Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Unlike the poll tax /'red' Labour years .. there's a way out. Lets face it, if tax rises in order to pay for things Scots don't want to see cut is all that's on the horizon for the forseeable. Coupled with being powerless to implement what many see as better policies ( for example getting shot of Trident, or pressing on with renewable energy developments )... May as well be independent.

A "way out" not enough Scots would ever vote for I'm thinking. You may have bought into the SNP's grevience schtick hook, line and sinker, but I don't think there will ever be enough of your number ever stupid enough to commit the biggest act of economic Hari Kari in history.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No they haven't been caught out or dishonest. That's 'spin' you're falling for. The draft Scotland Bill was only amended two ( not three like I said ) days ago. Labour absolutely knew in advance via Mundell and Murray.

4 November 2015http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34720846

The old 'one/two' of Labour and the Tories a la BetterTogether. And a little bit underhand imo. But that's politics for you.

I agree with most of the above. Except the 'Vow' and Smith parts. There are many agree with the SNP's interpretation. And that shouldn't be simply discounted as meaningless. As it stands it's 49.9% of Scottish voters. However, May 16 is about Holyrood, Westminster not so much.

Actually I'm not falling for any spin myself. Nor yours. No matter how you want to frame it.

What matters is Neil has been seen to do a U turn, during a debate, followed the next day by the Sturgeon losing her cool, so much she resorted to her resorting to her Dreghorn shriek voice level at FMQs.

Meanwhile Murray has put Labour in the position of stating they don't care how people affected by cuts are helped, or by which party, as long as something happens. Even if it leaves Labour with nothing for their Manifesto.

I think Labour are painfully aware they will be hammered next year at H/R next year. And I don't believe this is simply about Holyrood either.

Never mind did you hear the by election results, a gain for Conservative and a hold for SNP with Cons getting marginally more votes than SNP. Green shoots. We'll see.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

A "way out" not enough Scots would ever vote for I'm thinking. You may have bought into the SNP's grevience schtick hook, line and sinker, but I don't think there will ever be enough of your number ever stupid enough to commit the biggest act of economic Hari Kari in history.

If Labour voters start defining their politics in terms of Scotland/rUK as their party is starting to do at the moment. Yet are still hammered in May 16 ( which is by no means certain of course ).. Couple that with any probability that the Tories look set for another 5/10 years of power in Westminster by 2020... As well as, the fact that Scottish Labour are already putting it out that if there's a next time, then it might be 'ok' for their members and MSP's to support independence. Then they'll vote to leave with little persuasion imo.

SNP+Labour+Greens. The Tories in Scotland are already saying that they are the only unionist party left in Scotland. And consequently, those that value the union more than current Labour policies are moving over.

It's Labour voters weighing up the pros and cons of staying an a Tory dominated UK that you'll need to worry about in terms of numbers. Not SNP ones. Many voted No thinking Miliband would be PM.

Is all fluid though.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Actually I'm not falling for any spin myself. Nor yours. No matter how you want to frame it.

What matters is Neil has been seen to do a U turn, during a debate, followed the next day by the Sturgeon losing her cool, so much she resorted to her resorting to her Dreghorn shriek voice level at FMQs.

Hard to u-turn when you're unaware of something up until that point. Sturgeon was fabulous yesterday. Her slapdown of 'Baroness' Goldie was a joy. Though I do like Annabel I have to admit. My kids go to school in Dreghorn. You should be careful what you're labeling. None of us have shrieky voices as far as I'm aware... unless it's me trying to get them to tidy their rooms.

Meanwhile Murray has put Labour in the position of stating they don't care how people affected by cuts are helped, or by which party, as long as something happens. Even if it leaves Labour with nothing for their Manifesto.

I think Labour are painfully aware they will be hammered next year at H/R next year. And I don't believe this is simply about Holyrood either.

I think Labour need to wake up and realise that when Jim Murphy was promising 1000 more nurses than the SNP, repeating the mantra that 'the largest party gets to form the govt', and that old classic.. 'I'm in charge and Scottish Labour is autonomous'... the Scottish public saw right through all of it. Kezia is falling into the same trap. Promising things and saying things that simply don't stand up to even the most casual scrutiny.

Never mind did you hear the by election results, a gain for Conservative and a hold for SNP with Cons getting marginally more votes than SNP. Green shoots. We'll see.

Yes I did. I saw the tweets congratulating Ruth too. 36 votes the Conservative councilor won by wasn't it ? Labour was fourth ? Still, it was far from Labour's old comfort zone I suppose. But this backs up my point earlier.. soft Labour/strong unionists are perhaps starting to align behind the Tories in Scotland.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes it is. I agree.

But they may underestimate the depth of feeling that will swell against them ( like it did during the poll tax years ). Online and social media has allowed people to work out already what Osborne is trying to do, and fair play, he's playing his hand well. But the scenario you outline is already well understood. As it is that the media will once again punt the spin too. But they're losing dominance now and becoming white noise.

