Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

Or the SNP actually prove themselves as being a capable Government. Rather than using the crutch of Westminster to pass the blame too.

Generali

.string. wrote: »

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)

The SNP don't do compromise it seems if the stupid comment about a pound is anything to go by.

They entered into the talks in bad faith and have never had any wish to enter into an agreement. It's just another thing to use to try to point up how nasty and mean [STRIKE]the English[/STRIKE] Westminster are.

The problem with devolution for the SNP is that it just chisels away at the narrative that the politicians in London are responsible for all Scotland's woes. Government is difficult and mistakes will be made whoever is in charge. Given that the central philosophical point of the SNP is that London is too remote to govern Scotland well, that argument may well start to fall apart once the Scottish Government takes on more functions and goes through the usual problems Governments have.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

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.

It needs to be agreed within the next 4 days/week. So that any agreement has time to go before Holyrood for debate before it dissolves. So they won't be drawn out much longer. Just days left in fact.

Do keep in mind, that the SNP are only going by the Smith Commission. I can assure you that everyone has done their sums. It's selling whatever is agreed to the two respective parliaments that's the problem. Westminster is used to having everything waved through without question before now. Must be weird having a Scottish Govt that isn't doing that for once.

But yes, the problem would be the SNP selling this to the Scottish public if it meant systematic losses. And for the Treasury, selling it to English taxpayers as 'pooling and sharing/better together/broad shoulders of the UK'. Neither will be able to back down which is why talks have stalled.

You can see just how very delicate the Union is becoming in fact. Pooling and sharing, even with Scots just isn't good politics anymore in England. Hence a possible Brexit on the horizon too.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You can see just how very delicate the Union is becoming in fact. Pooling and sharing, even with Scots just isn't good politics anymore in England. Hence a possible Brexit on the horizon too.

Anti English. Pro EU. Potentially a toxic mix. Given you've already lost one leader who called it totally wrong. As had no plan B. So short sighted given global events currently.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Or the SNP actually prove themselves as being a capable Government. Rather than using the crutch of Westminster to pass the blame too.

They've proved themselves more than capable of devolved governance. Which is pretty obvious since they've been in power since 2007 and *heading for another 5 years. The trouble is that Scots want more of it, with more powers. Labour was the party with 40 MP's until May 15 at Westminster. The SNP only had 6. Kind of hard to lay any blame at the SNP's door for the 'crutch of Westminster' when they've had hardly anyone with a seat there EVER before the last 9 months. You seem to have a very short memory.

* hence heading for another 5 years.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The SNP don't do compromise it seems if the stupid comment about a pound is anything to go by.

They entered into the talks in bad faith and have never had any wish to enter into an agreement. It's just another thing to use to try to point up how nasty and mean [STRIKE]the English[/STRIKE] Westminster are.

The problem with devolution for the SNP is that it just chisels away at the narrative that the politicians in London are responsible for all Scotland's woes. Government is difficult and mistakes will be made whoever is in charge. Given that the central philosophical point of the SNP is that London is too remote to govern Scotland well, that argument may well start to fall apart once the Scottish Government takes on more functions and goes through the usual problems Governments have.

You think the SNP should 'compromise' into selling Scotland short for future Scottish Govts to deal with ? Just to have powers that even if they match the rUK with, will still have them raising personal income tax ?

But you're right. Westminster has become very remote. It has been getting there slowly but surely since 1999 until this point. I doubt there is much in the way back from that with both Labour and the Conservative's fighting it out for a poor second. How could it be otherwise. Half of Scotland don't want either of them in charge.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Anti English. Pro EU. Potentially a toxic mix. Given you've already lost one leader who called it totally wrong. As had no plan B. So short sighted given global events currently.

Not anti-English. It's just Westminster/Tory politics by and large. There's a fair few English feel the same way if you care to look. Pro EU ? Probably. It all seems a bit 'flat' up here with a load of deja vu re referendum headlines thrown in so far. Maybe it will heat up a bit when Cameron names the date. I hope he has a Plan B.

Salmond ? Remains one of the most popular politicians Scotland has ever produced. Even now. Very astute too. Realised when the referendum was lost, the only way to disassociate the loss from Sturgeon, and keep it all on himself.. was to resign asap and hand the reins over. Brilliant tactics. Nicola Sturgeon got a clean sheet to start with all over again. With great success. :T

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You think the SNP should 'compromise' into selling Scotland short for future Scottish Govts to deal with ? Just to have powers that even if they match the rUK with, will still have them raising personal income tax ?

But you're right. Westminster has become very remote. It has been getting there slowly but surely since 1999 until this point. I doubt there is much in the way back from that with both Labour and the Conservative's fighting it out for a poor second. How could it be otherwise. Half of Scotland don't want either of them in charge.

