Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

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

Oh don't be so melodramatic. If Westminster doesn't want to do something the SNP want, the other 600 MP's will simply vote against it.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

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.

It doesn't seem to have stopped any other party posturing either. Or are you a bit blinkered ? All parties 'posture' and 'grandstand'.

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.

When did the Scottish Govt gain these powers ? Creating top-up benefits ? Even mitigating the Bedroom tax had to be fudged through somehow from the Scottish budget. But they did it anyway. No-one has to worry in Scotland about being evicted for Bedroom tax arrears. I dare say the SNP would welcome much more control in that respect, not less.

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.

As Labour blame the Tories, and the Tories blame the last Labour Govt etc etc. This is nothing new.

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.

Scotland needs immigrants. Not in huge numbers, but with an aging population, they are needed. This is one area where policy in Scotland, and policy for England a 'one size fits all' isn't working well. Immigrants are just about all heading to the same place..south east England, for work. There's no balance there. And there probably needs to be somehow. I have no idea how to achieve that.

I actually said I would be willing to pay higher tax. Just that if there was nothing measurable and relatively quick results from doing so, that some may feel as if they are paying twice for exactly the same services. Paying tax to Westminster and Holyrood with nothing to show for it NHS wise wouldn't be something that would be popular, obviously. I also pointed out that there may be a lot of heated politics that would occur over where to direct the extra money to.

kabayiri

.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.

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.

What you describe String is basically reality biting!

The real differences between the main parties will be relatively small.

Previously, Labour bought into PFI. The Coallition continued with PFI. Why? Because there is little appetite to make the headline debt position any worse!

So why should any major party commit to a Gordon Brown style spending spree just because a minority party call for it?

They can't afford it.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
Scotland needs immigrants. Not in huge numbers, but with an aging population, they are needed. This is one area where policy in Scotland, and policy for England a 'one size fits all' isn't working well. Immigrants are just about all heading to the same place..south east England, for work. There's no balance there. And there probably needs to be somehow. I have no idea how to achieve that.
...

1) Stop spending so much on the state
2) Attract business with lower business rates
3) The migrants will follow if they think the work is there

It's not rocket science.

(of course this will include the English/Welsh/NI migrants too!)

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh don't be so melodramatic. If Westminster doesn't want to do something the SNP want, the other 600 MP's will simply vote against it.

LOL. I can hear the SNP potential MPs salivating from here at the idea of all the juicy pork they can deliver to their constituents.

Holding the feet to the fire eh.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland needs immigrants. Not in huge numbers, but with an aging population, they are needed. This is one area where policy in Scotland, and policy for England a 'one size fits all' isn't working well. Immigrants are just about all heading to the same place..south east England, for work. There's no balance there. And there probably needs to be somehow. I have no idea how to achieve that.

I'm sure there are many reasons, but the threat of Scottish independence is unlike to be a positive.

Presumably Scotland is blessed with loads of job vacancies and plenty of empty property : they will be positives.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

1) Stop spending so much on the state
2) Attract business with lower business rates
3) The migrants will follow if they think the work is there

It's not rocket science.

(of course this will include the English/Welsh/NI migrants too!)

The Scottish Government would need the powers to do all of those things. They don't have it. That's not rocket science either. Public spending ( within the constraints of what the Scottish Govt get )..isn't much different from that in other area's of the UK. Also some things haven't been privatised up here ( Scottish Water etc ) so are included in public spending figs.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

LOL. I can hear the SNP potential MPs salivating from here at the idea of all the juicy pork they can deliver to their constituents.

Holding the feet to the fire eh.

It was Cameron, Clegg and Milliband that promised most of the pork Generali.. You're surely not suggesting the Vow etc was just a paniced ruse in order to make sure the referendum returned a No vote...and that they had no intention on delivering the pork they promised ? :eek:

Is that what you're saying ?

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm sure there are many reasons, but the threat of Scottish independence is unlike to be a positive.

Presumably Scotland is blessed with loads of job vacancies and plenty of empty property : they will be positives.

I think it's only an extra 2000 ( from current levels ) that are needed each year. Am guessing if an aging population is a problem, pretty soon there will be loads of job vacancies and empty properties. And at least the Scottish Government are actually building houses/stopped 'right to buy'. I think one of the goals is an attempt to stop graduates moving away also, use their skills here. All about the jobs really. But certainly, the immigration 'problem' is just about non-existent up here compared to other areas of the UK.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It was Cameron, Clegg and Milliband that promised most of the pork Generali.. You're surely not suggesting the Vow etc was just a paniced ruse in order to make sure the referendum returned a No vote...and that they had no intention on delivering the pork they promised ? :eek:

Is that what you're saying ?

I think you don't understand what Pork Barrel Spending is.

Nobody that I'm aware of promised loads of extra spending for Scotland. They did promise a change to the constitution. The former would have been pork. The latter is constitutional politics.