S3M-02953 Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): That the Parliament notes that, as a result of the pre-Budget report announced on 24 November 2008 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the estimated budget deficit for the UK Government will rise to over 8% of GDP in 2010 and the national debt will rise to nearly 60% of GDP, with both these figures excluding the billions required to pay off the debts arising from PPP/PFI commitments and the bail out of the banks; notes that the United Kindgom’s credit rating has now been downgraded to being, apart from Italy, the lowest in the developed world; deduces that, based on previous statements made by the unionist Labour, Liberal and Tory parties about the economic viability of an independent Scotland, the United Kingdon can no longer survive as a politically independent state, and therefore invites those parties to advise which other nation should now assume responsibility for running Britain.
No, wait, it's just the usual plucky fightback against the Unionisht Conshpirashy!
Also, it appears he loathes the United Kingdom so much he can't even spell it.
9 comments:
Seems like a reasonable point to me, agree with it or not. LibLab/tories *have* raved incessantly about how an independent scotland woudl raise 4% less money than it would need to spend, not long ago, and now it turns out the UK is going to double that. So quite cheeky and doubltess annoying for opponents for him to note this.
Is this genuinely crap holyrood chat - or just an excuse to moan about whatever party you disagree with?
As one of the founder members of CHC I do worry that it's recently descended into party political spats.
In fairness though this motion (and maybe some criticism of it) is not unreasonably included here, for one key reasons:
What is the point of motions?
If you waste your time and taxpayers' money writing a motion it should surely have some impact, even if that is just people disagreeing with it.
But this type of self-serving obscure motion (which no ordinary member of the public will ever read let alone consider) does us no good.
That's not a party political point, it's just a plea for politicians to do something useful with their time.
I am openly SNP leaning IOC, and yet since i began contributing to CHC, the majority of my posts have been about members of my own party.
can you think of any examples
HP,
Sorry if my last statement wasn't clear enough.
It was more of a rant about the value of motions rather than your CHC contributions.
Although ultimately I suppose the whole point of CHC is to flag up those ridiculous utterances from Scottish politicians.
I suppose it depends on your perspective, but I think this is an example of Holyrood Chat at its most brilliant.
As for the rant about members of the public not reading this motion, how many parliamentary motions do you think actually get read by the public. Gey few I would imagine.
A bit like this blog really!
It's a fair point about the number of readers this blog has versus those memebrs of the public that read motions!
Although at least this blog doesn't actually cost the public any of their own money. Unlike motions...
"Although at least this blog doesn't actually cost the public any of their own money. Unlike motions..."
How very Taxpayers Alliance of you! Thank you for looking out for my money so assidiously. I appreciate your efforts and salute your indefatigability.
He might hate the "united kidgom" but he sure likes the hands of male researchers
Anonymous,
Yes, this is called Crap Holyrood Chat.
Unless your last post was meant to be a satirical example of that it strikes me that you'd be better keeping your thoughts to yourself.
Nonsense like that is what puts people off politics.
IoC
Post a Comment