Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

Generali wrote: »

Will? You need to persuade 50%+1 to vote Yes in a generation's time first. Better hope the oil price comes around and that Londoners are still happy to pay for your kids' 'free' uni education in the meantime.

Still talking about the oil prices I see ... and Londoners paying for us ... yer awfy predictable Gen and bitter ... it's gonna happen whether you want it or not ..

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Still talking about the oil prices I see ... and Londoners paying for us ... yer awfy predictable Gen and bitter ... it's gonna happen whether you want it or not ..

Who's bitter? I ain't paying. I stopped paying taxes in the UK in 2008.

I'd just like the Scots, if they decide to go it alone, to go in with their eyes open. Plus I like a good ol' barney wiv a few of you sweaties innit.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
I'd just like the Scots, if they decide to go it alone, to go in with their eyes open. Plus I like a good ol' barney wiv a few of you sweaties innit.

Eyes open?

It's never going to happen.

Political types would rather operate under a fog of misinformation.

There are a few places in the UK, including Scotland, which are candidates for appearing on Spendaholics.

One of the first things they do on Spendaholics is impose a period of Cold Turkey, so that the debt addict realises the true situation.

We need Cold Turkey for each region, and we might as well start with Scotland.

6 months on pro-rata allocation of money per Capita should do it.

If Shakey and her calculations are correct, there would be no problem whatsoever.

Shakethedisease

princeofpounds wrote: »

I am utterly flabbergasted that claims like this are even given a second of consideration.


You really think that a seceding state can walk away from a fair share of mutual obligations? That's a total fantasy (and a dishonourable, duplicitous and selfish one at that).


It's like joining your friends at a restaurant and refusing to pay the bill because the you weren't the one who technically ordered.


I do find the discussion around independence interesting and it was a valid debate for the nation to have, but when it strays into fantasy propaganda it does all of us a disservice.

I'm afraid that doesn't make it not legally the case though. Because it is. If there's a Yes vote at some point in the future, everything is up for negotiation. Debt is a murky area in international law. We've been through this several times before in early threads re international law regarding 'brand new' or 'continuing' states, debts and deficits. It's neither fantasy nor propaganda.

Of course a Yes vote would mean an offer to pay Scotland's share of debt. But legally, in practice who knows what would happen.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Eyes open?

It's never going to happen.

Political types would rather operate under a fog of misinformation.

There are a few places in the UK, including Scotland, which are candidates for appearing on Spendaholics.

One of the first things they do on Spendaholics is impose a period of Cold Turkey, so that the debt addict realises the true situation.

We need Cold Turkey for each region, and we might as well start with Scotland.

6 months on pro-rata allocation of money per Capita should do it.

If Shakey and her calculations are correct, there would be no problem whatsoever.

That, would be independence then. And it's not me doing the oil price 'calcs'. Generali is.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm afraid that doesn't make it not legally the case though. Because it is. If there's a Yes vote at some point in the future, everything is up for negotiation. Debt is a murky area in international law. We've been through this several times before in early threads re international law regarding 'brand new' or 'continuing' states, debts and deficits. It's neither fantasy nor propaganda.

Of course a Yes vote would mean an offer to pay Scotland's share of debt. But legally, in practice who knows what would happen.

We know, 99.9% that the SNP will refuse to pay their share.
Obviously there will be faux excuses (maybe the worse health of the scots) and it is 100% certain you will support whatever nonsense is proposed by the SNP.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

We know, 99.9% that the SNP will refuse to pay their share.
Obviously there will be faux excuses (maybe the worse health of the scots) and it is 100% certain you will support whatever nonsense is proposed by the SNP.

On the contrary. Should there be another ref, I'm 100% confident that the SNP and any pro-independence movement will go into the whole thing, with no problems whatsoever in paying Scotland's share. As do I. Just like last time in fact.

But it should be recognised that this isn't some kind of done and dusted deal, and that things should be handled fairly. 'Playing hard ball' ( which I heard suggested here last time) with assets and debts is likely to well.. stall things a bit. And at the end of the day the Treasury last time round recognised there was a real risk involved re debt/asset negotiations and disputes ( if a Yes vote ).

