How will the economy be affected by SNP MPs; will it be for richer or for poorer and

.string.

How will the economy be affected by SNP MPs; will it be for richer or for poorer and for whom?


Early accounts of the behaviour of SNP MPs have not been portayed them as exemplary and one has to wonder if their contribution will have value to the work which has to be done in Parliament.

As yet this is not clear, but it should soon emerge as they contribute to debates

This thread is here to track the antics of the SNP machine in Westminster, to distinguish substance from rhetoric and evaluate the policies they put forward: Do they benefit only Scotland? Do they also benefit the UK? Or do they benefit neither? Are they individuals or are they a pack?

Also of interest is the way in which they are received; does that reflect the Scottish MPs' position as MPs of the United Kingdom.

.string.

The SNP’s early antics in The Houses of Parliament are not encouraging.

Gravitas is not an essential essence of Parliamentary behaviour but respect is; are both of these to be absent?

Perhaps they are all football fans.

.string.

When MPs are sworn into Parliament they are required to give a vote of allegiance to the Queen.

It is reported that Natalie McGarry, a fierce anti monarchist, used Twitter to disown the oath she had just taken - see this report in the link in my post above.

Does that mean one can only believe what she says if she confirms it on Twitter? I suspect so.

A case for expulsion from Parliament? - probably,

CLAPTON

SNP MPs will be primarily concerned with actions that
-further the road to independence
-enhance their election prospect for Holyrood 2016

after these two priorities then
-anything that involved further spending
-anything that causes more borrowing
-anything that differentiates between England and Scotland will be supported irrespective of the merits of the case.

.string.

Salmond made a couple of remarks recently which need dissecting a little bit. I should add at th outset, though, that these are just my thoughts on what might be on his mind. If I were a mind-reader - well I would not want to go there anyway!

He said: (Google words below (GWB) and you’ll easily find a link of your choice)

"You should have it (the referendum) sooner rather than later - as soon as it can be democratically and properly arranged."

He could be casting stone tablets from the summits of his wisdom, but they make one wonder how a Referendum would impact on the Scottish Election to be held next year.

As usual with Salmond, the silly is crouched in reasonable-sounding language; it is more sensible, I think, to time a Referendum when the issues are clear rather than as soon as the mechanics can be organised.


If the Referendum were held before the election, the SNP would know which way the wind was blowing in for Scottish Voters and adopt the most populist policy on the matter. I suspect the SNP would like that and may even get their wishes; today there is a rumour that Cameron might be able to conclude “negotiations” with the EU before the end of the year sufficiently to go for a Referendum early next year. It is just possible to get a sense of what he can achieve, but unlikely to be all signed on the dotted line. But expecting “the dotted line” to be achieved is maybe too much for even the end of 2017 so probably the earlier the better to avoid uncertainty in the financial world.

Personally think the Referendum should be timed for pragmatic reasons, not in order to avoid discomfiture for the SNP.


The second recent remark of Salmond (GWB) is:

"You can't pretend that the UK isn't capable of surviving as an economy outside the EU. No more than the pretence that Scotland wasn't capable of being an independent prosperous country with its natural resource and human base is a credible argument. These are not credible arguments. And if you treat people as children to be scared by bogeymen in the cupboard, then at some stage the kids start to answer back."

The implication that Scotland would not survive as an independent country is a lie, of course – no less a person that Cameron said it would. The problem was that it would be at a lower level of existence than was available through the Union.

But the thing that Salmond is wrestling with is the difficulty the SNP has in reconciling their pro-union-with-the-EU stance with their anti-pro-union-with-the-UK stance. Rather than dealing with this head on, the usual tactic of deflection is used in bring up a faux dragon and killing it and finishing off with flattery of his fans at not being eaten by his invented dragon. Maybe he should stop treating people like children.

What he is hoping is that this will somehow take the discussion away from the SNPs wish to submerge Scotland within the EU, which would surely happen to a small independent eventual new member like Scotland if the ongoing UK-based negotiation does not succeed in loosening some of these apron strings.


Finally, Salmond has said that he advises Osborne to stay away from Scotland because for him to go there would reduce the likelihood of getting a stay-in-Europe result.

On the face of it that’s just another bash-the-Tories remark but that’s a bonus for Salmond and the main intent is quite a simple message to decode: Salmond expects a Stay-in Vote and prefers to be the Knight on the White Charger having saved Scotland from a life outside the EU.

By the way, In case anyone is remotely interested, I want to stay in Europe as well!


Summary comment: Salmond is not an exception to the rule that the words of all politicians need to be examined as much for what they do not say as for what they do say.

But he’s a good example of just that.

chewmylegoff

So some Scottish MPs ate some chips in the canteen and took a couple of photos...How awful.

Anyway in answer to the question they will have no impact on the economy as they are in opposition.

purch

The SNP is irrelevant at Westminster.

Tromking

chewmylegoff wrote: »

So some Scottish MPs ate some chips in the canteen and took a couple of photos...How awful.

Sturgeon`s claim that the SNP will engage in "grown up" politics didn`t seem to last too long.

.string.

The SNP is as relevant as any other opposition party excepting the fact that they represent a large number of Scots, which is not a minor difference and needs to be taken into account. Using the blunt instrument of ignoring them is not an option methinks.

The SNP can be outvoted, they will not wield the power that they hoped to under a Labour Government but the way that they conduct themselves will be important for the future of the Union and for them. Too much hooliganism-inpired anti-union stuff and they risk re-polarising Scots against them; to much Union friendly stuff andfthey will undermine themselves.

I find the balance fascinating as to how it will be played out, mainly because they are now in a theater where they cannot set the Agenda; they can provoke but not dictate, they can vote against but not pass or reject.

From the point of view of the economy as it relates to Scotland and Devolution, I have my own ideas on how it should progress (somewhat along the lines of a take it or leave it approach) but that is not necessarily how it will play out. Some movement from first ideas is to be expected even if it does not progress very far up the yellow brick road. How can it if each step potentially damages the Union?

The SNP's Prime Objective for this Parliament is to obtain an opt-out from austerity for Scotland (or to be more precise anything which is not massive subsidy for their cause which they will spin as being austerity) but that conflicts with the "one more big push" strategy of the Conservatives. Something may well give.

I noticed that Shakey, in the other thread on subsidies, was starting to develop an argument for why the Scottish Government should be supine, not raising taxes to pay for the things which the Scots have grown accustomed to and we have not (examples might be the Free University places and enforced state God mothers or whatever it is (child minders?) and so on); all that indicates that the strategy for not achieving the opt-out from austerity is being prepared and spin is being spun.

BobQ

purch wrote: »

The SNP is irrelevant at Westminster.

If that is the way they are treated then that is the way they will behave.

The EU referendum is significant in that if UK votes to leave the EU, and Scotland votes to remain in it, this is one of the conditions that Sturgeon has indicated would be a reason to again begin pressing for an Independence referendum.

I think if SNP are treated as irrelevant Westminster it will be contemptuous of the whole democratic process. An MP elected for Chichester is just as important as one elected for Dundee. To say otherwise discredits out democracy.

.string.

Naturally the prospect of SNP MPs stamping their feet when they don't get their own way is unnerving.

They are not going to be ignored but that does not mean that they will drive policy. That's what being in opposition means.

But they will be involved in debates and in committees and so on, and in representing their constituents' daily problems and so on. They will not, for example, be involved in writing budgets.

We shall see whether they can do that constructively or not. The whole of the UK will be watching.