Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Tromking

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.

More than one SNP voter on Twitter I noticed the other night advocating the Sinn Fein approach to Westminster attendance.
Interesting, if not a worrying mindset on show there.

Rinoa

Happygreen wrote: »

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

By a quirk of the FPTP voting system the SNP managed to win almost all Scottish seats. However, we know from the referendum that fewer than half of Scots want independence, but the SNP don't want to speak for the 50%+ who voted No.

Maybe posters on here are simply attempting to address the imbalance.

Generali

Happygreen wrote: »

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?

Is it really in the best interests of their constituents to obstruct and complain along every step of the way while negotiating in bad faith? I've generally had better results by engaging with people I disagree with to find constructive ways to move ahead.

Of course the SNP aren't really in London to do anything apart from try to force the separation of Scotland from the union. Everything else is just a smokescreen and another thing to yell about on Twitter.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Is it really in the best interests of their constituents to obstruct and complain along every step of the way while negotiating in bad faith? I've generally had better results by engaging with people I disagree with to find constructive ways to move ahead.
...

Voting as a collective on something which is a core principle is one thing. We know the SNP manifesto position on Trident for example.

However, voting as collective on something like Sunday trading is a petty position to take.

I'd like to think at least one or two SNP MPs in Westminster are capable of independent thought.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

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.

Was that before or after Mundell's 'well that's a risk you'll have to take ?'. And how can the SNP be playing politics with tax credits ? It was Labour that brought the whole urgent mitigation of as yet hypothetical tax credits cuts to the forefront. Not the SNP.

And to be honest. Most people simply don't see why any future Scottish Govt should be put on the line to mitigate every single time Westminster makes a big cut somewhere. There's a principle there at play too. Tax credits is only a short term view of the wider and longer term picture.

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.

Well if tax credits is all they have, and Osborne is now under pressure to delay the whole thing for a year. Then they are in even deeper trouble.

George Osborne has suffered a political setback over his plans to cut working tax credits when a Conservative-controlled select committee condemned his proposed reforms and urged him to consider a pause to undertake a fundamental rethink of his priorities in reforming the welfare state.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/11/fresh-blow-george-osborne-planned-tax-credit-cuts-reforms

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Was that before or after Mundell's 'well that's a risk you'll have to take ?'. And how can the SNP be playing politics with tax credits ? It was Labour that brought the whole urgent mitigation of as yet hypothetical tax credits cuts to the forefront. Not the SNP.

And to be honest. Most people simply don't see why any future Scottish Govt should be put on the line to mitigate every single time Westminster makes a big cut somewhere. There's a principle there at play too. Tax credits is only a short term view of the wider and longer term picture.

Well if tax credits is all they have, and Osborne is now under pressure to delay the whole thing for a year. Then they are in even deeper trouble.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/11/fresh-blow-george-osborne-planned-tax-credit-cuts-reforms

lets suppose that Scotland is independent and you have no need to score point over the Tories and have interest in damaging the rUK anymore.


Would you actually support the current benefits system and think it right that part time workers should have their take home incomes raised to more than full time workers?
remember now : England isn't paying and there are alternative uses for the money (investment, NHS, building houses etc)

http://moneyweek.com/merryns-blog/the-truth-about-tax-credits/

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

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



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?

No, they've said the same all along regarding the Smith Commission. Their approach has never changed or wavered. Not even on the day it was released.

The Scottish government said any new powers were to be welcomed, but First Minister Nicola Sturgeon argued the Smith Commission package was ultimately disappointing because many powers, like the personal tax allowance, corporate taxation and child and working tax credits, would remain with Westminster.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30223348

A more balanced analysis in the last few days is probably Stephen Daisley's of STV. He's not the SNP's biggest fan.. But he's pretty fair, more or less in representing both sides of the debate... You should give it a read through if you really want a balanced and fair look at both sides of the coin.

