Are Scots truly that Left Wing?

Prior to the indyref, the Tories offer of further devo was actually more generous than Labours. They'll have to address the issue.

Starting, or finishing (whatever way you look at it) hs2 in Glasgow or Edinburgh (do remember we have actual places in Scotland) would benefit more of England (everything north of Leeds) than it will Scotland.

More money? That's a bit simplistic, where does it say that?

End austerity? That's a bad thing?

The SNP have stated that if the conservatives try to run a minority govt, they will seek to vote down the first vote and have a vote of no confidence. Under the old rules, this would mean another election. Under the fixed term rules, it would mean that there are 2 weeks for another party to form a govt, which would be a Labour led very minority govt, supported by the SNP (and Libs if Clegg loses his seat). The SNP would then demand huge spending increases for Scotland, an end to austerity and HS2 to start in Scotland. here and here

What could they possibly propose that the snp would agree with, though?

Snp members (esp the new ones) are very anti-Tory.

Did they rule out any support for the Tories, though? They said they wouldn't prop them up in gvt, not that if they actually proposed something that the SNP agreed with, they'd vote against it.

hirples you know what I meant . The irn Bru lady will make the decisions.
Actually, I think the SNP shouldn't have been so quick to rule out any support for the Torys, as I think that if they are in the position a)to be asked and b) to make some kind of positive difference then they should do it.

It smacks of arrogance to rule out working with them under any circumstances when they might be able to influence something for the better.

the SNP planned to run a budget deficit you mean like every other economy in the western world?*

scots Oil was not a bonus, the SNP planned to run a budget deficit after oil was included. The statement in your BBC link said that Scotland without oil had the same economic output as England, may be true, but SNP planned spending was higher than England, so oil was/is required to fund it. The truth is the SNP could not deliver thier independence promises with oil prices at the current level.

Behooven, there would be bugger-all point offering Sturgeon a coalition, since she's not even a candidate in this election and won't be sitting in WM. No, Labour are not currently offering a coalition to the SNP, and the SNP are not offering a coalition to anyone. I don't actually think entering a coalition gvt would be a good idea for the SNP, better to offer support as and when.

AFAIK Scotland is divided about independence, but is far more united about home rule/ devomax etc.

I remember Glasgow voted heavily for leaving the UK Which suggests

scotland are divided like Enland.

Doesn't every political party "do/say whatever wins the most votes"

They do, I was pointing out that the SNP do what their 100,000+ members/45% voters want.. They are not some tiny radical fringe party making up policies with no support.

itsallgoingtobefine

The SNP will do/say whatever wins the most votes. I doubt UDI would be a vote winner though.

Doesn't every political party "do/say whatever wins the most votes"?

UDI was categorically ruled out by AS at the conference at the weekend.

hirples
An alternative view might be,
'No coalition has been offered to Sturgeon by Labour, whether she might want one or not'
?

BBC Link

See also the white paper, 'oil is a bonus,not the basis' was a bit of a mantra.

Can you link to that, Scots?

Oil revenue was always treated as an extra. What you choose to accept isn't really relevant.

Hirples - I live in Scotland - I know how it would have worked.
Only Scotland voted not to go Indy, thank goodness.

iHAVE, we would still have been part of the UK, so yes, "propped up" if necessary; and still sending our taxes etc to WM, and still having some allocated back, and still have been voting in the General Election. We would not have been indy since September, as you seem to imagine, there would have been about 18 months of negotiations to sort out first, during which time we would still be governed by WM, and still be part of the UK, with everything that entails.

OnlyLovers, no coalition has been offered to Milliband by the SNP, whether he might want one or not.

Cos the SNP really HAVE listened to Scotland re the Referendum, haven't they

The SNP will do/say whatever wins the most votes. I doubt UDI would be a vote winner though.

'everyone knows there's no coaltion on offer between Labour and SNP'

Surely Miliband would go for a coalition if it were the only way into power?

So, rUK would have propped up iScotland whilst Oil prices are low...
so that's okay ... take about having your cake and eating it.

I don't accept Oil revenue was 'always an extra' by any means.

And as for the likelihood of iScotland NOT being ruled by SNP
(at least for the foreseeable).

Yes, and the moon is made of green cheese...

I am sure Nicola will argue the case for unilateral Independence just as soon as she can.
Cos the SNP really HAVE listened to Scotland re the Referendum, haven't they?

Yes, we'd have had the same gvt we have now upon actually gaining indy, but as you say ScotsWhaHae, we'd have been at the polls within weeks. I suspect another SNP majority gvt might well have been returned the first time, but thereafter we'd have seen a lot more from the Greens and SSP, maybe new parties too. Yes, it's a loss, but we must look to the future now.

"And who says we'd have had an SNP gvt in an indy Scotland anyway? "

Fair point, many have just taken it purely for granted that SNP would have got in first had we had the Yes majority last September, but we would have had to go back the polls to vote in which party we wanted, not necessarily SNP would have governed an iScotland.

"It still makes me sad and angry we're not going to see all that but onwards and upwards!"

Who knows, Nicola Sturgeon may be able to argue a case for a unilateral declaration of independence at some point in the future....