Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

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.

From what I've read this morning the talks stalled and got bogged down weeks ago. We were supposed to have a 'fiscal framework' announced this month, then it was December... now it seems it'll be Jan at the earliest. And Swinney has said right from the very start, that if the fiscal framework isn't fair to Scottish residents, he'll advise Holyrood to block it.

The Lords seem to have decided they'll do it for him for now. Blimey, what will Scottish Labour 'use new powers' and and the 'Vow delivered in full' ( for the fourth time ) Daily Record write about now ? The SNP don't even have any Lords to blame.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

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?
...

Should Scotland get an optional delay facility when they get their next referendum ?

Something like : "we will go fully independent 18/24/36/48 months from the referendum** . (**depending on prevailing market conditions at the time)"

I suspect they'd have to give rUK a bit of notice though, like 48 hours !!

Tromking

I think it might be useful if we call the SNP's insistence on a 'without detriment' fiscal framework, the "having your cake and eating it" clause��.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scottish MP's historically have had little effect either way, nor on policy decisions that come from it.

Maybe you haven't heard of a certain Gordon Brown. You'll find he was responsible for an awful lot of policy for 13 years, including being PM.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It gets wearing.

Indeed.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Should Scotland get an optional delay facility when they get their next referendum ?

Something like : "we will go fully independent 18/24/36/48 months from the referendum** . (**depending on prevailing market conditions at the time)"

I suspect they'd have to give rUK a bit of notice though, like 48 hours !!

Sounds like a great idea. Perhaps the vote next time could ask, "When would you like Scotland to be independent? "

A. Now
B. When the oil price is above $100/bbl

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Maybe you haven't heard of a certain Gordon Brown. You'll find he was responsible for an awful lot of policy for 13 years, including being PM.

Indeed.

So ? What's you point ? That he was ethnically Scottish ? I'm afraid if England as a whole decides it would rather a Conservative Govt than a Labour one.. Scottish votes don't really matter one way or the other.

There's little point in other words of you bringing up historical elections trying to 'prove' that England gets the Governments Scotland votes for occasionally. Because it's patent mince.( 533/59).

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So ? What's you point ? That he was ethnically Scottish ? I'm afraid if England as a whole decides it would rather a Conservative Govt than a Labour one.. Scottish votes don't really matter one way or the other.

There's little point in other words of you bringing up historical elections trying to 'prove' that England gets the Governments Scotland votes for occasionally. Because it's patent mince.( 533/59).

love to know the key differences between the people of scotland and the people of Yorkshire

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

I think it might be useful if we call the SNP's insistence on a 'without detriment' fiscal framework, the "having your cake and eating it" clause��.

You actually think the Scottish Govt should accept very limited new powers that will make Scots worse off ? Dear me lol !

Hopefully the Scotland Bill will be shown up for the sop it is. It was never debated or given enough time for scrutiny. And the Tories were desperate to wave it through in order to win votes in May 16, Labour for the same reasons.

The key danger is that Scotland will have to grow at the same speed or better than the UK but without the powers to drive the economy in that direction, indeed it is worse than that controls are part of the "package" that are designed to ensure it can't happen.

'If Scotland out performs the rUK minus London there is a loss (of grant), if Scotland under performs rUK minus London, then there is a loss to the Scottish Government's budget.'

Give Swinney additional powers to grow the economy not just tax it. Mabye we'll get somewhere. But I suspect, that this will rumble on for a while. Getting nowhere apart from showing the Scottish people that voting for 'more powers'/The Vow/Smith Commission/Scotland Bill was a fairy tale. The without detriment clause all parties signed up to in Smith. And keeping Barnett was part of 'the Vow' on the front page of the Daily Record. Cameron definitely signed up to that one.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

love to know the key differences between the people of scotland and the people of Yorkshire

One has a devolved government as one of the countries making up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the other is a region of England.

Politically, that's pretty 'key'.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

One has a devolved government as one of the countries making up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the other is a region of England.

Politically, that's pretty 'key'.

Scotland was devolved on the basis that once upon a time she had been a country. Once upon a time Yorkshire was a country too just a less whiny one.