Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

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?

Yes.. I do. They've put forward their economic proposals. Even in a hung parliament ( even if Labour does a confidence/supply deal ).. If neither Labour/Tory or Lib Dems like those proposals they can just join forces and vote against it ?
However, there are some that feel the proposals are actually quite good and make sense in the current climate where the recovery is very uneven. The deficit will still go down. Labour as I've said before might be quite glad to use the SNP as an excuse.

Out of interest, do you think Ed Milliband will rule out ANY deal with the SNP in the next few weeks ? ( there will be no coalition, that's just spin )..

.string.

Yet again no answer, this time to Clapton's questions. Just the same old same.

Why don' t you get to the point?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes.. I do. They've put forward their economic proposals. Even in a hung parliament ( even if Labour does a confidence/supply deal ).. If neither Labour/Tory or Lib Dems like those proposals they can just join forces and vote against it ?
However, there are some that feel the proposals are actually quite good and make sense in the current climate where the recovery is very uneven. The deficit will still go down. Labour as I've said before might be quite glad to use the SNP as an excuse.

Out of interest, do you think Ed Milliband will rule out ANY deal with the SNP in the next few weeks ? ( there will be no coalition, that's just spin )..

So let's humour you ... You deny that the SNP will overspend compared with the funds allocated & raised in Scotland, as decided by the UK Parliament. Is that right? No overspend at all?

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.



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'..

you don't answer the question of course but no change there.

Scotland is a non sovereign region of the UK.

You can call it whatever you like but they doesn't make any difference in terms of its governance.
I believe what matters is what the people of that region decide and not the lunatic view that calling something by a name like 'nation' somehow gives it some unique set of rights.

Obviously, I understand that people who have an irrational view of 'nationhood' can be driven to extreme views that sadly have historically led to enormous suffering.

However, coming back to the point, I believe that the poorer parts of the UK should be supported by the richer parts without the distraction of nonsense nationalism.

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

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.

Westminster & England are quite clearly 2 entirely different things. If you choose to view them as the same there is most probably absolutely nothing I can say to make you realise they are not.


Your whole post is just your opinion. I'm british too you know. That's just nonsense that scots think we are superior. Your are generalising & stereotyping and it's simply not true.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

So let's humour you ... You deny that the SNP will overspend compared with the funds allocated & raised in Scotland, as decided by the UK Parliament. Is that right? No overspend at all?

You'll have to be a lot clearer. At the moment the Scottish government get a fixed budget decided by the UK Parliament. It's impossible to overspend.

In what scenario is this overspend going to happen in the near future ? As long as the UK parliament decides the Scottish, Welsh and NI budgets. None of them can possibly overspend.

And if the SNP is ever in charge of Scotland's budget, in order to overspend anything. It would only be through independence of FFA. In which case, they couldn't overspend UK money or add to the debt.. because Scotland would be raising and spending it's own revenues and contributing for shared services/debt.

I think we've crossed wires somewhere. Because I'm at a bit of a loss as to how the SNP will go 'wild in the aisles' in a UK context ? Yes, I think I need humoured.

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Westminster & England are quite clearly 2 entirely different things. If you choose to view them as the same there is most probably absolutely nothing I can say to make you realise they are not.


Your whole post is just your opinion. I'm british too you know. That's just nonsense that scots think we are superior. Your are generalising & stereotyping and it's simply not true.

I'll grant you that there is a sort of sliding scale between actuality and perception, but 2 points, first that I am not alone in thinking this and 2 my assertion is backed by the completely undeniable fact that the YES campaign used alienation as a tool to foster difference and by inference uniqueness of Scots vis a vis the Brits etc. ...and still it ccontinues I'm afraid in the lack of respect for other opinions on the Union.

One matter that I have been wanting to mention to you before is the following.

You could maybe understand my viewpoint better if I do so.

Scottish Patriotism was evident in both sides of the YES/NO divide and generated passion in Scotland. You (and others) need to realise that many people like myself are not primarily English but British and have just as much passion for that identity. So when I see this separatist sentiment I see it as an attack to destroy my country; a hostile act that can never be accepted or forgiven. Yet I , on the contrary, have no wish to destroy any part of the UK let alone Scotland so I see every insinuation that I have no opinion that matters very, very insulting.

Imagine if you will your reaction to a political movement, wanting secession from Scotland and formal union with England, in the border areas up to and including parts of Glasgow and, having local power there, refused to act according to a referendum by insisting on continuing its own policies.

