Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote:

Is that likely to happen in May ? I thought you said independence was off the agenda for another 20 or 30 years ? Why would Scotland need to balance it's books if that were true.
........

Well that question is the nub of it - why should "Scotland" (put in inverted commas because it is the SNP attitude we are talking about here) balance the books if it is not independent?

To remain in tune with the fortunes and misfortunes of the rest of us and not act like a parasite running up debts and expecting others to pay for them.

But that is clearly the SNP strategy and is precisely why they distrusted.

With that in mind, we see the truth behind the cynical whinging that your Mighty Granny is on about in this piece:

David Cameron has broken his ‘vow’ to the Scottish people - Nicola Sturgeon, where she promulgated that blatant and cynical lie by introducing fictitious promises which were not part of what was actually promised by the three party leaders at the time.

In that article she is muttering things like: "Scotland would be tied to the UK’s current austerity fiscal framework, and under the plans set out could see capital borrowing powers replace, and not augment, the existing capital grant." where clearly she has in mind spending more than Scotland's fair share (that's the per capita thing by the way) and by inference shifting the expense to the rest of us.

No wonder no-one here wants to deal with the SNP.

As for her remark:
"... the Scottish government would be a constructive participant, working with the UK government to bring forward what Lord Smith recommended"

That, I'm afraid, is simply not credible.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

You are wrong on a couple of counts, at least, there.

It's not to do with SNP/Scots - it's just the SNP.

It's not stirring up - people are already "stirred up" about the prospect of having saboteurs in Government.

You think columns in widely read English newspapers citing Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech.. evoke images of the SNP then ?

And if so, why is it in an English newspaper and not a Scottish one ? Surely rants aimed soley at the SNP would be better played out in the area where people actually have the choice or not to vote for them ? How come up here we don't get to see Nicola Sturgeon on a wrecking ball or similar ?

The English are being fed wholesale a line by Tory supporting newspapers. For votes. And they don't always take care to differentiate between the SNP, Scotland and Scots either. As you yourself point out there is an important distinction there. Much more care should be taken to make sure it is one always made.

If Scotland rules England, I can foresee the Thames foaming with much blood

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

... I notice Generali has posted 2 links one of which I have dismissed and the other I'd define as anti westminster not english. Do you disagree?

I'm sorry to repeat what has been said many times which is that the anti-Westminster thing is clearly aka I hate the Brits aka I hate the English. The whole inference of that phrase is to do with putting forward the notion that Westminster (aka Brits aka English) do not care about, nor do justice to, nor are as as competent as, the Scots).

"South of the border" is used in much the same way.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

.. we don't get to see Nicola Sturgeon on a wrecking ball or similar ?...

Because she is in the business of still conning the me, me, approach of getting something for nothing under cover of Scottish Nationalism.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Well that question is the nub of it - why should "Scotland" (put in inverted commas because it is the SNP attitude we are talking about here) balance the books if it is not independent?

To remain in tune with the fortunes and misfortunes of the rest of us and not act like a parasite running up debts and expecting others to pay for them.

But that is clearly the SNP strategy and is precisely why they distrusted.

With that in mind, we see the truth behind the cynical whinging that your Mighty Granny is on about in this piece:

David Cameron has broken his ‘vow’ to the Scottish people - Nicola Sturgeon, where she promulgated that blatant and cynical lie by introducing fictitious promises which were not part of what was actually promised by the three party leaders at the time.

In that article she is muttering things like: "Scotland would be tied to the UK’s current austerity fiscal framework, and under the plans set out could see capital borrowing powers replace, and not augment, the existing capital grant." where clearly she has in mind spending more than Scotland's fair share (that's the per capita thing by the way) and by inference shifting the expense to the rest of us.

No wonder no-one here wants to deal with the SNP.

As for her remark:
"... the Scottish government would be a constructive participant, working with the UK government to bring forward what Lord Smith recommended"

That, I'm afraid, is simply not credible.

She may however, have been referring to this :-

On 10 September, David Cameron stated in an interview with Channel 4 News that “all the options of devolution” would be on the table in the event of a No vote.
Presenter: Basically, what happened is you underestimated the desire for change in Scotland and you didn’t make the big offer the people of Scotland might have been interested in – you made a mistake?

David Cameron: I don’t accept that. Right from the moment that I made my first speech in this campaign I made clear that a vote No to separation was a vote Yes for further devolution. I have always made that clear.

Presenter: I was at that speech. I remember it very vividly. You were in front of Edinburgh Castle then as well and you said, “This campaign is not the time to start discussing what sort of devolution offer would follow a No vote.” Well, you were wrong; that’s what you should have been offering and offering big. There was an appetite for that amongst the Scottish people.

David Cameron: Well, I think it is important to answer the prior question, which is does Scotland want to stay inside the United Kingdom? If Scotland says it does want to stay inside the United Kingdom then all the options of devolution are there and are possible, but of course if Scotland votes to separate itself, that’s the end of devolution and that’s pretty much the point I said when I last had that behind me in one of these shots.

Thanks for reminding me that Cameron is also quoted on record saying 'all options of devolution are there and are possible'.. Surely he meant it string ? :cool: What do you think he was saying to the Scots who were watching and undecided on how to cast their vote ?

