Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

I post in loads of threads


Tbh though this one I stupidly asked for updates on so keep getting emails about it ... think I should change it really as the circles on this thread are ever decreasing

kabayiri

baldelectrician wrote: »

...

We can decide not to spend money on Trident or stop victimising people on benefits using sanctions - it's all about choices we will make.

It's an attractive argument this one, to redirect spend on Trident.

The question is, would it deliver the returns the politicians promise?

People talk about replacing Trident as though the money is being spent on new American made nuclear missiles.

It isn't.

The Trident money will be spent on replacing the carriers of those missiles - ie the British built submarines replacing current Vanguard class.

Much of the planned spend will go on British firms; British workers.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

It's an attractive argument this one, to redirect spend on Trident.

The question is, would it deliver the returns the politicians promise?

People talk about replacing Trident as though the money is being spent on new American made nuclear missiles.

It isn't.

The Trident money will be spent on replacing the carriers of those missiles - ie the British built submarines replacing current Vanguard class.

Much of the planned spend will go on British firms; British workers.

The Unions Unite and the GMB have already made it clear that there are 10,000s of jobs in Britain relating to the Trident replacement that they will fight any attempt to scrap. Between them they're 1/3rd of the TUC.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Spoken like a true recently converted middle earning nationalist. From reasonable earning , Labour working class parents.

Just my opinion of course, but you do rather seem to perfectly fit the Tartan Tory stereotype.

My wife and I gave years of our life to volunteer work with people in disadvantaged circumstances , including taking abused and the drug addicted into our family home over the years. So don't even try your your flippant, sanctimonious, patronising piffle with me hen. I mean mate.

Have you ever sat on a children's panel deciding an abused child's future when the parents can't even turn up, as they're lying comatose on some stranger's floor yet again. When you have, come back and tell me you still believe Independence and the cuts to existing services, or SNPs populist sounding simplistic rhetoric on how to change the mindset of these areas by throwing them a few more benefits, is the answer.

And I'll call you a liar or a liberal do good fool. Or both.

No, I you've gotten most of that wrong. My dad was a steelworker, made redundant from Glengarnock in the 80's and spent most of his working life afterwards working in a crappy carpet factory. 3 day weeks were common. He spent his most recent working years in his 60's at Tesco huffing and puffing bags of potatoes around after a triple bypass. My mother was a housewife ( who liked a drink back in the day ). I was on free school meals most of my school days, and a single parent by the time I was 17.

I pulled myself up by the bootstraps and resat all my exams to secure a place on a midwifery course when I was 21, when my second child ( I made the mistake of giving my first child's father who left me when I was 16 to cope alone..a second chance and married him, he disappointed ).. was 6 months old. I've seen both sides of the coin through my 44 years. My sister and I were also subject to a children's panel looking at our parent's care. We had a social worker for a few years checking in weekly. By that point, my dad liked a drink too. I've never forgotten any of it. Nor the way I was put into a little box called 'scrounger single parent' and 'lifestyle choice' back then. As if my bad start meant I could never hope to attain, or worse would even BOTHER to try and attain anything better for my own children.

My mum and dad have both mellowed and gotten over their younger day problems. Occasional domestic violence, broken noses, arms etc back then when your drunk wife gets a bit 'mouthy' being pretty run of the mill in the 70's, and the police classified it as such and didn't interfere.. My dad regrets much of his younger days. As does my mother with her drinking. They made it through though, and are now wonderful grandparents, and great grandparents who cannot do enough for us all. My dad has never had a car, or been able to afford to learn to drive. They got a landline phone in round about 1997.

But I can assure you the only time I heard about Tartan Tories throughout all that.. was from my dad. Who despised the SNP for their 'betrayal' in 1979, Alex Salmond and all they stood for. As well as from my four uncles, who were all laid off from Linwood during the 80's. Sturgeon must have seen the same all round her about that time ( we're the same age, from the same locality )..

My father voted No in Sept 2014 in the 99% sure belief that Labour would be back in power by May 15. And that Salmond wanted to be a dictator. Because that's what all the polls/media at the time were saying. He got it very, very wrong. He'll have to reassess that if the question ever comes up again. And he admits that. He's representative ( imo ) of a very wide swathe of older Labour voters in Sept 14. Who will all have to 'reassess' should the question be asked again.

But the next time you decide to rant about poor people, from poor areas and backgrounds voting as if they don't matter. Take a deep breath, step back and don't.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

What a load of prejudiced drivel.

It says a lot about your degenerated arguments Shakey in that now you really can't now tell the difference between SNP spin and an objective viewpoint. Or maybe you can and you see the drip drip drip of anti Westminster/Tory/English diatribe as just a tactic and to the devil with honesty.

Just because it's SNP spin does not make it so.


I see that you are now claiming that a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence, a reversal of your previous stance but indicative, as always of the latest favoured SNP spin.

(cue for remark on a poll about the ... whatever)

If the SNP are returned in May. It won't be a vote for independence.. just an option. If people don't like the idea, there are a range of other parties to vote for.

Somehow, you keep missing this. And it's the most basic facet of democracy. If people don't want the option of a possible further independence referendum.. then they will vote for a party that explicitly isn't offering one.

It's not the SNP's fault if people vote for them is it ? Or have we in Scotland missed something along the way ? We can vote for who we like string. If the SNP have an option of calling a referendum in their manifesto, people are perfectly at liberty not to vote for them if that's not what they'd like in the future. I'm not quite sure why you find the above so hard to follow to be honest. Nor why you would dismiss YouGov, Ipsos Mori, Survnation, Comres, ICM etc etc as crap lol.

