Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

foxtrotoscar_2

Scotland would be well screwed if they'd voted YES...none of the YES voters will admit that.!

Shakethedisease

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

Scotland has been protected from the oil price fall because they are part of the UK.

Did you miss the oil price references in previous posts ? Strange.. folks like you usually can't see past them when Scotland or the SNP occupy the same sentence. Or are we back to oil prices being a 'global' OR a 'Scottish' thing... never affect the UK of course.

George Osborne is warning that 2016 could mark “the beginning of the decline” for Britain unless the country sticks to tough economic reforms, citing the Chinese slowdown and plummeting oil prices among “a dangerous cocktail of new threats”.

foxtrotoscar_2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You didn't answer exactly the same question put to you my friend. You're asking about a hypothetical independent Scotland with an oil price decline that has been evident for the last 18 months. And how it will be dealt with 'at some point in the future' by an unknown govt 'at some point in the future' when oil prices are unknown at that 'some point in the future'.

I wouldn't be credible if I'd actually attempted an answer. However, at least it's now already factored in 'at some point in the future'. The Kevin Hague's of the blogosphere ( Hamish knows him, if you don't ).. are simply intent on constantly reliving 2014 forever.

How will Osborne deal with a 'dangerous cocktail of risks' which he himself is warning of. And him actually being in charge with the real powers ? How will he deal with it if there's another crisis like in 2007/8 ?

Answer that, and you might have some credibility.

Can you spell a very simple five letter word MAYBE ..not MABYE? Until you can do so you may have some REAL credibility perhaps? I think it's has been flagged up before? If it has why do you still continue?

Shakethedisease

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

Scotland would be well screwed if they'd voted YES...none of the YES voters will admit that.!

We didn't though.. time to wake up now. It's not 2014 any more. There may be another referendum in the future. But there will be little regarding oil prices in any Yes campaign. Low prices will be seen as normal. Nor will any future Yes voters.. ( new ones since the last ref, the previous Yes vote hasn't been swayed ) be voting on how high or low they are.

You'll have to come up with something else. And the prospect of Osborne or Johnson as PM from 2020/2030 won't exactly be winning Scots over in droves either luv.

Shakethedisease

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

Can you spell a very simple five letter word MAYBE ..not MABYE? Until you can do so you may have some REAL credibility perhaps? I think it's has been flagged up before? If it has why do you still continue?

Because it's late, and I'm typing very quickly in between doing other things online ( which also involve a lot of typing ). And if my spelling is all you've got in response to any of my posts in terms of the content. Then it's not ma crodibility thut's in qestion to be hunest.

Mistermeaner

Why does scotland need independence to diversify?

Why aren't the entrepreneurs of Scotland starting companies doing other stuff and seeking investment from the people of Scotland?

Governments don't generally make good innovators, partly because it's not their job, also because politicians are short term in outlook and have to buy votes.

What innovative ideas do the snp have that w e Westminster is preventing them from carrying out?

Also isn't Scotland one of the most reliant area s of the UK on public sector employment- thats not going to help.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland would be better off self-governing. Nothing to do with the English. Just like any other country does. If there's an over dependence on oil, then it's time to move away from it. Sneering and laughter over the oil price drops aren't helping anyone. The Scottish Govt has no power to directly intervene.

And no one in England actually want Scottish MP's in Westminster anymore anyway do they ? Which is why they'll always vote en masse in order to keep the Labour party out. If they even look like they might exchange a cheery 'good morning' in the HOC it'll be headline news. Conversely, most of those Scottish MP's dream of the day they leave.

It's a self-perpetuating cycle Clapton. The more English voters vote Conservative, so that Labour cannot get into power if there's any hint of SNP 'deals'.. the more the SNP/independence gain support because Westminster/Labour don't seem to want the MP's Scots vote to put there anyway. And most Scots voters ( SNP + Labour ) won't put up with a Conservative govt in charge forever. Why would they ? They don't vote for them.

And so it continues... but it's not a 'normal' state of affairs. A 'nation without statehood'.

http://derekbateman.co.uk/2016/01/21/its-normal-2/

There are dozens of small goups of people of 5 million who are not self governing and all the better for it.
Most of those don't have a huge chip on their shoulder and most don't hate their near (very generous) neighbours).
There is not the slightest difference between the aspirations, value systems, education etc of the peoples of the UK except the hatred from certain sections of Scotland - as you know I support iscotland because I believe it's the only way that the scots will ever grow out of their dependency and hate culture.
You use 'Tory' like some use kaffur : still talk about 'poll tax' the way the irish refer to Dogheda ; you'ld rather hate than love.
Always obsessing over meaningless slights and minor variation in the polls : go start some new businesses, use the money (very generous) that you have to improve scotland rather than squander it 'proving ' you are different from the vile Tories.
No wonder the best and brightest scots are south of the boarder where they can blossom 'doing' real life and aren't stifled in the mind numbing national socialism of their home 'nation'.

The price of oil has nothing to do with the vile English or the Tories: you are massively protected by the Barnett formula and so the impact on scotland is trivial because of the ever generous english.

