Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

michaels wrote: »

To me it makes them look principled. The principle they stand by is doing anything they can to lead to Scottish Independence regardless of the consequences for democracy for anyone else, and demonstrating to the rUK what a raw deal they (rUK) get under the current constitutional arrangements which hugely benefit the Scots must lead towards break up - if the rUK got a referendum to leave the Scots I would vote in favour.

My my, no one can ever see beyond the frothing can they. A few facts needed here. The bill was relevant to Scotland regarding workers rights ( which are reserved ). That's what the SNP, Labour and USDAW were more worried about regarding this bill. Nothing to do with making anyone 'look principled'. But like you say, is yet another nail in the union coffin when MP's are all over the place today ranting about beefing up EVEL. So never mind.

So, why was the government unable to pass its Sunday trading legislation? On the face of it, yesterday’s vote looks like exactly the sort of policy decision that EVEL was designed for. Under these new rules, the Speaker is required to ‘certify’ legislation that meets both elements of a two-part test: First, the policy must relate exclusively to England (or England and Wales); and second, it must be within the power of a devolved legislature elsewhere in the UK to ‘make any corresponding provision’. Deregulation of Sunday trading appears to meet both parts of this test.
The relevant clause (33 of the bill as debated at report stage) contained two separate provisions: first, devolving Sunday trading regulation (which applies only to England and Wales); and second making changes to workers' rights to opt out of Sunday working ( a proposal which also applies in Scotland ). The amendment on which the government was defeated effectively deleted the first of these provisions. However, under the EVEL procedures the Speaker is required to certify whole clauses that relate to England (or England and Wales), not separate provisions within a single clause. Consequently, this part of the bill could not be certified under EVEL.

The government could, of course have drafted it's proposals as two separate clauses to get around this problem. Had it done so, it appears likely that the Sunday trading provisions would have been certified as relating exclusively to England and Wales.

http://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/blog/sunday-trading-and-limits-evel

Shakethedisease

mwpt wrote: »

It must be really nice to have someone else to blame for everything. No matter what, "Tories did it".

It's not about blame ( though Labour throughout the decades I'm afraid did more to turn Scots voters against the Conservatives than any other party ). It's about what people want and how they vote. Scotland doesn't want the Conservatives in power, and has voted like that for a very long time now. Every time the Conservatives are in power, support for independence rises which is why Tony Blair was bounced into announcing a devolution referendum he didn't want in the late 1990's. To 'kill nationalism stone dead'.

Labour cemented the notion that a Westminster government without a plurality of constituencies lacks the sovereignty required to govern Scotland. In an era where only two of Scotland’s MPs were elected from the largest Westminster parties, where does this leave the intellectual arguments for the political union which Labour helped save in 2014?

Short-term thinking has long-term consequences.Scottish Labour in the 1980s lit the nationalist fuse. It exploded in their faces last May and the damage done is irreversible.

http://stv.tv/news/politics/1345988-scottish-labour-have-no-one-to-blame-but-themselves-for-their-decline/

michaels

Shakethedisease wrote: »

My my, no one can ever see beyond the frothing can they. A few facts needed here. The bill was relevant to Scotland regarding workers rights ( which are reserved ). That's what the SNP, Labour and USDAW were more worried about regarding this bill. Nothing to do with making anyone 'look principled'. But like you say, is yet another nail in the union coffin when MP's are all over the place today ranting about beefing up EVEL. So never mind.

http://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/blog/sunday-trading-and-limits-evel

So why would the Tories (who ae allegedly in favour of the Union) do something designed to make it look like the Scots were looking to have their cake and eat it? Is it something to do with postioning for the Holyrood elections or the EU referendum? This Tory govt does not do something without a plan.

Mistermeaner

I'm quoting me because I'm intrigued in a reply to this problem that has me stumped

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Help me with some maths:


Block grant + some taxes = Scotland's money = £a

Scotland's spending =£b

Currently a<b therefore the deficit grows, the hole plugged by borrowing


Under independence block grant will be less and/or eventually gone. So all things being equal (no change to taxes and spending) the deficit will be larger

An iscotland will have complete control of taxes and spending. That is what the SNP want and that is what shakey wants. We are told that this will be better for Scotland.

Can someone please explain how the values of £a and £b will be different for an IScotland such that not only is the removal of the block grant neutralised but also how £a is increased without increasing taxes and/or £b is reduced without reducing spending such that the deficit position is improved?

Shakethedisease

michaels wrote: »

So why would the Tories (who ae allegedly in favour of the Union) do something designed to make it look like the Scots were looking to have their cake and eat it? Is it something to do with postioning for the Holyrood elections or the EU referendum? This Tory govt does not do something without a plan.

The Scots have had their referendum. It was a No vote. The Conservatives have little else to worry about politically regarding Scotland where they've had 1 MP and a small amount of MSP's ( thanks to the PR system ) for years now.

Regarding Westminster it's useful to keep painting the SNP as upsetting the applecart because if Labour look like getting too friendly - they'll simply start plastering the south of England with anti-SNP billboards again whenever there's an election on. They've done a good job if the posts above are anything to go by of deflecting blame from their own Tory rebels, squarely onto the SNP without reference to the fact that this bill would indeed directly impact Scottish constituents.

No one ever actually bothers to check. Hence the posts and frothing narrative here and elsewhere. Scots voters like myself have had to get into the habit of checking absolutely everything behind the headlines. Imho this why Scottish media readerships, news and politics shows viewing figs are falling off cliffs.

This bill should've been divided into two in order to have Sunday trading laws regarded as English and Welsh only. It wasn't and the SNP voted against the part of it which would've affected Scottish workers. Nothing sinister in that is there ? Is what Scottish MP's are elected to do after all.

ruggedtoast

If Scotland doesn't get independent by post 10,000 they are not allowed to, ever.

Shakethedisease

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I'm quoting me because I'm intrigued in a reply to this problem that has me stumped

Try here http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/gers-2014-15-reasons-to-be-cheerful.html

and here http://wingsoverscotland.com/gazing-into-the-black-hole/#more-82529
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-limitations-of-gers/

Then make up your own mind.

Oh and remember that Wings is a lot more erm 'direct' in his assertations.

Wings Over Scotland ‏@WingsScotland PRO TIP: however many graphs you draw, nobody's ever going to buy that Scotland is a less viable country than Estonia, Malta or Cyprus.

Wings Over Scotland ‏@WingsScotland Mar 9 So if your calculations have led you to proclaim that Scotland is less viable than Greece or Lithuania, they're clearly b*****t.

Shakethedisease

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If Scotland doesn't get independent by post 10,000 they are not allowed to, ever.

Nah, there will be an Sturgeon/Salmond fat subsidy thread 2. This thread obviously hasn't settled matters so I feel duty bound to keep threatening another one.

Shakethedisease

Scotland Tonight should be an interesting watch tonight though..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldwTwxm-DMg&feature=youtu.be

Mervyn King on Scotland Tonight
Published on 10 Mar 2016The Former Bank of England Governor says a currency union would have been "totally feasible."

Colin Mackay ‏@STVColin 51m51 minutes ago
@ScotlandTonight He was really interesting on the Indy Ref and we'll have @AlexSalmond responding and giving his take at 10.30 pm

Sturgeon/Salmond fat subsidy thread 2, definitely a possibility now.

michaels

Why would you want a currency union, surely that would give you the same sort of 'independence' that Greece enjoys - ie much less fiscal independence than you have now?