View Full Version : What is the SNP?
But John - surely you know that the SNP response to these figures will be "Figures as published by the same UK government which wishes to keep the UK together. Are these figures to be trusted? Figures which were created by the same people who totally messed up the banks, the economy, the railway franchises, etc." Then followed by the usual emotive statements featuring they great "they" - Maggie Thatcher, The Tories", bloated plutocrats, bread snatchers, etc. Face it John, the Secessionists don't do facts - at least, no facts which don't suit.
John Little
04-Oct-12, 11:39
True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain,
Begot of nothing but vain fantasy,
Which is as thin of substance as the air
And more inconstant than the wind, who woos
Even now the frozen bosom of the north,
And, being anger'd, puffs away from thence,
Turning his face to the dew-dropping south.
The problem with telling decent people that they are victims, and are oppressed, is that gradually they come to believe it, and then become it.
John Little
04-Oct-12, 11:51
The problem with telling decent people that they are victims, and are oppressed, is that gradually they come to believe it, and then become it.
I believe that you are correct. I really do.
Mind you, Johan Lamont suddenly looks rather sensible in the light of that document. Things have to be paid for do they not?
The contribution of Scots to the general UK economy is enormous - three quarters of a million working in England alone, and heaven knows how many in Wales and Northern Ireland. We all generate revenue that goes into a common pot.
If we have a common pot then it matters not a whit where the revenue originates. It ain't Scottish or English etc - it's British.
But split up the UK so they have to rely on revenue generated in one particular area and I fear that within a very short time the greatest export in that area will be its people.
John Little
04-Oct-12, 12:06
But John - surely you know that the SNP response to these figures will be "Figures as published by the same UK government which wishes to keep the UK together. Are these figures to be trusted? Figures which were created by the same people who totally messed up the banks, the economy, the railway franchises, etc." Then followed by the usual emotive statements featuring they great "they" - Maggie Thatcher, The Tories", bloated plutocrats, bread snatchers, etc. Face it John, the Secessionists don't do facts - at least, no facts which don't suit.
SNP conference 2020?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ599TQUiug
I fear that within a very short time the greatest export in that area will be its people.
It is now John and has been for years, 90% of our young have to leave the Highlands and Islands to get something like a decent job. It's no wonder people are voting for change, the 3 main parties have let us down for decades, no wonder our islands are empty of teenagers and young adults, where else can they go but down south to get decent employment? And they are being replaced by aging incomers who are a drain on our NHS funds and contribute very little to the local economy. You have an alternative with voting for UKIP, we have an alternative with voting for the SNP. Or we can carry on voting for the 3 main party Muppets who keep letting us all down time after time. Who will you be voting for next at the elections John, I would love to know!!!
C3.
John Little
04-Oct-12, 20:32
C3 - I have you in my head as an honest man. Facing the figures that Weezer brought up, surely you can see that any promise to make a better Scotland based on a. The available cash and b, the ideology that refuses to use resources that the rest of the world persists in using is a hollow souffle - full of hot air?
Weezer has convinced me that the SNP are charlatans. They promise mountains but I think they will be hard pushed to deliver molehills.
As to population- Scotland's population is going up. Lots and lots of people are coming in - can't be so short of jobs as you think;
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/high-level-summary/j11198/j1119801.htm
Even New Scots have to have employment- no?
Ukip? There's another bunch of chancers - no thanks.
I shall vote Labour - as I have said before. I have never voted Labour in my life but better that than this bunch of idiots we have now. At least Miliband is making an effort and he may shape up. I hope so.
It ain't much but I'm willing to give it a try.
If you wonder why the gas power stations and the nuclear new builds and the coal mines are not in Scotland then ask the SNP. Their green ideology makes them move the hem of their garment away from such things.
Pity that China and Brazil and India do not have the same scruples.
Those figures tell a tale C3. You're too wise a man to be taken in by pink fluffy dreams.
Lamont is being realistic - things have to be paid for. You know that.
Look at that document - look at the graphs.
The fact is that we are interdependent. We need each other to prosper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdependence
Split us and we all lose.
weezer 316
04-Oct-12, 21:25
It is now John and has been for years, 90% of our young have to leave the Highlands and Islands to get something like a decent job. It's no wonder people are voting for change, the 3 main parties have let us down for decades, no wonder our islands are empty of teenagers and young adults, where else can they go but down south to get decent employment? And they are being replaced by aging incomers who are a drain on our NHS funds and contribute very little to the local economy. You have an alternative with voting for UKIP, we have an alternative with voting for the SNP. Or we can carry on voting for the 3 main party Muppets who keep letting us all down time after time. Who will you be voting for next at the elections John, I would love to know!!!
