Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Froggitt

Tromking wrote: »

Wrong!
The Tories remain fully paid up members to the 'Barnett Formula Club'. Only UKIP want to scrap the subsidy.

Don't think so. Dave said in the past couple of days something about making it fair across all countries of the union.

Leanne1812

Can anyone explain why all the leaders came to Scotland just before the referendum to beg us to stay when we are clearly such a drain on the rest of the UK? Does this make any sense?

The lovebomb has turned to hatred and it is very disappointing.

Froggitt

They were saving you from yourselves. You should be thanking them. The whole economy was predicated on $100+ oil and loads of it. Oil is $60 and the amount is declining.


However you shouldn't underestimate the feeling arising from the unfairness of the Barnett formula and things like free university which is paid for by that subsidy. Why should my kids graduate £50k in debt and your kids not? An equal/fair per capita distribution of funds for all countries in the union must be part of any new government's plans.

Better_Days

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Can anyone explain why all the leaders came to Scotland just before the referendum to beg us to stay when we are clearly such a drain on the rest of the UK? Does this make any sense?

The lovebomb has turned to hatred and it is very disappointing.

Well, from my English point of view it is frustrating that having gone through 18 months of the referendum debate, the not inconsiderable cost, and a 'once in a generation' vote there is still talk from Sturgeon and Salmond of another referendum. The English politicians panicked at the end and there has been a fudge which has, as has been pointed out below, has caused resentment on both sides.

And if the SNP does get the seats that are predicted they will have a disproportionate influence, and will no doubt push for another referendum.

But that is not the SNP's fault, they are simply taking advantage of our FPTP system. I think the referendum debate has been a good thing in that it has increased participation in the political process in Scotland.

To go back to your question - are you talking about the Barnett formula? It seems to me there is not so much hatred but the referendum debate has put a spotlight on the funding issues - whichever way you look at it.

I haven't kept a close eye on the SNP's current proposals for independence - now that the price of oil has tanked how do they propose to fill the gap in funding?

Salmond's smugness and talk of holding 'feet to the fire' to get what he wants on the back of a very small proportion of the vote may play well in Scotland, but I must admit it does get my back up. The SNP don't want the English making decisions for the Scots but are happy to have it the other way round, if I have understood Sturgeon correctly. Living in a safe Tory seat just adds insult to injury, unless I decide to vote Tory!!

England currently suffers from a dearth of talented politicians and I can't see it getting better anytime soon. We certainly don't have anyone that is as canny as Salmond.

It is surprising that there isn't more talk of PR - perhaps the outcome of this election will focus minds, well I can dream

scott_lithgows

Better_Days wrote: »

Well, from my English point of view it is frustrating that having gone through 18 months of the referendum debate, the not inconsiderable cost, and a 'once in a generation' vote there is still talk from Sturgeon and Salmond of another referendum. The English politicians panicked at the end and there has been a fudge which has, as has been pointed out below, has caused resentment on both sides.

And if the SNP does get the seats that are predicted they will have a disproportionate influence, and will no doubt push for another referendum.

But that is not the SNP's fault, they are simply taking advantage of our FPTP system. I think the referendum debate has been a good thing in that it has increased participation in the political process in Scotland.

To go back to your question - are you talking about the Barnett formula? It seems to me there is not so much hatred but the referendum debate has put a spotlight on the funding issues - whichever way you look at it.

I haven't kept a close eye on the SNP's current proposals for independence - now that the price of oil has tanked how do they propose to fill the gap in funding?

Salmond's smugness and talk of holding 'feet to the fire' to get what he wants on the back of a very small proportion of the vote may play well in Scotland, but I must admit it does get my back up. The SNP don't want the English making decisions for the Scots but are happy to have it the other way round, if I have understood Sturgeon correctly. Living in a safe Tory seat just adds insult to injury, unless I decide to vote Tory!!

England currently suffers from a dearth of talented politicians and I can't see it getting better anytime soon. We certainly don't have anyone that is as canny as Salmond.

It is surprising that there isn't more talk of PR - perhaps the outcome of this election will focus minds, well I can dream

Didn't we have a referendum a few years ago about PR? Any UK referendum or a part of it should come with the small print that it can't be repeated for 8-10 years,it,s nothing new it's even in the Anglo Irish agreement.
Happy St George's day,think of the following quote "We’re not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions".if that said England-would you vote for the party that said it?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Can anyone explain why all the leaders came to Scotland just before the referendum to beg us to stay when we are clearly such a drain on the rest of the UK? Does this make any sense?
.

Yes.

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of 'unionist' in the dictionary.

skintmacflint

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I don't think they will form a coalition with Labour.

They have already shown how a minority government can succeed and are willing to work with Labour on key policies.

Yes they did , but Geoff Aberdein, Salmonds ex chief of staff admitted Salmond fretted he wouldn't be able to hold onto the governemnt, and that for 4 years , each day felt like a campaign day, as they knew it could be their last.

Anna belle Goldie remarked Salmond was a pragmatist, and realised he had to build support. But it was in SNPs main interest to do this. It was essential for SNP to prove to the electorate they were capable of running the Scottish government, so compromise was essential.

Different story and priorities in Westminster. We'll see how things go especially after the Holyrood elections are under their belt.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Anna belle Goldie remarked Salmond was a pragmatist, and realised he had to build support. But it was in SNPs main interest to do this. It was essential for SNP to prove to the electorate they were capable of running the Scottish government, so compromise was essential.

I'm sorry. But if you change SNP for Labour "but it was in Labour's best interest to do this. It was essential for Labour to prove to the electorate they were capable of running Westminster government, so compromise is essential."

You think this won't apply to Labour in Westminster? It's how minority governments work, regardless of where elected. Minority being the key point. They simply just don't have the numbers to carry things forward as they'd like. They'll have to compromise. It's basic arithmetic if they want votes for policies. They will need numbers to translate into a majority to pass them. That means getting other parties on board.

Reality bites.

ps I loved Annabelle, and love Ruth too.. ( her Solero pic today had me lol.. but I'd never vote for them ).

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm sorry. But if you change SNP for Labour "but it was in Labour's best interest to do this. It was essential for Labour to prove to the electorate they were capable of running Westminster government, so compromise is essential."

You think this won't apply to Labour in Westminster? It's how minority governments work, regardless of where elected. Minority being the key point. They simply just don't have the numbers to carry things forward as they'd like. They'll have to compromise. It's basic arithmetic if they want votes for policies. They will need numbers to translate into a majority to pass them. That means getting other parties on board.

Reality bites.

ps I loved Annabelle, and love Ruth too.. ( her Solero pic today had me lol.. but I'd never vote for them ).

Nope, poor habit of yours , always trying to make assumptions on others behalf.

But thanks for confirming precisely the reasons I and thousands of other voters feel a Labour minority government , will be difficult and unstable for the UK as a whole at the present time.

And for clarity that SNP's new branding of being an anti austerity party who will work for the benefit of all the UK in Westminster is whitewash.

However unlike thousands of SNP supporters, I do accept the reality that all democratically elected members to Westminster have a right to be there.

vivatifosi

This morning the Conservatives are promising English votes for English issues. Interesting that it's being seen as a move to win over voters from UKIP more than countering the SNP.