Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

If more spending was approved for UK, at the request of SNP , then Scotland wrangles another referndum after an EU out result. Wins with even a single vote, then walks away from a share of the debt.

Erm, Labour, and mabye the Lib Dems, would have to approve it too ? I take it you are talking of 'deals' in the coming election resulting in Labour having to depend on other parties to pass budgets ? The SNP can't just 'request' it. A majority in Westminster have to agree.

Independence, a bail out in the national interest, as we did with Ireland. Movement of more Scots over the border who don't care for the new socialist regime of Scotland, or the even harsher cuts imposed, by getting their sums wrong.

FFA much the same as above.

There will probably be more , but if I'm Scottish , live in Scotland and don't trust SNP posturing , why would anyone outside of Scotland.

If Scotland and SNP want to regain trust both inside and outside of Scotland, they need to work with the powers they have and are being given. What would be wrong with that for a change ?

I guess it's not enough for the people who want it and will vote for the SNP in order to get them ? Why else would the SNP be leading in the polls ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Those of you who have gone through the interview process, on either or both sides as I have, will probably have met the deflection technique for answering difficult questions.

The technique is quite simple; if one is asked a question which is difficult or one which you do not feel comfortable with, you ask for some sort of clarification. Most interviewers when asked to clarify a question will be unable to avoid elaborating on the question as in so doing open up the range of possible response which could be construed as some sort of answer but which don't actually address the question asked. In that situation the interviewee can happily answer in any one of a number of ways to try to guide the interview into more "comfortable" areas.

It can be a good technique to get out of a hole but not when up against experienced interviewers. Such responses are glaringly obvious and if repeatedly used are quickly recognised for what they are and simply destroy the credibility of the interviewee.

So if anyone reading this is a potential interviewee, use the technique in an emergency but not more than once or it will be seen for what it is .... deliberate avoidance of the question.

string, I'm not avoiding the question. I've asked you several times for the context in which the SNP are going to doing this overspending. You havent' said yet.

They can't overspend at Holyrood. So I assume you're talking about Westminster. If so, see my reply to mcskinflint. Anything the SNP propose would have to be passed by a majority at Westminster. So at least one 'big' party would have to agree with them. Simple as that.

I see in the last few minutes Milliband has ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP ( bearing in mind the SNP have already ruled it out ).. Good. Lets see how that one plays out..

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

string, I'm not avoiding the question. I've asked you several times for the context in which the SNP are going to doing this overspending. You havent' said yet.

They can't overspend at Holyrood. So I assume you're talking about Westminster. If so, see my reply to mcskinflint. Anything the SNP propose would have to be passed by a majority at Westminster. So at least one 'big' party would have to agree with them. Simple as that.

I see in the last few minutes Milliband has ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP ( bearing in mind the SNP have already ruled it out ).. Good. Lets see how that one plays out..

forgive my ignorance of the Scottish situation : is the borrowing by Scottish local government 'approved' by Westminster, Holyrood or are they free to borrow as they will?

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

Interesting point the Clapton; I agree up to a point although I must say, nomadic though it may be, that the sense of territory or "home" is strong in humans and may well be a very real factor in their feeling of belonging.

The kinship-to-the-people argument would go some way to legitimising Russia's annexation of the Crimea and Eastern Ukrain, although in that case it is moot as to whether there was a genuine democratic decision made there and, in the end it was, and is, an illegal invasion.

But it could also be applied to the current Scottish situation. It would be logical and democratic to include all Scots living in the UK (who would be affected by the decision made in a referendum) to be included in any future separation referendum. Mind you, I would not be surprised if the SNP did not find all sorts of reasons to ignore them ranging from "We can't be bothered to work out who they are, it's much too difficult", through "they're not true scots because they don't live in Scotland and foreign nationals who live here are much more worthy of a vote" to "Ok we agree but only if the vote is given to those older than 12 [sub voce] because they are more likely to vote YES if we throw in free state-funded video games[/sub voce]" and "old fogies can't vote because they have no future".

A full discussion would require a separate thread as it is a difficult question of what constitutes as country or indeed what you mean by it.
It general most situations are about the international situation and what the UN family of nations recognises as a sovereign state with the main concern is to avoid endless wars.

Scottish independence is very different as they are part of a benevolent union where they have been allowed to vote freely on the matter. It is almost certain there will be a further vote sooner or later.

Because of the many practical difficulties, personally it seems reasonable that the voters of Scotland should decide and not ethic Scots elsewhere.

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I see in the last few minutes Milliband has ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP ( bearing in mind the SNP have already ruled it out ).. Good. Lets see how that one plays out..

Who's daft enough to think a formal coalition is the only way to maintain a minority government. He's not gone far enough.

Sturgeon this morning...

"I can't see for the life of me why Labour wouldn't want to contemplate the possibility of working with the SNP to keep the Tories out of office," she said at a lecture to the London School of Economics.

"As long as there are more SNP and Labour MPs than there are Tory MPs, we can lock the Tories out of government, there is no question about that.

"So I won't rule out those other working relationships. In fact, I think they may have many things to commend them."

Obviously didn't get the memo from the internet about a Tory government being good for the SNP.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

string, I'm not avoiding the question. I've asked you several times for the context in which the SNP are going to doing this overspending. You havent' said yet.

