Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Re the recent remarks pointing out that the writing was on the wall a long time before the referendum and was exposed by the No campaign. Thanks to all tose posts which were all well researched and well put.

One major charge that is put at the SNP's door is their blatant disregard of these warning which they dismissed as mere scare-mongering by the No Campaign. The SNP leadership may have been economic cretins and their activists gullible fools, but I don't think that, while it may be true to some degree, was the true situation. I think the warnings were so clear and the process of oil price slump so obvious that they were dishonest in continuing to promulgate a Natland full of oil and honey after separation even though they knew that from day 1 they would have led Scotland into being an economic basket case and a collapsed welfare state, needing financial help (aka charity) to help them get over it.

They fed that to the Scottish electorate far beyond honesty.

A real Scottish political Party, with Scotland's interests truly in mind, would not lie like that and would have the honesty and guts to admit to such things and change their ways, but not the SNP. They prefer to try and spin their way out of it, change the subject or ignore it, and continue with yet more misinformation.

.string.

skintmacflint wrote: »

....

I certainly agree the continued uncertainty and publicity wouldn't inspire me if a private investor or in government , to plough money into long term investment in Scotland. Although I'm sure I read or heard this wasn't the case. The problem being one never knows what to believe unless you perhaps deal or work in that area and know what isn't being reported.

This matter of investment in Scotland is a real potential problem I think, the result of the GE will be crucial because if the SNP were to succeed in wrecking effective government then there could be consequences to people's confidence for investing not just in Scotland but also in the UK as a whole.

Is there such a thing as a "law of intended Consequences"? I wonder.

Personally I don't think the SNP can succeed with their wrecking ball whoever "wins" the GE whether it be Labour or Conservative for the reasons I've given before, but in politics one can never be sure of anything.

This lack of confidence is pervasive and I can give an example from my own recent actions.

My current House and Contents Insurance stops in early April. I renew it each year by credit card. So I received a letter from the Insurance Company giving the cost for the new year and the new terms and conditions. The cost had gone up. In looking through their offer, at the bottom of one page it stated that they were registered in Scotland. The company was Aviva by the way. So, being in the frame of mind of pondering if I should switch due to the price increase, I wondered what the situation would be if I tried to get an English-registered company (which I would have done in any case during the year should, for example, corporation tax be devolved). I looked around, consulted the"Which" report on the subject, found a couple of companies with lower prices and am now to be insured by an Insurance based in England which gave over £100 pounds less for more cover.

Had my existing Insurance company not been so expensive I would probably not even have thought of changing insurance and had not the uncertainty surrounding the role of the SNP in sabotaging the new Devolution deal not existed then I would never have thought to look, even curiously, at where the Insurance Company was based when I renewed. But in current circumstances I did.

Reflecting on what I had done, I can see that the matter of confidence and the drip drip of SNP nastiness are corrosive and are gradually beginning to infuse concern into an awakening "English" consciousness of where their money is spent and who it benefits. It does not bode well for Scotland.

I do hope the SNP get their come-uppance sooner rather than later.

.string.

Further to the matter of oil, the following is well worth a read:

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow Uni

Scotland you were conned

ruggedtoast

And still the nationalists complain post the referendum that was their idea, their fault and their failure.

They put Scotland on hold for two years. Crippled confidence in its economy and perpetually undermined the UK government.

They fiddled with the age limits on voting so that 16 year olds could vote, in the mistaken belief that callow youths would be more likely to throw their futures away than adults, on Salmonds lies.

They gerrymandered the voting pool so that born and bred scots living one metre outside the border of Scotland were denied a vote while someone just off the plane from Ecuador had a say. In the mistaken belief that those inside Scotland could be relied upon to be more parochial and anti English than those outside.

They misappropriated civil service resources to print appallingly misleading 'advice booklets' on Scotland's economic reality based on the SNP's fabricated figures rather than authenticated UK ones. This led to an internal investigation which concluded that Salmond had enacted an 'outrageous' misuse of the civil service in Scotland to promote SNP political interests.

They swaggered about bullying businesses, waving flags like some kind of cult, pouring bile onto the internet, and made such absurd claims about Scotland's political future that even Barack Obama felt compelled to slap down Salmonds narcissistic nonsense on the record.

And they still lost, yet continue to complain like they were in some way robbed of their right to victory.

Tromking

.string. wrote: »

Further to the matter of oil, the following is well worth a read:

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow Uni

That`s only a re-iteration of what every English taxpayer (and switched on Scot) already knows.
The SNP are nothing more than peddlers of lies and spenders of the English subsidy.

zagubov

.string. wrote: »

Further to the matter of oil, the following is well worth a read:

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow Uni

Everything about this website is well worth a read.:D

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11485800/Alex-Salmonds-new-book-is-literary-masturbation.html

I thought it was an interesting piece of literary criticism by Lord Ashdown

Paddy Pantsdown ! I can certainly understand why he used that particular mode of criticism... There were more people at Alex Salmond's book signing yesterday than there were at the Lib Dem conference. Say it all as far as the Scots Lib Dems are concerned.

