Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Re all this stuff about funding per capita, also the matter of Scottish Oil for the Scots and so on, the following provided a viewpoint which reflects some of the issues.
Give London back it's Tax

Aside: it's possible that this has been shown before, if so sorry for repeating someone else!

In a similar way to the North Sea Oil fields (mainly Scottish) London has contributed a lot to the UK in the past but is down at the moment, although for different reasons. It's contribution has been, and remains bigger than oil .

The spend in London compared with the rest of the UK. reflects this additional spending, but Boris is making a case (with tongue in cheek I suspect) for London to keep every penny for London rather than see it go for general use on the UK.

. . . And there is some sort of National spirit . . . As per "Maybe it because I'm a Londoner. !!!


Makes you think --- enough said for now.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Is your quibble that a population of 8.3% of the UK, only attracted 7% of immigrants?

You may be making my point about making the whole of the UK more attractive as opposed to centralised London

Maybe England could learn from the Scots: how is Scotland making the non central belt area more attractive ?
Are places like fort william, durness inverness etc growing faster than the central belt?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP are coming out with more details of what they want devolved as a matter of priority. In their manifesto they were calling for "devolution of powers over employment policy, including the minimum wage, welfare, business taxes, national insurance and equality policy.." And it looks like they are straight out of the starting gate, going to push hard for them in Westminster.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/snp-mps-bid-for-9billion-national-insurance-boost-for-holyrood.125818438

The Human Rights act is also going to be a rather thorny issue. Mundell is insisting it will affect Scotland if it's scrapped. The Scottish Govt says no. As does NI and Wales.

I could be wrong but I sense that the Conservatives approach is to base their Devolution offer primarily on the Smith Discussions, taking the viewpoint that things that were not discussed and signed up to there were de facto not agreed. The Devolution approach, and maybe content, will be a major part of the Queen's Speech, so my guess, repeat guess, is that the Bill will be put almost immediately to the Commons after that for discussion in the Commons.

I don't think that Sturgeon will be able to set the agenda in the way you describe. There could well be some side discussions, but the decision will be made in Parliament, not pre-cooked. Deciding is Parliaments priority, will all the contribution that 56 Scottish MPs (and the rest) can bring to bear. Amendments can be proposed and voted on.

Besides that, that list of extras is a bit fanciful; impossible I would suggest, with the survival of Barnett improbable.


On the Bill of Rights, I am cautious about that myself. I accept the principle that any law can be repealed and improved but it has to be done with great care and sensitivity, and also, I think, taking into account the way such things are handled on Europe and practices in the rest of the UK.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I could be wrong but I sense that the Conservatives approach is to base their Devolution offer primarily on the Smith Discussions, taking the viewpoint that things that were not discussed and signed up to there were de facto not agreed. The Devolution approach, and maybe content, will be a major part of the Queen's Speech, so my guess, repeat guess, is that the Bill will be put almost immediately to the Commons after that for discussion in the Commons.

I don't think that Sturgeon will be able to set the agenda in the way you describe. There could well be some side discussions, but the decision will be made in Parliament, not pre-cooked. Deciding is Parliaments priority, will all the contribution that 56 Scottish MPs (and the rest) can bring to bear. Amendments can be proposed and voted on.

Besides that, that list of extras is a bit fanciful; impossible I would suggest, with the survival of Barnett improbable.


On the Bill of Rights, I am cautious about that myself. I accept the principle that any law can be repealed and improved but it has to be done with great care and sensitivity, and also, I think, taking into account the way such things are handled on Europe and practices in the rest of the UK.

Well with Smith Barnett is being cut/phased out anyway. However, MSP's from all parties today produced a report on it today.. None were keen on what's been proposed so far. It looks like it's already been significantly watered down.

Scottish parliamentary committee report says legislative clauses do not meet the spirit or substance of recommendations on welfare and benefits

The unanimous cross-party report from the devolution (further powers) committee, published on Thursday, concludes that the legislative clauses do not meet the “spirit or substance” of the Smith commission’s recommendations on welfare and benefits, and require extensive redrafting in other key areas.

This further has implications re the Human Rights Act and any changes or it's replacement.

Significantly, the report also recommends strengthening the draft clauses which relate to the Smith recommendation to place the Sewel convention on a statutory footing.
The Sewel convention applies when the Westminster parliament legislates on a matter normally dealt with by the Scottish parliament and can happen only if Holyrood has given its consent.
This is highly relevant after the Scottish government vowed to withhold legislative consent from the Conservative proposals to scrap the 1998 Human Rights Act. In practice, the Scottish parliament would be invited to refuse legislative consent via a Sewel motion

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/14/scotland-bill-falls-short-of-previous-cross-party-recommendations

Not a good start really is it re the Smith Commission is it. Which is largely recognised as being 'dead in the water' right now. So I would hope that the Conservatives aren't going to draw a line there under it. It will have to go much further. While you are correct that such things will be decided in parliament. The fact that 56 out of 59 Scottish MP's were voted in on the basis of these priority devolutions being in the SNP manifesto... surely means that further more wide-reaching proposals should be listened to. Because it doesn't bode well if they are simply ignored for the next five years.

.string.

@Shakey - yes I understand that people will always want more and more, it's human nature, but it must also be recognised that the views of MPs from the rest of the UK are also important. Scotland is not the only participant in this process, and the House of Commons is the final arbiter, not the Prime Minister, nor Sturgeon.

The next step, I suggest, is to await the Queen's Speech and see what the Conservatives have decided should be the process.

elantan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I haven't been in hiding. I am just extremely bored with the same old referendum stuff re countries/nations/ Generali's hysterics over 'nationalism' etc being recycled here over and over again. The below might prove interesting.. Certainly rang a lot of bells for me.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/there-was-no-rise-in-scottish-nationalism-understanding-the-snp-victory/

yep bored senseless with it all tbh

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As a resident of Scotland (and an SNP supporter), I respect the referendum result and have parked the Independence agenda, as have the SNP party as I believe they have repeatedly confirmed (not that the journalists or other politicians are respecting the statements)

Down South we know who is really pulling the strings.

Alex Salmond contradicts Nicola Sturgeon by calling SNP election success a 'staging post' to another Scottish independence referendum

The SNP’s landslide of Scottish seats in the UK general election is a “staging post” on the road to independence, Alex Salmond said yesterday.

elantan

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Down South we know who is really pulling the strings.

no ... just NO, its obvious who runs the SNP ... and I say that as a huge fan of Salmond and an okish admirer of Sturgeon, but Sturgeon is the leader, she is a very left wing leader and tbh too left wing for me

chewmylegoff

How can you "devolve" national insurance? It makes no sense. Surely you would also have to devolve all of the spending that it is supposed to cover? Given that NI receipts are lower than the total cost of all the things NI is supposed to fund you would just be devolving a funding shortfall.

ruggedtoast

The canny Scots are going to squeeze as much butter from Westminster's crumpets as possible over the next 5 years.

Cameron is barely a week into his 'victory' and already he faces a backbench revolt over his plans for human rights, and an appalled backlash from Business over his insane threat to pull the UK out of Europe.

On one side he has slavering UKIP bigots, and the other he has a fractious coalition of centre rights and moderates. He simply has nothing in the tin to face down Sturgeon and her MP's.

Meanwhile a petition is gathering signatures at a rate of knots for Manchester to secede from the UK and join Scotland in independence. It's marvellous.