PDA

View Full Version : Full Fiscal Autonomy FFA



rob murray
12-Jun-15, 09:42
Seemingly, Scotland's Deputy First MinisterJohn Swinney has backed his party's bid to have Full Fiscal Autonomy (FFA)included in the Scotland Bill.
As he put it, "The moral of the story is where we can exercise distinctiveeconomic policies in Scotland, we can transform the economic performance ofthis country, and for me that is what fiscal autonomy is all about."
Ok…that good………. the SNP want FFA, they should get it, then the shoutingis over ( bar for another independence referendum ) and we can see how we all get on and the sooner the better. Make a kirk or a mill of it, either way we willt hen see what / why economic policies they introduce and if they will transform the Scottish economy ( ok Swinney has no details or given no real details on an economic growth strategy but I assume that he must have or why shout for FFA ) . No one will ever know if the SNP with FFA can transform economic performance unless they actually get FFA, then we will all see, good economic performance /management will cement the SNP as the party of Scotland, a poor performance,involving cuts / mis management / poor economic growth, will be entirely down to them ( no Westminster to blame ) and like any other party if they are not successful, they will pay the price through the ballot box. So on those grounds I support FFA for Scotland....but Id like some more specific details, so if anyone knows, jump into this thread and give an indication of what the SNP plan

squidge
12-Jun-15, 10:52
That is absolutely what is meant by full fiscal autonomy Rob - to have all the levers that enable Scotland to grow its own economy in the best way for Scotland. The Smith Commission does not allow that. It is right to say that we have had some control over tax for some considerable time and not used that control but there are good reasons why we haven't done that. Mainly because we could only raise the basic rate of income tax only which would impact on the lowest paid in society and leave those on higher wages with no extra responsibility. That is contrary to what the SNP have talked about for the last ten years. That was one of the problems with Labour's offer of tax powers before the referendum - they would allow Scotland to increase taxes but not decrease them. If we are to have control over taxation then that has to BE control - rates, bands, and the ablity to vary it as is necessary.

Full Fiscal Autonomy isnt like Independence - It depends on all sorts of things which at first thought would not seem to be important in FFA. For example, in order to properly have control of the welfare budget we will also need control of Scottish Jobcentreplus offices. Without that we cant influence how benefits are delivered for example or how sanctions are implemented which will impact on Welfare spending. With independence EVERYTHING is passed over on a specific date and with FFA there needs to be an understanding of how spending and budgets are impacted by everything else. And those other things will also need to be passed for control to the Scottish Government. That may take some time to negotiate and work out.

You talk about cuts. The thing about cuts is that with FFA the Scottish Government can make decisions on where those cuts are to be implemented - just like the tax increases I was talking about before, but that also depends on having more influence over other things like the amount that Scotland is charged for UK wide projects. As an example of this we can look at the projects that Scotland is obliged to contribute today - lets say Crossrail. Cross Rail is a project based in London, affecting London and yet Scotland has to contribute to that project. There are others too - I dont have an issue with Scotland contributing to the repairs to the Houses of Parliament for example but i dont think that we shoud be contributing to things like Cross rail or HS2 when they dont impact at all on Scotland. These things will need to be negotiated and a new protocol decided upon where Scotland has some control rather than no control. If we arent spending on those sorts of projects then we have more money to spend in Scotland to help us to avoid cuts. If we have full fiscal autonomy then this issue needs to be up for negotiation which it is not at the moment.

These are a couple of examples which show that FFA is more complicated that simply handing over the purse and saying "here you go - you do the shopping" and more complicated that Independence would have been. We are not getting Independence any time soon - that is clear and before anyone jumps on me and suggests that i am moaning and complaining and whining about it I am not. I am simply recognising that FFA is different than Independence and that we all need to understand that when discussing FFA because these are the things that prevent FFA happening overnight.

I think we will need to see the details of the amendment before we can talk specifics so I look forward to next week. We do however already have the SNP manifesto from the General Elecction which sets out what the SNP wants to achieve for Scotland and is a good place to start if you are looking for specifics. If the amendment is passed next week then we should see that reflected in the Manifesto for Holyrood and so build on the 2015 manifesto to get more of the specifics that you are looking for. This amendment if passed is just the start of what will be a very long process

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 12:03
That is absolutely what is meant by full fiscal autonomy Rob - to have all the levers that enable Scotland to grow its own economy in the best way for Scotland. The Smith Commission does not allow that. It is right to say that we have had some control over tax for some considerable time and not used that control but there are good reasons why we haven't done that. Mainly because we could only raise the basic rate of income tax only which would impact on the lowest paid in society and leave those on higher wages with no extra responsibility. That is contrary to what the SNP have talked about for the last ten years. That was one of the problems with Labour's offer of tax powers before the referendum - they would allow Scotland to increase taxes but not decrease them. If we are to have control over taxation then that has to BE control - rates, bands, and the ablity to vary it as is necessary : NO NEED TO GO INTO SMITH COMMISSION...i HAVE STATED BRING ON ffa NOW

Full Fiscal Autonomy isnt like Independence - It depends on all sorts of things which at first thought would not seem to be important in FFA. For example, in order to properly have control of the welfare budget we will also need control of Scottish Jobcentreplus offices. Without that we cant influence how benefits are delivered for example or how sanctions are implemented which will impact on Welfare spending. With independence EVERYTHING is passed over on a specific date and with FFA there needs to be an understanding of how spending and budgets are impacted by everything else. And those other things will also need to be passed for control to the Scottish Government. That may take some time to negotiate and work out. OK DIDNT UNDERSTAND HAT THANKS FOR CLARIFICATION

You talk about cuts. IM NOT TALKING ABOUT CUTS, LETS BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ON THAT : SWINNEY HAS SAID THE FFA WILL ENHANCE ECONOMIC PERFROMANCE IN SCOTLAND, A BETTER ECONOMY = MORE TAX REVENUE / MONEY TO INVEST ( IN RENEWABLES ) MORE PEOPLE EMPLOYED. LESS NEED FOR BENFITS / WELFARE...READ THE POST IM TALKING ABOUT HOW FFA CAN DELIVER ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY The thing about cuts is that with FFA the Scottish Government can make decisions on where those cuts are to be implemented - just like the tax increases I was talking about before, but that also depends on having more influence over other things like the amount that Scotland is charged for UK wide projects. As an example of this we can look at the projects that Scotland is obliged to contribute today - lets say Crossrail. Cross Rail is a project based in London, affecting London and yet Scotland has to contribute to that project. There are others too - I dont have an issue with Scotland contributing to the repairs to the Houses of Parliament for example WHY WASTE MONEY ON THIS ? but i dont think that we shoud be contributing to things like Cross rail or HS2 when they dont impact at all on Scotland. AGREED These things will need to be negotiated and a new protocol decided upon where Scotland has some control rather than no control. If we arent spending on those sorts of projects then we have more money to spend in Scotland to help us to avoid cuts THE KEY ISSUE IM ON ABOUT IS ECONOMIC GROWTH GET THAT RIGHT AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR CUTS BY CREATING A HIGH VALUE HIGH WAGE, LOW TAX ECONOMY FAIR TO ALL. If we have full fiscal autonomy then this issue needs to be up for negotiation which it is not at the moment. OK THANKS FOR CLARIFICATION

These are a couple of examples which show that FFA is more complicated that simply handing over the purse and saying "here you go - you do the shopping" and more complicated that Independence would have been. We are not getting Independence any time soon - that is clear and before anyone jumps on me and suggests that i am moaning and complaining and whining about it I am not. I am simply recognising that FFA is different than Independence and that we all need to understand that when discussing FFA because these are the things that prevent FFA happening overnight. OK BUT ECONOMIC GROWTH CAN START NOW..WHAT AREAS OF THE ECONOMY ARE TARGETED AND WHY ? AS CLINTON PUT IT IN 1992 RUNNING FOR ELECTIO AND DESPITE ALL ODDS WINNING...."ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID" ( NOT INFERRING YOUR STUPID THIS WAS HIS CAMPAIGN SLOGAN )

I think we will need to see the details of the amendment before we can talk specifics so I look forward to next week. We do however already have the SNP manifesto from the General Elecction which sets out what the SNP wants to achieve for Scotland and is a good place to start if you are looking for specifics. CAN YOU SUMMARISE THEM PLEASE I DONT HAVE THE MANIFESTO If the amendment is passed next week then we should see that reflected in the Manifesto for Holyrood and so build on the 2015 manifesto to get more of the specifics that you are looking for. This amendment if passed is just the start of what will be a very long process ACCEPTED THAT SOME ISSUES YOU OUT LINE ARE GOING TO BE COMPLICATED, BUT NONETHELESS YOU CANNOT TAKE YOUR EYE OF THE BALL, THE COUNTRY HAS TO BE GOVERNED / ECONOMIC GROWTH HAS TO BE CREATED AND MANAGED A BALANCE HAS TO BE STRUCK HERE AS IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS GONNA BE A HELL OF A LOT OF TIME INVOLVED IN DISENTANGLING, TIME THAT MUST BE SPENT ON THE ECONOMY

Many thanks an interesting and for me informed post, if you could summarise economic growth plans for me, even in bullet points that will be even better alleviate my fears that as I say disentangling etc is going to eat up precious time

squidge
12-Jun-15, 12:33
I have sports day today Rob so it will be tonight but I will respond to your post. Probably after I get two over excited littlies to bed

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 12:38
OK Ive had a quick squint at the SNP manifesto...all 16 pages http://www.snp.org/sites/default/files/page/file/04_16d_snp_election_manifesto_290x280x.pdf so didnt take long, only reference to economic growth I can see is below

A focus on job creation

We will support targeted reductions to employer’s National
Insurance contributions to support job creation and theextension of the Living Wage.
We will support an increase in the Employment Allowance
from £2,000 per business per year to £6,000 per business
peryear, reducing the cost of creating and maintaining jobs.
In the meantime, we will prioritise devolution of powers
over employment policy, including the minimum wage,
welfare, business taxes, national insurance and equality
policy - the powers we need to create jobs, grow revenues
andlift people out of poverty.

Thats all...not much substance here, whats so ever : reduce employer NI costs, fine, but unless an employer has a need for staff ( ie through demand growth ) this wont create jobs, ditto employment allowance, there needs to a demand for a firms goods/ services before people can be taken on.
"including the minimum wage,welfare, business taxes, national insurance ( these last 2 are repeated ) and equality policy ( we have laws on equality so whats this about ? ) - the powers we need to create jobs, grow revenues and lift people out of poverty". All what I would call aspirational, I was looking for stuff like targeting export markets and supporting companies through incentives to get out there, generous R and D incentives, supporting business start up ( ie low rates, wage subsidies, tax holidays...incentives to get people to start businesses which will create wealth and employ people ) None of that is there, the supposition is that low NI employer conts, employment allowances, business taxes by themselves will create jobs....they wont, governments dont create jobs, they can influence the creation of jobs ( ie what is in the manifesto is bog standard stuff based on the latter premise ) but people ultimatly create jobs and job creation is based on gowrth / high demand levels. I was surprised to see nothing along the lines of " our desire is to support the creation of a high value, high wage, low tax economy capable of competing in global markets"...thats what will lift people out of poverty.

Sorry but their is no detail nor any specifics in what is a very bland document.

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 13:10
I have sports day today Rob so it will be tonight but I will respond to your post. Probably after I get two over excited littlies to bed

CHeers I have a lot of info on renewables for you will need to post to you / or send by e mail if you can PM me your preferance

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 14:51
Some interesting manifesto facts : most coverage to economic growth / issues Liberal Democrats, worst SNP, lenghtiest is Labour least content is SNP : now in the absence of anything detailed in the SNP manifesto ( come on Squidge explain that to me ! ) , and seeing theyve got the power and we all want to see progress why dont they just adopt / nick Lib Dem proposals which are by far and away the best of all 4 parties ( Greens I never looked at..) LD's actually shocked me, absolute spot on detail..I must confess to never actually having read the major manifestos, but come on SNP = 16 pages / 200 words on economic related matters...do they think people are too thick to take in more ? So once again SNP supporters, can you fill in the blanks for me, bring on FFA...never mind the "complexities inherent in FFA...........wheres the economic strategy / wheres the detail, cos theres none in the manifesto ?

1 Laboursmanifesto 86 pages : Relative to theeconomy : Building an economy that works forworking people... 16 pages of detail
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/BritainCanBeBetter-TheLabourPartyManifesto2015.pdf (http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/BritainCanBeBetter-TheLabourPartyManifesto2015.pdf)
2 ScottishConservative manifesto : 74 pages Relative to the economy : 4 pages on A strong economy to help you andyour family, jobs for all 6 pages 10pages in total
http://www.scottishconservatives.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Scottish-Manifesto_GE15.pdf (http://www.scottishconservatives.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Scottish-Manifesto_GE15.pdf)
3 SNP manifesto:16 pages : Relative to the economy : about 200 words
http://www.snp.org/sites/default/files/page/file/04_16d_snp_election_manifesto_290x280x.pdf (http://www.snp.org/sites/default/files/page/file/04_16d_snp_election_manifesto_290x280x.pdf)
4 Libdem manifesto 83 pages : relative to the economy : 26 pages covering below
Growth and jobs
Growing 1,000 extra businesses withinvestment from Regional Development Banks
Making Scotland the most digitallyconnected region in Europe
Making Scotland the world leader inscience and research
Helping create the conditions to growScotland’s exports
Supporting and developing Scotland as acountry that treasures innovation and creativity
Reforming procurement to ensure Scottishcompanies can compete for work
Cutting regulation by a quarter to helpbusinesses grow
Giving unemployed young people thechance of work experience, internship, apprenticeship or volunteering
Growing a healthy rural economy

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 15:29
Thanks for the links Rob it always is helpful when one is able to refer directly to what the assorted interested Parties actually say themselves, as opposed to others interpretations.
One of the greatest criticisms of the SNPs quest for FFA is the lack of detail in what they propose to actually do with it this has come from many quarters not just political sides.
The interesting big problem is the £7.6 Billion black hole that would be one of the first hurdles that would significantly make implementing any radical reforms difficult.
You're quite correct when you state that governments do not create jobs and the problem as I see it is if Scotland does become a higher wage economy than the rest of the Uk employers will look more favourably on keeping things south of the border the same would be true if tax rates are changed, unless they are more favourable.
Running a two speed economy is fraught with difficulties for Multi Nationals and Corporate entities who employ staff across the whole of the UK economy.
How do the SNP propose to make the Scottish Economy more attractive to investors if the cost of running a business and employing staff is higher than elsewhere in the UK, how do you attract the best staff if they are faced with higher tax levies than elsewhere or how do you keep them here if they are earning less because of taxation. The devil is always in the detail and unfortunately the SNP manifesto is very light in detail when it comes to the macro economic changes that are required to make the country more profitable.

When it comes to railway inter connectivity I can see the rational by the UK govt to link large northern cities with London or investing in London City links, considering the size and density of population within those cities it is more cost effective to Link them than providing a costly link to Edinburgh or Glasgow say,which has to cover substantially more distance for less population.

The reality for Scotland is harsh but simple when it comes to railways insufficient population and large geographic areas. The means the cost and return for each mile of rail track laid is less viable the further north you go.

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 15:31
FFA
Ifthe fact that Scots have “paid more taxper head of population every year for the past 34 years (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32171887).” meanswe’re hard done by within the UK, then FFA will fix that because we’ll get tokeep it all ( tax revenues ) .
Ifwe really do “send more to Westminster than we get back (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SNP%3A+We+send+more+money+to+Westminster+than+we+g et+back.-a0177531147)” then FFA would puta stop to that immediately, because we wouldn’t be sending any of our taxes toWestminster so can keep it all ( minus shared costs : defence etc ) .
Ifthe statement “Independence would have made Scotland £8.3bn better off over the last 5years (http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/83bn-better-off.html)” has any meaning then FFA would allow us to keep our hands onthat excess wealth in the future
If“Scotland’s GDP per head is £2,300 higher than the UK as whole (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/27/scottish-independence-scotland)”meaning “Scotland is the 14th richest country in the world (http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/scotland-is-14th-richest-country-in-the-world-say-snp.23668163)” translatesinto practical economic advantage, then FFA will allow the people of Scotlandto enjoy those riches without them be leached away by Westminster
If“Oil is just a bonus (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1290543.ece)” then the oil price decline shouldn’treally matter a jot
Ifthese economic claims made by the SNP during the Independence Referendum andrecent election are true, then FFA should be a highly attractiveproposition for Scotland. Factor in a high growth economy and hell mend it, wewill in a very good position.
BringFFA on and also tell us the details of the growth strategy.

