The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

The SNP has no mandate (by their own standards) to announce such a vote

they don't need a mandate.

The mandate from the public comes *AFTER* the announcement of a policy via the public supporting that announced policy, and not the other way round ... unless political parties are only the public's sheep? You know, the very thing you keep arguing that political parties shouldn't be.

Like all political parties they announce policies they want to pursue and hope they have enough parliamentary support to get that policy thru. As the SNP are the Holyrood majority, they'd get it thru.

 

The mandate thing is bollocks, as Sturgeon's own words prove. "She said earlier this week that she would ultimately decide if another vote would be staged".

 

 

 

&  the polls are not currently saying they would win, so this question is about as hypothetical as it gets. One thing the SNP have demonstrated in abundance is that they are not daft. Trying to force through another Indyref now would be daft. Whether I would vote yes or not is pretty much irrelevant as it would almost certainly fail. I certainly wouldn't boycott it. I always vote. I also don't make my mind up how I vote until I see the proposition before me.

 

So lots of obfuscation to try and smother your answer in irrelevant bollocks, but you eventually get there and admit that you do dis-respect the democratic choice of your countrymen and would be very happy to have another vote tomorrow if it was on offer.

 

I've glad we've sorted that out, so you can stop calling me a liar and start to look at yourself.

Edited August 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

they don't need a mandate.

The mandate from the public comes *AFTER* the announcement of a policy via the public supporting that announced policy, and not the other way round ... unless political parties are only the public's sheep? You know, the very thing you keep arguing that political parties shouldn't be.

Like all political parties they announce policies they want to pursue and hope they have enough parliamentary support to get that policy thru. As the SNP are the Holyrood majority, they'd get it thru.

The mandate thing is bollocks, as Sturgeon's own words prove. "She said earlier this week that she would ultimately decide if another vote would be staged".

So lots of obfuscation to try and smother your answer in irrelevant bollocks, but you eventually get there and admit that you do dis-respect the democratic choice of your countrymen and would be very happy to have another vote tomorrow if it was on offer.

I've glad we've sorted that out, so you can stop calling me a liar and start to look at yourself.

Could you quote me the bit where I said I would be "very happy" to have another vote tomorrow (or any time soon) it's pretty much the opposite of what I tried to say, so I'd appreciate your help.

P.s. is English your first language?

[eFestivals]

Could you quote me the bit where I said I would be "very happy" to have another vote tomorrow

you'd certainly be happy to partake in that disrespectful vote, you've just stated you would be.

 

I certainly wouldn't boycott it.

 

P.s. is English your first language?

the rejection of everything English is all your own, matey.

Edited August 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

But anyway, some conclusions from this little exchange:-

- LJS has decided that the SNP and him need their heads examined for proposing and supporting an unspecified grand-hope that will save iScotland from self-imposed destitution.

 

- LJS believes iScotland would be at least as rich as now, despite a huge loss of govt revenues, and no plan for how those revenues might be made back up (with LJS having no idea for how, as well as the SNP).

 

- LJS believes in neverendums no matter what the cost to Scotland.

 

- the SNP don't believe in neverendums, instead they have a belief in making empty threats about referendums they know they can't fulfil.

 

I think that's about covered it.

Edited August 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Russy keeps on flagging up the oil price here, which made me think of this thread when I read this article:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

 

... which basically says that the low oil price - if it continues, as it's expected to for the long term now - is going to cause hugely-rich Saudi Arabia to be just about bankrupt in around three years.

 

So it looks like there's no way back for Scotland from the economic oil impact, given the hugely high extraction costs around the Scottish coast ... and that's going to have a massive impact onto Scotland's on-shore economy too, as a large amount is on-shore oil services.

 

Indy is a busted flush for the moment unless Scotland chooses to vote itself poorer (I doubt there's many now who can be convinced it wouldn't be that), and it's going to be very hard for the SNP to cook up another "we're poor because of Westminster neglect" story when the SNP had previously highlighted Scottish economic vibrancy via Westminster policies.

 

Oh dear.

[russycarps]

Russy keeps on flagging up the oil price here, which made me think of this thread when I read this article:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

 

... which basically says that the low oil price - if it continues, as it's expected to for the long term now - is going to cause hugely-rich Saudi Arabia to be just about bankrupt in around three years.