C3.
Oh corrie corrie corrie......
You have made a link between the SNP and retention of people my age in the highlands...
Dounreay employs a fair chunk of my mates + 2000 others......
Most of the rest work in places dependent on dounreay to varying degrees (contruction firms, JGC, retail etc).......
Most of that will be gone in 10-15 years time. I might be in my 40s.....
What exactly, or even vaguely, is the SNP doing that will keep more people and therefore more young people in this area in anything even like the numbers dounreay does?
And before you answer, if you do, I should want you I have looked.....
Not a lot has changed up in the Highlands, in 1946 my Father and two other familys of Ploughmen became economic migrants and had to leave Caithness to take up employment in the richer south sic Perthshire, for the next 10 years my father and my family were in 3 separate farms, I was in 4 different schools, accommodation varied a lot in one farm cottage we had no electricity, no water in the house, and no flushable toilet facilities. while 100 yards up the road was a German POW camp with all mod cons, of course the cottage was rent free, and my fathers wages were £7.00 a quarter, with free milk and a half hundredweight of oatmeal per month. And I never knew we were poor.
So there are no jobs up there now, nothings changed much in 66 years, I left home at the age of 16 to go to the job I wanted, to be at sea. and we did not heed the nutters that were the SNP in those days either.
John Little
05-Oct-12, 08:54
The problem with telling decent people that they are victims, and are oppressed, is that gradually they come to believe it, and then become it.
@PMCD
What you said here made me think.- a lot. There is a perception about that Scotland is a victim and oppressed and is the junior partner in a bad marriage.
It seems to me that once again it’s the SNP who have set the terms of reference here – or maybe even James 1 himself, who wanted the union of the crowns to be seen as a marriage.
It’s actually a wrong perception, because the joining of two countries is not like a marriage, and their splitting up is nothing like a divorce- I used to think it was too but have changed much over the last year.
If one insists on using such a scenario, then it’s very easy to present one partner as badly done to, especially given the difference in populations.
But it’s a totally false analogy and should be rejected, because the Union is actually a much more complicated business than a marriage between two individuals. When two countries join, then it may be likened to a marriage for a while – but the union of the crowns was 400 years ago and the actual Union 300 years ago.
The forces of Geography have taken over and the United Kingdom has become an Interdependent country – that is to say that its industry, commerce, culture and activities of all kinds have become so intermingled that in effect they form a unitary whole in many ways – but not all.
The United Kingdom is thus the ‘Child’ of the Union and rather than seeing the arrangement as a marriage it might be better to see it as a large human body- let us call it ‘The Body Politic’.
By and large the body politic is healthy- occasionally it gets ill though and at the moment it is suffering from Recession Flu. It works, makes its way in the world and the blood of its commerce supports and nourishes the cells who make it up – which is us.
The parts of the body depend on each other. The Heart cannot function without the head, nor the spleen without the liver - and so on.
If the head has a violent argument with the torso, then the resulting loss of blood, shock etc would kill the body politic. How could it do otherwise?
As to the blood – are we to argue that the marrow in a leg bone is more important because it produces more blood cells than an arm bone?
That would be absurd.
The point is that the blood is produced and it nourishes the whole.
Use this analogy, which seems more valid than marriage, and where is the sense of victimhood and oppression- or of inferiority?
Just change the narrative.
After all- however Brave the Heart, if you cut it out of the body, then it dies and the body dies too.
Who benefits from that?
secrets in symmetry
05-Oct-12, 22:42
Before this little discussion shambles off into the hell of sullen silence I am going to take the liberty of elaborating some of what Weezer has already pointed out.
The government bases its shifts in policy on advice it gets from various sources. These sources come in a number of forms – Royal Commissions, Parliamentary Commissions and Civil Service Commissions are the main ones. If a minister wishes to make a decision then he/she needs state of the art information and instructs a civil servant to prepare a briefing document after consultation with appropriate experts and authorities.
Weezer has provided a link to such a document.
Sometimes they are wrong – as in the information given to the Transport Minister over rail franchising- but that mistake was over forecasting. Weezer’s link is not about forecasting but about what has happened already.
Such mistakes are as rare as hen’s teeth in practice because the civil servant who makes them suddenly finds that their career is finished.
