Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed it is.

Just as Sinn Fein should (quite rightly) expect to have little cooperation in a political body they are avowed to destroy, nor should the SNP.

Just don't.
Trying to link SNP with Sinn Fein is deplorable and utterly desperate.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You think Scots (as opposed to the SNP) want to get rid of our nuclear deterrent?

The reality is somewhat different....

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/05/trident-the-snp-shoots-the-messenger/

Selective Polling and a few years old.

Try these: -

A Survation poll in January 2015 showed 47.2% of Scottish people opposing a new generation of nuclear weapons being based on the Clyde, with 31.6% in favour.

There are more polls in that link

79% of respondents to a Guardian poll in April 2014 did not think the UK should replace Trident.

In a February 2014 ComRes poll, 65% said they would feel uncomfortable living near a nuclear weapons base and 64% think there should be an international convention banning nuclear weapons.

63% of the public said they'd back scrapping Trident to reduce the deficit in a BPIX survey for The Mail on Sunday in June 2010.

58% of people say that ‘given the state of the country's finances, the Government should scrap the Trident nuclear missile system’ in an Independent/ComRes poll of September 2009 (Table 7)

54% of the public say Britain should "no longer have any nuclear deterrent" in a Guardian/ICM poll of July 2009 (Table 8)

Only 30% of the public would spend £20bn on Trident when offered alternatives of spending on nurses salaries or affordable homes, in a YouGov poll for The People newspaper from July 2009 (Page 4)

72% of the British public, in a poll in March 2007, did not support the government's plans to replace Trident - More4/Populus poll.

59% of the British public oppose replacing Trident when presented with the cost of £25 billion just to acquire a replacement system. (The equivalent of building around 1,000 new schools at current prices) -ICM poll, July 2006

73% of Scottish people thought it was wrong that £50 billion might be spent on a replacement for Trident.ICM poll, January 2007

64% were against nuclear weapons being based in Scotland for another 50 years. ICM poll, January 2007

Poll: 25% of Brits and 48% of Scots think UK should scrap Trident

We don't need a Nuclear deterrent, indeed the UK sign up to the Nuclear Disarmament in the non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970

45 years on and we are still manufacturing nuclear weapons.

Froggitt

Lets commission a new poll.


Do you think that the tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland dependent on Trident should be "re-located" elsewhere in the UK? There are coastal towns and cities in England that would bite their arm off for those jobs.

kabayiri

Froggitt wrote: »

Lets commission a new poll.


Do you think that the tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland dependent on Trident should be "re-located" elsewhere in the UK? There are coastal towns and cities in England that would bite their arm off for those jobs.

A Welsh party would fight aggressively for those jobs, as would a party representing NI. Obviously the SNP would compete for the jobs to remain in Scotland.

But down in England we do not have a party representing our interests first and foremost.

Perhaps the perceived success of a Scottish National Party might inspire an English National Party. Mainstream politicians are obviously compromised in that they have to show balance.

IveSeenTheLight

Froggitt wrote: »

Lets commission a new poll.


Do you think that the tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland dependent on Trident should be "re-located" elsewhere in the UK? There are coastal towns and cities in England that would bite their arm off for those jobs.

Taking a step back from that, why spend the money on something we never want to use.

Far better to put that funds into Education and the likes

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Just don't.
Trying to link SNP with Sinn Fein is deplorable and utterly desperate.



Selective Polling and a few years old.

Try these: -

A Survation poll in January 2015 showed 47.2% of Scottish people opposing a new generation of nuclear weapons being based on the Clyde, with 31.6% in favour.

There are more polls in that link


Poll: 25% of Brits and 48% of Scots think UK should scrap Trident

We don't need a Nuclear deterrent, indeed the UK sign up to the Nuclear Disarmament in the non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970

45 years on and we are still manufacturing nuclear weapons.

Scrapping Trident wouldn't save the UK any money of course as the US expects that all NATO members spend 2% of GDP on defense, although we'd describe that as defence of course.

However you spell it, as the UK is at the lower limit already, there would be no saving in the defence budget from scrapping Trident.

As a result, asking people if they'd like to scrap Trident to lower the deficit is a bit like asking them if they'd like an ice cream cone to lower the deficit: one thing has nothing to do with the other.

The other thing that is missing is the context of how important people think that it is. That rather reminds me of the whole fox hunting thing. When Labour were spending huge amounts of time and money on a series of 'free votes' on hunting to appease the left wing into keeping Blair in power it was often cited that people were against fox hunting. However if you looked at polls of issues people cared about fox hunting didn't register.

Polls like that end up being what Lord Ashcroft calls 'comfort polling', polling that makes you feel that you have the right policies rather than illuminates anything.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's being phased out Clapton. I posted it earlier, by 2020 Scotland will be raising much of its own revenue. The SNP want rid of Barnett completely.

Block grant is being phased out. See above. The whole discussion is out of date.

Free school meals for primary 1-3, Free tuition care, abolish bedroom tax, up childcare hours, living wage, higher national minimum wage, end of over zealous sanctions, carers allowance up to JSA levels, council house building program, ending council house right to buy, social care merged with NHS services for the elderly, NHS remains in public hands..

No party or it's policies are perfect.

It's happening now re grassroots, 105,000 members, SNP union membership now on par with Labour's.

If the Tories can't get a majority, then that's just tough. At least the SNP have been upfront about what people are voting for. Unlike the Lib Dems last time where a lot of voters thought they were voting to 'keep the Tories out'. There is a difference between being up front in intentions.. and freezing an entire country's ( or region if you prefer ) representation at Westminster for their constituents, or even questioning their legitimacy to be there.

Freezing the SNP out is perfectly feasible. Is politics after all. The fallout from something like a Grand Coalition of Labour and Tory MP's ( all based elsewhere ) voting to renew Trident on the Clyde.. is quite another.

No, it wouldn't. But assets TO Scotland are the flip side.

Wait and patience. There is very little appetite for a second referendum in Scotland right now 8 months after the last. Even from SNP supporters ( see Ashcroft Scotland focus group today) and the SNP leadership. I count myself among the 'oh god, no, not right now camp'. There is this election, then another one in Holyrood 2016. Much to be going on with.

That's why it's so very, very wearing when folks keep bringing up 'neverendums'.. There is no appetite for one right now. But I can say with 100% absolute certainty.. that Scottish Labour and the Telegraph will spend the next 10 days pretending that Indy ref 2 is just around the corner. All the flapping over FFA has failed. ( Yougov 2 days ago ). The below results are despite 99% of Scotland's media peddling the doom scenario Hamish paints.



And I think the Daily Record has just 'turned' looking at their front pages today. Second poll in 24 hrs putting SNP at +50%.

I do hope the above extensive post meets with your approval.

thank you for the response

The Barnett formula and its possible ramification is certainly not out of date, as Scotland is still benefiting as we post and the Vow and Smith seems to guarantee unfairness continuing.

So:
-are you agreeing that the Barnett formula was unfair to the other peoples of the union?

-do you feel it was wrong for Scotland to defend the formula for so long?

-do you expect its replacement SHOULD result in all the peoples of the union receiving roughly the same ?

-do you expect its replacement WILL result in all the peoples of the union receiving the same ?

-do you think the Vow/Smith says that all should be treated equally or says that Scotland should retain it's current advantage?


I'm not quite sure what all your other point mean

but briefly
-why is it fair for two, otherwise identical families, to be allowed a larger house if council owned and subsidise (cf the share room subsidy) but not allowed if they receive HB in a private rented property?

-uni tuition fees are of course an unfair and highly unequal subsidy for the richer members of society whereas the money could be used to help poorer clever children to reach their potential.

-is it fair that SNP politicians who have personally benefited from the Thatcherite right to buy, haven't returned the homes to the public sector?

-no idea what the NHS remaining in public hands means as no party has any other plans


Whilst it is interesting that SNP membership has passed the 1% of the electorate mark, that's little to do with a 'new democracy' or grassroots decision making : it fact I understood that the SNP party rules forbid the expression and propagation of contrary views
from the leadership : very Westminster

On the the matter of the fair division of the debt : so any faux excuse to default, as anyone that can make up the nonsense about using a pound as an equal partner, will certainly be able to make up a list of impossible unfair demands on assets and other matters.

However, for the next referendum, it would be wise for the parties to spell out the division of spoils explicitly so all the peoples of the union can judge their fairness and have a UK wide vote.

As for the timing of the referendum who can say as it will depend upon the coming financial settlement, which if fair, would put back independence for a generation, but if Barnett (or near equivalent) continue then who knows.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
Polls like that end up being what Lord Ashcroft calls 'comfort polling', polling that makes you feel that you have the right policies rather than illuminates anything.

I agree.

Scrapping Trident is a headline policy; something which makes politicians look good.

It's not going to significantly impact on our debts.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Taking a step back from that, why spend the money on something we never want to use.

Far better to put that funds into Education and the likes

surely the objective of all defense forces spending is never to use them ?

Froggitt

kabayiri wrote: »

A Welsh party would fight aggressively for those jobs, as would a party representing NI. Obviously the SNP would compete for the jobs to remain in Scotland.

Quite the reverse.......Sturgeon wants to scrap Trident replacement, and therefore all the jobs associated with it. Presumably Hi-de-Hi woman thinks the same.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Scrapping Trident wouldn't save the UK any money of course as the US expects that all NATO members spend 2% of GDP on defense, although we'd describe that as defence of course.

However you spell it, as the UK is at the lower limit already, there would be no saving in the defence budget from scrapping Trident.

Actually, if the reports are to be believed, we are already forecasting to fail that "target".

Indeed, only a handful of countries current meet that "target"

Regardless, I'd actually prefer the budget if remaining on defence, was used on equipment / personnel which we actually use / need as part of the defence measures.

Could increasing the anti-terrorist departments be constituted as defence spending?

http://www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security-blog/2015/mar/16/ignore-us-and-nato-cuts-in-uk-defence-budget-could-be-a-good-thing

Why do we spend 2.1% of GDP on defence when France (1.8% of GDP) and Germany (1.1% of GDP) spend proportionally less

So you analogies about ice-creams are meaningless, we could significantly reduce our defence spending and more importantly direct the funds better than we currently are.