Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

wotsthat

I know whatever happens is brilliant for the SNP but it'll be interesting to see how the Scottish electorate reacts to, what looks like, an old labour message.

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

Who says it's gonna be the SNP in charge in an independent Scotland ? That ain't carved in stone now is it ?

no that isn't carved in stone
but greek style austerity would be unless there were increases in taxes and deduction in benefits

.string.

elantan wrote: »

Who says it's gonna be the SNP in charge in an independent Scotland ? That ain't carved in stone now is it ?

Are you sure you're not in the SNP? I see you got applauded by Shakey for that as well you might, having clearly not having bothered to react to the actual point I was making and giving some non sequitur of an answer.

Scotland is already better together ,,,

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

I know whatever happens is brilliant for the SNP but it'll be interesting to see how the Scottish electorate reacts to, what looks like, an old labour message.

An old Labour message that most of the Labour party don't endorse any more. In just two weeks we've gone from Anti-Trident, Anti-austerity, Anti-Syria strikes and possibly working with the SNP.

To, not even discussing Trident, 'yes George we'll vote for your Fiscal responsibility thing', possibly support air strikes in Syria ( with caveats ) and SNP, oooooh aren't they bad.. let's throw some misinformed mud their way and hope some sticks.

Pretty much bored. I'd say.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

An old Labour message that most of the Labour party don't endorse any more. In just two weeks we've gone from Anti-Trident, Anti-austerity, Anti-Syria strikes and possibly working with the SNP.

To, not even discussing Trident, 'yes George we'll vote for your Fiscal responsibility thing', possibly support air strikes in Syria ( with caveats ) and SNP, oooooh aren't they bad.. let's throw some misinformed mud their way and hope some sticks.

Pretty much bored. I'd say.

Personally, I think Corbyn's Labour have gone GaGa and don't expect them to go over well in England, but they will recover some ground in Scotland I suspect, in spite of stating (don't believe them by the way) that they will be fiscally responsible (a novel concept for the SNP I gather from your post).

SNP are bad by the way.

elantan

.string. wrote: »

Are you sure you're not in the SNP? I see you got applauded by Shakey for that as well you might, having clearly not having bothered to react to the actual point I was making and giving some non sequitur of an answer.

Scotland is already better together ,,,

In your opinion .... certainly not in mine and many others

skintmacflint

elantan wrote: »

Who says it's gonna be the SNP in charge in an independent Scotland ? That ain't carved in stone now is it ?

For the first couple of decades, it certainly would be. If anyone thinks Sturgeon or Salmond are going to be willing to give up their power, and stronghold willingly, then they're being very naive, as well as being in for a rude awakening.

What you would see is party political splits, infighting and resulting chaos over power sharing, once the initial euphoria died down. ( couple of months at best). It's the Scottish way after all. And so it will continue until grudge and grievance politics are no longer the main thrust of the day, up here.

Generations reared to blame someone else for their own problems, will always behave in the same pattern.

skintmacflint

elantan wrote: »

We were also promised a Better Together and a near federalism ... there has been no statement as to when (if) the date of the next indy ref will be ... but there has been a smith commission and I'm still waiting for my better together and my near federalism and devo max ...

But Yes voters weren't interested in near federalism or devo Max, and knew it wasn't on offer. Orherwise they would have voted No .

So you really can't complain about not getting something you didn't vote for in the first place. Only the 60,000 who Shake states were influenced to vote No in the mistaken belief The Vow meant near federalism, have any room to complain. And that 60,000 are a minority number, which added to the Yes vote made no difference to the final choice.

So it would be nice if Yessers dropped their faux indignation about this, and concentrated their efforts on creating jobs and wealth for the masses instead.

islandannie

elantan wrote: »

In your opinion .... certainly not in mine and many others

In your opinion.....certainly not in mine and many others.

elantan

skintmacflint wrote: »

But Yes voters weren't interested in near federalism or devo Max, and knew it wasn't on offer. Orherwise they would have voted No .

So you really can't complain about not getting something you didn't vote for in the first place. Only the 60,000 who Shake states were influenced to vote No in the mistaken belief The Vow meant near federalism, have any room to complain. And that 60,000 are a minority number, which added to the Yes vote made no difference to the final choice.

So it would be nice if Yessers dropped their faux indignation about this, and concentrated their efforts on creating jobs and wealth for the masses instead.

That's not true .. my son doesn't want independence he wants federalism but he voted Yes as he just knew they wouldn't keep their word, he wanted a third option on the ballot, so did Alex but it wasn't allowed .... I know many yes voters that want federalism actually ... admittedly a lot of them now want full independence but last year they wanted federalism but voted Yes as it was the closest or best option for them