Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

clapton
nah i am not into rough stuff so saying you hate me whilst offering to love me wont work for me lol;)

It certainly takes a particular type of chip on the shoulder and certain type of entitlement culture, to equate fair and just system for all the people of the UK, with hating a Scot.

.string.

A propos my recent remarks on the SNP "White Paper" being a misuse of public funds, this article (today) in the Scotsman gives more
White paper damns civil service

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

A propos my recent remarks on the SNP "White Paper" being a misuse of public funds, this article (today) in the Scotsman gives more
White paper damns civil service

Written last April by John McTernan. You have got to be joking putting that up for serious discussion. You need to read up on him.

Thousands of emails from Julia Gillard's powerful media adviser John McTernan have been leaked to the ABC, revealing the aggressive approach adopted by the former prime minister's communications director and the inner workings of the media team.
The British spin doctor cultivated his image among Australian journalists as a real-life Malcolm Tucker - the political operative from the BBC political satire The Thick of It - but the bad language was not just reserved for venting at journalists over the phone or in writing.
The emails show he frequently used vulgar language in professional communications with junior staff , with Mr McTernan employing obscene language to describe journalists, critics and even US president Barack Obama's digital strategist, Harper Reed, over his prediction that Labor would lose the 2013 election.

The emails show he encouraged Labor staffers to mobilise so called "Twitter armies"' to ridicule the Tony Abbott-led opposition and attack individual Coalition MPs online, which he would later point out to journalists as proof of public opinion.


He would forward flattering articles, pictures and memes about himself to staff but lacked basic knowledge of some of Labor's key policies and attacks, and regularly responded to media and stakeholder criticism with ridicule and abuse.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-11/leaked-emails-reveal-aggressive-style-of-john-mcternan/5149158

After Australia, BetterTogether used him.. and Scottish Labour have just hired him. Fabulous political tactics and honesty just shine from every pore. Lovely man. :eek:

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

The SNP don't give a fig for the Union and pursue policies and spurious rationale which sets unreasonable expectation on TOTAL devolution of ALL matters to Scotland. All this is clocked in the self-serving claim that they are doing it for the benefit of the Scots and never mind the Referendum becasue that is so last year.

Such a proposal would put Scotland into a take-all give-nothing position which is entirely inconsistent with being in a Union.

I've asked Shakey several times about how the SNP propose to live up to the pledge to work towards the success of the Union part. The only thing I have seen is that FFA etc is the way to keep the Union otherwise stuff it and we go into neverendum land. Oh and the other nonsense about nothing is Democratic unless the SNP (aka Scotland in SNP conceited parlance) get their own way on absolutely everything.

Not that I think Shakey and her party bosses don't realise this but all of that, as I've said, is about fermenting more and bad feeling.

So let me get this straight. The Yes side lost the referendum and you think that the SNP should just renounce every single policy it's ever had because there was a No vote ? Is that really what you think should've happened ? Oh dear.

Everyone accepted the ref result. The SNP are still doing their best for Scotland as far as I can see in Holyrood.. and in Westminster they only have 6 MP's at present. But they haven't caused much of a fuss there as far as I can see since the referendum either. So what's your problem ? There have been no calls for an instant re-run and the other three parties were the one's waving vow's and promises of further powers in front of the Scottish electorate's noses before the vote if there was a No vote. Not the SNP.

That the SNP want an independent Scotland is hardly news to anyone. That they would still want an independent Scotland even after a No vote shouldn't really be news to you either. And they've always welcomed further powers, either through devolution or as now, the Smith Commission.

The problem is that a lot of people in Scotland want more of them. And much more than has been offered so far. If you read this article it pretty much explains the 'rise' of the SNP over the last few years in a fairly concise and easily read impartial article. The referendum simply accelerated things.

The answer is that, now as then, the focus is not on independence but on who will battle hardest for Scotland within the union. And this focus is all the clearer because of how close the referendum contest became and the perceived importance of the “Vow” of further devolution in swinging the contest back towards No.
It is generally agreed that, had a “more powers” option been on the referendum ballot all along, it would have won with ease.

Scottish political competition now centres on which party is most committed to delivering those extra powers and generally most likely to “stand up for Scotland.”

Whether it is the specifics of further devolution or a general commitment to Scottish interests, the SNP has for some time enjoyed a clear advantage over Labour, with the other Westminster parties trailing even further behind. And this is exactly the configuration in the vote-intention polls.

This makes it easier to explain why, as baffled commentators have often noted, the referendum losers now look like winners and vice versa. The main reason is that the game has changed. The shift to the SNP is the expression not of a mass post-referendum conversion to independence, but of longstanding preferences for self-government within the union.

http://theconversation.com/five-reasons-why-labour-should-seriously-fear-wipeout-in-scotland-37497



Enjoy !

skintmacflint

elantan wrote: »

Any other Scot feel as if now that we have voted no were back to be no longer loved but seen as something that should be scraped off the sole of a shoe ?
.

Nope, do you?

ruggedtoast

elantan wrote: »

Any other Scot feel as if now that we have voted no were back to be no longer loved but seen as something that should be scraped off the sole of a shoe ?

Where is all the we love you's... dont leave us ... now ... no more love letters ... no more sudden desperate rushes up to save the union ... now its you get too much you have too much influence ... sit there, shut up and eat yer cereal

well i reckon hell slap it into us ...

Gosh, whatever it is, this nat chip on shoulder. You'd be much happier letting it go. Just get on with your life and stop worrying about what the English think of you.

elantan

To be honest people I really don't care .... I do however enjoy watching it all unfold

ruggedtoast

elantan wrote: »

To be honest people I really don't care .... I do however enjoy watching it all unfold

Yes, your indifference is stamped allow over this thread.

elantan

I take it your wanting some of my popcorn ?

Only if you promise to behave

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So let me get this straight. The Yes side lost the referendum and you think that the SNP should just renounce every single policy it's ever had because there was a No vote ? Is that really what you think should've happened ? Oh dear.

Everyone accepted the ref result. The SNP are still doing their best for Scotland as far as I can see in Holyrood.. and in Westminster they only have 6 MP's at present. But they haven't caused much of a fuss there as far as I can see since the referendum either. So what's your problem ? There have been no calls for an instant re-run and the other three parties were the one's waving vow's and promises of further powers in front of the Scottish electorate's noses before the vote if there was a No vote. Not the SNP.

That the SNP want an independent Scotland is hardly news to anyone. That they would still want an independent Scotland even after a No vote shouldn't really be news to you either. And they've always welcomed further powers, either through devolution or as now, the Smith Commission.

The problem is that a lot of people in Scotland want more of them. And much more than has been offered so far. If you read this article it pretty much explains the 'rise' of the SNP over the last few years in a fairly concise and easily read impartial article. The referendum simply accelerated things.

http://theconversation.com/five-reasons-why-labour-should-seriously-fear-wipeout-in-scotland-37497



Enjoy !

well
in addition to all the other interesting political situations, we can perhaps celebrate Scotland as the first home nation to be a single party state
they could make a song about it ..........