Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Given there is no universal definition of the the word 'region' and nor is there a universal definition of a non sovereign 'nation', it is only of concern to self important fantasists, that are more interested in propaganda than the substance of differences of power.

I can only conclude from the above that the at notion of the UK being a part of the EU, and integrating still further is a source of constant joy to you, and that anyone saying otherwise is a 'self-important fantasist'.

I've met some pro-EU people in my time, but boy.. you're keen with this idea of 'non sovereign nation' stuff in political/economic unions !

Yes, sensible rational people can refer to Scotland as a region or a nation,

But not when changes constantly solely to fit a transient political agenda. And certainly not when it comes to democracy in the UK. One must be consistent. Otherwise democracy is undermined by the very fact people don't know if they're voting on a regional, or a national basis. Scots know full well they are voting on a regional basis in Holyrood in terms of returning MSP's to represent them on devolved issues.

On a UK basis however, we have folks equating Scotland with Surrey in terms of democratic mandate. Yet endorsing EVEL as the best way forward for the nation England and it's voice to be 'heard'. As if 502 MP's against 52 from Scotland, 30 from Wales, and 16 from NI still isn't enough.

How much louder do you want it to be, democratically ?

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So those sort of tweets are to brushed off as 'not his finest hour'..Ok.

Ditto Labour. Jim Murphy is taking over the airwaves at the moment talking about 'real change'. You can't say you haven't noticed ? Although he seems to have gotten his elections mixed up... badly.

Oh I agree... not her finest hour that tweet and a few of her comments. But never mind at least she hasn't been on TV yet promoted as a high profile Labour spokesman like Ian Smart has. So at least we should be grateful for that.

Nicola has to go with whatever her members vote for. And I think your mask is slipping just a wee bit. Have you always been a Labour voter skintmacflint or is it just 'strategic' for this election ?

Glad we agree on something then. I don't give a fig what Jim Murphy says, I'd have more respect if , he stopped thinking that appealing to the welfare section of Scotland is the way to win seats. Granted there are high numbers of claimants in some areas, but honesty is always best.

Would be mighty strange for someone of my age and background, which was real poverty, not the type of poverty claimed today, who hadn't voted Labour in the past. But can assure you it is merely tactical, just like a relative in Gordon who is voting Lib Dem in May.

What's 5 years compared to a life sentence. Many SNP voters have stated they can't wait for my age group to depart the planet. Bit ungrateful when many of us are still contributing income tax in our retirement , but that's the mindset of some. Lol.

skintmacflint

.string. wrote: »

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.

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

I had no idea, the White Paper was supposed to be a non political party document until near the Referendum date. I thought it had been issued by SNP as their document. It was littered with phrases saying ' the current Scottish government would intend on doing this and that etc etc. all the way through it.

I read it several times because I couldn't believe what I was reading.
After years of him campaigning , it was an insult to Scottish people to parade this document as giving all the answers. No doubt he gambled the general public wouldn't read it. Certainly no one I know who voted Yes had even looked at it.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote:

And on cue, for string re the EU...


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/04/us-britain-europe-referendum-idUSKBN0KD07C20150104

.... and your point is what exactly?

"nudge nudge, wink wink" does not cut it as a persuasive discussion gambit.

Do you have some sort of argument, or was that just a random bit of last week's news?

What are you trying to say?

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I can only conclude from the above that the at notion of the UK being a part of the EU, and integrating still further is a source of constant joy to you, and that anyone saying otherwise is a 'self-important fantasist'.

I've met some pro-EU people in my time, but boy.. you're keen with this idea of 'non sovereign nation' stuff in political/economic unions !
But not when changes constantly solely to fit a transient political agenda. And certainly not when it comes to democracy in the UK. One must be consistent. Otherwise democracy is undermined by the very fact people don't know if they're voting on a regional, or a national basis. Scots know full well they are voting on a regional basis in Holyrood in terms of returning MSP's to represent them on devolved issues.

On a UK basis however, we have folks equating Scotland with Surrey in terms of democratic mandate. Yet endorsing EVEL as the best way forward for the nation England and it's voice to be 'heard'. As if 502 MP's against 52 from Scotland, 30 from Wales, and 16 from NI still isn't enough.

How much louder do you want it to be, democratically ?

even you know you are talking complete rubbish

however, for the less intelligent SNP voters it would be better if there was an simple and absolute definition of 'English' matters so the democratic mandates will be clear.