 

So it looks like there's no way back for Scotland from the economic oil impact, given the hugely high extraction costs around the Scottish coast ... and that's going to have a massive impact onto Scotland's on-shore economy too, as a large amount is on-shore oil services.

 

Indy is a busted flush for the moment unless Scotland chooses to vote itself poorer (I doubt there's many now who can be convinced it wouldn't be that), and it's going to be very hard for the SNP to cook up another "we're poor because of Westminster neglect" story when the SNP had previously highlighted Scottish economic vibrancy via Westminster policies.

 

Oh dear.

 

 

 

Blimey, I didnt realise things were that perilous in saudi....

 

On top of all this, fracking is soon to take off in mexico, where reserves are predicted to be vast. The problem has always been water scarcity, but the american boffins have simply developed a waterless fracking technique, which will lift a major restriction in mexico and other places round the world.  

 

Yet another reason why prices can safely be predicted to remain at this low price (or lower!) for the foreseeable future. 

 

Ljs will be along soon to say oil prices are volatile, but there is not one single reason why oil prices would rise - apart from war - and a plethora of reasons why prices will stay low. Goldman sachs are predicting prices of $45 by october.

 

But of course ljs and the snp know best.

[eFestivals]

no no no ... Scotland isn't dependent on the oil, the oil is a bonus.

[LJS]

Blimey, I didnt realise things were that perilous in saudi....

 

On top of all this, fracking is soon to take off in mexico, where reserves are predicted to be vast. The problem has always been water scarcity, but the american boffins have simply developed a waterless fracking technique, which will lift a major restriction in mexico and other places round the world.  

 

Yet another reason why prices can safely be predicted to remain at this low price (or lower!) for the foreseeable future. 

 

Ljs will be along soon to say oil prices are volatile, but there is not one single reason why oil prices would rise - apart from war - and a plethora of reasons why prices will stay low. Goldman sachs are predicting prices of $45 by october.

 

But of course ljs and the snp know best.

 

I have never made any attempt to predict oil prices. that's your job... apparently

[LJS]

But anyway, some conclusions from this little exchange:-

- LJS has decided that the SNP and him need their heads examined for proposing and supporting an unspecified grand-hope that will save iScotland from self-imposed destitution.

 

I haven't decided that & haven't said anything remotely resembling that. You're making stuff up again. I'd really appreciate it if you addressed the points I make rather than the ones you'd like me to make. I know it would be a bit moire difficult for you ... but hey life is not always easy. 

 

- LJS believes iScotland would be at least as rich as now, despite a huge loss of govt revenues, and no plan for how those revenues might be made back up (with LJS having no idea for how, as well as the SNP).

 

Again, this is not what I have said.

 

- LJS believes in neverendums no matter what the cost to Scotland.

 

Do I? How do you know this? I certainly haven't said it. You are making things up again, Neil.

 

- the SNP don't believe in neverendums, instead they have a belief in making empty threats about referendums they know they can't fulfil.

 

I think that's about covered it.

 

I'm perfectly happy to discuss any criticisms of points I have made. For some reason, you avoid this & prefer to attack me for things I have not said. 

 

It's a somewhat bizarre debating technique.

[eFestivals]

I'm perfectly happy to discuss any criticisms of points I have made. For some reason, you avoid this 

PMSL

You said why you'd vote indy. I gave a load of criticisms.

There's only been silence from you about that.

FFS.

Edited August 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

It's certainly true that Scotland has different economic needs. The greatest one it has is the need of the rUK as its export market. There's no developed country in the world so dependent on one other state for its export market.

(there's some wonderful EU stats that show this very clearly, that I posted i this thread around September last year)

Now, how do you think that market might bear up if they were different countries?

Scotland has for a long time had a culture of buying from within Scotland (unlike England), and all countries look internally first for their needs - so it's very likely Scotland will lose demand from its most important market, costing jobs and income for scotland.

To which the answer inevitably comes "we'll find new markets".

To which the only sensible reply is: is Scotland currently choosing to be less successful than it could be?

Cos that's what that idea means in the real world. New markets are not there to be collected like used stamps, they have to be won and Scotland isn't able to win those markets at the moment so it's unlikely they would if indie - unless the prices fell, and incomes and wealth in Scotland did too.

