Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

There is another issue and that is fiscal responsibility; if the country is strapped for cash, it a matter of priorities as to where the money goes. Personally I dislike the idea of saddling any students with a debt and, if needs must, would have preferred a means test arrangement with a gradually sliding scale of fees (not arbitrary jumps in fees) primarily aimed at the parents since it would be their income (normally) which would have resulted in increased fees. With exceptions, Students are all poor.

Roll on EVEL.

some students may indeed be poor but NO student pay any fees

Only graduates earning over 21,000 pay 9% of the amount over 21,000

I see no logic in e.g. two successful; young graduates earning say 40k where one would pay nothing because their parents were poor whilst the other would make payments because their parent were rich.

there are many people who come from poor backgrounds who become rich : should they be taxed etc as poor people or rich people for the rest of their lives?

but as you say its a matter of priorities : subsidise rich graduates or use the money for other purposes : a perfectly valid democratic choice, that the SNP have clearly declared which side they are on.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

...
I see no logic in e.g. two successful; young graduates earning say 40k where one would pay nothing because their parents were poor whilst the other would make payments because their parent were rich.

there are many people who come from poor backgrounds who become rich : should they be taxed etc as poor people or rich people for the rest of their lives....

Fair points: it's a minefield isn't it! Do we think of free education as a subsidy for rich parents or penalizing success / rewarding failure of ex students who don't use/benefit from their expensive education.

There is a missing element I think and that is societies investment in a qualified work force. There's a compromise waiting to be reached there methinks.

I guess this also boils down to priorities.

ruggedtoast

Unless some kind of serum is invented that confers lifespans in advance of 200 years, which is also universally available to doleites, none of the Scottish independence agitators have any chance of of living to see an independent Scotland.

The only thing more unlikely than Scots voting Yes in an illegal second snap referendum, is Nicola Sturgeon calling one.

You had your chance to be free men and women, citizens of the world's newest country, but you chose to remain subjects of Queen Liz and her government of banker loving plutocrats from London.

Why, I am not sure, but thats what you've done and you cant just pretend you you can get off at the next stop and trot back to September 2014. You aren't on a bus, you are flying long haul on a Boeong and it is a very very long time til landing; and when it does land you will be thousands of miles from where you want to be.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Unless some kind of serum is invented that confers lifespans in advance of 200 years, which is also universally available to doleites, none of the Scottish independence agitators have any chance of of living to see an independent Scotland.

The only thing more unlikely than Scots voting Yes in an illegal second snap referendum, is Nicola Sturgeon calling one.

You had your chance to be free men and women, citizens of the world's newest country, but you chose to remain subjects of Queen Liz and her government of banker loving plutocrats from London.

Why, I am not sure, but thats what you've done and you cant just pretend you you can get off at the next stop and trot back to September 2014. You aren't on a bus, you are flying long haul on a Boeong and it is a very very long time til landing; and when it does land you will be thousands of miles from where you want to be.

It does show the complete lack of support for independence when despite the bare-faced lies from the Yes campaign, a record oil price to prop up treasury revenues, a weak coalition Government (led by the reviled Tories) in London, the advantage of having the Yes answer on their side (worth a few percent of the vote alone) and a fairly charismatic leader, Yes didn't come anywhere near winning.

!!!!!!, even Michael Dukakis did better in 1988 than Yes did in 2014!

There is no chance that the UK Government will call a referendum in Scotland again for decades. It costs a fortune and wastes a huge amount of everyone's time. The SNP could try calling an illegal referendum although I have no idea how they'd pay for it.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I don't know any other way to put it more clearly.

I don't believe you.

Time and again the SNP and it's acolytes have tried to justify their policy of voting on English matters by claiming a link with Scottish funding.

Other rationale are just smoke screens , whether or not they happen to coincide with other SNP policies.

That's fine with me. But there is a link between English spending and the Barnett formula. There's no 'claims a link' about it really.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That's fine with me. But there is a link between English spending and the Barnett formula. There's no 'claims a link' about it really.

there is indeed a link between english and scottish spending:

each scottish family get about 3,000 per annum more; sadly they spend it unwisely as is their right in a democratic system

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

So there you go again, finding yet another reason to have a referendum. This time it's because the Conservatives get another term in office. Next time because it rains more in Scotland, or the SNP don't get their own way in yet another contrived issue at Westminster?

The only reason there needs be to have a referendum. Is for the SNP to put ( as they are widely expected to do in some form ) a mandate for one in their next manifesto. And after that, for the SNP to be voted back in with a majority in Holyrood in May 2016.

As Alex Massie put it a few months ago..

But if that’s a tricky passage for Sturgeon to navigate, things are little easier for David Cameron. He might say No to another referendum but what if the Scottish people say Yes? What does he do then ?

What will he do, do you think ?

Mistermeaner

I hope he would say fine but you are paying for it and you can't have the pound and you are taking your share of the debt

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The only reason there needs be to have a referendum. Is for the SNP to put ( as they are widely expected to do in some form ) a mandate for one in their next manifesto. And after that, for the SNP to be voted back in with a majority in Holyrood in May 2016.

As Alex Massie put it a few months ago..



What will he do, do you think ?

I agree sturgeon will demand a new referendum after scotland become a one party 'state' in May.

-civil disobedience might work :
-cut the gas off to England (but wait until winter so as not to repeat the much admired Miners' error)
-lie down and block the HS2 track
-invite Putin for state visit to discuss single party processes
-print 'pounds' and flood the market
-occupy RBS and make it a scottish bank again

I'm sure there are many other ways you can force the matter

Of course the SNP could give greater legitimacy by demanding a UK wide referendum : bound to result in an independent scotland


only time now

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

It's much easier to come up with excuses for not taking control.

Scotland has an abundance of resources to improve the economy up there; it's just a question of priorities.

That's the best one yet. Independence means taking control of everything. I assume you missed that ? Holyrood can only control what it has. Devolved powers don't have much in the way of control of an 'abundance of resources'...

9 September 2015

Scotland's food and drink sector generated a record turnover of £14.3bn in 2013, according to new figures.Analysis by the Scottish government suggested turnover was up by £550m on the previous year.
Ministers said the sector remained on track to meet the industry's turnover target of £16.5bn by 2017.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-34197343

Now go and perhaps have a wee think about Scottish sectors that are doing remarkably well in terms of 'income boosting'... Then have another think about where the revenues and 'control' of those go. Then come back and tell us all how a Scottish Government benefits specifically from those sectors that are performing well with all those 'abundant resources'..... ( * clue, they don't, the Scottish govt get a block grant from the UK Treasury, no matter which sectors improve ).