My point is that the SNP don't want to have any more devolution as it takes away from their main philosophical proposal which is:

"Westminster is too remote to be able to understand the unique needs of Scotland. As a result, the governance failings in Scotland are down to the failure of governance which is a necessary part of the structure of the Union. Thus the only way to resolve these failings is for Scotland to become independent".

My point is that this argument is what we economists call, "twaddle".

Most of the failures of governance in Scotland are caused by exactly the same things that cause a failure of governance in England and in Australia and in pretty much every other democracy across the world: people expect the Government to be able to do far more than it is competent to do and thus it is doomed to fail. Thus the more Government that remains in Westminster the more failure of Government will be in Westminster.

Assuming that the goal of the SNP is independence for Scotland rather than more pork for Scotland or more devolution for Scotland, it is in the SNP's best interests for most Government to remain in Westminster.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

My point is that the SNP don't want to have any more devolution as it takes away from their main philosophical proposal which is:

"Westminster is too remote to be able to understand the unique needs of Scotland. As a result, the governance failings in Scotland are down to the failure of governance which is a necessary part of the structure of the Union. Thus the only way to resolve these failings is for Scotland to become independent".

My point is that this argument is what we economists call, "twaddle".

Most of the failures of governance in Scotland are caused by exactly the same things that cause a failure of governance in England and in Australia and in pretty much every other democracy across the world: people expect the Government to be able to do far more than it is competent to do and thus it is doomed to fail. Thus the more Government that remains in Westminster the more failure of Government will be in Westminster.

Assuming that the goal of the SNP is independence for Scotland rather than more pork for Scotland or more devolution for Scotland, it is in the SNP's best interests for most Government to remain in Westminster.

The only problem with your learned assessment. Is that the SNP took the opportunity for a full independence referendum the very first sniff they got at it. They only had 6 MP's at Westminster and polls were showing barely 25% support for independence. Salmond cheerily waved off Devo-Max on the ballot paper early on too. And they will do so again, the first sniff of another opportunity. It's all about being just a normal self-governing country. There are kind of lots of countries do it.

And I'll tell you this much. England would never ever put up with a Scottish party with no seats or only one in fact, in charge of their governance. The last General Election proved that without doubt. Am not sure why you feel Scots should be any keener when it's vice versa ? Labour was the only thing in common politically. No longer though. We're still in early days with that, but realisation will come soon enough. It cannot however as it is, continue for much longer down the road if Labour don't recover.

As an economist. You MUST know that no country in the world grows their economy sustainably simply by hiking up personal income tax. Or even just to stand still. Swinney is trying to stop Scotland becoming a place where just that happens. Repeatedly. He will have a lot of support if this bill doesn't go through as it is. We're all well aware of the what's on offer. And all still too well aware of the Vow then Smith just barely 12 months ago. They don't match up. The bill will only go through when they do.

On the plus side if the SNP ever raise taxes now, at least Scottish Labour will be there offering their full and unconditional support.:T

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The only problem with your learned assessment. Is that the SNP took the opportunity for a full independence referendum the very first sniff they got at it. They only had 6 MP's at Westminster and polls were showing barely 25% support for independence. Salmond cheerily waved off Devo-Max on the ballot paper early on too. And they will do so again, the first sniff of another opportunity. It's all about being just a normal self-governing country. There are kind of lots of countries do it.

And I'll tell you this much. England would never ever put up with a Scottish party with no seats or only one in fact, in charge of their governance. The last General Election proved that without doubt. Am not sure why you feel Scots should be any keener when it's vice versa ? Labour was the only thing in common politically. No longer though. We're still in early days with that, but realisation will come soon enough. It cannot however as it is, continue for much longer down the road if Labour don't recover.

As an economist. You MUST know that no country in the world grows their economy sustainably simply by hiking up personal income tax. Or even just to stand still. Swinney is trying to stop Scotland becoming a place where just that happens. Repeatedly. He will have a lot of support if this bill doesn't go through as it is. We're all well aware of the what's on offer. And all still too well aware of the Vow then Smith just barely 12 months ago. They don't match up. The bill will only go through when they do.

On the plus side if the SNP ever raise taxes now, at least Scottish Labour will be there offering their full and unconditional support.:T

Going for independence at the first opportunity is consistent with my analysis. It fits perfectly with it in fact. If you want independence then you want to set up a neverendum process. If you don't get to ask the question you'll never get a Yes! but if you ask it every few years then in the end you'll get a Yes! by fluke: this year's referendum coincides with the Westminster Government doing something spectacularly stupid (Poll Tax) or a massive spike in the oil price that appears to make the economics compelling.

What the SNP doesn't want is enough freedom that will:

1. Ruin the narrative that I spell out above
2. Show that actually there is nothing special about the SNP's ability to run things. They are venal and corrupt and incompetent just like everyone else.

I suspect that the real problem with devolution is that it gives the SNP just about enough rope....