The SNP says the UK (not Scotland) is on “borrowed time”

[Isitmebut]

A SNP needing oil over $100 a barrel to even hope to balance its annual budget, apparently needing to be in a low growth uncompetitive Europe, want more UK national debt they previously threatened to walk away from, not using the devolved powers they already have, and no longer wants a Trident deterrent - as will somehow be safe from the blasts/fallouts when the rest of the UK gets nuked – says that if their 5 million citizens can’t decide what the other 60 million want, they want to leave the UK.

Goldman Sees 15 Years of Weak Crude as $20 U.S Oil Looms
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-17/goldman-sees-15-years-of-weak-crude-as-20-u-s-oil-looms-on-glut

A glut of crude may keep oil prices low for the next 15 years, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

There’s less than a 50 percent chance that prices will drop to $20 a barrel, most likely when refineries shut in October or March for maintenance, Jeffrey Currie, head of commodities research at the bank, said Wednesday in an interview in Lake Louise, Alberta. Goldman’s long-term forecast for crude is at $50 a barrel, he said.

The people of Scotland who appear to be encouraging the SNP to take this continual threatening stance, really needs to be better informed by the SNP on the financial prospects of an independent Scotland – which in reality is the ONLY SNP short, medium and long term objective.

Nearly 60 Scottish Westminster MP’s especially with a single purpose, should be fully capable of negotiating with the government.

Specifying exactly WHAT powers they additionally want the current ones already given don’t cover – rather than offering this continual mono bluster pissing off the vast majority within the UK including many Scots – as it is surely counter productive for practical and good will reasons, when all parties really know Scotland can’t economically afford the SNP's objective.

Anyone, especially the SNP, who can show a Scotland can afford to be without the current Barnett Formula, please show the independence projected finances - as if I am wrong, I will be happy to say so.

I'm sure TC would never be so petty, Beehoven

Article here for those who are interested:

www.heraldscotland.com/news/13771677.Why_the_pro_independence_Sunday_Herald_was_turned_away_from_the_pro_independence_Hope_Over_Fear_rally/

*TS,not TC.

I dont think any Yes voters were under the illusions that Scotland would be the land of milk and honey after independence

Surely you're joking - in the run-up to the referendum, MN at least was full of such folk

In the end, too much of the SNP's position is just grudge politics - as P. G. Wodehouse said "It's never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine" They won't use the powers they already have to raise the money needed but are happy to go right on blaming Westminster for everything. Sad, really

flippin that's behind a paywall.
I'm sure he would.

Herald banned, the movement have a deep suspicion of and grievance towards all mainstream media.

Alex salmond banned all the centre and right-wing media from the post-referendum press conference and tried to dictate to the Guardian which journalist was allowed to come. The Guardian didn't attend in protest.

This attitude towards the media, combined with an arrogant disregard for democracy (ie the 2 million who voted NO) is chilling.

That's odd Beehoven, I was able to access it and no mention of a paywall.

Are we allowed to reproduce articles here? If not I'll put a few quotes.

Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of TS. I realise that may not have been obvious from my posts. Very much the opposite!

Mary I had forgotten that about Salmond. I seem to recall earlier this week he was making snippy comments about JC (Jeremy Corbyn, not Jesus Christ) who I would have thought would be regarded as a natural ally for the SNP?

It all seems very ego driven to me.

You're only allowed to read three articles in full every four weeks, then you have to pay. have had my quota already.

Mama - I quite agree. That SH article is scary. George Sq is a public place - anyone can go there. For the press to be banned from a public area is shocking - but then, this is the party which prevents its politicians from speaking out against any of its policies or actions, so it doesn't really surprise me. What does surprise me is that there are so many Yes voters who aren't concerned about this control that they are exerting over public life in Scotland - independence at any cost for some, it would seem.

I would be up for a rUK referendum on of we want to stay in a union with Scotland
DH family are Scottish but I am fed up of hearing about the bloody referendum
I feel sorry for the No voters as the.SNP will never stop. Once they get a yes there will be no going back
I'm sick of Scot posters on here saying they will leave when they can manage financially
I wanted to keep the union We have all of the union in our family but this is crap. I actually am starting to wish it had been a yes
The voting system needs an overhaul too. It favours some parties and votes are wasted

Ah, ok Beehoven. Here's a quote from the article which sets out the key issue:

"...outlets including the BBC, the Sunday Herald, international agency Agence France Presse (AFP), Scottish picture agency Deadline and several freelance photographers were prevented from entering or asked to leave a barricaded enclosure set up around the stage by organisers.

I approached organiser-designated security guards who stood by the steel barricades with clipboards, allowing those whose names were on a “guest list” to enter, a surprising thing to see in a public square. I was told by organisers that I needed a pass to come in and speak to people; and then that speakers would be too “busy” to come out.

Those standing at the gates were helpful enough; they called over someone in-charge of “security”, who told me my name wasn’t on the list. I should, I was told, have requested permission weeks or even months ago to enter the area. Apparently reporting by Sunday Herald reporter Paul Hutcheon about Tommy Sheridan had “not done us any favours .”

