Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Changing the subject slightly; I was watching a press event earlier today with Cameron and Rasmussen, the Danish prime Minister. Rasmussen was giving support to the UK negotiations and said he would do all he could to help. One reason for this was quite interesting in that he said it was in Denmark's interest that the package of measures contained in the Draft deal negotiated by Cameron was passed.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/david-camerons-draft-eu-deal-full-text/

He mentioned that since the measures would come into effect at the time Cameron informed the EU that the UK had voted to stay, he was wishing for a "Remain" vote.

There are a number of reasons for this, including the agreement that Member States could opt out of greater and closer union and a recognition of the rights of those States not using the Euro.

So ... To the point. If the EU States were to reject the deal proposed by Cameron, particularly in the area of the concessions won over Soverignty ( which are significant even if some pretend they are not), I would expect that would inevitably tip the scales to a "Leave" group

If Cameron's promised changes are not implemented, my take is that the drift towards an integrated Europe would be inexorable. Countries like Denmark would be swept up and as for new members . . . .

Really not an attractive proposition for Scotland I would have thought.

Any thoughts from you, Shakey, on that scenario?

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP have never made the mistake of fighting a Holyrood election on Westminster issues. Nor vice versa the last General Election. Usually that's Labour, and why they've lost the last few.

Same issues that a Scottish Government of any political party will face. Shying away will cause votes to drift. Elections are won in the middle ground. Something Thatcher and Blair recognised. The middle ground consists of grounded sensible people who will know when the words spoken are pure waffle.

Labour lost because they had no coherent policy. Still don't. Given the scale of the problem and their lack of understanding of how to even tackle it. They won't any time soon either. The fiscal squeeze has only just started in earnest. Plenty of pain on the way.

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

youve totally dodged the question again. You would make an excellent politician

Q: Are the people of scotland happy to pay more tax to fund SNP spending plans?

It's worth remembering that the British people spent the 1980s and early 1990s saying that they would definitely be happy to pay more tax to get more services from the state and then voted for the party that promised lower taxes and fewer services from the state.

Blair then got in on a policy of increased spending plus obfuscation on how it was being paid for (a mix of inefficient 'stealth taxes' plus borrowing).

The supporters of the SNP might be a bunch of credulous idiots but the leadership are a bright bunch.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Changing the subject slightly; I was watching a press event earlier today with Cameron and Rasmussen, the Danish prime Minister. Rasmussen was giving support to the UK negotiations and said he would do all he could to help. One reason for this was quite interesting in that he said it was in Denmark's interest that the package of measures contained in the Draft deal negotiated by Cameron was passed.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/david-camerons-draft-eu-deal-full-text/

He mentioned that since the measures would come into effect at the time Cameron informed the EU that the UK had voted to stay, he was wishing for a "Remain" vote.

There are a number of reasons for this, including the agreement that Member States could opt out of greater and closer union and a recognition of the rights of those States not using the Euro.

So ... To the point. If the EU States were to reject the deal proposed by Cameron, particularly in the area of the concessions won over Soverignty ( which are significant even if some pretend they are not), I would expect that would inevitably tip the scales to a "Leave" group

If Cameron's promised changes are not implemented, my take is that the drift towards an integrated Europe would be inexorable. Countries like Denmark would be swept up and as for new members . . . .

Really not an attractive proposition for Scotland I would have thought.

Any thoughts from you, Shakey, on that scenario?

Is a complete unknown years down the line. Assuming Leave win, and Scotland leaves the UK. Both big 'if's'.

Whatever the rhetoric towards the EU in terms of sovereignty. Scotland wouldn't be handing over every penny in revenue it produces, then letting the EU decide what it gets back, borrow on it's behalf and decide welfare, defence, tax, spend, business policies and just about every other single measure of sovereignty any other independent country enjoys.

Only to be painted as 'scrounging jocks' for the privilege and then have most of Europe vote in fear of them getting anywhere near an EU parliament ( ie voting to keep the Scots out as happened in Westminster recently, and will surely happen again in 2020 ). I think we'd be ok. And anyway, you're assuming Scotland would remain forever pro-EU post leaving the UK. That's also an unknown.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Same issues that a Scottish Government of any political party will face. Shying away will cause votes to drift. Elections are won in the middle ground. Something Thatcher and Blair recognised. The middle ground consists of grounded sensible people who will know when the words spoken are pure waffle.

Labour lost because they had no coherent policy. Still don't. Given the scale of the problem and their lack of understanding of how to even tackle it. They won't any time soon either. The fiscal squeeze has only just started in earnest. Plenty of pain on the way.