Meanwhile, Scotland's economy currently performs at around the UK average level - showing that the UK govt does not ignore Scotland, has not abandoned Scotland to the life of shite claimed by the SNP, and that expanding Scotland's economy is very likely to be extremely difficult.

No developed country has sustainably expanded its economy by the amounts that the SNP claim they'll manage ... and the SNP haven't even presented a plan of how this miraculous expansion might happen.

(tho they have said they'll let the rich run away with even more money than currently, in the hope of robbing tax income from other nation states [as opposed to any entrepreneurial activities] elsewhere by operating as a tax haven - very left wing )

There is significant hyperbole from one particular small country, can you guess which one?

Because of small countries having less diverse economies as a natural consequence of their size, the advantage of that 'nimbler' for the things a country already does is equally offset by the many greater times that nothing-happening-at-all comes around for all the things that country doesn't do.

Scotland is not going to fade away on account of being a small nation but neither is it going to surge ahead just because it's a small nation either. Greater success will come from harder work, not magic.

There's a govt that reflects views and there's the ability of that govt to implement those views. The two things can be miles apart.

For example, the modicum of social justice that the tories deliver can very easily end up being a greater amount of social justice than can be delivered by a much more financially-strapped nation that's keen on social justice.

Feel free to note how the SNP and snippers everywhere tried to dodge that bullet, by telling Scotland's pensioners that their pensions at current levels were guaranteed because the UK had said so - when that the UK actually said is that the continuation of pensions would be guaranteed .... but guaranteed to be paid by the new sovereign Scottish Govt and not rUK as a part of the independence agreement, and where nothing of the levels of those pensions was guaranteed into the future, or even pensions at all (if the SG decided to abolish them [not that I'm really suggesting it might]).

The ability for any govt to pay welfare is not defined by a theoretical willingness to have a welfare system, but by having the money available to pay for that desired welfare system.

I've seen claims (I don't know if they're correct) that income taxes in Scotland would have to rise by 20% to cover just the current "unsatisfactory" (for Scotland) levels of UK welfare payments.

It's certainly true that Scotland has a massive and unsustainable deficit at its current spending levels, so taxes would need to rise significantly or welfare payments would have to be cut significantly.

Everywhere has land and sea for windfarms and solar generation. Many places are better placed for solar generation.

Scotland's renewable sector has been funded by the UK, at levels iScotland could never have afforded.

iScotland would cease to have a guaranteed market for any renewable energy as it does currently, because rUK will buy from the cheapest source and not Scotland as it does currently.

----

See that flying pie over there in the sky? That's you, that is.

Perhaps try mixing a bit of reality into your biggest hopes?

[eFestivals]

Interestingly, I've just seen some Scottish polling that has 42% of Scots thinking that Scottish income tax rates should be the same as rUK's, while 26% of Scots think that Scotland should cut its income taxes below the UK's levels - including 31% of those "anti-austerity" SNP voters.

 

So much for Scotland being happy to pay for better things. They want better things, but they also want other people to pay for those better things.

[Comfy Bean]

Russy keeps on flagging up the oil price here, which made me think of this thread when I read this article:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html

 

... which basically says that the low oil price - if it continues, as it's expected to for the long term now - is going to cause hugely-rich Saudi Arabia to be just about bankrupt in around three years.

 

 

 

Yet another reason why prices can safely be predicted to remain at this low price (or lower!) for the foreseeable future. 

 

Ljs will be along soon to say oil prices are volatile, but there is not one single reason why oil prices would rise - apart from war - and a plethora of reasons why prices will stay low. Goldman sachs are predicting prices of $45 by october.

 

 

 

 

no no no ... Scotland isn't dependent on the oil, the oil is a bonus.

 

 

Only an idiot would think that the vote on whether Scotland should run it`s own affairs was all about the oil price.

The same level of idiocy would be required to think that any country having " some " oil is anything other than a bonus.

We knew that the price of oil was down the shitter before the GE. How did that turn out again up here ?

When England votes in the Tories again at the next GE Scotland may well feel it`s ready for something different. The oil price at that point could be down .......or it could be up......it won`t matter but I`ll go for up since you guys love obsessing over it 

[Comfy Bean]

See that flying pie over there in the sky? That's you, that is.

