Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

I dare say if your into shouty liars then yes he was

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

FFA or similar is a fair few years away yet. In short. I think you're wasting your time going on like the toothache about oil prices today.

As far as economics are concerned far more immediate and relevant to the UK is SNP + Labour MPs going down an anti-austerity road after May.

It's oil prices in a fictional independent Scotland, or FFA a few/many years from now ( if that's what happens ) when no-one knows what oil prices will be that's flim flam if you ask me !

Well according to Ms Sturgeon, FFA will happen in a year if she gets her way:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/08/scottish-leaders-debate-murphy-sturgeon-economy

Nicola Sturgeon and Jim Murphy have clashed over the economy in the second Scottish leaders’ debate this week.


In a series of fractious exchanges between the pair which dominated the hour-long BBC Scotland broadcast from the University of Aberdeen’s Elphinstone Hall, Murphy accused the Scottish National party leader of planning for a “black hole” in Scotland’s finances after she confirmed she would introduce full fiscal autonomy for Scotland within a year if given the opportunity by Westminster. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that this would leave an immediate £7.6bn shortfall.

Better hope the oil price improves or that the Tories pull their finger out a bit. FFA in a year looks likely to be a disaster seeing as Iran is about to start pumping oil too.

Actually FFA looks to be potentially more urgent than austerity depending on whether Ms Sturgeon gets her way.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Your 40% in the bag comment implies back at SNP headquarters you're already complacent, taking voters for granted. As well as displaying a contemptuous disregard for all non SNP voters. Of course she had to do well in these debates. And she failed, pretty spectacularly IMO.

Not really, polls have been static. Most polls show one of the biggest correlation factors is between voting Yes in Sept and voting SNP intentions in May. I cut 5% off of that figure. And am not presuming anything.

You've probably forgotten that I'm no great fan of Mr Murphy. So if I assume correctly you mean as an undecided No voter, lulled into a false sense of security that voting SNP was a great and safe thing for Scotland , she lost and he won.

I only asked you ( politely ) if you thought as a floating voter, since you said you had no real preference in parties.. if you thought he'd managed to pull any real support back. I didn't mention Yes or No voters. I was talking political parties. No need to get tetchy at me.

She was caught out like a rabbit in the headlights over SNPs obfuscation on the Neverendum question on both nights. Her laughing at this last night didn't help matters. In addition she was scorned by the audience at her hypocritical double speak suggestion that Murphy was shamelessly exploiting 'the poor' , and was exceptionally lightweight on other subjects.

What do you think would happen if she announced a potential referendum now ? Or ruled one out completely for 20 years ? She has to play things very carefully at the moment. And I have to be honest, I and many, many others are getting heartily weary of hearing about neverendum's. Yes voters and the SNP seem to have moved on and are simply focused on this election and next. The only time we hear about neverendum's are from unionists.. constantly... on and on... Why do they do this ? Can you shed any light ?

As it happens I'd much prefer a continuation of Con/Lib Dem coalition. I'm not alone in not wanting to burden our grandkids and great grand kids with a huge debt burden in uncertain global,times. Because my generation know exactly how that works out, and I can assure you, it's considerably worse than any 'poverty' issues or conditions seen today.

That's nice.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Well according to Ms Sturgeon, FFA will happen in a year if she gets her way:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/08/scottish-leaders-debate-murphy-sturgeon-economy

Better hope the oil price improves or that the Tories pull their finger out a bit. FFA in a year looks likely to be a disaster seeing as Iran is about to start pumping oil too.

Actually FFA looks to be potentially more urgent than austerity depending on whether Ms Sturgeon gets her way.

Tell me, is this this really news to you at all.. that the SNP want FFA asap ? Or even better, independence ? She said as fast as the other parties will offer it or something along those lines ( watched the rest of the debate this morning).. I'd assume a year is a little much to ask wouldn't you ? Transitioning would be gradual.. voting it through the HOC needn't be.

But this certainly won't be news to anyone in Scotland, nor bad news to those intending to vote SNP.

Am of the increasing opinion the Tories would vote it through in a heartbeat these days anyway given the chance. In fact, I think they're probably preparing an offer in the event of a hung parliament, if they find themselves with the largest number of seats and if Miliband won't deal with the SNP/second election scenario. There has been quite a lot kite flying on 'federalisation' in the Telegraph and Conservative home recently. And a few Scottish unionist commentators getting angry about behind the scenes 'talk' of cutting Scotland loose.

Lots of if's there. But that what makes this election and it's fall out so interesting I suppose.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Tell me, is this this really news to you at all.. that the SNP want FFA asap ? Or even better, independence ? She said as fast as the other parties will offer it or something along those lines ( watched the rest of the debate this morning).. I'd assume a year is a little much to ask wouldn't you ? Transitioning would be gradual.. voting it through the HOC needn't be.

But this certainly won't be news to anyone in Scotland, nor bad news to those intending to vote SNP.

