The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

wotsthat wrote: »

Is there a reason why they shouldn't?

Greed?
"I don't think they're exactly short of cash."

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Greed?
"I don't think they're exactly short of cash."

It's just how parties are funded. Can't see the big deal.

You being upset about the SNP taking money because a poster says they think they're doing alright cash-wise is neither here nor there.

.string.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Why the desire to push out for 5 years?
Brexit is scheduled for March 2019, which is causing a significant change in our status.

Nicola Sturgeon offered to take a second referendum off the table had the UK government worked towards a soft Brexit.
Were not getting that, it will be a hard Brexit and this GE is TM trying to get a stronger position for that Hard Brexit.

This is why a second referendum needs to occur before it was "too late" but after "the terms of Brexit are known"

5 years is too late

This has all been explained patiently in this thread.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

wotsthat wrote: »

It's just how parties are funded. Can't see the big deal.

You being upset about the SNP taking money because a poster says they think they're doing alright cash-wise is neither here nor there.

Where do you get "upset" from?
Try stirring a different pot.

All I would like is a reasoned answer to what is a reasonable question.
Too much to expect in this thread, is it?

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Where do you get "upset" from?
Try stirring a different pot.

All I would like is a reasoned answer to what is a reasonable question.
Too much to expect in this thread, is it?

There was a reasoned answer. It's how parties are funded.

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

And waiting for options on currency too.
Still, we have been waiting for years so nothing new there.

When it comes to currency most options (other than just using £ / $ / €) would require a degree of negotiation.

You wouldn't expect Sturgeon to 'show her cards' by stating what she wants to achieve in advance of such negotiations would you? A poor negotiating stance I hear in other threads.

Personally, I think if a referendum is called the SNP should be much clearer this time about currency but people managed to vote for Brexit not knowing what would happen in a number of areas. Seems that people might do the same if it came to another referendum in Scotland.

It's not as if Scotland doesn't have a currency already.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

wotsthat wrote: »

There was a reasoned answer. It's how parties are funded.

Hello .............. what name should I use?;)
Since I note that you seem determined to provoke argument (how unusual) I will restrict further response.

To the point with the quoted however:
No it isn't.
And no they are not.

Only opposition parties get Short money.

Is it getting a bit difficult to understand?
Maybe you just didn't read that bit?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

News in today's Scotsman of a plan to block the SNP in Edinburgh:

LABOUR will today team up with the Greens and Liberal Democrats to stop the SNP taking charge of the Capital.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/labour-to-block-snp-taking-control-in-edinburgh-1-4456469

cogito

wotsthat wrote: »

When it comes to currency most options (other than just using £ / $ / €) would require a degree of negotiation.

You wouldn't expect Sturgeon to 'show her cards' by stating what she wants to achieve in advance of such negotiations would you? A poor negotiating stance I hear in other threads.

Personally, I think if a referendum is called the SNP should be much clearer this time about currency but people managed to vote for Brexit not knowing what would happen in a number of areas. Seems that people might do the same if it came to another referendum in Scotland.

It's not as if Scotland doesn't have a currency already.

Well, actually, if I were a Scot being given the chance to vote in a referendum, I think that I would like to know exactly what I was voting for. The Scots rejected independence in 2014 and I'm quite sure that a big part of what swung it was that the SNP were totally incoherent about what currency they would use should they win the vote.

Salmond insisted that they could continue to use Sterling - 'it's our currency too' - when it was perfectly obvious that the only way of doing this was to remain subject to the Bank of England which wasn't independence at all. Wiser heads than me have set out the multitude of reasons why continued use of any currency but a Scottish 'pound' was not possible, one of the main ones being that no applicant country could join the EU without its own central bank.

If the SNP do not present a coherent plan for how it will manage the economy on attaining independence, it deserves to fail again. Such a plan would have to say how Scotland would balance its books given that it doesn't at present and how it would cover any borrowing requirement given that it does not have a credit rating and has relied on financial support from its neighbour to the south since Barnett was 'temporarily' introduced by Harold Wilson's government.

I'll stand by for bluster from the usual suspects who will tell me I'm wrong.

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Hello .............. what name should I use?;)
Since I note that you seem determined to provoke argument (how unusual) I will restrict further response.

To the point with the quoted however:
No it isn't.
And no they are not.

Is it getting a bit difficult to understand?
Maybe you just didn't read that bit?

Seems easy to understand. I think there are plenty of sticks that can be used to beat the SNP with. Fund raising within the rules isn't one of them.