Which means that the overwhelming probability is that the information in Weezer’s link is accurate.
I take the liberty of reproducing the last part of it here;
“Oil fund
An oil fund works on the basis that all oil revenues are paid into the fund and only interest gained is taken out. If this same approach to an oil fund had been in place in Scotland since North Sea oil was discovered then there would have been a fiscal deficit every year – totalling almost £150bn over the last 27 years. If instead oil revenue was paid into an oil fund only once the budget was balanced then there would only have been nine years when any money would have been paid into a fund, and since 1989-90 there would have been 18 years when even with oil revenues being used to support Scotland’s public finances there would still have been a fiscal deficit.
Oil revenues can be used only once, you can’t spend them to offset an expenditure black hole and invest them in an oil fund at the same time.
Conclusion
− North Sea oil revenues are volatile and difficult to forecast because of movements in the price of oil, production levels and costs as shown in the data presented and the evidence from the Commission on Scottish Devolution report.
− Oil production from the North Sea is declining − Scottish fiscal balance has never been in surplus without oil revenues, and
has been in surplus for only 9 years even when all oil revenues are allocated to Scotland
Scotland has seen a public sector deficit in every year since 1980-81 when no direct share of oil revenues is allocated.
Even with all oil revenues allocated to Scotland there would have been only nine years out of twenty-seven where there would have been a surplus, none of them since 1988-89.
With all oil revenues accruing to Scotland there would still have been a cumulative net deficit of around £20bn over twenty-seven years.
Oil is a diminishing resource. Production has fallen year on year since 1999 (bar 2007, when the large Buzzard Field started production), and is currently declining at around five per cent per annum.
The price of oil is exceptionally volatile. It has fallen to a value today of less than half of what it was a year ago.
Since 2002-03 total Exchequer revenues from taxes on profits from oil and gas production have year on year fallen by 16%, increased by 21%, increased by 82%, fallen by 3%, fallen by 14%, and increased by 66% - and have over this time variously made up around a sixth to a third of the total Scottish budget. This would make forward budgeting extremely difficult for an independent Scotland.”
http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/Scotland%20and%20Oil%20-%20Background%20paper.pdf
All of which exposes the SNPs position as rather airy posturing. Something to be glazed over because it is inconvenient.
There is an ice-berg ahead and the Captain has just ordered full steam ahead.
In reality Weezer has shot their fantasy straight through the head – stone dead.
But will they notice?It took you a while John, but you got one of the points - eventually. :cool:
As I've said many times, secessionists don't seem to be able to see past numbers. They will post and try to rebut your statements, but they will get it wrong because they're incapable of understanding the issues.
You might be interested to know there are some mistakes in that document. Correcting these mistakes makes the problem much worse. One mistake is a very standard one - they don't understand exponential growth, their linear approximation is wrong. Another is that they don't correct for inflation in oil revenues. A third is that they don't understand the destruction power of fluctuations in oil revenues - mostly because they're using the same linear thinking that most politicians/economists/forum-schoolboys use. Having said that, they are so far ahead of any secessionists on this forum that the latter won't ever understand what the problem is.
John Little
05-Oct-12, 23:29
I shall take your word for it SiS - indeed I do not doubt your expertise in the area.
Despite posts which purport to have read the document, but which clearly have not understood it, I do know that you cannot spend the same money twice.
And if a Scottish government would set the levels of its expenditure differently than a parliament which clearly has no Scots in it at all at all, then, like Weezer, I await with eagerness to see where the axe will fall.
I imagine that 7000 poor souls at Faslane will feel the pinch first.Interesting that the brave new world is to be built on fossil fuel money though ain't it?
And benefit levels?
Suddenly Ms Lamont looks a lot lot better...
Snotty nosed parents?
Grabs hard hat and dives for the bunker!
weezer 316
06-Oct-12, 14:04
I shall take your word for it SiS - indeed I do not doubt your expertise in the area.
Despite posts which purport to have read the document, but which clearly have not understood it, I do know that you cannot spend the same money twice.
And if a Scottish government would set the levels of its expenditure differently than a parliament which clearly has no Scots in it at all at all, then, like Weezer, I await with eagerness to see where the axe will fall.
I imagine that 7000 poor souls at Faslane will feel the pinch first.Interesting that the brave new world is to be built on fossil fuel money though ain't it?
And benefit levels?
Suddenly Ms Lamont looks a lot lot better...
