Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Dear WM.

different directions and I wish you well.

ps You can keep the house, the car and the nukes. But I'll want fair compensation and you'll have to move the nukes into your own garage. I'll also take on my share of the gawd awful debt you've run up while trying to keep up with the Merkels and the Obama's.

Just to remind you (and everyone), that the SNP White Paper contained no allowance for repayment of the Scottish share of the National Debt, only the interest payment, presumably assuming that someone else (aka rUK) would work it down. Paying back would add a other TBD amount to yearly payments. That balance sheet doesn't look good does it.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

My Twitter feed is the same. Who was that daft MP crowing 'Good' that there were no Scottish MP's on the Human Rights Committee... then when challenged saying SNP MP's shouldn't be on it as its a 'reserved' matter ? What a numpty.

And string is adamant its the SNP sowing 'division'... :shocked:

For your information, with the qualifier that I don't know the rules that govern participation, I don't agree with Scottish MPs not being on that committee. A UK Bill of Rights is clearly a UK matter in its implications and given that different parts of the UK (NI, S & W) have to a greater or lesser amount different laws, all should all be able to bring their regional concerns and experience into the discussion.

Having said that, I would have the concern that the SNP would not consider the true merits of the discussion but only the potential for whinge.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Are you sure about the mitigation being treated as income. It's not what was said when Mhairi Black questioned this at a welfare committee meeting with IDS and his main man earlier this week? Dont't disagree full control of welfare hasn't been devolved. But did the Smith Commission agree it would.? IDS didn't seem to think so and neither did Mhairi Black nor her advisor argued on behalf of SNP that it was included as part of Smith. In fact I'm pretty positive at no time did she suggest it was in Smith.

Seems we're mainly talking process on the conditions related to conditionality on receiving reserved payment of basic welfare, not being devolved. ie when sanctions apply and for how long, time before UB can be claimed. But now Scotland can top up , or create additional welfare including emergency welfare in any way it chooses. As long as it raises the revenue to cover costs including admin.

IDS and Mundell both couldn't confirm that UK wide benefits that are means tested wouldn't be affected by any Scots Gov top up. Mundell said 'That's a risk you'll have to take'.
In order to stop top up's by the Scots Gov affecting other means tested benefits... I would guess that UK welfare legislation would have to be changed in order to allow this to go ahead.

So seems to me the only problem is the fiscal trap of how to pay for it. Is it because of this comment in common space which said

' on taxes we are getting power to vary taxes, but not power to define them. Rich people can choose to have their income through shares or capital gains taxes not devolved So we can tax the middle classes but we can't tax the rich'

As you've said the middle earners might not be too happy paying extra taxes for welfare. In fact we know most won't , for a variety of hot potato reasons, several of which I agree with, as I'm one of them even in retirement.

There seems little point in topping up welfare claimants who've 'lost out' by raising income taxes...if it means those claimants still end up worse off anyway. That would be madness.There will have to be some sort of absolute guarantee that tops ups', should the Scottish Govt decide to do so. Aren't taken away in other means tested benefits ( ie housing benefits or similar ). After all, this is about helping the poorer sections of society get on at the end of the day ? Not about 'sticking one to the SNP' giving powers with one hand yet making them unuseable with the other. I'm sure you agree ?

* But as Hamish so ably explained , and am sure others will point out, the burden of stealth taxes always fall on the middle and lower earners, for a number of reasons. * Taxing 'rich' earners often results in an overall negative effect, not just confined to tax revenue. But I'm pretty sure the ability to 'define taxes' didn't form part of Smith anyway*

To be honest Shake, no matter what was devolved it was never going to be enough was it? Don't see the point in you pretending otherwise.

The Bill still has to pass through the Lords and the Scottish Govt still has to accept the bill and enact it into Scottish law. I'm afraid it is far from done and dusted yet. Much as you would have us believe. Crown estates among others weren't addressed properly as per Smith. Fiscal frameworks in order to devolve even those amendments that were passed/agreed are not there yet either.

Land research Andy Wightman agreed, stating: “Scotland Bill fails to devolve the hereditary revenues of the Crown as promised by Smith Commission. A major failing.”

Labour shadow minister Wayne David said the Tories hadn’t delivered on what was promised to Scotland. "It’s not to say that the government has delivered on absolutely everything. They clearly haven’t,” he said.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I love it when the SNP puts forward someone to appear on the Daily Politics show.

Today's "lamb to the slaughter" is someone called Hannah Bardell.

She wants to protect English shop workers by preventing them from working longer hours on Sunday, potentially putting more money in their pockets.

She doesn't quite get the "only in England" impact.

She hasn't yet suggested shutting the internet down outside shopping hours yet...

I love it when people forget that there's another 600 MP's in the HOC's.. with a vote too !

EVEL as I've stated before, is going to disappoint in the long run. As you've just worked out.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Just to remind you (and everyone), that the SNP White Paper contained no allowance for repayment of the Scottish share of the National Debt, only the interest payment, presumably assuming that someone else (aka rUK) would work it down. Paying back would add a other TBD amount to yearly payments. That balance sheet doesn't look good does it.

It doesn't look good now apparently, as part of the Union. And we're paying the debt too. What's the difference ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

For your information, with the qualifier that I don't know the rules that govern participation, I don't agree with Scottish MPs not being on that committee. A UK Bill of Rights is clearly a UK matter in its implications and given that different parts of the UK (NI, S & W) have to a greater or lesser amount different laws, all should all be able to bring their regional concerns and experience into the discussion.

I agree.

Having said that, I would have the concern that the SNP would not consider the true merits of the discussion but only the potential for whinge.

Then you went and spoilt it by having a whinge !

Rinoa

No mention of yesterday's Scottish bill on uk breakfast telly nor in english newspapers. So thankfully spared the SNP whingeacoaster - until I came on here.

Tromking

Rinoa wrote: »

No mention of yesterday's Scottish bill on uk breakfast telly nor in english newspapers. So thankfully spared the SNP whingeacoaster - until I came on here.

....and in the rUK not a single **** was given!😀

elantan

Rinoa wrote: »

No mention of yesterday's Scottish bill on uk breakfast telly nor in english newspapers. So thankfully spared the SNP whingeacoaster - until I came on here.

and that tells us so much

Rinoa

elantan wrote: »

and that tells us so much

TBF, the SNP whinging again is hardly newsworthy.