Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

ruggedtoast

elantan wrote: »

oh I dont know ... more exploration in the north sea... Bp saying they are gonna plow tens of millions into the area ... whisky looking no bad ... people having to rely more on food banks due to the cuts and realising when the new ones comes there will be even more ...

now if we can only sort out what currency were gonna use :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Or, which language.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

Just to make the point, Buckie is an English export to Scotland. I have seen it once in England, in an offie in a very dodgy bit of south London.

I tried some. Crivens, it was not very nice.

Another man's journey into Buckfast, here:

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/hanging-out-with-vomiting-scots-and-booze-pedaling-monks

elantan

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Or, which language.

och we'll have Scots ... unless you wanna fight for it ?:rotfl::rotfl:

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

It is completely normal to put an extra hurdle in to constitutional changes. The US Constitution, usually considered an exemplar of a constitution, has many hurdles to change, normally requiring a 2:1 majority to push through a change.

1979 wasn't a stitch up, it just didn't deliver what you wanted. When it didn't give the SNP what they wanted they stabbed the rest of the coalition in the back and put up a vote of no confidence as a member (very recently) of the Government.

A lot of people up here viewed it as a stitch up. As it obviously was. For the most in your face reason.... that it wasn't even attempted again for a full independence referendum last year. Why do it in 1979 and not in Sept 15 when the stakes were so much higher ?

Because they knew jiggery pokery ( nods to elantan re Scots language lol ).. like that would NOT fly again. Never in a million years would or will a clause like that be attempted again. Just like it wouldn't be attempted in the EU referendum either. It's not an acceptable measure... in short. Because it's a stitch up. Pure and simple. They didn't even check the electoral register to delete the deceased off before imposing it.

Nobody in their right minds would join the SNP in power at Westminster as a result. Labour, in particular, have a long memory of history.

Labour worked with the Tories no probs at all during the indy ref. The fact that they'll work with Tories when they feel the situation calls for it.. but not the SNP on things like welfare votes ? Has cost the Labour party big time. Both in Scotland, and with Corbyn now leading the field in their leadership election.

Rightly or wrongly. That last vote re welfare/tax credits etc before parliament disbanded for the summer has set things those in the higher echelons of Labour could never have imagined at the time.. in motion. Labour caught in the middle between the SNP and not voting on Tory measures and so abstaining on everything. They're going to have to leap one way or the other soon.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Well of course the Conservatives won an absolute majority so even if the SNP and Labour gang up with absolutely everyone else in Parliament then the Tories can pass pretty much any Bill into law that they like within the realms of the Constitution if they can carry the party room.

I'm not sure what the SNP and Labour 'working together' mean in terms of opposition within the British Constitution. Does it just mean that they vote together as a block (an interesting idea given Mr Corbyn's views on party unity) or is it yet another vague statement with no real substance behind it.

Yes working together within the UK constitution is what I meant. And if you're so sure that still means Tories will bulldoze everything through, you're mistaken. * coughs, fox hunting, EVEL, human rights, eu referendum date <--- SNP votes, or even just threatening to vote against those got them shelved, for the time being, or more favourable to the SNP ( not holding the eu ref same date or anytime near Scottish elections ).

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Seems to me to be an awful lot of wishful thinking not to mention assumptions in the above.

Not really. I'm afraid it really does look like Corbyn is going to win. He's said he's happy to work with the SNP in Westminster. And Salmond has said the SNP are quite happy to work with him.

So am not sure where the wishful thinking is coming from ? Both have said they are quite happy to work together..as long as it's in Westminster. Holyrood will be singing from a completely different song sheet on devolved issues. Kezia and Ken may have made a bit of a mistake slagging Corbyn off so much I think... if he's leader they're going to have to go back on a few things.

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

I fancy smackaroonies myself

This made me LOL !!! I agree 100%. The Scottish Smackeroonie.. love it. " How would you like to pay madam ? Card or smackeroonies " ?

skintmacflint

Very interesting poll of 1029 people aged 16+ which showed 62% of Scots would vote SNP for Holyrood elections, but also showed less than a 1/3rd of them thought SNP had done a good job over the past year in government. Lol.

Would make you laugh or cry. Could initially appear that perhaps constitutional matters or Independence are the main voting priority over other issues. But we know that doesn't stack up either, with even the Rev Stupot of Bath incorporated admitting around 15% of SNP voters wouldn't vote for Independence.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Not really. I'm afraid it really does look like Corbyn is going to win. He's said he's happy to work with the SNP in Westminster. And Salmond has said the SNP are quite happy to work with him.

So am not sure where the wishful thinking is coming from ? Both have said they are quite happy to work together..as long as it's in Westminster. Holyrood will be singing from a completely different song sheet on devolved issues. Kezia and Ken may have made a bit of a mistake slagging Corbyn off so much I think... if he's leader they're going to have to go back on a few things.

Corbyn if elected leader doesn't necessarily result in all Labour MPs toeing his party line or voting directions. He might get 40% if lucky, plus Diane Abbott naturally. Not forgetting any remaining centrist Labour voters who won't be too happy about a Labour leader working with SNP after the methods and names used against Labour over the past couple of years.

The further left and silly , Corbyn takes his party, the bigger chance longer term SNP voters who originally shifted from Conservative and Lib Dems will drift elsewhere. I don't agree with the view Scotland is this left wing , socialist welfare craving people. With exception of some of the old industry central belt. And neither are many SNP voters I know, some of whom think welfare is pretty generous in UK, and aren't that supportive of all the people claiming illness/ disability etc.

Even Sturgeon and Salmond are aware of this, which is why several, possibly most of their policy decisions benefit the middle income earners more than the welfare, disadvantaged or low skill/wage group.

Do you not think Corbyn is too far left for the SNP party central, other than those who think Tommy Sheridan is a great guy? Would agree he could cause several problems for SNP, because they will be shown up for what they are. But not due Scotland being this socialist , left leaning country. Because that would be much too simplistic a viewpoint.

skintmacflint

Generali wrote: »

Just to make the point, Buckie is an English export to Scotland. I have seen it once in England, in an offie in a very dodgy bit of south London.

I tried some. Crivens, it was not very nice.

Years ago, people wanting cheap wine used to take empty lemonade bottles to the off licence, who'd fill it from a cask. None of our local pubs sold wine the way they do now. Back then it was dark or clear only.

Buckfast wasn't the popular drink choice for youngsters it is today. I knew of as a tonic wine used for its original purpose in a hot toddy for colds and chills.

I told a young girl I worked with who was loaded with the cold to buy a bottle of Buckfast tonic wine boil it up with some sugar and drink it before going to bed. Telling her It would burn her cold out during the night, and she'd feel as good as new in the morning.

Unfortunately she sent her boyfriend into the Chemist, asking for Buckfast Tonic Wine. Chemist threw him out the shop, never to return. I was in her bad books for over a week when she returned to work.