It will be interesting indeed. I am especially curious as to exactly how they plan on dealing with he large bills Westminster picks up at present like pensions and benefits, defence and debt repayment. They already get about 70% of the tax raised in Scotland (2010 figures here from the top of my head) yet only have approximtely half the bills to pay. And thats minus the 10 000 armed forces personnel that would hen become their responsibility.
I am eager for an answer or even some kind of vague plan but no one has one.....
John Little
06-Oct-12, 15:01
Yes - that bit in the introduction - first bullet point, where it says that if Scotland had received ALL of the North Sea oil revenues they would still only have been in surplus in 9 years out of the last 27 has been skated over.
And although the mccrone report is ancient history as far as the North Sea is concerned, it was plainly wrong with Scotland in the UK. Unless a lot of money had remained unspent on what some of the SNP feel are not important.This implies massive cuts in spending post independence and it will be very interesting to see where they come - indeed.
But of course there are activities which are not to happen in Scotland because of SNP scruples.You will not use your coal. Gas is a no no. No fracking in Scotland. No nuclear in future.
But no problem with oil. Even though they are against fossil fuels.
Seems to me that it will be a bit like trying to run with a ball and chain round your leg - placed there not by the demons of 'Westminster'. ( a tyrannical place where there are no Scots but makes Scotland do what they want it to.). But by your own free will.
Very strange.
Yes - that bit in the introduction - first bullet point, where it says that if Scotland had received ALL of the North Sea oil revenues they would still only have been in surplus in 9 years out of the last 27 has been skated over.
And although the mccrone report is ancient history as far as the North Sea is concerned, it was plainly wrong with Scotland in the UK. Unless a lot of money had remained unspent on what some of the SNP feel are not important.This implies massive cuts in spending post independence and it will be very interesting to see where they come - indeed.
But of course there are activities which are not to happen in Scotland because of SNP scruples.You will not use your coal. Gas is a no no. No fracking in Scotland. No nuclear in future.
But no problem with oil. Even though they are against fossil fuels.
Seems to me that it will be a bit like trying to run with a ball and chain round your leg - placed there not by the demons of 'Westminster'. ( a tyrannical place where there are no Scots but makes Scotland do what they want it to.). But by your own free will.
Very strange.
How can you skate over something which is a hypothetical premise based on a spending regime by another political set up? It isn't skating over it...it is ignoring it as a complete irrelevance to the future of Scotland.
Funnily enough....according to a report updated in July this year, by the Economics and Statistics section of the UK Parliament : Since 1970, the government has had a surplus in only six years (which is 6 years in 42), which makes Scotland's performance look a lot better, doesn't it....given that the UK has had every penny of every pound of taxation from all countries in the UK providing input to the UK coffers..plus 100% of all Oil, Gas, Crown Estate Revenues etc. That fact might be less of an irrelevance to the Unionists, however, if Scotland becomes Independent and the input from Scotland is removed from the exchequer of rUK.
Never quite understood, though, how estimates produced by the Unionist parties in the Scottish Office before Devolution and which continued to be compiled in much the same way by Unionist parties in the Scottish Government until 2005-2006 are perceived as fact, while the GERS reports themselves admit: The calculations to derive a fiscal position for Scotland are subject to inevitable imprecision due to the need to estimate a number of elements of both expenditure and revenue. The calculation of expenditure for Scotland (specifically the non-identifiable and other expenditure components) cannot be carried out with the same accuracy as that for the UK as a whole. Moreover, there are practical and theoretical difficulties in determining an appropriate share of UK revenues to allocate to Scotland.
The fact of discrepancies in GERS figures over the time of their production was reported here in 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6267881.stm For those interested, the Cuthberts' website is here http://www.cuthbert1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ and on there, among other items, is a letter itemising further discrepancies found after their original paper was accepted.
The McCrone Report is ancient history in as far as it refers to a situation which is past......just as every response against Independence refers to the past history of the UK, as the link re oil does, rather than the future. It is, however, a reminder.....illustrating why it would be more than foolish to base any decisions on the possibilities/promises uttered by UK politicians and others with vested interests without studying the facts and figures..provided those facts and figures aren't kept secret by the UK politicians to protect their own positions, of course.
The Environment Scotland site says Scottish coal has the potential to make a major contribution to the country's energy budget for many years to come. However, the use of coal would need to be balanced with the drive towards a low carbon economy, for example through the use of carbon capture and storage..so nothing is ruled out there, and couldn't be by any Government for the next one elected, anyway. One Government can't make binding decisions on the one following them....so no Government needs to do anything just because a previous one said they would do it. New governments can even change laws made by previous ones....haven't you noticed.
