Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

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.

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 ?
.

We both know there would be no financial gain to rUK to claw any extra benefits back whatsoever, due to no detriment clauses. No point.

Robert Devereaux DWP head confirmed rUK systems are capable of ignoring certain income in calculating current across the board welfare. But SG have to decide how they want to use the new powers and then work out how they wish to implement them effectively within the Smith framework.

All that's needed is some co- operation between SNP and Westminster. Normal practice for devolved governments usually.

And you're well aware of why Labour didn't vote with SNP to devolve full control last night. Wasn't in Smith, they are a UK party, and it likely meant devolving more tax revenue powers. Also not in Smith for all the reasons we're already know about.

This was a chance for SNP to rise above their grievance agenda, and be seen to put tribal politics aside, show themselves to be different from the rest as a progressive honest party who claim they will always put Scotland's people first.

But instead they were straight on their Twitter feeds to spread their carefully crafted grievance misinformation.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

We both know there would be no financial gain to rUK to claw any extra benefits back whatsoever, due to no detriment clauses. No point.

Even the IFS have no clue how 'no detriment' clauses will work.

Robert Devereaux DWP head confirmed rUK systems are capable of ignoring certain income in calculating current across the board welfare. But SG have to decide how they want to use the new powers and then work out how they wish to implement them effectively within the Smith framework.

All that's needed is some co- operation between SNP and Westminster. Normal practice for devolved governments usually.

Scottish residents would have to be exempted from means testing in some form when claiming UK wide benefits. Which of course in theory would be 'possible'. However, from the party and Prime Minister that said a few months ago that 'tax credit's wouldn't be cut'.. There would have to be a permanent unshakable guarantee of that for future Scottish Govt's to base budgets around. Tax credits are unlikely to be the first to go in this austerity process. Then there's claimants that won't qualify at all due to new tapers in April, and those that come on to the claimants register.

All while these new powers aren't due to come into force, mabye , until 2017...

And you really can't see any probs there apart from the SNP 'must pay' ? No time gaps ? Or even the distinctly 'independence-lite' direction this is going in ? Separating Scottish residents off from rUK ones in some form ? It's not very 'union friendly' is it. And all before we even know what Osborne is doing !

And you're well aware of why Labour didn't vote with SNP to devolve full control last night. Wasn't in Smith, they are a UK party, and it likely meant devolving more tax revenue powers. Also not in Smith for all the reasons we're already know about.

Labour are resembling a circular firing squad at the moment, if I can steal a quote from someone else. Tax credits weren't in Smith ( the SNP wanted welfare control entirely devolved ). But, then, Labour blocked an awful lot from that didn't they. Offering the very least of any parties on board. Also on the day Smith was published. The SNP never, ever claimed to be happy with it either. Scottish Labour have made a huge song and dance about tax credits this last week or so. They're good at asking the SNP to put their money where their mouth is... not so when it comes to doing so themselves. Tax credits will remain at Westminster, in Conservative hands. Well done Labour. Not even an abstention this time. Actively voted for. ( they won't think that's such a good thing up here, and you must know that as well as I do ).

This was a chance for SNP to rise above their grievance agenda, and be seen to put tribal politics aside, show themselves to be different from the rest as a progressive honest party who claim they will always put Scotland's people first.

But instead they were straight on their Twitter feeds to spread their carefully crafted grievance misinformation.

No Skint. We all watched it on the parliament channel as it happened. Thousands of us did because these things matter to us. 45.5 thousand #Scotlandbill tweets went out about it. Just last night. There are only 55/6 MP's. They needed to craft absolutely nothing. Clips, quotes and opinion are all over Facebook and other blogs today also.

To steal another quote I found amusing today... The Parliament Channel is fast becoming compulsive viewing and like a new soap opera. We all watched in horror yesterday as the next chapter played out. Not one single amendment from the SNP was accepted. It's a wonder anyone will think it's worth bothering to send Scottish MP's down to Westminster next time.

Grievance and whingeing.. There's a fair lot of voters agree with the SNP. If Labour really want to win voters back in Scotland. They'll need to stop demeaning their own ex-voters using language like the above. They made that mistake last May too. It'll be no skin of the SNP's nose if they keep at it though.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

So am I wrong about the Scotland Act? Is it there to bring in the Smith reforms or not?

There was a Vow, then the Smith Commission, then the new Scotland Bill.

The Smith Commission and all proposals in it were in response to the referendum and the ( very vague/airy fairy/means nothing/means Home Rule ) Vow.

But. There was a General Election 6 months after those proposals were put forward...And nearly 50% of Scottish voters voted for a party, standing on a manifesto that wanted powers that go much further than the Smith Commission did ( they voted SNP ). This has been ignored somewhat. Scottish voter's elected representatives ( elected on the biggest swings in British electoral history in some cases ) many feel, are not being listened to. On the Scotland Bill. 50% of Scottish voters are very annoyed about that.. since this after all, once again, is the Scotland Bill.

Smith has also been watered down since the glory days of Gordon Brown's proclamations a week before the referendum. 45% of Scottish voters are extremely annoyed about that.

In short. There's a lot of annoyed Scottish voters. Smith was of it's time and context. But it was probably out of date as soon as all those SNP MP's were elected. By voters too ! There are lots here who assume the SNP just 'magically appeared' in Westminster without anyone at all in Scotland agreeing with what they stood for in May 15. A mistake. And it wasn't all those voters agreeing the Smith Commission either.

