need to giggle your way through an explanation of why the SNP not having a majority is all of a sudden relevant.

One of the disappointing things about this forum is the need that some people have to change names in an attempt at wit. I'm honoured that my chosen name has changed into Mildly Bemused and I'm in such prestigious company as Joke McConnell , Jack McQuackell, etc. Let�s keep it grown up please.

I am indeed laughing. Laughing at all of the desperate attempts by the SNP faithful to try to find something wrong with the fact that the Lib/Dems have done exactly what they said they would do weeks ago. I ask again, what's wrong with that?

I have already said that the SNP are the biggest party in terms of seats won and should form a government. If it's a minority government so be it. It means that all of the parties should get down to some consensus politics and improve the lives of the people of Scotland which is the stated purpose of all of them I believe. What's wrong with that?

I haven't said that they should drop their manifesto pledge of independence, I have suggested that they put it aside for now and prove to the people of Scotland that they can govern which can only strengthen their case in the next election. What's wrong with that?

I accept that the last 2 governments have had a minority in terms of the number of people in the electorate but not quite as spectacularly low as 18%. (please allow me one little snicker here) In both cases they got on with forming a government and now it's time for the SNP to do the same. And you're right, it probably isn't relevant but it serves as a reminder that amongst all the crowing about who won under the current rules, there are a great number of people who didn't vote for the party that wants to go down the road of independence and it would be in the best interests of the SNP to try to take them along on this route rather than force them into something that they didn't vote for.

dominic m., Edinburgh on 3:21pm today REFERENDUM Excellent post Dominic, I think there are many LibDem voters who believed that your party was offering to help form stable coalition governments. They talked incessantly about what they can achieve in coalition. The idea of not supporting a referendum was a last minute policy. Even still, there were ways around this. [bold]Let's face it a referendum is not about independence, it is about independence or the status quo which is the policy of all parties.[/bold] Not giving this choice to the people is profoundly undemocratic when it is so obvioulsy desired by the vast majority of the population. Now, the Libs will not be able to introduce legislation as part of a government. The input on a local income tax which would have had a wonderful affect on the poorest in our society, they will not be able to shape legislation to properly abolish student loans (sold out again), they will not be able to introduce renewable energy legislation etc. They also told us for a long time they supported stable, consensus government. Yet all this dropped and what's the reason? They don't want to give the people their say in a referendum. This is what LibDems voters voted for and the evidence is Dominic above and many more like him. The LibDems will pay sorely for this. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: www.ipetitions/petition/anti-Scottish/

dominic m., Edinburgh on 3:21pm today

REFERENDUM
Excellent post Dominic, I think there are many LibDem voters who believed that your party was offering to help form stable coalition governments. They talked incessantly about what they can achieve in coalition. The idea of not supporting a referendum was a last minute policy. Even still, there were ways around this.

Let's face it a referendum is not about independence, it is about independence or the status quo which is the policy of all parties. Not giving this choice to the people is profoundly undemocratic when it is so obvioulsy desired by the vast majority of the population.

Now, the Libs will not be able to introduce legislation as part of a government. The input on a local income tax which would have had a wonderful affect on the poorest in our society, they will not be able to shape legislation to properly abolish student loans (sold out again), they will not be able to introduce renewable energy legislation etc. They also told us for a long time they supported stable, consensus government. Yet all this dropped and what's the reason? They don't want to give the people their say in a referendum.

This is what LibDems voters voted for and the evidence is Dominic above and many more like him.

The LibDems will pay sorely for this.

Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press:
www.ipetitions/petition/anti-Scottish/

[quote][bold]Jon[/bold] wrote: The Lib Dems have said all along that they were not in favour of a referendum. I for one applaud them for sticking to their guns. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by going into coalition with the very inexperienced SNP. They can now vote with the SNP on issues that they agree with and are free to vote against when they disagree. There can be no accusations of selling their principles for Mondeos this time![/quote] They always could. May I remind you the definition of Referendum Main Entry: ref�er�en�dum> Function: noun Pronunciation: "re-f&-'ren-d&m Inflected Form(s): plural ref�er�en�da/-d&/ or -dums Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, neuter of referendus, gerundive of referre to refer 1 a : the principle or practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed on or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative b : a vote on a measure so submitted 2 : a diplomatic agent's note asking for government instructions ************************************************** It is a request to vote or veto a policy...by the people, not the party in power. The people of Scotland will have a choice whether they wish to go forward as a union or not. Surely the Lib Dems knew this? By using the referndum as an excuse, do they not realise, they have stated they wish to deny the people of Scotland the right to decide, thereby stating, the Scottish people have no right to democracy.

Jon wrote:
The Lib Dems have said all along that they were not in favour of a referendum. I for one applaud them for sticking to their guns. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by going into coalition with the very inexperienced SNP. They can now vote with the SNP on issues that they agree with and are free to vote against when they disagree. There can be no accusations of selling their principles for Mondeos this time!

They always could.
May I remind you the definition of Referendum
Main Entry: ref�er�en�dum>
Function: noun
Pronunciation: "re-f&-'ren-d&m
Inflected Form(s): plural ref�er�en�da/-d&/ or -dums
Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, neuter of referendus, gerundive of referre to refer
1 a : the principle or practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed on or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative b : a vote on a measure so submitted
2 : a diplomatic agent's note asking for government instructions
**************************************************
It is a request to vote or veto a policy...by the people, not the party in power.
The people of Scotland will have a choice whether they wish to go forward as a union or not.
Surely the Lib Dems knew this?
By using the referndum as an excuse, do they not realise, they have stated they wish to deny the people of Scotland the right to decide, thereby stating, the Scottish people have no right to democracy.

