Should voting be made compulsory?

[Saracen]

and herein lies the issue ITS BRITAIN AND THE UK, not the english. And the tories have had rule up here for years even though they have rarely had more than 3 MP's from Scotland and currently there is only 1.
There are 4 countries and various islands/states making up the UK and the SNP don't hate the english (as a whole), they simply want the right for Scots to govern Scotland. If thats not going to happen then holding a sway vote that can help ensure the best for Scotland is the next best thing.

You are kidding, right??

Rarely had more than 3? Well, apart from a brief aberration in 1906-1910, when it dropped to 7 or 8, it's not been in single digits since, well, about 1880, until post-Thatcher days. And for the entire post-war period, up until Thatcher's poll tax, they've had 20 to 35, rising to 50 in the 1931 election.

You also seem to be missing the point. The SNP are effectively saying they'll hold the balance of power, and exert it in favour of 5 million Scots, over the wishes of 58 million non-Scots.

Personally, I think the SNP game is obvious. The objective is independence, and the current tactic (referendum having failed) is to so alienate the rest of us, especially the English, that we want independence from Scotland. It seems to be working admirably, too.

That said, I don't think the SNP are going to have anything like the influence over Labour (assuming a Lab win, but no majority) that they think. If Labour are seen to give in too much, they risk HUGE reputational damage where the bulk of their voters are, and in areas they MUST carry to win power, that could put them out of power for a generation i.e. the south east, east, mand south west.

If they give in too much, they might get power now at the cost of huge, long-term damage for a very long time.

[Biscuit]

Dareos, I appreciate the like on my comment, but you do realise that this also goes for the 'promises' put forward by the SNP?

As a born and bred Northerner (read - full on typical Yorkshireman), and part of family that's proud of our Scotish roots, I like the tunes that the SNP sing, but they are still just as empty as the other parties.

[excalibur2]

Another way of looking at voting is :- what's best for you or the country, do you consider the future for your children or grand children or just want the remaining years of your life (when old) to have the least problems and with a decent pension like most countries in the EU......difficult choice to make in which party to choose as history shows you receive more benefits under labour but they always ruin the economy, while under the conservative the economy is better and you have to rely on better benefits only because the economy is doing well...which is a difference.

[Andy3536]

Tram fiasco was down to a council. Not a government. Oil prices fluctuate. That's life.
Scottish governments are not the one putting the uk in massive debt, invading countries we have no business being in and putting our country at risk from terrorists because of it
The very fact a nuclear deterrent is needed shows what a terrible job the past UK governments have done.

I don't think the reference to oil was prices, but how much the SNP claimed there was when there wasn't.
It was also Labour in power at the time of the global economic meltdown, which recieved a large part of it's support (or did at the time) from Scotland. Same goes for coutries we invaded which we shouldn't. Scotish Labout MPs, (scotish PMs in Blair and Brown too don't forget) were part of that process.
The current government is one of the best performing in the west on the econemy, recently recieving praise from the IMF. It was a global economic meltdown after all, the fact that were coming out of it, 'not quite as bad as others' is at least something. We could be France/Greece/Spain etc etc...

[Dareos]

Yes i do Biscuit, politicians as a rule are people i dislike, professional bull********s most of them
I meant in my lifetime Saracen

The bottom line for me is this - MP's at westminster appear to be in it completely for themselves, it can been seen in the turnout for votes on pertinent issues, it can be seen in the expenses scandal, the paedophelia coverups, the 11% wage rises when other professions like nurses get less than the cost of living increases. The tuition fees, the old boys club and so on and so forth.

I am not saying that MSPs are any better, I'm just saying they haven't been caught yet.

Saying that, theres very little of the public schoolboy mentality about the SNP imo, very little of the entitled rich boy that thinks its ok to use public money to have his moat cleaned or hedge trimmed around the helicopter landing pad, or sell a 2nd house for profit or claim £3000 for a £300 lunch.

Its no secret that I want Scottish Independence, I want Scotland to be run by the Scottish people, not to the detriment of others, but for the betterment of my country, and then hopefully the betterment of all.

So far the SNP have done their best to deliver on every promise they have put forth in their home campaigns, we have had no backtracking and no outrageous lies, people have pretty much got what they were promised, and i respect that.

[Dareos]

I don't think the reference to oil was prices, but how much the SNP claimed there was when there wasn't.
It was also Labour in power at the time of the global economic meltdown, which recieved a large part of it's support (or did at the time) from Scotland. Same goes for coutries we invaded which we shouldn't. Scotish Labout MPs, (scotish PMs in Blair and Brown too don't forget) were part of that process.
The current government is one of the best performing in the west on the econemy, recently recieving praise from the IMF. It was a global economic meltdown after all, the fact that were coming out of it, 'not quite as bad as others' is at least something. We could be France/Greece/Spain etc etc...

Brown wasnt even voted in by any of the public and Blair is as much a Tory as anyone. There is plenty of oil there, funnily enough lots on the west coast where it cant be drilled for because of Trident. And oh, right after Independence count shows a majority for the status quo then Cameron announces the finding of a new oil field
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_6034738.html

[ik9000]

The very fact a nuclear deterrent is needed shows what a terrible job the past UK governments have done.

