Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

From today's London Times it is reported that the Government will be going ahead with the Smith Report proposals straight away, with their proposals for implementation being a key part of the Queen's Speech. There are some that think the current proposals are too much and some that they are too little. In that respect Mundell, the new Scottish Secretary, stated that the when the Bill reached the floor of the house there would be an opportunity for amendments to be submitted. Referring to those now asking for new inclusions in the Bill he said (not direct quote) that those individuals had the opportunity to make their views known while the Smith Commision was ongoing but chose not to.

So it's put up or shut up time.

As opposed to developing a new framework and then submitting it to Parliament, this is a good approach as far as I am concerned, as it helps to avoid the adoption of additional items from the SNP wishlist without a commensurate rebalancing of other aspects. The approach also avoids a lot of the haggling which would cause delay.

A more radical approach, e.g. Federal, can wait.

I don't expect the SNP to like this (a major plus point as far as I'm concerned), but that is too bad. The SNP avoided discussion on FFA (on fact withdrew it as a proposal) during the Smith discussions, so reintroducing it now would be a major addition to the conclusions reached and unlikely to be even half accepted without major drop off in other areas. Serves them right for trying to be too smart).

Things will warm up quickly I think; I look forward to some outraged squeaking from you-know-who.

if true quite appalling as it continues the totally unfair share of resources given to Scotland by the Barnett formula.

Scotland should be ashamed but we know that their Thatcherite greed will overcome any sense of justice for all the people of the UK.

To balance this increased financial responsibility, the Parliament will be given increased
borrowing powers, to be agreed with the UK Government, to support capital investment
and ensure budgetary stability.
The Barnett Formula will continue to be used to determine the remaining block grant.
New rules to define how it will be adjusted at the point when powers are transferred
and thereafter will be agreed by the Scottish and UK Governments and put in place prior
to the powers coming into force. These rules will ensure that neither the Scottish nor UK
Governments will lose or gain financially from the act of transferring a power.

Froggitt

Voltaire7 wrote: »

Only 35%?

They Conservatives hardly represent the UK with their 24.4%

75% of the UK got a government they never voted for.

The SNP are far more representative of the electorate than the Conservatives are; that's indisputable.

95% of the electorate didn't vote for the SNP.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

Yes, but Labour and SNP were using the destruction of the NHS as a scaremongering mantra against the Tories.

They are all at it. Let's face it.

Yes, I abhor that too.

One of the best things about the election campaign (in some of the television debates) was that the electorate was asking for cold hard answers of fact and not accepting the spin returned.

kabayiri wrote: »

Labour and Ed had ample time to deal with the Tory tactic. They/he just didn't deal with it well enough.

Indeed.
Ed could most easily have handled the campaign a lot better.

On dealing with the SNP, he could have easily appeased the Scottish and English electorate by saying he was campaigning for a majority return, if Labour was to only get a mandate for a minority government, he would put forward Labours plans and see if the SNP voted it down to allow the Tories back in.

If he did that, he may not have lost in both England and Scotland like he did.

It was a monumental turning point. (in my opinion)

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Of the registered and eligible to vote electorate, only 35% voted SNP.

The SNP is not any more representative of the Scottish electorate than the YES campaign (which got 38% of registered voter support) was.

Under the skew inherent to FPTP voting systems they've got a lot of seats, I'll grant you that, but they do not speak for Scotland.

Come on Hamish.

they speak more for Scotland than the Conservatives speak for the UK.

Let's stick to the clear facts

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Come on Hamish.

they speak more for Scotland than the Conservatives speak for the UK.

Let's stick to the clear facts

I think they do, and it clearly works when the SNP campaign in the Scottish elections.

It just seems a bit confused when it comes to UK wide elections.

I think SNP could have had a longer term plan to gain more influence UK-wide, were it not for their commitment to a relatively close independence target. Some of the people in Newcastle will share the same concerns as those in Glasgow. They could tap into those people.

The 2 stand out charismatic leaders were Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage for me (even if I didn't like their political stance).

