Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

scott_lithgows wrote: »

Would love Yorkshire and the North of England to rise up lol.Love my hols down your way,pity bout all the closed railway lines while London gets a multi billion pound railway to get them home 5 minutes earlier!

The SE has many closed railways because, down south people have learnt to drive cars

Is there any demand for the closed railways in the north?
If so then a good case should be made to re-open or re-build them


The case for HS2 is poor and I don't see duplicating madness is in the UKs interest.

Nicola and Alex may be in favour that is because they wish to damage the peoples of the UK and they see this as a suitable strategy.

scott_lithgows

Not many lines closed in the SE,check out the pre beeching map and compare to now.

Snp are strong because Scots labour is so weak,this could well be the start of the return of the Scots tories

CLAPTON

scott_lithgows wrote: »

Not many lines closed in the SE,check out the pre beeching map and compare to now.

Snp are strong because Scots labour is so weak,this could well be the start of the return of the Scots tories

What exactly is your point?

Few lines were closed in the SE because they are used.
Vanity projects don't bring wealth and prosperity so no point in building new lines unless there is a demand.

I will take a view of the strength of the SNP is a year or twos time just as I delayed my view of Nick Clegg a few years ago in spite of the nonsense in the media.

scott_lithgows

CLAPTON wrote: »

What exactly is your point?

Few lines were closed in the SE because they are used.
Vanity projects don't bring wealth and prosperity so no point in building new lines unless there is a demand.

I will take a view of the strength of the SNP is a year or twos time just as I delayed my view of Nick Clegg a few years ago in spite of the nonsense in the media.

Think you missed a word out in you first reply to me,that's why I pointed out not many lines were closed down there.

I don't want snp to back up the Labour Party but I do want them to be the 3rd largest party,pmq,s will be worth watching!

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

the over whelming consensus, including the much loved IFS is that

-the Scots get a massively unfair financial settlement compared to the good people of Yorkshire

and

-if Scotland had independance or dev max there would be a multi billion pound black hole in their budget

Well not everyone agrees with that.

Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has argued that in his opinion the SNP might, on the basis of its current plans, run what he would appear to consider an unacceptable deficit in Scotland if it were to be granted full fiscal autonomy from London.

I have to say I think Paul is wrong when forming his opinion.
First, Paul very clearly thinks that removing a funding deficit should be the highest priority of any government. With the very greatest of respect to him, that reveals a poverty of aspiration on his part. Only an economist specialising in tax could think that there are politicians in Scotland who aspire to secure full fiscal autonomy for the country with the sole aim of becoming a nation of paranoid bookkeepers.

Second, the IFS commentary ignores the fact that running a fiscal deficit can be a wholly proper and appropriate goal of any government. When an economy is in need of economic recovery, or reorganisation in a way that market forces cannot ever deliver, then government has a duty to intervene to create the environment in which private sector prosperity can be created. So long as the government has the goal of stimulating long-term economic growth as the reason for running a deficit then such a policy is not only necessary but has a virtuous intent.

Third, as I read the SNP manifesto this is exactly what they're talking about when they say:
We will continue to maximise investment in our nation’s infrastructure, using both capital spending, new borrowing powers and a range of innovative finance mechanisms.

I have added the emphasis because those highlighted words are, I think, the ones that Paul Johnson, and most other people, will have ignored. In that case it is worth explaining what I think the SNP is referring to when it mentions ‘innovative finance mechanisms’.

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/comment/ifs-wrong

And here's the lead in article on his own site. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/04/22/repeat-after-me-deficits-are-ok/

Interesting, less 'black and white' take on things at least.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

You really can't take in points which run counter to SNP spin. Try reading things properly.

As I and others have pointed out, SNP MPs will toe the party line as written by Sturgeon; their "free will" is only free in the sense that it is dictated to them by the SNP leader outside Parliament.

Oh I read properly alright. Lots of 'meddling' and boasting by the SNP and nothing in the way of acceptance as to what Cameron and his campaign are doing to foster that 'better together' feeling. The PM was caught today on prime time tv making a joke likening Alex Salmond to a thief. Then actually tweeted part of a month old speech by Alex Salmond ( just after the Salmond with Miliband in his pocket posters were released ).. with Alex *clearly* joking that apparently he'd be writing the next Labour budget.

BBC, Telegraph et al have actually ran this joke as something to be taken seriously. How desperate are they for something, anything to pin the SNP/Labour down on. It's beyond parody. And shows exactly why the SNP have to be ultra careful re loose cannons at the moment. Because even month old jokes are fair game. Nothing however, about Cameron's 'joke'. I guess it was only matter of time before Salmond was levered back in as the bogey man.

Nicola is the SNP party leader, and is in parliament.. just a different one within the UK. SNP MP's are not automations. All MP's make decisions between principles and party. Labour, Torys and Lib Dems work the same way.

Froggitt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well you could view it that way. However, the general consensus seems to be that Cameron is stirring up really nasty Anti-Scot's feeling in an attempt to hang onto power and de-legitimise any SNP-Labour govt forming. If SNP MP's are returned to Westminster they will have as much right as Labour/Lib Dems/Tory etc MP's to vote how they see fit while there.

Unfortunately yes. However Dave is quite within his rights to point out how 2% of the electorate could hold Westminster to ransom, and maybe a Labour/SNP "deal" might not be the best outcome for the country.

Enterprise_1701C

Probably one of the more factual videos going round

https://www.conservatives.com/salmondbudget

Incidentally, not made by the conservatives, simply a mobile phone recording.

kabayiri

Froggitt wrote: »

Unfortunately yes. However Dave is quite within his rights to point out how 2% of the electorate could hold Westminster to ransom, and maybe a Labour/SNP "deal" might not be the best outcome for the country.

Mr Milliband was asked about doing a deal with the SNP the other day and ruled it out. Perhaps he understands how the voters might see this as a risk.

.string.

As far as the rant about how bad the SNP are being treated, Shakey, you had better get used to it - if SNP politicians say daft, aggressive things, they will be pilloried.

Sturgeon's involvement in UK politics as the person who expects to conduct negotiations between the Westminster MPs and the Labour party (in the event of such being discussed) is gross and illegitimate (IMHO) and also, actually, rather silly, nenegrating as it does the standing of the SNP MPs. It's normal, I suppose, that politicians get too full of themselves when they get a whiff of power. One could reel off a list of such people, from Thatcher to Putin, not that she has that stature.