Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

And yet so many still want to vote for self-induced poverty.

As HAMISH puts it, why on earth would the Scots turn away a £15,000,000,000 a year subsidy from London and the SE? It's nuts. Stupidity on a truly epic scale.

You're borrowing the 15 billion or whatever on Scotland's behalf. Lets not get too carried away with the largesse here. ( I only typed the 15 billion fig because I can't be bothered doing another referendum re-run argument ). People are voting for it. Mabye they just don't agree with Hamish and how he 'puts it' ?

Forgot this... Mabye they like the way Nicola 'puts it' better ?

Millions of people across England and Wales would vote for the Scottish National Party if it stood candidates outside Scotland, a new survey has found.

The pollster YouGov asked voters across Britain to imagine that the SNP stood candidates across the UK and asked them who they would vote for.
The results of the experiment found that the SNP would be far more popular as the Liberal Democrats and poll roughly as well as Ukip if it stood as a UK-wide party.
The field at the UK election would have the SNP on 11% - well ahead of the Liberal Democrats on 7%, and just behind Ukip on 13%.

Large parts of Labour’s support would flee to the SNP, leaving them on 29%, with the Conservatives in the lead on 33%. Other parties, largely the Green Party, would be on 5%.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/millions-of-english-people-would-vote-for-the-snp-if-it-stood-candidates-down-south-poll-finds-10168265.html

ruggedtoast

zagubov wrote: »

Too poor- tick

Too stupid -tick.

Remind me; is it a small country as well?:D

No, there is room. You could try living there if you wanted.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

zagubov wrote: »

Too poor- tick

Too stupid -tick.

Remind me; is it a small country as well?:D

Lives in England - tick

Therefore won't feel any impact at all from Scotland losing £14bn a year in subsidy - tick

Can repeat internet memes safely from a distance while others have to deal with the consequences - tick


Remind me; am I talking about Zag or Rev Stu?

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

Too poor- tick

Too stupid -tick.

Remind me; is it a small country as well?:D

Well at the moment Scotland is too poor to maintain the current level of spending out of her own pockets and deliberately voting for that does seem quite stupid.

If the cap fits....

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But the SNP can't deliver FFA can they mcskinflint ? All Labour, Tories and Lib Dems have to do is vote against it, or even Smith commission stuff for that matter. I would've thought that would be fairly obvious to everyone ? Not you ?

They're not it big trouble with this in the slightest. If they do get it, easily, it will be a surprise ! If they don't, and Labour and Tories keep blocking further powers, then bad old Westminster once again takes the blame for not taking into account the wishes of 68% of the Scots electorate, and, ( if the polls stay as they are ) a fair whack of Scottish MP's elected on the basis of fighting for further powers.

That long game again.. You're another one that seems to keep missing the point. Blocking further powers that polling ( for the last few years ) says most Scots want to see isn't going to be popular.. But no-one thinks they'll be handed over instantly, if at all, either. Blimey, most of us will be surprised if any of the Smith commission stuff makes it through the HOC intact. :eek:

If they're not. It certainly won't be Nicola Sturgeon taking the slightest blame for it. She won't even be near Westminster. Wings is a very good source for balance ( ie with the likes of the Telegraph ).. but his opinion, is only his own on a lot of matters. He's not an SNP 'guy' and the SNP have never had anything to do with him in terms of association. Certainly wouldn't be taking asking him to 'back pedal' on their 'behalf'.

But no, the SNP cannot ever deliver FFA on their own from Westminster. He's 100%, bluntly right on that. If it is offered, fully and quickly, it'll be from the Tories ( imo ) somewhere along the line of how this election and the fallout goes. Never Labour.

Nice attempt Shake , while back at SNP headquarters you think you're playing the long game, your hyped up newly converted Nat supporters aren't. That's the problem with relying on grass root support, you can't control it. They want things done now and aren't prepared to wait. She's made a lot of big promises what with her new welfare system and all. Lol.

Despite Murphy immediately ruling it out , and WOS spin, her fans still believe as the magnificent leader of the new SNP power brokers in Westminster she can and will deliver FFA. Regardless of the financial black hole it exposes Scotland to. As for being Teflon coated re Westminster she has been very clearly she alone is in control of SNP Westminster.

