Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

I'd recommend a thicker skin.

One of the strengths of the British IMO is the ability to laugh at our selves.

I'd never heard the aJockalypse comment. The best response is often to come up with a witty retort.

Yours ,
"Citizen of Northern Hell Hole <insert name here" :rotfl:

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Keep those 'jokes' coming though. If it's the end of the UK you're after.

People who ally themselves with a political party to such an extent it becomes part of their personality wouldn't recognise a joke if it slapped them in the face.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
And how the end game for the UK is nearing because of it.
..

What does this end game look like though?

If you think it involves a prosperous Scotland, thriving on lower business rates compared to rUK, then isn't it only natural for rUK to counter with it's own attractive proposition for business ?

If rUK decides to attract the cream of Scottish University talent with London salaries, does an independent Scotland cry "foul" in this situation ?

Will the "end game" require continuing subsidy in some form from the rest of the Union?

This isn't an attempt at a glib post. I genuinely wonder how you fully unravel 300 years of free movement between Scotland and rUK.

zagubov

Fact is, sometimes London suppresses the growth of rival centres in the UK. This needs to be tackled.

Look at what it did to Birmingham, if you can bear it.:o

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

I'd recommend a thicker skin.

I'll be sure to quote you

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

I genuinely wonder how you fully unravel 300 years of free movement between Scotland and rUK.

Is there free movement with the Republic of Ireland?

What about France, Germany, Italy , Spain etc etc etc

What's your point?

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

Is a one party state a desirable thing ?

I'm not rising to the rest of your post, but to answer this one part: -

No, I don't think that having only a one party state is a good thing and most likely, the Scottish electorate will revert to a more cross party representation, when the other parties stop dancing to the UK party tune and start dealing with the politics in Scotland.

Else why have the following parties : -

Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Scottish Labour
Scottish Liberal Democrat

They'd be as well removing Scottish from their names and be open about bowing to the main UK party policies.

No point in trying to fool the electorate your a different party

P.S. In the Scottish Election, we would see these minor parties better represented through the AMS electoral system

Wouldn't it be great if the UK opened their view to representing the electorate better instead of trying to make it a two horse race?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Geroge wants Scottish independence Hamish,

So long as we keep the Subsidy....

Otherwise, as he said, it would be "economic suicide".

he thinks Scotland would be better off overall.

So long as we keep the subsidy...;)

Like you say, he's an economist.

Aye.

An SNP economist no less.

One who admits that Scotland losing the subsidy from rUK would be, in his own words, "Economic Suicide".

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm not rising to the rest of your post, but to answer this one part: -

No, I don't think that having only a one party state is a good thing and most likely, the Scottish electorate will revert to a more cross party representation, when the other parties stop dancing to the UK party tune and start dealing with the politics in Scotland.

Else why have the following parties : -

Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Scottish Labour
Scottish Liberal Democrat

They'd be as well removing Scottish from their names and be open about bowing to the main UK party policies.

No point in trying to fool the electorate your a different party

P.S. In the Scottish Election, we would see these minor parties better represented through the AMS electoral system

Wouldn't it be great if the UK opened their view to representing the electorate better instead of trying to make it a two horse race?

You have never explained
-what makes a land mass a (non sovereign) country
-when Scotland was made a country
-who made it a country
-what special characteristics the people of the 'country have that differs from any other land mass.
-why the politics of a country differ from any other land mass
-how people become Scottish

I'm not sure what you men by UK 'representing the electorate better : do you mean you want the UK to become a one party state like the non sovereign Scotland?

Hopefully the UK parliament will start to address the fundamental lack of fairness about voting on English matters and the size of the block grant : I'm sure you will agree.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

You have never explained
-what makes a land mass a (non sovereign) country
-when Scotland was made a country
-who made it a country
-what special characteristics the people of the 'country have that differs from any other land mass.
-why the politics of a country differ from any other land mass
-how people become Scottish

I'm not sure what you men by UK 'representing the electorate better : do you mean you want the UK to become a one party state like the non sovereign Scotland?

Hopefully the UK parliament will start to address the fundamental lack of fairness about voting on English matters and the size of the block grant : I'm sure you will agree.

I responded to your previous attempts my last post

Good day, keep "de bait" ing