Speaking of which (and in the context of adding - or not adding - up) I see that new wee lassie didn't do so well in the Scottish leaders' debate, and her figures about spending and saving are somewhat "rubbery".Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Speaking of which (and in the context of adding - or not adding - up) I see that new wee lassie didn't do so well in the Scottish leaders' debate, and her figures about spending and saving are somewhat "rubbery".
Kommie, yet again (in a vain attempt to rile me), you not only display but actually FLAUNT your ignorance on Scottish politics!
According to YouGov, 56% rated "the wee lassie" as having won the Scottish leader's debate - with the Labour leader in Scotland (surely the only undergraduate ever to attend University for 9 years and finally leave without a degree), trailing on a mere 13%.
In the UK debate she was widely judged on the poll of polls to have won that too, with the SNP (the UK's third largest party) gaining a further 3000 members in 48hrs and English voters taking to social media to say they wished they could vote for her. She has a net approval rating of +48 against both Cameron and Miliband on around -25
So, in view of the above and with the SNP at 49% in the latest poll and apparently heading for a landslide (against Labour on 25%), she seems to be doing rather well despite not having the Kommie seal of approval!
Consequently, it's far from surprising that the Unionist parties have panicked, firstly resorting to a (very quickly debunked) smear story and currently to scaring OAPs over pensions in a Scotland with full fiscal autonomy. The irony of this is that FFA is exactly what was promised by the Unionists almost on the eve of the Referendum when they feared they might lose - the infamous "Vow". Six months later though, they proclaim that FFA would be a catastrophe(Incidentally, I would have thought that being a Brit Nat as you clearly are, you'd be enthusiastically in favour of FFA for Scotland - given that we are apparently such a terrible burden on the English purse)
Now, I'm more than willing to rip the Unionist financial figures to shreds as well - but I suggest that you bait me elsewhere rather than disrupt this thread further with your Daily Telegraph-type misinformation.
Pip Pip, dear boy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... wrong.html
LOL Scotty. I think of the new wee lassie as her namesake. You know -Nicola Murray
How dreadful not to have predicted a temporary downturn in the price of oil in 2014 - TWO YEARS before it would have mattered anyway (Scotland would not have become independent until late 2016 at the earliest). Perhaps you'd give us the benefit of your expertise and tell us what the price will be from late 2016 onwards, when it would actually have been relevant. Unlike yourself I'm not an Oil Economist, but I do know that a litre of diesel was ┬г1.35 before the downturn, ┬г1.06 during it, and ┬г1.19 now - so to my uneducated and simplistic eye, it kinda looks like there's a fair chance the oil price will be back where it was (and climbing) before too long.
Anyhoo - isn't it just as well that we voted NO and stuck with the Daily Telegraph hero - Gideon Osborne - who has missed every financial target he has ever set and who, after 5 years of soaking the poor to provide tax cuts to his fellow multi-millionaires, has actually managed to INCREASE the national debt. We are certainly "Better Together" right enough, I'm almost orgasmic.
BTW, Osborne's oil revenue forecasts were wrong too - and as for their "independent" OBR ( described by that virulent Scottish Nationalist Lord Alistair Darling (watch that space) as a "branch of the Conservative party ") they got THEIR oil price forecast (from 2011) wrong by a factor of 17.
Meantime, with this "catastrophic collapse in the price of oil", oil- dependent Saudi Arabia and even OPEC must both be shite-ing themselves mustn't they? Oh wait, they don't seem to be. Closer to home, the Norwegians must surely be crawling to the IMF for a bail out, but wait - they are still better off than the UK, how can that possibly be?
In Scotland we are told that the temporary fall in the price of oil makes us an economic basket case (hang on - the same people were telling us we were already a basket case when the price of oil was high
What they omit to mention (and your beloved media somehow fail to point out) is that our CURRENT fiscal black hole (i.e our population share of UK fiscal deficit of ┬г95-100 billion) is actually MORE than this doomsday scenario.
Let me give you some friendly advice Kommie - quit believing the UK mainstream media on anything to do with the Scottish political situation - it's like believing what you read in Pravda (except Pravda occasionally print the truth).
And here's some free advice to the English - you do realise that puddle of oil you've just discovered in Kent will set your country on the road to ruin just as surely as the North Sea oil fields are apparently such a terrible burden to Scotland - if you take my advice, just put a cork in that gusher and forget all about it
Surfcrest - I'd suggest these exchanges (not instigated by me, you'll notice) needs moved to the Scotland thread (subtitle: The Ravings of Kommie) in the Everything Else forum.
Tootle Pip, Kommie
As you know I only believe the bookies who - you will recall - were telling us all for months and months that the referendum would fail.
If, by the way, my "attempt to rile" you was "in vain" I'm not sure why you devoted so much bandwidth to being "the lady that doth protest too much"
In that case:
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/...ion/most-seats
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/...otal-seats-snp
And, BTW you haven't riled me, you've amused me - it's a subject I'm very happy posting about - but here is not the place, so kindly stop it until Surfy moves it over.
[attachment=0:234cx4kp]image_388023776.jpg[/attachment:234cx4kp]
You clearly fail to understand my motives, scotty.
I know - all the research shows - that people do not make complex decisions - nationalism, say, or religion, or often politics - based on facts. They are based on some emotional engagement, and you don't change someone's emotional engagement except through the emotions. Hence religious conversions. I know I will never, through force of argument, change Surfcrest's deeply held beliefs about drug addiction. I'm not going to change yours about Scottish independence. Each set of beliefs forms a paradigm, when facts are invoked they are simply confirmation bias, and the only way you (or Surfcrest) will change your mind about your emotionally held belief is through a paradigm shift - also known as a conversion experience. That's me being a sceptic.
And to point up the difference between scepticism and cynicism (people like me are often mis-called cynical when we are actually being sceptical), were I a cynic I would be posting any old tosh, true or false, just because I know it would (like Pavolov's dogs) set your juices running. If you reflect on this thread you might very well say that that's what's going on. For my part I couldn't possibly comment.
For what it's worth I thought Sturgeon was really poor, particularly in the second debate. She was asked stuff that she should have been able to swat away rather easily but struggled to land any blows against moderate to shite opposition. Big question having watched those debates would be, why is Patrick Harvie not leader of the Greens rather than that unbelievably unconvincing woman Bennet?
On your first point, you're entitled to your opinion - but as I've said, 56% declared her the winner of the STV debate with Murphy on a mere 13%, so maybe you have to accept that your view is in a small minority. There was no poll for the BBC debate. Furthermore, you don't appear to have taken account of the fact that the BBC Moderator allowed a situation to persist throughout the debate where the Unionist parties acted in concert i.e. 4 against 1, with Murphy allowed to rant at will.
On your second point, yes, Partick Harvie us very good but the Green Party and the Scottish Green Party are two completely separate and autonomous parties, unlike Scottish Labour which does not technically even exist (no such registered political party - it's a mere "accounting unit" of the Labour Party). Therefore he could not be leader of the Green Party as he is not a member. Incidentally he is not the leader of the SG party in the conventional sense - he is co-convenor with someone else whose name I can not even recall.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote