Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Correct me if wrong, but think the SNP may want to get rid of that... somehow...

the Barnett formula is corrupt and all right minded people ought to favour reform within the current system.

favouring corruption simply because it is in one's own interest is very 'Westminster' but also seems almost universal in Scotland
I await to see which Scottish political party endorses Barnettt reform and which favour reform

ruggedtoast

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Can you really be so, well, blind with this ?

ALL UK Taxes ---> Westminster---> Budget Allocated to Scotland----> Scotland uses what's given to fund NHS/Education/Bedroom Tax mitigation etc

Taxes---- > Westminster----> English MP's vote to cut English spending

---

> reduction in Budget allocated to Scotland

---

> Less money for Scotland's NHS/Education/Bedroom Tax mitigation.

Devolved matters depend on the what's allocated to Scotland from the Westminster tax 'pot' we all pay into. That's not spin. It's the way things work. And in case you hadn't noticed. Both NHS and Educations budgets encompass almost all Scottish citizens ? Why can't you see this ?

You'll LOVE the polls tonight though.. or mabye not so much.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/night-of-the-long-claymores-the-snp-are-poised-for-a-historic-momentous-victory/

Yes. Scotland will vote snp thereby probably ensuring the entire country gets a Tory government again. Congratulations.

elantan

I think the fact that Scotland decides not to vote Labour so gives the UK a Tory government really seems to forget that England didn't vote enough labour and chose to vote Tory .... Why is Scotland so important for a change?

If and I say IF Scotland chooses to vote SNP then its because they believe that the SNP are the right people to do the job for them .... Which would indicate they don't think labour or the Tories are

ruggedtoast

elantan wrote: »

I think the fact that Scotland decides not to vote Labour so gives the UK a Tory government really seems to forget that England didn't vote enough labour and chose to vote Tory .... Why is Scotland so important for a change?

If and I say IF Scotland chooses to vote SNP then its because they believe that the SNP are the right people to do the job for them .... Which would indicate they don't think labour or the Tories are

You don't find something a little bit ironic in Scotland running an independence campaign on not liking the Tories, then deciding to keep being ruled by Westminster, then voting so as to give yourselves another tory government.

Voting snp would make all the sense in the world if you had also voted Yes last year. Its absolutely barmy now.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote:

Can you really be so, well, blind with this ?

ALL UK Taxes ---> Westminster---> Budget Allocated to Scotland----> Scotland uses what's given to fund NHS/Education/Bedroom Tax mitigation etc

Taxes---- > Westminster----> English MP's vote to cut English spending

---

> reduction in Budget allocated to Scotland

---

> Less money for Scotland's NHS/Education/Bedroom Tax mitigation.

Devolved matters depend on the what's allocated to Scotland from the Westminster tax 'pot' we all pay into. That's not spin. It's the way things work. And in case you hadn't noticed. Both NHS and Educations budgets encompass almost all Scottish citizens ? Why can't you see this ?

Thank you for taking the trouble to draw that analysis for me Shakey but it is rather too simplistic.

The intent, as usual, is to show that wicked Westminster siphons off all the cash and leaves Scotland with peanuts (which are apparently good for the heart by the way).

You want more >>>Scotland>>>Scotland>>>Scotland etc. As usual with the SNP, just "Me, Me, Me" a sad litany of selfishness.

It is the way it is, Taxes are distributed throughout the United Kingdom and, depending on how the country does, adjustments are made. On the NHS this is one of the areas which has been "protected" even in today's stressed times, but yes, if the country can't afford a certain service then we have to reign back or, conversely increase public spending; you should not expect Scotland to be exempt from the economic facts of life. I know the SNP want to run away from any share of the current UK financial pain but you can't realistically expect to do so; there are those in Scotland with more integrity I'm sure.

The process is the same for us down here in the South West of England (population of about 5.4m, roughly the same as Scotland by the way) and elsewhere. You guys are pampered.


But the main point is not that, we get used to the me me me aspect of SNPspeak, it is that yet again you choose to ignore the added value of the UK.

You get more than just the value of cash that wanders up to Scotland (more per head than us by the way) whether it is what you get now or what you will get when the dust has settled on the new Devolution deal.

Just to take a few items:

You get the protection of the Pound backed by the strength of the rest of the UK; coupled with that is the guarantee of people's savings up to £85K.

Imagine the position if there was to be a Natland next year as you wanted; Industries fled south, oil revenue collapsed, no this or that defence contracts and so on; subsidies gone.

.. And no chance to devalue and make Scottish Exports grow because you have no currency of your own and can no longer expect the UK to take Scottish interests into account. An uphill struggle at best and probably a downhill struggle to a lower level of national living standard.

Then there is Defence - you get a far more credible defence than Scotland could ever achieve on its own. Maybe enough to chase off some Spanish trawlers now and then. 5 million people can't afford the scope of what can be done by a larger country.

