Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

On the contrary, Shakey, you seem to think that the SNP is the only player out there; on a vote-by-vote basis all parties get to have their say - that is the point that you seem to be missing, as my post and that by Generali was pointing out. It is not going to be just about what the S NP want.

As for Salmond knowing more than I, in some things he undoubtedly does, in others undoubtedly not, but my point was that it is not realistic to expect him to be "the smartest strategist in Parliament" which is another matter entirely.

No, I'm not string. And for the benefit of yourself and Generali, the question I raised re what was headlined and is being flung around in newspapers like confetti is all along the lines of what Theresa May stated below..

"May questioned the legitimacy of SNP MPs at Westminster".

And no point on this thread have I ever questioned the legitimacy of any coalition make up, grand coalition, or a minority government taking office after this election... should the arithmetic add up. I have speculated and debated the possible fall out, from an SNP perspective of course. As we all have done from our various views.

So, the next time you want to make go off on wee rambly posts about me and, 'what the SNP want'.. or scoff at 'points' I seem to have missed. Do feel free to bookmark this post and refer back to it.. because it seems you (and a few others last page or so ) have pretty much missed the rather large point that I was making.

Which is the very legitimacy of SNP MP's to participate in Westminster, in whatever capacity, in the first place. A view that Theresa May, the Home Office minister ( do pause and think about that for a minute ) and many others, seem to share at this point in time.

You don't think that's a bit off then ? Because surprisingly even the comments under the Daily Mail leader seem to think the Tories have lost the plot on this one. Not surprisingly, this hasn't gone down too well from where I'm sitting either. This sort of narrative is stoking up major resentment.. most of it as Generali has kindly pointed out, south of the border. The union as a consequence is more fragile than ever it was over the last 4 years.

There's still a week and a bit to go. One can only hope the Tories tone this 'legitimacy' thing down a fair bit. The SNP vote isn't going anywhere ( see polls ). There will be a lot more of them in Westminster after May 7th. To deny them ( and those who voted for them ) anything in the way influence or 'legitimacy' whatsoever, as May, Cameron, Clegg, Johnson, to an extent Miliband and most of the English press seem to wish to do...is to end the union as it stands. Because it ultimately means Scotland, it's electorate and the MP's it so chooses to send does not have any influence or legitimacy within Westminster.

The SNP can only sit back and watch in slightly amused amazement at such silly campaign tactics and the outcome Generali paints in the minds of English voters. Cameron etc are doing their job for them. I hope the attempt at winning back a few of those UKIP waverers are worth it in the end.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Froggitt wrote: »

And whoever is running the next government needs to grow a pair and end this iniquitous Scottish bribe.......per capita equality is the only fair route forward.

Sorry to say that is absolute nonsense.

Britain should strive to provide a decent level of infrastructure and service provision to all it's citizens, and in areas of extremely low population density (like most of Scotland but many other rural areas too) then by definition that will require a higher spend per capita.

The stuff about free prescriptions and Uni from the one side is really as much a red herring as the stuff about the costs of Trident from the other....

None of those things makes any significant difference to the size of the fiscal black hole or the subsidy we need to fill it.

If we really wanted to end the need for that subsidy, the size of cuts required would be breathtaking - laying off tens of thousands of public sector workers, slashing core NHS and Council services, etc, and even with that the increase in taxation needed would still be eye-watering.

We could do it....

Just as any other loss making rural region could if you wanted to chop Britain up into 5 million person increments.

But I have no idea why anyone would think it was a good idea.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And no point on this thread have I ever questioned the legitimacy of any coalition make up, grand coalition, or a minority government taking office after this election... should the arithmetic add up..

Well thats good, because the only thing we know for sure is that the SNP won't be part of it.

Labour, Lib Dems and Tories have now all come out and said there will be no formal cooperation with the SNP in Westminster, not even confidence and supply arrangements.

SNP MP's can vote any way they like of course, they can choose to support or not support any government, but they won't be pulling the strings or setting the agenda.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Interesting piece here today....

The fact is that while it remained in the currency union, a "fiscally autonomous" Scotland would have much less autonomy than it would like.

It would not be able to run high deficits without the agreement of its union partners, since to do so would put the value of the common currency at risk. It could not monetise debt, for the same reason.

And it would soon find that sharply divergent tax and spending policies proved impossible to maintain, particularly as North Sea Oil revenues dried up.

It would be forced to adopt fiscal policies compatible with those of its largest partner. If it tried to escape from this straitjacket with a large programme of debt-fnanced fiscal expansion, then unless growth was spectacular (which, pace Richard, seems unlikely) it would either be forced out of the union or end up in permanent debt peonage - as Greece knows all too well.

The lessons from the Eurozone are plain to see. It is hubris to believe that they would never happen here. They could, and they would. We must not go down that road.

http://coppolacomment.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-problem-of-currency-union-uk-edition.html?m=1

.string.

Yes, Hamish, I agree that complete equality in funding makes no sense in a country wanting to support all its parts. Funding should be according to need and if one part falls behind or has an emergency, it would be small minded to insist that "equality" was never breached even in that case.

My feeling is, however, that the way funding is distributed should not be fixed, but reviewed and if necessary changed, say on a yearly basis, to review if is still appropriate. So in the case of the Barnett thing, I have no problem with its origin, and no problem with it's continuation if it is still appropriate. I suspect though that none of us here can truly judge on that.

Froggitt

.string. wrote: »

Yes, Hamish, I agree that complete equality in funding makes no sense in a country wanting to support all its parts. Funding should be according to need and if one part falls behind or has an emergency, it would be small minded to insist that "equality" was never breached even in that case.

