Talking To Greens Is A Waste Of Time (from The Herald Election Site)

An attempt by the Greens to break the impasse over Holyrood coalition negotiations was rejected by Liberal Democrats last night.

The Greens invited the LibDems to direct talks with them, without the SNP present, but this was rejected as a "waste of time".

Rules dictate that an initial vote must be held in parliament next week to establish an administration, and it seems increasingly likely that Alex Salmond will want to avoid the issue being dragged out until the final deadline at the end of the month.

Jack McConnell, who remains First Minister until a successor is voted in, would say only that he awaited the conclusion of efforts by Mr Salmond to form an SNP administration.

But some of his aides are continuing to make clear that they have not accepted the SNP beat Labour in last week's poll and still hope Labour will prevail in forming the next Holyrood administration.

After a day of talks between the Greens and SNP, Robin Harper, co-convener of the Greens, issued a plea to the LibDems for them to agree to talks.

The LibDems had held their first group meeting of MSPs at Holyrood and agreed to stand by their refusal not to enter coalition talks with the SNP unless the Nationalists withdrew the issue of an independence referendum.

Responding to the Greens' offer, a LibDem party spokesman added: "No thank you. While the barrier of a referendum on independence remains on the table, talks between parties such as the Greens and Liberal Democrats, who can have no prospect of commanding a majority in the parliament, can have no value."

But Mr Harper issued a plea: "The LibDems should grasp this opportunity to draw a line under the years of Labour leadership in Scotland, and secure real gains for the people of Scotland and for the environment."

An SNP spokesman responded: "It's a pity the LibDems are not prepared to join in the positive discussions that have taken place and have rejected the invitation from the Greens."

Meanwhile, uncertainty caused by Scotland's knife-edge election result has delayed the appointment of the next Holyrood Presiding Officer until Monday afternoon, it was confirmed.

The problems for Unionist hoping that the SNP might look incapable of governing in minority is that the intelligent ones are starting to think the opposite. When this sinks in all they muppets who argued for the Libs to stay out will be screaming for them to get in. Here's what Ian McWhirter had to say about it in The Guardian: "However, after the shambles of the last ballot, I don't think the Scottish voters would take kindly to having to go through all that again so soon. Indeed, the danger for the opposition parties is that the SNP might actually be strengthened by a second election. That, the voters, like in 1974 and 1966 with Labour, fed up with the mischief, might give the SNP a larger working majority in any new election. This is beginning to worry some of the more far-sighted Labour strategists. They are beginning to worry that handing Salmond a minority government might actually help the SNP in its project to break up Britain. Salmond would have the Ł30bn budget of the Scottish executive at his disposal. He could simply avoid doing anything very much in parliament, while governing in a way that ensures confrontation with Westminster over issues such as Trident, nuclear power, council tax subsidies, the Barnett formula, oil revenues and so on. This is a fascinating political poker game, and the stakes are getting higher every day. There are now 22 days left before we finally see the cards."

The problems for Unionist hoping that the SNP might look incapable of governing in minority is that the intelligent ones are starting to think the opposite. When this sinks in all they muppets who argued for the Libs to stay out will be screaming for them to get in.

Here's what Ian McWhirter had to say about it in The Guardian:

"However, after the shambles of the last ballot, I don't think the Scottish voters would take kindly to having to go through all that again so soon. Indeed, the danger for the opposition parties is that the SNP might actually be strengthened by a second election. That, the voters, like in 1974 and 1966 with Labour, fed up with the mischief, might give the SNP a larger working majority in any new election.

This is beginning to worry some of the more far-sighted Labour strategists. They are beginning to worry that handing Salmond a minority government might actually help the SNP in its project to break up Britain. Salmond would have the Ł30bn budget of the Scottish executive at his disposal. He could simply avoid doing anything very much in parliament, while governing in a way that ensures confrontation with Westminster over issues such as Trident, nuclear power, council tax subsidies, the Barnett formula, oil revenues and so on.

This is a fascinating political poker game, and the stakes are getting higher every day. There are now 22 days left before we finally see the cards."

It's easy to see where the unionists priorities lie.
Certainly not with the Scottish people.

The LibDems would appear to be bizarrely intransigent, refusing even to talk, were it not for the transparently obvious - that they are hostages to Westmister remote control. The only two parties who have been conducting themselves in a constructive and "mature" manner (to use Jack McConnell's odd choice of words) are the ones that are not constrained by the hobbles Westminster priorities have applied to the unionist parties.

Meanwhile the arrogance of Scottish Labour continues to proclaim itself - not as the complacency they showed before the election, but now in the form of unbecoming petulance as they continue to struggle with denial.

Doesn't it seem odd that the Lib Dems neglected to mention that they wouldn't consider a coalition deal with either the SNP or Labour during the campaign? I predict their vote to collapse in the next election. The scenes in Northern Ireland must have proved sobering viewing for NIchol Stephens. He must feel every bit the charlatan that he looks.

Stuart Brown, Maybe Nicol forgot. After all, he had a lot on his mind just trying to string sentences together. I think he's been disastrous for the Lib Dems but my worry is that Tavish Scott is behind it all. If Nicol goes, Tavish probably will get his job. On present form, this would be a disaster. They are making a huge error of judgement in opting for opposition. Perhaps they are hoping the heat will get too much for the SNP; if they are, they're wrong. As for Jack, I'm looking forward to the day when he can show the maturity to stop his empty posturing and settle into his role as leader of the opposition. I worry, however, that he's not fit for the job. I'll be more relaxed about it when he shows some grasp of reality and a little political nous. His hanging around, waiting to magically form a lame minority government, is starting to get a bit pointless.

Stuart Brown,

Maybe Nicol forgot. After all, he had a lot on his mind just trying to string sentences together. I think he's been disastrous for the Lib Dems but my worry is that Tavish Scott is behind it all. If Nicol goes, Tavish probably will get his job. On present form, this would be a disaster. They are making a huge error of judgement in opting for opposition. Perhaps they are hoping the heat will get too much for the SNP; if they are, they're wrong.

As for Jack, I'm looking forward to the day when he can show the maturity to stop his empty posturing and settle into his role as leader of the opposition. I worry, however, that he's not fit for the job. I'll be more relaxed about it when he shows some grasp of reality and a little political nous. His hanging around, waiting to magically form a lame minority government, is starting to get a bit pointless.

Gregor, Jack has spat the dummy out the pram, as it were. With his and the Labour party's recent tantrums and displays of petulance, maturity is not a word I would associate with him. Apparently the parliament is their ball and Alex isn't allowed to play.

Tavish is perhaps unfortunately just the first in a new series of Westminster controlled LibDem cybermen to menace the new minority administration.

The Lib Dems are acting like my children did when they were two.
Throwing a tantrum when they couldn't get their own way.
I never thought I would see the day when politicians started doing the same.
I have always find it amusing.. if children throw a Tantrum, it is just that..a Tantrum.
When politicians do it, they are making a stance.
It's a pity they are too big to be put in their cot, don't you think?

Big mistake by the Greens to become Alex Salmond's gophers. What do they think they'll get that will advance their agenda from a party that takes half a million from Brian Souter?

"The LibDems should grasp this opportunity to draw a line under the years of Labour leadership in Scotland, and secure real gains for the people of Scotland and for the environment."

Like what? The SNP are the most anti-environmental of the four main parties. Harper sounds like a raving masochist. He's just seen his party virtually annihilated by the SNP and now he's jumping into bed with them.

I wonder just how much thought the Lib-Dems are giving the "their" voters in the Highlands and Islands. It was obvious that, after them and the SNP winning four constituency seats each, something most unusual must have happened for the SNP to win two list seats while the LibDems got none. A check showed that the SNP got 64,000 list votes while the LibDems got only 37,000. This tells me that many, many thousands of people who are considered LibDem voters in that area actually voted "Alex Salmond for First Minister". Surely this should concentrate the mind of these who depend on their votes. As Argyll has shown, the vote is not as secure as they might think, and for them to behave in such a petulant way as not even to discuss the possibility of an agreement will surely make many people think again before supporting them.

I wonder just how much thought the Lib-Dems are giving the "their" voters in the Highlands and Islands. It was obvious that, after them and the SNP winning four constituency seats each, something most unusual must have happened for the SNP to win two list seats while the LibDems got none.

A check showed that the SNP got 64,000 list votes while the LibDems got only 37,000. This tells me that many, many thousands of people who are considered LibDem voters in that area actually voted "Alex Salmond for First Minister". Surely this should concentrate the mind of these who depend on their votes. As Argyll has shown, the vote is not as secure as they might think, and for them to behave in such a petulant way as not even to discuss the possibility of an agreement will surely make many people think again before supporting them.

would lib dems agree to a swiss style referendum petitioned by a 100.000 electors or is the dawn of a new age of democracy just too much for them?

The Lib-dems may find that, after a term in opposition, they become as irrelevant as the Tories. If they will only co-operate with Labour why vote for them? As well to vote for Jack the organ grinder as Nichol the monkey. I consider myself as a Liberal by nature (albeit a green tartan one), but in future I will have no option but to vote SNP.

With Ian Paisley, after decades of singing "[italic]No Surrender[/italic] " having this week been dragged into the real world, it has fallen on [italic]Comical Ali[/italic] Nichol Stephen to don the [italic]sash Ian Paisley‘s father wore[/italic] It is almost laughable to see the macho posturing by this ineffectual wimp - a leader who started out in late March with realistic hopes of a 25% share of the vote, and with this a legitimate claim to lead any new Lib-Lab coalition government, to end up scraping a magnificent 11% of the vote in the Regional list. This plus a 40% decline in his own majority in Aberdeen South despite - no I think because - of all that extensive TV exposure. He now wont even talk to the SNP about its referendum proposal - not because Alex Salmond will insist on it, but because he might agree to shelve it, and in doing so force Nichol into a deal, a deal Ming Campbell has told him would get in the way of his own secret deal with Gordon Brown at Westminster . And now Nichol won’t even talk to the Greens, presumably out of fear of being overwhelmed by them - all two of them. I really have to pinch myself sometimes - is this the Scottish [italic]Liberal Democrats[/italic] or some sort splinter group from the DUP - the bit that thinks Ian Paisley is such a sell out they have moved en masse to Stonehaven to infiltrate Nichols power base. Just what is he eating up there, what drug is he on, what planet?. How long will Lib Dem members put up it this illiberal and useless failure of a leader?

With Ian Paisley, after decades of singing "No Surrender " having this week been dragged into the real world, it has fallen on Comical Ali Nichol Stephen to don the sash Ian Paisley‘s father wore

It is almost laughable to see the macho posturing by this ineffectual wimp - a leader who started out in late March with realistic hopes of a 25% share of the vote, and with this a legitimate claim to lead any new Lib-Lab coalition government, to end up scraping a magnificent 11% of the vote in the Regional list. This plus a 40% decline in his own majority in Aberdeen South despite - no I think because - of all that extensive TV exposure.

He now wont even talk to the SNP about its referendum proposal - not because Alex Salmond will insist on it, but because he might agree to shelve it, and in doing so force Nichol into a deal, a deal Ming Campbell has told him would get in the way of his own secret deal with Gordon Brown at Westminster . And now Nichol won’t even talk to the Greens, presumably out of fear of being overwhelmed by them - all two of them.

I really have to pinch myself sometimes - is this the Scottish Liberal Democrats or some sort splinter group from the DUP - the bit that thinks Ian Paisley is such a sell out they have moved en masse to Stonehaven to infiltrate Nichols power base.

Just what is he eating up there, what drug is he on, what planet?. How long will Lib Dem members put up it this illiberal and useless failure of a leader?

I'm sure the Libdems would rather wait & see if there is enough trouble caused with the lawyers threat over the election results before they commit themselves to anything ... and that 'anything' is still probably some kind of deal with Labour.

Its obvious the LibDems are hedging their bets, they dont want to jump into the SNP camp in case any of the legal avenues to challenge the result succeed and then they can get back into power by the back door again. at least the the SNP had the guts to take a stance on an issue.
How ironic the most pathetic and spineless of politicians hold the key to power.

Proclaimers have a new song

"Lochaber No More,
Argyll No More,
Dunfermline No more,
Caithness No More,
Tweedale No More,
Gordon No More,
Lochaber No More!"

Charlie Kennedy must be pulling his re neep apart by now! Well and truly shafted by Ming!

The SNP should form a minority administration, if the Scottish people are forced into another election then Labour and the Lib Dems WILL become irrelevant. Alex Salmond has conducted himself with great restraint and dignity over the past few days and he is fit to be the First Minister, politically astute he certainly has a deft touch.
The Greens should be applauded for offering to provide a bridge to allow coalition its just a pity that the Lib Dems dont have strong, sensible leadership.

[quote][bold]scotleag[/bold] wrote: Big mistake by the Greens to become Alex Salmond's gophers. What do they think they'll get that will advance their agenda from a party that takes half a million from Brian Souter? "The LibDems should grasp this opportunity to draw a line under the years of Labour leadership in Scotland, and secure real gains for the people of Scotland and for the environment." Like what? The SNP are the most anti-environmental of the four main parties. Harper sounds like a raving masochist. He's just seen his party virtually annihilated by the SNP and now he's jumping into bed with them. [/quote] No big mistake. Screw the Greens. They are Charlatans. They got 50,000 fewer votes than last time. The people realise that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. They are dead.

scotleag wrote:
Big mistake by the Greens to become Alex Salmond's gophers. What do they think they'll get that will advance their agenda from a party that takes half a million from Brian Souter? "The LibDems should grasp this opportunity to draw a line under the years of Labour leadership in Scotland, and secure real gains for the people of Scotland and for the environment." Like what? The SNP are the most anti-environmental of the four main parties. Harper sounds like a raving masochist. He's just seen his party virtually annihilated by the SNP and now he's jumping into bed with them.

No big mistake.
Screw the Greens.
They are Charlatans.
They got 50,000 fewer votes than last time.
The people realise that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming.
They are dead.

I am beginning to think that the lib dems and labour and the tories are all in agreement that refusing to work with the SNP means that they cannot pass any meaningful legislation that will benefit the Scottish people, they are in cahoots to destroy any credible government the SNP forms, they will then work behind the scenes to make them look like a shambles thereby make them look incompetent to the Scottish people, the press will back up Wesminster on this in Scotland. End result, the Union will stay!

I am not in favour of coalitions in general, but I am becoming increasingly baffled by the LibDem position. Putting aside the reasons behind their complete rejection of the idea of a referendum on independence, I cannot understand why they would not sit down and start talking when there are so many other issues to discuss. As things stand, they will be asked to vote on a proposal for a local income tax that will be put forward by the SNP, but they will have absolutely no input into the form or function of that proposal, despite it being a central plank of their manifesto. How on earth can that be serving the people who elected them into office? The Scottish Parliament has been accused of being a talking shop in the past, but it seems that our elected representatives cannot even do [italic]that[/italic] right.

I am not in favour of coalitions in general, but I am becoming increasingly baffled by the LibDem position. Putting aside the reasons behind their complete rejection of the idea of a referendum on independence, I cannot understand why they would not sit down and start talking when there are so many other issues to discuss. As things stand, they will be asked to vote on a proposal for a local income tax that will be put forward by the SNP, but they will have absolutely no input into the form or function of that proposal, despite it being a central plank of their manifesto. How on earth can that be serving the people who elected them into office?

The Scottish Parliament has been accused of being a talking shop in the past, but it seems that our elected representatives cannot even do that right.

Does anyone have any reservations that the First Minister is/was also a Horse Racing Tipster,i understand he used to be paid for this by a newspaper.Regards Bill

Isn't it a bit strange that the Lib-Dems got into bed with the Labour party in Scotland even although Labour want to keep imposing nuclear weapons on the Scottish people. A policy the Lib-Dems are against, but they will not even talk to the SNP because of the referendum issue. Do they fear the democratic right of the Scottish people to chose their own way in the world or WMD on their own doorstep?

