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

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Have you any evidence of the bit in bold?

...or is it just more Shakey hyperbole; a projection of hope over reality.

I see rather a lot holding the UK together. All of it outside politics.

The United Kingdom IS a political union. Hardly hyperbole.

The Acts of Union were two Acts of Parliament: the Union with Scotland Act 1706 passed by the Parliament of England, and the Union with England Act passed in 1707 by the Parliament of Scotland.

There is very little holding the political union together these days. EVEL will undercut further true union/UK as an whole politics. Once that goes, you're only left with economics/friends-family ties/sentiment and shared history. It's the economic union that's causing all the strife at the moment.

Hence the endless focus on FFA/EVEL rather than sentiment etc. You've said yourself that you feel there is probably little left re real passion in England in terms of keeping the union. The prospect of 50+ SNP MP's in Westminster was enough to scare many people into voting Tory rather than be 'run by Scots'.. It was a short term tactic that worked very well. But did a lot of damage in both countries in terms of anyone really bothered much about Scotland leaving ( Scotland being equally unenthusiastic about being run by Tories after returning 1 Conservative MP... once again).

Only the economic union is in question now imo. Everything else is slipping away.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There is a very significant difference Generali.

The North East do not as yet have a devolved government acting for that region.

With that in mind, I'm still keen to see what the valid reasons are for not offering FFA.

Because it's not the policy of the Government currently in power of the UK.

The SNP could stand in enough seats to have a chance of gaining Government. They choose not to do so. If they did and gained a majority then they could form a Government and introduce FFA or anything they fancied really.

As the SNP doesn't have 326 seats and, despite the moist underpants resulting from SNP fans believing always likely to be wrong opinion polls in the lead up to the General Election, doesn't hold the 'balance of power', they can't decide what happens to the UK.

Members can introduce Private Member's bills if they get a place in the lottery for them. They will sit on every select committee as a result of coming third in terms of numbers of seats.

They aren't the Government though, even if you really, really wish they were.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Because it's not the policy of the Government currently in power of the UK.

Accepted, however were not discussing policy, were discussing valid reasons.

What are these valid reasons which have determined the policy of the Conservatives?

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
The SNP could stand in enough seats to have a chance of gaining Government. They choose not to do so. If they did and gained a majority then they could form a Government and introduce FFA or anything they fancied really.
...

Pragmatic SNP supporters who wanted a so-called anti-austerity policy had the option of voting for Labour. They could have played the long game.

But...they didn't ... they chose a regional party.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

I see rather a lot holding the UK together. All of it outside politics.

At least half the people in every region and nation of the UK voted for Unionist parties.

Politics and the demos are very keen on the Union.

Rinoa

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

What are these valid reasons which have determined the policy of the Conservatives?

Any number of independent reports stating Scotland would be around £7Bn short of balancing the books. Or £9Bn now the oil price had dropped, or probably £20Bn when Iran sanctions are lifted.

BTW, 18 is the standard voting age for 95 % of countries around the world.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Accepted, however were not discussing policy, were discussing valid reasons.

What are these valid reasons which have determined the policy of the Conservatives?

The demos decides which reasons are valid, hence democracy.

The people decided to vote in a Tory Government. Thus that Government can act as it will within the confines of the constitution.

IveSeenTheLight

Rinoa wrote: »

Any number of independent reports stating Scotland would be around £7Bn short of balancing the books. Or £9Bn now the oil price had dropped, or probably £20Bn when Iran sanctions are lifted.

Some Iranian sanctions are already lifted.

The figures may be well and repeatedly presented, but based on a base of no change.

With FFA / FFR, the Scottish government would be able to make change in the efforts to adjust the economic plan accordingly.

Rinoa wrote: »

BTW, 18 is the standard voting age for 95 % of countries around the world.

That may be, but can we not question it.

I propose that if the voting age is not adjusted and 16 and 17 years olds are exempt from voting, then they should appropriately be exempt from paying taxes as well.

Surely shouldn't be too much impact to the government.

Might make them see the value of allowing 16 & 17 yeards the right as taxpayers of the Uk, to vote.

I could also argue that it is ageist by not allowing them.

Imagine the furor if it was introduced that you couldn't vote after 65

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

The demos decides which reasons are valid, hence democracy.

The people decided to vote in a Tory Government. Thus that Government can act as it will within the confines of the constitution.

Generali, I respect you and all that, but your not providing any progression into the valid reasons that the party democratically decided to go with that policy.

I'm not questioning the constitution, the election result or democracy. I'm questioning the "very valid reasons" that another poster cited as to WHY it is part of the Tory policy.

Lets not go round and round in circles

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Generali, I respect you and all that, but your not providing any progression into the valid reasons that the party democratically decided to go with that policy.

I'm not questioning the constitution, the election result or democracy. I'm questioning the "very valid reasons" that another poster cited as to WHY it is part of the Tory policy.

Lets not go round and round in circles

Ask that poster or the Tories is my advice.

I've given my opinion pretty clearly and (I hope) politely.