Saturday 25 February 2012

Separatist claims look less powerful by the day......

Consternation  at SNP HQ over power company SSE's response to the consultation processes  being conducted by the UK government and the Scottish Executive.

In their submission the company seem to confirm the fears of the Citigroup report regarding subsidies from the rest of the UK in an independent Scotland.

They also make the reasonable point that the longer the uncertainty continues over the referendum the more uncertainty continues over investment.

It is pretty self-evident but bizarrely it's a point that the SNP have consistently tried to refute.

Name one company who say that the uncertainty the referendum brings will affect investment in Scotland, several nat bigwigs have asked.  

Step forward Scotland's second largest company and champion of the SNP's renewables revolution.

 "Right, apart from them" splutters Young Master Pringle as the cybernats set their freedom phasers to 'smear'..

42 comments:

  1. Update from SSE

    Scottish referendum - submission from SSE
    24 Feb 2012

    Our submission to the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee of the Scottish Parliament should be considered in its entirety. It does not mean that anyone should seek to attribute to SSE a view on whether or not Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom.


    Keep spinning and the Russian ballet might consider any application from you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who said anything about SSE being opposed to separation?

      The SNP demanded to know what company has stated that they have concerns about the referendum affecting investment plans in Scotland.

      Scotland's second biggest company and poster-boy for the first minister's renewables plan just has.

      Ouch.

      Delete
    2. "The SNP demanded to know what company has stated that they have concerns about the referendum affecting investment plans in Scotland."

      Characteristic dishonesty from the British Labour & Unionist Party - or "nature's liars" as they are coming to be known. The SNP asked what companies your leader, David Cameron, was referring to when he was trying to talk Scotland down. As SSE had not made their submission at that time, he could not possibly have been referring to them.

      And if you had bothered to read that submission you would know that SSE stated quite explicitly that the referendum ""does not mean that SSE will not invest in projects in Scotland while its future is being determined".

      Time to move on to your next lie.

      Delete
  2. Anyone seen Eric?

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2012/02/25/locals-in-eric-joyce-s-constituency-say-mp-is-regularly-absent-86908-23764581/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Consternation? Hardly! The SNP welcomed the SSE submission. And why wouldn't they? They actually read it rather than believing the ludicrous spin put on the story by the media.

    Who would be dumb enough to swallow the crap fed to them by the unionist press? Step forward Grahamski The Gullible. As credulous a clown as it's possible to imagine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you let posters away with this kind of nasty stuff over at your blog?

      Delete
    2. What "nasty stuff" is that? I can understand that you would be embarrassed by somebody pointing out how gullible you are. But the remedy for that is entirely in you own hands.

      And if you want to make a fool of yourself on my blog as well as her, be my guest!

      Delete
    3. Give us a link to your blog peter and I will be sure to come over there and abuse you on the basis of your separatist lunacy. :-)

      Delete
    4. But funny, no link to your blog?

      Delete
    5. Find it yourself. Why would I actively encourage someone who so evidently has nothing worthwhile to offer promising only "abuse". And not even artful abuse.

      You're not as funny as Grahamski.

      Delete
    6. You are absolutely correct. I absolutely see no need for humour in the face of your narrow minded, single visioned view of what Scotland should be.

      My reason for posting here is to challenge your deluded views.

      Delete
    7. What do you know of my view of what Scotland should be? All you know is that I don't agree with your view that Scotland must remain as it has been for 300 years.

      Delete
    8. I base it entirely on what you post here, which is as stated above, narrow minded and single visioned.

      Delete
    9. Please feel free to provide an example of what you imagine to be my "view of what Scotland should be" and your "challenge" to whatever your imagination manages to conjure.

      Delete
    10. "Please feel free to provide an example of what you imagine to be my view of what Scotland should be"

      As I said before, narrow. Your pathological hatred of the status quo gives it away.

      Delete
    11. You claim to be ranting about something I posted here. Please feel free to provide an example of what you imagine to be my "view of what Scotland should be" and your "challenge" to whatever your imagination manages to conjure.

      Or don't bother. I've already written you off as just another British nationalist liar.

      Delete
    12. And I have you written off as a narrow minded, abusive twat, so we are all square there.

      :-)x

      Delete
    13. The difference being that my point is proved by your totlal inability to provide an example of what you claimed to have seen here.

      It may be unfair to call you a liar, however, as it is perfectly possible that you genuinely believe you did see that which you cannot now point to.

