Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Generali wrote: »

I'd never read The Vow previously. Let's face it, it's a motherhood and apple pie statement. It's meaningless. However if Scottish people think they were promised a bunch of things then that needs to be dealt with even if those promises were never made.

It is also interesting to read what Sturgeon said at the time:
"We don't know what they are pledging - it's one thing to say we pledge something will happen but it is really treating voters in Scotland with a fair degree of contempt not to then say specifically and explicitly what extra powers we're talking about."

So - it is in black and white that she did not interpret the Vow as promising anything like FFA or Dev-Max.

What was promised was a large increase in devolution following consultation with political parties in Scotland. That happened with the resulting Smith recommendations.

That promise is going to be kept unless, that is, the SNP find some way of derailing it in which case it will be their fault if it does not happen on time. The whole business of FFA etc. whined about by the SNP and regrettable claimed continuously erroneously in this Forum, is simply lying spin put about to foster excessive expectations within Scotland and a faux reason for whining yet again at Westminster.

=======================

Incidentally, to changer the subject, I am reminded in the link I gave that it is reported:"it was announced every major Scottish bank would move their registered office to London" - a point we lost sight of in the discussion about the current income from oil and the revenue loss to a Natland economy; one needs to remember that also tax from financial services would have been lost. So much for everything being rosy without oil.

.string.

zagubov wrote: »

I have no beef with what they wrote. That, however won't fit in a headline, which is what the busy public have time to read.

That's not really a relevant remark on the matter of whether the Vow is, or is not, being kept. I'm sure you, with your enthusiastic YES support did have time to read the vow and therefore should know what was in it and what was not.

elantan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Alex Salmond was a hard sell to older Labour voters, who've spent decades ( misguidedly) regarding the SNP as the sole reason Thatcher got in, in 1979..Salmond came to prominence in the SNP while that was still fresh in a lot of memories. The media in Scotland spent a lot of time personalising the 'Blow for Salmond' headlines and referendum debates solely around him.

What she said

elantan

CLAPTON wrote: »

Amazing: you agree with Elantan that the Scottish are too stupid to govern themselves, as they are incapable of distinguishing propaganda from the truth (well, we all had an idea that was true for many SNP supporters but you have given a larger dimension to the issue.)

Some of them most deffinately shouldn't take up a career in politics as they don't understand it .... But I reckon that's the same in every country after all whilst Scotland is amazing it isn't exactly perfect

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The Tories don't have many seats but at the last general election they polled just 3 percentage points fewer than the SNP.

That's the FPTP system for you. Either works massively in your favour, or massively against. Tories have 1 seat out of 59. Is seats that matter when forming governments, not number of votes overall.

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

Some of them most deffinately shouldn't take up a career in politics as they don't understand it .... But I reckon that's the same in every country after all whilst Scotland is amazing it isn't exactly perfect

Indeed it is so that basically people are similar all over the world.
It certainly illustrate the similarly of the peoples of the UK. Nothing at all particularly special about the people living in the northern regions of the UK.
Only the true cultists see the differences.

And it is also true, that true acolytes amoungst all faiths will happily quote nonsense anecdotes if they are favourable to the great leader and the cause but rubbish any others.

Nothing unusual about that : propaganda as in its crudest but none the less effective: it helps to maintain the true faith amoungst the chosen ones.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That's the FPTP system for you. Either works massively in your favour, or massively against. Tories have 1 seat out of 59. Is seats that matter when forming governments, not number of votes overall.

Only a true acolyte would confuse the word 'support' and 'number of MPs' when it supports the great leader and the holy cause: obviously they would argue forceably the exact opposite if the situation were reversed; but one doesn't expect honesty or integrity when the cause is so holy.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Only a true acolyte would confuse the word 'support' and 'number of MPs' when it supports the great leader and the holy cause: obviously they would argue forceably the exact opposite if the situation were reversed; but one doesn't expect honesty or integrity when the cause is so holy.

The FPTP system worked as much against the SNP/Conservatives in Scotland as it worked in Labour's favour in 2010. Conservatives got 1 MP, the SNP just 6.

The situation has simply reversed between the SNP and Labour now. That's just how it works. In repeated general elections the Tories have gotten nowhere in Scotland. They were wiped out in 1997 and have never recovered. Lib Dems are heading the same way.. and hopefully Labour too.

The SNP favour a PR system such as Holyrood has. Which would give smaller parties a much fairer crack of the whip ( smaller parties in Scotland would now include the Tories/Lib dems of course ). Other than that I've no idea what you're on about. There's no argument that FPTP favours larger parties over smaller ones in terms of seats.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The FPTP system worked as much against the SNP/Conservatives in Scotland as it worked in Labour's favour in 2010. Conservatives got 1 MP, the SNP just 6.

The situation has simply reversed between the SNP and Labour now. That's just how it works. In repeated general elections the Tories have gotten nowhere in Scotland. They were wiped out in 1997 and have never recovered. Lib Dems are heading the same way.. and hopefully Labour too.

The SNP favour a PR system such as Holyrood has. Which would give smaller parties a much fairer crack of the whip ( smaller parties in Scotland would now include the Tories/Lib dems of course ). Other than that I've no idea what you're on about. There's no argument that FPTP favours larger parties over smaller ones in terms of seats.

What has that got to do with anything at all?

The point was that if one way of counting suits your acolyte's agenda you quote it, if another then you quote the alternative: no different from all the corrupt politicians of course but one wishes for more honesty and integrity.

Equating 'support' for a party with the number of seat gained is dishonest irrespective of the voting system.

Anyway you wouldn't have any idea of what I'm on about unless it supports your great leader and the correct doctrine.

.string.

While Shakey is trying to decide what not to talk about next (:)), I thought I'd mention this memo that's been leaked which related to Sturgeon not liking Miliband and wanting the Tories to win the GE . I'd not heard anything before about her not liking Miliband but Shakey has been telling us for ages that a Tory win in the GE would suit the SNP just fine.

The memo may be real, but even the author, who is briefing on a reported conversation is cautious about believing what he is reporting; because he can't believe that Sturgeon would have such a loose tounge and suggests something might have been lost in translation. Sturgeon denies it of course. But one can't help wondering.

But the other issue is her reported mention of Salmond where "she had no idea 'what kind of mischief’ Alex Salmond would get up to". It marks one realise that Salmond with his over-the-top remarks may prove to be an embarrassment to the SNP should the Scots be silly enough to elect him to Westminster.

The memo is requested to be confidential and not distributed further by its author. I should add that I take a diim view of people who betray confidences, even while admitting that the fall out from this one could be entertaining.