Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Even if there is a vote on trident Labour, Lib Dem and Conservatives all support the renewal of trident so there is no chance of the SNP getting their way. They might get the support of a few rebel back benchers and the greens if they have an MPs but that isn't going to get them very far.

Ah well I've been reading up on this.

There won't be a vote on Trident. The MOD will be given a bunch of money and it will be spent on all sorts of things.

What the SNP could do (as they can propose to reduce but not increase spending) is propose to reduce the defence budget by the amount that they estimate Trident to cost. There is no guarantee that the MOD would find the required savings out of the cost of Trident of course.

That's assuming that they can even get an amendment onto the paper. Firstly they'd have to get their timing right and put in the request three days before the debate (IIRC), then they'd have to be selected to be one of the people able to put up amendments as not anything like all amendments ever even get discussed.

It's the same with their idea that they'll spend more on the NHS and Education. How? They've said they won't join a Government so can't propose spending increases.

LOL.

Shakethedisease

nonnie44 wrote: »

Nooooo im desperate to get rid of Katy Clark!!!! :rotfl: :rotfl:

That used to be my constituency too. I meant in terms of her 'anti-austerity, anti-Trident' stances. I think she's in the wrong party.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Ah well I've been reading up on this.

There won't be a vote on Trident. The MOD will be given a bunch of money and it will be spent on all sorts of things.

What the SNP could do (as they can propose to reduce but not increase spending) is propose to reduce the defence budget by the amount that they estimate Trident to cost. There is no guarantee that the MOD would find the required savings out of the cost of Trident of course.

That's assuming that they can even get an amendment onto the paper. Firstly they'd have to get their timing right and put in the request three days before the debate (IIRC), then they'd have to be selected to be one of the people able to put up amendments as not anything like all amendments ever even get discussed.

It's the same with their idea that they'll spend more on the NHS and Education. How? They've said they won't join a Government so can't propose spending increases.

LOL.

All anyone who wanted to spend more could do would be to vote down the whole of the spending plans, or, for example, the Department for Health’s estimates.
This ‘nuclear’ option is feasible constitutionally especially since, with the Fixed Term Parliament Act, it would not by itself be a vote of no confidence or trigger the fall of the Government.

Compromises. Oh, and what looks good to the UK public. Most especially the Scots ones in the SNP's case. The SNP won't be infliciting 'huge' political damage on itself by not supporting the austerity policies it's vowed to vote down for months before the election. ( If I'm reading the same articles as you ). The damage would come from voting them through ! Most parties have learnt well from Lib Dems and tuition fees for example.

Everyone knows Trident will get through with Labour + Tory votes however it's played. It's a given. That the SNP will vote against. This isn't news to anyone.

Anyway, I think the real battle is only going to begin after May 7th for this election. Cameron and the Tories have started signalling strongly through the Times etc that he's planning to squat in No 10 for as long as possible if he gets the largest number of seats. Playing the illegitimacy card. Mabye we should wait and see if govt is formed at ALL for a while. :eek:

They, and the press are going to try and goad Miliband into bottling out instead of committing Labour political suicide first if the Conservatives get more seats. ( Because they will paint it that way ). The hysteria is likely to last for a few weeks. And things look like getting really nasty if so. With the SNP more than likely being the scapegoats. Which won't go down particularly well in Scotland.

The below is actually a Times Header/article from today not a made up graphic. (They've missed a space out).

David Cameron is defying Ed Miliband to book removal vans. That is the logistical significance of Conservative signals at the weekend that Mr Cameron plans to stay in No 10 even if he has no overall majority. The political significance is that he is staking an advance claim on legitimacy, because that is what the post-election battle will be about...

ruggedtoast

At least Scots can vote for a party that claims to represents them in some meaningful way. I have a choice of 3 'main' parties whose avowed self interests are maintaining a cabal of super rich tax dodging corporate welfare parasites. The justification is that if we dont't then 'they'll all leave', and if I don't consider that to be the end of the discussion then I am stupid.

Well, rather like proud Scots who have grown sick of being told that they are too stupid not to realise that they need the English to keep paying the bills, and are prepared to pay their own bills and accept the financial hit, maybe I don't care anymore if they all leave.

Maybe I'm tired of seeing hard working tax paying businesses go to the wall while spivs from tax evading neo global monstrosities stomp all over them and laugh about it with Public school educated politicians at private clubs in the evening.

Maybe having the entire country held ransom to some ghastly unregulated casino in the city of London isn't actually worth it.

