Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

skintmacflint

Generali wrote: »

How the hell do you define 'fair share' if Scotland isn't getting enough?

The longer this BS continues my thoughts are increasingly that if the Scots are dumb enough to keep voting for the SNP then let them face the consequences: full FFA, no safety net. No extras from England. No guarantee on Scottish Government debt. Let the Scots reap the benefit of their electoral decisions.

Won't be long now until the widely held myth of 'canny Scots' is replaced with 'whinging Scots'.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

If you remember I was questioning your 'enlightenment, politically alert and energised description of everyone in Scotland. I've tried to rephrase it.

So why aren't enlightened Scottish voters of all different brands giving their preferred parties and politicians a hard time with questions on a detail level? Or did you mean just SNP voters are enlightened?

As a newly enlightened voter, what relevant questions on detail have you asked your MP or of SNP recently. Or anyone else you know of. Anything about how they will use new devolved powers agreed so far?

Before you ask what questions I've put forward on the subject, I don't claim to be enlightened. Besides my preferred party hasn't a cats chance in hell of being in power to use them. But yours will.

I've never had any time for Salmond nor Sturgeon. Much the same as I've never had time for several other politicians over the years from various parties.

Very simply. Because we've had 8 years of SNP actions rather than 'words and soundbites' to base our judgements and votes on. They've done ok. Not perfect by any means and mistakes made. But certainly it does seem on the face of it, in general, Scots like what they have achieved while in power and are happy for them to continue in the same vein. They're trusted more.

They've been by FAR the most scrutinised political party in Scotland, and perhaps the UK in terms of intense questioning over the last few years. Both constitutionally and within Holyrood ( Westminster is a recent development ) and in Scotland they continue to be. New devolved powers aren't here yet. And Gordon Brown says they're not enough... So it seems Labour are a little confused about new powers and how they'll be used also.

How Brown's welfare warning could play into SNP hands....

But wait just a second. Isn’t a unified welfare state a bedrock of the Union Mr Brown defends? Isn’t the fact that Tories are often in government a price Scotland pays for the advertised benefits of the Union? If he demands “the very powers that are needed to counteract welfare cuts and the austerity they bring” why, why in logic, stop there?

The Union promoted by Better Together and Mr Brown’s party has turned out to mean a Tory government laying waste to the welfare state. Such is the carnage, he thinks we’d be better off managing human need in our own way and on our own terms. And still he leaves the question: why stop there?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13838721.How_Brown_s_welfare_warning_could_play_into_SNP_hands/

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Won't be long now until the widely held myth of 'canny Scots' is replaced with 'whinging Scots'.

You must've missed the referendum campaign also. Whinging Scots was pretty well used in that I recall.

kabayiri

elantan wrote: »

...
So politics here is thriving, growing and everywhere here now
...

You will have to make use of this interest level whilst it is there, otherwise people will become disappointed with the lack of change.

I think it will be difficult to maintain political interest in domestic issues with European issues so prevalent at the moment.

The EU referendum is much more important than another Scottish referendum.

.string.

I agree that the SNP have a built in advantage in the venom with which Labour attack the Tories. In this Labour act like an unthinking (literally unthinking) ally to the SNP.

It's still tosh though. In the extract for the Scottish Herald which I re-quoted below, there is the usual nonsense and nonsensical conclusions which would grace the in-tray of any Labour or SNP spin doctor alike.

"Welfare cuts and the austerity they bring" is a political statement, not a fact. One could easily write "Austerity cuts and the financial responsibility they represent" - both spin according to a certain doctrine but neither the pure truth of the matter.

Then again,
"a Tory government laying waste to the welfare state". That's more than spin, that's just a lie. "Carnage" Is back to spin but only just.

But wait just a second. Isn’t a unified welfare state a bedrock of the Union Mr Brown defends? Isn’t the fact that Tories are often in government a price Scotland pays for the advertised benefits of the Union? If he demands “the very powers that are needed to counteract welfare cuts and the austerity they bring” why, why in logic, stop there?

The Union promoted by Better Together and Mr Brown’s party has turned out to mean a Tory government laying waste to the welfare state. Such is the carnage, he thinks we’d be better off managing human need in our own way and on our own terms. And still he leaves the question: why stop there?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You must've missed the referendum campaign also. Whinging Scots was pretty well used in that I recall.