Anyway, which part of the SNP will not necessarily become the Government in Scotland in 2016 if we vote for Independence, do you still fail to understand, despite it being repeatedly reiterated on here? And which part of every party is not going to be an SNP clone do you not quite get? Scotland after Independence is most unlikely to have all the main political parties singing from pretty much the same hymn sheet with minor variations....unlike in the UK. So why would you assume eternal control by political parties with much the same mindsets being the inevitable outcome of democracy in a Western country, just because it is happening in the UK?
I read today that a big SNPer thought that there were only 4% of the total who were Scottish MPs at Westminster and that was their reason for independence. I wish they would get their facts right. I'd hate them to vote Yes out of being misinformed!! :eek::roll:[lol]
John Little
08-Oct-12, 17:57
You may have noticed that by the time you wrote an answer, this thread had dropped right to the bottom of the page; my interest in it had waned and I was prepared to let it go because I was satisfied with the figures that Weezer provided.
Based on those figures a vote for independence would be a massive leap into the unknown.
Is is right to promise the people who live in Scotland a better future on the basis of a great unknown? To offer a glittering Chimera with doubtful substance?
I could and can answer your post above paragraph by paragraph but I think it's getting a little bit too much like tennis and the game is beginning to resemble 'Oh yes you did - Oh no you did'nt'. I shall have to think on whether or not I can be bothered.
I have a certain faith in the figures provided by Weezer.
You do not.
I distrust profoundly what you set out, both as a basis for Independence, and as reason for breaking up the United Kingdom.
You have a dream; it is just that - a dream
I started this thread but I think that in the light of what has been said, I shall not post again on it unless something fresh is said which causes me to rethink.
It is doubtful if that will happen.
Post Scriptum.
Time 19;46
The post which is about to appear below will say nothing fresh or new. It will be a rehash of what has already been said and a refusal to acknowledge the validity of Weezer’s document.
I shall not be replying to it.
PPS
Gone! You were replying! Where are you?
I don't mind you having the last word - honest. All been said before so it makes little difference.
Go on - spoil yourself. You know you want to.
I knew you would.
MEOw sptttzzz. Meowrr...
You may have noticed that by the time you wrote an answer, this thread had dropped right to the bottom of the page; my interest in it had waned and I was prepared to let it go because I was satisfied with the figures that Weezer provided.
Based on those figures a vote for independence would be a massive leap into the unknown.
Is is right to promise the people who live in Scotland a better future on the basis of a great unknown? To offer a glittering Chimera with doubtful substance?
I could and can answer your post above paragraph by paragraph but I think it's getting a little bit too much like tennis and the game is beginning to resemble 'Oh yes you did - Oh no you did'nt'. I shall have to think on whether or not I can be bothered.
I have a certain faith in the figures provided by Weezer.
You do not.
I distrust profoundly what you set out, both as a basis for Independence, and as reason for breaking up the United Kingdom.
You have a dream; it is just that - a dream
I started this thread but I think that in the light of what has been said, I shall not post again on it unless something fresh is said which causes me to rethink.
It is doubtful if that will happen.
Post Scriptum.
Time 19;46
The post which is about to appear below will say nothing fresh or new. It will be a rehash of what has already been said and a refusal to acknowledge the validity of Weezer’s document.
I shall not be replying to it.
PPS
Gone! You were replying! Where are you?
I don't mind you having the last word - honest. All been said before so it makes little difference.
Go on - spoil yourself. You know you want to.
Now isn't it amusing..and so typical of your obsession that you actually notice when I am online for a while, and assume I am preparing a response to you as if you are the only person posting on this thread or on forums on the internet... and wait for my responses! I generally have a fair few tabs open so appear to be online all over the place. :lol:
I undoubtedly will respond to your post, sans the PS and the PPS, though perhaps not before I respond to others who have posted. My response (s), will arrive .in my own good time, and not to suit your agenda. Out of interest..what happened to I shall not post again on it unless something fresh is said which causes me to rethink. :roll:
Seems kinda pathetic that you post that bolded above....then hover around the thread for a further 2 hour 45 minutes and add a PS....and when that doesn't get a response, a PPS..neither of which project any more intelligence than the original post, tbh.
I will respond to whoever I wish to address when I have researched what I want to say.
You are, I assume, aware that nobody on either side of the independence debate is posting for the benefit of those with entrenched attitudes, but to give those undecided something on which to base a decision......or at the very least, something to think about......which is not, it appears your aim in this debate. If taking my time to give facts and figures as accurate as they can be means that the thread reappears having dropped out of sight......then that is what will happen.
Shame the ability to close threads you started when you have run out of things to say appears to have been removed, isn't it? :lol:
I thought I'd post this here as opposed to starting another independence thread or hijacking the currency one. This seems the most relevant (I think).
The SNP now want into NATO: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19993694
Is this just further watering down the 'independence' to a devo max anyway, so even if Salmond get's his independence in name both 'sides' can claim the victory?
I'm sensing this NATO mularky is the beginning of the backpeddling for Faslane & Trident.
Splits are appearing in the Snp already, thats 2 msp's resigned over the membership of Nato issue. I wonder how many more will go by 2014?
Plenty of time though for a New SNP. Like the New Labour that acted like the tories.
I shall take your word for it SiS - indeed I do not doubt your expertise in the area.
Despite posts which purport to have read the document, but which clearly have not understood it, I do know that you cannot spend the same money twice.
And if a Scottish government would set the levels of its expenditure differently than a parliament which clearly has no Scots in it at all at all, then, like Weezer, I await with eagerness to see where the axe will fall.
I imagine that 7000 poor souls at Faslane will feel the pinch first.Interesting that the brave new world is to be built on fossil fuel money though ain't it?
And benefit levels?
Suddenly Ms Lamont looks a lot lot better...
Why can't you spend it twice when the UK Government counts the money Scotland gets twice?
I thought I'd post this here as opposed to starting another independence thread or hijacking the currency one. This seems the most relevant (I think).
The SNP now want into NATO: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19993694
Is this just further watering down the 'independence' to a devo max anyway, so even if Salmond get's his independence in name both 'sides' can claim the victory?
I'm sensing this NATO mularky is the beginning of the backpeddling for Faslane & Trident.
What do "splits" within the SNP have to do with the pro-independence movement, out of interest. What does this split in the SNP really mean for the pro-independence movement bar that makes two other people who will vote for Independence come the day but not as SNP party members...so they will just add to the tens of thousand of us, won't they...and they will still support the SNP policies, which do not include anything to do with NATO, in Parliament? The "Yes" campaign isn't going to die without the SNP. If it did, then it didn't ever really exist at all.....and believe me it does, because membership of the SNP isn't a prerequisite for wanting Scottish independence, but certainly the existence of the SNP over decades has given the movement a focus to latch onto and use to grow.
What does possible NATO membership voted for by the SNP for after a "Yes " vote, if they become the Government have to do with anything at all, unless you personally intended to vote for the SNP after Independence, and the NATO issue has made that impossible for you? What would definitely stop me voting SNP in an Independent Scotland..is windmill proliferation and a refusal of a referendum on EU and NATO membership....but sure as hell the possibility of being in the minority and ending up with a Government whose policies I didn't like won't stop me voting YES.....because even a Government I don't like will be a Scottish Government running the country for the benefit of the Scottish people
(and probably yes to maintain their jobs, as they are politicians....but if it works for us....why shouldn't they benefit as well provide they don't take the proverbial?)
Get real all you people who keep on latching onto media reports written by Unionist sympathisers focusing on SNP policies without differentiating between future manifestos of single parties for an Independent Scotland, and the SNP which is currently the Scottish government and will be charged with negotiating with the rUK to leave the Union, if that is what we choose. The Trident issue and the very few other defence establishments in Scotland is something subject to negotiations prior to Independence (and I do hope that those negotiations will have people representing all Independence minded supporters of all Scottish Parties, not just the SNP) ...which would be included among the the division of debts/assets on divorce. What Scotland will be like after Independence will depend on the manifestos of the party we actually elect as our Government.
Trashing the SNP now is the reaction of a bear (and I'm not unaware of the connotation of bear in Scottish Idiotic Unionist sectarianim but was more thinking of Winnie the Pooh..the bear of very little brain) because the SNP could not be doing what they are doing if the Scottish voter had not forced the issue by voting in a majority SNP Government. That is democracy..the SNP has been charged with delivering a referendum.....which they will do....and we, the Scottish voter base, is charged with voting according to our preferences. There is nothing in the 2011 SNP election manifesto, as far as I'm aware which states that on achieving Independence the SNP will become the de facto permanent government of Scotland..and all youse who appear/pretend to think that are lying through your teeth.
