A fair assessment of the SNP?

[Beet]

Obviously I know nothing about it, but I found this curious, and was wondering if anyone here could help me verify whether this person is onto something or not.

[Famous Mortimer]

This person sounds like an angry Labour hack. He's attacking the SNP for not magically getting everything done while in power. I doubt he would hold his own party to the same standard.

If you're the type of person who won't vote Democrat because Obama is a sell out, yes, you should be wary of the SNP.

If you're a reasonable leftist though, you should be excited by their success.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Fianna Fáil Alba

[Mechaman]

This person sounds like an angry Labour hack. He's attacking the SNP for not magically getting everything done while in power. I doubt he would hold his own party to the same standard.

If you're the type of person who won't vote Democrat because Obama is a sell out, yes, you should be wary of the SNP.

If you're a reasonable leftist though, you should be excited by their success.

Yes, the idea that the post Blair Labour Party is somehow a much better vehicle for Social Democracy for Scots is laughable.  Maybe this is just my background showing, but I really don't get the progressivism behind this notion that British governance has a monopoly on progress, which is what many anti-SNPers imply with their "keep Scotland British!" talking points.

Seems more like the 19th century colonialism to me than anything.

[traininthedistance]

This person sounds like an angry Labour hack. He's attacking the SNP for not magically getting everything done while in power. I doubt he would hold his own party to the same standard.

If you're the type of person who won't vote Democrat because Obama is a sell out, yes, you should be wary of the SNP.

If you're a reasonable leftist though, you should be excited by their success.

Yes, the idea that the post Blair Labour Party is somehow a much better vehicle for Social Democracy for Scots is laughable.  Maybe this is just my background showing, but I really don't get the progressivism behind this notion that British governance has a monopoly on progress, which is what many anti-SNPers imply with their "keep Scotland British!" talking points.

Seems more like the 19th century colonialism to me than anything.

It's not that British governance has a "monopoly on progress" or anything like that, it's that the SNP's agenda is fundamentally at the whims of North Sea oil royalties, which anyone with half a brain should recognize as not a very well-thought-out plan, given the reality of super-low worldwide oil prices right now, as well as the fact that said North Sea Oil ain't gonna last forever.

And, uh, back in the day the Scots were some of that island's most eager colonizers.

[Famous Mortimer]

I'm sympathetic to the SNP but "colonization" rhetoric is simply stupid. Scotland was not colonized. The King of Scotland became King of the Britain. There were Scottish Prime Ministers. Scots were not discriminated against. Scots could vote. They not only had the same political power as English, they probably had disproportionate clout.

Similarly, the rhetoric from the other parties about "nationalism" is laughable. All night they were trying to imply that the SNP is the National Front or that Nicola Sturgeon is Slobodan Milošević. Ethnic nationalism is not big among Scots. In fact, when the SNP campaigned on ethnic pride, they were a marginally force. It was only when they started framing things as "if Scotland were independent, it could be super left-wing" that independence caught on.

[Lief 🗽]

Scottish nationalism is only marginally less stupid than Texan nationalism or Californian nationalism or whatever. Actually it may be more stupid, since at least California and Texas would be viable independent states.

And as traininthedistance pointed out, the Scots loved 19th century colonialism. It worked out very well for them.

[Mechaman]

I'm sympathetic to the SNP but "colonization" rhetoric is simply stupid. Scotland was not colonized. The King of Scotland became King of the Britain. There were Scottish Prime Ministers. Scots were not discriminated against. Scots could vote. They not only had the same political power as English, they probably had disproportionate clout.

Similarly, the rhetoric from the other parties about "nationalism" is laughable. All night they were trying to imply that the SNP is the National Front or that Nicola Sturgeon is Slobodan Milošević. Ethnic nationalism is not big among Scots. In fact, when the SNP campaigned on ethnic pride, they were a marginally force. It was only when they started framing things as "if Scotland were independent, it could be super left-wing" that independence caught on.

Yeah that was more towards what I was going with.

My original post was a bit strong and I admit a hell of a lot of personal bias on that front.  However, to me a lot of the reactionary "anyone but SNP" rhetoric seems to imply that the Scots simply do not have it in them to govern in a left wing fashion unless they are part of the UK.  And given the track record of UK Labour in the past couple of decades I don't believe that party deserves too much faith from the left wing Scots, given that said party was responsible for Blairite Third Way policies that were only marginally more liberal than Clintonianism.  Scots might not have been discriminated against, and I am not at all claiming they were anti-colonialists, but the rhetoric about how Scotland can not govern on it's own sounds a hell of a lot like British rationale for conquering much of the third world in the 19th century.

