Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

It is my considered opinion of the SNP and their lack of honesty, always trying to spin off events and discussions into anything but facing the reality of their own faults and intolerant of any political opinion but their own.

But then I'm not in thrall to any political party.

But it's still only your own opinion, not fact. Hard facts and voting patterns in Scotland suggest that half the electorate are quite happy with how the SNP have managed in Scottish government over the last 8 years or so. Otherwise, they'd have voted Labour ( again ).

The slightest facet of dishonesty appearing in the SNP, real or imagined is flagged up and magnified 100 times ( as Zag points out ) in every single news outlet imaginable. There simply is no opportunity whatsoever to deceive wholesale the Scottish public. They don't have the means even if they wanted to. They've been judged solely on their actions in (devolved) government. And only now for a brief time within the UK one. Polls are still going up.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Re the Fox business, I would guess that the Scottish Parliament does not have free votes, since your remarks indicate a certain lack of awareness of what that means.

I do know what a free vote is. And so do the SNP. One was held very recently in Holyrood over a 'right to die' issue.

One thing that affair did illustrate was the artificial use of the Fox business to highlight faux arguments on a totally different subject.

I did point out that the fox business was scheduled directly before the EVEL debate for a reason. I seriously doubt that was the SNP's doing. The Tories made a bit of an a**e of that one when one see's how it turned out. Pulling the vote altogether rather than face certain defeat.

The sooner this EVEL thing is sorted the better. The whole thing was becoming a circus and it made sense to postpone it until EVEL was sorted and a proper debate could take place.

Both EVEL and Fox hunting have been put on the back burner... because the Tories face certain defeat as things stand. Too many of ALL parties against, not just the SNP.

I would not expect too much change in the devolution powers, Shakey, the SNP amendments were daft, and not acceptable. See Tomkins blog for that.

Tomkins is the unionist counterpart to Stuart Campbell of Wings over Scotland. That's like me saying to you 'see WingsoverScotland blog' because the unionist position on this is daft.

BUT Mundell and the Tories seem to have undergone a u-turn in the last 24 hours. Both EVEL and these 'significant changes' to the Scotland bill re welfare and other amendments very recently defeated are due in 'the autumn'. Imo this may be the price paid for letting EVEL through. Substantial changes for a 'permanent' English majority for the Tories. Because that's what EVEL means ultimately. A de-facto English parliament within Westminster, one in which the Tories will dominate for the forseeable future. Labour will be snookered for a long time to come. The Tories know they have little chance of ever gaining a foothold in Scotland again.

Corbyn and the very slim but growing chance that he may just win the Labour leadership.. Then join the SNP in anti-Trident, anti-austerity etc etc would mean many more defeats for the Tories the next few years ( if Labour doesn't split first ). But there has certainly been a marked change to the Tory approach to the Scotland bill in the last 24 hours. And a very puzzling one.

SCOTTISH Secretary David Mundell has pledged to bring major changes to the Scotland Bill in a move that is the first suggestion by the UK Government that the legislation falls short of the all-party Smith Commission proposals.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/david-mundell-pledges-major-scotland-bill-changes-1-3831291

But we'll see, it's all uncertain. And you're right. No-one has 'high hopes' of further powers actually meaning anything much.

P.S. - it is a UK Parliament.

Yes it is. The SNP as members of it, can vote whenever and wherever they like because it is. That's what a No vote meant string.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I do know what a free vote is. And so do the SNP.

Apparently they don't understand the difference between 'voting' and 'not voting': doing the two at the same time are inconsistent with each other.

So when Ms Sturgeon said she would not vote fox hunting and then said that she would vote fox hunting she was clearly lying on one of the two occasions. Either that or is stupid enough not to understand that 'not voting' and 'voting' are different things, something I don't believe for a moment.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

Apparently they don't understand the difference between 'voting' and 'not voting': doing the two at the same time are inconsistent with each other.

So when Ms Sturgeon said she would not vote fox hunting and then said that she would vote fox hunting she was clearly lying on one of the two occasions. Either that or is stupid enough not to understand that 'not voting' and 'voting' are different things, something I don't believe for a moment.

She couldn't vote against English/Welsh foxhunting. Or for it.

Much as "her" MPs didn't vote on foxhunting, or for that matter, on devolved issues, just like English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs didn't and can't respectively .

You're dealing with a country that can do Guilty and Not guilty at the same time (google "Scottish verdict"). I'm seeing a lot more understanding of this north of the Tweed than I'm seeing south of it, and I'd welcome more parity of understanding throughout the UK.;)

skintmacflint

Never mind Zagubov , looks like you'll soon be enjoying SNP acting and getting involved on your behalf in England and Wales after the summer recess.

