Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I thought you might have forgotten

No, it was ruggedtoast that started the thread, and a couple of Scottish one's previously, not me. They generally start as rants about Alex Salmond being overweight. Not much to do with economics, then go from there. Anyway politics/economics are hard to separate entirely.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

How would Scotland pay for the groundwork?

There isn't any money.

I said lay not pay the groundwork. There doesn't need to be any money. It'll be through legislation and amendments to current/future legislation.

ie hey Dave/Ed you know that Smith commission thing ? We need a bit more in the way of welfare responsibilities devolved our way. We don't like this sanctions/bedroom tax/disability/housing benefit universal credit malarkey.

You know that Crown Estate thing ? Supposed to be devolved completely ? There are a few clauses here and there we don't really want. Can we have them removed ?

You know the BBC ? It's not really relevant enough. They keep putting up Scottish MP's on Daily Politics with 'SNP Threat' captions underneath them. And Pacific Quay has far too many Labour luvvies from yesteryear still pulling strings. Any chance we could devolve that a bit further ?

You know that oil fund/oil resilience fund we want, and Scottish Labour want ? Could we have a committee set up to see if it's feasible in the near future, especially if prices go back up ( well oil is volatile eh ) ? Is a bit silly not to have something in the way of a buffer in the bad years like now.. Don't worry, we'll sign a 'pre-nup' in the event of a split...

This raising tax thing.. income tax, meeeh.. we need a few more to powers there to balance that out, otherwise all we'd ever be doing is raising them without being able to mitigate in other tax/spending areas. Oh and talking of which, immigration. We understand the south of England sees it as a bit of a problem. That's fine.. but we need more immigrants up here.. could we mabye devolve a bit more there ?

What's that ? You want us to vote your budget through for the next few years, why of course....

Five years of that should lay a bit of 'groundwork'

Generali

So you want to increase spending despite a massive fall in rax revenues..?

How is Scotland going to cut spending by 25% per HAMISH's figures whilst increasing benefits?

To attract immigrants you need a thriving economy. That's not panning out so well for Scotland right now.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

So you want to increase spending despite a massive fall in rax revenues..?

No, I used hypothetical examples of legislation on devolving more responsibilities to the Scottish Government. Why would tax revenues fall in Scotland?

How is Scotland going to cut spending by 25% per HAMISH's figures whilst increasing benefits?

When do they need to cut spending ? They have no powers over reserved matters just a fixed grant. Once again, I've given you hypothetical examples of areas where responsibilities can be devolved further, if not completely.. within the union, and Barnett adjusted accordingly. It's not about 'increasing benefits'.. it's about re-arranging benefits. The Scottish govt is already having to fork out to mitigate the bedroom tax. Housing benefits are too high as well.. especially in the private rental sector. The Scottish govt are looking into that, but what's the point with no control over it ? Over zealous sanctioning is getting out of hand too. It just leads to many more people using the NHS ( not eating properly ), homelessness or crime. All of which cost too !

To attract immigrants you need a thriving economy. That's not panning out so well for Scotland right now.

Immigration to a 'thriving economy' down in London and surrounding is causing it's own problems too. There's economics then there's housing shortages/school places/house prices/rent prices/numbers using the NHS. There needs to be a balance there. Just 'stopping them all'.. won't do Scotland much good.

You could take everything in isolation if you like. But the point I was making that it will be through legislation and amendments to bills, devolving things further, mabye completely in some cases.. that will make the steps to FFA/Devo-Max or independence much easier for the UK as a whole. And while the SNP is in power in Scotland, that's what they will keep pushing for. Is taken as read that die-hard unionists like Hamish will keep producing fancy graphics that 'prove' the economic stuff in the event of a sharp shock which independence/FFA overnight would have provided.. The game has changed, the referendum lost. Some of us recognise that. SNP MP's in enough numbers to make a difference will be slowly eroding Westminster's influence overall, and from within this time. You'll hardly notice.

Unless of course, something causes that sharp, shock again.

Derek Bateman put it well today..( he's enjoying this )

Forget all that stuff about lots of devolution if we stay; this time Scots are not waiting for the Establishment to dispense it, but we are ready to take it from them for once by using the very thing they have used against us – the authority vested in Parliament.

http://derekbateman.co.uk/2015/03/25/the-chips-are-down/

ps Hamish isn't the only economist in the world Scotland has to listen to.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Derek Bateman put it well today..( he's enjoying this )

http://derekbateman.co.uk/2015/03/25/the-chips-are-down/
to.

No he didn't. He just confirmed in this respect he is another deluded Them and US cohort, with Them being Westminster and Us being Scottish people.

