Don't blame me I voted Yes!

[Ad Lib]

Why should the SNP continually take financial and political hits solely to reverse the effects of crippling Tory policies?

If the Lib Dems were the SNP (Roffle) would you advocate increasing tax to offset Tory austerity?

I think the job of the Scottish Government is to manage the resources and powers at its disposal to maximise the wellbeing of the people of Scotland.

If the Scottish Government thinks that the Barnett consequentials unfairly cut the block grant such that they cannot effectively deliver services at the current level, they are entirely at liberty to use their Westminster presence and their direct lobbying to try to secure a better deal from the Treasury in terms of a bigger block grant. In doing so, I'd expect them to justify the necessity and fairness of such a block grant change with reference to net contributions or net need.

If they fail to persuade the UK Government to allocate more money to Scotland though, I then expect them to use the resources and powers that are actually at their disposal to deliver the policy outcomes that Scotland needs and that they have committed to pursue. If that means raising income tax, so be it.

If the SNP machine is really so incompetent that it cannot explain to the Scottish public that the reason they've had to increase the level of income tax to sustain public service spending above that of the rest of the UK is because of a block grant cut, then they don't deserve to remain in Government.

[Fide]

I think the job of the Scottish Government is to manage the resources and powers at its disposal to maximise the wellbeing of the people of Scotland.

If the Scottish Government thinks that the Barnett consequentials unfairly cut the block grant such that they cannot effectively deliver services at the current level, they are entirely at liberty to use their Westminster presence and their direct lobbying to try to secure a better deal from the Treasury in terms of a bigger block grant. In doing so, I'd expect them to justify the necessity and fairness of such a block grant change with reference to net contributions or net need.

If they fail to persuade the UK Government to allocate more money to Scotland though, I then expect them to use the resources and powers that are actually at their disposal to deliver the policy outcomes that Scotland needs and that they have committed to pursue. If that means raising income tax, so be it.

If the SNP machine is really so incompetent that it cannot explain to the Scottish public that the reason they've had to increase the level of income tax to sustain public service spending above that of the rest of the UK is because of a block grant cut, then they don't deserve to remain in Government.

On your last point, I don't think it's to do with the SNP machine and how competent it is. Vaste swathes of the Scottish media, political opposition and a gullible section of the electorate would bounce all over increased levels of income tax with "SNPbad" glee. It wouldn't matter how rational the explanation, it would be jumped on, with your dear leader in Scotland once again, probably, accusing the SNP of taking it's eye off the ball.

On that same point, why should Scotland pay increased tax as a result of the Tory's cutting funding or unfair Tory policy?

So your view on this is that if the SNP are unable to persuade a maniacal and single minded Tory Government to not slash our budget or offer way below the Smith Commission (and I think we can forget Labour or your own busted flushes helping us out on that score), we should raise tax incrementally every time the Tories take something away?

Good yin, Libbers.

[Ad Lib]

On your last point, I don't think it's to do with the SNP machine and how competent it is. Vaste swathes of the Scottish media, political opposition and a gullible section of the electorate would bounce all over increased levels of income tax with "SNPbad" glee. It wouldn't matter how rational the explanation, it would be jumped on, with your dear leader in Scotland once again, probably, accusing the SNP of taking it's eye off the ball.

I think you underestimate the effectiveness of the SNP PR machine.

Besides, what's more important? Scottish public services or the SNP's public relations?

On that same point, why should Scotland pay increased tax as a result of the Tory's cutting funding or unfair Tory policy?

Because it wants more services than the rest of the UK is getting?

So your view on this is that if the SNP are unable to persuade a maniacal and single minded Tory Government to not slash our budget or offer way below the Smith Commission (and I think we can forget Labour or your own busted flushes helping us out on that score), we should raise tax incrementally every time the Tories take something away?

If they think the sustaining of Scottish public services is more important than who gets the credit or the blame for it, yes.

[Fide]

I think you underestimate the effectiveness of the SNP PR machine.

Besides, what's more important? Scottish public services or the SNP's public relations?

Given that political campaigns are fought on such things and the SNP would like to remain in power, I think both. I'm not surprised a busted flush refuses to lay any responsibility for this at Downing Street.

Because it wants more services than the rest of the UK is getting?

No, what we don't want is a situation, like we saw yesterday, where the answer to "stop slashing funding" was "well go and raise taxes".

That sets a dangerous precedent.

[Ad Lib]

Given that political campaigns are fought on such things and the SNP would like to remain in power, I think both. I'm not surprised a busted flush refuses to lay any responsibility for this at Downing Street.

And where they are inconsistent? Which do you prioritise? Are you saying that the SNP only oppose austerity when it is electorally advantageous? Doesn't sound very principled.

No, what we don't want is a situation, like we saw yesterday, where the answer to "stop slashing funding" was "well go and raise taxes".

That sets a dangerous precedent.

Yeah, a dangerous precedent whereby a government has to raise taxes to pay for expenditure. Really *DANGEROUS*.

[Alert Mongoose]

Perhaps if the Scottish Government used some of its £400million under-spend it could sustain spending levels on last year.

Or, you know, raise the taxes it controls, like any other government in the world does when it wants to fund higher levels of public spending.

How about target austerity on those who got us into this mess?

[Fide]

And where they are inconsistent? Which do you prioritise? Are you saying that the SNP only oppose austerity when it is electorally advantageous? Doesn't sound very principled.

