Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Well that is basically the plan, to empower the Scots to run things as they see fit with their priorities while still in the Union. ( Not the SNP plan who don't give a toss about the Union). The trick is to ensure that the money they get to do that is sensibly the same as is spend on corresponding expenditures and responsibilities in the rest of the Union. In that sense the extra money they get from the Barnett formula not only helps them to achieve what the Scottish people want to see in Scotland but it also tests the SNP's stance that they can afford everything they say they can afford.

The other part of the Devolution split should involve the things we do as a Nation, and in that area it is incumbent on the UK Government to show that what they provide for Scotkand is better, and better value than that which Natland could afford by itself.

Not an impossible job I would have thought.

I don't think there's going to much in the way of anything offered bar a beefed up Smith Commission. Gordon McIntyre-Kemp sums it up well enough.

With an austerity committed Westminster majority and an invest for growth committed Holyrood majority, we would create an A-B test between two mutually exclusive economic belief systems...

...So what we will get are some minor powers and a lot of cuts to our block grant that will slow Scotland’s economy that, given Holtham’s indexed deduction formula associated with Smith, would further erode our block grant and negate any real good we could do with the minor powers we have.

...1) We need business and welfare powers to be devolved as soon as possible, a Smith+ solution but with a new, fairer block grant indexing formula. This would include devolution of corporation tax and research and development tax credits, oil and gas regulation and policy, welfare and employment law so we can start to implement bespoke policies.
2) GERS (Scotland’s national accounts) requires re-engineering to become accurate and not full of guess work on VAT and corporation tax. Right now GERS is interesting for base level statistical comparisons, but you couldn’t use it to run a country or calculate the impact of FFR.
3) We also need an independent Scottish economic forecasting unit to create accurate projections on various policy scenarios without the Westminster overlord culture that skews the work of the OBR and IFS.

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/gordon-macintyre-kemp-why-westminster-parties-dont-want-to-give-us-full-fiscal-autonomy.2973

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm sure she's a lovely person and will grow up soon
but I'm not sure I want my laws made by a 20 year with no experience of life and thinks that a 'result' is waking up surrounded by lager cans and pizza.

The 56 MP's seem quite a good 'lifestyle' mix to me. Quite a fair number there that have had 'real job's before being elected. My own MP was a Consultant Cancer surgeon a few months before she stood. So it's not all beer cans and students. Mhari Black is also a politics student. She's done extremely well so far in interviews. And from what I hear from friends who live in her constituency, she's very popular and down to earth.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Gordon McIntyre-Kemp

Is just another subsidy junkie.

A man that truly wants to have his cake and eat it, FFA plus maintaining the Subsidy.

Your lot spent the last two years telling us that Scotland was richer than the rUK, that we subsidised the rUK not the other way around, and that all the hidden secret oil fields were going to make Scotland richer than ever, just as soon as they were announced after the referendum.

Now that there is actually some small chance Scotland could get FFA and the Nat lies would be exposed, every Nationalist is absolutely desperate to keep the subsidies they previously denied existed.

Funny that...:cool:

.string.

I agree that the new Devolution package will be based on Smith, maybe with a bit more, and that it may have a sweetener, probably to round off the edges to better suit responsibility and budget. Probably also some tidying up, for example for Crown Land to avoid conflicts with UK use.

I'm bemused by Gordon McIntyre-Kemp's remark:
We need business and welfare powers to be devolved as soon as possible, a Smith+ solution but with a new, fairer block grant indexing formula. This would include devolution of corporation tax and research and development tax credits, oil and gas regulation and policy, welfare and employment law so we can start to implement bespoke policies.

Presuming what he means by "fairer block grant" he means greater block grant, that needs some explaining. Perhaps you could explain, Smiley.

The other stuff about devolution of corporation tax and so on is really pie in the sky. Is he trying to provoke the English into boycotting Scottih goods and businesses into going South? If so he will succeed in that objective I've no doubt if his wishes were granted. I don't see that happening, but I guess this is all about manufacturing excuses.

elantan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The 56 MP's seem quite a good 'lifestyle' mix to me. Quite a fair number there that have had 'real job's before being elected. My own MP was a Consultant Cancer surgeon a few months before she stood. So it's not all beer cans and students. Mhari Black is also a politics student. She's done extremely well so far in interviews. And from what I hear from friends who live in her constituency, she's very popular and down to earth.

Angela Crawley has a law degree as well

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The 56 MP's seem quite a good 'lifestyle' mix to me. Quite a fair number there that have had 'real job's before being elected. My own MP was a Consultant Cancer surgeon a few months before she stood. So it's not all beer cans and students. Mhari Black is also a politics student. She's done extremely well so far in interviews. And from what I hear from friends who live in her constituency, she's very popular and down to earth.

