Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

when i was talking with wee Eck the other night, we chatted about the brain drain currently happening in Scotland... he indicated that the plan is to reverse this ... So I would imagine the opposite of what you suggest... although I think you know this already and are just trying to wind people up, once again requiring everything spelled out for you so you can criticise and tear every nuance apart ....

what is the SNP plan to reverse the brain drain?
or is it a state secret or maybe I could google it?

Thrugelmir

Leanne1812 wrote: »

A small example, my husband works for a large multi national corporation. Many of his colleagues have part time contracts but would like full time work. Because of their poor part time pay they are topped up by tax credits. Even if they take a second job this job must be a priority and they should be flexible and open to overtime shifts. How can a company like this be allowed to make massive profits yet their employees need top ups from the gov. How can people who work and want to progress do so with this system. It's plain bonkers.

A system created by a Scot. Totally bonkers I agree and will take time to reverse.

If you divide the annual profit divided by the number of employees employed globally. You may find that on that measurement the profit per head isn't that great. Nor is profit the be all and end all. Suggest you learn to read a cash flow statement as well.

In the Western hemisphere we have no right to higher wages than the rest of the world. The labour market is becoming increasingly global. Plenty of people who want to enjoy the standard if living you do, and are prepared to work for it. Not standing around arguing that somebody else should pay for it.

elantan

CLAPTON wrote: »

what is the SNP plan to reverse the brain drain?
or is it a state secret or maybe I could google it?

I would try google as I ain't a SNP member so couldn't tell ya .. I only know what I heard wee Eck say and that may have been his opinion and not SNP policy

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Leanne, it's a really simple question....

Is there any level of cuts or financial pain Scotland would have to make that wouldn't be worth it?

Or are you an indy at any price sort of person?

What if it turned out oil continues to decline, and an independent review of Scottish finances, conducted by a panel of experts the nationalists could trust concludes Scotland really would have to endure Greek levels of public sector/benefits cuts?

Still a price worth paying?

I think Kevin McKenna probably puts it best today Hamish. For a lot of us that voted Yes. Me anyway. I personally don't believe that there will ever be a scenario, GERS or otherwise that will look like Scotland could ever achieve independence. The unionist 'cause' economically depends absolutely 100% on Scotland, well, being dependent, and continually so. The figures will never show anything else. Because as soon as they do, there would be another independence referendum. Whether the figures are true or not ? Well is debatable. But nowadays, there are many more than 5 years ago, willing to take those risks anyway. Because economics is all that is left. The political train has just left the station in a different direction, and rule Brittania,WWI and 2 and even the Falklands are now well beyond the memories of most.

But what if something else is happening here? What if those who are impelling the SNP to a Scottish landslide on 7 May understand only too well that some of the sums don’t add up and are fully aware of the implications of a long-term depression in the price of a barrel of oil? What if, alive to the pitfalls and uncertainties that lie ahead, they are happy to sustain a measure of deficit in their own finances for several years to come, trusting that, in return, an investment is made in the economic future of the country by delivering policies that will lift their neighbours out of poverty?

If this were so, then we are indeed living through a revolution. For these people will be declaring that, if there is to be austerity, it will be conducted on their own terms and will require all sections of society to make proportionately equal sacrifices. It will be a rebuke to the Thatcherite economic consensus that has prevailed in the UK political establishment for the last 40 years or so. This holds people and communities to be mere commodities, of use only insofar as they can deliver a profit. And it is fuelled by a suspicion that the Conservative party and the Labour party are mere instruments of social control. In this dance to the music of time in Britain, the Tories are sworn to maintain the hegemony of the free market and Labour to ensure that the idiot punters don’t become too truculent.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/05/scotland-snp-revolution-terrifies-main-parties

However, this election isn't about independence. And it won't result in independence either. So we can probably leave it there for the moment.

Should probably be worried about Ivan McKee getting on a select committee though. He'll have access to all sorts of things. (<---- am kind of half joking )

skintmacflint

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No of course not. Some of the more principled MPs espouse the general values of their party, and some seem to try pretty hard in the surgeries they hold. But their first allegiance is to their party. Their constituents get to fit in with that, not the other way around.
?

Hate to break the news that due to SNP fielding a large number of candidates, they've recently voted in a pretty tight set of Whip rules. And all members have had to agree to the new rules.

I remember reading Hosie would have more powers than a normal party Whip. They will all have to vote and act as a uniform party body. None of them are allowed to criticise another SNP member in any public forum, nor any of SNPs policies. That's not the case even for Westminster politicians just now, as several rebel against party Whips, when walking the corridors to the vote chambers.

So I will wait to see if these new MPs do get to put their own ideas forward, to change and influence SNP and it's policies to encompass the many varied ideas thrown up during the campaign. Or whether they will be swallowed up by the party machine , and simply used as voting numbers fodder.

