Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

In other news Cameron and friends down in the hated Westminster find more hundreds of millions to support Aberdeen and surrounding.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35423953

Cripes. They must really hate Scotland.

Pop quiz : will Shakey translate this news as :-
a) blood money
b) hush money
c) Cameron is secretly Hamish's cousin, and they have a plan to turn the whole of Aberdeen into a gigantic BTL.

.string.

BTL = Better Together Land?

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

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

So ? What's he got to do with your post ? Do you need him holding you hand for some reason.

Associating Yes voters with low intelligence as Mistermeaner ( Yes voters are thick )..did. You agreed using unemployment levels as 'proof'.

The biggest demographic in Yes voting was probably age related. As it is now with SNP support. But there are a vast number of factors in play. To take just one, and then apply it wholesale as 'bludgers and grafters' is mind numbingly thick in itself.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The biggest demographic in Yes voting was probably age related.

No.... That's not correct.



Age was essentially irrelevant to the outcome with only one age group voting Yes in defining numbers.

The bigger factors by far were social grouping, wealth, and employment.

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



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




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.

Shakethedisease

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.

As I've already stated there were many other factors at play with Yes and No voters in 2014. I've linked you to them a few times. Gender was another massive deciding factor ( which Sturgeon seems to be eliminating ).

Regarding the SNP however, their traditional heartlands were primarily in area's where it was Conservative v's SNP, and Lib Dem v's SNP. Labour dominated elsewhere. With both Labour and the Lib Dem vote collapsing... the SNP has hoovered up most of their previous support.. across all constituencies, age's, employment levels, financial status, bludger and grafter, regardless.

In fact, at the current time. It's the older Conservative and older 'traditional' Labour voters which are holding up both their voting shares going forward in Scotland. Which is most probably why the %'s are evening out between them in second place. Younger age groups have already switched to SNP in ALL areas, which is why the large scale swings happened. Bludger and grafters alike.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

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 ) ;


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 you keep missing the point. It's not Barnett that's in question. It's the mechanism to change it going forward.

No detriment. Means just that, and all parties signed up to it. You've quoted part of it yourself.

Shakethedisease

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.

This is the first time, well probably forever that Westminster directives aren't just 'rubber stamped' as a formality by Holyrood. It makes complete sense to consider the long term consequences of any changes made. It's Scottish people that have to live with them after all. Not 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.

The, Scottish Conservatives ( Adam Tomkins, string I know you rate him highly ), Scottish Labour, Scottish Lib Dems and Scottish Greens all agreed with it's too. It's not code for anything.

No Barnett means independence. The SNP would love that. Hamish, not so much....

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

In other news Cameron and friends down in the hated Westminster find more hundreds of millions to support Aberdeen and surrounding.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35423953

Cripes. They must really hate Scotland.

Pop quiz : will Shakey translate this news as :-
a) blood money
b) hush money
c) Cameron is secretly Hamish's cousin, and they have a plan to turn the whole of Aberdeen into a gigantic BTL.

Always pays to actually read the article one is gleefully breaking one's legs to impart to a breathless audience.

A £250m "City Deal" for Aberdeen will see the UK and Scottish governments jointly invest in the area.

Separately, the Scottish government has promised £254m for key infrastructure projects in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.

The £254m is on top of the £125 million the Scottish Govt is jointly investing.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The £254m is on top of the £125 million the Scottish Govt is jointly investing.

All of which is coming from Westminster via the £9bn a year subsidy anyway.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

String you keep missing the point. It's not Barnett that's in question. It's the mechanism to change it going forward.

No detriment. Means just that, and all parties signed up to it. You've quoted part of it yourself.

No- I'm not missing the point, that's your forte; there are clearly modalities to be worked through which boil down to arguing about relative costs between Westminster and Holyrood to make sure there are no financial imbalances. In that the arrangement is intended to be permanent it's clear, always has been clear, it has to be valid over time, not just for one year. So there will need to be permanent changes to the application of Barnett although the first year might have special arrangements.

The SNP has some problems: they don't know what they would spend the money on or if they do they won't want to say, they want more subsidy, they are paranoid about Westminster and they want to build a case for refusing the Devolution Package anyway. They would love to be able to walk out as dramatically as possible. It is presumably in what they portray as their interest to dramatise what should be a mundane issue.

I see it as just another negotiation item where the principles to be followed are defined and where the details have to be thrashed out. With good will it should be possible but I doubt there is much of that around, especially from the tone of your posts which as we all know reflects the collective spin machine.

Fundamentally this Barnett Issue is about finding a link between taxes raised and gained on the one side and overall income lost on the other (less savings) taking into account the Responsibilities exchanged. Or if that proves too complex, or rather difficult, agreeing a percentage of the new Scottish Taxes raised to be deleted from the Block Grant as a new line item in Barnett and trading the simplicity of that for a life of arguing.

However, neither of us know do we? Not yet.