Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

skintmacflint wrote: »

Neither you nor your son voted with the hope or expectation of near federalism. You both voted for Independence full stop.

All this Vow not being delivered omplaining is just convenient white noise for SNP., to keep focus off their behaviour as an opposition party instead of being in government. And for other non SNP but Yes voters to vent their annoyance at

not being able to persuade enough voters to vote Yes.

But your annoyance should rest with SNP, who despite a lifetime of campaigning , the best circumstances ever, with loads of help from small independent minded Yes groups on the ground, were so badly ill prepared for an Independent Scotland, had to resort to winging it, Alex Salmond style.

Anyone with any insight, who watched the documentary Alex the Rebel, would quickly realise, that with the exception of Eck of the inflated ego, no one else in SNP ever had any real expectation of being anything other than an opposition party in Scotland. Never mind thinking themselves capable of being anything other than that.

And it shows. It really does. Never mind won't be too long now till the Sturgeon issues a statement regarding Michelle Thomson which includes the phrase ' after a robust and thorough Blah blah.

My son did ... I didnt ... I don't want near federalism he does ... it's awfy simple really ... although we are related we think and feel differently ... not hard is it ?

He voted yes because he didn't believe the vow ... I know many that voted no as they did believe the vow ... my goodness me different people now thinking and feeling differently ... it's anarchy I tell ya

.string.

@elanten - did you read that article I posted on
Devolution and Federalism

It really is worth reading.

Did anyone read it?

Generali

.string. wrote: »

@elanten - did you read that article I posted on
Devolution and Federalism

It really is worth reading.

Did anyone read it?

I did but then I read Wings over Scotland every week and even missed my stop because I was reading a thing on opiniin polls the other day (sad doesn't begin to describe it!).

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

http://pic.twitter.com/qZpxIy5ohc

Heh heh.....

Shakey must have been guest editing the national today.

Nothing so glam lol.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Anyway.... Now the real questions need to be answered.

Who in the SNP knew, how much did they know, and when did they know it?

As I said, this one will run and run......

I doubt it. While it appears there have been dodgy dealings afoot. And a police investigation... and I agree if she's found to have been complicit in any of the accusations against her she needs to go... The incidents in question took place in 2010-2011, five years ago in fact. Well before she had anything to do with the SNP. And she's resigned the whip very quickly ( thus automatically suspending herself from the party ).

I don't think there's much mileage to be had trying to tar the entire SNP with the same broadbrush... bar looking into vetting procedures IF she is indeed guilty of dodgy dealings herself.

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

That's convenient - all the left wingers are so keen on independence they wouldn't vote for a newly refurbished left wing labour party.

Labour lost 40 Scottish seats at the last election. They can win them back. We've seen how quickly things can change. You might think Corbyn is good for independence but you'd better hope the next leader is too because Corbyn hasn't got time on his side. The SNP leadership are brainstorming these scenarios even if you aren't. They literally have nothing else higher up their priority than formulating the path to independence and contemplating multiple 'what if' scenarios.

Corbyn is 'left wing'.. the Labour party isn't. The Labour PARTY can only 'win Scotland back' if they start following Corbyn's policies. Which incidentally, according to a lot of posters here.. will lose the Labour party England. The Labour party need to win in England in order to gain power.

If the Labour party don't look like winning in England. Then there's little point in 'lefties' in Scotland wasting their votes on Labour. Corbyn is incidental. They may as well vote SNP where some of the same 'leftie' policies ( such as getting rid of Trident and anti-austerity measures ) are welcomed by both the leader AND the rest of the party.

There's a real theme here where people can't seem to seperate off that Corbyn doesn't represent many of his MP's views at the present time. And he'll need to if he's to make any difference and 'win back Scotland'. <---- which will lose him England. In actual fact that in a nutshell has been a huge problem for Labour for the last few years. No matter the leader. Policies that are apparent vote winners in Scotland, are apparent vote losers in vast swathes of England. Which is why there's a UK Tory government with a majority in control right now, but only 1 Tory MP in Scotland.

Corbyn has already fallen victim to Jim Murphy syndrome. His 'honest, new and straightforward' politics.. doesn't seem to apply north of the border. Where he's, well, just lying to voters basically. We know it too.

30 September 2015

Interviewed by Gary Robertson on BBC Good Morning Scotland this morning, Jeremy Corbyn decided not to row back on the inaccurate charges he laid at the door of the Scottish Government last Sunday. Instead, he chose to reiterate and elaborate on his allegations (from 02:40:00 in). And it is sorry, sorry stuff.

This is a mess. Actually, it is worse than a mess: it is sleekit politician's answer. And worse, I'm afraid, it is a lie.... Even Mr Murphy declined to slag off the Scottish government for failing to do something which the law prevents them from doing. And yet, given a golden opportunity to clarify his remarks - in the interests of straight talking and honest politics - Mr Corbyn doubles down on his wrong-headed claims.

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-little-engine-that-couldnt.html

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Corbyn is 'left wing'.. the Labour party isn't. The Labour PARTY can only 'win Scotland back' if they start following Corbyn's policies. Which incidentally, according to a lot of posters here.. will lose the Labour party England. The Labour party need to win in England in order to gain power.

If the Labour party don't look like winning in England. Then there's little point in 'lefties' in Scotland wasting their votes on Labour. Corbyn is incidental. They may as well vote SNP where some of the same 'leftie' policies ( such as getting rid of Trident and anti-austerity measures ) are welcomed by both the leader AND the rest of the party.

