Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

skintmacflint

elantan wrote: »

Things are changing fast politically up here and there needs to be some rules till it settles down... so that we can grow into being the country we want to be

Certainly things are changing up here, 4 lifelong Labour voters told me today, they will be voting Conservative in future. That is a fair size direction change up here. Albeit more likely to have an impact in the 2016 Holyrood elections.

As for these new SNP member and candidate rules, I can't see any justification for them, other than SNP gagging control. SNP are simply taking advantage of smaller fringe groups up here and their supporters. As they are with Natalie Bennet and Leanne Woods.

All will be discarded as soon as not needed, unless they change to the SNP dictate. As I've said before, you are not going to see this new wonderful different Scotland. It will simply be dominated by a single party SNP state for decades, or until bankrupt whichever happens soonest.

Our children and grand children are being indoctrinated as I post this.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

HS2 is a long term project with significant Capital Expenditure up front.

Why would Scotland want to commit to up front costs when Scotland could be independent before the rest of the link was developed ?(upgrading the terminus is a key requirement)

I'm no HS2 fan, but if it does happen I want it to have every chance of paying for itself. That will require significant usage on the wealthiest routes, and for the foreseeable that means travel in and out of London.

No, I'm not an HS2 fan either. It doesn't bother me in the least where it starts or stops. I'd have to say, that I don't think it's something Scots and those regions who aren't benefiting at all from it though... are overly keen on contributing to ( which they will ). But that's pooling and sharing for you.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, I'm not an HS2 fan either. It doesn't bother me in the least where it starts or stops. I'd have to say, that I don't think it's something Scots and those regions who aren't benefiting at all from it though... are overly keen on contributing to ( which they will ). But that's pooling and sharing for you.

Just write it off against the £8,700,000,000 subsidy from the taxpayers of London and the South East.

zagubov

skintmacflint wrote: »

Certainly things are changing up here, 4 lifelong Labour voters told me today, they will be voting Conservative in future. That is a fair size direction change up here. Albeit more likely to have an impact in the 2016 Holyrood elections.

As for these new SNP member and candidate rules, I can't see any justification for them, other than SNP gagging control. SNP are simply taking advantage of smaller fringe groups up here and their supporters. As they are with Natalie Bennet and Leanne Woods.

All will be discarded as soon as not needed, unless they change to the SNP dictate. As I've said before, you are not going to see this new wonderful different Scotland. It will simply be dominated by a single party SNP state for decades, or until bankrupt whichever happens soonest.

Our children and grand children are being indoctrinated as I post this.

When I lived there, it was a one-party state, and Labour was the party. They had fingers in every pie influencing the business world, the workforce, and all levels of local government, and big influence over the media.

All this "dominated by a single party SNP state" talk sounds very familiar, Scotland had virtually been one for decades, albeit not with the SNP. The voters seem to have assessed what they got out of it and jumped ship to a more genuinely social democratic party.

All this talk of SNP indoctrination is particularly ludicrous given the predominant media collective viewpoint, where the SNP is the only party open to criticism.

I wish England had as much political choice.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Certainly things are changing up here, 4 lifelong Labour voters told me today, they will be voting Conservative in future. That is a fair size direction change up here. Albeit more likely to have an impact in the 2016 Holyrood elections.

As for these new SNP member and candidate rules, I can't see any justification for them, other than SNP gagging control. SNP are simply taking advantage of smaller fringe groups up here and their supporters. As they are with Natalie Bennet and Leanne Woods.

All will be discarded as soon as not needed, unless they change to the SNP dictate. As I've said before, you are not going to see this new wonderful different Scotland. It will simply be dominated by a single party SNP state for decades, or until bankrupt whichever happens soonest.

Our children and grand children are being indoctrinated as I post this.

