Unions join call for Jim Murphy to quit leadership

[NWpostie]

He may well have had the Scottish media on his side, but to say the "few rich people" sounds almost like class warfare, I somehow don't think in Scotland they would be Labour's natural allies, that said SNP are a bit more to the left of Labour, I strongly suspect people in Scotland have chosen who to vote for and they are voting for "their party" which tells me that there is little confidence in the mainstream parties to carry out the promised transfer of powers to Scotland, had the referendum took place a month ago I think we would be looking at a completely different result.

The vote for the SNP is a verdict on Milliband and they don't want to vote Tory.

[mailroyaly]

Jim could make a wee few bob advertising Irn Bru.

[cyrus]

He may well have had the Scottish media on his side, but to say the "few rich people" sounds almost like class warfare, I somehow don't think in Scotland they would be Labour's natural allies, that said SNP are a bit more to the left of Labour, I strongly suspect people in Scotland have chosen who to vote for and they are voting for "their party" which tells me that there is little confidence in the mainstream parties to carry out the promised transfer of powers to Scotland, had the referendum took place a month ago I think we would be looking at a completely different result.

The vote for the SNP is a verdict on Milliband and they don't want to vote Tory.

They're Labours natural allies because, they don't want to see the break up of the UK (The enemy of my enemy is my friend). Your right about Milliband.Even David Cameron has a higher approval rating in Scotland.

Folk are voting for the reasons you mention.Although I don't think it would have been different result for the Scottish referendum.The referendum had to happen first, to expose the 24/7 propaganda of the mainstream media: aka project fear.That's why the SNP nearly made a clean sweep.Enough people saw through the lies this time. Project fear mk2 didn't work.

[fishtank]

Scotland voted SNP primarily because the Better Together campaign was so negative. Labour were warned of the potential fallout from using scare tactics and dismissing the ability of the Scots to govern themselves, Miliband was irrelevant but the decision to elect Jim Murphy, a well known Blairite as leader surprised even me. The Scots have always been distrustful of champagne socialists and Blair was never that well liked up here.

To run an anti-independence campaign shoulder to shoulder with the Tories then elect a right of centre leader seems like a crazy way to win votes in a predominantly left of centre country.

[NWpostie]

There is also a a strong Republican streak throughout the SNP, should Scotland next Independence referendum get lucky one day, the Queen will not be head of state of Scotland within 5 years, they are slightly to the right of the Marxist but far to the left of Labour.

[speckledtangerine]

Why would an Independent Scotland long-term want a foreign head of state? And just how long do you think Liz is gonna last in any case? She's 89 ffs!

I don't think Scotland would be alone in chucking the monarchy when Charles III comes to the throne along with Queen Camilla. Australia will be first to say sod that imo.

[fishtank]

they are slightly to the right of the Marxist but far to the left of Labour.

No offence but living and working in Scotland under an SNP government for the last 8 years I can tell you that's garbage, Despite the portrayal south of the border the SNP are mainly a centre left party and always have been.

Having a couple of socially responsible policies doesn't make you a Marxist. Up here where it counts they are generally seen as slightly to the right of Labour and far more fiscally responsible but the slurs and propaganda from the London based media work better if they are portrayed as lefty nutters.

[borders]

Talking of propaganda Fishtank , have you read this article ? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... d-us-again" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
here is a little snippet :-
"When Thatcher moved into No 10, 28% of all working age households took more from the state in cash benefits, in health and education and all the rest of it than they paid back in taxes. In other words, more than one in four employers in Britain were failing to pay their staff’s way

More than three decades later, through Major and Blair and Brown and Cameron, that proportion has kept on rising. Now 38% of working-age households rely on taxpayers to pay their way. Think about all those tax credits for low-paid work, those exemptions for people earning too little even to be taxed. We have more people in work than ever before – and more households than ever before relying on the state to keep them afloat."

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Its called Corporate Benefit Dependency - you should see it on benefits street but you won't.

Corporations get more indirect benefits than job seekers do.

Job seekers benefits claimed 2011-12 £4.9 billion. Income Support £6.92 Billion.

Tax Credits £29.91 Billion. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... ding#img-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;