Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

skintmacflint

Regarding the new MPs, IMO the problem is SNP have grown too fast for their capabilities, and they had to move quickly in fielding candidates.

With SNP as a fast moving juggernaut, many undesirable social climbers have jumped on the bandwagon for career progression. However Sturgeon personally recommended some of these dubious MP chancers, showing poor judgement. There are others who are honest, decent enough people, but are simply averagely adequate, out of their depth , relying on advisors to get through committees and make decisions in Westminster. Too many too soon.

And we are just about to extend the number of inexperienced and inadequate to our MSPS at Holyrood. Albeit not that some of the other parties candidates seem much better, but they can't be any worse.

But Independence is off the agenda these days, and will be for some considerable long time to come . Even my long term friend who is a genuine lifetime SNP voter ( unlike the recently converted noisey ones you get) and SNP councillor , who knows what's what , sadly agrees with that.

princeofpounds

Scotland is unusual (unique?) in being a region of a country that seeks independence despite there being no history of animosity with or persecution by the larger state, especially given the huge costs involved.

True and interesting comment. It really has been a union in the fullest sense of the word and it's a shame people don't see how remarkable and admirable that is.


But I think that narrative is not fully accepted in a large portion of Scotland's 'working class'.


There is a massive conflation between the deindustrialisation of western societies, and the perceived attitude of the English.


Many people think Scotland has been neglected in the 20th century (when we all know it has received more fiscal support than its proportional due). But in reality it just suffered the same accident of economic history that has hit Welsh steelworks, Liverpool docks, Detroit car industry, Wallonian coal mines and so on.


These places all resort to socialist 'solutions' - which of course do little more than dull the pain of decline - for as long as they can obtain other people's money. I don't criticise that too much; it has a short-term and even mid-term logic, even if it cannot hope to address long-term problems. If a powerful enough trend, the trade-union like behaviour of a region can even give generate a strong regional or national identity (just as it does for a wealthy Catalonia in Spain at the other end of the spectrum - imbalances do this)


A significant minority sees an active agency in all this - a punishment sent from Westminster for reasons unknown. But that's just human nature; we want to blame events on people (or spirits or gods) rather than just accepting they happen.

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It isn't in my mind. My contention is that as far as independence support and/or SNP is concerned... that it hasn't made a blind bit of difference, and never has. Oil prices have tanked at the same time independence/SNP support has risen.

In the glory years of the taps full on. Historically the SNP were nowhere much. And independence support hovered around 25%. Well, now it's $35 a barrel... and has been low since just before the referendum. Awful stuff, it's meant that the SNP crashed and burned, independence support dire and down to less than 20% ? Well no actually. It's...

Hellooooo Mr Salmond at Westminster with 56 out of 59 Scottish Mp's. A second potential Holyrood majority and polls for independence hovering at 50/50.

Change the record. The low oil price one is somehow magically translating into SNP votes, and independence support is at it highest historical level's ever. ( for now ).

Support for the SNP is not support for independence - neither is people you are friends with on Twitter agreeing with everything you say or even opinion polls conducted when there isn't going to be a referendum.

Presumably the SNP (which is different to other political parties as it operates with honesty, integrity and transparency) will be updating its support base with new economic projections based on oil at $35/barrel instead of $100-110 or whatever they were using before. That way people can make informed decisions.

It's not surprising I suppose that the Nats spend all their time whinging about how money was stolen from the Scots in the 80s but are complelely silent on the benefits of being in the union (eg when oil falls to $35/barrel you aren't suddenly completely screwed as you are part of a much larger and economically diverse state which can make up your budget shortfall and provide alternative sources of employment for your workforce etc).

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Support for the SNP is not support for independence - neither is people you are friends with on Twitter agreeing with everything you say or even opinion polls conducted when there isn't going to be a referendum.

Presumably the SNP (which is different to other political parties as it operates with honesty, integrity and transparency) will be updating its support base with new economic projections based on oil at $35/barrel instead of $100-110 or whatever they were using before. That way people can make informed decisions.

It's not surprising I suppose that the Nats spend all their time whinging about how money was stolen from the Scots in the 80s but are complelely silent on the benefits of being in the union (eg when oil falls to $35/barrel you aren't suddenly completely screwed as you are part of a much larger and economically diverse state which can make up your budget shortfall and provide alternative sources of employment for your workforce etc).

Given elantan's reaction to the revelation that at $35/bbl, Londoners are keeping Scotland solvent I'm not surprised that the SNP have gone a bit quiet on Scotland having fiscal responsibility for Scotland. The SNP leadership aren't idiots even if some of their supporters are.

The problem for the SNP now is dodging independence, not gaining it.

chris_m

Generali wrote: »

Scotland is unusual (unique?) in being a region of a country that seeks independence despite there being no history of animosity with or persecution by the larger state,

Oh, was Longshanks just teasing then?

wotsthat

chris_m wrote: »

Oh, was Longshanks just teasing then?

Yes, there was some unpleasantness with Edward 1................... about 400 years before Scotland joined the Union.

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes, there was some unpleasantness with Edward 1................... about 400 years before Scotland joined the Union.

I wonder how many people voted 'Yes' because of the actions of Edward I? 5, 10. Literally a few people.

CLAPTON

I suppose the Scots can console themselves that they killed more of their own than the English ever did.

Maybe they could write a catchy tune about the killings and nominate it to be their national anthem

Tromking

I`m sure a history buff will correct me, but was not Union created by a free vote in the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh and was`nt Scotland bankrupt at the time?

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

I`m sure a history buff will correct me, but was not Union created by a free vote in the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh and was`nt Scotland bankrupt at the time?

So they say.

Apparently Scotland's debts were £300,000 when the Parliaments united. I once applied compound interest at the BoE base rate since then and the debt worked out to be £1,000,000,000,000, the same as the national debt at the time.

Obviously since then the debt has increased faster than the BoE base rate but then again Gilt yields are generally higher than the base rate.