Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

This seems to be the problem with the Scotland Bill and the no detriment clause.

Magnus Gardham,

A FURIOUS row has erupted between the SNP and Holyrood's opposition parties over efforts to secure a deal on Holyrood's new powers. Finance Secretary John Swinney will meet Greg Hands, the Treasury Secretary on Monday in a fresh attempt to agree the "fiscal framework" underpinning the new Scotland Bill.
But in a sign of growing tensions around the talks, the SNP challenged Labour to back Mr Swinney's demands for the Scottish budget to be protect when Holyrood gains control over income tax.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14241602.Parties_clash_over_fiscal_framework_talks/



It will be interesting watching how Scottish Labour now react to it. The SNP have neatly framed things so that the Scotland Bill must be fair to Scotland. Kezia Dugdale is going to have to play this very carefully indeed.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

String, a few points in reply. I'm sure he can speak for himself. But the direction this thread took wasn't down to me. And as I've said. If you have a problem with me personally, then either message me, or take it up with the moderators. Otherwise, it's probably best all round just stick to the topic. Because that's how forum pile in's start happening. They can get nasty, real quick.
<--- this was yourself. Up until the 'thick' point we had been discussing the current Scotland Bill. I don't engage with people who show myself so little respect that they would have to stoop to references to blood and soil in order to evoke a response. Respect cuts both ways. You're hard enough going as it is with the constant 'vile' and Natland comments. But I do normally enjoy debating with him.

I have no problem revisiting the referendum should that be what comes up. My problem is that with people that cannot see that the situation is changing and hasn't remained the same. Insisting on applying the same rigid set of political and economic parameters that existed in Sept 2014 over and over again to Jan 2016. They don't fit anymore.

Hardly a list of capital crimes. The single remark you attribute to me is really nothing more than stating the obvious, hardly a personal attack on yourself. I would not know about "blood and soil" which seems to raise such ire in you, and its relevance is still obscure from a somewhat disinterested Google of it. I've not heard the term before, it's not in my vocabulary up to now, but assume it has a connotation of extremism and creates some form of perceived insult. Maybe a bit like the insult of claiming that Westminster does not care about Scots?

I'm certainly not, however, going through your little list; with some drudgery a similar list could be obtained from your past posd's but I don't see the point of such things. That's. "Oh yes it is", "Oh no it isn't" territory.

I've explained why the Referendum experience is relevant from my perspective, ignore the explanation if you want but others won't. It is, of course, a matter of continuous entitlement to hear your perspective.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

This seems to be the problem with the Scotland Bill and the no detriment clause.

Magnus Gardham, http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14241602.Parties_clash_over_fiscal_framework_talks/



It will be interesting watching how Scottish Labour now react to it. The SNP have neatly framed things so that the Scotland Bill must be fair to Scotland. Kezia Dugdale is going to have to play this very carefully indeed.

I can only read between the lines, but I assume the SNP wants to get the income tax money and not make the quid pro quo adjustment which was specifically referred to in the agreed text of the Smith Report.

Seems that subject at least is bang on topic.

.string.

I just found the following which is highly relevant and recommended reading for this subject:

The options for calculating Scotland's block grant

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Hardly a list of capital crimes. The single remark you attribute to me is really nothing more than stating the obvious, hardly a personal attack on yourself. I would not know about "blood and soil" which seem. to raise such ire in you and its relevance is still obscure from a somewhat disinterested Google. I've not heard the term before, it's not in my vocabulary up to now, but assume it has a connotation of extremism and creates some form of insult. Maybe a bit like The insult if claiming that Westminster does not care about Scots?

It's Nazi ideology. Ask Hamish's friend Kevin Hague. Who a couple of days ago had to issue a grovelling, and what must've been for him the most humiliating tweet of his life, apology to Stu Campbell after comparing the Wings logo to the Nazi one... on National Holocaust remembrance day. It has no place in respectful debate imo so I certainly won't be responding to any posts about it. I've said as much.

