Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

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.

I have to be honest skintmacflint.. After the Vow and then Smith. That it's no real surprise that the SNP won't pass anything that doesn't adhere to them in full. Yes, neither of them came close to what they wanted, but they lost the referendum, at it's what was agreed by everyone. I fail to see where the problem is if the Scottish Govt don't accept the bill on the basis, very simply, that it wasn't what all parties signed up to at the time. Let's face it, it's not like the SNP got anything else through in the following months to change it.

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.

I know you'd like to think that's true. And I can understand why. But they've been saying this stuff since 2007. It's getting old, fast.

27 January 2016

I have lost count of the people who have asked me in the last few weeks when the shine will start to come off the SNP. The answer is: not yet. It is remarkable that a party can have four of its new MPs at Westminster facing serious allegations of wrongdoing and hardly miss a step, and in Edinburgh they power on.
Writing this in January, it seems rash to predict a result in May. Who knows what cataclysm might be lurking round the corner? But as things stand now, there will be another SNP government and Labour's agony in Scotland will continue.
Their efforts now are directed at avoiding one particular horror, a nightmare for them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35407940

The SNP are a broad church, whatever Generali and others would like to think re Scottish people 'being thick'. Their traditional heartlands are in rich rural farming areas.. it's only recently they've made inroads into cities like Glasgow. Both now vote for them.

Labour collapsing, and a UK Tory government.. make that even more the case going forward not less. Labour's only hope now in Scotland really, is to declare support for independence or real Home Rule. And to be honest, I can't see that it's very far off now. It'll be irrelevance or independence ( one way or the other ). Because holding fast to this dogged belief in the union with only 1 Westminster MP, and their votes eroding fast both in Holyrood ( where they're predicted to lose all constituency seats ) and the year following perhaps all the councils... Cannot continue. Uk Tories have given up on Scotland. Uk Labour will at some point too. Scottish Labour still have a chance to pull things back.. but only if they stop reliving 2011-2014 and realise that priorities have changed for voters.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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:

LOL. Calm down STD! HAMISH has written plenty about how the supporters of independence tend to be the bludgers rather than the grafters.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Let's step away from the hyperbole and stick with the facts.

SNP ... Their traditional heartlands are in rich rural farming areas.. it's only recently they've made inroads into cities like Glasgow. Both now vote for them.

That is true.

The 'Tartan Tory' wing of the SNP has long been the dominant force in the rural heartlands and middle class areas, and the 'Tartan Labour' wing has more recently started to dominate the deprived, high unemployment, high benefits areas around Glasgow and Dundee.

But only one of those two voter bases voted for Indy....

Here are the No votes by % and area....


Only Glasgow (and surrounds) and Dundee, both areas of very high unemployment and benefits, voted Yes.

Half of Scotland are 'thick'.. and Generali tries to shore up the assertion with unemployment figures posted without any shred of context

OK...

Here's your 'context'.



The only areas to vote Yes in a majority were the four areas of highest unemployment in Scotland.

In all other areas there is a clear correlation that the lower the unemployment in an area the higher the vote for No.



Median income in an area is closely correlated with high levels of education and achievement and low levels of unemployment and deprivation.

Although this is not quite as closely correlated as the relationship with unemployment, it is true that again in this measure that overall the higher the median income an area has, the more likely it was to vote NO.

Generali wrote: »

the supporters of independence tend to be the bludgers rather than the grafters.

That is also.... demonstrably..... true.

.string.

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.

The Smith Agreement principles states that the powers devolved to Scotland should: “5) not cause detriment to the UK as a whole nor to any of its constituent parts” and “6) cause neither the UK Government nor the Scottish Government to gain or lose financially simply as a consequence of devolving a specific power." (read all about it here)

That is what was agreed by all and even by yourself, for you wrote ( link ) ;

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
Apart from an easing off of austerity policies ( UK wide ).. then most SNP 'demands' will by and large be fiscally neutral in terms of the Scottish aspects. Just a 're-shifting' of responsibilities and revenue streams with real tax varying powers to match. Barnett I dare say being adjusted downwards accordingly as responsibilities transfer over. The SNP want rid of Scottish reliance on that that just as much as many others do. The Smith commission, only further. It would probably be a slow process. Not some sort of political bomb going off Westminster way.

I don't think personally there would be much point in going down to Westminster. Then making huge, huge demands that 'only favour Scotland' are unpopular with everyone ( Scots are as fair minded as the rest of the UK ), cannot be passed ( as both Tories/Labour would unite to vote everything down ) and may ultimately lead to the bringing down of the UK Governement. What would be the point in that ?
...

You have also stated in the past that you would expect the Barnet funding to be ramped doan.


Another quote from the Smith Commision:

"The Barnett Formula will continue to be used to determine the remaining block grant. New rules to define how it will be adjusted at the point when powers are transferred and thereafter will be agreed by the Scottish and UK Governments and put in place prior to the powers coming into force. These rules will ensure that neither the Scottish nor UK Governments will lose or gain nancially from the act of transferring a power.

So, as we see, the principle that the Barnett Formula can be adjusted to make good financial imbalances has been signed up by all. What remains is agreement on what the correct financial adjustment is.

The "financial adjustment" ain't nothing.

Shakey take note.

.string.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Let's step away from the hyperbole and stick with the facts.



That is true.

The 'Tartan Tory' wing of the SNP has long been the dominant force in the rural heartlands and middle class areas, and the 'Tartan Labour' wing has more recently started to dominate the deprived, high unemployment, high benefits areas around Glasgow and Dundee.

But only one of those two voter bases voted for Indy....

Here are the No votes by % and area....


Only Glasgow (and surrounds) and Dundee, both areas of very high unemployment and benefits, voted Yes.



OK...

Here's your 'context'.



The only areas to vote Yes in a majority were the four areas of highest unemployment in Scotland.

In all other areas there is a clear correlation that the lower the unemployment in an area the higher the vote for No.



Median income in an area is closely correlated with high levels of education and achievement and low levels of unemployment and deprivation.

Although this is not quite as closely correlated as the relationship with unemployment, it is true that again in this measure that overall the higher the median income an area has, the more likely it was to vote NO.



That is also.... demonstrably..... true.

Yes there is a clear correlation. I'm not so sure I would use words like "thick" or "grafters" though. I would prefer the terms "deprived" or more generally "misinformed".

No prizes offered for working out who has been misinforming the Scots and depriving them of the economic facts on which to make their judgement.

Generali

.string. wrote: »

Yes there is a clear correlation. I'm not so sure I would use words like "thick" or "grafters" though. I would prefer the terms "deprived" or more generally "misinformed".

No prizes offered for working out who has been informing the Scots and depriving them of the economic facts on which to make their judgement.

Thank you for pointing out my crassness. I suspect that living in Australia is starting to give me some rough corners for which I apologise most humbly.

Still, if your support is mostly as dumb as a box of rocks then perhaps you have to wonder if you're treading the right path.

Oh heck, I did it again didn't I. Sorry.

Tromking

skintmacflint wrote: »

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.

The accolytes will refuse to see it obviously, they`ll no doubt wobble on about the large rump of 56 MP`s and the upcoming triumph in the Holyrood elections. This to me however, is just the start of it all coming on top for the SNP, the words "without detriment" are just code for SNP reluctance to admit that the current economic case for !!!!!!, Home Rule and Independence will never meet the credilbilty threshold for enough No voters to change their minds.
If I were a proud Scot the SNP`s desperation to keep Barnett and ergo the 'subsidy' while all the time slagging off the 'cash cow' that is Westminster would grate after a while. As a proud Englishman resident in Devon who is no doubt being subsidised rotten by London and the SE, at least there is honour in that I believe in the pooling and sharing of UK resources for the greater good, not so with a Scots Nationalist I would argue.

.string.

Generali wrote: »

Thank you for pointing out my crassness. I suspect that living in Australia is starting to give me some rough corners for which I apologise most humbly.

Still, if your support is mostly as dumb as a box of rocks then perhaps you have to wonder if you're treading the right path.

Oh heck, I did it again didn't I. Sorry.

Oh I wouldn't deny that some are thick!

The SNP Plot thickens.

By the way I edited my post to read misinforming, my meaning is clearer that way. I also edited (added to) my previous post regarding the Barnett Formula.

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

The accolytes will refuse to see it obviously, they`ll no doubt wobble on about the large rump of 56 MP`s and the upcoming triumph in the Holyrood elections. This to me however, is just the start of it all coming on top for the SNP, the words "without detriment" are just code for SNP reluctance to admit that the current economic case for !!!!!!, Home Rule and Independence will never meet the credilbilty threshold for enough No voters to change their minds.
If I were a proud Scot the SNP`s desperation to keep Barnett and ergo the 'subsidy' while all the time slagging off the 'cash cow' that is Westminster would grate after a while. As a proud Englishman resident in Devon who is no doubt being subsidised rotten by London and the SE, at least there is honour in that I believe in the pooling and sharing of UK resources for the greater good, not so with a Scots Nationalist I would argue.

FWIW, the SW as a region just washes its face. It puts in what it gets out (ex-deficit) or at least did the last time I looked over the figures.

.string.

I also live in the South West. Last time I looked, Scots got £2000 per head more than us. Not that I care, no doubt it's for a good cause.