Anyway we can both look forward to May can't we.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

foxtrotoscar wrote:

I'll ask you a simple question.
Given the fall in oil revenue, where is the money going to come from to balance the SNP books? This is not an unreasonable question surely?[/ quote]

There's no simple answer.

The SNP don't have 'books' as they don't have full economic powers. The figures that come from 'reports' are rarely made in comparison to the UK as a whole ( there must be a reason for that I suppose right ? ). Concentrating solely on the downsides of, well, pretty much everything. Most over the last five years have been issued with an obvious 'slant' towards keeping Scotland in the UK. And have been for decades before that.

Personally ? I don't believe there will ever be any sort of positive report ever released that will show Scotland as better off without the union... for the most obvious reasoning.. that if continuous reports show Scotland better off outside the union. Then we'll go, quick smart.

The powers that the SNP do have ? They've balanced things out well while keeping things on a pretty even keel. And have far out performed any previous Scottish govt in pretty much all areas. There has never been a Conservative administration in Holyrood because politically, their policies are seen as unattractive to most Scots voters.

Why don't you ask George Osborne what he'll do if there's another house price bubble pop or similar? Because that's exactly what you are in effect, asking every person who would like independence in Scotland to answer re oil.... but without a single solitary real economic power to answer with ?

What an extraordinary answer. In fact a pathetic answer.

You/the SNP simply can't give an answer to a vital question upon which hangs the whole credibility of SNP claims for a viable separated Scotland. Instead you resort to implying that available data is based on deciept intended to harm Scotland and repeat the unsubstantiated claim that a rosy future awaits Natland if only you had some magic powers.

Have the courage to put out your stall, show what you base you claims on and what you would do.

Your credibility remains at zilch.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

There are dozens of small goups of people of 5 million who are not self governing and all the better for it.
Most of those don't have a huge chip on their shoulder and most don't hate their near (very generous) neighbours).
There is not the slightest difference between the aspirations, value systems, education etc of the peoples of the UK except the hatred from certain sections of Scotland - as you know I support iscotland because I believe it's the only way that the scots will ever grow out of their dependency and hate culture.

However, independence IS a view which if expressed democratically in the future will mean an independent Scotland. There's no hate there. Or chips from anyone I know.

You use 'Tory' like some use kaffur : still talk about 'poll tax' the way the irish refer to Dogheda ; you'ld rather hate than love.
Always obsessing over meaningless slights and minor variation in the polls : go start some new businesses, use the money (very generous) that you have to improve scotland rather than squander it 'proving ' you are different from the vile Tories.

Don't go by the polls by all means. Up to you. And historically, Scots don't vote for the Conservative party en masse. It's simply a fact. Ignore that also if you wish. But both play a part in current events and the current debate. I'd rather stay informed and up to date myself.

The price of oil has nothing to do with the vile English or the Tories: you are massively protected by the Barnett formula and so the impact on scotland is trivial because of the ever generous english.

Anyway we can both look forward to May can't we.

Yes we can. Then June 23rd if Cameron calls his EU ref ( which won't give the Leave side time to campaign ).

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What an extraordinary answer. In fact a pathetic answer.

You/the SNP simply can't give an answer to a vital question upon which hangs the whole credibility of SNP claims for a viable separated Scotland. Instead you resort to implying that available data is based on deciept intended to harm Scotland and repeat the unsubstantiated claim that a rosy future awaits Natland if only you had some magic powers.

It's a simple and logical answer. Based on historical 'reports' that have gone missing or been buried. As well as historical events such as maritime borders being shifted a few 100 miles north on on the eve of Devolution referenda.

Logically, and taking all tribalism, and politics out of it. Should reports start surfacing of how well Scotland could/would do outside of the Union... Then there would be no logical reason for Scotland to stay in the Union. It really is that simple.

We've report after report after report detailing how badly Scotland would 'fare' as an independent Scotland, following UK policies for the next 20 years. With all the very worst bits cherry picked and spun into headline, after headline after headline.

Some of them may be true. Many are simply speculation and long range predictions based on estimates. An independent Scotland wouldn't be following UK policies. And most economists argue over what's happening next week, and consistently fail to 'predict' global crashes and recessions until they happen.

Have the courage to put out your stall, show what you base you claims on and what you would do.

I have absolutely no idea what you are twittering on about now.

Your credibility remains at zilch.

But still you feel the need to quote and reply anyway. Have the courage of your convictions string and simply put me on ignore if you no longer wish to see or reply to posts of mine. I really won't mind at all. But you won't. You enjoy the banter too much as well as shoe horning in 'Natland' every 2 sentences.

There's an EU wargames session going on on Twitter and online. Doing a hypothetical Brexit with various European politicians. It's been very interesting. I think Malcom Rifkind and Norman Lamont ( ?) are pitching for the Brits.

Netherlands suggests EU could try to peel Scotland off from rest of UK post-Brexit #EUWargames

Netherlands troll Britain in mock post-Brexit discussions by saying they would welcome Scotland back in to EU #euwargames