But even after a bit of highlands and islands bunce, there's loads left over to fund free university and prescriptions.

zagubov

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

If this is the case then come May 7th get your people out and vote against SNP.

Er..... good luck with that.

None of us in England, Wales or Northern Ireland can vote against them, or for them.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

Yes, Hamish, I agree that complete equality in funding makes no sense in a country wanting to support all its parts. Funding should be according to need and if one part falls behind or has an emergency, it would be small minded to insist that "equality" was never breached even in that case.

My feeling is, however, that the way funding is distributed should not be fixed, but reviewed and if necessary changed, say on a yearly basis, to review if is still appropriate. So in the case of the Barnett thing, I have no problem with its origin, and no problem with it's continuation if it is still appropriate. I suspect though that none of us here can truly judge on that.

Barnett was a typical corrupt labour politician who was fully aware of the implications of his formula: it was to buy Scottish vote before an election.

There is no justification of it's continuation : no reason why Yorkshire should get less than Scotland.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well thats good, because the only thing we know for sure is that the SNP won't be part of it.

Labour, Lib Dems and Tories have now all come out and said there will be no formal cooperation with the SNP in Westminster, not even confidence and supply arrangements.

SNP MP's can vote any way they like of course, they can choose to support or not support any government, but they won't be pulling the strings or setting the agenda.

Yes, that's right. On a vote by vote basis.. is this news to you ? Because it isn't to me. They will be part of it, otherwise Scotland won't have nearly enough in the way of proper representation in Westminster bar a few Labour MP's, possibly 1 Lib Dem and 1-2 Tory MPs out of 59 seats. Not being 'part' of it would be simply unacceptable, especially if 20 or so Lib Dems get to play a full part ( Vince Cable is after the Chief Secretary to the Treasury post I see).

But I don't think you've gotten the jist of this minority government thing just yet. Someone else has posted what I would more or less say ( and have been in seperate posts), so am pasting it here for quickness. I thought you were an economist. Basic arithmetic and reality needs to be faced if the polls stay as they are perhaps ?

This country really hasn't got the hang of minority Government yet.

Labour as a minority Government will have choices to make. They have ruled out any sort of formal arrangement with the SNP. Therefore they can either bring forward legislation that the SNP will willingly support, or bring in legislation the Tories will at least acquiesce in. If they try to do anything that both oppose, it will fail. And since individual policies failing does not bring down a Government, there is neither any onus on the SNP to support things they don't wish to nor any way for Labour to force its will on people.

If they rely more than very occasionally, such as on Trident, on Tory support, they will vindicate everything that the SNP, PC and Greens have been saying about them, and will drive away another very large proportion of their support. They may well lose some MPs leftwards in defections as well.

And if the SNP brought the Labour Government down for being toxic Tories, that will not damage their support in Scotland.

So Labour has a choice. Be more left wing, keep the willing support of the SNP, and probably set themselves up for a majority next time round, or be more centrist and get nothing done, probably leading to another hung Parliament next time round with fewer Labour MPs in it, or be more right wing and sow the seeds of their own destruction.

Assuming a Labour- LibDem coalition, many are still confusing stopping individual measures with bringing down the Government. I would expect the SNP to vote against any of the toxic right wing measures in the Labour manifesto. But it would be in their interests to let Labour continue to bang the nails into their coffin north of the border for the full five years.

You're making the mistake of thinking the SNP will be lobby voting fodder for Labour before the fixed term parliament act was introduced. If the electorate were enthused by the thought of Labour lobby voting fodder in Westminster for the next 5 years. Everyone in Scotland would just be voting Labour. And I don't want to burst your bubble but....

Anyway the Smith Commission in full with a bit of beefing up would be a very good start. They won't cause Labour much in the way of trouble with anything else and they've been careful to align a lot of policies with Labour's. Formal deal or not. Labour if in power, will need SNP votes whether they want them or not quite frankly. Basic arithmetic. You should know.

* disclaimer speculation based on polls, actual election results are subject to change.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes, that's right. On a vote by vote basis.. is this news to you ? Because it isn't to me. They will be part of it, otherwise Scotland won't have nearly enough in the way of proper representation in Westminster bar a few Labour MP's, possibly 1 Lib Dem and 1-2 Tory MPs out of 59 seats. Not being 'part' of it would be simply unacceptable, especially if 20 or so Lib Dems get to play a full part ( Vince Cable is after the Chief Secretary to the Treasury post I see).

But I don't think you've gotten the jist of this minority government thing just yet. Someone else has posted what I would more or less say ( and have been in seperate posts), so am pasting it here for quickness. I thought you were an economist. Basic arithmetic and reality needs to be faced if the polls stay as they are perhaps ?

You're making the mistake of thinking the SNP will be lobby voting fodder for Labour before the fixed term parliament act was introduced. If the electorate were enthused by the thought of Labour lobby voting fodder in Westminster for the next 5 years. Everyone in Scotland would just be voting Labour. And I don't want to burst your bubble but....

Anyway the Smith Commission in full with a bit of beefing up would be a very good start. They won't cause Labour much in the way of trouble with anything else and they've been careful to align a lot of policies with Labour's. Formal deal or not. Labour if in power, will need SNP votes whether they want them or not quite frankly. Basic arithmetic. You should know.

* disclaimer speculation based on polls, actual election results are subject to change.

that's ridiculous

the Dave and Alex will do a nod and wink deal to get rid of Scotland / achieve independence

a win for Alex (aclaimed President for life ) in Scotland and a Tory government in power for 100 years in England
Ed goes down as achieving his father's dream of permanently damaging the UK and get a plumb job in the EU


happiness everywhere