Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Independence for Scotland is an emotional thing. Economic 'facts' are hard to be certain about in any event. Put 40 economists in a room and you'll have 40 opinions. Independence for Ireland succeeded in far more difficult circumstances.

which planet are you living on?

Independence for Ireland resulted in a civil war.
They 'solved' their economic problems for 50 years by exporting their youth.
The became quite 'rich' only when they started obtaining 'free' money from the EU and discovered the wonder of a massive banking sector.
Presumably this is your prescription for an IScotland : 50 years of poverty and emigration?

You clearly know as little about Irish history as you know about the IRA loving leadership of the Labour party.

Tromking

dktreesea wrote: »

It's pathetic that a country of 50million+ people should have to settle for less than a country of 5million+ people. Just pathetic.

Ah, the arrogance of the Scots Nationalist Leftist mentality writ large.
I simply don`t see your mentality in England, people drip about politicians like they always have, but there is a general acceptance (I`m a labour voter usually) in the rUK that despite personal preferences we have to suffer or celebrate the party that wins the GE.
Nationalist`s have a problem with that because in their own heads the separation has already taken place and of course they have a vested interest in propagating the SNP myth about how iScotland would be an instant land of milk and honey.
Rather than lecturing the English on how enlightened an iScotland would be in comparison, you`d be better off trying to persuade enough of your number to vote for it to happen in the first place. They don`t believe you can afford it you know!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

dktreesea wrote: »

Or how about the dualling of the A1 from Newcastle to Edinburgh (even in Salmond's day he said he would start on the Scottish side of the border as soon as the English would start on their side) vs the dualling of the A9 all the way up to Inverness? Scotland to come first again. No contest.


It's pathetic that a country of 50million+ people should have to settle for less than a country of 5million+ people. Just pathetic.

Hang on a moment....

There has been an extraordinary lack of investment in the Northern part of Scotland for a very long time now...

The Central Belt Bias is alive and well, and has if anything worsened since devolution, the A9 project is well overdue and has been subject to numerous delays and the A96 dualling is similarly badly needed and has virtually no progress to date at all.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So if you ever want to win a referendum you need to be trusted to make a once in a lifetime major constitutional change, not just to run a regional assembly or have some opposition MP's, and that means telling the truth about the economics.

So admitting that the costs will be severe to ordinary people, that austerity will be much worse than under the Tories, that services and benefits will be subject to much more severe cuts, that many more people will lose their jobs, and that ordinary people will take a hit to their prosperity and standards of living that it'll take decades to recover from.

And then you need to convince them of why exactly it is worth it anyway.

Last year the handful of areas to vote Yes were the areas with the highest proportion of people with nothing to lose. Basically just Glasgow (and surrounds) and Dundee.

The poor, the benefits claimants, the least educated, voted Yes in the highest numbers. The middle classes, the educated, those with something to lose, voted No in overwhelming numbers. Even in areas where they voted SNP in previous elections.

Clearly those all important middle class voters did not believe or trust the SNP's story on the finances of an iScotland. Even though they were happy to vote for them on other occasions.

To win them over you need to tell the truth. And then convince them the loss is worth it. But if you do tell the truth, then you also have to admit to the poor and the working classes that indy means more austerity not less. So then you lose some of that vote.

I don't see any way of winning a referendum without an honest and credible plan for addressing the financial and economic implications to people's lives.

And clearly the plan last year was neither credible or honest.

But it seems that all of that is having no effect on the Scottish public. They all hear what you are saying 24/7. And have for years now. The SNP say one thing, 100 others say the same as you do...only MUCH louder. No-one is being forced or coerced into putting an X in any particular box.

So I still can't see what your problem is. The Scottish public aren't exactly 'uniformed' when it comes to the scenarios you describe. And yet here we are, still discussing Scottish independence as if it's a real, and possible outcome in the near future.

Shakethedisease

Moby wrote: »

Your analysis is spot on. Labour made a major strategic error in standing on a joint platform with the tories during the referendum. The reality was they were the only credible party in Scotland to put the unionist argument. There is a significant democratic deficit in the UK. Even Heseltine has recently acknowledged the tories have no idea how to appeal in Scotland, Northern England and Wales.

Scotland will therefore ultimately go its own way and the rest of us will be stuck with the tories.:eek:
I think polling research is showing an increase in support for independence amongst younger voters. I wonder how long this will take to tip the balance?

Thank you. Tipping the balance... hmmm.... I guess there will be a window of opportunity to be had over the next few years. With an engaged, energised youth vote, and an ever diminishing pool of disillusioned Labour No voters ( who can't see the point of Westminster if Labour is removed from the equation, seemingly for a very long time )... It would only take 200,000 or so to change their minds. We're not talking millions of voters.

3 Jan 2016

The SNP are ready to dominate Scottish politics for decades after the next Holyrood election, say leading pollsters. Opinion polls point to an overwhelming victory in May for the nationalists and with up to 72 per cent of under-35s backing the SNP, experts believe the party could be in power for years....
.....A TNS poll two weeks ago showed support for the SNP at 58 per cent in constituency voting intentions and 54 per cent on the regional list. This would give the SNP 78 of Holyrood’s 129 seats and Labour 25.

But support for the SNP soared to 76 per cent in the 16-24 age group and 67 per cent in the 25-34 age group. By contrast, just 12 per cent of 16-24-year-olds would vote Labour .