.string.

skintmacflint wrote: »

I had no idea, the White Paper was supposed to be a non political party document until near the Referendum date. I thought it had been issued by SNP as their document. It was littered with phrases saying ' the current Scottish government would intend on doing this and that etc etc. all the way through it.

I read it several times because I couldn't believe what I was reading.
After years of him campaigning , it was an insult to Scottish people to parade this document as giving all the answers. No doubt he gambled the general public wouldn't read it. Certainly no one I know who voted Yes had even looked at it.

I've been sensitive to misuse of Public funds to further Political Parties ever since I met it first when I lived in Canada in Vancouver. There the governing party in the Provincial Government issued a number of spreads in the Newspaper declaring how wonderfully well BC was doing just before a Provincial Election. The inference (though of course not stated) was that it was actually the ruling party that was doing well and that people should vote for them. Parties are entitled to claim credit for any good work they do, but not at public expense. That example was relatively benign compared with the White Paper Hymn Sheet.

I recall there was some muttering on the use of public money in the case of the White Paper but do not know if it resulted in any censure - presumably not.

Actually if you look at Appendix A of the infamous White Paper you will see the alternative currency options which the SNP had in mind, including the failed sharing-the-pound proposal. The language there transfers directly to what the SNP is yattering on about now, namely fiscal levers, full Fiscal Autonomy and the like. Such might have been the thing to aim for in a separated Scotland but not in the context of our Union. It's worth looking at that Appendix A to see how simple minded the SNP approach was, although if as you say no-one read it then it only fooled SNP Party Members. They need a new Hymn Sheet.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

even you know you are talking complete rubbish

however, for the less intelligent SNP voters it would be better if there was an simple and absolute definition of 'English' matters so the democratic mandates will be clear.

Maybe the definition could be, simply, anything for which there is a Scots-only vote in Holyrood. They could hardly complain about that could they.


But they will.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

I had no idea, the White Paper was supposed to be a non political party document until near the Referendum date. I thought it had been issued by SNP as their document. It was littered with phrases saying ' the current Scottish government would intend on doing this and that etc etc. all the way through it.

Don't you think you might be a little under-informed then ? Since on the first page it says..

This guide sets out the gains of independence for Scotland – whichever party is in government – and this Government’s vision and priorities for action if we are the first government of an independent Scotland

It was a document dealing with a possible post-Yes vote. Were you expecting Labour, Lib Dems and Tories to contribute ?

I read it several times because I couldn't believe what I was reading.
After years of him campaigning , it was an insult to Scottish people to parade this document as giving all the answers. No doubt he gambled the general public wouldn't read it. Certainly no one I know who voted Yes had even looked at it.

In your own opinion of course. Let's not get carried away thinking that everyone came to the same conclusions as you did. Nor dismissing it as something you feel a lot of Yes voters didn't bother 'even looking at'.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

.... and your point is what exactly?

"nudge nudge, wink wink" does not cut it as a persuasive discussion gambit.

Do you have some sort of argument, or was that just a random bit of last week's news?

What are you trying to say?

You're adamant that Scots shouldn't be allowed to know what options are open to them if rUK votes us out and Scotland doesn't want to go. David Cameron is talking of bringing any referendum forward from 2017.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I've been sensitive to misuse of Public funds to further Political Parties ever since I met it first when I lived in Canada in Vancouver. There the governing party in the Provincial Government issued a number of spreads in the Newspaper declaring how wonderfully well BC was doing just before a Provincial Election. The inference (though of course not stated) was that it was actually the ruling party that was doing well and that people should vote for them. Parties are entitled to claim credit for any good work they do, but not at public expense. That example was relatively benign compared with the White Paper Hymn Sheet.

I recall there was some muttering on the use of public money in the case of the White Paper but do not know if it resulted in any censure - presumably not.

Actually if you look at Appendix A of the infamous White Paper you will see the alternative currency options which the SNP had in mind, including the failed sharing-the-pound proposal. The language there transfers directly to what the SNP is yattering on about now, namely fiscal levers, full Fiscal Autonomy and the like. Such might have been the thing to aim for in a separated Scotland but not in the context of our Union. It's worth looking at that Appendix A to see how simple minded the SNP approach was, although if as you say no-one read it then it only fooled SNP Party Members. They need a new Hymn Sheet.

Can't you let the referendum go now string ? You won.. time to move on.