Congratulations to the greens for showing how to behave in a DEMOCRACY, they are getting their policies heard and having a say in the making of new policy. The lib dems/labour will try to stop the SNP and only succeed in showing that they are nothing but blockers and wasted votes this will sway any marginal voters to the SNP and strengthen their vote next time. Why can't they all do it for Scotland.

The Lib Dems position on the coalition option puzzles me. Their stated concern is that they cannot support any move towards independence. Within a coalition they are likely to be able to exert more control over this than by taking no part in Government. If the SNP form a minority government they can progress many issues of government without the consensus of the Parliament. Sure it means that they will have real problems advancing real issues but as many of these are likely to attract the support of the Lib Dems then those policies will proceed. As was pointed out in the Scotsman yesterday, it is highly likely that AS will have the civil servants at this very minute constructing proposals for indepence which will then be published and debated. The policy will fail but the SNP will have the freedom to sell aggressively their policy. Within a coalition this may not be possible. Furthermore, the real carrot for the Scottish electorate will be when a Tory Governament is returned to Wetsminster and the Scots reject the prospect of a 15 year stint of Tory rule. When that happens one can only see the SNP swing increasing and the prospect of indepence seeming more and more attractive. All in all, perhaps the minority is the best option for the SNP at the moment.

The Lib Dems position on the coalition option puzzles me. Their stated concern is that they cannot support any move towards independence. Within a coalition they are likely to be able to exert more control over this than by taking no part in Government. If the SNP form a minority government they can progress many issues of government without the consensus of the Parliament. Sure it means that they will have real problems advancing real issues but as many of these are likely to attract the support of the Lib Dems then those policies will proceed. As was pointed out in the Scotsman yesterday, it is highly likely that AS will have the civil servants at this very minute constructing proposals for indepence which will then be published and debated. The policy will fail but the SNP will have the freedom to sell aggressively their policy. Within a coalition this may not be possible.
Furthermore, the real carrot for the Scottish electorate will be when a Tory Governament is returned to Wetsminster and the Scots reject the prospect of a 15 year stint of Tory rule. When that happens one can only see the SNP swing increasing and the prospect of indepence seeming more and more attractive.
All in all, perhaps the minority is the best option for the SNP at the moment.

If it wasn't obvious to the people of Scotland before, it is so obvious to them now, that the LibDems and Labour at Holyrood are just branch offices of Westminster without any autonomy whatsoever. Ming & Gordon are cozying up to each other now, as they both know that Labour is going to be crucified at the next General Election, and they could then both govern as a Lib/ Lab pact nationally. Nothing , but nothing is going to rock this boat, and Nicol and Jack will do what they are told or else. Every single thing that these two say and do has to be approved by the big boss down south. What is the point of having Holyrood as this is so obviously the case? Is this what we want for our nation? No more power than the local community council ? They are so short sighted in this...the Scottish people will not stand for being treated in this way, and if Wee Eck has to call another election, he will walk it.

If it wasn't obvious to the people of Scotland before, it is so obvious to them now, that the LibDems and Labour at Holyrood are just branch offices of Westminster without any autonomy whatsoever. Ming & Gordon are cozying up to each other now, as they both know that Labour is going to be crucified at the next General Election, and they could then both govern as a Lib/ Lab pact nationally. Nothing , but nothing is going to rock this boat, and Nicol and Jack will do what they are told or else.
Every single thing that these two say and do has to be approved by the big boss down south. What is the point of having Holyrood as this is so obviously the case? Is this what we want for our nation? No more power than the local community council ?
They are so short sighted in this...the Scottish people will not stand for being treated in this way, and if Wee Eck has to call another election, he will walk it.

It is quite simply disgraceful that the LibDems will not even sit down and discuss a possible compromise. If I had voted for them I would be very angry.

It looks like instead of forming a unionist coalition they 3 parties have agreed to NOT work with the SNP, the undoubted winners in the election. This is makes teh political scene in Scotland, as far as the Unionist parties are concerened, a laughing stock.

Its all falling very nicely into place,

I would just like to thank Jack and his cronnies, along with Nicol and the wets, for moving forward the political aspirations of Scotland, in the space of 6 days, they have done more for the SNP than they could possibliy have atchived in their first couple of years in office.

Hail the ever astute, regardless of political alegance, Alex Salmond,, a real politician amongst a potfull of shortsighted idiots, but i give my thanks for them...

The Lib Dems sure pick their moments to become prima donnas. Idiots.

iang - I think you'll find that the great majority of Scots don't want an SNP government so why should the parties most people did vote for co-operate with them.

I hope that Labour and the Liberals continue to act in the way they are now. Jack McConnell's apparent refusal to acknowledge Alex Salmond's victory comes across to the average voter as though we are too thick to actually make a choice for ourselves.

If Labour and the Liberals try to wreck SNP's chance to govern, and make them an ineffective government, then it won't reflect badly on the SNP.
The Scottish people aren't thick. We'll be able to see what's happening and my guess is that it will just drive people further away from Labour and the Liberals.
Just a pity that during that process Scotland will suffer in the short term.

It is pretty obvious, even to the less intelligent Labour voter who can't work out how to fill in a ballot paper, that Nicol Stephen is having his strings pulled by Ming Campbell in London, and he in turn is in cahoots with Gordon control freak Brown. I'd like to see Nicol get asked the question directly on Newsnight by Paxman or Brewer. It is also quite cringeworthy to see McConnell, loser of the election, trying to make out that he didn't really lose. If he manages to worm (and I choose my words carefully there!) his way back into power, I hope there will be, if not riots in the streets, at least a mass protest at Holyrood. I hope the Scottish people will not allow Labour to subvert the course of democracy any further. You lost, Jack. Came 2nd. Were not the winner. You were beaten. Runner up. Are you beginning to comprehend yet?

It is pretty obvious, even to the less intelligent Labour voter who can't work out how to fill in a ballot paper, that Nicol Stephen is having his strings pulled by Ming Campbell in London, and he in turn is in cahoots with Gordon control freak Brown. I'd like to see Nicol get asked the question directly on Newsnight by Paxman or Brewer.

It is also quite cringeworthy to see McConnell, loser of the election, trying to make out that he didn't really lose. If he manages to worm (and I choose my words carefully there!) his way back into power, I hope there will be, if not riots in the streets, at least a mass protest at Holyrood. I hope the Scottish people will not allow Labour to subvert the course of democracy any further. You lost, Jack. Came 2nd. Were not the winner. You were beaten. Runner up. Are you beginning to comprehend yet?

Gregor (8.34am): But of course even less people want a Labour government - and the SNP's percentage of the vote (in a situation where there are 4 "main" parties) is higher than that on which Tony Blair's current government in Westminster (with only 3 "main" parties to share the vote) is based. I would suggest therefore that the desire for an SNP government is relatively high compared to other elections both Scottish and UK.

WELL WELL. SO ITS A CASE OF "ITS MA BALL" YOU DINNAY PLAY MY RULES THEN IM GOING HOME!!
SO ALEX TAKE THE PARTY ONWARDS AND UPWARDS, OWN YER OWN ITS WHAT BEST FOR SCOTLAND AND HER PEOPLE

YEH DIDNAY REALLY EXPECT ANYTHING OTHER FROM THE GREAT PRETENDERS.TIME TO SHOW THE VOTERS THAT THE SNP CAN TAKE THE PARLIAMENT FORWARD.

NO MORE LABOUR LIBERAL CONFUSING AND LIEING TO THE ELECTORATE MAYBEES A MINORITY BUT THE MAJORITY WILL SOON GET BEHIND YOU!!

GO FORTH ALEX AND THE OTHERS MAKE US PROU8D TO BE SCOTS ONCE MORE!!!

The actions of New Labour and the Liberals since the elction demonstrates some politician's attitude towards the general public. We are just the 'numpties' and voted for the wrong people according to them. They deserve to run the country and what the voter thinks is a secondary issue. Lets have another election. 140,000 lost votes is a scandal and an answer is required.

Why bother? According to the Daily Mash things have got better since we stopped having a government!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk

The answer to the last posting by Gregor is that the election is over,that we need stable government and that the SNP has a manifesto,based on consultation with the electorate that is highly popular.Much of that manifesto fits with the Liberal agenda.There is a majority for a referendum,which is only about giving people choice.The Liberal option of greater powers for the parliament can be included. Alec Salmond is incresingly looking Statesmanlike as he offers comprimises.While he is willing to be flexible,the Liberals will not even talk.This intransigent refusal to sit down and talk is somewhat immature.The Liberal leader looks very unconstructive in comparison to Alec Salmond. Failure to talk about ideas means that nothing is understood and behaviour is just acted out. More importantly it puts out a message to the electorate that Liberals put party political needs before stable and good government,and that they are against people having a choice.This is an electoral risk for the Liberals who do have an opportunity to join the SNP and Greens in offering good government.That is more likely to benefit them politically than their current position that many voters (even their own) find to be incomprehensible. It is of interest for us to know why the Liberals are so intransigent,especially as Alec Salmond and the Greens have proposed several options that might provide a way forward out of the impasse.Their total refusal to even talk places them in a bad light and leaves the public to speculate about hidden agenda's and vested interests.This may result in a heavy electoral price at a later date.Thus from a public interest and self-interest,the Liberals should talk with the SNP. Dr Bill Reynolds

The answer to the last posting by Gregor is that the election is over,that we need stable government and that the SNP has a manifesto,based on consultation with the electorate that is highly popular.Much of that manifesto fits with the Liberal agenda.There is a majority for a referendum,which is only about giving people choice.The Liberal option of greater powers for the parliament can be included.

Alec Salmond is incresingly looking Statesmanlike as he offers comprimises.While he is willing to be flexible,the Liberals will not even talk.This intransigent refusal to sit down and talk is somewhat immature.The Liberal leader looks very unconstructive in comparison to Alec Salmond.

Failure to talk about ideas means that nothing is understood and behaviour is just acted out. More importantly it puts out a message to the electorate that Liberals put party political needs before stable and good government,and that they are against people having a choice.This is an electoral risk for the Liberals who do have an opportunity to join the SNP and Greens in offering good government.That is more likely to benefit them politically than their current position that many voters (even their own) find to be incomprehensible.

It is of interest for us to know why the Liberals are so intransigent,especially as Alec Salmond and the Greens have proposed several options that might provide a way forward out of the impasse.Their total refusal to even talk places them in a bad light and leaves the public to speculate about hidden agenda's and vested interests.This may result in a heavy electoral price at a later date.Thus from a public interest and self-interest,the Liberals should talk with the SNP.
Dr Bill Reynolds

It really is pathetic to watch McConnell, still with that supercillious grin, smirking that Labour are still ready to form an administration. That has been Labour's big problem in Scotland. They still think that they have a god-given tight to rule the roost. For decades, their members have had a career path in local and national politics like some mafiosa family. They cannot get their heads round the fact that people want to break free from their paternalistic grip.
As for the Lib Dems, they deserve the same Scottish treatment that the Tories have had for years now and if they think that they are being politically astute, they are only kidding themselves on.

It seems like the Lib Dems and Labour are acting as recruiting sergeants for the SNP. Among those I know who didn't vote SNP there seems to be a real rallying to the party, so angered are people by Labour's arrogance and the Lib Dems intransigence.

LETS GO TO THE POLLS AGAIN AND RID THIS COUNTRY OF CORRUPT POLITICIANS ONCE AND FOR ALL................
MMMMMMMM!! Nicol WHO???????you can go the same way as Joke McConnellkeep him company in his retirement on the back benches

[quote][bold]Gregor[/bold] wrote: iang - I think you\'ll find that the great majority of Scots don\'t want an SNP government so why should the parties most people did vote for co-operate with them.[/quote] Because Gregor it was the will of the people that they won the election, an election which was NOT about one single issue but the running of this country for the next 4 years. Your argument would result in no-one winning any election ever in a free and democratic society, unlike in some countries where the electorate are forced to vote and told which way to vote. I know that Messrs McConnell and Broon would love to do this but we live in a country where these things are not meant to happen. Taking the issue of a referendum out of the equation and looking at the manifesto's of the SNP and the LibDems there are already many points of agreement which were voted for by the electorate (please remember that this election was not only about a referendum) therefore why are they not prepared to even contemplate any of the compromises put forward? I can only assume, like others, that national party politics is in play and that the Scottish parties are being told what to do.

Gregor wrote:
iang - I think you\'ll find that the great majority of Scots don\'t want an SNP government so why should the parties most people did vote for co-operate with them.

Because Gregor it was the will of the people that they won the election, an election which was NOT about one single issue but the running of this country for the next 4 years. Your argument would result in no-one winning any election ever in a free and democratic society, unlike in some countries where the electorate are forced to vote and told which way to vote. I know that Messrs McConnell and Broon would love to do this but we live in a country where these things are not meant to happen.

Taking the issue of a referendum out of the equation and looking at the manifesto's of the SNP and the LibDems there are already many points of agreement which were voted for by the electorate (please remember that this election was not only about a referendum) therefore why are they not prepared to even contemplate any of the compromises put forward?

I can only assume, like others, that national party politics is in play and that the Scottish parties are being told what to do.

I never voted for the SNP but they won the election, end of. What I don't understand is why such vitriol is being poured on the Lib Dems for not wanting to enter into a deal with the SNP. All the main party's manifestos had a great deal of common ground therefore I would expect the popular SNP policys will attract the support needed for them to be implemented.

I think the situation regarding the Lib Dems is even more sinister and dishonest than it superficially appears. They were never in the position to consider a coalition with the SNP. Period. It is simply not allowed. They are currently waiting for the headless chickens that are Scottish Labour to find some way of changing the result of the election. This sounds a tad unlikely but sadly is not. They have to find a way to overturn the result and get back into government. NOTHING else will be countenanced. Jack MCConnell is not being stood down under orders from Gordon Brown. When the result has been turned around the Lib Dems will of course be back in coalition but " under these unforeseen circumsrtances". Only thing is they were foreseen, by all of us who know that Gordon Brown will never let go of Scotland and never allow an SNP led administration. Scotleag can rest easy, he will get his team back, and yes we will all be the losers.

I think the situation regarding the Lib Dems is even more sinister and dishonest than it superficially appears.

They were never in the position to consider a coalition with the SNP. Period.

It is simply not allowed. They are currently waiting for the headless chickens that are Scottish Labour to find some way of changing the result of the election. This sounds a tad unlikely but sadly is not. They have to find a way to overturn the result and get back into government. NOTHING else will be countenanced.
Jack MCConnell is not being stood down under orders from Gordon Brown.
When the result has been turned around the Lib Dems will of course be back in coalition but " under these unforeseen circumsrtances".

Only thing is they were foreseen, by all of us who know that Gordon Brown will never let go of Scotland and never allow an SNP led administration.
Scotleag can rest easy, he will get his team back, and yes we will all be the losers.

What this whole Lib Lab attitude shows is that although by name they are the "Scottish" Labour and Liberal perties, this is in name only, they are in efect "British" partys, dominated and ruled by a majority from a nation other than Scotland.
Anyone who determinedly and obstinatly continues to undermine the democratic process in this country, and in the process, knowingly treats the people of this nation as less than inteligent, will ultimatly suffer.
Scotish people are far more inteligent than our espised former leaders seem to think,and if they force another election, they will find this out at their cost. The less than dignified side of me hopes this happens

Someone said the SNP were the most anti-environmental party of all: not so. The review of manifestos in the elections by one of the NGOs gave the Greens 9/10, the Tories 0/10, and Labour, the LibDems and the SNP all got 3/10.

So of course the Greens should at least be talking to Salmond. It's called respecting the will of the electorate.

Are the Lib-Dems saying they will not accept constitutional change?

