Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

tberry6686

There is a simple way to settle the "independence" question once and for all.

Westminster gives Hollyrood FFA along with a referendum on independence 10years after FFA is achieved. This will show the voters whether an independent Scotland can live within it's means.

Should the referendum be a no vote then the Scottish parliament is disbanded and concined to history.

Simple, but Cameron will not do it as everything suggests that FFA would be a disaster for Scotland with the result of a resounding No vote for independence, effectively the end for the SNP and large amounts of Labour MP's from Scotland forever more.

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

Which of these do you count as ignoring scottish issues
-enabling Holyrood to be set up
-providing more money for Scotland than Yorkshire (and the rest of the English people) each and every year for the for that last 30 year
-allowing a referendum and promising to abide by the result
-bailing out Scottish banks at an enormous cost?

Which part of the UK has been treated better than Scotland?

Plus, a new billion pound hospital in Glasgow.

Plus, the Queensferry crossing. That's a billion plus.

Add in the support for the oil industry to help them through the current tough times.

Sorry, I just don't see an anti-Scottish bias from Westminster. There is a tremendous amount of money being spent to support Scotland.

Aberdeenangarse

Shakethedisease wrote: »

he's kind of regarded as a bit of an ineffective joke figure..

A bit like you on this Forum :rotfl:

.string.

It's very tempting to advocate the poisoned chalice approach, but one should not lose sight of the fact that Scots would suffer as a result. I've no wish for that to happen as most of trim want to stay in the Union.

But I draw the line to any arrangement which would fund the SNP in preparing for a new go at separation. That is clearly the aim behind the approach of phased FFA and I don't want any part of that.

So enough tax raising powers to demonstrate the Scots are aware of the consequences of so-called"progressive" policies, with reserved powers such that it won't be too much of a burden for the UK to pick up the pieces afterwards.

kabayiri

.string. wrote: »

It's very tempting to advocate the poisoned chalice approach, but one should not lose sight of the fact that Scots would suffer as a result. I've no wish for that to happen as most of trim want to stay in the Union.
...

There are some very difficult spending cuts to be made in this next parliamentary term.

The Tories told us these are needed and we voted them in knowing this.

The danger is that these cuts are spun into an anti-some-group theme; be it Wales or Scotland or Yorkshire.

It is better to cut the subsidy to Scotland, and let the Scots themselves decide where to make cost savings.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Which of these do you count as ignoring scottish issues
-enabling Holyrood to be set up
-providing more money for Scotland than Yorkshire (and the rest of the English people) each and every year for the for that last 30 year
-allowing a referendum and promising to abide by the result
-bailing out Scottish banks at an enormous cost?

Which part of the UK has been treated better than Scotland?

The Scottish banks argument is complete nonsense. The referendum is fine, Barnett needs to go, Holyrood was set up to counter increasing calls for Scottish independence.

Devolution for Scotland was justified on the basis that it would make government more responsive to the wishes of the people of Scotland. It was argued that the population of Scotland felt detached from the Westminster government (largely because of the policies of the Conservative governments led by Margaret Thatcher and John Major[8])

I'm afraid it's Conservative politics themselves that don't go down well with Scottish voters in the main. Labour playing catch up with them, particularly over the last five years.. well the result was Thursday's result in Scotland.

Scottish voters voted for a very different manifesto and politics than than which is about to happen. Labour possibly could've been pushed a bit more in that direction re austerity, Trident renewal, scrapping Human rights acts etc etc.. but there will be no chance of that whatsoever with the Conservatives.

The SNP as stated are likely to have very little effect on reversing any of the Tory policies which are so maligned north of the border. They will however shout extremely loudly about trying to do so nonetheless. Trident will possibly be a real sticking point ( I have no strong feelings on this myself but many do ).
We will just have to wait and see how it all plays it. Is early days. And which direction the new Labour/Lib Dem leaders take their parties will also be important. That majority is a slim one after all.

But gloating about how little influence the SNP are likely to have is a very short sighted way of looking at things. Because at the end of the day a lack of influence in Westminster ( re austerity etc ), is only in turn going to heavily boost calls in Scotland for leaving Westminster for good. And remember, at the end of the day.. the SNP aren't looking to stay there forever anyway.

Shakethedisease

Aberdeenangarse wrote: »

A bit like you on this Forum :rotfl:

You seem well named.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Doh !

That's been the SNP's entire point/narrative re Westminster for decades. That Scottish interests and issues are ignored there. We'll just have to wait now and see if the Tories prove it beyond all doubt. Certainly all that BetterTogether nonsense was comprehensively trashed during the last few weeks.

Still not quite getting this are you.

I think we need specifics Shakey.

Are you saying that Westminster favours somewhere like Newcastle or Leeds over Edinburgh?

I've worked in both Edinburgh and Glasgow. I'd hardly describe them as being let go to rack n ruin! Great places.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

There are some very difficult spending cuts to be made in this next parliamentary term.

The Tories told us these are needed and we voted them in knowing this.

The danger is that these cuts are spun into an anti-some-group theme; be it Wales or Scotland or Yorkshire.

It is better to cut the subsidy to Scotland, and let the Scots themselves decide where to make cost savings.

You can't just 'cut' the subsidy to Scotland, without cutting it to Wales and NI as well. The Barnett Formula is a 'formula' and applies to all devolved parliaments and assemblies.

This is why any FFA would have to be phased in over time.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I think we need specifics Shakey.

Are you saying that Westminster favours somewhere like Newcastle or Leeds over Edinburgh?

I've worked in both Edinburgh and Glasgow. I'd hardly describe them as being let go to rack n ruin! Great places.

Did you visit Possilpark, or Govan or Easterhouse ?