Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Take it or leave it Shakey. Your mendacious argument is laughable.

The agreement will give Scotland more control on how money is spent in Scotland.

Only in the greedy dreams of the SNP will it result in greater and greater subsidies. It is a principle, as I wrote, that the new settlement will be cost neutral.

By the way, you are not in a position to accuse anyone of not admitting when they are wrong.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The block grant is a 'formula' applied each year... not a set amount. The stalling point for the Scotland Bill, (as far as I can ascertain), .. going through at the moment. Is that no one seems to know how to readjust the formula, progressively each year going forward.. after the first year.

'Reducing the block grant' is too simplistic, as it's not a set amount. It's based on many variables. The problem with the Scotland Bill is that these variables are changing... Oh and that the Vow/Smith promised that Barnett would continue and all would be good.

At the end of the day. You, and other blinded SNP bashers, are stating that a No vote result, should potentially cost folks like Hamish dear in progressive losses to the yearly Scottish block grant. Potentially resulting in all sorts of public service cuts, higher taxes etc etc ( the very thing Hamish keeps warning about re independence ).

Solely, I repeat solely...in order to 'stick it to the SNP' !!! .. Jolly good... You carry on with that.

No one knows the ideas, mechanisms suggested and implications of all the discussions todate. But how convenient for SNP/Yes fervents when Prof Muscatelli stated ONE of those mechanisms could leave Scotland worse off over the years. Nice SNP spin opportunity to imply all mechanisms discussed must do the same. Simply to stick it to SNP. It's predictable SNP rhetoric.

Hell would freeze over before SNP accepted any offer from Westminster with any grace. Regardless of how fair or beneficially biased to Scotland it was.Which Barnett definitely has been. Doesn't suit SNP's blood and soil nationalist's narrative of division and griping.

But SNP and their fervents have well and truly over cooked the division goose now,. Even in the unlikely event SNP refused these powers for genuine reasons, half of Scotland won't be much inclined to listen. And will assume SNP are simply playing political delaying tricks, we have come to expect. Fracking report anyone?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Take it or leave it Shakey. Your mendacious argument is laughable.

The agreement will give Scotland more control on how money is spent in Scotland.

Only in the greedy dreams of the SNP will it result in greater and greater subsidies. It is a principle, as I wrote, that the new settlement will be cost neutral.

By the way, you are not in a position to accuse anyone of not admitting when they are wrong.

Those that voted No, and despise the SNP just as much as you do... did not vote No for this...

ONE of the country's leading economists has warned Scotland could be left hundreds of millions of pounds worse off as a result of the financial deal that will underpin Holyrood's new powers. Professor Anton Muscatelli, the principal of Glasgow University, said the so-called "fiscal framework" around the
Scotland Bill now going through Westminster was "arguably even more important" than the powers the new legislation will transfer.


Writing in The Herald, he says Scotland could be hundreds of millions of pounds worse off within a matter of years depending on the mechanism chosen to reduce Holyrood's budget allocation from Westminster...

...In the first year after the income tax powers are introduced, the calculation will be straightforward.
But it is understood the fiscal framework talks have hit a stumbling block over how to calculate the deduction in future years to take account of inflation.
Professor Muscatelli argues one of the suggested mechanisms, indexing the adjustment to Scotland's population share of changes to income tax revenue in the rest of the UK, would "penalise" Scotland.

He said Scotland's share of income tax was lower than its share of UK population and added: "This means that even if Scotland matched UK economic performance and grew its tax revenues by the same rate as the rest of the UK, the amount deducted from the block grant would always be larger than the revenues collected from tax.
"Within three or four years, the Scottish Budget could be hundreds of millions of pounds lower as a result, and this loss would grow over time."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14040892.Top_economist__new_powers_deal_could_cost_Scotland_hundreds_of_millions_of_pounds/

And 'more control' ? Every single amendment the SNP put forward to the Scotland Bill was voted against. The Scotland Bill is Tory/Labour from Vow to Smith and from start to finish. Hell bent on 'sticking it to the SNP' no matter what the effects on ordinary Scots are. That wasn't the Vow, and it wasn't what the Smith Commission or the new Scotland Act was about.. by any stretch of the imagination.