Yet the only outlet the English have for this noble desire for independence themselves is the febrile racism of UKIP and a bunch of Eco-loons, which is why the polls are neck and neck. No one cares that much which side gets in because it won't make much difference.

Personally I don't want the UK to break up, but it appears inevitable that it will collapse under the weight of its own self loathing unless something meaningful changes in our politics. It's extremely enervating quite how little comprehension there is of this upsurge in our political leaders.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

At least Scots can vote for a party that claims to represents them in some meaningful way. I have a choice of 3 'main' parties whose avowed self interests are maintaining a cabal of super rich tax dodging corporate welfare parasites. The justification is that if we dont't then 'they'll all leave', and if I don't consider that to be the end of the discussion then I am stupid.

Well, rather like proud Scots who have grown sick of being told that they are too stupid not to realise that they need the English to keep paying the bills, and are prepared to pay their own bills and accept the financial hit, maybe I don't care anymore if they all leave.

Maybe I'm tired of seeing hard working tax paying businesses go to the wall while spivs from tax evading neo global monstrosities stomp all over them and laugh about it with Public school educated politicians at private clubs in the evening.

Maybe having the entire country held ransom to some ghastly unregulated casino in the city of London isn't actually worth it.

Yet the only outlet the English have for this noble desire for independence themselves is the febrile racism of UKIP and a bunch of Eco-loons, which is why the polls are neck and neck. No one cares that much which side gets in because it won't make much difference.

Personally I don't want the UK to break up, but it appears inevitable that it will collapse under the weight of its own self loathing unless something meaningful changes in our politics. It's extremely enervating quite how little comprehension there is of this upsurge in our political leaders.

what a load of rubbish

Generali

Putting up spending on health and education in the UK? SNP can't do that outside Government.

Let's say there's a minority Tory Government and they vote to cut spending on health, Lab and SNP (or whatever electoral maths works) can vote that down. However, as a group that is not the Government they can't propose a vote to increase spending.

That vow to stay out of Government seems to mean that the SNP may have thrown away the chance to enact their own policies.

skintmacflint

nonnie44 wrote: »

Nooooo im desperate to get rid of Katy Clark!!!! :rotfl: :rotfl:

Why what has she done or not done for your area. Or why do you think Patricia Gibson is a better choice. Just curious as you seem to have a strong opinion.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Putting up spending on health and education in the UK? SNP can't do that outside Government.

Let's say there's a minority Tory Government and they vote to cut spending on health, Lab and SNP (or whatever electoral maths works) can vote that down. However, as a group that is not the Government they can't propose a vote to increase spending.

That vow to stay out of Government seems to mean that the SNP may have thrown away the chance to enact their own policies.

focus


the SNP have no wish to enact their own policies at Westminster.
There only objectives are to maintain their own popularity and to achieve independence.

'Failing ' at Westminster is a 'success' in Scotland as it's obviously all the fault of the English.

Many of their supporters aren't very bright.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Putting up spending on health and education in the UK? SNP can't do that outside Government.

Let's say there's a minority Tory Government and they vote to cut spending on health, Lab and SNP (or whatever electoral maths works) can vote that down. However, as a group that is not the Government they can't propose a vote to increase spending.

That vow to stay out of Government seems to mean that the SNP may have thrown away the chance to enact their own policies.

All they have to do is to be seen to at least try their best at Westminster, fight hard for what they've said they will. And take some ( hopefully a lot ) of Labour MP's with them along the way in terms of votes as their constituents wake up to an alternative.

And the end of the day Westminster isn't the end goal. It's Holyrood and the more powers the better. However, while in Westminster ( and this is the first time the possibility has been in sight ).. They will at least try to drag Labour back to towards it's roots a bit. And no I don't mean Derek Hatton style, just a bit less 'corporate' if that's the right word. Bearing in mind there are a fair few who would love to see that in England/Wales and a fair few of their MP's.. It's not such a bad goal.

Got to be better than UKIP at least as an alternative for reluctant Labour voters.. stuck voting for them because there's nothing else. Ed Miliband standing up and decrying things like the bedroom tax, cuts hitting those with disabilities, at least looking angry about NHS privatisation, ( he always seemed a bit wimpy to me on that ) and education changes.. Would have seen him win by miles this election.. not least because the SNP wouldn't have half the support it does if he had.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

focus


the SNP have no wish to enact their own policies at Westminster.
There only objectives are to maintain their own popularity and to achieve independence.

'Failing ' at Westminster is a 'success' in Scotland as it's obviously all the fault of the English.

Many of their supporters aren't very bright.

And you were doing so well until the last line....