Miliband;”No Labour – SNP Agreement” – HOW?

[Isitmebut]

Mr Miliband is being tricksy here, especially as he states that ‘he’d refuse to be Prime Minister’ rather than have A (or any) formal agreement with the SNP’ - as firstly, their policies for years and current manifesto’s offer the same direction of travel, and secondly, the combination of the two opposing the Conservative’s in Westminster ENSURES the Conservatives can not form a government, with Cameron, or anyone else as Prime Minister.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/nicola-sturgeon-says-the-snp-would-prop-up-a-labour-government-even-if-the-tories-had-a-40seat-lead-10200407.html

We can look at the Westminster math in a moment, but;

• When Labour/Miliband proposed legislation to slow UK budget deficit/National Debt reduction, would the SNP agree? YES.
  

• When Labour/Miliband proposed legislation for more government borrowing to ‘invest’ in unspecified government projects when we currently have £1.5 trillion of national Debt, would the SNP agree? YES.
  

• When Labour/Miliband proposes tax rises on any asset/wealth as the ideological tax rises currently proposed could cost, rather than raise tax receipts when we currently have an £87 billion annual overspend, would the SNP agree? YES.
  

• When Labour/Miliband guarantees that UK citizens have no democratic right to an EU Referendum, no matter what happens, or the costs, of a continually stagnant Europe looking for higher UK contributions and bringing in ever more EU citizens looking for work, would the SNP agree? YES.
  

• When Labour/Miliband proposes numerous £££ ‘incentives’ to Scotland on his own initiative in order for them to vote for Labour again in 2020, would the SNP agree? YES.
  

In fact the SNP Ms Sturgeon via her new deputy in Westminster Mr Salmond, has stated that through her experience in Scotland when in opposition, the SNP could exact a price - for every legislative SNP block vote supporting the main Westminster party in government, which can ONLY BE Labour, as she refuses to support any Conservative legislation.

The math is simple, explained better in the OP of the link below, but as there are 650 Westminster parliamentary seats, if neither Mr Cameron or Mr Miliband who have no current chance of a majority and are still on course for around 277 MP’s each – the SNP with its current 55 seats plus, will not just control the UK parliament, but will only support a Labour government.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2360007-Conservative-UKIP-Coalition-EU-Referendum-HOW

So the Amazing Mr Ed lips moving saying ‘there will not be A agreement with the SNP’, is trying to make a horses arse out of all of us, as there will be NUMEROUS agreements with the SNP – and all can be done on a nod, or wink of an eye.

[Isitmebut]

And if anyone in England thinks what is the problem with more taxes on England, going north of the border, ask yourself when Scotland calls reducing an annual UK government budget deficit/overspend of (currently) £87 billion "austerity" - please don't feel too sorry for them, they ALREADY get far more UK money spent on them per head, than YOU do.

”The Barnett Formula Explained”
news.sky.com/story/1336911/the-barnett-formula-explained

”The formula, strictly speaking the Barnett settlement, allocates state spending between the nations of the United Kingdom. The end result is wide disparities between the per-person spending of up to £2,000 a year in those nations.”

England gets £8,500 Per Head

Scotland gets £10,100 Per ‘ead.

[Shouldof]

The points are that a) he doesn't need a deal because ultimately snp will back labour rather than Tory without a deal and b) he's challenging Scotland to vote labour, is giving theme he fear that voting snp will put the Tories in.

I thought it showed balls personally...

[Isitmebut]

"Balls"?

Miliband has basically written off Scotland for THIS election, but please tell me the difference of the Labour-SNP hold on Westminster without a Conservative majority thanks to UKIP - if the SNP had less seats in Scotland, and the Labour Party had more seats in Scotland?

Cameron can not be PM under either circumstance and only Miliband can, so what will he say when the SNP won't let Cameron form a government therefore 'forced' to work with the SNP; 'I know what I promised the citizens of the UK before the election, but I'm, being 'forced' to go back on my word'.

I reiterate, tricksy.

[Isitmebut]

lostinikea ... you are correct, so if the people of England does not want the SNP 'tail', wagging the Labour 'dog' - the only answer is as close to a Conservative majority as possible.

[Shouldof]

I'm not sure i understand your question but clearly if labour had more votes in Scotland and snp had fewer then labour would get a majority, that would be the difference, but I suspect I haven't understood your question correctly.

[Shouldof]

Sorry should have said majority, or near enough.

[ImperialBlether]

But you can't have SNP in a coalition - it would be madness. Their interest is purely in Scotland - okay, that's their right, but who the hell would want them making decisions on the rest of the UK? Their ultimate goal is to separate from the rest of the UK - it would be lunacy to be in a coalition with them.

[Isitmebut]

Shouldof .... may I suggest that you look at the link I provided; the SNP block whether 40 or 59 will be key, especially when the Welsh, Greens and god knows who else have STATED that they will not work with a minority Conservative government.

[Isitmebut]

P.S. The mumsnet link near the bottom.

[Isitmebut]

P.P.S. Remember, a majority will be around 325 votes.

[Isitmebut]

..or MPs even. D'oh.