It'll be a No from Swinney in that case. Unless there's a fair deal worked out. There's still time yet though. But it won't be anything that progressively makes Scots residents worse off within the union, just so they and people like you get blame the SNP for it. Not a chance !

skintmacflint

.string. wrote: »

The agreement will give Scotland more control on how money is spent in Scotland.

g.

Part of the discussions are also about Smith insisting more control is given to local governemnt. Which won't suit well with SNP who have overseen more control going to Holyrood.

As an example the council tax freeze reduced income raised for local councils. While SNP offered partial funding from central governemnt to offset this loss, it came with 'demands which had to be met' from central government is SNP Holyrood.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

No one knows the ideas, mechanisms suggested and implications of all the discussions todate. But how convenient for SNP/Yes fervents when Prof Muscatelli stated ONE of those mechanisms could leave Scotland worse off over the years. Nice SNP spin opportunity to imply all mechanisms discussed must do the same. Simply to stick it to SNP. It's predictable SNP rhetoric.

Hell would freeze over before SNP accepted any offer from Westminster with any grace. Regardless of how fair or beneficially biased to Scotland it was.Which Barnett definitely has been. Doesn't suit SNP's blood and soil nationalist's narrative of division and griping.

But SNP and their fervents have well and truly over cooked the division goose now,. Even in the unlikely event SNP refused these powers for genuine reasons, half of Scotland won't be much inclined to listen. And will assume SNP are simply playing political delaying tricks, we have come to expect. Fracking report anyone?

The folks in front of the Scottish Affairs Committee (which I watched as it happened yesterday on live feed ) were pretty much of the same opinion. That the 'no detriment' clause would be extremely difficult to implement. And with rUK being the larger element in the equation, any changes there would affect Scottish budgets in the future in a myriad of different ways. Mostly, losing out or in unpredictable ways.

What a shame then that all parties signed up to just that on the back of the Vow. Barnett would continue, more powers, but in a way that wouldn't disadvantage either side.

Are you now saying that the Tories/Labour and other parties shouldn't stick by the Smith Commission conclusions now ? In order to 'stick it to the SNP ?' Oh dear lol.. the Vow and Smith were just fibs sold to the Scottish people as concrete promises in the event of a No vote were they ? Is that what you're getting at ? :eek:

Some of us suspected as much to be honest. Swinney and Sturgeon certainly did. Nice to see No voters such as yourself finally admitting it too.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Part of the discussions are also about Smith insisting more control is given to local governemnt. Which won't suit well with SNP who have overseen more control going to Holyrood.

As an example the council tax freeze reduced income raised for local councils. While SNP offered partial funding from central governemnt to offset this loss, it came with 'demands which had to be met' from central government is SNP Holyrood.

Forget about 'part of the discussions'. Smith was about further fabby super duper devo super max powers for Scotland for the good of, in the event of a No vote. Not a Scotland Bill that potentially loses Scotland millions a year while still being in the union. Much less, as an actual result of still being in the union.

I didn't believe a word of it back then. Shame so many did really.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The folks in front of the Scottish Affairs Committee (which I watched as it happened yesterday on live feed ) were pretty much of the same opinion. That the 'no detriment' clause would be extremely difficult to implement. And with rUK being the larger element in the equation, any changes there would affect Scottish budgets in the future in a myriad of different ways. Mostly, losing out or in unpredictable ways.

What a shame then that all parties signed up to just that on the back of the Vow. Barnett would continue, more powers, but in a way that wouldn't disadvantage either side.

Are you now saying that the Tories/Labour and other parties shouldn't stick by the Smith Commission conclusions now ? In order to 'stick it to the SNP ?' Oh dear lol.. the Vow and Smith were just fibs sold to the Scottish people as concrete promises in the event of a No vote were they ? Is that what you're getting at ? :eek:

Some of us suspected as much to be honest. Swinney and Sturgeon certainly did. Nice to see No voters such as yourself finally admitting it too.