R MacLeod, no offense taken or misunderstanding of your meaning,

Just an honest admittance of factors I hadn't considered and their possible relevance to all the dubious statistics we're snowed under with.

" accept that the last 2 governments have had a minority in terms of the number of people in the electorate but not quite as spectacularly low as 18%. (please allow me one little snicker here)2

Not that different. Blair got, from memory 24%. The difference is that Scotland has a democratic electoral system & Westminster hasn't. If Holyrood had the westminster system we would probably see the SNP able to ram though separation, as Blair can ram through ID cards & wars. Let us be glad the SNP (& anybody else) is not going to have such monolithic power.

Between the 24th and 26th April, YouGov carried out an opinion poll on the question of a referendum vote for Independence and more powers for Holyrude. The results are shown below. [italic]There has been much debate on whether Scotland should be independent. The SNP has proposed calling a referendum on this issue. Leaving aside your own views on whether or not Scotland should be independent, would you support or oppose a referendum being being held on this issue?[/italic] I support holding a referendum on independence 60% I oppose holding such a referendum 28% Don�t know 12% [italic]Should any such referendum include an additional option calling for the Scottish Parliament to be given greater powers?[/italic] Yes, it should 55% No, it shouldn�t 29% Don�t know 16% As the Lib-Dems have apparently spurned the chance to go into a coalition with the SNP in order TO GIVE THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE THE CHANCE TO DECIDE, presumably Nicol Steven & Co. will be changing the name of their party? Below are listed the definitions of �Liberal� and �Democratic�. Whilst they might wish to aspire to being Liberal Democrats, their recent decisions do not match the definitions of their party. [bold]Liberal:[/bold] 1) favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. 2) (often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3) favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. 4) favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression. 5) open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. [bold]Democratic:[/bold] 1) advocating or upholding democracy. [italic][yeah right!][/italic] 2) pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment. 3) a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion. [italic][but not in Scotland apparently][/italic] Perhaps those who voted for them have a legal challenge on the basis they appear to be neither Liberal or Democratic. [Could this mean more seats for Labour - quick guys mount another spurious Labour challenge!!] As for a new name, how about the "Middle of the Road Unionist Party"?

Between the 24th and 26th April, YouGov carried out an opinion poll on the question of a referendum vote for Independence and more powers for Holyrude. The results are shown below.

There has been much debate on whether Scotland should be independent. The SNP has proposed calling a referendum on this issue. Leaving aside your own views on whether or not Scotland should be independent, would you support or oppose a referendum being being held on this issue?
I support holding a referendum on independence 60%
I oppose holding such a referendum 28%
Don�t know 12%

Should any such referendum include an additional option calling for the Scottish Parliament to be given greater powers?
Yes, it should 55%
No, it shouldn�t 29%
Don�t know 16%

As the Lib-Dems have apparently spurned the chance to go into a coalition with the SNP in order TO GIVE THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE THE CHANCE TO DECIDE, presumably Nicol Steven & Co. will be changing the name of their party?

Below are listed the definitions of �Liberal� and �Democratic�. Whilst they might wish to aspire to being Liberal Democrats, their recent decisions do not match the definitions of their party.

Liberal:
1) favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2) (often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3) favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
4) favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.
5) open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

Democratic:
1) advocating or upholding democracy. 2) pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.
3) a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.

Perhaps those who voted for them have a legal challenge on the basis they appear to be neither Liberal or Democratic.

As for a new name, how about the "Middle of the Road Unionist Party"?

I appreciate everyone on here ,myslef included tend to have strong party affiliations . I would however caution the "Unionists" amongst us to be so gleeful at the antics being played out here in Edinburgh/London. Remember if Westminster is allowed to interfere here and that seems absoluterly 100% what is happenning it is wrong ! . The very next time the same could happen to the party or policy of your choice . We as a nation demanded Devolution so we could make our own minds up on certain matters . Westminster chose to reserve some powers because they deem us unfit to make such decisions "in the national interest" , so be it, we have accepted that ,the media have campaigned for that, the Unionist parties have stuffed that down the throats of Nationalists. Where did we say we would accept Gordon Brown or Ming Campbell excerting pressure on their parties up here to aid their desires in Westminster???? This is not about a referendum for Independence the SNP have already made it known that their position is negotiable. This is about the Lib Dems doing what suits their party in UK not what is best for theScottish people. for the Labour supporters ,suppose next time it is a Tory government in Westminster and you find yourselves in a similar position and the SNP do a deal with the Tories to keep you out . Would you be so quick to gloat?? Act your ages here and not your shoe sizes this is bigger than party politics, it is about democracy in our country . If any governemnt fails here, Scotland fails do we really want that? this is not a footvball match and your team must win at any cost it is tantamount ot the idiots in the Old Firm support cheering on a foreign team when they are playing a European tie , madness,immature and bad for the common weal!!!

