Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Tromking

Fair play to Sturgeon for agreeing to do a interview with Andrew Neil at the weekend, Osborne and Cameron are still too 'frit' to do so apparently.
That said, it was probably the worst advert for iScotland ever broadcast.
I hope there's more to the SNP's new case for independence than, "other countries run deficits too". She got a bit 'shouty' at times too.

antrobus

Tromking wrote: »

Fair play to Sturgeon for agreeing to do a interview with Andrew Neil at the weekend, Osborne and Cameron are still too 'frit' to do so apparently. ....

Osborne was being interviewed by Andrew Marr. Is he less scary? I don't really know myself, I tend not to watch such things.

Tromking wrote: »

.... That said, it was probably the worst advert for iScotland ever broadcast.
I hope there's more to the SNP's new case for independence than, "other countries run deficits too". She got a bit 'shouty' at times too.

Other countries run deficits too, eh? Well, yes they do. Greece, for one.


In any case, isn't she supposed to be 'wooing' the sceptics in order to covert them to the 'beautiful dream'. Perhaps 'wooing' has a different meaning in North Britain. Perhaps they haven't forgotten the Rough Wooing.

.string.

Tromking wrote: »

Fair play to Sturgeon for agreeing to do a interview with Andrew Neil at the weekend, Osborne and Cameron are still too 'frit' to do so apparently.
That said, it was probably the worst advert for iScotland ever broadcast.
I hope there's more to the SNP's new case for independence than, "other countries run deficits too". She got a bit 'shouty' at times too.

Yes, she got a bit shouty and peddled the same evasive lies that we have seen from our resident acolytes. It's easy to see where they get their material from. Saves thinking for themselves I suppose.

I hope she gets interviewed again. She really does not come across very well at all (excepting for said acolytes of course).

But she'll be a bit worried now; having agreed the new Devolution settlement. The latter consolidates the favoured position that Scotland has within the UK, making it more difficult to justify a separation, and places the SNP in the position of simultaneously;

o trying to show they can govern properly, which ironically would show that the new devolution settlement was an improvement
o maintain project whinge when there is less to whinge about
o avoiding the inevitable pitfalls that come with any government in power for a long period of time.

elantan

Not too impressed with the snp abstaining on the IP bill ...

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Not too impressed with the snp abstaining on the IP bill ...

To be fair the vote was only about whether or not it should go to committee.

Mistermeaner

So pro-indi folks. What's the answer...

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I must have missed it although I'm sure I've asked loads of times. I'll ask again:

Can someone please explaining simple terms how Scotland will balance its public finances with the evil Westminster gone on the basis of / in terms of:

1. The block grant (Barnett) going going gone
2. A share of the uk total debt (this is unavoidable)
3. Taxation up / Down / the same
4. Expenditure up /down / the same
5. Borrowing

............
*************
Eg:

1. Keep your Money Westminster this will be zero
2. We will only accept 5bil of the debt
3. We will raise 10% more tax by getting rid of the 20% band and going straight to 40%
4. No change to spending.
5. We will borrow an extra 5bil a year for the first 5 years while wait for oil to go back up
*************

I'm just desperately trying to understand the vision, not the details, of how the proindi supporters think i scotland will work.

elantan

Generali wrote: »

To be fair the vote was only about whether or not it should go to committee.

i


The only place it should be going is in the bin ... they can't start abstaining now, they slate the other sides enough for it ... the people are watching them and seeing what they do... Atleast Michelle Thompson voted against it

mwpt

elantan wrote: »

The only place it should be going is in the bin ... they can't start abstaining now, they slate the other sides enough for it ... the people are watching them and seeing what they do... Atleast Michelle Thompson voted against it

Off topic but as a hypothetical question. If such enhanced surveillance powers had prevented the London bombings or the massacre in Paris last year, would you think this worth it, or are these lost lives a price worth paying for keeping certain freedoms?

elantan

They wouldn't have, it's all scare tactics to gain control, before we know it we could be living in Orwell's 1984 if they keep this up
They already do enough things illegally, we shouldn't be making it legal for them

mwpt

elantan wrote: »

They wouldn't have, it's all scare tactics to gain control, before we know it we could be living in Orwell's 1984 if they keep this up
They already do enough things illegally, we shouldn't be making it legal for them

Well, I disagree with you. Surveillance works as a preventative measure. You can't avoid the question by saying it doesn't work. You just have to make the choice, lower surveillance at potential higher cost of safety, or more surveillance at potential higher cost to privacy and freedoms. I think you've made your choice, which is fine, but you should acknowledge it.