Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I remember Salmond being asked ( the context was the possibility -- at that time thought to be the likelihood -- of there being a Labour minority Government after the GE) how the SNP would influence a Labour Government Bill when voting against their Bill might defeat the Government and make it fall.

Using the HS2 as an example, hIs reply was that they would propose an amendment which started HS2 at Edinburgh and thence, through Glasgow, to England. That was to be a condition for their support of the Bill.

It's a well worn ploy.

But what is the business case for such a railway when it remains unconnected to the great cities of the south not to mention Europe until the latter days of its completion? Starting from the South it has more utility from the outset.

The HS2, or it's derivative, will reach Edinburgh (and beyond) in the future, unless of course, Scotland separated from the UK when the cost would not be borne by the UK in which case it may not happen at all.

He used it as a simple example string. You know what they are don't you ? It's something you use to illustrate a wider point.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

So again you dodge the argument.

Whatever, Shakey, whatever.

Do you have an actual point to this post. Dodge what argument ? That's one thing I've never been guilty of on threads like these.

Do you think Carmichael should resign string ? I asked you posts back. And you didn't answer. Double standards again ? If you do me the courtesy of answering even a basic question of mine to you occasionally, then mabye I'll answer or try to work out what exactly it is you're asking me. Was it about deleted tweets and new SNP MP's having to resign over them ? Or was it something else ? The Express or the Mail story about McManiacs ?

Diane Abbott @HackneyAbbott · May 22 So now the #fail is calling Scottish MPs "McManiacs". When will this ridiculous demonisation of SNP stop

Diane Abbott @HackneyAbbott · May 23 @bethking61 I am in Parliament with them. Not behaving like children at all. Media stuff is tosh.

Anyway Carmichael. Should he resign ? I did ask you a while back. Answer appreciated.

It looks like things might be getting interesting after all. And he's right to ask what many are thinking. How much did Mundell know.

Alex Salmond has sparked a furious row with the UK Government after suggesting the new Scottish Secretary knew about a leaked memo which claimed Nicola Sturgeon wanted David Cameron to win the general election.
In his exclusive Courier column, the former First Minister questions the likelihood of David Mundell, who stepped up to the Cabinet after being a Scotland Office minister through the last Parliament, being unaware of the document which was passed to a newspaper by Alistair Carmichael’s special advisor.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/uk-government-s-fury-at-alex-salmond-suggestion-david-mundell-may-have-known-about-leaked-memo-1.878045

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm sure she'll do just that. The 'reports' you refere to in the press are from this weeks FMQ's. Where all three other party leaders concentrated on the same question. You'd think they'd gotten together beforehand or something. It's looking more and more co-ordinated every week. And it's not doing any of them any good.

And while I like Kezia.. her voice is like a fork scraping down a plate imo. And she's very 'scripted'. Struggles when things go off message. She'll have to learn fast if she's to be the next Scottish Labour leader.

Do you know how she is going to fix this or is this just another of your sweeping predictions. Similar to ' and it's not doing them any good' comment above. And you know this because of what exactly? Did you or someone at WOS run another opinion poll or survey at the end of the week?

As for slating poor Kezia, if we must descend to this level, then someone should tell Sturgeon she has a 'nodding dog toy' head when making points during speeches. Not forgetting her give away body language when struggling to answer questions in personal interviews, when the questions veer off her well rehearsed personal script or spin.

But then nobody's perfect IMO . Lol.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes because that Tory majority is just so vast isn't it... It'll only take a few back bench rebellions to put Cameron's gas at a peep. And Labour are a complete messy disaster at the moment. So I wouldn't get too carried away just yet.

The Tories are a majority Government with almost 100 seats more than Labour.

A quick squizz at Wikipedia shows that there were 21 by-elections during the last Government all but 3 of which were held by incumbents (Tories gained 1 and lost 2 to UKIP).

During the previous one (2005-10) there were 16 seats vacated and 14 by-elections of which all but 5 were held by incumbents (2 Tory gains, 1 SNP gain, 1 Lab gain and 1 Lib Dem gain).

2001-2005 there were 6 by-elections, 4 were Labour holds and 2 were Labour losses to the Lib Dems.

1997-2001 there were 17 by-elections, 15 of which were held by the incumbents. 1 was a DUP gain from the UUP and a was a Tory loss to the Lib Dems.

So in 18 years there have been 58 by-elections. 12 of those seats changed hands and apparently in no way that would impact on a small minority.

What is interesting is that there seem to be far more by-elections in Labour seats than any others. 36 seats were held by Labour before the by-election (perhaps they are more likely to vote in old men?). That is against 12 Tory seats (including the 2 defections to UKIP).

I wouldn't get too carried away just yet.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, I took that from the comments from Lib Dem supporters under the article on Libdemvoice actually. They're viewing him as a liability themselves. It'll be a good start to the SNP 2016 campaign if he stays. But I do think personally he should resign.

Fair enough, but by describing Carmichael as "in power" and "in Office" it would appear you don`t know what a constituency MP is.
This is between Carmichael and his constituents and no one else.
My own MP was all over the papers a few months back for augmenting his MP`s salary by 'moonlighting' as a Barrister and earning circa £750K. This annoyed a great number of people, who felt he should have been concentrating fully on his job as an MP. Fair play to him though, he put himself before his electorate and increased his majority.
Who`s to say that Carmichael doesn't do the same in 2020.

Froggitt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes, I understand what you're getting at. And I understand why you're saying it. But it won't play well in Scotland anymore. Not now. HS2 is already seem as a huge vanity project anyway before the first track has even been laid. There are many that can't really see the point of it. And even more than won't see the point of paying for it either.

So, when the West Coast Main Line becomes "full", how do you expect people to get to/from London/Birmingham/Manchester/Glasgow?


Maybe we tarmac over large swathes of Bucks/Northants/Staffordshire to build more motorway?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There are many that can't really see the point of it. And even more than won't see the point of paying for it either.

Shakey we don't pay for any of it. Not HS2, not Trident, and not any of the other dog whistle projects you bring up.

We can't even cover our own expenses and have to be subsidised to the tune of around £8,000,000,000 a year by taxpayers in rUK.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Shakey we don't pay for any of it. Not HS2, not Trident, and not any of the other dog whistle projects you bring up.

We can't even cover our own expenses and have to be subsidised to the tune of around £8,000,000,000 a year by taxpayers in rUK.

It's almost like she's still gutted that the SNP are going to have the same level of power that the SDP did.

All those votes, about a third of the number that UKIP managed and slightly more than the Greens, and nothing to show for it but bitterness and hurt.

Oh well. There's always the Parish Council and dreams of bankrupting Scotland.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

the answer is zero, as scotland is a heavily subsidised region of the UK

You keep harping on about the Barnett Formula, however this is a prime example of how the people of Scotland are contributing 8.5% towards this, but not seeing the benefit from it.

It would be interesting to see how all this balances out in who is subsidising who and by how much.

Your "hatred" towards Scottish people for the Barnett Formula (but no grievance towards Northern Irish people who receive a higher percentage) is clearly apparent and may be unjustified.

8.5% of my tax is more than the £1,500 benefit Holyrood gets as a result of the Barnett Formula.

How many more "UK" infrastructures are benefiting a percentage of the population and nothing for the Scottish people?

Nevermind though Clapton, as long as it does not get in the way of spouting your "hatred" towards the Scottish people

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Shakey we don't pay for any of it. Not HS2, not Trident, and not any of the other dog whistle projects you bring up.

Interesting.
Who pays for these projects?

Please don't respond with the tax payer or else you would be contradicting yourself by claiming we are not contributing to it.