Torres

I never had you down as someone who would be quite so patronising. I have a bit of a personal interest in Scottish politics so have followed it with half an eye for a long time. I'd be interested in where you think I'm wrong and how the SNP would work in the Greater interest of the whole of the UK rather than just Scotland. What on earth do they have to gain by keeping voters in Devon, Sussex or Yorkshire happy?

Thanks for your input CB Fry. As incisive, erudite and informative as ever.

It's really not. They've made their way in Scotland by "standing up for Scotland" in the face of the "failed Westminster parties". Soon they might have a chance to have some real influence at Westminster. Then, they either work with Labour and extract some hefty concessions for Scotland, which makes them more popular in Scotland, or they try to win concessions for Scotland, are met with an immovable Westminster party who doesn't care for Scotland and doesn't look after the interests of Scotland and so the SNP bring the government down. Either way, it's an SNP win. I don't like the loonies one bit (their manifesto for an independent Scotland was mixture of lies and fantasy) but they've played a series of absolute blinders over the last decade or so and have consistently out-maneuvered both Labour and the Conservatives. By the way, my "agenda" here is that I don't want the SNP anywhere near having a sniff of power or influence at Westminster. If it takes a huge Labour majority to achieve that, I'm all for it.

I don't know, tbf. It's not something I've given a huge amount of thought to.

That's of no relevance. Work with Labour at Westminster or bring them down, they still don't lose in Scotland.

You're still missing the point. It's not that public and private debt is the same, it's that people erroneously believe it is - and if people don't care about their own debt, why would they care about public debt?

Rule One.

They were never going to deal with the Tories anyway, so her announcement was irrelevant. Any such deal would be electoral suicide in Scotland - they would be wiped out for a generation and would then never achieve any of their aims. Besides, there's almost no common ground between the two parties and no scope for any bargaining. The SNP aren't scared of bringing a minority Labour government down and triggering a new election as they have nothing to lose from that. North of the border they portray it as doing the right thing for Scotland as the nasty Westminster government wouldn't listen to them and they don't give a shiny **** what anyone else thinks. What happens at that next election? The SNP don't lose any seats, and even if the Tories get a majority, they have positioned themselves as the Champions of the English vote (check out what Cameron said today) which draws a deeper divide between England and Scotland. The SNP have literally nothing to lose. That's where your analysis is wrong and that's what makes them dangerous to anyone outside Scotland.

Irrelevant.

It's not his blind spot at all. Of course they are different, but if people don't care that they are personally in debt, why should they care about the state of the public finances? They are perfectly happy for governments to borrow, borrow, borrow and spend, spend, spend. That's just not sustainable.

Digby Jones is a former Labour minister, son of a shopkeeper and very well respected former DG of the CBI. His views are worth listening to and you do yourself no favours in writing them off just because his letter was published in a newspaper that you don't like.

I missed this yesterday: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11559549/Open-letter-to-Ed-Miliband-Leader-of-the-Labour-party-from-Lord-Jones-of-Birmingham.html He makes an awful lot of good points, but his remarks re: wealth creation are particularly damning.

You wouldn't have to look hard to find skates who would tell you that it was worth it, though.

People are ****ing horrible.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-to-step-up-pursuit-of-cook-1-6706899 Are they really going to pay the £150,000 to activate his release clause?

I didn't know that Catlin's left leg was such much longer than his right. It must make buying trousers quite tricky.

Of course I can see the difference. My point, which I can only believe that you are deliberately avoiding, is that a Labour government would, in highly likely event of not having a majority, be beholden to the SNP and would have no choice but to make concessions to a party that is committed to the break up of the United Kingdom and is committed to putting the interests of Scotland before those of the wider UK. That's not really a good thing for any of us, except those who reside in Scotland - and even then it's debatable. BTW, the SNPs reputation in the eyes of investors outside of Scotland couldn't get any lower, following their threats to walk away from their share of UK debt during the referendum campaign. They've bugger all to lose on that front.

And I think they'll have more than you believe. Salmond has already promised to vote against any Tory minority government QS and Labour will be made aware that they'll do the same to them without necessary concessions. The idea that the SNP will sit benignly on the sidelines and watch events unfold without seeking any influence to the benefit of Scotland is preposterous.

Could go that way, or the argument over the border could fall on the side of "we have power over Scottish law, taxation & economic policy, education & health, but with the financial, defence and political security provided by being part of the UK - why demand independence?" That's without taking into account the potential for the SNP to have undue influence on UK government activity to the benefit of Scotland. Only time will tell.

And who would be surprised to see massive tax incentives introduced for those who invest in offshore wind and wave power?

Why can't I shake the feeling that something like this already exists? Oh yeah, stamp duty! I were to complete the purchase of a house for £2m on the day of the election, I'd be liable for £153,750 in SDLT.

If I edit my post to include those who have improved their home through their own hard work and now find themselves living in a mansion, would that help? Besides, I'm not sure that Smith would approve of the mansion tax when measured against the canons of Equality (proportional to income? Nope), Certainty (not at the moment, given that the Labour party are refusing to divulge any details of how it will be due) or Economy (how much are the valuations of every property that might be liable going to cost, plus appeals, plus constant revaluations due to market changes, home improvements, deliberate disrepair, then collection and enforcement?) Additionally, I'm fairly sure Smith, Riccardo et al would be utterly horrified at the levels of taxation, public spending and government intervention in the market in this country right now, let alone advocating more Perhaps worth not making assumptions like that, dear boy. A scholar of Smith, Ricardo, Malthus and Bentham should know better. Nobody said it was.

No worries shurlock, I was imagining the panic in Whitehall when Ed stops talking about this happening in the first 100 days and starts talking about the first 10 days.

Sorry.