This was the one thing he's said this entire campaign that's disappointed me, because as much as the Tories tactics have been to scare people into a Labour/SNP coalition or 'propping up', I'd actually be very excited about that prospect because the further left they'd push Labour the better for me.

Having said that, he has in effect called the SNP's bluff as Joey's explained. Vote down their Queen's speech and allow the Tories a pathway into power. The ball's in their court now.

Me too, Jack. I would love to see a Labour/SNP coalition too.
I feel,if it was successful, it could even mean a more unified UK and a long, long spell of the fairer more compassionate policies being enacted for a good few elections to come too.
A really appropriate re-alignment of the left that has been craved for,even by many in the Labour party, for ages now.

I'm glad to see he's come to terms with it early.

The prospect of the SNP representing fewer people than live in Birmingham, in a coalition to lead the whole UK is something surely no English person would vote for.

That isn't the point with full respect,in my view anyway.
We are a democracy and votes are not the issue, we operate a first past the post system to elect an MP, and MPs can be elected with a tiny proportion of votes in seats as voting is at present.,
Any MP elected to Westminster has the same equal right to be there as all the others.

If there is the 50+ MPs democratically elected from Scotland then they have every right to make their voice heard and influence govt; anyway they can.

Every MP in the country elected could win their seat by 1 vote but they would be no less an MP.

If Scotland is part of the UK and we hold UK elections,their democratically elected MPs are no less relevant than any other from anywhere else in the UK.

It could yet still be this coalition carries on,with the Conservatives winning 34% of the vote and the Lib Dems taking 10%.
No majority of votes there possibly either.

The boundary commission lays out the boundaries for constituencies across the UK,Scotlands seats have fallen from over 70 to 59.

Valid constituencies, a valid election, democratically voted for MPs for said constituencies, not being elected for window dressing, or to make up the numbers for the elite at Westminster but to fully represent their voters and constiuents, just like any other MP elected from anywhere in the whole of the UK.

All equal MPs,until we change the voting sytem to pr,the only qualification for being an equal in Westminster is to be democratically elected in the UK.

If David Cameron for instance,was 6 seats short of an overall majority and the DUP had say 9, they would a say in the running of govt; even with those much smaller numbers if it was possible.

I personally see not a thing wrong with the SNP sharing power at Westminster,in fact it may give Westminster the kick it so badly needs and wake the main parties up to treat the other Nations of the UK with more respect.

Yes Joey, every MP has the right to be there. But if the SNP forms a coalition, and they're all down here merrily making laws for England... but the English aren't allowed to do the same for Scotland because they have their own parliament, I'm not sure that's going to sit well, and that's how the average voter's going to view it. We'll see. I honestly don't think it would happen. But if it does, there will be a backlash, that is my prediction. I don't share your faith in the SNP. Why you should think they are the ones to give Westminster a kick up the backside is beyond me. They have the interests of Scotland at heart, and only that.

I do like the SNP, if they were standing in England I would likely vote for them and certainly would if I lived in Scotland.
I think there would be a backlash no matter who may be involved in govt; as to whether it is UKIP, or the DUP or the SNP.

Well that is good,in my view, if they have the interests of Scotland at heart,that shows integrity and dedication.
The Westminster govt; is supposed to be the UK govt; not just the English govt; like the last 2 govts; have appeared to think they are, by often showing scant regard for the other Countries that make up the UK.

I believe in concensus politics and I do now believe until something drastic happens that shatters the 2 party system as to see saw govt:
Then concensus politicians from all parties all over the UK,will never get their more moderate voices heard.

It is a government for the UK yes, but as there is no English Parliament it's flawed in my opinion. Anyway joey, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

This is a slight misrepresentation of the process though, isn't it? Scotland does not have devo-max and to say that we have been unaffected by Tory policies over the last 5 years is false. Resoundingly false. And Scotland simply as a rule of thumb does not vote Tory. Effectively making the conservatives an "English party" or, if we're being honest, a SOUTH of England party, which has merrily been making horrendous decisions for Scotland for the last 5 years, and even moreso in the 80's.

If we are a United Kingdom and Scotland votes for 50+ SNP MP's in the general election then, surely, that's that. You can't have it any other way without saying that Scottish votes don't count in the total at all, no matter which party they're for, surely.

That's exactly right, there wouldn't be any complaints from the tories or the labour party if all those seats were going in their direction rather than to the SNP. It is either a union or it isn't, last time I checked, it was a union, so all seats are of equal value in the UK parliament

I agree with all that Toy Soldier.

Then England must make a govt, they can't hijack the UK parliament.

I still think though that the issue of a second referendum is not cleared up. Sturgeon keeps saying that its for the Scottish people to decide when a next referendum is, well how do they decide? Do they have a referendum on a referendum? It seems more likely that if the SNP win a clean sweep in Scotland this year, and if they also greatly improve on their seats in the Holyrood elections, then that will be taken as a mandate to argue for another vote. I can't see how there can be a better way of the Scottish people 'deciding' they want a second referendum than the majority of them voting for the Nats in consecutive elections. I'm not saying this to belittle the SNP because I actually think it would be fair for them to argue for another referendum given how Scottish politics seems to have developed in the last twelve months, I'm just genuinely curious about what Sturgeon means when she says that a referendum will be whenever the people decide in favour of one.

I'm convinced that Salmond stood down because he gave a personal undertaking that there would be no further calls for independence in a generation. Sturgeon has no need to hold to that commitment. I think Sturgeon will pick her timing well. If the SNP end up with more than 50% of the available Scottish seats, I take that as an automatic mandate to hold a referendum, it then falls to when she thinks it has the greatest likelihood of success. Call me cynical, but I think her agenda is best served by a conservative government, so while she will be making noises about get the tories out and we want to work with labour, if her ultimate aim is independence, then she will be doing all in her power to get the tories in.

I think you might be right. I may also be being cynical but I can envisage a situation where the SNP undermine a Labour government and boost the Tories in order to aid their referendum hopes. Not because they're foaming at the mouth Anglophobes but because it may actually make sense for them to do so. There could be a short-term political loss in undermining Labour but that would be balanced against long-term hopes of independence. And even that loss could be softened if they said they were opposing a Labour government based on principled stances like anti-austerity. Labour seems to be banking on the SNP not having the nerve to ever oppose them, but the SNP could say that the fault lies with Labour if they put forward legislation that is not progressive enough. And as a Labour minority got more and more insecure, the more that the SNP could extract from them and the stronger their hand becomes. If that culminates in a request for a second referendum then I won't be that surprised because they would actually have a mandate to argue for that based on their representation in Scotland.

I would not be so cynical of the SNP's intentions if they were upfront about a second referendum, but, as much as they say this election is not about that, the very fact they are refusing to be clear and making vague statements like "it's for the Scottish to decide" makes me think they have a greater plan in store than merely locking the Tories out of Westminster

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/...0510205610.jpg
Scottish independence protesters demonstrated in front of Labour supporters today and played The Muppets theme tune

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3Ywg6dTc9

the welsh are in the same boat too

She will need to get a mandate from the Scottish people to ask for one and get the proposal through the Scottish parliament first again too.

The earliest she could try that,which may be unwise to, is in the Holyrood elections next year,she could put in the SNP manifesto for that election the desire to seek another referendum.
Were she then to get an overall majority in the Scottish parliament, she could then demand same from the UK govt; who again however would have to approve such a referendum.

She couldn't just demand one now without a further mandate from the Scottish electorate.
Which is why no referendum is mentioned in the current SNP manifesto for this UK general election.

I think she will get one eventually in the future, she is there as leader for the next 10 years at least I would say.
With a lot of uncertainty about now however, I cannot see her looking for a referendum until after the next UK general election.
I could see an independence proposal being in the SNP manifesto for Holyrood elections in 2021 but not next year 2016.

What a mess

I all seems like paranoia to me, based on current predictions if the SNP were to join a coalition, would they have enough MPs to get any proposals passed?

They don't want a coalition and Labour would never have one with them either.
The current predictions have Conservatives 280 - 285,Labour 273 -280,depending on where you look,the SNP are estimated to get 50 -55 seats.
Joined with Labour,they and Labour alone would have the majority in parliament,and also have in addition the support of Plaid Cymru,Greens and the SDLP in Northern Ireland too.
bearing in mind too, Sinn Fein do not take their seats in Westminster.

That would only leave the Conservatives with the DUP,(possibly as the DUP have not been impressed with Cameron's rhetoric as to the SNP),the Lib Dems and UKIP.
On those figures above, no way could the Conservatives command a parliamentary majority in any shape or form unless the Lib Dems hold more than 35 of their seats with the Conservatives nearer the upper end of their 'possible' tally of 285.

What all SNP MPs do have however,after being fully democratically elected in a 'UK' general election, not an English only one

Is the full and absolute right to support whatever party it thinks is best to govern the whole UK and then to fight like anything to get the best deal for the constituents of every SNP MP too,that is totally understandable and natural..
Just as those elected in England, Northern Ireland and Wales have the right to vote how they wish in the UK parliament,not needing to be told how they should by any other party.

It is only paranoia on David Cameron's part because the SNP have said they will in all terms,tell him where to go.
Were the SNP open to working with a Conservative or Labour led govt; he would not be saying what he is now with the same extreme rhetoric.

I would be happy with a Labour/ SNP alliance don't get me wrong, what I'm saying is it's all whipping up mass hysteria that even if there were these 50+ SNP members in the UK parliament it wouldn't be catastrophic... anything that is proposed by anyone is voted on they aren't going to get anything passed on 50 votes are they?
It's all just tory scaremongering as they are terrified of having to relinquish their stranglehold.

Correct me if I am wrong, but given that labour have turned down the opportunity of any formal alliance with the snp, the snp numbers cannot be used when it comes to deciding who forms a new government. So labour are going to have to win more seats than the tories outright, or hope that the lib dems dont get wiped out and do a coalition with them.

It's a hypothetical question, nobody knows what will happen after the election so all the tory squalling about what ifs is equally as irrelevant by that token.

Its not hypothetical though is it, unless labour are going to renege on Ed's declaration the other night.

Anything could happen, we will have to see. My hypothetical is still relevant however as it's a nod to the fear created by the tories, when all anyone need to be frightened of ultimately is them.