Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Scottish Labour manifesto :-)

https://twitter.com/falconerbrian/status/589042245199855616

Lol ! I see Ashcroft has just chucked some surprise grenades in with his polls today....


http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/04/latest-scottish-constituency-polling/

Jim Murphy looking very shaky !!! And Charlie Kennedy, Jo Swinson (?) and Douglas Alexander... :eek:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Hmmm, seems others are starting to realise the Scottish Nepotist Party moniker fits this mob all too well.....

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Hmmm, seems others are starting to realise the Scottish Nepotist Party moniker fits this mob all too well.....

Dividing most of those expenses over 5 years, and not sure how Hosie being married to Shona Robinson should bother anyone... Doesn't look so bad. Not sure about that random photo bomber though !

kabayiri

Is the Pete Wishart figure really correct ?!!!

£690K since 2010 ! wow

I didn't realise there was still one remaining concorde working on shuttle duty from the Scottish airports

What the heck was he doing to claim that much?

Employing wives is a con job. Why can't they recruit for the role on the open market? Same old snouty snouty politics if you ask me.

Thrugelmir

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Another masterful performance from Sturgeon last night. She is fast becoming the UK's one to watch. I hope she manages to escape Scottish provincialism.

Easy to sell a concept. Faced with the reality the wheels may well come off the wagon rather quickly.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Easy to sell a concept. Faced with the reality the wheels may well come off the wagon rather quickly.

If *any* one of us on here sprouted the same sound bite policies we heard last night the justifications would be shot down within a few pages. Yet on these shows the audience is mostly supine.

I just can't see why Labour think their politics aligns with an independence party like the SNP.

By comparison the Lib Dems and Conservatives were much closer together in terms of outlook. The evidence is there. The coallition worked pretty much.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Is the Pete Wishart figure really correct ?!!!

£690K since 2010 ! wow

I didn't realise there was still one remaining concorde working on shuttle duty from the Scottish airports

What the heck was he doing to claim that much?

Employing wives is a con job. Why can't they recruit for the role on the open market? Same old snouty snouty politics if you ask me.

Mabye you should ask Hamish where he got the figures from first ( TheQuietNo was it Hamish ? ), before jumping on them. And while you're at it.. check Jim Murphy's ( over a million I think ?).

But anyway, the Wishart one looks very odd on the face of of it when not long ago he was trying to raise motions like this.. certainly doesn't seem to be bothered about having anything to hide anyway.

An MP hopes to secure cross-party support in an effort to bring a secretive Westminster expenses scheme – worth £115,000 a year to former Prime Ministers - under the scope of the standards watchdog established in the wake of the Westminster expenses scandal...
Mr Wishart said taxpayers had a right to know that claims are being used to support genuine public duties and not to subsidise former politicians as they cash-in on lucrative lecture tours and directorships.

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/sep/scrutiny-call-over-secretive-westminster-expenses

But, hey ho.. there's an election coming up. I guess there's a lot will be talking expenses.. particularly when it's all there is left in the armoury rather than policies. Wishart is a particular favourite of theQuietNo, and SNPout... because he slags them off constantly on twitter.

I quite liked Runrig..

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

If *any* one of us on here sprouted the same sound bite policies we heard last night the justifications would be shot down within a few pages. Yet on these shows the audience is mostly supine.

I just can't see why Labour think their politics aligns with an independence party like the SNP.

By comparison the Lib Dems and Conservatives were much closer together in terms of outlook. The evidence is there. The coallition worked pretty much.

Minority parties ( if neither party get a majority) have very little choice in 'who they will align with'. They'll have to take what support they can get in order to get the keys to Downing St.... or else sit back and watch someone else walk ( back ) in . Simple as that.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Mabye you should ask Hamish where he got the figures from first ( TheQuietNo was it Hamish ? ), before jumping on them. And while you're at it.. check Jim Murphy's ( over a million I think ?).
...

Err, Shakey, I did actually ask the question! It just seems to be a figure so out of kilter with the rest.

This is far from "jumping on them".

I'm sure there are just as many 'grabbers' in the other parties. It comes with the territory.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Minority parties ( if neither party get a majority) have very little choice in 'who they will align with'. They'll have to take what support they can get in order to get the keys to Downing St.... or else sit back and watch someone else walk ( back ) in . Simple as that.

But Cameron-baby gets first crack. At least that's how it was presented on Daily Politics.

Lib Dems would jump on board again. It worked last time. My local MP brokered the last deal and he said that 90% of the policies were similar anyway.

Labour and Cons share quite a lot when it comes down to it. Since Blair they have been fairly pro-business. Both parties are happy to use PFI, and privatisation continues. New Labour didn't renationalise the energy companies did they?

It's the SNPs and the Greens who represent the wider extremes. UKIP are just Torys with a disliking of Forrinnerrs.