Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

We love him up here, and his writing style. Very down to earth and easy to read. Very different from the usual commentators more formal style in newspapers. He says it the way a lot of us think it since he's very familiar with Scottish politics at a grassroots level. His blog has been a real breath of fresh air over the last few years. As has his journey. The death of his partner just before the referendum had us all in tears. Wonderful writing.

It seems stereotypical on steroids, bar room stuff after a few beers.

I could pick out bits to explain further, but it's really up to Scots to decide if it has merit. That's why I asked you.

Cringe!

There I've cringed for Scotland.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I didn't compare at all.

I said you had been replaced. The posting pattern was so predictable it could easily be automated.

There is room here for a bit of forum jousting. After all, what is discussed here is not going to affect the independence outcome one bit.

However, it seems there's only room for 'forum jousting' when it comes to some posters, but not for others. Well, of course.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I promise Shakey that when you publish some graphs and figures showing a plan for Scotland to grow its income base by a few billions that I will read it with just as much interest

No. I don't actually think you will.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

It seems stereotypical on steroids, bar room stuff after a few beers.

I could pick out bits to explain further, but it's really up to Scots to decide if it has merit. That's why I asked you.

Cringe!

There I've cringed for Scotland.

Feel free. We've all gotten to know Paul from his blog over the last few years. He's very well liked. And his recent books are selling well.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Thick or intransigent ?

In a PLC boardroom you'll find a complete mix of individuals. Holding a broad range of views , beliefs, religions and politics. Akin to 15 heavy weight boxers all in the ring together at the same time. Trading blows. After the fight is over they'll move on.

Politicians get stuck in ruts. Make ill judged and ill informed comments. That's why life expectancy in the career is short for many.

Those that survive come with life experiences that enable them to adjust and adapt to the changing world.

I'd go for intransigent. One day soon to be forgotten......

Political views aren't generally described with any degree of respect, simply as one being 'thick' or intransigent.

My own views as far as SNP/Independence support represent the average/normal/ordinary/everday/run of the mill as far as Scottish political stances go at the moment for a large proportion of the electorate.

I doubt any of it will be forgotten soon to be honest. I'd go for average in the boardroom. 5 out of 10 in a show of hands.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's on topic. You produced some figures based on Highers in Scotland in order to assert that those that did badly were dumb (and/or) voted Yes as they knew no better. But imo it was without context. I simply provided the readers of this thread with a wider picture. Based on a recent ( today ) OECD report.

Here's some more.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-06-05/scotland-most-well-educated-country-in-europe/

That merely explains why No! won the day.

My point is not that Scots are stupid it's that areas that voted Yes! seem to be poorer and less educated than average.

I'd be disappointed if you didn't try to twist those words into something that I neither said nor meant.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

That merely explains why No! won the day.

My point is not that Scots are stupid it's that areas that voted Yes! seem to be poorer and less educated than average.

I'd be disappointed if you didn't try to twist those words into something that I neither said nor meant.

It doesn't show the full picture. Those from lower socio-economic groups were more likely to vote Yes. However, women were more likely to vote No, as were those in older age groups. Scottish born were more likely to vote Yes, those residing in Scotland from other areas of the UK, the EU and elsewhere, No.

There's absolutely no spin needed to conclude that it wasn't bludger's v's grafters that won the referendum. Nor anything to do with anyone being thick.

The biggest study yet of how Scotland made its historic decision on September 18 has found that the votes of people born outside Scotland were crucial to the result.

While 52.7 per cent of native-born Scots voted Yes, a massive 72.1 per cent of voters from England, Wales or Northern Ireland backed the Union.
There were more than 420,000 Britons from elsewhere in the UK living in Scotland when the last census was taken.
And if they cast their ballots in line with the findings of the Edinburgh University study, more than 300,000 of them will have voted No.

That’s a significant number in a contest that ended with 2,001,926 votes for No and 1,617,989 for Yes.

Voters born outside the UK also rejected independence, with 57.1 per cent voting No.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-figures-revealed-majority-5408163#YQPeQi3BzoHJq6jv.97

Quite rightly. Nothing was ever made of the above. But it was just as big factor as any, as well as social groupings in any breakdown of how people voted. Or how 'No won the day'.
* Note this was a Daily Record article. Not a Wings or any pro-indy site.

Now, can we stop reliving Sept 2014 yet again ?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Now, can we stop reliving Sept 2014 yet again ?

Sorry* to riff on your pain.

It seems to me that the referendum was the single most important event in the history of Scottish independence in the last century so forgive me for mentioning it now and again. Just as the oil price is the single most important metric impacting both the Scottish economy and the finances of a potential independent Scottish Government.

Sorry* if you don't like those things but it's kinda too bad really. For all your bluster about the popularity of the SNP and the eagerness of the Scottish population to embrace an independence that seems to be neither sought nor offered at present, the finances of a putative Scottish state look horrible and the Scottish people, when given the chance, rejected independence wholeheartedly.



*I'm not sorry.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

[/
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.

Very typical blood and soil Nat response to imply only SNP/Yes voters have Scotland's best interests at heart. Very self indulgent. Contradicted by the fact you and the rest of the Nats are content to sacrifice the living standards of a couple of generations. In fact pay any price it takes including the risk of civil unrest, in pursuit of your 'constitutional aim'. Because it's worth it in your opinion.

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.

Yet you and the rest of 2votesSNP supporters assert a simple SNP majority at H/R isn't enough, SNP need to be given a huge majority in May. In the false premise of demanding a chance at a 2nd referendum.

You have also asserted only SNP can be the vehicle to independence. Not to mention SNP don't need the distraction/risk of radical smaller parties being elected to H/R to question their authority/policies policies in case it rocks the Indy boat. Certainly doesn't seem as clear cut nor simple as what you just stated above.

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 ?

As we will hear in due course when the manifesto's come out. Dare say the other parties are unwilling to disclose too soon, considering SNP's wee habit of simply copying most of them.

Not that it really matters to fervent Nats stance anyway. As you've previously stated on here, silly wee things like that need to wait until after Independence.Whereupon all will just simply be sorted.

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.

No you wouldn't.

skintmacflint

Talking of oil costs, because we forgot to amend our standing order payment for central heating oil, have accrued a £1300 credit with our supplier over past 14 months.

Whereas costs for a full tank were around £700+ and rising in 2014, last tank fill was around £280. Huge difference.