Should you vote tactically?

If you insist

Oh, do grow up, durhamjen, that's just pathetic. I got the quote from the internet in a random search. I've no doubt NS said it at some time, but does it really matter when, or where?

But of course you will not, as you do not want to hear what she really said. Rubbish!

I presume you can find me the interview where she said that, then, ana. If you cannot, then what I say stands. I watched the interview, and that is what she said. You can watch it, too. It's on iplayer. But of course you will not, as you do not want to hear what she really said.

Clegg can promise what he wants; it looks like he will lose his seat.

And Clegg is now promising massive spending on education - but not how it is going to be spent. If it is just more of the same, then it is missing the point.

Perhaps Sky took the quote from a different interview, durhamjen.
And you can't possibly be claiming that the BBC is a neutral source!

I agree, FarNorth. It would be good to see every SNP seat taken on more than 50% of the vote. Serve Cameron, Clegg and Miliband right for being two faced.

"When it was put to Ms Sturgeon that the Labour leader had also ruled out "confidence and supply", she said: "Well I think what he says [Ed Miliband] the morning after the election will probably be different to what he says now.

"He is in an election campaign, he is trying to cling to the pretence that he is going to get a majority - everyone else knows that's not looking likely.

"But what I am saying is that a vote-by-vote arrangement is both more likely and probably the way in which a big team of SNP MPs can wield maximum influence for Scotland's benefit." "

From the BBC website. This does not say that he will be forced to change his tune.

I don't believe that it is only the Yes voters who will be voting SNP. Many people are completely disillusioned with the attitudes of the main parties, in particular of the tories.

David Cameron and his chums made such a huge hoo-ha about wanting Scotland to stay in the UK then, when that happened, there has been non-stop condemnation of everything Scottish especially Scotland's legitimate desire to be properly represented in Westminster parliament.

A quick look at the constituency information, linked to by durhamjen on the first page of this thread, shows that most constituencies have around 60,000 to 70,000 voters so the larger population of England will have a larger number of MPs to represent them. There will be no unreasonably large number of SNP, or any other party, coming from Scotland.

NS may be saying what she would like to happen, but that is not necessarily saying that it will happen.

However given that the SNP will have at that stage a mandate from the voters, there is no reason why the SNP should not try to bargain with any party if it's cooperation is needed. That is a perfectly rational way forward.

She didn't when I watched her tonight, ana.

Who believes everything they see on any media outlet? (apart from the Guardian, of course!)

Are you saying NS did not say that, durhamjen?

I should have added - that is if there is a hung parliament.

Who owns Sky? Who wants to rock the boat? Don't believe everything you see on Sky news.

ana Ed May or may not - but that is how coalitions work. There will be a particular mandate from the population as a whole and the politicians are charged with making it work. They cannot dictate at any stage what they would or would not like to happen with regard to "arrangements" - it is the voter who does that. If they cannot work with another party then so be it, it is up to another party to try to make a go of it.
The first one to try of course will be the Tories.

He doesn't need an arrangement. He puts something up for a vote, and the other parties vote for or against. What it means is that if he wants something passed, he needs to make sure that the minority parties will vote for it, so he cannot be too extreme.
Unfortunately what that means is that the replacement for Trident will get passed, as the Tories will vote with Labour on that. SNP or Libdems will not be able to do anything about that.

Although according to Sky News N Sturgeon has insisted Mr Miliband will be forced to “change his tune” after the election and enter into a formal pact with her party.

So it looks like a done deal already. According to some.

I thought Ed had ruled out any 'arrangement' with the SNP. Has that now gone by the board?

Agreed, whitewave. That's what I said earlier. Nicola Sturgeon realises that, and has said how ridiculous Cameron is by taking that stance. He's not doing himself any favours by being anti Scotland now.

The whole thing about a coalition is that various political parties will get into bed with any number of others in order to gain a working majority. Watch Borgan that will tell you!!! We may not like it but is what we voted for as a United Kingdom.

Coalitions are not something that we are used to so that is the reason that we may feel uncomfortable at the end result.

Loopy, Nicola Sturgeon has said repeatedly that the SNP will never join up with the Tories, so you are wrong on that. If the Tories get to do their queen's speech, SNP MPs will vote against it. The only way it would get passed would be if some Labour MPs voted for it. Can you see that happening?

Exactly, whitewave. Unfortunately, TerriBull, that's parliamentary democracy British style and, until we can agree on a proportional system, we just have to lump it.The SNP is a legitimately constituted political party as are all the other regional parties such as Ulster Unionists, Sinn Féinn. The press is making a meal of the supposed threat of the SNP. I doubt that they have any proof of this, but it makes great headlines.

Did any one else watch Nicola Sturgeon?
She does not want to be divisive; she wants what's best for Scotland, obviously, but as Scotland voted to stay in the United Kingdom, she will go along with that and do what she thinks is best for the United Kingdom.
Just watched Panorama, where they had an American statistician going around Britain, crunching the numbers and deciding it will be too close to call.
However, what he said about Scotland was that it isn't surprising that the SNP will win so many seats. The Yes vote gained 45% of the vote. They are the ones voting SNP. The No vote was split between all the other parties.
Anyone getting 45% of the vote in first past the post voting will win the seat.
If they were not voting SNP, they would be voting labour anyway, so either way, labour would win.
Westminster has never had the interests of the Scots at heart. All they wanted was their oil money.

We cannot have our argument both ways and declare Scotland and it's people we would dearly like to remain as part of the UK, and then declare their mandate that charges the SNP to represent them in Westminster as something we cannot accept. It simply doesn't work like that.

I believe the population of England and Wales is something in the region of 60 million, whilst Scotland's is 5 million plus. The SNP holding the balance of power will not be in the interests of that majority, they come across as very divisive and partisan. We shall have to wait and see just how much power they are able to wield.