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 15:41
The future for power generation in Scotland is another interesting subject. Although much is being made of renewables, they are currently unable to power the country if a high pressure system sets in during winter, non turning wind turbines do not generate electricity. With Longannet due to be decommissioned soon this creates a worrying gap in Scottish Power supply. The obvious solution would be Nuclear but the SNP are vehemently opposed to this form of power so how do they intend to plug the growing gap between power generated and power required in the coming years

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 15:47
Thanks for the links Rob it always is helpful when one is able to refer directly to what the assorted interested Parties actually say themselves, as opposed to others interpretations. One of the greatest criticisms of the SNPs quest for FFA is the lack of detail in what they propose to actually do with it this has come from many quarters not just political sides. The interesting big problem is the £7.6 Billion black hole that would be one of the first hurdles that would significantly make implementing any radical reforms difficult. You're quite correct when you state that governments do not create jobs and the problem as I see it is if Scotland does become a higher wage economy than the rest of the Uk employers will look more favourably on keeping things south of the border the same would be true if tax rates are changed, unless they are more favourable. Running a two speed economy is fraught with difficulties for Multi Nationals and Corporate entities who employ staff across the whole of the UK economy. How do the SNP propose to make the Scottish Economy more attractive to investors if the cost of running a business and employing staff is higher than elsewhere in the UK, how do you attract the best staff if they are faced with higher tax levies than elsewhere or how do you keep them here if they are earning less because of taxation. The devil is always in the detail and unfortunately the SNP manifesto is very light in detail when it comes to the macro economic changes that are required to make the country more profitable.

I was gob smacked when I read it, I mean 16 pages !!!! Lib Dems proposed a substantial articulate economic strategy, mores the pity their coalition has killed them off. George Galloways arguement against going it alone was based soley on economics, ie england as wwll as being our largest trading partner is also our largest competitor, and it is inevitable that, given the limited pool of resources in Scotland never mind the aspiration to introduce living wages / highre wages etc that there would be a race to the bottom...ie all we will be able to attract is light low wage srcew driver jobs ( amazon being a good example ) , and if we are competing with ENgland then there inevitably would be a race to the bottom...ie work will go where wages are lowest, taxes are low and where the best incentives are. Again you make a sound pint on cross nation multi nationals / corporates...they would run a mile from dealing with a 2 speed economy, hard facts. However I am now hell bent on the SNP gaining FFA, and delivering what they "vowed" economic growth...I just need some assurance on the specifics surely some one out there can give a steer ?

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 15:50
FFA Ifthe fact that Scots have “paid more taxper head of population every year for the past 34 years (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32171887).” meanswe’re hard done by within the UK, then FFA will fix that because we’ll get tokeep it all ( tax revenues ) .Ifwe really do “send more to Westminster than we get back (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SNP%3A+We+send+more+money+to+Westminster+than+we+g et+back.-a0177531147)” then FFA would puta stop to that immediately, because we wouldn’t be sending any of our taxes toWestminster so can keep it all ( minus shared costs : defence etc ) .Ifthe statement “Independence would have made Scotland £8.3bn better off over the last 5years (http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/83bn-better-off.html)” has any meaning then FFA would allow us to keep our hands onthat excess wealth in the futureIf“Scotland’s GDP per head is £2,300 higher than the UK as whole (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/27/scottish-independence-scotland)”meaning “Scotland is the 14th richest country in the world (http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/scotland-is-14th-richest-country-in-the-world-say-snp.23668163)” translatesinto practical economic advantage, then FFA will allow the people of Scotlandto enjoy those riches without them be leached away by WestminsterIf“Oil is just a bonus (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1290543.ece)” then the oil price decline shouldn’treally matter a jotIfthese economic claims made by the SNP during the Independence Referendum andrecent election are true, then FFA should be a highly attractiveproposition for Scotland. Factor in a high growth economy and hell mend it, wewill in a very good position.BringFFA on and also tell us the details of the growth strategy. I really would like to see how those figures are arrived at, given that for each worker the tax levy is the same UK wide so it isn't coming from the man in the street, business taxes are also the same across the country. Now I do realise Oil Revenue is probably where the difference is coming from but that's a declining commodity so I'm not sure that it would provide such a large difference in years to come.

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 15:52
The future for power generation in Scotland is another interesting subject. Although much is being made of renewables, they are currently unable to power the country if a high pressure system sets in during winter, non turning wind turbines do not generate electricity. With Longannet due to be decommissioned soon this creates a worrying gap in Scottish Power supply. The obvious solution would be Nuclear but the SNP are vehemently opposed to this form of power so how do they intend to plug the growing gap between power generated and power required in the coming years

The SNP have loudly trumpeted renewable energy...remember Salmons claim that Scotland can be the Suadi Arabia of renewable energy......well there is an enormous opportuniy for Scotland here, not damn wind farms, but to lead the way in developing and commercialising real innovative wave / tidal devices and lead the world...and not one word not one damn word on this in their manifesto. I will leave renewables and why we need a coordinated government led strategy to another day though.

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 15:56
Well it would be lovely to be able to give you specifics on FFA but I don't actually think they currently exist each time John Swinney has been pressed to reveal detail he has tacitly avoided any detail. There is also a reality to England, Wales and Northern Ireland being Scotlands largest trading partner, that has to be taken into account. A lot of money is spent by rUK on Scottish products more than is exported to Europe so there's another Elephant in the room which makes FFA harder to implement.

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 16:01
I really would like to see how those figures are arrived at, given that for each worker the tax levy is the same UK wide so it isn't coming from the man in the street, business taxes are also the same across the country. Now I do realise Oil Revenue is probably where the difference is coming from but that's a declining commodity so I'm not sure that it would provide such a large difference in years to come.

Im accepeting these figures and taking them at face value, they originate from the SNP, as does the prouncement that FFA will tranform the economic performance of Scotland....just give me the details on how wheres the economic strategy......I dont care about the complexities of delivering FFA, as thats time wasted and diverted, I am holding the SNP to their word here, so accept the figures banded about, and accept that FFA will transform our economy, if it turns out thats the case then great, if it turns out that its all bull....then the SNP have to take 100% blame as its their words, their promises, they have the power, and have to be judged by their reults.

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 16:04
Well it would be lovely to be able to give you specifics on FFA but I don't actually think they currently exist each time John Swinney has been pressed to reveal detail he has tacitly avoided any detail. There is also a reality to England, Wales and Northern Ireland being Scotlands largest trading partner, that has to be taken into account. A lot of money is spent by rUK on Scottish products more than is exported to Europe so there's another Elephant in the room which makes FFA harder to implement.

Nah its the detail on the economic growth plans I want, FFA as Squidge points out is fraught with complexities, the process of getting FFA is going to take time, so that will eat into governing time and hold back economic progress, unless Cameron just says there you go and we sort out the detail as we go along.

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 16:05
Im accepeting these figures and taking them at face value, they originate from the SNP, as does the prouncement that FFA will tranform the economic performance of Scotland....just give me the details on how wheres the economic strategy......I dont care about the complexities of delivering FFA, as thats time wasted and diverted, I am holding the SNP to their word here, so accept the figures banded about, and accept that FFA will transform our economy, if it turns out thats the case then great, if it turns out that its all bull....then the SNP have to take 100% blame as its their words, their promises, they have the power, and have to be judged by their reults.I concur fully!

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 16:11
I concur fully!

Would still like SNP supporters to come on here and start filling in the details though, there's little to nothing in their manifesto on economic macro management, given the desire for FFA, I would have thought people would be on here filling in the detail. I mean Im not being negative, as I said bring on FFA I accept the SNP's numbers that we are being leached by England etc.....just gimme the detail on how we achieve sustainable economic growth with FFA thats all I want.

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 16:17
I tend to agree it would be good to hear some detail on what they propose but given that John Swinney has so far failed to give any substantive detail, neither has Nicola Sturgeon or any other member of the SNP I find it difficult to believe that the broader points let alone finer detail will be delivered on e org prior to any official announcement.


What we may get though is an awful lot of, what I think, what I'd do, what may possibly just might happen, non of which are the same as official details from the SNP themselves.

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 16:22
Here's a BBC report from yesterday, Kezia Dugdale has had her people do some independent research and claims that Oil would have to be $200 a barrel to pay for everything current oil price is $65 a barrel


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33092159

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 16:41
I tend to agree it would be good to hear some detail on what they propose but given that John Swinney has so far failed to give any substantive detail, neither has Nicola Sturgeon or any other member of the SNP I find it difficult to believe that the broader points let alone finer detail will be delivered on e org prior to any official announcement.


What we may get though is an awful lot of, what I think, what I'd do, what may possibly just might happen, non of which are the same as official details from the SNP themselves.

ANyone can spout of and accuse sceptics of negativity....the purpose of ths thread is to give people the chance to put meat on the bones...wheres the details...I fail to understand why Swinney or Sturgeon are holding back substantive detail they must have detail. as a citizen of Scotland I have the democratic right to know the economic details.

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 16:46
Here's a BBC report from yesterday, Kezia Dugdale has had her people do some independent research and claims that Oil would have to be $200 a barrel to pay for everything current oil price is $65 a barrel


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33092159

Yes but oil prices are very volaitile so this is a worst case scenario, only proves one thing though, that oil prices are inherently unpredictable. Anyway its Labour trying to put the brakes on FFA....they should wrap up and seriously go about their rebuild as they were unanimously ouywitted and ousted at the election. The SNP have the power in Scotland, I want to see action from them not rhetoric, nor time wasting behind FFA complexities ....just gimme the detail. start delivering.

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 18:07
Rob Murray thought this might be useful to you as it's about as recent as you can get on the subject and only discuss's Scotland and FFA
Stewart Hosie SNP and Andrew Neil Discuss FFA.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GEo8Lj3YIpc

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 19:19
Still no details from SNP folk...why the silence and why vote for a party with a 16 page piece of non content as a manifesto. Now give me the specific details...failure to do so can only tell me that you...SNP supporters dont know and have voted in blind faith...so go on prove me wrong and dont give me guff on FFA disentanglement issues...FFA = economic prosperity...,prove it or admit you voted in blind faith.

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 19:32
Rob Murray thought this might be useful to you as it's about as recent as you can get on the subject and only discuss's Scotland and FFA
Stewart Hosie SNP and Andrew Neil Discuss FFA.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GEo8Lj3YIpc

Stewart Hosie...complete and utter waffle, completely out his depth...long silences and blames westminster for everything..."give us the tools and levers to create growth" well give it to them Ive no issue with this.... PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION WHERE DOES THE GROWTH COME FROM....hey.... but so what..... the great Scottish economy will prosper with FFA ....oil doesn't matter a whit. Andrew Neil suggests that they will have to raise taxes and cut growth...so SNP are the austerity party...nah that cannot be true, their 16 page manifesto pledges not to have cuts..so revenues to run the state must come from economic activity / economic strategy SO SPELL OUT WHAT IS GOING TO BE DONE.

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 19:42
Not trying to be negative here Rob but if it isn't in the SNPs manifesto, the First Minster, John Swinney,Stewart Hosie or Tommy Shepperd can't answer the questions which you so rightly deserve to have answered then I'm not sure that any one on e org will be able to give an insightful and meaningful answer. It appears that gazing deeply into a crystal ball might be the best route to getting the answers you require.

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 19:44
What was the song...silence is golden....Im open minded, give the SNP FFA...now wheres the detail....I cannot accept a manifesto of 16 pages of waffly propaganda as serious. Is the Independent office for budgetary responsibility talking through their proverbial over todays budget hole in revenues...what DETAILED economic plans have the SNP in place to counter this ?? If theres none / no real hard thought out details, then any sane person has to conclude, that they are making it up as they go along...NOW PROVE ME WRONG detail.,..detail detail...please supply and dont give me waffle over FFA complexties / aspirations...give us the details

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 19:51
Not trying to be negative here Rob but if it isn't in the SNPs manifesto, the First Minster, John Swinney,Stewart Hosie or Tommy Shepperd can't answer the questions which you so rightly deserve to have answered then I'm not sure that any one on e org will be able to give an insightful and meaningful answer. It appears that gazing deeply into a crystal ball might be the best route to getting the answers you require.

Yes but loads of people voted for them, so on what basis...not on the manifesto its nothing...so why vote for them....I suspect a mix of disillusionment over labour, LD coalition with tories, a hangover from the referendum, blatant desire for nationalism ( painted brave hearts ) and stealing Labours clothes...promises to curtail anti austerity. Still the desire for detail falls on very deaf ears...and Squidge Ive no desire to get into any debate over FFA complexities as I said previously the only thing that Matters is the economy, thats it, so still await the plans / details behind securing economic growth surely that cannot be hard, at least the LD's spelt out their specifics, after all the vast majority out there voted for them...so come on DETAILS !!!!!

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 19:53
I too am waiting in anticipation for the detailed plan they've got the MSPs 56 out of 59.

O.K they lost a couple of hundred thousand supporters between the referendum and general election 16817989 down to 1454436,but hey they believe that's the majority of the Scottish electorate and gives them the mandate of the people.

So we the rest who didn't vote for them should be treated with some respect I mean their duty as MSPs is to work for all of us not just the people who voted for them.

So how about we get some detail not much to ask really.

Answer on the back of a fag packet in thick felt pen will do.

Just please give us some detail.

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 20:00
Exactly... the silence here is golden....not one person bar squidge, who is more caught up with the mechanics of FFA disentanglement, has contributed..so wheres the detail...

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 20:09
Exactly... the silence here is golden....not one person bar squidge, who is more caught up with the mechanics of FFA disentanglement, has contributed..so wheres the detail...

The problem is you can't have something that just doesn't exist.

There is no detail, just an idea, a dream, a whisper heard on a still evenings breeze.

Sob sob

I'm getting all emotional now and feeling like wrapping myself in a Saltire.


Cry Freeeeeeedom

squidge
12-Jun-15, 20:32
Do you know what - Im not even going to bother. 20 odd posts of self important sarcastic rubbish suggest to me that I am wasting my time, effort and patience.i have infinite patience - i have five children after all - but even I cant be bothered wading through 30 posts of nonsense on this thread tonight. I might come back to it in the morning but ill see if it suits ME to do so as opposed to acquiesing to the stamped feet and demands of such a self important pair as you guys. In the meantime - take a good look at yourselves, read what you have written and wonder why you no one wants to engage with either of you. I have better things to do with my time. Anyone actually interested in FFA can PM me for a discussion or add me as a facebook friend to pick up on the subject there. If you need my name let me know.

Goodnight

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 20:52
With no disrespect I fail to see how you can know more about FFA than any of the above mentioned SNP minsters or know more than the manifesto.

If you do have any factual knowledge of what the SNP intends to do please enlighten us, but I'd respectfully suggest you have no verifiable quantifiable information to impart to us on such an important topic.

We can hold a long discussion on the pros and cons of FFA but that's pretty much neither her nor there what I, you or the rest of Scotlands personal opinions are in fact are meaningless.

What we require and deserve is actual leadership, something official we can sit and read, digest at leisure and make considered choices about.

If you do have this information please feel free to impart it to us not by PM but here publicly as we are part of the electorate and deserve to be dealt with openly and honestly on such important matters.

Why should we the people of Scotland have to approach on bended knee to request such information why isn't it available openly, freely ,fairly in this new exciting progressive Scotland.

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 21:11
Do you know what - Im not even going to bother. 20 odd posts of self important sarcastic rubbish suggest to me that I am wasting my time, effort and patience.i have infinite patience - i have five children after all - but even I cant be bothered wading through 30 posts of nonsense on this thread tonight. I might come back to it in the morning but ill see if it suits ME to do so as opposed to acquiesing to the stamped feet and demands of such a self important pair as you guys. In the meantime - take a good look at yourselves, read what you have written and wonder why you no one wants to engage with either of you. I have better things to do with my time. Anyone actually interested in FFA can PM me for a discussion or add me as a facebook friend to pick up on the subject there. If you need my name let me know.

Goodnight

Ok youve played your hand...Ive simply asked for details and politely and you know what, got nowt back, truth hurts eh... a so called manifesto that you referred me to has 16 pages of waffle backed up by nothing of any substance, which you cannot supply, period, compare the SNP manifesto with the LD's for example,and once gain resort to juvenile insults... so you go and play with your toys then. You are a typical zealot...can you not understand basic english...I have said bring on FFA the sooner the better..and mean it...what dont you get ?? . but need to know some details behind the economics required to deliver the enhanced economic performance that Swinney is on record stating that will be delivered..the manifesto doesn't say anything so youve a damn cheek wummen to paraphrase your darling Alexi calling me "self important".... pot calling kettle black eh ! Absolutely pointless speaking to you

Tig
12-Jun-15, 21:12
Do you know what - Im not even going to bother. 20 odd posts of self important sarcastic rubbish suggest to me that I am wasting my time, effort and patience.i have infinite patience - i have five children after all - but even I cant be bothered wading through 30 posts of nonsense on this thread tonight. I might come back to it in the morning but ill see if it suits ME to do so as opposed to acquiesing to the stamped feet and demands of such a self important pair as you guys. In the meantime - take a good look at yourselves, read what you have written and wonder why you no one wants to engage with either of you. I have better things to do with my time. Anyone actually interested in FFA can PM me for a discussion or add me as a facebook friend to pick up on the subject there. If you need my name let me know. GoodnightThat is a shame Squidge that you are not responding I was looking forward to your reply. I may not post but I've been following the thread with interest.

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 21:19
That is a shame Squidge that you are not responding I was looking forward to your reply. I may not post but I've been following the thread with interest.

Shes obviously annoyed that some one has asked for specifics, ive never insulted her, from from it she raised some interesting points on the complexities of FFA, but it seems if you dont see things her way then the dummys spat. All I asked for was some details as blind faith and hot air doesn't build prosperity...nothing wrong with that. So far nothing has been supplied just check the thread

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 21:21
Just to repeate my original post see below...nothing self important about it

Seemingly, Scotland's Deputy First MinisterJohn Swinney has backed his party's bid to have Full Fiscal Autonomy (FFA)included in the Scotland Bill.
As he put it, "The moral of the story is where we can exercise distinctiveeconomic policies in Scotland, we can transform the economic performance ofthis country, and for me that is what fiscal autonomy is all about."
Ok…that good………. the SNP want FFA, they should get it, then the shoutingis over ( bar for another independence referendum ) and we can see how we all get on and the sooner the better. Make a kirk or a mill of it, either way we willt hen see what / why economic policies they introduce and if they will transform the Scottish economy ( ok Swinney has no details or given no real details on an economic growth strategy but I assume that he must have or why shout for FFA ) . No one will ever know if the SNP with FFA can transform economic performance unless they actually get FFA, then we will all see, good economic performance /management will cement the SNP as the party of Scotland, a poor performance,involving cuts / mis management / poor economic growth, will be entirely down to them ( no Westminster to blame ) and like any other party if they are not successful, they will pay the price through the ballot box. So on those grounds I support FFA for Scotland....but Id like some more specific details, so if anyone knows, jump into this thread and give an indication of what the SNP plan

squidge
12-Jun-15, 21:25
Shes obviously annoyed that some one has asked for specifics, ive never insulted her, from from it she raised some interesting points on the complexities of FFA, but it seems if you dont see things her way then the dummys spat. All I asked for was some details as blind faith and hot air doesn't build prosperity...nothing wrong with that. So far nothing has been supplied just check the thread#

How am I supposed to respond to 27 posts? YOu and BT just talk to yourselves. Did i spit the dummy out absolutely i did. 27 bloody posts demanding answers NOW. I have a life you know.

squidge
12-Jun-15, 21:26
Just to repeate my original post see below...nothing self important about it

Seemingly, Scotland's Deputy First MinisterJohn Swinney has backed his party's bid to have Full Fiscal Autonomy (FFA)included in the Scotland Bill.
As he put it, "The moral of the story is where we can exercise distinctiveeconomic policies in Scotland, we can transform the economic performance ofthis country, and for me that is what fiscal autonomy is all about."
Ok…that good………. the SNP want FFA, they should get it, then the shoutingis over ( bar for another independence referendum ) and we can see how we all get on and the sooner the better. Make a kirk or a mill of it, either way we willt hen see what / why economic policies they introduce and if they will transform the Scottish economy ( ok Swinney has no details or given no real details on an economic growth strategy but I assume that he must have or why shout for FFA ) . No one will ever know if the SNP with FFA can transform economic performance unless they actually get FFA, then we will all see, good economic performance /management will cement the SNP as the party of Scotland, a poor performance,involving cuts / mis management / poor economic growth, will be entirely down to them ( no Westminster to blame ) and like any other party if they are not successful, they will pay the price through the ballot box. So on those grounds I support FFA for Scotland....but Id like some more specific details, so if anyone knows, jump into this thread and give an indication of what the SNP plan

Well now if we are starting again....


http://forum.caithness.org/images/icons/icon1.png
That is absolutely what is meant by full fiscal autonomy Rob - to have all the levers that enable Scotland to grow its own economy in the best way for Scotland. The Smith Commission does not allow that. It is right to say that we have had some control over tax for some considerable time and not used that control but there are good reasons why we haven't done that. Mainly because we could only raise the basic rate of income tax only which would impact on the lowest paid in society and leave those on higher wages with no extra responsibility. That is contrary to what the SNP have talked about for the last ten years. That was one of the problems with Labour's offer of tax powers before the referendum - they would allow Scotland to increase taxes but not decrease them. If we are to have control over taxation then that has to BE control - rates, bands, and the ablity to vary it as is necessary.

Full Fiscal Autonomy isnt like Independence - It depends on all sorts of things which at first thought would not seem to be important in FFA. For example, in order to properly have control of the welfare budget we will also need control of Scottish Jobcentreplus offices. Without that we cant influence how benefits are delivered for example or how sanctions are implemented which will impact on Welfare spending. With independence EVERYTHING is passed over on a specific date and with FFA there needs to be an understanding of how spending and budgets are impacted by everything else. And those other things will also need to be passed for control to the Scottish Government. That may take some time to negotiate and work out.

You talk about cuts. The thing about cuts is that with FFA the Scottish Government can make decisions on where those cuts are to be implemented - just like the tax increases I was talking about before, but that also depends on having more influence over other things like the amount that Scotland is charged for UK wide projects. As an example of this we can look at the projects that Scotland is obliged to contribute today - lets say Crossrail. Cross Rail is a project based in London, affecting London and yet Scotland has to contribute to that project. There are others too - I dont have an issue with Scotland contributing to the repairs to the Houses of Parliament for example but i dont think that we shoud be contributing to things like Cross rail or HS2 when they dont impact at all on Scotland. These things will need to be negotiated and a new protocol decided upon where Scotland has some control rather than no control. If we arent spending on those sorts of projects then we have more money to spend in Scotland to help us to avoid cuts. If we have full fiscal autonomy then this issue needs to be up for negotiation which it is not at the moment.

These are a couple of examples which show that FFA is more complicated that simply handing over the purse and saying "here you go - you do the shopping" and more complicated that Independence would have been. We are not getting Independence any time soon - that is clear and before anyone jumps on me and suggests that i am moaning and complaining and whining about it I am not. I am simply recognising that FFA is different than Independence and that we all need to understand that when discussing FFA because these are the things that prevent FFA happening overnight.

I think we will need to see the details of the amendment before we can talk specifics so I look forward to next week. We do however already have the SNP manifesto from the General Elecction which sets out what the SNP wants to achieve for Scotland and is a good place to start if you are looking for specifics. If the amendment is passed next week then we should see that reflected in the Manifesto for Holyrood and so build on the 2015 manifesto to get more of the specifics that you are looking for. This amendment if passed is just the start of what will be a very long process

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 21:30
#

How am I supposed to respond to 27 posts? YOu and BT just talk to yourselves. Did i spit the dummy out absolutely i did. 27 bloody posts demanding answers NOW. I have a life you know.

Well well, know one expected you to respond to 27 posts...I simply asked anyone, yes anyone, on an open forum if they had economic details as you have to admit there is none in the 16 page manifesto apart from c 200 words, you told me to check the manifesto out, we all have lives as well and we are all "equally important".

rob murray
12-Jun-15, 21:32
Well now if we are starting again....

There are no specifics in the manifesto, check it out yersel http://www.snp.org/sites/default/fil...o_290x280x.pdf (http://www.snp.org/sites/default/files/page/file/04_16d_snp_election_manifesto_290x280x.pdf) as for FFA being a long process, well the more time spent on it the more time passes us by and so will our economic standing.

squidge
12-Jun-15, 22:21
i said the manifesto was a good place to start not a recipe for a Fully fiscal autonomous Scotland.

I cant alleviate your fears that FFA is going to take a long time Im afraid. FFA will take much longer to sort out than Independence would – as I have said already it is more complicated. It might take less time if we could be sure that the Labour Party would support an anti austerity agenda but we cant.

The amendment next week will call for FFA and if that is accepted then the discussions will start as the policy is developed. There is little detail yet, however as I mentioned the SNP manifesto is a good place to start to establish the direction of travel. The SNP is anti austerity and they have spelled out what that means.

It means stopping the austerity cuts which have had such a massive impact on the sick and disabled. Investing in infrastructure to create jobs and grow businesses.

It means tackling the low wage culture through supporting businesses to pay better wages and through investing in good quality childcare to increase the number of people in work.

It means investing in oil industry, technology and renewables to ensure Scotland is at the forefront of energy innovation

It means a tax system which is not open to avoidance and which is tailored to the needs of Scotland.

Until we know what powers we are getting we don’t know what, if any of the above we can do. You are right Rob. If we get FFA then we would expect to do All of the above, if we don’t then we cant do all of it but we might be able to do some of it. We have to see what happens.

I have serious concerns about FFA but none of them stem from the idea that Scotland is too poor. I worry that we will not get the associated powers which make full fiscal autonomy a success - things like those i outlined in the first reply. I am not a little nervous that the tory government aided and abetted by labour will only offer half a job which will make it so much more difficult. I am concerned that FFA will take so long to implement that we will see Scotlands budget cut and cut and cut and the Scottish Government which has worked hard over the last few years to deliver a balanced budget and to mitigate the effects of the worst of the cuts will be unable to continue to do so.

FFA/ DEvoMax, whatever you want to call it is no easy thing to do. It will take time and be long and drawn out and there is no guarantee we will see the amendement accepted. It is a poor substitute for Independence in my opinion but it is still better than what we have now because to be responsible for the country we have to have the economic levers to give us the power to do what we want to do and we dont have those now.

BetterTogether
12-Jun-15, 22:42
A nice post but it does avoid some major points. The usual what if they don't give us full powers is really just scaremongering. FFA is not devomax the two are entirely different to say that the Tories and Labour are going to give some watered down version is based on no substantive facts.

If the country is given Full Fiscal Autonomy then that's what it will get all the levers and controls the go along with running the country it's not a half way house.
The harsh realities are it means somewhere between an £8.6 to £10 billion pound deficit to begin with.

That means the Scottish Government will either plunge the country further into debt or raise taxes and cut the public sector. There has to be growth in an economy to justify raising ever more and more debt or else the economy becomes woefully unstable.
What I'd like to know is where the money is coming from to end austerity, to invest in oil and renewables.

Making sweeping generalisations about such a major decisions doesn't really cut the mustard.

You can't honestly expect to have the Barnett Formula and slowly introduce FFA as and when it suits at a pace that makes life easier when you want it to.

The SNP are pushing for the amendments that means if things are accepted and they get their way then Scotland becomes a nation with twice the debt loading of rUK.

I'd like to be kinder to your statements but they seem to show a lack of knowledge on financial issues and more of a wish list of things you'd like.
The tax system would be that which the powers at Holyrood decide they are it won't be linked to rUK that's the whole point of it, all decisions become those of Holyrood.
It's quite easy to bang on and on about ending austerity but the realities of FFA are they would implement more austerity on Scotland than the Tory Government is even considering.
The Devils always in the detail and much as your post is eloquent in its desire there isnt any in depth knowledge of the way the economy of Scotland runs, where finance is raised and how it's spent.
Please inform me if I'm totally incorrect as I'd like to be reassured on this issue.

squidge
12-Jun-15, 23:51
I didnt realise that you wanted reassurance BT - or some sort of detailed breakdown. I thought this was a general discussion about FFA. I was simply presenting my opinions and absolutely my concerns about it - my concerns BT which I absolutely did not present as anything even approaching facts they ate simply my concerns. Again, it's important to note in this clamour for details that we havent even had the amendment yet, it hasnt been debated or passed yet.

What we have is a set of aims of the Scottish Government which they would seek to implement if and when they have the ability to do so. A wish list maybe but it is actually a set aims to achieve the anti austerity based recovery which they stood for in the General Election. i know you dont agree that an anti austerity way is the way forward and thats ok - we dont have to agree but there are plenty of smarter and cleverer people than you or I who beleive that it is an alternative option for us. And they dont agree that it would plunge Scotland into further austerity. A report came out this week which suggested exactly the opposite of this. If the deficit is so terrible How come the UK and loads of other countries can run for years with a deficit but somehow Scotland cant?

There is no suggestion that the SNP is planning to increase or give up on paying the deficit back - simply that they will take a bit longer and do it in a different way. With FFA, spending and cuts and taxation and growth will be approached in a different way. Also, The projections for the deficit sitting at £8 billion all suppose that Scotland will continue running the economy the same way as the tories are doing right now. That they will do nothing different and that isnt the case. In addition an Anti Austerity programme for Scotland is one that lots of people in Scotland voted for - thats why the SNP have 56 out of 59 MPs because people saw their manifesto and wanted something different. More People agreed with the SNP that there is a different way to go than agreed that we should continue with the Tory austerity agenda. This means that the SNP is absolutely right to push for the powers that would enable them to achieve the aims set out in their manifesto.

I will say what i said during the referendum about the economics of independence as the same is true now. For either viewpoint for or against FFA there is expert opinion to support the case whichever way you look at it. IF you believe that the tories have it right and Austerity is the way to go for a strong economy and a happy society then you wont support FFA. If you dont then you will be looking to FFA to give the Scottish Government the power to take a different road. Either viewpoint can be supported and is valid.

Im sure we will all be watching the SNP put forward their amendments next week as the bill is debated and scrutinised and we will all be interested in hearing the arguments for and against FFA. In the meantime - i have my concerns and you have yours. That doesnt mean that either of us are wrong but it does mean that there is much work to do yet. Tommy Sheppard said today that "If there was a will to see the Scottish Government take responsibility for its own finances this process could be achieved smoothly and effectively. It would make for better government. Most importantly, it would allow the people of Scotland to choose their own economic priorities and marshal the public resources for the good of all." That's it really.

rob murray
13-Jun-15, 10:40
i said the manifesto was a good place to start not a recipe for a Fully fiscal autonomous Scotland.

I cant alleviate your fears that FFA is going to take a long time Im afraid. FFA will take much longer to sort out than Independence would – as I have said already it is more complicated. It might take less time if we could be sure that the Labour Party would support an anti austerity agenda but we cant.

The amendment next week will call for FFA and if that is accepted then the discussions will start as the policy is developed. There is little detail yet, however as I mentioned the SNP manifesto is a good place to start to establish the direction of travel. The SNP is anti austerity and they have spelled out what that means.

It means stopping the austerity cuts which have had such a massive impact on the sick and disabled. Investing in infrastructure to create jobs and grow businesses.

It means tackling the low wage culture through supporting businesses to pay better wages and through investing in good quality childcare to increase the number of people in work.

It means investing in oil industry, technology and renewables to ensure Scotland is at the forefront of energy innovation

It means a tax system which is not open to avoidance and which is tailored to the needs of Scotland.

Until we know what powers we are getting we don’t know what, if any of the above we can do. You are right Rob. If we get FFA then we would expect to do All of the above, if we don’t then we cant do all of it but we might be able to do some of it. We have to see what happens.