I appreciate everyone on here ,myslef included tend to have strong party affiliations .
I would however caution the "Unionists" amongst us to be so gleeful at the antics being played out here in Edinburgh/London.
Remember if Westminster is allowed to interfere here and that seems absoluterly 100% what is happenning it is wrong ! .
The very next time the same could happen to the party or policy of your choice .
We as a nation demanded Devolution so we could make our own minds up on certain matters .
Westminster chose to reserve some powers because they deem us unfit to make such decisions "in the national interest" , so be it, we have accepted that ,the media have campaigned for that, the Unionist parties have stuffed that down the throats of Nationalists.
Where did we say we would accept Gordon Brown or Ming Campbell excerting pressure on their parties up here to aid their desires in Westminster????
This is not about a referendum for Independence the SNP have already made it known that their position is negotiable.
This is about the Lib Dems doing what suits their party in UK not what is best for theScottish people.
for the Labour supporters ,suppose next time it is a Tory government in Westminster and you find yourselves in a similar position and the SNP do a deal with the Tories to keep you out .
Would you be so quick to gloat??
Act your ages here and not your shoe sizes this is bigger than party politics, it is about democracy in our country .
If any governemnt fails here, Scotland fails do we really want that?
this is not a footvball match and your team must win at any cost it is tantamount ot the idiots in the Old Firm support cheering on a foreign team when they are playing a European tie , madness,immature and bad for the common weal!!!

[quote][bold]Jan[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]JOhn[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: John, are you telling me that these newspapers will not post copies of their newspaper around the world? Join the boycott of the anti-democratic \'Scottish\' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/ [/quote] If you are so anti Scottish press, you should try coming back and working here and trying to argue your case. Given your repetitive message I say again .....\"another ex pat wanting to boycott the scotish press. You can do this in Madrid very easily\". Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn\'t SNP doesn\'t mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn\'t at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that\'s democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?[/quote] John you refer to us as EX-pats which a definition that means ex-patriots note the definition of patriot *********************************** Main Entry: pa�tri�ot Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtes, from patria lineage, from patr-, pater father : one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests ********************************* I have never stopped loving my country nor have I ever stopped supporting it\'s authority and interest.. I could say, it is people like you who would rather bad mouth us for wanting stay off the dole and the fact that we moved to achieve such aims... keeps us away, but I won\'t. Don\'t slate us because we care...save your bitterness for those who [bold]have[/bold] let you down. I do hold my hand up and say...I support the S.N.P. I donated to the party and my family back home voted for same party. I also would like to point out to one and all, the Lib Dems are fools for turning down the chance to form a coalition, it was the only chance they ever had to get a sniff at governing, their refusal was nothing more than political blackmail...do it our way or we will stamp our feet blackmail..Alex is better off without them. Whether, Alex Salmond does get to lead the Scottish parliament or not ,will never take away the fact the people of Scotland roared [bold]enough[/bold] to the Labour party [bold]we won\'t wear your Yoke anymore[/bold] History has been made and I am proud that my fellow Scots roared like a lion than followed meekly like sheep, and no matter what you say John, you will never take that pride from me nor anyother Scot, no matter where we live. So save your bitterness for those who deserve it. [/quote] Can you not respond to my point, I had no intention of trying to take your pride away, and nor did I say that. My point was that ex pats were telling us over here to boycott an undemocratic press. I say again , because you chose to respond to anything bar the point I made..............."Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn't SNP doesn't mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn't at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that's democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?" You can dress up your patriotism any way you like, but at the end of the day, you love my country so much you stay somewhere else, perhaps the truth hurts. I am hapy to enetr into a debate if you care to respond to my point about the press, so many of the SNP supporters just wish to trash anyone who dares to put a different point of view across. Have a nice day in the country which took us to war, with our sheepdog Blair, and you CHOOSE to stay there despite singing our praises over here? Really easy that for you i say.

Jan wrote:

JOhn wrote:
Alex Porter wrote: John, are you telling me that these newspapers will not post copies of their newspaper around the world? Join the boycott of the anti-democratic \'Scottish\' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/
If you are so anti Scottish press, you should try coming back and working here and trying to argue your case. Given your repetitive message I say again .....\"another ex pat wanting to boycott the scotish press. You can do this in Madrid very easily\". Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn\'t SNP doesn\'t mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn\'t at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that\'s democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?
John you refer to us as EX-pats which a definition that means ex-patriots note the definition of patriot *********************************** Main Entry: pa�tri�ot Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtes, from patria lineage, from patr-, pater father : one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests ********************************* I have never stopped loving my country nor have I ever stopped supporting it\'s authority and interest.. I could say, it is people like you who would rather bad mouth us for wanting stay off the dole and the fact that we moved to achieve such aims... keeps us away, but I won\'t. Don\'t slate us because we care...save your bitterness for those who have let you down. I do hold my hand up and say...I support the S.N.P. I donated to the party and my family back home voted for same party. I also would like to point out to one and all, the Lib Dems are fools for turning down the chance to form a coalition, it was the only chance they ever had to get a sniff at governing, their refusal was nothing more than political blackmail...do it our way or we will stamp our feet blackmail..Alex is better off without them. Whether, Alex Salmond does get to lead the Scottish parliament or not ,will never take away the fact the people of Scotland roared enough to the Labour party we won\'t wear your Yoke anymore History has been made and I am proud that my fellow Scots roared like a lion than followed meekly like sheep, and no matter what you say John, you will never take that pride from me nor anyother Scot, no matter where we live. So save your bitterness for those who deserve it.

Can you not respond to my point, I had no intention of trying to take your pride away, and nor did I say that.

My point was that ex pats were telling us over here to boycott an undemocratic press.

I say again , because you chose to respond to anything bar the point I made..............."Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn't SNP doesn't mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn't at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that's democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?"

You can dress up your patriotism any way you like, but at the end of the day, you love my country so much you stay somewhere else, perhaps the truth hurts. I am hapy to enetr into a debate if you care to respond to my point about the press, so many of the SNP supporters just wish to trash anyone who dares to put a different point of view across.

Have a nice day in the country which took us to war, with our sheepdog Blair, and you CHOOSE to stay there despite singing our praises over here? Really easy that for you i say.

