Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

Suggest you ask your beloved leaders how they propose funding or what policies they have for growing Scotlands economy. Rather than bleat on about cuts elsewhere. As that's the reality. The tide is going out. With it the ability to hide. Your beloved Salmond timed his exit well for good reason. There was a window of opportunity and now it's gone. How long for that's anyone's guess.

zagubov

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Suggest you ask your beloved leaders how they propose funding or what policies they have for growing Scotlands economy. Rather than bleat on about cuts elsewhere. As that's the reality. The tide is going out. With it the ability to hide. Your beloved Salmond timed his exit well for good reason. There was a window of opportunity and now it's gone. How long for that's anyone's guess.

Are you saying that staying in the union will harm Scotland?

Crikey that'll save the SNP some money on advertising the cost of the union! :beer:

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote:

.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 ?

Scotland's getting the Vow it was promised but not the magic you wished for. My criticism was about the SNP not about the SG as an institution. All the waffle about things not being met are just cynical and spiteful paranoia fabricated in order to further your party's aims. Just waffle & bluster.

Do you know what signing off an agreement means?

This is Sturgeon's concept of agreeing in good faith:

Nicola Sturgeon attacks Scotland powers deal agreed by SNP

In other words no concept of good faith at all.

zagubov

.string. wrote: »

Scotland's getting the Vow it was promised but not the magic you wished for. My criticism was about the SNP not about the SG as an institution. All the waffle about things not being met are just cynical and spiteful paranoia fabricated in order to further your party's aims. Just waffle & bluster.

Do you know what signing off an agreement means?

This is Sturgeon's concept of agreeing in good faith:

Nicola Sturgeon attacks Scotland powers deal agreed by SNP

In other words no concept of good faith at all.

Let's get real. Do you think that the SNP will survive an independence YES vote? I think it'll eventually split or face real rivals (probably to the centre right, but maybe even to the left). They'll have 50+ experienced pols returning from Westminster looking for positions and posts to push their agendas.

We all know this is on their minds and their political future is precarious. (OK admittedly their opponents are catastrophically toxic but that can't last forever). They have no incentive to accept the Scotland Bill when the proverbial blind man on a runaway horse could see that it's not meeting the Vow.

They'll do nothing to harm Scotland which is more than I can say for the Scottish Office or Westminster.

I'm somewhat less irritated by the House of Lords who've surprised me by seeing through this travesty of a bill and actually sticking up for Scotland by recognising it's a trap.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

Let's get real. Do you think that the SNP will survive an independence YES vote? I think it'll eventually split or face real rivals (probably to the centre right, but maybe even to the left). They'll have 50+ experienced pols returning from Westminster looking for positions and posts to push their agendas.

We all know this is on their minds and their political future is precarious. (OK admittedly their opponents are catastrophically toxic but that can't last forever). They have no incentive to accept the Scotland Bill when the proverbial blind man on a runaway horse could see that it's not meeting the Vow.

They'll do nothing to harm Scotland which is more than I can say for the Scottish Office or Westminster.

I'm somewhat less irritated by the House of Lords who've surprised me by seeing through this travesty of a bill and actually sticking up for Scotland by recognising it's a trap.

Do you honestly believe that Westminster based politicians and civil servants sit around thinking up ways to stitch up the Scots?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Scotland's getting the Vow it was promised but not the magic you wished for. My criticism was about the SNP not about the SG as an institution. All the waffle about things not being met are just cynical and spiteful paranoia fabricated in order to further your party's aims. Just waffle & bluster.

Do you know what signing off an agreement means?

This is Sturgeon's concept of agreeing in good faith:

Nicola Sturgeon attacks Scotland powers deal agreed by SNP

In other words no concept of good faith at all.

You're descending into parody now to be honest. None of the parties agreed fully with Smith. Because they all came to the table with very different proposals. The Vow was the basis of Smith, which was the basis for the new Scotland Bill. A Scotland Bill that the SNP have had very little input on ( since they were voted down every time they put an amendment forward ). The entire year of progress on Scotland's new powers were based on Barnett continuing.

Now you, and others here like Generali, are actually trying to pretend that No voters, 'should have known' that Barnett wouldn't be kept in the event of a No victory. My goodness that's truly desperate stuff !! You may be confusing No voters with Yes one's. I rather think Westminster is too.

Either Barnett is kept as the basis of working out Scotland's block grant, or Holyrood will refuse it. That's what 55% voted for just past a year ago after all. Reform Barnett to needs based, as the Lords and the IFS are suggesting.. so Scotland loses 4 billion a year ? Then you'll have another referendum on your hands. One which will likely be lost this time. Polls are already 50/50.
There will be no Vow's, no further powers promised and one black hole looks pretty much as bad as the other either in the Union or not. The Tories in charge doing the slashing for the next few years will just seal the deal. Believe me. :cool:

But string. Sometimes facts really do need to be faced. And Barnett was promised, and vowed... to No voters. So they would all be happy to stay in the Union...risk free.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that Westminster based politicians and civil servants sit around thinking up ways to stitch up the Scots?

No, just the SNP. Both Labour and the Tories like doing that.The Scotland Bill is designed to stitch up the SNP and has been used simply as a political football. Even ordinary people commentating in ordinary newspaper's below the line can see it too.

Positively Orwellian. The Scottish government wants more powers to control the levers of the Scottish economy. It was promised them in the so-called "Vow," and then by Smith, but it hasn't got them. What it has got is a mechanism to reduce funding to Scotland, whilst shifting the blame for that to Holyrood. Sleekit and scarcely in Scotland's interests

Summed up well I thought.

Shakethedisease

zagubov wrote: »

Let's get real. Do you think that the SNP will survive an independence YES vote? I think it'll eventually split or face real rivals (probably to the centre right, but maybe even to the left). They'll have 50+ experienced pols returning from Westminster looking for positions and posts to push their agendas.

I agree. The SNP would split should there be a Yes vote. Mhari Black and Fergus Ewing ? Broad churches, are sometimes too broad unless there's a common, more important goal.

The Tories in Scotland might even become relevant again. I'd look forward to it. Especially with such an engaged electorate.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that Westminster based politicians and civil servants sit around thinking up ways to stitch up the Scots?

Well if this current bill was meant to benefit the Scots rather than force their devolved government to use crude ineffective ways of ensuring their prosperity that are likely to fail...

In genetic engineering we used crippled strains of host organisms to ensure that they can't escape and prosper in the wider environment.

God forbid that politicians were clever enough to sabotage bills in a similar way.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

Well if this current bill was meant to benefit the Scots rather than force their devolved government to use crude ineffective ways of ensuring their prosperity that are likely to fail...

In genetic engineering we used crippled strains of host organisms to ensure that they can't escape and prosper in the wider environment.

God forbid that politicians were clever enough to sabotage bills in a similar way.

In what way was the bill intended to 'benefit the scots'?
Is that another hand out the SNP were expecting at the expense of the other people of the UK?
One way bets are usual unless you have been dependency junky and benefit sponger for 300 years.