Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Tromking

kabayiri wrote: »

Would you settle for 3 free prescriptions and a couple of days of free advanced University level Maths tuition?

...as long as you promise not to demand that HS2 starts from Torquay, obviously.

All this Janner demands is a rail connection that doesn't disappear into the English Channel every time we suffer a mild squall!

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

What I do know is that all four nations cannot be net takers from the UK pot.:)
I`ll have a guess though that thanks largely to London and the South-East, England (as a whole) subsidises the other three.

Yes, I know. But the truth is that until all finances are accounted for on a four nation basis, rather than three of them.. and some vague amount that seems to be applied to the UK, but never England on it's own. Then it's very difficult to point out what's 'fair' and what's not. Who 'should' be paying for things ( such as a purely English based HS2 ) and on what basis EVEL should apply. Especially when voting on reserved Westminster matters/budgets covering the UK.. may have huge knock on effects on devolved budgets.

A devolved English parliament or a separate accounting dept based along the lines of those which Scotland/Wales and NI have, would mean things would be much more transparent for everyone.

The fact that you have to 'guess' that London subsidies 'the other three' is actually the problem. No-one should need to 'guess'.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

It could have been for a number of reasons, for example:
o To damage the SNP/Sturgeon as an aim in itself
o To gain an advantage for the LibDem Party
o To gain an advantage for his own re-election (*)
o To discomfort the Labour Party by showing that the SNP did nto like Miliband and put the LibDem in a better relative standng
o To discomfort the French (probably not)

I know that you want me to plumb for the one marked (*) to help the argument that he derived political capital out of it but while I think that is possible I doubt it since he would know that the leak would have been traced to his area of control and that he could expect some nasty fall-out from it. He would not anticipated, I think, the collapse of the LibDem vote so it is possible that would not have been a large factor.

Points 1 to 4 are all correct imo. And I highly doubt he did so off his own back either. Too many had too much to gain by trying to stop Nicola Sturgeon's rising popularity in it's tracks after the first debate. Lib dems/Labour and the Tories all had something to gain from it.

Whatever - as I wrote, I would have sacked him for that from the job he had. The enquiry should have been done quicker.

Yes.

But I don't hold with maintaining continual punishment for such things when, as I said, there are such things going on from all sides.

These are all political acts and political accusations and counter accusations. Salmond's recent remarks would be termed libelous outside politics unless he could prove them in a court of law.

As you would possibly agree, there is a sliding scale in spin from presenting of facts through selective presentation through interpretations to extrapolations to outright falsifying. "Un-truths" start at one end and are fully fledged lies at the other. At some stage they become unacceptable, a term which in the end is subjective.

Having said all that I have to admit that I have never voted Liberal (in the UK) - too fluffy by half for my liking. It comes with wooly thinking I reckon.

I don't think he's been punished at all. The Lib Dems are taking no action. And though he's willing to 'forgo' his £17,000 severance pay from being SoS, on £67,000 a year I doubt he'll feel the pinch too much. While I agree with you 'spin' goes on from all sides, as well as massaging the truth. I think he's crossed a line.

There are some very angry people out there about this. Not least Orcadians themselves. Who are just about to launch a crowd funding page, in order to pay for a court petition that must be lodged by Thursday morning. By the looks of their facebook page, people are lining up to throw money at them for the £6000 needed.

Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, electors or disappointed candidates can question the result of a parliamentary elections if a candidate or their agents engage in "corrupt or illegal practices". These practices vary from simple bribery, to paying canvassers, treating your electorate to ale and mutton, and the exercise of undue influence. If the election court is satisfied that the elected candidateor their agents are implicated in "corrupt and illegal" practices during the campaign, the consequences are potentially severe. If judges find that the new MP is personally guilty of any corrupt or illegal practices, their election is void. ..

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/is-carmichael-vulnerable-to-election.html

Salmonds remarks were made in the clear knowledge that Mundell wouldn't say a peep about them. For the sole reason, that they're most probably true. Because if they weren't, Mundell and the Tory party would already be lining up the lawyers too. And anyway, he's only asked 'what did he know and how much'. He hasn't directly accused him of anything. I guess we'll see if it comes to anything in the next few days after the bank holiday. The demise of the last Lib Dem and Tory MP in Scotland is probably aiming too high. But how would it be if they were brought down by their own daft actions in trying to smear another, instead of simply playing the election honourably.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

A devolved English parliament or a separate accounting dept based along the lines of those which Scotland/Wales and NI have, would mean things would be much more transparent for everyone.

