To not want the SNP to form part of teh next government.

[AICM]

I have nothing against the SNP but they have (obviously) got their own agenda.

I want the next government to put the UK first not Scotland.

The English aren't properly represented. I think it was Tony Benn who said 'If you can't vote out the people who make your laws you don't live in a democracy'. I think he was talking about the EU but the same applies to Scots MPs pushing through laws that only affect the English. If the SNP get the balance of power as a Scottish interest party the situation this creates will only get worse as it will mean more and more punitive laws are passed against the English who won't be able to vote out the people swinging those votes. Meanwhile the Scots will be given further and further privileges to keep them sweet.

I think it's a situation which is potentially going to lead to civil disorder and the only reason it hasn't so far is because the people worst affected are the most likely to be so polite they meekly accept it.

It's perfectly right that if SNPget enough votes they have the chance to form part of the government. I think the problem arises because there would be the opportunity to influence English policy on devolved matters (ie where Scotland have separate exclusive decision making powers for Scotland). That is the issue I see with it.

They do deserve representation. Just not on laws that won't affect them.

Well you kindly answered for in your 'thought not' comment.

I remember that time- I didn't like it, I had concerns the influence they had, many people I knew felt the same.

stooriehouse You only have to put up with the Tory agenda for matters which concern the whole UK. The fact that it was different under Thatcher (before devolution) was the result of a long historical development for which not even Maggie could be blamed. That's no reason to set up the same unfairness in reverse now. As ReallyTired said, we need similar devolution in England. Not an English Parliament; the MPs for English constituencies could double in that role. But our own government, and the same matters devolved to it as are devolved to Scotland for Scotland.

Take an obvious example: Right to buy. It's being abolished in Scotland and probably in Wales; I don't know about NI. But the Tories want to extend it to HA properties. Now let's suppose that the next election leaves us with a Labour government dependent on the SNP and perhaps PC for a majority, but more Conservative than Labour MPs in England. It would be monstrous if that government could abolish RTB in England - it does not matter significantly to the people of Scotland or Wales whether RTB exists in England or not.

Janine at the time you refer to there was no devolution. That's the difference.

Would forming part of the government imply voting on everything? Have the SNP said anything about a policy change on this, or is the idea that they currently don't participate in some votes just informal?

It's what happens in a democracy. People have to tolerate parties and policies they haven't voted for.

I remember only too well the fury I felt when Thatcher implemented the poll tax in Scotland before the rest of the UK. The Tories had one or two MPs in Scotland at the time. As part of the UK we had to suck it up.

I feel the same way about Cameron. I detest the values of the Tories but every few years I have to tolerate their policies.

The SNP are a UK political party representing UK citizens. I wish that wasn't so but it is. If they form a coalition, which I doubt, they will have been given that opportunity by UK citizens.

I wonder if Dave is regretting his impassioned pleas for Scotland to stay as part of the UK. I do hope so.

It is informal. Nothing to stop them voting on any Bill or question they want to.

What does devolution have to with it Andrew?

I am interested to know which different ethnic group Nicolas sturgeon blames?

Janine At that time the House of Commons had and exercised responsibility for all matters over all parts of the UK. Now it does not.

Yes, Andrew, but what I meant to ask was whether any sort of coalition meant you'd have to step up and vote on government policy where they might not have in the past?

Sorry, the pronouns got a bit mixed up there.

FYI Andrewofgg NI Unionists supported Tory governments between 1921 and 1972, during which time there was devolution in Northern Ireland.

YesILikeItToo I don't see how a coalition can work unless the smaller party agrees to turn out and vote with the bigger party as and when required to make sure the coalition wins its votes - as the LDs had to vote with the Tories in the last Parliament.

I'm actually getting really sick of this, and I'm English living in England so god knows how the Scots feel.

The SNP have as much right to be in Government in Westminster as any of the other British parties. The Tories weren't voted in, they don't represent me, they do very little for anyone based outside of London.

I'd much prefer a coalition with the SNP in than one with UKIP in.

Janine I know, and while the the UUs did not normally show their faces in Westminster on GB matters they did when the vote was close, as on the nationalisation of steel in 1964/5.

But it's forty years since the end of Stormont and we should have moved on.

The SNP are a Scottish political party who will fight for the poor of Glasgow (for example) They have no interest in the common good of the UK and no special interest in the poor of Sunderland over those of any other foreign country.

I thought so too. Why change the approach, though? Was it not based on some sort of principle? this seems interesting to me, but maybe it's boring, I haven't seen any material about it.

Janine You may remember the Republican MP from the Parliament of 1974-79 who hardly ever appeared but when he did usually voted with Labour. On the night of the great vote of confidence in March 1979 which led to the end of the Callaghan government and the advent of That Woman the Toires hoped he would not show, but he did - and then did not vote. One of the Tory whips went to ask, just out of curiosity, why he had bothered,and he said On an occasion like this, I felt I had to come and abstain in person!

I'm not too bothered really.

Previously after an election the 2 main parties have been able to change their manifesto and do what the heck they like. They'll have to get agreement from other minor parties now and I like that. It's more democratic IMO.

If you're referring to Gerry Fitt, he wasn't a Republican MP (and would probably spit if you called him that).

No, I remember now, his name was Frank Maguire.

As for Fitt, in 1964 his party label was Republican Labour. I remember it.

the struggle of the poor in Sunderland are probably very similar to the poor in Glasgow. Maybe, just maybe, having a political party who wants to help one, will benefit the other. Or are we not Better Together after all?
Referendum jibe aside, maybe I'm naive, but I think that the SNP will vote on UK wide issues in line with their policies, and if it benefits the poor of Scotland (or just indeed the ordinary people of Scotland), there is no reason that it won't benefit the ordinary people of the rest of the UK.

And tbh, a minority government where issues are dealt with on an individual basis might be better. Avoids this having to vote on issues that don't affect you problem (if a coalition agreement was reliant on that)