Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sturgeon was fabulous yesterday. Her slapdown of 'Baroness' Goldie was a joy. Though I do like Annabel I have to admit. My kids go to school in Dreghorn. You should be careful what you're labeling. None of us have shrieky voices as far as I'm aware... unless it's me trying to get them to tidy their rooms.

Yes I did. I saw the tweets congratulating Ruth too. 36 votes the Conservative councilor won by wasn't it ? Labour was fourth ? Still, it was far from Labour's old comfort zone I suppose. But this backs up my point earlier.. soft Labour/strong unionists are perhaps starting to align behind the Tories in Scotland.

Thank you for confirming my point about what happens with tone when shrieking. Maybe Sturgeon thinks she is the mother now in Holyrood?

It's all subjective who will move where, and the importance of it, while we have the underlying security of the Union. Particularly now a SG has the power to top up or create any welfare benefit it wants to and can pay for. Early days to know how this wee change , will pan out over the next few years.

It's only when faced with the choice once more of another referendum, voters will make up minds. Maybe voters will have forgotten about the debacle of the White Paper and FFA . Sometimes I feel your opinion relies too heavily on emotion than cold reasoning. Which was the main factor in deciding last years referendum. Simply my opinion.

A lot can happen in the intervening years, both nationally and internationally to affect that decision. We'll see.

elantan

Generali wrote: »

I'd be very careful of reading too much into a single council by-election result. I'd argue that there isn't any statistical significance given the number of voters and the turnout.

Regarding the possible fortunes of the Tories in Scotland, Labour seems to be a tainted brand now just as the Tories became in the 60s-80s. The Tories used to win the majority of Scottish seats in the 50s I believe. Perhaps those days will return. Or perhaps not.

Believe me I'm not reading too much into it at all ... but it is a warning for people to not expect the SNP to won everything even if the polls tell them they will

We did have quite a big tory following in the 50s and as I've previously stated my son is quite Tory and until recently I didn't mind Ruth ... much preferred her to Labour ... I know friends are particularly tory in their thinking ... but let's just see how this plays out

elantan

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I think the Tories will make some gains next year. Labour will be hammered I'm pretty sure. Every day brings more chaos. Just today Jackie Baillie ( my msp) had a meltdown on the big debate. Wings has posted an article. Here it is if anyone is interested.

My copy on this ipad does not seem to be working properly so I've copy&pasted but
the short voice clip hasn't transferred. Don't blame me, I'm a novice!


The magical money machine
Posted on November 06, 2015 by Rev. Stuart Campbell
This is amazing, readers. It’s an extract from this afternoon’s The Big Debate on Radio Scotland, in which a journalist – the BBC’s Gordon Brewer – finally gets round to asking someone from Scottish Labour how they can make the extra £500m they need to fund their tax-credits “policy” while keeping all taxes the same.

The answer… well, the answer is quite something.

00:0000:00
(The Big Debate, BBC Radio Scotland, 6 November 2015)
.
You might have to listen through a few times to get your head round it, because that really is what a grown woman actually tried to get away with in front of a live audience.


We’ll transcribe Baillie’s comments, as it helps a bit to see the madness written down.

“They don’t need to find extra money in the sense that it’s over and above what’s existing, but they do need to find money to effect the tax cut itself, and in finding that money, so it releases a pot that we can use differently. We’ve had the accountants check over this -“

At this point Brewer interjects to point out the face-punchingly obvious fact this site’s been highlighting for a week – that if you don’t make any changes to how things are now, you don’t create any extra money.

“But you would need to find the money to implement the cut that you’re due to make, and it is that released money that we would use in a different way.”

Brewer tries again, noting once more that if you’re not making a change you get no more money and have to find the savings to fund the policy from somewhere else.

“Okay, in the case of Air Passenger Duty, let me explain that. If you take a tax cut, you’re going to have to find the money that you would have brought in, in order to carry on with delivering the services that you’re gonna deliver. By finding that money you release it, that we can reallocate for a different purpose.