They can't overspend at Holyrood. So I assume you're talking about Westminster. If so, see my reply to mcskinflint. Anything the SNP propose would have to be passed by a majority at Westminster. So at least one 'big' party would have to agree with them. Simple as that.

I see in the last few minutes Milliband has ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP ( bearing in mind the SNP have already ruled it out ).. Good. Lets see how that one plays out..

Basically the answer is "any time the SNP can find a way", maybe just shuffling an overpayment into a borrowed debt - have another look at this, issued a while back by an SNP supporter GERS Swimming Lessons A nice pair of deficits you've got there SNP!; but a specific example, if you will, is the situation that the SNP say they are after (and therefore you too), namely Full Fiscal Autonomy (I spelt it out because the words are important).

FFA is precisely what the SNP were pretending they would get during their Referendum Conpaign relative to the matter of keeping the pound. The UK was not willing to share the pound with a separated Scotland because, bluntly, mismanagement or simply bad luck would have involved the UK in bailing out Scotland.

That situation would also be unacceptable in a situation where the Scottish Government did not feel itself bound by fiscal boundaries from Westminster and would therefore involve the UK in financial risks all for the sake of its separatist obsession. Exacerbating that is the unacceptable (literally unacceptable) attitude of the SNP with respect to paying its share of the National Debt. You’ve still not commented on the morality of that Shakey.

As I have mentioned time and time again, FFA is not compatible with staying in the Union. So it is an absolute non-starter; so, for that matter are Sturgeons cynical aspirations on fiscal carte blanche, free of Westminster involvement. Since we are in a Union we act like one, not like separate countries with a treaty.

As it is I read recently that Swinney was going for the maximum money available - can't find the link unfortunately (so no concept of a reserve then). No doubt he hopes to keep the grumbles at home on the Scottish Government managed Education system and NHS below the parapet so that he can later claim that it is nothing to do with him but is all Westminster's fault because they would not give him enough .... and so on and so forth ... It's all so pathetic.

.string.

wotsthat wrote: »

Who's daft enough to think a formal coalition is the only way to maintain a minority government. He's not gone far enough.

Sturgeon this morning...



Obviously didn't get the memo from the internet about a Tory government being good for the SNP.

I agree with you - Miliband has obviously not understood the expression which remains true - "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

It's insulting, really, these weasel words - he really must have a very low opinion of the electorate to think that anyone swallows his subterfuge.

I would not have the same problem were it another party than the SNP, but a party with a disloyal agenda - no way.

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

Who's daft enough to think a formal coalition is the only way to maintain a minority government. He's not gone far enough.

Sturgeon this morning...

Obviously didn't get the memo from the internet about a Tory government being good for the SNP.

SNP ruled out a coalition weeks ago. The whole Tory coalition thing was pure spin. Worked well though. Milliband had to do something so he could actually talk about Labour and it's policies for a change. It was taking over.

Tory govt being good for the SNP ? Ask Fraser Nelson and the Telegraph. He seems to think that's what Nicola Sturgeon wants ? And he's no SNP fan.

Without a villain, Ms Sturgeon will not have much of a pantomime; so she needs Cameron, the Old Etonian with a Brasenose First, as prime minister. Ideally in coalition with Nigel Farage. And most of all, she wants his in-or-out referendum on the European Union. If England votes to leave and Scotland to stay, it would induce the constitutional crisis that the SNP needs. This is the new road map to independence. But for now, the SNP needs to win as many seats as possible – which means publicly entertaining the idea of coalition with Ed Miliband. Polls show that such an alliance would be the most popular election result in Scotland – which is precisely why, in the end, Ms Sturgeon can’t allow it to happen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11362683/What-the-SNP-really-wants-is-Mr-Cameron-back-in-No-10.html

I'm not sure I personally agree with him on much there. But he's not been the first to say it re Tory governments and the SNP.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I agree with you - Miliband has obviously not understood the expression which remains true - "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

It's insulting, really, these weasel words - he really must have a very low opinion of the electorate to think that anyone swallows his subterfuge.

I would not have the same problem were it another party than the SNP, but a party with a disloyal agenda - no way.

Wow, what's next.. Labour MP's refusing to sit next to elected SNP MP's.. :eek: Things getting that bad are they. Oh dear. In other words, the Tories are setting Labours agenda for them. Actually, it's all starting to feel a bit like the closing weeks of the referendum.

I liked this comment today. Describes Labour's desperation to a tee, especially the last sentence.

But some Labour politicians are even calling for tactical voting in Scotland with the Tories to keep the SNP out. This is simply unfathomable. If Labour stands shoulder to shoulder with the Tories again in defence of the Union then they are giving themselves no chance of ever recovering in Scotland and making it more likely that the Tories stay on office. All of which just accelerates the shift to independence.

Arguing that a vote for the SNP will let the Tories in because Labour will never do a deal with the SNP is about as warped as political blackmail gets.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/neal-lawson-why-labour-must-do-deal-snp

Yes, quite.

ps string, gosh you sound really angry lately. I hope all is well. Deep breaths. It's only a discussion topic.

ruggedtoast

Every man woman and child in Scotland can vote SNP from now to the end of eternity and it won't make a blind bit of difference. Scotland will never be separate from the UK.

End of thread.