Are the Lib-Dems also saying that they are against constitutional referendums?

Are the Lib-Dems saying they now don't believe in coalition government?

If they are then they are being hugely dishonest, because these are Lib-Dem policies and past positions.

If the opposition parties can pin a dishonest tag on the Lib-Dems then they will be in serious trouble with the electorate. A vote for the Lib-Dems will be seen as a wasted vote.

the sheer arrogance of the labour party is astonishing, and is making me very angry. for them to say they do not accept that they lost the election is an affront to the people of Scotland. they are basically stating that they do not accept democracy. i did not vote SNP last week, but if we are forced to accept a non-parliament due to Labour refusing to allow the country to move forward, or even forced back to polls, i will defintely vote SNP, as this appears to be the strongest way to force The Labour Party to allow rule as selected by the majority of the people. one things is for sure, i will never put an X next to a Labour candidate's name on any ballot paper ever again.

First up i am no fan of Nicol Stephen, but many times before the election i heard various members of the Lib Dems team say "No talks with the SNP while an independence referendum is on the table" .I can clearly recall Tavish Scott being asked this question the weekend before the election and giving the one word reply "Correct". So a politiican as good as his word, whatever next?
They said no deal before the election so why the big surpise now?

Frazer, you are right they did say that. However in the last few days it has been abundandantly clear that the SNP are willing to compromise (most recently by Nicola Sturgeon on Newsight Scotland) and they are still refusing to even talk with them. It is clearly under instruction from London and they will suffer for it the next time Scotland votes.

[quote][bold]Fraser[/bold] wrote: First up i am no fan of Nicol Stephen, but many times before the election i heard various members of the Lib Dems team say "No talks with the SNP while an independence referendum is on the table" .I can clearly recall Tavish Scott being asked this question the weekend before the election and giving the one word reply "Correct". So a politiican as good as his word, whatever next? They said no deal before the election so why the big surpise now?[/quote] It is no surprise that the will not sit down without compromise, the surprise is that compromise was offered and still they refused to even discuss it. The problem now is that teh SNP offered a compromise in a new constitutional convention, even that was not enough for the LibDems.

Fraser wrote:
First up i am no fan of Nicol Stephen, but many times before the election i heard various members of the Lib Dems team say "No talks with the SNP while an independence referendum is on the table" .I can clearly recall Tavish Scott being asked this question the weekend before the election and giving the one word reply "Correct". So a politiican as good as his word, whatever next?
They said no deal before the election so why the big surpise now?

It is no surprise that the will not sit down without compromise, the surprise is that compromise was offered and still they refused to even discuss it.

The problem now is that teh SNP offered a compromise in a new constitutional convention, even that was not enough for the LibDems.

The problems for Unionist hoping that the SNP might look incapable of governing in minority is that the intelligent ones are starting to think the opposite. When this sinks in all they muppets who argued for the Libs to stay out will be screaming for them to get in.

Here's what Ian McWhirter had to say about it in The Guardian:

"However, after the shambles of the last ballot, I don't think the Scottish voters would take kindly to having to go through all that again so soon. Indeed, the danger for the opposition parties is that the SNP might actually be strengthened by a second election. That, the voters, like in 1974 and 1966 with Labour, fed up with the mischief, might give the SNP a larger working majority in any new election.

This is beginning to worry some of the more far-sighted Labour strategists. They are beginning to worry that handing Salmond a minority government might actually help the SNP in its project to break up Britain. Salmond would have the Ł30bn budget of the Scottish executive at his disposal. He could simply avoid doing anything very much in parliament, while governing in a way that ensures confrontation with Westminster over issues such as Trident, nuclear power, council tax subsidies, the Barnett formula, oil revenues and so on.

This is a fascinating political poker game, and the stakes are getting higher every day. There are now 22 days left before we finally see the cards."

Why is everybody so incensed with the choice of the Lib Dems not to enter a coalition with SNP - they are an independent party and anyone voting for them on the basis that they must enter a coalition with the majority party has a twisted view of politics. The Greens should not be praised for their coalition talks. They have been all but wiped out and it is the only possible way they could hope to influence proceedings in Holyrood. Also, Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems have not ruled out voting with the SNP on matters they agree on so why the criticism?

[quote][bold]David[/bold] wrote: Why is everybody so incensed with the choice of the Lib Dems not to enter a coalition with SNP - they are an independent party and anyone voting for them on the basis that they must enter a coalition with the majority party has a twisted view of politics. The Greens should not be praised for their coalition talks. They have been all but wiped out and it is the only possible way they could hope to influence proceedings in Holyrood. Also, Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems have not ruled out voting with the SNP on matters they agree on so why the criticism?[/quote] Although on the face of it you are correct you need to ask yourself why the Labour party and LibDems have been in coalition for the past 8 years. Quite simply it is easier and more efficient to implement policy from a position of majority than minority when every bill that you try to pass gets debated in open chamber, resulting in higher costs, longer lead times and inefficiency in policy management.

David wrote:
Why is everybody so incensed with the choice of the Lib Dems not to enter a coalition with SNP - they are an independent party and anyone voting for them on the basis that they must enter a coalition with the majority party has a twisted view of politics. The Greens should not be praised for their coalition talks. They have been all but wiped out and it is the only possible way they could hope to influence proceedings in Holyrood. Also, Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems have not ruled out voting with the SNP on matters they agree on so why the criticism?

Although on the face of it you are correct you need to ask yourself why the Labour party and LibDems have been in coalition for the past 8 years. Quite simply it is easier and more efficient to implement policy from a position of majority than minority when every bill that you try to pass gets debated in open chamber, resulting in higher costs, longer lead times and inefficiency in policy management.

[quote][bold]Jim Webster[/bold] wrote: Congratulations to the greens for showing how to behave in a DEMOCRACY, they are getting their policies heard and having a say in the making of new policy. The lib dems/labour will try to stop the SNP and only succeed in showing that they are nothing but blockers and wasted votes this will sway any marginal voters to the SNP and strengthen their vote next time. Why can't they all do it for Scotland.[/quote] LOL!!!! "The Greens getting their policies heard"!!!!! LOL!!! Aye all two of the Green MSPs will really have an impact on SNP policy making decisions. Let's get real here - any bones that the SNP throw to the Greens will be nothing more than token gestures. All these Nationalists foaming at the mouth on here is terrifying. I've still not heard one good reason for Scotland becoming an irrelevant nation by going it alone. Please, one of you rabid Nationalists, give me a reason to vote for you next time!!!!!!!

Jim Webster wrote:
Congratulations to the greens for showing how to behave in a DEMOCRACY, they are getting their policies heard and having a say in the making of new policy. The lib dems/labour will try to stop the SNP and only succeed in showing that they are nothing but blockers and wasted votes this will sway any marginal voters to the SNP and strengthen their vote next time. Why can't they all do it for Scotland.

LOL!!!! "The Greens getting their policies heard"!!!!! LOL!!! Aye all two of the Green MSPs will really have an impact on SNP policy making decisions. Let's get real here - any bones that the SNP throw to the Greens will be nothing more than token gestures. All these Nationalists foaming at the mouth on here is terrifying. I've still not heard one good reason for Scotland becoming an irrelevant nation by going it alone. Please, one of you rabid Nationalists, give me a reason to vote for you next time!!!!!!!

David in Paisley.. Nobody is saying that they HAVE to enter into coalition with anyone, but in a system as we have,with PR, then there is always going to be a need for parties to share common aims, and therefore at the least,comunicate with others. Check out the manifesto of the Libs for this election, constitutional change and more powers for Holyrood are 2 of their fundamental policys, yet they are not even willing to enter the same room as the SNP and discuss, yes discuss.... not agree to.. just discuss...the way ahead, for a party that has so many other simmilar objectives for Scotland,Indipendance aside, this, even to a no brain idiot, would seem to be a position imposed on them from someone/where. I dont take a brain surgen to work out who/where relates to. There is a bigger picture here. and fortunatly we, the people of Scotland (not just Scot's) are becoming more and more aware of this. the picture is fear..and an arrogant obstinance to let the people become involved in the future of this nation,I have said it before a thousand times, the gravy train trough is over for the central belt driven Labour adgenda for Scotland, in place will and is coming a recognision of Scotland as a one nation ,many peoples, nation,whos potental within Europe is limitless, just given the chance. The Lib dems, by thier actions, are ostrisizing themselves from that process. There will be a few more battles with the old school, but good always triumphs over evil in the end.

David in Paisley..

Nobody is saying that they HAVE to enter into coalition with anyone, but in a system as we have,with PR, then there is always going to be a need for parties to share common aims, and therefore at the least,comunicate with others.
Check out the manifesto of the Libs for this election, constitutional change and more powers for Holyrood are 2 of their fundamental policys, yet they are not even willing to enter the same room as the SNP and discuss, yes discuss.... not agree to.. just discuss...the way ahead, for a party that has so many other simmilar objectives for Scotland,Indipendance aside, this, even to a no brain idiot, would seem to be a position imposed on them from someone/where. I dont take a brain surgen to work out who/where relates to.
There is a bigger picture here. and fortunatly we, the people of Scotland (not just Scot's) are becoming more and more aware of this.
the picture is fear..and an arrogant obstinance to let the people become involved in the future of this nation,I have said it before a thousand times, the gravy train trough is over for the central belt driven Labour adgenda for Scotland, in place will and is coming a recognision of Scotland as a one nation ,many peoples, nation,whos potental within Europe is limitless, just given the chance. The Lib dems, by thier actions, are ostrisizing themselves from that process. There will be a few more battles with the old school, but good always triumphs over evil in the end.

What a right shrill shower there is on this page. Time for a reality check which is contained in 2 words - sixteen percent. That`s the percentage of the Scottish electorate who actually voted SNP last week, aye, just 16%. The SNP didn`t `win` - they got 1 seat more than Labour and are (for the moment) the largest party in Holyrood. So when anyone yacks their face off about independence and all that fake sentimentality, you just have to remind them that only 16% voted for the SNP and their independence policy, so why should the rest of us, ie 84% of the electorate, take any serious notice of them? Can any of yiz answer that? - nope, didn`t think so. And as for the LibDems staying away from coalition - jings, reading comments here make them sound like either the descendants of Machiavelli or Thunderbird-like puppets, sometimes even both! I have an alternative explanation, namely that with a turnout below 50% there is a serious question of legitimacy hanging over any Holyrood administration. So to go into coalition with the SNP who gained *16%* of the electorate`s support would be a) hypocritical on the basis of previously stated positions on independence, and b) lacking in a popular mandate for independence since there is NO grassroots support for it, as demonstrated by the ***16%*** who voted for Alex. Here endeth the lesson (fur now), though I expect there`ll be a plethora of banshee howls following on from this (especially from the guy who writes in crayon, sorry, caps!)

What a right shrill shower there is on this page. Time for a reality check which is contained in 2 words - sixteen percent. That`s the percentage of the Scottish electorate who actually voted SNP last week, aye, just 16%. The SNP didn`t `win` - they got 1 seat more than Labour and are (for the moment) the largest party in Holyrood. So when anyone yacks their face off about independence and all that fake sentimentality, you just have to remind them that only 16% voted for the SNP and their independence policy, so why should the rest of us, ie 84% of the electorate, take any serious notice of them? Can any of yiz answer that? - nope, didn`t think so.

And as for the LibDems staying away from coalition - jings, reading comments here make them sound like either the descendants of Machiavelli or Thunderbird-like puppets, sometimes even both! I have an alternative explanation, namely that with a turnout below 50% there is a serious question of legitimacy hanging over any Holyrood administration. So to go into coalition with the SNP who gained *16%* of the electorate`s support would be a) hypocritical on the basis of previously stated positions on independence, and b) lacking in a popular mandate for independence since there is NO grassroots support for it, as demonstrated by the ***16%*** who voted for Alex.

Here endeth the lesson (fur now), though I expect there`ll be a plethora of banshee howls following on from this (especially from the guy who writes in crayon, sorry, caps!)

[quote][bold]Richard Hannay[/bold] wrote: What a right shrill shower there is on this page. Time for a reality check which is contained in 2 words - sixteen percent. That`s the percentage of the Scottish electorate who actually voted SNP last week, aye, just 16%. The SNP didn`t `win` - they got 1 seat more than Labour and are (for the moment) the largest party in Holyrood. So when anyone yacks their face off about independence and all that fake sentimentality, you just have to remind them that only 16% voted for the SNP and their independence policy, so why should the rest of us, ie 84% of the electorate, take any serious notice of them? Can any of yiz answer that? - nope, didn`t think so. And as for the LibDems staying away from coalition - jings, reading comments here make them sound like either the descendants of Machiavelli or Thunderbird-like puppets, sometimes even both! I have an alternative explanation, namely that with a turnout below 50% there is a serious question of legitimacy hanging over any Holyrood administration. So to go into coalition with the SNP who gained *16%* of the electorate`s support would be a) hypocritical on the basis of previously stated positions on independence, and b) lacking in a popular mandate for independence since there is NO grassroots support for it, as demonstrated by the ***16%*** who voted for Alex. Here endeth the lesson (fur now), though I expect there`ll be a plethora of banshee howls following on from this (especially from the guy who writes in crayon, sorry, caps!)[/quote] Figures obtained from returning officers at each of Scotland's counts showed the final tally of rejected papers was almost [bold]142,000.[/bold] The investigation suggested almost [bold]7%[/bold] of the total votes cast were not counted towards who was elected....so it was more than 50% of the voters - still pathetic though. SNP got 16% of the vote. Agreed(ish) but we can't change the rules mid-stream. SNP were the largest single party & "rules is rules". ps "Rules is rules" is a quote. Don't correct the grammar."....and no banshee howl!

Richard Hannay wrote:
What a right shrill shower there is on this page. Time for a reality check which is contained in 2 words - sixteen percent. That`s the percentage of the Scottish electorate who actually voted SNP last week, aye, just 16%. The SNP didn`t `win` - they got 1 seat more than Labour and are (for the moment) the largest party in Holyrood. So when anyone yacks their face off about independence and all that fake sentimentality, you just have to remind them that only 16% voted for the SNP and their independence policy, so why should the rest of us, ie 84% of the electorate, take any serious notice of them? Can any of yiz answer that? - nope, didn`t think so. And as for the LibDems staying away from coalition - jings, reading comments here make them sound like either the descendants of Machiavelli or Thunderbird-like puppets, sometimes even both! I have an alternative explanation, namely that with a turnout below 50% there is a serious question of legitimacy hanging over any Holyrood administration. So to go into coalition with the SNP who gained *16%* of the electorate`s support would be a) hypocritical on the basis of previously stated positions on independence, and b) lacking in a popular mandate for independence since there is NO grassroots support for it, as demonstrated by the ***16%*** who voted for Alex. Here endeth the lesson (fur now), though I expect there`ll be a plethora of banshee howls following on from this (especially from the guy who writes in crayon, sorry, caps!)

Figures obtained from returning officers at each of Scotland's counts showed the final tally of rejected papers was almost 142,000.

The investigation suggested almost 7% of the total votes cast were not counted towards who was elected....so it was more than 50% of the voters - still pathetic though. SNP got 16% of the vote. Agreed(ish) but we can't change the rules mid-stream. SNP were the largest single party & "rules is rules".

ps "Rules is rules" is a quote. Don't correct the grammar."....and no banshee howl!

What's the matter with a wee chat, Nichol? Too busy washing your hair?

Nicky's filofax must be just bursting with appointments if he can't afford to spend some time talking to another political party. You know - right after an election and all.

SNP posters are always disporoportionately heavy on the ground. It means nothing.

Either the SNP will form a minority government or they will come to an agreement with somebody & get a majority or they will push Labour, LDs & Tories into a majority against them. Either way they aren't getting to waste years on a referendum because there is nothing close to a majority in the new Parliament for one.

