Ad Lib Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 hmmm and what further evidence are you talking about???ETA ok found it....the law was changed in 2008 so Student loans cant be written of through sequestration...Is that the case with england tho as the original point was aimed at english student loans...ETA II ...yep same gos for england...that didnt used to be the case though Of course it didn't used to be the case. But the last time I checked, the Coalition isn't charging retrospective fees on people who studied more than a decade ago. So in dealing with the here and now, student loans are not real debt, in virtually all respects when the key characteristics of any other loan of any kind is compared to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 They could easily have delivered a devo max referendum - this has already been covered in some depth. Their mistake was in stupidly embarking on an independence referendum, where their arses are being handed to them on a plater, garnished with a side salad and a bearnaise sauce. Salmond never wanted the referendum this early, he's been angling for a voting date of approx 2020 since the early part of the century. He's not daft, he would have known he couldn't win until at least then. The problem he has is that his party a majority in Edinburgh. That was something he would never have expected to happen or planned for. His hand was forced, he had to call a referendum with the a majority in parliament, there was no incredible excuse not to. Not surprisingly he chose to have as far away as possible, in the final full year of the parliament, to try buy himself as much time as possible. However, here we are 3 years down the line from his amazing election win, and approval rates for independence are pretty much the same now as they were then. Salmonds dream of independence has ironically been a victim of the SNP's success. Had they not achieved the majority in 2010 he could have delayed the vote till the next parliament, and who knows what would have happened then. He certainly won't win next year, anyone with half an idea of what they're talking about knows that. And when he does lose that's it for him and this generation of separatists, it will be 20 years minimum before the possibility of another referendum is even mooted. Pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 What is it with St. Mirren fans and their unionist pipe dreams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 Salmond never wanted the referendum this early, he's been angling for a voting date of approx 2020 since the early part of the century. He's not daft, he would have known he couldn't win until at least then. Why did he agree to hold one then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 Best of both worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 Why did he agree to hold one then? he couldn;t not hold one after the SNP won a majority in 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 I won't deny there's merit in saying its maybe come too quickly, maybe it has, maybe not. If it has, what it's done is planted a seed in the nations brain. If we lose it, it won't be by the devastating numbers predicted on here and if further significant powers don't come or if anything, powers are taken away like Kelly predicted in the Hootsmon yesterday, Scotland will vote yes next time round. But it's there to be won or lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 I won't deny there's merit in saying its maybe come too quickly, maybe it has, maybe not. If it has, what it's done is planted a seed in the nations brain. If we lose it, it won't be by the devastating numbers predicted on here and if further significant powers don't come or if anything, powers are taken away like Kelly predicted in the Hootsmon yesterday, Scotland will vote yes next time round. But it's there to be won or lost. Yeah, agree with that - it's there to be won. Unbelievable that the SNP are being pilloried for something as radical as doing what they said they'd do in their manifesto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 he couldn;t not hold one after the SNP won a majority in 2011 It's been suggested that Salmond knows he can't win the referendum. And you have to ask why would Salmond hold one with the consequences of what a No vote would be for him personally and the SNP as a party. Salmond, whether you like him or not, is a very talented politician. He could have had the referendum negotiations tied up in the courts for years and made it look like Cameron and Westminsters fault. He could have insisted on a Devo Max question knowing Westminster would not have agreed and would not have signed the Edinburgh Agreement. Cue a legal battle for years to come with no immediate referendum. He and his party remain popular and win the 2016 election and hold a referendum a couple of years later.. So I don't hold to the suggestions he knows he can't win - it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 he couldn;t not hold one after the SNP won a majority in 2011 Of course he could. He could make up a myriad of excuses. He could have insisted on a third devo-max question, for a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 Of course he could. He could make up a myriad of excuses. He could have insisted on a third devo-max question, for a start. Which in turn would have led to accusations of "Salmond knows he can't win" and potentially piss off ther grassroots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 Which in turn would have led to accusations of "Salmond knows he can't win" and potentially piss off ther grassroots. The grassroots would come back - better than burying a movement for a generation anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 The grassroots would come back - better than burying a movement for a generation anyway. Which is what he has done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 I suppose the other thing in play is ego and personal legacy..... Delaying the referendum might well have been better for the Nationalists, but not so good for Salmond personally, given that any perceived "long game" would see fruition long after he retired from politics. Maybe he sees this as a worthy roll of the dice given his time as First Minister is drawing to an end. Realistically, he only has one Parliament term left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 Which is what he has done... I don't think he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 I suppose the other thing in play is ego and personal legacy..... Delaying the referendum might well have been better for the Nationalists, but not so good for Salmond personally, given that any perceived "long game" would see fruition long after he retired from politics. Maybe he sees this as a worthy roll of the dice given his time as First Minister is drawing to an end. Realistically, he only has one Parliament term left. That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. You say he knows he can't win the referendum, but delaying it would not be good for Salmond personally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. You say he knows he can't win the referendum, but delaying it would not be good for Salmond personally He can't win the referendum. It's a lost cause. But delaying it isn't good for him personally, if he wants the glory of being Scotland's first Intergalactic Ruler or whatever term of office was planned. Independence in 2030 when he's dribbling soup onto a nurse's arm in a home isn't much good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 It's been suggested that Salmond knows he can't win the referendum. And you have to ask why would Salmond hold one with the consequences of what a No vote would be for him personally and the SNP as a party. Salmond, whether you like him or not, is a very talented politician. He could have had the referendum negotiations tied up in the courts for years and made it look like Cameron and Westminsters fault. He could have insisted on a Devo Max question knowing Westminster would not have agreed and would not have signed the Edinburgh Agreement. Cue a legal battle for years to come with no immediate referendum. He and his party remain popular and win the 2016 election and hold a referendum a couple of years later.. So I don't hold to the suggestions he knows he can't win - it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense How can a nationalist party win a majority and not hold a referendum? Simply impossible, the nationalist core of the SNP would have jumped ship and formed a new party asking if not now, then when, and they'd have been right to.What happened after the SNP's election win? Both Cameron and Lamont called Salmond out to set a date while the SNP dithered. Why did Cameron do that? Simple, he knows he's going to win. I can just imagine the meeting in the SNP Castle after they won the election... Salmond: ' How in the name of Bonnie Prince Charlie have we managed to win a majority in a parliament with a fecking PR Voting System?! That was supposed to be impossible! What on earth are we going to do now? ' Cronies: ' We need to call a referendum sire, we can't be a nationalist party with a majority in power and not have one, we'll displease the grassroots ' Salmond: '. But we can't fecking win! That was never part of the master plan! Far too many of those old war time codgers will still be alive and we'll get a tanking, I told you all no earlier than 2020!!!, when's the best time to have it? ' Cronies: ' Lets see, second half of the parliament just after the Commonwealth games? That might help, Autumn 2014 ' Salmond ' OFFS we don't have a hope in hell, but we need to call the fecking thing. There goes my dream of being the next emperor/supreme leader/president of Scotland. If it hadn't been for McConnell, Blair and Brown and the rest of those pesky Labourites messing up I'd have got away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirez Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 ^ what a load of slavering craven pish. You better get back to polishing up your framed photo of Mrs T on the mantelpiece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 He can't win the referendum. It's a lost cause. What a ridiculous thing to say well over a year before the vote. Desperate much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.