Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

baldelectrician

Generali wrote: »

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.

Law- what's the law about no referendum? (or was it a vow )

Whilst we are on the subject of promises - when are the better faster safer 'close to federalism' powers coming in?


It seems over 500 days since the referendum, still no new powers (that weren't in the pipeline from 2012)


The Edinburgh Agreement set a precedent- if a pro indy majority is elected at a Scottish Parliament election (and there is something in a manifesto relating to an indy ref) then the games on....


The guff about financials does not meet it now- we are always skint yet George Osbourne finds £37 billion down the sofa when he needs it - not to mention spending upwards of £160 billion on Trident 2 (despite Scottish opinion and the Scottish Parliament - including the Labour North Britain branch) voting against it.


And people wonder why indy support has not decreased.

Generali

baldelectrician wrote: »

Law- what's the law about no referendum? (or was it a vow )

The Scottish Government doesn't have the power or the money to call a referendum.

baldelectrician wrote: »

Whilst we are on the subject of promises - when are the better faster safer 'close to federalism' powers coming in?


It seems over 500 days since the referendum, still no new powers (that weren't in the pipeline from 2012)

Given the bad faith that the SNP seem to think is perfectly reasonable to enter any sort of conversation it wouldn't surprise me in the least if any delay is caused wholly by the SNP jerking the Government around.

baldelectrician wrote: »

The Edinburgh Agreement set a precedent- if a pro indy majority is elected at a Scottish Parliament election (and there is something in a manifesto relating to an indy ref) then the games on....

No it didn't. Both sides were quite clear: this was to be a once in a generation or lifetime event. That you want to backtrack on that now you've lost doesn't surprise me in the least given that the SNP seems to do everything in bad faith.

baldelectrician wrote: »

The guff about financials does not meet it now- we are always skint yet George Osbourne finds £37 billion down the sofa when he needs it - not to mention spending upwards of £160 billion on Trident 2 (despite Scottish opinion and the Scottish Parliament - including the Labour North Britain branch) voting against it.

Scotland's biggest export has fallen in price by over 70%. Even without getting into the specifics, how do you think the guff about the financials is looking?

Scotland doesn't get a veto on Trident's replacement. The Scots knew about the replacement of Trident when they voted in the manifesto and so if they did want a veto they could have voted Yes. Only trouble is they didn't, the SNP took a "once in a generation or lifetime" opportunity and blew it.

Better luck next time.;)

skintmacflint

Leanne1812 wrote: »

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.

Not really. For the GE2015 Sturgeon was crystal clear , a vote for SNP did not equal a vote or imply the wish for Independence.

Neither actually does a vote for SNP in Holyrood. Again Sturgeon was very clear in her explanation, a further referendum vote is needed. Person can vote No, which is precisely what a fair size number of SNP voters did in 2014.

And would very likely do again

Sturgeon knows this and why should she be in any rush anyway? At present it looks like she could be FM with absolute power for anything up to the next decade, or for as long as she can keep her noisey Yes supporters onside with her occasional vague assurances of Indy triggers, and inevitability.

Until Westminster agrees to grant a 2nd referendum, many years from now.

Leanne1812

skintmacflint wrote: »

Not really. For the GE2015 Sturgeon was crystal clear , a vote for SNP did not equal a vote or imply the wish for Independence.

Neither actually does a vote for SNP in Holyrood. Again Sturgeon was very clear in her explanation, a further referendum vote is needed. Person can vote No, which is precisely what a fair size number of SNP voters did in 2014.

And would very likely do again

Sturgeon knows this and why should she be in any rush anyway? At present it looks like she could be FM with absolute power for anything up to the next decade, or for as long as she can keep her noisey Yes supporters onside with her occasional vague assurances of Indy triggers, and inevitability.

Until Westminster agrees to grant a 2nd referendum, many years from now.

You're correct that a vote for the SNP in the GE was not a vote for independence. Nor is a vote for the SNP in May. Where I'd disagree though is if the electorate vote for SNP in their droves I believe that will send a signal that people are not wholly opposed to the idea of independence.