I think IFS/ONS have it covered Shakey and although nothing would please me more than an English parliament within a truly federal UK raising and spending money courtesy solely of English taxpayers, I don`t think your fellow Scots currently living comfortably thanks to the largesse of England would share your desire for such 'transparency'.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Why was the Olympics not based elsewhere in the country?

Because other cities tried and failed to bid for the Olympics.

London bid and succeeded. One of the reasons is that the IOC was worried about how a million people would get about on public transport. For TfL that's less than the drop off in business they see every August as a result of Londoners taking holidays.

As Lord Coe said on a phone-in I listened to regarding the hosting of the Olympics. Why else would it be, Poole?

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

I think IFS/ONS have it covered Shakey and although nothing would please me more than an English parliament within a truly federal UK raising and spending money courtesy solely of English taxpayers, I don`t think your fellow Scots currently living comfortably thanks to the largesse of England would share your desire for such 'transparency'.

No I don't think they do. There are no English only accounts ever reported. Only UK ones.

And I think anyone ( from my perspective ) who wants a serious debate or discussion on anything to do with this topic.. well do you know that sound that used to come on when you switched the telly off in years gone past.... as soon as the words 'English largesse' and 'English taxpayers' are mentioned. Tend to switch off themselves.

You cannot know if it is English largesse. Because you cannot know what England is putting into the UK system, or indeed taking out of it a la HS2 and similar. You're only guessing I'm afraid. As you yourself, have said so.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No I don't think they do. There are no English only accounts ever reported. Only UK ones.

And I think anyone ( from my perspective ) who wants a serious debate or discussion on anything to do with this topic.. well do you know that sound that used to come on when you switched the telly off in years gone past.... as soon as the words 'English largesse' and 'English taxpayers' are mentioned. Tend to switch off themselves.

You cannot know if it is English largesse. Because you cannot know what England is putting into the UK system, or indeed taking out of it a la HS2 and similar. You're only guessing I'm afraid. As you yourself, have said so.

Yet only months ago you were super-duper sure that the Scots were paying a huge subsidy to the English! How can it work one way but not the other?

Have you forgotten your own arguments or are you just assuming that the rest of us are too stupid to remember what you said.

To be fair, the latter seems to be standard SNP debating policy.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes, she's wrote about it today in the Record. I daresay you'll do a downer on it. But she is listening. My 'not doing them any good' comment was explained. Labour and the other parties are going to have to come up with some policies of their own. Simply repeating 'the SNP are bad because.....' to infinity, without offering a good alternative to the electorate isn't gaining them much in the way of increased support. As evidenced in 2007, 2011 and 2015. How many more elections do they want to lose ? You can surely see my point ? Being blinded by viseral hatred of the SNP is holding the other parties back, because they never talk about anything else. ( Oh and I don't visit Wings much ).

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-tells-record-readers-5757414



Yes you're right there. Nobody's perfect. :A

I welcome any well thought out researched measures to improve the basic skills of kids from all backgrounds , including those from disadvantaged families. Regardless of which political party implements them.

But politics aside , from my own experience of voluntary youth work, would comment that solely directing funds at areas designated as disadvantaged as described in her Attainment policy , still leaves behind those kids who happen to live in areas designated affluent , but who come from chaotic dysfunctional families of neglect.

As for the rest, for years I've listened to SNP visceral hatred aimed at every other Westminster political party,. Then watched SNP pinch Labours big bad evil Tory slogan, followed by Labours welfare, child poverty and Food Bank rhetoric, and then most of their Manifesto policies. Not quite sure why you think other parties require any new original or alternative ideas, SNP haven't needed any so far. And they've just won 56 Westminster seats , for now.

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nobody really cares what the West Midlands contributes though?

I was responding to a post that Clapton made comparing West Midlands with Scotland, therefore relevant to the discussion at hand.
If you are not interested in joining that discussion, feel free to abstain

IveSeenTheLight

Tromking wrote: »

Shakey`s point was about England not the West Midlands specifically.
I wonder where my area, the South West of England comes in the infrastructure spend league table. I too must be due a rebate!:)

Sooooooo many people missing the point.
I was not responding to Shakey, I was responding to Clapton, who brought up the West Midlands

No one is asking for a rebate?

Tromking wrote: »

As a UK citizen however I`m happy to share the risks and benefits and pay my taxes for the greater good as decided by my elected representatives.

Fine. You have no issue with the Barnett Formula then, glad to put that to bed.