Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I'm saying it is a moneyweek article not an ft piece as you attempted to claim it was in order to give it some kind of credibility.

I didn't claim anything. You cited Moneyweek. I corrected you. If I wanted 'credibility' I would've sourced the original FT article in the first post. I didn't bother because it doesn't matter.

Seems it does to you though for some weird reason. If you don't agree with the content that's fine by me. But arguing the toss about where the article came from, and who wrote it was down to you citing Moneyweek in a way that inferred the article was less than credible.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

At the minute they're too busy to think of this. The Westminster crew are still tied up plotting how to oust Dennis Skinner from his seat, 3 weeks in, and the MSPs are locked up with John Swinney trying to work out the best excuses for not committing to using their new tax raising powers in 2016.

Well, at least they're not going to pass a law banning themselves from raising them at all. Like the Tories promised. Talk about daft policies. That one has got to be up there somewhere with the best of them.

I'm glad you're happy the Tories are in for the next five years. And at least you've admitted what everyone knew from your posts the last few months here as a *cough* completely 'undecided' voter.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
I'm glad you're happy the Tories are in for the next five years. And at least you've admitted what everyone knew from your posts the last few months here as a *cough* completely 'undecided' voter.

There is nothing wrong with someone considering all the information and choosing the right party when it comes to the vote.

...as long as they make the right decision

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So you're saying the SNP don't want independence, a mere 9 months after spending the best part of 3 years campaigning for it, and the entire lifetime as a political party since 1934, having an independent Scotland as a main policy.

Come back when you've thought all that through a little more carefully.

You know you're very hard to have a sensible discussion with when you ignore the line of argument in order to shoe-in a put down.
You said that the Scottish people, or the ones who voted SNP had chosen a different path, and the vehicles for that different path would be Independence, FFA or calls for an anti-austerity narrative.
I merely suggested that there were problems or issues with those approaches.
There's no need for rudeness.

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I didn't claim anything. You cited Moneyweek. I corrected you. If I wanted 'credibility' I would've sourced the original FT article in the first post. I didn't bother because it doesn't matter.

Seems it does to you though for some weird reason. If you don't agree with the content that's fine by me. But arguing the toss about where the article came from, and who wrote it was down to you citing Moneyweek in a way that inferred the article was less than credible.

Moneyweek is a hysterical tabloid equivalent with no credibility. But anyway, the main point remains that the article is completely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with expenditure. The GERS information is published by the treasury but the main components are (I) spending data from the Scottish Central government (ii) spending data from local government in Scotland (iii) spending on benefits paid to people living in Scotland and (iv) a per capita share of debt interest and defence spending.

You can continue to argue that those inputs are made up on the basis of a moneyweek article about apportionment of tax revenue until you are blue in the face but the only person you are fooling is yourself. If you genuinely believe that the treasury prepares the GERS figures for the purpose of making an independent Scotland look financial non-viable then you have developed an extreme and ludicrous persecution complex.

If the figures were false it would be easy to prove it because most of the information presented is about spending which has been devolved to Holyrood or Scottish local government. The SNP and their acolytes would have debunked the GERS figures using evidence by now if they could instead of having to resort to the ramblings of Merryn Somerset Webb on a different subject!

kabayiri

Another point from the Daily Politics.

The question of why the SNP weren't demanding FFA came up again.

Mr Wishart was challenged to "demand FFA if you are confident in independence" and he backed away from it.

This looks weak.

I think they need a better explanation as to why they could afford independence 18 months after the vote, but can't commit to FFA. It's a target which the other politicians and commentators will continue to aim at.

Generali

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32710657

An interesting comment piece. Obviously completely biased against the SNP as it's by the BBC but it raises the question of whether the SNP would be prepared to vote against their own manifesto pledge when offered to them.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32710657

An interesting comment piece. Obviously completely biased against the SNP as it's by the BBC but it raises the question of whether the SNP would be prepared to vote against their own manifesto pledge when offered to them.

Before that, FFA would have to be on offer, so the first question is

Will the Tories meet the SNP pledge on fiscal independence?

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32710657

An interesting comment piece. Obviously completely biased against the SNP as it's by the BBC but it raises the question of whether the SNP would be prepared to vote against their own manifesto pledge when offered to them.

This was the point made yesterday.

Personally, I think it's a much better proposition than some long winded Smith driven reforms.

If an FFA-based Scottish economy needed 'topping up' because of lacklustre oil revenues, I think we would all accept that, in the short/mid term.

ruggedtoast

I am considering changing the name of this thread to something more accurate.

How about: "The 'I would like to argue infinitum about Scotland until my brain starts to drip out of my ears' thread."?