Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

If Scotland finances were to stay as they are at present, which is not a given, the main impact on the UK of an independent Scotland would be likely to be a stream of people heading south looking for medical treatment, education and work as the Scottish Government would be bust.

Scotland finances could improve in several ways then, and as you say, they have a big impact.

They could rely on oil price increases; a passive-not-in-our-control approach.

They could shrink state spend and move further right. This is in their control, but it's not the kind of message they were selling in the indy ref.

They could grow the economy, but it would have to be the "ripping up trees" level to have any significant short/mid term impact.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
The Scottish electorate seem pretty sick of only seemingly being part of the UK when it comes to having policies imposed that they don't want.....

Voters in large chunks of London or NE didn't get what they voted for.

How is this any different?

During the Labour years, voters in large parts of the Shires didn't get what they wanted.

The solution is to campaign on a UK level and convince others your answer is better.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes I do see what you're getting at. However, Labour MP's in Scotland spent decades whenever the Tories were in power railing and wailing about how they had no right to impose policies on Scotland with so few ( now 1 again ) MP's up here.

Can hardly complain now that the SNP is saying the same thing. The Scottish electorate seem pretty sick of only seemingly being part of the UK when it comes to having policies imposed that they don't want..... yet not seemingly being a legitimate part of the UK when it comes to sending their own representatives to Westminster a la 'SNP threat', 'Don't let Salmond take your cash', 'aJockalypse', ' Throwing cash north of Hadrian's wall'.... Can't have it both ways really.

But it's not just the SNP decrying it. It's a cross party Devolution Committee that includes Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and Green MSP's. And the House of Commons Library itself. Both of whom state that the Scotland Bill doesn't come close to what was proposed. I expect it will go through at a nod. But it won't be what was agreed to back in Sept/November.



Who agreed it was a 'once in a generation' ? Salmond ? Who stated it was a personal opinion ? There's been an awful lot of water under the bridge since last year, and more to come. Events dear boy..

Who agreed it was once in a Generation? Well most importantly the only group able to grant a referendum, the British Government.

There's nothing wrong with decrying the policies of your political opponents. That you will only have the opportunity to spank slightly less cash up the wall is not grounds for another referendum.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Voters in large chunks of London or NE didn't get what they voted for.

How is this any different?

No-one in large chunks of London or the NE was told constantly that one of their choices on the ballot paper, might be an 'illegitimate' choice within a UK context. Or that no other party would be willing to go into, even an informal, agreement with their MP/Party of choice.

And before you say something along the lines of 'Labour wouldn't ever work with the Tories'. They did, in Scotland, quite happily when it came to a mutually agreeable policy for both.

During the Labour years, voters in large parts of the Shires didn't get what they wanted.

The solution is to campaign on a UK level and convince others your answer is better.

The SNP did campaign on a UK level. It was a UK election to a UK parliament. Holyrood is next year.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Who agreed it was once in a Generation? Well most importantly the only group able to grant a referendum, the British Government.

There's nothing wrong with decrying the policies of your political opponents. That you will only have the opportunity to spank slightly less cash up the wall is not grounds for another referendum.

Well, I'm not going to get into the legalities of who or what can call a referendum ( again ). But I do think you'll find that a very large proportion of Tory, Lib Dems and Labour campaigning against the SNP was on the basis that 'they want to break up the UK'... and 'they'll keep having referendums'. Hardly the language of people convinced that they'll be able to stop one happening if it's called. None of the three could shut up about a possible second referendum happening actually in the lead up to this GE.

But you keep stating that it was 'widely agreed' that the Sept referendum was a 'once in a lifetime' thing. It wasn't widely agreed. Salmond said it, and it gets quoted back a lot. That's about it.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Elephant in the room time : how would an independent Scotland expect to pay it's own way in a time of collapsed oil revenues?

Crucially, do they plan to make ends meet in the short/mid term by demanding continued subsidy from the UK government. If yes, what sort of level of subsidy are we talking?

Well it would help if when they say things like 'devolve all crown estates and revenues'... if they actually meant it rather than cherry picking, and sneaking little clauses into the Scotland Bill, for rather obvious cash flow continuing... in the wrong direction to proposed devolution plans.