A mature people, do not interpret a valid comment about one member of the cult, as meaning that all Scots are beer cans and pizza.

I have absolutely no doubt that many of the Scottish MPs are very worthwhile people.

One might remind oneself that Whitford, deliberately caused stress and worry to many people in the NE by her untruthful remarks for purely personal political gain: maybe a hero within the cult but not, in my view, an honourable or decent person; she will feel at home in Westminster however.

Eventually, I hope you come to distinguish between people because of how they behaviour and not simply whether or not they support the SNP.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Is just another subsidy junkie.

A man that truly wants to have his cake and eat it, FFA plus maintaining the Subsidy.

Your lot spent the last two years telling us that Scotland was richer than the rUK, that we subsidised the rUK not the other way around, and that all the hidden secret oil fields were going to make Scotland richer than ever, just as soon as they were announced after the referendum.

Now that there is actually some small chance Scotland could get FFA and the Nat lies would be exposed, every Nationalist is absolutely desperate to keep the subsidies they previously denied existed.

Funny that...:cool:

No, I don't think that's the case. But it is true that FFA/Devo Max etc are far more complex than a clean break. Especially when there are so many like yourself who are keen to see the SNP fail on FFA.

However, the Tories seem very 'unkeen' to offer it and to 'keep that subsidy' right on going. You have to wonder why. I do... Especially with all those massive austerity cuts right around the corner.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I agree that the new Devolution package will be based on Smith, maybe with a bit more, and that it may have a sweetener, probably to round off the edges to better suit responsibility and budget. Probably also some tidying up, for example for Crown Land to avoid conflicts with UK use.

I'm bemused by Gordon McIntyre-Kemp's remark:
We need business and welfare powers to be devolved as soon as possible, a Smith+ solution but with a new, fairer block grant indexing formula. This would include devolution of corporation tax and research and development tax credits, oil and gas regulation and policy, welfare and employment law so we can start to implement bespoke policies.

Presuming what he means by "fairer block grant" he means greater block grant, that needs some explaining. Perhaps you could explain, Smiley.

The other stuff about devolution of corporation tax and so on is really pie in the sky. Is he trying to provoke the English into boycotting Scottih goods and businesses into going South? If so he will succeed in that objective I've no doubt if his wishes were granted. I don't see that happening, but I guess this is all about manufacturing excuses.

No, he means that FFA wouldn't be compatible with the union if Westminster followed a different path. And a Federal solution would mean fiscal checks and balances throughout the UK ( which obviously wouldn't be popular either ).. So the 'block grant' is either adjusted for balance re federalism. Or is taken away altogether via FFA.

A federal system would involve maintaining a system of fiscal stabilisation between regions. Scotland is still part of the UK so if it generates a surplus, that surplus is not Scottish and any deficit is not the sole responsibility of the Scottish tax base. This makes fiscal devolution more complex, firstly as FFR should allow Scotland to try out localised policies to increase economic and revenue growth, and, over time, improve the deficit as a percentage of GDP. In the first few years under FFR it is likely that the Scottish deficit in cash terms will grow (that’s a good thing, as we would be investing in growth) but in the medium term increased growth and tax revenues would mean the deficit equalises (possibly in three to five years dependent on policies) with the UK deficit and then in the longer term, five to 10 years, disappears far more quickly than the rest of the UK.Having in this scenario reached a fiscal surplus more quickly than the rest of the UK through FFR, Scotland, still being part of the UK will have to, at least in part, make fiscal transfers to the rest of the UK and in the meantime the UK would, in part, have had to make fiscal transfers to Scotland.

He wants independence string. He's warning of the dangers of FFA and Federalism. And laying out why, in his opinion, Westminster doesn't want Scotland to have FFA or the UK a federal system.

An economics-based answer to the clash of mandates may exist but it would take unseen levels of co-operation. There is, however, no politically acceptable solution for the unionist MPs.
If they fail to deliver on more powers the union is dead, if they offer more powers but undermine them through austerity budgets then the union dead, even in a federal UK the union is on borrowed time. Westminster is now looking at a heads they lose/tails they lose situation.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

A mature people, do not interpret a valid comment about one member of the cult, as meaning that all Scots are beer cans and pizza.

I have absolutely no doubt that many of the Scottish MPs are very worthwhile people.

One might remind oneself that Whitford deliberately caused stress and worry to many people in the NE by her untruthful remarks for purely personal political gain: maybe a hero within the cult but not in my view, an honourable or decent person; she will fell at home in Westminster however.

Eventually, I hope you come to distinguish between people because of how they behaviour and not simply whether or not they support the SNP.

I've seen several posts where folks are going on like toothache about the 'lack of experience' of all those new SNP MP's and how much trouble they will cause through that inexperience.

Thrugelmir

Investing in growth? Every politicians dream. Best left to the private sector.