Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't think she'll tone it down. As you say mistrust is the biggest problem. If there's a hint that the SNP would allow a Tory government in, then their support pre-election will evaporate as people go back to Labour as the only way to 'keep the Tories out'.

Also there's this today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32021928

The 'Vow', for whatever reasons, seems is hitting the buffers already Westminster wise. As predicted.

I'm not sure what as 'predicted' means.

It's certainly true that the timetable excluded the peoples of the UK in any way whatsoever.
There should have been at least a 12 to 18 month timescale for further devolution of powers.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

The problem with offering Scotland FFA or anything vaguely approaching it is that the Scottish Government would be so far into a fiscal hole that it just wouldn't be feasible.

The deficit is likely to be so wide that even if Scotland was allowed to borrow (like many states and territories can in federal systems) she wouldn't be able to borrow anything like as much as required to fill the gap.

What then? Does the rest of the Union stand by as the Scottish NHS etc fails and millions are forced south for medical treatment, education etc?

We accept the need to stress test banks given various possible economic scenarios.

The fallout of a neighbouring country going into meltdown is just as dangerous if you ask me.

Why don't the SNP commission and pay for an independent outfit to simulate various independence scenarios using a range of oil prices / deficit positions etc? We need more detailed information, positive or negative.

Personally, I can't trust what any politician says. They will only give you half the story; and be very selective on facts.

I thought this was forum was an economics one anyway. Why are we speculating on politics so much? That is the realm of Discussion Time.

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure what as 'predicted' means.

It's certainly true that the timetable excluded the peoples of the UK in any way whatsoever.
There should have been at least a 12 to 18 month timescale for further devolution of powers.

We are talking about major change to an Union which has been in place for hundreds of years.

We should take our time I agree, and work it out properly.

.string.

Generali wrote: »

The problem with offering Scotland FFA or anything vaguely approaching it is that the Scottish Government would be so far into a fiscal hole that it just wouldn't be feasible.

The deficit is likely to be so wide that even if Scotland was allowed to borrow (like many states and territories can in federal systems) she wouldn't be able to borrow anything like as much as required to fill the gap.

What then? Does the rest of the Union stand by as the Scottish NHS etc fails and millions are forced south for medical treatment, education etc?

That is the problem with FFA as proposed by the SNP because their concept, as explained by Shakey, is that they would get ALL revenue decided to be Scotland Revenue and give back to the UK a sum over which they would have control which would pay for "common things" (my ""s). The trouble is that those common things, as they stand with Scotland integrated within the Union, include major expenditures as they have to pay for support if Scotland goes bust, they have to guarantee the pound and they have to provide pensions and other welfare services, not to mention Defence, paying the National Debt and so on and so forth.

Since we all know (even the SNP know this but are too dishonest to admit it) that Scotland by itself cannot pay for all its current expenditure and since the rest of the SNP do not trust the SNP to play ball, such an arrangement as FFA is simply not acceptable. It would be FFA without the corresponding FFR (Full Fiscal Responsibility). Also it must be remarked that separated Corporation Tax would result very quickly in companies fleeing Scotland and a tendency of the separate parts of the then-nominal Union to favour companies based in their own "Nation". That would not be to Scotland's benefit I'm sure.

In point of fact the current devolved arrangements, with some tweaking, are actually a form of Federalism and could be improved. But this should recognise that the overarching UK has an essential cohesive role to play and therefore needs funding to do this. So there could be a provincial tax and a federal tax system running in parallel, similar to the Canadian Model.

My take is that the enhanced devolution offered Scotland should be seen as part of a process and should NOT include anything that makes it irreversible or prevents it being changed, such change being subject to the will of the whole UK population, not just 100,000 people. Changes should happen rapidly in the HOC too, but also acknowledged as being part of a process.

Tromking

elantan wrote: »

I accept the fact that on 18th September the people of Scotland voted No, I also accept that Scotland will be independent one day. Just now the people of Scotland are learning all about politics, they have been asleep for years so have a thirst for knowledge that hasnt been seen here for a long time if ever. The MSP I was talking to the other day explained that for them things have changed dramatically.

Again an extrapolation from the SNP's post indyref bounce that is based on infantile nationalist wishful thinking rather than anything tangible.
Scotland is as far away from independence as it has been anytime in my lifetime. From my English perspective Scotland returning circa 50 SNP MP's is more about a region of the UK that usually dines out on its independence of thought, being a little embarrassed that when push came to shove it couldn't do with the UK comfort blanket.Let's show the English we wanted independence after all (not!)
It'll wear off.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The problem with offering Scotland FFA or anything vaguely approaching it is that the Scottish Government would be so far into a fiscal hole that it just wouldn't be feasible.

The deficit is likely to be so wide that even if Scotland was allowed to borrow (like many states and territories can in federal systems) she wouldn't be able to borrow anything like as much as required to fill the gap.

What then? Does the rest of the Union stand by as the Scottish NHS etc fails and millions are forced south for medical treatment, education etc?

Hyperbole much ? Gradualism..FFA wouldn't happen overnight. Not least because of the shock to the rest of the UK's economics as well.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure what as 'predicted' means.

It's certainly true that the timetable excluded the peoples of the UK in any way whatsoever.
There should have been at least a 12 to 18 month timescale for further devolution of powers.

As predicted by those who were in total shock when the newspapers and tv in Scotland, and Labour MP's took to twitter proclaiming triumphantly headlines such as 'Vow Delivered' for days and weeks after the Smith commission was published.

They hadn't been ( obviously ) and it was always obvious Westminster/House of Lords were going to put the brakes on big time. One only needs look to previous proposals for further powers, all of which have taken 6 or 7 years, and been watered down significantly along the way. The Vow will never be enacted, it'll be kicked into some very long grass like previous 'acts' were.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

We are talking about major change to an Union which has been in place for hundreds of years.

We should take our time I agree, and work it out properly.

I agree somewhat...However, that wasn't what was 'vowed' a few months ago. That's going to be a problem. The main three political parties all promised to have this in their manifesto's for this coming election.

elantan

Tromking wrote: »

Again an extrapolation from the SNP's post indyref bounce that is based on infantile nationalist wishful thinking rather than anything tangible.
Scotland is as far away from independence as it has been anytime in my lifetime. From my English perspective Scotland returning circa 50 SNP MP's is more about a region of the UK that usually dines out on its independence of thought, being a little embarrassed that when push came to shove it couldn't do with the UK comfort blanket.Let's show the English we wanted independence after all (not!)
It'll wear off.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:ach you are funny right enough, I will give you that,

I personally highly doubt 50 SNP MP's will be sent down to Wm, I personally think labour will do better than expected.

Generali

LINK

THE Scottish National Party is on course to win a majority of seats across England.
Former leader Alex Salmond said the party was polling ‘particularly well’ in Surrey, Northamptonshire and Devon.
Salmond told the New Statesman: “Guildford is a certainty. Our candidate Margaret Gerving has never been to Scotland but assures me that I’m the most impressive person she’s ever met.
“We’ll take most of the seats in Devon. They like me in Devon. I met a woman there last week who was crying and so I put her gently in a headlock until she stopped.
“I was then carried through the streets of Tiverton before being installed at a boutique B&B where the prettiest girl in town helped me take a bath.”
Salmond said the SNP would win 300 English seats, 1200 Scottish seats and more than 40 seats in Bulgaria, forcing David Cameron and the Conservative Party to flee to Norway.

I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up by more news outlets TBH.