General Politics Thread

[Antlion]

Probably depends on whether those Labour MPs had ever tried to claim that they wouldn't vote on matters that didn't effect Scotland.

Personally, I don't give a shit how the SNP voted on Sunday opening hours. But I can see why they're being accused of hypocrisy for doing so.

It's "affect". And I'm quite happy for the SNP to vote in UK-wide votes. If they are to be excluded, then England can press for a devolved parliament and a block grant. How can they be hypocritical when the UK parliament, in its capacity as a UK-wide governing body, has invited them as members to vote? If EVEL doesn't work then by all means, fight for something stronger, people of England.

[Uncle Psychosis]

It's "affect". And I'm quite happy for the SNP to vote in UK-wide votes. If they are to be excluded, then England can press for a devolved parliament and a block grant. How can they be hypocritical when the UK parliament, in its capacity as a UK-wide governing body, has invited them as members to vote? If EVEL doesn't work then by all means, fight for something stronger, people of England.

The SNP have had, for a very long time, a convention of abstaining on English only matters out of some kind of principle. Its fairly obvious that suddenly changing that policy leaves them open to criticism.

[invergowrie arab]

Come on, the SNP can't complain on the one hand that EVEL makes them second class MPs but on the other that English Vetoes for English laws doesn't actually stop any Scottish MPs from voting on English-only legislation!

No, my example works regardless. I could as easily have said "Scotland's wedding industry".

I'm being slightly tongue in cheek. I personally don't have a problem with EVEL if it works properly eg it is applied to legislation with no direct or indirect affect on Scotland eg health spending.

If there was a piece of rUK legislation that affected the entire Scottish wedding industry then I think Scottish MPs should be voting it down. In our brave new constitutional muddle Westminster legislators are going to have to get their heads round legislative consequences far better than they have demonstrated up to now.

I also don't remember this being a problem when regionalist parties gave their governments a leg up with not one thought as to whether or not they should.

I like to think the SNP are encouraging a more nuanced politics.

[Glenn Medeiros]

Flicking through GERS from many websites that list Scotland's wealth ( including / excluding oil & gas ) and I think we should calculate rUK's worth ( including / excluding the city of London)

[Peppino Impastato]

1. I'm not a BritNat2. I voted Yes3. There was not £16.9 billion missing from Scotland's GDP. Also, notice this is a completely different claim, but equally wrong claim, as saying that £16.9 billion was missing from our fiscal position.4. I said that there were some historic aspects of GERS' methodology that understated certain revenue streams. Those problems have been remedied since those criticisms were made.5. The fact that the SNP do not dispute the accuracy of the changes should probably tell you something.Nope, you're literally just making this up.

You can't seriously not know about the sea issue, the nigh before the Scottish parliament opened the boundaries were changed, moving the sea border between England and Scotland for internal uk subdivision matters from Berwick to carnoustie, you must know this everyone does, 200 miles into Scotland annexing 6000 square miles of Scottish sea.

This was done to weaken the case for independence no other reason. Google it and educate yourself

The last two studies of GERS came to the figures £16.9 billion, what's changed and give some supporting evidence for your claim these inaccuracies have been remedied, you'll excuse me if I don't just take your word for it. And you're clearly a BritNat.

[Peppino Impastato]

Perhaps you missed them campaigning for devolution; engaging in the Smith Commission; claiming that Holyrood should be a permanent part of the constitution ... Why would they do this if they had no complaints about Westminster making laws for Scotland?

Glad to see you admitting that regionalists are only too happy to complain about Scotland's elected representatives having a say in UK-wide votes if they don't like the party those representatives belong to. What a craven, anti-democratic, vile bunch.

Absolutely owned. Top class post.

[Mr Rational]

Jamie Ross over on Twitter gave a running commentary on JC4PM's gig in Edinburgh tonight.

That's the audience at its fullest and folk left half way through. It was meant to be painful at best with other parts just plain awful. Still, the fight back starts here comrades!

[Antlion]

The SNP have had, for a very long time, a convention of abstaining on English only matters out of some kind of principle. Its fairly obvious that suddenly changing that policy leaves them open to criticism.

