Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

Remarks on your post

On the bold bit, in electoral terms you are right, but my arguments ere more moral based.

Italics

I agree with that, the LibDems did bring it on themselves and you've written pretty well what I would have written except that I would in addition probably used the word "fluffy".

On the blue
I think the Scottish electorate who support the SNP have probably been caught up with the thrill of going to Disneyland Natland with all the misrepresentations they've been fed. The SNP has a soft underbelly on this.

It's certainly true that we all get caught in the moment and the moment in Scotland is the SNP: however one has to respect the voters' choices.

But in my view, the big difference between SNP and LibDems (assuming a coalition) is that the SNP has not need to be 'responsible' or to consider future coalitions as they simply want to impress the Scottish voters and lead then to independence.

So the SNP can stab Labour in the back, be inconsistent, change their mind as long as they can present it as being good for Scotland.

So e.g. they will almost certainly want massive more borrowing to fund all the goodies for Scotland.

A poisoned chalice for Labour but a win win for the SNP.

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

...
So e.g. they will almost certainly want massive more borrowing to fund all the goodies for Scotland.

A poisoned chalice for Labour but a win win for the SNP.

This is it, really.

What will the SNP representation want?

I agree that many demands will require additional funding. So how does the next chancellor accommodate their wishes without blowing the budget or showing undue regional favouritism?

I can't really see it. The next government has to make further cuts to eliminate the deficit.

CLAPTON

kabayiri wrote: »

This is it, really.

What will the SNP representation want?

I agree that many demands will require additional funding. So how does the next chancellor accommodate their wishes without blowing the budget or showing undue regional favouritism?

I can't really see it. The next government has to make further cuts to eliminate the deficit.

the SNP only want more support in Scotland for independence.

so obviously they will make unrealistic demands that they know can't be met so maybe

-reduce austerity which 'obviously' isn't working i.e massive more borrowing
-to reduce inequality : currently unspecified but presumably large increase in minimum wage, bonus caps, selective tax increases etc.
-to create a fairer society (more benefits presumably)
-to make a more progressive Scotland : more spending on Scottish infrastructure ; no reforms of the NHS or education

basically more money for Scotland

if they fail it doesn't matter because it will be the fault of 'Westminster' and if they win a bit it obviously puts them in a good light in Scotland.

broadly a win win for SNP: whether it's a win for Scotland depends upon the Scottish voters

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Thanks, but it's nice to think I am in your thoughts.

You asked (which I thought you might) which scenario might not be all good news for the SNP. Well I won't divulge the tricks you might have to face (why should I forewarn anyone in the SNP), but If the Tories win through to Government, I think that will not be so easy as you might imagine.

Thanks for your thoughts on my question to you. Appreciated. Though I do have a little smile on my face that I may be some kind of SNP mole feeding info back to SNP HQ

So back to the point - once the SNP put their head above the parapet, and are no longer making "noises away from Westminster cognizance" they will find that any slip is pounced upon, any inconsistency is trumpeted and any obstruction will be declared loudly as such, and in a way designed to register with Scottish Voters. It's the tactics of how that will be done which we will no doubt all be happily debating after May.

That's kind of what's been happening for the last 2 or 3 years anyway. The SNP believe me don't get off with anything. The slighest mis-step or slip is pounced on immediately. And words/actions often taken out of context, then used as headline news and discussed on both Scotland's politic's shows nightly. Often without SNP representation it has to be said ( like last nights Scotland 2015, there was a big twitter row over that ).

The SNP are indeed, very used to there being one rule for them, and one rule for Labour media wise. And when you have newspapers like the Guardian yesterday linking SNP to 'incest' in cartoons, under the guise of an old quote.. Well, it would take a lot to sink much lower than that sort of negativity mediawise for the SNP.

Should Labour "win" and have to rely on the SNP they will not have the same freedom to fall out with their partners/part-time partners - whatever the relationship is. But the Tories will have few such compunctions and none if they win outright as the rumours about an SNP/Labour detente may well bring about. The SNP can expect a very rough ride.

From the media ? Or who ?

In that scenario one should also realise that the voters who Labour (and particularly the individual MPs) will then increasingly want to impress most will be the English voters and they are getting progressively more !!!!ed off with the SNP, and this will increase as the SNP play funny games at Westminster

Well I guess if Scottish Labour is wiped out..Which incidentally, I've said many times I don't believe will happen, expectations are being over-hyped in the media, largely to garner Tory votes.. then English Labour MP's may be all that's left tp impress anyway ?

As for the tactics - well you will have to wait and see.

Tory tactics rarely go down well north of the border.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

the SNP only want more support in Scotland for independence.

so obviously they will make unrealistic demands that they know can't be met so maybe

-reduce austerity which 'obviously' isn't working i.e massive more borrowing
-to reduce inequality : currently unspecified but presumably large increase in minimum wage, bonus caps, selective tax increases etc.
-to create a fairer society (more benefits presumably)
-to make a more progressive Scotland : more spending on Scottish infrastructure ; no reforms of the NHS or education

basically more money for Scotland

if they fail it doesn't matter because it will be the fault of 'Westminster' and if they win a bit it obviously puts them in a good light in Scotland.

broadly a win win for SNP: whether it's a win for Scotland depends upon the Scottish voters

Apart from an easing off of austerity policies ( UK wide ).. then most SNP 'demands' will by and large be fiscally neutral in terms of the Scottish aspects. Just a 're-shifting' of responsibilities and revenue streams with real tax varying powers to match. Barnett I dare say being adjusted downwards accordingly as responsibilities transfer over. The SNP want rid of Scottish reliance on that that just as much as many others do. The Smith commission, only further. It would probably be a slow process. Not some sort of political bomb going off Westminster way.

