I have long argued that the SNp would stand much more of a chance if they spelled out how they would get over the obvious problems and costs that normal person can see in a divorce settlement along with a vision of what can be achieved in an independent Scotland.
The fact they don't have this vision makes me wonder why not, it is an obvious strategy. The more they continue as is the more they are just like all the other parties.
I think the 6 SNP MP's will only have a very small say. The chance of a Rainbow coalition of Labour/ Ulster Alliance/ SNP / Lib Dem / Green is absolutely non-existent.
Realistically it will be a Cameron/ Clegg or a minority Cameron government.
Which would also show the Scottish people that even in a hung parliament the SNP delivered well....nothing.
However I would also think amongst the more thinking SNP members that some serious debate is required around the strategy employed at the election. Never good for any political leader to be part of a failed campaign.
There are problems and opportunities for every one in this new balanced parliament era.
The electoral reform issue is now however surely beyond doubt. For once the liberals have the chance within their grasp to smash first past teh post forever.
That will make this situation more of a normal outcome as it is many other countries.
Originally I was opposed to PR, however after an election campaign where voters were held in contempt and lied to, I really feel we need fundamental change in our political system and a broader range of ideas represented in parliament.
Your point is well made re understanding voters. Berating voters is no way to go forward, the SNP campaign did not persuade voters to change. That takes patience and a lot of time. politicians always need to respect the electorate something they have forgotten recently.
However to say the SNP have not been damaged is a more than a little spin. Losing Glasgow East and Dunfermline is not good. It shows voters are happy to make a protest in a by-election but come the election proper they were not convinced. Therefore one possible conclusion must be that the the original result was simply a protest and in no way a conversion to nationalism.
Last night showed that the SNP campaign was a bit of a disaster. If no gains could be made against a worn out Labour government then that is really a disaster. Not to keep the by-election wins given the effort put in was also a disaster. I was in Glasgow last week and in Glasgow East it was obvious that a lot of SNp resource was being applied. Simply this was a missed opportunity for the nationalists.
The vote for champs bit was poorly thought out and just didn't work. They should have campaigned on an Independence platform, challenging voters to either four more years of Gordon Brown or the return of the Tories. Because in reality the only alternative is the SNP in Scotland.
One can only wonder why this was not done and the only conclusion I can come to is that if such a campaign delivered the same result as last night, which opinion polls indicate it would have, then the referendum would have been further away.
However I also feel that the SNP have abandoned the referendum in this parliament anyway. They now they won't win in the current climate.
However all politicians need to respect the view of the electorate and recognise the electorate gave none of them a mandate to work alone. They want coalition government and it is up to the politicians to deliver it.
There is a lot of posters on here that think they know more than they do, yourself included. Politics is all about opinions and changing them.
I did for a fair while give serious consideration to the arguments for independence after realising how poor Labour were at delivering. However they just don't add up, the situation with Salmond is simple since becoming first minister he has done well... nothing. But he is big on bluster, just eh same as Brown or Dave really. A politician of the same vein.
As to the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross list you are right we have no green candidate standing. The independent is a local eccentric whose policies are really irrelevant. He will attract the "none of the above" vote.
Which will probably have one more. Also EH's claim re the SNP is just arrogant and back to the last by election again "how can people be so stupid" argument.
It shows how poor the argument for independence really is when in the middle of the most unpopular labour government ever the SNP are campaigning on a strategy that doesn't hardly mention independence.
I am not going to vote for either Labour or Tory. I am looking at the alternatives.
Perhaps the lesson of the last 25 years is that a balanced parliament is a better way to go. In reality of course my vote will make little difference under first past the post, I live in a safe LD seat anyway. However it is important to vote, always even if the choice is crap.
Certainly won't Vote for Salmond ever. Absolutely detest the man and what he stands for.
So maybe it is time for an LD vote. However I don't really like Clegg or Cable. Or maybe a protest Vote for the Greens or an Independent?
I genuinely have been very turned off by the whole election debate. I did watch the tv debates. Alec Salmond argued on that night for a growth strategy as opposed to cuts. The few cuts he offered were Trident and ID cards, which I think all sensible people agree are not required, but equally all sensible people agree that the scale of savings over the next three years are a drop in the ocean of what's required. The trident figure is something like 8 billion over the next 3 years. A contribution but a very small one. Where are the real cuts going to come?
So no he is no more honest than the rest. His point seemed clearly to be that better to grow the economy than cut services. He really was in denial that Scotland needed to shoulder any part of the future cuts.
So at least be honest. He was playing politics as much as the other jokers. He was no different. The electorate are getting more and more turned off by this rubbish. I want to see a little honesty and when I decide tomorrow, I will decide on the basis of who I feel has told the least amount of lies. Might as well draw lots.
"Both in allowing the laxity of regulation which permitted the situation to arise and in the form of the response to that situation. There is no good reason to suppose that either of these things would have been true."
Rubbish. There is every reason to think the situation would have been exactly the same. At no point did AS or any other SNP politician advocate tighter regulation or foresee any of what happened. Quite the contrary actually, Sir Fred couldn't sit down without risking breaking an SNP politicians neck they were so far in there. Alec was fulsome in his praise for the banks. Remember he is a trained economist allegedly.
So please no more of this absolute rubbish. Remember no matter how much you want to believe something it doesn't make it true
If lennon is not he man then who is? Who would want the job? Remember the last effort, Mowbray was 4 th choice behind Moyes, Coyle and Martinez. Martinez reckoned Wigan was a better bet.
So what has changed? Nothing, if anything the job is now less attractive as Celtic will have less money to give to the new manager. Some realism is required. Mark Hughes is highly unlikely to come to Celtic. Celtic need to keep to the financial common sense they have shown over the past few years.
So Lennon might be the best bet in reality. If not it is someone else who is untried and tested. Same thing for Rangers when Smith goes.