Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Every man woman and child in Scotland can vote SNP from now to the end of eternity and it won't make a blind bit of difference. Scotland will never be separate from the UK.

End of thread.

Or so you thought...until it became obvious that Alex Salmond is coming for you.. and your fat fish subsidies, again.

zagubov

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Or so you thought...until it became obvious that Alex Salmond is coming for you.. and your fat fish subsidies, again.

Shakey it's best not to describe democracy so clearly in a thread that's as worried about it as this one is.

skintmacflint

.string. wrote: »

Oh by the way, I forgot to mention earlier, in the link I posted before, where Sturgeon repeated the SNP lie about the Vow being broken, she laid bare her attitude to fiscal restraint in the paragraph when she said;
"Scotland would be tied to the UK’s current austerity fiscal framework, and under the plans set out could see capital borrowing powers replace, and not augment, the existing capital grant.".

In other words she is moaning and groaning about not being allowed full rein to borrow and spend unlimited amounts regardless of the pain the rest of us are collectively enduring.

Trust the SNP? - not in a month of referendum days.

Of course she's moaning, because she has a large group of voters expecting additional freebies on top of what they already get and feel entitled to.

Having always put the disabled and vulnerable at the forefront of her campaigning, she can now put her money where her mouth is , and create additional top ups for them ivia income tax rates. But is fearful of upsetting the opposite section of her voters whom she also bribed with open to all freebies on council tax, free elderly care, tuition fees.

SNP have been promoting the Scandic model up here as simply Scotland getting all the good bits of extra freebies via additional income redistribution. And growing the economy with a bit of investment., and of course oil revenue although she denies it.

They've been less vocal on explaining on some other bits ie higher taxes, a strong work ethic, where you're expected to take a vacancy whether you want it or not, even if it doesn't pay well, high educational attainment instead of wasting your time at school and increased personal responsibility for your lifestyle decisions and your families. With an expectation of some free community volunteering in your spare time from work.

Seems obvious even Granny Sturgeon thinks it might be a step too far for many of her newly acquired supporters. Which is why she needs to keep borrowing at the moment.

Of course now she's legislated government control of all our kids including the unborn, through the back door, it might make things easier for her.

.string.

Yes - as more powers come the way of the SNP it will be put up or shut up time.

The soft underbelly.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Of course she's moaning, because she has a large group of voters expecting additional freebies on top of what they already get and feel entitled to.

Having always put the disabled and vulnerable at the forefront of her campaigning, she can now put her money where her mouth is , and create additional top ups for them ivia income tax rates. But is fearful of upsetting the opposite section of her voters whom she also bribed with open to all freebies on council tax, free elderly care, tuition fees.

SNP have been promoting the Scandic model up here as simply Scotland getting all the good bits of extra freebies via additional income redistribution. And growing the economy with a bit of investment., and of course oil revenue although she denies it.

They've been less vocal on explaining on some other bits ie higher taxes, a strong work ethic, where you're expected to take a vacancy whether you want it or not, even if it doesn't pay well, high educational attainment instead of wasting your time at school and increased personal responsibility for your lifestyle decisions and your families. With an expectation of some free community volunteering in your spare time from work.

Seems obvious even Granny Sturgeon thinks it might be a step too far for many of her newly acquired supporters. Which is why she needs to keep borrowing at the moment.

Of course now she's legislated government control of all our kids including the unborn, through the back door, it might make things easier for her.

You seem to have entered some kind of fast forward time warp where the SNP are fighting a Scottish-only election in 2016.

Jim Murphy/Scottish Labour appears to have done the same... I'm not sure it's working out that well.

The middle part of your post reads straight out of Ian Duncan Smith's handbook too. Welfare isn't devolved in case you hadn't noticed. At least I assume it's welfare you're talking about when you're talking about 'strong work ethics' and 'taking jobs even if they don't pay well' etc etc.. The Scottish Govt has no powers over any of the above and won't have for some time, if they ever appear. Is either that or you've time warped backwards to fighting a referendum campaign 6 months ago.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Yes - as more powers come the way of the SNP it will be put up or shut up time.

The soft underbelly.

I agree, however those powers do need to be meaningful.. not a poisoned chalice. A minority Labour govt ( if that's what happens in May ) might help somewhat there. Labour's got a soft underbelly too...

Alex Massie

Indeed, it is becoming ever clearer that the Nationalists have trussed Labour up like a chicken ready for roasting. All that remains to be decided is whether Labour will be cooked low and slow or fast and high. The outcome is not in doubt; merely the means by which it will be delivered. The result is the same: the chicken is roasted.


The truth is that a weak Labour government dependent upon SNP support on an issue-by-issue basis suits the Nationalists almost as well as another term in office for David Cameron. The SNP have no desire to become entangled in the thickets of any formal coalition apparatus. Better by far to remain on the backbenches exerting influence as and when they see fit. This will doubtless be presented as a means by which Labour can be “kept honest” but it really offers the SNP the gift of power without responsibility. They will claim credit for what they want and absolve themselves of responsibility for anything that seems disagreeable.


In that respect, a large SNP contingent at Westminster will enjoy the same kind of teflon-status the party has hitherto enjoyed while exercising power at the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh. Labour take comfort in the thought the SNP would never dare vote down a Labour government and, potentially, hand the Tories another shot at power but the truth is there’d be no need for the SNP to act in such a reckless or provocative fashion.


Why, in any case, would they do so when a weak Labour government serves their interests so effectively? Moreover, the requirements of fixed-term parliaments make a subsequent, snap, election much less probable. The SNP could keep Labour on a leash without risking a fresh Tory government. If that provoked some kind of English “backlash” then so much the better.