Analysis: Scotland Bill fulfils The Vow but not promises of home rule

I was a Vow sceptic but I concede that the Bill makes good on the cautiously-worded pledge that appeared on the Daily Record’s front page two days before the referendum...

...The Nationalists have since reified The Vow, as though Runnymede offered up a second charter seven centuries later, but it is merely a tactic to stoke anger. The SNP are ninth-dan black belts in grievance. If Westminster found a cure for the common cold, they would complain it was putting hard-working Scottish pharmacists out of business....

....“The United Kingdom," he confidently announced, "will move as close to federalism as we can go in a country where one nation accounts for 80% of the population.” Perhaps he wasn't licensed to enter into such commitments but enter into them he did and the Unionist parties, which profited from his gravitas and special connection with the Scottish people, had a duty to follow through.

...And so while new powers are to be welcomed, we must take note of those that remain reserved...
Holyrood can be trusted to mitigate Tory tax credit cuts but not to administer tax credits in the first place....

But when the Nationalists charge that the Scotland Bill falls short of assurances made, they are not just spinning a line — they have a point.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/1332338-stephen-daisley-on-the-scotland-bill-the-vow-and-home-rule/

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Voting as a collective on something which is a core principle is one thing. We know the SNP manifesto position on Trident for example.

However, voting as collective on something like Sunday trading is a petty position to take.

I'd like to think at least one or two SNP MPs in Westminster are capable of independent thought.

Well if you'd watched the parliament channel the other day you'd have assertained that both Labour and the Conservatives voted down an amendment devolving employment law. So, in order to best represent Scottish shopwokers and protect their wages.. ( UK USDAW had also lobbied and asked the SNP to vote against ).. the only means they have of doing so is through Westminster and the HOC.

There's far more to this than 'pettiness' I'm afraid. Employment law is reserved. HOC is the only way the SNP can act on their constituents behalf. Do you have a problem with that ?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well if you'd watched the parliament channel the other day you'd have assertained that both Labour and the Conservatives voted down an amendment devolving employment law. So, in order to best represent Scottish shopwokers and protect their wages.. ( UK USDAW had also lobbied and asked the SNP to vote against ).. the only means they have of doing so is through Westminster and the HOC.

There's far more to this than 'pettiness' I'm afraid. Employment law is reserved. HOC is the only way the SNP can act on their constituents behalf. Do you have a problem with that ?

If that was such an important part of the process perhaps the SNP should have insisted that devolution of those powers was put into the Smith process.

Let's face it, when you've got 5 parties negotiating what should be in or out there's going to be an aspect of we'll give up x if you give us y.

The SNP seem to have decided that they want x so negotiated that. And then a, b, c & d which they gave up in negotiations quite possibly or indeed just decided on a whim to include just to try to muck up the whole process.

Lest we forget, some additional things have been devolved to Scotland on top of what had been previously agreed such as abortion rules.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

By a quirk of the FPTP voting system the SNP managed to win almost all Scottish seats. However, we know from the referendum that fewer than half of Scots want independence, but the SNP don't want to speak for the 50%+ who voted No.

Maybe posters on here are simply attempting to address the imbalance.

Ah yes, the old FPTP 'quirk' is a terrible thing for Scotland when it means 50% of the vote goes to one party because this means that the SNP don't speak for all Scots...

But for the UK, 36.9 % this 'quirk' and not representing 60.1% of UK voters is enough to make sure that FPTP and the Conservatives have an absolute mandate to speak for the UK and that's all good ! All MP's were elected through exactly the same system.. By your own argument the Conservative party have even less of a mandate to speak for the UK through the FPTP system, than the SNP do in Scotland.

And anyway. Some interesting casual trivia for you... It does seem like that 10% lead is closing. Slowly but surely. It certainly hasn't fallen back any.

In four years before the indyref, just three full-sample polls found a Yes lead (1%, 1% and 2%): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014 …In one year since the indyref, seven polls have put Yes ahead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence#Post-referendum_polling …