I have serious concerns about FFA but none of them stem from the idea that Scotland is too poor. I worry that we will not get the associated powers which make full fiscal autonomy a success - things like those i outlined in the first reply. I am not a little nervous that the tory government aided and abetted by labour will only offer half a job which will make it so much more difficult. I am concerned that FFA will take so long to implement that we will see Scotlands budget cut and cut and cut and the Scottish Government which has worked hard over the last few years to deliver a balanced budget and to mitigate the effects of the worst of the cuts will be unable to continue to do so.

FFA/ DEvoMax, whatever you want to call it is no easy thing to do. It will take time and be long and drawn out and there is no guarantee we will see the amendement accepted. It is a poor substitute for Independence in my opinion but it is still better than what we have now because to be responsible for the country we have to have the economic levers to give us the power to do what we want to do and we dont have those now.

A good informative post Squidge, appreciate your concerns over time period involved and opportunity to cut scottish budgets which I rather suspect is the government tactics to strip scotland to the point that FFA would be off the agenda for a long time. I hope you noticed from my posts that I pointed out the scare over declining oil prices and its affect as mentioned by Labour etc I countered this with a direct quote ""oil price forecasts have been the most volatile revenue stream and are SUBJECT TO LARGE SCALE FORECAST ERRORS EVEN OVER THE SHORT TERM. In other words the anti FFA people have conjured up the very WORST case scenario as deliberate scare mongering. Sure OIl prices will take a long while to bounce back and the North seas has declining hydrocarbons, but wells that become uneconomic have to be de commissioned...so that creates work and buys time for whoever is in power to formulate an industrial re generation strategy.

Oh I am not arrogant nor self important Squidge read my posts on here, I tried to make factual not personal comments and all I wanted was some detail behind a scottish economic strategy, if we dont have a strong economy then living wages / welfare etc will be off the agenda unless the money is borrowed.Its a fact that the manifesto doesn't have any depth on at least priorities...in my veiw the LD's was the strongest manifesto by far, factual and targeted, key issues...high speed broad band for one / digital connectivity / creating enhancing jobs, rural regeneration etc....) My best friend is a senior SNP activist, he is well aware of the need to re industrialize scotland, to build a high wage, high value, low tax economy, create IPR and not rely on low wage screw driver jobs,( what the tories would claim is growth...aye growth of low paid work ) he has fears over oil and the non progression of renewables ( wave / tidal ) Now Im not one for grudges and as promised have collated informed reading ( including HIE/ SE / Scottish Government sources, plus an analysis paper that my friend and I put together ) on the current state of play in renewables. Theres a lot of quality information there..how do I get it to you ?

rob murray
13-Jun-15, 11:10
#

How am I supposed to respond to 27 posts? YOu and BT just talk to yourselves. Did i spit the dummy out absolutely i did. 27 bloody posts demanding answers NOW. I have a life you know.

I wasnt expecting you to respond there are plenty people out there as well.....I started the thread, on the basis of accepting reality, the SNP have the powers in Scotland and almost a monopoly in westminster re Scottish MP's, so their stated aim is FFA, I just wanted to know a bit more economic depth thats all, I accept the new politically reality, so feel that I an entitled to ask for some clarity, which is what I did, although I accept we are dealing with a more complex scenario than I realized, its not my fault that the major contributions came from better together.

Tig
13-Jun-15, 11:24
there only seems to be Squidge that is in support of the SNP and FFA on this thread, where are the other supporters?

It is a complex matter and its a good discussion brought out into a public space where ordinary folks like myself can read through different points of view with factual links to read. I'm in no position to comment but I am following with interest.

BetterTogether
13-Jun-15, 11:36
I fully accept that FFA is a difficult subject to grasp if it weren't then we would all be out there with economics degrees and able to give our various informed opinions on the subject.
Failing that we must look to those experts who put forward their varied opinions.
I have searched for more information and dutifully read as much as is currently available on the issue ( I concede I may have missed a few articles ) the reality as I see it at the moment can be fairly easily summarised.
The SNP have put forward and supported the idea of FFA with limited reading to support their request.
I have yet to see a paper released by a well respected academic that supports the concept.
That is not to say it isn't possible and may not work.
What there is though is a plethora of information on statistics and articles on why it would be problematic at best.
I've listened to the likes of Stewart Hosie, John Swinney, Tommy Shepperd and of course the First Minister in all the talks they've had that are publicly accessible at the moment there seems to be a frustrating lack of detail in their proposals. That goes from their manifesto on through various interviews.
They so far appear to be very good at using historical arguments of why the UK government has previously done and got things wrong, which is fair enough but what they are singularly failing to do so far is given a reasoned, balanced description of how it is supposed to work and what they intend to do that is so radically different that the problems will be negated.
If they are so confident this is the right thing to do for the country then I'd of thought at this stage there would be some more meat on the bones of their idea.
We are at a stage still where they are expecting and hoping to get the amendments pushed through and gain FFA but haven't let us know what they are actually going to do.
Why is it a concern.
Who really wants to live in a country that is saddled with an economy that could easily slide down the route of Greece, Spain, Eire, Italy that would not be good for the people of Scotland and so I feel it is only right that we the electorate are given greater insight into what their thoughts and aspirations are.
Much is espoused about this being an exciting new time in politics and how the SNP are progressive. But at the moment I'm just not seeing it.
It's not personal I can vehemently disagree with someone political views but still respect them, on this single item the information is just not being made available.

BetterTogether
13-Jun-15, 12:09
How about we deal with some UK Govt figures as there doesn't seem to be any others available.

To provide similar levels of public services over the next 20 yrs.

Scotland would need to raise all onshore tax receipts by 13%.

That would equate to a 28% rate of basic income rate tax and a 26% rate of VAT.

Also increasing the main duties alcohol, tobacco, fuel and cars by almost 40%.

squidge
13-Jun-15, 12:48
You miss the point a bit though BT - the point of having FFA is not to run things exactly as they are now, like a branch office of UKPLC. We might pay higher taxes, we might pay lower taxes. We might have similar services we may do things differently. The point is that with FFA we get much more of a say in what happens So that the next time we return 95% of MPs from the same party - whether that is SNP, labour, Green, Tory or whatever other party pops up to fill the vacuum then they get to implement the changes that they want to implement and that we elected then for. The figures you show pre suppose that we get the purse but have to keep the same shopping list. We don't.

squidge
13-Jun-15, 12:49
Rob, I pm'd you my email address.

Edit - or I would have done if it hadn't bounced back!!!! Empty your inbox lol

BetterTogether
13-Jun-15, 13:32
You miss the point a bit though BT - the point of having FFA is not to run things exactly as they are now, like a branch office of UKPLC. We might pay higher taxes, we might pay lower taxes. We might have similar services we may do things differently. The point is that with FFA we get much more of a say in what happens So that the next time we return 95% of MPs from the same party - whether that is SNP, labour, Green, Tory or whatever other party pops up to fill the vacuum then they get to implement the changes that they want to implement and that we elected then for. The figures you show pre suppose that we get the purse but have to keep the same shopping list. We don't.

You're quite correct that if FFA is implemented that any future party that has a majority within Holyrood will be able to make policy as they choose regarding funding the country on that I can agree with you with no issue at all.

You're also quite correct in saying we could raise or lower taxes as we saw fit and may have similar services or change them completely.

Non of those are really in question or really deal with the problem.

If Scotland wishes to maintain the public services it currently has for the next 20 yrs and does not want to plunge the country into huge levels of debt then it requires taxes to be raised.

In many of your posts you discuss quite eloquently increasing services and investing in infrastructure.

That is money that would have to be borrowed if not raised in taxation which means that the countries debt would increase exponentially.
You can't have a richer more prosperous country with higher wages,lower taxes a larger public sector unless you plunge it into a mountain of debt, which has to be repaid at some stage.
We have many examples globally of countries that have increased their debt without laying sound foundations for repaying it and do not possess an economy that can comfortably sustain it.
This isn't about party politics as the same decisions would be faced by whomever runs Scotland.

There is a reality at play if Scotland gets FFA in the short term it will be a poorer country for it.

I'd be more than happy if you can provide me with some economic forecast that shows otherwise.

If this where the corporate world and the SNP where proposing a change in direction for that corporation without having done all their homework and without being able to present hard facts and figures that coherently back up their supposition, they would be laughed out of the boardroom.

This isn't a corporate entity it's far larger, far more complex so surely the SNP have done their homework, consultation must of been undertaken, economic advisors employed to present their findings. So why is it non of that groundwork is available for public consumption.

BetterTogether
13-Jun-15, 14:52
A nice article from the Scotsman on FFA and proposed Amendments

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-plans-will-force-income-tax-to-double-1-3801144

Shabbychic
14-Jun-15, 00:02
A nice article from the Scotsman on FFA and proposed Amendments

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-plans-will-force-income-tax-to-double-1-3801144

An even nicer article from Business Scotland on FFA.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/scottish-economy-could-double-with-fiscal-autonomy/

BetterTogether
14-Jun-15, 00:20
An even nicer article from Business Scotland on FFA.http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/scottish-economy-could-double-with-fiscal-autonomy/Much as I'd like to take businessforscotland seriously they aren't really representative of major business within Scotland that actually do business across the UK or Globally. I do believe and will try and find the article that they are a group made up of single traders, hairdressers and companies that have neglible turnover.

BetterTogether
14-Jun-15, 00:23
Here it is a break down of who business for Scotland actually are and what they actually do.http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/who-do-business-for-scotland-represent.html

Hardly representative of Scotlands major employers in fact hardly representative of the middle ranking group of employers.

squidge
14-Jun-15, 10:41
There are key ways in which Scotland could do things differently with the economy if it had FFA, things that aren't being done now or that with controls over raising our own money and spending and investing our own money we could see the economy grow and there is plenty of evidence out there to support different strategies to the austerity one we see from the Tories.

We have been talking about investing in capital projects to help grow the economy. The Scottish Government has been doing that already. This works in several ways, it creates jobs and therefore wealth, it creates confidence in investors that Scotland is a forward thinking and growing economy and therefore a good place to invest for example. There are figures from various sources which show how this works but Civil Engineering industry figures show that for every £1 billion of investments in infrastructure GDP increases by £1.3 billion and there is a knock on in that, as it creates a more competitive environment for business then it gives an economic benefit of £2.8 billion as more companies see Scotland as a place to invest and create work. We may need to borrow to do that, just like you may need to borrow on a mortgage to replace a failing roof and increase the value of your house. That might lead to increased repayments or taking longer to pay the mortgage back but you would reckon the benefits are worth it. Also just like your failing roof - the work is absolutely necessary. That's a bit simplistic but it serves an illustrative purpose. Borrowing to invest in capital projects is worth it for the payback in the terms of benefits to the economy. We were talking in the post about the NHS of the need for better infrastructure and this is a way to ensure that we do that.

I talk about inequality often as a welfare issue but it's an economic issue too. Investment in childcare increases the number of parents able to work, reduces the welfare bill and improves employment levels. Better education, ensuring that children live in homes where they are getting enough food, warmth and a place to study and grow. Where poverty grows educational attainment falls. Better support and encouragement to move people into work and high quality jobs programmes are all needed to create a vibrant, educated and work ready population. The Scottish government has had much better success with its community jobs fund and modern apprenticeships, than the appalling parody of a work programme that the Tories have in place. Changing the way we mange benefits would reduce costs, improve outcomes and increase people moving into work with very little expense. In fact the SNP are committed to stopping the roll out of the massively massively expensive white elephant that is universal Credit and the utter waste of money that the DLA replacement PIP is turning out to be. Just doing this would reduce spending in Scotland without making one single cut . By reducing inequality we are able to contribute to growing our economy. A fairer society isn't just a pipe dream of a woolly liberal, it's a necessity if we want the strongest possible economy.

Supporting business is of course key, the Scottish Government is committed to staying in Europe and it is massively important for all sorts of businesses that we do so. Scotland must grow its exports and its “brand” to be successful. The referendum turned up information to show that Britains embassies abroad charge Scotland for promoting whisky. What's that all about? In addition, Scotland’s whisky exports and the duty paid for those exports are not credited to Scotland's accounts as it stands at the moment. They don't appear on the figures for Scotland. That would change. The SNP has dropped its commitment to a reduction in corporation tax and confirms its commitment to SME's in its manifesto. It has promised a better fairer tax regime in everything it has put out for the last ten years, ensuring that there is no avoidance and better targeted investment. We need the Amazons of this world I'm sure but we also need the smaller companies to have the opportunity to grow and we could do this through changing the tax regime.

We also need to be innovative. We need to encourage research and development particularly in the green economy, in renewables, green energy and so on. Now I know nothing much about energy – as you will see I have been in a conversation with Rob about this - but there are clearly issues and opportunities to be grabbed. The Scottish Government is committed to better investment but we have work to do to see how we can do this better. I'm not simply talking about wind either. I tend to think we need to change our approach to how we use wind energy. In Europe it appears many countries encourage small developments rather than The large windfarms we see here. So each village has its own windmills and they seem much happier with that than we do here. Where my parents live they have three windmills servicing a number of scattered villages and they are really positive about them. There was an attempt to do something similar on the Black Isle recently but it failed to get enough support. Maybe Rob can talk to us about these issues. I know I haven't talked about oil. But with or without oil Scotland has the ability to do all the things I talked about with FFA. Without FFA it can only do a small bit and even with FFA we can't do as much as we could have with Independence.

Finally and I knew this was going to be a long one but I have to remind you of this. FFA is not independence. Scotland with FFA will not be in a position to do all this stuff at once or maybe even never. This is why there is little actual detail. Some of the things I have spoken about – like ending the roll out of PIP, like the investments proposed for capital projects are there already. Reinstating the 50p tax rate, closing tax loopholes are also proposed but even these may be difficult. It all depends on what the UK lets us have. Just like we had to ask for the money to offset the bedroom tax because we don't have permission from WM to abolish it FFA is dependent on getting permission from the government.

Even with FFA there will still continue to need to be a financial settlement every single year as we negotiate how much we have we to pay Westminster for x or y; for which project we need to contribute towards; for how we have our voices heard in Europe; to ensure that things like the CAP funding reaches our farmers and isn't held onto by Westminster as it is being now – all £135 million of it; how our ministers are included in things like fisheries negotiations – Richard Lochhead, the longest serving fisheries minister in Europe - is excluded from those negotiations at the moment, that can't happen if we have FFA. I have massive concerns about FFA but we need control over tax, spending and borrowing if we are to do ANYTHING to move Scotland in the direction that people voted for when they sent 56 SNP MPs to Westminster.

Shabbychic
14-Jun-15, 13:59
Much as I'd like to take businessforscotland seriously they aren't really representative of major business within Scotland that actually do business across the UK or Globally. I do believe and will try and find the article that they are a group made up of single traders, hairdressers and companies that have neglible turnover.




Here it is a break down of who business for Scotland actually are and what they actually do.http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/who-do-business-for-scotland-represent.html

Hardly representative of Scotlands major employers in fact hardly representative of the middle ranking group of employers.


This is why folks find there is little point in entering a discussion with you. You ask a question, then eagerly await a response so that you can tear it to shreds to prove you are right. You have no interest at all in seeing anyone else's point of view, or entering into a meaningful discussion. You are just like the unionist parties who, instead of putting forward what they stand for, spend all their time slating the SNP.

As for the above, the link I left was not about who Business for Scotland are made up of, but in relation to the article and what this thread is supposed to be about, namely FFA. You quite happily quote from places like The Scotsman, and then expect to be taken seriously, while dissing everyone else.

BetterTogether
14-Jun-15, 14:17
I can fully accept alternative points of view but the reality is Business for Scotland isn't representative of large business in Scotland if you want to have a decent debate quote someone other than a politically motivated SNP mouthpiece.

Debate is about discussing opposing views just because I've yet to be convinced that the SNP, Independence and FFA are good for Scotland. Would you prefer i take the route the Majority of Unionists have done and just keep quiet so the Nationalist can just debate with themselves. Hardly seems democratic we see this across the web nationalists getting upset when any unionist defends the status quo.

