Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

skintmacflint wrote: »

Apologies Leanne, I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic. There's a lot of it on this thread, including from myself on occasion.

There would be no problem with us sending a large contingent of SNP MPs down to Westminster, if it hadn't been made pretty obvious what the tactics were starting with Salmonds resignation speech on the 19th.

No I wouldn't be happy to see Westminster turned upside down, or a peasants revolt. I want a stable government to create balance for everyone in the UK. For us to recover and build back up , for the benefit of everyone. That needs compromise across government parties, working together.

Westminster reform and change can be better and less painfully achieved working together, instead of against each other.

Perhaps I'm being thick but I don't see anything in the resignation speech that implies any future tactics really except for a pretty mature reflection on what it means to be in a coalition. I actually found that pretty heartening for any potential minority Government looking to rely on SNP votes to keep the lights on.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/read-first-minister-alex-salmonds-4649984

Let's face it, keeping the lights on is the most important function of Government and the duty of all MPs from all sides. That has to trump party allegiance and ideology. Any political party that threatens to prevent the Government from doing the absolute basics (police, health, education, military, economy) would be shot down at the following election I would hope.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Err I think the 'blatant hostility' goes both ways in Scotland. I don't think there's a Labour, Lib Dem or Tory MP or MSP that can respond to anything without mentioning 'Salmond, Sturgeon or SNP' at least 10 times in 2 or 3 minutes. It's actually part of the problem. In Scotland they've all become purely anti-SNP parties over the last few years. They've nothing else to offer. Scottish Labour plainly never got over 2007..



Not really. I can't think of one myself. Could you expand ?

In response to my post saying thinking 'a lesson could be learned here'

I was thinking of what other countries with internal groups campaigning for Independence could learn from this.

The effect a well organised tightly managed Nationalist, them and us, underdog divisive campaign, despite being light on many other factors can have on thousands of canny Scots. Even if it meant cutting off their nose to spite their face. Possibly influenced by the psyche of the people as well.

Demonstrated by the last stance resort , of any newly converted SNP convert to any discussion is, we don't care if we're worse off, or what happens , as long as we're free and making our own decisions.

Despite it being somewhat contradictory to the mass outrage of thousands of these same new SNP supporters about the effect of the recent minority austerity cuts on ' the poor' seen so far in the UK.

skintmacflint

With the recent comments on SNP in the English Sun etc, why is Salmond publishing his memoirs of the referendum with William Collins part of Harper Collins whom I've read is connected to Rupert Murdoch? And possibly in talks to serialise it in one his papers.

With a boycott routine encouraged for any company or organisation who spoke out against Independence, how can any true SNP supporter buy it?

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well they'd need to increase income taxes by 15p on the pound just to cover the deficit this year....

I'm sure they would but if the Scottish Government wanted to spend a little more than now then they are able to so long as they increase taxes to pay for it.

Forcing an unwilling British Government to spend more on services that are of less benefit to the British people than the tax taken/increase in debt just to force up the grant to Scotland seems like a ridiculous idea when the Scottish Government could simply use its tax raising powers.

It would be a pity to see a party in a coalition trashing the British economy merely to see a benefit for less than a tenth of the population. Government is about governing for all, not a small subsection of the community.

skintmacflint

Generali wrote: »

Perhaps I'm being thick but I don't see anything in the resignation speech that implies any future tactics really except for a pretty mature reflection on what it means to be in a coalition. I actually found that pretty heartening for any potential minority Government looking to rely on SNP votes to keep the lights on.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/read-first-minister-alex-salmonds-4649984

Let's face it, keeping the lights on is the most important function of Government and the duty of all MPs from all sides. That has to trump party allegiance and ideology. Any political party that threatens to prevent the Government from doing the absolute basics (police, health, education, military, economy) would be shot down at the following election I would hope.

Was referring to 19th Sept speech, the day he announced he'd be standing done as leader. The one you've linked to is a different one made when he officially stood down in November.

Generali

skintmacflint wrote: »

Was referring to 19th Sept speech, the day he announced he'd be standing done as leader. The one you've linked to is a different one made when he officially stood down in November.

You mean this one:

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/sep/statement-first-minister-alex-salmond

Alex Salmond has announced his intention to stand down as SNP Leader at the Party’s Annual Conference in November and then as First Minister when the SNP have elected the next Leader following a membership ballot.

Speaking from Bute House, the First Minister said

“I am immensely proud of the campaign which Yes Scotland fought and of the 1.6 million voters who rallied to that cause by backing an independent Scotland.

"I am also proud of the 85 per cent turnout in the referendum and the remarkable response of all of the people of Scotland who participated in this great constitutional debate and the manner in which they conducted themselves.

"We now have the opportunity to hold Westminster’s feet to the fire on the “vow” that they have made to devolve further meaningful power to Scotland. This places Scotland in a very strong position.

"I spoke to the Prime Minister today and, although he reiterated his intention to proceed as he has outlined, he would not commit to a second reading vote by 27th March on a Scotland Bill. That was a clear promise laid out by Gordon Brown during the campaign. The Prime Minister says such a vote would be meaningless. I suspect he cannot guarantee the support of his party.

"But today the point is this. The real guardians of progress are not the politicians at Westminster, or even at Holyrood, but the energised activism of tens of thousands of people who I predict will refuse meekly to go back into the political shadows.

"For me right now , therefore there is a decision as to who is best placed to lead this process forward politically.

