Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

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?

because you forget that

-scotland is a nation
-scotland has a massive chip on their shoulder
-they have a massive entitlement culture
-they have been pandered to (i.e. stuffed with money) by the vile tories, labour and libdems for 30 years or more
-they don't support the English at sports
-they love sing songs about killing the English

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

Since when did a Scottish government have control over UK banking practices ?

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.

You'll have to wait and see like the rest of us will. But yes, definite noises coming out of the Tory camp re FFA and 'federalisation'. Something will be on the cards. I guess it will depend how much in the way of 'strings attatched'.

And yes, Nicola will be monitoring for the optimal time for another referendum. But this election wasn't about that, nor a mandate for one. A Tory majority though.. is more than likely good news for the SNP. Just a real shame there was no chance to work in Westminster alongside a slightly more progressive government.

I can only hope there aren't too many who based their vote on keeping the SNP out, and aren't only now thinking 'oops, I completely forgot about those 30bn austerity cuts, 12bn welfare cuts, NHS privatisations, EU referendum, human rights act scrapping, anti-trade union laws, tax cuts for asset holders' etc etc...

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

So create a new formula.

It's hardly beyond the wits of man.

Oh wait....there's that one formula at a time rule

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
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 ).

So, let's drill this down.

Suppose Scotland gets a reduction in the money allocated, but in return it gets to choose where it applies the cuts, then....would that satisfy you?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

So create a new formula.

It's hardly beyond the wits of man.

Oh wait....there's that one formula at a time rule

Devo-max or FFA or independence then. Oh wait.. Hamish says... there's those Hamish graph's again.

The SNP want to end Barnett. It's been Labour and the Tories that have 'vowed' to keep it. Mabye you should look a little closer to home re creating a 'new formula'. The Scottish govt certainly can't ( they don't have the powers to ). So I don't see why you keep trying to lay this at their door like Clapton does. What point exactly are you trying to make ?

Barnett is a Westminster construct. Only Westminster can change it. It'll be up to the Tories to do so now if it's going to happen. But if they do drop/cut it substantially, then they'll have to explain wall to wall endorsement of 7.8 billion black hole reports and why they're dropping the Scots right in it.. to people like Hamish... ( not people like me obviously ).

How would they circle that square ?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

So, let's drill this down.

Suppose Scotland gets a reduction in the money allocated, but in return it gets to choose where it applies the cuts, then....would that satisfy you?

No, I want the Scots govt to be allocating money TO Westminster for shared services, not the other way round. No Barnett, no allocations from Westminster. Economic and fiscal policy decided in Holyrood. What's raised in Scotland, is spent in Scotland. Rest to Westminster for defence, debt etc.

Half measures re reducing a bit of this, or a bit of that, in return for a bit of this, and some of that.. messy, complicated. And EVEL is probably just round the corner too. Which means Scottish MP's will have a reduced say anyway in the overall UK budget. Mabye better all round for a clean break re Barnett. With protective transitionary measures in place for both rUK and Scotland while things are handed over and back.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
Economic and fiscal policy decided in Holyrood. What's raised in Scotland, is spent in Scotland. Rest to Westminster for defence, debt etc.
...

It sounds a reasonable premise. I'm sure there might be negatives as well as positives with such an approach.

For example, how do you cope with a rapid reduction in income as a result of a sharp reduction in oil prices?

Froggitt

tberry6686 wrote: »

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.

Land masses was the justification for the Barnett Formula. Obviously if Scotland can afford free university/prescriptions etc on top of land masses spending, Barnett is not fit for purpose these days.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Since when did a Scottish government have control over UK banking practices ?



You'll have to wait and see like the rest of us will. But yes, definite noises coming out of the Tory camp re FFA and 'federalisation'. Something will be on the cards. I guess it will depend how much in the way of 'strings attatched'.

And yes, Nicola will be monitoring for the optimal time for another referendum. But this election wasn't about that, nor a mandate for one. A Tory majority though.. is more than likely good news for the SNP. Just a real shame there was no chance to work in Westminster alongside a slightly more progressive government.

I can only hope there aren't too many who based their vote on keeping the SNP out, and aren't only now thinking 'oops, I completely forgot about those 30bn austerity cuts, 12bn welfare cuts, NHS privatisations, EU referendum, human rights act scrapping, anti-trade union laws, tax cuts for asset holders' etc etc...

The issue about the banks is about the devastation the failures would have caused to Scotland if you had been independent.
The idea that an independent Scotland would have regulated the Scottish banks better than USA, UK, Ireland etc is laughable.

And of course you will remember that Fred was a Scottish hero .

The 'cuts ' are about living within the government income : that is collecting in taxes, a similar amount to what the government spends.

There is of course no need to cut if you plan to increase taxes to pay for the spending : that doesn't seem to be the SNP plan : it's just to borrow, borrow for ever and ever.
Do the SNP believe there will ever be a time to stop more and more borrowing?

As you know, the spending on the English NHS increased more in percentage terms over the last five years than the SNP chose to increase the Scottish NHS spending : not very 'progressive'.
But you can console yourself that the SNP will continue the 'progressive' policy of large subsidises to the rich parents of Uni students and rich graduates at the expense of the Scottish poor.

Anyway I see you haven't taken me up on my offer to bet a bottle of Irish whiskey that Nicola will not agree to FFA unless massive subsidisies are offered.

Why do you object to a EU referendum : one rule for the scots and another rule for everyone else?

tberry6686

Froggitt wrote: »

Land masses was the justification for the Barnett Formula. Obviously if Scotland can afford free university/prescriptions etc on top of land masses spending, Barnett is not fit for purpose these days.

I'm not saying the Barnett formula is right. I am saying that basing spending levels on an areas population does not work, not in Scotland, England, N Ireland or Wales.