Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Enterprise_1701C

I am amazed that they have managed to keep this going.

My opinion?

Scotland will not be happy until they are independent and are receiving every penny from the whole of the UK. Even then they would still find something to gripe about.

All we are asking for is fairness for the whole of the UK, if that means casting off the shackles that is Scotland then so be it. They must be really glad they didn't win the independence vote at the moment, considering the considerable gap between expected and real revenue from oil at the moment!

.string.

Further commentary:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35522587
indicates that a compromise solution has not yet been found.

Apparently Swinney says that if the talks break down he will publish some of the negotiation paperwork. A risky approach for the SNP methinks, especially flagging it before-hand.

Another analysis of worth is given here:

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=19218

It has some interesting things to say about what might be in the SNP's collective mind.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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



And Tories now in second place as per latest poll.

Was that the YouGov one ?

YouGov also asked the EU referendum question, and found overwhelming and growing Scottish support for remaining in the EU - on the very same day that a Britain-wide YouGov poll showed the Leave campaign opening up a potentially significant 9% lead.

Yes well. Either we're heading for a Brexit in June as per their most recent poll. Or they've still some work to do on their sampling re binary referendum questions. Which would you prefer ?

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

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.

Yes it did. Which probably means that Barnett will have to stay as it is in order to fulfill it's agreements. Either way.

It was a rush job bourne out of panic in the last few weeks of the referendum campaign. Hasn't been thought through well at all. I doubt it will tie Scotland closer to the union. If Scotland does get further meaningful powers then calls for further devolution are only going to increase. If Scotland doesn't, then calls for further devolution are only going to increase. With an added dose of full independence support since no-one will believe many more promises or vows of further devolution.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Further commentary:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35522587
indicates that a compromise solution has not yet been found.

Apparently Swinney says that if the talks break down he will publish some of the negotiation paperwork. A risky approach for the SNP methinks, especially flagging it before-hand.

Another analysis of hesitation is given here:

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=19218

It has some interesting things to say about what might be in the SNP's collective mind.

Please include the pertinent fact that Jim Gallagher is a former BetterTogether advisor. And there are many other economists and professors who agree with the SNP. But it's a very simple fact that if the mechanism's put forward ( as far as we know as talks are behind closed doors ) by the Treasury will cost Scotland billions, simply by having them there. Then they won't be passed into law by Holyrood. Why would they be ? As they would cost Scotland billions.

I posted a page back that Swinney will be releasing all the papers. The truth is that the SNP will be damned if they do and damned if they don't on this deal in the media. So may as well stick to what they feel is the right course of action for Scotland. Most especially as no detriment was agreed by all sides in the Smith Commission and be open about the whole thing.

I actually wonder if the SNP won't just turn this round onto the Scottish people IF talks fail. And do some sort of vote in the next year or so on what powers Scots do want, ( polls show 60%+ want some form of proper Devo max ). Then simply present them to Westminster. Either as the basis for a revised Scotland Act, or, if refused ( most likely). as stepping stone to second referendum on full independence just after the next Conservative govt is elected ( looking likely ).

Is a long range plan barring a Brexit. But that's what I'd do. I'd just simply ask what Scots actually want devolved. Then hand the the results of any such vote to Westminster. No danger of any dodgy legalities there either as any vote would be on devolved matters. And all other Scottish parties would have a really difficult job trying to sell the line 'nothing'.

Am just musing though.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Please include the pertinent fact that Jim Gallagher is a former BetterTogether advisor. And there are many other economists and professors who agree with the SNP. But it's a very simple fact that if the mechanism's put forward ( as far as we know as talks are behind closed doors ) by the Treasury will cost Scotland billions, simply by having them there. Then they won't be passed into law by Holyrood. Why would they be ? As they would cost Scotland billions.

I posted a page back that Swinney will be releasing all the papers. The truth is that the SNP will be damned if they do and damned if they don't on this deal in the media. So may as well stick to what they feel is the right course of action for Scotland. Most especially as no detriment was agreed by all sides in the Smith Commission and be open about the whole thing.

I actually wonder if the SNP won't just turn this round onto the Scottish people IF talks fail. And do some sort of vote in the next year or so on what powers Scots do want, ( polls show 60%+ want some form of proper Devo max ). Then simply present them to Westminster. Either as the basis for a revised Scotland Act, or, if refused ( most likely). as stepping stone to second referendum on full independence just after the next Conservative govt is elected ( looking likely ).

Is a long range plan barring a Brexit. But that's what I'd do. I'd just simply ask what Scots actually want devolved. Then hand the the results of any such vote to Westminster. No danger of any dodgy legalities there either as any vote would be on devolved matters. And all other Scottish parties would have a really difficult job trying to sell the line 'nothing'.

Am just musing though.

I understand musing, but I want to pick you up on one thing which you take as fact, and that's the supposed cost (of a supposed UK proposal) of "billions". I saw that claimed first by Sturgeon when she spoke of Billions in years and couldn't help a grin when I saw you -post (sorry, can't be bothered to find the post) about "billions per year". The actual fact is that we don't know what in-between positions are being discussed (today even) and such talk is speculative to say the least.

But that's what we do here!

Should there be a stalemate then I think there will be a very public spat, especially if Swinney publishes the negotiation documents. I don't think he will actually because it won't be a clear cut blame gain and with an election coming up it would be a huge risk for the SNP. ... , and to him actually if he wants to be taken seriously inside any future negotiation.

