Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Yes indeed many countries borrow.

It has nothing directly to do with the corrupt Barnett formula that no-one that believes in social justice would support.

However the level of UK borrowing directly affects the amount of money Scotland has to spend.

Less UK borrowing, less spending in Scotland (unless they wish to raise taxes of course).

When do you believe the borrowing should stop?

I don't know what you want me to respond to. Barnett is tied to Westminster, and what the Treasury allocates to all the devolved parliaments. Scotland gets what it gets, for better for worse. It depends on the UK budget. No-one in a devolved Scottish parliament gets any kind of say in it. There's nothing that 'could' be done, Scotland wise if it's slashed.

However, attributing what 'Scotland gets' to the 'largesse of the English taxpayer' isn't quite true is it ?

The Smith Commission re raising taxes is a poisoned chalice. Even the newspapers up here accept that.

Under Smith, the Scottish Government does not have access to revenues from the full range of taxes but only the least buoyant one: income tax, which accounts for about one third of tax revenues collected in Scotland. When oil goes back up - as it inevitably will because it is a finite resource - the Scottish exchequer will not benefit from the revenues generated.


With fewer workers paying income tax and most of them increasingly in low paid jobs, the Smith taxes could leave the Scottish Government dependent on a shrinking source of revenue. It can address this in two main ways: either by increasing the working age population through immigration or implementing expansionist policies that require increased borrowing.


Neither will happen under the present constitutional relationship, so the challenge to Unionists is to explain how Scotland's relative decline and dependency can be reversed without Holyrood being equipped with the kind of economic powers that actually make a difference.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/bluff-and-bluster-over-gers-a-distraction-to-meeting-real-challenges-that-lie-ahe.120473658

skintmacflint

CLAPTON wrote: »

However the level of UK borrowing directly affects the amount of money Scotland has to spend.

Less UK borrowing, less spending in Scotland (unless they wish to raise taxes of course).

When do you believe the borrowing should stop?

You'll be relieved to hear I heard Nanny say she'd settle for an extra 165b instead of 180 billion for the UK budget today, But she could have been joking or being sarcastic as I only heard it in passing.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Barnett is tied to Westminster, and what the Treasury allocates to all the devolved parliaments. Scotland gets what it gets, for better for worse. It depends on the UK budget. No-one in a devolved Scottish parliament gets any kind of say in it. There's nothing that 'could' be done, Scotland wise if it's slashed[/url]

Think Clapton is referring to the UK budget here. SNP are campaigning that the only way to protect Scotland's services , therefore budget via the Barnett formula , is to send a large SNP contingent to Westminster.

To block the proposed austerity cuts for the next UK budget, of a minority government.

skintmacflint

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Watching QT and listening to a member of the audience speak of any coalition with SNP as a betrayal of English voters leaves me saddened and frustrated.

If we scots, who are a supposedly valued part of this Union, are not free to vote for who we feel will best represent us without 'betraying' the rest of the UK what does this mean for us all?

For me it only serves to make me feel excluded and unwelcome.

Think you're having a laugh here. But was there not also an audience member who said they have very right to be there as part of the Union.?

Considering Salmonds use of emotive provocative phrases on Scotland turning Westminster upside down. Peasant revolt over HO, and him being the kingmaker .

Followed by Nanny and other SNP msps blatant hostility towards all other parties and anything Westminster. Making it clear their single purpose at WM is to protect Scotland and if it happens to benefit anyone else fair enough, but they're not bothered. As they don't want to be in it, then I think it's pretty obvious what the intention is.

My respect for the tolerance of English people has grown immensely over recent months. Despite all the above and even some of the English press getting involved in the same , they've not fallen for it hook line and sinker.

I think there's a lesson to be learned here.

Leanne1812

skintmacflint wrote: »

Think you're having a laugh here. But was there not also an audience member who said they have very right to be there as part of the Union.?

Considering Salmonds use of emotive provocative phrases on Scotland turning Westminster upside down. Peasant revolt over HO, and him being the kingmaker .

Followed by Nanny and other SNP msps blatant hostility towards all other parties and anything Westminster. Making it clear their single purpose at WM is to protect Scotland and if it happens to benefit anyone else fair enough, but they're not bothered. As they don't want to be in it, then I think it's pretty obvious what the intention is.

My respect for the tolerance of English people has grown immensely over recent months. Despite all the above and even some of the English press getting involved in the same , they've not fallen for it hook line and sinker.

