Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

It does look likely that the mid-term future of British politics will involve more coallition than we have known in the past.

Some parties have demonstrated they can work this way. The Lib Dems and Conservatives being a good example.

This coallition spirit clearly does not extend to the SNP; a party of separation and division.

We really don't need divisive politics when we face a lot of challenges ahead. It's a shame politicians put themselves first, as Hamish illustrates.

Oh well, wishing things were different doesn't make them so. Like the referendum, we're all just going to have to make do with what the arithmetic throws our way. The SNP aren't just going to bow out of politics because people like yourself can't stand the thought of change. Start preparing yourself, because in all probability, the SNP is something you're going to be hearing a lot more about in the next few years.

7 April, 2015

No really, the SNP are going to win at least 50 of Scotland’s 59 seatsThe swing in Labour’s heartlands is even greater than the swing implied by national polls.



Few pundits believe these predictions. Most people hesitate to give the SNP more than 30 seats (as a recent survey of hundreds of political academics proved). Very few can conceive of more than 40. And almost no one predicts the SNP will win at least 50.
And yet no poll has implied the SNP will win as few as 35 seats, and the vast majority suggest they will win more than 40. 18 Scotland-wide polls have been published over the past five months, and they have almost all suggested the same thing: the SNP will win 45-50 seats, and Labour will lose around 30 of its 41.

As for the bookies, in January they were predicting just 25-26 SNP seats. Now they are forecasting 42-43 (so much for following the money – the money moved as polls and predictions moved). We’re still taking the ‘over’ on that bet.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/no-really-snp-are-going-win-least-50-scotland-s-59-seats

Scottish Leader debates are tonight. Jim Murphy will have to pull something good out of the bag.

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

Why do you think (I know it's not really allowed in the SNP but I don't tell) that Holyrood freely chose to vote such a high salary for the office of first minister?

Was it to make Scotland a fairer and more equal place?

A one party state (or wannabe state) is not a fair and equal place, history shows us this.

The political class are the first to feather their nests.

This is possibly a human nature thing, and we need checks and balances to counter single domination.

The HOL is possibly not an efficient form, but it is an attempt to provide checks and balances. Little wonder the SNP want it scrapped.

If SNP fans want to bring their brand of politics down south they should come and fight the seats down here, not some back door method.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Erm, all I did was post a series of facts. You twist this into some anti-Tory mini-rant.

You really should calm down a bit. The SNP look headed for a big win in Scotland so I'd have thought you'd be quite cheerful. Apparently the Nationalist chip is stronger than I thought.

Still Brent is up a little bit so perhaps FFA will just be disastrous rather than utterly suicidal if the SNP get what they want.

I am calm. However, you can't go about saying view 'everything through a nationalist' prism, when I simply point out some comparatives ( ie Welsh First Minister/John Bercow ) against which Nicola Sturgeon's salary should be measured. Doesn't look quite so 'bad' after all does it ?

Hamish and others seem to have had a high old time posting nonsense about salaries last day or so. Far from my 1 sentence 'anti-tory rant'.. I think you may want to look more at the last few entire pages for much better examples of mutliple anti-SNP/Sturgeon rants. Then reflect on that, and some double standards before you start getting too precious about anything anti-tory appearing here.

I wouldn't mind, if there was any sort of basis of truth in them. but Hamish hasn't even checked, so gawd knows where he was getting his info from.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh well, wishing things were different doesn't make them so. Like the referendum, we're all just going to have to make do with what the arithmetic throws our way. The SNP aren't just going to bow out of politics because people like yourself can't stand the thought of change. Start preparing yourself, because in all probability, the SNP is something you're going to be hearing a lot more about in the next few years.
...

Or maybe the other parties will gang up on them.

In equal probability this may be an SNP peak and then they fade away, like champagne socialists often do.

All change indeed

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You may want to recheck Peter Murrell's salary details, you have them wrong ( too high ). Plus, are Chief Executives of political parties paid for by the taxpayer ?

It seems that nobody knows how much Mr Murrell is paid:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/sturgeon-set-to-be-named-as-snp-leader-but-insists-she-and-chief-exec-hus.25561875

Murrell's salary in 2011 was £109,000. It fell to £77,000 in 2012 and was omitted from the SNP accounts in 2013

Unless it reappeared in the 2014 accounts.

TBH it's pretty unusual not to include the CEOs pay and indeed the pay of all the board members in an annual report.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

A one party state (or wannabe state) is not a fair and equal place, history shows us this.

The political class are the first to feather their nests.

This is possibly a human nature thing, and we need checks and balances to counter single domination.

The HOL is possibly not an efficient form, but it is an attempt to provide checks and balances. Little wonder the SNP want it scrapped.

If SNP fans want to bring their brand of politics down south they should come and fight the seats down here, not some back door method.

A one party state is one in which other parties are outlawed. I think you're getting a little OTT. Labour were the dominating party in Scotland for a long time with 40/50 MP's at times. There were no complaints nor worries about 'one party' states in Scotland then strangely.

I'm also not sure that the ballot box is one which anyone would term a 'back door method' in a modern democracy..

kabayiri

I guess the SNP could use their increased presence in Westminster to campaign for a different independence referendum :-

- the independence of the rest of the Union from Scotland !

That probably has more chance of succeeding, especially given the SNP skill at using the "us and them" narrative.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

It seems that nobody knows how much Mr Murrell is paid:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/sturgeon-set-to-be-named-as-snp-leader-but-insists-she-and-chief-exec-hus.25561875



Unless it reappeared in the 2014 accounts.

TBH it's pretty unusual not to include the CEOs pay and indeed the pay of all the board members in an annual report.

Yep.

So in the last two available years he was paid 77K and 109K. And then it's "disappeared" from the accounts.

Either way...

£136K of taxpayer money for her, and £77K SNP money for him = more than £200K a year and over a million pounds in the next parliament. If it's 109K for him then its around £250K a year.

That's some income for alleged "socialists"....:cool:

Loughton_Monkey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's some income for alleged "socialists"....:cool:

How much does it compare to what they used to earn when they toured the halls as "The Crankies"?

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

How much does it compare to what they used to earn when they toured the halls as "The Crankies"?

Apparently they made the big money from Crackerjack merchandise.