Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

It would seem fair and just and democratic that areas with devolved powers should be government by people with a democratic mandate for those areas/powers.

It would seem equally fair, just and democratic that for non devolved powers then the mandate should comprise all the people of the UK on an equal basis

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

Have you listened to any of her public speeches? This wee lassie at present is no more than a few sound bites who has watched too many Tommy Sheridan videos. How can she possibly represent a constituency of a fair size properly. At best she will be a mere puppet for Salmond in a vote.


To send a 20 year old girl to Westminster because she speaks. With a west coast accent is a joke, and the joke will be On Scotland.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

Give it a go and we'll find out.

I'll see if I can sneak it in.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

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.

But I didn't present it as gospel. In fact I'd never heard of it until the day subsidies etc where mentioned here. Then I remembered someone commenting elsewhere about an 'old paper' that tried to unentangle GERS etc. So I went to see if there was one. I presented it as an alternative side to the argument for those interested. There's no need to bust a blood vessel over it. The SNP did have real ecomomists looking at 'forecasts'. You just won't accept that they were real. I guess you must obviously think you know better than two Nobel laureates though. And I wouldn't dare disabuse you of that sort of self-grandeur.

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.

No it wasn't. There was nothing official asked by the UK government. They were scared of the answer obviously. And no-one mentioned the SNP going for another referendum anytime soon. You're reaching.

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.

Hung parliaments, deals to be made, confidence and supply, countries to be run.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

It would seem equally fair, just and democratic that for non devolved powers then the mandate should comprise all the people of the UK on an equal basis

I agree. So why the talk of a grand coalition in order to keep the SNP out if most of Scotland votes for them ?

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Have you listened to any of her public speeches? This wee lassie at present is no more than a few sound bites who has watched too many Tommy Sheridan videos. How can she possibly represent a constituency of a fair size properly. At best she will be a mere puppet for Salmond in a vote.


To send a 20 year old girl to Westminster because she speaks. With a west coast accent is a joke, and the joke will be On Scotland.

Hey I agreed with you if you remember. Don't shoot the messenger. Am only reporting what I see online. But she's only one candidate.. you still haven't commented or expressed an opionion on what you think of Ian Smart's Nazi tweets a few days ago ?

What did you think of them ? I'd love to know, because if this is what's representing Labour at the present time on the internet and on tv, then I'd say the joke is on Labour...

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I agree. So why the talk of a grand coalition in order to keep the SNP out if most of Scotland votes for them ?

I wasn't aware of a grand coalition to keep SNP out : I thought that if they were voted for by their constituents they could then sit in UK parliament and vote on matters that were not devolved.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote:

But I didn't present it as gospel....

The SNP did have real ecomomists looking at 'forecasts'. You just won't accept that they were real. I guess you must obviously think you know better than two Nobel laureates though. And I wouldn't dare disabuse you of that sort of self-grandeur.

There was nothing official asked by the UK government. They were scared of the answer obviously. And no-one mentioned the SNP going for another referendum anytime soon. You're reaching.

Hung parliaments, deals to be made, confidence and supply, countries to be run.

Re "gospel" - you presented the Obfuscation Document as being the answer to questions on the UK subsidising Scotland to the extent that you did not need to respond to such anymore... but I agree it is no gospel.
Yes I see to remember something about a Nobel laureate in connection with the Appendix A of the White Paper (*) aka SNP -propaganda launched of early last year. I also remember mentioning at the time that I thought the actual paper had a politician's hand all over it (or some such term) - there were errors in that document so that it had to be corrected but it remained naive and simplistic in the extreme.

Re the business about the UK asking officially for the EU stance on Scottish membership of the EU, you seem to think that somehow the SNP is going to twist some arms to get that done which is pure day-dreaming - the situation is as I described before quite apart from the fact that such a thing is of minor importance to the UK. The SNP will have to do its own pleading.

(*) produced at public expense. Is that legal according to Scottish Law?

elantan

Generali wrote: »

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

I reckon the union is already wrecked, it just doesn't know it yet

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

That's no different to Labour's mandate to rule Surrey where they also pick up very few votes.

Surrey is a region of England. Scotland is a nation within the United Kingdom. But do feel free to keep framing your comparisons in terms of Scotland being simply a region on the same basis as Surrey. It always goes down so well !
The quote mentioned constituational nations quite distinctly.

Some of the pressure on Labour could even come from the UK's constitutional setup as a union of constituent nations.

And anyway, if Scotland is to be treated mandate wise exactly as Surrey is ( ie a region ), then there should be no problem whatsoever with Scottish MP's voting on English laws. Thus, EVEL has no meaning does it ?

Either Scotland is a nation or it's a region. But you need to make up your mind which really. You keep arguing in circles using region when it suits, and nation when it suits. It can't be both regarding mandates, EVEL or anything else much for that matter regarding it's MP's in Westminster.