Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

elantan wrote: »

Do the English hate the English ?

That's a tad bizarre, unless your referring to the Scots.... or maybe the SNP? .. but surely your not that stupid ?

Muddled again ? My post was clear enough. I see no need to explain further.

elantan

.string. wrote: »

Muddled again ? My post was clear enough. I see no need to explain further.

You learn something new each day I spose

kabayiri

Leanne1812 wrote: »

...
Scotland does indeed get more allocated but there is a reason which I'm sure if Hamish reads this he will educate you on

There was a reason. It was a bribe.

I doubt it holds water now. People are not so isolated in 21st century Britain.

How's about : we scrap Barnet in favour of pro-rata apportioning of government funding, and in return we extend HS2 to the Scottish capital and you can have 8.5% of the £2bn per annum Trident costs to spend on the weapons of your choice.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Why a legal challenge? First I think challenge is the wrong word because it would be illegal, so in the scenario you imagine "declared illegal" would fit better. But if things got that bad I would actually hope for such a move because, bluntly, it would enable some actions by Westminster which would not otherwise have been so easy, all to the advantage of those south of the border, and probably the Union itself.

How could Westminster possibly call the result of a democratically run referendum, with international oversight if necessary...'illegal' ? Any future one will be run under exactly the same conditions as the last one. The only difference being that Westminster don't want it.

Well, just like the UK can declare a referendum on European Union membership without having to ask EU's permission. You can be pretty sure that Scotland can feel free to do the same.

Apart from the reaction of the rUK, I suspect that the reaction in Scotland would be anything but comfortable for the SNP

Tanks? Ambulances are more likely.

I don't dare ask what you mean by ambulances to be honest. You think No voters will riot and turn violent if the result is Yes next time ?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

There was a reason. It was a bribe.

I doubt it holds water now. People are not so isolated in 21st century Britain.

How's about : we scrap Barnet in favour of pro-rata apportioning of government funding, and in return we extend HS2 to the Scottish capital and you can have 8.5% of the £2bn per annum Trident costs to spend on the weapons of your choice.

How about we just accept that things are diverging at an ever increasing pace between Scotland and rUK and call it quits and be friends ? Scrapping Barnett is tantamount to independence for Scotland anyway.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

How about we just accept that things are diverging at an ever increasing pace between Scotland and rUK and call it quits and be friends ? Scrapping Barnett is tantamount to independence for Scotland anyway.

I can't see any option which pleases all Scots.

Half of you want independence and half want to be part of the Union.

I can only think of 2 compromises :

1) draw some arbitrary line and allow Scotland to divide into 2, 1 part to be independent

2) implement Fiscal Autonomy (which should have been on the ballot paper anyway)

Compromise 1) doesn't sound workable : the independence crowd are unlikely to be happy losing Aberdeen (you all love Hamish too much)

Who cares if Fiscal Autonomy takes years to sort. Can't it be progressive?

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well, just like the UK can declare a referendum on European Union membership without having to ask EU's permission. You can be pretty sure that Scotland can feel free to do the same.
?

If that was the case ( which I'm of the opinion it isn't), why the need to put forward an amendment asking for the power to be devolved?

Unless you were correct earlier and it's just Salmond at his usual, or possibly distraction.

skintmacflint

Leanne1812 wrote: »

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?[/QUOTE

I assume you realise the article wasn't written by Stu? You won't have to wait, as it was dismissed online by several people before KH got a chance to respond. Which I see he has now done.

But I'm not sure there's any point in arguing or point scoring these blogs now.

Particulalry when Sturgeon has never denied the existence of a 7 billion financial black hole, or attempt to claim it was any smaller or incorrect. In any of several interviews she gave during the FFA discussion. Unless you think she was wrong.

However what she wasn't transparent or IMO was dishonest about , was the unsustainable borrowing or economic growth which would be required to cover it, in the start up years (decades) . And that the more likely outcome was huge cuts and raised taxes.

Which is why thousands like me don't trust Sturgeon. I know many possibly thousands say they are willing to be worse off etc etc, but I don't believe every single Yes voter would agree with you .Obviously neither did Salmond nor Sturgeon.

skintmacflint

Generali wrote: »

The only thing that concerns me is that fiscal autonomy for Scotland will mean utter chaos in Northern England as Scots flood south for medical help as their taxes can't pay for what they have and expect.

Without oil prices at well over $100/bbl Scotland simply isn't solvent even if the SNP and the phony Reverend Stu really wish super hard that they are.

Hope you don't really mean that Gen.

Over 2 million of us voted to stay in the Union because we believe we are stronger together. For many different reasons, not just financial.For me personally , and I'm not alone, it's includes the not too small matter of defence. Not to mention a host of other reasons, too many to list.

The posts relating to the Herald article, seem similar to Salmond's reasons for tabling the motion. To cause division and stir things up. Salmond made it very clear he and his team of MPs would be as divisive and obstructive as they could at Westminster. He's simply playing to his fans, and if it helps create the impression over the border, of get rid of these whinging Scots all the better , in his and their mind.

But it's not all of Scotland's mind.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

How could Westminster possibly call the result of a democratically run referendum, with international oversight if necessary...'illegal' ? Any future one will be run under exactly the same conditions as the last one. The only difference being that Westminster don't want it.

Well, just like the UK can declare a referendum on European Union membership without having to ask EU's permission. You can be pretty sure that Scotland can feel free to do the same.


I don't dare ask what you mean by ambulances to be honest. You think No voters will riot and turn violent if the result is Yes next time ?

Of course a referendum on dissolving the union which is not pre-agreed by Westminster would be illegal; by definition it would be illegal. Equally funding it via the block grant would also probably be illegal on two counts, first that it was a disallowed and therefore illegitimate expense and secondly that it was use of public funds for SNP party political purposes (the SNP have form for that).

As far as democracy goes, that concept would have been left behind as soon as the illegality was committed. On top of that it is quite likely that unionists would be advised to boycot the referendum reducing the turnout to the level where the result would not be credible.and not valid anyway.

Look at the example in Spain.

In principle the vote should be for all of the UK. Take another scenario, for example, where England (as a faux country) held a referendum without the agreement of Westminster or the participation of the Scots, on whether to kick Scotland out of the Union. You guys would be whinging all over that one, and exceptionally, your whinging would be justified.

Ambulances? That was surely obvious; in the context of an illegal referendum, where the illegal side gains a small majority, one can hardly be surprised with a great deal of dissent. The SNP would hold the responsibility of precipitating such unrest.