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

.string.

I shall also be disappointed if promises are not kept.

... and yes indeed a Happy New Year to all
,!

Shakethedisease

First of all a very Happy New Year to everyone.

.string. wrote: »

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.

So you feel everyone on these boards and elsewhere who joins a political party is getting 'mired in someone else' fanaticism ? Or is that a label exclusively reserved for those who join the SNP ?

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.

The 'Vow' was very vague in it's text. And deliberately so. Newspapers and commentary took it and ran with it. Darling/Brown did rounds of tv studios throwing out phrases about like Home Rule and Devo-Max. So it means different things to different people. As far as what has been promised so far, all I can say is that the polls ( not my personal opinion or the SNP, the actual polls of voters ).. show that it falls very far short of what a large proportion of Scots voters thought it did, and hoped for. The backlash for the Labour party in being part of it, and proposing even less than the Tories, is playing out right now.

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.

I don't need to quote words. There have been entire articles and blog pieces on these conditions, and the stupidity of Cameron coming out and saying them the morning after the referendum. And really, there is no need for personal snide's about 'grown up's' on the forum.:(

David Cameron’s original political sin – his irresponsible insistence on responding to the vote against independence by announcing that it now meant providing English votes for English laws. As the Guardian’s behind-the-scenes reporting on the referendum this week has underlined, this was a move about which all other UK parties rightly warned – including, in Alistair Darling’s case, at 5am on the morning after the referendum. Mr Cameron’s determination to persist is hard to forgive.

The prime minister’s failure of statesmanship at such a crucial moment snubbed Scotland’s hard-won decision to remain in the UK in the most provocative way imaginable..
...The net result has been the resurrection of Scottish nationalism. The stability of the UK, which seemed to have survived the 18 September vote and thus to have given itself a decent chance of progressive reinvention – which is almost certainly what most of its citizens want – is now more threatened than ever.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/16/guardian-view-on-english-votes-for-english-laws

Cameron set his 'condition's the morning after the ref to great consternation from the BetterTogether camp who knew it was a really, really BAD move, Not necessarily the content.. but the terrible timing of it. There are many more articles such as above.

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?

Yes, I do expect Scotland to share her share of the deficit burden while she's part of the UK ( and will be for a while yet). And everything else you mention above would be much better served by full Devo-Max, whereby Scotland collects her own revenues, taxes etc, then pays for her fair share of everything above. That way you wouldn't actually need, as you do above, to be carping on about 'subsidies' from the rest of the UK. You are trying to have it both ways. It's not really washing with the Scots electorate any more. The subsidy-junkie narrative just garners even more SNP support.

ruggedtoast

God, do you Nationalists not feel stupid enough already?

Why not find a different drum to bang. Your current one has burst at both ends but you don't seem to have noticed.

.string.

Sadly, Shakey, you persist in rummaging around inconsequential red herrings, yet again avoiding answers to specific questions.

Still no "justification" for previous flaccid misrepresentations on the Vow and remarks by Cameron etc.

.. and also absolutely nothing of credibility, nor substance nor value on the matter of the specifics of my question on Devolution and the funding matter. I detect no understanding nor appreciation of the complexities of these issues and absolutely no sign of willingness to work towards the spirit of the Referendum result.

So I have to conclude that no answer will ever be forthcoming from your SNP masters, just endless repetition of the same old everything-for-MeMe statements and nothing outside that tiny horizon.

Enough is enough.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No. I don't think sectarianism comes into play at all. And I live in the Central belt. You're overplaying it.
I really think you've gotten the wrong end of the debate on this one. There's no danger there.

We`ll see.
Watch rural Scotland get a bit squiffy about the SNP if the sectarian element comes into play though.

Generali

The SNP may wish to be careful for what they wish. Socialist paradises are extremely expensive and I wonder whether even the most ardent Nationalist would consider Scotland to be nicer enough for it to be worth paying significantly more tax?