It's a campaign diary.. not a set of in-depth historical memoirs. 'Literary criticism'..:rotfl:

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Re the recent remarks pointing out that the writing was on the wall a long time before the referendum and was exposed by the No campaign. Thanks to all tose posts which were all well researched and well put.

One major charge that is put at the SNP's door is their blatant disregard of these warning which they dismissed as mere scare-mongering by the No Campaign. The SNP leadership may have been economic cretins and their activists gullible fools, but I don't think that, while it may be true to some degree, was the true situation. I think the warnings were so clear and the process of oil price slump so obvious that they were dishonest in continuing to promulgate a Natland full of oil and honey after separation even though they knew that from day 1 they would have led Scotland into being an economic basket case and a collapsed welfare state, needing financial help (aka charity) to help them get over it.

They fed that to the Scottish electorate far beyond honesty.

A real Scottish political Party, with Scotland's interests truly in mind, would not lie like that and would have the honesty and guts to admit to such things and change their ways, but not the SNP. They prefer to try and spin their way out of it, change the subject or ignore it, and continue with yet more misinformation.

Most of the last two pages of this thread have been summed up wonderfully by Ian Bell today.. You all must think Scot's are gullible idiots. You're wrong I'm afraid..

What are those Scots playing at? What do they hope to achieve? The word employed increasingly is "illogical". It's the polite way of saying that the forever turbulent folk beyond Berwick have lost their wits. A variant sustains Unionist diehards in these parts. The words they favour are "cult" and "dupes". Why has the Scottish National Party built a massive and apparently impregnable lead in opinion surveys? Because, comes the reply, its supporters are the political equivalent of the Moonies; because they are ill-educated or none too bright; because they have been lied to time and again.


It's a complicated yet crude way to explain away the collapse of three Westminster parties. It's not, at first sight, the perfect formula for a hearts-and-minds campaign. A few Tories aside, no one talked like this when Labour was picking up 42 per cent of the Scottish vote in the 2010 election.


Hysterical rancour is the language of the lost cause.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/it-is-simple-in-our-political-behaviour-we-bear-no-resemblance-to-the-other-parts.121216241

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

This matter of investment in Scotland is a real potential problem I think, the result of the GE will be crucial because if the SNP were to succeed in wrecking effective government then there could be consequences to people's confidence for investing not just in Scotland but also in the UK as a whole.

Is there such a thing as a "law of intended Consequences"? I wonder.

Personally I don't think the SNP can succeed with their wrecking ball whoever "wins" the GE whether it be Labour or Conservative for the reasons I've given before, but in politics one can never be sure of anything.

This lack of confidence is pervasive and I can give an example from my own recent actions.

Reflecting on what I had done, I can see that the matter of confidence and the drip drip of SNP nastiness are corrosive and are gradually beginning to infuse concern into an awakening "English" consciousness of where their money is spent and who it benefits. It does not bode well for Scotland.

I do hope the SNP get their come-uppance sooner rather than later.

Hmmm mabye not, the IFS is suggesting that Labour get on board with the SNP's anti-austerity policies.

IFS: Labour 'could sign up to Nicola Sturgeon's call for billions extra in public spending'...

The First Minister was accused of wanting to "bankrupt Britain" when she first made her call last month.
But the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said new figures in this week's Budget showed that not only was her plan feasible, but if Labour agreed to the proposals the party could still meet its aim to balance UK's books by 2020.


When she made her call the SNP leader estimated that £180 billion would be required to meet her proposal - for a 0.5 per cent rise in departmental spending.
The IFS said that an analysis of the latest calculations in the Budget suggested that that figure had dropped dramatically.
Its analysis showed that Labour could meet its target for a balanced Budget by the last year of the next parliament and still increase departmental spending in real terms by £9bn a year between 2015-16 and 2019-20.


The think tank said that this £9bn increase equated to an average growth of 0.5 per cent a year - the same as the SNP proposals.
Gemma Tetlow, programme director at the IFS, said: "On the basis of projections Labour could achieve a current budget balance by 2019/20 and increase departmental spending by 0.5 per cent per year on average over the four years from 2015-16, without requiring any further tax rises or changes to welfare spending beyond the £1.2bn they propose to raise from a mansion tax."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/ifs-labour-could-sign-up-to-nicola-sturgeons-call-for-billions-extra-i.121222793

elantan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Paddy Pantsdown ! I can certainly understand why he used that particular mode of criticism... There were more people at Alex Salmond's book signing yesterday than there were at the Lib Dem conference. Say it all as far as the Scots Lib Dems are concerned.

It's a campaign diary.. not a set of in-depth historical memoirs. 'Literary criticism'..:rotfl:

I was at the Thursday one in Glasgow, they had to close the queue at 1.30ish ( opened at 12.30) as it was so busy, loads of people got turned away I felt quite sorry for them but if the queue wasnt stopped the poor man wouldve still been there meeting people.

On a side note bumped into several politicians today was quite hard stopping myself getting back into the whole campaigning for the GE ... but I think I may have managed it ... for now :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: