Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

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

Well if the SNP had independence then suddenly they could use their 'Magical Independent Economy Growing Powers'.

Of course you have to completely ignore for just a moment that even in the best case scenario their own White Paper suggested cumulative growth over the last 30 years might only have been 3% higher if Scotland had those same powers.

And then you have to somehow believe that there is something so unique about Scotland that it could grow 4 times faster than any other developed nation today that already has those powers.

And while we're in this state of wishful thinking, you then also have to give credibility to the utterly fantastical idea that indy wouldn't lead to extraordinary disruption to businesses and public finance for many years with issues like currency, interest rates, EU membership/trade deals, set-up costs, the ability of government to borrow, etc, so there would be absolutely no negative effect on growth whatsoever.

But if you can believe all of that, then Scotland could transition away from the UK subsidy, and not have to cut spending by Greek Austerity Max amounts or raise taxes accordingly.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

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.

If you're going to change Barnett and Scotland loses 4 billion a year ( Ian Murray MP, Good Morning Scotland 21/11/15 ).... on top of all the austerity cuts coming down the line.

Then may as well be independent. Because the above is all the perceived cons of independence, while remaining within the union yet powerless to change Scotland specific polices. Little point.

You also keep spectacularly keep missing the point that it wasn't the SNP that made any Vows. They were of the opinion it was a load of paniced nonsense promises that would never be kept ( as were about 1.6 million voters like me ). And so it's proved. All parties signed up to Smith. None agreed with it in full.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If you're going to change Barnett and Scotland loses 4 billion a year ( Ian Murray MP, Good Morning Scotland 21/11/15 ).... on top of all the austerity cuts coming down the line.

Then may as well be independent. Because the above is all the perceived cons of independence, while remaining within the union yet powerless to change Scotland specific polices. Little point.

You also keep spectacularly keep missing the point that it wasn't the SNP that made any Vows. They were of the opinion it was a load of paniced nonsense promises that would never be kept ( as were about 1.6 million voters like me ). And so it's proved.

great stuff
even more votes for the SNP after this disgraceful treatment;
must be over 100% now for the SNP in May16

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well if the SNP had independence then suddenly they could use their 'Magical Independent Economy Growing Powers'.

Of course you have to completely ignore for just a moment that even in the best case scenario their own White Paper suggested cumulative growth over the last 30 years might only have been 3% higher if Scotland had those same powers.

And then you have to somehow believe that there is something so unique about Scotland that it could grow 4 times faster than any other developed nation today that already has those powers.

And while we're in this state of wishful thinking, you then also have to give credibility to the utterly fantastical idea that indy wouldn't lead to extraordinary disruption to businesses and public finance for many years with issues like currency, interest rates, EU membership/trade deals, set-up costs, the ability of government to borrow, etc, so there would be absolutely no negative effect on growth whatsoever.

But if you can believe all of that, then Scotland could transition away from the UK subsidy, and not have to cut spending by Greek Austerity Max amounts or raise taxes accordingly.

If Barnett goes Hamish. So will Scotland. Like you're fond of pointing out, people vote with their pockets.

The status quo and being 'safe within the union' will be no more. Because the cuts will be pretty big if Barnett goes. And there will be a lot of very, very annoyed people out there who voted No.... because they didn't want to take the slightest risk of huge cuts coming Scotland's way by way of independence. However, should those huge cuts come within the Union, despite promises, Vows and commissions to the contrary... Then it's not difficult to envision the next step, or those 60% polls in favour of leaving the UK.

December 13

Alex Salmond has called on David Cameron to come clean on the future of Holyrood’s budget amid fears it could be slashed by £4 billion in the event of a No vote. The First Minister has written to the Prime Minister to see if he backs a Westminster committee’s call for a shake-up of Scotland’s £32 billion annual block grant.