The UK Treasury says that should Scots vote to leave the UK, it will honour all UK government debt issued up to the date of Scottish independence. The move, announced on Monday, is aimed at removing the risk of default from any debt-sharing dispute between Scotland and the rest of the UK.The Treasury said it will "in all circumstances" take responsibility for all UK government debt, should Scotland vote for independence in September.
The debt is currently £1.4 trillion.
However, the Treasury, in addition to its guarantee, added that an independent Scotland would still be expected to pay its "fair share".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25707218

But hey, lets not re run this all again. You'll be glad to know there were another 2 SNP MP's in the front pages today.... one of them for committing the terrible crime of..... being a landlord. And Nicola, I'm sure to your deep joy has set the starting gun off in the SNP campaign for May. As has Kezia Dugdale for Scottish Labour. The 'fiscal framework' surrounding how the new Scotland Act/Barnett are administered are also due out very soon. Which I'm sure you're eagerly awaiting.

At the start of her speech, Ms Sturgeon stressed education would be "front and centre" of her plans to lead Scotland after the election. She also promised a "distinctively Scottish approach to social security" when Holyrood gains the power and budgets to create new benefits.
In the run-up to the election, the SNP will also set out a "fairer and more progressive system" of local taxation to replace the council tax, she said.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14183212.Sturgeon_voices_confidence_on_independence_as_election_battle_begins/


Looking forward to seeing the detail behind some of these. Especially a different approach to council tax.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

On the contrary. Should there be another ref, I'm 100% confident that the SNP and any pro-independence movement will go into the whole thing, with no problems whatsoever in paying Scotland's share. As do I. Just like last time in fact.

But it should be recognised that this isn't some kind of done and dusted deal, and that things should be handled fairly. 'Playing hard ball' ( which I heard suggested here last time) with assets and debts is likely to well.. stall things a bit. And at the end of the day the Treasury last time round recognised there was a real risk involved re debt/asset negotiations and disputes ( if a Yes vote ).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25707218

But hey, lets not re run this all again. You'll be glad to know there were another 2 SNP MP's in the front pages today.... one of them for committing the terrible crime of..... being a landlord. And Nicola, I'm sure to your deep joy has set the starting gun off in the SNP campaign for May. As has Kezia Dugdale for Scottish Labour. The 'fiscal framework' surrounding how the new Scotland Act/Barnett are administered are also due out very soon. Which I'm sure you're eagerly awaiting.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14183212.Sturgeon_voices_confidence_on_independence_as_election_battle_begins/


Looking forward to seeing the detail behind some of these. Especially a different approach to council tax.

gosh
nicola will be saying education, education, education any moment soon

Generali

Isn't the problem that one of the two hasn't declared a directorship on the public register of interests? Oh and Mr Boswell also benefited from a tax loophole he is looking to close up, quite a dodgy one where a company gives you a loan rather than a salary and you fail to repay it. We regularly vote against those sorts of schemes at work in fact.

As to the other one, it's a bit hypocritical to campaign against selling off social housing while buying it up. I guess it shows that SNP MPs are as venal as the rest. No worse, no better. Just the same.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

I guess it shows that SNP MPs are as venal as the rest. No worse, no better. Just the same.

The SNP really are doing a great job of proving they are just as sleazy as any other set of politicians.

Tax evasion/avoidance through a loan scheme in the one case, more dodgy property dealings in the other case, this time involving the hubby declaring himself personally bankrupt (misusing a specific scheme designed for the poor) to ditch debt from the business that was trading using the MP's name but registered only in the husbands name, while the wife was busy buying repossessed ex council properties for cash.

It may or may not be illegal, we'll find out in due course, but it's sure as hell sleazy.

No wonder their supporters are desperate to brush all criticism away with the SNPBad meme.

Speaking of which...

SNP bad isn't just a way of deflecting questions or criticism, it's a way of mocking opponents who have the temerity to raise issues of legitimate concern. As such, it betrays a complacency bordering on arrogance and contributes to an infantilized political culture in which supporters and activists begin to resemble the fan base of a teen pop band.

Proper scrutiny will be more important than ever. If the Nationalists choose to cry "SNP bad" rather than engage in debate, policy-making will be poorer for it.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14168043._SNP_bad__is_contributing_to_an_infantilized_political_culture/?ref=ar