I think there's a lesson to be learned here.

I am certainly not having a laugh. There was thankfully an audience member who had an opposing view but the panel mostly
seemed in agreement with the betrayal if we vote Snp. And all the while no SNP representative to try and balance it out.........

I think you too are mixing up England/rUK and Westminster. Wouldn't it be good for all of us to mix it up and turn Westminster upside down? An alternative voice to the 2 big parties, one of which will be our next gov. Aren't all Mp's there to represent their constituents? That's their intention as it should be.

I see it differently, the SNP have, up till now, not voted on English issues so they're not seen to be interfering in issues that don't concern Scotland. I'd have thought that was universally seen as a good thing. They can't seem to do right for wrong though with some people...........

I've no idea what lesson could be learned........

Don't vote SNP?

Stick with the 2 main parties?

Don't rock the boat?

Well no! I won't be doing that.

Generali

It'll be interesting to see the quality of the candidates after the first few on the slate. Clearly there are going to be many SNP MPs (assuming the vote holds up) that nobody ever really thought would have a chance of getting in. Even now, people don't believe that they will get the same number of votes as the polls state (despite the polls being very bad at picking up large shifts in opinion such as this) although I believe that the SNP are going to get the vast majority of seats unless something changes in the meantime.

In Aus we have a problem with our current Government in that their are crap. We had a long lived and very successful Liberal Government followed by 2 terms of Labour. During that period of Labour Government we had a lot of the Liberal Old Guard retire. As a result we have a highly inexperienced team and it shows. They have no idea of how to run the place and have found it impossible to make the compromises necessary to get a budget etc through.

Presumably a lot of the SNP candidates would be in a similar position. Unless there are a lot of MSP members (e.g. Salmond) who stand for Westminster as well, presumably looking to resign their seat if they get in.

DAK what the quality of the slate is?

PS Yes, I stand by what I said about the polls. I can't be bothered explaining why the methodology suffers regardless of whether you use the 2010 or 2011 results.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't know what you want me to respond to. Barnett is tied to Westminster, and what the Treasury allocates to all the devolved parliaments. Scotland gets what it gets, for better for worse. It depends on the UK budget. No-one in a devolved Scottish parliament gets any kind of say in it. There's nothing that 'could' be done, Scotland wise if it's slashed.

However, attributing what 'Scotland gets' to the 'largesse of the English taxpayer' isn't quite true is it ?

The Smith Commission re raising taxes is a poisoned chalice. Even the newspapers up here accept that.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/bluff-and-bluster-over-gers-a-distraction-to-meeting-real-challenges-that-lie-ahe.120473658

my question is about the SNP policy

do they support continuous borrowing for ever?

you say you do as 'that's the way things work

when interest rates go up people will change their minds and wonder that people ever believed such rubbish: just as RBS has been airbrushed from SNP spin so will massive borrowing in due course.

kabayiri

skintmacflint wrote: »

Think Clapton is referring to the UK budget here. SNP are campaigning that the only way to protect Scotland's services , therefore budget via the Barnett formula , is to send a large SNP contingent to Westminster.

To block the proposed austerity cuts for the next UK budget, of a minority government.

You describe the actions of a party acting in self interest. This shouldn't come as a surprise.

The SNP aren't really interested in the fortunes of the rest of the Union, so long as they achieve their goals.

This regional-level squabbling doesn't really help when we are immersed in a period of serious austerity, with no clear exit point as yet.

ruggedtoast

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Watching QT and listening to a member of the audience speak of any coalition with SNP as a betrayal of English voters leaves me saddened and frustrated.

If we scots, who are a supposedly valued part of this Union, are not free to vote for who we feel will best represent us without 'betraying' the rest of the UK what does this mean for us all?

For me it only serves to make me feel excluded and unwelcome.

I think you've done that to yourself Leanne.

Why not concentrate on enjoying where you live and getting on in life, rather than blaming your unhappiness on parochial ancient politics that are of no relevance whatsoever to the vast majority of the 6 billion people with whom you share a planet?

kabayiri

skintmacflint wrote: »

...
My respect for the tolerance of English people has grown immensely over recent months. Despite all the above and even some of the English press getting involved in the same , they've not fallen for it hook line and sinker.

I think there's a lesson to be learned here.

I love working in Scotland. It's a great place, but even Scotland will have to shoulder it's share of the cuts.

(It doesn't, of course, stop me from hoping you get the wooden spoon in the rugby )