Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There's a lot of people, and economists, don't agree with you.

50% of people have an IQ of less than 100....

So the people part doesn't surprise me.

As for economists, before the price of oil plunged, there were a handful who thought Scotland might, with enough cuts and tax rises, a financial tailwind, and a generous settlement from rUK, just about be able to survive.

I don't know of any today who believe the oil price crash doesn't change everything for Scotland.

Show me an economist who believes Scotland could fund a 15% of GDP deficit and I'll show you a fool.

Cameron will get in if England votes for him, not if Scotland doesn't.

The party with the most MPs will form the next government.

The only way to guarantee that is the Conservatives is if enough people vote SNP and cost Labour 30-50 seats.

A lot of those jobs are crappy ones. .

And a lot of them aren't, what's your point?

Leanne1812

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Because you separatists damn near drove Scotland off a cliff.

And that should never be forgotten.

Had you succeeded in conning just a few percent more people to vote yes we'd be heading for economic catastrophe and social collapse now, and every single one of you should be reflecting deeply on how close we were to disaster.

Seriously, you remind me of a toddler whose parents grab him just before running out in front of a train, only for him to giggle hysterically.




If the SNP send a large contingent to Westminster then the answer is Cameron.



The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.

More jobs have been created in Scotland in the last few years of Tory led government than have been in the socialist and 15 times bigger France during that time.

Goodness me, I've irked you somewhat haven't i?

Us "separatists", quite a while since I've been called that. It's over, done with, remember?........

I've moved on, accepted that Scotland is a part of the UK. Time for you too. ;-)

Is it troubling you that not everyone agrees with your take on Scotland and her future in the Union?

Will I just shut up and eat my cereal?

( couldn't resist, sorry )

Unemployment stats may look good but what kind of jobs are they? Are they desirable jobs or jobs that desperate people have no option but to take?

You carry on though, it's quite clear you like the way things are. Keep the masses down. We can't have too many with a decent quality of living. Life would be unbearable for the Jones's then.

Leanne1812

And another thing.

In your opinion, as you cannot state with certainty unless secretly you are the CEO of Wetherspoon's, if business were taxed more would they leave the country or accept less profit as opposed to no profit?

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

50% of people have an IQ of less than 100....

So the people part doesn't surprise me.

As for economists, before the price of oil plunged, there were a handful who thought Scotland might, with enough cuts and tax rises, a financial tailwind, and a generous settlement from rUK, just about be able to survive.

I don't know of any today who believe the oil price crash doesn't change everything for Scotland.

Well if prices go back up again, I suppose it'll just change everything back then won't it.

Show me an economist who believes Scotland could fund a 15% of GDP deficit and I'll show you a fool.

You were saying all this before the oil price fell too.

The party with the most MPs will form the next government.

The only way to guarantee that is the Conservatives is if enough people vote SNP and cost Labour 30-50 seats.

Right, so if Tories get 290 seats, and Labour get 285 seats.. and the SNP get 41.. How does that square with the 'party with the most MP's' thing ? It's the party that's able to form a commons majority that will gain power. The Tories are going to find that quite difficult ( current polls of course ).. even with the most MP's.

re Jobs. Even with all these marvellous job and employment numbers, tax take isn't what it should be. In other words, Tories are doing the socialist thing, and taking other people's money and laying it out on tax credits and housing benefits in order to 'create' loads of low paid work. Because otherwise, people wouldn't be able to take these low paid jobs.. as it wouldn't be enough to keep themselves or their families.

Like I said a balance to be had. Number of jobs + tax take - tax credits and housing benefits etc = Tories and welfare bill sky high... but lots of boasting about lots of jobs. How's that housing benefits bill coming along these days ?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

He wasn't debating with me over tax take if you care to look back. Don't be so quick to jump.. Hamish and I have locked horns over this sort of thing many a time for the last few years. We'll never agree, so I just don't bother.

However, the Osborne article today over tax take was relevant to what himself and DavidF were debating, so I posted it for interest.

Actually the remark to which you responded was about tax.

But you have a point, maybe a different one in that you were not explicitly defending DavidF's remarks which were the previous origin of Hamish's remarks, so I should have written
"To give your the argument some credibility of course" instead of "To give your argument some credibility of course". I will change the original post.

So If I have falsely accused you of agreeing with DavidF's remarks I apologise.

On the announcement today, Osborne's announcement was known to be in the pipeline since last year. I had been surprised that it was not mentioned and was about to post on that when I caught up with your post having just caught up with previous posts.

Cheers

.string.

@Leanne - You wrote - "I've moved on, accepted that Scotland is a part of the UK. Time for you too. ;-" I wish that was universally the case and credit to you if that is your opinion.

That is true of most people I think who were on the No side, including those of us who are wickedly non Scottish. But the trouble is that it is very clear that the SNP Scottish Government is still fighting for Independence in every thing they do, regardless of how they wrap it up. No-one has the slightest doubt of that and therefore that particular battle is still on.