.string.

I see you are not denying the thrust of what the SNP are up to.

What did Cameron mean - clearly all the options of devolution, not all the options of separation.

Do you deny that the SNP policy is to spend more than it's fair share and pile it all onto the UK debt?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I see you are not denying the thrust of what the SNP are up to.

What did Cameron mean - clearly all the options of devolution, not all the options of separation.

Do you deny that the SNP policy is to spend more than it's fair share and pile it all onto the UK debt?

What they are 'up' too ? I don't think they've been particularly shy in what they stand for in regards Scottish independence. Or gaining further powers.

All options of devolution include Devo-Max/FFA. And I do deny the SNP policy you're putting forward as factual. We've just had a referendum on independence which was a No. In which case, as long as 'all options of devolution are on the table with a No vote'.. then Devo-Max/FFA must by that measure 'be on the table'.

FFA would mean all taxes raised in Scotland, paying for Scotland and full control over economic and social policy. As such, it would be very difficult for the SNP to take more than it's fair share. Since it wouldn't be taking anything. Scotland would be paying in only for shared UK services/debt. Rather than Westminster/Treasury/Barnett paying out. Just look at it as a swap about of the way things are done.

You'd have nothing to get really annoyed about then either.

* cue Hamish

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What they are 'up' too ? I don't think they've been particularly shy in what they stand for in regards Scottish independence. Or gaining further powers.

All options of devolution include Devo-Max/FFA. And I do deny the SNP policy you're putting forward as factual. We've just had a referendum on independence which was a No. In which case, as long as 'all options of devolution are on the table with a No vote'.. then Devo-Max/FFA must by that measure 'be on the table'.

FFA would mean all taxes raised in Scotland, paying for Scotland and full control over economic and social policy. As such, it would be very difficult for the SNP to take more than it's fair share. Since it wouldn't be taking anything. Scotland would be paying in only for shared UK services/debt. Rather than Westminster/Treasury/Barnett paying out. Just look at it as a swap about of the way things are done.

You'd have nothing to get really annoyed about then either.

* cue Hamish

Do you mean that your principles about 'fairness', greater equality and beliefs about higher taxes for the wealthy, mean that each of the regions of the UK should NOT share their wealth with less fortunate regions?
Do you believe that each region should have only the wealth they create and the poorer parts should stay poor and the richer part stay rich?
'We are all Thatcherites now and To the rich shall be given' as the SNP's new motto?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What they are 'up' too ? I don't think they've been particularly shy in what they stand for in regards Scottish independence. Or gaining further powers.

All options of devolution include Devo-Max/FFA. And I do deny the SNP policy you're putting forward as factual. We've just had a referendum on independence which was a No. In which case, as long as 'all options of devolution are on the table with a No vote'.. then Devo-Max/FFA must by that measure 'be on the table'.

FFA would mean all taxes raised in Scotland, paying for Scotland and full control over economic and social policy. As such, it would be very difficult for the SNP to take more than it's fair share. Since it wouldn't be taking anything. Scotland would be paying in only for shared UK services/debt. Rather than Westminster/Treasury/Barnett paying out. Just look at it as a swap about of the way things are done.

You'd have nothing to get really annoyed about then either.

* cue Hamish

You did not answer the question, just referred to a hypothetical situation, so I'll ask again.


Do you deny that the SNP policy is to spend more than it's fair share and pile it all onto the UK debt?

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Do you mean that your principles about 'fairness', greater equality and beliefs about higher taxes for the wealthy, mean that each of the regions of the UK should NOT share their wealth with less fortunate regions?
Do you believe that each region should have only the wealth they create and the poorer parts should stay poor and the richer part stay rich?

Have you mistaken me for some kind of rabid marxist instead of an SNP voter ? I subscribe more to the view than any country ( Scotland ) with a devolved parliament.. One who's political leanings are diverging to the extent that the two main parties in power in Westminster, may have little in the way of meaningful representation.. Either in Holyrood or Westminster within the next two years.... May be quickly coming to the conclusion that there is something very wrong there somewhere.

As is the rest of the UK. Who patently also aren't in the least impressed with the way Scotland may be casting it's votes for the next few years. Politically at least, for the moment the union is splitting. Even the possible Westminster make-up after this election is causing concern and division.. ( talk of Labour committing suicide in England if deal made with SNP, Grand coalition to 'keep the SNP out etc etc ).

This may only be a temporary thing of course and Labour may at some point regain it's 'lost' MP's.. But if it's not. Then where the politics takes us, economics is sure to follow. There's no point huffing and puffing and wishing the SNP would just go away, as seems to be most prominent narrative at the moment. They also have a duty to those who vote for them.

There's very few of those who vote for them that will be accepting that once they do.. that the SNP should just shut up. Further powers or to make sure those that were promised should do.

All this of course will just go over your head, because you believe Scotland is a region. I'm not going to argue with you. Just that others don't look at things quite like that.

'We are all Thatcherites now and To the rich shall be given' as the SNP's new motto?

No, I think it's 'Vote SNP, get SNP'.. refreshing when all the parties don't seem to want to even be associated with their own name.. 'Vote SNP, Get Tory'..'Vote UKIP, Get Labour'..