Generali

http://www.buzzfeed.com/aidankerr/the-snp-house-of-cards

Buzzfeed very helpfully includes screen grabs of the new rules.

skintmacflint

elantan wrote: »

everyone i do know... without exception thought that independence would be hard bloody work, we all thought we would be worse off finacially for between 5-10 years, we all expected it to cost us, we all knew that when we got independence we then had to start building the country into a place we wanted to live.

No one imagined a world of milk and honey, not one of us did it for us, we all did it for the future of our families and our neighbours families ....

I think you'd be talking a lot longer than 5 to 10 years here. More like 2 to 4 generations. A. huge mindset change would be needed and sadly my experience of people is , while talk and ideas come easy, particularly when it's festival time and the sun is shining , walking the talk and dealing with the cold hard reality is a different thing altogether. Maybe I'm just too cynical in my old years.

If sacrifices are acceptable why are people complaining about the cuts we've seen so far, or complaining they're not much better off than in 2010. We seem to assume it's a god given right for our living standards to improve each year. Why are voters flocking to anti austerity parties, Sturgeons plan will cost 225 billion in debt interest payments at near zero rates and only reduce it by 1% over 5 years. This burden is being handed to future generations in uncertain global times. Doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to me.

I heard the bit about growing the economy. .How much growth is an extra 165 billion spending likely to achieve? I've no idea, maybe she could quantify it , in terms we can grasp, as it sounds like a soundbite, even if an established accepted method.

elantan

skintmacflint wrote: »

I think you'd be talking a lot longer than 5 to 10 years here. More like 2 to 4 generations. A. huge mindset change would be needed and sadly my experience of people is , while talk and ideas come easy, particularly when it's festival time and the sun is shining , walking the talk and dealing with the cold hard reality is a different thing altogether. Maybe I'm just too cynical in my old years.

If sacrifices are acceptable why are people complaining about the cuts we've seen so far, or complaining they're not much better off than in 2010. We seem to assume it's a god given right for our living standards to improve each year. Why are voters flocking to anti austerity parties, Sturgeons plan will cost 225 billion in debt interest payments at near zero rates and only reduce it by 1% over 5 years. This burden is being handed to future generations in uncertain global times. Doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to me.

I heard the bit about growing the economy. .How much growth is an extra 165 billion spending likely to achieve? I've no idea, maybe she could quantify it , in terms we can grasp, as it sounds like a soundbite, even if an established accepted method.

The thing is we will never know now, even if in five years we decided to become independent, the circumstances will not be the same so the effort and expense will be different.

I also dont know how much growth to expect from slowing down the repayment but £165Bn aint nothing, imagine though if there was also no house of lords to keep and no trident to look after as well ... thats gonna put pennies into the coffers

elantan

skintmacflint wrote: »

Hate to break the news that due to SNP fielding a large number of candidates, they've recently voted in a pretty tight set of Whip rules. And all members have had to agree to the new rules.

I remember reading Hosie would have more powers than a normal party Whip. They will all have to vote and act as a uniform party body. None of them are allowed to criticise another SNP member in any public forum, nor any of SNPs policies. That's not the case even for Westminster politicians just now, as several rebel against party Whips, when walking the corridors to the vote chambers.

So I will wait to see if these new MPs do get to put their own ideas forward, to change and influence SNP and it's policies to encompass the many varied ideas thrown up during the campaign. Or whether they will be swallowed up by the party machine , and simply used as voting numbers fodder.

Aye thats one of the things I dont like about the SNP ... I get why they are doing it just now but it is wrong in my opinion, and the idea of a one party state scares the bejeezuz out of me.

Generali

elantan wrote: »

I also dont know how much growth to expect from slowing down the repayment but £165Bn aint nothing, imagine though if there was also no house of lords to keep and no trident to look after as well ... thats gonna put pennies into the coffers

The savings from scrapping the House of Lords would be minimal, less than £100,000,000 for the UK as a whole or about £7,000,000 for Scotland.

You also then need to wonder why most democratic countries go for a bicameral system rather than a unicameral one. Generally it's a very good idea to have some checks against the power of the state. The Scottish Parliament doesn't need a second house because its powers are limited by Westminster. The UK parliament provides the check on power of the Scottish Government.

The savings from scrapping Trident would be.........£0 (if the UK/Scotland is going to remain in NATO). One of the commitments AIUI is that if you are going to be in NATO you are required to spend 2% of GDP on defence. The UK/Scotland is bumping up against that minimum figure and indeed is set to fall below it with the next round of defence spending cuts. The Americans aren't going to put up with spending indefinite amounts on defending European countries that aren't prepared to spend on defending themselves.

At present, the US spends 3.8% of GDP on defence (or defense!).

As for reducing the rate of decline of the deficit. That doesn't necessarily increase growth. During a recession when businesses aren't investing then it's reasonable for the Government to invest instead. In normal times, the Government simply 'crowds out' private investing: Government borrowing reduces private borrowing on a pound for pound basis.