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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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!!!

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 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

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.

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.

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.