If the SNP do not achieve another overall majority in Holyrood 2016, it will likely be because the Green Party have made a major advance in list seats.
The Scottish Green Party (it really is Scottish, independent of England & Wales), lest some forget, is a pro-independence party, and would probably support a referendum if the SNP thought one to be appropriate.
JPJ2 However the Green Party are not overtly nationalist, indeed they used to be part of the Green Party of the UK until 1990, so an SNP-Green deal would be a less strong platform for an independence vote than an SNP outright majority
redcliffe62 Not correct as Chretien was the Liberal leader in 1993 as well as 1997, the BQ won 49% in 1993, 37% in 1997
You are also wrong on independence, the latest polls still have No narrowly ahead and legislation was in the Queen's speech to give Scotland the further powers promised in the referendum and by the Smith Commission
Labour said a vote for the SNP would elect a Tory government and that is what happened, as many English voters voted Tory to stop the SNP coming into government Sturgeon would certainly not have won the election for UK Labour
redcliffe62 Not correct as Chretien was the Liberal leader in 1993 as well as 1997, the BQ won 49% in 1993, 37% in 1997
You are also wrong on independence, the latest polls still have No narrowly ahead and legislation was in the Queen's speech to give Scotland the further powers promised in the referendum and by the Smith Commission
Labour said a vote for the SNP would elect a Tory government and that is what happened, as many English voters voted Tory to stop the SNP coming into government Sturgeon would certainly not have won the election for UK Labour
Cameron confirmed Smith would not be implemented, powers such as energy renewables have been taken from Scot Parl by unelected Lords and the chance to male Parliament permanent without WM having final say was rejected. Why SNP/Green vote combined is 60% plus. First 5 words of vow pushed by MSM as sacrosanct with powers close to federalism/devomax was Scot Parl was permanent. That was not passed by WM! Rest is meaningless too. Stop reading the Mail and Telegraph as a source of info and find out what was actually passed would be my respectful view. Sturgeon and SNP policies would have been positive for England but right wing MSM threw everything at an SNP bad campaign and Lab capitulated? If Eng loved and respected Scots why say they should not have a role in UK when in UK and voted in democratically? Tories stirred up anti Scot sentiment and the 5% gullible fell for it. The Chretien comment I stand by. There was talk by 1997 of another vote and Chretien promised to rule for all Canadians.
redcliffe62 49% of Quebec voters voted for independence, even more than voted Yes in Scotland, so if the SNP talk of another vote and the Labour leader promises to govern for all Britons who knows if that will not have a similar effect.
Cameron promised to implement the Smith Commission proposals as they stood and that was in the legislation, it is impossible to make the Holyrood Parliament permanent in law as no WM Parliament can bind its successors. We will see what happens in Holyrood next year once the new powers have been implemented and if tactical voting has an effect.
I personally have no problem with the SNP having the balance of power if that is what the UK voters as a whole vote for, but they did not give the SNP the balance of power and as Scots voted to stay in the UK they have to accept that.
Comments
The Scottish Green Party (it really is Scottish, independent of England & Wales), lest some forget, is a pro-independence party, and would probably support a referendum if the SNP thought one to be appropriate.
You are also wrong on independence, the latest polls still have No narrowly ahead and legislation was in the Queen's speech to give Scotland the further powers promised in the referendum and by the Smith Commission
Labour said a vote for the SNP would elect a Tory government and that is what happened, as many English voters voted Tory to stop the SNP coming into government Sturgeon would certainly not have won the election for UK Labour
First 5 words of vow pushed by MSM as sacrosanct with powers close to federalism/devomax was Scot Parl was permanent. That was not passed by WM! Rest is meaningless too.
Stop reading the Mail and Telegraph as a source of info and find out what was actually passed would be my respectful view.
Sturgeon and SNP policies would have been positive for England but right wing MSM threw everything at an SNP bad campaign and Lab capitulated?
If Eng loved and respected Scots why say they should not have a role in UK when in UK and voted in democratically? Tories stirred up anti Scot sentiment and the 5% gullible fell for it.
The Chretien comment I stand by. There was talk by 1997 of another vote and Chretien promised to rule for all Canadians.
Cameron promised to implement the Smith Commission proposals as they stood and that was in the legislation, it is impossible to make the Holyrood Parliament permanent in law as no WM Parliament can bind its successors. We will see what happens in Holyrood next year once the new powers have been implemented and if tactical voting has an effect.
I personally have no problem with the SNP having the balance of power if that is what the UK voters as a whole vote for, but they did not give the SNP the balance of power and as Scots voted to stay in the UK they have to accept that.