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

Shakethedisease

robmatic wrote: »

Funny how the rhetoric has changed from "we need to leave the UK because Westminster is an undemocratic abyss where it's impossible for Scots to make a difference"...

Not when they're voting Labour anyway.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Politics in Scotland is a lot more febrile than anywhere else in the mainland UK at the moment. Two UK party leaders have had to run and take cover from Scots in the recent past don't forget.
Much has been made of the recent surge in SNP support in the central belt, with some commentators suggesting that those from Irish catholic tradition are disproportionately turning toward the SNP now. If true that it is a development the SNP are going to have handle delicately.

Sectarianism is dying off in Scotland. It's not a big factor any more, and what there is now mainly football related. However, in terms of the SNP having to handle this delicately... I suggest you turn your attentions to Jim Murphy first. Who has stated he'd like to see alcohol returning to the terraces and the ban on sectarian song singing at matches, repealed.

The legislation, passed in 2012, gave police and prosecutors extra powers to crack down on sectarian songs and abuse at football matches. However, it has met with opposition from fans' groups, who believe they have been singled out unfairly, and some eminent legal figures. Dundee Sheriff Richard Davidson said it was "horribly drafted" and "mince".
Mr Murphy, MP for Eastwood, said: "If I am elected Scottish Labour Party leader and First Minister I will scrap the Football Act right away.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/jim-murphy-id-scrap-snps-anti-sectarian-football-bill.1415202733

The new leader of Scottish Labour has called for football fans to be allowed to drink alcohol in Scottish stadiums.
Jim Murphy acknowledged that Scotland has "an unhealthy relationship alcohol".
But he told BBC Radio Scotland that football had moved on from the violence of the 1980s.
And he questioned why people in corporate hospitality boxes could drink while ordinary fans could not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30568135

I'd be far more worried about Jim Murphy's aims to be perfectly frank. I think he thinks the above will be vote winners for some reason.

Tromking

The burgeoning support for the SNP in the central belt means the spectre of sectarianism could come into play, you must admit that must at least STD.
The haranguing of Jim Murphy during the campaign was in the main in areas of with an Irish catholic tradition I have read somewhere.
These are potentially dangerous times in Scottish politics.

.string.

Shakey - Being a paid up member of the SNP you still ignore or rubbish anything remotely uncomfortable for the SNP viewpoint, but then that's maybe understandable; I have always equated membership of a political party with abandonment of an individual's objectivity.

The SNP will get their comeuppance, I just hope you all don't ruin Scotland in the process.

You still haven't answered my question about Devolution.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

The burgeoning support for the SNP in the central belt means the spectre of sectarianism could come into play, you must admit that must at least STD.
The haranguing of Jim Murphy during the campaign was in the main in areas of with an Irish catholic tradition I have read somewhere.
These are potentially dangerous times in Scottish politics.

No. I don't think sectarianism comes into play at all. And I live in the Central belt. You're overplaying it.

And no, Jim Murphy getting egged wasn't anything to do with sectarianism either ? Where on earth did you get that from ? It was someone annoyed he was continually ignoring his questions. An angry lone daftie in other words. Jim Murphy is very openly Catholic himself, so it's hardly going to be one of them based on his religious beliefs. And most 'loyal' unionists are Protestant Rangers supporters.

I really think you've gotten the wrong end of the debate on this one. There's no danger there.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Shakey - Being a paid up member of the SNP you still ignore or rubbish anything remotely uncomfortable for the SNP viewpoint, but then that's maybe understandable; I have always equated membership of a political party with abandonment of an individual's objectivity.

The SNP will get their comeuppance, I just hope you all don't ruin Scotland in the process.

You still haven't answered my question about Devolution.

String. I openly said I joined the SNP just after the ref. Well, lets face it, enough of you here thought I was one of 'them' anyway. So no difference there.

When you admit to me openly who you give your vote to, then we are even. But using it as some kind of stick to beat me with on these boards when you haven't came clean yourself about where your electoral preferences are.. isn't really fair. So I've told you mine, now you tell me yours.

I did answer the devolution question. The income tax in particular is nowhere near what is needed. Nowhere near Gordon Brown's 'Home Rule' or the 'Devo Max' Alistair Darling referred to repeatedly in the week before the ref (there's a reason they're both standing down before May ). Nor the 'vow' and David Cameron applying conditions before the last vote was even counted.

I personally, don't feel any anger or surprise at any of it. It was fully expected.

But if you want me to explain further. Then do feel free to be a little more specific on what devolution area you'd like some answers on.

