Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh dear....


http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13583722.Revealed__government_knew_of_police_spy_allegations/?ref=ebln

And STD wonders why the English don't trust the SNP.

The scales will fall from Scottish eyes soon enough.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh dear....


http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13583722.Revealed__government_knew_of_police_spy_allegations/?ref=ebln

Nice try. No cigar..

The newspaper has alleged that Ms Sturgeon was made aware of claims made aware of claims that Police Scotland has illegally monitored communications between journalists and their contacts before a report by the Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office (IOCCO) was published.
Mr Henry said: "If it's true that Nicola Sturgeon knew about allegations...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13583722.Revealed__government_knew_of_police_spy_a%20%20llegations/

The article itself says 'IF the allegations are proven true'. And I doubt it's anything much compared to the current !!!!!phile 'missing files' from Whitehall. And after all there IS an election coming up. This is just 'run of the mill' stuff from the media and Labour spokesperson's really.

That being said. Steven House is probably due a quick retirement. And I think everyone is probably getting heartily sick by now of the SNP getting the blame for every squeaky door and admin failure re the NHS/Police/Education system. They're not perfect. But this 'leaping' and shouting for resignations via screeching Labour spokespeople in sympathetic newspaper columns ( a hallmark of Scottish Labour/Torquil whatsisface from the Daily 'Vow' Record since 2007 )... is getting extremely wearing.

I expect there will be MUCH more of this sort of transparent crapola to come until next May. Sadly, as above, most Scottish voters can't be bothered with it all any more.. There needs to be much, much more than vague 'claims' and 'allegations' from Scottish Labour to get one's blood up over Nicola Sturgeon's 'outrageous behaviour' I'm afraid. Especially after the 10,000'th time of reading them.

They need something rather more solid than one made up 'crisis' after another in the lead up to an election ( which miraculously disappears as soon as polling day arrives ). You'd think they'd have learned that by now wouldn't you ?

I see Ruth Davidson has had to move to a list seat in Edinburgh from one in Glasgow. One can only assume she's very confident... of getting turfed out in Glasgow in May 16 like Labour was May 15 so is off somewhere a little more hopeful.. Oh dear...

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh I'm so sorry to hear that. You must be devastated. Sending hugs your way. I know how tough that is to go through...


I guess many reached their destination re a Yes vote through a myriad of different ways and circumstance. However, is a mistake to make broad brush assumptions about Yes voters as a whole I feel. Any more than it would be to categorise Tory voters as self-serving 'toff's' or whatever. It's no more true of SNP/Yes voters as it is Tory voters and their reasons for voting they way they do.

Thank you, very kind. My wife is in bits at the moment. He was a charmer. Counted today he was the 14th dog we've lost over the years, and it seems to get harder each time.

Think we all make broad brush assumptions from time to time. But having had friends and acquaintances who've been SNP supporters for most of their voting lives, I do recognise the difference, between them and some of the newer more vocal , vociferous SNP followers. And it's quite a big gap.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sadly, as above, most Scottish voters can't be bothered with it all any more..
)

Think this should read

'Sadly as above, most newly SNP diehard voters can't be bothered with it all any more .'

And that in itself is also a dangerous thing. It suggests SNP voters instantly dismiss anything which could lead to criticism of their party.

SNP owe a great deal of gratitude to WOS, Bella, and BFS, and their helpful activists for succeeding in persuading many that anything printed in the MSM is made up biased lies etc.

Left the field clear, for SNP the fresh (air) party of honesty to plant any info they want into the minds and opinions of many, which would be believed. Just grand.

IveSeenTheLight

My god.

Not been in here for a few months and see this thread still a hive of activity.

Sad thing is, skimming the last couple of pages, there not a lot of progress in the discussions.

Seems I've not missed a lot

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

My god.

Not been in here for a few months and see this thread still a hive of activity.

Sad thing is, skimming the last couple of pages, there not a lot of progress in the discussions.

