±«Óătv

A less stringent approach to coalition negotiations, surprised? Not a bit.

To fulfil their manifesto pledge the SNP needed to propose an independence referendum as part of coalition negotiations, if they did not there would be accusations flying from all of the other political parties.
Now that an independence referendum has been blocked by the Liberal Democrats this will permit the SNP to move forward on two fronts.

Firstly to re-enter negotiations with the Liberal Democrats with the independence referendum moved onto a back burner; this may or may not return the successful outcome of an alliance
Secondly and more long term for the next election it can clearly be stated that it was the Liberal Democrats who prevented the voters in Scotland from having their will expressed on the independence issue.
This may seem to be a rather long lead policy unless you consider what would have happened and what would definitely happen at the next election if an independence referendum was dropped by the SNP prior to the first meeting at the negotiating table; there would be accusations of the SNP compromising their ideals merely to gain a greater hold on power.

Alternatively if the SNP do form a minority Government it will send out a message to minnows such as the Liberal Democrats that they cannot be guaranteed to exercise the same degree of influence which they have wielded in previous administrations; influence which permitted them to barter their limited number of MSPs in order that they gain power through a coalition, influence and power which they could not wield under their own standard, thus the views of the majority of the Scottish people were being manipulated by a minority representation.

I must state before my words are interpreted as being an out and out supporter of the SNP; as with most political parties they offer pluses and minuses in their manifestos, where I feel the SNP along with the Liberal Democrats seem somewhat short sighted is in their outright opposition to nuclear power.

There is a sensible limit to the power that can be generated for renewable sources unless we are prepared to have out total landscape blighted by wind turbines; it also must be noted that those who have in the past voted through planning permission do not seem to be resident in the areas where these monstrosities are / to be erected.

Scotland as a nuclear free generating zone would be destined to become a net importer of electricity leaving the consumer prey to market forces as we have witnessed this winter past with gas supplies; there needs to be balance to all policies, rather than all our eggs placed into one green basket.

This is how it is meant to work. The SNP have no mandate for a referendum, since they only have 1 more seat than Labour.

Other parties should stand firm to their promises to the electorate and block a referendum. That's what the people voted for- no referendum.

A referendum on independence was a central part of the SNP manifesto-if they were to 'drop' it now they would lose all respect and credibility.What right would they have to be trusted on anything else after all?
In any case it's increasingly obvious that the Lib Dems have decided that in order to recover their popularity a period of opposition is necessary,so an SNP minority government was probably always inevitable anyway.This is what Alex Salmond should now go ahead with ,and keep his pledge to introduce a referendum bill in order to maintain trust with the voters.
I'm quite sure that the Lib Dems will cooperate on most issues if they know what's in their own best interests.There can be no question of them trying to 'sabotage' an SNP government as that would damage their own electoral prospects.

1 seat = "a mandate" ???

How VERY date you!

I don't see why the SNP has to drop their referendum to form a coalition. They could form a coalition and leave it (and any other other divisive issues) out of the common issues, and simply agree they will pursue the matter as a party, not as the government. The issue can be introduced and pursued as and SNP-backed issue, much like other bills are by parties not in the government. It may mean they need a much stronger back bench than they have and they lose the advantage of being able to push it from the position of the leadership posts, but if they don't figure out how to get the other major groups to support it, they will have effectively declared it a dead issue themselves, but virtue of not having the skills to get it across. Difficult time require innovative approaches, and that in the final analysis may be where the SNP shows it's all frosting and no cake.

Do the LibDems not trust the Scottish people to vote for what they want? A referendum on independence will not necessarily bring about independence - people need to vote for it first. It can be seen as an attempt to deny people the opportunity to make their own minds up, no?

I thought 1 of the non-negotiable policies of the greens was if they form a coallition they insist that work stops on the M74 extension? If the nats have signed a pact with the greens has this been agreed? If so this is a huge step backwards for glasgow's transport infrastructure.

47 seats is not enough to run a minority administration - it is only 36% of the seats - something is going to have to give or we could be facing another election.

You are spot on Martin, 1 seat (or even 3 with the greens) is not really enough to run the government properly.I think we'll be in for another election within the next 2 years. This is the fundamental problem with PR.

If there is not to be a referendum on independence then it is not the fault of the lib dems.
Labour, Lib Dems and Tory are all pro-union parties, together they have 79 seats, the pro-independence parties have 50. Scotland hasn't voted for independence.

I agree with Kevin Doyle though - why can't the SNP, Lib Dems and Greens form a government with the independence referendum being a solely SNP backed issue that the Lib Dems can vote against.

Simon / Kevin, coalition is a two-way street - the SNP can not force the referendum issue on the backburner if the LibDems insist that it goes entirely hence the "all frosting with no cake" comment rather misses the point. The SNP have offered just the approach you suggest but the LibDems have rejected the plan to let the People decide - don't know why if, as you say, the People are against independence. The LibDems are missing out on influencing the governemnt of the day way more than they otherwise would AND they have the chance to further an option that 66% of the population and all parties support i.e. the extension of Scottish Parliamentary powers.

It appears to me that the LibDems are neither liberal nor democrats.

I used to be a Liberal(when they were called such lol) so why in their incarnation of Lib-Dems can the party NOTallow us;the people of Scotland to make our own decisions?? Are the Ld's now showing us that in England they are lighter blue Conservatives & in Alba, they are light red Labour?? Liberal Democracy means to me, let the people choose. Or are the people of Scotland supposed to be little labour sheep forever & a morning, voting for the same old, same old every time. What is the difference between Cuba & our own situation in this respect one wonders?

Don't you just wish these so-called Labour "politicians" would stop acting like spoilt brats and accept that the electorate - (yes, that's right, Labour, remember all those people who voted for this result???) have expressed their desire for a change in government? It's absolutely pathetic to see them plotting and scheming to try to bend this into a victory for Labour. They are so locked into their own self-obsessed little world of power-economics that they seem to have forgotten it's the PEOPLE they are trying to cheat out of their due, not the SNP! It's absolutely stomach-turning to see - and I for one wouldn't mind if they succeeded in having the election rerun. I am sure the sense of fair play shared by the vast majority of the people of Scotland would see to it that the SNP was returned with enough votes to turn Jack McConnell into the Scottish Parliament tea boy - which on this showing is more than he actually deserves.

I get so tired of hearing this mantra that the majority of votes were for pro-Union parties and so therefore the SNP have no mandate for a referendum.

As far as I can tell there was no mandate for Nuclear weapons, nuclear power or an illegal war, yet still we got them all. Politicians must begin to realize it's not for them to pick & choose what they do or don't implement.

Isn't it peculiar to be castigating a political party for actually endeavouring to implement a manifesto pledge instead of the other way around.

I have alwways voted and been very vocal when I encountered those who didn't vote. Not anymore. At the age of 42 I'm out. I think we get the 'leaders' we deserve.

The Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour parties all maintain that there is an overwhelming majority against independence. So why not show the courage of these convictions and back a referendum? This would kill off the issue once and for all.

It would seem that the shying away from this issue will always leave some element of festering doubt.

Scotland voted for SNP as the largest party. This does not translate into a vote for independence, merely a vote for change.

There is an overwhelming focus on this single issue of independence. If this is dropped from the SNP manifesto now, in order to form an unhappy alliance in parliament, the issue will fester for years, possibly beyond the next elections. However, if the other parties proposed and voted for an immediate referendum now, without the years of campaigning, then the issue could be put behind us and the MSPs could get on with the job in hand, vis a vis forming an effective government, serving the best interests of Scotland