To wonder what the scots are thinking

[Ruperta]

If the exit polls are to be believed then tge Scots will have massively turned out in favour of SNP. This is less than 12 months after voting no to independence.

Why then vote SNP? Have they shot themselves in the foot or are the Scottish going to be protected from the welfare cuts that are going to be imposed on us? Are there NHS and education budgets more protected? Honest questions as I'm very confused!

Feeling very disappointed

apintofthebest They could have put an armadillo up as SNP candidate in some constituencies and they would have got in.

It wasn't very long ago at all that people used to say Labour could put up a monkey in most parts of central Scotland, and it would still get voted in.

I think its concerning that the SNP will be able to pass whatever legislation it wants on devolved matters, with no effective opposition. There is no second chamber, so in effect it could do whatever it wanted, within the limits of UK constitutionality (which is unlikely to be exercised) and the Court of Session's willingness to intervene. There is no constitutional court either, and judicial review for example of decisions that affect an individual by a public authority is the only check - and permission for them hardly ever granted.

I don't think voting pretty much en masse for one party (in the past Labour) has served Scotland that well actually.

I thought this was happen, and I'm glad DH and I sold up when we did.

The Chandler - our house is on the market. I asked DH this morning how much we'd probably have to sell for now to get out - his reply 'Thruppence ha'penny'. I think he was joking.

I've just posted on another thread - less snp votes than yes votes and almost the same turnout so they haven't managed to mobilise the yes vote and the disgruntled (allegedly) no voters at all.

I'm clinging to hope here, please don't burst my bubble.

voluptua I live in Scotland, the only candidate at my door was SNP. Other parties just stuffed leaflets through my letterbox but it was almost like they were too scared to engage with the electorate

I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. I wouldn't feel safe discussing my political views in Scotland right now.

I try to avoid reading some of the most vile stuff on Facebook, but one of the candidates for a non-SNP party posted the usual campaign updates, and I couldn't believe some of the responses. I've read bad before with the referendum, but this was in a different league. Some of them were threats, most of them were misspelled garbage, abusive is too mild to describe it.

The worst thing is that it wasn't the usual rabble with too much time on their hands to fill the internet with their views, I recognised three of the posters. One of them is a college lecturer, the other two have fairly good jobs. I really can't help thinking that some kind of madness has come over them to write vile, abusive stuff like that and to put their names to it. Nothing wrong with expressing your political views of course, but saying stuff like you hope someone ends up paralysed and lying in a hospital bed after the election is unnecessary. And that's one of the milder comments!

Thank heavens there is no second chamber. The last thing progressive politics needs is a house of unelected old fuddy duddies given office by the current party in power and costing the taxpayer a fortune.
Devolved issues in Scotland have been trundling happily away even when the SNP held a minority government. Perhaps the result last night is based on performance and people can see they actually do not a bad job of running a country.

2rebecca I agree they are more left wing than labour, but so too are the greens, with an identical agenda except for the nationalism. That's what makes the difference, along with a charismatic leader. In fact I find it all rather disturbing in a "learning from history" sort of way. Nationalism never ends well.

I hear what you are saying. Have heard some downright horrible things said by people who I thought were above that sort of thing.

I leafleted for our local MP during the campaign, and tried to engage with a few people. What a bloody nightmare that was - no interest in reading up about any alternative policies at all. Bit of vitriol, luckily not directed at me personally, but dearie me, the language!

But that's the key, Labour are no longer left enough and that is why these other parties have stepped in to fill the void. They have moved too far right to win marginal Tory seats and in doing so have lost sight of what they represent. They offer no real opposition to the Tories. Balance is always required.

In this house the Scots are shaking their heads and wondering if the country has gone mad this morning

Hers some examples:

"why would we want to beat SNP ? GYTF if yer nae happy move the F**CK down beside the other bams in London"

"Take the long walk bak to london uve nae chance job centre 4 u on fridy its snp al the way"

"Remember Thatcher, well thats why you will never get elected , you are Scum now jog on"

"You are a total wanker, waken up and smell the cod piece."

"Havin a laugh are you not time to lay down your crook and poke your flock"

"Getifuhyabassa"

That's just from one post alone. Its literally never-ending.

Am I unreasonable in saying I would like to see Scotland as a country where you are free to express your political views without being subjected to vile abuse? Maybe the more fair and just Scotland should consider making political harassment a criminal offence? I just do not see this in any other country, and I have lived in a few.