The SNP are the middle ground in Scotland. Labour keep veering from the right of them ( Jim Murphy et al ) to left of them ( tax raises across the board ). Conservatives to the right, and every other party to the left. All of them are having a job trying to dent them from either side, because as you say... Elections are won on the middle ground. See polls, the last two Scottish general elections and the last UK General Election.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

It's worth remembering that the British people spent the 1980s and early 1990s saying that they would definitely be happy to pay more tax to get more services from the state and then voted for the party that promised lower taxes and fewer services from the state.

Blair then got in on a policy of increased spending plus obfuscation on how it was being paid for (a mix of inefficient 'stealth taxes' plus borrowing).

The supporters of the SNP might be a bunch of credulous idiots but the leadership are a bright bunch.

But then, if it's a choice between any other tax raising party in Scotland, which is pretty much all of them should the new Scotland Act come into play, and the Tories. Any other tax raising party will win. Comfortably too. May as well start the ball rolling if the powers are there on the independence thing even if Scotland isn't yet.

Devolution hasn't worked out so badly in doing things a bit differently and has only fired up the desire of most of the electorate to go much further. If not independence yet. But the SNP will want a clear majority in May. Now isn't the time to be upsetting applecarts. Certainly not by waving through half baked tax raising ideas by the opposition.. *who've realised that basing their own manifestos on the new Scotland Act being in play might not be happening.* Swinney might actually say 'no deal' on the basis that it's not what was agreed by the Smith Commission. And rightly so. The goalpost's won't be moving at this stage in the game just to please Kezia Dugdale and Ruth Davidson.

Sensible also given an unsympathetic media. Corbyn is being crushed by them. The Scotland Act going through or not is the one thing that's absolutely crucial to how things will play out over the next few months in Scotland. Fantasy tax rises can wait until that at least is confirmed.

* The reason why Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Labour are so completely desperate for Swinney to agree a deal, any deal and who cares if Scots are worse off before 12 Feb and we all know it fine well too.

Generali

The SNP are likely to try to veto the Scotland Bill because that's what they do.

The SNP haven't entered into any negotiation in good faith since the start of the process of the referendum process and I see nothing that makes me think that anything has changed.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Is a complete unknown years down the line. Assuming Leave win, and Scotland leaves the UK. Both big 'if's'.

Whatever the rhetoric towards the EU in terms of sovereignty. Scotland wouldn't be handing over every penny in revenue it produces, then letting the EU decide what it gets back, borrow on it's behalf and decide welfare, defence, tax, spend, business policies and just about every other single measure of sovereignty any other independent country enjoys.

Only to be painted as 'scrounging jocks' for the privilege and then have most of Europe vote in fear of them getting anywhere near an EU parliament ( ie voting to keep the Scots out as happened in Westminster recently, and will surely happen again in 2020 ). I think we'd be ok. And anyway, you're assuming Scotland would remain forever pro-EU post leaving the UK. That's also an unknown.

do remember that scotland will be a net contributor to the EU (to help build roads and infrastructure in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria etc ) whilst in the UK, Scots receive massively more that they contribute.

but its probably true that the scots won't be seen as scroungers any more but will still be whingers (but with good cause )

roll on May elections

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The SNP are likely to try to veto the Scotland Bill because that's what they do.

The SNP haven't entered into any negotiation in good faith since the start of the process of the referendum process and I see nothing that makes me think that anything has changed.

That's because you're misinformed. And follow everything pretty much from the tabloids.

This isn't Scotland gaining control of all tax revenues. It's gaining control of just a part of it. Personal income tax. They've asked repeatedly for levers that would allow them to grow the population ( such as visa's for those studying from abroad allowing them to say and work ) and have been repeatedly refused them.

Swinney if he veto's the Scotland Bill, will veto it in large part on population grounds. Scotland's population declining in relation the England's. Which for obvious reasons, and without the methods to grow said population, nor access to other taxes other than personal income tax. Would obviously not be good for Scotland over the coming years. With no power to do a thing about it.

Swinney countered: “A substantial cut in Scotland’s budget – potentially amounting to billions of pounds in the years ahead – is no ‘molehill’.
“We will only sign up to a deal that is fair and delivers the Smith agreement [on extra powers for Scotland]. We will not sign up to a deal that systematically cuts Scotland's budget regardless of anything that this or future Scottish governments do."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/04/treasury-officials-arrive-in-scotland-to-finalise-funding-deal

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

This isn't Scotland gaining control of all tax revenues. It's gaining control of just a part of it. Personal income tax. They've asked repeatedly for levers that would allow them to grow the population ( such as visa's for those studying from abroad allowing them to say and work ) and have been repeatedly refused them.

surely scotland can compete for the 600,000 immigrants pa to the UK on an equal footing with the other nations.
can you not offer free housing and guaranteed high paying jobs