BetterTogether
14-Jun-15, 14:28
There are key ways in which Scotland could do things differently with the economy if it had FFA, things that aren't being done now or that with controls over raising our own money and spending and investing our own money we could see the economy grow and there is plenty of evidence out there to support different strategies to the austerity one we see from the Tories. We have been talking about investing in capital projects to help grow the economy. The Scottish Government has been doing that already. This works in several ways, it creates jobs and therefore wealth, it creates confidence in investors that Scotland is a forward thinking and growing economy and therefore a good place to invest for example. There are figures from various sources which show how this works but Civil Engineering industry figures show that for every £1 billion of investments in infrastructure GDP increases by £1.3 billion and there is a knock on in that, as it creates a more competitive environment for business then it gives an economic benefit of £2.8 billion as more companies see Scotland as a place to invest and create work. We may need to borrow to do that, just like you may need to borrow on a mortgage to replace a failing roof and increase the value of your house. That might lead to increased repayments or taking longer to pay the mortgage back but you would reckon the benefits are worth it. Also just like your failing roof - the work is absolutely necessary. That's a bit simplistic but it serves an illustrative purpose. Borrowing to invest in capital projects is worth it for the payback in the terms of benefits to the economy. We were talking in the post about the NHS of the need for better infrastructure and this is a way to ensure that we do that.I talk about inequality often as a welfare issue but it's an economic issue too. Investment in childcare increases the number of parents able to work, reduces the welfare bill and improves employment levels. Better education, ensuring that children live in homes where they are getting enough food, warmth and a place to study and grow. Where poverty grows educational attainment falls. Better support and encouragement to move people into work and high quality jobs programmes are all needed to create a vibrant, educated and work ready population. The Scottish government has had much better success with its community jobs fund and modern apprenticeships, than the appalling parody of a work programme that the Tories have in place. Changing the way we mange benefits would reduce costs, improve outcomes and increase people moving into work with very little expense. In fact the SNP are committed to stopping the roll out of the massively massively expensive white elephant that is universal Credit and the utter waste of money that the DLA replacement PIP is turning out to be. Just doing this would reduce spending in Scotland without making one single cut . By reducing inequality we are able to contribute to growing our economy. A fairer society isn't just a pipe dream of a woolly liberal, it's a necessity if we want the strongest possible economy. Supporting business is of course key, the Scottish Government is committed to staying in Europe and it is massively important for all sorts of businesses that we do so. Scotland must grow its exports and its “brand” to be successful. The referendum turned up information to show that Britains embassies abroad charge Scotland for promoting whisky. What's that all about? In addition, Scotland’s whisky exports and the duty paid for those exports are not credited to Scotland's accounts as it stands at the moment. They don't appear on the figures for Scotland. That would change. The SNP has dropped its commitment to a reduction in corporation tax and confirms its commitment to SME's in its manifesto. It has promised a better fairer tax regime in everything it has put out for the last ten years, ensuring that there is no avoidance and better targeted investment. We need the Amazons of this world I'm sure but we also need the smaller companies to have the opportunity to grow and we could do this through changing the tax regime.We also need to be innovative. We need to encourage research and development particularly in the green economy, in renewables, green energy and so on. Now I know nothing much about energy – as you will see I have been in a conversation with Rob about this - but there are clearly issues and opportunities to be grabbed. The Scottish Government is committed to better investment but we have work to do to see how we can do this better. I'm not simply talking about wind either. I tend to think we need to change our approach to how we use wind energy. In Europe it appears many countries encourage small developments rather than The large windfarms we see here. So each village has its own windmills and they seem much happier with that than we do here. Where my parents live they have three windmills servicing a number of scattered villages and they are really positive about them. There was an attempt to do something similar on the Black Isle recently but it failed to get enough support. Maybe Rob can talk to us about these issues. I know I haven't talked about oil. But with or without oil Scotland has the ability to do all the things I talked about with FFA. Without FFA it can only do a small bit and even with FFA we can't do as much as we could have with Independence. Finally and I knew this was going to be a long one but I have to remind you of this. FFA is not independence. Scotland with FFA will not be in a position to do all this stuff at once or maybe even never. This is why there is little actual detail. Some of the things I have spoken about – like ending the roll out of PIP, like the investments proposed for capital projects are there already. Reinstating the 50p tax rate, closing tax loopholes are also proposed but even these may be difficult. It all depends on what the UK lets us have. Just like we had to ask for the money to offset the bedroom tax because we don't have permission from WM to abolish it FFA is dependent on getting permission from the government. Even with FFA there will still continue to need to be a financial settlement every single year as we negotiate how much we have we to pay Westminster for x or y; for which project we need to contribute towards; for how we have our voices heard in Europe; to ensure that things like the CAP funding reaches our farmers and isn't held onto by Westminster as it is being now – all £135 million of it; how our ministers are included in things like fisheries negotiations – Richard Lochhead, the longest serving fisheries minister in Europe - is excluded from those negotiations at the moment, that can't happen if we have FFA. I have massive concerns about FFA but we need control over tax, spending and borrowing if we are to do ANYTHING to move Scotland in the direction that people voted for when they sent 56 SNP MPs to Westminster.I did type out a long post but it appears some would prefer to shut down debate on e org and have just one side doing the talking. So much for a more democratic free and fairer society. It's beginning to feel more and more like a country I'd rather not live in anymore. Daily it becomes more like a one party state.

squidge
14-Jun-15, 15:30
Better Together you complain that no one else answers your posts. You demand that people respond to you. There are 27 posts where you and Rob talk to yourselves with no interruption, shabbychic challenges you in one post and you complain that this is a one party state.

This isn't a one party state BT there are several parties you could vote for and probably did. Just dos you lost and someone else won doesn't make it a one party state. Yours and Robs are the loudest voices, certainly on this thread by miles, make some room for others and you'll get a discussion.

BetterTogether
14-Jun-15, 16:26
Better Together you complain that no one else answers your posts. You demand that people respond to you. There are 27 posts where you and Rob talk to yourselves with no interruption, shabbychic challenges you in one post and you complain that this is a one party state. This isn't a one party state BT there are several parties you could vote for and probably did. Just dos you lost and someone else won doesn't make it a one party state. Yours and Robs are the loudest voices, certainly on this thread by miles, make some room for others and you'll get a discussion. I've absolutely no problem with anyone voicing their opinions Squidge and as you're more than aware quite capable of challenging them, this thread is open to anyone to join in and I wish more would.
But there is a distinct point of difference between heated debate and complaining that someone questions your source of data or they don't just accept your opinion.
I think even you'd accept Business for Scotland doesn't represent even one of Scotlands top 20 companies and most are sole traders or companies with neglible or no turnover.
If I wanted I could state numerous directorships of companies which are still technically live but doing nothing or over claim to be a business leader if being on the top tier of one of the country's leading multi nationals counted. Do I bother no I've retired and everything is now in abeyance.
Does it mean I should accept that some little group over stating their position speak for Scottish Business and Industry no it doesn't.
Most of what's been discussed on this thread is political posturing not even dressed up as anything else. There seems to be little real understanding of what Full Fiscal Autonomy is what the implications are or how it affects the country as a whole.
I read the business for Scotland website and let's be fair it doesn't amount to much. I could easily state Scotland could be the richest country in the world if we pooled our resources decided and become the most advanced industrious country dependent on x or y factors, without any figures to back it up, it just preposterous nonsense and not worthy of the time spent reading it.
Hard choices and realities would face Scotland if it goes down the route of FFA in the current world climate the odds are stacked against a country with high borrowing and no easily defined method of reducing those costs, hence the situation we are currently in and the nation as a wholes more prosperous recovery.
Despite those of a certain political persuasions statement of failed austerity over and over there is no proof of it having failed, it's an ongoing situation in employments down, the economy is bouncing back and interest rates are still low every key economic marker shows the nation as a whole is moving in the right direction.
Meanwhile in Scotland things aren't so rosey. Literacy rates are falling, unemployment isn't falling, the NHS is struggling, Targets are set by the SNP over and over and missed by a mile yet they and their supporters have the temerity to claim austerity is failed. Staggering beyond belief is what it truly is.
The country voted to remain part of the Union, part of that was the fact they we have a single tax regime across the country yet the SNP are trying independence lite FFA despite the vast majority of credible sources saying it will leave Scotland with financial difficulties.
Only this mornings we had to listen to Stewart Hosie stating the requirement for a framework to be in place just in case it all goes horribly wrong.
The amendment is alleged to be poorly thought out and not worded very well.
Meanwhile there is another amendment going through shortly to drive FFA through at breakneck speed. Neither situation is good for the country as the chances are that in all likelihood it will plunge Scotland into more austerity than the Tories would even have considered in their most wonderous of dreams.
I could disseminate every critical issue in your long post and draw distinctions between politics, aspirations and the harsh economic realities of some of what you've proposed by needless to say I feel id be wasting my and your time.So I now feel let them have it, if the SNP want to impose FFA on Scotland and all their followers think it's such a wonderful idea why not let them have it. Why should I care when the countries crippled with unsustainable debt, soaring taxes and shrinking public sector and poverty not seen in this country for over a hundred years. I can just go elsewhere and live a happy life and not worry. So it's all yours but always remember be careful what you wish for as you may not like what you get. For when the income tax rate soars, vat soars fuel,prices soar the public sector lay offs increase and unemployment soars I hope you'll still be around to tell everyone that you had a few concerns and not to worry it'll be alright on the night.

squidge
14-Jun-15, 16:33
Please can you edit it for paragraphs. It's a bit hard to follow.

BetterTogether
14-Jun-15, 17:28
How about dealing with this.Institute for fiscal studies estimate for UK /Scotland deficit 2015/16
£75 billion entire UK (4% GDP )

£61 Billion England + Wales + N.Ireland ( 3.6% GDP )

£14 Billion Scotland ( 8.7% GDP )

piratelassie
14-Jun-15, 22:40
Oil would have to be £1500 a barrel to pay for everything in the UK



Here's a BBC report from yesterday, Kezia Dugdale has had her people do some independent research and claims that Oil would have to be $200 a barrel to pay for everything current oil price is $65 a barrel


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33092159

BetterTogether
14-Jun-15, 23:47
Oil would have to be £1500 a barrel to pay for everything in the UKI'm always amused when people make up statistics to desperately try and make themselves look vaguely normal.

Thank you for the biggest laugh of the day.

squidge
14-Jun-15, 23:53
Thanks for the paragraphs :) is it the iPad thing? I always have to go back in and edit my posts too.
I've absolutely no problem with anyone voicing their opinions Squidge and as you're more than aware quite capable of challenging them, this thread is open to anyone to join in and I wish more would. But there is a distinct point of difference between heated debate and complaining that someone questions your source of data or they don't just accept your opinion. I think even you'd accept Business for Scotland doesn't represent even one of Scotlands top 20 companies and most are sole traders or companies with neglible or no turnover. If I wanted I could state numerous directorships of companies which are still technically live but doing nothing or over claim to be a business leader if being on the top tier of one of the country's leading multi nationals counted. Do I bother no I've retired and everything is now in abeyance. Does it mean I should accept that some little group over stating their position speak for Scottish Business and Industry no it doesn't. Most of what's been discussed on this thread is political posturing not even dressed up as anything else. There seems to be little real understanding of what Full Fiscal Autonomy is what the implications are or how it affects the country as a whole. I read the business for Scotland website and let's be fair it doesn't amount to much. I could easily state Scotland could be the richest country in the world if we pooled our resources decided and become the most advanced industrious country dependent on x or y factors, without any figures to back it up, it just preposterous nonsense and not worthy of the time spent reading it. But isn't this paragraph just you doing exactly what you complained shabby chic was doing? Rubbishing sources that you don't agree with? Better Together you refuse ABSOLUTELY to accept any sources, any supporting evidence which is contrary to how you think things should be. You have been consistent in that as long as you have posted here.
Hard choices and realities would face Scotland if it goes down the route of FFA in the current world climate the odds are stacked against a country with high borrowing and no easily defined method of reducing those costs, hence the situation we are currently in and the nation as a wholes more prosperous recovery. Despite those of a certain political persuasions statement of failed austerity over and over there is no proof of it having failed, it's an ongoing situation in employments down, the economy is bouncing back and interest rates are still low every key economic marker shows the nation as a whole is moving in the right direction. Meanwhile in Scotland things aren't so rosey. Literacy rates are falling, unemployment isn't falling, the NHS is struggling, Targets are set by the SNP over and over and missed by a mile yet they and their supporters have the temerity to claim austerity is failed. Staggering beyond belief is what it truly is..Just a minute, you say that “the nation as a whole is moving in the right direction” and then in the next statement spell out that Scotland things aren't so rosy. Are we not part of your “whole nation”? Have we not been living under austerity measures too or are you mistakenly thinking we already have FFA. If Scotland is struggling in today's economic climate then surely “the whole nation” is not moving in the right direction? If Scotland is not performing so well under your “whole nation” approach then maybe it's time to do something different that addresses the particular areas where Scotland needs improvement.
The country voted to remain part of the Union, part of that was the fact they we have a single tax regime across the country yet the SNP are trying independence lite FFA despite the vast majority of credible sources saying it will leave Scotland with financial difficulties. Only this mornings we had to listen to Stewart Hosie stating the requirement for a framework to be in place just in case it all goes horribly wrong. The amendment is alleged to be poorly thought out and not worded very well. Meanwhile there is another amendment going through shortly to drive FFA through at breakneck speed. Neither situation is good for the country as the chances are that in all likelihood it will plunge Scotland into more austerity than the Tories would even have considered in their most wonderous of dreams. .There was a promise made to people that there would be more powers “home rule” - a vow was made lol. There is a duty to deliver that as people voted no believing that the promise would be kept.Had people not wanted what the SNP were proposing then they would not have voted to return 56 out of 59 MPs to Westminster. I'm interested to hear that you have seen the amendments and scrutinised them enough to decide they are rubbish. I'll wait and see what they say for myself.
I could disseminate every critical issue in your long post and draw distinctions between politics, aspirations and the harsh economic realities of some of what you've proposed by needless to say I feel id be wasting my and your time.So I now feel let them have it, if the SNP want to impose FFA on Scotland and all their followers think it's such a wonderful idea why not let them have it. Why should I care when the countries crippled with unsustainable debt, soaring taxes and shrinking public sector and poverty not seen in this country for over a hundred years.
You know Better Together, you have already pointed out that what we have now isn't working. The UK government s have got us into this mess so we should trust them when they say more of the same will get us out? Why? Because we should know our place? its just the same old same old we have heard you say over and over again. All the "you don't have enough MPs to make a difference so you should shut up" is just the Scotland is too small argument; the "the amendment is said to be poorly drafted" is Scotland is too stupid all over again and this last paragraph is Scotland is too poor. It's boring, it's predictable and its not true. There ARE alternatives and the SNP MPs were voted into office with alternative policies as part of their manifesto. You asked for the alternative policies and I gave you some. I already knew that you don't think they will work so no surprise there but hey ho, just dos you don't like something doesn't mean it's no good.
I can just go elsewhere and live a happy life and not worry. So it's all yours but always remember be careful what you wish for as you may not like what you get. For when the income tax rate soars, vat soars fuel,prices soar the public sector lay offs increase and unemployment soars I hope you'll still be around to tell everyone that you had a few concerns and not to worry it'll be alright on the night.Well If that's what you want to do Better Together then that is your choice. Me? Whatever happens I will still be here working to do the best for Scotland in whatever way I can, whether we have FFA or not, whether we remain part of the Union or eventually become independent. It's worth it.

Fulmar
15-Jun-15, 08:25
Me? Whatever happens I will still be here working to do the best for Scotland in whatever way I can, whether we have FFA or not, whether we remain part of the Union or eventually become independent. It's worth it.


Last edited by squidge; 15-Jun-15 at 01:13.

Huurah! At long last something I can fully sign up to on here!

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 08:38
Just to set things straight I do not think Scotland is too small, too weak or too stupid.

What I do think is the SNP is small minded with its polices, it's stirring up of grievances and its shambolic performance when presenting amendments and frankly most of its new MSPs are just puppets put in place by high command a monkey in a suit could of won some of the seats as long as it was in the SNP.

Attacking the SNP is not attacking Scotland the two are entirely separate and whilst I'm at it they do not own the Saltire and should stop high jacking it for their own ends.

As it is your amendment is being rejected, you'll be getting your new powers now let's see how those idiots manage to implement them and make a bigger mess of things.

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 09:03
Better Together you complain that no one else answers your posts. You demand that people respond to you. There are 27 posts where you and Rob talk to yourselves with no interruption, shabbychic challenges you in one post and you complain that this is a one party state.