      Poor soul.

      Delete
    14. I am working on the basis that as a nationalist you suffer from groupthink are unable to think for yourself, but will just regurgitate verbatim what your glorious leader dictates. Funny how for a party held together in such a tenuous fashion that everyone seems to be sticking to the party line. Everyone seems afraid to step out of line for some reason.

      Are you all waiting for the referendum before you implode?

      Delete
    15. It is good that you are able to admit your inane prejudice. Perhaps you could now work on the problem. Who knows? One day you might be able to address real issues and have meaningful exchanges with somebody other than the voices in your head.

      Your infantile nonsense grows tiresome. You are dismissed.

      Delete
    16. Ha Ha Ha. Dismissed? Really. I know your glorious leader likes to behave that way with anyone who doesn't agree with him but unfortunately that doesn't work with me.

      I am always up for addressing the real issues but so far you have failed spectacularly to raise issues of any worth, after all you just seem to come here to abuse people.

      So trundle off back to your cave, Troll.

      Delete
  4. Here we have a self-styled socialist arguing that the self-serving preferences of corporations should take precedence over the exercise of democracy. That's the modern British Labour & Unionist Party for you! Private profit before people!

    How the founders of the Labour movement must be spinning in their graves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Bell,

      From name a single company who have expressed their concerns about investment to shrieking about self-serving preferences of corporations not taking precedence over the word of their dear leader.

      Life is indeed a rollercoaster for your average cybernat...

      Delete
    2. Try to calm yourself, sonny. You're descending into gibberish here.

      Delete
  5. "Labour would rather have a nutter than a Nat" That's hardly fair to the long suffering voters of Falkirk now is it Graham?

    Any idea who the "Labour source" was?

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/02/25/eric-joyce-to-escape-by-election-as-bosses-would-rather-have-a-nutter-than-a-nat-86908-23764364/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well conan a nutter is less of a threat than a delusional vindictive psychopathic Nationalist AKA Mr Peter Bell

      Delete
    2. Another CyberBrit heard from. Ho hum!

      Delete
    3. It's like watching a stop-motion film of a corpse decaying the way the kid-on "Scottish" Labour Party is disintegrating before our eyes. Their so-called "leader" is too embarrassed to speak and her bosses in London drop any pretence that they are not pulling the strings.

      It would all be quite hilarious but for the fact that these people are threatening to bring all of Scotland's politics into disrepute.

      Delete
  6. Given that peter failed to answer the question on another post. Maybe you would answer the question as to why the Natz would have an interest in a UK seat in a parliament that you are so desperate to separate yourself from.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. It is both customary and courteous to capitalise names.

      I have no knowledge of nor association with any group or organisation calling itself "Natz". I suggest you address your question to somebody who does.

      Delete
    3. It is deliberately as inaccurate as your British Labour & Unionist Party. It appears that you still fail to answer the questions put though. A bit like the SNP leadership.

      Delete
    4. As there is no such thing as the "Scottish" Labour Party only the British one; and as the organisation trying to pass itself off as the "Scottish" Labour Party is explicitly and quite fanatically anti-independence, calling it the British Labour & Unionist Party merely reflects the true nature of that organisation.

      I cannot reasonable be expected to answer questions about some entity which appears to be no more than a figment of your diseased imagination.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not surprised SSE a well know anti-Scottish company undermine the Dear Leaders Economic argument for Independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know of nothing particularly "anti-Scottish" about SSE. And nothing in their submission affects the case for independence in any way.

      Delete
  9. Did anyone hear about some tweet Rupert Murdoch recently did about his great affection for the Scottish people and Scotland, or something along those lines?

    ReplyDelete
  10. You may be thinking about a piece that, somewhat remarkably, appeared in Scotland on Sunday.

    http://bit.ly/z6Bilf

    It's an interesting article that avoids the knee-jerk demonisation of Murdoch that British nationalists feel obliged to indulge in now that he's no longer their best pal.

    Murdoch's affection for Scotland appears quite genuine. As does the friendship, if that's not putting it too strongly, between him and Salmond. Some might find this friendship a bit strange. But it's not so odd. One of my best friends is an English, unionist Tory. The bonds that form between people are complex.

    The kind of vilification heaped upon the likes of Murdoch is a product of very shallow minds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter, I would just point you to the Leveson enquiry. Murdoch is toxic, however on that basis I welcome Salmond's friendship with him. It will all end in tears hopefully.

      Delete