 

 

 

Top notch banter : 

 

 

 

[LJS]

Interestingly, I've just seen some Scottish polling that has 42% of Scots thinking that Scottish income tax rates should be the same as rUK's, while 26% of Scots think that Scotland should cut its income taxes below the UK's levels - including 31% of those "anti-austerity" SNP voters.

So much for Scotland being happy to pay for better things. They want better things, but they also want other people to pay for those better things.

If it's the same poll I saw, which was a couple of weeks ago, it asked a broad "should income tax be increased?" question. I might well answer "no" to that because I want taxation to be more progressive, & would need a lot of convincing before I supported an increase in the basic rate.

I didn't comment on it at the time for the very reason that it was asking the wrong question.

[LJS]

1: Canada

2: read what you said & switch your brain on. It supports my case.

3: So, according to you (based on assumptions I don't agree with) its better to have a government that could choose to help the poor but doesn't for idealogical reasons than a government that would like to help the poor but can't afford to.

Compelling case you made there, Neil.

4: have you seen the weather in Scotland? If this planet is to survive, we will need renewable energy. Scotland is well placed to supply this for a number of reasons. Unless something unforeseen happens this will cease to be a luxury & become a necessity. Otherwise we will all die & it won't matter.

Edited August 10, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

1: Canada

would that be the same Canada with the world's 3rd biggest oil reserves (over 10% of the world's oil) and the world's 5th biggest supplier, which supplies over half of the northern USA's fuel?

The same Canada which has economic oil extraction at low oil prices, unlike Scotland?

And where Scotland's exporters to the UK are not tied to Scotland by their raw materials unlike Canada's oil producers?

I'm guessing Canada is the snipper's new Norway, which was the snipper's new 'arc of prosperity'. Am I right?

 

2: read what you said & switch your brain on. It supports my case.

PMSL.

I pointed out that the 'nimbler' advantage you claim for small countries doesn't pan out as being true in the real world on the averages. For every 'nimbler' advantage there's ten 'no economies of scale' disadvantages.

 

3: So, according to you (based on assumptions I don't agree with) its better to have a government that could choose to help the poor but doesn't for idealogical reasons than a government that would like to help the poor but can't afford to.

I'm saying they end up being exactly the same.

The poor cannot be supported on fresh air. If your version of the world is true, the govts of Africa are deliberately choosing poverty for their countries.

The 'better' you hope for only gets delivered via both of a vibrant economy and a willingness of the population to fund it.

 

Sadly for Scotland it has neither of these, because less than one in 10 Scots are willing to pay higher income taxes than rUK are paying.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13420532.Poll__less_than_one_in_10_Scots_want_MSPs_to_increase_taxes/

 

 

Compelling case you made there, Neil.

 

referencing facts always gives a more compelling truth than referencing fantasies.

I've given you facts in my first reply and facts in my second reply. All you've given in answer so far is hyperbole.

 

4: have you seen the weather in Scotland? If this planet is to survive, we will need renewable energy. Scotland is well placed to supply this for a number of reasons. Unless something unforeseen happens this will cease to be a luxury & become a necessity. Otherwise we will all die & it won't matter.

a renewable energy economy requires the natural resources to produce it, the money to invest in it, and the markets to use it.

Every country has the resources - weather, and space - to produce it.

 

Scotland's current renewables industry is funded by the UK, not Scotland.

 

Scotland does not have an easy market to distribute into. As it is, Scotland is paying a premium for access to the UK distribution network because of Scotland's remoteness to where the energy can be used (it's why, for example, the remote coasts of Scotland don't have all of the UK's nukes sited there, with the nukes instead sited much closer to where the energy is needed).

Scotland is at a disadvantage here, it does not have an advantage apart from having externally funded development and a guaranteed market, both of which disappear on indy.

Facts are often inconvenient things that cannot be wished away.

Edited August 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

allegations of SNP crony-ism over T in the Park's latest gift from the Scottish govt which thinks money should be spent on the poor and not given to hugely rich corporate cronies.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/13586474.T_in_the_Park_received_six_figure_sum_after_intervention_from_ex_SNP_aide/

 

(I'm also loving the false claim by the SNP that T "has pumped hundreds of millions of pounds into the Scottish economy since it began" when the reality is that its extracted tens of millions *from* the Scottish economy. It has increased economic activity but ultimately that activity is detrimental to Scotland's whole-wealth)

[eFestivals]

"no politician has the right to stand in the way of another independence referendum" ....says the leader of the party that refuses to even allow discussion about another indyref at that party's conference.
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/2049/exclusive-no-mention-of-indyref-1-or-2-in-provisional-snp-conference-agenda

 

Meanwhile, let's give a welcome to the land of Monty Python and the splitters of the SIP.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/declaring-independence-from-the-snp#.qsdxOlqYRA
 
Back in the real world, there's no news at The National about SNP cronyism and corporate welfare. How odd.

