Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

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.

Rubbish. Tories and Labour doing confidence and supply deals in order to keep the 40 SNP MP's out it would end the union one way or another. In actual fact the methods and narratives of keeping the SNP out at all costs are starting to come across as more than a little desperate. I highly doubt if Labour will be open to an EU referendum when Miliband has just spent the last two days gloating about HSBC. If the SNP is the third largest party then that comes with certain parliamentary priviledges.

In the last parliament they had six MPs; in the next one they could have as many as 50. That would, presumably, entitle them to an allocation of select committee posts equivalent to the Lib Dems’ former tally (including two chairs – currently justice and international development). But what policy areas are appropriate for a party that represents a devolved nation?


These are, of course, secondary considerations to the bigger matter of passing legislation in the Commons chamber. But the issues are intertwined. The Conservatives are currently campaigning on the premise that Scottish nationalists would be second-class MPs with no legitimate mandate to decide what happens in England. But that isn’t how parliament works and it isn’t how the Tories would have to behave in practice.


All the tools of legislative influence, mischief-making and subterfuge – ambushing amendments, private members’ bills, filibusters and the rest – would be as available to the new Scottish cohort as to anyone else. To manage that threat, the “usual channels” would have to be open. In other words, a Tory-led government would have no choice but to find a way of doing business with the SNP.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2015/apr/24/tories-cannot-avoid-doing-business-with-snp-general-election

As for Labour and the Tories running rings round them. You obviously know nothing about how Salmond works, or his previous stints in parliament. He knows the rule books backwards. I'm sure he'll be passing some of that knowledge on, elected or not.

His point: not every vote is a survival vote. He can defeat Miliband in the Commons and not bring a Labour government down. “You can amend a budget. You can amend anything in the House of Commons if you choose to do so – and I’m saying we could win amendments. All you need is to find something really unpopular which you stop, or something that is really progressive and popular that you get through.” And if he can win such small victories, the SNP would support Miliband’s overall Budget (end, ergo, ensure his survival as Prime Minister). “As long as we get our amendments through, what difficulty would we have with the budget?”

The Fixed-Term Parliament Act, says Salmond, is “a great piece of legislation – I love it to bits. Amazingly enough, the people who passed it don’t seem to have read it!” Its effect, he says, is to make it “almost impossible to hold another election” before five long years are out because the timing of an election will never suit both of the two largest parties.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/04/revealed-the-reason-behind-alex-salmonds-pink-champagne-order/

He knows his stuff alright.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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

Greece and FFA now being raised in the mainstream media.


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

Brian Wilson never stops comparing Scotland to Greece so he's hardly 'raising it now'. He's an old dinosaur, who was rabidly against devolution in the 90's too. He used to be my MP, not that we ever saw him.

But oh look.. how awful...:eek:

War, hedge funds and China: why oil will hit $100 a barrel
Oil prices are heading higher and could soon return to $100 per barrel as war in the Middle East and speculators drive market

But instead of falling, oil has rallied strongly. Brent crude now trading above $63 per barrel is up 36pc since reaching its year low in early January. At this rate oil will be back at $100 per barrel by the end of the summer driving season in the US when middle-class America hits the great open roads to visit their ‘Aunt Agatha’ in Pennsylvania.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11549582/War-hedge-funds-and-China-why-oil-will-hit-100-a-barrel.html

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But oh look.. how awful... :eek:

why oil will hit $100 a barrel

Awful indeed....:eek:

In 2014 the average oil price was $99 and Scotland generated £2.6bn of North Sea tax revenue.

That's £2bn more than the £0.6bn assumed in the IFS forecast that leads to their £7.6bn "black-hole".

So based on recent history a $99 oil price fills about a only quarter of the black hole, leaves us still with over £5.6bn to find

.
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
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.
...

Good point. They did work together successfully. It can be done.

The centre ground parties have been losing out in recent times to the more radical elements on both left and right when it comes to PR. A chance to redress the balance perhaps.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Brian Wilson never stops comparing Scotland to Greece so he's hardly 'raising it now'. He's an old dinosaur, who was rabidly against devolution in the 90's too. He used to be my MP, not that we ever saw him.

But oh look.. how awful...:eek:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11549582/War-hedge-funds-and-China-why-oil-will-hit-100-a-barrel.html

Iran are set to add 700,000bbl/day to oil supply. The research from investment banks and also our very good commodities analyst says oil prices have a way to go down now. $45-50 is probably reasonable especially as interest rates rise in the US.

You do understand why commodities start to behave like currencies at very low interest rates don't you? If so you'll understand why oil prices aren't going to $100 while the US money supply is rising.!

