Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

You didn't respond to my Cold Turkey suggestion Shakey?

Prove that Scotland can operate on a balanced budget when the rest of the Union is still racking up on the deficit.

It would certainly test the mettle of the ruling SNP, but then it would prove you had leaders willing to take the tough decisions needed. The mandate for independence would only be strengthened.

Sounds a plan eh?

I think they'd love the chance ! Swinney has balanced the books on his devolved budget every year ( as he has no choice really ! ).. but they have did things differently in a lot of cases where possible.. which is why there are constant moans about free tuition fees, prescriptions etc etc

However, what you're essentially saying is that an independent Scotland would have a 'trial' period ? Then Westminster would stop it all then take it back ? Not a chance of that. We might like it too much, or might not want to 'reverse' any tough decisions Scotland had taken on it's own to go back to UK wide decisions. Would be far too complicated to do in practice.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

You can't really expect to be seen as a "valued part" when a lot of the communications coming from the SNP is about the desire to be a "non part" though.

How does that work?

The majority voted to stay part of the UK. So we're staying. SNP have to make the best of it, as a UK political party, representing it's constituents where they have/gain seats.

SNP gets more seats = lots more people voted for them. Is a mistake to take things down to just imagining the SNP as a wee group of MP's/MSP's etc out to cause trouble ( as a lot of newspapers etc do ).. It's voters who put them there, the same as any other UK party. They have the same right to represent their 'much valued' constituents as anyone else don't they ?

Unless their constituents aren't as much valued as anyone else's in the UK of course.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The majority voted to stay part of the UK. So we're staying. SNP have to make the best of it, as a UK political party, representing it's constituents where they have/gain seats.

SNP gets more seats = lots more people voted for them. Is a mistake to take things down to just imagining the SNP as a wee group of MP's/MSP's etc out to cause trouble ( as a lot of newspapers etc do ).. It's voters who put them there, the same as any other UK party. They have the same right to represent their 'much valued' constituents as anyone else don't they ?

Unless their constituents aren't as much valued as anyone else's in the UK of course.

the SNP aren't committed to representing the views of their constituents : the SNP are fully committed to independence.

voters may well put them in power and the SNP may well choose to represent some of their constituents views but not on the matter of independence.

so no, they don't have the same relationship with the UK parliament as the majority of other MPs

Leanne1812

Generali wrote: »

Doesn't that rather depend on the views of the party members. I realise (per HAMISH's excellent post) that the SNP is a corrupt, nepotistic organisation but the party constitution is very clear on things in rule 15.7:



http://www.snp.org/sites/default/files/assets/documents/constitutionofthescottishnationalparty.pdf

Mr Salmond can no more declare himself to be leader of the SNP than I can. Mrs(Ms?) Sturgeon might have something to say about it for a start.

Really lolled at the idea that you read that article and actually thought it was serious!

You're so blinkered you'd believe anything negative wouldn't you?

Cheers for giving me a good laugh.:rotfl:

Leanne1812

kabayiri wrote: »

You can't really expect to be seen as a "valued part" when a lot of the communications coming from the SNP is about the desire to be a "non part" though.

How does that work?

But not everyone supports or will vote SNP. It's very simple, we are a part of this Union. We chose to remain. It's possible people may vote snp who also voted No in the referendum because they like their policies or because they trust them more than the other parties. It's not democratic to just think we can be shut out. Our representatives will be in Westminster to do just that.

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

So many posts since I last looked through them all, so sorry about delay.

Leanne, I don't know what remark of mine you are referring to I'm afraid. As far as I recal I've not said anything about house-owners being supporters of the SNP and don't see why I should.

I did say once that I thought that anyone who belonged to a political party had lost their objectivity (or words to that effect). That's for all parties though, and some would be worse than others depending on the fanaticism involved. the SNP scores highly on that I reckon, but that's not to do with houses.

I can't find the quote but it was insinuating that people who don't support SNP tend to be hard working decent homeowners. There can't possibly be any decent, hard working homeowners who do support SNP can there?

Voltaire7

So,

No vote mostly due old republican diddies falling for press bias and Westminster lies:





Looks like the Tories are giving Yes supporters a helping hand - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-to-consider-making-pensioners-opt-in-on-winter-fuel-allowance-10018922.html

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I can't find the quote but it was insinuating that people who don't support SNP tend to be hard working decent homeowners. There can't possibly be any decent, hard working homeowners who do support SNP can there?

I can't find anything either.

.string.

Voltaire7 wrote: »

So,

No vote mostly due old republican diddies falling for press bias and Westminster lies:





Looks like the Tories are giving Yes supporters a helping hand - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-to-consider-making-pensioners-opt-in-on-winter-fuel-allowance-10018922.html

The overarching reason was that the SNP could not make a good enough case for independence.

Voltaire7

.string. wrote: »

The overarching reason was that the SNP could not make a good enough case for independence.

Is that your opinion?