Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Ironic that 45% of Scots voted for independence, apparently at least in part on the assumption that it meant permanently higher Government spending despite the fact that it would mean a huge reduction in the quantum of Government spending if not the proportion of GDP spent.

No wonder the SNP have gone a little cool on another vote.

They just need to win next time. We're all cooling our jets and rightly so.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A significant % of Scots don't want a Tory govt because they believe in greater spending on welfare from the state.

Indy would lead to forced Austerity-Max that would make Tory cuts seem like a picnic.

Scotland has only run a lesser % of deficit than the UK in 3 years of the last 15.

And at current oil prices and spending levels it's catastrophically bad.

A bankrupt state within 3-4 years without UK subsidy.

The economics are everything for Indy.

You can try to dodge the bullet with meaningless talk of 'politics' til the cows come home, but it makes no difference.

Scotland without Uk subsidy now is like Greece. A failed State.

Ah Hamish. We don't vote for economics. There isn't an 'economics 101' or 'Economy 102' party. We vote for political parties and referendum stuff brought about by political parties and political mandates.

So while I know you'd love it to be otherwise. It really IS politics where the votes count and it's far from meaningless. It's Labour v's SNP in Scotland. Combined.. well it's a different story altogether. Labour in Scotland is already 'softening' the language. Understandably too. They lost most of their MP's on the back of last referendum.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They just need to win next time. We're all cooling our jets and rightly so.

Interesting that up until a week or so ago that the SNP seemed to be compiling a list of reasons for a new referendum whereas now they seem to be compiling reasons not to have one.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

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

@Shakey - You may like to bury that memory of SNP behaviour, "Dear Girl", but it ain't going away. If someone lies to me it's something I don't forget and don't forgive especially when the lie is not admitted to and further lies and evasions keep coming with boasts about the number of gullible people that have been fooled.

@Hamish& Skint - in a few months the time will arrive when Scotland would have separated. What I would like to see is an item-by-item comparison, side-by-side of the White Paper budget balance (in the Appendix) compared with the recalculated actuality. I'd like to see the truth measured against the SNP figures. Is there any move amongst Unionists to produce such a comparison come Non- separation Day?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If enough of those voters are hit with things like tax credit cuts, to themselves, or their children.. among other things. And there's no hope of a UK Labour government. Then they'll rethink their votes next time. .

As part of the UK those people can indeed vote for a party like the SNP which might choose to reallocate spending so as to lessen welfare cuts, albeit at the cost of Higher Education and the NHS in Scotland, because as part of the UK we receive a huge subsidy from Westminster.

However if those same voters then choose to support Indy, they are voting for a course of action where the subsidy is removed and welfare cuts are worsened exponentially, along with cuts to everything else as well.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
However if those same voters then choose to support Indy, they are voting for a course of action where the subsidy is removed and welfare cuts are worsened exponentially, along with cuts to everything else as well.

Shouldn't any responsible independence party in power align the economy so that people are aware of the choices available, and the financial impact these decisions make? (ideally, before a significant one time break up from the Union).

Right now, it's a game of pretence, and IMO it's disingenuous to the normal voter.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

We vote for political parties and referendum stuff brought about by political parties and political mandates.

Majority of people have no particular interest in politics as such. More concerned with issues that effect them in their daily lives. Hence why independents often win elections. As a local issue will have a far greater impact of views than a national one.

Nor I suspect do people trust politicians. Words are easy. Delivery is far far harder.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Shouldn't any responsible independence party in power align the economy so that people are aware of the choices available, and the financial impact these decisions make? (ideally, before a significant one time break up from the Union).

Right now, it's a game of pretence, and IMO it's disingenuous to the normal voter.

I think the way forward would be to give the Scottish Government FFA prior to any future vote on independence so that the people of Scotland can understand the fiscal consequences of their decision.

If the SNP think that Scotland would be better off outside the Union then they should be given a chance to prove it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Shouldn't any responsible independence party in power align the economy so that people are aware of the choices available, and the financial impact these decisions make? (ideally, before a significant one time break up from the Union).

Right now, it's a game of pretence, and IMO it's disingenuous to the normal voter.

Yep.

Before the Indy campaign I actually thought the SNP were a pretty decent party.

Then they lied to us all for 2 years, jeopardising the future prosperity of our country, and the outlook for it's people.

That's unforgivable.

If they want to win a referendum in the future they have to be honest about the fact taxes will rise, services and benefits will be cut, jobs will be lost, costs will go up, and then make the case for why it's worth it anyway.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Interesting that up until a week or so ago that the SNP seemed to be compiling a list of reasons for a new referendum whereas now they seem to be compiling reasons not to have one.

There's an election in May. Like the successful GE strategy, where Sturgeon repeatedly said that it wasn't about another referendum... she'll do the same for the May elections. Minimising the impact of revisiting all the same constitutional questions she/SNP gets asked over and over again.

They need a majority of seats in Holyrood. If they get them, then they have 5 free and clear election free years and a mandate to start upping the ante again should they choose to do so.

That's why jets are being well cooled. Unlike the Scottish Tories who are going all out as 'the only unionist party in Scotland'. Scottish Labour as ever these days, no-one has a clue what they're going to do. Sticking with the hard line unionist narrative has cost them greatly. Their conference is soon. Mabye we'll know better then.