Nicola Sturgeon says the SNP will vote on English laws

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80

Gordon1985

Original post by MatureStudent36

I'm fully aware of how it works.
.

And yet you have to be continually told how the block grant works.

Reply 81

MatureStudent36

Original post by Gordon1985

And yet you have to be continually told how the block grant works.

I know how the block grant works.

I merely questioned why nhs England and wales had higher investment than nhs Scotland, and let's not forget that the block grant gives scotland an additional £1200 per person to play with.

Do you thing the snp will be publishing revised GERS figures reflecting current oil figures in te near future?

Reply 82

Gordon1985

Original post by MatureStudent36

Why do you keep asking silly questions about it then?

Can you provide a link to these figures you're talking about? I'd genuinely be quite interested in them.

The GERS reports come out every year, so if you count that as the near future, then yes. And aren't GERS reports based on the pervious year, rather than future projections?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 83

Davij038

A Lab-SNP deal may be worse than previously thought, I could well see Labour being all up for this: http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-why-scots-should-worry-about-their-national-identity-scheme-44674.html

Reply 84

The_Mighty_Bush

Original post by Davij038

Cheers for posting this.

Most of the main political parties have a terrible record on liberty and the SNP are no different.

Reply 85

Observatory

Original post by L i b

Fine, vote Tory and get some degree of devolution for England. You can't complain about one party's MPs voting on English issues - the other parties' politicians have been doing it since 1707.

Be aware however that you are playing into the hands of the divisive scumbags: you're responding in exactly the way they want, by pulling apart the UK. I'm not saying England shouldn't have devolution - given that it's happened in the rest of the UK it's certainly an anomaly that it does - but don't vote on the basis of what these hooligans are trying to push you into.

Sorry, the damage has already been done. The fact that it's the SNP rather than Labour shouldn't make a difference, but it's made a difference only in that people have realised what has long been true: the government of England can now be carried on without democratic legitimacy because of unfair concessions that have been granted to Scottish nationalists. The only ways to avoid that were to either not grant those concessions, or to grant (read: impose) devolution on England at the same time. Neither option was taken and EVEL is now the least constitutionally disruptive way that the government of England can be re-legitimised.

Reply 86

Observatory

Original post by Gordon1985

Nope. "English only" is more difficult to define than you think it is. For example, if WM want to vote in cutting the NHS budget by 10% (not saying they would before anyone plays the man rather than the ball), then the Scottish block grant is cut correspondingly. That's not an English only issue.

This is only true if total English spending reduces, not if spending is moved from one English departmental budget to another, and Scotland already has the right to raise taxes above the English level if it were to disagree with the total level of taxation and spending in England. (of course they prefer to get revenue from the Barnett formula - because it unfairly privileges Scotland!)

I think it is clear that the SNP has taken this move not because they have woken up to the realisation that they made a huge mistake they somehow didn't notice until now, but rather because they want to be in a position to give confidence and supply to Labour in exchange for concessions, regardless of it being incompatible with their stated ideology. They're in a position of strength now, so it doesn't matter much whether they can justify what they're doing morally. It's naked extortion of England and if it happened the other way they would be rioting in the streets.

edit: btw, "privatisation in the NHS" typically refers to the state paying contractors to deliver services, not budget cuts and certainly not making patients pay for services directly. I don't see what that could possibly have to do with the Barnett formula. The way I read the SNP statements is that they think that changes in the organisation of the English NHS might set a precedent for changes in Scotland, even though the British parliament would not impose those changes in Scotland. This is at best a slippery slope argument, at worst total nonsense. If we take it seriously, the SNP should also have votes in the US Congress and the Japanese Diet.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 87

L i b

Original post by Gordon1985

The SNP have obviously acknowledged and accepted the result. That doesn't mean they won't keep arguing for independence and more powers for Scotland. Only a complete lunatic would think they wouldn't or shouldn't

Why not? After 1997, the opponents of devolution accepted the settled will of the Scottish people. Why don't Scottish nationalists do likewise?

The purpose of referendums is to settle an issue. It is referring it to the people to make a final judgement. That's happened.

As for the health spending question. I'm not entirely sure of the most recent figures you seem to be referring to. Do you have a link?

A quick google shows that UK health spending is at 18% and Scotland is at 17.3%. Although per head, I'd guess that puts Scotland ahead due to higher public spending per person.

The great problem with the health spending argument is that the SNP has cut health spending in real terms in Scotland, after having pledged to protect it. Meanwhile the Conservatives pledged to protect it in England, did so, and Scotland received Barnett consequentials from that decision.

Reply 88

Davij038

Original post by L i b

Referendums don't work though. Good in theory, not in practice.

Reply 89

Quady

Original post by Davij038

Referendums don't work though. Good in theory, not in practice.

Explain...?

Reply 90

Quady

Original post by Davij038

Whats the difference between this and an NI number?

The issue with the ID card scheme was the bio metric element. There were/are already databases which integrate across government services for ID verification.

Reply 91

L i b

Original post by Quady

It links an individual identification number with address and other data, and makes it readily available to virtually every public authority imaginable from the immigration authorities to the Royal Botanical Gardens of Edinburgh.

Reply 92

Davij038

Original post by Quady

Explain...?

Can't be bothered to write down all the reasons but mostly this: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/world/96990/greece-debt-crisis-referendum

Another point; it doesn't change anything. If Britain votes to stay in the EU it's not going to convince the ukippers just as Scotland for the SNP.

Reply 93

Davij038

Original post by L i b

Plus details of medical history and potentially financial transactions.

Too big brother for me. And too wasteful.

Reply 94

Quady

Original post by L i b

An NI number is an identification number with address and other data.

How does it integrate with the immigration authorities? (I assume you mean the Border Force and UK Visas and Immigration - both parts of HMG) Who has paid for that integration - the Scottish Government?

How do you use it at the Royal Botanical Gardens of Edinburgh? My mum is coming to Edinburgh from Cambridgeshire in March, neither of us have a card - won't we be able to get in for £4 (concession) using my NUS card and her driving licence?

Its not integrated with HMRC/DWP. The NI number is far more all encompassing isn't it?

Reply 95

Quady

Original post by Davij038

Plus details of medical history and potentially financial transactions.

Too big brother for me. And too wasteful.

With is done already via credit reference agencies matching info against your NINO.

Reply 96

Davij038

Original post by Quady

With is done already via credit reference agencies matching info against your NINO.

But this would be with the agencies and not the state and would also be through voluntarily requesting a service.

Reply 97

Quady

Original post by Davij038

But this would be with the agencies and not the state and would also be through voluntarily requesting a service.

How would the state have info about financial transactions if it didn't communicate outside of the state?

Voluntarily requesting a service?

Reply 98

Davij038

Original post by Quady

How would the state have info about financial transactions if it didn't communicate outside of the state?

Voluntarily requesting a service?

The point I am making is that as opposed to being given a card as a citizen, with a credit agency you can choose whether they can acess your records. Also, the state can then regulate to make sure this information isn't abused through safeguards.

Reply 99

Quady

Original post by Davij038

Well you can't take out a loan without allowing the company to try and access your credit file.

Similarly you can't take out a library book without accepting a card.

So I don't see much of a difference, the state can create safeguards as you say.

I don't see how you can't get multiple cards just by moving address... any ideas? What is it validating your info against? Thats the key with the NINO, you only get one.