This isn't a one party state BT there are several parties you could vote for and probably did. Just dos you lost and someone else won doesn't make it a one party state. Yours and Robs are the loudest voices, certainly on this thread by miles, make some room for others and you'll get a discussion.

If me and better togther as you put " talk to each other with no interpution " its becuase hardy anyone else joined in, what am I supposed to do...???

PS Im having trouble with my PM account and cannot respond to you privatley as regards the rebewables info I promised. Can you e mail me direct

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 09:09
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33126122

FFA of the agenda read the link

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 09:42
If me and better togther as you put " talk to each other with no interpution " its becuase hardy anyone else joined in, what am I supposed to do...??? PS Im having trouble with my PM account and cannot respond to you privatley as regards the rebewables info I promised. Can you e mail me direct

Not sure there is any need to apologise for us being the main two proponents of this topic Rob, it always surprises me that we agree on so much when we are so diametrically opposed on our political perspectives. Maybe this shows quite how divisive the SNP is for Scotland.

I'm always amazed how they feel supporting independence is great for Scotland on one hand because they deserve to be free but in the other hand seem more the eager to become part of a bigger more federal Europe which would strip national identity quicker than being part of the UK ever would.

It just shows how confused their thinking really is, wanting to distance themselves from their biggest trading partner to snuggle up closer to a comparatively minor one.

And just for Squidge this is where you read parliamentary bills and amendments there's no big secret.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/scotland.html

Finally the SNP is not Scotland it represents approximately one third of the electorate, disliking a party does not mean disliking the country for the many great and wonderful things there are about Scotland, the SNP is not in my opinion one of them. SNP followers may well be Scottish, although quite a few aren't but this doesn't give them the right to claim the Nation as theirs and theirs alone and become arbiters of what constitutes Scottish.

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 09:58
Im not a nationalist, never have been, yes, we seem to hold diametrically opposite poilitical views, and its hardly our your fault that next to know one joined the thread, I hold the view that they the SNP are the majority party in Scotland and near monopolise Scottish representation at Westminster and if they suggest FFA will lead to economic prosperity then bring it on, I personally jst wnated some meat on the "bones" thats all. I was a bit confused over the process involved, Squidge put me right on the details of which I was completly ignorant on. My simple mind concludes that at the moment the SNP dont want FFA now, they want a phased in approach apparently, ( or rather some want it now others later, pahsed in along with Barnet % reeductions..ie no big bang ) so their ammendment being outvoted today on the grounds of "protecting scottish people from fiscal irresponsibility" as the BBC piece reports ( ie from other parties who will vote it down ) will inevitalby lead to cries that Westminster done them down....( certainly from some quarters ) Yet they dont seem to want it now...or is it a timing issue ?? I dont really know. Its all getting to machieviallian and blurred for me now.

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 10:04
Listening to Stewart Hosie speaking on Sunday Politics yesterday it appears they want FFA imposed slowly with an over arching framework put in place before they go it alone.
Boiling it down into simple speak,it goes a bit like this.

We want FFA.

We haven't costed it out but know it's right.

We Demand FFA because it's right for Scotland.

We want a clause written in that if we get it all wrong and plunge the Nation into a mire of debt you'll bail us out.

You're denying the will of the Scottish People if you don't give us everything we want.

Democracy is only good when it works for us.

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 10:09
For those interested but not wanting to read all the amendment. Much has been made of things such as PiP, carers allowance, disability living allowance, etc they all become devolved under the Scotland Bill.

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 10:44
Listening to Stewart Hosie speaking on Sunday Politics yesterday it appears they want FFA imposed slowly with an over arching framework put in place before they go it alone.
Boiling it down into simple speak,it goes a bit like this.

We want FFA.

We haven't costed it out but know it's right.

We Demand FFA because it's right for Scotland.

We want a clause written in that if we get it all wrong and plunge the Nation into a mire of debt you'll bail us out.

You're denying the will of the Scottish People if you don't give us everything we want.

Democracy is only good when it works for us.

Firstly, sorry to anyone who thinks this thread is being monopolised, I am exercising my right to respond to the above but BTG can you clarify...".We want a clause written in that if we get it all wrong and plunge the Nation into a mire of debt you'll bail us out". What clause is that, can you point me in the right direction for clarification please, if true then whoever "amended the SCotland act / smith commission "bill" or whatever its called to get this in must have kown that it wouldnt fly...with any UK government or anybody anywhere any time...

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 11:35
Firstly, sorry to anyone who thinks this thread is being monopolised, I am exercising my right to respond to the above but BTG can you clarify...".We want a clause written in that if we get it all wrong and plunge the Nation into a mire of debt you'll bail us out". What clause is that, can you point me in the right direction for clarification please, if true then whoever "amended the SCotland act / smith commission "bill" or whatever its called to get this in must have kown that it wouldnt fly...with any UK government or anybody anywhere any time...

Hi Rob I shouldn't apologise it's quite clear the thread is being read by the views on it. I've had a few pms from people as well, it appears from discussions I've had that many people feel that unless you're a nationalist it's not worth speaking up, which is a sad day for Scotland, when the majority of the population feel unable to voice their opinions.

Meanwhile I shall remain as tenacious as always in my support for the Union.

If you watch The Sunday Politics show, its probably available on iplayer or catch up depending on your viewing capabilities, you'll be able to hear the whole interview with Stewart Hosie SNP, he states that what they want from FFA is a full framework.
When pushed on what he actually means and tackled about the issues he insists on the UK govt having vetos on the Bill which isn't correct but his terminology but then goes on to wobble quite distinctly when pushed a bit more that part of what he requires is the ability for Scotland to be underwritten by UK Govt if they overspend.
Currently that limit is set at an annual overspend of £200 Million a year under FFA that would be a drop in the ocean compared to the liabilities Scotland under FFA would be able to incur so would have to be raised and underwritten by UK Govt or else you'd have a position where Scotland could effectively bankrupt itself with no safety net as it stand the current position means that Scotland spends and all debt it's covered.
If you consider the realities of the situation could the UK Govt allow a part of the Union to spend what it wants and bankrupt itself, the effect across the Union would be disastrous and create a whole plethora of problems.
It might also be useful if you read through the Scotland Bill ( link provided already in previous post, with amendments ) that way you can make an informed decision.
I appreciate it does make rather a long read especially with cross referencing the amendments but as you'll be able to see the Bill does give quite considerable new powers to the Scottish Govt on taxation and Welfare, contrary to some of the things that have been said on this thread.

squidge
15-Jun-15, 11:48
Rob, Of course we want FFA implemented slowly - a phased approach. What we want is to start that process now and to implement it as soon as it agreement can be reached over a period of time. What is it about that which is a bad thing? It is the right and responsible thing to do because as I have explained time and again FFA is not Independence, it requires much more negotiation and disentangling.

BT If you truly don't understand why folk who support independence want to remain in the EU then I suggest you either re read the hundreds of posts on that issue of start a new thread. The two views are absolutely compatible. I'm surprised that wanting to remain part of Europe is considered small minded but each to their own.

I would also suggest that if a monkey in a suit could get elected as an MP then what does that say about the sitting candidates. Politics is changing. it's not sufficient any more to stamp your feet and complain "SNP BAAAD". And as for FFA - we are not getting it. Well there is a surprise. So first they accuse the SNP of not wanting it, then when we ask for it we don't get it. (Shakes head with a wry smile) I might expect my 7 year old and 5 year old to behave that way - I'd certainly be giving them a row for it.

The smith commission it is then, with its power of veto over everything - we are in for an exciting time :)

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 11:54
Hi Rob
If you watch The Sunday Politics show, its probably available on iplayer or catch up depending on your viewing capabilities, you'll be able to hear the whole interview with Stewart Hosie SNP, he states that what they want from FFA is a full framework.
When pushed on what he actually means and tackled about the issues he insists on the UK govt having vetos on the Bill which isn't correct but his terminology but then goes on to wobble quite distinctly when pushed a bit more that part of what he requires is the ability for Scotland to be underwritten by UK Govt if they overspend.
Currently that limit is set at an annual overspend of £200 Million a year under FFA that would be a drop in the ocean compared to the liabilities Scotland under FFA would be able to incur so would have to be raised and underwritten by UK Govt or else you'd have a position where Scotland could effectively bankrupt itself with no safety net as it stand the current position means that Scotland spends and all debt it's covered.
If you consider the realities of the situation could the UK Govt allow a part of the Union to spend what it wants and bankrupt itself, the effect across the Union would be disastrous and create a whole plethora of problems.
It might also be useful if you read through the Scotland Bill ( link provided already in previous post, with amendments ) that way you can make an informed decision.
I appreciate it does make rather a long read especially with cross referencing the amendments but as you'll be able to see the Bill does give quite considerable new powers to the Scottish Govt on taxation and Welfare, contrary to some of the things that have been said on this thread.

Yep I saw the interview, didnt understand what he meant by a "full fiscal framework", but if he wants a UK safety net propping up FFA then he must know that no government anywhere would agree to that.....asking for delivery of the impossible, my understanding was for FFA now, no propping up, but going it alone, debate seems to be focusing on poor financial forecasts for scotland v give us the levers of power and all will be fine, with the UK government ( and labour / LD's etc ) all supporting the poor financial forecasts for scotland...so no full FFA, with UK governement support. This once again raises the politics of grievance, ie the big boys wouldnt give us what we ( and you in Scotland ) wanted or the UK government acted sensibly to protect Scotland and the UK or the SNP knew that FFA now would be disastrous but staill maintain the posturing, so as to fuel the fires of grievance.......... its all if s, ands and buts... You know what...I cannot make head nor tail of this situation.

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 12:00
Rob, Of course we want FFA implemented slowly - a phased approach. What we want is to start that process now and to implement it as soon as it agreement can be reached over a period of time. What is it about that which is a bad thing? It is the right and responsible thing to do because as I have explained time and again FFA is not Independence, it requires much more negotiation and disentangling.

BT If you truly don't understand why folk who support independence want to remain in the EU then I suggest you either re read the hundreds of posts on that issue of start a new thread. The two views are absolutely compatible. I'm surprised that wanting to remain part of Europe is considered small minded but each to their own.

I would also suggest that if a monkey in a suit could get elected as an MP then what does that say about the sitting candidates. Politics is changing. it's not sufficient any more to stamp your feet and complain "SNP BAAAD". And as for FFA - we are not getting it. Well there is a surprise. So first they accuse the SNP of not wanting it, then when we ask for it we don't get it. (Shakes head with a wry smile) I might expect my 7 year old and 5 year old to behave that way - I'd certainly be giving them a row for it.

The smith commission it is then, with its power of veto over everything - we are in for an exciting time :)

Thanks for enlightening me, you must have posted whilst I was writing my post, a phased approach yes nothing wrong with that, Ive treid deciphering the on line amendments but gave up.....does the smith commission ie ( is it the new Scotland act ? ) presumably after todays vote, really give UK government powers to veto everything, as I thought next year devolved stand alone fiscal powers were being transferred wih no accountability ie the powers would be in Holyrood ??

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 13:12
To claim that there is a power of veto with the Scotland Bill is disingenuous at best or just making light with the truth. Read the bill the Scottish Government has the powers, Squidge seems intent on using incorrect terminology to prove a point. It's the usual SNP ruse of claiming of naming something as they wish to view it to suit their political ends rather than admitting they have the powers and can't actually use them for fear of loosing voters.

As I posted a link to the Scotland Bill earlier maybe Squidge would like to directly quote the part where it states there are powers of veto. That should be easy enough to do as she claims its in the Bill or else I shall have to work on the premise that there is no veto and she is playing political games with the truth.

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 13:20
To claim that there is a power of veto with the Scotland Bill is disingenuous at best or just making light with the truth. Read the bill the Scottish Government has the powers, Squidge seems intent on using incorrect terminology to prove a point. It's the usual SNP ruse of claiming of naming something as they wish to view it to suit their political ends rather than admitting they have the powers and can't actually use them for fear of loosing voters.

As I posted a link to the Scotland Bill earlier maybe Squidge would like to directly quote the part where it states there are powers of veto. That should be easy enough to do as she claims its in the Bill or else I shall have to work on the premise that there is no veto and she is playing political games with the truth.

Jurys out for me....I cannot make head nor tail of the " amendments" I would like some one to show me where exactly it states powers of veto, or language to that intent..

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 13:35
To claim that there is a power of veto with the Scotland Bill is disingenuous at best or just making light with the truth. Read the bill the Scottish Government has the powers, Squidge seems intent on using incorrect terminology to prove a point. It's the usual SNP ruse of claiming of naming something as they wish to view it to suit their political ends rather than admitting they have the powers and can't actually use them for fear of loosing voters.

As I posted a link to the Scotland Bill earlier maybe Squidge would like to directly quote the part where it states there are powers of veto. That should be easy enough to do as she claims its in the Bill or else I shall have to work on the premise that there is no veto and she is playing political games with the truth.

Ive googled a bit and have found that Westmister has seemingly retained vetoes on universal credits, fuel poverty support schemes and obligations on suppliers to reduce carbon emissions and home heating costs. Effectively controlling welfae expenditure ??

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 13:39
It's presented as a veto by the SNP but if you read the act itself it's not a veto.

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 13:41
It's presented as a veto by the SNP but if you read the act itself it's not a veto.

Can you post the url of what you are refering to please ? Or copy n paste and reply to me so I can see for myself

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 13:43
Surely here you go.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/scotland.html

The part they are referring to is where it says " there is a duty to consult " but that does not stop them actually implementing changes

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 13:59
Surely here you go.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/scotland.html

The part they are referring to is where it says " there is a duty to consult " but that does not stop them actually implementing changes

FRom the site you gave me : In its May 2015 report on the draft clauses and associated Command Paper Scotland and the United Kingdom: an enduring settlement (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scotland-in-the-united-kingdom-an-enduring-settlement), the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_ScotlandBillCommittee/Reports/dfpr-15-03w-rev.pdf) questioned whether some of the welfare clauses met the “spirit and substance” of the Smith Commission’s recommendations and posed potential challenges to implementing them. A key concern was that the powers to create new benefits in areas of devolved responsibility and to make discretionary payments in any area of welfare were narrowly defined.
With the exception of a new power to top-up reserved benefits, there are no substantive differences between the welfare and employment support provisions in the Scotland Bill and the previous draft clauses.....which I take it the SNP accepted when they siged up to the smith commission ???

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 14:05
You're quite correct in your assumptions.

What the SNP seem to want from the smith Commision is the ability to tinker at will with every power without any form of consultation with the UK Govt. The consultation in fact does not specifically stop the Scottish Government from implementing any changes.


It does take a bit of rummaging through to be fair but it's all in there to read and digest admittedly not the most exciting read you'll ever have, but if you're interested in the topic why leave it for others to report and interpret it for you.

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 14:07
Surely here you go.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/scotland.html

The part they are referring to is where it says " there is a duty to consult " but that does not stop them actually implementing changes

Sorry IM lost, cant find it, ie there is a duty to consult " can you copy it from the url and paste it please then its perfectly clear for all to see.

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 14:11
It's a bit difficult as its a PDF which makes copying and pasting a pain

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 14:17
It's a bit difficult as its a PDF which makes copying and pasting a pain

Ok theres 2 pdf's : which one is it ? and can you give me the page where it says what youve pointed out, please, much appreciated

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0003/16003.pdf (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0003/16003.pdf)

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07077/SN07077.pdf (http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07077/SN07077.pdf)

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 14:19
It's on page 30 if that makes life easier


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0003/16003.pdf


Thought my days of having to speed read where long over !

Section 4 (b)

It finishes with...such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld .

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 14:36
It's on page 30 if that makes life easier


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0003/16003.pdf


Thought my days of having to speed read where long over !

Section 4 (b)

It finishes with...such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld .

Cheers it took me to below : does this relate to the bedroom tax ? Also..."unreasonably withheld"....very subjective dont you think ok it doesnt specifically say that the westminster government has powers of veto, but unreasonable...who defines unreasonable and on what basis ?
Universal credit:costs of claimants who rent accommodation

(4) The ScottishMinisters may not exercise the function of making regulations to
which this sectionapplies unless—

(a) they haveconsulted the Secretary of State about the practicability of
implementing theregulations, and
(b) the Secretaryof State has given his or her agreement as to when any
change made by theregulations is to start to have effect,such
agreement not to beunreasonably withheld.