Your idea of getting the Scottish Public to write a wish list is an interesting one - very Corbynesq. He has certainly spawned a new approach to leadership.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I understand musing, but I want to pick you up on one thing which you take as fact, and that's the supposed cost (of a supposed UK proposal) of "billions". I saw that claimed first by Sturgeon when she spoke of Billions in years and couldn't help a grin when I saw you -post (sorry, can't be bothered to find the post) about "billions per year". The actual fact is that we don't know what in-between positions are being discussed (today even) and such talk is speculative to say the least.

But that's what we do here!

Should there be a stalemate then I think there will be a very public spat, especially if Swinney publishes the negotiation documents. I don't think he will actually because it won't be a clear cut blame gain and with an election coming up it would be a huge risk for the SNP. ... , and to him actually if he wants to be taken seriously inside any future negotiation.

Your idea of getting the Scottish Public to write a wish list is an interesting one - very Corbynesq. He has certainly spawned a new approach to leadership.

Have fun with this lot then ! There's only 3 realistic methods of adjustment. Muscatelli did the analysis for the cross party Devolution Committee, often forgotten Swinney/SNP act on their advice, and presented his findings in November I think. Other leading economists agree with him. As do the STUC ( which is significant for Scottish Labour ). Swinney will release all the documents. He's pretty straight down the line/what you see is what you get/say what you mean. Which is possibly why he made such a mess of being the SNP leader. He's not good at political ducking and diving.

BBC reporting talks have broken up with no deal again tonight.

In exploring the options, Profesor Muscatelli has shown just how much Scotland would lose out if the “per capita indexation” mechanism favoured by the finance secretary John Swinney was rejected. The idea of per capita indexation is that it would protect the Scottish Budget in the likely event its population grows less quickly than England’s. Under other mechanisms put forward, Scotland would be £3.5billion - or even 7 billion - worse off after a decade, with the losses only increasing in future years.

Profesor Muscatelli and other economists also agree with Mr Swinney that per capita indexation meets a key requirement of the Smith Commission (which formed the basis of the Scotland Bill) that devolution should come with “no detriment” - in other words, Scotland should be no worse off as a result of devolution. Importantly, he also insists it can be tweaked to ensure it meets another principle – that the new arrangements are fair to taxpayers in all parts of the UK. It is to be hoped the Treasury agrees.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14243727.Herald_View__The_importance_of_a_deal_on_the_fiscal_framework/

1. Smith Commission Agreement put Barnett formula as a cornerstone. The other methods would in essence work against Barnett, potentially driving spending per head in Scotland inexorably lower. Politically, the first no-detriment principle is likely to be very important.

2. The 2nd no-detriment principle around ‘tax-payer fairness’ is almost impossible to satisfy. It will be violated in any case because of complex interactions between of UK government actions on reserved and devolved taxes and tax-payer behaviour(e.g. CGT and income tax) and between devolved taxes and reserved spending.

3. Although a balanced budget fiscal expansion by UK government might breach the 2nd no-detriment principle under per capita indexed deduction, there is an asymmetry in the relationship between central and devolved government. UK government has a much broader range of economic tools to deal with a deviation from the second principle.

Scotland and the other devolved governments do not have the same range of tax powers as the Central government to offset any deviations from that principle.

4. Scotland arguably does not have all the tools to counteract demographic trends, so it is reasonable to protect devolved governments from additional demographic risk. Scotland is already exposed to demographic risks through Barnett.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_ScotlandBillCommittee/Inquiries/devolution_committee_-_AM_-_Final.pdf

Generali

It's a bit stupid to agree that nobody is going to lose out if something changes. The process seems flawed to me.

.string.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35516879

Talks are still needed, clearly.

In this business it's impossible to get out of speculation mode because of the lack of information at hand (no pun intended). By that I don't mean that nothing is available, but just that I doubt if either/any of us has a handle (that word hand again) on the balance between the new responsibilities of the Scottish Goverment and the cost of implementing those responsibilities, nor the consequent reduction of UK responsibilities and their cost.

As a wicked English taxpayer, I'm interested in a fair deal breing struck which is fair to both sides (a sentiment which I've yet to see expressed by the SNP - it's only about there being no detriment to Scotland).

There seems, however, to be a disconnect somewhere. If it was really true that Scotland would lose X billion pounds, then to make it good the UK would have to provide that same X billion and thereby the UK would lose the money.

I should break off here and just remark that I reckon the figures quoted are probably exaggerated for effect taking worse case examples etc..

Anyway...

I can see different scenarios which might cause such a disconnect.
o the UK is not factoring in properly the money which it is saving
o the SNP is effectively asking for its more generous welfare ambitions to be underwritten or talking up its own cost.
o Nobody has done the sums on one side or the other, perhaps both
o The pull-back of funding is being calculated at a high level of principle, not actuality, besotted by the idea that there is a magic "Index" somewhere.

o any combination

But it's all speculation, or musing.

It has been said that calculating the first year is relatively easy, it's having a formula for the future that is difficult. It's also been said that an agreed formula is necessary to avoid having a knock-down haggle repeated every few years.

I can only add that since the negotiations are so drawn out, both sets of negotiatiors need to get their respective acts together.

Normally one would expect a meeting between principles at this stage (Sturgeon and Cameron) to unlock the business. I don't know if there is enough trust between the two for that.

.string.

Generali wrote: »

It's a bit stupid to agree that nobody is going to lose out if something changes. The process seems flawed to me.

Very true, Devolution has a price, to everyone.

Maybe a better principle than " no detriment" would be "neither side looses much".

(Normally called a Compromise)