Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Castle wrote: »

Scottish MPs at Westminster won't have a say on Scottish Income tax either, it will be decided by MSPs in Edinburgh.

If Mr Cameron wants "English votes for English Issues" then he needs an English Parliament not Westminster.

No need for any regional parliaments, just have the Scottish MP's vote on Scotland only issues, the English MP's vote on English issues, etc.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

He won't like that fiscal black hole of his if Scotland goes though will he. Which would be a running certainty ( if it isn't already ) if democratically elected SNP MP's are pushed out or ignored at Westminster through either a grand coalition, or no party willing to work with them. .

Actually it's the people of Scotland who would suffer from the fiscal black hole if Scotland left, but it's a running certainty that another indyref is off the table for a generation.

I'm starting to think the best thing for Scotland is in fact to get FFA almost instantly. An 18 month transition was deemed plenty by the SNP to go indy, so FFA should be easy in that time.

Then end the subsidy.

Let SNP voters learn the hard way there is no magic money tree.

And then watch as the SNP become even more reviled than the Tories when the masses wake up to the fact they've been lied to.

At which point the unionist parties will win Scotland and reinstate the subsidy, the SNP will spend a lifetime in the political wilderness, and we can all get back to prospering.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Actually it's the people of Scotland who would suffer from the fiscal black hole if Scotland left, but it's a running certainty that another indyref is off the table for a generation.

I'm starting to think the best thing for Scotland is in fact to get FFA almost instantly. An 18 month transition was deemed plenty by the SNP to go indy, so FFA should be easy in that time.

Then end the subsidy.

Let SNP voters learn the hard way there is no magic money tree.

And then watch as the SNP become even more reviled than the Tories when the masses wake up to the fact they've been lied to.

At which point the unionist parties will win Scotland and reinstate the subsidy, the SNP will spend a lifetime in the political wilderness, and we can all get back to prospering.

I think a period of cold turkey can actually be good for an economy.

It would be an opportunity for a leaner state and a healthier economy as a result.

I think overnight is a tough ask; a 5 year plan would be better.

In fact, I'm sure there is a fully costed plan in the manifesto...oh wait....nope

Enterprise_1701C

Scotland want it both ways. I seem to recall Sturgeon saying she didn't agree with English votes for English laws because some might affect Scotland. Seem to recall she include tax in this. If Scotland want to deal with their own tax how can English tax possibly be relevant to them.

As a lot of others have said, she simply wants to make the English think Scotland is against them.

If labour get in this WILL happen. Whatever minibrand says the Scottish tail will be wagging the UK dog.

I say again, if labour get in then Scotland will be independent within 5 years, and will probably leave without paying their part of the deficit and still end up with substantial subsidies. The problem is they will then some back begging to be let back in because they will not be allowed to be part of Europe, they will struggle with their own currency, their oil revenues will be too low. They will be isolated and they will have sturgeon at the top of the hill living in luxury off all their taxes and saying isn't it brilliant that we beat the English.

What SHOULD happen is that their should be no more unfair subsidies to any of the individual countries in the UK, all areas should be dealt with evenly and fairly, individual countries should vote on individual laws and each country should have a say in UK laws.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, you'd have the two largest parties in power in England with about 550 seats between them, in order to keep the majority party in Scotland and about 40 MP's out of power in Westminster. In a Grand coalition. Or with EVEL, if Tories get the biggest no of seats. Tory rule in terms of English laws.

There wouldn't be much point in sending Scottish MP's being part of Westminster anymore ( which obviously won't be bad news to me ). Since it seems they would obviously have to be Labour/Tory or Lib Dem in order to be 'allowed' to participate on behalf of their constituents. Which isn't really very democratic.

I'm unsure why you think it's single party 'rule' in Scotland. At the moment there are 41 Scottish Labour MP's that represent Scotland and 6 SNP ones. Looks like they will swap round a bit... but I didn't hear anyone complaining of single party rule for the last 5 years.. or indeed decades before that either, even when Labour was dominant in both Holyrood and Westminster in terms of MPs/MSP's returned.

What's your problem suddenly now ?

Vince Cable has just 'floated' the idea of a Grand coalition on Channel 4. Oh dear...

you seem to be unaware that Scotland has its own parliament
hence single party rule

Generali

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

If labour get in this WILL happen. Whatever minibrand says the Scottish tail will be wagging the UK dog.

It ain't necessarily so. Just because the SNP may be required for Labour to have a majority doesn't mean that Labour would do a deal.

For example, the Tories could offer a 'confidence and supply' deal to Labour, perhaps in return for a referendum on Europe or simply to keep the SNP out. It would be 'statesmanlike' for Cameron, should such a thing happen, to say that they would support a Labour budget and Queen's Speech as a matter of principle and support, or not, everything else on a bill-by-bill basis.

The two parties worked closely together very successfully on the referendum so there's no reason to suppose they couldn't stitch together a deal. Don't forget that Labour and Tories work closely together all the time on select committees and in pairing for two line whips. A huge disadvantage the SNP are going to have is that they will have a large number of noobs who don't know the rules and customs of the house and will be making mistakes all over the place.

Two things I have learned from listening to old MPs talking is that:

> They made some really bad mistakes in their first year
> They have close friends on all sides of the house

This is a link to the pdf of the 150 standing orders for public business in the HoC.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmstords/900/900.pdf

There are 250 standing orders relating to private business in the HoC.

I've had a bit of a squizz and I reckon Labour and Tories with their experience and knowledge of the rules, plus having written them of course, are going to run rings around the SNP for a year.

For example, if you want to ask a minister a question you need to give 2 days notice. Unless of course it's the Secretary of state for Scotland, Wales or NI in which case it's 4 days. Obviously. (Questions rule 5a).

There are formalised forms of language that are required to be used to get people up to vote. There's all sorts.

Froggitt

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No need for any regional parliaments, just have the Scottish MP's vote on Scotland only issues, the English MP's vote on English issues, etc.

But they already exist. Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Froggitt wrote: »

But they already exist. Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron.

And a massive waste of money they are too.

The Scottish parliament alone costs £100m a year to run...

One hundred million pounds a year just so a second set of politicians can get their snouts in the trough when there is already a set of politicians elected to represent every Scottish area who could do the job.

It's completely pointless.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

cold turkey

I think a certain 'Scotsman' may have been reading my posts....:D

Greece and FFA now being raised in the mainstream media.

It is a great irony that – unlike Syriza – the Scottish Nationalists will not have to face up to the implications of their own rhetoric, no matter how many seats they win, precisely because they are part of the UK. Just as the scale and strength of that economy saved Scotland from the folly of its banks, so there will be no day of reckoning for an “anti-austerity” party which cannot form a government. Thus, posturing looks like a free ride.

The one way to change that would be by offering the SNP what they are ostensibly asking for – the end of the Barnett formula and the retention of Scottish tax revenues in Scotland, also known as Full Fiscal Autonomy. That demand is now so absurd, given the collapse of oil revenues on top of the pre-existing deficit, that the Nationalists have taken to saying that they want it “phased in”.

Their new chant could be: “What do we want? Full Fiscal Autonomy. When do we want it? Not any time soon.” So the state they are trying to break up will be expected to keep paying the 18 per cent higher level of public spending in order to facilitate the timing its own intended destruction. At some point, that is a bluff which deserves to be called. They can have the neverendum or Barnett – but not both.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-calling-the-snp-s-bluff-on-austerity-1-3754085

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

you seem to be unaware that Scotland has its own parliament
hence single party rule

That happens in every parliament when a party gains a majority. I'm lost as to why you want to point it out it's so obvious.