Their choice. Scotland desperately needs competent government & they were voted in to see if they could achieve it despite, not because of, separation.

Ain`t looking to change the rules, Malaga-Dave, but yeah, the parliamentary ballot sheet turned out to be a disgraceful, shocking gaffe. God, almost 7%, eh? Pretty weird, though - a lot of commentators were expecting that turnout might even hit 60% or more yet obviously the effort required for folk to go and vote must have seemed like a yawning gulf. That and the fact that most of the major parties are, to a greater or lesser extent, hamstrung by this media-driven need to make some kind of obeisance to the post-Thatcher/neo-lib cretinomics.

And thanks for not howling. You can come back ;-)

[quote][bold]Richard Hannay[/bold] wrote: What a right shrill shower there is on this page. Time for a reality check which is contained in 2 words - sixteen percent. That`s the percentage of the Scottish electorate who actually voted SNP last week, aye, just 16%. The SNP didn`t `win` - they got 1 seat more than Labour and are (for the moment) the largest party in Holyrood. So when anyone yacks their face off about independence and all that fake sentimentality, you just have to remind them that only 16% voted for the SNP and their independence policy, so why should the rest of us, ie 84% of the electorate, take any serious notice of them? Can any of yiz answer that? - nope, didn`t think so. And as for the LibDems staying away from coalition - jings, reading comments here make them sound like either the descendants of Machiavelli or Thunderbird-like puppets, sometimes even both! I have an alternative explanation, namely that with a turnout below 50% there is a serious question of legitimacy hanging over any Holyrood administration. So to go into coalition with the SNP who gained *16%* of the electorate`s support would be a) hypocritical on the basis of previously stated positions on independence, and b) lacking in a popular mandate for independence since there is NO grassroots support for it, as demonstrated by the ***16%*** who voted for Alex. Here endeth the lesson (fur now), though I expect there`ll be a plethora of banshee howls following on from this (especially from the guy who writes in crayon, sorry, caps!)[/quote] your insistance of % of entire population harks back to 1979, the SNP have not had central control before but where they did have control voter apathy was reduced and turnaout increased. They did not need do change the voting system to make it confusing for people. 16% was the largest majority of those who voted for any one party, therefore they are rightly noted as the "winners" of the election. 1 seat or 1 vote more it does not matter, that means they have the largest majority. Why did Labour seek out the LibDems after the last 2 elections? because they new that it would be more difficult to govern in a minority. The SNP nearly doubled their number of seats 27 to 47 and votes...the turnout was only a couple of % different from the last time. That is a MASSIVE swing to the SNP, how much louder do the people of Scotland need to shout to be heard?

Richard Hannay wrote:
What a right shrill shower there is on this page. Time for a reality check which is contained in 2 words - sixteen percent. That`s the percentage of the Scottish electorate who actually voted SNP last week, aye, just 16%. The SNP didn`t `win` - they got 1 seat more than Labour and are (for the moment) the largest party in Holyrood. So when anyone yacks their face off about independence and all that fake sentimentality, you just have to remind them that only 16% voted for the SNP and their independence policy, so why should the rest of us, ie 84% of the electorate, take any serious notice of them? Can any of yiz answer that? - nope, didn`t think so.

And as for the LibDems staying away from coalition - jings, reading comments here make them sound like either the descendants of Machiavelli or Thunderbird-like puppets, sometimes even both! I have an alternative explanation, namely that with a turnout below 50% there is a serious question of legitimacy hanging over any Holyrood administration. So to go into coalition with the SNP who gained *16%* of the electorate`s support would be a) hypocritical on the basis of previously stated positions on independence, and b) lacking in a popular mandate for independence since there is NO grassroots support for it, as demonstrated by the ***16%*** who voted for Alex.

Here endeth the lesson (fur now), though I expect there`ll be a plethora of banshee howls following on from this (especially from the guy who writes in crayon, sorry, caps!)

your insistance of % of entire population harks back to 1979, the SNP have not had central control before but where they did have control voter apathy was reduced and turnaout increased. They did not need do change the voting system to make it confusing for people.

16% was the largest majority of those who voted for any one party, therefore they are rightly noted as the "winners" of the election.
1 seat or 1 vote more it does not matter, that means they have the largest majority.
Why did Labour seek out the LibDems after the last 2 elections? because they new that it would be more difficult to govern in a minority.
The SNP nearly doubled their number of seats 27 to 47 and votes...the turnout was only a couple of % different from the last time. That is a MASSIVE swing to the SNP, how much louder do the people of Scotland need to shout to be heard?

Sorry to sound thick but WHY did they suddenly decide to use proportional representation when the main general election isnt proportional representation?

[quote][bold]Yawn[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Jim Webster[/bold] wrote: Congratulations to the greens for showing how to behave in a DEMOCRACY, they are getting their policies heard and having a say in the making of new policy. The lib dems/labour will try to stop the SNP and only succeed in showing that they are nothing but blockers and wasted votes this will sway any marginal voters to the SNP and strengthen their vote next time. Why can\'t they all do it for Scotland.[/quote] LOL!!!! \"The Greens getting their policies heard\"!!!!! LOL!!! Aye all two of the Green MSPs will really have an impact on SNP policy making decisions. Let\'s get real here - any bones that the SNP throw to the Greens will be nothing more than token gestures. All these Nationalists foaming at the mouth on here is terrifying. I\'ve still not heard one good reason for Scotland becoming an irrelevant nation by going it alone. Please, one of you rabid Nationalists, give me a reason to vote for you next time!!!!!!![/quote] I'll give you a very good reason. Read this. It's a Scottish office report that's now been released under freedom of information pertaining to Scottish Independence. I’d suggest reading the whole thing but if you can’t be bothered knowing the facts then you’ll find the conclusions highly enlightening. [bold]http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf[/bold]

Yawn wrote:

Jim Webster wrote: Congratulations to the greens for showing how to behave in a DEMOCRACY, they are getting their policies heard and having a say in the making of new policy. The lib dems/labour will try to stop the SNP and only succeed in showing that they are nothing but blockers and wasted votes this will sway any marginal voters to the SNP and strengthen their vote next time. Why can\'t they all do it for Scotland.
LOL!!!! \"The Greens getting their policies heard\"!!!!! LOL!!! Aye all two of the Green MSPs will really have an impact on SNP policy making decisions. Let\'s get real here - any bones that the SNP throw to the Greens will be nothing more than token gestures. All these Nationalists foaming at the mouth on here is terrifying. I\'ve still not heard one good reason for Scotland becoming an irrelevant nation by going it alone. Please, one of you rabid Nationalists, give me a reason to vote for you next time!!!!!!!

I'll give you a very good reason.

Read this. It's a Scottish office report that's now been released under freedom of information pertaining to Scottish Independence. I’d suggest reading the whole thing but if you can’t be bothered knowing the facts then you’ll find the conclusions highly enlightening.

http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf

If you think things are getting bad for the Lib-Dems in Scotland you should see the mess they have gotten themselves in Wales. There the party leader is under pressure to resign because he can't make up his mind on whether to form a coalition or not. You must remember the Lib-Dems were once the party of Irish Home Rule. They are also the party of PR and coalition government. Remember the Lib-Lab pact, the not so secret talks with Tony Blair in 1997. They also support constitutional change, and believe in referendums. The Lib-Dem manifesto calls for the end of tution fees, the council tax, etc; a series of manifesto commitments opposed by the Labour party. What are voters, in particular Lib-Dem voters to make of the current Lib-Dem's leadership thinking. A vote for the Lib-Dems will now be seen as a wasted vote, a spoiled vote to add to the others.

If you think things are getting bad for the Lib-Dems in Scotland you should see the mess they have gotten themselves in Wales. There the party leader is under pressure to resign because he can't make up his mind on whether to form a coalition or not.

You must remember the Lib-Dems were once the party of Irish Home Rule. They are also the party of PR and coalition government. Remember the Lib-Lab pact, the not so secret talks with Tony Blair in 1997. They also support constitutional change, and believe in referendums. The Lib-Dem manifesto calls for the end of tution fees, the council tax, etc; a series of manifesto commitments opposed by the Labour party.

What are voters, in particular Lib-Dem voters to make of the current Lib-Dem's leadership thinking.

A vote for the Lib-Dems will now be seen as a wasted vote, a spoiled vote to add to the others.

William Gallacher wrote:
Does anyone have any reservations that the First Minister is/was also a Horse Racing Tipster,i understand he used to be paid for this by a newspaper.Regards Bill

Eh?...................NO...why should we???

16% - that old chestnut of counting voters who couldn't even be bothered to vote as an attempt to question the mandate of the largest party.

I'll type it slowly: If you don't vote, your opinion is irrelevant. And that applies equally to the numpties who like to point out Tony Blair 'only got 21%' at the last general election.

Amusingly, if we'd had the Westminster FPTP system, Labour would have had a real live majority, on something like 15.5% of the electorate's votes! Just goes to show that although PR produces awkward results it does at least produce representative ones.

Isn't it nice how the unionist apologists on here lump all the 'unionist' votes together to form a majority; if the lib dems and tories stand against labour at an election, how can their votes be counted together as being a vote for the union?? And a question for the guy on the train to Glasgow; where did you get the info that the turnout was below 50%? More nonsense from the defeated party? More nu-labour mince? Oh yes...Scotland first and foremost. Go it alone Alex, and show them for the political pigmies they are. They just NEVER believed we'd see a SNP victory. Take your heads out of the sand...

Richard.....corect if am wrong, what you are saying is that all British goverments in the last 50 odd years had no right to govern??? Including the labour led joke that has sat in Holyrood for the last 8 wasted, grossly underachiving years.??

The SNP should spend some money and commission extensive and fair polls IN LIB-DEM CONSTITUENCES asking whether it is a good idea or not to hold an independence referendum.
When the overwhelming YES response is obtained it should be delivered to the Lib-Dems in open letter format (to both the UK and "Scottish" parties) with the question to Nichol Stephen - "Where now?"
Such hypocrisy and downright sharp practise from the Party who trumpet about liberty and rights - obviously only when it corresponds with Lib Dem policy we are learning.
Utterly shameful!

If Nicol"Vidkun" Stephen and crew got 11% of the vote on a turnout of 50%-ish.....my school maths tells me that they got 5.5 %-ish of the ACTUAL total available vote. Faced then with 145,000 spoiled papers and the large number of non-arriving postal votes..........is it not the case that the LibDems who would then have gotten fewer votes than the total number of disenfranchised Scots, are therefore NOT mandated to do anything to restrict movement to an orderly Scottish government. have they no shame?...........Do we intend to stand by and watch them do so, merely because Ming and Gordie (two other Scots...and Vidkun's??)had tea and arranged how it would be??? re-run the whole thing and get rid of them as well as Wee Ridiculous Joke McCON !!!.................yer no' gettin' back, Jack.

If Nicol"Vidkun" Stephen and crew got 11% of the vote on a turnout of 50%-ish.....my school maths tells me that they got 5.5 %-ish of the ACTUAL total available vote.
Faced then with 145,000 spoiled papers and the large number of non-arriving postal votes..........is it not the case that the LibDems who would then have gotten fewer votes than the total number of disenfranchised Scots, are therefore NOT mandated to do anything to restrict movement to an orderly Scottish government.
have they no shame?...........Do we intend to stand by and watch them do so, merely because Ming and Gordie (two other Scots...and Vidkun's??)had tea and arranged how it would be???
re-run the whole thing and get rid of them as well as Wee Ridiculous Joke McCON !!!.................yer no' gettin' back, Jack.

TROLLS GET VERTIGO SHOCKER The Unionists are scoring an own goal here. Leaving Salmond alone in government makes him very powerful indeed. There may be a problem with passing a lot of legislation but all the other executive functions will not be shared by a unionist 'leveller'. As a nationalist, I think this serves the idea of independence well. However as a democrat I favour balanced government. After a few years of controlling government advertising budgets and negotiations with an intransigent London and a petty alliance to avoid co-alition the SNP could win the next election with a much increased number of MSPs and a referendum with a straight yes/no answer (i.e. no 'more powers' option). The best option for the Unionists really is to have an immediate referendum which the SNP could well lose and then contain independence that way with the SNP hamstrung. So, Unionists - are you entrenched in your rhetoric or are you going to grovel to Alex to accept the LibDems in co-alition with an immediate referendum? Bit tough thinking on yer feet eh? Not used to it, mmm.

TROLLS GET VERTIGO SHOCKER

The Unionists are scoring an own goal here. Leaving Salmond alone in government makes him very powerful indeed. There may be a problem with passing a lot of legislation but all the other executive functions will not be shared by a unionist 'leveller'.

As a nationalist, I think this serves the idea of independence well. However as a democrat I favour balanced government. After a few years of controlling government advertising budgets and negotiations with an intransigent London and a petty alliance to avoid co-alition the SNP could win the next election with a much increased number of MSPs and a referendum with a straight yes/no answer (i.e. no 'more powers' option). The best option for the Unionists really is to have an immediate referendum which the SNP could well lose and then contain independence that way with the SNP hamstrung.

So, Unionists - are you entrenched in your rhetoric or are you going to grovel to Alex to accept the LibDems in co-alition with an immediate referendum?

Bit tough thinking on yer feet eh? Not used to it, mmm.

To Richard Hannay

It might be 16% of the Scottish electorate who voted SNP, but an election only counts those who vote. Therefore:-

SNP: 37%

LAB: 36.2%

CON: 13.4%

LIB: 12.6%

GREEN: 1.6%

Just a wee thought here. It can be substantiated in a Scottish court, that , a referendum on independence is an accepted part of the Scottish political Scene. As such to suppress or to deny this option along with the other options of greater powers for holyrood, or the status quo, would be successfuly argued as being undemocratic. And as the liberals are styled The Scottish Liberal Democrats, could their actions be argued successfuly in law, that their refusal to negotiate with the SNP while a legitimate political and democraticaly elected option is on the table, be contrary to the description " Democrats" ? If this was the case then could the Liberal Democrats be pursued in Law under the trades descriptions act, as their actions will be contrary to the title under which they sought to sell themselves to the Scottish electorate. This is not a wind up. Is there anyone of greater law knowledge than I, caring to bring some legitimacy to this request.

Just a wee thought here.

It can be substantiated in a Scottish court, that , a referendum on independence is an accepted part of the Scottish political Scene.
As such to suppress or to deny this option along with the other options of greater powers for holyrood, or the status quo, would be successfuly argued as being undemocratic.

And as the liberals are styled The Scottish Liberal Democrats, could their actions be argued successfuly in law, that their refusal to negotiate with the SNP while a legitimate political and democraticaly elected option is on the table, be contrary to the description
" Democrats" ?
If this was the case then could the Liberal Democrats be pursued in Law under the trades descriptions act, as their actions will be contrary to the title under which they sought to sell themselves to the Scottish electorate.
This is not a wind up.
Is there anyone of greater law knowledge than I, caring to bring some legitimacy to this request.

again the problem here (as with all the unionist parties) is that the liberals have 2 masters, westminster and the scottish people. they have chosen their westminster overlords : (campbell in cahoots with brown. there has been some very dodgy dealings down in london in the last few days) over the scottish electorate.
i hope the lib-dems get a right kicking at the next election. they could disappear altogether, even the tories got more votes last time! they are making a big mistake over not even sitting down with the majority party.

If we take the total votes cast for each party, ignoring first past the post, and allocate seats proportionally and rounding up or down, here is the result.

SNP 44
LAB 42
CON 21
LIB 19
GREEN 3

Doesn't change anything, but there you are!

