Are Scots truly that Left Wing?

Nicola Sturgeon is really impressive. I think I will vote SNP.

I am scottish, but I've lived in scotland and England, and have friends in both. DH and I are both higher rate taxpayers and will be voting SNP. Friends with similar income in England are voting Tory. I'm not voting SNP for independence (although I was, and always will be, a Yes voter) - I'm voting for them because I believe they are the party that will make society fairer and better for everyone.

I'd say that most of the new members of the snp (now 3/4) are more left wing.

There are plenty in the old guard who aren't though, especially in rural and affluent areas.

There was a purposeful shift within the snp a few years ago by smart people who realised that if they were ever going to make any real headway into Scottish politics they'd have to move left and attack labour in their ex industrial heartlands (where they'd been taking voters for granted for decades). It has certainly worked and whatever the final seat count in May 'Scottish' labour needs a serious re shake if it isn't destined to become like the Scottish Tories.

I'll be voting SNP because their policies are inclusive and seem designed to protect more vulnerable people in our society. There's a sense of never looking down on others unless it's to give them a hand up. They are popular for a reason and, instead of drawing battle lines at the border, it might be worth looking at why that is. [weesaltirewaving]

The oil price issue is utterly irrelevant; had we voted Yes we wouldn't be independent yet, and that whole fiasco has shown the difficulty of economic projections; no-one expected what has happened.

However, the indyref was last year. The decision has been made and there's no point rehashing it. The SNP are looking forwards to the GE in May, so am I.

The SNP are the only reason there was an independence vote. They promised it in the manifesto, and David Cameron agreed it due to respect for the democratic process.
The SNP did lose the vote however because people like them spending money, but are terrified of them raising money.
Also interesting how no-one has mentioned the oil price issue which would have bankrupted an independent Scotland.

ROFL @ "Are you creepy Jim."

The SNP need a sister party in the rest of the uk, to give everyone a left leaning changing party to vote for x

I'm voting SNP because they are the party whose policies I agree with most and also due to their stance on independence. The GE will be interesting as our current MP strongly backed a No vote, but the breakdown after the referendum showed our area to have a clear majority of Yes voters.

The Yes campaign also had support from the Green Party and the SSP, as well as the SNP. Then there was Labour for Indy and many hundreds of other groups, "X small town/English/Asians/Women/Business/Veterans etc for Indy". And of course many people who didn't align with any of these groups but voted Yes. All of us were on the losing side, not just the SNP, and not just Nicola and Alex.

To call Nicola, specifically, a "loser" when her conference speech got her a standing ovation from 3000 attendees, she has the highest popularilty rating of any UK politician, and the party she leads is riding so incredibly high in the polls is frankly petty and mean-spirited.

Are you Creepy Jim?

Of course the SNP were part of the Yes campaign. No one has argued otherwise. They weren't the whole thing though.

They weren't in it themselves. The actual Yes campaign was full of people from many different or even no political party.

It wasn't a party based vote.

Carol, you are talking nonsense. Scotland pays into the Westminster coffers.

OllyB, yes all those goals are great, but not sure how the SNP would achieve them by simply blocking or disrupting things they don't want, which is most likely to be all they will be able to do. There might be some small case by case victories if they are working alongside a minority labour government, but even then, labour aren't going to want to have to GI cap in hand to SNP all the time. It's going to be messy I think.

No, grimbletart, Nicola's party did not lose the indyref, because it wasn't a party-political issue. The Yes campaign lost. Nicola did not lead the Yes campaign.

I see. So, the Yes campaign, of which Nicola was a leading light and all-round rent-quote along with Salmond (who will lead the Westminster SNP continent and on his past statements thinks similarly to Nicola about voting to keep the Tories out) did not lose because the SNP was not a part of the Yes campaign. Riiiiight! The loss of the referendum was nothing to do with her. Got it.

What I am trying to say is that when comparing parties for Westminster, you are normally looking at the balanced picture of spending and taxation. When voting for Holyrood, you are only looking at spending because they choose not to use the tax changing powers they have. They also blame Westminster if there is 'insufficient' money to honour thier promises. They do not have the responsibility of a national party.

Olly The SNP do not set tax rates or rules.

My point about tax was that the SNP do not raise any, they spend the Barnett formula money provided by the Westminster govt, so always blame Wesminster/the English for not providing enough.

Where have all my taxes been going then? (All income earned and taxes paid in Scotland)

Scotland pays more in than it gets out. See this BBC article - and BBC has been very anti SNP.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267

I think Scottish MPs voting on England only issues is wrong. But that's not the SNP's fault.

Scottish labour MPs voted in tuition fees for English students in the full knowledge it would not affect their constituents.

My point about tax was that the SNP do not raise any, they spend the Barnett formula money provided by the Westminster govt, so always blame Wesminster/the English for not providing enough.
They are the 'Disney' parents of politics.

The SNP disgust me. Last year (funnily enough, referendum year), £444m underspend by the scottish government while blaming westminster for cutbacks.

If causing trouble means a focus on restoring the NHS, widening access to education, balancing economic measures in favour of the vulnerable rather than the privileged, then you might be right.

Maybe it is a desire UK wide OllyB, but how will English voters feel if Scottish MPs disrupt things based on a purely Scottish agenda, which presumably is the SNPs raison d'etre. I think it will piss off a lot of people. But who knows? It is definitely a weird one this time, and the old system is not working. Change is often difficult, and messy.

Still think Sturgeon will want to cause trouble, and by that I mean put a spanner in (certain) works and hold certain people to ransom. I don't feel much trust.

Oh, does that mean I can stop my one-woman boycott of JL? I agree the media distorts so much it's hard to know what to believe.

It's about undermining Westminster and wanting change.

And I think that's a desire UK wide - not just in Scotland.

I don't believe Sturgeon did say she would "cause trouble". One thing we learned from the IndyRef is how much the media distorts what is actually said. It was widely reported that the Chairman of John Lewis said that prices would rise if the vote was yes. On listening to the interview, he said no such thing, and was actually completely neutral on the vote.

No problem, Topaz, I thought it would be something like that! And I do have the odd "harpie" moment...

OllyB, I don't think they will see SNP MPs as a breath of fresh air. I think a lot of English et al voters will resent them. And they will cause trouble, that's not in doubt. Sturgeon has said as much this week.

I think a lot of people are ready and willing for this type of 'big shae-up' to happen though, which is why they are going to vote SNP, rather than it be about policies. It's about undermining Westminster and wanting change.