Seems I've not missed a lot

I'm going to invent a new word here which combines posting with jousting : "pousting".

The article Generali links to is interesting. It seems that Norway has done best in terms of positioning itself to survive the oil price declines, and Saudi much less so, with it's anti-austerity-max approach.

I think out of most independence posters you take the longer term view ISTL.

Can an independent Scotland succeed with the current size of the state spend? I don't think anyone here would want to see a Scotland yo-yo-ing back and forth into the Union. I value a fiscally stable neighbour.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

I think out of most independence posters you take the longer term view ISTL.

Can an independent Scotland succeed with the current size of the state spend? I don't think anyone here would want to see a Scotland yo-yo-ing back and forth into the Union. I value a fiscally stable neighbour.

My thoughts are that we are too heavily invested into specific industries and not diverse enough.

Hence, what I would look for as an Independent country is to move away from the current economic basis and open us to be more competitively diverse.

A lot is made upon how dependent Scotland is on oil and how volatile oil is, which makes me question, why are we so dependent on oil and why can't we compete for a stronger more diverse economy?

My concern is that Scotland (oil) is the Sheffield (coal) when considering the future prosperity.

Maybe it will be an opportunity for Robert Carlyle to do a Full Monty 2 when Scotland main industry completely collapses.

We need to be looking to the future now and preparing for an economy outwith oil.

With that in mind, the spend can be intrinsically linked to the revenue generated.

We are both agreed that we would want a financially stable Scotland and it seems that within the Union, we have yet to be able to achieve that.

It seems that if this is unachievable within the union, then I'd be prepared go alone in order to change that current scenario.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

My thoughts are that we are too heavily invested into specific industries and not diverse enough.

Hence, what I would look for as an Independent country is to move away from the current economic basis and open us to be more competitively diverse.

A lot is made upon how dependent Scotland is on oil and how volatile oil is, which makes me question, why are we so dependent on oil and why can't we compete for a stronger more diverse economy?

The problem with that is what is known as The Dutch Disease. That is where commodity exporting countries have high FX rates due to the high export value of the commodity. That high FX rate then destroys other industries.

Regardless of opinion about whether the Union is a good thing or not, Scotland produces far more oil than any other part of the Union. As a result if Scotland was to leave the Union, oil would become an even higher proportion of exports and even more likely to push up the exchange rate of the Scottish Pound.

Ah ha! you say, if Scotland retains the Pound then they're laughing. Well there is an economic truism which is that you can control 2 of the 3 following:

- FX rate
- Interest rates
- Inflation

If an independent Scotland kept the pound (thus avoiding the Dutch disease) then the volatility of oil prices would reflect themselves either in highly volatile inflation or interest rates.

Independence would be more likely to make Scotland dependent on oil exports not less.

There is an argument to be made that previous UK Governments have wee'd the spoils of the oil industry up the wall but that's history. The money is spent and Scotland doesn't have a SWF. There simply isn't the oil left to get a SWF going, especially with the current level of Scottish Government spending.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

The problem with that is

It's still focusing on an Oil dependent Scotland.

My questions and premise is that we need to be looking beyond oil and diversify the economy?

Your right in that it's too late for a SWF and the the UK government has not provisioned for the future as Norway has.

Surely we need to learn from these mistakes and consider a brighter, more diverse future.

Too many people are considering the present and very short term outlook and not consider the long term.

I understand that short termism from polititions who consider the term in government they are aspiring to and also from the banking sector, who look to daily profits as opposed to future security.

As it's better to get the bonuses now and not worry about the future implications, isn't it?

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

My thoughts are that we are too heavily invested into specific industries and not diverse enough.
...

Which is why the opposition to fracking has surprised me.

We (UK) need to seize on any opportunities that may present to regenerate the regions. A good stable guaranteed energy resource could encourage higher value manufacturing to return.

Ecological issues should not be barriers; but hurdles to be addressed using good management and control.