Costley said: “Looking back to the independence referendum, the only demographic group that voted No was those aged 55-plus, and much of that was down to concerns about the financial situation.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/first-minister-nicola-sturgeons-ship-7110340

The SNP need only bide their time for now, constitutionally at least... and insert a vague clause in their manifesto somewhere which gives them a mandate to call a referendum if it looks like the Scots want one. Cameron would be mad to try and stop it too. That's a sure fire one way ticket to a huge Yes vote.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But it seems that all of that is having no effect on the Scottish public. They all hear what you are saying 24/7. And have for years now. The SNP say one thing, 100 others say the same as you do...only MUCH louder. No-one is being forced or coerced into putting an X in any particular box.

So I still can't see what your problem is. The Scottish public aren't exactly 'uniformed' when it comes to the scenarios you describe. And yet here we are, still discussing Scottish independence as if it's a real, and possible outcome in the near future.

Which reply is normal it seems, equating to "who cares if the public are not informed properly providing they answer the polls correctly(*)"

Why do the SNP lie?

Because they won't stand up and be counted.

Pun intended



(*) -- "correctly" is in SNP speak.t

dktreesea

Tromking wrote: »

Ah, the arrogance of the Scots Nationalist Leftist mentality writ large.
I simply don`t see your mentality in England, people drip about politicians like they always have, but there is a general acceptance (I`m a labour voter usually) in the rUK that despite personal preferences we have to suffer or celebrate the party that wins the GE.
Nationalist`s have a problem with that because in their own heads the separation has already taken place and of course they have a vested interest in propagating the SNP myth about how iScotland would be an instant land of milk and honey.
Rather than lecturing the English on how enlightened an iScotland would be in comparison, you`d be better off trying to persuade enough of your number to vote for it to happen in the first place. They don`t believe you can afford it you know!

You are missing the point. If it's good enough for the Scots to have half decent flood defences, free university education, new social housing, free prescriptions, dual carriageways where they are needed, then why shouldn't the English enjoy the same? Give me one good reason.


And don't say the UK can't afford it. Rubbish. They can afford Cross rail, Trident, the planned high speed rail lines.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Which reply is normal it seems, equating to "who cares if the public are not informed properly providing they answer the polls correctly(*)"

Why do the SNP lie?

Because they won't stand up and be counted.

Pun intended



(*) -- "correctly" is in SNP speak.t

Well, that's your view I suppose. It still doesn't explain why people put the X in the box next to them ? They hear ( more or less ) your opinion every day.
The poll analysis by the pollsters today was interesting wasn't it ? Truly amazing demographic figures for the SNP.

*

with up to 72 per cent of under-35s backing the SNP

* Am winding you up in Shakey speak. Happy New Year string.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Regardless of the actual dollar figure, when the price of your main export drops by 2/3rds in a year or so it is likely that the finances of the country would be in trouble.

As I say, do what cost are you prepared to pay for independence. Given the massive loss of revenue that must have happened as a result of the falling oil price it is inevitable that potential Scottish government revenues must be lower than hoped for at the time of the referendum. Back then I don't recall anyone claiming that there was a massive surplus.

Even if you don't accept Whitehall figures, the simplest back of envelope calculation shows that the fiscal numbers must have got much worse.

Well it's not the only export so that's a good start.

As for the rest of your post. I was reading today an article about internal focus groups Labour did during the run up the the General Election. It seems like, people actually are now, prepared to pay. I guess that's why the whole FFA stuff didn't get very far last year ? Interesting stuff indeed. You should have a look.

This paper reported a similar theme before last year’s referendum: that senior figures in the No camp were describing their strategy for success as Project Fear. But examining the private polling for my book, the "fear factor" weapon might have to be decommissioned, as it now appears obsolete.
At the election, Labour campaigned hard against the SNP policy of Full Fiscal Autonomy – so robustly in fact, their tactics were described as Full Fiscal Assault. It was thought – in the words of one Labour strategist – that this could be a "worry point" for former Labour voters.

But it was Labour that needed to worry – the party’s focus groups delivered a shock. Target voters were resisting the fiscal assault. Partly, there was a "cry wolf" element to it – No voters had bought into the risks of independence in September and some were weary and just weren’t keen to see the tactics of that campaign replayed.

But far more devastating was this finding: some of the key voters – "soft" SNP and ex-Labour – now expected to pay more for greater autonomy, and apparently accepted this. As one focus group member put it: "Och, divorce costs money doesn’t it?"
So no longer just expensive business, but possibly a price worth paying.

An internal memo said voters did see Labour's central charge – that the SNP would have to raise taxes or cut spending – as "plausible". But it added – and here's the rub – this wasn't "particularly scary".

So the expense of independence no longer engenders the fear it once did.
(Iain Watson is the BBC's Political Correspondent)

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13802123.How_the_referendum_tactics_of_Project_Fear_killed_of_Labour_in_Scotland_at_the_General_Election/

dktreesea

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Hang on a moment....

There has been an extraordinary lack of investment in the Northern part of Scotland for a very long time now...

The Central Belt Bias is alive and well, and has if anything worsened since devolution, the A9 project is well overdue and has been subject to numerous delays and the A96 dualling is similarly badly needed and has virtually no progress to date at all.

But it's all relative, isn't it. How long has Northumberland waited for the A1 to be dualled all the way to the border?


There does seem to be quite a bit of investment going on in Northern Scotland. What about the restoration of the Caledonian Forest, a massive venture which seems to be ploughing ahead? Or the Digital Scotland Superfast Broadband Project? I'd rather be able to enjoy 80Mbps download speeds in Wick or Thurso than less than 1 Mbps speeds in some parts of England. Some parts of Norfolk, for example. There's an offshore windfarm being constructed this year in the Moray Firth. HIE (Highlands and Islands Enterprise) seems to have quite a few irons in the fire, some of them decent sized projects, on the go.


When can we expect to see a similar quality of investment in Wales, Cumbria or Cornwall?