Seil Chat

.
The second poll by Lord Ashcroft in selected Scottish Westminster constituencies continues to predict a Labour wipeout in May, with the SNP tipped to take Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling's seats. Labour are ahead by a statistically insignificant 1% in east Renfrewshire (Murphy's constituency).

Overall Lord Ashcroft suggests that the general election could end in a dead heat with 272 seats apiece for Labour and the Conservatives and the SNP potentially holding the keys to Downing Street with more than 50 MPs.

As a declared SNP supporter I would counsel no complacency and maximum effort right up to and through the 7th of May. I can't help but be aware that Lord Ashcroft is a former Tory treasurer and deputy chairman of the party. His conversion to impartial pollster is 'surprising', to say the least. Let us not forget that it was that one rogue poll two weeks before the referendum showing YES ahead that precipitated the visitation of the Three Amigos, the relaunch of Gordon 'Home Rule' Brown and the tabloid nonsense of the 'VOW' as the establishment realised there was a real prospect of them losing the day.

Now the prospect of an SNP 'clean sweep' in May with the party apparently poised to wield real power in Westminster for the first time ever we see an increasing number of proposals not just for tactical voting to keep the SNP out, but for a Tory/Labour 'grand alliance' to deny the upstarts any voice in the Mother of Parliaments.

Whether traditional Labour supporters are able to stomach voting Tory under any circumstances remains to be seen, and it is hard to see how either party could retain credibility by forming a monolithic and unaccountable 'National Government' in peacetime.

We continue to live in interesting times

As I said after the last Ashcroft poll - Good Lord - what's in it for him?
Leopards do not change their spots - he has an axe to grind, and it's not trumpeting the SNP manifesto.

NickB wrote: the visitation of the Three Amigos, the relaunch of Gordon 'Home Rule' Brown and the tabloid nonsense of the 'VOW' as the establishment realised there was a real prospect of them losing the day.

Ooh! Bet they all wished they hadn't bothered heading north !!
Their efforts have backfired spectacularly leaving a lot of egg (Oops! apologies to Jim Murphy) on a lot of faces and the horrifying prospect of the SNP in control of Westminster.

jimcee wrote:As I said after the last Ashcroft poll - Good Lord - what's in it for him?Leopards do not change their spots - he has an axe to grind, and it's not trumpeting the SNP manifesto.

I agree, what is going on? How did he suddenly become a pollster? Judging from the data he publishes he must have a large staff, who pays them and where did they come from?
On the other hand the BBC ( since Alistair Campbell had Greg Dyke and Andrew Gilligan kicked out, turning the old faithful 'Beeb' into a government press outlet. ) is saying very little about it ( got to go deep into the 'Scotland bit' to find a piece by James Cook on the subject ) which suggests it may be unwelcome news, or does it? We do indeed live in interesting times

.

Ashcroft could simply be trying to scare up a tactical voting campaign, or even a lab/con coalition.

So, it would be the case that all are agreed that Lord Ashcroft ( He of the unlimited purse to conduct random polls, or alternatively the Conservative party under the smokescreen of using his name) is not doing this nefarious activity for the benefit of the current upswing in the SNP's ratings. And I suspect that there are few people (myself included) who were unaware of the said Lord until he sprung into the current limelight.
And here is a further thought which the SNP are putting about to discredit Labour.
They are suggesting that Labour got into bed with the Conservatives over the "Better Together" campaign during the referendum. What arrant nonsense. Both Lab and Con were on the same side of the fence and had a common cause, so why should they not combine on this issue as a common front?
The current peddling of conjecture is that there might be a substantial SNP presence in Westminster holding the balance of power there, and that they would lend support (piece meal) to whichever party promoted their espoused cause. This is exactly the same as what happened during the referendum, although it was underhand then (according to them), but now that it might be on the cards they welcome the opportunity to indulge in a bit of power.
Over to you, the proponents who think the SNP are the salt of the earth.

.
Earth to Jim ?

Jim might want to read the following
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 92329.html
What do you make of it?

Bill McDicken wrote:Jim might want to read the following
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 92329.html
What do you make of it?

I think that if this was done solely to deny legitimately elected Scottish MPs any influence at Westminster it would precipitate a second referendum PDQ, or failing that civil disobedience and possibly UDI. Let's face it, it would be a real kick in the teeth after all that pooling and sharing better together nonsense during the referendum.

Oh, come off it Nick B.
That "better together" was not nonsense during the referendum campaign - it was a temporary alliance of all sorts of groups who believed in the cause and fought to promote their views.
If you were promoting the YES campaign it was only natural that you would try to discredit this solidarity, and drive a wedge between them, as seems to be the current tactic.
All this rhetoric of UDI, and I use the word "nonsense" deliberately is pie in the sky when you consider a possible 40-50 SNP members in a field of 600+ being an effective tail to wag the dog.

jimcee wrote:All this rhetoric of UDI, and I use the word "nonsense" deliberately is pie in the sky when you consider a possible 40-50 SNP members in a field of 600+ being an effective tail to wag the dog.

Your deluding yourself Jim, in a perfectly split parliament you don't need anywhere near 40-50 (let alone 56!) to wag the dog.

And if the dog happens to amalgamate into a coalition of a Right Wing Party and an Even More Right Wing Party to deliberately exclude the 40-50 (or even 56!) you now have a One Party State and NO democracy.

jimcee wrote: All this rhetoric of UDI, and I use the word "nonsense" deliberately is pie in the sky when you consider a possible 40-50 SNP members in a field of 600+ being an effective tail to wag the dog.

