Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Hamish illustrated very well why we need a period of moderate political control, coupled with financial stability. We have at least another term of grinding austerity to endure.

I've not seen any workable alternatives to fiscal tightening put forward by the SNP. They just want to drive the best deal for one specific region, at the risk of undermining other parts of the UK.

All the recent discussion Shakey puts forward is essentially politicking. When all is said and done, the politicians will have to step aside and allow people and business to secure our future.

We need an era of smaller state / less grandstanding from the politicians.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. Are you saying politicians should step aside in order to let bankers and business people take over the reigns in order to provide 'stability' ?

I'm not really sure that's something that would go down too well.. but each to their own.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Ruled out as 'ludicrous' 2 days ago by Labour. Sorry.

You obviously don't remember the famous political quote :

"Read my lips. No new taxes". I wonder how that played out

Just words....from politicians...their intrinsic self-serving nature will win out over any words in the end.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

A lot of polling companies now use 2011 Holyrood weighting for Scotland, as using the GE of 2010 has proved notoriously bad. However, it does have to be said that ALL the polls have been consistent since October in trends. This isn't just a rogue poll or two showing a Yes vote ahead. It's been months now.

Which polling companies? I know a fair bit about putting a poll together and I call BS.

What Yes vote? Your lot lost the referendum a while back. If you vote Yes in the next election your ballot will be spoilt. :rotfl:

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. Are you saying politicians should step aside in order to let bankers and business people take over the reigns in order to provide 'stability' ?

I'm not really sure that's something that would go down too well.. but each to their own.

There you go. Fixated on 'bankers'. It's like a chip on your shoulder. Looking for someone to blame for our ills.

I never mentioned bankers.

But, as a matter of fact, yes I do think politicians should take a step back; and merely provide a stable environment for business people to develop new products and world class services.

I am hoping I have used simpler words to aid your understanding

Conrad

Shakethedisease wrote: »

As things stand, it is difficult to imagine any conversation about forming a stable government that could not include the SNP. So it is significant that the party has clearly stated it will not make any deal with the Conservatives, but is open to talking to Labour.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/27/election-2015-tories-largest-party-but-cameron-may-not-have-the-numbers-to-stay-pm

What do you think will be the outcome of a Labour / SNP coalition in terms of our nuclear deterrent?


Would it be moved to England and the full cost met by England despite Scotland in effect benefitting from the deterrent?


Under a coalition of the left I envisage the English moving to the right and prepared to happily wave Scotland goodbye. A coalition of the left would result in Britain being even more of a soft touch hot spot for the worlds migrants.

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Ruled out as 'ludicrous' 2 days ago by Labour. Sorry.

Neither the Tories nor Labour can possibly even hint at a coalition in the run up to an election. Labour won't rule out a coalition with the SNP because they might want the leverage later.

It's just politics and what might be 'ludicrous' today can be 'essential' tomorrow in order to maintain national unity, stability or whatever other terms are used.

Pretty much anything would be better than the SNP as part of government constantly re-asking the question that was asked and answered just a few short months ago.

ruggedtoast

The SNP have never offered a socialist alternative to the nightmare of neoliberalism espoused by Blair, Cameron, Brown, Clegg, the Millipede Brothers, and every other politico in living memory.

What Salmond, an oil economist, wanted to do was buy votes with oil money, and his sums didnt stack up.

Scare the bejesus out of all them I say, vote Green.

kabayiri

wotsthat wrote: »

...

Pretty much anything would be better than the SNP as part of government constantly re-asking the question that was asked and answered just a few short months ago.

Blimey!

You have identified the ideal campaign slogan !

"Considering SNP?

Do you *really* want a life of neverendum referendums?

- just say No"

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

Blimey!

You have identified the ideal campaign slogan !

"Considering SNP?

Do you *really* want a life of neverendum referendums?

- just say No"

The word referendummies comes to mind.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Which polling companies? I know a fair bit about putting a poll together and I call BS.

What Yes vote? Your lot lost the referendum a while back. If you vote Yes in the next election your ballot will be spoilt. :rotfl:

Do you now.. Just like you were spouting nonsense about how 10% of the seats mean nothing in a hung parliament.

This week Peter Kellner, President of YouGov, published an article both on YouGov’s website and in The Times newspaper, with his views on why opinion polls in Scotland by different polling companies have produced consistently divergent results on the question of the Scottish independence referendum. His argument was that YouGov’s polling in Scotland was superior to that of Survation (and other polling companies) due to other companies weighting results to 2011 vote,...

...BPC President and expert psephologist Professor John Curtice (among others) over the question of our use of a 2010 general election vote weighting rather than 2011 Holyrood vote, the conclusion of which was that 2011 Holyrood weighting was widely recommended for use in Scottish opinion polling (see here for Professor Curtice’s thoughts on the issue).

Since that time, Survation has consistently adopted what was already as an example, ICM’s method of using 2011 vote as the baseline for past vote weighting in Scottish polls on the basis that, to quote Professor Curtice, “evidence strongly suggests that people have a better memory of what they did in 2011”, compared to 2010 vote which is subject to considerable false recall. For this reason the argument that our 2011 vote weighting method is poor simply because it leads to results that do not fit recalled 2010 vote is unconvincing, because we use 2011 vote precisely because it is better recalled than 2010.

http://survation.com/response-to-yesterdays-times-yougov-articles-and-yougovs-published-research-about-survations-scottish-independence-methodology/

I can provide much more in the way of evidence to back this up if you like. Most Scottish opinion polls were weighted to 2011 during the ref due to recall issues and people confusing the two elections. Most Scottish polls still do so. Some do both. You might not know as much as you think you do.

I said this wasn't like the one poll showing the Yes vote ahead.. that the SNP polling has been consistent for months. You misread.