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/politics/holyrood/no-vote-could-see-funding-for-scotland-slashed-by-4-billion-1.160190

4 billion a year. How much was that black hole again ? 7.6 billion wasn't it ? Boy that gap between independence and remaining within the UK may be closing fast. Soon there will be nothing to chose between them. If by any slim chance the oil price goes back up again in the next few years, then it'll be 100% game over. If it isn't already. :cool:

Westminster has backed itself into a bit of a corner in this one. Either it keeps Barnett without massive reductions as 'Vowed' to the people of Scotland, ( most especially to those risk averse No voters )... Or the Scottish Govt won't pass the Scotland Act.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

great stuff
even more votes for the SNP after this disgraceful treatment;
must be over 100% now for the SNP in May16

Ian Murray is the Labour MP in Scotland.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You also keep spectacularly keep missing the point that it wasn't the SNP that made any Vows.

just loved this : no they just mislead the Scottish people in a very consistent way

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The status quo and being 'safe within the union' will be no more. Because the cuts will be pretty big if Barnett goes. And there will be a lot of very, very annoyed people out there who voted No.... because they didn't want to take the slightest risk of huge cuts coming Scotland's way by way of independence. However, should those huge cuts come within the Union, despite promises, Vows and commissions to the contrary... Then it's not difficult to envision the next step,

Eh?

Even with a reduction in the amount of subsidy Scotland is still massively better off than it would be independent.

You seem to be claiming Scottish voters are daft enough to cut off their nose to spite their face.

"Well Westminster, if you impose cuts of £4billion we'll go indy and have to make cuts double or triple that amount.... Ha Ha, that's you told"

Honestly Shakey... Do you really think Scots are that stupid?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

4 billion a year. How much was that black hole again ? 7.6 billion wasn't it ? .

It was 7.6 billion a year at the time of the referendum before oil prices fell to their current levels.

It's much, much, worse now....

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Eh?

Even with a reduction in the amount of subsidy Scotland is still massively better off than it would be independent.

You seem to be claiming Scottish voters are daft enough to cut off their nose to spite their face.

"Well Westminster, if you impose cuts of £4billion we'll go indy and have to make cuts double or triple that amount.... Ha Ha, that's you told"

Honestly Shakey... Do you really think Scots are that stupid?

It was 7.6 billion a year at the time of the referendum before oil prices fell to their current levels.

It's much, much, worse now....

The independence 'black hole' you claim is/was 7.6 billion. Changing Barnett to needs based will lose Scotland 4 billion a year. And that's not including Osborne's cuts coming down the line with all the various slashing that will go on ( tax credits as an example ).. which will be another couple of billion.

In other words, it's going to get much, much worse either way if things carry on on their current path. And if the Scotland Bill necessitates Barnett reform losing Scotland a further 4 billion ? There will be a political and constitutional row that will more than likely lead to another referendum. Not least because Barnett continuing was part of the Vow. Once that Vow was made, Scots on referendum day were voting between independence/the Vow. Cameron himself said the status quo was no longer viable.

You should be thanking the SNP for taking a stand on this. Potentially refusing to pass the Scotland Bill on the grounds that it would make Scottish residents much worse off.

If independence was voted against on the grounds that it was 'too risky' economically... how well do you think cutting 4 billion off the Scottish budget a year, on top of Osborne's austerity plans is going to play ? With many No voters especially ? You're deluded in the extreme if you think messing about with Barnett is going to encourage support for the Union. Broken promises and Vows 'don't look good'.. ( to coin your own phrase earlier in the thread ). You know it full well too.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

just loved this : no they just mislead the Scottish people in a very consistent way

They didn't make any Vow's.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They didn't make any Vow's.

as I said : The SNP merely lied to the Scottish people as they continue to do so.

But I don't understand your attitude to this : everything that is happening will convince the scots how badly they are being treated and the SNP will get that 110% of the vote in May

Surely you must be delighted and daily give thanks to the Tories and pray for them to continue as the government.