I don't think personally there would be much point in going down to Westminster. Then making huge, huge demands that 'only favour Scotland' are unpopular with everyone ( Scots are as fair minded as the rest of the UK ), cannot be passed ( as both Tories/Labour would unite to vote everything down ) and may ultimately lead to the bringing down of the UK Governement. What would be the point in that ?

Also, remember that with independence off the agenda for a while, barring perhaps an EU 'out vote'... that in five years time. Scotland sending a lot of SNP MP's to Westminster may well be seen as 'normal'. If of course, there is to be some sort of Labour/SNP deal, and it lasts. In May arithmetic may throw up many other scenarios.

Tories, and Labour after this election however, may just decide that Scotland just isn't worth the bother any more for the next five years ? Especially if neither of them have much in the way of MP's there. I guess there's always that to think about too.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Apart from an easing off of austerity policies ( UK wide ).. then most SNP 'demands' will by and large be fiscally neutral in terms of the Scottish aspects. Just a 're-shifting' of responsibilities and revenue streams with real tax varying powers to match. Barnett I dare say being adjusted downwards accordingly as responsibilities transfer over. The SNP want rid of Scottish reliance on that that just as much as many others do. The Smith commission, only further. It would probably be a slow process. Not some sort of political bomb going off Westminster way.

So apart from massive extra borrowing to fund extra spending everything else is fiscally neutral?

I will be amazed if the SNP or even the fair minded voters of Scotland, would welcome a situation where the per capita spend on the English equals the per capita spend on the Scots (all other things being equal).

Also, remember that with independence off the agenda for a while, barring perhaps an EU 'out vote'... that in five years time.

So independence is only off the agenda for (max) 5 years : we agree about that as that's my estimate of the period before the SNP demand a new referendum.

Tories, and Labour after this election however, may just decide that Scotland just isn't worth the bother any more for the next five years ? Especially if neither of them have much in the way of MP's there. I guess there's always that to think about too.

why does it matter if the tories/labour bother with the SNP?

The aim of the SNP isn't to play an effective part on behalf of the people of the UK but to achieve bigger support in Scotland for the SNP and independence.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well then, why don't you tell us which scenario you see as lose-lose for the SNP. You're happy to tell us it's not all rosy. I'd be interested in your own thoughts on what areas won't be or aren't.

The most obvious one is that if the Conservatives manage to get another go at Government because Labour lost all their seats in Scotland: assuming the Scots want a leftish Government but not independence perhaps they will find that voting for the most left wing party that can actually form a Government is better than voting for a regional party that can't really do anything works rather better for them.

The SNP will run into problems over the next few years anyway. My guess is that people are voting for the SNP (and UKIP & Green) because they're seen as less corrupt and venal than Lab & Cons. In time people will become disabused of that idea as the SNP are forced to take decisions on the basis of actual finances rather than make vague promises and individual members in power are shown to be just as human as other politicians.

I've never seen a convincing claim that just because you stick an SNP or UKIP rosette on a person they become superhuman in some way. It just appears that way at the moment as they haven't had much power.

chewmylegoff

The other lose/lose scenario is that the SNP hold the balance of power and get all delirious thinking they now rule the country and end up making a total hash of the position like the lib dems have (which is perfectly possible without being in a formal coalition) and destroying their voter base.

Obviously such a scenario won't be plausible in the eyes of the SNP fans here as supporting a political party is like supporting a football team for them and they think Alec and Nicola are too clever to ever mess anything up and will emerge victorious in any situation whatsoever (except of course a referendum on independence...).

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

So apart from massive extra borrowing to fund extra spending everything else is fiscally neutral?

I will be amazed if the SNP or even the fair minded voters of Scotland, would welcome a situation where the per capita spend on the English equals the per capita spend on the Scots (all other things being equal).

They want rid of the Barnett formula. How much more fiscally neutral do you want them to be ? You're not making sense. You're getting all heated about about something the SNP want rid of too ?

So independence is only off the agenda for (max) 5 years : we agree about that as that's my estimate of the period before the SNP demand a new referendum.

They've been pretty upfront about what an out vote in an EU referendum means. If Scotland votes to stay in.

why does it matter if the tories/labour bother with the SNP?

Bothered about Scotland I said. Neither, possibly after May with any significant MP representation there. Might be tempted just to cut Scotland loose as much as possible rather than put with the politics involved for the next five years.

The aim of the SNP isn't to play an effective part on behalf of the people of the UK but to achieve bigger support in Scotland for the SNP and independence.

Yes, they've been pretty upfront about the Scotland thing.. but that doesn't mean their policies won't play out well across the UK too. There are plenty saying in England, especially northwards, that they'd vote for a party with SNP policies.. ( independence apart of course ).

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The most obvious one is that if the Conservatives manage to get another go at Government because Labour lost all their seats in Scotland: assuming the Scots want a leftish Government but not independence perhaps they will find that voting for the most left wing party that can actually form a Government is better than voting for a regional party that can't really do anything works rather better for them.

Yes, I agree, the Tories may well get another go at government. If they do or don't will be decided down south however, as usually happens.. not by Scottish votes.

The SNP will run into problems over the next few years anyway. My guess is that people are voting for the SNP (and UKIP & Green) because they're seen as less corrupt and venal than Lab & Cons. In time people will become disabused of that idea as the SNP are forced to take decisions on the basis of actual finances rather than make vague promises and individual members in power are shown to be just as human as other politicians.

Am sure you're right. It happens to all political parties sooner or later. I guess the SNP will have to make hay while the sun shines then.

I've never seen a convincing claim that just because you stick an SNP or UKIP rosette on a person they become superhuman in some way. It just appears that way at the moment as they haven't had much power.

Me neither.