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

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

When has the SNP ever worried about the machinations of Unionist Westminster in its calls for immediate independence and FFA before?
The SNP and people like you, have under the cloak of political pragmatism kicked FFA into the long grass because to do otherwise would inflict financial penury on the Scottish people and you know it!
I wonder how relaxed you and the SNP would be if Scotland was a nett contributor to the UK of circa £8 billion instead of the opposite. There would 'hell up' as we say in Cornwall at such an injustice.
The SNP position on FFA is risable.

The SNP position on FFA is that if it's there, they'll grab it with both hands. And 50% of the Scottish electorate would be right behind them urging them on to do so. That's what they voted for.

Perhaps you need this re-iterated to you once again. But it's not within the SNP's power to take FFA, or kick it into any grass. It's not theirs. It has to be agreed on and voted through over (most likely) years in Westminster. Westminster/ none of the other parties are offering FFA. The SNP are powerless to make them offer it if they are unwilling to do so. So what's your beef ?

And I don't know how other SNP voters on here or elsewhere feel, but overall I'm getting a feeling that this is just kind of the last straw. Watching the debates and seeing how Tories/Labour and the occasional ( very occasional these days ) Lib Dem play tag teams with each other over the SNP and the Smith commission is so disheartening. But even a few weeks in seems to be further hardening independence/SNP resolve.

As well as a lot of No/Labour voters who voted No thinking that Labour would surely be returned in 2015.. Realisation slowly but surely dawning. Mabye better out of this all together than another 5 years of the Tories, and possibly Labour turning into proper Tory-lite with a new leader to look forward to.

All out attacks on the SNP/FFA and independence desires haven't played so very well for the other parties so far the last year in Scotland ( wipeout ). I fail to see how returning to the same messages/policies is going to do anything but further the SNP in their ultimate intentions for Scotland.<---- ( hint, and it's not FFA ).

Today

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot :
SNP 60% (+13)
Labour 19% (-11)
Conservatives 15% (+3)
Liberal Democrats 3% (n/c)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot :
SNP 50% (+6)
Labour 19% (-7)
Conservatives 14% (+1)
Greens 10% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (n/c)
UKIP 2% (n/a)
(Percentage chances are from the last Holyrood poll from TNS, at the start of the year.)

Note :- While the polls for the rest of the UK were a bit crap re the election. The Scottish ones were spot on.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Isn't that a Labour amendment designed to highlight the folly of FFA?

The SNP is expected to chair the Scottish Affairs Committee. So no. Also the independent committee looking into FFA isn't to be made up of MP's or MSP's.

This New Clause requires the Secretary of State for Scotland to establish an independent
commission of external experts, ap
pointed in consultation with the Treasury Select Committee and
Scottish Affairs Select Committee,

.string.

S0litaire wrote: »

Personal... yes suppose your right.
abuse... nope!

I was just commenting (with comic effect I may add!) that @ISTL replied to your question 4 or 5 times, yet you refused to acknowledge his remarks, insisting that he didn't answer your question. Then you claimed some sort of victory in not acknowledging his replies.

When he remarked about the games of poker or chess being played, It felt fitting to encapsulate your victory stance with the pigeon metaphor.

I hope this has been an enlightening read.
:A:beer:

Not really.
Tromking was right in stating that his question was not answered. Diverting the discussion to other issues is not an answer, but rather a deflection. To be fair to ISTL, he denies being a member of the SNP so cannot be expected to know the secret machinations of SNP "logic". So he could have said, simply, I don't know, or even "my guess would be that they ......"

Shakey has given some sort of answer in claiming, as I understood her remarks, that FFA was not promised, only a gradual approach to it, a tactic that she mooted some time ago.

Personally I don't know if FFA was explicitly a policy of the SNP manifesto, only that some MPs claimed that in Parliament yesterday. I suppose I shall have to look through the da**n manifesto myself to find out, but not with this geriatric mini-tablet I won't.

Maybe I should ask a passing SNPer if FFA is in that manifesto but I don't think I will. I shall probably be attacked with a limp budgy or something.

EDIT: Oh I suppose I should add that I think it's very clear that the reason the SNP have ditched the concept of FFA is because they know full well that it's a road to their own (and Scotland's) disaster; in fact the fact that they push for gradual creep towards it is admission enough that it's not possible. That stuff about not doing it because they know it won't be given or hasn't been offered is pure bull, the reason indeed being metaphored as a chicken. They lack the courage of their avowed convictions.

Tromking

I've read the SNP manifesto as it pertains to FFR and there is no delay mentioned on the specific goal of seeking agreement for the adoption of FFR and these were the accusations made in the HOC yesterday by Tories and Labour. I guess the only way you can test the real motivations of the SNP on this will be to see what happens when the oil price moves. If it goes up expect the agenda to change pretty quickly.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Not really.
Tromking was right in stating that his question was not answered. Diverting the discussion to other issues is not an answer, but rather a deflection. To be fair to ISTL, he denies being a member of the SNP so cannot be expected to know the secret machinations of SNP "logic". So he could have said, simply, I don't know, or even "my guess would be that they ......"

