Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

I guess every single area in the UK would be doing that if they could then wouldn't they ?

The Scotland Act is more politically motivated than anything else. And was entirely predicted. Wings was bang on the money even back in 2013. Strangely so in fact.. :eek:

November 23, 2013

1. End the Formula, by which Scottish spending is higher than the UK average. At a stroke, that strips something like £7bn (or around 28%) out of the Scottish block grant, making English voters happy.


2. At the same time, grant Holyrood “more powers” by allowing it to set Scotland’s income tax rates in their entirety, which can be portrayed as a gesture of major devolution (and indeed, technically is). The Scottish media can then present this as a positive, saying the Unionist parties – and chiefly Labour – have kept their pre-referendum promises and delivered extra powers.


3. Now, to fill the huge £7bn hole that’s just opened up in Holyrood’s coffers (because Barnett’s gone, but all the North Sea cash is still going straight to Westminster), the Scottish Government – not the UK government – is the one that has to make swingeing cuts to services or whopping tax increases.
Labour has already conceded the 2016 Scottish election, so in practice “the Scottish Government” means the SNP, with catastrophic results on the popularity of a party which may already be damaged by losing the referendum.


4. The Tories, meanwhile, can use the devolution of taxation to further reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster – because Scottish MPs will have fewer responsibilities – and also to reduce their influence by finally excluding them from votes on matters that don’t affect Scotland (the “English question” mentioned in the Herald, more usually called the “West Lothian Question”).


5. So the Tories win, because they’ve reduced Labour’s numbers and influence at the Commons. And while Labour will grumble a bit at that, they’ll mostly be delighted because of the body blow dealt to the SNP, and because in reality they know that their Scottish MPs almost never make a difference to whether they win Westminster elections or not anyway.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/joining-the-dots/

That 7 billion ish seems to come up a lot. The question with the new Scotland Act if it's accepted. Is whether it's a price worth paying to stay in the Union rather than for leaving it. Swinney doesn't think so. I very much doubt many of us do to be honest.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I guess every single area in the UK would be doing that if they could then wouldn't they ?

The Scotland Act is more politically motivated than anything else. And was entirely predicted. Wings was bang on the money even back in 2013. Strangely so in fact.. :eek:

November 23, 2013http://wingsoverscotland.com/joining-the-dots/

That 7 billion ish seems to come up a lot. The question with the new Scotland Act if it's accepted. Is whether it's a price worth paying to stay in the Union rather than for leaving it. Swinney doesn't think so. I very much doubt many of us do to be honest.

is there any reason to stop scotland offering free housing to immigrants?

Mistermeaner

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I guess every single area in the UK would be doing that if they could then wouldn't they ?

The Scotland Act is more politically motivated than anything else. And was entirely predicted. Wings was bang on the money even back in 2013. Strangely so in fact.. :eek:

November 23, 2013http://wingsoverscotland.com/joining-the-dots/

. End the Formula, by which Scottish spending is higher than the UK average. At a stroke, that strips something like £7bn (or around 28%) out of the Scottish block grant, making English voters happy.


2. At the same time, grant Holyrood “more powers” by allowing it to set Scotland’s income tax rates in their entirety, which can be portrayed as a gesture of major devolution (and indeed, technically is). The Scottish media can then present this as a positive, saying the Unionist parties – and chiefly Labour – have kept their pre-referendum promises and delivered extra powers.


3. Now, to fill the huge £7bn hole that’s just opened up in Holyrood’s coffers (because Barnett’s gone, but all the North Sea cash is still going straight to Westminster), the Scottish Government – not the UK government – is the one that has to make swingeing cuts to services or whopping tax increases.
Labour has already conceded the 2016 Scottish election, so in practice “the Scottish Government” means the SNP, with catastrophic results on the popularity of a party which may already be damaged by losing the referendum.


4. The Tories, meanwhile, can use the devolution of taxation to further reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster – because Scottish MPs will have fewer responsibilities – and also to reduce their influence by finally excluding them from votes on matters that don’t affect Scotland (the “English question” mentioned in the Herald, more usually called the “West Lothian Question”).