The lack of faith is disturbing to say the least.

As for Traininthedistance's points, I don't deny the oil issue.  It is a very complex issue that the SNP and other pro-independence parties have to work through without becoming too in bed with big oil.  That is a problem, just like many of the founders of the Irish Free State had to work out how the economy was going to work whenever they first got into power (for the record, I am not the biggest fan of how that turned out, especially given the overly pro-Gaelic culture rhetoric of Collins and de Valera).  They also encountered much the same resistance and claims by people in Britain that they could not have a self-governing and self-reliant state.  I don't believe that my claims about a certain kind of bias on the minds of people opposed to the SNP is unwarranted.

[ingemann]

The idea that Scotland would not be a viable state are not only ridiculous, it show a complete lack of understanding of what make a state viable. Let's look at the other side of the North Sea, where Sweden and Denmark are the only Nordic countries with higher population than Scotland (and Denmark only barely). Some of the most well funtioning eastern European countries are Slovenia and Estonia, both which have less than half the population of Scotland.  

[Famous Mortimer]

Again, I don't know if the doom and gloom rhetoric about Scotland not being able to make it on its own is based on imperialism. I do think it's dumb. I think it's so dumb that people saw through it and it pushed a lot of people towards the independence side.

I always maintained that the pro-union side should have been honest. If Scotland became independent, no much would change but that's exactly why it's stupid and unnecessary. I think the comparison to state nationalism in the US is spot on. Sure, California could be a country on its own but why? What makes them so incompatible with the US?

If you talk about how Scotland is going to become a third world country, or turn into Bulgaria or something, people aren't going to take you seriously.

Regardless, I don't think anyone was making the argument that only London can bring progressive change (at least not honestly or forcefully) I think people were making the argument that London won't be able to bring progressive change without Scotland. Vote against Scottish independence, not for your own sake but for the sake of all the left-wing people living in England, who, again, are not significantly different from you.

[ingemann]

There's nothing wrong with pushing a continued union because of some kind of common British identity (what we usual call nationalism) or because it's to the benefit of both England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to stay in a union. But to suggest that Scotland should stay in the union to save the English from the evil Tories they keep electing, well that's like suggesting a wife should stay in a abusive relationship to keep her drunkard husband from drinking himself to death.

[Torie]

Yes, the SNP is an opportunistic party. But that does not make them much different from many parties. What bothers me is their fundamental dishonesty. I mean what is there purpose for running for seats in Parliament? Other than trident, their policy positions were really not much different from Labour in this election, and they claimed the election had nothing to do with the Scottish independence issue. But how many voters in Scotland voted for the SNP because of the trident matter? Next to none most probably.

No, it was in fact all about independence, and that is the sole reason for the SNP's existence. They lied about what they were all about, but didn't fool anybody south of the Scottish border. And they did a darn good job tanking Labour most everywhere in the bargain. The sooner Scotland gets out of the UK the better. A majority of them are a bunch of whiners, and enjoy having others pay their bills, even while at the same time, wanting to sever off. The sooner Scotland gets out the better in my view. The hell with them. Let them wallow in their own incompetence, as will be found out when they exit. In the meantime, they are wasting far too much of England's time and energy, and are a distraction. Perhaps there should be another vote at the same time as the EU vote that will be coming over the transom in due course, and can also vote on staying in the EU if the independence vote passes - assuming, which may be a problematic assumption, that the EU will let them in.

End of rant. Thank you.

[The Free North]

Scottish nationalism is only marginally less stupid than Texan nationalism or Californian nationalism or whatever. Actually it may be more stupid, since at least California and Texas would be viable independent states.

And as traininthedistance pointed out, the Scots loved 19th century colonialism. It worked out very well for them.

Disagree. Texas and California were marginal republics that were quickly taken under the US wing. Scotland has a history of separatism from England, was its own independent country forever, has suffered as a result of being the paradoxically lesser partner of the personal union with England (Since Scotland PUd England). So not not only does it have a legitimate history of nationalism, but the scots have a reason to be angry with the English.

Texans and Californians have no such interests.

[Хahar 🤔]

No, it was in fact all about independence, and that is the sole reason for the SNP's existence. They lied about what they were all about, but didn't fool anybody south of the Scottish border.

I don't know what this means.

[Torie]

What I am saying is that it seemed intolerable to many in England that Labour would have to rely on the votes of a party whose real agenda was about a Scottish exit and not about what they claimed in this election.

