Economists Urge Scotland to Vote No......

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Which one of these respected Scottish political commentators do you think has the 'best take' ? The tory unionist, or the reluctant yes who's a federalist at heart. Make up your own mind then.

Neither.
My take is my own, you should try it. You seem obsessed with the opinions of others.
I don't ever envisage a situation that involves enough Scots voting for independence. The Westminster elite don't get it yet, but the Union is saved and ergo Scottish nationalism neutered only when the UK becomes a federal state.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

We are, over it. But politics doesn't stop, ever. Get real. And Massie was talking figuratively, about mini-referendums not literally !

Politics may not stop but the referendum is done for a generation. If Scottish people wanted to be independent from the UK they'd have voted for it.

Given the flavour of your posts here, I don't think you have gotten over it. Not by a long chalk. Salmond doesn't appear to be over it either:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/second-scottish-independence-referendum-horizon-says-alex-salmond-1480417

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/20/scottish-independence-alex-salmond_n_6359180.html

zagubov

Gangaweed wrote: »

I just wish the snp had won, and Scotland had voted for independence. Oh how I would love to watch idiots like STD (aptly named) and istl absolutely bricking themselves as business and capital feed the socialist utopia North of the boarder.

I'd have loved to watch that lying skunk Salmond explain how his Scotland was going down the tubes faster than a flushed turd.

That's the problem for whoever won the referendum isn't it? From now on, everything that goes wrong will find the blame laid on their doorstep.

First time the economy skips a beat, Salmond and Sturgeon will be shaking their heads and going "We told you so".

Gangaweed wrote: »

You're just Nigel Farage with a different shirt. Nationalist fool.

I hope you sued your charm school. You're still coming over as quite offensive.
Shake's never claimed to be nationalist, BTW.

Thrugelmir

zagubov wrote: »

First time the economy skips a beat, Salmond and Sturgeon will be shaking their heads and going "We told you so".

My recollection of the debate was that Salmond pulled every trick in the book to change the topic away from the economy. Hence the focus on NHS etc.

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My recollection of the debate was that Salmond pulled every trick in the book to change the topic away from the economy. Hence the focus on NHS etc.

To be fair I think the Yes campaign discussed the economy quite a bit. Admittedly it was in the usual fantasist terms of the left: IIRC they were going to create jobs by selling renewable energy that cost three times the price of electricity made from burning stuff.

I'm not sure anyone fell for it. I'd hope they didn't. I think STD was just joking with us when she used to quote that twaddle.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

zagubov wrote: »

Shake's never claimed to be nationalist, BTW.

Indeed.

But just occasionally, the facade slips.....

Shakethedisease wrote: »

My little SNP perspective on this board irks you. Too bad. .

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

But just occasionally, the facade slips.....

Surely STD doesn't claim to be somehow impartial...?

Masomnia

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't think the SNP worry about popularity south of the border. They seem to thrive by creating a "them and us" situation.

That's why I think a coalition could be very damaging for the SNP.

At the moment any cuts they have to make are easily passed onto Westminster: 'We'd love to spend more, but we've had the budget cut'. As soon as they have some level of control over the overall UK budget they won't have that luxury.

I'm not too au fait with SNP policy, but it seems to me that they could gain a heck of a lot from a coalition for little loss as their main concern is with devolved matters. They won't have to give up promises on Health and Education because they have control over all that.

How much of their manifesto will be focused on the UK as a whole? How much will people care if they renege on manifesto pledges for the UK, rather than for Scotland?

Masomnia

vivatifosi wrote: »

I don't know that they would be squeezed out, but they could well be emasculated. If I was the SNP I'd be very careful about who I get into bed with and what is promised. Remember the last national election when the Lib Dems were riding a wave and promising to keep the tories in balance? How popular are they nearly 5 years on?

I will still maintain that the LDs have been hard done by. The Tories were not promising to increase the personal allowance, and I think even if that's the only thing they've achieved I'll let them off for that. We've heard again that the Tories are planning on attempting to legalise back fox hunting if they win outright; they'd have done it this parliament given the chance, but it was off the table with them being in the Coalition. In that sense I think the Lib Dems have been notable for things they've prevented just as much as things they've got through; it's just that you don't hear about the things that don't happen!

After a couple of years of the two Eds in charge I think people will be yearning for the government we have now.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Neither.
My take is my own, you should try it. You seem obsessed with the opinions of others.
I don't ever envisage a situation that involves enough Scots voting for independence. The Westminster elite don't get it yet, but the Union is saved and ergo Scottish nationalism neutered only when the UK becomes a federal state.

You're conflating debate, anecdotals and opposing opinions from yours as obsession and using personal attacks to justify your replies. By all means debate the content of my posts. By try and personalise things a bit less. This debate isn't actually about me.