Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

LABMAN

OMG she's not content with not having a sprog on the BBC...she is now interfering in something that is outwith her mandate. If she wanted a say in the UK parliament she should have stood there!

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Not a surprise, but you've conveniently ignored the number of people voting for Labour v Con in England and Scotland.

How SNPesque.

Oh no. Nothing so obvious. We were talking about how 'Scotland votes' as opposed to England. Scottish MP's of whatever flavour very rarely make a difference in Westminster parliamentary make up. How could they ? There's only 59 of them compared to 533 from England. It's just basic maths. Nothing to do with the SNP. Labour had exactly the same problems when the Scottish electorate kept voting them in, when the rest of the UK voted Thatcher/Major in.

No stretching of the truth or spinning in the world is ever going to get you to the point where 59 is going to 'overpower' 533. The SNP have just been rather more keen to point that fact out than Labour ever was ( for obvious reasons ). However, it's why devolution for Wales, Scotland and NI was introduced in the first place.

Devolution for Scotland was justified on the basis that it would make government more responsive to the wishes of the people of Scotland. It was argued that the population of Scotland felt detached from the Westminster government (largely because of the policies of the Conservative governments led by Margaret Thatcher and John Major[8])

Anything jumping out at you that sounds a bit familiar there ?

Shakethedisease

LABMAN wrote: »

OMG she's not content with not having a sprog on the BBC...she is now interfering in something that is outwith her mandate. If she wanted a say in the UK parliament she should have stood there!

Never mind. I'm sure as leader of her party, and First Minister of Scotland, she'll let Angus Robertson know what she wants. And he'll say it as an elected representative and SNP leader in Westminster for her. Don't worry.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

This isn't the best news re the Scotland Bill today.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14040892.Top_economist__new_powers_deal_could_cost_Scotland_hundreds_of_millions_of_pounds/

Early days. The Professors article simply highlights one of many possible outcomes , all of which I imagine complex, which are still being discussed , and to be agreed. Before being accepted by the SG.

Imagine whoever is negotiating on Scotland's behalf was already fully aware of the implications the professor relates to. Not to mention some others. Lord Smith seemed fairly confident they would be able to work out a fair agreement. So think I'll remain positive meantime, and reserve judgement until the negotiations are complete.

Generali

Bit of a non-story. Scotland may or may not lose out depending on the deal that is struck. I'd have thought that was completely obvious.

I may or may not earn more in my next job versus now.

Generali

And while we're on the subject of Scotland's finances, how are prices going for Scotland's #1 export, less than 4 months from the SNP's proposed independence date?

Hmm, not looking good. At least Londoners are still happy to pump money into Scotland

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/stunning-visualization-worlds-3-billion-barrel-oil-glut

“There’s a sizeable risk that we could run totally full,” in terms of [total worldwide oil] storage capacity, he said

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh no. Nothing so obvious. We were talking about how 'Scotland votes' as opposed to England.

Hmmm. What you actually said was:

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think the point is more that Scotland always gets the government that England votes for, whether they vote the same way or not.

However in early 1974 and 2005 Scotland got the govt most people voted for but England didn't.

Generali

Lest we forget, Scotland doesn't vote as a block. At the last election, hundreds of thousands of Scots voted for the Tories and got the Government they were after if not the representative.

This talk of 'Scotland getting what it votes for' is the typical divisive crap that the SNP uses. In a UK election there is no Scotland or England. There are 650 constituencies and a FPTP system that elects 650 representatives.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Bit of a non-story. Scotland may or may not lose out depending on the deal that is struck. I'd have thought that was completely obvious.

I may or may not earn more in my next job versus now.

No, it's not a non-story. The Lords are apparently calling a halt along the same basis.

Today's report from the Lords on the tax implications of the current Scotland Bill going through Parliament is quite simply the most brutal political assault against a current piece of legislation that I have seen. As political contributions go this is the equivalent of a Glasgow kiss wrapped in ermine. Their Lordships haven't even dressed their concerns in the neutral tones of a turgid civil service brief. They don't miss and hit the proverbial wall.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/1332925-commentary-bernard-ponsonby-on-the-scots-devolution-lords-report/

New Scots powers in peril as Lords demand halt to devolution bill

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/1332921-new-scots-powers-in-peril-as-lords-demand-halt-to-devolution-bill/

Lords call on David Cameron to halt Scotland bill as damning report claims 'nobody knows what's going on'

...The committee chairman pointed out how, under one option put forward, Scotland's block grant would "fall to a very, very low level indeed...in 2015/16 from £19.4bn to potentially £12.8bn in 2035".
He went on: "So over a 20-year period there would be a very substantial decline, which would place Scotland in a very, very disadvantaged position. We are talking hundreds of millions of pounds here, which would affect the ability of the Scottish Government to provide the services it wants to provide...They would be seriously circumscribed and curtailed."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14091782.Lords_call_for_halt_to_Scotland_bill_as_damning_report_claims__nobody_knows_what_is_going_on_/

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Hmmm. What you actually said was:

However in early 1974 and 2005 Scotland got the govt most people voted for but England didn't.

I was talking about Scottish MP's as a whole. You were talking about England or Scotland voting Tory v's Labour in the past. Scotland ( this year was a bit different ) might have sent mainly Labour MP's down, but also sent MP's from other parties down also. Reducing the net 'effect' of Labour or Conservative numbers as 'game changers'. Scottish MP's historically have had little effect either way, nor on policy decisions that come from it. The SNP this year have magnified that premise still further.

However, one constant for the last few decades IS that Scotland doesn't vote Conservative en masse. Yet still end up with Conservative governments half or more of the time. It gets wearing.