They also believe that Scotland should be independent. That was, unfortunately, rejected by the electorate of Scotland, which then proceeded to send them to Westminster to vote in UK parliamentary votes. The vote on Sunday trading laws was UK-wide, and not "England and Wales only", even under the system that has been instituted to provide English votes for English laws. Why should the SNP make up for:

1. Scotland's decision to retain the UK.

2. The UK's apparent inability to create a symmetrical system of devolution across its constituent parts.

3. The current inadequacies of the EVEL system.

[Fide]

I can't reply to this on a tablet can't even quote it. You tell several blatant lies though and I would encourage anyone to look into it themselves you will come to the same conclusion. Example of a lie you told global taxation, corporation tax is paid according to where business is conducted, companies would have to pay according to the amount of business they do in Scotland, instead of the UK government counting economic activity as part of English GDP even when it takes place in Scotland because their head office is in London, same with Scottish exports being counted as English if they leave English ports.

 

This is what Ad Lib does.  He bores people into submission.  He takes the same methodology in debating that Rocky Marciano used to take in boxing.  Keep battering away until they literally can't be fucked any more.

 

1. I'm not a BritNat

2. I voted Yes

3. There was not £16.9 billion missing from Scotland's GDP. Also, notice this is a completely different claim, but equally wrong claim, as saying that £16.9 billion was missing from our fiscal position.

4. I said that there were some historic aspects of GERS' methodology that understated certain revenue streams. Those problems have been remedied since those criticisms were made.

5. The fact that the SNP do not dispute the accuracy of the changes should probably tell you something.

Nope, you're literally just making this up.

 

1. Yes you are

2. No you didn't.

3. It's also dishonest to keep talking about Scotland's black hole whilst not similarly discussing the UK's £1.5tr black hole.

4.

5. Specifically, in layman's terms and without lecturing, what are the changes?

[Ad Lib]

I'm being slightly tongue in cheek. I personally don't have a problem with EVEL if it works properly eg it is applied to legislation with no direct or indirect affect on Scotland eg health spending.

If there was a piece of rUK legislation that affected the entire Scottish wedding industry then I think Scottish MPs should be voting it down. In our brave new constitutional muddle Westminster legislators are going to have to get their heads round legislative consequences far better than they have demonstrated up to now.

I also don't remember this being a problem when regionalist parties gave their governments a leg up with not one thought as to whether or not they should.

I like to think the SNP are encouraging a more nuanced politics.

I think a party that believes English MPs should never have even a hypothetical say over what the Scottish marriage law should be should never vote on provisions that only change English marriage law.

[Ad Lib]

1. Yes you are

2. No you didn't.

Your failure to accept facts is a theme.

3. It's also dishonest to keep talking about Scotland's black hole whilst not similarly discussing the UK's £1.5tr black hole.

The UK does not have a £1.5 trillion "black hole".

4.

There's a very big difference between the reasons GERS were set-up before the 1997 election and how the organisation has been administered and for what purposes post devolution.

5. Specifically, in layman's terms and without lecturing, what are the changes?

GERS literally have a whole paper dedicated to methodology showing how estimates have been revised and what the changes are. Rather than taking my word for it, have a read for yourself: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00472870.pdf

[Ad Lib]

You can't seriously not know about the sea issue, the nigh before the Scottish parliament opened the boundaries were changed, moving the sea border between England and Scotland for internal uk subdivision matters from Berwick to carnoustie, you must know this everyone does, 200 miles into Scotland annexing 6000 square miles of Scottish sea.

This was done to weaken the case for independence no other reason.

Google it and educate yourself

This is a total distortion of what happened but never mind.

The last two studies of GERS came to the figures £16.9 billion, what's changed and give some supporting evidence for your claim these inaccuracies have been remedied, you'll excuse me if I don't just take your word for it. And you're clearly a BritNat.

You've literally just plucked this figure of £16.9 billion out your arse and have pled it to claim three different things, al of which are wrong. You've variously said it has:

(a ) underestimated tax revenues

(b ) underestimated the net fiscal position

(c ) underestimated GDP

So which is it?

[capybara]

Well I wonder what Kez will raise today. Yawn.

[Fide]

Your failure to accept facts is a theme.

The UK does not have a £1.5 trillion "black hole".

There's a very big difference between the reasons GERS were set-up before the 1997 election and how the organisation has been administered and for what purposes post devolution.

GERS literally have a whole paper dedicated to methodology showing how estimates have been revised and what the changes are. Rather than taking my word for it, have a read for yourself: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00472870.pdf

 

The UK DOES have a £1.5tr black hole.  You're being disingenuous, which is nothing new.

 

Onto GERS, I found it convenient that you were quick to crow about the drop in Scottish oil revenues, but said nothing about the increase in onshore economy, which almost offset the drop.

 

What you didn't mention is that although GDP from oil has dropped by £5.67bn, down from £18.2bn to £12.5bn, the onshore economy (some of which as a direct result of the drop in oil revenue) has increased by £5.54bn - up from Â£135bn to £141bn. Which means the Scottish economy has downsized but by only 0.09%, or £132 million.

