Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Your post above as far as I recall is the only one , which wrongly stated and suggested plain theft must have occurred. Nothing in the press stated or suggested this was theft. The fact the police were involved is in fact simply last resort standard procedure , for when a Treasurer fails despite repeated requests to provide full disclosure on the accounts. You even followed it with a defence of this MP , making your post even worse. Was very wrong of you to word your post in this manner.

So don't think you have any room to comment on Hamish or anyone else in regard to this situation. But that is just normal practice where your supercilious ( thanks string) posts on this thread are concerned. In my opinion. Lol.

Venal and corrupt were the words Generali used. And if Hamish and the media aren't trying to infer theft at all. Why the headlines ? Don't be so naive. Full disclosure works BOTH ways... McGarry doesn't even know as yet what the problem actually is.

LAWYERS acting on behalf of embattled MP Natalie McGarry are to demand the release of an audit report that is believed to detail alleged discrepancies in a pro-independence campaign group's finances.... "Nobody has been able to even provide definitive details of what went wrong. My firm will be approaching Women for Independence to request this. It would be very helpful to know what the discrepancies actually are and what accounting methods were used.
"To date a copy of the so-called audit has not even been provided to Natalie.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14109802.MP_McGarry_s_legal_team_demands_release_of_Women_for_Independence_financial_audit/?ref=mr&lp=6

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The images from`Wings over Scotland' that you posted do not contain any cast iron 100% promise that there would never be any change to jobs.

For both those examples...

1) Shipbuilding - It is 100% guaranteed that UK naval ships would not have been built on the Clyde if Scotland went indy. As we voted No orders have since been confirmed for new ships, saving many jobs.

2) HMRC - It is 100% guaranteed that UK offices for HMRC would not be in Scotland if we voted for Indy. Since the No vote a reorganisation has been announced that would move most of the Scottish local office jobs to the two new regional hubs in Edinburgh and Glasgow. There will be some cost savings over time, but the vast majority of the jobs will remain.

In the case of Cumbernauld, that you highlighted, this means staff will move a whopping 20 miles down the road - hardly an issue worth getting worked up about.

The images were from Scottish Labour's account, the second was reprinted in Wings ( with links if you click on them to the original ). But, oh yes, Labour went to town making all sorts of 100% 'cast iron' promises in the event of a No vote. And those are definitely their own images. I, and tens of thousands of others, saw them at the time. The Herald even ran articles on 3200 tax 'job dividends' in Scotland.

In the case of Cumbernauld.. Ian Murray doesn't agree with you. 'Devastating' he said. But whatever, there are a fair few of those BetterTogether graphics you were so fond of posting a year or so ago.. coming back to bite on the rear. Because those sorts of images were 100% 'cast iron promises' spread far and wide by media and newspapers. They should never have been made. Most especially promises of jobs being 'dependent' on a No vote.

Labour's Shadow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said the prospect of significant job losses was "devastating" and "every effort must be made" to protect them."I have already contacted Labour's Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, to discuss this issue and we will use every opportunity to raise the situation in parliament," he added.
The PCS union said the closure plan was a danger to HMRC fulfilling its duties.
General secretary Mark Serwotka said: "No one should be in any doubt that, if implemented, these proposals would be absolutely devastating for HMRC and the people who work there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34798266

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Your post seems a characature of your self, dismissing the economics as secondary (an implicit acknowledgment that the Natland economy would be in dire straights) coupled with a nonsensical deflection based on an irrelevancy.

Then there was a display if venal humour.

There may be some who regard separation as a goal worth any price, but there are many more I suspect who care about the standard of living that they and their families would have in Natland. All the time the SNP has as if we two major policies;
Stir up emnity between Scots and the UK
and
oide the economic facts of life from the Scots

Whatever the tunnel vision that inspires you and other SNP followers to think like lemmings, it that does not negate the duty of honesty in informing the public of the economic facts of life which would await Natland.

And who exactly do you trust to be 'honest' about the 'economic facts of life in Scotland'. Pray tell who you would suggest Scots listen to for honest facts ?

Meantime, I'll leave you with another's comment elsewhere which sums up things well.

There was little or no discussion of the constitutional question during the referendum campaign. The entire debate was hi-jacked by the British establishment and turned into an economic argument...

...Mainly, however, the referendum debate was turned into a tawdry exercise in cost/benefit analysis for the simple reason that economic data is almost infinitely malleable. Like scripture, it can be selectively used to serve any argument.

As we've just seen George Osborne do. I don't dismiss economics as secondary. I simply don't trust that the economic arguments thus far against Scottish independence, have been anything other than a means to make sure Scottish independence doesn't happen.
No-one knows if they're true or not. Economic data ( during Scotland's referendum anyway ) tended to start from the view that independence is going to be truly awful for all concerned. Then find the figures to make it so.

