Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153327789968816

Nice jinking by Hosie. It is, of course, rubbish by a politician being interviewed by a journalist who clearly isn't on top of her brief.

Hosie, along with the SNP as a whole, have completely dodged the central question: as figures stand Scotland's Government would be spending a lot more than she would be taking in through taxes, more than the UK even which is spending money hand over fist. How would an SNP Government that wants FFA close enough of the gap?

There is quite an amazing claim by Hosie too, "Tax receipts have been greater than the UK's for the last 34 years". Clearly Wales, Northern Ireland and England have had negative taxes for decades in his mind.

princeofpounds

If independence had gone ahead, what Scotland would do to bridge the hole in FFA would be THE question right now. Everyone would have been freaking out as the oil price fell. They couldn't have avoided answering it.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Nice jinking by Hosie. It is, of course, rubbish by a politician being interviewed by a journalist who clearly isn't on top of her brief.

Hosie, along with the SNP as a whole, have completely dodged the central question: as figures stand Scotland's Government would be spending a lot more than she would be taking in through taxes, more than the UK even which is spending money hand over fist. How would an SNP Government that wants FFA close enough of the gap?

There is quite an amazing claim by Hosie too, "Tax receipts have been greater than the UK's for the last 34 years". Clearly Wales, Northern Ireland and England have had negative taxes for decades in his mind.

In all honesty, I think we'll all be waiting until the SNP's 2016 manifesto for cold, hard figures. FFA and it's consequences are something ( as shown ) the Labour party can try re-running the referendum arguments on. That's not what the SNP want to achieve here in a few weeks, which is why they're dismissing it and focusing their campaign elsewhere. It's about loading the 'odds in their favour' with as many SNP MP's in Westminster as they can through the ballot box. Not re-running 'black hole' debates, having to waste time fire fighting the same old headlines one by one.. as they did so much of during the referendum. Salmond himself says they spent far too much time on the defensive during the ref... they'll have learnt from it. FFA is not for now, no-one is offering it to the SNP, nor is another independence bid.

Which is why you see Nicola Sturgeon launching 'family friendly' manifesto's.. and Hosie dampening down any FFA hysterics right now. It'll be different I would assume after the election and in the lead up to the Scottish one where the election result and everyone's positions will be much clearer.

What can't be denied however, is that there are a lot of voters in Scotland in favour of Devo Max/FFA. And this has been the case for the last few years in truth.

If there is a hung Parliament and the SNP hold the balance of power, do you think they should or should not request each of the following in exchange for supporting a Westminster government?

Greatly expanded devolution to Scotland, including all powers except defence and foreign policy?

Should ask for this : 61%
Should not ask for this : 29%

For the avoidance of doubt, the above results come from all respondents, regardless of how they plan to vote in May.

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/61-of-voters-in-scotland-want-snp-to.html

But as I've said, things are likely to change after the election as some commentators point out. It's which way Lib Dems will jump that'll be interesting ( and potentially decisive ).

Precisely because Sturgeon has said what she said, Miliband would be secure to start with. Don’t worry about me, Sturgeon wrote in these pages yesterday: I just want to keep Labour true to its left-wing principles (I paraphrase). But it would not take long for a politician as adroit as Alex Salmond, who would be leading the SNP contingent at Westminster, to make life difficult for Miliband. He has already spoken in interviews about amending Budget resolutions. Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, one of the worst laws passed by the last parliament, the SNP can vote against anything it likes without forcing another election. It can string Miliband along and can then unite with the Conservatives – by next year enjoying a Boris Johnson bounce – to force an election at a time of its choosing.
It was a stunt, but the Conservatives were making a serious point with their billboards in the car park. What the SNP would allow a Labour government to do matters much more than the contents of the manifesto that was launched yesterday.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/labour-manifesto-the-important-thing-wasnt-happening-in-manchester-at-all-it-was-happening-in-scotland-10173763.html

.string.

Re the LibDems If I take their word for it, they will approach first the party with the largest number of seats, then talk to the other lot and go with the party that gives the best spin for their choice.