Generali

Lord Smith did rather seem to think that he had the agreement of the parties including the SNP at the time of the report, 27th November 2014:

https://www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Smith_Commission_Report-1.pdf

This report sets out the agreement reached between all five of Scotland’s main political parties: Conservative, Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat and the SNP.

So precisely what major constitutional change has happened in the last 11.5 months in order for the SNP to want to make wholesale changes to a constitutional amendment they agreed to? Or did they not agree to the recommendations of the Smith Commission?

A quick look back at old headlines suggests that the SNP agreed to Smith but then immediately started working to undermine it. So were the SNP acting in bad faith or do they think that a process of negotiation is one where a load of people sit round a table and agree that Ms Sturgeon is right?

skintmacflint

[STRIKE][/STRIKE]

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Even the IFS have no clue how 'no detriment' clauses will work.

Scottish residents would have to be exempted from means testing in some form when claiming UK wide benefits. Which of course in theory would be 'possible'. However, from the party and Prime Minister that said a few months ago that 'tax credit's wouldn't be cut'.. There would have to be a permanent unshakable guarantee of that for future Scottish Govt's to base budgets around. Tax credits are unlikely to be the first to go in this austerity process. Then there's claimants that won't qualify at all due to new tapers in April, and those that come on to the claimants register.

All while these new powers aren't due to come into force, mabye , until 2017...

And you really can't see any probs there apart from the SNP 'must pay' ?

Grievance and whingeing.. There's a fair lot of voters agree with the SNP. If Labour really want to win voters back in Scotland. They'll need to stop demeaning their own ex-voters using language like the above. They made that mistake last May too. It'll be no skin of the SNP's nose if they keep at it though.

No real need for me to explain all the ways this can be done or work. Because SNP as you well know, already know how to do it. Even for next year. But are simply playing politics, for their own agenda.

Last week Swinney in an interview with Gordon Brewer on Sunday politics Scotland, discussed this issue. Swinney stated once the cost was known, SNP would work out a properly costed , worked out system, find a way to identify those affected , then implement a properly operated systems to do just that. He even said he could find 400 million to do so! No mention of all the hypothetical difficulties you project. Course it also exposed previous misinformation from him, but that's SNP for you.

As for Labour, well what can I say.? Other than their priority should be to shore up existing voters and avoid losing any more where they can. But they are in a difficult place just now, not just in Scotland. A lot may depend on what happens on the doorsteps in their much diminished Labour heartlands.

But as I said this isn't just about Holyrood.

Mistermeaner

Snp are a party of fighting, they wont know what to do if they didn't have an enemy. If they get what they want they'll be stuffed as there will be noone to fight with. Or maybe it will be the highlands vs the lowlands next.

Braveheart would have been pretty boring without all the battle scenes and we needed the English to make those possible

Happygreen

I don't know if anyone else on here gets a similar impression but after reading the posts on this thread for some time now I have developed an issue with the tone of constant patronising. It does remind me of how any unhappy wife is treated as "the nag" ....If folks would remember that we are talking politics? 56 members of parliament have been obviously elected to be in opposition and represent their constituents, so why this constant accusation of "whingeing" if they act as they should and OPPOSE ?

Generali

Happygreen wrote: »

I don't know if anyone else on here gets a similar impression but after reading the posts on this thread for some time now I have developed an issue with the tone of constant patronising. It does remind me of how any unhappy wife is treated as "the nag" ....If folks would remember that we are talking politics? 56 members of parliament have been obviously elected to be in opposition and represent their constituents, so why this constant accusation of "whingeing" if they act as they should and OPPOSE ?

Opposition in the UK isn't generally about opposing for the hell of it, it's about acting in a constructive way to improve governance.

The SNP seem to have no interest in UK-wide governance, they just want to moan about how it's all wrong. Take the Scotland Bill/Act for example. The SNP came to an agreement about a bunch of changes to the constitution, at the 11th hour tried to go back on the agreement and then are complaining about the consequences (that the majority party used its majority to sink the new, not agreed proposals).

Where I live, going back on a clear agreement and then complaining that the other side wouldn't agree with you would be called whinging. It's a textbook definition. AFAICS, the new SNP tack seems to be to persuade the English that the best thing would be to tell the Scots to eff off.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
Where I live, going back on a clear agreement and then complaining that the other side wouldn't agree with you would be called whinging. It's a textbook definition. AFAICS, the new SNP tack seems to be to persuade the English that the best thing would be to tell the Scots to eff off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare

I can't see why the SNP bother sending down 56 MPs to sit in that hated Westminster building.

Just send 1 person down with 56 voting cards in his/her pocket.

Happygreen

kabayiri wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare

I can't see why the SNP bother sending down 56 MPs to sit in that hated Westminster building.

Just send 1 person down with 56 voting cards in his/her pocket.

Interesting view on democracy....I repeat : they were elected to represent their constituents and that is what they are doing.

All along I also have been wondering who hates who. Great for you that you are so happy with your government but others may not be and have elected members of a party your majority does not agree with. So what? Do they really make a difference in WM's decision making? It's usually the way that all an opposition does is throw a few spanners into the works (but with 56 MPs that is also not really going to happen) so what is left than speak out in a democracy? Why does that annoy you that much that they execute a very basic right indeed?