Then there are UK Research Grants and cooperation to keep our GB stock of expertise up to scratch and UK Pensions which are protected against inflation (that would go in Natland by the way).

I can't be bothered to go on, but the bottom line is that all of this "extra value" has to be paid for, and this means all parts of the UK have to contribute.

It's all so obvious really, so remember that next time your Granny starts to warble on about FFA and think how mendacious and silly she sounds

.string.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You don't find something a little bit ironic in Scotland running an independence campaign on not liking the Tories, then deciding to keep being ruled by Westminster, then voting so as to give yourselves another tory government.

Voting snp would make all the sense in the world if you had also voted Yes last year. Its absolutely barmy now.

Yes I agree - it runs counter to logic (excepting the ever-present sowing of disharmony).

This business also conditions how people vote in the rest of the UK.

I'm, as I've mentioned before, a committed floating voter so if I'm representative of anyone it's that section of voters that normally swing elections.

All of this is likely to be a final nail in the coffin of me voting Labour; as things stand I veer towards the Tories because
a) Labour's economic stance is not credible to me,
b) I won't encourage in any way a separatist party by voting for Labour which considers an alliance with them and
c) I want to get this thing settled and move on and I think the Tories can do that.

I would not consider any of the other Mickey Mouse Parties anyway.

I'm not particularly bothered if a minority Government results; it will sort itself out one way or another and, in the context of Scottish Devolution, I would expect a decimated Labour opposition would have enough English MPs to support the current Tory proposals for Devolution and Constitutional changes.

elantan

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You don't find something a little bit ironic in Scotland running an independence campaign on not liking the Tories, then deciding to keep being ruled by Westminster, then voting so as to give yourselves another tory government.

Voting snp would make all the sense in the world if you had also voted Yes last year. Its absolutely barmy now.

but that isnt what the SNP are currently selling, their current sales technique is " Vote SNP get a stronger voice for Scotland"

Labour on the other hand are selling " vote SNP get Tory"

so if we want to take that back to the referendum its business as usual

SNP selling the positive and Labour selling the negative fear mongering ....

If the people of Scotland choose to vote SNP it will be because they want the SNP to have more say in WM simple as that really ... they will be letting Labour know they no longer trust them...

I think you may find there might be more than one Tory in Scotland as well ... there may not be but one thing a lot of Scot's seem to forget is that at one time Scotland was very Tory minded and that there are still a lot of Tory minded people here, there is more than one Tory MSP for example,

I do hope in a way that the Tories do win the GE tbh, Labour are worse than useless, the Tories at least tell you they are going to hurt you, while labour tell you all will be well whilst stealing the milk fae yer tea .... I have never voted anything other than SNP or Green all my days, this time though I wont be voting so it really is fun watching it all take shape, think more than anything i will be glad to get some sleep on the 7th as usually i stay up till the results are in and known

.string.

zagubov wrote:

I've argued on another thread that the HoL has too many chancers.
I think both the government and the state need a body of inspectors to hold them to account and assess their fitness for purpose.

For a start we need parliamentary ombudsmen or inspectors to assess all parliamentary candidates and we need the HMSO to publish all we know about them and their track record.

And every time they propose a bill the ombudsmen/inspectors need to act on behalf of the public and scrutinise it by interviewing them with expert advisers. This will save on parliamentary question time as the answers will be already there.

And before anybody says that’s what the House of Lords does already, some are up to the job but the rest are unelected time-servers. We need to elect some wise heads to do this job.

If there is to be an upper house, that should perhaps be a kind of fluency committee that coordinates the overall joint actions of the four nations.

I think you are letting cynicism run riot there.

One should concentrate on the matter of making sure that the people that get elected or nominated to the HOL meet certain standards before they start work and not set up another layer of bureaucratic experts sitting there looking over the shoulders of (as proposed for HOL) experts looking over the work of Parliament. What next? Yet more experts looking over the shoulders of the experts sitting there looking over the shoulders of those reviewing Parliament's work?

And as for the idea of reviewing the suitability of those elected, that won't wash - you have to trust the selection process and public choice on that one, particularly The HOC. Guidelines and rules yes but not endless peeking.

Personally I would not rule out people being nominated for work in the Lords outside the elected members due to them having valuable knowledge and experience, plus a budget to hire in experts when needed. The key matter in all of this is the promise to not let outside interests control the work in any way. Penalty for any of that would be cause for dismissal. So lobbying (aka assessing opinions) is OK but votes for money or influence - no way.

elantan

Anyone looking forward to QT tonight ?

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

I really hope he doesn't keep his seat ... But tbh some of the SNP candidates make me go !!!!!!

elantan wrote: »

Anyone looking forward to QT tonight ?

Popcorn ?