In the last election they lost a lot of left-leaning voters by choosing the Conservatives; I suspect that this time, if they go with Labour, they will loose the right-leaning side of their electorate.

Of course they may not ally with either, as has been suggested, in which case it may result in an unstable Goverment.

Moby

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The SNP need to front up with the Scottish people about the true benefits of socialism, and only Sturgeon has the gravitas and credibility to sell it.

A high taxation redistibutive socialist economy is never going to be as successful as a neoliberal one*, using the capitalist metrics for growth and success employed by the arm of the 1%, the IMF. End of.

Scots need to be ready to abandon the shiny baubles of excess and get back to basic values. They can lead the way in the British Isles. While the Englishman is dropping dead of a heart attack in his 50s trying to make the payments on his Range Rover Sport, the Scotsman can have time to appreciate the laughter of a child.

Time to kneel down and admire a thistle while the dawn breaks over the fenns.

Time to lean over a dry stone fence while smoking a pipe and whiling away the day with his neighbour, both smoking clay pipes with satisfaction.

Time to paddle a coracle over the still waters of the lochs while geese fly overhead. Honking.

Time to give his bonnie lassie a piece of heather and dance around a bale of hay til the wee small hours, sporrans bouncing.

Time to do things that matter, with people that matter.

Scotland does not need the metrics of greed that infect the South of England. It cannot and should not attempt to compete with them, and does not need to.







* please ignore Scandinavia

An SNP LAB deal might be a good thing. Should push politics to the left which is alright by me! A large number of left leaning SNP MPs might become a permanent fixture at Westminster. Might also reduce the risk of separation as the Scots feel that they have influence in the UK as a whole; making amends for all the years they have been subjugated by right wing labour and Tory administrations. Please stay in the UK we need your left anti austerity politics

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

An SNP LAB deal might be a good thing. Should push politics to the left which is alright by me! A large number of left leaning SNP MPs might become a permanent fixture at Westminster. Might also reduce the risk of separation as the Scots feel that they have influence in the UK as a whole; making amends for all the years they have been subjugated by right wing labour and Tory administrations. Please stay in the UK we need your left anti austerity politics

so the SNP should become part of the UK?

presumably their left wing policies of fairness and more equality will lead them to abandon the Barnett formula which values the people of Yorkshire less than the people of Scotland.

Obviously they will be able to explain to the stupid RoUk why borrowing more and more money is a good thing.

They will also be able to explain why the health outcomes in socialist Scotland are worse that in Thatcherite England : but then Scotland choose to spend money on subsidising rich people.

If subjection you mean recognising the democratic votes of the UK people then better a one party Scotland separate from the rest of our democratic sovereign state: Putin is looking for allies, Greece seems to being friendly and Putin's jets are already buzzing round the Scottish coasts

.string.

Moby wrote: »

An SNP LAB deal might be a good thing. Should push politics to the left which is alright by me! A large number of left leaning SNP MPs might become a permanent fixture at Westminster. Might also reduce the risk of separation as the Scots feel that they have influence in the UK as a whole; making amends for all the years they have been subjugated by right wing labour and Tory administrations. Please stay in the UK we need your left anti austerity politics

You are certainly entitled to choose your place in the political spectrum, although my opinion is that a balanced view would take account of the whole range without a fixation on either Left or Right.

However I do believe that you are mistaken in thinking that the SNP is interested in reducing the impact of "austerity" in the UK as a whole. Their focus is solely on transforming Scotland into a fairytale Natland. Sure they want to reduce "austerity", but that is for Scotland ; the role of the rest of the UK is to pay.

Enterprise_1701C

Moby wrote: »

An SNP LAB deal might be a good thing. Should push politics to the left which is alright by me! A large number of left leaning SNP MPs might become a permanent fixture at Westminster. Might also reduce the risk of separation as the Scots feel that they have influence in the UK as a whole; making amends for all the years they have been subjugated by right wing labour and Tory administrations. Please stay in the UK we need your left anti austerity politics

No, simply no.

