Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

You do realise it's a metaphor. MP's probably have a wide range of thoughts on the best way to achieve independence but don't feel able to express them.

How can so many policians seemingly agree on everything without control being exerted in some way. I've been to triathlon club committee meetings where there's been more lively discussion than the SNP seem to have.

The SNP MPs were apparently told before the last election that any dissent from the party line would lead to the whip being withdrawn and, presumably, deselection would follow:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-accused-of-gagging-own-mps-like-stalin-1-3732693

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13207900.SNP_clampdown_on_MPs_who_fail_to_toe_the_party_line/

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/leaked-snp-plan-gag-nationalist-5260840

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/inside-politics/snp-conference-2015-live-blog

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/582/snp-member-accuses-party-of-stalinism-over-new-proposals-to-restrict-mps-right-to-criticise-the-party-at-westminster

NEW proposals to be put to the SNP’s spring conference on its party whip system at Westminster have been criticised by a high-profile party member as “Stalinism” because they restrict the right of MPs to criticise party decisions at Westminster.
The new proposals, leaked to Buzzfeed, are being proposed by SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson, and state that MPs must “accept that no member shall within, or outwith the parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group”.

This SNP MP seems to confirm the existence of the rules although he puts a couple of caveats in:

https://www.facebook.com/OrkneySNP/photos/a.804097649644153.1073741828.741079795945939/843477069039544/

Mr Skene said that attempts to claim that new standing orders would gag SNP MPs were ‘nonsense’, as they specifically allow for votes of conscience and for votes against any party policy if it is judged not to be in the interests of the constituency.

So if something is described as a conscience vote (as is normally the case for non-party-aligned votes such as bringing back capital punishment) the party line is specifically against the interests of the constituency then apparently you can vote against the SNP leadership. In all other cases it would seem that you do have to vote with the leadership or be kicked out of the party and probably lose your seat.

I note that I have not heard a single dissenting voice from the ~50 MPs the SNP sends to Parliament.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sure the rules are what they are. But, there have been occasions when they've been amended to suit a new state of play.

SNP bid to alter VAT status of Police Scotland fails by 277-317.

Any reason you can think of as to why the NI Police force is exempt, but English MP's would vote down a motion to do the same for the Scottish Police Force ?

NI have their own troubles and I can well imagine that different arrangements may have been made to accommodate these. However, the Scottish Police Force is no different to other UK forces and should not be treated differently.

Here's an interesting account from Unison following a FoI they requested.

UNISON Scotland has previously highlighted the cost to the taxpayer of the creation of centralised police and fire services, because this structure means the loss of VAT exemption enjoyed by the current organisations. As a consequence the Scottish taxpayer has to pick up a bill of some £30m.


We have argued that you could have a single police force established as local government joint board, funded through a precept and retain s33 status. Of course that would mean less direct ministerial influence over the police, but it would strengthen local democratic accountability.


Some of the Scottish Government explanations raised suspicions that they knew about this issue before the Bill was published. So we did an FoI for the correspondence in relation to police and fire VAT. They refused on the catch all grounds that this was advice to ministers. They even refused to confirm that such papers existed. A very similar line to today’s FoI story in relation to legal guidance on Scotland's EU membership.


We then appealed to the Commissioner and the Scottish Government has now reconsidered their position and provided the documents.


They key point from these documents is that HMRC made it very clear in their letter dated 15 August 2011 that a national force would not qualify for the s33 VAT exemption.


They set out the criteria:


“Over the years, numerous different bodies have asked to be admitted to the section 33 scheme. To ensure a fair and consistent basis for decisions on admission, and to stick closely to the original rationale for the scheme, successive Governments have applied two strict criteria when assessing these requests. Bodies would only be admitted to section 33 if they:
(i) were both carrying out activities ordinarily carried out by local government; and
(ii) had the power to draw their funds directly from local taxation. I understand that in Scotland his may be referred to as requisitioning powers.”


Self evidently neither of these criteria would be met by a national force, funded by the Scottish Government and the letter makes it clear that BOTH criteria must be met and it is strictly applied.


