Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Rinoa

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.

You mean like if Orkney and Shetland, or many other Scottish regions, vote against independence, then their votes won't count if a few square miles of Glasgow and Edinburgh do?

CLAPTON

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'.

I was referring to the PEOPLE of these two geographical regions:
like how their lives and ambitions differ, how their hopes for their children differ, how the education needs differ etc
and not one more endless tautological nonsense.

why does one get 3000 per family more than the other : how do their need differ to justify this ?
why don't they join together to correct this injustice?

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

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.

You seem grossly misinformed about the Treaty of Union, and the reasons for devolved parliaments in all three smaller countries that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The IFS have come out in agreement with the Lords.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that it will be impossible for the Treasury and Scottish government to design a fair, flawless system for funding Scotland after it gets new tax-raising powers....It said the entire basis for funding the devolved governments in Edinburgh and Cardiff – the widely disliked Barnett formula – may need to be scrapped and replaced to address these conflicts – backing up similar calls on Friday by peers in the House of Lords.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/20/ifs-study-funding-scotland-impossible

They now want to scrap Barnett and replace it. Oh lovely. That's de-facto independence then... If that gets scrapped, there will be little motivation all round by way of replacing it. Certainly not up here. Wales and NI might have a few problems with that as well I dare say. Cameron and Brown may well be of the opinion that breaking purdah ( making last minute promises is exactly what purdah is designed to prevent ).. and promising that voting No would mean 'better, faster, change'.. was a mistake.

At the very least, the SNP can't be blamed for the Vow and most that came afterwards. They had very little say in the Scotland Bill either in the HOC ( every amendment they put forward was voted against ). Scottish Labour won't have much to campaign on now, and the Scottish Tories tax cut promises will have had it too. Just a shame they rushed things so much in the hope of damaging headlines or getting one over on the SNP... rather than concentrating on what's the best way forward for any new powers.

But Barnett, oh yes, that one most definitely was included in the Vow.

The joint statement also rubbishes claims from the SNP that the Barnett Formula for calculating Scotland’s budget could be changed to leave us less money for public services.

It pledges: “Because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources, and the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue, we can state categorically that the final say on how much is spent on the NHS will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.”


Cameron said the plans outlined by the pro-UK parties amounted to “real, concrete” change.
He added: “The status quo is gone. This campaign has swept it away. There is no going back to the way things were. A vote for No means real change.
“We have spelled that change out in practical terms, with a plan and a process.
“If we get a No vote, that will trigger a major, unprecedented programme of devolution, with additional powers for the Scottish Parliament – major new powers over tax, spending and welfare services.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992


Still, there's time yet to pull things back. But further powers and the Scotland Bill seem to be dissolving pretty quickly into 'can't be done' and massive delays at the moment.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

You mean like if Orkney and Shetland, or many other Scottish regions, vote against independence, then their votes won't count if a few square miles of Glasgow and Edinburgh do?

That was a straight Yes or No vote. There were no Yes/No candidates elected on a constituency by constituency basis. It was a nationwide referendum. Not a General Election. You're comparing two different things.

England dominates both politically and population wise in the UK, and by some margin. It's just the way it is, and it's a little silly to pretend that it's not the case.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That was a straight Yes or No vote. There were no Yes/No candidates elected on a constituency by constituency basis. It was a nationwide referendum. Not a General Election. You're comparing two different things.

England dominates both politically and population wise in the UK, and by some margin. It's just the way it is, and it's a little silly to pretend that it's not the case.

England doesn't dominate anything

the people of the UK get to vote on issues that are important to them

there is no substantive difference between the people of the UK except in the mad minds of the SNP

I don't live in Yorkshire but I have no problem with them voting on things that affect me nor do I have any problem with people elsewhere in the UK voting on things that affect me

Only the people who thing they are different (superior?) need to emphasis the nationalistic differences

Once you join the cult, the inevitable poison start to distort your world view and discord rather then harmony reign

sadly we see the results every day

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

England doesn't dominate anything

the people of the UK get to vote on issues that are important to them

there is no substantive difference between the people of the UK except in the mad minds of the SNP

I don't live in Yorkshire but I have no problem with them voting on things that affect me nor do I have any problem with people elsewhere in the UK voting on things that affect me

Only the people who thing they are different (superior?) need to emphasis the nationalistic differences

Once you join the cult, the inevitable poison start to distort your world view and discord rather then harmony reign

sadly we see the results every day

Oh come on Clapton, is there ever political harmony? The problem we have now is the 2 main parties are not really that different from each other so for those who don't agree with either what is the alternative? Who should/could people vote for without feeling it's a 'wasted' vote?

England, by sheer size, both population & number of representatives does have a bigger say. That isn't a criticism, it's simply the result of it being a larger area in the uk. The way you see it is we are all one, we are the uk and I'd agree if our political preferences were similar, however it does look very much like they are not.

You only have to look at Scotland's representatives, the Scotland Bill for instance, every amendment made was voted down. How can the voice of 56 MP's ever override over 500? How can a system that appears to ignore scots mp's and the people who voted for them ever lead to harmony?

The very fact that so many SNP mp's were elected tells us that quite a lot of scots are not in tune with what the 2 main parties stand for.

I've already explained my reasons for voting to leave the union. You clearly didn't read it or it didn't penetrate as you're still carping on about our 'differences' making us feel somewhat superior.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You seem grossly misinformed about the Treaty of Union, and the reasons for devolved parliaments in all three smaller countries that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The IFS have come out in agreement with the Lords.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/20/ifs-study-funding-scotland-impossible

They now want to scrap Barnett and replace it. Oh lovely. That's de-facto independence then... If that gets scrapped, there will be little motivation all round by way of replacing it. Certainly not up here. Wales and NI might have a few problems with that as well I dare say. Cameron and Brown may well be of the opinion that breaking purdah ( making last minute promises is exactly what purdah is designed to prevent ).. and promising that voting No would mean 'better, faster, change'.. was a mistake.

At the very least, the SNP can't be blamed for the Vow and most that came afterwards. They had very little say in the Scotland Bill either in the HOC ( every amendment they put forward was voted against ). Scottish Labour won't have much to campaign on now, and the Scottish Tories tax cut promises will have had it too. Just a shame they rushed things so much in the hope of damaging headlines or getting one over on the SNP... rather than concentrating on what's the best way forward for any new powers.

But Barnett, oh yes, that one most definitely was included in the Vow.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992


Still, there's time yet to pull things back. But further powers and the Scotland Bill seem to be dissolving pretty quickly into 'can't be done' and massive delays at the moment.

Don't panic, they'll dream up another subsidy from England and call it something else......the Farnett Bormula?
Both sides have a vested interest in sorting this out, the SNP will want to keep spending big on their socialist experiment and the UK Government will want an obvious subsidy front and centre to remind Scots how much they need the rUK. The SNP are trapped in a fog of inertia until they make the case for an independent but considerably poorer Scotland more palatable to it's people.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Oh come on Clapton, is there ever political harmony? The problem we have now is the 2 main parties are not really that different from each other so for those who don't agree with either what is the alternative? Who should/could people vote for without feeling it's a 'wasted' vote?

England, by sheer size, both population & number of representatives does have a bigger say. That isn't a criticism, it's simply the result of it being a larger area in the uk. The way you see it is we are all one, we are the uk and I'd agree if our political preferences were similar, however it does look very much like they are not.

You only have to look at Scotland's representatives, the Scotland Bill for instance, every amendment made was voted down. How can the voice of 56 MP's ever override over 500? How can a system that appears to ignore scots mp's and the people who voted for them ever lead to harmony?

The very fact that so many SNP mp's were elected tells us that quite a lot of scots are not in tune with what the 2 main parties stand for.

I've already explained my reasons for voting to leave the union. You clearly didn't read it or it didn't penetrate as you're still carping on about our 'differences' making us feel somewhat superior.

the english don't vote as 'english'
they simply vote for things they want
the people of Yorkshire don't vote as Yorkshire people but simply for things they want

only the SNP try to differentiate the people of the UK so that the people in scotland feel disadvantaged in relation to the rest.

NO there has never been political harmony amoungst the parties : but the SNP are trying to cause disharmony, not on political differences but on nationalistic/racial grounds.

so if an SNP issue is ever voted down they will claim because of the evil English rather than its simply a bad bill

anyway roll on May16

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

the english don't vote as 'english'
they simply vote for things they want
the people of Yorkshire don't vote as Yorkshire people but simply for things they want

only the SNP try to differentiate the people of the UK so that the people in scotland feel disadvantaged in relation to the rest.

NO there has never been political harmony amoungst the parties : but the SNP are trying to cause disharmony, not on political differences but on nationalistic/racial grounds.

so if an SNP issue is ever voted down they will claim because of the evil English rather than its simply a bad bill



anyway roll on May16

As do Scottish voters, simply voting for the person they feel best represents their views. So, no difference there.

The SNP want to end the political union, that's no big secret. If you wish to see it as nationalistic & racial grounds then there is probably very little I can do to change your opinion except to repeat - end a political union.

I wouldn't say that scots go around griping about how disadvantaged we are. We just get on with our lives the same as everyone else but we appear to be supporting SNP as their policies & message about being stronger for Scotland is resonating. Everyone votes for what they believe will benefit them, either personally or the society in which they live. Take your pick.

Every amendment was bad? Yeah, of course it was.......

Agreed, roll on May 16.

Thrugelmir

Leanne1812 wrote: »

The problem we have now is the 2 main parties are not really that different from each other so for those who don't agree with either what is the alternative?

Parties that win elections gain the support of the Middle Ground to do so. Majority rules. Remove Independence and what's left of the SNP? Just like the Greens there's no fully funded strategy. Just a dream of a promised land built on borrowed money. A concept that I would suggest is out of vogue in the mainstream if people were given the real choices available to them.