Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Really? Deliberately screwing up the NHS in order to secure more funding for Scotland is perfectly reasonable?

Well if you think voting to reverse privatisation of the English NHS is screwing things up. That's fine. There are plenty will disagree with you there. And most of them English too.

I think that English enthusiasm for Scots voting on English matters would wane quite quickly if that were the case.

Oh dear. Shame there's nothing really you can do about it though in all honesty. And one never knows, with the SNP/Greens/Plaid in play, the Labour party might actually start acting like the Labour party again ! And it's not like Scots have never had to put up with English MP's voting in things that weren't particularly palatable up here despite Scots MP's voting against. ( poll tax. trident etc ). Mabye we should do SVSL for Trident then ? And base the whole thing on where an MP comes from in terms of nationality ? Because that's what you're advocating. Things don't work like that at Westminster.

And as a well known pro-indy website once said :-

If the UK is a democracy then SNP MPs must logically be as entitled as anyone to vote in that Parliament. So there’s no difference between a Chancellor “beholden on Scottish Nationalist votes” and one beholden to Lib Dem votes or UKIP votes or Ulster Unionist votes or Green votes.

The UK government is chosen by the people of the whole UK, including Scotland, and if you can’t convince them to give you a majority then that’s tough luck – you have to work with whoever they give you. The SNP tried to remove their MPs from George Osborne’s parliament, but he and his friends in Labour and the Lib Dems insisted that they stay.


So the Chancellor, whoever it might be in May, has made their bed and must lie in it. They wanted Scotland’s MPs in their Parliament, they got them, and now they have to deal with the consequences like adults instead of bleating and whining about it every other day. If they don’t like it, we have a solution.

Suck it up (once again) I'm afraid. There's nothing else a democratic UK can do with democratically elected MP's from legally recognised UK parties. Especially if Scotland is an 'equal partner' in this union. If there's no majority government. And Scotland sends a load of SNP MP's down to represent them. Then there's a choice to be had there. Either go with it, or....

Well, what do you propose Generali ? If English enthusiasm, as you put, it 'wanes' ?

Anyway there's always a chance one of the main parties will get a majority. The polls/bookies aren't pointing that way at the mo, but you never know.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well, what do you propose Generali ? If English enthusiasm, as you put, it 'wanes' ?

As Scotland still provides MP numbers well out of proportion with her population then trimming numbers so that at most a Scottish vote is worth the same as an English one would be a start. As so many powers are now devolved with more to follow, I would argue that a Scottish vote should be worth less in Westminster than an English one. A Welsh vote would be worth somewhere between the two as the Welsh Parliament has few devolved powers AIUI.

Of course, as I've said before, just because the SNP holds the 'balance of power', doesn't mean that English MPs are beholden to Scottish interests. I'm sure that were the SNP's demands to get too onerous, enough Tories could be found to prop up a Labour Government or vice versa in the name of a common sense approach to Government rather than a venal approach to buying SNP votes with English taxes.

robmatic

I see some people are wilfully failing to learn from the experience that we've had with a minority party holding the balance of power at Westminster for the last 5 years. The Lib Dems have been able to wield very little overt influence, especially on constitutional affairs.

Generali

robmatic wrote: »

I see some people are wilfully failing to learn from the experience that we've had with a minority party holding the balance of power at Westminster for the last 5 years. The Lib Dems have been able to wield very little overt influence, especially on constitutional affairs.

If the SNP get 50% of Scottish votes they have ~3% of UK votes. If they want a voice in Government it'll be a quiet one.

We all love to lampoon politicians as fools but they aren't. You don't get to run the Tory or Labour Party by accident.

jjlandlord

This is all because the system has become a right mess. The truth is that devolution has made the Parliament in Westminster unfit for purpose.

It is time to admit that the consequence of devolution is that England should get its own parliament, and that the Commons should become an UK-only 'federal' Parliament.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

As Scotland still provides MP numbers well out of proportion with her population .....

I wouldn't say it was now "well out of proportion". Scotland has 59 MPs, it should have 55. That's an over-representation of about 7%.

Wales has 40 MPs but should have only 32. That's 25% too many.

antrobus

jjlandlord wrote: »

This is all because the system has become a right mess. The truth is that devolution has made the Parliament in Westminster unfit for purpose.

It is time to admit that the consequence of devolution is that England should get its own parliament, and that the Commons should become an UK-only 'federal' Parliament.

Or the Commons ( plus Lords) could be the English Parliament, and we can have a UK one based somewhere more convenient. Like Birmingham.

jjlandlord

antrobus wrote: »

Or the Commons ( plus Lords) could be the English Parliament, and we can have a UK one based somewhere more convenient. Like Birmingham.

Sure.

The point is that, because of the current and future situation, the 'clean' way forward is to have an English parliament on the same level as the other countries' and a separate UK parliament.

elantan

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 say bring it on, and so do many many independence supporters, we wouldnt have had independence till 2016 for a start and by then they will have recovered slightly, secondly even getting tax from 1 barrel at $40 is more tax than we currently get from them, thirdly the oil was always the cherry on the cake not the cake itself, it gives us 15% of tax revenue ( 5% of UK tax revenue ... which gives you an idea ) Norway's oil gives them 30% of their tax revenue and they seem to get by ... We would eventually be able to have an oil fund ... phew imagine that actually finally having a tax fund .

I also know many many independence supporters are more happy about the effect the low oil price is having on UGE ... many independence supporters are also campaigning against UGE and with oil prices being low the likely hood of UGE stays low.

There are also many many people in Scotland that are happy the price is low as it means less tax revenue going to London,

What i find interesting is how it's suddenly a problem for Scotland, many expect us to believe that the halving in oil revenues would have harmed Scotland's economy from the current position of receiving none of it?

kabayiri

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm fed up with the NHS being used as some kind of party political football.

It would be a result if we get through next parliament without it breaking on us. There will have to be cost cutting somewhere down the line. Most people understand this.

Nicola Sturgeon is welcome to come up with cost saving ideas in the NHS - that way there may be more in the general pot to spend on other things.