Oh don't be so dramatic. One only has to read the newspapers today to see what the SNP is up against in terms of bad press. And that's only on manifesto launch day. 'Clear and present danger' ? It's been the same for the last 2 or 3 years. Potential MP's should certainly know what they are up against by now. Loose cannons are likely to be blown up to Nuclear bomb proportions by the likes of the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. Days and days of endless coverage if Nicola Sturgeon so much as sneezes the wrong way ( or third hand memo's that she might of, but really hasn't said or might even be 'thinking' something )....

It's a nasty old world out there regarding press coverage, especially for SNP candidates/members/MSPs/MP's or anyone even vaguely connected to them. Balance hasn't been much in evidence lately, if ever. Best not to feed the wolves, and certainly not at this moment in time. There's too much to lose by exposing even the very slightest mistake for the muck rakers to pick over. Because the slightest mistake will be treated like Watergate and the BBC will have tickers scrolling about it for days.. Is all getting a little bit hysterical and OTT re the SNP and this election. Definitely best everyone knows how to handle things and boundaries are set for a limited time until things calm down.

The SNP have learnt their lessons very well from the indy ref. Most especially the last 2 weeks in the run up to it. We're re-running it right now again it seems.

Shakethedisease

Cross posted zag. You put it much better than I did ! :T

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Just write it off against the £8,700,000,000 subsidy from the taxpayers of London and the South East.

Will do. zzzzzzzz

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

When I lived there, it was a one-party state, and Labour was the party. They had fingers in every pie influencing the business world, the workforce, and all levels of local government, and big influence over the media.

All this "dominated by a single party SNP state" talk sounds very familiar, Scotland had virtually been one for decades, albeit not with the SNP. The voters seem to have assessed what they got out of it and jumped ship to a more genuinely social democratic party.

All this talk of SNP indoctrination is particularly ludicrous given the predominant media collective viewpoint, where the SNP is the only party open to criticism.

I wish England had as much political choice.

England is a three party state in effect: in the past 5 years, 3 parties have been in power.

IMHO, it's unhealthy for a single party of any colour to rule unopposed for very long periods. After a time it becomes normal for that party to start to see the interests of the party and the country to become conflated.

skintmacflint

zagubov wrote: »

When I lived there, it was a one-party state, and Labour was the party. They had fingers in every pie influencing the business world, the workforce, and all levels of local government, and big influence over the media.

All this "dominated by a single party SNP state" talk sounds very familiar, Scotland had virtually been one for decades, albeit not with the SNP. The voters seem to have assessed what they got out of it and jumped ship to a more genuinely social democratic party.

All this talk of SNP indoctrination is particularly ludicrous given the predominant media collective viewpoint, where the SNP is the only party open to criticism.

I wish England had as much political choice.

Young kids don't read newspapers , or at least didn't when mine were young. Long time ago I admit. Neither did kids go to huge family day out rallies with bouncy castles , ice cream and their faces painted in Labour colours and their dogs wearing Labour stickers.

Certainly for many years Labour lazily and wrongly portrayed Tories as the evil baddies up here. And some parents brought their kids up to believe these stories. Mhairi black an SNP candidate is a classic example of this.

Labour are a political party, who believe in the Union , not a nationalist party with a single end game. Who are currently pretending to be a party for everyone in the UK. Simply because it suits SNP for the moment. Labour also have hundreds of candidates over the borders.

In addition disagreeing with any report or comment from SNP up here just now is viewed by many including yourself as putting Scotland down. Which comes from a nationalist influence.

A Labour dominated Scotland incidentally hasn't been good for Scotland, and neither will an SNP one, particularly if they manage what the polls are suggesting. And it remains the case for the 2016 Holyrood elections.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

England is a three party state in effect: in the past 5 years, 3 parties have been in power.

IMHO, it's unhealthy for a single party of any colour to rule unopposed for very long periods. After a time it becomes normal for that party to start to see the interests of the party and the country to become conflated.

I'd agree and extend this Gen.

It's a healthy attitude in my view to treat the political class with a degree of scepticism. The phrase I dislike most by a doorstep canvasser is "can I rely on your vote?". Heck no. This smacks of complacency.