The Scottish Politics thread

[Churchlawtonblue]

I always hate this argument and avoid or dismiss it as long as I can. For that 10% you are so obsessed with, we contribute 25% more in overall revenue (from oil etc). So for every pound we get that you get 90p for, we send down £1.25. Where does it all go? Fuck knows, before brexit we were told the EU. Or to put it another way, for every 90p you get, you only pay 78p. Your 'we pay for your tampons' arguement is based on a one sided assumption. That all the oil and revenue is 'yours' but any or all of the spending and deficit is 'ours'. But it doesn't work like that. And it sure as fuck isn't unionistic. I can't believe you can't see the irony of passing judgement on nationalism, with a stance like that.

Whichever way you spin it, even with the oil revenue you don't raise the revenue to cover what you spend. The gap , the 10%, is covered by the UK as a whole. It is what it is, why do you hate it?

I initially raised it because Saddleworth was extolling the virtues of the SNPs progressive policies. I pointed out that they don't come free and you wouldn't have them without the union.
He's a decent poster, when he's not throwing out silly jibes about bigots and the English wanting to keep hold of the colonial past. He freely admits he would choose independence even if it meant less expenditure, I fully respect that.

My stance is if Scotland vote for independence then fine by me, it will be a sad day I supose as the nationalist rhetoric will have won over and I think we are as close as countries can be with each still holding on to their identity.
But until that day if it comes, I believe the UK tax revenue should be split as fairly as possible and not used to subsidise one part over another for whatever political reason.

FWIW I love your country and its people, ive spent more holidays up there than any other part of the UK and a long time ago we tried living in Scotland, sadly unsuccessfully. So theres certainly no bigotry on my part. Anyway I've said enough about this now as I have previously and fear im derailing the thread and boring everyone. So have a good day.
.

 

[Coatigan]

Whichever way you spin it, even with the oil revenue you don't raise the revenue to cover what you spend. The gap , the 10%, is covered by the UK as a whole. It is what it is, why do you hate it?

I initially raised it because Saddleworth was extolling the virtues of the SNPs progressive policies. I pointed out that they don't come free and you wouldn't have them without the union.
He's a decent poster, when he's not throwing out silly jibes about bigots and the English wanting to keep hold of the colonial past. He freely admits he would choose independence even if it meant less expenditure, I fully respect that.

My stance is if Scotland vote for independence then fine by me, it will be a sad day I supose as the nationalist rhetoric will have won over and I think we are as close as countries can be with each still holding on to their identity.
But until that day if it comes, I believe the UK tax revenue should be split as fairly as possible and not used to subsidise one part over another for whatever political reason.

FWIW I love your country and its people, ive spent more holidays up there than any other part of the UK and a long time ago we tried living in Scotland, sadly unsuccessfully. So theres certainly no bigotry on my part. Anyway I've said enough about this now as I have previously and fear im derailing the thread and boring everyone. So have a good day.
.

No not really. Not whichever way you spin it. Only when you spin it the one way. That of a closet nationalist, mostly. When you spin it the other way, it is then actually 'us' paying for 'your' tampons. Eventhough you then unfortunately still have to pay for them yourself.

Neither are entirely true of course, hence the fine line balance of it all. Either way, unlike you, I have no issue with it and don't constantly advocate changing it.

Because I accept the concept of the union. If that were ever to change I have no idea how it will all divvy up, but I doubt it will be as simple as 'you' keep all the revenue and 'we' keep all the debt, which seems to be the only way you know how to spin it.

Incidentally you might think you conceal your jibes better and they are more subtle, but that's not really the case. I actually agree with so much of what you generally say though, and I maybe only tend to respond to that type of comment, which might get tedious. But then, you do keep making it. You have a good day as well pal.

 

[Coatigan]

Would it really be so bad if Swinney took on the role? Don't really think I'd have much of an issue with it.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Would it really be so bad if Swinney took on the role? Don't really think I'd have much of an issue with it.

Surely the SNP have reached the end of their useful life? As a governing party, the members of which, only really have one thing in common, they are in exactly the same boat as the Tory government in Westminster, hence they are both absolute disasters.
For the SNP, independence is the only uniting factor of their MSP’s and, for the Tories, it is some form of Brexit/British exceptionalism. These single points of ‘belief’ just lead to bad governance, bad government and an inability to find a balance to put the country and it’s people before the party. To be fair, the Tories have always put their party first and it seems the SNP are in exactly the same boat, which is a shame, although was probably always inevitable.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Would it really be so bad if Swinney took on the role? Don't really think I'd have much of an issue with it.

He is weak as dishwater.
But I should say a nice and decent man.

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

A cautionary tale of what happens when you let a load of protestors have a stab at running a country.

 

[KS55]

I never comment on Scottish politics as I know little, but I really think they have gone completely bonkers. The first minister unilaterally dumps an agreement without notice and is surprised at the reaction. Total disarray. Labour can’t believe their luck.
Ycnmiu.

 

[Coatigan]

He is weak as dishwater.
But I should say a nice and decent man.

Is he really though (that weak)?

Maybe a bit of nice and bland plain old vanilla is exactly what is needed at this point, a bit of a palette cleanser to calm things down.

All the other candidates have way too much to pull at and unravel, and there is generally too much tension. He is an experienced head and a safe pair of hands imo.

And is totally dedicated, he would do whatever is asked of him, he would be whatever they need him to be, the scapegoat, the seat warmer, the interim man, the wall to throw mud at. He is pretty much the Pellegrini of politics.

Yeah he won't reinvent the party he won't make huge strides towards their main cause, he might not fix the issues of the country generally, but then none of those is happening any time soon anyway, even (specially) with Labour taking more seats. Maybe a bit of time and stability is needed all round, for us the punters too.

Fuck it, bring on Swinney.

PS I vaguely seem to remember saying something roughly similar during the last round of candidate discussions.

 

[Coatigan]

Surely the SNP have reached the end of their useful life? As a governing party, the members of which, only really have one thing in common, they are in exactly the same boat as the Tory government in Westminster, hence they are both absolute disasters.
For the SNP, independence is the only uniting factor of their MSP’s and, for the Tories, it is some form of Brexit/British exceptionalism. These single points of ‘belief’ just lead to bad governance, bad government and an inability to find a balance to put the country and it’s people before the party. To be fair, the Tories have always put their party first and it seems the SNP are in exactly the same boat, which is a shame, although was probably always inevitable.

Hmmmmm. He nodded slightly, with squinted eyes and pursed lips.

 

[Coatigan]

A cautionary tale of what happens when you let a load of protestors have a stab at running a country.

Oh yeah, what's that?

They do a pretty good job for about 15 years and then arse it up a bit? Better than it being a continuous disaster from day one, while we all applaud it because it is what we voted for.