Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Well I've opined a number of times that FFA is not compatible with the Union which is why I don't think that is, or will be, on the table. In such a system envisaged by the SNP Scotland's contribution to the Union would not be enough to support Scotland's use of the Pound, let alone other services which the Scottish people voted for when they chose the Union over Natland.

Fiscal checks and balances throughout the Union would be very popular, contrary to your claim. I sincerely hope that there are a lot of checks of balances applied to the SNP so they are not able to economically damage the UK in the same way as they intend for Scotland.

No they wouldn't be popular. You yourself were totally scathing the last time I mentioned them in fact.

This was done on October 23 last year. Principles five and six are the ones which concern us here. Principle five set out the policy of “no detriment” while number six was even more explicit, guaranteeing any devolution proposal should be made without Scotland or Westminster “gaining or losing financially”.


That means whatever is devolved in taxation, an equal amount of revenue is deducted or added to the financial arrangements between Scotland and London. That would apply whether a lot is devolved, as the SNP proposes, or just a little is conceded, as the London parties suggest.

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/westminster-is-warning-scotland-the-snps-plans-will-leave-us-broke-theyre-lying-says-alex-salmond.1964

Fiscal checks and balances string. Across the UK. Is what Salmond was talking about re 'no detriment' re Smith Commission and any further fiscal devolution within the union. So, no they wouldn't be popular.

Oh and could you stop calling Scotland Natland ? It's annoying, and not very witty. If you mean the SNP, just say so. And you can be sure next time round, there will be no arguments over the pound. Salmond make a mistake there with his overly gradualist approach. Trying not to frighten the horses. It didn't make him wrong.. but it was used as a big stick to beat the Yes side with. They won't be making that mistake again I daresay. :cool:

.string.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-may-have-to-leave-the-eu-even-if-it-votes-to-stay-in-david-cameron-confirms-10262563.html

Scots will revolt if England tries to tear them out of EU

Constitutional Crisis on horizon

Second Scottish Independence referendum this parliament now more likely than not

Break up of the UK back on the agenda thanks to... David Cameron

I hope all the Tory voters are very happy with themselves.

I don't think any of that is true as cause and effect.
For example as you know, the separation of Scotland from the Union would certainly "tear Scotland out of the EU", whichever way the Referendum goes that will not change.

However what I do think is true is that obsession against Tories by the UK left feeds directly into the similarly childish obsession that the SNP are in love with as a strategy to divide the Union.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No they wouldn't be popular. You yourself were totally scathing the last time I mentioned them in fact.

Not popular with the SNP I understand but I mean of course popular with the UK

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/westminster-is-warning-scotland-the-snps-plans-will-leave-us-broke-theyre-lying-says-alex-salmond.1964

Fiscal checks and balances string. Across the UK. Is what Salmond was talking about re 'no detriment' re Smith Commission and any further fiscal devolution within the union. So, no they wouldn't be popular.
The SNP will not have free rein to over-borrow; read the small print when it comes. Such checks and balances are necessary to avoid detriment to all

Oh and could you stop calling Scotland Natland ? It's annoying, and not very witty. If you mean the SNP, just say so.

It's not a term that I have the honour of having invented, but it is an appropriate term for the fantasy land that the SNP invented to beguile the Scots. Full of milk and honey, oil and a welfare heaven to boot. I do not mean Scotland when I use the term. I'll continue using it when I think it appropriate.

And you can be sure next time round, there will be no arguments over the pound. Salmond make a mistake there with his overly gradualist approach. Trying not to frighten the horses. It didn't make him wrong.. but it was used as a big stick to beat the Yes side with. They won't be making that mistake again I daresay. 


Salmond was deceitful is his pretence that Natland could remain in a currency union. He then retreated into saying the Pound could be used while ignoring the consequences.

Comments on post are in blue above

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Comments on post are in blue above

Yes and it makes it very hard to debate with you. Without requoting endlessly within a single post.

1) Scotland having much more devolved, yet Barnett or a form of the block grant staying in place is definitely not popular. You're lying to yourself if you think this would be so. Under a 'federal' arrangement however, a block grant would stay. Under FFA, it would go.. along with the union most probably.

2) Checks and balances were talking about when one area is in subsidy it contributes to those in deficit. And vice versa within the union. The article I posted from Gordon McIntyre-Kemp was pointing out this would be the case. ).

Scotland will have new limited borrowing powers this year.

Under Westminster legislation which devolved new powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish government will be able to borrow up to £2.2bn to build major capital projects, like roads, hospitals and schools, from next year...

...Following a consultation, the UK government said those powers would be further boosted by giving the Holyrood administration direct access to capital funds with the ability to issue bonds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26245684

3) Feel free. But it makes you look childish imo. Is hard to take someone seriously when they start playground-seque 'name calling'.

4) I'm afraid in Scotland it was Osborne that was viewed as deceitful. Currency union may well have been problematic. But, I could see the logic of it to start with ( balance of payments/no big shock to the system etc ).. but it was vastly overegged to the point Scotland wasn't allowed to use the pound at ALL. Which we knew was total bunkum.

