Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

No he didn't. He just confirmed in this respect he is another deluded Them and US cohort, with Them being Westminster and Us being Scottish people.

All of my years, there's , been a Scottish Nationalist Party fighting for the rights of Scotland. Salmond has been vociferous in his hatred of both Tory and labour for decades. Yet few would vote for him.The reality is , the 'Them' was the Scottish people not Westminster, the Us was SNP not the Scottish people. For decades Scots, including you, voted to send any party but SNP into Westminster. Is that Westminsters or any other party's fault. ?

Salmond has always known this, but instead of being brave enough to admit it and blame 'his people' he convinced them they'd been misled.

Swinney admitted it was only in 2007, he realised Salmond was even serious about winning a majority at Holyrood? Swinney was taken aback at how they'd managed to pull off a minority government , and his old pal was FM. Even Salmond didn't believe he would be able to hold his minority government for more than a few months.

So maybe less of the Scotlands been held back, oppressed, crying out for this that and the other and been denied it for decades rhetoric, spewed out on WOS , we are the 45 etc, would be appropriate. Scotlands always had a choice, and when given the best chance of a lifetime turned him down. It's not even enlightened, with the exception of a minority it's simply switched grumbles and grievance elsewhere.

So now it's the democratic way via Westminster, the system SNP despises. No problem with that, nor even the fact he might have a tactical advantage due to the split in English votes. But he should remember he represents all of Scotland down there, even those who didn't vote for them. So maybe less of the snide faux outrage from his fans and commentators on the democratic process wouldn't go amiss. Particularly as Salmond and SNP only seem to recognise their brand of democracy, and it's not looking very inclusive or bright.

Where did you get all that from ? I've read David Torrance's biography ( he's not exactly a Salmond fan either but he is fair ), and Iain McWhirters books. I don't recognise anything much you've said above as true.

Salmond's biggest problem was the fact he is a gradualist, as opposed to a 'purist' such as Jim Sillars. It took the SNP a long time to break away from that 'all or nothing' infighting between the two 'groups'. It was only when the party aligned under Salmond's more gradual approach to things ( ie supporting devolution ) did things really start coming together for the party in the late 90's. Ten years later they were in power.. 7 years after that actually holding an independence referendum.

Is Nicola's show now. However, is a good move imo since Alex is stuck on every poster and video the Tories have produced last few weeks anyway.. to having Alex pop down to London and take the heat off her ( negative ) headline wise until later in the campaign.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
If you think speculating about likely scenario's both politically and economically re May 7th and the current state of play polling wise is 'revenge'.. Oh well. Don't read them. At least I haven't been reduced just yet to posting up Youtube clips of cheesy old 70's shows in order to make a serious 'economic' point on a serious 'economic' thread like yourself.
...

I'd take your response seriously if you addressed the financials presented by Hamish with a costed rebuttal (you can do this with a spreadsheet).

Instead you prefer to deflect and go tangential, quoting opinion pieces which suit your agenda.

I prefer balance

I did indeed support the independence line, as you can see in the other thread. Guess I got it wrong. You had a lucky escape.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I'd take your response seriously if you addressed the financials presented by Hamish with a costed rebuttal (you can do this with a spreadsheet).

Instead you prefer to deflect and go tangential, quoting opinion pieces which suit your agenda.

I prefer balance

I did indeed support the independence line, as you can see in the other thread. Guess I got it wrong. You had a lucky escape.

Congratulations on your new moderator/guide status here ! I was unaware I do apologise.

You prefer what you like. I also prefer balance. And Scottish threads, of whatever persuasion that are left to Hamish, and the majority of other's ( ie don't like SNP/independence etc ) who prefer empty echo chamber debates and patting each other on the back over what they can slag off next post after post.. isn't what I would call balance. Which is why I started posting on threads here in the first place.

I, and a few others here are the balance.

Now, if we could just move on now from your own personal critique of my posting style that would be just fab. I don't post the links for you alone. I post them for anyone who is interested in reading this thread ( which will be about 100 to 1 in terms of those who actually contribute to it ), and other threads like it..or to back up a point I've made. I wholeheartedly suggest the ignore option if you don't care to read them.

ps 'costed spreadsheets' ? Unfortunately, many of the reports and websites I would link to, or take economic data from are simply ridiculed as 'bias' as soon as they are posted here. There's no point as the sites and reports themselves become the focus of objection, rather than the data provided within them. So I gave up trying eventually. Naturally, nothing looking too good for Scotland ever makes it to mainstream media much.

.string.

What would your response to this article Shakey?

SNP's general election campaign's based on 'fiddled figures'

and this

Scotland needs financial control

Which one is right and why?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

What would your response to this article Shakey?

SNP's general election campaign's based on 'fiddled figures'

and this

Scotland needs financial control

Which one is right and why?

My response ? To suggest that you read the lively comments debate underneath the first article which are pretty evenly divided. As well as several more comments providing a little more in-depth analysis of the data. Then make up your own mind based on those ?

ps sort by 'oldest first' re comments is best on the Herald.

.string.

@Shakey I know what I think, but I'm interested in what your analysis is, especially since, if I recall correctly, you said that FFA would be a sharp shock, or some such wording, do you evidently have a different opinion.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Congratulations on your new moderator/guide status here ! I was unaware I do apologise.
...

I'm also the forum priest.

It's okay. You are forgiven

Voltaire7

kabayiri wrote: »

I

I prefer balance

Your preference for balance is much like your preference for democracy.

Just as long as it's the right type of balance, eh?

Generali

.string. wrote: »

What would your response to this article Shakey?

SNP's general election campaign's based on 'fiddled figures'

and this

Scotland needs financial control

Which one is right and why?

FFA would be disastrous for Scotland with an oil price below about $100/bbl. Billions of pounds of 'Scottish' revenue have been lost and are unlikely to be replaced in the near future.

The only positive about FFA is that it would be the end of the SNP as a political force. I can't see the Scottish electorate forgiving the SNP for destroying the welfare state and NHS.

.string.

Generali wrote: »

FFA would be disastrous for Scotland with an oil price below about $100/bbl. Billions of pounds of 'Scottish' revenue have been lost and are unlikely to be replaced in the near future.

The only positive about FFA is that it would be the end of the SNP as a political force. I can't see the Scottish electorate forgiving the SNP for destroying the welfare state and NHS.

Actually I don't believe for one moment that the SNP want FFA. It is merely a straw man to be negotiated away, with faux outrage, for a lesser agreement where they can muddy their responsibly and indulge in their fetish of blaming Westminster for the mess they get into.

But as I mentioned before, I don't think that FFA is compatible with being in a Union. As soon as the S NP has cash problems they would stop paying for any common Union activities, roll on their backs and demand to be bailed out.