Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm just doing what you do in your posts string ? I haven't seen much in the way of your own personal spreadsheets appearing here either ? When you do post one, I'll have no problem apologising to you for my misjudgement. Until then.. the only meaningful phrase I can think to cover it is... 'jog on'.

Riled much?:rotfl::rotfl:

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Once again you are taking opinion pieces and spinning them as fact, rather as your political heros do

If Hamish can quote Prof Ashcroft as fact, then I certainly see no reason why I can't ? Unless you're actually saying that he's allowed to and I'm not ? Is that what you're saying ? If so, then you're in danger of looking a little bit silly aren't you...;)

As a person who is numerate and not an idiot I can see that the price of Scotland's major export has halved and that is a serious problem for Scotland. You can try to spin that as good news if you like and it would explain most of the rest of the rubbish you post on here.

The 'rubbish' I post is still something you feel somehow compelled to reply to though anyway. Just stop replying if you feel so strongly. I won't mind. Anyway, you're just resorting to personal insults now.

Imo from your posts have very little idea of Scottish Politics, and you take your figures from posts by Hamish. There is a difference between doing really crap within the status quo, and the chance and opportunities to things differently outwith it. Scotland has had a taste of doing things differently and the results of that within devolution. Much of it successfully. Many Scots want at least the chance to see what can be done with more, or much more devolution.

Oil prices falling aren't good news. But high ones mean pretty much exactly the same for Scotland within the union as it stands. Polticially, it's just not good enough anymore ( and it's showing). Economically, people seem more and more willing to take the unknown risks which go along with further devolution. But not independence yet.

Numerically you may well be aware of the here and now. But you're way off politically, historically and cannot predict the future economic picture for the UK/Scotland even five years from now ( yet you expect me to do just that !). But you shouldn't keep pretending that you can. You can't. Falling oil prices are bad for this year, next year and possibly further on. Beyond that you are just as in the dark as everyone else and myself too. However, a fair number of SNP MP's in Westminster would be a very good start from my point of view at least.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If Hamish can quote Prof Ashcroft as fact, then I certainly see no reason why I can't ? Unless you're actually saying that he's allowed to and I'm not ? Is that what you're saying ? If so, then you're in danger of looking a little bit silly aren't you...;)



The 'rubbish' I post is still something you feel somehow compelled to reply to though anyway. Just stop replying if you feel so strongly. I won't mind. Anyway, you're just resorting to personal insults now.

Imo from your posts have very little idea of Scottish Politics, and you take your figures from posts by Hamish. There is a difference between doing really crap within the status quo, and the chance and opportunities to things differently outwith it. Scotland has had a taste of doing things differently and the results of that within devolution. Much of it successfully. Many Scots want at least the chance to see what can be done with more, or much more devolution.

Oil prices falling aren't good news. But high ones mean pretty much exactly the same for Scotland within the union as it stands. Polticially, it's just not good enough anymore ( and it's showing). Economically, people seem more and more willing to take the unknown risks which go along with further devolution. But not independence yet.

Numerically you may well be aware of the here and now. But you're way off politically, historically and cannot predict the future economic picture for the UK/Scotland even five years from now ( yet you expect me to do just that !). But you shouldn't keep pretending that you can. You can't. Falling oil prices are bad for this year, next year and possibly further on. Beyond that you are just as in the dark as everyone else and myself too. However, a fair number of SNP MP's in Westminster would be a very good start from my point of view at least.

But you're still not prepared to examine the central point which is that the price of your chief export has just halved! You tell people to "jog on" or bang on about how I'm missing the historical context of things. It's just flim flam.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Riled much?:rotfl::rotfl:

I'm sure you'd like that. No, I'm not. I don't mind strings posts. But he shouldn't be asking me to provide things that he's not willing to do himself. He asked me for an opinion on two articles a page or so back. And when I asked what he thought of them first... he gave me what is usually called in Scotland 'a deefie'...

But all of you are getting a bit riled I think. And personalising. I think all those ( possible ) SNP bods coming your way must be riling you a bit. I guess saying they'll block a Tory government if they get the chance must be really annoying for you too. But it's just democracy and how it works within the union. We'll all just have to get on with it if it happens...:)

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

But you're still not prepared to examine the central point which is that the price of your chief export has just halved! You tell people to "jog on" or bang on about how I'm missing the historical context of things. It's just flim flam.

