Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This is the warning Downing Street gave during the campaign...

Can you point me to where any of the leading Yes campaigners were pointing out that fact?

Because it's looking astonishingly relevant today....;)

And just where would that sort of headline be found during the referendum campaign ? The BBC ? Daily Mail ? The Daily Record ?

I cannot point you to links Hamish that come from pro independence sites. Because you will just dismiss them as 'pro independence'. Safe to say though, that the general population of Scotland are very MUCH aware, that oil is volatile. And that oil is a commodity that should never be relied on. We all knew it during the referendum campaign too.

Support for independence has risen anyway. It's at it's highest levels ever, despite oil prices being at one of their lowest. What does that tell you ? It's also safe to say that oil prices or oil running out won't figure in any future referendums. Nor will Scotland being kicked out of the EU come to that. Good.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Or there's always the prospect that England and Wales will vote out.. but Scotland and NI will just tip the balance to remain.. then there will be a bit of a row...



Whatever. But you have to admit that there is now a distinct possibility that the four nations will vote differently. And that's before campaigning even starts. Back at the start of the independence referendum the Yes side were really lucky to be polling 30% on a good day. The Leave EU side are starting from a waaaay better position. In England and Wales anyway. Not looking good for unionists at the moment.

Your Collective really do like fostering divisions. Ooh - a lovely row!

Pathetic.

The polls you quote just show that Brit opinion is divided pretty well down the middle give or take some regional variation. I shall be glad to get a lot of "remain votes" so that we remain in the EU; but if it was close and the votes overall were swayed by votes from a particular region don't expect the loosing side to behave like spoilt children, that's an SNP trait.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And just where would that sort of headline be found during the referendum campaign ? The BBC ? Daily Mail ? The Daily Record ?

I cannot point you to links Hamish that come from pro independence sites. Because you will just dismiss them as 'pro independence'. Safe to say though, that the general population of Scotland are very MUCH aware, that oil is volatile. And that oil is a commodity that should never be relied on. We all knew it during the referendum campaign too.

Support for independence has risen anyway. It's at it's highest levels ever, despite oil prices being at one of their lowest. What does that tell you ? It's also safe to say that oil prices or oil running out won't figure in any future referendums. Nor will Scotland being kicked out of the EU come to that. Good.

So the answer to Haimish's question is that you can't point to a link. A link to the revised White Paper would have been fine but it wasn't revised was it; the Conpaign went on bolstered by economic lies. Maybe an official SNP website statement in the summer just before the referendum?

The SNP seem to have changed their approach now, they don't give economic figures anymore, unless you care to show us what the Natland budget would look like with today's information. Go on, I dare you.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Do you and string actually and truly think that Salmond spent the entire referendum campaign telling people they were 'going to be rich' because of oil prices ? In which case you'll have a serious problem now explaining why support for independence is increasing... despite extremely low oil prices ? Because I'm not following your logic.

And just for clarity, you think I should quote entire articles here, rather than just providing you with a link so you can read it for yourselves ? Rather than just..... click on it. :T

Cameron and BetterTogether made lots of crap promises during the campaign. 200bn 'oil boom' headlines among them. Everyone got oil predictions wrong in 2013/14. Salmond, the SNP, Cameron, the OBR, and the Treasury included. They were either all lying, or all wrong.

You're not following any logic. Of course Salmond, and Sturgeon and the rest spent the whole referendum claiming a glorious economic bounty was waiting for Scotland to vote Yes, But you are right in that it was not just oil that was egged up, it was a whole range of spurious economic claims, from a vibrant financial sector bolstered by having free support from being in a currency union with the UK to promises of a glorious windfall from plundering English Museums for "assets" while not repaying Scotland's debt (the latter was not included in the financial budget included in the infamous White Paper).

As for your remarks about everyone getting the price wrong in the period before the referendum, I suggest you can that line of argument since it just shows time and time again, that you can't face the truth. How very collective!

But there you go again, trying to avoid the criticism by boasting about the number of people the SNP have fooled by still peddling a Natland overflowing with money trees.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Or there's always the prospect that England and Wales will vote out.. but Scotland and NI will just tip the balance to remain.. then there will be a bit of a row...



Whatever. But you have to admit that there is now a distinct possibility that the four nations will vote differently. And that's before campaigning even starts. Back at the start of the independence referendum the Yes side were really lucky to be polling 30% on a good day. The Leave EU side are starting from a waaaay better position. In England and Wales anyway. Not looking good for unionists at the moment.

I don`t see why.
Any regional variation effecting the result is only going to be a problem to Scots Nationalists. The rest of us will accept the result, we Brits are like that.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Do you and string actually and truly think that Salmond spent the entire referendum campaign telling people they were 'going to be rich' because of oil prices ?

If you tell the nation the oil will be worth £3000,000 to each and every person you are implying they are going to be rich.

Salmond also said you'd keep the pound and would automatically become a member of the EU. Basically he was willing to lie and mislead to any degree to secure a yes vote.

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

I don`t see why.
Any regional variation effecting the result is only going to be a problem to Scots Nationalists. The rest of us will accept the result, we Brits are like that.

Most Britons believe in democracy, a few don't. Unfortunately the few that don't want to force their views on the rest of us.

Frankly, any future referendum should have the usual sort of hurdle required for major constitutional change: 2/3rds of the Parliament or 2/3rds of the people in favour.

.string.

Rinoa wrote: »

If you tell the nation the oil will be worth £3000,000 to each and every person you are implying they are going to be rich.

Salmond also said you'd keep the pound and would automatically become a member of the EU. Basically he was willing to lie and mislead to any degree to secure a yes vote.

Not just Salmond. I note there is a tendency for the SNP to deflect their record onto Salmond: in fact, of course, Stureon and the whole lot of them were happy to use any fantasy or whinge they could invent. Words like " that was yesterday" and so on is used a lot and is simply a device to ask people to forget the old lies and to move on to new lies and regurgitated old lies.

Something about leopards and spots comes to mind.

kabayiri

Tromking wrote: »

I don`t see why.
Any regional variation effecting the result is only going to be a problem to Scots Nationalists. The rest of us will accept the result, we Brits are like that.

For future reference, we should establish on here now what sort of percentage variation in voting would set the Scots apart from the rest of the Union.

For example, if UK voted as a whole to remain in on 55/45 split, would a 60/40 split from Scotland be significant?

Personally, I don't think so. I think you need to get to Generali figures where there is a 2/3 : 1/3 split from Scotland on a consistent basis from all the regions of Scotland; to declare any sort of significant variance.

CLAPTON

It's good to see that Swinney has fought hard to
-maintain the same income tax rates as the Tories
-and introduced a 3% second home 'stamp' duty supplement

looks like the SNP feel we are better together tax rates wise.