Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I do apologise, I didn't realise I was debating on this forum with children. I'll make my posts simpler for you to understand next time... since it seems your levels and tone in debate are much lower than mine.

Just address the final picture. That's the one that's important.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Just address the final picture. That's the one that's important.

Err oil prices are down ? What does that mean for a Scotland that voted 6 months ago to stay in the union ? Pretty much the same as the last time they dropped when Scotland was in the union ? What else IS there to say ? Nothing changed !

In the future, no-one knows what oil prices will be ? I think you're tying yourself in knots over something that didn't or hasn't happened yet. And I'm not entirely sure why you're getting so angry over it either tbh. It's a waste of your time, and mine.

I hope that post was easy enough to understand. You need to move on from oil prices. No-one is independent, and FFA is a way off yet. Even the chances of even thinking about that are down to parliamentary arithmetic 6 weeks from now. Speculating on oil prices, 3, 4, 5 or even 10 years from now is a complete mugs game. You know this.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

In fact apologising to past mistakes is not an SNP forte.

If I look at the group of posts which led to this particular spat, I can go back to post 1421 of Hamish (and indeed even before that) where, based on figures from the Scottish Government, he made a point about the deficit in Scotland’s (SNP) finances and asked how it could be solved.

Your reply, in post 1422, is summed up by “The figures/data come from the Treasury ….” And little else.

I provided documentary evidence that the Treasury have routinely downplayed oil 'values' to the country, when nationalism is deemed a threat'.

The subject went around and around after that, focussing largely on the contribution of the oil price collapse, with no concrete response on the figures and their consequences, but I’ll skip those and go on to kabayiri’s post 1601 where she was still asking for some sort of response on the remarks based on Hamish’s original question. Your reply in post 1602 was more of the same ducking and weaving.

My immediate reaction was to complain yet again about the ducking and weaving, but I posted (1603) with no such complaints, but just neutrally listing two links which gave opposing viewpoints on the state of the Scottish Economy in the hope that it would illicit some sort of opinion from you on figures rather than spin stuff on extraneous subjects. All I got back was a supercilious suggestion that I read the links which I just posted to you; so evasion again.

There were a couple of posts between us after that but I abandoned the exchange as a waste of time.

Personally I don’t expect a personal spreadsheet from anyone on this but a real discussion on the issues would be nice.

I don't understand what your issues are. Like Generali you seem determined to go round in circles discussing something extensively, that didn't actually happen ( independence ) and something that hasn't happened ( FFA ) and what part oil prices have to play in.. something that didn't actually happen ( independence) and something that hasn't happened yet (FFA).

Why ? And then you ask me for 'concrete figures' on something that didn't happen ( independence ) and something that hasn't happened yet (FFA) and oil prices.

You go on and have your 'real' discussion on non-existing issues if you wish. I prefer to discuss issues that actually do exist.

.string. wrote: »

Is that all you can say? --- Not the slightest attempt to explain the figures, just gossip and innuendo, with the normal rubbishing of the messenger but no concrete argument.

There is no concrete argument. Nothing changed ( sadly ).

MumOf2

elantan wrote: »

Download the speech, phenominnal .... Even wee Eck couldn't have done as good ... And I'm a huge wee eck fan and not so much a Nicola fan but she was brilliant

All a brilliant speech proves is that someone has brilliant speech writers. Surprising really that in this day and age of political awareness people don't realise that this is all it is. Sorry to burst your bubble but 'tis nothing more than that.

elantan

not just brilliant speech writers but a brilliant ability to deliver the speech as well ... as a member of a speakers club I am very aware ( painfully) of how hard producing a great speech can be.

The proof will be in the delivery of the promises, but compared to all the other speeches I have watched ( tend to watch a lot being a member of a speakers club) Nicola's was an incredibly great one.

which I think was my point

.string.

Shakey wrote:

I provided documentary evidence that the Treasury have routinely downplayed oil 'values' to the country, when nationalism is deemed a threat'.

?????? I presume you mean this link:
http://legacy.holyrood.com/2013/05/westminster-fears-losing-scotlands-oil-money/

which reports on an interview with Healey where he is claimed to have said "I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country".

Which country do you think that refers to (it is the UK from the context by the way)?

And from that single link you claim to have given documentary proof of what exactly? Proof that it was the statistics that were not correct or that the spin put on them was not up front? Proof that the benefit to an independent Scotland was hidden? Proof that the importance of the income from oil to the UK was hidden?

You have a long way to go before you can claim proof that Treasury figures are all cooked.

There must be something else, surely, if you have documentary proof that treasury finance figures are all suspect.

kabayiri

Voltaire7 wrote: »

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?

I find choosing a political party to vote for is not unlike being a judge at a Turd beauty contest.


You try to find the least obnoxious specimen and pin your vote on that one.


It's good you mention "circumstances".


These circumstances weren't good in 2010. They are still not good in 2015. The anti-austerity parties choose not to face up to this reality. They have this fanciful idea that we can ignore our debts.


I don't believe we can. I'd rather not burden future generations with our screw ups.

kabayiri

.string. wrote: »

...
And from that single link you claim to have given documentary proof of what exactly? Proof that it was the statistics that were not correct or that the spin put on them was not up front? Proof that the benefit to an independent Scotland was hidden? Proof that the importance of the income from oil to the UK was hidden?

...

It is proof of nothing.


The use of Mr Healey is interesting. He was chancellor when a previous party in power had to go cap in hand to the IMF for bail out money.


Perhaps the SNP plan is to force us to spend so much we need the IMF assistance once again. This would be presented as "all Westminster's fault" of course.

Tromking

The fella Hosie`s sh*t eating grin was very telling when challenged by Andrew Neil to give him a clue on when the SNP would like to see the adoption of FFA on the DP today.
It would seem FFA for Scotland, just like Independence is a pipe dream.:)

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

The fella Hosie`s sh*t eating grin was very telling when challenged by Andrew Neil to give him a clue on when the SNP would like to see the adoption of FFA on the DP today.
It would seem FFA for Scotland, just like Independence is a pipe dream.:)

It's because he knows full well the impact of FFA on Scotland with the current oil price.