Or at least according to an article in the Telegraph where Angus Robertson said

" as the effective opposition ( all 56 of them my words) , the party was no longer restricted to focussing on their traditional Scottish interests and would now tackle issues affecting other parts of England.

His 56 MPs will contact civic and business leaders in cities such as Leeds and Newcastle upon Tyne offering to work with them on issues such as getting high speed rail to the North.

It was their new strategy to engage with the rest of the UK in a way we've never been able in the past"

Imagine Leeds and Newcastle residents and their relevant MPs will be just delighted to get this new support at Westminster. Lol.

But don't get too excited as, their support won't be guaranteed, unless it fits the party central throw your toys out the pram agenda . Naturally it will also be subject to abrupt about change or U turn at very short notice. But you'll get a nice SNP explanation of an excuse if necessary.

Enjoy.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

She couldn't vote against English/Welsh foxhunting. Or for it.

Much as "her" MPs didn't vote on foxhunting, or for that matter, on devolved issues, just like English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs didn't and can't respectively .

You're dealing with a country that can do Guilty and Not guilty at the same time (google "Scottish verdict"). I'm seeing a lot more understanding of this north of the Tweed than I'm seeing south of it, and I'd welcome more parity of understanding throughout the UK.;)

She stated SNP MPs would not vote on English matters and gave a concrete example of fox hunting.

You can use all the semantics you like but she has looked the electorate in the eye and lied. Despite all the pretense, the SNP are just the same full of crap politicians as all the other parties.

skintmacflint

Generali wrote: »

Despite all the pretense, the SNP are just the same full of crap politicians as all the other parties.

Thats one of the things which annoys me most about them, the pretence that they are different from other political parties. When they are really one of the worst with a good marketing team.

Another is their claim they have vast experience of government , while omitting that is only in reference to a devolved government with no responsibility for foreign defence or monetary policy.

skintmacflint

Generali wrote: »

While we're on the subject of the SNP being full of crap, how does the SNP square the circle of being against cuts whilst reducing real spending on the NHS when it is increasing in England? The increase in NHS spending in England is automatically reflected in the block grant so the money is there to be spent but clearly the SNP has other priorities.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7366

It seems very strange that the Tories can afford to spend more each year on the NHS but the SNP chooses not to despite having a huge amount of extra money at its disposal and the appalling health outcomes in Scotland compared to England.

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/healthcare-across-the-uk-a-comparison-of-the-nhs-in-england-scotland-wales-and-northern-ireland/
!

Even bigger than the cost of negating the so called 'bedroom tax' is the continuance and extension of EMAS grants for 15 to 19 year olds, a payment of £30 per week for what will include 57,000 teenagers from next year. This is on top of the tax credits and child benefit low earning families below 22,000 receive. Total cost for EMAS around 90 million.

But it gets them up to 57,000 new teenage voters and reels them in young towards SNP.

Makes me wonder how people my age who grew up in real poverty not the relative poverty spoken of today ever managed to get educated, or get on in life. And yet I don't remember many kids in my class leaving primary school unable to read, write, or count.

kabayiri

skintmacflint wrote: »

Even bigger than the cost of negating the so called 'bedroom tax' is the continuance and extension of EMAS grants for 15 to 19 year olds, a payment of £30 per week for what will include 57,000 teenagers from next year. This is on top of the tax credits and child benefit low earning families below 22,000 receive. Total cost for EMAS around 90 million.

But it gets them up to 57,000 new teenage voters and reels them in young towards SNP.

Makes me wonder how people my age who grew up in real poverty not the relative poverty spoken of today ever managed to get educated, or get on in life. And yet I don't remember many kids in my class leaving primary school unable to read, write, or count.

Socialist parties buy votes. That's their way.

Conveniently, adopting an "anti-austerity" agenda provides an excuse to borrow more money and buy more votes.

Yet more evidence that the SNP are pretty old fashioned as political parties go.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

She stated SNP MPs would not vote on English matters and gave a concrete example of fox hunting.

You can use all the semantics you like but she has looked the electorate in the eye and lied. Despite all the pretense, the SNP are just the same full of crap politicians as all the other parties.

She did what all politicians do. Weighed up her options. She won't be the first or the last to do a u-turn. However, unlike, for example, Nick Clegg on tuition fees, it's very unlikely the SNP will suffer at the ballot box because of it.

While the SNP had 6 MP's. Not voting on English only issues didn't make much of a difference. With 56 however, it's a different ballpark. And anyway, am sure EVEL will be along soon to nip any of that nonsense in the bud. But the Tories would be extremely unwise, imo, to link the issue of Fox Hunting as a strong argument in favour EVEL in the next few months. Very unwise indeed.