I'm certainly not, however, going through your little list; with some drudgery a similar list could be obtained from your past posd's but I don't see the point of such things. That's. "Oh yes it is", "Oh no it isn't" territory.

I've explained why the Referendum experience is relevant from my perspective, ignore the explanation if you want but others won't. It is, of course, a matter of continuous entitlement to hear your perspective.

I don't really care what you do string, that's the point. You're a stranger, on a forum. My posts aren't aimed at you. I just disagree with most of what you say on the actual issues posted. Again, the ignore button is there to be used if you wish.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I just found the following which is highly relevant and recommended reading for this subject:

The options for calculating Scotland's block grant

I think we're a little further on from that now. The issue seems to be that what's being proposed will lose Scotland 100's millions as the proposals stand. The Treasury is apparently playing hard ball. I don't have a Times subscription but this article appeared yesterday if anyone else does. It does look like there's an awful lot still to be agreed on. Having to use Twitter quotes sorry.

Treasury must play fair in numbers game

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article4677379.ece

Kenny Farquharson Verified account ‏@KennyFarq The SNP is right. The Treasury is wrong. My column on the #fiscalframework in @thetimes today

Kenny Farquharson ‏@KennyFarq Jan 29
"Even if our new powers were never used, we would be poorer because we had them."

@gerardmcmahon86 Jan 29 @KennyFarq @JournoStephen do we know what has been agreed so far and what is outstanding? I think the minutes should be public.

Kenny Farquharson ‏@KennyFarq Jan 29
@gerardmcmahon86 @JournoStephen Outstanding issues: indexation; borrowing limits; welfare start-up costs; arbitration system.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The issue seems to be that what's being proposed will lose Scotland 100's millions.

So it would reduce the Westminster subsidy from around £9bn currently to what, around £8.7bn?

This is the path you want to send us down with ever more powers devolved to Scotland and ever less subsidy...

Do you not think it's a good idea for Scottish people to realise just how much they're subsidised by every year, and that there are very hard choices and cuts to be made if we want to move towards a model where Scotland spends only what we earn?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...

I don't really care what you do string, that's the point. You're a stranger, on a forum. My posts aren't aimed at you. I just disagree with most of what you say on the actual issues posted. Again, the ignore button is there to be used if you wish.

You don't really care - charming phraseology, but not really compatible with... Oh never mind - don't want to get into pantomime stuff.

But ignore? No. I've only once banned someone once in 13 years of forum posting and that was by clicking the wrong button by mistake which I rescinded straight away.

I don't believe in ignoring people. Forums are for encountering people with new ideas, even those one disagrees with, not running away from them.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think we're a little further on from that now. The issue seems to be that what's being proposed will lose Scotland 100's millions as the proposals stand. The Treasury is apparently playing hard ball. I don't have a Times subscription but this article appeared yesterday if anyone else does. It does look like there's an awful lot still to be agreed on. Having to use Twitter quotes sorry.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article4677379.ece

I don't disagree at all that things have to be fair, but the quotes you give are partial and bearing in mind the unsubstantiated whinging that has been going on continuously from the SNP, especially from Sturgeon, I've no reason to conclude that Scotland is being cheated. Remember it has to be fair to both sides.

I would like to see the detail argumentation, however, before coming to my own conclusion.

For Scotland to have an increase in funding while the UK suffers an identical loss but still has to fund line items is clearly unfair. But I've explained that before.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If you have an issue with me personally. Then private message me and we'll talk there. Otherwise. Why don't you get back to letting us all know what the Scottish Conservatives are going to do about free prescriptions, council taxes and tuition fees ?

Nothing hit home skinmacflint. I deal with posters getting lost in personal grievances when they don't agree on forums all day, every day. You and Generali being prime examples today. It just bores me that's all. I can't be bothered getting into slagging matches. Blood and soil is beyond the pale though. I won't engage with that sort of crap aimed at me. Sorry.

Think I've already explained my position. Therefore will just continue to comment on this thread as and when I choose.

I've also already responded to your question regarding other party polices for the H/R election.