Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
Still never mind, I'm sure STD will be along soon to remind us that the polls show that Scots want independence. I wonder whether the open and honest debate that the SNP has includes the dire state of the Scottish economy without the London subsidy?

I thought that Shakey's position is that the cost of independence is a price worth paying?

I'm also surprised why we don't hear more about the positive economic consequences for Westminster if the subsidy that is Scotland were removed.

It sounds like there is a win-win in there somewhere, yet both sides are unwilling to admit it!

Mistermeaner

Cant remember where i saw it but some bright spark had a brilliant idea of an English referendum to leave the UK. On scots logic it would mean that England could leave behind all the UK debts to scotland & wales et al.

kabayiri

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Cant remember where i saw it but some bright spark had a brilliant idea of an English referendum to leave the UK. On scots logic it would mean that England could leave behind all the UK debts to scotland & wales et al.

What's wrong with the idea of each region of UK having a referendum to determine the level of support for independence?

We are continually being told just how many Scots want independence, yet we have no idea how many English want independence.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The British Unions keep talking about UK 'defence contracts' rather than Trident jobs directly ( check all the recent articles ). It's Trident renewal that's being voted on.

The MOD state that only 502 jobs will go directly. 'Defence contracts' are another matter. But there is a fair old stance/chatter about that using Trident renewal as justification to 'keep jobs' is the wrong way to look at it. Especially as those with 'defence contracts' can be retrained/redeployed over a period of time and job losses wouldn't be in evidence much until about 2022.
...

If you had read previous posts, you will have seen that the 520 figure did not include other jobs which come as a result of the additional Service Personnel, the infrastructure needed, nor the additional money announced by Osborne Last Year, the latter involving some thousands of new jobs. That new investment was, according to the SNP, a terribly wicked idea because it directly supported Trident. In other words the SNP (that therefore means you Shakey) cannot now claim that "only 500" jobs are involved. 8000 extra jobs have been mentioned of which a large proportion would not be there were it not for the upgrade of the Trident fleet.

You can't have it both ways.

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

I've never worked on nuclear submarine systems, only on aircraft radar.

I did work with one of the biggest defence contractors in the US, which has a 50 year history with nuclear submarine development.

I remember casually comparing the complexity of tracking multiple targets with some of my colleagues in the US. I remember one guy laughing (in a polite way). He proceeded to explain in just a few simplified pointers, why he felt justified in saying that the nuclear submarine was one of the most complicated man made devices on the planet.

I can't imagine achieving design and build of such a vessel with just 500 people.

You had an interesting job there!

500 people seems about right for on-going maintenance/operational manpower, not forgetting that is probably related to man years/ year. But not having read the report who am I to say.

I've worked on defence too, not as a serving member but in research. Attributing costs to different projects can be tricky sometimes, although in a place with just a few projects it should be straight forward. e.g. Was that a hunter sub or a missile sub I just worked on? Who is going to drink all that Rum? Who is going to use this sticking-plaster? Maybe there were underwater gardens to attend which took up the rest of the workforce. Perhaps Shakey can help with that.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

You're missing the point as usual. You can't scrap Trident without a madate to do so. If Mr Corbyn can't get the unions to back him on Trident then he's got a couple of pretty unpalatable choices.

Exactly. The SNP don't have the powers within the UK to scrap Trident, and Labour party in-fighting won't help matters regarding that particular vote.

I don't know why you're so bothered anyway, a weak Labour party is one of the things that makes you sure that Scotland will vote Freedom! in 2021. Better hope the economy is looking better.

We're debating dear fellow.

Shakethedisease

HornetSaver wrote: »

This is most likely how your comment would be reported in the English media if you were asked to give an opinion on English votes for English laws.

But on the point you were making, what makes English votes stupid is that the SNP (and the combined might of their numerous Scottish opponents) can still vote down the law at other stages. So we get all of the downsides (Scots feeling disenfranchised, extra procedural hurdles for every bill, the speaker's impartiality being challenged should the determination of England-only be controversial), with few if any of the stated benefits (with the single exception that it's cheaper for all than having a separate English Parliament).

In principle the idea is sound. It's compatible with the idea of four increasingly autonomous countries within a stable union, which most unionists would argue is what the majority of people in all four nations want. But in practise with Barnett it's unworkable, and the fact that Scottish MPs can vote at other stages anyway defeats the object.