Unlike the poll tax /'red' Labour years .. there's a way out. Lets face it, if tax rises in order to pay for things Scots don't want to see cut is all that's on the horizon for the forseeable. Coupled with being powerless to implement what many see as better policies ( for example getting shot of Trident, or pressing on with renewable energy developments )... May as well be independent.

I don't think this is a poll tax moment.

The real master stroke here is that if Scottish people, as I suspect, don't want to pay to cover cuts in welfare then a vote for independence just makes things worse as if Scotland loses the London subsidy then Scots will have to make up that too.

It's funny, to me, that lots of people seem to think that the Tories are stupid. IME they are utterly ruthless in ensuring that only the brightest and best rise to the top. Perhaps the SNP are misunderestimating (c GW Bush) the Tories.

elantan

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-limitations-of-gers/


This was a braw read today :-)

elantan

Did notice the Tories won one seat today and SNP the other... also saw some were blaming the fact people didn't get out to vote ... found that funny ... 34% turn out ...yes it's low ... but I do think it should be a wake up call to the SNP ... they can't rest on their laurels if they want indy ... and the Tories seem to have managed to hit the sweet spot for some people obviously

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Did notice the Tories won one seat today and SNP the other... also saw some were blaming the fact people didn't get out to vote ... found that funny ... 34% turn out ...yes it's low ... but I do think it should be a wake up call to the SNP ... they can't rest on their laurels if they want indy ... and the Tories seem to have managed to hit the sweet spot for some people obviously

I'd be very careful of reading too much into a single council by-election result. I'd argue that there isn't any statistical significance given the number of voters and the turnout.

Regarding the possible fortunes of the Tories in Scotland, Labour seems to be a tainted brand now just as the Tories became in the 60s-80s. The Tories used to win the majority of Scottish seats in the 50s I believe. Perhaps those days will return. Or perhaps not.

Leanne1812

elantan wrote: »

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-limitations-of-gers/


This was a braw read today :-)

Good read Elantan,

This has always been a bugbear. Trying to get transparency is impossible, it's the reason I don't get involved with subsidy junkie debate.

I know wings is mostly dismissed on here but I don't think anyone can dispute he does spend a lot of time researching. I'd like to see this debunked but I might wait some time would the blogger he speaks of be Kevin Hague?

Leanne1812

I think the Tories will make some gains next year. Labour will be hammered I'm pretty sure. Every day brings more chaos. Just today Jackie Baillie ( my msp) had a meltdown on the big debate. Wings has posted an article. Here it is if anyone is interested.

My copy on this ipad does not seem to be working properly so I've copy&pasted but
the short voice clip hasn't transferred. Don't blame me, I'm a novice!


The magical money machine
Posted on November 06, 2015 by Rev. Stuart Campbell
This is amazing, readers. It’s an extract from this afternoon’s The Big Debate on Radio Scotland, in which a journalist – the BBC’s Gordon Brewer – finally gets round to asking someone from Scottish Labour how they can make the extra £500m they need to fund their tax-credits “policy” while keeping all taxes the same.

The answer… well, the answer is quite something.

00:0000:00
(The Big Debate, BBC Radio Scotland, 6 November 2015)
.
You might have to listen through a few times to get your head round it, because that really is what a grown woman actually tried to get away with in front of a live audience.


We’ll transcribe Baillie’s comments, as it helps a bit to see the madness written down.

“They don’t need to find extra money in the sense that it’s over and above what’s existing, but they do need to find money to effect the tax cut itself, and in finding that money, so it releases a pot that we can use differently. We’ve had the accountants check over this -“

At this point Brewer interjects to point out the face-punchingly obvious fact this site’s been highlighting for a week – that if you don’t make any changes to how things are now, you don’t create any extra money.

“But you would need to find the money to implement the cut that you’re due to make, and it is that released money that we would use in a different way.”

Brewer tries again, noting once more that if you’re not making a change you get no more money and have to find the savings to fund the policy from somewhere else.

“Okay, in the case of Air Passenger Duty, let me explain that. If you take a tax cut, you’re going to have to find the money that you would have brought in, in order to carry on with delivering the services that you’re gonna deliver. By finding that money you release it, that we can reallocate for a different purpose.

We have checked this with the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, we’ve checked, y’know, one, the maths for this, we’ve checked whether we have the power, because of course you’ll recall in the Parliament [blah blah SNP BAD] We have checked, we have checked all our workings out separately.”

Brewer gave up at that point. But it’s all clear: Scottish Labour have run this past “the accountants”, they’ve checked it with SPICe, they’ve checked all the maths and the powers and they’ve concluded that to find the money what you have to do is find the money. And in finding the money the money will be found, which releases it, which proves that you’ve found it (by finding it) and can then spend it.

(Even though you haven’t cut anything and you haven’t taxed anyone. Nobody has paid any extra anywhere, but half a billion pounds has just appeared out of thin air.)

We suspect Scottish Labour may be using the same firm of accountants as Rangers did until 2012. Does anyone remember how that one panned out?