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Rubbish. Tories and Labour doing confidence and supply deals in order to keep the 40 SNP MP's out it would end the union one way or another. In actual fact the methods and narratives of keeping the SNP out at all costs are starting to come across as more than a little desperate. I highly doubt if Labour will be open to an EU referendum when Miliband has just spent the last two days gloating about HSBC. If the SNP is the third largest party then that comes with certain parliamentary priviledges.
...

You're sounding desperate now Shakey.

The UK government is there to serve the interests of everyone, not just the 8.5% in Scotland.

This "it's all about Scotland" is getting a bit stale.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Rubbish. Tories and Labour doing confidence and supply deals in order to keep the 40 SNP MP's out it would end the union one way or another.

It seems a strange narrative to criticise wanting to exclude a small party dedicated to the destruction of the union from power, whilst celebrating the collusion of keeping, what may be the largest democratically elected party, from power.
But then you know that absolutely everything the SNP proposes is good and anything fair minded that doesn't serve the ends of the SNP, is evil.

.string.

Shakey - I think you've spent too much time swooning over Salmond's anti-Westminster (aka anti-English) rants if you think he's going to be the smartest strategist in Parliament. He does have a talent for paying of fantasies as facts, I'll give him that, but such things don't wash any more after so many "SNP Facts" have been shown up for what they were.

Re the status of SNP MPs in Parliament, Of course all MPs should have the right to vote in Parliament, and of course this applies to the SNP. Whatever gave you the notion that anyone here thinks they do not they do not? They will get their vote like everybody else.

But equally MPs, and parties, have the right to ally with/not ally with any party with which they do not agree. There is nothing undemocratic in that. So don't expect the SNP to get any special favours, especially if (I mean when) their parochial and disruptive "Amendments" start flowing in and they are seen as the wreckers they aspire to be.

Take the new Devolution Bill for example. Whichever party eventually forms the next Government, be it minority or majority, will no doubt take care to get as much consensus as possible with the other major party so that it will pass the commons vote.

Should they discuss it with Scottish Representatives? Well of course, but that is not as simple as you might hope. There are different options - at least.

o. Declare that it has already been discussed and the results were the Smith recommendations
o. Continue the intent and wording of the "Vow" and reconvene those discussions with all parties in Scotland, not just the SNP
o. Discuss it with and only with the SNP MPs

And if the SNP don't like that? Tough - it's take it or leave it time.

As for other Bills you can expect much the same where pre-cooking is possible. Personally I would call SNP's bluff early on in the Parliament in a vote on a decision against SNP policy but attractive to many Scots. Salami tactics.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Iran are set to add 700,000bbl/day to oil supply. The research from investment banks and also our very good commodities analyst says oil prices have a way to go down now. $45-50 is probably reasonable especially as interest rates rise in the US.

You do understand why commodities start to behave like currencies at very low interest rates don't you? If so you'll understand why oil prices aren't going to $100 while the US money supply is rising.!

It's in the Telegraph Generali.. so it must be true. What's wrong anyway, does it knock out all your 'low oil price' musings here ?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

You're sounding desperate now Shakey.

The UK government is there to serve the interests of everyone, not just the 8.5% in Scotland.

This "it's all about Scotland" is getting a bit stale.

Well, Cameron and Clegg are unfortunately making it all about Scotland. And further back in the thread, a Grand Coalition was discussed.. ( it was myself that brought the possibility up, due to several kite flying articles in the Telegraph and Conservative home back in Feb/March ).

I think we all know it's the most unlikely outcome from this election. No matter how much Gen and others here are desperate for it to happen. Labour's narrative is now 'softening' a bit, and some Tories are starting to realise things they can only push things so far without questioning the very foundations of democracy in the UK. Tim Montgomorie agreeing with Owen Jones, there's a sight you don't see very often !

Scotland and Scot's will get the MP's they vote for. As will every other constituency in the UK. Those MP's will represent the 8.5% that elected them. Do you have some sort of weird problem with that ?

Diane Abbott @HackneyAbbott · 10 hrs 10 hours ago If UK voters vote for SNP makes them legitimate UK MPs. So how can Clegg dismiss any deal involving SNP

Diane Abbott @HackneyAbbott · 10 hrs 10 hours ago Why people increasingly questioning legitimacy of SNP MPs? Do we only respect choices of Scottish voters if they vote for the "right" party?

Tim Montgomerie نVerified account ‏@montie Tim Montgomerie ن retweeted Owen Jones
I agree with @OwenJones84: A majority of MPs is a majority is a majority - and therefore the basis of legitimacy