[Vega]

The SNP have no where but down to go next election (assuming their still part of the UK).

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, the SNP is an opportunistic party. But that does not make them much different from many parties. What bothers me is their fundamental dishonesty. I mean what is there purpose for running for seats in Parliament? Other than trident, their policy positions were really not much different from Labour in this election, and they claimed the election had nothing to do with the Scottish independence issue. But how many voters in Scotland voted for the SNP because of the trident matter? Next to none most probably.

No, it was in fact all about independence, and that is the sole reason for the SNP's existence. They lied about what they were all about, but didn't fool anybody south of the Scottish border. And they did a darn good job tanking Labour most everywhere in the bargain. The sooner Scotland gets out of the UK the better. A majority of them are a bunch of whiners, and enjoy having others pay their bills, even while at the same time, wanting to sever off. The sooner Scotland gets out the better in my view. The hell with them. Let them wallow in their own incompetence, as will be found out when they exit. In the meantime, they are wasting far too much of England's time and energy, and are a distraction. Perhaps there should be another vote at the same time as the EU vote that will be coming over the transom in due course, and can also vote on staying in the EU if the independence vote passes - assuming, which may be a problematic assumption, that the EU will let them in.

End of rant. Thank you.

If Canada is a relevant example, twenty years from now, no one will care about the whining.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The SNP have no where but down to go next election (assuming their still part of the UK).

Unless they pick off Orkney .

[Torie]

What bothers me is their fundamental dishonesty. I mean what is there purpose for running for seats in Parliament?

See here:
http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf

By the by, have you never perchance come across any instances of "fundamental dishonesty" from your own local party of preference?

The sooner Scotland gets out of the UK the better. A majority of them are a bunch of whiners, and enjoy having others pay their bills, even while at the same time, wanting to sever off. The sooner Scotland gets out the better in my view. The hell with them. Let them wallow in their own incompetence, as will be found out when they exit. In the meantime, they are wasting far too much of England's time and energy, and are a distraction.

I really don't know where one finds the arrogance to presume that an independent Scotland would be some sort of failed state. "Wallow in their own incompetence", " a bunch of whiners", what offensive rot.

By the by, what great plans of England has Scotland been standing in the way of? What great achievements are the Scots malignly preventing by monopolising England's "time and energy"?

Well I suppose if there were not all this chatter about Scotland, that does not necessarily mean that the time saved would be devoted profitably to other tasks. We do know the Scotland issue had a huge impact on the recent election. I am not suggesting that Scotland would be a failed state, but they would lose their subsidies, and their standard of living would presumably fall some, particularly as the oil runs out. They certainly won't have the money to pay for the welfare state that the SNP proposes, absent spending someone else's money. If Scotland is willing to have a lower standard of living in exchange for independence, that is certainly their right, and their choice.

I am skeptical how devolution would work, or even if it is wise, given that most of the UK's population is in England. If I ran the show in the UK, my tentative view, would be that Scotland can choose to be in or out, but nothing particularly is going to be given to it to induce/bribe it to say in, and it's up to them to decide, but the rest of the UK is not going to spend much more time or energy on it. If Scotland wants to leave, good riddance. That seems to be the emerging majority opinion in England from the opinion polls.

[Velasco]

Torie, I have carefully read your posts because the argumentation is familiar to me. We have separatist parties and stateless nations in Spain (I'm from there) and had endless discussions on the subject. Even though I'm not a big fan of the SNP, I disagree with your point of view both on the "purpose" and the "fundamental dishonestity". Their stated purpose is clear in the SNP manifesto and it's not different from similar parties in other countries. I doubt people in Scotland got fooled by SNP. Scots know perfectly what is the SNP about and still they gave the party the mandate to represent them in Westminster, in spite of the negative vote a majority of them cast recently on independence. As for the second point, it can be argued that Cameron is fundamentally dishonest on the issue of the EU referendum. I've been reading that the British PM could campaign for a yes' vote, providing that the UK stays in the EU under more relaxed conditions. Many advocates of European integration have always seen the reluctant UK as an obstacle towards the realization of that goal. Wouldn't be more politically honest just leave?

