Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

My post isn't a rant. You need a dictionary STD.

It was a rant. Sweeping statements about 'venal and corrupt' politicians without an iota of evidence. Policies that are 'just wrong' etc etc. At the very least treat us all to some actual examples before stating 'facts'.

And you need a chill pill.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Ah yes, if you can't attack the message attack the messenger. :money:

Always, ALWAYS best to check out a source's, and most especially any newspaper's stated political bias before taking anything at face value. Unless you believe everything you read in the papers ?

Do you ?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It was a rant. Sweeping statements about 'venal and corrupt' politicians without an iota of evidence. Policies that are 'just wrong' etc etc. At the very least treat us all to some actual examples before stating 'facts'.

And you need a chill pill.

I'm perfectly relaxed, lying on my bed listening to the morning chorus thank you.

Are you really trying to argue that there is something magically different about SNP politicians that none of them are venal and corrupt despite so many others being so? It seems highly unlikely to me. And you think every SNP policy is 100% the best policy that could have been applied even with hindsight? Hmm.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Always, ALWAYS best to check out a source's, and most especially any newspaper's stated political bias before taking anything at face value. Unless you believe everything you read in the papers ?

Do you ?

So are the numbers right or wrong?

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's why most of us voted to stay in the UK.

Because we believe that is the way to achieve 'better' outcomes for the majority.

But putting that aside for the moment, what exactly do you think would be 'better' outside the UK, not this vague sentiment that things simply must be better because a politician in HR gets to make the decision rather than a politician in WM.

Specifically what is it that you think Scotland could or would actually do differently that would make the lives of most people 'better'?

Conservative policies and ideologies are almost always never received well in Scotland. Getting shot of those from the day to day lives of Scots would be an excellent start. Saves time all round in fact, much less messing about politically too.

Decisions from Holyrood for 5 million, compared to 64 million at Westminster would be a lot more specific and targeted. Lots of small countries with populations similar to Scotland do rather well.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Conservative policies and ideologies are almost always never received well in Scotland. Getting shot of those from the day to day lives of Scots would be an excellent start. Saves time all round in fact, much less messing about politically too.

Decisions from Holyrood for 5 million, compared to 64 million at Westminster would be a lot more specific and targeted. Lots of small countries with populations similar to Scotland do rather well.

It seems a bit pointless though when pretty much all of those decisions would be about what to cut next.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

So are the numbers right or wrong?

You tell me. I didn't quote them as evidence that independence for Catalonia is doomed to fail. Hamish did. He or you can prove them. But that particular newspaper isn't keen on Catalonia gaining independence. And therefore, ( and from experience in the Scottish referendum ) is likely to be slanting figures that suit their agenda.

Are you really trying to argue that there is something magically different about SNP politicians that none of them are venal and corrupt despite so many others being so? It seems highly unlikely to me.

Then simply state that you personally think that ALL politicians are venal and corrupt. I'm not arguing with you over SNP MP's being whiter than white or not. However, when you do feel the need to say they are venal and corrupt. I don't feel that asking you to provide an example is too much to ask on a debate board.

And you think every SNP policy is 100% the best policy that could have been applied even with hindsight? Hmm.

No, but even given that, I think they've been far better than Labour in Scotland ever were when they were in charge of devolved governance. And since they were returned from minority government 2007.. to a majority one 2011, and are likely to be returned again in 2016.. It's a widely held view in Scotland ie they're not perfect. But soooo much better than the last lot. Scottish Labour aren't looking like changing those views any time soon I'm afraid.

Also, the SNP have, up until May, historically had very little input or effect indeed in Westminster.. there's nothing really much can be said there.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

It seems a bit pointless though when pretty much all of those decisions would be about what to cut next.

Pretty much what is happening in Westminster politics at the present time too in case you haven't noticed ? We have. At least with power at Holyrood they'd have a choice over where and what to cut. I reiterate, Conservative policies don't resonate well with Scottish voters. I also encompass that to mean Labour/Lib Dem's proposing what 'looks like' Conservative policies.... ( Goodbye 48 MP's !).

Given the 'choice' Holyrood might do things differently. Or not at all, or faster, or slower or invest in some areas, not invest in others etc etc.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Pretty much what is happening in Westminster politics at the present time too in case you haven't noticed ? We have. At least with power at Holyrood they'd have a choice over where and what to cut. I reiterate, Conservative policies don't resonate well with Scottish voters. I also encompass that to mean Labour/Lib Dem's proposing what 'looks like' Conservative policies.... ( Goodbye 48 MP's !).

Given the 'choice' Holyrood might do things differently. Or not at all, or faster, or slower or invest in some areas, not invest in others etc etc.

interesting

if each family is scotland lost the £3,000 per annum bonus from england, what is your guess about what would happen?
would they increases taxes and keep spending the same?
would they cut spending and keep tax the same ?
if they cut spending : what would they cut benefits, pensions, investment ?

what's your best guess ?: after all you are hoping and praying for the opportunity to implement your guesses.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

As for the trite comment that Westminster has been taken out of Scotland, well that ship has sailed. You wanted independence and your fellow countrymen voted against it. Live with it.

No, it's unionist politicians that have been voted out of Scotland and Nationalist MP's voted into Westminster. All that remains to to take the Nationalist MP's out of Westminster.

I can live with that. :cool: