Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

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.

Jim Gallacher... who's other credentials you casually miss out on... as a highly paid former BetterTogether campaign advisor... has no idea what the current framework, currently proposed is. The talks are taking place behind closed doors. Which is why Scottish Labour are getting their knickers in a twist about it.

All we DO know for sure, is that both Swinney and Sturgeon are sending out messages and have been for a while now, that the deal won't be accepted... if it doesn't stick to Smith Commission proposals which all parties signed up to off the back of the Vow.

Which I think is fair enough. It's too late to be moving goalposts at this stage in the game.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

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

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.

If these talks don't result in anything resembling Smith. They'll be vetoed. The effects, and unpredictable consequences will be of no relevance at that point. Most especially if the 'union dividend' Scots were promised... is simply to be worse off.

There is far too much in the way of SNP this and that when it comes to the Scotland Bill, as opposed to what ordinary Scots would like to see happen, and what we would like in terms of further powers. Or even what would be best for us long term.

It never fails to amuse me to see people like yourself reacting with horror at the thought of Scots being worse off under independence... but reacting with glee at the thought that remaining in the union would. It's a very odd position to take.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

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.

Shrill, Shmill. You've spent at least half this thread insisting that the Vow and Smith have and will be been delivered, 100%, in full.

Very strange then, that you now feel the need to have to defend the the fact that it isn't. Displacing blame to the SNP ( as always ) who insist that Smith indeed, must be delivered, 100% in full. Weird or what. And a real about face for you on this thread I have to say.

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.

We'd like the Vow/Smith Commission proposals delivered in full. It seems that it isn't being as far as 'talks' are concerned, which is why they are stalling. You were a huge advocate of Smith and the Vow yourself.

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?

Sure. No change there from the last 300 odd years then.

There's still time for both sides to come to an agreement. But it's right and proper that the Scottish Govt don't just take whatever it gets no matter what the consequences, just to 'look good' to people such as yourself. It's something that ALL future Scottish Govts, should they be Labour/Conservative/Green/RISE or SNP while in the union, and Scottish residents... will have to live with for better or for worse. As someone said on another conversation elsewhere... it seems BetterTogether, have dropped the 'Better' part.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Jim Gallacher... who's other credentials you casually miss out on... as a highly paid former BetterTogether campaign advisor... has no idea what the current framework, currently proposed is. The talks are taking place behind closed doors. Which is why Scottish Labour are getting their knickers in a twist about it.

All we DO know for sure, is that both Swinney and Sturgeon are sending out messages and have been for a while now, that the deal won't be accepted... if it doesn't stick to Smith Commission proposals which all parties signed up to off the back of the Vow.

Which I think is fair enough. It's too late to be moving goalposts at this stage in the game.

I'm not sure what his pay level is and yes, he is a former adviser to Better Together. I'm sure that in your eyes that taints him irrevocably (as opposed to the SNP who remain simply unbiased reporters of truth and light throughout this process I suppose).

I don't know why he wouldn't know what is going on in negotiations. He, as the rest of us, can look up the minutes of the committee meetings on the Scotland Bill (link). As a former member of the Better Together team he's probably quite close to what is being negotiated too!

The SNP have approached every negotiation in bad faith and I see no reason why they would treat this any differently. It suits their desired outcome to pretend that the Government isn't doing what was promised. That doesn't make it true.

Mistermeaner

I had dinner with some Scottish people tonight. They think that in general anyone who supports independence is thick.

Not representative I know but true none the less

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I had dinner with some Scottish people tonight. They think that in general anyone who supports independence is thick.

Not representative I know but true none the less

That has been my experience of Scots in Australia too.

The only areas that voted Yes have greater unemployment levels than is typical across Scotland (generally an indicator of other problems such as low levels of education and more ill health):

- North Lannarkshire - 7.4% unemployment
- Glasgow - 9.2% unemployment
- Dundee - 8.7% unemployment

For reference, the data come from NOMIS as best I can get them. The unemployment rate for Scotland is 6% and for the UK as a whole it is 5.4%. For London and the South East the unemployment rate is 3.7%.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure what his pay level is and yes, he is a former adviser to Better Together. I'm sure that in your eyes that taints him irrevocably (as opposed to the SNP who remain simply unbiased reporters of truth and light throughout this process I suppose).

