Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

Of that I totally agree ... Have though for years the citizens of England should have their own government

elantan

You do also have to remember though that Scottish policies do not in fact affect England ... We chose ( for example) that the bedroom tax was something we would protect our vulnerable citizens from, the money for our decision comes from the SG allocating it from other areas ... We did not tell WM our citizens are not paying the bedroom tax so give us money so we can pay it .... Or even naw were justnonpaying and neither are they

However WM decision to have a bedroom tax has in fact had a detrimental affect to our budget, we have had to cut back in other ways in order to plug the hole that is the bedroom tax

So as you can see from that one example our policies do not affect anything going on elsewhere however elsewhere a policies have an effect on us

Hence one of the many reasons I believe Scotland should be an independent country

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

You do also have to remember though that Scottish policies do not in fact affect England ... We chose ( for example) that the bedroom tax was something we would protect our vulnerable citizens from, the money for our decision comes from the SG allocating it from other areas ... We did not tell WM our citizens are not paying the bedroom tax so give us money so we can pay it .... Or even naw were justnonpaying and neither are they

However WM decision to have a bedroom tax has in fact had a detrimental affect to our budget, we have had to cut back in other ways in order to plug the hole that is the bedroom tax

So as you can see from that one example our policies do not affect anything going on elsewhere however elsewhere a policies have an effect on us

Hence one of the many reasons I believe Scotland should be an independent country

I too would have preferred that the voters of Scotland to have voted differently
however they didn't (shocking thing democracy).

Given where we are, any fair minded person would agree that the current situation with the English votes and the corrupt Barnett fomula needs reform

elantan

Something deffinately needs to change ... Sadly the Smith commission has put an end to that idea, if the powers promised were the ones given then this would all be mute as any money raise here would be for here apart from foreign affairs and defence ... And those pesky Scots could've been told to shut and get on with it

However, the Politicians whose priority is only Scotland ( SNP) IMHO let the side down in those discussions ... I also keep wondering why did the labour , tories et al not want to give more real powers to Scotland so they could say shut up an eat yer cereal you've got what u wanted and whit we promised now get on with it

Instead the arguing will not go away and the bitterness will escalate

A great opportunity wasted

.string.

elantan wrote: »

I know hard to believe that the question was

" Should Scotland be independent " and not

" Should the Scottish people be independent "

Geography not nationality ... Who would've thunk it

Oh, sorry, I should have written "Total Bo****ks".

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

String, you are entitled to your views & opinions but your bias against snp means you can't be impartial. If it were a labour or lib MP that gave the speech Pete did would you be quite so fast to criticise? He did repeat a little sometimes but the essence of what he said made perfect sense. You stated before snp would like HOL abolished completely so no-one can hamper or deny any of their policies but that wasn't what Pete said.

Again, I'd reiterate its their goal for Scotland to be an independent nation so if the rest of the UK and union supporters get upset about that what is the solution? Do the snp just give up on their goal? You know that's nonsense don't you?

Oh, cheers for watching the link, 30 minutes might have put some off. I will watch yours later and respond.

?? I thought I was quite gentle with him, seeing as how I remarked that I shared some concerns over the House of Lords. Maybe you refer to my remark that he made all those remarks while maintaining that it was not really any of his business? I think it is his business as being an MP in the UK and his remarks are reflected in those from other parties. But in as much as I disagree with some of what he said, that would have been the case for anyone who had said it.

As for objectivity, I belong to no party and can therefore be objective about their relative merits. This is not the case for a party member who feel an obligation to stick up for their parties point of view whether or not it would have coincide with their pre-party opinion. It's a characteristic of any party that they tend to describe counter views as some sort of rubbish or not-objective or whatever, but I have to say, objectively, that the SNP is better at that than most.

Do you see any merit in what I said about an alternative House of Lords, or are you bound to agree with whatever it was that Wishart said.

Yes he did say that he favoured a second house. I doubt that would happen in the unfortunate hypothetical event that Natland existed.

On the matter of the SNP giving/not giving up their goal; that argument would have more force should they get elected again but what they are clearly trying to do is thwart the implementation of the Referendum.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

EVEL has very little to do with the SNP. It's a Tory attempt to 1) Claw back voters from UKIP and 2 ) Make sure that Labour can never use the votes of their Scottish MP's, which for the last few decades has been a fair proportion of their MP's.

