Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Is there free movement with the Republic of Ireland?

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

What's your point?

I think it's that a small independent nation would have to outpunch it's bigger nearby rival, or perhaps offer a differently priced living style.

Some people here would disagree but Denmark has impressed me when I visit (I haven't lived there mind).

But, a 2nd car in the family is not as common as one might imagine, and some things are expensive. It's a different balance.

Is the intention to have a higher tax but higher lifestyle Scotland?

There seems to be little appetite for higher taxation down here south of the border.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

I think it's that a small independent nation would have to outpunch it's bigger nearby rival, or perhaps offer a differently priced living style.

Some people here would disagree but Denmark has impressed me when I visit (I haven't lived there mind).

But, a 2nd car in the family is not as common as one might imagine, and some things are expensive. It's a different balance.

Is the intention to have a higher tax but higher lifestyle Scotland?

There seems to be little appetite for higher taxation down here south of the border.

I would agree that Denmark is one country where it has previously been cited as a good example of how a small independent nation can be successful.

But for now, there is no mandate for another referendum on independence, so lets please keep that in mind.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I responded to your previous attempts my last post

Good day, keep "de bait" ing

you have consistently refused to discuss what you thinks makes Scotland a non sovereign 'nation' and hence justifies your belief that the people of Scotland are in some fundamental way different from those elsewhere.

speaks for itself.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

you have consistently refused to

rise to your continual baiting techniques.

I vowed not to get into such with yourself.

If you want to create an argument, please use the search button and have the argument with yourself over the previous discussions on similar points you repeatedly raise.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

rise to your continual baiting techniques.

I vowed not to get into such with yourself.

If you want to create an argument, please use the search button and have the argument with yourself over the previous discussions on similar points you repeatedly raise.

you repeated don't ever discuss what this 'nation' of yours is
probably because it's main characteristic is dislike of the English

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I'd recommend a thicker skin.

I'd recommend a modicum of respect now and again.

Don't shoot the messenger for telling you how the headlines played in Scotland. Some of us said at the time they were not going down well, and would only bolster the SNP. Which they most certainly helped to do.

Turning a racial slur into a badge of victory, jock being a derogatory term for Scot, suddenly it's all Francis Ford Coppola as Nicola Sturgeon's 56 members of parliament head south to break the Westminster mindset - A Jockalypse Now.

http://mashable.com/2015/05/11/why-scotland-voted-snp/?utm_cid=mash-com-Tw-main-link

Playing the anti-Scotland card is Cameron’s desperate last resort

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/22/anti-scotland-cameron-last-resort-snp

The Tories' anti-Scottish rhetoric is dangerous. It could also work

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/04/22/the-tories-anti-scottish-rhetoric-is-dangerous-it-could-also

The Tories and their right wing press play a dangerous game stirring up hatred of Scotland.

...Yet Cameron has put everything at risk with tawdry provocations in a reckless attempt to stir up resentment. The truly dangerous possibility, for honest Unionists, is that the Prime Minister doesn't care...

...After all, they have a chilling truth with which to contend. In some parts of England, Cameron's loose talk certainly seems to have cost Labour votes. Ed Miliband endured a catastrophe thanks to no one but himself: that's evident from the results. But a disturbing number of English voters seem to have not a clue about how the Union and Westminster are supposed to work. The idea of a partnership in which all MPs, voters and nations are equal - the proposition defended by No voters last September - is lost on a remarkable number of people in English constituencies.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/sunday-herald-view/the-tories-and-their-right-wing-press-play-a-dangerous-game-stirring-up-h.125592308

Devolving greater autonomy to the Scots will exacerbate already simmering regional divisions, which Cameron has stoked by playing on English indignation over perceived privileges granted to Scotland

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/05/11/commentary/world-commentary/what-propelled-cameron-to-victory/#.VVDeXJPQOPd

All of the above absolutely hilarious to you I suppose. Cameron and the Tories did indeed play a dangerous game the last few weeks.

Aberdeenangarse

Generali wrote: »

I'd recommend a thicker skin.

I'd recommend they get a sense of humour transplant!

Aberdeenangarse

Shakethedisease wrote: »

All of the above absolutely hilarious to you I suppose. Cameron and the Tories did indeed play a dangerous game the last few weeks.

I'd recommend you get yourself another hobby :rotfl:

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...
The difference between NW and Scotland is that the NW have never been a country and it's the country which the majority have voters which have united behind one party.
...

I fail to see why the NW is somehow a lesser region than Scotland.

Suppose all of London united behind one party. Would you consider that enough of a mandate to elevate the importance of London over NW or NE or even Scotland?

Down this path lies division. It's a retrograde step.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
All of the above absolutely hilarious to you I suppose. Cameron and the Tories did indeed play a dangerous game the last few weeks.

No they didn't.

It's a ridiculous statement to make.

Other parties were claiming the 'end of the NHS as we know it' should the Tories win.

That was another extreme and unfounded claim.

David Cameron was entitled to express his view of any potential alliance between any of the parties.

It was up to Ed Milliband to counter that view. Ed didn't make a clear enough case to the voters.

You don't get to write the rules of politics Shakey any more than I do.

The idea of a political leader being in the pocket of another leader dates back to David Steele / David Owen. This sort of character assignation has been going on for decades.