Seil Chat

'fraid to say but its about time he went and is replaced by someone who keeps his/her Manifesto promises. The cause of independence is now seriously at risk from his falling credibility.
He got in because his manifesto promised:
1. Scrap student debt....NOT DONE
2. £2,000 for every first time home buyer......NOT DONE
3. Scrap PPF and replace it with a Futures Trust......HALF DONE, because he has bumbled the Futures Trust there are no major public works ongoing (in a time of recession ! doh!)
4. Scrap Council Tax....ABANDONED
5. Establish Scottish Cultural Trust.....NOT DONE
The one Manifesto pledge still alive is the Referendum. Given the dire recent polls (65% against independence) he is being advised to delay this too. If he doesn't he risks putting the cause back by a generation.
He blamed the fall of BoS and RBS on spivs and speculators in London when its patently obvious it was the fault of idiots in Edinburgh.
What has he done: frozen council tax (causing deep service cuts) and used the Homecoming for self promotion (eg the Caledonia advert is only shown in Scotland ..doh!)

Because I support the cause of Scottish independence and believe that breaking up the United Kingdom is best for all concerned I now feel that Salmond should be replaced by someone with credibility intact and that person should honour the manifesto pledges while delaying the referendum till after the recession/depression is over.

Longshanks (being serioius by choice)

Maybe being in a minority government has just a little relevance! Manifestos describe policies if elected to majority government.

I think Mona's got a point - you can't get much done with out consensus from the other parties which is unlikely to happen.

And good on him for sticking it to Patrick Harvey for trying to blackmail the nation

Don't know what polls you read Shanksi, but I listened to a piece on radio last week stating support for independence was up as a direct result of the Crunch.

Eric the Viking wrote:I think Mona's got a point - you can't get much done with out consensus from the other parties which is unlikely to happen.

Fair nuff. If he can't deliver his promises in these circumstances he should go to the nation again on that single issue. The alternative (clinging to power as a minority) will lead to "you can't get much done"
The poll was in the Sunday Times two weeks ago - 65% No, 25% Yes, 10% no active thought process. The analysis was that the declining support was Credit Crunch fears, eg fears of going it alone in these troubled times. Interesting how Westminster plays on these things. At the weekend it was intimated that border controls would be put in place on independence (Gretna and Berwick were mentioned) justified by worries of backdoor illegal immigration via Scotland into England.
I quite like the salmon man actually, just think that if we're going to get independence we now need someone else, someone more pragmatic, leading now. Someone with patience.
Also Rule No. 133(b) says you should never trust a man who appears to own only one tie.

Long cravat (debonair by choice)

Given the dire recent polls (65% against independence)

Here's a two week old poll that puts it somewhat differently Shankers.

'Scotland on a knife edge'

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/herald ... feedge.php

Seems to me you're scaremongering again...and perhaps you should get another tie too

There's a good argument to support the view that minority government is exactly what we need at this time - no extremes, considerable substantive exchange of views and hence improvements in decisions, give-and-take, compromise in the country's interests etc and I think that Salmond deserves credit for his leadership and for his ability to think on his feet, keep a sense of humour and practice the art of the possible. In short, Longshanks, in my view you couldn't be more wrong! But what's new in that? You're a long-term expert at grasping the wrong end of the stick or perhaps in just stirring with it!

Aye, its no poached Salmond - it's fresh Salmond and good Scottish Salmond! Aye and ye'd get a few guid steaks aff his big belly!

Eric the Viking wrote:Seems to me you're scaremongering again...

What on earth are you on about old chap?
Please explain exactly what fears I am trying to exploit by my serious post questioning one tie Salmond's suitability to lead us to independence.
..and Mona, my dear, expressing a view with which you may not agree is not "stirring it".
Seems to me there's a growing victim culture amongst one or two of us.

Shankers

I'm sorry if I may have misjudged you, Longshanks - it was just a hypothesis that, from time to time, you might be posting material in which you don't actually yourself believe.

Apology accepted Mona. Just to confirm: I believe that Salmond should be replaced as the leader of the SNP because I believe he has lost credibility because I believe he has not fulfilled his manifesto promises and because I believe a referendum in the next year will result in failure which I believe will put back the cause of Scottish independence (in which I believe) by at least, I believe, a generation which, I believe, would be a shame for Scotland.

Shankers
ps Mona - anything else which I've posted in the past which you think, in your hypothesis, I don't believe?

Longshanks, why not be more positive in your posts and suggest who you think should replace Wee Eck?

P.S. So many of your posts are proposterous - thus it's hard to know if you're nuts (gerrit?) or just stirring!!

Longshanks, people could be forgiven for assuming from previous posts that you were a supporter of the Union. I refer you for a start to 1707 was the best thing ever to happen to Scotland, plus various other comments you made in the same thread.

Seil Blubber wrote:Longshanks, people could be forgiven for assuming from previous posts that you were a supporter of the Union. I refer you for a start to 1707 was the best thing ever to happen to Scotland, plus various other comments you made in the same thread.

Blimey. Its let pick on dear old Shankers day today is it?
Blubber, old bean, my statement about 1707 is in no way contradictary to my view that Scotland should be independent now given the lens of history. What was good for three hundred years ago is not necessarily good, or the right thing, for today.
1707 saved us from financial ruin and then allowed us to develop and blossom. That process has run its course. I believe that now we no longer need the cradling arm of a larger, benevolent neighbour and are, once again, ready to take our place in the family of independent nations. One proviso, though, once the recession/depression is over, just in case we need another bale out from Westminster.
Mona; I would replace Salmond with Sturgeon and then hold a snap election with the aim of securing a working majority. No more budget farces, a delay in the referendum to allow the depression to pass, and a chance for Salmond to spend more time at Westminster where, as the Scottish MP with the worst attendance rate, he clearly has been letting down his constituents.

Shankers (reading Nuts by choice)

Peanuts!!