Friday, 14 May 2010

David Cameron Visits the Scottish Parliament



The Prime Minister made his first visit to the Scottish Parliament today before meeting the First Minister and Finance Secretary at St Andrews House. He did not receive what could be called a rapturous reception as hundreds of noisy anti-tory demonstrators had gathered outside with banner which demanded an end to job cuts.

"I want to make the devolved institutions in Scotland, in Wales, in Northern Ireland work and work well and I want a real agenda of respect between our parties," he said.

This morning Mr Salmond declared the coalition had no mandate in Scotland. "They clearly don't have a majority of votes or a majority of seats in Scotland, which would constitute a mandate."

The Scottish budget for this financial year, which has already been approved by Holyrood, would not be changed.

Mr Cameron said today, "I believe, and Danny believes, we should be pursing the Calman agenda. That is a much greater degree of fiscal autonomy for Scotland. I think that is right and that is what we want to put in place."

There is no doubt Alex Salmond will fight for Scotland as he has done since he became First Minister. Thank goodness for an SNP government. Interesting times indeed.

24 comments:

Witterings From Witney said...

Oh SR, the least you could have done for us English is imprisoned him!

Bugger, that would leave us with Clegg - can we send him up to you too?

subrosa said...

Oh dear WfW, the man's brave enough coming here don't you think.

We have enough schoolboys in politics without Clegg thanks WfW.

Do hope you're well, haven't heard from you for a few days. Recovering from elections takes a while though. :)

Hythlodaeus said...

Well, there's the front page of the next batch of Labour election leaflets. Probably with the caption "Vote Salmond, Get Cameron".

subrosa said...

Oh you cynic you Hythlodaeus, but you're very possibly spot on.

Mind you, if they use that photograph I doubt if many will believe there's much 'relationship'.

cynicalHighlander said...

According to the BBC's Brian Taylor's Blog

"And the PM had to enter Holyrood via a side door because of a noisy protest outside against public sector cuts."

the spinning beeb at its best!

subrosa said...

Aye CH I read that too. Surely the manny can cope with a few protesters.

Oldrightie said...

We shall live to see a Scottish Labour decline. I shall enjoy observing that.

banned said...

Given that he has so little support in Scotland you should be pleased that he chose to go there on his first 'regional' visit; gives out a strong message about where his interests lay, in much the same way that William Hagues visit to the USA sends a message to Brussels and the Europhiles.

subrosa said...

I do hope so OR. Think many do too.

subrosa said...

I admit he kept his word that he would be here in his first week banned.

Funnily enough I was talking to someone this evening and they said Hague should have gone east rather than west. After all the east are our bankers. Interesting comment I thought.

muddypaws said...

So he's been to Chez Alex , had a chat and gone home.
I suppose we should be grateful he didn't trash the place before he left......still he's got time yet.

Idle Pen Pusher said...

SR - If you do ever go independent, would you mind taking the North with you, too?

Barking Spider said...

Isn't it so predictable that since the day after the election Left-wing rent-a-rabbles have been showing up all over the place and on Lefty MSM television news, SR?

Surreptitious Evil said...

Of course, Al and his SNP chums "clearly do have a majority of votes and a majority of seats in Scotland, which would constitute a mandate"?

Err, no. They got 38% of MSPs in 2007, on around 32% of the vote. Yes, they are in government but as a minority. This time round, they got 10% of the MPs on just under 20% of the vote - neither of which seem to constitute to me an overwhelming mandate.

To look at it another way, by MPs the ConDem coalition is 100% more legitimate than the SNP - counting by vote it reduces to a mere 79% more support than the person denouncing them.

Something about glass houses and throwing stones, maybe?

And before the rabid nationalists start throwing fatwas instead, I voted for John McNally ...

subrosa said...

Auch muddypaws, gie the bloke a chance! He kept his word coming. Mind you he needs the oil. ;)

subrosa said...

Aye BS. They got a deal on rent a mob right enough. I mean, it's not as if they even look serious.

subrosa said...

But SE, I'm sure you've looked at the stats. The SNP need far more votes than the tories or labour to hold a seat. I'll try to find the exact number later.

I don't do fatwas, I think positively and do thinwas. ;)

subrosa said...

IPP, your stats don't have the SNP on them. Does that mean they don't exist?

Idle Pen Pusher said...

They're there, SR. Grouped with PC under "NATS" in "Scotland & Wales"

Surreptitious Evil said...

"The SNP need far more votes than the tories or labour to hold a seat"?

Don't you mean the Lib Dems?

The Tories got 1 seat in Scotland with 412,855 votes - the SNP got a seat for ever 81,898 votes. Yes, Labour only needed 25,257 per seat in Scotland (and, nationally, the Tories needed just under 35,000 but ...)

subrosa said...

Ah so they are. Sorry IPP, must do better sitting here at the back. :)

subrosa said...

True SE the libdems need more than the SNP. This is what I was told:

Labour needs 33,000 votes to get a seat; the Tories 35,000, and the Liberals 120,000. (The SNP needs 82,000 for a seat.)

I'll try to verify the source of that again (lost it).

Surreptitious Evil said...

Look here. Your Lib-Dem figure is correct for the UK as a whole but, for Scotland (which is the whole point of the do they / don't they have a mandate discussion - if you take the UK as a whole the ConDem coalition clearly do), they need a mere 42,316.

It's like debating with the Fawcett Society - if you are comparing apples with grapes, you get more grapes per £, even though grapes are far more expensive per lb.

subrosa said...

Morning SE. Your first link is a 404 Page Not Found.

I have to admit I've never been paid lower than any man who held my position, except when young in my first career.

Auch, you can't compare women tennis players with men - not on attendance can you? But I do agree we should all be paid according to our skills not our gender.

Related Posts with Thumbnails