Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Rinoa

The SNP want the devolution. But if they're in charge of things and it doesn't go to plan they want Westminster (the English) to foot the bill.

A bit like teenagers leaving home for their independence. They still come round for dinner 5 times a week and bring their washing home to mum.

.string.

@Shakey.- Thanks for the explanation you have.

It's a difficult subject to get a grip on and armed with your explanation I looked for some sort of analysis of what was happening which was not potentially distorted by one side of the argument or the other.

The best I could find was this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35461963

I'll leave it there for the moment since I have to turn my attention to something else, but I thought I would post the link so others could read it if they have not done so already.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Why shouldn't Scotland "lose out" if Barnett is readjusted for falling or static population in Scotland in comparison to the rUK?

1) Because that wasn't what was agreed to in the Smith Commission.

2) Because Westminster won't give the Scottish Govt any other powers to deal with the shortfall.

Either stick to Smith, or start dishing those powers out. Thank you.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

tell me, within scotland is the block grants to local government based on population atall?
so if one council grew a lot, you don't think they need a bigger share of the available money.
How else would you device a fair and more equal scotland


If the overall UK population rises then the total taxation would rise too.
so although one region may get a smaller PROPORTION the actual amount would not fall.

It is a totally fair system : sadly the benefit junkies in scotland
are used to an unfair system favouring scotland, that have lost their moral compass.

Wasn't what was agreed in the Smith commission. Sorry. Gordon Brown, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg were vowing stuff all over the place.

Perhaps if they'd been honest, and framed it as 'sure you'll get new powers, but they'll cost you billions just to stay in the Union'. Things might have gone the way you and I wanted ? Alas... they dressed it up as keeping Barnett, extensive new powers and all lovely, lovely lovely. Stay with us. Don't go.

Losing billions per year from the Scottish budget on population differences, wasn't quite what was on offer ? If it had been, way more might have just put a cross in the Yes box instead. Figuring there was little to lose either way.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

The SNP want the devolution. But if they're in charge of things and it doesn't go to plan they want Westminster (the English) to foot the bill.

A bit like teenagers leaving home for their independence. They still come round for dinner 5 times a week and bring their washing home to mum.

The SNP want independence. But until then will look after Scots interests better than the Conservatives, and Labour will, or have done. Swinney won't veto these powers lightly. But he certainly won't pass anything that he and the SNP feel, will have Scots losing out just by having them there.

Mabye Scottish Labour and the Daily Labour sorry Record are finally seeing the light too. The Daily Record sold the Vow to Scots voters. Panicing much ?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Support for independence falling. Down 4% since Oct 15.



And Tories now in second place as per latest poll.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

1) Because that wasn't what was agreed to in the Smith Commission.

2) Because Westminster won't give the Scottish Govt any other powers to deal with the shortfall.

Either stick to Smith, or start dishing those powers out. Thank you.

Smith also said that any new powers shouldn't be to the detriment of the rUK did it not?
However you do realise that if even the UK Treasury does acquiesce, it just ties Scotland ever closer to the Union. For protecting the interests of Scotland read tacit admission that Scotland is too wee to do without the bung it receives from the rUK.

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If Swinney ends up politicking over 80p - let me know and I'll start a whip round.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Wasn't what was agreed in the Smith commission. Sorry. Gordon Brown, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg were vowing stuff all over the place.

Perhaps if they'd been honest, and framed it as 'sure you'll get new powers, but they'll cost you billions just to stay in the Union'. Things might have gone the way you and I wanted ? Alas... they dressed it up as keeping Barnett, extensive new powers and all lovely, lovely lovely. Stay with us. Don't go.

Losing billions per year from the Scottish budget on population differences, wasn't quite what was on offer ? If it had been, way more might have just put a cross in the Yes box instead. Figuring there was little to lose either way.

the first and most important is the moral position
do you think that all the people of the UK should be treated equally ?
basically should the scots be treated worse that everyone else
or should they be treated better than everyone else
or treated the same as everyone else?

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

If Swinney ends up politicking over 80p - let me know and I'll start a whip round.

I don't believe that the SNP has any intention of signing off on the Scotland Bill regardless of contents.