Ah, thats grand! - nice tae see what falls out the tree when you give it a good shake. I really loved the one about "If you don't vote, your opinion is irrelevant. And that applies equally to the numpties who like to point out Tony Blair 'only got 21%' at the last general election." Man, what an egalitarian you are! None of this governing on behalf of all the people crud - hey, we got the support of 16% so now we can do what the hell we like! As for David who said - "what you are saying is that all British goverments in the last 50 odd years had no right to govern?" - nope, I said there`s a question of legitimacy and mandate to govern. A majority or minority government has to recognise that it cannot have it all its own way; there can never be a tyranny of the majority or the minority (altho yes, we`ve seen it from Thatch and Blair, but I`m speaking of aspiration here). On the question of independence the situation is a stark one; voting for independence is not like voting for privatisation or PFI or nationalisation or chucking someone out the Big Brother house. It concerns the fundamentals of the country in which we live; independence would cause a huge amount of upheaval and bring uncertainty to many people`s lives, and all to do what? What great, pressing crisis would it solve? Puting aside the sentimental indignation on which nationalists feed, what great and terrible burden are people in Scotland suffering from? The answer is, we (and others up and down this island) have problems but they`re nothing like the grinding squalor and poverty that other populations round the world are faced with. The fact is that Britian is not Russia, and Scotland is not Chechnya or Tibet or whatever other ground down victim of imperialist dictatorship you`d care to name. And the majority of the people of Scotland know this, instinctively and intellectually, that independence isn`t worth the candle. As I`ve said before, there other struggles and arguments far more worthy of our time, our energy and our compassion.

Ah, thats grand! - nice tae see what falls out the tree when you give it a good shake. I really loved the one about "If you don't vote, your opinion is irrelevant. And that applies equally to the numpties who like to point out Tony Blair 'only got 21%' at the last general election." Man, what an egalitarian you are! None of this governing on behalf of all the people crud - hey, we got the support of 16% so now we can do what the hell we like!

As for David who said - "what you are saying is that all British goverments in the last 50 odd years had no right to govern?" - nope, I said there`s a question of legitimacy and mandate to govern. A majority or minority government has to recognise that it cannot have it all its own way; there can never be a tyranny of the majority or the minority (altho yes, we`ve seen it from Thatch and Blair, but I`m speaking of aspiration here). On the question of independence the situation is a stark one; voting for independence is not like voting for privatisation or PFI or nationalisation or chucking someone out the Big Brother house. It concerns the fundamentals of the country in which we live; independence would cause a huge amount of upheaval and bring uncertainty to many people`s lives, and all to do what? What great, pressing crisis would it solve? Puting aside the sentimental indignation on which nationalists feed, what great and terrible burden are people in Scotland suffering from? The answer is, we (and others up and down this island) have problems but they`re nothing like the grinding squalor and poverty that other populations round the world are faced with. The fact is that Britian is not Russia, and Scotland is not Chechnya or Tibet or whatever other ground down victim of imperialist dictatorship you`d care to name. And the majority of the people of Scotland know this, instinctively and intellectually, that independence isn`t worth the candle.

As I`ve said before, there other struggles and arguments far more worthy of our time, our energy and our compassion.

There is something in what Greig says ,they are the Scottish Liberals but taking them to court !!! When you see the mess the complaints department of the Law Society is in , and the government has made no effort to sort it out.This could be one way Alex could double his support clean the whole thing up from top to bottom , it could even mean some going to prison. But he will get the respect of the Scottish people and a referendum would be no problem whatsoever

I can't work out how much the Lib Dem position is pure spite and how much of it is greed. Certainly principle does not even come into it.
I also wonder how many LD MSP's will jump ship to the SNP - the Liberals were traditionally the party of Home Rule and being left out of power by their "leadership" might cause many to question their loyalties.

[quote][bold]Richard Hannay[/bold] wrote: Ah, thats grand! - nice tae see what falls out the tree when you give it a good shake. I really loved the one about "If you don't vote, your opinion is irrelevant. And that applies equally to the numpties who like to point out Tony Blair 'only got 21%' at the last general election." Man, what an egalitarian you are! None of this governing on behalf of all the people crud - hey, we got the support of 16% so now we can do what the hell we like! As for David who said - "what you are saying is that all British goverments in the last 50 odd years had no right to govern?" - nope, I said there`s a question of legitimacy and mandate to govern. A majority or minority government has to recognise that it cannot have it all its own way; there can never be a tyranny of the majority or the minority (altho yes, we`ve seen it from Thatch and Blair, but I`m speaking of aspiration here). On the question of independence the situation is a stark one; voting for independence is not like voting for privatisation or PFI or nationalisation or chucking someone out the Big Brother house. It concerns the fundamentals of the country in which we live; independence would cause a huge amount of upheaval and bring uncertainty to many people`s lives, and all to do what? What great, pressing crisis would it solve? Puting aside the sentimental indignation on which nationalists feed, what great and terrible burden are people in Scotland suffering from? The answer is, we (and others up and down this island) have problems but they`re nothing like the grinding squalor and poverty that other populations round the world are faced with. The fact is that Britian is not Russia, and Scotland is not Chechnya or Tibet or whatever other ground down victim of imperialist dictatorship you`d care to name. And the majority of the people of Scotland know this, instinctively and intellectually, that independence isn`t worth the candle. As I`ve said before, there other struggles and arguments far more worthy of our time, our energy and our compassion.[/quote] No one I know, who are nationalists, claim Scotland is like Chechnya or Tibet. The argument for independence isn’t based on the need to free ourselves from oppression. Scotland isn’t oppressed but it is disadvantaged, being locked in a union which benefits greatly the South East of England, to the detriment of the rest of the UK, Scotland included. The argument for independence is based on the premise that Scotland would do far better for itself if it managed it’s own affairs. Of course there are other issues and things that are wrong in Scotland that need sorted. The argument for independence is based on the premise that to manage our own affairs is to the betterment of the country which in turn allows us to address the other issues. Scotland should do better and the best way to do that is through independence.

Richard Hannay wrote:
Ah, thats grand! - nice tae see what falls out the tree when you give it a good shake. I really loved the one about "If you don't vote, your opinion is irrelevant. And that applies equally to the numpties who like to point out Tony Blair 'only got 21%' at the last general election." Man, what an egalitarian you are! None of this governing on behalf of all the people crud - hey, we got the support of 16% so now we can do what the hell we like! As for David who said - "what you are saying is that all British goverments in the last 50 odd years had no right to govern?" - nope, I said there`s a question of legitimacy and mandate to govern. A majority or minority government has to recognise that it cannot have it all its own way; there can never be a tyranny of the majority or the minority (altho yes, we`ve seen it from Thatch and Blair, but I`m speaking of aspiration here). On the question of independence the situation is a stark one; voting for independence is not like voting for privatisation or PFI or nationalisation or chucking someone out the Big Brother house. It concerns the fundamentals of the country in which we live; independence would cause a huge amount of upheaval and bring uncertainty to many people`s lives, and all to do what? What great, pressing crisis would it solve? Puting aside the sentimental indignation on which nationalists feed, what great and terrible burden are people in Scotland suffering from? The answer is, we (and others up and down this island) have problems but they`re nothing like the grinding squalor and poverty that other populations round the world are faced with. The fact is that Britian is not Russia, and Scotland is not Chechnya or Tibet or whatever other ground down victim of imperialist dictatorship you`d care to name. And the majority of the people of Scotland know this, instinctively and intellectually, that independence isn`t worth the candle. As I`ve said before, there other struggles and arguments far more worthy of our time, our energy and our compassion.

No one I know, who are nationalists, claim Scotland is like Chechnya or Tibet. The argument for independence isn’t based on the need to free ourselves from oppression. Scotland isn’t oppressed but it is disadvantaged, being locked in a union which benefits greatly the South East of England, to the detriment of the rest of the UK, Scotland included. The argument for independence is based on the premise that Scotland would do far better for itself if it managed it’s own affairs.

Of course there are other issues and things that are wrong in Scotland that need sorted. The argument for independence is based on the premise that to manage our own affairs is to the betterment of the country which in turn allows us to address the other issues.

Scotland should do better and the best way to do that is through independence.

#Yawn, Bored Here are a few thoughts from a (well, just a teensy weensy bit, actually) "rabid nationatist" : Living in an independent country is about ordering the affairs of that country so as to best benifit the economic, social and cultural life of the inhabitants of that country. For Scotland, this is not the priority of the government in London. It is also about taking a fully responsible position in the world on matters of current importance through co-operation with other countries, as in, for instance, the U.N. Scotland has no representation in either the E.U. or the U.N. It is about generating confidence in yourself as a people through your successes and learning from your mistakes. A bit like growing up to become an adult in the world, in fact. What it is not about is sitting year on year waiting to see how much of a hand-out your political masters are going to allocate you. It is not about twisting and weaving on important issues such as the renewal of trident until your political masters announce what your policy is going to be. It is not about having your young people killed fighting an illegal war that the vast majority of your people heartily disapprove of. What it is definately not about is cutting yourself off from the rest of the world. That is something which only happens when you have no political identity in the world. It is definately not about despising anybody. Ask the Danes who they despise. Ask the other inhabitants of small European countries. Other than the usual human failings they are unlikely to know what you are talking about. You said, "I've still not heard one good reason for Scotland becoming an irrelevant nation" Funnily enough, neither have I. Unfortunately, though, you seem to be one of those who believe that Scotland is best served as a 'country' by not being a country - at all........LOL No, cancel that...It's too sad the be laughing about.

#Yawn, Bored

Here are a few thoughts from a (well, just a teensy weensy bit, actually) "rabid nationatist" :

Living in an independent country is about ordering the affairs of that country so as to best benifit the economic, social and cultural life of the inhabitants of that country. For Scotland, this is not the priority of the government in London. It is also about taking a fully responsible position in the world on matters of current importance through co-operation with other countries, as in, for instance, the U.N. Scotland has no representation in either the E.U. or the U.N. It is about generating confidence in yourself as a people through your successes and learning from your mistakes. A bit like growing up to become an adult in the world, in fact.
What it is not about is sitting year on year waiting to see how much of a hand-out your political masters are going to allocate you. It is not about twisting and weaving on important issues such as the renewal of trident until your political masters announce what your policy is going to be.

It is not about having your young people killed fighting an illegal war that the vast majority of your people heartily disapprove of.
What it is definately not about is cutting yourself off from the rest of the world. That is something which only happens when you have no political identity in the world.

It is definately not about despising anybody. Ask the Danes who they despise. Ask the other inhabitants of small European countries. Other than the usual human failings they are unlikely to know what you are talking about.

You said, "I've still not heard one good reason for Scotland becoming an irrelevant nation"

Funnily enough, neither have I. Unfortunately, though, you seem to be one of those who believe that Scotland is best served as a 'country' by not being a country - at all........LOL No, cancel that...It's too sad the be laughing about.

If you believe, like me, that the Lib Dem stance is contemptible, use democratic means at your disposal to record your thoughts. Email your Lib Dem MSP or MP if you have one (they're easy to find on Google). alternatively email Stephen at their scottish branch office or even Campbell at their Imperial headquarters. This may have limited or even no effect, but if the alternative is to do nothing other than use this column...?

Richard on the train to nowhere- It is a fundamental right, for a state, to rule its own afairs, as we have seen granted time and time and time again across eastern Europe in the last 20 years. There dont need to be any crisis, there dont need to be grinding poverty. would you like your niehbour to tell you how to keep your garden? I would think not, it would only cause antaganisim between you and him. If your niehbour let you do as you pleased with your own garden, then you could share ideas with each other, you could trade some of your plants and garden with him,and he with you, you could then live at ease with one another, the people of Scotland and the people of England, niehbours over the fence, them running their house as they see fit, and us running ours. friends niebours and trading partners...as happens in every other civilised nation on the planet

Richard on the train to nowhere-

It is a fundamental right, for a state, to rule its own afairs, as we have seen granted time and time and time again across eastern Europe in the last 20 years.
There dont need to be any crisis, there dont need to be grinding poverty.
would you like your niehbour to tell you how to keep your garden? I would think not, it would only cause antaganisim between you and him.
If your niehbour let you do as you pleased with your own garden, then you could share ideas with each other, you could trade some of your plants and garden with him,and he with you, you could then live at ease with one another,
the people of Scotland and the people of England, niehbours over the fence, them running their house as they see fit, and us running ours. friends niebours and trading partners...as happens in every other civilised nation on the planet

It's astonishing. talk about denial. Just as my friends the USA-ians don't believe that Iraq is ALL ABOUT THE OIL, then it is so obvious that Hollyrood is ALL ABOUT WESTMINSTER. It always was about deflecting the move towards nationalism. I'm sorry but it is completely naive to expect Nicol and McConnell to do anything but listen very carefully to the UK parties, and Goldie for that matter. The Labour party will undoubtedly take some of the election results to court, the libDems will then reform the coalition and life will go on as preordained by Westminster. It's the right thing of course. Scots don't want the responsibility of their own affairs and as for that McCrone report, noone will read it, no papers will carry or report on it, it'll be just as if it never existed. "Live as if you are at the beginning of a better nation"? Hmph. Why bother? things aren't exactly bad are they? "Nemo me impune lacessit"? yeah, well that was then and look what happened. "Parcel o' rogues.."..... Ex-Pat-Prof.

It's astonishing. talk about denial. Just as my friends the USA-ians don't believe that Iraq is ALL ABOUT THE OIL, then it is so obvious that Hollyrood is ALL ABOUT WESTMINSTER. It always was about deflecting the move towards nationalism. I'm sorry but it is completely naive to expect Nicol and McConnell to do anything but listen very carefully to the UK parties, and Goldie for that matter. The Labour party will undoubtedly take some of the election results to court, the libDems will then reform the coalition and life will go on as preordained by Westminster.

It's the right thing of course. Scots don't want the responsibility of their own affairs and as for that McCrone report, noone will read it, no papers will carry or report on it, it'll be just as if it never existed. "Live as if you are at the beginning of a better nation"? Hmph. Why bother? things aren't exactly bad are they? "Nemo me impune lacessit"? yeah, well that was then and look what happened. "Parcel o' rogues..".....

Ex-Pat-Prof.

Gregor wrote:
iang - I think you'll find that the great majority of Scots don't want an SNP government so why should the parties most people did vote for co-operate with them.

Gregor, no party has an obligation to work with another. However they expect the Lib Dems to honour their own commitment to engage in talks. The Lib Dems are refusing to do even that, despite their pre-election promise to at least talk to the largest party.

I'm a Labour man through and through but I do wish Jack the Lad would do the right thing and offer some congratulations or at least acknowledge the SNP's victory, even if it's totally insincere he at least needs to make the gesture.

Labour also needs to publically state that they will work with the SNP or whoever forms the Govt on the policies where they have common ground. Beyond that my party need to just take this on the chin with a little more dignity than we have done so far.

[quote][bold]Fraser[/bold] wrote: First up i am no fan of Nicol Stephen, but many times before the election i heard various members of the Lib Dems team say "No talks with the SNP while an independence referendum is on the table" .I can clearly recall Tavish Scott being asked this question the weekend before the election and giving the one word reply "Correct". So a politiican as good as his word, whatever next? They said no deal before the election so why the big surpise now?[/quote] Fraser, you make the same mistake as many people including those who write to the Herald today. You are confusing [bold]talks[/bold] with an actual coalition. The Lib Dems are now refusing to go into talks with the SNP. The SNP will probably drop the referendum in negotiations, but the Lib Dems will not even enter the room.

Fraser wrote:
First up i am no fan of Nicol Stephen, but many times before the election i heard various members of the Lib Dems team say "No talks with the SNP while an independence referendum is on the table" .I can clearly recall Tavish Scott being asked this question the weekend before the election and giving the one word reply "Correct". So a politiican as good as his word, whatever next? They said no deal before the election so why the big surpise now?

Fraser, you make the same mistake as many people including those who write to the Herald today. You are confusing talks with an actual coalition. The Lib Dems are now refusing to go into talks with the SNP. The SNP will probably drop the referendum in negotiations, but the Lib Dems will not even enter the room.