We have checked this with the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, we’ve checked, y’know, one, the maths for this, we’ve checked whether we have the power, because of course you’ll recall in the Parliament [blah blah SNP BAD] We have checked, we have checked all our workings out separately.”

Brewer gave up at that point. But it’s all clear: Scottish Labour have run this past “the accountants”, they’ve checked it with SPICe, they’ve checked all the maths and the powers and they’ve concluded that to find the money what you have to do is find the money. And in finding the money the money will be found, which releases it, which proves that you’ve found it (by finding it) and can then spend it.

(Even though you haven’t cut anything and you haven’t taxed anyone. Nobody has paid any extra anywhere, but half a billion pounds has just appeared out of thin air.)

We suspect Scottish Labour may be using the same firm of accountants as Rangers did until 2012. Does anyone remember how that one panned out?

Listened to the big debate when I got in from campaigning alongside my MSP, MP and councillor today ( didn't even know they were going .. but we all landed up in the same place actively campaigning against some of the cuts going on in my community so it's always good time for a coffee and a blether )

Jackie really is a A**e isn't she ?

Listened to breaking the news after and the unionist racism against the English was very telling ... Gen would've been proud

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I don't think this is a poll tax moment.

The real master stroke here is that if Scottish people, as I suspect, don't want to pay to cover cuts in welfare then a vote for independence just makes things worse as if Scotland loses the London subsidy then Scots will have to make up that too.

It's funny, to me, that lots of people seem to think that the Tories are stupid. IME they are utterly ruthless in ensuring that only the brightest and best rise to the top. Perhaps the SNP are misunderestimating (c GW Bush) the Tories.

Unfortunately for the Tories, half the country aren't buying the London 'subsidy' stuff anymore. I know it's hard for people like you to take. And I know you mean well.. but people just don't believe it anymore. It's been played to death and doesn't work in any sort of campaign in Scotland. Rightly or wrongly, there it is.

We're aware of how ruthless the Tories are when it comes to politics.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Thank you for confirming my point about what happens with tone when shrieking. Maybe Sturgeon thinks she is the mother now in Holyrood?

No, she was just angry. Mundell and Murray are playing political point scoring with the working poor.

It's all subjective who will move where, and the importance of it, while we have the underlying security of the Union. Particularly now a SG has the power to top up or create any welfare benefit it wants to and can pay for. Early days to know how this wee change , will pan out over the next few years.

It's only when faced with the choice once more of another referendum, voters will make up minds. Maybe voters will have forgotten about the debacle of the White Paper and FFA . Sometimes I feel your opinion relies too heavily on emotion than cold reasoning. Which was the main factor in deciding last years referendum. Simply my opinion.

A lot can happen in the intervening years, both nationally and internationally to affect that decision. We'll see.

Yes you're right about a lot can happen. But people like me, started out a few years ago convinced that FFA or Devo Max rather than independence was the way to go. So am not sure I'd call FFA a debacle. Nor the White Paper to be honest. I don't think that made much difference either way. But momentum to independence re voters seems to go along the lines of 'Status quo - more powers - FFA/Devo Max - Independence.

So far it doesn't seem to be reverting backwards and the big picture as it stands, with the Tories in charge... there's very little chance of a reversion from many. Also there's a good probability that there will be more going the same way as lots of voters did during the referendum 'years'. If losing the referendum didn't kill the SNP off, then I'm not sure Kezia Dugdale has much of a chance.

Sometimes I feel that your opinion is based on the same as mine. Emotion against the SNP rather than cold reasoning. However, if people like me were to post here 'emotionally' all the time.. I doubt the threads would last very long. I post the cold, hard facts as I see them, with a bit of musing as to what will happen in the future based on those facts. One can't do anything other than that.

