Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Certainly the SNP councillor I know and some others who voted SNP are not from affluent backgrounds, so I've never personally subscribed to that myth. Always felt it was a mix of the poorer disenfranchised, idealists and the colourful .

It seems The herding of cats has already started with some of the candidates being put forward.

So I see ! I have to confess I've never heard of the young lady in question.. And if I'm really honest, I think she's probably a little young to be up against an established big name and hitter like Douglas Alexander. For a normal 20 year old, the odd OTT tweet and comment would be seen as pretty normal stuff... for a newly selected Parliamentary candidate.. well, not so good. MP's after all, have resigned over them.

Mabye one of the other people who follow Scottish politics/Yes speakers might know more about the lady in question that I do.

It's obvious really too, that the likes of the Daily Record would be out to dig up as much SNP dirt as they could get. However, there have been tweets from Labour MP's recently, that have been much worse... I do think the Scottish media.. Labour influenced as it is... judge by two very different standards when it comes to SNP/Labour which is patently unfair, but is par for the course.

Ian Smart ‏@ianssmart All Parties had individual members with pro Nazi views but only the SNP celebrate them today. Anybody got a benign explanation for that?

an Smart @ianssmart · Feb 2 Great documentary about the first ever female rabbi on BBC4. Died in a concentration camp. With the SNP's enthusiastic support. Never forget.

Have yet to see reference to this headlining anywhere.. which it undoubtedly would have had an SNP member/MP/MSP or high profile supporter tweeted them.

Leanne1812

Mhairi Black was up for selection in my area. From what I've heard people liked her but felt she was too young & perhaps inexperienced. I know she joined the Margo mobile and apparently Jim Sillars speaks very highly of her.

Like you say Shake's she's only 20 and obviously had she considered standing for election when she tweeted/spoke she'd have chosen her words more carefully. I read today that Margaret Curran said if Alex Salmond was run over by a bus she wouldn't be interested. Never made any headlines that one did it?

The daily record sales have fallen dramatically since the referendum. Scots seem to have woken up to the trash they print.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Me too.......not a fan of wrecking the union though.

People are People though...

And if you're not a fan of wrecking the union.. then headlines like like this in the newspapers are not helping. It's whipping up some real crappy stuff down south against not just the SNP, but anyone who intends to vote for them..




... and annoying a lot of Scots too ( probably about 45% of them). You surely can't agree with this sort of journalism and believe me it'll get much worse as the election approaches..or think it's in any way, condusive with saving the union. Stalinists ? Abuse ?

If this is what those down south think of those north of the border voting SNP in the coming election. Then the union is truly broken I'm afraid.

skintmacflint

Seem to remember the young lady who was chosen as some sort of special Youth advisor by a police committee in England received similar publicity after her tweets along similar lines were revealed in the press a couple of years ago.

This young lady should never have passed the vetting stage for a number of reasons. Her age being one of them. Particularly when she is from the same area which had SNP councillors uploading a video of them proudly burning the Smith commission report only 2 months ago.

No, it doesn't reflect well for several reasons. SNP has always been a fractious party with lots of infighting over the years. Salmond enforced rigid party rules of behaviour etc during his time of power. Cut the number on the NEC , to exert more control, and built up a nice wee team around him he could control , who'd worked with him and each other for decades.

But now they've encouraged and stirred up so many loose cannons during their campaign last year, who talk the good sound bites at public meetings but are basically empty vessels who read a couple of sentences from The Wee Blue Book. Nicola is going to have a hell of a job keeping control over her potential ministers , as well as keeping an eye on Salmond himself if he gains the Gordon seat.

This is what happens when you move too fast for your capability, in all areas of life, including business and politics.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Daily Mail? Daily Fail. It's The Sun without the breasts. Having said that I understand that The Sun is now The Sun without the breasts too.

The Mail is taken seriously by airheads and read by a depressingly large number of people. It supported Hitler's rise to power and hasn't gotten any better since.

What that headline does show is the problems that Labour(?) would face if it went into a serious coalition with the SNP. English people aren't very keen on being ruled by a hard left party whose raison d'etre is to break up a union that English people are quite fond of. The SNP would be unelectable in most/all of England and I suspect that the vast majority of English people would resent being held to ransom by it.

The Telegraph is just as bad actually. Especially below the line..It's on par with Kelvin McKenzie sometimes in tone towards Scots, not just the SNP, in general. You're surely not going to tell me that only 'airheads' read that are you ? And none of their articles on politics are taken seriously ? ( happy to provide examples but is late ).

There will be no coalition between Labour and the SNP. I understand why ( as per you post above, frightening the horses and all that ) the newspapers keep going on about it. It's all Tory votes in the bag really if they believe this sort of stuff.

