Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

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.

as the man said

you can't be serious!

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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.

Osborne's plans have already gone a bit t**a up...as far as 'costed policies' go. And that's WITH five years of cuts/austerity already and much more to come. And believe me, when Scottish newspapers like the Herald are running headlines like this tonight..

Scotland 'could lose billion under Cameron devolution plan'

Scotland could lose a billion pounds a year within a decade under plans to give Holyrood greater tax and welfare powers, according to a highly respected economic think tank.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14094201.Scotland__could_lose_billion_under_Cameron_devolution_plan_/

One has to wonder what it is you're actually on about in terms of any promised lands, anywhere in the UK. Scotland independent or not. The SNP is the middle ground in Scotland. Tories to the right, until Corbyn, Labour to the right.. most of the Scottish party still are. Greens, SSP and RISE to the left. 'Middle ground' upwards of the border, is very different to the south of it. The SNP themselves are a very broad church.

Elections in Scotland ? The Tories don't figure much. It's Labour v's the SNP. And when Labour started looking like Tories.. people have tended to start voting SNP despite the independence policy, rather than because of it. The referendum however, changed things.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

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.

They won't sort it out. The SNP have no vested interests in sorting this out. Keeping the Barnett formula was a central part of the Vow. End of. The SNP warned constantly throughout the referendum that a No vote would mean Barnett would be changed or reformed to reduce it.

Cameron 'rubbished' the SNP a week before the referendum for saying or suggesting anything of the sort ! But still promised new powers anyway. The IFS and the Lords are now saying that Barnett will actually have to be changed to get the ( pretty much viewed as a bit meh, Scotland Bill through )... Well, independence is possibly becoming more palatable by the day. The SNP aren't trapped. They didn't make any Vow's. And want rid of Barnett, and 'English subsidies' altogether.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

l]

I still see this as simply part of ongoing discussions and process. Which we knew were going to be complex and difficult. Made even more so , due to lack of trust, and tribal politics being played from the start and throughout the entire process.

Not going to get too concerned over 'if' 'could possibly' scenarios , at present, during that process, which is currently ongoing.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They won't sort it out. The SNP have no vested interests in sorting this out.
.

Not sure SNP party central would be too happy with your choice of phrasing there.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The Times, 21.11.2015

Nicola Sturgeon was under fire last night after it emerged her party received £10,000 from animal rights lobbyists after blocking a parliamentary vote on foxhunting in England and Wales.

The Political Animal Lobby (Pal) donated funds to the nationalists on August 14, one month after the party announced it would break from convention and reject a House of Commons motion which did not directly have an impact on Scotland.

Rural campaigners questioned whether the funding was linked to the SNP’s intervention on English legislation this summer. Jamie Stewart, the Scottish director of the Countryside Alliance, said: “It would be very concerning to think that the donation from this lobbying group could have anything to do with the SNP’s decision to change its stance on voting on hunting issues in Westminster or its decision to review the regulations governing hunting in Scotland.

“It is interesting to note that there was also a donation of the same amount to Labour a month later.”

That doesn't look good.

Now to be fair, I think Sturgeon's motive was political disruption rather than party profit, but it still doesn't look good.

Just as it looked very bad for Blair and Labour when they took massive donations from lobbyists the first time round on the foxhunting issue.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That doesn't look good.

Now to be fair, I think Sturgeon's motive was political disruption rather than party profit, but it still doesn't look good.

Just as it looked very bad for Blair and Labour when they took massive donations from lobbyists the first time round on the foxhunting issue.

It is particularly interesting given the background whereby Ms Sturgeon specifically stated that the SNP viewed foxhunting as a non-Scottish, non-Barnett topic on which the SNP would abstain. Then all of a sudden they stuck their noses into English affairs and then...they got ten grand!

It reminds me of when Mr Blair decided to delay banning F1 from taking sponsorship from tobacco companies and subsequently got a million quid in funding from Mr Ecclestone. For a long time afterwards a million quid was known in The City as A Bernie. Perhaps ten grand will be known as A Nicola in future.

It's a bit pathetic being bought for ten grand though. At least Mr Blair sold himself for a mozza.

elantan

Am heading back home so will try and catch up tomorrow ... anyone wanna give me a quick run down ?

zagubov

elantan wrote: »

Am heading back home so will try and catch up tomorrow ... anyone wanna give me a quick run down ?

Shake gently pointed out that even the House of Lords thought the Scotland Bill was a trap and should be put under the microscope toot sweet, and other posters immediately felt the urgent need to change the subject to an animal rights lobby slipping a few bob to the SNP after they didn't vote against the Tories fox hunting bill or something.;)

elantan

Ha ha ha ... thanks Zagubov.. I did wonder if that would've came up for discussion

My friend texted me about it, not been keeping up with anything since leaving .. it appears I have a lot to catch up with