Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nah, this has been bubbling under the surface one way or another... 1979 ( referendum, No ), 1997 (referendum, Yes ), 2007( SNP narrowly win Holyrood ), 2011 ( SNP win Holyrood by a landslide ) , 2014 ( referendum, No ), 2015..( SNP win 56 seats in Westminster ) ....either in terms of greater powers for Scotland, or greater numbers of SNP politicians on the scene, for about 40 years.

Over time you'll find the remainder of the Union can't be bothered with it.

Starting the sell off of RBS shares could be viewed as partly political as well. As negates one thorny issue or possible SNP threat depending upon your viewpoint. .

zagubov

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Over time you'll find the remainder of the Union can't be bothered with it.

That's why it's got to be reformed or failing that dismantled in a way that minimises problems for the partners in the union.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Where is the evidence for this ?

Westminster has not encouraged Wales to have a referendum now that coal isn't a major output.

Westminster has not encouraged NI to seek independence.

It would suggest that the main parties in power in Westminster are actually pro Union, would it not?

This is one of the most successful and longest lasting Unions in the entire world, measured over a period of centuries.

The post above :---

Thrugelmir :- Over time you'll find the remainder of the Union can't be bothered with it.

That and the fact that we can't possibly have the next few UK General elections, with every single English party, too scared to admit they'll work with the SNP in any context lest it upset English voters. That sort of attitude is not sustainable unionist politics ( among other things ). In fact, it shows that unionist politicians, aren't interested in working with MP's from certain parts of the UK at all... which kind of makes them. Not unionist really..

Cooper is already at to five years in advance..

Yvette Cooper has ruled out any deal with the SNP after the next general election if she become Labour leader.
The shadow home secretary said that she could not foresee an arrangement with a party that wants Scotland to leave the UK.
She also predicted that David Cameron would reprise fears over the SNP to win votes in England in 2020.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13413442.Yvette_Cooper_rules_out_post_election_alliance_with_the_SNP/

At some point the Tories are going to encourage the Scots to leave if the SNP remain dominant in Scottish politics, or perhaps some form of federalism advocated. But if the oil goes, I do think Scotland will go from the Union with it ( if not before due to political reasons ).

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The post above :---That and the fact that we can't possibly have the next few UK General elections, with every single English party, too scared to admit they'll work with the SNP in any context lest it upset English voters. That sort of attitude is not sustainable unionist politics ( among other things ). In fact, it shows that unionist politicians, aren't interested in working with MP's from certain parts of the UK at all... which kind of makes them. Not unionist really..

Cooper is already at to five years in advance..

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13413442.Yvette_Cooper_rules_out_post_election_alliance_with_the_SNP/

At some point the Tories are going to encourage the Scots to leave if the SNP remain dominant in Scottish politics, or perhaps some form of federalism advocated. But if the oil goes, I do think Scotland will go from the Union with it ( if not before due to political reasons ).

Who'd join a coalition with the SNP? The last time they hung around for as long as it took for them to lose the referendum and then left Labour to be humiliated. You'd have to be nuts to join that lot of backstabbers.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The post above :---That and the fact that we can't possibly have the next few UK General elections, with every single English party, too scared to admit they'll work with the SNP in any context lest it upset English voters. That sort of attitude is not sustainable unionist politics ( among other things ). In fact, it shows that unionist politicians, aren't interested in working with MP's from certain parts of the UK at all... which kind of makes them. Not unionist really..
...

[ ).

You don't understand the difference between evidence and conjecture.

You focus on short term politics. Union break up will be measured over decades.

ruggedtoast

For most of the history of the Union, Scotland didn't provide any revenue through oil and ran at a loss. Even with oil it seems to run at a loss. It would seem that if England wanted to divest itself of Scotland for financial reasons it would have done so.

It would help if the Nats could at least agree among themselves why England wants to oppress them. Oil, general nastiness, lack of oil, potential oil, etc.

ruggedtoast

I thought I would take the temperature of the air over at Wings.

Good God.

Not content with having chased that poor Scottish bra entrepreneur lady out of Scotland, those weirdos are now stalking her on Twitter.

That guy who runs the site, from Bath, has taken screen grabs of all her Twitter pictures from her lovely new Thames home and the Nat goblins are pouring their jealousy and bitterness all over the comments.

Imagine what the cybernats could achieve if they put half the energy they put into whinging and hating, into trying to achieve something themselves.

Maybe then they could have nice homes too. Rather than desperately hoping that they'll get independence because some SNP politico told them they'll get a bigger handout in the dole office.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/she-lives-by-the-river/#more-74028

Mind you, it's worth going over there to read the comments on this again:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/us-now-or-never/

:rotfl::rotfl:

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

For most of the history of the Union, Scotland didn't provide any revenue through oil and ran at a loss. Even with oil it seems to run at a loss. It would seem that if England wanted to divest itself of Scotland for financial reasons it would have done so.

It would help if the Nats could at least agree among themselves why England wants to oppress them. Oil, general nastiness, lack of oil, potential oil, etc.

It seems to be whatever stick happens to be at hand.

You'll notice that the SNP hatred of the English simply isn't reciprocated from south of the border.I guess it's 'little brother' syndrome. A bit like how Canadians tend to be a little chippy about their US-ian cousins or Kiwis dislike being confused with Aussies.

The Union survived for a lot longer without Scotland having oil than with Scotland having oil. The idea that Scotland will be kicked out once the oil is gone is risible. !!!!!!, Scotland came to the English for a bailout to join the Union so why, historically, would the English kick Scotland out for financial reasons?

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

with every single English party, too scared to admit they'll work with the SNP in any context

The us and them rhetoric comes ringing through. Make politics decisive it will become so.

zagubov

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It would help if the Nats could at least agree among themselves why England wants to oppress them. Oil, general nastiness, lack of oil, potential oil, etc.

Good question. Why on Earth would "England" want to suppress them? I thought it was the joint government the SNP (including their English members) were criticising.