Shakey has given some sort of answer in claiming, as I understood her remarks, that FFA was not promised, only a gradual approach to it, a tactic that she mooted some time ago.

Personally I don't know if FFA was explicitly a policy of the SNP manifesto, only that some MPs claimed that in Parliament yesterday. I suppose I shall have to look through the da**n manifesto myself to find out, but not with this geriatric mini-tablet I won't.

Maybe I should ask a passing SNPer if FFA is in that manifesto but I don't think I will. I shall probably be attacked with a limp budgy or something.

EDIT: Oh I suppose I should add that I think it's very clear that the reason the SNP have ditched the concept of FFA is because they know full well that it's a road to their own (and Scotland's) disaster; in fact the fact that they push for gradual creep towards it is admission enough that it's not possible. That stuff about not doing it because they know it won't be given or hasn't been offered is pure bull, the reason indeed being metaphored as a chicken. They lack the courage of their avowed convictions.

No they don't lack courage. You remember when devo-max/FFA was first mooted after the independence ref ? And it became apparent that Scotland would most likely return a lot of SNP MP's ?
You and others where apoplectic with rage at the thought lol. How many of Hamish's graphs did we have to read through ?

But anyway, yes FFA or FFR was in the manifesto. I've already linked to a 'reader friendly' version too in the Guardian. But as far as I can see, the SNP are doing exactly what they said on the tin. Prioritising the powers they want delivered to Holyrood.

from manifesto :-

"We will demand firstly, that the proposals of the Smith Commission are delivered quickly, and in full."

As implementation of the Calman Commission proposals has demonstrated, the transition to Full Financial Responsibility - and agreement of the detailed fiscal framework that would underpin it, would take a number of years. SNP MP's will work to secure the best deal for Scotland

Then it goes on to say 'in the meantime' we will prioritise powers over employment policy, minimum wage, equality policy etc etc.

Calman Commission

The Commission's first report, released in December 2008...The Commission's final report was published on 15 June 2009...
The United Kingdom Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government which was elected in 2010 pledged to implement the findings of the Calman Commission[15] and subsequently used them as the basis for the Scotland Act 2012.

Years see ? The SNP certainly aren't wrong on that one. That's for sure.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

I've read the SNP manifesto as it pertains to FFR and there is no delay mentioned on the specific goal of seeking agreement for the adoption of FFR and these were the accusations made in the HOC yesterday by Tories and Labour. I guess the only way you can test the real motivations of the SNP on this will be to see what happens when the oil price moves. If it goes up expect the agenda to change pretty quickly.

As above. They did state it would take years to obtain FFA/FFR in their manifesto. As per Calman. Better to concentrate for now on more immediate and pressing devolution to go along with those tax powers. Sensible in fact.

Mistermeaner

I'm bored of Scotland. Just saying

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

will be to see what happens when the oil price moves. If it goes up expect the agenda to change pretty quickly.

Saudi has no plans to curtail production. So OPEC isn't acting in unity. As a result US shale producers aren't being squeezed as hard as expected.

Rinoa

Interesting comments by Cameron on FFA during today's PMQ's following a question by the SNP leader.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-33065295

43.05 in. :rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight

Rinoa wrote: »

Interesting comments by Cameron on FFA during today's PMQ's following a question by the SNP leader.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-33065295

43.05 in. :rotfl:

What was it, there does not appear to be a video lasting 43 minutes nore anything of note in the key points

Four references to SNP

David Cameron said MPs will be given a vote on whether to extend the EU referendum franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds - something the SNP and Labour have called for, while the Tories are against it.

SNP MP Hannah Bardell asks if the prime minister thinks it is appropriate that Sepp Blatter attends the FIFA women's world cup given his inappropriate comments in the past that women should "wear tighter shorts to make it more popular."

David Cameron tells her she raises a very important point. He says Mr Blatter's track record is disappointing and that given he said he would resign, "he should get on and resign".

A tweet to World At One

@PeteWishart: 'Bedroom Tax' was "the iconic totem of badness in the last Parliament," Tories need to move on from "failed policy" #wato

And the worst of the lot

BBC political editor Nick Robinson says Harriet Harman "wrong footed" David Cameron by accusing him of gloating and sneering at PMQs. He says the SNP's Angus Robertson also did something interesting. He adopted a "very low key and statesman-like tone" and was trying to "take the heat out of PMQs", he says. Meanwhile the new Tory MPs "were still operating on the old code book".

Quite appauling and laudible it seems.
How dare he talk in a statesman-like very low key tone.