Ah I see. FFA would be introduced within a year means that FFA would start to be introduced in an incremental fashion until the oil price rises again.

I can see why Ms Sturgeon went for the former comment. More pithy.

What bits of FFA would be introduced first do you think? The revenue bits or the spending bits? Would it be one tax at a time or a bit of each tax at a time?

Call me Mr Thicky but I struggle to see how a bit of FFA works. Any ideas as to the practicalities?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And I have to be honest, I and many, many others are getting heartily weary of hearing about neverendum's. Yes voters and the SNP seem to have moved on and are simply focused on this election and next. The only time we hear about neverendum's are from unionists.. constantly... on and on... Why do they do this ? Can you shed any light ?

I can - it's because only the SNP really believe the SNP.

Sturgeon kept the idea of another referendum alive last night - did you not notice?

.string.

I too watched the Leaders’ Debate last night. I was curious as to how things are seen in Scotland.
Sturgeon was well treated in the UK Leaders’ Debate because, I suspect, national leaders are confused as to how to deal with an anti-UK politician in a way which does not imply all-out criticism against the Scots. The Debate in Aberdeen gave some guidance on this and I don’t think she will be able to reflate her status.

It’s amusing to see the twisting and turning that the SNP fan club here try to ward off the inescapable conclusion that Sturgeon was exposed as ineffective when faced with people who are not her adoring fans.

Of the leaders there I thought the Green and UKIP leaders were an annoying irrelevance, with nowt to offer that made sense.

I also thought Murphy interrupted too much but what he did say was effective in shutting Sturgeon up and exposing her policy shortcomings so good-on-him.

Davidson did OK with pertinent arguments and without loosing her rag like most of the others except for Rennie who was an oasis of calm in the whole thing and did well.

Sturgeon, however, had no answer to the arguments raining over her. She did make a couple of predictable and well-rehearsed rabble rousing rants about the wicked “Tories” and Scotland being in charge of all things, and duly got some auto-claps, but these were simply substitutes for real replies.

She was totally floored on the matter of FFA, where it was pointed out very clearly to her that Scotland’s finances could not sustain FFA at the moment. She had no answer to that, just facial postures and eventually one of those rants I just mentioned. It is said that she intends to go for it in the next UK Parliament. We all know that FFA is not going to happen and her stance is but a ruse to complain about the eventual settlement whatever that is.

Davidson pushed Surgeon into declaring that the SNP would vote against the continuation of Trident although she tried to make her answer so vague as to keep her some wriggle room; we have seen one consequence of her remarks on Trident in the Tories’ remarks on Milliband’s “back-stabbling” this morning which has pushed Miliband in turn to rule out any deal with the SNP on that score. I don’t like such personal attacks but they will have some resonance with the public.

“Ending Austerity” was given some airing, by Labour, the SNP and the Greens , in growing order of profligacy. Of course the fairy tale that you can save money by spending it goes down well with some economic illiterates but such things are for a better economy than we have at present if we are to avoid yet more debt.

All in all it was a thoroughly welcome deflation of Sturgeon’s falsely acquired “status” that some have built up . She is shown up as vulnerable to counter arguments and not strong or agile enough to withstand overt criticism with more than body twitches.

However I agree that debates only rarely change things politically, and so probably the SNP will still get misguided (literally misguided) support in the GE. But then “You build them up and then you knock them down”, a process that the SNP will no doubt discover.

In my view Labour are correct in saying that a vote for the SNP helps the Conservatives.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Ah I see. FFA would be introduced within a year means that FFA would start to be introduced in an incremental fashion until the oil price rises again.

I can see why Ms Sturgeon went for the former comment. More pithy.

What bits of FFA would be introduced first do you think? The revenue bits or the spending bits? Would it be one tax at a time or a bit of each tax at a time?

Call me Mr Thicky but I struggle to see how a bit of FFA works. Any ideas as to the practicalities?

Hmmmm.. let me think... If at the moment Scotland raises about 53.8 billion in revenues, and get's back about 20-27 billion ( to be cut and figures hard to pin down) in a block grant for devolved areas with the rest distributed throughout the UK.

Do you not think a potential 27-34 billion Treasury black hole overnight if FFA wasn't phased in gradually might cause a bit of a shock to the UK system too ? Call me Mrs Thicky.. but FFA doesn't just affect Scotland in terms of black holes if Scotland starts keeping all revenues and Barnett is abolished.

Is the above something you'd welcome re the UK Treasury as an economist ?

As for FFA, the Smith commission stuff might be a start in the right direction.. if the other parties can agree ( as evidenced) to introduce those at the same time as scaling down Barnett, then stands to reason they can go much further. I can't see the problem apart from the political will to agree to more.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I can - it's because only the SNP really believe the SNP.

Sturgeon kept the idea of another referendum alive last night - did you not notice?

I don't believe it was her that brought the subject up.. did you notice ?

Moby

elantan wrote: »

I dare say if your into shouty liars then yes he was

I think being accused of lying is something every politician has to accept....not least Alex Salmond.