Imo the main driving factor behind EVEL is less to do with the Scots, than it is for locking in an in-built Conservative majority in England. Labour can win throughout the UK, but without a majority in England, they'll have some problems getting things through when in power. They could always repeal it I suppose, but I doubt that would go down very well at ALL with voters now it's in place. But UK Labour are totally against EVEL too as they know this.

There's no denying as you infer.. that the timing of it has been absolutely fantastic for the SNP though. Not a single new power for Scotland as yet, scores of amendments put forward to the Scotland Bill by Scottish MP's all voted down by English MP's, and barred from votes in the UK HOC for the first time in it's history into the bargain ! Could it get any better in terms of how things look to your average Scots voter regarding Westminster and staying with it as an 'equal partner'. Oh wait, yes it could. There's still Trident and the EU referendum.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Oh dear.

http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/01/13/scottish-gdp-growth-lagged-uk-in-3q/

Probably best that Scots voted overwhelmingly to stay in the Union. Lest we forget, GDP includes net Government spending so the loss of income from the 71,000 now (I think) oil workers that have sadly lost their jobs is offset in GDP terms by unemployment payments that effectively are paid by Londoners. Without that balancing item Scottish GDP numbers would be looking even worse.

The problem when your economy relies on a single output is that if the price of that product drops then you are in all sorts of trouble.

Still never mind, I'm sure STD will be along soon to remind us that the polls show that Scots want independence. I wonder whether the open and honest debate that the SNP has includes the dire state of the Scottish economy without the London subsidy?

Riii-iiight. So the SNP.. 'simply don't have a mandate' to block Trident renewal. Yet suddenly, they're in charge of the entire Scottish economy performance. We all must have missed the part where Scotland voted yes and that the Scottish Govt is now solely responsible for running the Scottish economy as a completely separate entity to the UK one. Pull the other one Gen, it's got bells on.

Westminster and the Conservative government at the present time run the Scottish economy. The Scottish Govt get a block grant to administer. So you're absolutely correct.... the Conservatives are doing a really, really poor job when it comes to Scotland. Since they have the mandate.

It might be better all round to have a more local and a government which focuses and targets on Scottish economic issues and management. And with a much reduced population to cater for. Things are obviously going badly within the union as the FT figures show and aren't likely to change. Not when Osborne is openly giving out warnings of bad times ahead and RBS stock brokers are telling everyone to sell, sell, sell.

The Scottish economy isn't just oil prices. You as an economist should actually know that. It's a bit sad that you keep repeating it.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

If you had read previous posts, you will have seen that the 520 figure did not include other jobs which come as a result of the additional Service Personnel, the infrastructure needed, nor the additional money announced by Osborne Last Year, the latter involving some thousands of new jobs. That new investment was, according to the SNP, a terribly wicked idea because it directly supported Trident. In other words the SNP (that therefore means you Shakey) cannot now claim that "only 500" jobs are involved. 8000 extra jobs have been mentioned of which a large proportion would not be there were it not for the upgrade of the Trident fleet.

You can't have it both ways.

The SNP didn't claim 500 jobs. The MOD did after a FIR by an anti-Trident group ( can't remember which ). The SNP have always against Trident on moral grounds. They've been consistent with that over the years. Regardless of jobs.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Imo the main driving factor behind EVEL is less to do with the Scots, than it is for locking in an in-built Conservative majority in England. Labour can win throughout the UK, but without a majority in England, they'll have some problems getting things through when in power. They could always repeal it I suppose, but I doubt that would go down very well at ALL with voters now it's in place. But UK Labour are totally against EVEL too as they know this.

There's no denying as you infer.. that the timing of it has been absolutely fantastic for the SNP though. Not a single new power for Scotland as yet, scores of amendments put forward to the Scotland Bill by Scottish MP's all voted down by English MP's, and barred from votes in the UK HOC for the first time in it's history into the bargain ! Could it get any better in terms of how things look to your average Scots voter regarding Westminster and staying with it as an 'equal partner'. Oh wait, yes it could. There's still Trident and the EU referendum.

Scottish people can vote for issues controlled by Holyrood and its only fair that English MP vote on the English equivalent

you know that is fair

OK, if you/SNP wish to use this as an issue to achieve independence then that simply reflects on how corrupt the SNP have become .
Once corrupt it's hard to go back to being honest: be afraid for the future of your children.
Independence isn't worth any price as many have discovered in the past.