Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

@Shakey - You may like to bury that memory of SNP behaviour, "Dear Girl", but it ain't going away. If someone lies to me it's something I don't forget and don't forgive especially when the lie is not admitted to and further lies and evasions keep coming with boasts about the number of gullible people that have been fooled.

Blimey. Have you been watching The Godfather ?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Shouldn't any responsible independence party in power align the economy so that people are aware of the choices available, and the financial impact these decisions make? (ideally, before a significant one time break up from the Union).

Right now, it's a game of pretence, and IMO it's disingenuous to the normal voter.

You've missed the part about the Scottish Govt being devolved then with extremely limited powers. Sturgeon/Swinney can't play about with the Scottish economy 'realigning' it like Osborne can. Not even a quarter of the way. Hardly disingenuous.. the SNP go on about it often enough. Normal voters are intelligent enough in the main to know the difference between a UK government with full fiscal powers. And devolved governments like in Wales, Scotland and NI.

ie They're not the same. It's far more disingenuous to try and pretend that they somehow are, in my view.

CLAPTON

Nicola has nothing to gain and everything to loss if she chose to campaign for another referendum at this time

she will lose no committed indy people by being quiet but may lose the undecided if she campaigns for indy now

she will wait for the results of the May elections and if the result is a landslide then the new referendum campaign will begin in earnest

and she won't make the same mistake as the Quebec separatist made

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I think the way forward would be to give the Scottish Government FFA prior to any future vote on independence so that the people of Scotland can understand the fiscal consequences of their decision.

If the SNP think that Scotland would be better off outside the Union then they should be given a chance to prove it.

Nah, the Tories knocked that one well on the head. No point even debating FFA any more. Though mabye before the next GE if polls start looking likely for a re-run and independence support rises past the 55% mark. But then again if support rises to 55% +... then the SNP would be mad to accept FFA anyway.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Nicola has nothing to gain and everything to loss if she chose to campaign for another referendum at this time

she will lose no committed indy people by being quiet but may lose the undecided if she campaigns for indy now

she will wait for the results of the May elections and if the result is a landslide then the new referendum campaign will begin in earnest

and she won't make the same mistake as the Quebec separatist made

That's about it in a nutshell.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

I think the way forward would be to give the Scottish Government FFA prior to any future vote on independence so that the people of Scotland can understand the fiscal consequences of their decision.

If the SNP think that Scotland would be better off outside the Union then they should be given a chance to prove it.

Absolutely. Set a timetable/plan for FFA. Issue the challenge to Westminster.

We know what the tax revenues are in Scotland. We know what earnings they accrue from exports.

Let the Scottish government keep the revenues and use it to pay for their expenditures. Should they need to borrow to cover a shortfall they can apply for additional loan money from the rest of the UK. That's not a problem, but at least it will be transparent how much they need to balance the books.

Heck, if they are in surplus, they can lend the money to the rest of the UK.

If....Hamish is right then the experiment will be short lived, but hardly as disastrous as a complete split which goes wrong.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Absolutely. Set a timetable/plan for FFA. Issue the challenge to Westminster.

We know what the tax revenues are in Scotland. We know what earnings they accrue from exports.

Let the Scottish government keep the revenues and use it to pay for their expenditures. Should they need to borrow to cover a shortfall they can apply for additional loan money from the rest of the UK. That's not a problem, but at least it will be transparent how much they need to balance the books.

Heck, if they are in surplus, they can lend the money to the rest of the UK.

If....Hamish is right then the experiment will be short lived, but hardly as disastrous as a complete split which goes wrong.

It's not happening. Neither Labour or the Tories are willing to do it. And by a fair margin of MP's too. Anyway, Scotland isn't an 'experiment'.

If you're going FFA, you may as well go independent. Because that's what would happen next anyway. Governments of all flavours are never very good about ceding power back once they have it. FFA would take years to set up in any case. All four countries/nations/regions in the UK would have to be involved in every single decision made on how it affects their own localities. Devolution 'rules' across the board would have to be rewritten for everyone. Non-starter. At the moment anyway... though there may be a Vow 2 along in a four or five years.

MPs have rejected attempts to have full fiscal autonomy (FFA) included in the Scotland Bill on more Holyrood powers.
Sir Edward wanted the Bill to be amended to give the Edinburgh parliament the fiscal controls straight away.
He believed the Barnett Formula should end and "home rule" be created to stop a "toxic mixture" of circumstances exploding the Union.

The SNP and Tory MP Sir Edward Leigh submitted amendments calling for the Scottish Parliament to have full control of tax and spending.
However, they were both voted down, the SNP's by 309 votes to 60 and Sir Edward's by 298 to 68.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33146586

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's not happening. Neither Labour or the Tories are willing to do it. And by a fair margin of MP's too. Anyway, Scotland isn't an 'experiment'.

If you're going FFA, you may as well go independent. Because that's what would happen next anyway. Governments of all flavours are never very good about ceding power back once they have it. FFA would take years to set up in any case. All four countries/nations/regions in the UK would have to be involved in every single decision made on how it affects their own localities. Devolution 'rules' across the board would have to be rewritten for everyone. Non-starter. At the moment anyway... though there may be a Vow 2 along in a four or five years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33146586

Ah well that's where our opinions differ of course. My belief is that the crisis in the NHS and welfare systems of Scotland under FFA with oil prices below ~$120/bbl would be such that it would be immoral to give Scotland independence as a one way street.

There is no way Scotland could cut ~10% from spending in a matter of months without creating a crisis in welfare or health care which is what would be required under any circumstance except record oil prices.

The simplest thing to do would be to grant FFA for 2 years in advance of a future vote while giving Scotland full borrowing powers too. A budget deficit of ~16% pa might be serviceable or might not. We'd soon find out though.

elantan

Gonna be honest ... have been having some disturbing conversations with Yes voters recently ... Nicola needs to be very careful she doesn't alienate too many Yes voters or she will find she will loose their votes

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

Gonna be honest ... have been having some disturbing conversations with Yes voters recently ... Nicola needs to be very careful she doesn't alienate too many Yes voters or she will find she will loose their votes

gosh

the number of times you are honest is quite amasing