Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

elantan wrote: »

The plan isn't to cancel the contract early, its to not renew

We source our nuclear deterrent from the US.

The Americans are extremely good at tit for tat, even if it isn't overtly expressed as such.

So we cancel Trident. All of a sudden that contract renewal for Rolls Royce supplied engines doesn't come our way.

Defence spend has always been extremely political. Ask a certain Mr Heseltine

Personally, I can think of better ways of spending Trident money. However, I am realistic enough to know that change doesn't come without cost.

elantan

I was merely replying to your statement that it would cost money to cancel, the plan wasn't to cancel it is to not renew

As for the US punishing us for not renewing, I am not positive they could afford to risk that either

But that's an aside really

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Mabye we'll have to if the upper echelon's in Tory land are currently considering...

Conservative Homehttp://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/03/the-290-seat-conservative-government-1-cameron-should-be-ready-to-negotiate-with-salmond.html

Desperate days in the Tory camp mabye ( not that it will happen ).

Ah at last! Something interesting to read. Thank you for those links Shakey (I mean that - no kidding). I see it goes back to last year.

I've mentioned take it or leave it a few times and had one or two ideas in mind - that think-tank stuff adds a few more options.

Sturgeon would be well advised to tone down the.no deal with the Tories mantra to avoid getting too much egg on her face when a take it or leave it situation morphs into a dare not refuse situation. I doubt if Labour can achieve such with their preoccupation with Scottish Votes.

The biggest problem is mistrust on both sides.

zagubov

penrhyn wrote: »

Where is Marshall Wade when we need him?

Probably joined the SNP like everybody else.:D

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think it's going to happen sooner or later ( more likely sooner ).

The Tories have completely given up on Scotland, and if Labour and Lib dem's lose most of their seats.. they will too. Politically there will be nothing in it for them anymore. Imo, Scottish Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dem's will break off from their UK branches and start afresh making Scotland/Holyrood their primary focus. There's no where else for them to go Scotland wise unless it's to spend years in the wilderness clinging on to Westminster policies that are not vote winners in Scotland. Trying to keep London and South of England happy at the same time as urban Glasgow and the Highlands with 'one size fits all' policies isn't working anymore.

None of them want the SNP being sent down to Westminster repeatedly 'causing bother' either. There's a natural *political conclusion to all of this... It's just too soon to admit it. Though I think the Tories might break ranks at some point soon (ish ) in order to consolidate and concentrate on England where their voters are. UKIP is the same. Labour and Lib Dems are still crossing their fingers hoping that it won't be as bad as the polls are showing. And mabye it won't be. But this Scotland 'thing' isn't going away anytime soon either.

* note I didn't say economic.

Oh dear!
Still trying push the idea that 50 odd SNP MP's is the precursor to independence. Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean it will happen. I don't ever envisage Scottish pensioners and those on the cusp of retirement ever gambling on independence, so I think you need to get your head around that Scotland is trapped in the Union for a generation at least.

skintmacflint

elantan wrote: »

Who knows what would've happened, I know I would've liked to have tried it out

I accept you would personally. But obviously not true for the majority of Scottish people. And by majority I'm including many thousands of new SNP or Yes supporters.

Because if it was true , SNP would have been more honest in the White Paper, and their campaign. And could certainly afford to be now, with the huge support polls are showing.

Yet they're not, they continue to duck and dive, like the rest of the other political parties. I know you don't support SNP, and merely hope they're the vehicle for Independence. But the fact they're having to mislead and spin like like the rest doesn't support the peace loving, idealist , socially superior nation depicted in the rallying speech of David Hayman' clip you posted.

.

elantan

skintmacflint wrote: »

I accept you would personally. But obviously not true for the majority of Scottish people. And by majority I'm including many thousands of new SNP or Yes supporters.

Because if it was true , SNP would have been more honest in the White Paper, and their campaign. And could certainly afford to be now, with the huge support polls are showing.

Yet they're not, they continue to duck and dive, like the rest of the other political parties. I know you don't support SNP, and merely hope they're the vehicle for Independence. But the fact they're having to mislead and spin like like the rest doesn't support the peace loving, idealist , socially superior nation depicted in the rallying speech of David Hayman' clip you posted.

.

hey that was a take on the Charlie Chaplin clip, the greatest dictator, It was very much an indy ref thing, that anyone involved wouldve got the humour during indy ref was well hilarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4


I accept the fact that on 18th September the people of Scotland voted No, I also accept that Scotland will be independent one day. Just now the people of Scotland are learning all about politics, they have been asleep for years so have a thirst for knowledge that hasnt been seen here for a long time if ever. The MSP I was talking to the other day explained that for them things have changed dramatically.

Now people are not asking them questions cause they need to know the answer, now they are asking fully knowing the answer and wanting to see if the politician knows the answer, and if they do will they tell the truth or twist it.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Oh dear!
Still trying push the idea that 50 odd SNP MP's is the precursor to independence. Just because you want something to happen doesn't mean it will happen. I don't ever envisage Scottish pensioners and those on the cusp of retirement ever gambling on independence, so I think you need to get your head around that Scotland is trapped in the Union for a generation at least.

No, that's not what I said. I said there was a natural *political resolution and linked previously to Conservative home touting a federal solution ie Devo-max.

I didn't mention a full constitutional resolution. You need to get your head round the fact that the Tories are umming and awwing right now on just getting (effectively) rid of Scotland. If 50 SNP MP's go down to Westminster at the expense of Labour and Lib Dem ones, they may soon be mulling over the same.

50 MP's is unlikely, but a majority of SNP MP's from Scotland will suffice.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Ah at last! Something interesting to read. Thank you for those links Shakey (I mean that - no kidding). I see it goes back to last year.

I've mentioned take it or leave it a few times and had one or two ideas in mind - that think-tank stuff adds a few more options.

Sturgeon would be well advised to tone down the.no deal with the Tories mantra to avoid getting too much egg on her face when a take it or leave it situation morphs into a dare not refuse situation. I doubt if Labour can achieve such with their preoccupation with Scottish Votes.

The biggest problem is mistrust on both sides.

I don't think she'll tone it down. As you say mistrust is the biggest problem. If there's a hint that the SNP would allow a Tory government in, then their support pre-election will evaporate as people go back to Labour as the only way to 'keep the Tories out'.

Also there's this today.

The Smith Commission drew up proposals for change within three months of the vote.
In the new report, the House of Lords Constitution Committee said the party leaders' public commitment to change appeared to have "pre-empted any meaningful scrutiny" of the proposals by the public or parliaments in Westminster and Holyrood.
It voiced "deep concern" at the speed with which Lord Smith of Kelvin was told to complete his work, which did not allow "adequate time for engagement and consultation".
The committee expressed "astonishment" that the UK government "do not appear to have considered the wider implications for the United Kingdom of the proposals".
It said it was "not appropriate or sustainable" to address the issues of additional powers for Scotland alone without considering the knock-on consequences for the wider UK constitution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32021928

The 'Vow', for whatever reasons, seems is hitting the buffers already Westminster wise. As predicted.

Generali

The problem with offering Scotland FFA or anything vaguely approaching it is that the Scottish Government would be so far into a fiscal hole that it just wouldn't be feasible.

The deficit is likely to be so wide that even if Scotland was allowed to borrow (like many states and territories can in federal systems) she wouldn't be able to borrow anything like as much as required to fill the gap.

What then? Does the rest of the Union stand by as the Scottish NHS etc fails and millions are forced south for medical treatment, education etc?