Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

And he has offered Home rule again if we vote Labour, I really hope we don't fall for it again

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well I won't enter into any 'tit for tat' accusations of anyone posting drivel here. But I don't always respond to your posts because they are woefully uninformed and lack anything much in the way of content that isn't just rants about the SNP. I must also point out that you keep using my ( new ) SNP membership as something I should be personally ashamed of. I make no secret about posting stuff on threads like this one from a pro-independence/SNP stance. I think a DEBATE forum is all the better for that. It does you no favours at all to resort to insulting other forum members and posts on the basis of their political stance. Simply because it does not agree with your own.

I quoted that because it was amusing to read the part about "not entering into" immediately followed by exactly that.

As for your feeble insult about "rants" much the same can be said in repost except it would be more "long rants" related to your SNP Party line.

Denigrating people with opposite viewpoints is more an SNP approach, as we have learnt.

The Vow itself was very ambiguious in how it was worded, and deliberately so. However, newspapers, online commentary and tv programs were filled to the brim with BetterTogether advocates agreeing that this was 'Devo-Max' ( Alistair Darling ) and 'Home Rule' ( Gordon Brown ). The whole point of the Vow was to be as vague as possible, but sound good to the masses.

So, if you want me to tell you what to the letter the Vow hasn't delivered I cannot tell you. Because neither does the Vow itself go into anything much in the way of detail.

Well that last paragraph (I put it in Italics) is reasonably correct because the Vow was a broad brush statement with the details to be worked out. Too bad you didn't state that before because earlier in our mutual discussions you remarked categorically (post Referendum) that the UK Government was not honouring the Vow and delivering the powers promised in it. When challenged by me about that to give the specifics of what was not being delivered, you did not answer but were content to leave your remark about breaking the Vow hanging in the air.

However, the leader of BetterTogether and a former Prime Minister were given acres of headlines, and numerous appearances on various prime time TV and BBC news 'specials'... in order to proclaim this was Devo Max, Home Rule and 'as close to federalism as you could possibly get'. And that's before we even get to EVEL announced by Cameron barely an hour after the votes were counted which was an 'unknown' up till then.

I guess it all comes down to whether you are more inclined to believe a thinly worded mocked up document on the front of a Scottish newspaper. Or, those who are ( were, they ran away pretty quickly afterwards ) in a position to negotiate and deliver all this Devo max stuff they were on about..endlessly.. for about a week prior to the referendum.

That is just SNP spin. The matter of further powers being devolved to Scotland were being examined even before the Referendum but it came to a head during the Referendum and first came towards ideas put forward by the three main UK parties in March April last year. The idea gained currency and a lot of speculation was about. It was not surprising, therefore that a clarification was forthcoming in a joint statement from the leaders of those same three parties about what was actually on offer as opposed to the hyperbole from both sides of the campaign.

As I've stated before, those who voted Yes like myself, didn't believe a word of any vow's or Devo-max proclaimations to start with anyway. So you will see no anger from me on that score. I don't feel 'betrayed' or 'bitter'. It's the No voters who voted No on the strength of the promises that feel that way. But if it's not to be independence right now, and I accept the result fully, then Devo-max is perfectly acceptable ( for me personally) as a basis to fight an election on.

So - an insight into what your party will propose in its manifesto. Well forget Devo-max - it aint going to happen - what is offered is what is on the table now, give or take minor issues. Take it or leave it.

Comments on your post are in Blue above.

.string.

elantan wrote: »

I do wonder how many No voters do feel betrayed ... Surely they must have known not to believe any of the rubbish from the vow ?

elantan wrote: »

Surely no one is daft enough to fall for it again ?

elantan wrote: »

And he has offered Home rule again if we vote Labour, I really hope we don't fall for it again

Well according to Shakey no-one believed anything so, like her, no-one should not be disappointed.

An anarchist like yourself should not give so much credence to party spin.

elantan

Oh I don't ... But human behaviour fascinates me .... I assume you are defining me as an anarchist then... Glad your wee box has been ticked

.string.

elantan wrote: »

Och Hamish do keep up

Salmond did state that yes, be he has also stated that he will always want independence for Scotland, its the 2016 HR that will decide when we go for it again ... Salmond is just doing what he does best and that's to stir up a hornets nest ... Nothing but nothing would make that man happier than being sacked from WM cause Scotland is independent


And if you think Brown is innocent then go sit on the deluded step with string

The deluded step is already taken up with with nats. Just look around you.

elantan

Oh there's some of them on it as well ... Its a rather busy step

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

zagubov wrote: »

If it's not delivered then the mandate for NO from the Scottish people will be invalid.

Nonsense.

There were only two choices on the ballot paper.

The answer was No and the matter is now settled for a generation, no matter how much a die-hard minority don't want it to be.

The UK government should cede no further powers at all to Holyrood.

elantan

But at least the Nats generally are all very sensible and come from a good place:)

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

Scotland was offered some version of devo plus without any mandate from the people of the UK

That's an interesting point. There is a good democratic case for asking approval from the UK at large. That raises the same issue as the SNP expect to use, which is that items in the Tory or Labour manifesto regarding their commitment for the new Devolution arrangements will be taken as establishing a democratic mandate from the people of the United Kingdom, although actually a Referendum would probably be the correct thing to do. Anything further will not have any mandate.

Should, perchance, the devolved powers exceed what is currently on offer, then there would also be a good case for discard the Barnet subsidy. If the Scottish Parliament does not accept what is on offer, then it should be withdrawn, not incremented up the never-ever-happy wish-list of the SNP.

.string.

Regarding the matter of lessons learnt (or not learnt) from the Referendum Campaign on the fluctuating price of oil.

I happened (again) on this article from the Scotsman
SNP under-estimated deficit by £3bn, says Treasury. It reports on the warnings given at the time by the UK on the dangers of basing a country's economy on oil - which applies particularly to the Scottish Oil fields which are expensive (at best) to exploit.

This sort of warning was rubbished at the time by the Yes Campaign (see the article) which, as far as I know, never updated its forecast for the predicted Scottish Balance sheet after independence dqay (in fact there never was one in the first place).

I was a little surprised, actually, that the oil price did not rise again recently. It has happened before when the oil countries cut production to force the price up but I suppose the world situation is different now with the large Fracking industry in the States having redefined the market so it's possible that the low oil prices will continue for some years. We will see.

Anyway I posted this link as a reminder of the reason why the Yes Conpaign needs to be remembered, not just the principle arguments of whether the English are wicked nor that Scots are a super race but also the little matter of whether the Scottish would be financially better off separate from the UK than in the Union, given the extent to which social services are so important in Scotland. I don't think the SNP were straight with the Scottish people on this issue and unfortunately seem to be still of that same mindset. A reminder now and then is appropriate I think. however much some would like to bury the memory.

Were it not for the important issues or not actually wanting Scotland to leave the rest of us and neither wanting those who voted No to suffer, I would be inclined to call the SNP's bluff. But I gather that the SNP do not care about such things and would happlily drag Scotland down into Natland.