Grant

You are right that no paper will carry or report on the McCrone report. Some people will read it though if it is distributed. So with that in mind I add the address again

http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf

Why isn't this being reported at all? Surely the BBC would report this - has anyone asked them.

I think I will start adding this to my email tag:

http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/document.php?release=36&doc=113&file=mccrone%20economics%20of%20nationalism.pdf

Why is it that in Glasgow the Nats got 27% of the vote (Labour got 38%), but this message board is 90% Nats? Its no wonder we call them rabid nats - they dont have a life outside independence land, just look at the daft poems they invented before the elections.

If I hear another Nat saying they are being denied Scotlands destiny I'm going to puke.

All the nats that I know are having a go at the LDs - and everyone who isnt, thinks that they are right to stay out until independence is ruled out. So, to all the nats speak to people who are not as mad as you and you will find a slightly different persepective.

Isn`t this fun? Hmm, a better standard of argument coming out now, but it still amounts to `Scotland should be a separate nation because things could be a bit better (and its really got nothing to do with english accents on the telly, not a bit of it, honest injun)` If the Act of Union had happened, say, 70-80 years ago, I could see how the notion of independence would have some validity. But it was 3 centuries or more ago. As said before, all nations are patchworks of communities and for England and Scotland and N.Ireland and Wales those communites have grown together over all those great many years, families are intermingled and the lines are blurred. How many Scots do you think were in favour of the Union way back then? Bet it was less than 16%, let`s say 8% (probably accounting for various merchants and nobles and politicos etc) - well, if the say-so of 8% was wrong then, the say-so of 16% now is also wrong. But hey, don`t let mere numbers get in the way of the glorious nationalist destiny! Keep on waving that flag and singing yer songs - the rest of us will get on with the real struggles against globalisation, against neoliberal cretinomics, and against climate change. Sic itur ad astra!

Isn`t this fun? Hmm, a better standard of argument coming out now, but it still amounts to `Scotland should be a separate nation because things could be a bit better (and its really got nothing to do with english accents on the telly, not a bit of it, honest injun)`

If the Act of Union had happened, say, 70-80 years ago, I could see how the notion of independence would have some validity. But it was 3 centuries or more ago. As said before, all nations are patchworks of communities and for England and Scotland and N.Ireland and Wales those communites have grown together over all those great many years, families are intermingled and the lines are blurred.

How many Scots do you think were in favour of the Union way back then? Bet it was less than 16%, let`s say 8% (probably accounting for various merchants and nobles and politicos etc) - well, if the say-so of 8% was wrong then, the say-so of 16% now is also wrong.

But hey, don`t let mere numbers get in the way of the glorious nationalist destiny! Keep on waving that flag and singing yer songs - the rest of us will get on with the real struggles against globalisation, against neoliberal cretinomics, and against climate change. Sic itur ad astra!

DJ,

You've got to remember that for the SNP to get this far is an amazing result. The electoral system was designed to prevent the SNP from ever getting an outright majority.

If SNP supporters (please not I did not use NATS) are fraustrated by the fact that opponents won't even let them ask people about independence, can you really be surprised by their anger?

When I originally added the link to the McCrone Report 2 Days ago, I thought that people could make up their own mind, form their own opinion. I'm glad to see thats happening.
Its now time for the people in Scotland to believe that they have the intellegence, the passion, the where with all and the right to a referendum, self determination despite the press who are so biased .
The decision is theirs.

Note to DJ. You said, "Why is it that in Glasgow the Nats got 27% of the vote (Labour got 38%), but this message board is 90% Nats?"
Why do you only refer to Glasgow? The Herald stopped being "The Glasgow Herald" yonks ago.
Although some people are asking us to boycott "The Herald", it's still probably the best Broadsheet we've got. By "we" I mean Scots...not just SNP. But to answer your question, maybe it's because Nats care more / think more / and don't blindly follow what USED to be the labour party.
SNP got 37% of the votes cast and there are many going over to the SNP since the election.

@David, Paisley "Why is everybody so incensed with the choice of the Lib Dems not to enter a coalition with SNP" The LDs are perfectly entitled to stay outside of government if they so desire. The problem here, as you can see from many postings, is that nobody really believes that the decision by the LDs not to join the SNP was taken in Scotland. Most suspect that Brown has cut a deal with Ming, and the imbecilic Stephen is only obeying orders. The LDs in Scotland have no local autonomy in matters of 'overall strategy' - check their constitution on their web pages. There is also no reason why - in normal circumstances - a political party in a state which uses PR as its electoral mechanism should not govern as a minority. It is common, and avoids more problems than it causes. You can cure yourself of an affection for strong government by repeating the words 'Thatcher' and 'Blair' over to yourself a few times. But we do not have normal circumstances. The fear is not minority government, but foreign influence. Gordon Brown will not permit an SNP government to function in Edinburgh - he has said so repeatedly, and I think that(for once) we can take him at his word. The comment from Mac of Dundee is an interesting reminder: the Liberals in the UK vanished from power because they fouled up on what was known then as the Irish Question. They have not formed a UK government since. Are their successors now about to fail the Scottish Question? If Ming believed a promise from Brown that he would get a share in power at Westminster if he helped to shaft the Nats in Scotland, he's a bigger fool than I thought he was. In the real world magic beans do not replace lost cows.

@David, Paisley

"Why is everybody so incensed with the choice of the Lib Dems not to enter a coalition with SNP"

The LDs are perfectly entitled to stay outside of government if they so desire.

The problem here, as you can see from many postings, is that nobody really believes that the decision by the LDs not to join the SNP was taken in Scotland. Most suspect that Brown has cut a deal with Ming, and the imbecilic Stephen is only obeying orders. The LDs in Scotland have no local autonomy in matters of 'overall strategy' - check their constitution on their web pages.

There is also no reason why - in normal circumstances - a political party in a state which uses PR as its electoral mechanism should not govern as a minority. It is common, and avoids more problems than it causes. You can cure yourself of an affection for strong government by repeating the words 'Thatcher' and 'Blair' over to yourself a few times. But we do not have normal circumstances. The fear is not minority government, but foreign influence. Gordon Brown will not permit an SNP government to function in Edinburgh - he has said so repeatedly, and I think that(for once) we can take him at his word.

The comment from Mac of Dundee is an interesting reminder: the Liberals in the UK vanished from power because they fouled up on what was known then as the Irish Question. They have not formed a UK government since. Are their successors now about to fail the Scottish Question?

If Ming believed a promise from Brown that he would get a share in power at Westminster if he helped to shaft the Nats in Scotland, he's a bigger fool than I thought he was. In the real world magic beans do not replace lost cows.

[quote][bold]Richard Hannay[/bold] wrote: Isn`t this fun? Hmm, a better standard of argument coming out now, but it still amounts to `Scotland should be a separate nation because things could be a bit better (and its really got nothing to do with english accents on the telly, not a bit of it, honest injun)` If the Act of Union had happened, say, 70-80 years ago, I could see how the notion of independence would have some validity. But it was 3 centuries or more ago. As said before, all nations are patchworks of communities and for England and Scotland and N.Ireland and Wales those communites have grown together over all those great many years, families are intermingled and the lines are blurred. How many Scots do you think were in favour of the Union way back then? Bet it was less than 16%, let`s say 8% (probably accounting for various merchants and nobles and politicos etc) - well, if the say-so of 8% was wrong then, the say-so of 16% now is also wrong. But hey, don`t let mere numbers get in the way of the glorious nationalist destiny! Keep on waving that flag and singing yer songs - the rest of us will get on with the real struggles against globalisation, against neoliberal cretinomics, and against climate change. Sic itur ad astra![/quote] [bold]Keep on waving that flag and singing yer songs[/bold] Here's the Lib-Dem song (or chant) What do we want?....a wee bit more plese. When do we want it?...sometime in the future, but not now as we're not talking to the SNP.

Richard Hannay wrote:
Isn`t this fun? Hmm, a better standard of argument coming out now, but it still amounts to `Scotland should be a separate nation because things could be a bit better (and its really got nothing to do with english accents on the telly, not a bit of it, honest injun)` If the Act of Union had happened, say, 70-80 years ago, I could see how the notion of independence would have some validity. But it was 3 centuries or more ago. As said before, all nations are patchworks of communities and for England and Scotland and N.Ireland and Wales those communites have grown together over all those great many years, families are intermingled and the lines are blurred. How many Scots do you think were in favour of the Union way back then? Bet it was less than 16%, let`s say 8% (probably accounting for various merchants and nobles and politicos etc) - well, if the say-so of 8% was wrong then, the say-so of 16% now is also wrong. But hey, don`t let mere numbers get in the way of the glorious nationalist destiny! Keep on waving that flag and singing yer songs - the rest of us will get on with the real struggles against globalisation, against neoliberal cretinomics, and against climate change. Sic itur ad astra!

Keep on waving that flag and singing yer songs

Here's the Lib-Dem song (or chant)

What do we want?....a wee bit more plese.
When do we want it?...sometime in the future, but not now as we're not talking to the SNP.

PS to Richard....on the train still...

If you are worried about climate change, have you checked out your "carbon footprint?"

Richard Hannay, 12:00pm, said
Scotland is not Chechnya or Tibet

Agreed. But there are countries similar to us that gained independence relatively recently. Wouldn't you like Scotland to have the same economic success and quality of life as Ireland and Norway?

Hannay: "Man, what an egalitarian you are!"

Ach stop this pathetic, transparent scrabbling for the moral high ground. It's a classic ploy of those who are losing the argument to try and cast irrelevant aspersions at their opponents.

I support everyone's equal right to vote and if they dont use it then that's their decision - they've made a clear decision to have no influence on the government of the country.

Deploying the old 'folk who couldnt be bothered voting count against those who did vote' chestnut really is desperate stuff.

Gosh, how "unegalitarian" of me.

Richard Hannay = British Nationalist

Remember arch Unionist Mike Glasgow, he was fond of saying "isn't this fun" too, he's not on the train with you is he?

On Newsnight Scotland last night Nicola Sturgeon opened the door to a Lib Dems proposal for a Constituional Convention (see link). A refusal to even talk reflects very badly on them, is very difficult to understand and leads to speculation about hidden agendas. This is not a mature negotiating position. Nicol Stephens appears ineffectual and weak.

What the Scottish National Party will not do is to enter negotiations with Lib Dems or any other party subject to pre-conditions. No negotiator worth his salt would allow this.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=342882006

#Richard Hannay, still on the **** train ".....get on with the real struggles against globalisation, against neoliberal cretinomics, and against climate change." And how, pray tell, are you going to do that except on a basis of "nationalism"? English/British nationalism, European "nationalism". The Chinese, if we are lucky on the Global Warming front, won't be doing it on a village by village basis, but on a national basis. As, of course, will everybody else.......except those communities in the world, those natiions, who have no political representation amongs the community of nations. And that, sadly, includes Scotland. I'll repeat a little of what I wrote above. It bears thinking about, and you can't avoid the consequences for the wider community in which you live. You are either part of the real world on your own account, don't believe that Scotland should have representation in the world as a nation, or are two busy aping the people who have assimilated your country, and who, frankly, aren't impressed when you do. Living in an independent country is about ordering the affairs of that country so as to best benifit the economic, social and cultural life of the inhabitants of that country. For Scotland, this is not the priority of the government in London. It is also about taking a fully responsible position in the world on matters of current importance through co-operation with other countries, as in, for instance, the U.N. Scotland has no representation in either the E.U. or the U.N. It is about generating confidence in yourself as a people through your successes and learning from your mistakes. A bit like growing up to become an adult in the world, in fact.

#Richard Hannay, still on the **** train

".....get on with the real struggles against globalisation, against neoliberal cretinomics, and against climate change."

And how, pray tell, are you going to do that except on a basis of "nationalism"? English/British nationalism, European "nationalism". The Chinese, if we are lucky on the Global Warming front, won't be doing it on a village by village basis, but on a national basis. As, of course, will everybody else.......except those communities in the world, those natiions, who have no political representation amongs the community of nations. And that, sadly, includes Scotland.

I'll repeat a little of what I wrote above. It bears thinking about, and you can't avoid the consequences for the wider community in which you live. You are either part of the real world on your own account, don't believe that Scotland should have representation in the world as a nation, or are two busy aping the people who have assimilated your country, and who, frankly, aren't impressed when you do.

Living in an independent country is about ordering the affairs of that country so as to best benifit the economic, social and cultural life of the inhabitants of that country. For Scotland, this is not the priority of the government in London. It is also about taking a fully responsible position in the world on matters of current importance through co-operation with other countries, as in, for instance, the U.N. Scotland has no representation in either the E.U. or the U.N. It is about generating confidence in yourself as a people through your successes and learning from your mistakes. A bit like growing up to become an adult in the world, in fact.

Given that the SNP were ahead in the polls in the run-up to the election, we can safely say that those who didn't vote were quietly expressing acquiescence to the idea of the SNP being the ruling party of the country - so the SNP got the support (direct + indirect) of let's see... 16% + 49% = 65% of the populace !

Okay, that's as absurd as Hannay's 16% burblings, but I'd like to think more entertaining at least. :)

Richard Hannay obvoiusly uses reverse bizarre reasoning.

I'm sure I saw him on the train with a T-shirt bearing the logo:-

Save the plankton....kill a whale.

"Richard Hannay = British Nationalist" - arf, what a corker! Nah, mate, if anything I consider myself a citizen of planet Earth, but since I am where I am, I take great pleasure in being Scottish, British and European. Y`see, I believe that the things that unite us are more important than the things that divide us, and there are few things more important than getting the Blairites out of power and trashing their policies (which are largely Thatcherite policies). But then, you see, I actually care what happens to people south as well as north of the border - they matter. As for Gus fra embra and his "if they dont use it then that's their decision - they've made a clear decision to have no influence on the government of the country. Deploying the old 'folk who couldnt be bothered voting count against those who did vote' chestnut really is desperate stuff." - cracking stuff. Yes, you are unegalitarian because you seem quite happy with the tyranny of the minority. I pray to god-or-whoevers-in-charge that YOU never get anywere near political power. Right, I`m off, said my piece for now. No doubt we`ll exchange bon mots and brickbats on another page, another day, so adieu, adios, sayonarah, orrabest....

"Richard Hannay = British Nationalist" - arf, what a corker! Nah, mate, if anything I consider myself a citizen of planet Earth, but since I am where I am, I take great pleasure in being Scottish, British and European. Y`see, I believe that the things that unite us are more important than the things that divide us, and there are few things more important than getting the Blairites out of power and trashing their policies (which are largely Thatcherite policies). But then, you see, I actually care what happens to people south as well as north of the border - they matter.

As for Gus fra embra and his "if they dont use it then that's their decision - they've made a clear decision to have no influence on the government of the country.

Deploying the old 'folk who couldnt be bothered voting count against those who did vote' chestnut really is desperate stuff." - cracking stuff. Yes, you are unegalitarian because you seem quite happy with the tyranny of the minority. I pray to god-or-whoevers-in-charge that YOU never get anywere near political power.

Right, I`m off, said my piece for now. No doubt we`ll exchange bon mots and brickbats on another page, another day, so adieu, adios, sayonarah, orrabest....

David el escocés wrote:
Richard Hannay obvoiusly uses reverse bizarre reasoning. I'm sure I saw him on the train with a T-shirt bearing the logo:- Save the plankton....kill a whale.

Regarding "Obvoiusly"

Obviously it's obviously!

The Liberal Democrats are the most Unionist bunch of activists you'll find. They are funded from the south and will shortly be bankrupt financially. Morally, they are already sequestrated.

Alex will govern using existing powers without the need for a lot of new legislation. He will only introduce Bills he can get through. The next Westminster election will be the de facto referendum on Independence forcing Brown and Cameron to fight on two fronts, and we all know what happended to Hilter and Napoleon doing that. Yet again the SNP will set the agenda!

