Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Pixie5740

.string. wrote: »

Thanks for the list;

On 1
We all want that but unfortunately to stop the debt running away from us with the consequent increased interest payments, we can't avoid some austerity.
On 2 Don't we all?
On 3 Don't we all?
On 4 Certainly, if it is backed by a majority in Parliament
On 6 Continued reform but not abolition; it is needed as, basically, the people's ombusdman
On 7 Don't know the term ?????

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Arguably would impact one of Scotland's key industry's considerably i.e. tourism.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Who doesn't.

Requires everybody to make a contribution though. Placing an X on a piece of paper isn't the going to provide the solution.

I wasn't arguing for or against the SNP. I was just pointing out that if you want to know a party's policies then the manifesto is a good place to look.

Thrugelmir

robin61 wrote: »

Encouraging unlimited immigration provided cheap labour to fill blue collar jobs and forced the wages of their own supporters down whilst stimulating extra demand for limited housing.

No need to encourage. There's a vast gulf between what people earn for the same job across the whole of the EU. A federal Europe will result in equality being socialist in nature that's one of the consequences of being a member.

.string.

Yes Pixie, My reply was not "aimed" at you which is why I thanked you.

I went back and edited my post

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

Clapton seriously ... this is gonna be my last reply to you, then I think I am going to block you cause your lack of any real understanding bores me senseless ...

If Labour had done what their employers had asked they would have won their seats yesterday, they didnt, so they paid the price

I want to see a multicoloured parliament always have done ... but only one that really does what the employers want them to... I do want independence for my country that will NEVER change and I believe that the SNP is a great vehicle to achieve this for the people...

but when we become independent I am almost 100% positive that Scotland will no longer be a huge SNP seat, it will become more multicoloured and reflect the people...

Now if labour have to stand any chance of that then they need to learn where they went wrong and stop giving it SNP bad indy ref indy ref SNP bad ... Jim Murphy has already done this today, the man is seriously the gift that keeps on giving to Scotland ... but he isnt good for Scotland so whilst he will help us achieve independence faster ... he does need to go...

Labour stopped speaking up for the people of Scotland a long time ago... they became London centric Scotland has had enough and made its choice, so with the SNP going down our voice will be heard ... and loudly... it is gonna be an interesting time

I haven't questioned the right of the people of Scotland to vote for who they like.
I have questioned your own attitude about the desirability of a one party state .. just for the time being.
I believe in liberty and democracy 'even' for people who disagree with me.
Your obsession with the 'London centric ' nonsense is just the usual excuse to demonise the 'foreigner'.

Scotland has had a fantastic deal from England: it gave a parliament, it gave unfair grants in your favour, it gave a referendum: they fact the Scottish people have squandered the gifts is their choice.
But the acolytes will, of course, blame the English for not giving them more rather than their own choices.

I fully respect the right of the people of Scotland to go their own way, just as I respect the right of the Isles to go their own way if they so wished: my regret is that the people didn't vote that way.

Now the SNP has a fantastic opportunity for a second referendum: take it but respect all the voters of scotland not just those that agree with you.

Generali

Pixie5740 wrote: »

If you read the SNP manifesto you would know.

• An end to austerity.
• Increased NHS funding.
• An end to child poverty.
• Trident scrapped.
• Abolition of the House of Lords.
• Increased MNW

To name but a few.

I think you missed 'Moon on a Stick'.

Scotland under independence would have to cut spending by the state by somewhere between 10-25%. None of the above would happen.

michaels

I have seen a figure that suggests giving Scotland FFA would save rUK £15billion pa - any one know where this number comes from or if it is correct?

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I think you missed 'Moon on a Stick'.

Scotland under independence would have to cut spending by the state by somewhere between 10-25%. None of the above would happen.

And I think you missed the results of the vote in Scotland last night.

All they need to do now is vote against any and all policies and Tory proposals they like. There's big rumours floating about that the Tories are about to make a 'radical' offer. Fraser Nelson is just off BBC news saying he thinks FFA is 'back on the table' etc etc. But I think that the SNP's version of FFA and the Tory one might contain a few key differences.

However, I can't see the SNP doing any deals with the Tory party. Salmond last night was pretty emphatic to Paxman too. Imo they'd be far better to sit on their hands and see how things play out for a little while before rushing into anything that may or may not be offered. EVEL will now probably go through, distancing Scots from Westminster even further. And if the SNP are to be completely ignored, so much the better ( proves what they've been saying all along re Scottish MP's ).

The big incidental question for me, is what the Scottish media will now do. With one Labour MP up here. It's going to be pretty difficult to justify the same amount of exposure Scottish Labour was getting in the lead up to this election, and for decades before it. The Daily Record/Herald and especially newspapers like the Scotsman will surely now have to accept that there is little in the way ( in a UK context ) for them to write about re Labour. Ian Murray himself is staunchly anti-Trident.

I was very surprised that the Daily Record didn't explicitly come out for Labour at all.. not even on the eve of the election. Very telling I thought. The 'one-way' media made a difference in the lead up to the referendum and to an extent in this election. Kept the SNP constantly on the defensive, and blowing up non-stories into epic tales of violence and near riots ( eggs, and mega-phone heckles ). It will be interesting indeed to see which way they jump while there's a Tory majority in Westminster... and their only vehicle to counter it now is to support the SNP for the next five years. Or else make themselves look like a 'Tory rag' and watch viewing figs and/or sales plummet.

But all in all a really fantastic night in Scotland for people like me. I'm going to enjoy it for a bit, before the inevitable carp starts at Westminster. What irony only the Scottish polls where the one's near the mark, and the polls no-one could quite believe. Not even the SNP.

I choked on my drink seeing that exit poll last night... Then had to pour another when I took in the Tory numbers..

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

I have seen a figure that suggests giving Scotland FFA would save rUK £15billion pa - any one know where this number comes from or if it is correct?

Not quite.

Scotland does have an annual deficit of around £15 bn per annum.

However Scotland is already liable for it's population share of the national deficit as part of the UK.

So the saving for the UK in the event of FFA or Indy, ie, the amount that rUK subsidises Scotland to each year, is around £7.6 bn to £8 bn depending on the calculation.

kabayiri

michaels wrote: »

I have seen a figure that suggests giving Scotland FFA would save rUK £15billion pa - any one know where this number comes from or if it is correct?

Hamish has a graph derived from OBR figures I believe.

I doubt rUK would save £15bn though. The SNP leadership are not stupid. They would want to leverage a deal out of the government to moderate the loss of income caused by removal of the subsidy. We would have to stump up somehow.

I'd do likewise tbh, if I were the SNP.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not quite.

Scotland does have an annual deficit of around £15 bn per annum.

However Scotland is already liable for it's population share of the national deficit as part of the UK.

So the saving for the UK in the event of FFA or Indy, ie, the amount that rUK subsidises Scotland to each year, is around £7.6 bn to £8 bn depending on the calculation.

What is a realistic plan for covering this amount? It's a lot for a small nation to bear.

Any ideas?