There's a real theme here where people can't seem to seperate off that Corbyn doesn't represent many of his MP's views at the present time. And he'll need to if he's to make any difference and 'win back Scotland'. <---- which will lose him England. In actual fact that in a nutshell has been a huge problem for Labour for the last few years. No matter the leader. Policies that are apparent vote winners in Scotland, are apparent vote losers in vast swathes of England. Which is why there's a UK Tory government with a majority in control right now, but only 1 Tory MP in Scotland.

Corbyn has already fallen victim to Jim Murphy syndrome. His 'honest, new and straightforward' politics.. doesn't seem to apply north of the border. Where he's, well, just lying to voters basically. We know it too.

That seems logical but you're only putting forward your hopes, wishes and guesses and quoting people who have the same hopes and wishes with the occasional commentator saying stuff like 'and I'm a labour voter too!' type quote as double evidence.

Labour don't need to win a GE to be a problem for the SNP and independence - they just need to take a chunk of the lost Scottish seats back. If all these scenarios were extremely remote the SNP could leave it a more respectable 10 years and go for a referendum safe in the knowledge their vote share would've increased in the meantime instead of threatening a new referendum about 5 minutes after Salmond conceded defeat.

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

That seems logical but you're only putting forward your hopes, wishes and guesses and quoting people who have the same hopes and wishes with the occasional commentator saying stuff like 'and I'm a labour voter too!' type quote as double evidence.

I doesn't matter who quotes it. A fact is a fact. Tories privatised Scotrail in 1993 via the Railway Act, back before there was even a Scottish parliament. Corbyn went on national tv saying that the SNP were 'privatising' Scotrail. So that's just not true then is it ? Cal Mac is publically owned. The tendering process the Scottish Govt are going through now, is the same one that Labour, when in charge of the Scottish Govt, did. It's EU law. Corbyn stated that the SNP are out to 'to privatise' Cal Mac. So, that's just not true either then is it ?

As for Alex Massie. He's a committed unionist, and despises the SNP. But he's also a realist when it comes to Scottish politics.

Labour don't need to win a GE to be a problem for the SNP and independence - they just need to take a chunk of the lost Scottish seats back. If all these scenarios were extremely remote the SNP could leave it a more respectable 10 years and go for a referendum safe in the knowledge their vote share would've increased in the meantime instead of threatening a new referendum about 5 minutes after Salmond conceded defeat.

It's Holyrood Labour need to win a chunk of seats back in, in May 16. Not Westminster as a priority. Because without a majority ( and Holyrood PR voting systems are specifically designed for minority governments, not majorities ).. then the SNP cannot call or hope to call another referendum. Corbyn, is not doing himself any good by lying, or, as in this morning when it was pointed out to him by a BBC presenter... not admitting he may have been wrong and instead compounding things. He's either grossly misinformed or deliberately deceitful ( I favour the first ).. And the Labour party undermining him at every chance they get isn't doing him any favours in return. There isn't that much time until May next year to turn things round for Labour.

And this is before we've even gotten to Scottish Labour/Kezia Dugdale and her attitude towards him when it comes to 'who's in charge' Scotland wise. Politics can change very quickly. So one can only work forward from the facts as they stand. Dreams and hopes aside.

elantan

But the thing is ... where are the vocal Msm SNP proving he is lying ?

He should not be getting away with this, he was sent a letter by one of the MP's the other day and still continues to lie ....

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I doesn't matter who quotes it. A fact is a fact. Tories privatised Scotrail in 1993 via the Railway Act, back before there was even a Scottish parliament. Corbyn went on national tv saying that the SNP were 'privatising' Scotrail. So that's just not true then is it ? Cal Mac is publically owned. The tendering process the Scottish Govt are going through now, is the same one that Labour, when in charge of the Scottish Govt, did. It's EU law. Corbyn stated that the SNP are out to 'to privatise' Cal Mac. So, that's just not true either then is it ?

As for Alex Massie. He's a committed unionist, and despises the SNP. But he's also a realist when it comes to Scottish politics.

It's Holyrood Labour need to win a chunk of seats back in, in May 16. Not Westminster as a priority. Because without a majority ( and Holyrood PR voting systems are specifically designed for minority governments, not majorities ).. then the SNP cannot call or hope to call another referendum. Corbyn, is not doing himself any good by lying, or, as in this morning when it was pointed out to him by a BBC presenter... not admitting he may have been wrong and instead compounding things. He's either grossly misinformed or deliberately deceitful ( I favour the first ).. And the Labour party undermining him at every chance they get isn't doing him any favours in return. There isn't that much time until May next year to turn things round for Labour.

And this is before we've even gotten to Scottish Labour/Kezia Dugdale and her attitude towards him when it comes to 'who's in charge' Scotland wise. Politics can change very quickly. So one can only work forward from the facts as they stand. Dreams and hopes aside.

This level of analysis is clearly very important to you but you shouldn't project this to the electorate at large. Voters, SNP or otherwise, don't scrutinise their candidates in this level of detail.

It has almost no connection to the point being made - you appear to dismissing the very notion of labour making any sort of comeback which I'd suggest is deluded. They won't be so sanguine at SNP HQ and will be building strategy accordingly.

Quite like how you manage to be angry about the lies without a trace of irony though.