All of my years, there's , been a Scottish Nationalist Party fighting for the rights of Scotland. Salmond has been vociferous in his hatred of both Tory and labour for decades. Yet few would vote for him.The reality is , the 'Them' was the Scottish people not Westminster, the Us was SNP not the Scottish people. For decades Scots, including you, voted to send any party but SNP into Westminster. Is that Westminsters or any other party's fault. ?

Salmond has always known this, but instead of being brave enough to admit it and blame 'his people' he convinced them they'd been misled.

Swinney admitted it was only in 2007, he realised Salmond was even serious about winning a majority at Holyrood? Swinney was taken aback at how they'd managed to pull off a minority government , and his old pal was FM. Even Salmond didn't believe he would be able to hold his minority government for more than a few months.

So maybe less of the Scotlands been held back, oppressed, crying out for this that and the other and been denied it for decades rhetoric, spewed out on WOS , we are the 45 etc, would be appropriate. Scotlands always had a choice, and when given the best chance of a lifetime turned him down. It's not even enlightened, with the exception of a minority it's simply switched grumbles and grievance elsewhere.

So now it's the democratic way via Westminster, the system SNP despises. No problem with that, nor even the fact he might have a tactical advantage due to the split in English votes. But he should remember he represents all of Scotland down there, even those who didn't vote for them. So maybe less of the snide faux outrage from his fans and commentators on the democratic process wouldn't go amiss. Particularly as Salmond and SNP only seem to recognise their brand of democracy, and it's not looking very inclusive or bright.

skintmacflint

elantan wrote: »

Yep it is beautiful to watch :T:T:T Sunday was a great day for politics watching :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: ... I sat and thought oh man he is having a ball, Anna Soubry was hilarious,

Anna is always good. Was like a double act, him faux hurt and indignation, her faux outrage. Did you notice the wee smile she gave him at the end of their chat, just as the camera panned back to Marr.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, it was ruggedtoast that started the thread, and a couple of Scottish one's previously, not me. They generally start as rants about Alex Salmond being overweight. Not much to do with economics, then go from there. Anyway politics/economics are hard to separate entirely.

The thread title is about subsidies, which is entirely valid in an economics forum.

You keep banging on about some mad revenge politics scenario at the GE. It's become an obsession Shakey.

Once the election dust settles the new ruling party/coallition/whatever will sit down; look at the numbers; and take a deep breath. Then it will be business as usual.

elantan

skintmacflint wrote: »

Anna is always good. Was like a double act, him faux hurt and indignation, her faux outrage. Did you notice the wee smile she gave him at the end of their chat, just as the camera panned back to Marr.

yes i did ... hilarious :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

The thread title is about subsidies, which is entirely valid in an economics forum.

You keep banging on about some mad revenge politics scenario at the GE. It's become an obsession Shakey.

Once the election dust settles the new ruling party/coallition/whatever will sit down; look at the numbers; and take a deep breath. Then it will be business as usual.

Err it was myself that suggested the title, as a joke. People were interested in the fallout from the referendum and the thread started ( with a much more staid title, nothing about subsidies ) didn't get any posts..

As for obsessions.. I come here to relax. I run forum(s), one a very large one and I like to get away and think about something else for a change. This for me is simply 'time out' in between while I'm online. I've been coming here for years just doing the Scottish ref/devo max threads. I enjoy the debate in a subject that interests me. I'm not particularly bothered if it appears on this area of the forum or in DT or elsewhere.

If you think speculating about likely scenario's both politically and economically re May 7th and the current state of play polling wise is 'revenge'.. Oh well. Don't read them. At least I haven't been reduced just yet to posting up Youtube clips of cheesy old 70's shows in order to make a serious 'economic' point on a serious 'economic' thread like yourself.

The Tories are in trouble at the moment polling wise. Labour + SNP MP's are looking likely to outnumber them as things stand. Deals to be done. It won't be back to business as usual either in Scotland.. where there is another major election held in May 2016. The SNP will be looking to keep the momentum up re further economic and other powers. This in turn has implications for any MP's sent to Westminster in May 2015. If you look up 'Scotland Labour feeble 50'.. it should explain all you need to know about how SNP MP's don't want to be perceived to Scots May 16 voters.

Voltaire7

skintmacflint wrote: »

So now it's the democratic way via Westminster, the system SNP despises. No problem with that, nor even the fact he might have a tactical advantage due to the split in English votes. But he should remember he represents all of Scotland down there, even those who didn't vote for them. So maybe less of the snide faux outrage from his fans and commentators on the democratic process wouldn't go amiss. Particularly as Salmond and SNP only seem to recognise their brand of democracy, and it's not looking very inclusive or bright.

'No problems with that'.

I'm not convinced. Think you're the 3rd poster on this thread to use that qualification.

Not sure what you mean by his brand of democracy. Is his brand illegal or not democratic? Or do just not like democracy when it doesn't give you the outcomes you desire?