[Torie]

Torie, I have carefully read your posts because the argumentation is familiar to me. We have separatist parties and stateless nations in Spain (I'm from there) and had endless discussions on the subject. Even though I'm not a big fan of the SNP, I disagree with your point of view both on the "purpose" and the "fundamental dishonestity". Their stated purpose is clear in the SNP manifesto and it's not different from similar parties in other countries. I doubt people in Scotland got fooled by SNP. Scots know perfectly what is the SNP about and still they gave the party the mandate to represent them in Westminster, in spite of the negative vote a majority of them cast recently on independence. As for the second point, it can be argued that Cameron is fundamentally dishonest on the issue of the EU referendum. I've been reading that the British PM could campaign for a yes' vote, providing that the UK stays in the EU under more relaxed conditions. Many advocates of European integration have always seen the reluctant UK as an obstacle towards the realization of that goal. Wouldn't be more politically honest just leave?

I don't see what is dishonest about Cameron saying he wants to try to get a better deal from the EU, and from what I read, he's likely to get something from Merkel. If it is more cosmetic than real, than Cameron has a tough decision to make about which way to go on the EU referendum. He's party is deeply divided on the issue is my impression.

Did the SNP get many votes from those who voted "no" on Scottish independence? My impression is that they did not. And how many voted SNP because they felt Labour was not left enough, as opposed to it being mostly about the independence issue?  Anyway, whatever the dynamic, I would be very surprised if Scotland is still part of the UK ten years hence.

[Velasco]

I don't see what is dishonest about Cameron saying he wants to try to get a better deal from the EU, and from what I read, he's likely to get something from Merkel. If it is more cosmetic than real, than Cameron has a tough decision to make about which way to go on the EU referendum. He's party is deeply divided on the issue is my impression.

The dishonesty is in the fact that Cameron and the Tory party don't believe in Europe. Probably Cameron and a part of the British Euroesceptics fear adverse economic consequences if they depart, so they try to get the best advantages possible while they oppose any attempt of further European integration. For many people in the Continent, that's simply blackmailing. Don't you see a certain parallelism with the SNP? They would like to achieve the independence of Scotland, but as long as they don't get it they want to get the best deal possible: further devolution.

Did the SNP get many votes from those who voted "no" on Scottish independence? My impression is that they did not. And how many voted SNP because they felt Labour was not left enough, as opposed to it being mostly about the independence issue?  Anyway, whatever the dynamic, I would be very surprised if Scotland is still part of the UK ten years hence.

That is a question that I'll leave for Brit posters. The fact is that SNP got 1/2 of the vote in Scotland and won a clear mandate. It's plausible that there's a wide range of motivations behind that overwhelming support. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that they didn't run a campaign focused on independence, but on the defence of Scottish interests in Westminster.

[Torie]

I don't see what is dishonest about Cameron saying he wants to try to get a better deal from the EU, and from what I read, he's likely to get something from Merkel. If it is more cosmetic than real, than Cameron has a tough decision to make about which way to go on the EU referendum. He's party is deeply divided on the issue is my impression.

The dishonesty is in the fact that Cameron and the Tory party don't believe in Europe. Probably Cameron and a part of the British Euroesceptics fear adverse economic consequences if they depart, so they try to get the best advantages possible while they oppose any attempt of further European integration. For many people in the Continent, that's simply blackmailing. Don't you see a certain parallelism with the SNP? They would like to achieve the independence of Scotland, but as long as they don't get it they want to get the best deal possible: further devolution.

Did the SNP get many votes from those who voted "no" on Scottish independence? My impression is that they did not. And how many voted SNP because they felt Labour was not left enough, as opposed to it being mostly about the independence issue?  Anyway, whatever the dynamic, I would be very surprised if Scotland is still part of the UK ten years hence.

That is a question that I'll leave for Brit posters. The fact is that SNP got 1/2 of the vote in Scotland and won a clear mandate. It's plausible that there's a wide range of motivations behind that overwhelming support. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that they didn't run a campaign focused on independence, but on the defence of Scottish interests in Westminster.

I think Cameron is pretty open about all of this. His cards are all on the table. Yes, the SNP ran on what you said, which is what I said was fundamentally dishonest. And now the SNP party is chatting up a new referendum in 2017 on Scottish independence, having played down all of that during the election. That didn't take long.

[Velasco]

I don't think that Scottish nationalists are hiding their cards. It's more simple, the purpose of this election was filling the seats in Westminster and not Scottish independence. On the other hand, getting the best result possible helps them in their midterm strategy, which is holding another referendum and gaining independence. It worked well, apparently. Trust me, Scottish nationalists are crystal clear on their intentions if you compare them with some separatist parties in Spain.

[Хahar 🤔]

Torie, I promise that whatever point you're making about the SNP, nobody understands it.