Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nothing.

https://www.change.org/p/the-uk-government-allow-the-north-of-england-to-secede-from-the-uk-and-join-scotland

But seriously. Scotland and England have parliaments. Yorkshire and Cumbria don't. I guess it's as simple as that.

Started by Stu Dent no less!

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Yet it seemed to work out rather well for SNP in 2011 Holyrood Elections.

SNP weren't backward in asking people to lend them their vote in 2015 either. And I'm well aware of the difference between FPTP and our weighted list votes, before you get into Tasmina-any-party-will-do lecture mode on the difference.

FPTP is different to D'Hondt/Additional member system. Constituency votes are one thing.. the way the List votes are worked out are quite another.

If you're well aware of that, then you'll know that trying to divvy up list votes not only risks the SNP majority.. it risks letting lots of unionist MSP's 'slip through' off the back of it. And we wouldn't want that now would we...

My goodness, if the Green's hadn't insisted on standing a candidate in Dumfriesshire.. David Mundell wouldn't be an MP now, and Scotland would be a completely Tory free zone. What a missed opportunity that was ! :eek: ( <--- am winding you up a little, don't take that seriously ).

But, I don't think Mundell's election has fully faded from people's minds yet, re voting systems. I'm not that keen on Tasmina myself tbh. But she was voted in just like anyone else and seems to be doing a good job. So that's that.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Started by Stu Dent no less!

Lol, I hadn't noticed that.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Would you care to drag up a few more 300 year old Treaties and insist they say exactly as they were forever more ?

If that even were to be true, then why did the 2014 referendum go ahead ? I think it was pretty obvious to all, that it was a vote on dissolving that Treaty. Or did we all imagine it ? You're tying yourself up in knots here a little bit string. Hmmmm... <--- just realised that was a bit of an unintended pun. Sorry.

In that case, Shakey, for how long would the SNP suggest that Scotland should honour an agreement?

Not at all? Overnight? A day? Month? Year?

Would it honour it for a generation? In which case, how long is a generation?

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

In that case, Shakey, for how long would the SNP suggest that Scotland should honour an agreement?

Not at all? Overnight? A day? Month? Year?

Would it honour it for a generation? In which case, how long is a generation?

I don't think anyone, least of all the SNP, had any inkling of what would happen to their party post referendum.

Huge surge in membership, unprecedented gains in the GE & very likely more gains in the Scottish elections in May.

If you were the leader of the SNP and people voted for you knowing full well what your key policy is what would you do?

That's really the question you need to ponder.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

So judging by the number of CyberNats trying to disparage the SNP led Scottish Government GERS figures in advance of their release, I suspect they're going to be not just bad, but very bad indeed, for the Indy case....

Leanne1812

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So judging by the number of CyberNats trying to disparage the SNP led Scottish Government GERS figures in advance of their release, I suspect they're going to be not just bad, but very bad indeed, for the Indy case....

I take it you've been following Kevin's tweets tonight.

I personally haven't seen evidence of this yet even though I've scrolled through Twitter and follow many pro Indy groups/people.

He's becoming quite the celebrity and loving it too.

Yes did not make the case for independence last time. If they can't do it next time ( whenever that may be) they'll lose again so I'm unsure why pro unionists are getting het up.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So judging by the number of CyberNats trying to disparage the SNP led Scottish Government GERS figures in advance of their release, I suspect they're going to be not just bad, but very bad indeed, for the Indy case....

Wishful thinking. GERS has been 'very bad for the indy cause' since 2011. Has made little difference to indy support. Most of the lowest oil price lows, won't be in this year's one. And Kevin Hague hasn't got advance knowledge of them either.

And yes, there is indeed an element of ' is that right ?..moving on..' these days to GERS. They've been proclaiming that they're bad, for far too long for anyone to take much notice. I daresay you'll be breaking your legs as usual to post them however.

Far bigger in the 'indy cause/Holyrood elections' stakes will be the Fiscal framework that needs to be agreed before 12th Feb, so that Scotland get's her 'further powers/vow/Smith commission promises' in 2017. That isn't looking hopeful at the moment...

THE prospect of the UK and Scottish governments securing a deal by mid-February to implement new powers for Holyrood looks in jeopardy. Deputy First Minister John Swinney said following Treasury talks there is “still a significant distance to be travelled” with time running out.
While he said a “Valentine’s Day deal” remained possible, the Deputy First Minister noted: “A lot of ground has been covered but there is still a lot of remaining significant issues to be resolved.”...

...“I will only agree a fiscal framework that is consistent with the Smith Commission report and protects the public interests of Scotland,” declared the DFM.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14222527.Fiscal_framework__mid_Feb_deal_in_jeopardy_as_Swinney_admits_still_a_long_way_to_go_before_agreement_reached/

Quite right too. Why would he do otherwise ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

In that case, Shakey, for how long would the SNP suggest that Scotland should honour an agreement?

Not at all? Overnight? A day? Month? Year?

Would it honour it for a generation? In which case, how long is a generation?

Leanne made a much better reply than I could. So I'll just leave this here by Alex Massie ( unionist ) to compliment it.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Leanne made a much better reply than I could. So I'll just leave this here by Alex Massie ( unionist ) to compliment it.

Actually what is upsetting to many Unionists is the stunning bad faith that the SNP and SNP's supporters entered into the referendum. It was a once in a generation or lifetime event (to paraphrase).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11095210/Alex-Salmond-This-is-a-once-in-a-generation-opportunity-for-Scotland.html

This is Mr Salmond saying so.

Now it turns out that the SNP want one if the UK votes for a Brexit, or if the Tories win the General Election in 2020 or, presumably, if any party wins a majority of seats in Westminster without also carrying a majority in Scotland.

The solution to all this is to consider calling an illegal referendum (not sure how this would be paid for as the cost of the last referendum was £15,800,000 and given the legal attacks that would flow as soon as the referendum was called you can bet it would cost more).

That's the reason this Unionist is upset by the behaviour of the SNP and their supporters. We have been lied to by the SNP and supporters of independence seem hell bent on breaking the law to force the breakup of the UK.

As far as I'm concerned, you had your referendum and you lost. As an aside, I heartly hope that you also lose the next one in 2040-50 and firmly believe that you will.