WITH revenues from the Crown Estate set to be devolved to Scotland, the Scottish Government can look forward to reaping the benefit from all its vast holdings across the country, from acres of highland forestry land to hundreds of miles of foreshore. All, that is, except a retail park on the outskirts of Edinburgh.


In an arrangement resembling an embassy or Indian reservation casino, Fort Kinnaird will effectively become an inland island off the Edinburgh bypass, with revenue continuing to flow to the UK Government thanks to a barely noticed clause in devolution proposals.


“Fort Kinnaird is a money-maker for the Treasury and it’s notable that the UK Government wants to exempt it from devolution of the Crown Estate as agreed by the Smith Commission."


The latest Crown Estate accounts suggest that it received an £8.4m share of income from the two sites for year ended March 2015.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/fort-kinnaird-retail-park-exempt-from-devolution-1-3813038

The Treasury obviously doesn't need this 'subsidy' from Scotland ? Lots of talk of Scotland standing on it's own two feet, little in the way of being honest or totally fair about it when it comes to passing the legislation.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The above Labour leaners imo, and as Generali touched on in a post above, is the Scottish demographic that will decide how any future referendum will go. Tory rule or Home rule/Independence.

......or Tory rule that comes with the Barnett comfort blanket that abrogates Scotland (and NI) from much of the Tory austerity pain anyway and the alleged fiscal black hole or the other options you mention which don't.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

......or Tory rule that comes with the Barnett comfort blanket that abrogates Scotland (and NI) from much of the Tory austerity pain anyway and the alleged fiscal black hole or the other options you mention which don't.

Which other options ? I was talking about a second referendum and my own opinion ( <--- you wanted me to have confidence in that ).. that it will boil down to Tory rule v's Home rule. Previous Labour No voters will have a choice to make there, and it's very unlikely to be Tory rule for a further five years + after 2020.

However, politics can change in the blink of an eye and this may not be the situation in a few years time. Labour may produce something out of the bag which will get both Scottish and rUK voters out in droves from them again like in 1997. Or the SNP might crash and burn. But at the moment...

Barnett is being cut anyway from next year. And Fiscal black hole's will be for the Scottish government to worry about. Just like any other country's government does.. including the UK. Where 'fiscal black hole's'... ( implying that it's a never ending money sucking entity that nothing humanly possible can ever be done about )... are usually just called plain old 'deficits'. Most countries have those too. Only in a theoretical independent or fiscally autonomous Scotland do these mythical 'black hole's' exist... :eek:;)

wotsthat

kabayiri wrote: »

Voters in large chunks of London or NE didn't get what they voted for.

How is this any different?

The ideology of nationalism. London and the SE aren't nations so people there who voted labour just take it on the chin. If you voted SNP and didn't get at least deputy PM then it's an insult.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Which other options ?

Home Rule or Independence.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I was talking about a second referendum and my own opinion ( <--- you wanted me to have confidence in that ).. that it will boil down to Tory rule v's Home rule. Previous Labour No voters will have a choice to make there, and it's very unlikely to be Tory rule for a further five years + after 2020.

The choice is way more nuanced than a dyed-in-the-wool SNP voter like yourself can seemingly fathom. There are a myriad of issues and possible repercussions in a indyref that simply dont eixst in a safe risk free vote for the SNP in all other elections.
As someone once said, this isnt just about giving the effing Tories a kicking!:)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

However, politics can change in the blink of an eye and this may not be the situation in a few years time. Labour may produce something out of the bag which will get both Scottish and rUK voters out in droves from them again like in 1997. Or the SNP might crash and burn. But at the moment...

Indeed.
In 2020 we could also be talking about a UK budget surplus, austerity in the past tense and perhaps a SNP struggling to realise the hopes and aspirations of its supporters in a sitation where Scotland is more and not less reliant on the "subsidy".
The Boris effect might even mean a few Tory MP`s in Scotland come the GE in 2020 too!:)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Only in a theoretical independent or fiscally autonomous Scotland do these mythical 'black hole's' exist... :eek:;)

Lets hear the SNP make the case for a confident Scotland willing to run deficits then, their MP`s seem to think that it would be political suicide to suggest such a thing at the moment.