Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

Re: affordability of independence.

The problem I see being described here is a lack of trust in the figures.

I propose a paper-based simulation.

Get the ONS to track and publish very clearly the income and outgoings for Scotland over the next 5 years. They will already have the data. Assume all oil revenue to go to Scotland.

If there is an average £10bn per annum deficit in net income, the people of Scotland will know. If there is an average £5bn per annum credit, the same applies.

I'm amazed that Scotland has been through a full year of independence campaigning; millions spent; thousands of hours of discussion; and people collectively are *no closer* to agreeing fundamentals like the economic costs of independence.

I think the reason for this is that the politicians don't want you to know the answer! They don't want to risk the chances of each side losing the argument.

The same is true with the current GE. It just goes to show that Scotland does not have a brave new refreshing political view; it's just more of the same old same old.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

The problem I see being described here is a lack of trust in the figures.

I propose a paper-based simulation..

It already exists.

The SNP controlled Scottish Government publishes the GERS figures every year.

The problem is these figures show a substantial deficit so the cybernat crowd refuse to believe them.

chucknorris

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Imagine Old Labour in the '70's, then imagine a party to the left of that, and that's the SNP pandering to it's core Glasgow/Dundee 'benefits base' under Sturgeon.

Their 'solution' to everything is to tax the productive and give more handouts to the unproductive.

It was a bit less to the left under Salmond, as he also catered to the much more conservative 'Tartan Tory' mob up in the North.

That would have been my guess, but because the SNP were irrelevant before (to the English), I have never paid any attention to them. I just considered them to be a loony fringe party, along the lines of Welsh nationalists burning English owned holiday cottages.


Although now of course they are going to have an influence upon the entire UK, which means that they will come under much more scrutiny than they otherwise did, apart from during the independence campaign of course.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The Scottish share of Trident and HOL is pennies in the big scheme of things.

About 3% of Scotland's deficit in the next financial year.
...

And of course, unpalatable as it may seem, Trident brings jobs; well paid jobs. Complex systems need maintaining, often locally.

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if they shifted the HOL to Edinburgh. They would gain a different perspective and Scotland would benefit financially.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It already exists.

The Scottish Government publishes the GERS figures every year, and the SNP controlled Scottish government do not dispute them.

The problem is these figures show a substantial deficit so the cybernat crowd refuse to believe them.

They haven't worked out a way to agree the veracity of commonly available figures then...hmm. It's little wonder we think so low of polticians.

Amazing and depressing. So Nicola is the top paid politician and yet basics like this remain unresolved. Demand your money back people!!

vivatifosi

kabayiri wrote: »

And of course, unpalatable as it may seem, Trident brings jobs; well paid jobs. Complex systems need maintaining, often locally.

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if they shifted the HOL to Edinburgh. They would gain a different perspective and Scotland would benefit financially.

Personally I would object to the HOL moving to Scotland. I feel that the March towards the exit door will continue and that it would be imprudent to move it twice. No objection to it moving out of London though.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

They haven't worked out a way to agree the veracity of commonly available figures then...hmm. It's little wonder we think so low of polticians.

Amazing and depressing. So Nicola is the top paid politician and yet basics like this remain unresolved. Demand your money back people!!

Where are you getting your information from re highest paid politician, number of Trident jobs etc ? Out of interest ?

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Where are you getting your information from re highest paid politician, number of Trident jobs etc ? Out of interest ?

nicola isn't the highest paid UK politician

it's just that the (SNP led) Holyrood voted that the salary of their First Minister would be the highest of the politicians in the UK.

It may have been part of their anti-austerity campaign which they may feel should start at the top and consistent with making Scotland a fairer society and reducing in-equality.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

http://www.buzzfeed.com/aidankerr/the-snp-house-of-cards

Buzzfeed very helpfully includes screen grabs of the new rules.

They're both time limited rules in force until 2016 I believe. Not for 'all time'. At a time where third hand hearsay in memo's are headline news for 48 hours. Hardly surprising. Inner divisions can wait until the election and anything that happens immediately afterwards are over. At the moment the SNP have far too much to risk re loose cannons/loose lips. And have had a very difficult time from the press over the last 2/3 years especially.

Wouldn't want any more wee memo's or email's leaked now would we.

.string.

Do the SNP gag their party members as well, or is it just their MPs?