Alex Porter wrote:
Sorry John, You are a troll and incapable of reasoned dialogue. I'm not interested. Now please stop stalking me. Slainte

I rest my case, you are incapable of answereing points made to your ridiculous post. Home bird takes the points, easy contest though.

[quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: dominic m., Edinburgh on 3:21pm today REFERENDUM Excellent post Dominic, I think there are many LibDem voters who believed that your party was offering to help form stable coalition governments. They talked incessantly about what they can achieve in coalition. The idea of not supporting a referendum was a last minute policy. Even still, there were ways around this. [bold]Let's face it a referendum is not about independence, it is about independence or the status quo which is the policy of all parties.[/bold] Not giving this choice to the people is profoundly undemocratic when it is so obvioulsy desired by the vast majority of the population. Now, the Libs will not be able to introduce legislation as part of a government. The input on a local income tax which would have had a wonderful affect on the poorest in our society, they will not be able to shape legislation to properly abolish student loans (sold out again), they will not be able to introduce renewable energy legislation etc. They also told us for a long time they supported stable, consensus government. Yet all this dropped and what's the reason? They don't want to give the people their say in a referendum. This is what LibDems voters voted for and the evidence is Dominic above and many more like him. The LibDems will pay sorely for this. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: www.ipetitions/petition/anti-Scottish/[/quote] "Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: www.ipetitions/petition/anti-Scottish/".... Answer the response to your futile statement, go on, you can think of something. If you can't, ask your teacher for some help....easy this, punters who can copy and paste but cannot debate in a reasonable manner, they simply repeat themselves.

Alex Porter wrote:
dominic m., Edinburgh on 3:21pm today REFERENDUM Excellent post Dominic, I think there are many LibDem voters who believed that your party was offering to help form stable coalition governments. They talked incessantly about what they can achieve in coalition. The idea of not supporting a referendum was a last minute policy. Even still, there were ways around this. Let's face it a referendum is not about independence, it is about independence or the status quo which is the policy of all parties. Not giving this choice to the people is profoundly undemocratic when it is so obvioulsy desired by the vast majority of the population. Now, the Libs will not be able to introduce legislation as part of a government. The input on a local income tax which would have had a wonderful affect on the poorest in our society, they will not be able to shape legislation to properly abolish student loans (sold out again), they will not be able to introduce renewable energy legislation etc. They also told us for a long time they supported stable, consensus government. Yet all this dropped and what's the reason? They don't want to give the people their say in a referendum. This is what LibDems voters voted for and the evidence is Dominic above and many more like him. The LibDems will pay sorely for this. Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press: www.ipetitions/petition/anti-Scottish/

"Join the boycott of the anti-democratic 'Scottish' press:
www.ipetitions/petition/anti-Scottish/"....

Answer the response to your futile statement, go on, you can think of something. If you can't, ask your teacher for some help....easy this, punters who can copy and paste but cannot debate in a reasonable manner, they simply repeat themselves.

[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Jan[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]JOhn[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: John, are you telling me that these newspapers will not post copies of their newspaper around the world? Join the boycott of the anti-democratic \'Scottish\' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/ [/quote] If you are so anti Scottish press, you should try coming back and working here and trying to argue your case. Given your repetitive message I say again .....\"another ex pat wanting to boycott the scotish press. You can do this in Madrid very easily\". Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn\'t SNP doesn\'t mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn\'t at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that\'s democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?[/quote] John you refer to us as EX-pats which a definition that means ex-patriots note the definition of patriot *********************************** Main Entry: pa�tri�ot Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtes, from patria lineage, from patr-, pater father : one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests ********************************* I have never stopped loving my country nor have I ever stopped supporting it\'s authority and interest.. I could say, it is people like you who would rather bad mouth us for wanting stay off the dole and the fact that we moved to achieve such aims... keeps us away, but I won\'t. Don\'t slate us because we care...save your bitterness for those who [bold]have[/bold] let you down. I do hold my hand up and say...I support the S.N.P. I donated to the party and my family back home voted for same party. I also would like to point out to one and all, the Lib Dems are fools for turning down the chance to form a coalition, it was the only chance they ever had to get a sniff at governing, their refusal was nothing more than political blackmail...do it our way or we will stamp our feet blackmail..Alex is better off without them. Whether, Alex Salmond does get to lead the Scottish parliament or not ,will never take away the fact the people of Scotland roared [bold]enough[/bold] to the Labour party [bold]we won\'t wear your Yoke anymore[/bold] History has been made and I am proud that my fellow Scots roared like a lion than followed meekly like sheep, and no matter what you say John, you will never take that pride from me nor anyother Scot, no matter where we live. So save your bitterness for those who deserve it. [/quote] Can you not respond to my point, I had no intention of trying to take your pride away, and nor did I say that. My point was that ex pats were telling us over here to boycott an undemocratic press. I say again , because you chose to respond to anything bar the point I made..............."Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn't SNP doesn't mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn't at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that's democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?" You can dress up your patriotism any way you like, but at the end of the day, you love my country so much you stay somewhere else, perhaps the truth hurts. I am hapy to enetr into a debate if you care to respond to my point about the press, so many of the SNP supporters just wish to trash anyone who dares to put a different point of view across. Have a nice day in the country which took us to war, with our sheepdog Blair, and you CHOOSE to stay there despite singing our praises over here? Really easy that for you i say. [/quote] There you go again John, you start with one thing but can't wait to get your dig in. My son lost his life while in the Service of The British Armed Forces..so you are wrong on my thoughts and the war. What made you so bitter?

