Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

ruggedtoast

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes that's what I meant. Generali seemed to be under the impression that the old Labour/Tory/Lib Dem tri-party thing will still be going on after 2015. Forever in fact. Negating any negotiation possibilities re further powers, and blocking any further referenda in future. The established 3 party system we have at the moment is already looking shaky with record low vote shares for all three.

Thats because the 3 parties we have are all carbon copies of one another. They may as well have a merger and bicker over who is going to be in the cabinet amongst themselves.

That would leave the Green Party, the SNP and UKIP, in opposition.

What a world.

.string.

Not that mad, Generali !

Going right back on track for this thread, I see that Sturgeon, admitting that the SNP policy was "self-interested" has stated that she would vote on the NHS.
See here.

Her tactic is to vote on anything that increases the price of the NHS in England and (presumably) vote against anything that would decrease the price, for example efficiencies, simply aiming for increased funding for the Scottish NHS.

i.e."Screw the English for More Subsidies"

I've been luke-warm on the concept of barring non-English MPs from voting on English matters (although I still like my concept for advisory voting) but that statement from the SNP simply confirms their pure nastiness; the Seriously Nasty Party indeed.

Parasites

elantan

That purely means that as the rest of the UK ( including England) get more money for the NHS so do Scotland due to the Barnett formula .... Imagine though if Scotland had voted to have its independence this wouldn't have been an issue .... Sigh

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Not that mad, Generali !

Going right back on track for this thread, I see that Sturgeon, admitting that the SNP policy was "self-interested" has stated that she would vote on the NHS.
See here.

Her tactic is to vote on anything that increases the price of the NHS in England and (presumably) vote against anything that would decrease the price, for example efficiencies, simply aiming for increased funding for the Scottish NHS.

i.e."Screw the English for More Subsidies"

I've been luke-warm on the concept of barring non-English MPs from voting on English matters (although I still like my concept for advisory voting) but that statement from the SNP simply confirms their pure nastiness; the Seriously Nasty Party indeed.

Parasites

Oh don't be daft. You can't expect any party to sit back and do nothing if it directly impacts on funding for services, especially those such as the NHS. It would be complete madness to just sit back and let it happen if voting for/against would make a difference to any direct impacts.

She explained: "On health, for example, we are signalling that we would be prepared to vote on matters of English health because that has a direct impact potential on Scotland's budget.
"So, if there was a vote in the House of Commons to repeal the privatisation of the health service that has been seen in England, we would vote for that because that would help to protect Scotland's budget."

Why should a Lib Dem MP's vote be worth more than an SNP one anyway ? You wanted this union to continue.. well it has. So suck it up. Scottish/Welsh MP's do not get to vote on devolved matters any more than English MP's do.

All MP's vote on UK wide/reserved matters. The SNP thus far has stuck to keeping out of things that only affect English laws, but do and have voted on things that affect any consequentials to the Barnett formula. It affects the Scottish devolved budget ( that MSP's vote on ) in it's entirety. If England wants a complete say on English laws the only fair way to do it is to have devolved parliament like the other three countries. Westminster is for UK MP's, wherever they come from, to represent their constituents and vote on those reserved matters. EVEL within Westminster will only hasten the end of the union.. and very quickly.
That'll do just fine as far as the SNP is concerned too.

Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election (Ipsos-Mori, 12th-19th January) :
SNP 52% (n/c)
Labour 24% (+1)
Conservatives 12% (+2)
Greens 4% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 4% (-2)
UKIP 1% (-1)

michaels

Say the SNP negotiate independence in all but name as the price of their support to a Millibad Govt there would then be effective independence contrary to the wishes of the Scottish electorate. Would any SNP/independence supporters have any issue with this?

elantan

I think independence will always be the goal, but devo Max as was indicated by Gordon Beprown etc would do for a start

Shakethedisease

michaels wrote: »

Say the SNP negotiate devolution in all but name as the price of their support to a Millibad Govt there would then be effective devolution contary to the wishes of the Scottish electorate. Would any SNP/independence supporters have any issue with this?

No. Devo-Max was taken off the independence ballot paper because it was very likely to win. Most Scots voters, even no voters and across party lines, seem to rather quite like the idea. Certainly, when it was proposed as an option, I would have went for that at the time rather than full independence.

Devo-max is a term often used to describe a situation that would see Holyrood gain control over all areas apart from defence and foreign affairs. Respondents were asked the following question:

‘Do you agree or disagree that the Scottish Parliament should control all areas of government policy except for defence and foreign affairs, which is sometimes referred to as 'Devo Max'?’

51% said they agreed that this should happen, just short of double the proportion - 29% - who disagreed. A further 20% said they did not know.


Furthermore, the poll suggests that 69% of Scots who voted ‘yes’ in last year’s referendum would support devo-max, whilst 36% of those who voted ‘no’ would favour devo-max. 40% of those who voted ‘no’ said they would not want devo-max, suggesting that those who voted ‘no’ are almost evenly split on the issue when excluding ‘don’t knows’. Whilst Scotland voted ‘no’ to independence this poll further highlights that many in Scotland want more powers transferred away from Westminster to Holyrood...


Furthermore, a majority of Liberal Democrats favour devo-max (51% to 35%). A plurality of Labour voters support the idea (41%-38%), whilst Conservatives disagree (66%-18%). The party divides are unsurprising.

http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2015/01/02/majority-of-scots-want-devo-max-suggests-new-poll/

Graham_Devon

We practically begged the Scots to stay.

They did.

We can't now moan and try to keep the Scots "up there" when it comes to voting for stuff and wanting to negotiate with the rest of the UK.

If we wanted that, we should have willed them to go independent.

Thrugelmir

elantan wrote: »

but devo Max as was indicated by Gordon Beprown etc would do for a start

Not so attractive with the decline in North Sea oil activity though. Which will obviously spin off in to the wider economy with reduced levels of consumer spend not just business.

At the current time far more important issues need resolving this is merely a sideshow to the main event. Which appears to be global financial stability. Again.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not so attractive with the decline in North Sea oil activity though. Which will obviously spin off in to the wider economy with reduced levels of consumer spend not just business.

At the current time far more important issues need resolving this is merely a sideshow to the main event. Which appears to be global financial stability. Again.

I'm sorry, and this is relevant to May 2015 elections how ? Oil taxes and revenues are a reserved matter. Their decline recently is certainly not down the the SNP ( again it's a reserved matter and has been since oil was discovered ). You're not making any sort of sense I'm afraid. This ain't September 14 any more..