Not that a Conservative victory in May would depress the SNP either. Many of the party’s grass-root activists might deplore such an outcome but the leadership is keenly aware that another term in office for David Cameron serves the Nationalists well.

https://medium.com/@alexmassie/ed-miliband-and-the-banality-of-mediocrity-6e50a74063ad

.string.

YWell Shakey you can speculate on things falling all to the SNP's advantage, but I doubt that will happen.

For a start, as things stand the Conservatives could well form the next Government, but they won't serve a poisoned chalice, it will be a sugar coated loving cup which point by point enacts the vow and one which the SNP would obstruct at their political peril.

If Labour get in as a minority Goverment I can't see them doing much different and don't really see why they should be that worried about the SNP. Sure that might loose one or two votes but so what, and anything the SNP tries to get enacted which is deleterious to the UK would be voted down by MPs whose constituents are from the rest of the UK. Maybe SNP SNPs don't have minds of their own, but Labour MPs do

So whatever the result I see the SNPs largely twiddling their thumbs, making the odd rude remarks and constantly showing what a bunch of narrow minded !!!!! they are.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

YWell Shakey you can speculate on things falling all to the SNP's advantage, but I doubt that will happen.

For a start, as things stand the Conservatives could well form the next Government, but they won't serve a poisoned chalice, it will be a sugar coated loving cup which point by point enacts the vow and one which the SNP would obstruct at their political peril.

It's unlikely the Tories will form a majority government. They haven't done so since 1992.. And if they actually did. There's no way the Vow would be enacted. Certainly not point by point. Not with the likes of Redwood and other Tory backbenchers ( and a fair few Labour ones too ) intent on blocking it. The Vow wasn't popular in England, or with lots of English MP's. Your faith in them to pass it all as it stands, point by point, is optimistic to say the least. And anyway, the Vow wasn't an SNP proposal in the first place.

If Labour get in as a minority Goverment I can't see them doing much different and don't really see why they should be that worried about the SNP. Sure that might loose one or two votes but so what, and anything the SNP tries to get enacted which is deleterious to the UK would be voted down by MPs whose constituents are from the rest of the UK. Maybe SNP SNPs don't have minds of their own, but Labour MPs do

Oh they should be worried about the SNP. Not actually with how they vote.. but on what they abstain on. Depending on seat numbers Labour trying to get something through the HOC which the SNP don't agree on, or can't do a deal on.. means the SNP will simply abstain. That'll mean a straight numbers battle with the Tories and others. It may well be that the Tories have the numbers to defeat it ( more seats), that and just about anything else Labour propose.

So whatever the result I see the SNPs largely twiddling their thumbs, making the odd rude remarks and constantly showing what a bunch of narrow minded !!!!! they are.

They'll only twiddle thumbs if it's something they don't want to vote through. Trident renewal for example they'll vote against. If it's on issues like the Bedroom tax, or sanctions, anti-austerity measures or minimum wage, they'll vote it through. Anything else they'll abstain and leave for Labour, Tories, Lib Dems etc to fight over. But it really does depend on arithmetic. After a brief Tory bounce, polls are back neck and neck. But at the end of the day, if Labour can't get anything through without SNP support, then I guess there will be a few deals to be made.

Alex Massie was right in his article.... much as he hates the thought of the SNP anywhere near power ! ( his dad wrote the 'Thames rivers of blood' article last week ).. He's at least realistic about it.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

Shakey it's best not to describe democracy so clearly in a thread that's as worried about it as this one is.

Democracy isn't a party elected by 2% of the popular vote trying to force the 98% to do their bidding.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You seem to have entered some kind of fast forward time warp where the SNP are fighting a Scottish-only election in 2016.

Jim Murphy/Scottish Labour appears to have done the same... I'm not sure it's working out that well.

The middle part of your post reads straight out of Ian Duncan Smith's handbook too. Welfare isn't devolved in case you hadn't noticed. At least I assume it's welfare you're talking about when you're talking about 'strong work ethics' and 'taking jobs even if they don't pay well' etc etc.. The Scottish Govt has no powers over any of the above and won't have for some time, if they ever appear. Is either that or you've time warped backwards to fighting a referendum campaign 6 months ago.

Strange things these time warps, as y ou seem to be stuck in the 1980s historical time warp of 'Forever hate the Tories) while adding Labour to the list of hate for mere association.

As for IDS read 'There is such a thing called society' or the IEA 2010 Redefining the Poverty debate before attempts at derision via association. SNP s strategy is neither new nor innovative. But it is dishonest as it totally neglects to mention the civic responsibility assumed and required in the Scandic model for it to be achievable not to mention several other differences. But then these little important details have never stood in the way of SNP posturing.

While Granny may not have control over Unemployment welfare, she has the power to create any new additional top up benefits she desires for this group of people. If SNP used the same creative , manipulative approach and energy in creating these , as they use in their campaigning and approach to Independence, should be a dawdle for John Swinney.

Yet she seems to have little appetite for it so far. Probably because she knows a large section of voters won't be happy about higher taxes, and it suits her single aim much better to keep this group in discontent by blaming it solely on Westminster and the UK government.

Incidentally I don't see your logic in not being willing to pay higher tax to improve the NHS, saying you feel it's paying taxes for the same thing twice. But you seem perfectly content for our governments to pay thousands of low skilled immigrants in tax credits, housing benefit, to come and do work our unemployed won't consider. While at the same time paying our unemployed people , JSA, HB , Tax credits which could be more , not to take them but to sit at home. Certainly paying twice in this situation. Neither does it fit the Scandic model. Of Norway as an example.

But there you go.