 

The reason that you and all the other rabid britnats don't mention this is because you literally cannot wait for bad things to happen to Scotland so you can blame the SNP.

 

It must kill the unionists that GERS, when analysed, are not actually bad.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Fide

[thisal]

Can someone help me work this GERS thing out. One side is saying the figures show Scotland is fucked as part of the UK, so we should stay and the other is saying no we're doing great as part of the UK so we should get out. I'm confused.

[doulikefish]

Can someone help me work this GERS thing out. One side is saying the figures show Scotland is fucked as part of the UK, so we should stay and the other is saying no we're doing great as part of the UK so we should get out. I'm confused.

Basically oil is like Andy Murray,when its doing shite its scottish ,when its doing well its british

[renton]

Can someone help me work this GERS thing out. One side is saying the figures show Scotland is fucked as part of the UK, so we should stay and the other is saying no we're doing great as part of the UK so we should get out. I'm confused.

 

Both can actually be true, depending on how you look at it. GERS is only an account of the current devolution settlement, it says nothing about the opportunities for an independent Scotland. On the one hand the current devolution settlement allows Scotland to spend higher per head in terms of public finances*, creating a relative deficit to the rest of the UK. On the other hand, that higher public spending is related to a lower tax take per head based on the fact that Scotland has a high employment rate but reaises less tax from income, NI etc vs the UK average. This is because the current devolution settlement does not allow any real control over how Scotland grows it's tax take, either in terms of creating a more equal wage structure, a more progressive taxation system or in net immigration. Thus the UK government tax system is optimised for the South east of England (i.e. London),  and the differences in socio-economic demographics between that locality and Scotland means that Scotland will struggle to 'catch up' under the present tax regime. A geographic share in oil has long been assumed by the SNP to offset this imbalance, but when the oil price crashes this option is restricted and BritNats get to crow about the unique inability of their compatriots to run a country, competently. However, this also exposes the underlying issues with the Devolved settlement as I set out above.

 

it's kind of like standing on a rock next to a beach with the tide coming in. The current devolution settlement is stopping our feet getting wet, but the longer we leave our attempt to reach the beach, the more the rock is submerged and the less room for manouvere we have in standing there, and the wetter we'll be trying to make it back to the beach.

 

*Which are partial accounts, and don't deal well with private revenue and capital flows, so we have no idea of the cost of servicing that debt under a given condition. GERS is also bad at apportioning flows like VAT and Tourist taxes and terrible and identifying revenue coming from Scotland but taxed in England which dissapears from our books.

Edited March 10, 2016 by renton

[invergowrie arab]

I think a party that believes English MPs should never have even a hypothetical say over what the Scottish marriage law should be should never vote on provisions that only change English marriage law.

So do I. The best way to achieve this is an independent Scotland or a fully federal solution.

[Ad Lib]

The UK DOES have a £1.5tr black hole. You're being disingenuous, which is nothing new.

No it doesn't. Having debt is not the same as a "black hole". We are talking about deficits.

Onto GERS, I found it convenient that you were quick to crow about the drop in Scottish oil revenues, but said nothing about the increase in onshore economy, which almost offset the drop.

Except it didn't even come close to offsetting the drop. For that to be the case our offshore revenues would have had to have grown faster than the UK's growth in revenues by the amount by which the offshore revenues fell. Our onshore revenues grew more slowly than those of the rest of the UK.

What you didn't mention is that although GDP from oil has dropped by £5.67bn, down from £18.2bn to £12.5bn, the onshore economy (some of which as a direct result of the drop in oil revenue) has increased by £5.54bn - up from £135bn to £141bn. Which means the Scottish economy has downsized but by only 0.09%, or £132 million.

I'm not contesting that the GDP of the on-shore economy has grown strongly. I'm contesting that that has translated into tax receipts to a level sufficient to compensate for that drop in oil revenue.

The reason that you and all the other rabid britnats don't mention this is because you literally cannot wait for bad things to happen to Scotland so you can blame the SNP.

It must kill the unionists that GERS, when analysed, are not actually bad.

There you have it folks. The highest deficit as a percentage of GDP in the European Union is "not actually bad".

Cracking stuff.

[Ad Lib]

So do I. The best way to achieve this is an independent Scotland or a fully federal solution.

I was very careful about the way I phrased that post. I said a party that believes that should not, not should not be allowed to.

You don't need to alter the constitutional settlement to honour that.