But no, they won't make that mistake again. Nor the EU 'question'. Which now also seems a total load of cobblers since the Tories/UKIP are going to run a referendum on leaving anyway. I agree it's not likely that the UK will vote to leave. However, the fact that it's even being held after 2 years of 'Scotland will have to leave the EU if there's a Yes vote' emblazoned on every newspaper... Well, there's a fair few must feel like total fools now. I don't really wish to rerun the ref campaign to be honest. But, re the EU they won't make that mistake again either..

Alex Salmond has been appointed as the SNP’s foreign affairs spokesman in Westminster.

The former First Minister of Scotland, who returned to Parliament as an MP in last week’s election after winning the Liberal Democrat seat of Gordon, will use his role to voice the SNP’s strong support for the European Union.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alex-salmond-appointed-as-snps-foreign-affairs-spokesman-in-westminster-10247018.html

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
Still, I guess in the long run, one of the most right wing Tory governments back in power, making huge cuts... Can only drive support for full independence upwards over the next few years.

We elected them to make the cuts. This is obviously what they will do.

How this impacts the Scottish independence; well, that's secondary frankly. The fiscal health of the entire nation comes first in my book.

Full independence will only benefit the rest of us by removing a major cost factor, so give us a shout if you need any help in "driving that support"

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

Firstly it's vanishingly unlike;y that the UK would do something so stupid as vote its way out of the EU.

Secondly, AIUI the Labour front runner in the leadership campaign also quite likes this referendum idea.

You haven't been here for a while have you?

Even this time last year I would have considered it impossible that people would vote us out of Europe.

Now, I'm really not so sure. There is an undercurrent of febrile xenophobia in England that wasn't here before that really worries me. Suddenly it's ok to hate Muslims, it's fine to blame unemployment on Poles, Romania is full of gypsies who want our benefits.

For a great many people an EU vote will have little to do with being in a large beneficial trading bloc, and everything to do with blaming every ill that befalls them on foreigners.

It's really depressing how many people voted for UKIP, and they would have picked up a lot more votes if so many of them hadn't voted tactically for the Tories.

A lot of people who vote Tory will vote for us to leave regardless of what David Cameron says. Labour has done nothing to make the case for Europe and my feeling is that working class people are more likely to vote us out than in, to stop immigration.

It's going to be close.

kabayiri

ruggedtoast wrote: »

...
It's going to be close.

Some of our Eurocrat cousins on the Euro Mainland will play their part by trying to hack us off, that's for sure.

Juncker the Drunker .... surely they know how appointing him will feed our frenzied press.

Why...it's almost like they don't like us. That Romano ex-president referred to the Thatcher rebate she 'won' back in the 80s. It still bugs them. I mean...c'mon....it's decades ago. It's akin to the Scottish poll tax whinge.

Stop living in the past

Thrugelmir

ruggedtoast wrote: »

For a great many people an EU vote will have little to do with being in a large beneficial trading bloc, and everything to do with blaming every ill that befalls them on foreigners.

That's all that was ever voted for. Not a Federal Europe. Not being in the Eurozone won't impact our trading relationships. After all they need us more than we need them.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, we didn't vote them in up here, nor the 'slightly less but nicer austerity' cuts Labour party either. We obviously preferred anti-austerity measures to the cuts coming down the line. There's 'shrinking the state' then there's the Tories. :eek:

Still, I guess in the long run, one of the most right wing Tory governments back in power, making huge cuts... Can only drive support for full independence upwards over the next few years.

So you don't want independence or FFA any more.

Should the Scottish Government use its tax raising powers or should Scotland get an ever increasing share of Britain's tax revenues?

I wish you'd make up your mind.

Enterprise_1701C

I am getting rather tired of the idea that Scotland are so desperate to be the tail that wags the dog.

The austerity is a necessity for the whole of the UK, probably contributed to by the fact that Scotland is given such an unfair share of the money the UK actually has.

As for immigration, the problems it causes are quite difficult to quantify, but I am fairly certain that if immigrants actually bothered to integrate with the general population things would be a lot less bothersome. Instead ANY problem is down to prejudice as far as they are concerned, police are not allowed to refer to the fact that a lot of the child grooming rings are in fact run by Pakistanis and most of the people in them are Pakistanis and other Asians because they would be accused of racial prejudice. It has gone too far, we need to be able to call a spade a spade. A friend of mine is black as night, he himself describes himself like that. They were in the process of adopting children and going through all the checks, he asked what the implications of his being black and his wife being white were. The social services woman nearly had a heart attack and informed him he could not possibly call himself black!!!!!!!

As for Europe, we need a third choice. If people are asked to vote whether to stay in or leave under the current circumstances, with the gallop toward a federal Europe (I am still convinced the germans are using it to invade Europe through the back door) then I would be forced to vote to leave, all the legislation is smothering business and we are no longer allowed to be proud to be British let alone English. What I want is to become an associate member and able to trade with Europe but also to be able to trade with the rest of the world.

We would not sink without Europe, we have the commonwealth and the whole world around us. They are more likely to sink if we leave.

As for the idea of Scotland having a veto, they are a very small part of our population and have really started to get ideas above their station. If they were to get a veto, what's to stop London (more than double the population of Scotland) and other places with large populations wanting the same. We HAVE to vote as one country.

Scotland would have had to attempt to rejoin the EU if they had got independence anyway, and there is no way they would have been allowed to join with their finances as they are!