Dearie me you're getting a bit shrill again recently. Are there any other words you want to put in my mouth for me, or anyone else while you're in imaginary 'stick it to the SNP' soundbite mode. Or is that you for the minute?

As for unpredictable outcomes , implications and how no detriment works, neither you nor I know enough detail level about the implications or effects, to be able to form any real opinion yet. But don't let that get in the way of your SNP posturing on here.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Those that voted No, and despise the SNP just as much as you do... did not vote No for this...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14040892.Top_economist__new_powers_deal_could_cost_Scotland_hundreds_of_millions_of_pounds/

And 'more control' ? Every single amendment the SNP put forward to the Scotland Bill was voted against. The Scotland Bill is Tory/Labour from Vow to Smith and from start to finish. Hell bent on 'sticking it to the SNP' no matter what the effects on ordinary Scots are. That wasn't the Vow, and it wasn't what the Smith Commission or the new Scotland Act was about.. by any stretch of the imagination.

It'll be a No from Swinney in that case. Unless there's a fair deal worked out. There's still time yet though. But it won't be anything that progressively makes Scots residents worse off within the union, just so they and people like you get blame the SNP for it. Not a chance !

Interesting. Professor Gallagher from Nuffield College, Oxford seems to think that the framework as currently proposed is unfair to the rest of the UK.

The reason for the SNP's amendments being struck down were because the SNP isn't the Government and so doesn't have a majority in the UK Parliament. The Scots had a chance to vote for them to be the sole electors of the sovereign body but turned down the opportunity of course.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Forget about 'part of the discussions'. Smith was about further fabby super duper devo super max powers for Scotland for the good of, in the event of a No vote. Not a Scotland Bill that potentially loses Scotland millions a year while still being in the union. Much less, as an actual result of still being in the union.

I didn't believe a word of it back then. Shame so many did really.

Complete rubbish - just posturing, as is the following drivel:

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...Mostly, losing out or in unpredictable ways....

The current whine is, like much paranoid SNP policy, based on an imagined future, where all sorts of things might happen based on things which are imagined to have happened.

You cannot, of course, find any "promise" or "vow" for your super duper deco super max made by the UK Government or Smith to show us.

Nor can you predict "unpredictable ways"

Nor can you even say how the SNP would balance the books after separation. That would take honesty and courage by the SNP.


All you can do is parrot spin. Nothing concrete and nothing credible.

.string.

skintmacflint wrote: »

Dearie me you're getting a bit shrill again recently. Are there any other words you want to put in my mouth for me, or anyone else while you're in imaginary 'stick it to the SNP' soundbite mode. Or is that you for the minute?

As for unpredictable outcomes , implications and how no detriment works, neither you nor I know enough detail level about the implications or effects, to be able to form any real opinion yet. But don't let that get in the way of your SNP posturing on here.

Yes it is getting a bit shrill; has been for a while actually. We've known for some time that the SNP would try to find some pretext to make a dramatic rejection of the Devolution deal offered by the UK. What puzzles me is what gain they would get from that because surely it is a huge risk for their credibility in Scotland.

I'd be interested to know how you view that. It seems to me that since so much of their arguments are based on misrepresentation that they are rather vulnerable to clear unambiguous exposure and, once cracked, support would start to melt away. Blame for the collapse will not necessarily go in the direction they hope.

I suspect that the SNP and acolytes are so full of themselves that they actually believe some of their rubbish and think a rejection would place them in some sort of driving seat with the prospect of a glorious Nevererendum to follow.

But they would have put themselves and more importantly Scotland in a very unfavourable position ; to name a few things some of which would derive from the Devolution Package not having been agreed, use of an illegal referendum and its consequences, a Devolution Package which can with/or changed at the whim of a UK Government and a Barnet arrangement which also be changed with no say by Scots at all. I don't find a particularly attractive proposition but that's where they seem to be heading.

Any thoughts?