That's your central point. Not mine.And I appreciate why you're saying it. But Scotland didn't vote Yes, and FFA or similar is a fair few years away yet. In short. I think you're wasting your time going on like the toothache about oil prices today.

As far as economics are concerned far more immediate and relevant to the UK is SNP + Labour MPs going down an anti-austerity road after May.

It's oil prices in a fictional independent Scotland, or FFA a few/many years from now ( if that's what happens ) when no-one knows what oil prices will be that's flim flam if you ask me !

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That's your central point. Not mine.And I appreciate why you're saying it. But Scotland didn't vote Yes, and FFA or similar is a fair few years away yet. In short. I think you're wasting your time going on like the toothache about oil prices today.

As far as economics are concerned far more immediate and relevant to the UK is SNP + Labour MPs going down an anti-austerity road after May.

It's oil prices in a fictional independent Scotland, or FFA a few/many years from now ( if that's what happens ) when no-one knows what oil prices will be that's flim flam if you ask me !

Actually, you will find that the fall in the oil price will have an immediate and direct impact on Scotland's economy.

In addition, a lot of the SNP's political arguments are completely negated once it is clear that this fall in the oil price means that Scotland is dependent on the UK for a large part of Government spending: extra handouts such as free prescriptions and free university education that are not available to English, Welsh and Northern Irish people are now being paid for by the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the SNP are in a coalition whether formal or simply informal support, the English, Welsh and Northern Irish are likely to get quite upset if the SNP use that to shovel yet more cash northwards.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That's your central point. Not mine.And I appreciate why you're saying it. But Scotland didn't vote Yes, and FFA or similar is a fair few years away yet. In short. I think you're wasting your time going on like the toothache about oil prices today.

As far as economics are concerned far more immediate and relevant to the UK is SNP + Labour MPs going down an anti-austerity road after May.

It's oil prices in a fictional independent Scotland, or FFA a few/many years from now ( if that's what happens ) when no-one knows what oil prices will be that's flim flam if you ask me !

If FFA or Independence is expected to be a few, or many years away, then surely the inclusion of a further referendum won't form part of of 2016 Holyroods manifest. Yet as a confirmed SNP member you seem to think it likely.

If it's not needed within the next 4 years for either a quick exit or bargaining chip (if anyone cares by that time), why would SNP include it.?

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Actually, you will find that the fall in the oil price will have an immediate and direct impact on Scotland's economy.

In addition, a lot of the SNP's political arguments are completely negated once it is clear that this fall in the oil price means that Scotland is dependent on the UK for a large part of Government spending: extra handouts such as free prescriptions and free university education that are not available to English, Welsh and Northern Irish people are now being paid for by the English, Welsh and Northern Irish. If the SNP are in a coalition whether formal or simply informal support, the English, Welsh and Northern Irish are likely to get quite upset if the SNP use that to shovel yet more cash northwards.

There is a political implication to this as well. Nationalist views from other parts of the region may start to question why the level of subsidy per capita is higher in Scotland than in the rest of UK, particularly during a political term of extremely tough cuts.

Things like free higher education and free prescriptions are divisive in nature.

I'd like to see the subsidy gap close, and will support any party which commits to this. It's important to treat the regions fairly but recognise that we rely on London for a lot of revenue still.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
As far as economics are concerned far more immediate and relevant to the UK is SNP + Labour MPs going down an anti-austerity road after May.
...

Hmm, interesting. So as an English voter I seem to have 2 clear choices :

a) supporting a SNP-Labour coallition which is essentially at conflict because one is committed to the Union / one is not

b) supporting a Conservative led government which is clearer than the others about the level of austerity we need; but just needs the mandate to push this through. It's also committed to the Union.

It's a no brainer IMO. Option b) all the way.

Voltaire7

kabayiri wrote: »

a Conservative led government which is clearer than the others about the level of austerity we need; but just needs the mandate to push this through. It's also committed to the Union.

It's a no brainer IMO. Option b) all the way.

I think it's clear you're a Tory voter and will likely vote Tory whatever the circumstances.

How do you know which party is correct about the level of austerity we need? And how did you measure this? Do Labour listen to the wrong type of economists?