John wrote:

Jan wrote:
JOhn wrote:
Alex Porter wrote: John, are you telling me that these newspapers will not post copies of their newspaper around the world? Join the boycott of the anti-democratic \'Scottish\' press: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anti-Scottish/
If you are so anti Scottish press, you should try coming back and working here and trying to argue your case. Given your repetitive message I say again .....\"another ex pat wanting to boycott the scotish press. You can do this in Madrid very easily\". Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn\'t SNP doesn\'t mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn\'t at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that\'s democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?
John you refer to us as EX-pats which a definition that means ex-patriots note the definition of patriot *********************************** Main Entry: pa�tri�ot Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtes, from patria lineage, from patr-, pater father : one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests ********************************* I have never stopped loving my country nor have I ever stopped supporting it\'s authority and interest.. I could say, it is people like you who would rather bad mouth us for wanting stay off the dole and the fact that we moved to achieve such aims... keeps us away, but I won\'t. Don\'t slate us because we care...save your bitterness for those who have let you down. I do hold my hand up and say...I support the S.N.P. I donated to the party and my family back home voted for same party. I also would like to point out to one and all, the Lib Dems are fools for turning down the chance to form a coalition, it was the only chance they ever had to get a sniff at governing, their refusal was nothing more than political blackmail...do it our way or we will stamp our feet blackmail..Alex is better off without them. Whether, Alex Salmond does get to lead the Scottish parliament or not ,will never take away the fact the people of Scotland roared enough to the Labour party we won\'t wear your Yoke anymore History has been made and I am proud that my fellow Scots roared like a lion than followed meekly like sheep, and no matter what you say John, you will never take that pride from me nor anyother Scot, no matter where we live. So save your bitterness for those who deserve it.
Can you not respond to my point, I had no intention of trying to take your pride away, and nor did I say that. My point was that ex pats were telling us over here to boycott an undemocratic press. I say again , because you chose to respond to anything bar the point I made..............."Re the press, what has changed recently? Since day dot the press always favour one party, it can be Tory, labour or whoever, but because it wasn't SNP doesn't mean they are anti democratic. They may have a bias, and it may be unfair depending on your point of view, but I would hardly say it is the Russian press. This website wasn't at all favourable to the SNP and yet, surprise surprise, you can get the chnace to criticise them on their own website. Now that's democracy for your. Can you do the same on the Labour, SNP or Tory websites?" You can dress up your patriotism any way you like, but at the end of the day, you love my country so much you stay somewhere else, perhaps the truth hurts. I am hapy to enetr into a debate if you care to respond to my point about the press, so many of the SNP supporters just wish to trash anyone who dares to put a different point of view across. Have a nice day in the country which took us to war, with our sheepdog Blair, and you CHOOSE to stay there despite singing our praises over here? Really easy that for you i say.

There you go again John, you start with one thing but can't wait to get your dig in.

My son lost his life while in the Service of The British Armed Forces..so you are wrong on my thoughts and the war.
What made you so bitter?

John:

There is no SNP press. The press is owned by a small elite who know each other, and live in London. They dine with their friends, and are incestuous in their political and economic life. The right "word" from their friends and the deed is done. Even the most sincere unionist must wonder at where it all comes from, and why. To keep a dead empire going? To keep the new economic empire centred in London going? Or just for the hell of it, because they can?

It is so sad that the LibDems are acting this way. It looks like a serious huff. We have as a country a serious - very serious - issue to tackle with regard to the recent vote debacle... organised by the Scottish Office, with Douglas Alexander making no comment. In fact the firmest leadership on this national reputation-damaging issue has been Alex Salmond. The LibDems allowed it to be though that they would go into coalition. The fact that the SNP did well (as I recall Nicol Stephen's own majority went from 8,000 odds to 2,000 odds) should be recognised by the Liberals who could achieve many of their goals by working with the SNP. The LibDems are, to their eternal credit, responsible for the fact that we have Proportional Representation in Scotland - and the SNP being in the position it is, is as a result of a fair voting system secured by the Liberals. They worked for the system, now they must not work against it.

Neil 9% growth

"If Holyrood had the westminster system we would probably see the SNP able to ram though separation, as Blair can ram through ID cards & wars."

Erm, not exactly. if we had the same system as Westminster there would be a Labour majority of one. 37 Labour msps in the constituencies and 36 others.

Alex Porter
"Not giving this choice to the people is profoundly undemocratic when it is so obvioulsy desired by the vast majority of the population"

Obvious to who? To you in Madrid but not back here where one-third of those whose votes were recorded cast theirs in favour of a party offering a referendum.

When will the Spanish be having a referendum in Catalunya or Euskadi? Over there they are even banning candidates from standing in local elections. Aye, you love democracy so much, don't you?

The SNP are a one policy party. The people of Scotland rejected independence last Thursday

Winner of the 2007 Egregious Award for:

"The Best Post Combining Brevity and Falsehood."

[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: Sorry John, You are a troll and incapable of reasoned dialogue. I'm not interested. Now please stop stalking me. Slainte[/quote] I rest my case, you are incapable of answereing points made to your ridiculous post. Home bird takes the points, easy contest though. [/quote] John, You are not alone. This is Alex Porter's stock response when he doesn't have an answer. You've missed some of his best posts like claiming he was an 'economic exile' I think a lot of people would be happy to be exiled to the climate & lifestyle he enjoys. It's hardly being shipped to the colonies. Then he was in Spain because Gordon Brown made his business fail. Two posts later he had a thriving business back in Edinburgh. After that he was flying back to Scotland to vote and stay to help the SNP in their fight for 'freedom.' He was back in Spain before the last vote was counted. Best of the lot was when he claimed the Spanish were far more interested in the Scottish election than they were in the one in France! To be ignored by this guy is a sure sign you have him on the rack.

John wrote:

Alex Porter wrote:
Sorry John, You are a troll and incapable of reasoned dialogue. I'm not interested. Now please stop stalking me. Slainte
I rest my case, you are incapable of answereing points made to your ridiculous post. Home bird takes the points, easy contest though.

John,

You are not alone. This is Alex Porter's stock response when he doesn't have an answer. You've missed some of his best posts like claiming he was an 'economic exile' I think a lot of people would be happy to be exiled to the climate & lifestyle he enjoys. It's hardly being shipped to the colonies.

Then he was in Spain because Gordon Brown made his business fail. Two posts later he had a thriving business back in Edinburgh.

After that he was flying back to Scotland to vote and stay to help the SNP in their fight for 'freedom.' He was back in Spain before the last vote was counted.

Best of the lot was when he claimed the Spanish were far more interested in the Scottish election than they were in the one in France!

To be ignored by this guy is a sure sign you have him on the rack.

Jason Jack wrote:
Alex Salmond is not arrogant. You confuse a cheery positive countenance. Arrogance is belonging to the third nay fourth largest party and dictating terms. The Lib/Dems are not asked to embrace Independence only the future prospect of a democratic referendum. I think the Trade Descriptions Act should br invoked against the Lib/Dems...they are neither.

No he is not arrogant, he is the Son of Satan sent to destroy all who will not bow to the dark forces of hell. I will ask again am i the only person who can see this?

Gail wrote:
Your quite right. The SNP should tell them where to go and go it alone. That could be the answer. Let Alex form a minority government and propose a multi option referendum that has all the parties options available ie. Labour - No change, Tory - More power, Libs - More power, SNP - Independence If the other parties block this then they obviously do not have much faith in their voters and fear that the people might want to govern themselves. Not giving the people their right to vote on this including SNP and the other parties supporters will let everyone see them for what they are - repressive, and this would only benefit the SNP in the future.

I'll give the xenophobes 6 months in minority government before their fall back excuse of blaming England for all their own faults becomes impossible to sustain.

many of the SNP supporters just wish to trash anyone who dares to put a different point of view across.

WINNER of the 2007 Oblivious To Debating Procedures Award for:

"The Best Post to Rubbish Replies Rebuffing Opinion"

I'll give the xenophobes 6 months in minority government

After that the Xenophobes will be touring various venues before doing a season at Caeser's Palace, Las Vegas.

Hello JTB. Having a nice agreeable chat with John Anywhere? Although I did not agree with your previous posts, I found them sometimes amusing...especially the spats between you and Alex when it was just good-natured banter. Unfortunately you have now decided to agree with a madman. Ditch this unholy alliance now and speak for yourself. read his previous posts. They are a hoot.

". Unfortunately you have now decided to agree with a madman."

I protest. AFAIK I have NEVER agreed with Alex Porter on anything.

The tone of the comments on this site are becoming more and more snide. Here are the facts: 1. The electoral system was set up so that difficult for one party to hold power on its own. Co-operation is therefore necessary. 2. In terms of constituencies, these have an inbuilt bias in favour of labour. 3. The only newspaper favourable to the SNP is the herald. 4. Devolution was introduced by Donald Dewar in order to see off the SNP and, as recent events have shown, is impotent in many respects (we cannot even decide on our own voting system) 5. A devolved government has no more power than a 'parish council'(Blair) 6. Douglas Alexander already knew that the system adopted on Thursday would result in a large quantity of wasted votes. (see London Mayoral elections which used the same system) 7. Yes LD's said could not form coalition if Independence on the agenda, before the election. 8. It does not matter if you are a Scot living at home or abroad, what matters is that you have an intelligent point of view. 9. The London press pays little attention to Scotland, because it regards us as a region of little importance except when the union is threatened, as they see it. 10 The SNP has always stood for Independence so it is not a surprise that they will not cut of their nose to spite their face. 11 There is no reason to take an anti referendum position unless you are anti-democratic 12 Need to ask yourselves why there is such vehemence against letting the people of Scotland have the opportunity to decide for themselves. Finally a quote from Alisdair Gray, one of our nation's finest writers, from yesterday's sundayherald, "The (1979) referendum showed more Scots voted for Independence than against, and in any other democracy we would have gained a parliament. But the government had changed the normal rules of democracy and announced that since the pro-independence voters had won the race by a short head, they had lost it."margery

The tone of the comments on this site are becoming more and more snide. Here are the facts:
1. The electoral system was set up so that difficult for one party to hold power on its own. Co-operation is therefore necessary.
2. In terms of constituencies, these have an inbuilt bias in favour of labour.
3. The only newspaper favourable to the SNP is the herald.
4. Devolution was introduced by Donald Dewar in order to see off the SNP and, as recent events have shown, is impotent in many respects (we cannot even decide on our own voting system)
5. A devolved government has no more power than a 'parish council'(Blair)
6. Douglas Alexander already knew that the system adopted on Thursday would result in a large quantity of wasted votes. (see London Mayoral elections which used the same system)
7. Yes LD's said could not form coalition if Independence on the agenda, before the election.
8. It does not matter if you are a Scot living at home or abroad, what matters is that you have an intelligent point of view.
9. The London press pays little attention to Scotland, because it regards us as a region of little importance except when the union is threatened, as they see it.
10 The SNP has always stood for Independence so it is not a surprise that they will not cut of their nose to spite their face.
11 There is no reason to take an anti referendum position unless you are anti-democratic
12 Need to ask yourselves why there is such vehemence against letting the people of Scotland have the opportunity to decide for themselves.
Finally a quote from Alisdair Gray, one of our nation's finest writers, from yesterday's sundayherald, "The (1979) referendum showed more Scots voted for Independence than against, and in any other democracy we would have gained a parliament. But the government had changed the normal rules of democracy and announced that since the pro-independence voters had won the race by a short head, they had lost it."margery

he is the Son of Satan sent to destroy all who will not bow to the dark forces of hell. I will ask again am i the only person who can see this?

20-20 Vision wish to withdraw their sponsorship from Andrew Robert Gibson's posts.

Someone once said " If a thousand monkeys began typing on a thousand typewriters non-stop for a thousand years, they would eventually recreate by chance the entire works of William Shakespeare. " Rubbish we all agree. How about this?

If John anywhere typed from now until infinity and beyond, would he eventually type sense?

Votes on a postcard to:- John, the rubber room, jacket-tied-behind his-back, Pluto.

Saddened that the LibDems are refusing even to take part in coalition discussions, as they are meant to be a democratic party. Scotland voted for a more deliberative cooperative type of Government and it is their duty to try to participate and to give their supporters their best effort to influence the Government so that their published manifesto commitments can influence the running of the country. They are too small to act as Opposition so if they are not prepared to participate in Government they should resign en bloc and let the public elect those who are prepared to work for their salary, not just sit on the sidelines. I have been a many times LIb dem voter but unless they change their outline fairly quickly they are going to lose a great deal of support for the forseeable future.

shame really how people can be hoodwinked by a man flying around in a helicopter. The majority of Scots DID NOT vote for SNP.
We are a little confused:

Were the majority hoodwinked into voting SNP, or not at all fooled and didn't vote SNP? And what of those who were indoor at the time not looking to the skies, yet still voted SNP?

Who etc wrote:
Someone once said " If a thousand monkeys began typing on a thousand typewriters non-stop for a thousand years, they would eventually recreate by chance the entire works of William Shakespeare. " Rubbish we all agree. How about this? If John anywhere typed from now until infinity and beyond, would he eventually type sense? Votes on a postcard to:- John, the rubber room, jacket-tied-behind his-back, Pluto.

More mince, answer my points please if you wish to participate, you may create a smoke screen but the bottom line is...... not one of the people who claim our press are undemocratic have answered any of my questions. I rest my case, and bring on more abuse, it proves merely my point.

[quote][bold]Grace White[/bold] wrote: Saddened that the LibDems are refusing even to take part in coalition discussions, as they are meant to be a democratic party. Scotland voted for a more deliberative cooperative type of Government and it is their duty to try to participate and to give their supporters their best effort to influence the Government so that their published manifesto commitments can influence the running of the country. They are too small to act as Opposition so if they are not prepared to participate in Government they should resign en bloc and let the public elect those who are prepared to work for their salary, not just sit on the sidelines. I have been a many times LIb dem voter but unless they change their outline fairly quickly they are going to lose a great deal of support for the forseeable future.[/quote] Some of Scotland voted for SNP, that what the numbers say, and the LibDems made their policy known before the election. Is this difficult to comprehend? It is their duty to stand by their manifesto which they recicved votes for, not please the SNP supporters.

Grace White wrote:
Saddened that the LibDems are refusing even to take part in coalition discussions, as they are meant to be a democratic party. Scotland voted for a more deliberative cooperative type of Government and it is their duty to try to participate and to give their supporters their best effort to influence the Government so that their published manifesto commitments can influence the running of the country. They are too small to act as Opposition so if they are not prepared to participate in Government they should resign en bloc and let the public elect those who are prepared to work for their salary, not just sit on the sidelines. I have been a many times LIb dem voter but unless they change their outline fairly quickly they are going to lose a great deal of support for the forseeable future.

Some of Scotland voted for SNP, that what the numbers say, and the LibDems made their policy known before the election. Is this difficult to comprehend?

It is their duty to stand by their manifesto which they recicved votes for, not please the SNP supporters.

For clear details of the actual vote on May 3, visit -
www.electionresources.org/ Manuel Alverez-Rivera.

Digest, then see if you can spot the anomalies.

In reply to Margery, Glasgow Please do not confuse [bold]your opinion[/bold] - and in some cases, [bold]lies[/bold] - with [bold]facts[/bold] 1 The electoral system was designed to ensure representation broadly based on votes cast and as such[bold] helped parties like the Tories and the SNP[/bold] who didn't hold many constituency seats. It did no favours for Labour or Lib Dems and still doesn't 2 Agreed - which is why 1 is the way it is 3 Incorrect. Several Sundays came out in favour of the SNP at this election. SNP supporters have columns in papers which don't support them. The 'bias' against the SNP in the media is nothing like that endured by Neil Kinnock in the 1980s. 4 Devolution was introduced by the [bold]vote of the people[/bold] of Scotland in response to long-standing demands. Had the late John Smith lived there wouldn't even have been a referendum as he described it as 'the settled will' of the people 5 [bold]Blair said no such thing[/bold] . During the referendum he explained that even the smallest of parish councils had the powers to raise money and that therefore it would be wrong to vote to deny a Parliament tax-varying powers. 6 No evidence for this. There were problems with London's Mayoral elections but the methods of election are NOT the same as the Scottish parliament. Do you seriously believe that a government minister WANTED 100,000 votes to be discarded? 7 Agreed The LDs were quite clear they wouldn't go into a coalition on the basis of a referendum 8 Agreed. Though I do wonder why the often loudest voices are those from the furthest away.[bold] ALL[/bold] are entitled to an opinion but only residents of Scotland to a vote. 9 Wrong. Coverage of Scottish matters in the 'London' press varies widely from paper to paper. There is no uniformity of view or coverage 10 The SNP assured voters this election was not about independence. Given that it is impossible to get a referendum act through the parliament (do the arithmetic) one wonders why they are placing this impossibility above gaining support to implement those policies of theirs which there is support for in the parliament. Could they - shock, horror, been lying to the electorate? 11 Absolute nonsense. Two-thirds voted for parties which do not support a referendum. There is nothing undemocratic in those votes being respected. 79 msps are against it and 50 in favour. Allowing the one-third minority to dictate to the rest is undemocratic 12 Gray's quote is wrong. Independence was not an option in the 1979 referendum. What was on offer was an Assembly with lesser powers than the current parliament.