The SNP is not trusted for good reason. Many of the economic advantages claimed for an independent Scotland were invalid and in fact what was termed "Project Fear" consisted very largely of dire warnings of things which would have befallen Scotland. I could mention them but that would simply reopen things for deflection and repeat old arguments.

From my viewpoint the Scots were being led in the Indy direction by false hopes which would have left them in a very bad situation economically.

It seems, however, that few lessons of that period and the way the economics were shaping up then and since have been learnt (or acknowledged) by the SNP and still the same stuff gets trotted out. At a certain point repeating that stuff when it's been shown to be wrong becomes a lie, and that's something I particularly do not like, the misleading of Scots.

Hence the mistrust of SNP motives.

Then on top of that the talk about Devo Max (whatever that means) or FFA, both of which are incompatible with Union (for reasons I've explained before) are clearly a cynical tactic to continue an us-verses-them scenario leading to strife and a few more indy votes next time around.

The question has been asked - "Well what do you expect the SNP to do, change it's policy which it has held over the last umpteen years?". Well, actually, the answer is yes - give it a rest, the same as your post was arguing. Lets try to improve things and see how we get on, not continue with the Westminster bashing stuff and the tactic of demanding stridently for the impossible.

So I'd be quite happy to leave all this behind but cannot because of the SNP's attitude. But unfortunately I don't think they can reverse their directiio now.

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

And another thing.

In your opinion, as you cannot state with certainty unless secretly you are the CEO of Wetherspoon's, if business were taxed more would they leave the country or accept less profit as opposed to no profit?

Weatherspoons - this lot?.

Maybe you were just using them as a tyical firm.

I would like to see these tax dodging companies named and shamed so I could avoid them.

.string.

This seems to be a good move:
Householders to receive leaflet explaining new Scottish powers

Note the enthusiasm of the SNP.

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

@Leanne - You wrote - "I've moved on, accepted that Scotland is a part of the UK. Time for you too. ;-" I wish that was universally the case and credit to you if that is your opinion.

That is true of most people I think who were on the No side, including those of us who are wickedly non Scottish. But the trouble is that it is very clear that the SNP Scottish Government is still fighting for Independence in every thing they do, regardless of how they wrap it up. No-one has the slightest doubt of that and therefore that particular battle is still on.

The SNP is not trusted for good reason. Many of the economic advantages claimed for an independent Scotland were invalid and in fact what was termed "Project Fear" consisted very largely of dire warnings of things which would have befallen Scotland. I could mention them but that would simply reopen things for deflection and repeat old arguments.

From my viewpoint the Scots were being led in the Indy direction by false hopes which would have left them in a very bad situation economically.

It seems, however, that few lessons of that period and the way the economics were shaping up then and since have been learnt (or acknowledged) by the SNP and still the same stuff gets trotted out. At a certain point repeating that stuff when it's been shown to be wrong becomes a lie, and that's something I particularly do not like, the misleading of Scots.

Hence the mistrust of SNP motives.

Then on top of that the talk about Devo Max (whatever that means) or FFA, both of which are incompatible with Union (for reasons I've explained before) are clearly a cynical tactic to continue an us-verses-them scenario leading to strife and a few more indy votes next time around.

The question has been asked - "Well what do you expect the SNP to do, change it's policy which it has held over the last umpteen years?". Well, actually, the answer is yes - give it a rest, the same as your post was arguing. Lets try to improve things and see how we get on, not continue with the Westminster bashing stuff and the tactic of demanding stridently for the impossible.

So I'd be quite happy to leave all this behind but cannot because of the SNP's attitude. But unfortunately I don't think they can reverse their directiio now.

In all honesty I have moved on. I'm ok with being part of the Union - I have no option but to be ok with it :-) FWIW I didn't ever deteste the Union, I just felt we could hold our own and that self governance was best. I even thought we'd be better friends with the rest of the UK as there would be no anger or resentment that 'we' were subsiding them or 'they' were subsiding us malarky or we never get the gov we vote for amongst other issues.

If independence were to rear its head again I'd still be a Yes voter though. Even if you think that is bonkers or whatever, I am of the belief that Scotland can hold her own and self governance is best. BUT..... I am accepting of the decision made.

We differ in that you see the SNP as still fighting for independence. I don't. I think they too accept the decision and the focus for them is to try and be good governors for Scotland and try to get the best deal from the Union for its citizens. Is that such a bad thing for your government to do?

They say they won't enter into any coalition or deal making with the tories but will with labour ( on an issue by issue basis ) but you know, if it benefits us all and they try to pull the parties a little more to the left then I'm fine about a deal with whoever is our next UK gov.

It's exciting times for the UK and I believe our referendum has been the catalyst for some good to come for us all.

I wish nothing but peace & goodwill to everyone here even though our viewpoints are wildly different.

I enjoy the debate. It is something I miss from last year so I'm happy to post and have some banter too :-)

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

Weatherspoons - this lot?.

Maybe you were just using them as a tyical firm.

I would like to see these tax dodging companies named and shamed so I could avoid them.

I mentioned this firm as Hamish posted a graph about them with profits and how little % they actually make. I almost felt sorry for how little profit the multi million pounds company make ;-)