Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

.string. wrote: »

I've seen that before too;

See here

Funny really that the people most likely to vote for independence are the people that benefit the most from the largesse of London taxpayers. Thanks for the link.

.string.

Generali wrote: »

Funny really that the people most likely to vote for independence are the people that benefit the most from the largesse of London taxpayers. Thanks for the link.

So if the SNP want to maintain a core voting base all they have to do is use their tax-raising powers and fund a supplement to the tax credit funding of the UK Baseline.

Or perhaps better still, the revitalised super-left Corbyn-led Labour SMPs can propose this. Then the SNP can support it and loose votes from those that would pay or vote it down and loose votes from their erstwhile supporters.

Should be entertaining.

I don't particularly like popcorn but I'm sure a nice glass of cider would suffice.

elantan

I would've been much worse off in an independent country ... a relative much better as she is on benefits ... she voted no though so it's a bit more involved than just fact 4

.string.

I see that Robertson has sent his letter to Cameron, avoiding the challenge to state specifically where the VOW was not me and instead giving comments to the Bill in reference to the Smith Commission responsibilities.

So, like our resident acolytes, he lacks the moral courage to justify claims relating to the Vow and merely claims that Cameron had "lost control" of the Vow (whatever that means). See his comments at the front of the SNP link.

So he perpetuates a lie, which I've learnt is standard practice with that lot.

Brown as the architect of the Vow! - what nonsense, such enhanced powers were mooted early in the Referendum process.

See here.

So the SNP can't put substance behind thecharge that the VOW was not met, and it boils down as said many times and ducked by certain SNP acolytes, as a matter of interpretation of how to implement the Vow and the hierarchically subservient Smith Recommendations, which are, as I said before, arguable.

Some of the things in Robertson's letter can be brought up in debate for Parliament to decide, but whereas the SNP may think that everything there should be concerned only with Scotland, the Bill has to take into account the needs of the 90% of the Union as well.

In that letter there is also gossip about other opinions, even ex Prime Minister Brown; well it's the HoC which is paramount in these things. The SNP are entitled to have their say, but not their way.

In any case they have a nerve, signing up to the Smith Package one day and dismissing it the next. Their's is not the moral high ground.

.string.

elantan wrote: »

I would've been much worse off in an independent country ... a relative much better as she is on benefits ... she voted no though so it's a bit more involved than just fact 4

Of course it was more complex than that but the SNP thrust was to fool voters into thinking they would be better off. Had the Yes vote won the day you guys would have been peering over an abyss with the rUK so pi**ed off they would have been unhappily pushing you over.

Generali

elantan wrote: »

I would've been much worse off in an independent country ... a relative much better as she is on benefits ... she voted no though so it's a bit more involved than just fact 4

Of course your rellie on benefits would end up far worse off in an independent Scotland as there is no way the Scottish Government could maintain current spending without the London subsidy.:money:

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Hmmm. You may have mentioned that previously.

However you can't use that as justification for a second referendum when Nicola specifically stated before the general election "A vote for SNP is not a vote for a second referendum"

Yes, it 'just pops out' now and again.

Another referendum, won't be in the next GE manifesto. It'll be in their Holyrood 2016 one. Where incidentally, the SNP also have a majority of MSP's.

And it will be 'a vote for the SNP, IS potentially, a vote for another referendum, if the circumstances arise'.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Is that 4th fact true? Very interesting assuming that it is. Do you have a link so I can read more please?

The one I linked to earlier is better. The one string links too was talking about 'the lead up' to the referendum and polls. The Scottish Referendum Study was published a full 6 months later. Based on how people actually voted.

If you're interested.

http://centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Scottish%20Referendum%20Study%2027%20March%202015.pdf

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The one I linked to earlier is better. The one string links too was talking about 'the lead up' to the referendum and polls. The Scottish Referendum Study was published a full 6 months later. Based on how people actually voted.

If you're interested.

http://centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Scottish%20Referendum%20Study%2027%20March%202015.pdf

Fascinating, thank you.

If anyone else wants to follow the link there are a couple of rogue spaces after the . and before the pdf.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Not credible, but then you really love tea leaves don't you Shakey.

So, let's see if you are with balance on the things which made people vote one way or the other.

How many do you think we're persuaded by claims from the SNP that
--- there would be an oil bonanza
--- Scotland's financial sector would remain
--- Natland would be able to remain in a sterling currency Union
--- Natland would be an immediate shoe-in to the EUROPEAN
--- There would be a massive "windfall" to Natland amounting to about 10% of Assets taken from England
--- Natland would be entitled to 10% of the integrated armed forces of the United Kingdom
--- Natland had no responsibility to repay Scotland's share of the UK's national debt
--- Natland could kick out Trident and nevertheless join NATO.
ion's of which was true (amongst other lies)
--- Natland's finances were in good shape

How many we're persuaded by all that nonsense to vote Yes?

I can't speak for all Yes voters. But I didn't vote Yes on the basis of the White Paper, or on any promise's or SNP blueprint's for the future ( though I agreed with a lot of it ). I understood that if independence was voted for, that the SNP may not be in charge for long afterwards. And certainly not forevermore. I argued here a lot about the fact basing a No vote on Alex Salmond or 'the SNP in power forever' in Scotland was a false premise.

I voted Yes as an opportunity for Scotland to shape her own future. And Holyrood, whoever resided there as First Minister, and from whatever party. In charge. That was the entire point. Self-government.

The SNP were however, the only vehicle that could possibly deliver the prospect in 2014. However, it does look like Scottish Labour are coming round to the idea also. Shame Johann Lamont and Kezia Dugdale ( new Labour leader ) didn't come out this sort of stuff last year. The deputy Labour leader is already an advocate of 'Home Rule'.

1 hour ago

Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has said she would not stop MPs and MSPs campaigning for independence if there was another referendum.

Ms Dugdale told BBC Scotland she would not "shut down" debate on the issue within Scottish Labour. Her comments came after former leader Johann Lamont said Labour should consider having a "free vote" in any future independence referendum.
Ms Dugdale said she had "tremendous respect" for this position.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34301969

Alex Rowley :- "I am passionate that the Labour Party in Scotland must lead the movement for Home Rule in our country. Keir Hardie first stood for election on a platform of Home Rule and it is a debate that has travelled with our party throughout its history."

Do I hear the sound of massive u-turns on independence/Home Rule/Devo-Max/FFA and Yes voters to be won back before May perchance ?