Edited August 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[Stash]

"no politician has the right to stand in the way of another independence referendum" ....says the leader of the party that refuses to even allow discussion about another indyref at that party's conference.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/2049/exclusive-no-mention-of-indyref-1-or-2-in-provisional-snp-conference-agenda

 

I think you'll find you missed the silent word in the "no politician" quote - English.  

[LJS]

would that be the same Canada with the world's 3rd biggest oil reserves (over 10% of the world's oil) and the world's 5th biggest supplier, which supplies over half of the northern USA's fuel?

The same Canada which has economic oil extraction at low oil prices, unlike Scotland?

And where Scotland's exporters to the UK are not tied to Scotland by their raw materials unlike Canada's oil producers?

I'm guessing Canada is the snipper's new Norway, which was the snipper's new 'arc of prosperity'. Am I right?

Believe it or not I'm capable of independent thought & Canada was all my own idea. The points you made are interesting but do not avoid the fact that you got it wrong when you said "There's no developed country in the world so dependent on one other state for its export market" 

 

I pointed out that the 'nimbler' advantage you claim for small countries doesn't pan out as being true in the real world on the averages. For every 'nimbler' advantage there's ten 'no economies of scale' disadvantages.

 

https://www.credit-suisse.com/uk/en/news-and-expertise/news/economy/global-trends.article.html/article/pwp/news-and-expertise/2014/07/en/the-success-of-small-countries.html

 

I'm saying they end up being exactly the same.

The poor cannot be supported on fresh air. If your version of the world is true, the govts of Africa are deliberately choosing poverty for their countries.

The 'better' you hope for only gets delivered via both of a vibrant economy and a willingness of the population to fund it.

 

Sadly for Scotland it has neither of these, because less than one in 10 Scots are willing to pay higher income taxes than rUK are paying.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13420532.Poll__less_than_one_in_10_Scots_want_MSPs_to_increase_taxes/

 

As., previously mentioned, check the question asked in that poll.

 

 

 

referencing facts always gives a more compelling truth than referencing fantasies.

I've given you facts in my first reply and facts in my second reply. All you've given in answer so far is hyperbole.

 

Ah, Neil, what an onerous responsibility it must be, being the Keeper of the True Facts.  

 

In Neil's world all his views are fact & all opponents views as nonsense. 

 

a renewable energy economy requires the natural resources to produce it, the money to invest in it, and the markets to use it.

Every country has the resources - weather, and space - to produce it. Not in equal measure.

 

Scotland's current renewables industry is funded by the UK, not Scotland. Of course it is - we're still in the UK in case you hadn't noticed. That's the way it works - you contribute towards our renewables  - we contribute towards your new Nuclear Power Station & Train sets for London.

 

Scotland does not have an easy market to distribute into. As it is, Scotland is paying a premium for access to the UK distribution network because of Scotland's remoteness to where the energy can be used (it's why, for example, the remote coasts of Scotland don't have all of the UK's nukes sited there, with the nukes instead sited much closer to where the energy is needed).

Scotland is at a disadvantage here, it does not have an advantage apart from having externally funded development and a guaranteed market, both of which disappear on indy.

 

Even is Scotland is just self sufficient in energy & doesn't export a drop , this is likely to be a benefit to it.

Facts are often inconvenient things that cannot be wished away.

 

& they're all mine screamed Neil hysterically.

