Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You can't just 'cut' the subsidy to Scotland, without cutting it to Wales and NI as well.

Why?

...............

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

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.

If Scotland had been independent then the failure of RBS and HBOS would of been enormous significance to the people of Scotland.

The SNP have air brushed that out of Scottish history just as they never mention Ireland or Iceland.

A large part of the debt (and the perceived need to reduce the debt) is directly attributable to the Scottish banking failure.

Obviously the SNP want more borrowing by the UK as they fully intend to default on their share : just as they are in denial about the Scottish banks they will find a suitable reason to explain why defaulting is 'fair'.

SNP policy is simply
-UK to borrow more and more
-give more and more to Scotland

Obviously Nicola will be constantly monitoring the independence situation to find an optimal moment to 'demand' a referendum.

I will happily bet you a bottle of Irish whiskey that Nicola will not implement true FFA before a referendum as she knows the devastating effect that will have on Scotland and would lose her independence for 100 years.

One notes that Nicola talks about only implementing FFA if the financials are 'right' for Scotland : that's code for not before independence unless the English give loads of money in excess of FFA... faux reasons to follow.

BobQ

I think that at present we are in the euphoria stage of the new administration where they make these positive sounding statements about one nation and unifying the nation. But he will be judged by what he does over the next few years not what he says in the first few days.

Right now he has a very divided nation, with Scotland being the epitome of this division. It will not take much to revive the independence campaign.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

Of course it will be 'phased in over time'. You can't expect the devolved adminstration in Scotland to find the necessary cuts and/or levy the extra taxes in just one fiscal year. They will have to be given time to adjust.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I think that at present we are in the euphoria stage of the new administration where they make these positive sounding statements about one nation and unifying the nation. But he will be judged by what he does over the next few years not what he says in the first few days.

Right now he has a very divided nation, with Scotland being the epitome of this division. It will not take much to revive the independence campaign.

why do you think that it is fair that scotland gets more grant than Yorkshire or the SW

Froggitt

Voltaire7 wrote: »

How dare Scotland vote against fat, bloated, sweaty Tories like yourself, eh?

You vote however you want. However I think you'll find Scotland will be sidelined and ignored for the next 5-10 years. Kicking out Labour not looking such a great idea now is it?

Froggitt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

How about changing to The Froggitt Formula...............


All UK spending money
...(divided by)
All UK people
...(multiplied by)
Number of people in each country
...(equals)
Money each country has to spend.


What's wrong or unfair about that?

tberry6686

BobQ wrote: »

I think that at present we are in the euphoria stage of the new administration where they make these positive sounding statements about one nation and unifying the nation. But he will be judged by what he does over the next few years not what he says in the first few days.

Right now he has a very divided nation, with Scotland being the epitome of this division. It will not take much to revive the independence campaign.

The indepenence campaign has never gone away and has become more vocal (I didn't think that was possible). This is easy to see from the SNP retoric during this election campaign when they somehow managed to translate a clear NO vote to mean "not yet". Funny, I don't remember seeing that option on the voting paper last year.

tberry6686

Froggitt wrote: »

How about changing to The Froggitt Formula...............


All UK spending money
...(divided by)
All UK people
...(multiplied by)
Number of people in each country
...(equals)
Money each country has to spend.

What's wrong or unfair about that?

Doesn't take into account the land masses concerned. Obviously the spend in areas with little population has to be higher per person than in areas of high population density otherwise there would be very little in the way of healthcare, education, infrastructure etc in the less populous areas with the result that cities would just get bigger and large parts of the country would see massive decreases in population giving rise to a never ending circle.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Why?

...............

Because then you would be using a different formula for Scotland. So it wouldn't be the Barnett 'formula' ?

I was questioning the 'just cut it' sentence. It's a little more complicated than that in a UK wide context. But don't misunderstand me. If it meant more in the way of powers/financial levers coming Scotland's way in return. A majority of Scots would welcome it .. ( but not Hamish ).