I second the poster who said the snp should lead UK politics as a whole. I'm an English person and like all the SNPs other policies other than scottish independence as they are more left wing than labour but more centrist than the greens. My boss and I were both discussing yesterday that we'd vote snp if it was on offer in England!

I hate the vitriol on any side. Such insults are negative and show up the person saying them to be ignorant. Most folk, thankfully, aren't like that

Figment 2rebecca I agree they are more left wing than labour, but so too are the greens, with an identical agenda except for the nationalism. That's what makes the difference, along with a charismatic leader. In fact I find it all rather disturbing in a "learning from history" sort of way. Nationalism never ends well.

I don't know if I'm convinced they are more left wing actually. They certainly sing that song quite well, because they know that's what will win them votes (along with popular bribes, giving cronies jobs and tolerating abuse and intimidation).

But they don't really behave like left wing parties in parts of the world which have reasonably successful versions of socialism. Scandinavia is dominated by Jantelaw (in Sweden, lagom), which is basically a code of conduct that people base their lives around, based on not getting too above yourself.

"1.You're not to think you are anything special.
2.You're not to think you are as good as we are.
3.You're not to think you are smarter than we are.
4.You're not to convince yourself that you are better than we are.
5.You're not to think you know more than we do.
6.You're not to think you are more important than we are.
7.You're not to think you are good at anything.
8.You're not to laugh at us.
9.You're not to think anyone cares about you.
10.You're not to think you can teach us anything."

I think there are two reasons the Scotts might have swung to the SNP.

1. If they had propped up Labour they could have pushed the whole country to the left, and Scotts are to the left of the UK political spectrum. They hoped for a Labour prime minister, but with more control over him. Completely rational.

1. A lot of power really is devolved to Scotland now, so Westminster is more remote and less important to them. They vote to send SNP candidates to Westminster the way English voters send UKIP candidates to Brussels. It's a chance to cause a little bit of trouble and stick up two fingers to a remote power you don't care much about.

I very much doubt the SNP will have an absolute majority in the Scottish elections. In this election because it was FPTP many Greens/SSP etc were voting SNP tactically.

In the Scottish elections people will vote in a much more varied way.

2rebecca SNP didnt give scotland free tuition fees libdem and labour did. I think im all out of political debate ive nowt left to say

A second chamber does not need to be unelected.

There are however real and genuine concerns about the lack of ability to check any legislation in the scottish parliament as it is. It was set up in such a way as to not be fit for current purpose.

Indeed RJnomore. There are examples from all over the world of effective second chambers.

I'm surprised the SNP hasn't produced plans for its reforms, along with a proper draft constitution and producing some policies to make Scotland environmentally a better place to live in, along continental lines. Such as cycle paths, encouraging planning departments to build new suburban roads with pavements as standard, dealing with corruption in Edinburgh city council - little things that make people's lives a bit more pleasant, away from the class-war headline grabbers.

A second chamber may be elected of course but it would be yet another layer of bureaucracy which costs taxpayers money. There are enough layers already, any more will just drive voters to distraction.

But its really only the Politbureau in Russia that relies on committess as a revisionary structure in the western world!

voluptua are you really saying that the SNP are not interested in creating a proper democratic, parliamentary structure for Scotland?

Why on earth would Scotland want some half heated attempt at a legislature and parliament, absent in the features of most modern democracies?

Perhaps the scrutiny would not be welcomed for some reason?

Agreed TheChandler. I feel like the current Scottish Government are (deliberately?) not making the best use of what they can already do. There is plenty they could already do, but I feel it maybe suits them better to not do so and claim X, Y and Z were only possible in an independent Scotland.

Perhaps the scrutiny would not be welcomed for some reason?

Surely not!

The committee system is very dependent on who is chosen as chairperson, as they are in control of what questions are asked and how long witnesses are permitted to speak for.

I've pointed out that we have a political constitution in the UK, and that Scotland is no different in this regard. That means the Government is limited from stepping out of line by political pressure.

We also have a legal constitution in that the courts will also limit governmental power when cases are brought before them. That isn't often.

The problem is that there is a lacuna in Scotland because we don't have a single written constitution, a second revisionary chamber or a constitutional court, and Westminster is clearly going to be pressurised politically from interfering with what the SNP does in Scotland.

I'm sure that Nicola Sturgeon, as a qualified solicitor, is aware of all of this.

Just throwing that idea out there