Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't think your reflection of the debate is one many others recognise, but that's politics for you I suppose.

The 15 billion onshore growth you refer to I've already answered. It's hypothetical.

Possibly but it's a General election being fought at the minute not a Scottish one. And many voters up here feel getting the deficit and then debt reduced while interest rates are low is vital , so cuts and change are required.

In addition IMF says economic global growth across developed economies isn't expected to grow significantly before 2020. It's expected to average 1.6 in developed world economies. Don't fully understand all the ins and outs of that, except it doesn't sound too good. Nor as if it supports Sturgeons hypothetical growth claims and anti austerity policies.

Each time she is asked a more in depth question on growth, extra spending, and implication debt interest, she appears out of her depth. And attempts to diverts to her comfort zone. Which is her general SNP party anti austerity script. None of which appears credible.

Unless Sturgeon perhaps has the answer to Hamish's question in post above

ruggedtoast

The SNP need to front up with the Scottish people about the true benefits of socialism, and only Sturgeon has the gravitas and credibility to sell it.

A high taxation redistibutive socialist economy is never going to be as successful as a neoliberal one*, using the capitalist metrics for growth and success employed by the arm of the 1%, the IMF. End of.

Scots need to be ready to abandon the shiny baubles of excess and get back to basic values. They can lead the way in the British Isles. While the Englishman is dropping dead of a heart attack in his 50s trying to make the payments on his Range Rover Sport, the Scotsman can have time to appreciate the laughter of a child.

Time to kneel down and admire a thistle while the dawn breaks over the fenns.

Time to lean over a dry stone fence while smoking a pipe and whiling away the day with his neighbour, both smoking clay pipes with satisfaction.

Time to paddle a coracle over the still waters of the lochs while geese fly overhead. Honking.

Time to give his bonnie lassie a piece of heather and dance around a bale of hay til the wee small hours, sporrans bouncing.

Time to do things that matter, with people that matter.

Scotland does not need the metrics of greed that infect the South of England. It cannot and should not attempt to compete with them, and does not need to.







* please ignore Scandinavia

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

skintmacflint wrote: »

Unless Sturgeon perhaps has the answer to Hamish's question in post above

Well this thread is full of SNP supporters, and I was rather hoping one of them might answer the question.

It's not a particularly complicated question, and as it's at the heart of their announced economic policy, they surely must have at least a pretty good idea of the answer?

I've asked it 4 times in the last 2 pages now....

Why do they keep avoiding it?

Lets try again...

Scotland is already part of the fastest growing economy in the developed World. We have achieved that with the economic policies currently in place as part of the UK.

What policies would the SNP introduce if it had all the same powers other countries had, that would result in Scotland outperforming those other countries that already have those powers? What are they doing wrong that we could change?

There must surely be a plan? What is it?

"Ending austerity" sounds great, but how would you pay for it? Why doesn't everyone else just "end austerity" if it's so easy and economically viable to do so?

How would you do it?

How would you pay for it?

Pretty basic questions that any credible political party must surely know the answers to before asking the nation to hand over the pin number for the national credit card?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Time to lean over a dry stone fence while smoking a pipe and whiling away the day with his neighbour, both smoking clay pipes with satisfaction.

Nah, smoking for satisfaction will likely be banned in an SNP Scotland, and even if not banned, far too expensive to enjoy after they raise all the taxes to pay for the socialism.

So I suppose they could suck on an empty pipe..... There's probably a metaphor in there somewhere to represent the end of oil, but I'm too lazy to explore it further.

the Scotsman can have time to appreciate the laughter of a child

But only after first receiving permission in triplicate from the child's mandatory state appointed guardian, and yes, that really is an SNP policy.

All children will be assigned a state appointed overseer to monitor the child, check up on families, and that can call in other authorities if they disagree with the child's upbringing.

Because obviously, no self respecting socialist state should trust parents to do that....

Scots need to be ready to abandon the shiny baubles of excess and get back to basic values.

Well we'd certainly have to do that if we ended the £7.6bn annual subsidy from Westminster.

Actually, has Conrad hacked your account? :rotfl:

.string.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Pretty basic questions that any credible political party must surely know the answers to before asking the nation to hand over the pin number for the national credit card?

Questions which were asked in the "Leaders Debate" last night and which were completely ignored by Sturgeon. No doubt we can expect her acolytes to also ignore such things. BY ORDER.

Of course there are always the Magic Powers.

princeofpounds

To be frank, it is always rather disappointing that the SNP seem to equate independence with socialism. Probably a big reason they failed in the referendum; they were running it more like a party political contest than a major constitutional question. And they continue to do so.

Generali

princeofpounds wrote: »

To be frank, it is always rather disappointing that the SNP seem to equate independence with socialism. Probably a big reason they failed in the referendum; they were running it more like a party political contest than a major constitutional question. And they continue to do so.

It was very disappointing that the referendum debate was all about the next five years rather than about the next 100 years which is what it should have been about.

princeofpounds

It was very disappointing that the referendum debate was all about the next five years rather than about the next 100 years which is what it should have been about.

Very very true.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

It was very disappointing that the referendum debate was all about the next five years rather than about the next 100 years which is what it should have been about.

Thats a lot of years to think about. I struggle with next week.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well this thread is full of SNP supporters, and I was rather hoping one of them might answer the question.

It's not a particularly complicated question, and as it's at the heart of their announced economic policy, they surely must have at least a pretty good idea of the answer?

I've asked it 4 times in the last 2 pages now....

Why do they keep avoiding it?

Lets try again...

Scotland is already part of the fastest growing economy in the developed World. We have achieved that with the economic policies currently in place as part of the UK.

What policies would the SNP introduce if it had all the same powers other countries had, that would result in Scotland outperforming those other countries that already have those powers? What are they doing wrong that we could change?

There must surely be a plan? What is it?

"Ending austerity" sounds great, but how would you pay for it? Why doesn't everyone else just "end austerity" if it's so easy and economically viable to do so?

How would you do it?

How would you pay for it?

Pretty basic questions that any credible political party must surely know the answers to before asking the nation to hand over the pin number for the national credit card?

Well I can't speak for others but I am on grandma babysitting duties.. so will be lucky to get 5 mins online today.

For quickness here's the UK wide anti-austerity proposals assessed on the BBC after Sturgeon announced them..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIWNjldV--8

And here's Stewart Hosie on the 7.6 billion 'deficit' 2 days ago. The BBC presenter seemed to have great difficulty with his answers.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153327789968816

As for the rest we all know it's a trick question Hamish. And lining up hypothetical skittles so you can knock them down with more hypothetical posturing is a waste of everyone's time. The Tories have just pledged in their manifesto to retain Barnett, as have Labour. The SNP are going to have to fight every step of the way even for Smith to be implemented in full.

Of course the IFS figure doesn’t bear close scrutiny: it is using numbers gathered in one year to define Scotland’s economy in perpetuity. It also fails to take into account that by 2020 Scotland’s onshore revenues are predicted to grow by £15bn. It should also be taken into account that the UK’s deficit was £98bn last year and that over the five years to 2014 the UK’s cumulative deficit has been worth more than £600bn, yet in two of the past four years Scotland’s GDP percentage deficit has been less than the UK’s. Factor in the fact that, in each of the past 34 years, Scotland has paid more tax per person than the rest of the UK and a future without Barnett looks a lot less gloomy.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/12/jim-murphy-scotland-labour-problem-nicola-sturgeon?CMP=share_btn_tw