Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Graham_Devon

.string. wrote: »

1. The Devon thing was due to a storm, not maintenance. You can't equate the two situations.

Errr, yes you can, as they knew the storm wall was at it's limits structurally, as was the underpinning on the cliffs and natural erosion of them in certain areas. The trains along that section were getting slower and slower over the years to deal with the situation. The alternate route to avoid this has been talked about for around 30 years.

It's not different.

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

Perhaps this "transport" analogy will help.

If you decide to buy a new car because the old one is wearing out, you don't cancel the insurance on the old one until you are able to drive the new one - just in case there is an accident. Nor would it be advisable to cease servicing the old car if you knew the brakes were going and needed replacement and might cause an accident. However, if you did decide to stop servicing, you would only have had yourself to blame when it became too dangerous to drive and you could not use it.

And if something unforeseen & unpredicable had happened what would I do then?

Hmm......

Leanne1812

Just logged in to see what today's 'crisis' is.

It's still the bridge, with a wee dose of oil thrown in for good measure

I was listening to the news on the way home and it's quite clear this defect was unforeseen and hadn't been identified as an emergency or in need of critical repair. There was never any funding issue to carry out essential repairs either.

So, why are we still nit picking over this?

Ah, the report from 2010 and the cancelled repair. We can go round and round on this too. The bottom line is a decision was made to postpone until the new bridge was fully functional thus decreasing economic impact & inconvenience to commuters.

Why is that is so difficult to understand?

Why is it worthy of such condemnation?

I wonder.......

Leanne1812

wotsthat wrote: »

My recollection is Network Rail thought the sea wall was robust but were simply wrong rather than skipping maintenance to spend on personalised helicopters.

Eric Pickles apologised on behalf of the government during the Somerset floods because it was apparent that the cutting of maintenance impacted on the severity of the floods. Like a good politician he did try and pass some of the buck to the EA blaming their poor prioritisation skills and, of course, Gordon Brown.

I wouldn't say people are any more willing, in general, to attach blame to the SNP as opposed to any other political group - it's just more fun to watch the SNP supporters tying themselves up in knots trying to keep the tiniest buck moving. It's like a cross between Twister and Pass the Parcel.

Have a look to see where the funding came from re the helicopter before you jump to conclusions.

Are you here in Scotland? Maybe try looking at the headlines in all the Scottish tabloids and see if you feel it is balanced reporting.

Well, you seem to come here quite often so I'll take that as a compliment

It wouldn't be much of a debate if we all agreed now would it?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Round the oil price garden again Hamish ? No Thanks.

You're either thick or disingenuous, or at least your complete disregard for what was written by me and just now by Hamish makes it difficult to choose.

The fact that the SNP did not revise their earlier statements in the White Paper about oil revenue as a result of what was known at least 2 to 3 months before the Referendum means that not only Salmond but the whole of the Yes/SNP campaign was lying through their teeth.

You just can't bring yourself to admit to anything can you.

.string.

Back to the real topic with something of the hear and now

Sturgeon expects devolution finance deal by February

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35089546

Now we will see the colour of their eyes : will the result be a deal which is neutral in cost to all in the UK , will it be a deal which respects the result if the referendum, or will it be a contrived disagreement.

.string.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Errr, yes you can, as they knew the storm wall was at it's limits structurally, as was the underpinning on the cliffs and natural erosion of them in certain areas. The trains along that section were getting slower and slower over the years to deal with the situation. The alternate route to avoid this has been talked about for around 30 years.

It's not different.

Seems fair comment Graham

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

You're either thick or disingenuous, or at least your complete disregard for what was written by me and just now by Hamish makes it difficult to choose.

The fact that the SNP did not revise their earlier statements in the White Paper about oil revenue as a result of what was known at least 2 to 3 months before the Referendum means that not only Salmond but the whole of the Yes/SNP campaign was lying through their teeth.

You just can't bring yourself to admit to anything can you.

Neither did Cameron ?

DAVID Cameron is to promise a £200 billion oil boom over the next two decades if Scotland votes to remain part of the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister, who will chair a meeting of the Cabinet in Aberdeen today, has accepted the main recommendations in an expert review of the industry commissioned by Westminster that could result in an extra four billion barrels of oil being recovered from the North Sea.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-oil-politics-centre-stage-1-3317316

Was he 'lying' to Scottish voters like Salmond ? Or did he just get it wrong ? Why was he predicting a 200bn oil boom if Scots vote No then ? Also, in the graph I provided, you'll note that not one of the forecasts anticipate any 'global oil glut' when making their forecasts in May/June 14. Some 7 months AFTER the White paper was released.



ps Personal insults do you no favours sweet cheeks.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Back to the real topic with something of the hear and now

Sturgeon expects devolution finance deal by February

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35089546

Now we will see the colour of their eyes : will the result be a deal which is neutral in cost to all in the UK , will it be a deal which respects the result if the referendum, or will it be a contrived disagreement.

If it loses Scotland millions a year. It'll be sent right back to the drawing board in Westminster. And rightly so. Scots didn't vote No just to lose millions from the Scottish budget each year. According to you, that would've been a Yes vote.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Neither did Cameron ?



http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-oil-politics-centre-stage-1-3317316

From your link:

Mr Cameron said the “broad shoulders” of the UK government could support investment in the industry, but Downing Street warned volatility in the oil market could have a dramatic effect on Scottish finances in the event of independence, with the smaller economy less able to absorb the impact of a drop in revenue

.