Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

So a Real Cockney. Fantastic - no need for pretence at an accent there.

^^^^^^^^

There's the hauners as predicted. :T

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Why should it bovver ya? You 'ave your accent and I 'ave mine. I don't see any Barney there china.

You may think me writing in Cockney is ridiculous. It doesn't matter to me.

You should do it always, on every thread you post in, 24/7, forever more. Otherwise it comes across and an infantile personal dig at at complete stranger for no reason whatsoever on one thread towards one person.

Why don't you write posts in Cockney on other threads Gen ? Add a few Danny Dyer catchphrases in here and there ? People might take you a bit more seriously.

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

Aye I don't let the likes of Gen bother me tbh ... as I'm sure you've experienced the same he's awfy tame compared to many

I am loving the Rowlings law one currently going on .. Daisley used to be funny but really has became so bitter and twisted in the last wee while ... I'm one of the many he's blocked ... cried myself to sleep over that one :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Was waiting for the news to come on tonight whilst in the gym so that I could hear what had happened ... Wee fluffy coming out wi his crap but nothing from big John ... there's a surprise

They have till Tuesday ... I hope Swinney don't buckle

He won't buckle. He would have done so before now if he was going to. Seen elsewhere in a nutshell.

The method the Treasury wants of indexation has been analysed by the IFS and a whole string of economists and found to be potentially disastrous for Scotland. On the other hand Swinney's per capita method is much fairer and could be tweaked to allow Scotland +- £0 and UK +- £0.

Yet the Treasury has up to today and as far as we know, still does, cling on to a method which takes money from the equivalent block grant to the tune of up to £3 bn over 10 years.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The method the Treasury wants of indexation has been analysed by the IFS and a whole string of economists and found to be potentially disastrous for Scotland.

Indeed.

But an order of magnitude less disastrous than Indy would have been.

On the other hand Swinney's per capita method is much fairer and could be tweaked to allow Scotland +- £0 and UK +- £0

.

Otherwise known as "have your cake and eat it too".

The Smith report was crystal clear on the point that there should be no detriment at the time of finances being devolved.

It was not, and was never meant to be, an unlimited blank cheque to infinity should Scotland take the powers/responsibilities and then suffer reduced revenue through bad taxation policies, poor economic growth, or just the inevitable long term headwinds of worsening demographics with falling oil revenues.

If you want that subsidy to continue forever then campaign for Barnett to stay in place with current calculations and without the risk of the ScotGov stuffing things up.

the Treasury has up to today and as far as we know, still does, cling on to a method which takes money from the equivalent block grant to the tune of up to £3 bn over 10 years.
.

But still leaves around £90bn in Subsidy from Westminster in place over those same 10 years.

Perhaps someone should ask Nicola why she doesn't want to take the risk of becoming the most powerful and independent devolved administration in the World...

But was willing to risk it all with Indy (and no safety net) into the face of the biggest oil crash in history.

I wager she'd pull her condescending "incredulous face" act and promptly change the subject.

It's a common tactic amongst Nationalist party leaders.

Farage does it as well.;)

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

But an order of magnitude less disastrous than Indy would have been.

Otherwise known as "have your cake and eat it too".

The Smith report was crystal clear on the point that there should be no detriment at the time of finances being devolved.

It was not, and was never meant to be, an unlimited blank cheque to infinity should Scotland take the powers/responsibilities and then suffer reduced revenue through bad taxation policies, poor economic growth, or just the inevitable long term headwinds of worsening demographics with falling oil revenues.

If you want that subsidy to continue forever then campaign for Barnett to stay in place with current calculations and without the risk of the ScotGov stuffing things up.

But still leaves around £90bn in Subsidy from Westminster in place over those same 10 years.

Perhaps someone should ask Nicola why she doesn't want to take the risk of becoming the most powerful and independent devolved administration in the World...

But was willing to risk it all with Indy (and no safety net) into the face of the biggest oil crash in history.

I wager she'd pull her condescending "incredulous face" act and promptly change the subject.

It's a common tactic amongst Nationalist party leaders.

Farage does it as well.;)

It's called 'pooling and sharing' Hamish. You were trumpeting it to the rooftops for nigh on 2 years with BetterTogether graphics. Oh and you missed this bit.

The method the Treasury wants of indexation has been analysed by the IFS and a whole string of economists and found to be potentially disastrous for Scotland. On the other hand Swinney's per capita method is much fairer and could be tweaked to allow Scotland +- £0 and UK +- £0.

Independence economics are not relevant here. This is the price of the Vow and of Scotland staying within the Union. The broad shoulders of the UK. Swinney won't accept just any old crap sent Scotland's way. I daresay that's an unexpected new experience for the Treasury and Westminster. They should get used to it.

And if you voted No in the expectation of any old crap getting sent Scotland's way after the referendum in the way of income tax fiscal traps. Then more fool you. I don't understand why you'd want that at all, having spent the best part of two years arguing against cuts and tax increases. A fine example of someone so blinded by the SNP, that they cannot see what's in front of their face any longer.

Income tax rises are no way to grow an economy sustainably. You *should* know that. And if the new Scotland act and the block grant is to be based on future population shares and growth. Then the Scottish Govt must have significant powers over Scottish potential population growth also. I can't see how you could ever have one without the other.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You should do it always, on every thread you post in, 24/7, forever more. Otherwise it comes across and an infantile personal dig at at complete stranger for no reason whatsoever on one thread towards one person.

Why don't you write posts in Cockney on other threads Gen ? Add a few Danny Dyer catchphrases in here and there ? People might take you a bit more seriously.

You seem culturally insensitive to my background which is quite horrid. I will have to have pie and mash with liquor to cheer meself up. Maybe play a bit of Chas n Dave on the joanna.

Interesting that having more independence in Scotland should be paid for by Londoners. Maybe you should work on your cultural sensitivity. At least appreciate them for the fine work they do in paying for free parking at Scottish hospitals.

islandannie

just a little reminder.
YOU YES VOTERS LOST.
Stop trying to be the mouthpiece of the majority of Scots.

Let`s please have another referendum as soon as possible or are you deluded nationalists scared of the outcome?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Income tax rises are no way to grow an economy sustainably. .

Indeed.

What is required are cuts to the size of the State and the benefits bill followed by tax cuts to stimulate the productive economy and hence growth.

But I don't see your side selling that either...;)

islandannie

Great news from a real potician.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35616768

The future looks rosy.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

islandannie wrote: »

Great news from a real potician.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35616768

The future looks rosy.

Indeed.

David Cameron says a deal struck with EU leaders will give the UK "special status" and he will campaign with his "heart and soul" to stay in the union.

I look forward to Sturgeon and the SNP-Bots standing shoulder to shoulder with David Cameron and actively campaigning to remain in the EU. :rotfl: