Outrageous.... or not?

[cokecan]

the SNP are nothing if not clever - by making their demands so unpalletable they put themselves in a win-win situation:

if a UK party were to accept their conditions in return for a coalition it would provoke massive anti-Scottish feeling in the rest of the UK, making a break-up far more likely, while if the SNP were told to **** off and the UK parties formed whatever unholy coalition was required to form a UK government without them, they could return to Scotland and say 'look how they treat the people you elect - they'll do anything to avoid listening to you' making a break-up more likely...

personally i think the chances of a SNP coalition are vanishingly small - simply because to agree to their demands on austerity for England - spending for Scotland, not to even go near the issue of Trident, would be political suicide for an party that primarily relied on English constituancies for its MP's.

[ShotOne]

They're certainly street-wise. The fact we're even discussing the chances of their will being forced on the British public on the strength of the support of just over 1 (yes, one) per-cent of the UK electorate tells us that.

"Political suicide..." I hope you're right there -but I wouldn't bet on it. It's only four years since Gordon Brown's determined bid to ally with lib-dems in order to cling to power despite having been convincingly rejected at the ballot box.

[Courtney Mil]

I wonder how many people recently Googled "psephology". I know one.

[cokecan]

SO - i see it the other way around: Brown might have wanted a coalition deal with the LD's, but the LD's wouldn't touch him with a barge pole because of his political toxicity, despite Labour being, probably, more comfortable bedfellows than the Conservatives.

i'd see the SNP being similar - can you imagine the damage to Labour in the North if they imposed swinging cuts on services in England but exempted Scotland from such pleasantries?

[Biggus]

Where is Archimedes when you need him?

Archimedes,

In response to your posts 8 and 13 on this thread, back in December 2014 I wrote the following:

Archimedes,

Fine - and I'm glad I didn't hack you off - I'll try and remember to come back to this thread in May 2015 and point out that your psephology was wrong in this case (in terms of predicting the number SNP MPs elected).

So here I am, to point out that, as I predicted, your psephology was wrong in terms of predicting the number of seats the SNP would win - but then first hand experience of the situation seems to count for nothing!!

[Surplus]

After tonight's result, should the title of the thread be changed to "Irrelevant.... or not?"

The maths are quite simple, Labour + SNP = Not enough.

[Archimedes]

Originally Posted by Biggus

Archimedes,

In response to your posts 8 and 13 on this thread, back in December 2014 I wrote the following:

Archimedes,

Fine - and I'm glad I didn't hack you off - I'll try and remember to come back to this thread in May 2015 and point out that your psephology was wrong in this case (in terms of predicting the number SNP MPs elected).

So here I am, to point out that, as I predicted, your psephology was wrong in terms of predicting the number of seats the SNP would win - but then first hand experience of the situation seems to count for nothing!!

Trying to find where this thread was, that's where!


I did, in my defence include (emphasis in original) the view

It's not a case of saying that the SNP won't be a significant factor, merely that historical trends in elections suggest that their chances are not as great as some suggest assuming that the current polling figures remain the same.

And they didn't stay the same; by about February of this year, the historical trend pattern was clearly not going to apply in the case of Scotland and somewhere (was it on Arrse or somewhere else - I forget), I can be found stating that this was one of those moments Jim Callaghan had described as a 'sea change' that occurs every thirty years. And expressing mystification that I couldn't find my original post about this on that forum. Which was because it was actually here on Pprune.


I also refer you to the following:

Originally Posted by Archimedes

Originally Posted by Biggus

Archimedes,

Fine - and I'm glad I didn't hack you off - I'll try and remember to come back to this thread in May 2015 and point out that your psephology was wrong in this case (in terms of predicting the number SNP MPs elected).

Not if I get here first....

(It can be wrong, but needs politicians to make sure that it is, rather than apparently sitting back and believing the raw poll data.)

You got here first, though.