Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

skintmacflint

zagubov wrote: »

When they get the right tools to help Scotland instead of bruising it or injuring it they'll use them then.

As regards justifying what they'll do with them, Westminster needs to know they've only been lent the powers and need to justify their retention of them, or they'll be reclaimed, just as the EU needs to justify why it retains powers over the UK, and if it can't it'll see them being reclaimed.

If I want something , like a loan or funding for the charity I help, I normally have to justify and explain in some detail , what I want to do with it. How it will achieve a stated aim, within the remit of the charitable purpose, and demonstrate the timing plan for it's implementation. To the funding board, my own board, not forgetting charity users. It is right and correct.

Scotland is part of a union of 4 countries. New powers cannot be given or devolved to the detriment of any other part. And in case you've forgotten Scotland spent 2 years , a substantial amount of energy and money discussing the justification for staying or leaving this Union. Before democratically deciding to lend these powers for another generation.

And even Shake has had to concede, the majority of Scots made that decision without asking for any greater powers.

skintmacflint

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Thank you Shakes & Zag,

You've both answered for me, and much better than I could have!

There you have it Skint, how could I ask these questions now when there's nothing set in stone? When we know exactly what the powers are I'm sure our FM will put us in the picture. If not she will be hounded.

No they haven't Leanne. And it's quite easy , you simply ask SNP or your MP. I did. Don't expect any answers though. Seems to me all these politically energised, alert voters aren't what they make out to be.

How times have changed over the years.

Edit - I'm off for a few days now, maybe there will be some progress by the time I return.

antrobus

jessica_j wrote: »

JOIN THE ILLUMINATI ...

I suppose you could say that making impossible promises has worked so far for the SNP, so I can't really blame you for giving it a go.:)

zagubov

skintmacflint wrote: »

If I want something , like a loan or funding for the charity I help, I normally have to justify and explain in some detail , what I want to do with it. How it will achieve a stated aim, within the remit of the charitable purpose, and demonstrate the timing plan for it's implementation. To the funding board, my own board, not forgetting charity users. It is right and correct.

Scotland is part of a union of 4 countries. New powers cannot be given or devolved to the detriment of any other part. And in case you've forgotten Scotland spent 2 years , a substantial amount of energy and money discussing the justification for staying or leaving this Union. Before democratically deciding to lend these powers for another generation.

And even Shake has had to concede, the majority of Scots made that decision without asking for any greater powers.

I'm can't speak for Shake but I don't recall her denying that.
But I'm sure I can remember that
They were more interested in greater powers than independence, judging by early polls.
They were told that was too complicated (for Westminster) so it couldn't be in the referendum.
They were then hurriedly offered more powers if they voted No, just before the vote.

Reminds me of the last minute offer during the Home Rule debate in the 70s where if they voted No they'd get something much better. :rotfl:

So unless it coughs up something useable and worthwhle, it'll look like Westminster is up to its old tricks, waffle and lies, and can't be trusted with Scotland's governance.

elantan

Only this time the people ain't gonna shut up and forget it ... God were gonna be such pains ... it may get so bad were begged to dissappear and not come back ... I wouldn't mind causing some pain to WM before we go ... but I don't want the people to suffer

Tromking

zagubov wrote: »

So unless it coughs up something useable and worthwhle, it'll look like Westminster is up to its old tricks, waffle and lies, and can't be trusted with Scotland's governance.

I think Wesminster has made that the calculated decision that as long as Scotland is subsidised, enough Scots will never vote to go it alone.
Its a fool proof strategy in my view.

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Only this time the people ain't gonna shut up and forget it ... God were gonna be such pains ... it may get so bad were begged to dissappear and not come back ... I wouldn't mind causing some pain to WM before we go ... but I don't want the people to suffer

Big of you. Thank goodness the 5 million Scots aren't going to gang up on the 50 million English.

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

.string. wrote: »

Is that really all you have to say on that?

Do you, for example, think it is fair?

You really want me to answer that?

It's a no win situation whatever I say so I'll leave it there.

It's entirely irrelevant what I feel about it anyway to be honest.

I didn't make the rules nor did I vote to remain dependant so there you have it.

In a way I'm not surprised that you would not answer that, but thanks for the direct reply.

No need to answer what I write now, I just want to make a couple of observations.

You mention a "no-win situation". It's true that in this thread we have a combative relationship and win or not win could be one way of looking at the points raised. But there is another way and that is what is true and what is not true. None of us is immune to the combat side but sometimes it's worth have an internal reflection on what is true.

So the question on whether something is fair is probably something for you to consider by yourself, not to respond to as such but to see things from a perspective which is based on objectivity, not simply winning an argument.

Enough for now.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're re-writing recent history. Gordon Brown said all that a few days ago. He wants ammendments made to welfare and veto's removed from the Scotland Bill.

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/gordon-brown-vow-not-being-delivered


So it is a fact... that Gordon Brown said it. Because he patently did. He wants 'welfare' or at least some portions of it in Scottish Govt hands for the Scottish poor.



Just like the SNP do in fact. If I was a more suspicious person I'd say that Ian Murray will perhaps be allowed to 'win' these amendments and go trumpeting the fact that he did from now until next May. But it doesn't really matter. The fact that the main instigator of the Vow, is now all over the place making speeches saying it hasn't been met is good enough for now. Makes the Daily Record look particularly daft as well. They've had numerous headlines since last Sept proclaiming 'Vow Delivered'... oh errrr.. mabye not.

I'm not rewriting what Brown may have said, I'm simply saying that some things in your post, whoever said them, were tosh.

As for welfare, we are, believe it or not, in a Union - one country. and it is right that all have basic welfare entitlements that are the same for each citizen. If the SNP thinks they should give Scots more, fine, then tax them and pay for it. The powers are there.

elantan

Generali wrote: »

Big of you. Thank goodness the 5 million Scots aren't going to gang up on the 50 million English.

Did I say English ? What is your obsession with the English here ?