Shakethedisease

Mistermeaner wrote: »

It's interesting that none of the regular pro Indy supporters in this thread ever seem to post in any of the other threads, most of which tend be pan UK if not globally significant

If I was to hazard a guess I would presume it's because for them scotland is a little bubble that needn't trouble itself with such things.

I wonder if this is the symptom of being an unweened petulant teenager - grand ideas about its own self importance and arrogance regards it's independence but basically pig ignorant regards what goes on in the world. It'll soon find out if it chooses to leave home.

Mum how do I boil an egg?

I run and admin a large forum of my own. I come here, and a few other places to talk. about. something. else. I can get all the chat on relationship, money, sex, family and fitness chat I want for 100 years elsewhere. No Scottish politics thread's though thank gawd ( it's general US/UK/Canada/OZ based posters mainly) . When I post on a thread I rarely get challenged as Admin. I like being an anonymous just another poster on this sort of stuff for politics a lot better.

I've already stated this several times before. Blimey, there's a lot of 'judging' people on politics threads isn't there. If there's one thing I've learnt from running my own forum.. it's never wise to put people...complete strangers in fact... in boxes on open forums. You're almost always wrong. Best to stay on topic and post content. Rather than making ( wrong) assumptions on the people behind the keyboard.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The Unions Unite and the GMB have already made it clear that there are 10,000s of jobs in Britain relating to the Trident replacement that they will fight any attempt to scrap. Between them they're 1/3rd of the TUC.

Trident renewal as a 'job creation' scheme... Am not sure that will fly nor justify it. And there's not 10,000's of jobs behind it either. Unless you have a link or a source for that ? Or are you really just parroting the TUC/Unite as bastion's of absolute fact ? That'll be a first for you surely ?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Trident renewal as a 'job creation' scheme... Am not sure that will fly nor justify it. And there's not 10,000's of jobs behind it either. Unless you have a link or a source for that ? Or are you really just parroting the TUC/Unite as bastion's of absolute fact ? That'll be a first for you surely ?

I suspect that Unite and the GMB know their own position on Trident!!!

https://labourlist.org/2015/11/stop-misrepresenting-unite-on-trident-our-members-jobs-come-first/

Unite’s policy on Trident is that unless and until alternative jobs of equal skills are found for our members, then jobs and communities of defence workers come first.

http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/gmb-on-trident-successor-programme

There are rules about how party policy is changed. This issue of a mandate, I don’t recall any speech anywhere where someone said ‘I’m standing on the platform that I will do what I want when I want, irrespective of what the rules of Labour Party are’. Let’s just get back to the basics: of course people are entitled to want to change policy, why not? That’s how it evolves, but there is a process and there are rules and if anybody thinks that unions like the GMB are going to go quietly into the night where tens of thousands of our members jobs are literally swannied away by rhetoric then they’ve got another shock coming.”

Like the GMB inventing a new verb there, to swannie.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I suspect that Unite and the GMB know their own position on Trident!!!

https://labourlist.org/2015/11/stop-misrepresenting-unite-on-trident-our-members-jobs-come-first/


http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/gmb-on-trident-successor-programme



Like the GMB inventing a new verb there, to swannie.

Yes they know there own position. Just like they do when they call strikes etc ( where am sure you support their position all the way !)... but 10,000 jobs depending on Trident ?
Where are all those then ? Care to clarify ? Or will you just leave that to Len McCluskey.. Are these all in Scotland, Faslane ? Where are they all ?

Labour and the Conservatives have been accused of misleading the public by exaggerating the number of jobs that would be lost if the Trident nuclear weapons system were removed from the Clyde. Figures released by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) under freedom of information law reveal that only 520 civilian jobs at Faslane and Coulport near Helensburgh are directly dependent on Trident. This contrasts with the 6000-11,000 jobs that pro-Trident politicians claim are at risk...


...There are 520 civilian jobs at HM Naval Base Clyde, including Coulport and Faslane, that directly rely upon the Trident programme," it said.
Of them, 159 are employed by the MoD and 361 by the MoD's contractors, Babcock Marine and Lockheed Martin. Most of the workers – 310 – live in West Dumbartonshire or Argyll and Bute, with the rest living elsewhere in Scotland (103) or at unknown locations (107)...


..He was backed by Stephen Boyd, assistant secretary at the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which commissioned an expert study along with SCND into the economic consequences of cancelling Trident. "Suggestions that as many as 11,000 jobs would be lost to Scotland if Trident were not replaced are inaccurate," he told the Sunday Herald.
"Our study concluded that the reduction in direct and indirect civilian employment across Scotland would be less than 1800 and that this reduction would not take place until after 2022."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13078740.Labour_and_Tories_under_fire_for_inflating_Trident_job_losses/

These are the MOD's own figures remember ? I suspect the position, from the union's own anti-trident members, will be challenged shortly.. well, as complete nonsense. Keeping Trident and spending billions purely in order to save it as some sort of 'job creation scheme' won't wash either I wouldn't have thought.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes they know there own position. Just like they do when they call strikes etc ( where am sure you support their position all the way !)... but 10,000 jobs depending on Trident ?
Where are all those then ? Care to clarify ? Or will you just leave that to Len McCluskey.. Are these all in Scotland, Faslane ? Where are they all ?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13078740.Labour_and_Tories_under_fire_for_inflating_Trident_job_losses/

These are the MOD's own figures remember ? I suspect the position, from the union's own anti-trident members, will be challenged shortly.. well, as complete nonsense. Keeping Trident and spending billions purely in order to save it as some sort of 'job creation scheme' won't wash either I wouldn't have thought.

As British unions I would expect the GMB and Unite to support their members across the whole of the UK rather than just in Scotland. The GMB piece I link to talks about jobs at 50 sites across Britain.

Why do you think I wouldn't support a strike?