19/05/2014

It is, says Ferguson, a “pretty blatant case of starting with the answer and working out the more granular line-by-line ‘estimates’ backwards”.

No economic figures are entirely accurate, but this is different: the basic revenue numbers are more or less guesswork, to which is added an so far entirely un-negotiated share of UK oil revenues.

So there you go. I’m giving you one less thing to think about: you can now happily ignore all the financial arguments for a separate Scotland on the basis that no one knows what they actually are.

http://moneyweek.com/one-less-thing-to-think-about-in-the-scottish-referendum-debate/

Leanne1812

Ah, you have the patience of a saint shakes

We've been round this economic argument soooo many times. I said all along its who you trust. Who do you really believe to act in Scotland's best interests. Obviously many of us feel the Scottish government are more trustworthy than the uk gov who don't want the end of the Union as their legacy.

Equally there are those who don't trust the Scottish gov, I fear nothing will change that view.

As far as the job losses go I remember it well. Virtually everything was protected if we remain & under threat if we leave, now it appears nothing is safe. Makes you think eh.......

elantan

Aye it makes ya think ... I dont know how shakes does it either tbh ...

Although i did read an article about someone that has been short listed to stand for the SNP that cause me some concern, unsure if its true or not at this point

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14109772.SNP_approves__anti_abortion__candidate_who_opposed_adoption_rights_for_gay_couples/

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And who exactly do you trust to be 'honest' about the 'economic facts of life in Scotland'. Pray tell who you would suggest Scots listen to for honest facts ?

Well, you could have been persuaded by Alex Salmond's white paper claiming oil revenues for 2015 would be around £7.5Bn ~ and compare that to the actual figure of £130m.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Well, you could have been persuaded by Alex Salmond's white paper claiming oil revenues for 2015 would be around £7.5Bn ~ and compare that to the actual figure of £130m.

Like every intelligent and inquiring resident in Scotland. I am aware that oil is a volatile commodity. And it is pointless to base any economy purely on the prices of oil.

It also doesn't matter how many times you try and push the line 'Salmond's white paper predicts'... because anyone who has spent 2 seconds on Google or reading the White Paper could see where the predictions within it came from. And it wasn't Salmond.



You should probably give up with that one. Honestly, it's a busted flush. Everyone got it wrong. That's what happens with volatile commodities and why it's not a good idea to rely on them. Am sure all this 'volatility' stuff isn't a complete surprise to you ? It was certainly no surprise to anyone on the Yes campaign. What IS a slight surprise however, is that the SNP seem to be somehow to blame for world oil prices falling ! Wow, such influence.

I'd trust Salmond and Sturgeon to do what they feel is best for Scotland over George Osborne and David Cameron any day. I suspect it's majority view in Scotland these days. :cool:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I am aware that oil is a volatile commodity. And it is pointless to base any economy purely on the prices of oil.

That's what happens with volatile commodities and why it's not a good idea to rely on them.

The Yes campaign wanted to set up an Indy Scotland where 20% of the national budget would be wholly reliant on direct taxation of the oil industry.

Yet now you admit it's not a good idea...

The point is Shakey, if the OBR get oil forecasts wrong it's little more than a minor inconvenience to the UK at this point, given it makes up around 1% of UK GDP and around 2% of tax revenues.

But for an iScotland that's absolutely devastating, as it represents closer to 10% of GDP and 20% of tax revenues.

elantan

Norway rely on 30%of its income from oil ... we rely on 15% .. some how they manage

So do all these other countries that don't even have oil ... I know it's amazing to think there is a world where people survive without oil money ... but it's true

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Like every intelligent and inquiring resident in Scotland. I am aware that oil is a volatile commodity. And it is pointless to base any economy purely on the prices of oil.

It also doesn't matter how many times you try and push the line 'Salmond's white paper predicts'... because anyone who has spent 2 seconds on Google or reading the White Paper could see where the predictions within it came from. And it wasn't Salmond.

:rotfl:
No? This is what Salmond was actually saying before the referendum.

"This bulletin shows the impact that increases in investment could have on production and revenues, and examines a range of scenarios," he said.
"It demonstrates that, when the expected increase in production to two million barrels a day is taken into account, there can be little doubt that Scotland is moving into a second oil boom.
"It is also clear that a wide range of credible forecasters expect oil prices to remain close to present levels, or rise further in future years - with some organisations, such as the OECD, suggesting that prices could exceed $150-a-barrel by 2020.
"Even with a cautious estimate of prices remaining at $113 a barrel being used, it's clear that Scottish oil and gas could generate more revenues than has previously been assumed.
"Indeed, the scenarios examined - and based on recent investment and price trends - identify the potential for total revenues over the next six years of between £41 and £57bn.
"Taking an average, that would be £48bn coming from the North Sea during that period - revenues that, with independence, could have been put to use in Scotland, supporting our public services and investing in our future."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21741825