[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Whatever else may happen in Scotland and I've never had a problem with the SNP leading in Scotland.
In fact I'd have welcomed previously a Labour/ SNP coalition at Westminster
There's virtually NO Party that hasn't had scandals of something or other.

One thing I'd love to see in this election and that is the SNP beating that awful Andrew Bowie in Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine.
He really for some reason gets right on my.nerves and infuriates me.

So Id love to see him out, beaten by the SNP this time.

I'm still stuck on knowing where to stand.

A good representation of Scottish Nationalism is important for Scotland, even if it's not for independence, that buffer of... err... "Scotland First" has been a life-saver on many issues north of the border.

However, I do think the emboldened SNP need reigned in a little for obvious reasons.

What I can't decide is whether it's better to have:

1) A non-SNP Scottish branch of Labour in Holyrood, with a strong SNP presence down in London.

or

2) SNP still dominating in Edinburgh but a reduced SNP (and increased Scottish Labour) presence in London.


I'm leaning slightly towards option 2 because with (presumably, lol who knows) a Labour Westminster government... Scottish Labour MP's stirring the pot down on London with same-party colleagues might be better than the "loudness" of 40+ SNP seats.

I'd also be wary of too many Labour (or really, too many non-SNP) MSP's in Edinburgh because Labour controlling both is inevitably going to result in a weakness when it comes to the possibility of Scottish decisions slowly shuffling south.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I'm still stuck on knowing where to stand.

A good representation of Scottish Nationalism is important for Scotland, even if it's not for independence, that buffer of... err... "Scotland First" has been a life-saver on many issues north of the border.

However, I do think the emboldened SNP need reigned in a little for obvious reasons.

What I can't decide is whether it's better to have:

1) A non-SNP Scottish branch of Labour in Holyrood, with a strong SNP presence down in London.

or

2) SNP still dominating in Edinburgh but a reduced SNP (and increased Scottish Labour) presence in London.


I'm leaning slightly towards option 2 because with (presumably, lol who knows) a Labour Westminster government... Scottish Labour MP's stirring the pot down on London with same-party colleagues might be better than the "loudness" of 40+ SNP seats.

I'd also be wary of too many Labour (or really, too many non-SNP) MSP's in Edinburgh because Labour controlling both is inevitably going to result in a weakness when it comes to the possibility of Scottish decisions slowly shuffling south.

The more scottish labour mp's there are, the more cabinet posts they are likely to fill. Much more power than the rowdy SNP in the corner

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The more scottish labour mp's there are, the more cabinet posts they are likely to fill. Much more power than the rowdy SNP in the corner

I just couldnt vote labour now after the blood scandal cover up. Dont know how anyone could.

[arista]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I just couldnt vote labour now after the blood scandal cover up. Dont know how anyone could.

Valid Point

[bots]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I just couldnt vote labour now after the blood scandal cover up. Dont know how anyone could.

i just can't bring myself to vote for any party, i was in the same position at the last election.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I just couldnt vote labour now after the blood scandal cover up. Dont know how anyone could.

There's no party that doesn't have one scandal or another though so you either have to pick one, or not vote. IIRC the blood scandal spanned both Labour and Tory govts. in the 70's and 80's, it didn't end until the early 90's.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

There's no party that doesn't have one scandal or another though so you either have to pick one, or not vote. IIRC the blood scandal spanned both Labour and Tory govts. in the 70's and 80's, it didn't end until the early 90's.

I've voted one that wasnt involved in the blood scandal.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I'm still stuck on knowing where to stand.

A good representation of Scottish Nationalism is important for Scotland, even if it's not for independence, that buffer of... err... "Scotland First" has been a life-saver on many issues north of the border.

However, I do think the emboldened SNP need reigned in a little for obvious reasons.

What I can't decide is whether it's better to have:

1) A non-SNP Scottish branch of Labour in Holyrood, with a strong SNP presence down in London.

or

2) SNP still dominating in Edinburgh but a reduced SNP (and increased Scottish Labour) presence in London.


I'm leaning slightly towards option 2 because with (presumably, lol who knows) a Labour Westminster government... Scottish Labour MP's stirring the pot down on London with same-party colleagues might be better than the "loudness" of 40+ SNP seats.

I'd also be wary of too many Labour (or really, too many non-SNP) MSP's in Edinburgh because Labour controlling both is inevitably going to result in a weakness when it comes to the possibility of Scottish decisions slowly shuffling south.

I'd never advise but I think you're looking at the more appropriate option.

I don't think the SNP have been bad in Holyrood.
If I was in Scotland then I could be persuaded by them to support them.

Westminster as you say, especially IF Labour win and as yet we don't know if it could be a moderate or big majority IF they do win.
So Labour MPs from Scotland would more likely get better for Scotland than SNP ones at Westminster.

I wish you good luck in whatever you decide SB.