Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

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 looks ok to me. Labour got the same. What's the problem ?

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

And the Tories get private donations from hedge funds, shareholders with interests in private healthcare, you name it etc etc up the ying yang. The SNP didn't even vote.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It looks ok to me. Labour got the same. What's the problem ?



And the Tories get private donations from hedge funds, shareholders with interests in private healthcare, you name it etc etc up the ying yang. The SNP didn't even vote.

I agree, the SNP are just the same as the other parties. Just part of being a 'more equal' scotland

The SNP didn't vote because the motion was not put, because the maths said the government would loss due to the SNP commitment to voting against.
Anyway the SNP should learn a valuable lesson : £10k is simply not enough for major party: demand more next time.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

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

I'm sure they'll be fine with it. They have no vested interests in reforming the Barnett formula and all that goes with it. Like FFA, something of that magnitude which also affects Wales and Northern Ireland may take years to sort out to everyone's satisfaction. It seems like an awful amount of messing about, simply in order to give Scotland 'powers' that half the electorate, a majority of MSP's and the Devolution Committee aren't happy with (as they stand) anyway.

And besides, No voters were promised 100% that Barnett would be staying by David Cameron himself. So did Lord Smith.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm sure they'll be fine with it. They have no vested interests in reforming the Barnett formula and all that goes with it. Like FFA, something of that magnitude which also affects Wales and Northern Ireland may take years to sort out to everyone's satisfaction. It seems like an awful amount of messing about, simply in order to give Scotland 'powers' that half the electorate, a majority of MSP's and the Devolution Committee aren't happy with (as they stand) anyway.

And besides, No voters were promised 100% that Barnett would be staying by David Cameron himself. So did Lord Smith.

Interesting that you seem to want to remove the SNP from the Smith Commission post hoc. I understood that the SNP was a central part of it.

What changed? Or is this simply another example of the SNP entering into a negotiation in bad faith?

.string.

I think it's a matter of running out of whinges in the real world, and having to delve into the realms of "what ifs" to work up a head of steam.The language seems to becoming rather shrill.

It's always been obvious that to make the Devolution Package such that no-one lost out would be difficult and part of the eventual fine tuning. In the end it will not just be about money, if it was then in the end Scotland would be receiving nothing extra, magic or not; it will be about a number of things including the interests of the UK, something that the SNP continuously disregard.

In the meantime none of us need a newspaper article to suddenly discover that for us, and as you point out we just have to wait. Personally, I just take Shakey's remarks as practice for what might happen, and, of course, the joy of a good whinge.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Interesting that you seem to want to remove the SNP from the Smith Commission post hoc. I understood that the SNP was a central part of it.

What changed? Or is this simply another example of the SNP entering into a negotiation in bad faith?

I haven't removed any party from the Smith Commission. But all parties had Barnett continuation as a central plank of any new powers.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said it was not possible to guarantee the powers would not adversely impact on Scottish or UK budgets.It also said the Barnett formula that calculates Scotland's share of UK spending should be reformed.


This would defy a key recommendation of the Smith Commission.
"The Smith Commission parked these issues to one side by committing to the current Barnett formula. Making the UK's fiscal framework sustainable for the long term may require reopening the debate."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34884122

You're starting to see what you want to see Gen. Central to the Vow and Smith was Barnett continuation. Now it seems in order to transfer powers, the 'debate' will have to be revisited.

Well, in Scotland, we had that debate for three years. With the Yes side wanting rid of it all together, and taking full control. And the No side insisting that the Yes campaign was 'scaremongering' over a No vote meaning Barnett would be reduced/cut or reformed. A vote for No vote meant keeping the block grant, but will added powers over tax/welfare/etc.

It kind of all boils down to the fact that Scots voters were led up a garden path of pretty useless guarantees, from the Prime Minister no less.. that have been strung out for over a year now. Vow to Smith to Scotland Bill. The SNP to their credit have sat ( and they have actually sat there every day unlike most MP's ) and watched everything they've attempted via Westminster and the HOC shot down and laughed at. They've also watched as EVEL was waved through before a single power was given to Scotland. They've also taken all the flak via endless sneery headlines asking about how they're going to use these new powers a full two/three years in advance of any realistic implementation. Scottish Labour on the one hand saying it's up to the SNP to mitigate any cuts.. while on the other UK Labour voting to keep control of tax credits in Osborne's hands.

But so have we, the electorate watched it all live too, or saw something on Facebook, or Twitter, Youtube, or Wings, or Bella Caledonia. Mabye that was the point.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I think it's a matter of running out of whinges in the real world, and having to delve into the realms of "what ifs" to work up a head of steam.The language seems to becoming rather shrill.

It's always been obvious that to make the Devolution Package such that no-one lost out would be difficult and part of the eventual fine tuning. In the end it will not just be about money, if it was then in the end Scotland would be receiving nothing extra, magic or not; it will be about a number of things including the interests of the UK, something that the SNP continuously disregard.

In the meantime none of us need a newspaper article to suddenly discover that for us, and as you point out we just have to wait. Personally, I just take Shakey's remarks as practice for what might happen, and, of course, the joy of a good whinge.

The SNP unlike you take the Scottish Government seriously. Strange to see you talking about the Lords and the IFS whingeing. There were Vow's made string.. do you not know what the word 'Vow' means ?

Are you saying it should be disregarded ?

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

I agree, the SNP are just the same as the other parties. Just part of being a 'more equal' scotland

The SNP didn't vote because the motion was not put, because the maths said the government would loss due to the SNP commitment to voting against.
Anyway the SNP should learn a valuable lesson : £10k is simply not enough for major party: demand more next time.

They get £3 to 5 minimum a month from 110,000 members. Am sure they'll be fine.

The vote wasn't held. Because Tory rebels would've negated a Tory majority. Just like every other vote that's been pulled so far. It just suits you better to blame the SNP rather than trouble yourself with (very) basic maths.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I haven't removed any party from the Smith Commission. But all parties had Barnett continuation as a central plank of any new powers.

Surely if you change the way Scotland is funded by London then there will be change by definition.

Any change in funding formulae would leave Scotland better off in some circumstances and London better off in others. Changing things mean things ermmm.....change.

How did the SNP envisage independence working with the complete removal of the subsidy from London do you think?

I assume that the SNP agreed these changes as a part of Smith. Did the SNP not agree with Smith? If not why did they apparently sign off on it? If so, why did they leave it until the Third Reading of the Scotland Bill (Act soon) to start whining about how dreadful it all is.

The SNP are Pathos personified, let's face it.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They get £3 to 5 minimum a month from 110,000 members. Am sure they'll be fine.

The vote wasn't held. Because Tory rebels would've negated a Tory majority. Just like every other vote that's been pulled so far. It just suits you better to blame the SNP rather than trouble yourself with (very) basic maths.

the nicola's SNP position was absolutely clear
fox hunting in england was an english only matter and so the SNP would not vote
Nicola's SNP would vote against foxhunting in england
the SNP got £10k (apparently) from an animal rights organisation

These important facts are plain for all to see except for acolytes.

Interesting article about the Scotttish role in the slave trade in the Guardian but I doubt that will be discussed by the acolytes here

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/scots-must-face-up--to-slave-trading-past

We Scots must face up to our slave trading past
Kevin McKenna