Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

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

I have absolutely no problem with bankers and no chip. I wanted to know how you suggest politician's 'take a step back.. in the real world.

Shakethedisease

Conrad wrote: »

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.

I think it's more about voting for renewal rather than the English getting bunged for the 'full cost of removal'. The SNP will never vote for renewal.. and Labour is looking kind of iffy too..

75 per cent of Labour's prospective parliamentary candidates are against renewing Britain's nuclear defence system, Trident, the New Statesman can reveal. A representative survey for CND, seen by the NS, shows that Labour's parliamentary candidates - from traditionally safe seats to unwinnable Conservative strongholds through to some of the most vulnerable of Labour's target seats - are overwhelmingly against maintaining the nuclear deterrent when it comes up for renewal.
The survey includes both longstanding members of Parliament and new candidates. Significantly, the new intake of MPs is much less pro-nuclear than the one that it replaces.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-75-labour-ppcs-oppose-trident-renewal

Take from that what you will.

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

A Tory govt would be good for the SNP, in fact a lot of commentators, and voters think that's what they are really hoping for. Tory/Labour one even better ( kill off Scottish Labour for good too ). Labour/SNP in power at Westminster ? Probably not bad either. But not totally necessary if they play their cards well enough in Scotland.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I have absolutely no problem with bankers and no chip. I wanted to know how you suggest politician's 'take a step back.. in the real world.

You have no problem with bankers, yet you see fit to mention them.

I remain unconvinced, but I can suggest some nice brown sauce for that chip

ruggedtoast

It is time for Westminster to take firm action with the rebellious Scots. Holyrood is pointless now. It must be razed to the ground and replaced with a giant bronze statue of a banker, like the one on the front of a Monopoly game, with a top hat and pockets stuffed with pounds.

Secondly, Wings Over Scotland must be rooted out from its hotbed of Scottish sedition, in Bath, and that guy who owns it be made to actually live in Scotland before he is allowed to whine any more about how awful life under the English is.

Thiedly, the footage of all the Nats crying last year is to be repeated in a loop, all day, on the BBC, interspersed with pictures of the Queen purring and David Cameron and Boris Johnson cackling.

That will do for a start. Oh yes.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

You have no problem with bankers, yet you see fit to mention them.

I remain unconvinced, but I can suggest some nice brown sauce for that chip

I have absolutely no interest in exchanging nonsense personal slaggings off with you. If you can't answer what I asked you just say so.

I asked you how you see this :-

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.

Taking place in the real world. Does 'business people' not include bankers then ? Or UK wide financial services ? And how do 'people' secure our future, without politicians to represent them ?

Conrad

kabayiri wrote: »

You have no problem with bankers, yet you see fit to mention them.

I remain unconvinced, but I can suggest some nice brown sauce for that chip

To be fair to the many Scots like shakethedisease they have a well defined world view built on the notion of an intervening state, lots of spending on things like infrastructure, business highly regulated and an all round socialist model.


I don't know if it's a chip on the shoulder, more a frustration at not being able to follow their dream model.


As an English right winger I feel the downside of their model will be huge moral hazard as people are turned into state consumers, as opposed to self reliant individuals, so in effect not progressive at all.

kabayiri

A simple example.

Right now, a Chicago-based company is looking to expand it's presence in Europe, and they see the UK as a good base to expand a small operation they already have here.

They were interested in transport; infrastructure; comms links; credit markets and business financing in general. It's obviously difficult, post GFC, but we actually do pretty well in all of the above.

It's an ideal time for politicians to offer a period of relative stability, particularly when you get extreme taxation responses from France.

Believe it or not, the UK is well placed. I personally believe fracking will only add to this, by offering energy stability too.

kabayiri

Conrad wrote: »

To be fair to the many Scots like shakethedisease they have a well defined world view built on the notion of an intervening state, lots of spending on things like infrastructure, business highly regulated and an all round socialist model.


I don't know if it's a chip on the shoulder, more a frustration at not being able to follow their dream model.


As an English right winger I feel the downside of their model will be huge moral hazard as people are turned into state consumers, as opposed to self reliant individuals, so in effect not progressive at all.

Conrad, I would happily support a revenue model for the regions which allowed a region like Scotland to adopt higher taxation to support this bigger state view. There are people willing to pay a lot more tax and in return get a generous state.

I don't think other regions should finance this though.

Personally, I am with you on the moral hazard aspect. I dislike the idea of Working Tax Credit - it creates a dependency culture.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

A simple example.

Right now, a Chicago-based company is looking to expand it's presence in Europe, and they see the UK as a good base to expand a small operation they already have here.

They were interested in transport; infrastructure; comms links; credit markets and business financing in general. It's obviously difficult, post GFC, but we actually do pretty well in all of the above.

It's an ideal time for politicians to offer a period of relative stability, particularly when you get extreme taxation responses from France.

Believe it or not, the UK is well placed. I personally believe fracking will only add to this, by offering energy stability too.

You're talking of investment into the UK then. Providing jobs and an economic boost, on the basis of stability. Politician's playing 'light touch' with it all ( or asking £5000 a day for helping it along ).

Fair do's. Though I personally feel that stability, means many things to many people, and because I am not a right winger... we'll probably never agree what models should be used to provide that stability for all, from the bottom to top of society.

And anyway, ( in the context of this particular thread ), it's a General election and 20-40 Scottish MP's that aren't Labour this time round. Not the world falling in.