I don't think it is going to happen anytime soon. My estimation ( purely a guess) is not before 2021. This will only be the case if the SNP remain as popular & moreso than they are now. As they say a day in politics is a long time so anything can happen between now and then. The EU ref, if it's a leave vote, will be a difficult one to resolve if Scots vote to stay don't you think?

The SNP/Yes still have to make a compelling case too. There's no way another referendum will be considered if it looks likely they'll lose again. If they cannot make the case there will be no indy2.

How do you think it would sit with scots if the SNP feel they have been given a mandate but Westminster refuse to grant another referendum?

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

f

You're correct that a vote for the SNP in the GE was not a vote for independence. Nor is a vote for the SNP in May. Where I'd disagree though is if the electorate vote for SNP in their droves I believe that will send a signal that people are not wholly opposed to the idea of independence.

I don't think it is going to happen anytime soon. My estimation ( purely a guess) is not before 2021. This will only be the case if the SNP remain as popular & moreso than they are now. As they say a day in politics is a long time so anything can happen between now and then. The EU ref, if it's a leave vote, will be a difficult one to resolve if Scots vote to stay don't you think?

The SNP/Yes still have to make a compelling case too. There's no way another referendum will be considered if it looks likely they'll lose again. If they cannot make the case there will be no indy2.

How do you think it would sit with scots if the SNP feel they have been given a mandate but Westminster refuse to grant another referendum?

There is plenty of time between now and 2040 (or whenever the next political generation or lifetime starts) to worry about building a majority of support.

A neverendum wasn't on the cards in 2014 and nothing has changed. The SNP had their chance and blew it.

Life doesn't have many second chances. I had my chance to sleep with ****** and turned her down. You had a chance to get support for independence and were turned down. You don't get to keep re-running the referendum until you get an answer you prefer.

I realise that it's a handy part of the SNP narrative to keep the idea of another referendum alive but it just ain't going to happen.

Mistermeaner

You should show ******** your pole. She might give you another chance

chris_m

Leanne1812 wrote: »

You're correct that a vote for the SNP in the GE was not a vote for independence. Nor is a vote for the SNP in May. Where I'd disagree though is if the electorate vote for SNP in their droves I believe that will send a signal that people are not wholly opposed to the idea of independence.

Not necessarily. As far as I'm aware the SNP is not really a single-issue party, it could simply mean that large numbers of the electorate consider the SNP to be the best option to run the Scottish Parliament, on all issues.

Leanne1812

Generali wrote: »

There is plenty of time between now and 2040 (or whenever the next political generation or lifetime starts) to worry about building a majority of support.

A neverendum wasn't on the cards in 2014 and nothing has changed. The SNP had their chance and blew it.

Life doesn't have many second chances. I had my chance to sleep with ****** and turned her down. You had a chance to get support for independence and were turned down. You don't get to keep re-running the referendum until you get an answer you prefer.

I realise that it's a handy part of the SNP narrative to keep the idea of another referendum alive but it just ain't going to happen.

And just like my post is purely my opinion, the same goes for yours.

You cannot state with any authority or knowledge what the future of the Union will be.

Leanne1812

chris_m wrote: »

Not necessarily. As far as I'm aware the SNP is not really a single-issue party, it could simply mean that large numbers of the electorate consider the SNP to be the best option to run the Scottish Parliament, on all issues.

There is some merit to what you say as obviously if we vote in our droves and return them as a majority gov then were saying we feel they are the best option. What you have to remember their goal is independence and it has to be a factor that will rear its head somewhere down the line.

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

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.

Nice to see you posting again even if I don't agree with you(see below)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Leanne made a much better reply than I could.

Not difficult


So ... Deflection as usual, not able to face up to the difficult questions.

In my potential list of how long the SNP can keep its agreements, the answer was less than "overnight".

No wonder the SNP are not trusted.


"Once in a generation" never stood a chance.

Nicola Sturgeon attacks Scotland powers deal agreed by SNP

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11259179/Nicola-Sturgeon-attacks-Scotland-powers-deal-agreed-by-SNP.html