Anyway my resistance to the SNP is implacable.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

you don't answer the question of course but no change there.

Scotland is a non sovereign region of the UK. You can call it whatever you like but they doesn't make any difference in terms of its governance.

Well it obviously does, as there's a devolved Scottish parliament.. well... governing in devolved areas, differently.

I believe what matters is what the people of that region decide and not the lunatic view that calling something by a name like 'nation' somehow gives it some unique set of rights.

You think all the nations of the world don't have unique sets of rights.. I'm not quite sure where to start with that one.

Obviously, I understand that people who have an irrational view of 'nationhood' can be driven to extreme views that sadly have historically led to enormous suffering.

You're right. Lets all ditch this UK nonsense and become part of the United States of Europe. There's no such thing as 'nationhood' and it can only cause extremism and suffering.

However, coming back to the point, I believe that the poorer parts of the UK should be supported by the richer parts without the distraction of nonsense nationalism.

Yes, that's why BetterTogether were so keen to keep Scotland on. It's one of the richer regions..

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

I'll grant you that there is a sort of sliding scale between actuality and perception, but 2 points, first that I am not alone in thinking this and 2 my assertion is backed by the completely undeniable fact that the YES campaign used alienation as a tool to foster difference and by inference uniqueness of Scots vis a vis the Brits etc. ...and still it ccontinues I'm afraid in the lack of respect for other opinions on the Union.

One matter that I have been wanting to mention to you before is the following.

You could maybe understand my viewpoint better if I do so.

Scottish Patriotism was evident in both sides of the YES/NO divide and generated passion in Scotland. You (and others) need to realise that many people like myself are not primarily English but British and have just as much passion for that identity. So when I see this separatist sentiment I see it as an attack to destroy my country; a hostile act that can never be accepted or forgiven. Yet I , on the contrary, have no wish to destroy any part of the UK let alone Scotland so I see every insinuation that I have no opinion that matters very, very insulting.

Imagine if you will your reaction to a political movement, wanting secession from Scotland and formal union with England, in the border areas up to and including parts of Glasgow and, having local power there, refused to act according to a referendum by insisting on continuing its own policies.

Anyway my resistance to the SNP is implacable.

String, you seem to be taking this very personally. As if those of us who wished to secede from the Union did so because we somehow disliked our neighbours. I am truly sorry you feel this way. You're a unionist as is my brother and some of my closest friends. I have no gripe with that, there's no malice from me towards any of my UK neighbours. I think I may speak for the majority of Yes voters when I say I voted Yes to end a political union primarily.

If the polls play out as expected and scots vote 50+ SNP MP's it's quite clear to see that politically our nations are quite divergent. For me it's clear that Scotland having a small population is always going to struggle to be represented in a shared parliament. The voice Scotland has is small and for me it was best to control our own destiny. Alas most of my country didn't agree. I'm over it and you should try too, there's no point in being bitter about it.


I'd like to add that Scotland is a country in its own right, as is England, Wales & NI.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. And that's what it is, an opinion. It does not make it fact or right. For me when you speak of anti Westminster being the same as anti English that's wrong.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well it obviously does, as there's a devolved Scottish parliament.. well... governing in devolved areas, differently.

You think all the nations of the world don't have unique sets of rights.. I'm not quite sure where to start with that one.

You're right. Lets all ditch this UK nonsense and become part of the United States of Europe. There's no such thing as 'nationhood' and it can only cause extremism and suffering.

Yes, that's why BetterTogether were so keen to keep Scotland on. It's one of the richer regions..

There are of course many good reasons why people wish to collect together and be governed in a certain way.
-They may wish to form such a collective because they will be richer and so have Thatcherite self interest.
-They may feel that have shared language and key values like good governance and rule of law, trial by a jury of one's peers etc.
-They may feel that they have key beliefs that link them like religious beliefs that justify killing non believers
-They may believe they have a similar genetics characteristics
-etc etc

but none of them can reasonably say a particular piece of real estate defines anything but a geographical area irrespective from the values of the peoples occupying that space.

Indeed, people may well take the view that they which to subscribe to the values, language, governance, legal system of a European superstate but that would only be reasonable if they shared the same values or felt that they would simply be richer but not because they happened to be a few miles off the French coast.

The people of Scotland should chose their form of government based on values and not by way of occupying a specific land mass.