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

We did have quite a big tory following in the 50s

Ah yes, well.. there's a little bit of a twist in the tail to that one.;)

This may seem paradoxical, but the Unionist Party had benefited greatly from its projection as an independent Scottish party opposing the London-based British Labour Party.

In addition the name "Conservative" was identified with the English party; and there was a strong unionist-nationalist tradition, represented by the likes of John Buchan (who said "I believe every Scotsman should be a Scottish nationalist."[7]) and those who had founded the Scottish Party (which later merged with the National Party of Scotland to found the Scottish National Party).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Conservative_Party

The Scottish Conservative Party didn't form until 1965 in Scotland. And the Unionist party before it, was based primarily on sectarian grounds.

elantan

Yep ... I'm aware ... but they were popular

But then Scotland was and still is a divided country, although according to some this division only appeared due to indy ref

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Unfortunately for the Tories, half the country aren't buying the London 'subsidy' stuff anymore. I know it's hard for people like you to take. And I know you mean well.. but people just don't believe it anymore. It's been played to death and doesn't work in any sort of campaign in Scotland. Rightly or wrongly, there it is.

We're aware of how ruthless the Tories are when it comes to politics.

You can buy it or not but be very aware of the consequences of turning it down.:money:

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote:

....But this backs up my point earlier.. soft Labour/strong unionists are perhaps starting to align behind the Tories in Scotland.

I think that was a point that I and others made to you a few dozen pages ago and only recently have you come to the same opinion. You at the same time pooh-poohed a point of mine that Scotland will become in the near future more sectarian in its voting habits eg. Church of Scotland/Protestant=Unionist versus Irish/catholic tradition=nationalist. I predict in the long term a slow drift away from Scottish nationalism by many traditional SNP voters, they have nothing in common with a Brit hating central belter with Irish ancestry.
Only a matter of time before Scotland sends Tory MP's in double figures again to WM. Any prediction Shakey on the rough make up seat wise of Holyrood post the 2016? Genuinely curious.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

I think that was a point that I and others made to you a few dozen pages ago and only recently have you come to the same opinion. You at the same time pooh-poohed a point of mine that Scotland will become in the near future more sectarian in its voting habits eg. Church of Scotland/Protestant=Unionist versus Irish/catholic tradition=nationalist. I predict in the long term a slow drift away from Scottish nationalism by many traditional SNP voters, they have nothing in common with a Brit hating central belter with Irish ancestry.
Only a matter of time before Scotland sends Tory MP's in double figures again to WM. Any prediction Shakey on the rough make up seat wise of Holyrood post the 2016? Genuinely curious.

No. It's 'Blairite' ( for want of a better word) Labour voters who are pro-Trident, austerity, staunch union supporter types who are starting to align behind the Tories. Corbyn's election and Kezia suddenly u-turning on things like Trident and a more wishy-washy approach to any future referendum has probably been too much for them.

Is nothing whatsoever to do with religion or sectarianism.

Labour has gone after their old heartlands with the tax credits thing. My prediction is pretty much the same as it is now. It's if the SNP get a majority or not that's the important factor. Without one, there will me no second ref.

However.... ( and ignore the Salmond quote it was from an earlier interview tacked on to this article ). The below could do for Labour big time in Scotland, with the Tories benefiting... as it may expose ALL of Labour's deep devisions. Corbyn and the UK party, and Scottish Labour v's UK Labour. There will be no surprises how the SNP will vote on that one.

Like Generali says, the Tories can be ruthless and if the timing of this is true. It certainly would be.

Trident renewal vote scheduled for before the Holyrood elections

A crunch Commons vote on Trident will be held before the Holyrood elections next year after Alex Salmond suggested that the outcome could trigger a second independence referendum. Conservative Government sources said that the so-called ‘maingate’ decision on the controversial issue is expected to be made before voters go to the polls on May 5.
The timing will lead to fears the issue could dominate the campaign.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13951529.Trident_renewal_vote_scheduled_for_before_the_Holyrood_elections/