Delivering FFA for Scotland was the reason she people gave for voting a large contingent of SNP MPs to to Westminster. You can't spin it both ways, much as you'd like to try. The Rev's article is a desperate attempt to calm them down, back pedal for Sturgeons loose mouth.

Murphy said no, because Labour have nothing to lose with fully deluded Nat supporters, up here just now, . Mainly thanks to WOS daily demonising of anything Labour or Westminster. They're the new 'gospel' for converted Nats.

All Sturgeon's loose mouth, has achieved is to severely anger around 2 .3 million No voters including myself, and sow the first seeds of doubt and disharmony within a large section of her own supporters. When she attempts to spin the blame for not achieving it, as you kindly confirmed she definitely will, she will be fully exposed for what she and SNP stand for. Hot air.

Labour is not the only party who are going to have fun with this. Hope the smaller independent parties are taking notes.

Sturgeon a Statesman , my eyebrow.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But no, the SNP cannot ever deliver FFA on their own from Westminster. He's 100%, bluntly right on that. If it is offered, fully and quickly, it'll be from the Tories ( imo ) somewhere along the line of how this election and the fallout goes. Never Labour.

If the SNP was to insist on FFA as a condition of their support they could probably force it through if they held the balance of power. TBH they probably could regardless as, if the polls are right, they are about to do something close to a clean sweep of Scottish seats.

I'd be rather inclined to offer it to them or maybe a snap referendum on it. It would destroy the SNP once the people of Scotland saw what had been done. The only problem really is that the terrible damage it would do to the health and education of a generation of Scots would make it immoral to force through.

Enterprise_1701C

Well, I for one would tolerate a labour government for the five years that it would take Scotland to totally unpick the union and end up independent because it would mean that we no longer have to subsidise people having free tuition, free prescriptions and everything else they get out of the extra £1200 pounds a year they get per capita. It is not ideal, but it does mean that the conservatives would have plenty of time to put the country back together.

The easiest thing would be just to hand Scotland Full Fiscal Autonomy and watch them squirm.

I also would like to see the law changed so only English MPs can vote on English matters. Either that or all the other parliaments should let us vote in their parliament. Not really fair that Scotland especially have a say in how we run England when we have no say in how they run Scotland.

Generali

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

The easiest thing would be just to hand Scotland Full Fiscal Autonomy and watch them squirm.

England would face tremendous problems. People would be flooding south to access healthcare and education as spending was slashed in the North.

Whilst the remaining parts of the UK would have more money to spend they would also end up having to treat and educate vast numbers of Scottish people.

It would be chaos.

.string.

Generali wrote: »

England would face tremendous problems. People would be flooding south to access healthcare and education as spending was slashed in the North.

Whilst the remaining parts of the UK would have more money to spend they would also end up having to treat and educate vast numbers of Scottish people.

It would be chaos.

That makes for some chaos all round.

As it stands Scots would have dual nationality I think, but that would depend on what the SNP Natland set up.

One could have Scottish Nationals living in the UKr being able to go North for free everything (as envisaged by the SNP for the gullible).

But the law could be changed to not allow dual nationality, not that I like that but I can imagine it might happen. So under the current political climate, how do we treat health tourism?

Remember that Natland would be a foreign country.

The SNP has quite deliberately set about stirring up division, that sort of thing can go sour, very sour.

Generali

.string. wrote: »

That makes for some chaos all round.

As it stands Scots would have dual nationality I think, but that would depend on what the SNP Natland set up.

One could have Scottish Nationals living in the UKr being able to go North for free everything (as envisaged by the SNP for the gullible).

But the law could be changed to not allow dual nationality, not that I like that but I can imagine it might happen. So under the current political climate, how do we treat health tourism?

Remember that Natland would be a foreign country.

The SNP has quite deliberately set about stirring up division, that sort of thing can go sour, very sour.

I was talking about FFA rather than autonomy. The same thing would happen under Scottish independence although obviously under independence England could close the border if they wanted. The independence ship has sailed 'for a generation' of course.