Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

tberry6686 wrote: »

I'd rather hear from non SNP members what they have been successful with. It'll take much less time

Do you mean except for running one of the most successful countries the world has ever known?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That's because it's last years news. And Neil was wrong to attribute Oil price predictions solely to the SNP. There were no more wrong than anyone else was. And they've admitted it too ( getting it wrong ).

You just can't face up to the truth can you Shakey, using phrases like "it's last year's news". This is not some sort of fashion debate, it's about the basic honesty of the SNP.

The crash in oil prices started in June that year yet the SNP kept peddling the lie that Scotland's finances were rosy and no doubt convinced the gullible that was the case. That was supported by various apologists, including yourself at the time, And this has continued to this day. Referring back to other over-estimates at the time the White Paper was produced (Nov 2013 ?) is sheer balderdash, the issue being that the SNP Referendum Campaign was based on lying to the Scottish People, and refusing to take account of the clearly evident collapse in oil prices.

And it continues.

tberry6686

If successful you mean running a budget that relies on the flawed Barnett formula to avoid massive austerity or massive tax increases, falling education standards, infrastructure falling apart, have one of the lowest life expectancies in the Western world, local councils almost bankrupt due to Holyrood policies, then yes, I do mean the successes of this bunch of multi faced, hypocritical, lying idiots who call themselves SNP.

wotsthat

Scottish Independence will make Scottish people worse off at least for a time. By lying about this the SNP don't have to have the conversation about how long that time will be and risk losing votes of people who wouldn't swap hardship for independence? How long would that time be? 6 months, 2 years, a generation, forever?

Taking people for fools and avoiding the obvious has worked so far.

Rinoa

Referendum Benchmark

A level of 60% support for Scottish independence over the period of a year has been identified as a benchmark in making the decision over a second referendum, senior SNP sources say.
The figure is a "trigger point", but will not be publicly acknowledged, sources told the BBC's John Pienaar.
Prof John Curtice said it was the level the party should be thinking about.
SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon will not be drawn on whether a second referendum will take place while she is in charge.
But sources close to Ms Sturgeon said the benchmark was vital to ensure support for independence had become the "settled will" of the Scottish people.
"Six months of polls won't be enough," said a senior SNP figure, involved in the discussions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34565619

Some way off then.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If the oil price doesn't recover. Then what's plan B. That's the unanswered question. One good reason why an independence vote gets parked for a while. I'm expecting a change of tack. Which will result in little more that a constant slating of Westminster. No that it matters. As austerity isn't going away. It's only just starting.

Independence has been 'parked for a while' because there was a No vote in the referendum just last year. You'd be wailing and gnashing your teeth just as much if Sturgeon had announced they were going for another one asap just as much.

Can't win on that one. No point trying.

And yes you're right. There will be loads and loads of slating of Westminster and Tory policy. But to be fair, Labour will be doing a fair old lot of that too. It's not something confined and unique to the SNP.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

You just can't face up to the truth can you Shakey, using phrases like "it's last year's news". This is not some sort of fashion debate, it's about the basic honesty of the SNP.

The crash in oil prices started in June that year yet the SNP kept peddling the lie that Scotland's finances were rosy and no doubt convinced the gullible that was the case. That was supported by various apologists, including yourself at the time, And this has continued to this day. Referring back to other over-estimates at the time the White Paper was produced (Nov 2013 ?) is sheer balderdash, the issue being that the SNP Referendum Campaign was based on lying to the Scottish People, and refusing to take account of the clearly evident collapse in oil prices.

And it continues.

It IS last years news. Events dear boy. And only the 'gullible' you refer to think oil prices are ever stable. They go up and down. Sometimes they go up a lot, sometimes they go down a lot. They're certainly something that should never be relied on.

That's a given. And in short. That's the truth I and about 1.6 million others, faced up to long, long time ago independence wise. Is it a deal breaker ? No...And that's the truth I'm afraid you yourself are going to have to face up to at some point.

The fact that the oil price IS so low, yet SNP and independence support is staying so high and even increasing ?... Well then, I guess you'd better be hoping fervently that those oil prices never go back up. Because you, and many others, have framed the independence debate for sooooo long now solely in terms of this one marker. You may live to regret doing so if oil prices ever start recovering.

If its geographic share of UK oil and gas output is taken into account, Scotland’s GDP per head is bigger than that of France.

Even excluding the North Sea’s hydrocarbon bounty, per capita GDP is higher than that of Italy. Oil, whisky and a broad range of manufactured goods mean an independent Scotland would be one of the world’s top 35 exporters.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide0

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Referendum Benchmark

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34565619

Some way off then.

Round about 2020/21. Just after the Tories get back in for another five years, and announce another set of 'difficult decisions'.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide0

Ahhh.... February 2014. It all looked so different then.

Oil $100+ per barrel. Alex Salmond talking about creating a sovereign wealth fund. Scotland one of the richest countries in the world.

Now it's "Oh, the oil isn't really important, it was only ever considered a bonus."

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Ahhh.... February 2014. It all looked so different then.

Oil $100+ per barrel. Alex Salmond talking about creating a sovereign wealth fund. Scotland one of the richest countries in the world.

Now it's "Oh, the oil isn't really important, it was only ever considered a bonus."

Aaah yes.. and you've totally missed the point I was making and went on like the toothache about oil prices again.

Even excluding the North Sea’s hydrocarbon bounty, per capita GDP is higher than that of Italy

Feb 2014, back in the heady days where it seemed so certain there would be a 35% Yes/65% No vote.. that the FT could freely publish articles like this one without worrying it might have any impact. You'd never see an article like this in the mainstream these days.

In a research paper this week, James Knightley, senior economist at ING, said the high transition costs of separation and uncertainties over currency and the terms of EU membership meant that the material benefits of independence were “far from clear”.

Yet Mr Knightley also noted that greater sway over its own economy could be a real advantage for Scotland.

There are no pro's AND con's any more. Little balance. A real shame.

Best hope those prices don't go back up I suppose. The Union will be in real trouble if they do.