As far as the next election is concerned though.. Labour are going to have to make some uncomfortable decisions IF the polls play out. SNP are quite happy to make their offers then sit back and see if any are taken up on ( scrapping Trident etc ). They have no reason to want or need popularity among English/Welsh voters...

But the fact that they voted against tuition fees/bedroom tax/Iraq etc ..might make them a slightly more attractive (if needs must) proposition than UKIP or the Lib Dems, among a lot of the south of the border electorate. Not that it will matter either way long term.

kabayiri

It seems that the easiest answer is to vote in a majority Tory party.

That will give them the mandate to implement the tough medicine still needed for all of the UK.

I'd rather that than petty party squabbles destabilising the recovery.

There.... My colours nailed.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

I'd rather that than petty party squabbles destabilising the recovery.

Market forces will focus peoples minds. No time for games. Considering the wider global drop back.

.string.

Well Shakey, in spite of the fact that these red-herrings are so turgid, I shall clarify (again).

First of all I knew you had joined the SNP, as should be clear from my recent posts. Actually you may remember that I tried to dissuade you from doing so, not that it stood any chance of success but in the hope (or rather duty to try) that you could avoid getting irretrievably mired in someone else's fanaticism.

Regarding m own voting preference, I have said before and I repeat it yet again, that I am a floating voter and decide on the issues at the time of an election, not according to any pre-formed voting intention. Also, again as I've written before, politically I have a left wing and a right wing, for that is the way to fly straight. In the past I've voted for both Labour and Conservative; last time it was Conservative. What it will be next time remains to be seen, but in summary it will be for the party that I think serves the UK best according to their manifesto, what parts of it I believe, and what I think their governance might achieve.

Now for these questions. I originally queried you ( in the last days of the thread on Scottish Independence - The cracks start to show)on your statement that the 3 Party Vow on Devolution was not being met and asked you to state what specific parts of the vow were not being met. You did not answer me, although at the time you referred in responding to others, to statements made by the No Campaign. It was pointed out to you (by others) that it was the vow that was the formal offer, made by the three main parties to make it clear what was on the table and dispel uncertainty.

As far as I know the vow is being kept. If it is not please say which part of it is not being carried out, and keep off the Devo Max day dream, that was not offered by the three leaders in their Vow, whatever the SNP might have wished. In fact Salmond, and therefore you, said so at the time as I recall, in the usual vein of rubbishing anything said by anyone who was not a rabid nat.

In your post (the one to which I am responding). You said that Cameron made the Vow conditional. He did not, that's merely SNP spin and dishonest. If you don't agree with that then quote Cameron's words where he said it was conditional - wink-wink nudge-nudge is not good enough outside the SNP Shakey. There are grown-ups in this forum.


As for your offer to explain SNP's druthers on Devolution please do so, specifically, how will Devolution carry through the decision of the Scottish Referendum to maintain the Union, how will the money be raised for the Central Government to do so, how will Scotland pay its share of the National Debt, and reduce it[/], foreign aid, defence, infrastructure, foreign aid, R&D, culture and the great institutions of our Great Britain? Oh and what subsidies do you expect to get from the UK? Do you expect Scotland to shoulder her share of the deficit burden?

zagubov

.string. wrote: »

As far as I know the vow is being kept. If it is not please say which part of it is not being carried out, and keep off the Devo Max day dream, that was not offered by the three leaders in their Vow, whatever the SNP might have wished. In fact Salmond, and therefore you, said so at the time as I recall, in the usual vein of rubbishing anything said by anyone who was not a rabid nat.

In your post (the one to which I am responding). You said that Cameron made the Vow conditional. He did not, that's merely SNP spin and dishonest.

I can't tell if the vow is being kept. But I do know it wasn't Devo max- that has a precise meaning to most people. It did sound a lot like Devo Plus (I've posted enough links to what that means) or you can google it.

the bit that hasn't been fulfilled is the stage where Scotland's autonomy is made secure by making the parliament undissolvable without its own permission; but that isn't supposed to be finalised until late January anyway so we can't tell whether they're botching that.

I'm visiting Scotland now and I'm quite amazed at how cynical everybody is about the three unionist parties, who are now regarded as having taken the voters for granted.

The press is also a bit more diverse than during the campaigns when the Sunday Herald and the Shetland News were the only two pro-indy newspapers. The daily edition of the Herald and the National seem to be covering the alternative viewpoints now. My feeling is there is a good chance the politicians will have to deliver at least a significant portion of what was promised as they'e certainly under press scrutiny in a way that previously only applied to the YES side.

Anyhoo politics aside, a Happy Hogmanay to all who wish a positive new year :beer:.