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 14:40
It means the Scottish Government is duty bound to consult with the UK Govt but when push comes to shove the UK Govt cannot without very good reason withold change from going through.

Yes it's subjective but all legislation is written in language that makes it workable for both sides.

There are similar parts throughout the document but as you can now see there is no veto in the whole document.

You can argue what unreasonably with held means but it is weighted in favour of the Scottish Government

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 15:00
It means the Scottish Government is duty bound to consult with the UK Govt but when push comes to shove the UK Govt cannot without very good reason withold change from going through.

Yes it's subjective but all legislation is written in language that makes it workable for both sides.

There are similar parts throughout the document but as you can now see there is no veto in the whole document.


You can argue what unreasonably with held means but it is weighted in favour of the Scottish Government

Your right the word "veto", doesnt appear but does it ever in legisalation, I would imagine words such as " cannot enact x y z without the expressed consent of the Sec of Stat or whoever or cannot enact x y z without gaining majority etc etc : veto ,is again a very subjective word, I think the correct wording used in this context should apply to.. "a bill. that seemingly, could have in parts, the potential to "curtail" activities deemed important enough to be fully within the control of an elected Scottish government". Legislation is written in legal format, and challenging words such as "unreasonable" have made lawyers over the years very rich people. As I remember it the english language lacks mathematical precision and hence is very open to many differing meanings....and I suggest that " not to be unreasonably withheld" can be seen as having many meanings.

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 15:56
Squidge, to summarise the postings made today : Ive asked clarification of where exactly the word "veto" appears in legisalation, what I have seen is, the term........... such
agreement not to be unreasonably withheld, is this the issue ? ie the interpretation of unreasonably withheld being seen as a potential "veto" ?

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 16:28
Your right the word "veto", doesnt appear but does it ever in legisalation, I would imagine words such as " cannot enact x y z without the expressed consent of the Sec of Stat or whoever or cannot enact x y z without gaining majority etc etc : veto ,is again a very subjective word, I think the correct wording used in this context should apply to.. "a bill. that seemingly, could have in parts, the potential to "curtail" activities deemed important enough to be fully within the control of an elected Scottish government". Legislation is written in legal format, and challenging words such as "unreasonable" have made lawyers over the years very rich people. As I remember it the english language lacks mathematical precision and hence is very open to many differing meanings....and I suggest that " not to be unreasonably withheld" can be seen as having many meanings.

I think for terms of ease of understanding that anything written by UK Govt with any caveat regardless of how reasonable it would appear as unreasonable to those within the SNP.

Anything but full control/ power is unacceptable to them so how can two sides be seen to work together constructively when one side it intent on holding all the power and decision making.

I'm sure neither you no I or anyone else on this forum would enter any agreement that stated that the other side was allowed to make any changes it wanted with no regard to the other side but still expect them to be ultimately financially responsible for those decisions.

That for most people would constitute the very epitome of unreasonable behaviour but it seems this is exactly what the SNP are trying to get.

Let us spend what we want, how we want, whenever we want and if we can't afford it. Well you can pay for our mistakes.

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 16:33
Squidge, to summarise the postings made today : Ive asked clarification of where exactly the word "veto" appears in legisalation, what I have seen is, the term........... suchagreement not to be unreasonably withheld, is this the issue ? ie the interpretation of unreasonably withheld being seen as a potential "veto" ? I very much doubt considering Squidges previous comments whether she has actually taken time to read the Scotland Bill and its various amendments, judging by her earlier comments on this thread. If I'm wrong I will apologise in advance.

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 16:40
I very much doubt considering Squidges previous comments whether she has actually taken time to read the Scotland Bill and its various amendments, judging by her earlier comments on this thread. If I'm wrong I will apologise in advance.

Better re consider your post ! Squidge is on the ball re complexities of FFA / disentaglement, so I wouldnt assume that she is not up to speed ( unlike me prior to this thread ) on the Scotland bill.

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 16:41
I'm interested to hear that you have seen the amendments and scrutinised them enough to decide they are rubbish. I'll wait and see what they say for myself.Re my previous post I based it on this statement so we don't confused, I'd of thought you'd be throughly aware that the Scotland Bill and all its amendments are available to view online. Ah the joys of living in a 21st century fully westernised prosperous democratic country.

rob murray
15-Jun-15, 16:55
Re my previous post I based it on this statement so we don't confused, I'd of thought you'd be throughly aware that the Scotland Bill and all its amendments are available to view online. Ah the joys of living in a 21st century fully westernised prosperous democratic country.

Sorry I knew they would be on line somewhere but couldnt find them until you sent me the url.

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 17:03
Sorry I knew they would be on line somewhere but couldnt find them until you sent me the url.

No problems Rob you clearly stated earlier you hadn't read it and were unaware of what it entailed.

I find it difficult to comprehend someone who so vehemently attacks the Scotland Bill but hasn't had the good grace to actually read it and come to an informed decision.

Given some of the statements made about the Bill I can only conclude that the information provided was gleaned from other sources not the official one.

How can you speak with any kind of authority on a subject when you have failed at the first hurdle and not read the documents it's related to.

It's a bit like me reviewing a book I've never read and only been told about.

squidge
15-Jun-15, 17:19
Guys, I can't answer any of this stuff till Wednesday. I'm in Edinburgh tonight and tomorrow for work and driving back and forth so I don't even have the luxury of a few free WIFI hours on the train.Meeting tomorrow and visiting a very poorly friend so I'm out of circulation for a while. I can't just rattle off replies as it's such a complex subject. And yes I've read it lol. Hadn't found the amendment when I spoke.

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 18:01
Here's another link for you Rob or anyone else following the discussion.

Minutes from the discussions in Holyrood.



http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=9891&i=90571

squidge
15-Jun-15, 23:26
So much for FFA then. No surprise really.

Still this whole FFA debate pales into insignificance when you realise that Westminster just voted to have the ability to abolish the Scottish Parliament without asking the Scottish People.


Oh and your "that's not a veto" remarks earlier Better Together sound a bit hollow when Westminster just voted to allow itself to legislate on devolved matters without the permission of the Scottish Government and to repeal the Human Rights act in Scotland even if our parliament does not want it repealed.


What were the first words of the three illustrious leaders preposterous vow? " the Scottish Parliament is permanent"


Aye ............................Right!

Despite Labour saying they "strongly oppose" FFA, they sat on their fat hands and abstained. Can anyone tell me what on earth is the point of the Labour Party even turning up if they aren't going to vote.

BetterTogether
15-Jun-15, 23:43
Call me cynical if you wish Squidge, but could you possibly give reference to the actual bill that was just voted on so I can read it myself, rather than rely on your interpretation of it. Then we may be able to have a reasoned debate on the issue.

Am I mistaken or did Alex Salmomd vote with the Tories on amendment 89 as well or have I misread something.

As for the abolishing the Human Rights Act if it's to be replaced with a British Bill of Rights that closes some of the abused and clarifies the poorly worded parts of that piece of legislation why is that such a bad thing ? ( also it's a Conservative Manifesto Pledge )

It's not as though it's being scrapped with nothing to replace it, but if it allows us to deport murderers, rapists and criminals who are abusing the current legislation is that such a bad thing.

All laws and legislation are written at the time and revised or scrapped and replaced when they no longer serve the purpose for which they where intended.

squidge
16-Jun-15, 01:15
Were you not watching it on Parliament live? The transcript will be out tomorrow

BetterTogether
16-Jun-15, 08:35
Were you not watching it on Parliament live? The transcript will be out tomorrow

Alas my better half doesn't allow me free reign to indulge my political interests fully.

Well when the transcript is released I hope you'll be kind enough to post it so we can debate the issue.

BetterTogether
16-Jun-15, 09:32
Just read through yesterday's commons stuff, I'm sure you only do it to make me speed read and I've found what I think you may be referring to Alistair Carmicheals amendments.

But there is a caveat to the amendments so you have to read them carefully.

This amendment is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can only be abolished with the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people after a referendum.

We can now discuss

Oddquine
16-Jun-15, 12:23
Just read through yesterday's commons stuff, I'm sure you only do it to make me speed read and I've found what I think you may be referring to Alistair Carmicheals amendments.

But there is a caveat to the amendments so you have to read them carefully.

This amendment is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can only be abolished with the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people after a referendum.

We can now discuss

You mean this one? Darn hard work trying to work your way through the Hansard verbiage, but did anything actually change in fact in Section 1 from the 1998 Act, given Carmichael withdrew his amendment.........I think?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 58, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert—

“(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.

(1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—

(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and

(b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it.”—(Angus Robertson.)

This amendment is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can only be abolished with the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people after a referendum.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 271, Noes 302.


I was interested to see Carmichael becoming a federalist again, saying I was very disappointed by the Secretary of State’s response on the constitutional convention. Ultimately, if we are to continue with this Union, a federal structure is inevitable. That will have to be grasped sooner or later, and the way in which that will be done is through the calling of a constitutional convention.

rob murray
16-Jun-15, 12:44
You mean this one? Darn hard work trying to work your way through the Hansard verbiage, but did anything actually change in fact in Section 1 from the 1998 Act, given Carmichael withdrew his amendment.........I think?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 58, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert—

“(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.

(1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—

(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and

(b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it.”—(Angus Robertson.)

This amendment is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can only be abolished with the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people after a referendum.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 271, Noes 302.

Thanks very much, glad youve got the patience and ability to pin point / target what required clarification...does my head in looking through the government stuff

squidge
16-Jun-15, 12:44
Alas my better half doesn't allow me free reign to indulge my political interests fully. I know, the wild life I lead when I have a night in Edinburgh :/ insomnia and parliament live. There was a time it was late nights, loud music and lovers, cobbled streets and kisses but time moves on lol

BetterTogether
16-Jun-15, 13:39
You mean this one? Darn hard work trying to work your way through the Hansard verbiage, but did anything actually change in fact in Section 1 from the 1998 Act, given Carmichael withdrew his amendment.........I think? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.Amendment proposed: 58, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert—“(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.(1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and(b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it.”—(Angus Robertson.)This amendment is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can only be abolished with the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people after a referendum.Question put, That the amendment be made.The Committee divided:Ayes 271, Noes 302.I was interested to see Carmichael becoming a federalist again, saying I was very disappointed by the Secretary of State’s response on the constitutional convention. Ultimately, if we are to continue with this Union, a federal structure is inevitable. That will have to be grasped sooner or later, and the way in which that will be done is through the calling of a constitutional convention.
It would appear nothing really changed much ado about nothing really !

But thanks for highlighting the part of relevance, it does make life easier when we can all read and digest what is actually in question.

BetterTogether
16-Jun-15, 13:42
I've been sent this article by PM by someone interested in the topic but not wishing to partake in the debate.

As always I am most grateful for any useful articles and more than happy to express sensible opinions or ask questions for those who feel less comfortable doing so.


http://forargyll.com/2015/06/snp-now-in-full-fiscal-anomaly-and-hosie-betray-full-fiscal/

Oddquine
16-Jun-15, 15:03
It would appear nothing really changed much ado about nothing really !

But thanks for highlighting the part of relevance, it does make life easier when we can all read and digest what is actually in question.

Not much ado about nothing.......much ado about the VOW.

I highlighted the No vote figures and part of the Carmichael comment in the part of his speech just before it concluded. How is that a part of relevance and of relevance to what, exactly?

The bolded NO vote figures highlight only that Westminster (and predominantly, if not solely, the Tories in Westminster) have voted to continue to allow Westminster to keep the existence of the Scottish Parliament under its sole control, thus breaking the VOW which said it would make the Scottish Parliament a permanent institution. In an arena in which Scotland itself has only 59 votes out of 650, about an 11-1 vote disadvantage, the only way to do that, is to allow the Scottish Parliament/Scottish people to have the final say.

The bolded part of the Carmichael remarks, apart from noting the novelty of a Scottish LibDem suddenly finding his long forgotten federal UK principles, is more predicated on his inference that unless there is a federal solution, the Union is doomed. (unless you can interpret it differently). I concur with his statement. However, given the Calman Commission was set up in 2007, didn't produce its report until 2009, did not get through the Westminster wrecking ball until 2012, and won't be fully implemented until 2016...any constitutional convention would have to have produced definitive conclusions/actions in a much shorter time scale than nine years, if it is going to head off the currently equally inevitable indyref2, which won't take another nine years of Westminster Governments on much the same lines as this one, to be in some party manifesto for Scottish elections.

Oddquine
16-Jun-15, 15:19
I've been sent this article by PM by someone interested in the topic but not wishing to partake in the debate.

As always I am most grateful for any useful articles and more than happy to express sensible opinions or ask questions for those who feel less comfortable doing so.


http://forargyll.com/2015/06/snp-now-in-full-fiscal-anomaly-and-hosie-betray-full-fiscal/


If you are happy to read and discuss any useful articles, I am sure you will be more than willing to read Wings, written in simple language, which will undoubtedly offer you plenty to argue with, but also includes links to facts, and are not just off the top of the head opinion pieces.

A small selection for you....
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-best-and-worst-of-times/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-magic-number/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-broken-promise/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-straightforward-offer/

rob murray
16-Jun-15, 15:29
If you are happy to read and discuss any useful articles, I am sure you will be more than willing to read Wings, written in simple language, which will undoubtedly offer you plenty to argue with, but also includes links to facts, and are not just off the top of the head opinion pieces.

A small selection for you....
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-best-and-worst-of-times/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-magic-number/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-broken-promise/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-straightforward-offer/

Thanks a quick squint and theres some good stuff here will spend time reading them !

golach
16-Jun-15, 16:33
Thanks a quick squint and theres some good stuff here will spend time reading them ! all submitted by oddquine are written by a professional troll who is neither a Reverand or a resident Scot

BetterTogether
16-Jun-15, 16:41
Not much ado about nothing.......much ado about the VOW. I highlighted the No vote figures and part of the Carmichael comment in the part of his speech just before it concluded. How is that a part of relevance and of relevance to what, exactly?The bolded NO vote figures highlight only that Westminster (and predominantly, if not solely, the Tories in Westminster) have voted to continue to allow Westminster to keep the existence of the Scottish Parliament under its sole control, thus breaking the VOW which said it would make the Scottish Parliament a permanent institution. In an arena in which Scotland itself has only 59 votes out of 650, about an 11-1 vote disadvantage, the only way to do that, is to allow the Scottish Parliament/Scottish people to have the final say. The bolded part of the Carmichael remarks, apart from noting the novelty of a Scottish LibDem suddenly finding his long forgotten federal UK principles, is more predicated on his inference that unless there is a federal solution, the Union is doomed. (unless you can interpret it differently). I concur with his statement. However, given the Calman Commission was set up in 2007, didn't produce its report until 2009, did not get through the Westminster wrecking ball until 2012, and won't be fully implemented until 2016...any constitutional convention would have to have produced definitive conclusions/actions in a much shorter time scale than nine years, if it is going to head off the currently equally inevitable indyref2, which won't take another nine years of Westminster Governments on much the same lines as this one, to be in some party manifesto for Scottish elections.Given that what the fuss is about is someone somewhere stating the UK host could disband holyrood at will, we than have to look at the realities. The documents provided show there is a lot of wrangling going on over wording and phraseology but the reality is NO one except certain factions of the SNP are saying that the Scottish Govt might be dissolved, it's another case of taken the most extreme possible interpretation of a document and twisting it to suit purpose i.e creating a perceived grievance where there is non.

BetterTogether
16-Jun-15, 16:45
If you are happy to read and discuss any useful articles, I am sure you will be more than willing to read Wings, written in simple language, which will undoubtedly offer you plenty to argue with, but also includes links to facts, and are not just off the top of the head opinion pieces. A small selection for you....http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-best-and-worst-of-times/http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-magic-number/http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-broken-promise/http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-straightforward-offer/I consider useful articles those provided, such as minutes of parliamentary meetings and committees. To provide links to wings over Scotland is really only useful to those with an interest in a purely nationalist warped perspective of issues.

rob murray
16-Jun-15, 16:50
all submitted by oddquine are written by a professional troll who is neither a Reverand or a resident Scot

Ok maybe Im naive, but Im just looking for factual answers, seems that this whole FFA shebang is centred around a she said, he said, I said, they said, we said, I said, no I didna, yes you did, farce etc etc etc..........the truth seems to be out there, but seems very elusive to capture. I did wondered why a reverand would write the way some pieces sounded though.......

BetterTogether
16-Jun-15, 17:13
WingsoverScotland is a well renowned Nationalist Website many things it maybe, impartial it certainly is not.

You're quite right Rob it is a bit of a he said she said situation there no doubt about that.

Hence I'd recommend reading the official record from Parliament and the Commitees at least you're then seeing first hand who said what when rather than an interpretation of it by some other interested party.

Oddquine
16-Jun-15, 17:21
all submitted by oddquine are written by a professional troll who is neither a Reverand or a resident Scot

He gives his opinion, but also the facts on which he bases it, to enable anyone to come to their own conclusion, even if it is different to his..... do you have a problem with that, golach? Because you don't agree with him does not make him a troll.......and anyway how can you troll on your own website? Which part of his site, if you have ever read it, is your problem.....that he gives facts.... or his interpretation of them to produce an opinion......or that he doesn't produce facts or opinions which agree with your facts and interpretation of them?

BetterTogether
16-Jun-15, 17:32
I'd hardly say that his articles are fact laden Oddquine optionated most definitely but relevant details are on the light side.

Oddquine
16-Jun-15, 18:01
WingsoverScotland is a well renowned Nationalist Website many things it maybe, impartial it certainly is not.

You're quite right Rob it is a bit of a he said she said situation there no doubt about that.

Hence I'd recommend reading the official record from Parliament and the Commitees at least you're then seeing first hand who said what when rather than an interpretation of it by some other interested party.

How does being a nationalist website alter facts, BT? It may well alter the interpretation of facts, but not the facts themselves.

As just about the only way the average voter will get his/her information is via the media, both printed and TV/Radio, Wings looks at the media and points out its lies, misrepresentations and propaganda tactics on behalf of the establishment..........propaganda tactics which worked in the referendum.....and have been continuing unabated ever since.

I don't expect anyone, like golach or yourself, who are adamantly pro-union, to the exclusion of genuinely acknowledging and discussing any other point of view, to agree with Wings, or any other nationalist news site/website, but if you don't look at anything with which you don't agree, how are you going to have a discussion which consists of more than you stating your opinion of the SNP, FFA, Scottish government etc and ignoring posts to which you can't give a sneering response.

BetterTogether
16-Jun-15, 18:16
How does being a nationalist website alter facts, BT? It may well alter the interpretation of facts, but not the facts themselves. As just about the only way the average voter will get his/her information is via the media, both printed and TV/Radio, Wings looks at the media and points out its lies, misrepresentations and propaganda tactics on behalf of the establishment..........propaganda tactics which worked in the referendum.....and have been continuing unabated ever since. I don't expect anyone, like golach or yourself, who are adamantly pro-union, to the exclusion of genuinely acknowledging and discussing any other point of view, to agree with Wings, or any other nationalist news site/website, but if you don't look at anything with which you don't agree, how are you going to have a discussion which consists of more than you stating your opinion of the SNP, FFA, Scottish government etc and ignoring posts to which you can't give a sneering response.

You seem to conclude I haven't read the articles, which would be incorrect. I do read multiple sources before forming an opinion I generally prefer to read what the people have actually said themselves as opposed to just reading what has been reported by news outlets.
I've never claimed to be anything other than a Unionist but that doesn't mean I'm above reading other people's opinions or views.
The reality is though Wingsoverscotland as a website falls into the more zealous of Nationalist sites the reporting is very light on actual details about issues but very heavy on preaching how they should be interpreted.

Each of the articles you put forward for reading had limited detailed information on any of the subjects it addressed plain and simple, that may appeal to those who can't be bothered to read in depth and become fully informed or prefer to just use a particular form to semi- plagiarise about the issues currently at play in Scotland but the reality is it doesn't deal in depth with the actual detail.


The other issue is it doesn't explain why the SNP keeps putting forward such poorly drafted legislation, that issue is purely down to them and no one else.
It's ok to pass the buck and lay the blame at everyone else's door but the country already has examples of poorly drafted legislation being rammed through by the SNP with little due diligence being applied and now coming back to bite them.

No doubt it will be hard for SNP voters to accept that this is purely the fault of those drafting the legislation and that their party is in part it's own worst enemy.

squidge
17-Jun-15, 08:36
It would appear nothing really changed much ado about nothing really !.It's not nothing. The Scottish Parliament is not permanent. This was an opportunity to ensure that it was, that it could only be dissolved with the approval of the Scottish Government or through a referendum where the people of Scotland vote for it to be dissolved. That might have been an acceptable way to look at I when the parliament was first mooted but it's not acceptable now for Westminster to have the ULTIMATE veto in the post referendum period.

Whenwe have returned so many SNP MPs on a manifesto calling for more powers it shows that WM doesn't care one iota about Scotland.People say that "what's the fuss? It would never happen" but the fact that they have voted to maintain the possibility of sitting it down is a big message. What it says is "We own you, we control you and we can take that away whenever we want and don't you forget it". That we exist on a "grace and favour" basis and we should therefore do what we are told, shut up and remember our place.

BetterTogether
17-Jun-15, 08:45
It's not nothing. The Scottish Parliament is not permanent. This was an opportunity to ensure that it was, that it could only be dissolved with the approval of the Scottish Government or through a referendum where the people of Scotland vote for it to be dissolved. That might have been an acceptable way to look at I when the parliament was first mooted but it's not acceptable now for Westminster to have the ULTIMATE veto in the post referendum period. Whenwe have returned so many SNP MPs on a manifesto calling for more powers it shows that WM doesn't care one iota about Scotland.People say that "what's the fuss? It would never happen" but the fact that they have voted to maintain the possibility of sitting it down is a big message. What it says is "We own you, we control you and we can take that away whenever we want and don't you forget it". That we exist on a "grace and favour" basis and we should therefore do what we are told, shut up and remember our place.

That is very much your interpretation, in reality all your doing is nit picking through legislation to find anything which could positively be used to stoke the air of grievance all the while steadfastly refusing to actually state what the intention is to do with all the new powers.
No piece of legislation is perfect it's all written in a language that is alien to most of us.

It's funny how this was never an issue before FFA was mooted which to be fair was NOT part of the VOW and never was.

Now you're making much ado about a part no doubt you where completely unaware of beforehand and in reality makes no difference.

It still requires a referendum and the will of the Scottish Govt to disband holyrood it's not a decision Westminster can just make and apply. FFA is not going to happen so it's very much sounding like on to the next perceived grievance.

BetterTogether
17-Jun-15, 10:01
Let's us put a purely hypothetical situation to Squidge.
Let's say that after years of fiscal mismanagement and grievance the SNP no longer are the political force they are currently.
Tired by the relentless airing of perceived grievances and division created by their politiking another party comes to the fore in Scottish Politics with a manifesto pledge to end Holyrood and return to being purely run from Westminster ( unlikely I concede ).

Are you suggesting that the people of Scotland should have their democratic right to hold a referendum removed so they are permanently forced to keep Holyrood.

You claim to want a free and fair society where the people have choices to make their own decisions, part of being in a democracy is the ability for people to vote on issues they feel strongly about. Whilst I concede the above situation is highly unlikely in the world we live in who is to say it may not occur.
Therefor you propose to remove the one article in a piece of legislation that would allow the people to make their feelings heard.

squidge
17-Jun-15, 10:37
Let's us put a purely hypothetical situation to Squidge.
Let's say that after years of fiscal mismanagement and grievance the SNP no longer are the political force they are currently.
Tired by the relentless airing of perceived grievances and division created by their politiking another party comes to the fore in Scottish Politics with a manifesto pledge to end Holyrood and return to being purely run from Westminster ( unlikely I concede ).

Are you suggesting that the people of Scotland should have their democratic right to hold a referendum removed so they are permanently forced to keep Holyrood.

You claim to want a free and fair society where the people have choices to make their own decisions, part of being in a democracy is the ability for people to vote on issues they feel strongly about. Whilst I concede the above situation is highly unlikely in the world we live in who is to say it may not occur.
Therefor you propose to remove the one article in a piece of legislation that would allow the people to make their feelings heard.

You misunderstand Better Together. I think you might have got this completely the wrong way round.

The current arrangements are that Westminster can abolish the Scottish Parliament at their will with no consultation with either the Scottish Government or the Scottish People. Currently it does NOT require a referendum to abolish the Scottish Parliament

This is the amendment put forward by the SNP



“(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.

(1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—

(a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and

(b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it.”—(Angus Robertson.)

This amendment is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can only be abolished with the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people after a referendum.

Question put, That the amendment be made.


The SNP amendment was to ensure, enshrine in law the permanence of the Scottish Parliament unless the People (who are sovereign) say they want rid of it through a referendum of the people of Scotland where they vote to abolish it.

This was an amendement to do exactly what you suggest in your hypothetical example above - allow the people of Scotland to to make their feelings heard before a decision to remove or indeed keep their parliament is made.

This amendement was voted down. Which means that the thing that you are so cross with me about - the people of Scotland having their democratic right to hold a referendum on the abolition of the Scottish Parliament - is NOT allowed under current legislation and will remain the case with the Scotland Bill.

Far from being unaware of this issue or it never being discussed it was raised again and again during Indyref whish is why it actually formed the first line of the ridiculous "vow" - which said "the Scottish Parliament is permanent"

So to summarise cos I know it is confusing.

Westminster can abolish the Scottish Parliament without the will of the people whenever they want.
SNP put forward an amendment to change that to ensure that it cannot be abolished without a referendum and permission from the Scottish Parliament
Westminster voted against that amendment
Westminster can abolish the Scottish Parliament without the will of the people whenever they want.

BetterTogether
17-Jun-15, 11:05
Ok I've just done a bit of reading up on this and stand corrected the amendment was voted down. I don't claim to be a constitutional expert but as I read it the situation stands thus.
The legislation that is proposed makes the Scottish Parliament as permanent as is necessary.
As I understand it from a constitutional basis nothing in law is ever permanent as it could bind the hands of future parliaments and that would be unconstitutional .

So it stands that the Scottish Government is as permanent within the law as is required without binding any future Parliaments from acting as may be necessary depending on future circumstances.

The problem for both of us is we aren't constitutional experts and therefor do not fully appreciate the fullest extent that these changes may make.
There is a secondary problem that the SNP seem to be gaining a track record for putting forward poorly drafted legislation which then creates problems down the line.
The changes made to Police Scotland would be a point in case, they ignored warnings about the implications on VAT so now Police Scotland and the Fire Service are subject to VAT which was not the case previously and could of been avoided,we have also seen the lack of accountability which is now seen. We saw the proposed changes to corroboration quickly shelved when they ran into major problems.
Then we have the current proposed legislation of a guardian for every child in Scotland mired in controversy and legal challenges. Rushed through amendments and legislation are frequently voted down because they are poorly written and create more problems than they solve.

Just for arguments sake has there actually been an attempt to dissolve the Scottish Government or are there any proposed plans to do so. Has the issue been raised by anyone except the SNP creating an issue where non existed before, I'm sure if we read in depth any law or piece of legislation there may well be issues in some of the wording does that mean we stop the normal day to day running and important business of Governement to conflate issues that in reality are likely to never occur but serve to just create grievance where non had previously existed.
It seems that Holyrood and the Scottish Governmemt have existed for some time now without this ever having become an issue, but all of a sudden it's jumped front and centre in the minds of the SNP.

I for one am much more interested in what the SNP intend to do with the new powers they are getting and how they intend to improve Scotland for all of us rather than constant harping on about minor constitutional issues.

I want to know how they intend to improve falling literacy in Scotland.
How they intend to improve NHS Scotland.
What they are going to do to help the Disabled
How they intend to create more jobs.

The fiddling with the constitution can wait, let's see them actually do they job they are paid to do and run the country.

squidge
17-Jun-15, 11:20
Ok I've just done a bit of reading up on this and stand corrected the amendment was voted down. I don't claim to be a constitutional expert but as I read it the situation stands thus. The legislation that is proposed makes the Scottish Parliament as permanent as is necessary. As I understand it from a constitutional basis nothing in law is ever permanent as it could bind the hands of future parliaments and that would be unconstitutional . So it stands that the Scottish Government is as permanent within the law as is required without binding any future Parliaments from acting as may be necessary depending on future circumstances.

The Scottish Parliament is as permanent as Westminster choose it to be. Which is actually not permanent. The amendment does not bind the hands of any future Government to keeping the Scottish Parliament - it just commits them to holding a referendum in order to abolish it. are you now saying that when you thought the SNP voted down an amendment to refuse a referndum if the future of the Scottish parliament was in doubt that was BAD but when they proposed an amendement to ensure there was a referendum if the Scottish Parliament was ever in doubt that was BAD too.

The rest of your post would take me all day to respond to. But suffice to say a legal challenge does not necessarily mean that legislation is poorly written - simply that some people fundamentally disagree with it and - unlike the labour party it seems - are prepared to stand up for that disagreement.Thats not a bad thing BT its a recognised part of our democratic and judicial process and im glad that it is.

Edit - you edited your post to add stuff after i had begun to reply and now coffee break is over sigh :)

rob murray
17-Jun-15, 11:38
I agree on the below although would disagree over the term " minor constitutional issues" / a balance has to be struck in terms of the amount of time actually governing and the fight/s over constitutional issues.


I for one am much more interested in what the SNP intend to do with the new powers they are getting and how they intend to improve Scotland for all of us rather than constant harping on about minor constitutional issues.

I want to know how they intend to improve falling literacy in Scotland. Yes they have had the powers and this has happend on their watch...so whats happening / going to happen
How they intend to improve NHS Scotland. : again poor performance happened on their watch, again whats happening / going to happen
What they are going to do to help the Disabled ; didnt know this was a problem, can you enlighten ??
How they intend to create more jobs. governments cannot create jobs as you well know, the issue is how they intend using existing powers and new powers to help create an economic climate condusive to growth and business start up, how do they intend creating a high growth / high value / low tax economy

I would add to the list....tighter controls on the "strathclyding" of the police force...armed cops in rural area ?? scottish governments role in tackling the market failures in renewable energy, wave / tidal exploration, R and D and commercialisation ( actually enable the creation of the Saudi Arabia of Renewables )

The fiddling with the constitution can wait, let's see them actually do the job they are paid to do and run the country : In my view they can do both......... but have to get the balance right. The ordinary man and women in the street are not in the least interested in constitutional stuff nor the compexities of FFA ......sooner or later people will begin to ask questions on SNP poor performance in the commanding heights of : the economy / education / NHS / law and order...all open to attack.

BetterTogether
17-Jun-15, 14:06
Just for clarification Rob I call it a minor constitutional issue as it's been there since the formation of the Scottish Government and appears to have created no significant problems thus far and non for the foreseeable future. I'd suggest it's an issue which has been conflated to be an issue to further pursue the politics of grievance.

Let's be quite honest it is hardly an issue which so far has created a constitutional crisis within Scotland so it must be considered minor as opposed to major.

rob murray
17-Jun-15, 14:31
Just for clarification Rob I call it a minor constitutional issue as it's been there since the formation of the Scottish Government and appears to have created no significant problems thus far and non for the foreseeable future. I'd suggest it's an issue which has been conflated to be an issue to further pursue the politics of grievance.

Let's be quite honest it is hardly an issue which so far has created a constitutional crisis within Scotland so it must be considered minor as opposed to major.

Ok Im not disagreeing its just that what you / I would call minor...is seen as major by others !!! As per previous posts....even accepting that it is "major" the scottish governmen stillt have to get the balance right and get on with the job of actually running the country as perhaps 0.001 % of the population actually cares a jot on constitutional issues eh !!

BetterTogether
17-Jun-15, 15:49
I can agree with your take on it.

rob murray
17-Jun-15, 17:00
and you will agree that the economy seems on the rise ( oil aside ! ) who is responsible ? jobs created wages up.....but the cry will go up...nothing being done about cuts and poverty....

BetterTogether
17-Jun-15, 17:12
Oooh it is those whose name we dare not mention no doubt !

I can't see the other lot have really done enough to take credit for what is a nationwide upturn in pretty much every area of the Nation.

A question to ask is whether voting Conservative makes an area more prosperous or whether being a prosperous area makes you vote Conservative.