I await the usual ad hominem responses from the usual org suspects. Such a pity that nobody has yet come up with any positive reason for Scotland to remain in the Union....but then if UK politicians can't, why would I expect ordinary punters to manage?
I don't know, what do the splits mean?
More interesting developments on nuclear weapons: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20075674
It appears to be thinned out even more, possibly.
I was thinking about the resignations and you know - both these MSPs are list seat MSPs which means they are only in parliament because they are SNP members. Surely if they resign from their party they have no right to be MSPs. They weren't elected personally and they are no longer members of the party who holds the seats. How can they then keep their seats?
That seems out of order to me.
I was thinking about the resignations and you know - both these MSPs are list seat MSPs which means they are only in parliament because they are SNP members. Surely if they resign from their party they have no right to be MSPs. They weren't elected personally and they are no longer members of the party who holds the seats. How can they then keep their seats?
That seems out of order to me.
That is a very good point, well spotted.
So now it is Andrew Neil's fault that Alex Salmond (and the YES Scotland campaign team and all the SNP activists who pedalled this assertion to the public) lied to the people of Scotland. What will they think of next to wriggle out this one?
Independent investigators will look into whether the first minister breached the ministerial code in relation to an ongoing legal row
How much is this going to cost us now?
So now it is Andrew Neil's fault that Alex Salmond (and the YES Scotland campaign team and all the SNP activists who pedalled this assertion to the public) lied to the people of Scotland. What will they think of next to wriggle out this one?
We'd have more respect for him and the furore would be much less if he was honest and just admitted that he was gilding the lily to make the best case for independence. Crikey, we all expect him to do that. He is just digging himself a bigger hole.
weezer 316
26-Oct-12, 12:57
What do "splits" within the SNP have to do with the pro-independence movement, out of interest. What does this split in the SNP really mean for the pro-independence movement bar that makes two other people who will vote for Independence come the day but not as SNP party members...so they will just add to the tens of thousand of us, won't they...and they will still support the SNP policies, which do not include anything to do with NATO, in Parliament? The "Yes" campaign isn't going to die without the SNP. If it did, then it didn't ever really exist at all.....and believe me it does, because membership of the SNP isn't a prerequisite for wanting Scottish independence, but certainly the existence of the SNP over decades has given the movement a focus to latch onto and use to grow.
What does possible NATO membership voted for by the SNP for after a "Yes " vote, if they become the Government have to do with anything at all, unless you personally intended to vote for the SNP after Independence, and the NATO issue has made that impossible for you? What would definitely stop me voting SNP in an Independent Scotland..is windmill proliferation and a refusal of a referendum on EU and NATO membership....but sure as hell the possibility of being in the minority and ending up with a Government whose policies I didn't like won't stop me voting YES.....because even a Government I don't like will be a Scottish Government running the country for the benefit of the Scottish people
(and probably yes to maintain their jobs, as they are politicians....but if it works for us....why shouldn't they benefit as well provide they don't take the proverbial?)
Get real all you people who keep on latching onto media reports written by Unionist sympathisers focusing on SNP policies without differentiating between future manifestos of single parties for an Independent Scotland, and the SNP which is currently the Scottish government and will be charged with negotiating with the rUK to leave the Union, if that is what we choose. The Trident issue and the very few other defence establishments in Scotland is something subject to negotiations prior to Independence (and I do hope that those negotiations will have people representing all Independence minded supporters of all Scottish Parties, not just the SNP) ...which would be included among the the division of debts/assets on divorce. What Scotland will be like after Independence will depend on the manifestos of the party we actually elect as our Government.
Trashing the SNP now is the reaction of a bear (and I'm not unaware of the connotation of bear in Scottish Idiotic Unionist sectarianim but was more thinking of Winnie the Pooh..the bear of very little brain) because the SNP could not be doing what they are doing if the Scottish voter had not forced the issue by voting in a majority SNP Government. That is democracy..the SNP has been charged with delivering a referendum.....which they will do....and we, the Scottish voter base, is charged with voting according to our preferences. There is nothing in the 2011 SNP election manifesto, as far as I'm aware which states that on achieving Independence the SNP will become the de facto permanent government of Scotland..and all youse who appear/pretend to think that are lying through your teeth.
I await the usual ad hominem responses from the usual org suspects. Such a pity that nobody has yet come up with any positive reason for Scotland to remain in the Union....but then if UK politicians can't, why would I expect ordinary punters to manage?
Lol! Comedy gold! All your points have been answered, you just refuse to accept the answers.