At the end of the day, if Labour won't do a confidence and supply deal.. (And I think they may take a massive risk and rule it out in the immediate lead up to the election in the hopes of bolstering the wavering Scottish voters who don't want to see Tories in ).. But the Tories don't have enough to form a majority with UKIP/DUP... then what ? And that's about the size of it in terms of this election. Someone, somehow has to cobble together something to form a working government.

But, I will reiterate again.. that IF Labour once the election numbers are in and it's possible, and IF the only hope they have is of forming a government on the basis of SNP support.. and they refuse it. They're finished in Scotland. And still have no-one to form a working govt with..

Speculation eh. That's what makes debate fun.

Gangaweed

Generali wrote: »

Me too.......not a fan of wrecking the union though.

The SNP are doing an excellent job of wrecking the union. But I suspect this is the strategy.

Personally I really want another referendum, then they can just !!!! off.

ruggedtoast

I wonder if the mods would notice now if I try and add the fatty back into the title...

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Seem to remember the young lady who was chosen as some sort of special Youth advisor by a police committee in England received similar publicity after her tweets along similar lines were revealed in the press a couple of years ago.

This young lady should never have passed the vetting stage for a number of reasons. Her age being one of them. Particularly when she is from the same area which had SNP councillors uploading a video of them proudly burning the Smith commission report only 2 months ago.

No, it doesn't reflect well for several reasons. SNP has always been a fractious party with lots of infighting over the years. Salmond enforced rigid party rules of behaviour etc during his time of power. Cut the number on the NEC , to exert more control, and built up a nice wee team around him he could control , who'd worked with him and each other for decades.

But now they've encouraged and stirred up so many loose cannons during their campaign last year, who talk the good sound bites at public meetings but are basically empty vessels who read a couple of sentences from The Wee Blue Book. Nicola is going to have a hell of a job keeping control over her potential ministers , as well as keeping an eye on Salmond himself if he gains the Gordon seat.

This is what happens when you move too fast for your capability, in all areas of life, including business and politics.

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning.. are you saying that people shouldn't vote SNP because it's grown too fast, and that there may be a few loose cannon's somewhere down the line ? It's hardly a concrete reason not to vote for them. Just 'what if's'.

You could say that about any political party. And at the end of the day.. Surely it's easier to control 20 to ( insert your own election expectation ) MP's.. than it is to control 270 odd each Labour/Tory ones for the respective leaderships ?

Regarding Mhari Black I've seen quite a few posts on twitter and facebook last few days now. And I have to say that in the main, those that live in that constituency ( Paisley and surrounding ) seem to have a lot of support for her. More because of the way she 'speaks just like them'.. So, who knows what will happen there.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Don't rule out a National Government or even a minority Government. Both have happened in the past.


As you say, speculation is fun. None of us know how the dice will fall. We do know that the SNP can't form a Government alone as they don't contest enough seats.

Yes both are getting more likely by the day. However, it should also be remembered, re forming government.. someone else on another internet discussion put it better that I can, so will just copy and paste it here.

Some of the pressure on Labour could even come from the UK's constitutional setup as a union of constituent nations. If the election result is anything like current polls, the democratic mandate to govern Scotland without SNP cooperation could also be highly questionable.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote:

If the SNP has any sort of sense, and if they ever get anywhere near a confidence and supply situation in Westminster. They should ask for some sort of deal whereby a few economists get to have a full and extensive look at the Treasury 'books' regarding Scotland over the last few decades.
Sending a group to officially ask the EU where Scotland would stand in the event of either future independence, FFA OR an out vote by the rUK at some time in the future would also be helpful. And so much more transparent for everyone in terms of who 'subsidises' who. If at all. A lot of ill-feeling and suspicion ended at at stroke from both sides wouldn't you say ?

Everyone would know where they stand.[/url]

If the SNP had any sense they would have had real economists looking at their own economic "forecasts" and accounting, like that "Obfuscation Document" you represent as relevant gospel.

You ask about an "Official" request (presumably by the UK) of the EU as to how Scotland would stand on EU membership. That question has been answered more than once as you well know so you already have the answer, as does the UK, and therefore where Natland would stand on that one, but if the SNP wants to ask again go ahead, if you can. You can add it to the things you want to do each year - have another referendum, ask if you can keep the pound, ask if you can join Nato, ask if you can be a member of the EU, ask for FFA and so on in ever decreasing circles.

As for it being done by a British Government why on earth would any British Government go down that hypothetical line? . . . and, in any case, you cannot seriously expect a UK Government to get embroiled in an SNP plot to break up the UK. Get real.