Those that whinge, Yes, but not the majority that didn't.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I agree that the SNP have a built in advantage in the venom with which Labour attack the Tories. In this Labour act like an unthinking (literally unthinking) ally to the SNP.

It's still tosh though. In the extract for the Scottish Herald which I re-quoted below, there is the usual nonsense and nonsensical conclusions which would grace the in-tray of any Labour or SNP spin doctor alike.

"Welfare cuts and the austerity they bring" is a political statement, not a fact. One could easily write "Austerity cuts and the financial responsibility they represent" - both spin according to a certain doctrine but neither the pure truth of the matter.

Then again,
"a Tory government laying waste to the welfare state". That's more than spin, that's just a lie. "Carnage" Is back to spin but only just.

You're re-writing recent history. Gordon Brown said all that a few days ago. He wants ammendments made to welfare and veto's removed from the Scotland Bill.

Brown has written to David Cameron, demanding he amends the Scotland bill to remove any suggestion the Scottish Parliament could be vetoed from topping up welfare...
....“Without the changes that give the Parliamentary welfare top-up powers to Scotland, we face a perfect storm - an explosive cocktail of measures that could blow the Union apart - the Conservative Government defying the Smith proposals on welfare, the very issue where their controversial imposition of cuts hits Scotland hard". “The government should avoid what would be seen as a double betrayal - breaking their promises to the poor and breaking their promise to deliver the Smith recommendations in full on the very powers that are needed to counteract welfare cuts and the austerity they bring.

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/gordon-brown-vow-not-being-delivered


So it is a fact... that Gordon Brown said it. Because he patently did. He wants 'welfare' or at least some portions of it in Scottish Govt hands for the Scottish poor.



Just like the SNP do in fact. If I was a more suspicious person I'd say that Ian Murray will perhaps be allowed to 'win' these amendments and go trumpeting the fact that he did from now until next May. But it doesn't really matter. The fact that the main instigator of the Vow, is now all over the place making speeches saying it hasn't been met is good enough for now. Makes the Daily Record look particularly daft as well. They've had numerous headlines since last Sept proclaiming 'Vow Delivered'... oh errrr.. mabye not.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

You will have to make use of this interest level whilst it is there, otherwise people will become disappointed with the lack of change.

I think it will be difficult to maintain political interest in domestic issues with European issues so prevalent at the moment.

The EU referendum is much more important than another Scottish referendum.

There's a Scottish General Election in Scotland next May. There will remain plenty of interest, it's all building up again now if my twitter/facebook feeds and the number of negative SNP stories appearing in the Daily Record/The Scotsman and The Herald (with Jackie Baillie) quotes are anything to go by.

Not even a date for an EU ref yet.

elantan

kabayiri wrote: »

You will have to make use of this interest level whilst it is there, otherwise people will become disappointed with the lack of change.

I think it will be difficult to maintain political interest in domestic issues with European issues so prevalent at the moment.

The EU referendum is much more important than another Scottish referendum.

It certainly is for a lot of people as depending on what happens in the EU could mean a new Scottish referendum ... many people are wanting that so desperately awaiting the EU one so we can get started with our own one again

And yes it is important that the momentum is kept up ... after all we need to keep an eye on our politicians ... and we tend to do that a lot less if we don't keep up to date

I quite sympathise with politicians up here now ... when I've spoke to a few MP's and a good few MSP's they cite a change that they have noticed ... people no longer accept what they say but want proof and argue the point with them ... I did enjoy joking with them and saying oh well it's about time you worked for your money ... they agreed in jest of course

elantan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There's a Scottish General Election in Scotland next May. There will remain plenty of interest, it's all building up again now if my twitter/facebook feeds and the number of negative SNP stories appearing in the Daily Record/The Scotsman and The Herald (with Jackie Baillie) quotes are anything to go by.

Not even a date for an EU ref yet.

Just to second this ... but to add ... it hasn't really ever went away ... exciting stuff

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

Is that really all you have to say on that?

Do you, for example, think it is fair?

You really want me to answer that?

It's a no win situation whatever I say so I'll leave it there.

It's entirely irrelevant what I feel about it anyway to be honest.

I didn't make the rules nor did I vote to remain dependant so there you have it.