5. So the Tories win, because they’ve reduced Labour’s numbers and influence at the Commons. And while Labour will grumble a bit at that, they’ll mostly be delighted because of the body blow dealt to the SNP, and because in reality they know that their Scottish MPs almost never make a difference to whether they win Westminster elections or not anyway.

t.

All seems perfectly reasonable; the scottish people want free of the english medling and im sick of subsidising whinging

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

is there any reason to stop scotland offering free housing to immigrants?

No need to look so far really.

Scotland could offer free University education to English students.

This would attract well educated people from England to Scotland; there would be a greater likelihood of them remaining post degree too.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That 7 billion ish seems to come up a lot. The question with the new Scotland Act if it's accepted. Is whether it's a price worth paying to stay in the Union rather than for leaving it. Swinney doesn't think so. I very much doubt many of us do to be honest.

That's a quandary for the average Nationalist I grant you. If I were a Scots Unionist brought up on the idea that rUK is about the pooling and sharing of resources and was a net beneficiary of that, I'd be thinking if further devolution was a price worth paying. Tories neck and neck with Labour in Scotland now apparently, are we witnessing the birth of modern Scottish Unionism perhaps?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

No need to look so far really.

Scotland could offer free University education to English students.

This would attract well educated people from England to Scotland; there would be a greater likelihood of them remaining post degree too.

English born make up nearly 10% of the Scottish population. Nearly half a million. There's not a shortage of English people coming to Scotland to live, study and/or work. My husband included.

SCOTLAND is suffering a "brain drain" of international talent due to damaging immigration rules imposed by the UK Government, one of the country's leading universities has warned. The University of Edinburgh said the repeal of a guaranteed post study work visa, which allowed students from non-EU countries to remain and work for two years after graduating, was constraining economic growth...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/14231937.UK_s_student_visa_rules_mean__brain_drain__for_Scotland__top_university_warns/


Reserved power. And Non-Eu students pay to study in Scotland also.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

That's a quandary for the average Nationalist I grant you. If I were a Scots Unionist brought up on the idea that rUK is about the pooling and sharing of resources and was a net beneficiary of that, I'd be thinking if further devolution was a price worth paying.

Not if further devolution would cost even if those powers were never used. Which is what it comes down to in terms of why Swinney isn't playing ball re the Scotland Act.

Tories neck and neck with Labour in Scotland now apparently, are we witnessing the birth of modern Scottish Unionism perhaps?

No, they're fighting it out for list seats in an PR election ( we get two votes ) because neither of them can be sure of winning a single constituency seat between them. Put it this way, if it was FPTP, neither of them would have any seats at all if polling proves correct. It's a stark measure of Labour's demise in Scotland rather than the birth of anything much.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

English born make up nearly 10% of the Scottish population. Nearly half a million. There's not a shortage of English people coming to Scotland to live, study and/or work. My husband included.

...

Make your mind up. Your population wasn't sufficiently growing only a couple of posts earlier.

Be honest. It's just an excuse isn't it.

The biggest risk to the SNP is actually independence, because that's when the excuse sources dry up.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Make your mind up. Your population wasn't sufficiently growing only a couple of posts earlier.

Be honest. It's just an excuse isn't it.

The biggest risk to the SNP is actually independence, because that's when the excuse sources dry up.

It's personal income tax and population growth regarding the Scotland Act. I don't really want to have to slooooooooow things down any more for you in order to grasp things. But if Swinney accepts the Scotland Act is it is, Scotland will get new powers over personal income tax, which, even if they are never ever used will cost billions over the next decade. Since when has ONLY raising personal income tax ad finitum ever been used to 'grow the economy' ?

The biggest risk to Scots ( not the SNP, real ordinary people ), is perhaps now staying in the union in terms of 7 billion fiscal black holes. With Labour cheerleading the Tories on once again.

Not that Swinney will fall for it though. And if he does refuse, I doubt as you've shown, that English voters are going to be very happy with the the SNP. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens. But pardon me for laying things on the line for you in an easy to read and understand manner from another perspective.

Rinoa

I see SNP are refusing to discuss independence at their party conference next month.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/leaked-document-shows-indy-ref-7320330#v3hE5h8o9lGp8h1p.97

Looks like they will remain a small provincial party for the foreseeable future.