[CinnabarRed]

But you can't have SNP in a coalition - it would be madness. Their interest is purely in Scotland - okay, that's their right, but who the hell would want them making decisions on the rest of the UK? Their ultimate goal is to separate from the rest of the UK - it would be lunacy to be in a coalition with them.

Exactly what Imperial said.

I actually think it would be morally and ethically wrong to form any coalition with the SNP or Plaid. Not because there's anything at all wrong with people voting for them, that's democracy, but because you shouldn't have regional interest parties determining the policies of the entire nation.

[ginmakesitallok]

But we've had regional interest parties in charge of the UK for years?! You're not seriously telling me that the Tories give a fuck about anywhere apart from southern England? Would be fabulous to have SNP (i.e Scotland!) have some more influence over UK policies

[CinnabarRed]

OK, overtly regional parties!

[JackSkellington]

"Stay part of the UK, but make sure your parties don't have too big a say!" is basically the message here, which is sad.

[DinosaursRoar]

Milliband is playing chicken with scotland - lots of voters seem to think that what will happen if they vote SNP enough, there'll be a Labour/SNP coallision and in order to get that, Labour will have to agree to some of the SNP policies that aren't shared. This is the only way really that a Labour can form a government with less seats than the Tories (which might well happen if the Tories can't form a coallision of their own to get enough seats for a majority).

Effectively, many people are saying what they want is a Labour/SNP coallision, so are voting SNP in a hope that Labour won't have enough seats to go it alone/with the LibDems so will have to do that.

Milliband is saying no, it's not an option. They might vote with us, but we won't make them part of the government, so if he can't form a coallision without SNP or have enough seats to government just as Labour, then it'll be the Tories.

There is also a moral argument that the party with the most seats should make up at least part of the government, it will be very hard for Labour to be credible as the party in power if they aren't the biggest party.

There is no SNP government option for the whole of the UK, so people in scotland have a choice, Conservative or Labour. Both are ruling out working with SNP - that's not an option however much you want it. If you want Labour to be in power, vote for them.

[PausingFlatly]

So how do you feel about Ulster unionists?

Their goal isn't to separate from the UK, but the level of fuck they give about rUK is None Whatsoever. They've been in alliance with the Tories for decades, sometimes just bagging special treatment for NI, sometimes holding the whiphand over the whole UK like at the end of the Major govt.

I don't understand why we're suddenly getting exercised about Scotland, when the problem has been around for years.

[Shouldof]

Is it me, yes I know those votes are key and i know how many mps are a majority, but you haven't addressed my points at all

[DinosaursRoar]

oh and no, I don't think the Conservatives particularly care about Scotland that much, they basically wrote off getting any seats there a few elections back, and have stopped trying to 'woo' the Scottish vote.

If the whole of Scotland also rejects Labour, the worse case senario for Scotland would be for Labour to be able to form a government with no Scottish seats. If they can do it on their own or with the LibDems, what incentive do Labour then have to favour Scotland in policies over regions who do vote for them?

The Tories have given up on Scotland. Labour currently haven't given up, 2-3 elections without any Labour seats in Scotland will change that.

[Shouldof]

Exactly dino! But op refuses to address this point...

[Blistory]

It amazes me that anyone could think that the SNP have the balance over power over English interests.

The SNP, no matter what happens, will have a minority of seats. Add in every other party excluding Lab and Conservatives and they still have a minority of seats.

The only way these parties can have an influence on English issues is if English MPs vote on those issues - if there is an issue that is specifically English, the smaller parties have no say other than to top up what is already a vote by English MPs.

The smaller parties can only have an influence on party issues, not national issues. So if the SNP and others all wanted to impose something on England, they simply couldn't as they have an overall minority. It would require a significant number of English MPs to vote in favour which would mean it's a party issue, not a national issue.

English MPs, if they choose to join together on an issue, can force anything they'd like on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland regardless of how Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote. Because English MP's will ALWAYS have a majority so if England gets policies they don't like, look to English MP's first.

[TarkaTheOtter]

Surely Scotland gets more tax money per head because it costs more to provide services when the population density is lower. I expect there is variation between the regions in England too.

[Bramshott]

I thought it was a fairly stupid statement. Surely what democracy means is that if significant numbers of people vote for a party, it's the duty of the other parties to talk to them in the event of no overall majority? It's sheer arrogance to suggest otherwise. SNP look set to become the third biggest party in the UK in terms of seats, its not up to Westminster politicians to say "oh, we only meant the parts of the UK that we like".

[DinosaursRoar]

I guess it depends what the SNP want as a condition of going into a coallision - if Labour already know that they won't be prepared to meet the demands of SNP, then it's worth saying it now in an attempt to get one or two more seats in Scotland, rather than afterwards, wasting days trying to form a coallision.

It makes much more sense for Labour (esp if they know they aren't going to be able to form a coallision, and there will be quiet talks going on about which parts of the manifestos are 'would like to have' and which are 'we won't form a government without doing X') to say to the Scottish voters "this won't happen" if they know it won't work with the SNP - at least Scottlish voters will know what they are voting for.