Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

That's an interesting point. There is a good democratic case for asking approval from the UK at large. That raises the same issue as the SNP expect to use, which is that items in the Tory or Labour manifesto regarding their commitment for the new Devolution arrangements will be taken as establishing a democratic mandate from the people of the United Kingdom, although actually a Referendum would probably be the correct thing to do. Anything further will not have any mandate.

Should, perchance, the devolved powers exceed what is currently on offer, then there would also be a good case for discard the Barnet subsidy. If the Scottish Parliament does not accept what is on offer, then it should be withdrawn, not incremented up the never-ever-happy wish-list of the SNP.

Errr the SNP weren't the one's who were doing the offering of further powers. Conservative, Labour and Lib Dems were. I know you like playing SNP bingo.. but any 'offers' of further powers came from elsewhere. And even then, they fall far short of what some people were lead to expect.

BBC News has just stopped what it was doing in order to give Jim Murphy ( my goodness, Johann Lamont the former Scottish leader was never given even a 100th of the airtime ! ) and Gordon Brown extensive coverage of offering more powers than Smith does. Less than a week after Murphy was proclaiming Home Rule had been delivered lol. What a mess. Desperate stuff.

The above is not the SNP's doing string. Nothing to do with them ( apart from their poll lead I suspect ). I hope you take note of that. They don't seem to be concerning themselves much with any UK referendum or 'mandates' either. And most if it is smoke and mirrors anyway. ie a seperate 'Scottish manifesto' (?) .. spending powers without saying where the money would come from, and of course, there's the little matter of getting elected into office first, and THEN getting it past UK MP's. :eek:

These sort of headlines won't go down well south of the border. Quite rightly too.. but again, these 'offers' are nothing to do with the SNP.

I can't respond to your other post because it's all in a quote.

.string.

Shakey - "Full Fiscal Autonomy" - who has been proposing that and raising unrealistic expectations?

Incidentally - your last para above - just a tip in case you don't know this trick:

If you use this - except use [ and ] instead of ( and )

(quote=string or some other name)copy and paste into here the text you want to quote(/quote)

you get

string_or_some_other_name wrote:

copy and paste into here the text you want to quote

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Shakey - "Full Fiscal Autonomy" - who has been proposing that and raising unrealistic expectations?

Gordon Brown ? Alistair Darling ? The Daily record, the Guardian, the Telegraph, Reporting Scotland, BBC Scotland, BBC News 24, The Herald, The Independent ?... I could list many more.

If Scotland votes 'No', its citizens will be offered a form of governance called devo-max. But what is this method, and why does it anger some English and Welsh MPs?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-what-is-devomax-9733931.html

Just 48 hours before the polling stations open in Scotland, voters were offered a pledge. Published on the front of the Daily Record, and thus aimed prominently and squarely at the traditional Labour voters who make up a lot of the Record’s readership, “the vow” reiterated that extensive new “devo max” powers for the Scottish parliament would follow hard on from a no voteon Thursday.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/guardian-view-on-devo-max-pledge-scottish-independence

I think the SNP at the time, were far more interested in hyping up full independence expectations, rather than those of FFA. It was others hyping up Devo-Max not the SNP.

Refendum lost, result accepted. Further powers as far as they can go seems a reasonable platform to campaign on for May's election. And why not. If people don't like the prospect of FFA/Devo-Max for Scotland, they can always vote for someone else. Scottish Labour today are trying to make sure people do just that.. with firm offers and vows, of ummm.... further powers ?

Incidentally - your last para above - just a tip in case you don't know this trick:

If you use this - except use [ and ] instead of ( and )

(quote=string or some other name)copy and paste into here the text you want to quote(/quote)

you get

I run a forum so I'm ok with quotes and stuff. It's just that replying with a quote, within a quote, within a quote ends up like a standalone thread in just one post. Thank you very much though for the suggestion/tip. Am sure others will be helped by it.

elantan

Oh hi shake. .. wonder if I frequent it

Leanne1812

I'll never understand why, when Scotland is supposedly subsidised by billions of pounds the establishment fought tooth and nail to keep Scotland in the union. Why were they so desperate to keep us in the union?

I wonder can anyone answer this?

Once again I will state that Yes lost. I accept that Yes lost. It hasn't gone unnoticed that those who harp back to the referendum the most are the supposed 'winners' :-)

Leanne1812

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The UK government should cede no further powers at all to Holyrood.

This is your opinion Hamish. You do not speak for all No voters.
And how do you think that would go down with No voters who voted so on the basis of all these extra powers? No one will ever know how many did........

.string.

@Shakey - yes I agree that others are also hyping up the Vow, talking about Vow plus etc as well as the SNP - the thing I have against the SNP hype in particular is that FFA is completely incompatible with a Union (as must be realised I'm sure) and also, actually, incompatible with a working Federal system because, as I've said copious times, the Union/Federal part requires funding in order to provide for it's share of responsibility. If you reduce that to "just" foreign policy and defence one is left with no Union at all - hardly in the spirit of the Scottish decision at the Referendum. In a previous post I gave some examples of some of the funding which would not be covered by FFA; the link I gave at that time also explained other aspects where inter-cooperation requires just that to make it work.

You will not be surprised If I tell you that I do not trust the SNP to work for the success of the Union; on the contrary I believe that everything they do, every thought, to the exclusion of all others, is to ferment trouble between Scotland and the UK in order to achieve separation.

============On the forum thing - yes, a long queue of posts leading to a one-liner response is a wasteful way to use a forum. In some cases the train of thought is useful to make a point, but normally it is not necessary. I try to limit my "style" to use shorter quotes; after all why re-broadcast a point of view one does not agree with!

Approaches differ in different forums. For example on the DnD Sanctuary we repost the OP at the top of each page - it serves as a reminder of what we are discussing, people usually forget otherwise! But then the OP should be short and to the point.

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

This is your opinion Hamish. You do not speak for all No voters.
And how do you think that would go down with No voters who voted so on the basis of all these extra powers? No one will ever know how many did........

Your last point - not many I think - minds were well made up/entrenched before that.

elantan

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I'll never understand why, when Scotland is supposedly subsidised by billions of pounds the establishment fought tooth and nail to keep Scotland in the union. Why were they so desperate to keep us in the union?

I wonder can anyone answer this?

Once again I will state that Yes lost. I accept that Yes lost. It hasn't gone unnoticed that those who harp back to the referendum the most are the supposed 'winners' :-)

its interesting as well how the side that kept saying stay within the union are now offering more powers than ever, soon we will be independent and it will be thanks to them doing what they didnt want to do :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

Your last point - not many I think - minds were well made up/entrenched before that.

You can think all you want to but you, or I will never know.

200,000 swing is all that was needed to change the outcome. I don't think its impossible or even unreasonable to suggest that the vow changed that many.

It's water under the bridge now anyway. Onwards and upwards. Exciting times ahead for Scotland and all of our lovely family of nations :-)