Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

I can see how the SNP might have a problem.

The Scottish economy clearly needs to become more robust to survive and even thrive in an independent world.

But then, any improvements in the economy will be 'claimed' by Westminster , good PR.

How do you get the Scottish economy to grow at something like 2% faster than rUK, so that they can afford to cover any losses in subsidy? Wouldn't rUK just copy what the Scots do?

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

I can see how the SNP might have a problem.

The Scottish economy clearly needs to become more robust to survive and even thrive in an independent world.

But then, any improvements in the economy will be 'claimed' by Westminster , good PR.

How do you get the Scottish economy to grow at something like 2% faster than rUK, so that they can afford to cover any losses in subsidy? Wouldn't rUK just copy what the Scots do?

Ah you miss the point. The point (apparently) is that every possible range of actions inevitably leads to Scottish independence.

As we all know the idea that Scotland would grow by 2 percentage points more than England upon independence is beyond risible. Even Scotland growing 0.5% faster than England (which ain't gonna happen) would require 45 years IIRC for Scotland to make good the subsidy that she gets from London.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Ah you miss the point. The point (apparently) is that every possible range of actions inevitably leads to Scottish independence.

As we all know the idea that Scotland would grow by 2 percentage points more than England upon independence is beyond risible. Even Scotland growing 0.5% faster than England (which ain't gonna happen) would require 45 years IIRC for Scotland to make good the subsidy that she gets from London.

There isn't any harm in trying though, IMO.

I think too much energy is wasted politicking between the SNP and the government in Westminster.

I suppose it provides a good living...for the politicians. (Not many others though)

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Oh dear. That bad.

Oh well.

Oh ? Are we back to discussing me again instead of the topic ? It's a useful tactic in debate when one has shown oneself up, to deflect the topic on to the 'man' not the ball. You do it frequently.

I have 6 O' grades ( as they were in 1987 ).., English, Maths, Biology, Chemistry, History, Modern Studies, and an A* Sociology GCSE ( which I had to pay to take, as it was an English exam ). 4 Highers, English, Biology, Modern Studies and History. And an A level in Sociology.. which I had to take over a year, rather than 2.

I qualified as a midwife in 1995 as a single mother of two. I had my first child aged 17 in between O grades and Highers.

I did ok. But it's not relevant to this topic. You're deflecting the topic onto me. And not for the first time either.

Shakethedisease

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.

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.

And I'm accused of hyperbole. :rotfl:

Shakethedisease

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!...

No, I'm not a computer. And how may punctuation marks I provide isn't particularly relevant. Was it the 'breathless audience' post that stung a bit ?!!!!!.......

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Ah you miss the point. The point (apparently) is that every possible range of actions inevitably leads to Scottish independence.

That's right. Apart from a Labour revival.

As we all know the idea that Scotland would grow by 2 percentage points more than England upon independence is beyond risible. Even Scotland growing 0.5% faster than England (which ain't gonna happen) would require 45 years IIRC for Scotland to make good the subsidy that she gets from London.

We'll be fine. It won't be for you to worry about anyway.

SCOTLAND is too poor for independence, but we are embarrassingly rich in energy resources. We have all that oil that’s not worth much, but we also have coal, shale oil and gas resources that we’re not using because they’d damage the environment. We are so rich in energy resources we can do that. We’ve got hydroelectric, we’ve got Europe’s greatest potential for wind power and for tidal energy. Scotland is the Duracell bunny of Europe.

Scotland is virtually self-sufficient in food. We have a relatively small population living in a rich and fertile country where population density is lower than average for the EU. There’s plenty of room here: this is not an overcrowded land. And even better, we’ve got an abundance of water that falls out the sky in such quantities that the concept of metering domestic water use is not even on the radar. That’s how rich we are.

Our advantages don’t end there. We are in a geopolitically quiet and stable part of the globe. No one wants to invade us. Scotland has no territorial claims. There are no parts of the world full of people who claim to be ethnic Scots seeking reunion with the mitherland. We are surrounded by rich and prosperous neighbours, yet for some reason in the douce wee avenue of north-west Europe with its well cared-for houses, Scotland has broken windaes, knackered gutters and a rusty Ford Escort on bricks in the drive. Unionists never bother to explain why Scotland is uniquely impoverished among the countries of north-west Europe.

We have four of the best universities in the world, a highly-educated English-speaking workforce, a proven record of invention and innovation. We have impeccable democratic credentials. So much so that we were able to conduct an independence referendum where the worst that happened was that someone threw an egg at Jim Murphy. The violence came from embittered Unionists after they’d won. We might complain about corruption in public office, but it’s low-level stuff compared to what happens elsewhere. Scotland is not a kleptocracy like some of the former Soviet states. If you wanted a recipe for a prosperous, stable independent state, it would be Scotland. Yet allegedly we can’t afford it.

So the question is, if Scotland is too poor to become independent, if we’d have to slash public spending to the bone, whose fault is that then, who has had their paws on the levers of macroeconomic control these past 300 years? Hint: it’s not Holyrood. And yet the people who tell us that Scotland can’t afford independence are the very same people who want us to remain under the control of the parliament that has impoverished us. The economic argument against independence is a logic fail.

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/wee-ginger-dug-oil-is-not-the-only-wealth-to-build-a-new-scotland-on.12894

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So ? What's he got to do with your post ? Do you need him holding you hand for some reason.

Associating Yes voters with low intelligence as Mistermeaner ( Yes voters are thick )..did. You agreed using unemployment levels as 'proof'.

The biggest demographic in Yes voting was probably age related. As it is now with SNP support. But there are a vast number of factors in play. To take just one, and then apply it wholesale as 'bludgers and grafters' is mind numbingly thick in itself.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes voters ARE overwhelmingly SNP voters. It's why their base support is so strong in elections, staying static at over 45%.

As for the rest of your post. I think you've made your point very clear already.

Lots of ad hominem posting in there. Luckily I am quite thick skinned so this sort of gratuitous abuse runs from my back.

Still I am sure that you will be vindicated. Every action leads to Sottish independence, right?

In the meantime I'm sure that Tottenham's narrow victory over the mighty U's will cheer you up later this weekend as you await the ultimate victory that is apparently yours.

Shakethedisease

I forgot to post this too. For balance. I think maybe there are some problems closer to home with teens not doing so well in exams.

3 hours ago

English teenagers 'are most illiterate in the developed world', report reveals

English teenagers ranked bottom of 23-strong table for literacy

English teenagers are among some of the least educated in the developed world, a report reveals.
Young people aged between 16 and 19 have been found to possess only a “basic” grasp of maths and English, with nine million people of working age having low literacy or numeracy skills.


The report, conducted by the OECD (the Operation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) found that out of 23 developed nations, English teens had the lowest literacy rates and the second to lowest numeracy rates.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/english-teenagers-are-the-most-illiterate-in-the-developed-world-report-reveals-a6841166.html

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I forgot to post this too. For balance. I think maybe there are some problems closer to home with teens not doing so well in exams.

3 hours agohttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/english-teenagers-are-the-most-illiterate-in-the-developed-world-report-reveals-a6841166.html

Well those little skallywags will be on topic if the English ever decide that they fancy a vote to quit the union but that seems quite a way off right now. As usual you try to deflect anything negative with an off topic poll. Hey ho.