Edited August 11, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

allegations of SNP crony-ism over T in the Park's latest gift from the Scottish govt which thinks money should be spent on the poor and not given to hugely rich corporate cronies.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/13586474.T_in_the_Park_received_six_figure_sum_after_intervention_from_ex_SNP_aide/

 

(I'm also loving the false claim by the SNP that T "has pumped hundreds of millions of pounds into the Scottish economy since it began" when the reality is that its extracted tens of millions *from* the Scottish economy. It has increased economic activity but ultimately that activity is detrimental to Scotland's whole-wealth)

 

I'm not quite sure how you work that out, Neil. I understand that some of the money spent on T are spent outwith Scotland and of course the fees paid to artistes will in the main leave Scotland too. However a considerable amount of the money spent will benefit the local economy & create employment. I suppose the determining factor in deciding whether this benefits the Scottish economy is how much of T's income is generated form outside Scotland. Do you have figures for this?

 

Incidentally, on a personal note I couldn't give fig whether T continues or disappears & the amount of money is trifling in the real world.  It's just another case of you jumping on any story that appears to show the SNP in a bad light. A bit like that story where the Scottish Government were throwing well paid Scottish workers out of a job & replacing them with cheap foreigners & the more recent one about the funding for Scottish projects & how it was supposedly as bad as PFI. Both these stories disappeared without trace. Why? because there was no substance to them. Believe me we have a press in our countries which dislikes the SNP & if there was anything to these stories we would have heard much more about them. 

 

I suspect the current T nonsense will go the same way. incidentally the BBC don't seem to think your current "cronyism" story is worth running - at least not on their website. 

[eFestivals]

I'm not quite sure how you work that out, Neil.

 

By being more literal about it than you're prepared to be.

 

T hasn't "pumped" money into Scotland's economy.

 

It has done a different thing, it's created extra economic activity - which I clearly acknowledged.

 

Economic activity isn't wealth creation by default, very easily understood via the idea of a business that trades at a loss.

 

But anyway, SNP cronyism is the story here, not my own words about the SNP cover story being used to deflect criticism of that alleged cronyism.

[eFestivals]

I suppose the determining factor in deciding whether this benefits the Scottish economy is how much of T's income is generated form outside Scotland. Do you have figures for this?

 

 

I don't have figures, but it's easy enough to know how it is via an educated guess.

 

Income generators for T from outside Scotland are only likely to be from ticket sales to people outside Scotland, and from TV rights for broadcast outside of Scotland.

 

Hopefully you'd agree that ticket sales outside of Scotland are a small fraction of tickets sold. I'd say they're definitely less than 10% from my own experiences of T, and while that was a decade ago I doubt it's changed hugely because T is not in a different place within the festival market to where it was 10 years ago.

 

I've no idea what the TV rights might go for.

 

Taking money out of Scotland would be any infrastructure and acts that come from outside Scotland.

 

Given that the vast majority of the expensive acts (rather than the bands who might play whatever the locals bands tent is called nowadays) come from outside of Scotland, it's a pretty safe conclusion that the costs of the bands will be greater than money into Scotland via ticket sales and TV rights.

 

BTW, I'm not necessarily saying that an economic activity that takes wealth out of Scotland as I believe T does is an unworthwhile economic activity. These sorts of things need to be looked at in the round.

 

Now, if you agree here that such things need to be looked at in the round, perhaps you need to go back and reconsider our recent discussions about govt spending cuts.

[eFestivals]

It's just another case of you jumping on any story that appears to show the SNP in a bad light.

 

Yes, I know that "SNP bad" is the latest criticism deflector. .... anything but a discussion around the facts, which you'd be all over in different circumstances.

 

Just ask yourself: if an unusual grant of money from Westminster to a tory-connected and hugely wealthy business had been disclosed would your attitudes be the same?

 

Grants to festivals are not usual in one way or another (most often to arts groups who might perform or contribute, that sort of thing), but huge cash grants to massive multi-national and wealthy controlling operators are unusual (or at least, I'm not aware of any who have been direct beneficiaries until now).

 

When that grant of money has also happened via an introduction made by a very senior SNP activist rather than via the normal channels, and that grant is made in very short time (in a way that other grants never are) then there's some very reasonable grounds for suspicions.

 

It's even possible that nothing about this was about T getting money, but it's instead a way of channelling govt money into a party crony's pocket via a fake short term contract with T.

 

There's fair grounds for suspicions of cronyism.

 

I posted saying "allegations of SNP crony-ism", I didn't say "SNP bad".

 

The Scottish govt need to address those criticisms, with something more than hot air.

 

Unless you're a snipper, who'll always give them a free pass. They're the Scrutiny Not Party.