I know this is a forlorn hope, but Oh! will you all please get a grip..... Stop bleating on about the lib dems failure to go into a coalition - despite this being what they said time and time again - and then blaming it all on some massive labour, lib dem, conservative, Gandalf the magic elf conspiracy just to keep the SNP out. It's sooooo pathetic.... I mean, some are saying: 'how DARE the Lib dems stick to their policies and not roll over and help the SNP make a working government. It's undemocratic and clearly in league with the devil' Look, they don't want to form a gov with the SNP because a) You don't get the SNP without some talk of independence, and b) They've just got a bloody nose from being in bed with labour and don't want to carry the can in another four years when everyone goes to the polls. It's not rocket science! There's no Dark Brown/Ming the merciless pact, no orders from England to do over the SNP, no contempt for democracy and no hidden agenda. It's just pure party politics. Face it - no-one wants to form a co-op with the SNP because their main policy is so unpopular.

I know this is a forlorn hope, but Oh! will you all please get a grip.....

Stop bleating on about the lib dems failure to go into a coalition - despite this being what they said time and time again - and then blaming it all on some massive labour, lib dem, conservative, Gandalf the magic elf conspiracy just to keep the SNP out.

It's sooooo pathetic....

I mean, some are saying: 'how DARE the Lib dems stick to their policies and not roll over and help the SNP make a working government. It's undemocratic and clearly in league with the devil'

Look, they don't want to form a gov with the SNP because a) You don't get the SNP without some talk of independence, and b) They've just got a bloody nose from being in bed with labour and don't want to carry the can in another four years when everyone goes to the polls.

It's not rocket science! There's no Dark Brown/Ming the merciless pact, no orders from England to do over the SNP, no contempt for democracy and no hidden agenda.

It's just pure party politics.

Face it - no-one wants to form a co-op with the SNP because their main policy is so unpopular.

[quote][bold]hughie Greenock[/bold] wrote: I know this is a forlorn hope, but Oh! will you all please get a grip..... Stop bleating on about the lib dems failure to go into a coalition - despite this being what they said time and time again - and then blaming it all on some massive labour, lib dem, conservative, Gandalf the magic elf conspiracy just to keep the SNP out. It's sooooo pathetic.... I mean, some are saying: 'how DARE the Lib dems stick to their policies and not roll over and help the SNP make a working government. It's undemocratic and clearly in league with the devil' Look, they don't want to form a gov with the SNP because a) You don't get the SNP without some talk of independence, and b) They've just got a bloody nose from being in bed with labour and don't want to carry the can in another four years when everyone goes to the polls. It's not rocket science! There's no Dark Brown/Ming the merciless pact, no orders from England to do over the SNP, no contempt for democracy and no hidden agenda. It's just pure party politics. Face it - no-one wants to form a co-op with the SNP because their main policy is so unpopular. [/quote] Hello again Hughie. I hate myself, but you're probably right................except:- Ian Paisley said, "NEVER...NEVER.....NEVER!"

hughie Greenock wrote:
I know this is a forlorn hope, but Oh! will you all please get a grip.....

Stop bleating on about the lib dems failure to go into a coalition - despite this being what they said time and time again - and then blaming it all on some massive labour, lib dem, conservative, Gandalf the magic elf conspiracy just to keep the SNP out.

It's sooooo pathetic....

I mean, some are saying: 'how DARE the Lib dems stick to their policies and not roll over and help the SNP make a working government. It's undemocratic and clearly in league with the devil'

Look, they don't want to form a gov with the SNP because a) You don't get the SNP without some talk of independence, and b) They've just got a bloody nose from being in bed with labour and don't want to carry the can in another four years when everyone goes to the polls.

It's not rocket science! There's no Dark Brown/Ming the merciless pact, no orders from England to do over the SNP, no contempt for democracy and no hidden agenda.

It's just pure party politics.

Face it - no-one wants to form a co-op with the SNP because their main policy is so unpopular.

Hello again Hughie. I hate myself, but you're probably right................except:-

Ian Paisley said, "NEVER...NEVER.....NEVER!"

Talking to the greens a waste of time - I couldn't have said it better myself.
Nice to see the Greens' true colours revealed - yellow bellied hippies. The merest sniff of power and they've dropped their principles and dived into bed with the Nats. I can see it now… Fergus "petrol head" Ewing and Robin "no more roads" Harper tucked up together. *retch* The stench of hypocrisy is unbearable.

Richard Hannay wrote:
What a right shrill shower there is on this page. Time for a reality check which is contained in 2 words - sixteen percent. That`s the percentage of the Scottish electorate who actually voted SNP last week, aye, just 16%. The SNP didn`t `win` - they got 1 seat more than Labour and are (for the moment) the largest party in Holyrood. So when anyone yacks their face off about independence and all that fake sentimentality, you just have to remind them that only 16% voted for the SNP and their independence policy, so why should the rest of us, ie 84% of the electorate, take any serious notice of them? Can any of yiz answer that? - nope, didn`t think so. And as for the LibDems staying away from coalition - jings, reading comments here make them sound like either the descendants of Machiavelli or Thunderbird-like puppets, sometimes even both! I have an alternative explanation, namely that with a turnout below 50% there is a serious question of legitimacy hanging over any Holyrood administration. So to go into coalition with the SNP who gained *16%* of the electorate`s support would be a) hypocritical on the basis of previously stated positions on independence, and b) lacking in a popular mandate for independence since there is NO grassroots support for it, as demonstrated by the ***16%*** who voted for Alex. Here endeth the lesson (fur now), though I expect there`ll be a plethora of banshee howls following on from this (especially from the guy who writes in crayon, sorry, caps!)

In that case "New Labour" got 13% in England.McConnell needs to take note,he could become stateless.

An unfortunate reality is that a vast amount of voters won't be aware of the kind of shenanigans and deferment to Westminster that is going on within Labour and the LibDems - and they will continue to vote as they have. It's not reported in the tabloid press who, last week, clearly showed their cards and demonstrated that they will report ANYTHING to prevent the SNP from taking power. Alex Salmond is probably being reported as a lame duck, when he's far from it. A consumate politician and the only one of the 3 main parties to not stoop to the oppositions level.

Why all this focus on the Lib dems?
There are two other parties in the parliament that the SNP could speak to. If they can't come to an arrangement with any other party to form a co-alition then why not form a minority adminstration. There are host of polices that the other opposition aprties would supporton a case by case basis

charlie wrote:
Why all this focus on the Lib dems? There are two other parties in the parliament that the SNP could speak to. If they can't come to an arrangement with any other party to form a co-alition then why not form a minority adminstration. There are host of polices that the other opposition aprties would supporton a case by case basis

SNP+ Labour? SNP+ Tory?

LOL!

@Hughie from Greenock

"Face it - no-one wants to form a co-op with the SNP because their main policy is so unpopular."

Absolutely spot on, Hughie. And that explains why the Lib Dems and the other Unionists are campaigning frantically for a referendum on the subject, so that it can be comprehensively dismissed.

Uh, wait a minute....

The LibDems always talked about being the great 'democrats' the party of constitutional reform, of consensus coalition government. Now they are allowing a minority government to take place and their reason? They don't want to give a referendum to the people which allows people to vote for everyone's consitutional beliefs. Anyway, I for one am not bleating about the LibDems keeping Alex out, Salmond will clearly be more powerful operating alone with his 30B budget. Passing legislation may be difficult but there's a lot more to executive power than that. Just wait and see. It's in the interests of the Unionists to beg Salmond to have a co-alition and yet Salmond offers Scotland a coalition. Again, read ian McWhirter in The Guardian: Here's what Ian McWhirter had to say about it in The Guardian: "However, after the shambles of the last ballot, I don't think the Scottish voters would take kindly to having to go through all that again so soon. Indeed, the danger for the opposition parties is that the SNP might actually be strengthened by a second election. That, the voters, like in 1974 and 1966 with Labour, fed up with the mischief, might give the SNP a larger working majority in any new election. This is beginning to worry some of the more far-sighted Labour strategists. They are beginning to worry that handing Salmond a minority government might actually help the SNP in its project to break up Britain. Salmond would have the Ł30bn budget of the Scottish executive at his disposal. He could simply avoid doing anything very much in parliament, while governing in a way that ensures confrontation with Westminster over issues such as Trident, nuclear power, council tax subsidies, the Barnett formula, oil revenues and so on. This is a fascinating political poker game, and the stakes are getting higher every day. There are now 22 days left before we finally see the cards." You can keep up yer rhetoric if ye want boys. It's playing right into Salmond's hands. It's fantastic having Unionists do our work for us. Thanks!

The LibDems always talked about being the great 'democrats' the party of constitutional reform, of consensus coalition government. Now they are allowing a minority government to take place and their reason? They don't want to give a referendum to the people which allows people to vote for everyone's consitutional beliefs.

Anyway, I for one am not bleating about the LibDems keeping Alex out, Salmond will clearly be more powerful operating alone with his 30B budget. Passing legislation may be difficult but there's a lot more to executive power than that. Just wait and see.

It's in the interests of the Unionists to beg Salmond to have a co-alition and yet Salmond offers Scotland a coalition.

Again, read ian McWhirter in The Guardian:

Here's what Ian McWhirter had to say about it in The Guardian:

"However, after the shambles of the last ballot, I don't think the Scottish voters would take kindly to having to go through all that again so soon. Indeed, the danger for the opposition parties is that the SNP might actually be strengthened by a second election. That, the voters, like in 1974 and 1966 with Labour, fed up with the mischief, might give the SNP a larger working majority in any new election.

This is beginning to worry some of the more far-sighted Labour strategists. They are beginning to worry that handing Salmond a minority government might actually help the SNP in its project to break up Britain. Salmond would have the Ł30bn budget of the Scottish executive at his disposal. He could simply avoid doing anything very much in parliament, while governing in a way that ensures confrontation with Westminster over issues such as Trident, nuclear power, council tax subsidies, the Barnett formula, oil revenues and so on.

This is a fascinating political poker game, and the stakes are getting higher every day. There are now 22 days left before we finally see the cards."

You can keep up yer rhetoric if ye want boys. It's playing right into Salmond's hands. It's fantastic having Unionists do our work for us. Thanks!

FAO Rebecca McKinlay

The Tories and SNP have lots of common ground wherther on buisness rates, road building, forth crossing, more police- if the SNP dropped their constitutional requirement ruling out the Tories then they could make deal happen, after all they are trying to do a deal with Tories on local govt level in Falkirk

As for Labour well if the SPD & CDU in Germany can form a co-alition then i don' see why a Labour-Nat co-alition isn't possible.

[quote][bold]iang[/bold] wrote: It is quite simply disgraceful that the LibDems will not even sit down and discuss a possible compromise. If I had voted for them I would be very angry.[/quote] But you didn't vote for them, and if you had done, it would have been because of their stated views that they were against a referendum. So why would a Libdem voter be angry now? I would think that they are happy that they are sticking to their guns. You need to look at it from their point of view rather than from the SNP point of view. They key is to try and win over Libdem voters rather than have a go at them, you will not endear yourself to anyone who thinks differently from you by abusing them.

iang wrote:
It is quite simply disgraceful that the LibDems will not even sit down and discuss a possible compromise. If I had voted for them I would be very angry.

But you didn't vote for them, and if you had done, it would have been because of their stated views that they were against a referendum. So why would a Libdem voter be angry now? I would think that they are happy that they are sticking to their guns. You need to look at it from their point of view rather than from the SNP point of view.

They key is to try and win over Libdem voters rather than have a go at them, you will not endear yourself to anyone who thinks differently from you by abusing them.

Stevie wrote:
It's easy to see where the unionists priorities lie. Certainly not with the Scottish people.

What? I think, and I may be wrong here, that the unionists priorities lie with The Union, they don't try and hide them so that you can find them easy!

[quote][bold]Alex Porter[/bold] wrote: The LibDems always talked about being the great 'democrats' the party of constitutional reform, of consensus coalition government. Now they are allowing a minority government to take place and their reason? They don't want to give a referendum to the people which allows people to vote for everyone's consitutional beliefs. Anyway, I for one am not bleating about the LibDems keeping Alex out, Salmond will clearly be more powerful operating alone with his 30B budget. Passing legislation may be difficult but there's a lot more to executive power than that. Just wait and see. It's in the interests of the Unionists to beg Salmond to have a co-alition and yet Salmond offers Scotland a coalition. Again, read ian McWhirter in The Guardian: Here's what Ian McWhirter had to say about it in The Guardian: "However, after the shambles of the last ballot, I don't think the Scottish voters would take kindly to having to go through all that again so soon. Indeed, the danger for the opposition parties is that the SNP might actually be strengthened by a second election. That, the voters, like in 1974 and 1966 with Labour, fed up with the mischief, might give the SNP a larger working majority in any new election. This is beginning to worry some of the more far-sighted Labour strategists. They are beginning to worry that handing Salmond a minority government might actually help the SNP in its project to break up Britain. Salmond would have the Ł30bn budget of the Scottish executive at his disposal. He could simply avoid doing anything very much in parliament, while governing in a way that ensures confrontation with Westminster over issues such as Trident, nuclear power, council tax subsidies, the Barnett formula, oil revenues and so on. This is a fascinating political poker game, and the stakes are getting higher every day. There are now 22 days left before we finally see the cards." You can keep up yer rhetoric if ye want boys. It's playing right into Salmond's hands. It's fantastic having Unionists do our work for us. Thanks![/quote] Alex, are you still struggling to understand the meaning of "democratic"?. Can you advise the following please as you continue to make statements which are baffling? The Libdems stated in their manifesto they would not be up for a referendum. Why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't make them anything other than true to their word, and whether you agree with them or not, it doesn't mean they should be castigated. You say they stand for concensus, and yet surely two parties need to have common ground for such concensus? The SNP and Libdems clearly don't have this concensus. It appears that the abuse being hurled at the Libdems is down to SNP supporters being frustrated at their lack of overall majority. The election clearly showed the SNP as the largest party, and it clearly showed it is the smallest of majorties. This may not sit well with you but you it is factual. It is up to the SNP to get on with it and move forward, pretty straightforward I think.

Alex Porter wrote:
The LibDems always talked about being the great 'democrats' the party of constitutional reform, of consensus coalition government. Now they are allowing a minority government to take place and their reason? They don't want to give a referendum to the people which allows people to vote for everyone's consitutional beliefs. Anyway, I for one am not bleating about the LibDems keeping Alex out, Salmond will clearly be more powerful operating alone with his 30B budget. Passing legislation may be difficult but there's a lot more to executive power than that. Just wait and see. It's in the interests of the Unionists to beg Salmond to have a co-alition and yet Salmond offers Scotland a coalition. Again, read ian McWhirter in The Guardian: Here's what Ian McWhirter had to say about it in The Guardian: "However, after the shambles of the last ballot, I don't think the Scottish voters would take kindly to having to go through all that again so soon. Indeed, the danger for the opposition parties is that the SNP might actually be strengthened by a second election. That, the voters, like in 1974 and 1966 with Labour, fed up with the mischief, might give the SNP a larger working majority in any new election. This is beginning to worry some of the more far-sighted Labour strategists. They are beginning to worry that handing Salmond a minority government might actually help the SNP in its project to break up Britain. Salmond would have the Ł30bn budget of the Scottish executive at his disposal. He could simply avoid doing anything very much in parliament, while governing in a way that ensures confrontation with Westminster over issues such as Trident, nuclear power, council tax subsidies, the Barnett formula, oil revenues and so on. This is a fascinating political poker game, and the stakes are getting higher every day. There are now 22 days left before we finally see the cards." You can keep up yer rhetoric if ye want boys. It's playing right into Salmond's hands. It's fantastic having Unionists do our work for us. Thanks!

Alex, are you still struggling to understand the meaning of "democratic"?.

Can you advise the following please as you continue to make statements which are baffling?

The Libdems stated in their manifesto they would not be up for a referendum. Why is this so hard to understand? It doesn't make them anything other than true to their word, and whether you agree with them or not, it doesn't mean they should be castigated.

You say they stand for concensus, and yet surely two parties need to have common ground for such concensus? The SNP and Libdems clearly don't have this concensus.

It appears that the abuse being hurled at the Libdems is down to SNP supporters being frustrated at their lack of overall majority.

The election clearly showed the SNP as the largest party, and it clearly showed it is the smallest of majorties. This may not sit well with you but you it is factual.

It is up to the SNP to get on with it and move forward, pretty straightforward I think.

[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]iang[/bold] wrote: It is quite simply disgraceful that the LibDems will not even sit down and discuss a possible compromise. If I had voted for them I would be very angry.[/quote] But you didn't vote for them, and if you had done, it would have been because of their stated views that they were against a referendum. So why would a Libdem voter be angry now? I would think that they are happy that they are sticking to their guns. You need to look at it from their point of view rather than from the SNP point of view. They key is to try and win over Libdem voters rather than have a go at them, you will not endear yourself to anyone who thinks differently from you by abusing them.[/quote] I would hope that in a general election like last weeks no-one would vote for a party on a single policy like the referendum, Health, Law and Education policies for the next 4 years were up for discussion and yet Lib/Lab only wanted to focus Independence. I do not buy into the Idea that if you vote for a party, or even if you represent a party, then you have to agree with 100% of their policies but that is why the 3 line whip needs to be abolished.

John wrote:

iang wrote: It is quite simply disgraceful that the LibDems will not even sit down and discuss a possible compromise. If I had voted for them I would be very angry.
But you didn't vote for them, and if you had done, it would have been because of their stated views that they were against a referendum. So why would a Libdem voter be angry now? I would think that they are happy that they are sticking to their guns. You need to look at it from their point of view rather than from the SNP point of view. They key is to try and win over Libdem voters rather than have a go at them, you will not endear yourself to anyone who thinks differently from you by abusing them.

I would hope that in a general election like last weeks no-one would vote for a party on a single policy like the referendum, Health, Law and Education policies for the next 4 years were up for discussion and yet Lib/Lab only wanted to focus Independence.

I do not buy into the Idea that if you vote for a party, or even if you represent a party, then you have to agree with 100% of their policies but that is why the 3 line whip needs to be abolished.

Hannay: "Yes, you are unegalitarian because you seem quite happy with the tyranny of the minority."

Crikey Hannay. Your veneer of carefree amusement doesnt sit well with shrill comments like this.

So... parties getting representation according to the number of people vote for them is the 'tyranny of the minority' now.

Hmmm. Nope. If you dont vote, you dont affect the outcome of the election and you dont get to whinge about it either. Tyranny of the minority indeed - keep taking the meds, old boy.

all these numbers are getting tiresome. we have the result we have. i thought this top up system was designed to create results like this, so its up to the MSPs to get on with it. If Alex Salmond says he wants a referendum, give him one. If you are a democrat, or/and you believe that the union is the right way to go what is there to be afraid of? Is it one of scottish politics great unknowns; how many people actually support the Union? This is not the same as how many support the SNP, although it has served most of their needs to pretend that it is. Many former Labour members/voters who never bought into the NEW bit. Old school Liberals were never known as staunch unionists, and are there any "Tartan Tories" left. Add them to the SNP vote and the London parties are begining to worry. If they let Alex Salmond have his preferred date of 2010 we could also have a Tory government in London which would then make it a different vote entirely. Maybe thats why its his choice .

It's entirely acceptable for the Lib Dems to do whatever they so wish.

I think what rankles is that they are clearly determined to engineer a situation where they wont even talk to the SNP. It comes across as petty, and gives the impression that the LibDems are hardliners who see the SNP as 'untouchable'.

But as I said - they have no obligations. They will however be judged by the electorate on their behaviour.

Here's a question for you. What happens if we get independence under an SNP gov and then, as is natural, the pendulum swings the other way and Labour come to power in Scotland. And then they decide not to rejoin the UK because Indie Scotland is a success (just speaking hypothetically here) and we have a Labour administration able to build Scotland anew. Then the SNP's vote crumbles away because their natural supporters - those who wanted independence - start to drift away to other parties or out of politics because they've achieved their objective? And then the party fractures anyway beause, lets face it, no-one supports them because of any of their other policies (be honest). Leaving the conservatives as the opposition..... And then the pendulum swings again ... And the conservatives are in power.. In Scotland!!!!! And then a giant meteorite crashes into the earth and everybody dies. Is that what you want? Cause that's what you'll get! (apart from the meteorite bit) Any comments?

Here's a question for you.

What happens if we get independence under an SNP gov and then, as is natural, the pendulum swings the other way and Labour come to power in Scotland.

And then they decide not to rejoin the UK because Indie Scotland is a success (just speaking hypothetically here) and we have a Labour administration able to build Scotland anew.

Then the SNP's vote crumbles away because their natural supporters - those who wanted independence - start to drift away to other parties or out of politics because they've achieved their objective?

And then the party fractures anyway beause, lets face it, no-one supports them because of any of their other policies (be honest).

Leaving the conservatives as the opposition.....

And then the pendulum swings again ...

And the conservatives are in power..

In Scotland!!!!!

And then a giant meteorite crashes into the earth and everybody dies.

Is that what you want? Cause that's what you'll get! (apart from the meteorite bit)

Any comments?

[quote][bold]donald[/bold] wrote: I never voted for the SNP but they won the election, end of. What I don't understand is why such vitriol is being poured on the Lib Dems for not wanting to enter into a deal with the SNP. All the main party's manifestos had a great deal of common ground therefore I would expect the popular SNP policys will attract the support needed for them to be implemented. [/quote] That's as maybe donald, but an outright refusal from day 1 can only arouse suspicion, (given the utter vitriol poured on the SNP by all the media in the run-up to the election), that the purpose of this is solely to discredit the SNP in government from the outset and thus keep their precious "Union" intact by any underhand means possible. It's funny how the LibDems will prostitute themselves to virtually anybody, and call for referenda all over the world (except for some peculiar reason in Scotland), but under no circumstances even talk to the party they themselves admit has the "moral authority" to form the next government. The sooner we're shot of the whole rotten shower the better.

donald wrote:
I never voted for the SNP but they won the election, end of. What I don't understand is why such vitriol is being poured on the Lib Dems for not wanting to enter into a deal with the SNP. All the main party's manifestos had a great deal of common ground therefore I would expect the popular SNP policys will attract the support needed for them to be implemented.

That's as maybe donald, but an outright refusal from day 1 can only arouse suspicion, (given the utter vitriol poured on the SNP by all the media in the run-up to the election), that the purpose of this is solely to discredit the SNP in government from the outset and thus keep their precious "Union" intact by any underhand means possible. It's funny how the LibDems will prostitute themselves to virtually anybody, and call for referenda all over the world (except for some peculiar reason in Scotland), but under no circumstances even talk to the party they themselves admit has the "moral authority" to form the next government. The sooner we're shot of the whole rotten shower the better.

Harris - If that's what people want, that is what they'll get. It's called representative democracy. Labour aren't very used to it, but they'll soon cotton on.

[quote][bold]Harris Peterson[/bold] wrote: Here's a question for you. What happens if we get independence under an SNP gov and then, as is natural, the pendulum swings the other way and Labour come to power in Scotland. And then they decide not to rejoin the UK because Indie Scotland is a success (just speaking hypothetically here) and we have a Labour administration able to build Scotland anew. Then the SNP's vote crumbles away because their natural supporters - those who wanted independence - start to drift away to other parties or out of politics because they've achieved their objective? And then the party fractures anyway beause, lets face it, no-one supports them because of any of their other policies (be honest). Leaving the conservatives as the opposition..... And then the pendulum swings again ... And the conservatives are in power.. In Scotland!!!!! And then a giant meteorite crashes into the earth and everybody dies. Is that what you want? Cause that's what you'll get! (apart from the meteorite bit) Any comments?[/quote] What's your point? Is it a joke and I'm just being a bit dense and don't get it? If it's supposed to be a joke as a reply to some even more bizarre post then just ignore the following: The SNP aim toward independence because of the philosphical belief that the nation-state is the most legitimate form of governance. The SNP believe the Scottish people are intelligent, democratic, and believe the Scottish people can create a great nation-state which has a poisitive impact on its own people and on the global system. The SNP belioeve Scotland should gain equal status in the global system with every other state because the Scottish people deserve to have their voices heard in the international arena as equals. The SNP aim toward independence and so come the time of independence the SNP would essentially adopt policies that would suit the poeple of an independent Scotland and would re-name the party as something, I surmise, like the 'Social Democratic Party' or something similar. In an independent Scotland, all the parties would operate on issues that would benefit and the peoplke of Scotland and would no longer be mere branches of the LOndon parties. Thus if, in the first election in an indepednent Scotland, Labour get back in then good because it would be a Labour party that had solely the interests of the nation of Scotlan unlike the current Labour party. Furthermore, if a Conservative party get into power later on in an independent Scotland then good because it would be a party with Scotland as its sole interest. The reason people turned against Consefrvative was not because they didn't like the name but because Scotland was nothing more than an afterthought. The reason the tide has turned against Labour is because of incompetence and because Scotland is little more than an afterthought. Thus SNP aim for an independent Scotland because it is a moral imnperative to do so and it will benefit the people of Scotland. Once we gain independence and Labour or Conservative get into power then it's because the people of Scotland have expressed their democratic view. An independent Scotland would not be a one-party state but it would open our democracy and all parties would campaign on issues to benefit Scotland and her people unlike the current situation in which the Labour, Tories, Libs are but branches of their English parties.

Harris Peterson wrote:
Here's a question for you. What happens if we get independence under an SNP gov and then, as is natural, the pendulum swings the other way and Labour come to power in Scotland. And then they decide not to rejoin the UK because Indie Scotland is a success (just speaking hypothetically here) and we have a Labour administration able to build Scotland anew. Then the SNP's vote crumbles away because their natural supporters - those who wanted independence - start to drift away to other parties or out of politics because they've achieved their objective? And then the party fractures anyway beause, lets face it, no-one supports them because of any of their other policies (be honest). Leaving the conservatives as the opposition..... And then the pendulum swings again ... And the conservatives are in power.. In Scotland!!!!! And then a giant meteorite crashes into the earth and everybody dies. Is that what you want? Cause that's what you'll get! (apart from the meteorite bit) Any comments?

What's your point? Is it a joke and I'm just being a bit dense and don't get it? If it's supposed to be a joke as a reply to some even more bizarre post then just ignore the following:

The SNP aim toward independence because of the philosphical belief that the nation-state is the most legitimate form of governance. The SNP believe the Scottish people are intelligent, democratic, and believe the Scottish people can create a great nation-state which has a poisitive impact on its own people and on the global system. The SNP belioeve Scotland should gain equal status in the global system with every other state because the Scottish people deserve to have their voices heard in the international arena as equals.
The SNP aim toward independence and so come the time of independence the SNP would essentially adopt policies that would suit the poeple of an independent Scotland and would re-name the party as something, I surmise, like the 'Social Democratic Party' or something similar. In an independent Scotland, all the parties would operate on issues that would benefit and the peoplke of Scotland and would no longer be mere branches of the LOndon parties. Thus if, in the first election in an indepednent Scotland, Labour get back in then good because it would be a Labour party that had solely the interests of the nation of Scotlan unlike the current Labour party. Furthermore, if a Conservative party get into power later on in an independent Scotland then good because it would be a party with Scotland as its sole interest.
The reason people turned against Consefrvative was not because they didn't like the name but because Scotland was nothing more than an afterthought. The reason the tide has turned against Labour is because of incompetence and because Scotland is little more than an afterthought. Thus SNP aim for an independent Scotland because it is a moral imnperative to do so and it will benefit the people of Scotland. Once we gain independence and Labour or Conservative get into power then it's because the people of Scotland have expressed their democratic view. An independent Scotland would not be a one-party state but it would open our democracy and all parties would campaign on issues to benefit Scotland and her people unlike the current situation in which the Labour, Tories, Libs are but branches of their English parties.

Mikey wrote:
SNP = BNP

I would rather not dignify this **** with a response and I suggest no one else responds to his childish, juvenile and stupid posts.

Everyone seems, perhaps unsurprisingly, very edgy today. Partially, it might be because we are in a state of uncertainty, partially its because we don't know what is going on behind the scenes and anticipate skullduggery, perhaps also the thought of Jack waiting to pounce from the wings is upping the anti.
I think we have to ride out the storm.Follow developments as best we can and take action if Labour/Westminister/Lib Dems try to **** with us.

Naaaaaaaaaahhhhhh I'm actually feeling very positive leo. Then again I always feel that way lol.

I'll be quite happy with a minority government - we put through the legislation we know the Libs will vote for (assuming they haven't been ordered to refuse) and we get on with good governance until such time as the Tories have their feet under the table in No. 10.

If that isn't cheery enough I'll tell you the one about the bigot, the terrorist and the British Primeminister......you'll never believe the punchline....lol

same old ****, different day! Change the record, for heavens sake.

Why don't you people get out and start taking all your colourful but annoying election signs down instead of writing the same old crap based largely on assumptions every day.

The electorate have done their bit, let the politicians try and sort it out now. They are getting paid enough. In 1 case, more than twice that!

They are all like bananas, straight and green when they start, bent and yellow fairly soon afterwards.

StevetheBarge

Change the record, for heavens sake.

for the hundreth time that week. But then, he was never any good at detecting irony.

Angus said:

It's entirely acceptable for the Lib Dems to do whatever they so wish.

What a pity the Liberals began life on a platform of Home Rule for Scotland (and Ireland) before losing their way. I doubt Nichol Stephen knows the history of his party outside a puppet sketch on Spitting Image.

Its time for a wake up call to those that voted Lib Dem?. It is OUR money that puts them in power and its our votes that decided to give them the poor position they got at around 10% of the 50% that voted that's circa 5% of the countray called SCOTLAND...and they want to tell us what THEY want.!? This IS SCOTLAND after all and thats where the voters live and have suffered under years of Labour/Lib Dem misrule. How long will this farce continue. Get on with giving Scotland a reasonably stable political environment!. (Otherwise there will be even more serious local, regional and national repercussions). After all a government is made up of a LARGE COALITION anyway ..people AND parties and they (Independent , Green..poor few...Conservative, Labour AND LibDem) MUST work together otherwise WE will see they don't see office again! THIS IS THE 21st CENTURY. Get real salvage your pride and make up your NOT children YOU have OUR rights in your hands. Well done the SNP, Marge, Greens and Conservatives in realising the change in the OLD Guard! "All you need is Love"

Its time for a wake up call to those that voted Lib Dem?. It is OUR money that puts them in power and its our votes that decided to give them the poor position they got at around 10% of the 50% that voted that's circa 5% of the countray called SCOTLAND...and they want to tell us what THEY want.!?
This IS SCOTLAND after all and thats where the voters live and have suffered under years of Labour/Lib Dem misrule.
How long will this farce continue.
Get on with giving Scotland a reasonably stable political environment!. (Otherwise there will be even more serious local, regional and national repercussions).
After all a government is made up of a LARGE COALITION anyway ..people AND parties and they (Independent , Green..poor few...Conservative, Labour AND LibDem) MUST work together otherwise WE will see they don't see office again!
THIS IS THE 21st CENTURY. Get real salvage your pride and make up your NOT children YOU have OUR rights in your hands.
Well done the SNP, Marge, Greens and Conservatives in realising the change in the OLD Guard! "All you need is Love"

Herald & Times Group
Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy © Copyright 2001-2009 A Gannett Company