"I believe that in this new exciting situation, redolent with possibility, Party, Parliament and country would benefit from new leadership.

"Therefore I have told the National Secretary of the SNP that I will not accept nomination to be a candidate for leader at the Annual Conference in Perth on 13th-15th November.

"After the membership ballot I will stand down as First Minister to allow the new leader to be elected by due Parliamentary process.

"Until then I will continue to serve as First Minister. After that I will continue to offer to serve as Member of the Scottish Parliament for Aberdeenshire East.

"It has been the privilege of my life to serve Scotland as First Minister. But as I said often during the referendum campaign this is not about me or the SNP. It is much more important than that.

"The position is this. We lost the referendum vote but can still carry the political initiative. More importantly Scotland can still emerge as the real winner.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Right, so you think that the fact that BetterTogether said there would be no cuts because the Scottish Government controlled 'everything'... and then 6 months later, are saying something different, and that now the Scottish NHS is in great peril because the Scottish Government doesn't control everything.. is somehow excusable ? Are you saying they weren't lying ?

Who's the acolyte ?

For what it's worth I came to the very obvious conclusion that cutting funding from Westminster to the Scottish Budget would result in cuts in Scottish NHS funding...long before Dr Whitford's video went viral. I think most of us did, it's not rocket science. The Scottish govt control admin, not the overall budget allocated.
She was right though, completely right.. and we all knew she was right too. She's a breast cancer surgeon, a very busy lady. Am sure we can forgive her a mistake in the minutiae. Her overall conclusions proved correct. As Jim Murphy and Ed Milliband proved last week.

The scottish government controls how the scottish NHS budget is spent : it's total untrue they 'only' control admin : all the spending decisions are made in scotland. How much is spent on A&E or on cancer treatment or subsidising the rich, walk in centres or refusing to improve NHS efficiency or accepting the higher weekend death rate etc are decision made in Scotland.

Dr Whitfield used her position as a NHS consultant to deliberately cause distress and confusion particularly to the people in NE England: nothing accidental about it at.
She has NEVER apologised to the people of the NE who may well have been very distressed about the lies she told.

The have been no NHS budget cuts in England: if there are budget cuts in scotland that is due to SNP policy.

It is true that the people of scotland voted for the Scottish government NOT to control everything : you have made it plain you hate that decision in the same way you support the proven liar Whitford and continue to consider her words about the English NHS as gospel.

What do you think (now as Whitford has spoken) will be the differences between the English and Scottish NHS in 5 years time?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think the English NHS may well look very different in 5 years time. She's a consultant working within the NHS. As such she probably knows quite a bit more about it than you or I. She said that the NHS wouldn't be safe from cuts if there was a No vote. Better Together said it would. It isn't, says Labour 6 months later.. I'd trust her more than any Labour or Tory politician to say what's what NHS wise, in either England or Scotland.

She didn't tell the truth, and there is a clear SNP spin motive behind the use of what she said. The result ... Credibility is zilch (except for the party faithful of course).

I'm surprised at you Shakey, I knew you swallowed SNP spin about the NHS; now it seems you're willing to swallow Labour spin as well. Dont forget that the Scottish Parliament is on charge of the Scottish NHS and that, overall, the NHS budget is ring fence.

Leanne1812

skintmacflint wrote: »

Apologies Leanne, I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic. There's a lot of it on this thread, including from myself on occasion.

There would be no problem with us sending a large contingent of SNP MPs down to Westminster, if it hadn't been made pretty obvious what the tactics were starting with Salmonds resignation speech on the 19th.

No I wouldn't be happy to see Westminster turned upside down, or a peasants revolt. I want a stable government to create balance for everyone in the UK. For us to recover and build back up , for the benefit of everyone. That needs compromise across government parties, working together.

Westminster reform and change can be better and less painfully achieved working together, instead of against each other.

No worries, cheers for the apology :-)

I don't know what's wrong about Alex Salmond wanting to 'hold Westminster's feet to the fire' with regards to the Vow that was promised. it would have been a disservice to the Yes voters if he hadn't said something.

When I talk of turning Westminster upside down I'm thinking of actual policies that are to the benefit of the masses. Reduce inequality somewhat. Pay people a living wage so they don't need top ups from the gov. Isn't that a bonkers system to have? Everything about the way we do things seems geared for the benefit of big business and increasing profits, all well and good if it trickles down. It appears if inequality is on the rise this definitely is not what's happening. . Am I naive? Possibly but this is my hope for the future.

Of course I want us to work together, I want improvements to the living standards of all UK citizens. I don't see why that can't be achieved with SNP support to a minority gov.

N1AK

Leanne1812 wrote: »

The SNP battled passionately to leave the Union, Salmond made some pretty odious remarks about how he would be willing to exploit the "mighty hand" fate had dealt the SNP in 2010 to get a better deal for Scotland at the expense of the rest of the UK.

Sorry you'll have to guide me. Was it when I said the SNP battled passionately to leave the Union that I ridiculed Alex Salmond? Was claiming he made some pretty odious remarks an example of ridicule or double standards?

Have you checked exactly what ridicule, and double standards, mean? Generally to demonstrate a double standard you would need to show how standards were applied differently.

You seemed to have started this thread posting with some measure of decorum, but the moment you've been faced with an alternative view point you have fallen back on using insults and unmerited accusations of dishonesty.