Despite this letter (15 August) the Scottish Government published its second consultation paper on 8 September 2011. That consultation paper makes it clear (para4.3 P19) that funding “should be consolidated into a single funding stream which the Scottish Government will provide to the Scottish Police Authority”. There is a similar section (p42) for fire. The issue of VAT is not mentioned in this paper despite Scottish Government officials raising their concerns with HMRC in May 2011.


The Bill was published in January 2012 and only then is the issue of VAT raised. The policy memorandum states that “the Scottish Government is currently liaising with HMRC and HM Treasury”. Technically true, but as the correspondence shows the UK officials just keep referring back to the position clearly stated in the original reply in August 2011.


The failure to include the VAT position in the September consultation meant that consultees were not given the full picture of the consequences of the centralisation of police and fire. Not the standard of openness we are entitled to expect from any government. More a case of burying bad news that doesn't support the Government line. The Scottish taxpayer will now pay the price.

So the Scottish govt. knew perfectly well what the VAT position was, failed to reveal that information, and now blame Westminster for not bailing them out.

Generali

Rinoa wrote: »

NI have their own troubles and I can well imagine that different arrangements may have been made to accommodate these. However, the Scottish Police Force is no different to other UK forces and should not be treated differently.

Here's an interesting account from Unison following a FoI they requested.

So the Scottish govt. knew perfectly well what the VAT position was, failed to reveal that information, and now blame Westminster for not bailing them out.

Presumably the Scottish Government even now could change the structure to one that satisfies the S33(?) exemption but chooses not to as the SNP feels that it can use this to try to drive a wedge between the English and Scottish.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I didn't say that. I said:

All of which is true or at least was reported very widely as true.

If it isn't, I'm surprised that I never read a rebuttal.

How very dare you put words into my mouth? You'll make Martin sad, won't she Martin...?

:money:

See he says you're making me sad by making stuff up that I didn't say.

First prize for missing the joke.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-we-love-twitter/

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

First prize for missing the joke.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-we-love-twitter/

Great joke.

Interesting that SNP MPs don't seem to have a word to say that isn't in slavish adherence to the party line. Easier to mock people that point it out I suppose.

Shakethedisease

Ooops misposted.

Shakethedisease

Thank you for providing all those links above. Proving exactly why the SNP keep any dissent private. In short, it will be picked over, analysed, spun and will appear in every single newspaper, media outlet and Facebook 24/7 until the very last drop of 'oh look, the SNP are bad' is gained from it. And the SNP has this to deal with far more than any other political party in the UK today at the present time.

They've had to learn the hard way what works as far as the media, especially the Scottish media ( which is still predominately Labour supporting ) works. And they've learned lessons well.

The SNP present a united front. Unlike the hopelessly divided Labour party. Which one do you think looks more electable ?

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Great joke.

Interesting that SNP MPs don't seem to have a word to say that isn't in slavish adherence to the party line. Easier to mock people that point it out I suppose.

Everyone else finds it funny. Even Alan Roden was particularly amused. I think you might have had a sense of humour bypass. A shame.

Alan Roden ‏@AlanRoden Fair play... this is very funny!

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

NI have their own troubles and I can well imagine that different arrangements may have been made to accommodate these. However, the Scottish Police Force is no different to other UK forces and should not be treated differently.

Sure they are. No reason whatsoever that the NI centrally funded police force should gain VAT exemption.. yet the Scottish police force should be denied exemption on the basis that they are centrally funded.. and 'should have known'. You don't make sense.

Here's an interesting account from Unison following a FoI they requested.

So the Scottish govt. knew perfectly well what the VAT position was, failed to reveal that information, and now blame Westminster for not bailing them out.

Again Labour and the Conservatives had a single Scottish police force in their 2011 manifestos. As did the SNP. There was nothing 'not disclosed'. Labour and the Scottish Tories would've done the same. And they don't 'blame' Westminster for not bailing them out. They were after an exemption that other bodies have gained.

Perhaps they made a mistake in thinking that Westminster contained any 'grown ups' when it comes to common sense.

elantan

Kezia's day appears to have gotten worse ... anyone watch BBC QT ?