In reply to Margery, Glasgow

Please do not confuse your opinion - and in some cases, lies - with facts

1 The electoral system was designed to ensure representation broadly based on votes cast and as such helped parties like the Tories and the SNP who didn't hold many constituency seats. It did no favours for Labour or Lib Dems and still doesn't

2 Agreed - which is why 1 is the way it is

3 Incorrect. Several Sundays came out in favour of the SNP at this election. SNP supporters have columns in papers which don't support them. The 'bias' against the SNP in the media is nothing like that endured by Neil Kinnock in the 1980s.

4 Devolution was introduced by the vote of the people of Scotland in response to long-standing demands. Had the late John Smith lived there wouldn't even have been a referendum as he described it as 'the settled will' of the people

5 Blair said no such thing . During the referendum he explained that even the smallest of parish councils had the powers to raise money and that therefore it would be wrong to vote to deny a Parliament tax-varying powers.

6 No evidence for this. There were problems with London's Mayoral elections but the methods of election are NOT the same as the Scottish parliament. Do you seriously believe that a government minister WANTED 100,000 votes to be discarded?

7 Agreed The LDs were quite clear they wouldn't go into a coalition on the basis of a referendum

8 Agreed. Though I do wonder why the often loudest voices are those from the furthest away. ALL are entitled to an opinion but only residents of Scotland to a vote.

9 Wrong. Coverage of Scottish matters in the 'London' press varies widely from paper to paper. There is no uniformity of view or coverage

10 The SNP assured voters this election was not about independence. Given that it is impossible to get a referendum act through the parliament (do the arithmetic) one wonders why they are placing this impossibility above gaining support to implement those policies of theirs which there is support for in the parliament. Could they - shock, horror, been lying to the electorate?

11 Absolute nonsense. Two-thirds voted for parties which do not support a referendum. There is nothing undemocratic in those votes being respected. 79 msps are against it and 50 in favour. Allowing the one-third minority to dictate to the rest is undemocratic

12 Gray's quote is wrong. Independence was not an option in the 1979 referendum. What was on offer was an Assembly with lesser powers than the current parliament.

Oh dear, isn't this all really sad........

OK, Lib Dems don't support a referendum, but do they have to shout all over the press that they won't even come to the table unless SNP drop it. That doesn't sound like reaching for compromise.
They could have come to the table and found a way of "parking" it in the proposed Constitutional Convention......

What happened to the "win-win" that the rest of us are told to work for?

It is their duty to stand by their manifesto which they recicved votes for, not please the SNP supporters.
No. It the duty of a political party to take power if it is legally available so that they can represent the policies of their voters.

The Lib-Dems have abandoned their voters.

Statesmen in a coalition move forward on generally agreed policies delaying a seemingly insoluble hurdle until late in their term in order that they can serve the country in the meantime.

Prentendy politicians snatch defeat from the jaws of success.

Who here claim the Lib-Dems incapable of unification?

I see, Scotleag UK, that you have imbibed some fairly standard labour rhetoric. It still remains true that Blair regards the parliament as of no more important than a parish council and there for the purpose of the Westminster government. Thus the antipathy towards Jack, who is seen as a forelock tugging lackey. When I voted in the 1979 election, it was for Independence and whether the powers of the Assembly have been enlarged or not ,is beside the point. Also you say nothing about the fact that the goalposts were moved when the Yes vote won. Why the paranoia about the opportunity to vote for Independence. I am prepared to lose that vote, you do not appear to be. The election was about change, a chance to get out from under the dead hand of the labour party, whose record over the past fifty years is **** poor and whose representatives have all the charm and intelligence of gnats (although I hesitate to insult the gnat) Finally, although 'New Labour' have abandoned their socialist principles, the SNP have, from their inception ,been the party of Independence and that is known to everyone.

I see, Scotleag UK, that you have imbibed some fairly standard labour rhetoric. It still remains true that Blair regards the parliament as of no more important than a parish council and there for the purpose of the Westminster government. Thus the antipathy towards Jack, who is seen as a forelock tugging lackey.
When I voted in the 1979 election, it was for Independence and whether the powers of the Assembly have been enlarged or not ,is beside the point. Also you say nothing about the fact that the goalposts were moved when the Yes vote won. Why the paranoia about the opportunity to vote for Independence. I am prepared to lose that vote, you do not appear to be. The election was about change, a chance to get out from under the dead hand of the labour party, whose record over the past fifty years is **** poor and whose representatives have all the charm and intelligence of gnats (although I hesitate to insult the gnat) Finally, although 'New Labour' have abandoned their socialist principles, the SNP have, from their inception ,been the party of Independence and that is known to everyone.