But keep it coming anyway
YouGov interviewed over 1000 Scottish adults across Scotland after the SNP's annual conference in Perth, but before this week's controversy over whether an independent Scotland would be in the EU which led to First Minister Alex Salmond being accused of ''lying''.
Nationally, 55% said ''No'' to the question ''Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?'', with 29% saying ''Yes'' and 14% undecided. The regional breakdown shows marginally greater support for independence in Tayside and Fife at 32% but still with a clear majority — 55% — against.
I don't know, what do the splits mean?
More interesting developments on nuclear weapons: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20075674
It appears to be thinned out even more, possibly.
What they could do is sail away with the Subs and instead of spending all that time and money decomissioning the base, just leave a trident behind on a timer.
Fred! FRED!
YouGov interviewed over 1000 Scottish adults across Scotland after the SNP's annual conference in Perth, but before this week's controversy over whether an independent Scotland would be in the EU which led to First Minister Alex Salmond being accused of ''lying''.
Nationally, 55% said ''No'' to the question ''Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?'', with 29% saying ''Yes'' and 14% undecided. The regional breakdown shows marginally greater support for independence in Tayside and Fife at 32% but still with a clear majority — 55% — against.
I'm not going to go into the accuracy of Polls...but wasn't it YouGov who had Labour winning the 2011 election? Their figures...Constituency: CON 15%, LAB 41%, LDEM 8%, SNP 32% Regional: CON 15%, LAB 40%, LDEM 7%, SNP 26%, GRN 6%. Actual results according to BBC results site, and assuming others to be mostly Greens (see...I can do assuming just as easily as polling "experts" do).......Constituency: CON 13.9%, LAB 31.7%, LDEM 7.9%, SNP 45.4% Regional: CON 12.4%, LAB 26.3%, LDEM 5.2%, SNP 44%, GRN 12.1%
I'm more interested in the fact, if the poll is correct, that after 305 years "reaping the benefits of the Union" only 55-57% of Scots actually like being involved in it, and want to continue that involvement, and another 14% or so would happily get out of it if they could be convinced we'd at least be no worse off than we are now, so that is 43-45% of Scots who don't like the way the Union is going, some definitely and some still fence sitting, but who are as yet too feart to let go of the UK security blanket...and that is two years ahead of any vote with two years of UK "we are mostly all in it together, unless you are a pensioner, big business or rich, when you are protected because you provide votes..or money we can use for propaganda to convince the sheeple that we know best". Not what anyone would consider a ringing endorsement of Governance of Scotland by the UK is it? Really? Though, to be fair, it might be if democracy in the UK actually existed (FPTP isn't democracy...it is a tacit acknowledgment that a minority of voters will elect Governments.....which is only democracy in the minds of those who like the system (as in UK elected politicians.)
Admittedly there is a lot of self interest in poll results, as you'd expect when polling individuals, they will tend to go for the option which will hopefully improve their lives in the short term, or at least not worsen them....do you know turkeys who would vote for Christmas, because I don't, bar maybe me? I'm inclined to think that the likes of people who worry about stuff like how they are going to get their pensions and perks in an Independent Scotland are only worrying about themselves, and intent on holding on to their current lifestyles right now, and not considering the future of their children/grandchildren/great grandchildren living their lives in a region of the UK North of Watford, which is not worth bothering about in a London-centric Government mindset.
Personally, as a pensioner...I'd be completely removing our vote in favour of the 16+ one.....because our lives, even if we actually still have a reasonably long term one, (unlikely given the UK Government's attack on the NHS and welfare benefits etc,) our lives are still drawing to an inevitable close long before the end of the world as we know it, like it or lump it...and the lives of the 16+ year olds as adults are just starting and they have decades more than we have to live in Scotland...so why do we think we have the right to choose their lives for them? What right do we old folks, approaching the end of our lives, have to insist, because there is still a lot of us brought up in the "we worked, the Government wasn't arsed to put aside the NI we contributed to meet our pensions (because they were economically incompetent then and nothing has changed since), so now everybody else has to work to pay our pensions now..BECAUSE WE ARE FECKING ENTITLED!"...while those working now have to pay not only for our pensions, they have to make provision for their own pensions in the future.
Where is the fairness and equity in that in that? Really?
55% for the Union is a lot better than 29% against IMHO
http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/Ignored-Kerr-quits-membership-of-SNP-19102012.htm
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/councillor-quits-snp-over-nato.19239714
Another two jump ship, Ochone ochone.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.