Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

well
in addition to all the other interesting political situations, we can perhaps celebrate Scotland as the first home nation to be a single party state
they could make a song about it ..........

I suggest a title for the song

"Jam Tomorrow"

elantan

och we had Jam tomorrow from the BT campaign ... you'll need to come up with better than that

.string.

elantan wrote:

och we had Jam tomorrow from the BT campaign ... you'll need to come up with better than that

You've got that wrong elanten, that's what the Scottish voters concluded about the Yes Conpaign.

elantan

Its what they were promised from the BT campaign ... I know i was here ... was you ?

skintmacflint

The problem with jam tomorrow voters is, they're impatient. They want jam today, followed by even more jam tomorrow, ad infinitum. Clem Attlee discovered this to his cost, despite starting the new NHS.

SNP can't maintain the expense or pretence of their populist policies indefinitely. Looks like Sturgeon has realised she's going to be 14 billion short over the next 3 years to keep her various troops in order.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

The problem with jam tomorrow voters is, they're impatient. They want jam today, followed by even more jam tomorrow, ad infinitum. Clem Attlee discovered this to his cost, despite starting the new NHS.

SNP can't maintain the expense or pretence of their populist policies indefinitely. Looks like Sturgeon has realised she's going to be 14 billion short over the next 3 years to keep her various troops in order.

When one reads a story in the Daily ( Labour ) Record. It's probably wise to check it out elsewhere too for a full range of opinion. Or at least provide a link to your source so we can all read it for ourselves. If it's the story in the Record a few days back then...

"The SNP proposal implies increases in total departmental spending of £1-2 billion per year over 4 years; whereas Labour’s 2019-20 scenario implies cuts of £1-2 billion per year over the same period. This is against total departmental spending of around £350 billion. By 2019-20 this difference adds up to roughly a £14 billion gap between the two parties. Now, that’s a real difference but given the scale of the numbers involved, (and the fact that some of Labour’s consolidation may come from tax increases rather than spending cuts), it’s also a relatively modest one.

" In other words, the rhetorical differences may well be greater than the fiscal ones."

...It's for this reason that Labour's decision to give itself greater flexibility than the Conservatives (pledging only to achieve a current surplus, rather than an absolute one, and to borrow for investment) is wise. Whether it needs to bargain with the SNP will depend on the post-election arithmetic and political circumstance. But that the potential exists for fiscal compromise is clear.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/labour-and-snp-arent-far-apart-austerity-assumed

Labour not so far off Nicola's anti-austerity proposals then after all. And anyway, there's an election soon. They're all throwing out figures when no-one, as the article points out, knows what shape the economy will be in in a year or two anyway.

skintmacflint

The comment was a personal observation Shakey. Nothing to do with anything read in any article in any media outlet.

Believe it or not some of us in Scotland are still capable of independent thoughts and observations of our own. Think it's called Freedom of speech or thought or something like that.

CLAPTON

presumably the SNP will be wanting the UK government to borrow huge sums and ignore the exisitng budget deficit and the national debt, as the SNP want independence and fully intend to refuse to honour their share of the UK debt.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

The comment was a personal observation Shakey. Nothing to do with anything read in any article in any media outlet.

Believe it or not some of us in Scotland are still capable of independent thoughts and observations of our own. Think it's called Freedom of speech or thought or something like that.

Oh of course, that's absolutely fine with me. Bit worrying that you're randomly plucking figures like '14 billion' (!) out of your head and posting them here as independent 'observations' though. :shocked: Never having read any articles, reports or even showing why you personally conclude Nicola Sturgeon will be short by 14 billion over 3 years. But, whatever makes you feel good re Freedom of Speech. I'm with you.

Ps Have you started watching your Breaking Bad box set yet ? :cool:

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

presumably the SNP will be wanting the UK government to borrow huge sums and ignore the exisitng budget deficit and the national debt, as the SNP want independence and fully intend to refuse to honour their share of the UK debt.

Oh no, if the Tories get in they'll have kicked Scotland out via a federal 'solution' well before the SNP get anywhere near voting on borrowing or deficits. It's Labour you want to worry about. Polls edging back in their favour it has to be said. But I don't think it would take much to persuade the Tories to go full federal. The Telegraph seems full of it these days.

This time – if the Tories fall short again but cling on as the largest party – might Mr Cameron make a similarly comprehensive offer in regard to Scotland? ...

...If no party can form a majority government after May, even a conventional coalition may not be feasible if the Lib Dems have been blitzed and the Tories lose seats but just out-poll Labour. Although the Nationalists may not win as many seats as the polls suggest, they are on target to do very well and their rise is not a blip...

..After the election, Mr Cameron could say that this cannot go on. Anyway, the devolutionists are fast running out of powers to devolve without ending the Union in its current form. The Tory leader could say that that being the case, shouldn’t the Union become a quasi-federal arrangement, with all constituent parts having their own taxation and welfare systems? The Commons could sit as an English parliament, with the Lords becoming an elected UK-wide body. Lord Salisbury, the former leader of the Lords, has already floated this idea. All bar the monarchy, foreign affairs and defence would be dealt with by national parliaments, sending some revenues to London for joint services.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11412972/Is-it-time-for-the-Commons-to-sit-as-an-English-parliament.html