Sturgeon is only interested in Scotland. She would like every last penny in the UK to go to Scotland, she would bankrupt the rest of the UK.

If the SNP have influence in Westminster then they would only help Labour if they promised them independence, totally disregarding the result of the referendum. The only difference is that Labour will promise Scotland they can still have the Barnett formula as well as raising their own revenues.

As for subjugation - I don't think so. The rest of the UK has been subjugated by Scotland, N Ireland and Wales. They get to vote in The UK parliament and they influence UK policies. We do not get to vote in their parliaments.

They have the Barnett formula which is inherently unfair, even Barnett said it wasn't meant to go on for this long.

I want an English parliament, or a parliament that is fair in that it only allows MPs based in England to vote on English only policies/laws and allows the whole of the UK to vote on UK policies/laws.

And don't shout oil, that only came into the equasion in the '70s.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

so the SNP should become part of the UK?

presumably their left wing policies of fairness and more equality will lead them to abandon the Barnett formula which values the people of Yorkshire less than the people of Scotland.

Obviously they will be able to explain to the stupid RoUk why borrowing more and more money is a good thing.

They will also be able to explain why the health outcomes in socialist Scotland are worse that in Thatcherite England : but then Scotland choose to spend money on subsidising rich people.

If subjection you mean recognising the democratic votes of the UK people then better a one party Scotland separate from the rest of our democratic sovereign state: Putin is looking for allies, Greece seems to being friendly and Putin's jets are already buzzing round the Scottish coasts

The SNP have policies and values that I agree with, (apart from their nationalism of course).
Re. the 'subjection' point I made....you do realise don't you that Scotland didn't suddenly become nationalistic? There are reasons for this and you banging on the way you do is not going to change that. If the SNP toned down their Scotland first, separation no matter what agenda I'd have no problem with them and could see no valid reason why Salmond, shouldn't sit in the cabinet in the event of a minority Labour Govmt. We live in a new world, we should embrace it!

Moby

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

No, simply no.

Sturgeon is only interested in Scotland. She would like every last penny in the UK to go to Scotland, she would bankrupt the rest of the UK.

If the SNP have influence in Westminster then they would only help Labour if they promised them independence, totally disregarding the result of the referendum. The only difference is that Labour will promise Scotland they can still have the Barnett formula as well as raising their own revenues.

As for subjugation - I don't think so. The rest of the UK has been subjugated by Scotland, N Ireland and Wales. They get to vote in The UK parliament and they influence UK policies. We do not get to vote in their parliaments.

They have the Barnett formula which is inherently unfair, even Barnett said it wasn't meant to go on for this long.

I want an English parliament, or a parliament that is fair in that it only allows MPs based in England to vote on English only policies/laws and allows the whole of the UK to vote on UK policies/laws.

And don't shout oil, that only came into the equasion in the '70s.

You have swallowed the tory line hook line and sinker! All politicians have to carry competing interests in their head at the same time. If Scotland sends 50 SNP MP's to Westminster, they have a right to represent the interests of their constituents. Those who believe in the union would respect this. I have nothing in common and hold no truck whatsoever with Cameron and his ilk. The fact that he is English means nothing to me; why should it; it's values that count! He stood on the steps of Downing street the day after the referendum and instead of being statesmanlike and inclusive, he immediately took a partisan line; the SNP backlash was immediate and predictable. It seems to me that Cameron is so happy that Labour are getting spanked in Scotland that he is oblivious to the wider constitutional consequences that could result. He is lacking in statesmanship qualities because he values the narrow sectional interests of the tory party rather than the wider interests of the union. If it wasn't for labour the yes campaign would have won that referendum....that is why Labour are getting it in the neck now! Cameron just sits on the sidelines and scoffs but what solutions does he offer and who in Scotland will listen?

Also because of the size of England there are very few English only policies in reality, there is a massive spill over effect into Scotland and Wales. No I think a large number of SNP MP's will be refreshing and counter balance the grey old fart country gentry types which presently dominate from the English 'home counties'.