In short, if the Tories win more seats in England/Wales than Labour do.. But Labour have an overall majority. If Scottish MP's cannot vote on bills, then any Labour govt will be severely handicapped in what it can and cannot pass. The SNP has only very, very recently come into play in this one. Tories have had some form of it in their manifesto's for a long time, probably since their wipe-out in Scotland back in 1997. They have nothing to lose there barring their current ONE MP from voting on anything.

This as elantan has patiently tried to point out to you already. Is the true aim of EVEL. It has had nothing previously to do with the SNP until the first polls came out putting them ahead only a few months ago.

Both SNP and Labour MP's ( and Lib Dems ) routinely vote on issues that affect the Barnett Formula and funding for their own constituents. Only Labour and Lib Dem MP's have taken that a step further, block voting as a party regardless of if it's effects and if it's truly English or not. You'd do well to redirect your ire for this one, as it's unfounded.

That's just gossip and spin you're spouting there, Shakey, as did elanten. There is a clear need to take the effect of increased devolution on Scotland on the rest of the country, the UK Government would be derelict in its duty if it did not consider the ramifications.

Re your remark on Labour/Lib Dems - they are a UK-wide party, unlike the SNP so your comment has no value.

Your deflections can be amusing up to a point but they get tiresome; If you really try to justify the SNP new view that Scottish MPs who represent Scottish Constituencies should vote on English Matters, then you have to explain why English MPs cannot do the same in Scotland.

In point of fact I have written a couple of times I do think all MPs should vote on English matters in the House of Commons, but in an advisory manner only, so that their views are known and so that the English MPs have a chance to take their concerns and viewpoints into account when they vote. That is, in effect, the Tory proposal. It's up to the Scottish Parliament to show if they are brave enough to give some similar communication a go.

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Something deffinately needs to change ... Sadly the Smith commission has put an end to that idea, if the powers promised were the ones given then this would all be mute as any money raise here would be for here apart from foreign affairs and defence ... And those pesky Scots could've been told to shut and get on with it

However, the Politicians whose priority is only Scotland ( SNP) IMHO let the side down in those discussions ... I also keep wondering why did the labour , tories et al not want to give more real powers to Scotland so they could say shut up an eat yer cereal you've got what u wanted and whit we promised now get on with it

Instead the arguing will not go away and the bitterness will escalate

A great opportunity wasted

If only Scottish taxes were spent in Scotland the Scottish treasury would be going cap in hand to London right now due to the huge fall in the oil price.

My back of envelope calculation saw a 15% fall in GDP just as a direct result of falling oil prices and perhaps a £2,000 per head fall in taxation. That completely ignores the second level effects (e.g. the oilman loses her job and can't afford to go to the pub so a barman loses his job) and the impact of similar falls in gas prices.

A fiscally independent Scotland would be ruined this year. I'll be very interested to see GERS for 2013-14. Of course the Nationalists will have decided that GERS is for some unfathomable reason illegitimate by then. The fact is that if you are a high cost producer of a commodity and the price of that commodity halves then you are in the poo.

If the POO doesn't recover in the next couple of years then an independent Scotland's finances would be looking appalling. The economic case for independence was always marginal. $60/bbl Brent makes it just horrible. $30-40 Brent, the 30 year median price, would see Scotland's finances simply untenable. Even without taking on a share of the UK's debt, Scotland would be running a massive primary deficit.

I'll see if I can be bothered to work it out.

BTW, the word is moot not mute as in Moothouse, what we had before the French gave us a Parliament. Moot means speak as does parler.

.string.

elantan wrote:

... if the powers promised were the ones given ...

Give some specific examples of which precise powers promised by the three UK Party Leaders, were not given.

Try not to just repeat the SNP wish list.

.string.

Tromking wrote:

.string. wrote:

This is already proposed, what the SNP are trying for is Devolution beyond the point of Federalism.

I lived in Canada for some years where I paid both Federal and Provincial taxes, the former paying for common and shared services. Without that sharing there is no overall country and that is why FFA is a no-go.

I've seen no such proposal.
A federal UK to me would include a new English parliament and three other national parliaments with a small federal assembly on top.

Ah - a slight misunderstanding, sorry about that. In my remark "already proposed" I was thinking of Parliament covering both aspects in the one assembly. But the idea of using the House of Lords for a "Senate" type functin has its merits and can be argued of course.

However I'm not in favour of it because such is the dominance of England due to its relative size, over the other "nations" within the UK, I repeat (see post above) that MPs from other regions of the UK should be in a position to have their say directly in what happens in England, but in an advisory capacity only. Also I don't favour another layer of politicians.