When I look at Nicola, and hear her voice, I don't warm to her straight away if I'm honest. But....the more she spoke the more I admired her ability. She is an able politician. I still find Alex Salmond a bit more charismatic though.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

if true quite appalling as it continues the totally unfair share of resources given to Scotland by the Barnett formula.

Clapton,
Try thinking fairly for a moment

I pay far more council tax in Aberdeen or Aberdeenshire than my sister in law in Putney.

Why? because I understand that economies of scale mean it is more efficient in an area where demographically there is a denser population.

Thus I pay more to get a similar service from my council i.e. refuse collection etc

Therefore, the Barnett Formula was derived to help support the rural communities.

So in comparison, Yorkshire (I know you love those people ) is supporting 11.9km2, whilst Scotland is supporting an area mass of 78.4km2.

Is it not therefore fair and incumbant on the government to ensure that the electorate in the most rural of area receives the same service that others receives regardless of the location and if it costs more or less to support that part of the United Kingdom?

Remember, we are "better together"

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

I think they do, and it clearly works when the SNP campaign in the Scottish elections.

It just seems a bit confused when it comes to UK wide elections.

Indeed, this election return is unprecedented and potentially unlikely to be repeated.

To go drom 6 to 56 MP's where the previous high was 11 is truly astonishing, so clearly the electorate were willing to back SNP this General election, whereas in the past they reverted to the traditional parties.

I think that LAbour and Lib Dems took the electorate in Scotland for granted until it was too late

kabayiri wrote: »

I think SNP could have had a longer term plan to gain more influence UK-wide, were it not for their commitment to a relatively close independence target. Some of the people in Newcastle will share the same concerns as those in Glasgow. They could tap into those people.

Indeed, there were reports of the electorate in England asking how they could vote for the SNP, but I really think this would have been a short term thing and probably not best for the long term

kabayiri wrote: »

The 2 stand out charismatic leaders were Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage for me (even if I didn't like their political stance).

When I look at Nicola, and hear her voice, I don't warm to her straight away if I'm honest. But....the more she spoke the more I admired her ability. She is an able politician. I still find Alex Salmond a bit more charismatic though.

I agree, Nicola is inspirational.
Many mock her looks or accent, but when they listen to the woman, many find true respect for following her belief ahead of party politics

As for Farage, he's the opposite for me. A Big character, but the more he speaks the more it becomes clear there is not breadth to the UKIP agenda.

IveSeenTheLight

Froggitt wrote: »

95% of the electorate didn't vote for the SNP.

Agreed, but they are not in power. What's your point?

64% of the electorate did not vote in the Conservatives, yet we are to be governed by them.

To be honest though, if they stick to what they say they plan to in these few short days and in their manifesto, I think it will be received well.

princeofpounds

Therefore, the Barnett Formula was derived to help support the rural communities.

This is rather disingenuous.


Rural Wales doesn't get it. Rural England doesn't get it.


I happen to think it's not a terrible justification, but it still treats the Scot as a special case.


So, to use bad grammar to make a point, it's a case of 'better together but more better here'.

IveSeenTheLight

princeofpounds wrote: »

This is rather disingenuous.

It was just my simple explanation to add to the debate.
Not disingenuous at all.

princeofpounds wrote: »

Rural Wales doesn't get it. Rural England doesn't get it.

Actually, rural Wales does get it.
they get a lower amount because their population is lower as a percentage of Englands

princeofpounds wrote: »

I happen to think it's not a terrible justification, but it still treats the Scot as a special case.

The Scots are no a special case, it's just mediated as such

One wonders why no-one harks about the Barnett formula being even more per head for Northern Ireland than it is for Scotland.

Why is there so much focus and "hatred" toward Scotland?

princeofpounds wrote: »

So, to use bad grammar to make a point, it's a case of 'better together but more better here'.

If you look at it, there is reluctance to manage the change as it would cost more to administer it.
Also considering the Barnett Squeeze results in the value per head falling over the years nearer to the English value