Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And are now voting in droves for the SNP, since the referendum, in unprecedented numbers. We're going round in circles Hamish. I'm not really sure what point you and Generali are trying to make here, other than to insinuate that Yes voters are of lower intelligence.

Is that what you're saying ?

Well we are perfectly clear that areas that voted Yes are areas that have:

1. Higher than the Scottish average unemployment
2. Lower than the Scottish average educational achievement

So maybe clever, employed Scots that live around under-educated, unemployed Scots want to quit the Union or stupid, unemployed people do.

How did your educational career go out of interest STD?

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Sturgeon is always trying to persuade No voters to her side. As evidenced in her latest TV party political broadcast. Unless you're happy to still be going round in the same circles or in an even worse position in 5 years time. .

Politics never stays the same.

Prior to Salmond recognising an opportunity to create his own urban myth of what the 'Vow' had offered, Sturgeon unfortunately stated she had no clear idea of what new powers if any had been offered in in the Vow. The next day she had joined in with Salmond's embellishment

SNP have shown little but bad faith and political misrepresentation throughout the entire process.

He didn't believe the Vow. Neither did Sturgeon, and neither did 45% of the electorate at the time. Still less believe it now.

Huge difference between a political trap which could result in SNP actually having to put their policy decisions behind their political campaign slogans and a fiscal trap. Not that I'd ever expect you to acknowledge it. Even when you know the difference.

There's a huge difference between what's bad for the SNP, and what's bad for the Scottish in terms of deals. You're too blinded to see that particular difference. Everything is framed in terms of 'what the SNP want'. Try replacing SNP with 'Scottish voters' occasionally.

Jings crivvens and there was me confidently stating 18 months ago Sturgeon's Yes voters would all stick by her at H/R. Now you're suggesting she has some work to do.

Course that was before the small cracks and arguments started appearing in the broad Yes movement. Some of those belonging to the more radical independent parties ( whose members did a huge amount of work for SNP in the less well off Labour heartlands) have started to question giving SNP such a huge majority with no opposition by lending their vote again.

May is an election between political parties competing for votes. Not a referendum. Those 'cracks' appearing, are just completely normal politics during an election campaign.

And questioned whether it is right for SNP to continue on their don't rock the boat ' talk left but walk right way , nor make full use of available and potential new powers to make a difference for another 5 years. All for the 'prize' as you call it, which is still uncertain if and when it could happen.

They won't rock the boat before May. They'd be mad to. There's enough going on over the Scotland Bill, and a possible EU referendum in June to be going along with at the moment.

Swinney is slashing council funding affecting public services those in less well off areas rely and make most use of. Meantime Swinney is happily continuing to fund his universal 'extras' which benefit middle earners most. So far around 2.5 billion out of his DEL fund over the years to support his council tax freeze. Not to mention the increasing cost of the rest of their popular policies.

Meanwhile Sturgeon's new independent poverty Tzsar has stated much the same, and all Sturgeon seems to say is her usual 'there is still work to be done' .

Perhaps if a few of the other parties came up with some actual policies, alternatives and solutions, that would help ? They seem to be very thin on the ground these days. I haven't heard any of them come right out and say they'd start charging tuition fees, unfreeze council tax or start charging for prescriptions again. Only carping that the SNP won't. Be good to hear what they would do for a change. Wouldn't you agree ?

Perhaps you could fill us all in on Conservative or Labour policies on tuition fees ? Council tax or prescription charges ? I for one would be all ears.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Well we are perfectly clear that areas that voted Yes are areas that have:

1. Higher than the Scottish average unemployment
2. Lower than the Scottish average educational achievement

So maybe clever, employed Scots that live around under-educated, unemployed Scots want to quit the Union or stupid, unemployed people do.

How did your educational career go out of interest STD?

Why ? Out of interest, would you like to know that ?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Why ? Out of interest, would you like to know that ?

Oh dear. That bad.

Oh well.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Politics never stays the same.

He didn't believe the Vow. Neither did Sturgeon, and neither did 45% of the electorate at the time. Still less believe it now.

There's a huge difference between what's bad for the SNP, and what's bad for the Scottish in terms of deals. You're too blinded to see that particular difference. Everything is framed in terms of 'what the SNP want'. Try replacing SNP with 'Scottish voters' occasionally.

It is true that politics change, are you sitting comfortably?

Still that Vow disparagement - but always the absence on what is it in the Vow which has not been met. But you are right in saying that everything is framed by what the SNP want ; look to your own spin.

45% believed the Vow? So by that logic 55% did. Not that either are true, many would not have noticed the Vow and to many others it would have been but an embellishment on their previous voting decision.

Yes there is a huge difference between what's bad for the SNP and bad for the Scottish. It's you that is too blinded to see the difference.

Replacing the SNP! What a good idea!

Generali

.string. wrote: »

It is true that politics change, are you sitting comfortably?

Still that Vow disparagement - but always the absence on what is it in the Vow which has not been met. But you are right in saying that everything is framed by what the SNP want ; look to your own spin.

45% believed the Vow? So by that logic 55% did. Not that either are true, many would not have noticed the Vow and to many others it would have been but an embellishment on their previous voting decision.

Yes there is a huge difference between what's bad for the SNP and bad for the Scottish. It's you that is too blinded to see the difference.

Replacing the SNP! What a good idea!

STD has been suckered in to believing, as with so many nationalists, that what's good for Scotland is good for the SNP and vice versa.

It's what leads to internment camps and so on in post-revolutionary countries.

It's an easy link used to draw in the simple minded.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

STD has been suckered in to believing, as with so many nationalists, that what's good for Scotland is good for the SNP and vice versa.
...

The real STD has long since been replaced by a computer program which provides all the responses here.

It's quite good, but it does have. a. bug. in. that. it. uses. too. much. punctuation!...

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

The real STD has long since been replaced by a computer program which provides all the responses here.

It's quite good, but it does have. a. bug. in. that. it. uses. too. much. punctuation!...

I'd, noticed that it love's an, extra few apostrophe's and, comma's.

.string.

Generali wrote: »

I'd, noticed that it love's an, extra few apostrophe's and, comma's.

Throw in a few in.its and you're there!

Generali

.string. wrote: »

Throw in a few in.its and you're there!

I thought I was the only one that used the word innit, innit.

It's a non-affected accent that slips out in typing now and again. No idea how to stop it me old china.

Knees up muvva brown, 'ave a banana