That very deterrent is the only reason there wasn't a war with the USSR. Pretty good job done by previous governments on that one IMO.

Scottish governments are not the one putting the uk in massive debt, invading countries we have no business being in and putting our country at risk from terrorists because of it

No, that was the labour government, run by a cabinet dominated by Scottish MPs, with a chancellor of reckless spending and wastage of public funds (just like those Trams) with a racked up debt that nearly bankrupted us. All that Austerity cutting the SNP is whining about is due to the preceeding labour craziness in an aim to foster an air of affluence in a time of credit-fuelled binge gambling with the national coffers. Had that cack-handed managing of the economy overseen by a Scottish MP not taken place, maybe we would all be better off for it. But of course, a Scottish led parliament will do SO much better. Yeh right.

[Andy3536]

Brown wasnt even voted in by any of the public and Blair is as much a Tory as anyone. There is plenty of oil there, funnily enough lots on the west coast where it cant be drilled for because of Trident. And oh, right after Independence count shows a majority for the status quo then Cameron announces the finding of a new oil field
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_6034738.html

The Oil that the SNP 'claimed' no where near matches what was there. You may have a new oil field, but exploritry drilling is getting less and less, there's also less and less oil coming out of the ground. A new oil field doesn't change that.
The only 'significant' find in the UK since the referendum is this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...st-Sussex.html

It doesn't matter if Brown was voted into power or not, or if you think Blair was a Tory. Along with a number of other Labour MPs voted into office in Scotland they voted for the war. This wasn't an 'English war' as you seem to like to think. It was a war voted for by MPs right accross the UK including Scotland and led by the PM who was a Scotish MP.

[Biscuit]

That very deterrent is the only reason there wasn't a war with the USSR. Pretty good job done by previous governments on that one IMO.

The only reason? Come on dude...

[ik9000]

The only reason? Come on dude...

Not wishing to boil the cold war into a single sentence, granted, but it's worth remembering things got seriously fraught more than once, and both sides state the spectre of nuclear holocaust was a significant reason people at times didn't just let fly and go for it. A restraining influence is no bad thing.

[Saracen]

....
I meant in my lifetime Saracen

.....

But then, the assertion still doesn't hold water.

I don't know what your lifetime is, but the Tories had substantial representation (seats) in Scotland until 1983. In the period since, which is some 32 years, we had

- 14 years of Tories
- 13 years of Labour
- 5 years of coalition.

Given the LD influence, the coalition is NOT tory rule, and there are numerous examples of LDs blocking Tory plans (such as an EU referendum, or boundary changes). And 13 years of Labour is certainly not Tory rule.

As for Scottish independence, I can entirely respect that objective. If that's what Scots wanted, so be it. But it wasn't.

Given that, another way to look at it .... under the PR system used for EU elections, my region of England is substantially bigger, in terms of population, than Scotland. And there are NINE regions in England, one of which is smaller than Scotland.

I think what sometimes gets up Scots noses, in terms of being 'ruled' by someone you didn't want (post 1983, anyway) or vote for, is that you see yourselves as somehow equal to England and in population (and therefore votes) terms, you aren't. You're a very small part of a very much bigger whole. Of course you'll sometimes be ruled by someone you didn't vote for. So is my region of england, and we're a lot bigger.

[Biscuit]

I would say that the statement, 'the spectre of nuclear holocaust was the sole reason there wasn't an all out war with the USSR during the cold war' is a reasonably plausible statement, but is far from the idea that having a nuclear arsenal is key to preventing a nuclear holocaust in 2015.

[ik9000]

I would say that the statement, 'the spectre of nuclear holocaust was the sole reason there wasn't an all out war with the USSR during the cold war' is a reasonably plausible statement, but is far from the idea that having a nuclear arsenal is key to preventing a nuclear holocaust in 2015.

REally? Let's see how the next 10 years pan out and then chat some more on that.

[Saracen]

The only reason? Come on dude...

It may well have been. Did you know plans were drawn up for war with Russia as early as summer 1945, by no less that Churchill? It didn't happen as the US wouldn't go along with it.

The prospect, since then, of conventional war descending into an unwinnable nuclear conflagration may well be what stopped that conventional war.

But the simple truth is we know more or less what happened with the presence of nukes, but NOBODY knows what would have happened if we, and the Soviets, hadn't. Whether renewing Trident will or won't prevent future war is, similarly theoretical, though IMHO, very probable.

[Biscuit]

REally? Let's see how the next 10 years pan out and then chat some more on that.

I'm also not saying a nuclear deterrent is entirely unnecessary by the way, I just think people draw a hard line in the sand and say yes or no, nothing in between is relevant. This mentality is exactly what is abused by parties at this stage in the cycle and it fuels this utter extremist madness around issues that should be far more granular than that.

[Saracen]

What is there in-between? Surely, either you have a deterrent capability or you don't?