(Italics are mine)

I completely agree about the voting system needing an overhaul, and have done for many years - the SNP got half of the votes cast in Scotland and came out with 57 out of 59 votes. That's about as undemocratic as ignoring the wishes of the majority in the referendum.

I completely agree about the voting system needing an overhaul - the SNP got half of the votes cast in Scotland and came out with 57 out of 59 votes

You're right of course - funny how the SNP hasn't objected to this, isn't it?? It's hard to avoid thinking that their view of the democratic process depends only on whether it brings the results they want

Yep - that pretty much sums up the SNP. If you consider further that they only needed 25000 votes for one seat, whereas the Tories needed 34000, Labour 40000, Lib Dems 302,000 and UKIP 4 million, then you can see that they really do pick and choose which bits of democracy suits them.

That should have been 57 out of 59 seats obviously

That SH article is scary.

What was even scarier was the comments below it. Anyone who agreed with the article being shouted down, people saying that 'no' voters only did it through fear, that the 'yes' figure now stands at 50%, that there will be another referendum in 2018 ....

And some of the commenters' dismissive and condescending attitude towards 'the public' who they believe are thick and easily duped by an evil press...It was a bit of an eye-opener for me! (not being Scottish).

Yep, that's the way the SNP/Yes camp operate. Democracy, but only on their nationalist terms.

Puzzledandpissedoff - actually the SNP has objected to the FPTP since the election , despite the fact that it benefited them this time around - so your complain is unfounded - one article on the subject here

"“The SNP has done well under first past the post this time, but we have always supported proportional representation and will continue to do so,” said the SNP’s Westminster leader, Angus Robertson MP."

That's perfectly true, prettybird - though some feel it's just "gamesmanship" given that they know they don't have enough power to influence the issue

After all it wouldn't be the first time they'd struck a pose, only to change it when convenient - like every other political group, of course!!

Funny how no one has been bothered about how votes have been divvied up since ummmm forever when labour/tories were getting the benefit/seats but suddenly SNP using the exact same system (despite them objecting to the way it is as mentioned above) and holy shit, everyones screaming its unfair. Really, so whats your thoughts on Tories/Lab getting into power on not even half the votes cast?

I have always objected to FPTP, and have many hundreds of thousands of others. Only thing is, the Tories don't have 95% of the seats with only half the votes, do they? In fact, no other party does, apart from the SNP. The fact that they only had to get 25000 votes to get one seat, compared to the other figures I quoted upthread demonstrates just how undemocratic they (and the system are) - but no surprises there.

The SNP aren't exactly pushing loudly for full PR, are they.

I haven't heard of anyone "screaming" about fptp. Hyperbole much? It's surely a good thing that what has been constantly referred to as our 'more politically engaged' public, to voice their natural disquiet about something obviously unfair. Or would the SNP shut down that conversation as well?

Between labour and tories these two parties have been in power for decades, centuries even. They are yhe two parties who had the power to change the voting system. Not the snp. We got the vote to change from the present system a few years back and turnout was something like 28%. So people obviously didnt care about it enough to be bothered voting. Until snp win seats and suddenly its unfair. Ruth davidson stated during the ibdependence referendum that her party had no desire to change the system even tho they would benefit from pr. So if you dont support fptp then I suggest you complain to your respective mp rather than griping that snp won within the designsted rules. PR for westminister probably isnt that high on the list of snp priorities. I cant think why you think it should be.

No, it's not 'suddenly' unfair - do a bit of research. As for PR for Westminster - no, it's for the UK. Y'know, the thing the majority of Scots voted to stay part of.

However, if you're saying that you genuinely believe that it's fair, right and just in a democracy that a party can win the number of seats that the SNP has done, on the number of votes it did, on the percentage it did, rather than making sure that Scotland's real voice is heard, then I can only imagine that nationalism is blinding you to a larger extent than is healthy.

What im saying is that for all my voting life I have never heard anyone, not a single person, say that labour or tories have won too many seats based on the votes they got. Never.

harrasseddotcom ..... may I suggest that you do not look that closely, possibly because the twittersphere tends to be more leftie in volume, and few people on there would care that the Conservatives had been badly disadvantaged in England by the fairness of boundary lines - that funny old world the Lib Dems did not help Cameron address 2010 to 2015? lol

And even taking into account the rarity of Tory 'Pandas' in Scotland, it clearly was quite significant

In 2005 a 35% share of the votes gave Labour a 64-seat majority.

In 2010 the Tories won 36% of votes but were 20 seats short of a majority.

Election2015: How Labour gains from UK electoral system in a tight race.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/15/election-2015-hung-parliament-majority-coalition-labour

Putting all these factors, and some smaller ones, together John Curtice estimated in 2011 that the Conservatives would need a lead of more than 11 points on current boundaries to win a majority, while Labour could secure one with a lead of just three points. Some of the big shifts since then – in particular the SNP surge in traditionally low-turnout, safe Labour seats, and the rise in Ukip support, which will reduce Conservative safe-seat majorities – may have reduced this bias, but are unlikely to have eliminated it.