I don't know why he wouldn't know what is going on in negotiations. He, as the rest of us, can look up the minutes of the committee meetings on the Scotland Bill (link). As a former member of the Better Together team he's probably quite close to what is being negotiated too!

The SNP have approached every negotiation in bad faith and I see no reason why they would treat this any differently. It suits their desired outcome to pretend that the Government isn't doing what was promised. That doesn't make it true.

The current talks between Swinney and the UK Treasury re a fiscal framework are firmly taking place behind closed doors and are separate from the Scotland Bill. However, the fiscal framework underpins the Scotland Bill. Without agreement on that, the Scotland Bill cannot go ahead.

Don't confuse the two ( which of course you, well, are ). Gallagher knows no more than anyone else. He has no clue. Still, was good for him to get another pointless dig in at the SNP. Old habits die hard I suppose. Though I did like the algebra bit re Barnett on his 38 pages worth ( I follow him on Twitter where he posted a link ) of waffle.

Anyway, if Ian Murray doesn't have the foggiest clue as to what's going on. I doubt Mr Gallagher is any better informed. 38 pages or not.

IanMurrayMP: the people of Scotland are being kept in the dark. Can he give us complete transparency on the fiscal framework? #ScotQs

"So can I ask you, can you assure this House that the fiscal framework will be agreed before the Scottish Parliament is dissolved in March and can you explain why both you and the SNP are conspiring to make this agreement the Tartan TTIP, delivered behind closed doors with no public transparency, which begs the question - what are they trying to hide?"

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

That has been my experience of Scots in Australia too.

The only areas that voted Yes have greater unemployment levels than is typical across Scotland (generally an indicator of other problems such as low levels of education and more ill health):

- North Lannarkshire - 7.4% unemployment
- Glasgow - 9.2% unemployment
- Dundee - 8.7% unemployment

For reference, the data come from NOMIS as best I can get them. The unemployment rate for Scotland is 6% and for the UK as a whole it is 5.4%. For London and the South East the unemployment rate is 3.7%.

Half of Scotland are 'thick'.. and Generali tries to shore up the assertion with unemployment figures posted without any shred of context. And trying to actually really and truly to equate unemployment with 'low intelligence'..

Step away from the keyboards fella's, before you make even bigger complete foolish a.r.ses of yourselves. :rotfl:

skintmacflint

.string. wrote: »

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?

It certainly wouldn't help SNP's ambition to persuade sufficient No voters over to their Independence cause. Or improve their credibility for the reasons you've stated IMO. There isn't a great deal for them to gain in refusing them , more likely they want to delay them until after the Holyrood elections.

Gives John Swinney a bit of breathing space , time to gather his thoughts. He's not the most creative of bean counters. Also gives SNP party central a bit of time to put together a new plan of attack.

SNP's credibility has been dented somewhat recently. Not enough to shift the many middle earning voters enjoying the benefits of SNP's policies the most. But small cracks have started and Sturgeon knows her popularity rise and Indy campaign has stalled for now.

skintmacflint

Generali wrote: »

That has been my experience of Scots in Australia too.

The only areas that voted Yes have greater unemployment levels than is typical across Scotland (generally an indicator of other problems such as low levels of education and more ill health):

- North Lannarkshire - 7.4% unemployment
- Glasgow - 9.2% unemployment
- Dundee - 8.7% unemployment

For reference, the data come from NOMIS as best I can get them. The unemployment rate for Scotland is 6% and for the UK as a whole it is 5.4%. For London and the South East the unemployment rate is 3.7%.

Certainly SNP/Yes campaigners persuaded large numbers of less well off Labour areas to vote Yes with their village hall campaigners and Red Tory rhetoric.

Traditionally though SNP voters comprised middle earning voters who like their centrist policies. Many are public service workers. Most SNP /yes voters I know come from this group. Others were disillusioned Tory voters from the 80's. Hence the tartan Tory name still sticks around.

And of this group around 15 to poss 20% didn't and won't vote Yes, until a credible economic and otherwise case is put forward .