These days many high paid employees are effectively working in a global labour market: a skilled account, engineer or IT professional would be welcomed with open arms in most countries across the world and remunerated in a manner appropriate to their skills. Working in a country where the top rate of tax was significantly higher than the rest of the UK may be very unattractive.

.string.

Generali wrote:

These days many high paid employees are effectively working in a global labour market: a skilled account, engineer or IT professional would be welcomed with open arms in most countries across the world and remunerated in a manner appropriate to their skills. Working in a country where the top rate of tax was significantly higher than the rest of the UK may be very unattractive.

I sense a Brain Drain to South of the Border if the political uncertainty in Scotland continues to be fostered by the current SNP Scottish Government; maybe next summer?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Sadly, Shakey, you persist in rummaging around inconsequential red herrings, yet again avoiding answers to specific questions.

Still no "justification" for previous flaccid misrepresentations on the Vow and remarks by Cameron etc.

.. and also absolutely nothing of credibility, nor substance nor value on the matter of the specifics of my question on Devolution and the funding matter. I detect no understanding nor appreciation of the complexities of these issues and absolutely no sign of willingness to work towards the spirit of the Referendum result.

So I have to conclude that no answer will ever be forthcoming from your SNP masters, just endless repetition of the same old everything-for-MeMe statements and nothing outside that tiny horizon.

Enough is enough.

Sadly string. You are completely ignoring what is actually happening under your nose as you are so blinded by political hatred of the SNP.

The very fact you talk about 'SNP masters' undermine your own credibility. You are not talking to mere children. Neither are any of the political parties in Scotland. SNP are winning the debate there, and the votes. There are reasons for that.

Polls and public opinion have turned in Scotland, either despite or because of the referendum and it's fallout. It doesn't really matter which. I've tried to outline the various possible reasons for that and the potential consequences of it. That you refuse to see or consider them and persist in trying to make this all about 'masters' and 'inconsequential red herrings'.. is simply ignoring political reality as it stands at the present time.

That the SNP may be around in May, and indeed Alex Salmond too.. to cause you more trouble than the referendum ever did. Try and get used to the possibility. Because it is a very distinct and real one.

And I think you may well be getting all the answers you need then. Whether you like it or not.

Over the last couple of weeks the SNP have suddenly – and rather bizarrely – emerged as Ed Miliband’s new, last hope. Ask any Labour MP, and all thoughts of a Labour majority have gone. Hopes of a pact with the Liberal Democrats are also fading. “The party and the unions wouldn’t wear it,” one Labour frontbencher told me...

..Salmond and Sturgeon are not floating the idea of a deal with Miliband to help Labour. They’re floating it because they want to destroy Labour. By hinting they would prop up a Labour government they are hoping to remove the final obstacle to an SNP landslide. “Vote SNP, and you can have the best of both worlds,” they are saying. “You will give Scotland maximum negotiating leverage in the event of a hung parliament, but you also have an insurance policy against a Tory government.”
It’s clever politics. But it’s also ruthless politics. Or, Scottish politics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11318945/Prime-Minister-Ed-McMiliband-Its-pure-fantasy.html

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The SNP may wish to be careful for what they wish. Socialist paradises are extremely expensive and I wonder whether even the most ardent Nationalist would consider Scotland to be nicer enough for it to be worth paying significantly more tax?

These days many high paid employees are effectively working in a global labour market: a skilled account, engineer or IT professional would be welcomed with open arms in most countries across the world and remunerated in a manner appropriate to their skills. Working in a country where the top rate of tax was significantly higher than the rest of the UK may be very unattractive.

It doesn't matter anymore Generali. People have been weighing these things in their heads/hearts for the last 2 or 3 years in Scotland. 45% still went for it. And 60+% would vote for full Devo Max in a second given the chance.

It's something I suspect the SNP are going to try to make sure those people are given the chance to do. And very soon too. It's only a very short hop from there to full independence.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

We`ll see.
Watch rural Scotland get a bit squiffy about the SNP if the sectarian element comes into play though.

No. It won't. It's not a big factor anymore in voting patterns.