I think you are missing the point. Any Lab/Con coalition government would be specifically to deny the SNP any effective influence at Westminster. I think the Scottish electorate would - quite rightly - take a dim view.

As for UDI - prior to 1997 that was the SNP's proposed route to independence once they had obtained a majority of the Scottish seats at Westminster (36 out of 72 in those days). Of course, this was never achieved, then devolution finally materialised and a referendum became the preferred option.

It is absolutely plain that our two SNP stalwarts have the bit between their teeth and are relying on a good SNP representation in the forthcoming UK elections to further their cause. Just how this might be achieved is not made clear, and presumably would rely on a lot of political to-ing and fro-ing between the various power brokers after the results are known.
At this stage in the game all this posturing is merely conjecture and is designed by all and sundry to try and influence voting intentions in the desired directions.
I would suggest that all the current SNP rhetoric is designed to denigrate the opposition in the hope that they might swing a few more of the NO voters over the divide into their camp, in the hope of being able to call a twice in a lifetime referendum.
As for UDI - while unable to substantiate figures, the one time it was employed in Africa was not a welcome change for it's inhabitants in the long run.
So, you two, continue trawling the media for favourable comment for your cause to purvey here on this website, but please do not expect to having it uncensored by those of differing opinion (admittedly thin on the ground at the moment)

jimcee wrote:As for UDI - while unable to substantiate figures, the one time it was employed in Africa was not a welcome change for it's inhabitants in the long run.

If your referring to Ian Smith in Rhodesia and the subsequent rise of 'Uncle Bob' (he who is supposed to have had a Zoo cooked for party food ! ). I agree, it was not a success.
But surely the UDI declared by the Americans in 1776 was a resounding success.
So the future is only what you make it.

BMcD -without going too much off topic, the US UDI was a qualified success - there are several facets of life there which are not the envy of the civilised world-
1) Their gun laws which allow periodic mass shootings of innocent people, and enshrined by the National Rifle Association
2) The extreme rise in litigation where the person is not responsible for their own actions but will usually manage to find a lawyer
to get recompense from an outside agency. This has given rise to the astronomical costs of health in the US because medical practitioners have to incur crippling insurance costs, against litigation.
3) The Jewish lobby which means that the US virtually subsidises Israel and it's belligerent stance to the Palestinian aspirations.
4) A political situation where success is dependent to a large extent on the coffers available to the contenders.
It is said that what happens in the US will eventually appear here in the UK, and probably items 2 and 4 are creeping in here, but it would be a shame if we were to succumb to 1 and 3.

Bill McDicken wrote:But surely the UDI declared by the Americans in 1776 was a resounding success.So the future is only what you make it.

I was pointing out that in 1776 the American settlers successfully shook off the British Establishment and created an independent state of their own by declaring UDI, a bit like what the Scots are likely to do shortly if the current nonsense continues.
What the settlers did with the freedom they won is a different story, much of it good, much of it dreadful. e.g. Slavery, Indian Wars. but at least it was now theirs to make.

Come on Jim C and Bill McD

'Pot Kettle Black ' gentlemen ....................... !

How 'off topic' are your most recent posts ?

I'm sure the remaining 'silent readers' of the forum would value a response to my question

to Gavin - OK we are off topic a bit in the last few exchanges, but if a poster makes an assertion about anything which I think deserves a response, I would be failing in my public duty not to respond to it with an alternative point of view.
As is the case with Bill McD's latest pronouncement - which will probably bring the subject back on track - UDI activated by whom? if the "current nonsense" (his assertion - not mine) continues. Can he and NB envisage a scenario where UDI could possibly be declared without considering the will of the Scottish people?
So - over to you SNP stalwarts - how could a UDI be activated without a further 2+ year, once in a lifetime referendum?
How much they are subscribing to current Head Office directives, or just acting on their own initiative is not stated. but if that is the current SNP policy, why has it not been rolled out for we consumers to digest?

jimcee wrote:just acting on their own initiative

I'm afraid the above is the boring truth. There is no plot or 'Head Office'.
I can't speak for Nick but I'm only offering an opinion.

Well Bill McD, I would be very surprised if there is no "Head Office" dictating strategy to bolster the troops and direct the campaign for the forthcoming hoo-ha in May- all the other "Head Offices" have their agenda.
For your lot - trash Murphy (might just be a threat) - ridicule Cameron (not really a big player North of the border - but no chance of a power sharing deal there), but significantly not a lot of positive stuff, so far, on what a utopia would be like under an SNP administration.
I realise that you are but a lone voice in the wilderness (well not exactly without a modicum of support, but currently mute) and have no daily contact with the hierarchy to direct your musings in the right direction.
I can understand the firebrand NB advocating UDI (his rhetoric has always been inflammatory) but I would suggest that it would be unwise to get carried away by fighting talk.
Anyway, continue the denigrate Murphy campaign, as you no doubt feel that it furthers the cause, and gives we followers of these postings something to think about - but do not expect to receive unqualified approval of your findings (at least from this quarter).

jimcee wrote: . . . not a lot of positive stuff, so far, on what a utopia would be like under an SNP administration.

erm . . . don't think there is going to be an SNP administration Jim.

Even if every seat fell to the SNP 59 MPs out of 650 is not really enough to form a government.