So you're more than satisfied that we are set to be given way below what was in the useless Smith proposals and we face a further budget cut in excess of £170m? You think an acceptable answer to that is "lets just raise taxes"?

Rly?

Yeah, a dangerous precedent whereby a government has to raise taxes to pay for expenditure. Really *DANGEROUS*.

I can see why you wear glasses. You're being rather myopic here. So we raise taxes. Then what. More Tory cuts, more cries of "well raise taxes if you're not happy".

[strichener]

And where they are inconsistent? Which do you prioritise? Are you saying that the SNP only oppose austerity when it is electorally advantageous? Doesn't sound very principled.

Yeah, a dangerous precedent whereby a government has to raise taxes to pay for expenditure. Really *DANGEROUS*.

No the dangerous precedent is having an emergency budget after winning an election when you were already in government before hand. The issue with the cut to the block grant, as I understand it, is that it cuts what was already agreed and passed in the Scottish Budget. To compound the issue, the UK government neither warned nor informed the SG prior to doing this.

[Ad Lib]

So you're more than satisfied that we are set to be given way below what was in the useless Smith proposals and we face a further budget cut in excess of £170m? You think an acceptable answer to that is "lets just raise taxes"?

Rly?

I can see why you wear glasses. You're being rather myopic here. So we raise taxes. Then what. More Tory cuts, more cries of "well raise taxes if you're not happy".

We are being offered the Smith proposals. The Law Society of Scotland looked at this very carefully and confirmed this.

I am content for the Scottish Government block grant to be cut by about 0.5%, yes.

[Shades75]

We are being offered the Smith proposals. The Law Society of Scotland looked at this very carefully and confirmed this.

I am content for the Scottish Government block grant to be cut by about 0.5%, yes.

I'm glad that there is a sizeable number in our country who are not as subservient to the ruling establishment in Westminster as you seem to be. 0.5% would only be the tip of the iceberg if they were. Indeed, it probably will be anyway.

You can maybe let us know at what point the line is crossed and we should perhaps question the fiscal policy of a government who gained 15% of the vote here.

[AUFC90]

We are being offered the Smith proposals. The Law Society of Scotland looked at this very carefully and confirmed this.

I am content for the Scottish Government block grant to be cut by about 0.5%, yes.

And that's exactly why your party is done in Scotland. All unionist parties are Tory sympathisers who instead of opposing ideological cuts to public services, actively support them. The Tories will be rubbing their hands.

[BerwickMad]

And that's exactly why your party is done in Scotland. All unionist parties are Tory sympathisers who instead of opposing ideological cuts to public services, actively support them. The Tories will be rubbing their hands.

Not really. Even though the Lib Dems and Labour accept there needs to be some cuts made, that doesn't make them Tory sympathisers. There's more to politics than a simple decision of austerity and no austerity. The SNP may want to make it as simple as that as it's an easy message to promote (hence the pre-arranged tweets on mass yesterday), but it's not.

[Shades75]

Not really. Even though the Lib Dems and Labour accept there needs to be some cuts made, that doesn't make them Tory sympathisers. There's more to politics than a simple decision of austerity and no austerity. The SNP may want to make it as simple as that as it's an easy message to promote (hence the pre-arranged tweets on mass yesterday), but it's not.

You might wish to observe the supposed Labour and Lib-dem supporters who seem to take great delight in aligning themselves with the musings of the daily telegraph and the daily mail these days. Whether they are conscious of it or not, tawdry and wholly agenda led shit-stirring against the SNP (of which their are numerous examples - you're clever enough to know that) is doing the tories work for them.

[AUFC90]

Not really. Even though the Lib Dems and Labour accept there needs to be some cuts made, that doesn't make them Tory sympathisers. There's more to politics than a simple decision of austerity and no austerity. The SNP may want to make it as simple as that as it's an easy message to promote (hence the pre-arranged tweets on mass yesterday), but it's not.

Sorry but I don't agree. In any other decade Labour and the Liberals would have totally opposed these cuts. They're now all the same.

[Granny Danger]

Not really. Even though the Lib Dems and Labour accept there needs to be some cuts made, that doesn't make them Tory sympathisers. There's more to politics than a simple decision of austerity and no austerity. The SNP may want to make it as simple as that as it's an easy message to promote (hence the pre-arranged tweets on mass yesterday), but it's not.

The key word in your post is "needs" in the second sentence. There is no 'need' for cuts to be made, it is an ideological decision rather than a practical one. To that extent both Labour and the LibDems are both aligning themselves with the Tory position. For Labour that was an electoral decision rather than a political one; they thought it would help them win the election. They were wrong.

[Ad Lib]

I'm glad that there is a sizeable number in our country who are not as subservient to the ruling establishment in Westminster as you seem to be. 0.5% would only be the tip of the iceberg if they were. Indeed, it probably will be anyway.

You can maybe let us know at what point the line is crossed and we should perhaps question the fiscal policy of a government who gained 15% of the vote here.

There isn't an exact percentage at which I would suddenly say "no more" but I think it's abundantly clear that the Scottish Government could recoup that 0.5% of its budget with a modest increase in income tax. Clearly if the Scottish rate of income tax had to be about 5 or 6% higher than the rUK rate we would be having a serious discussion about the iniquities or otherwise of the attempts of Barnett to track need or contribution. But we are talking chicken feed. A penny or two on income tax would probably give the Scottish Government the resources to block austerity and to expand public services with considerable comfort.

[BerwickMad]

The key word in your post is "needs" in the second sentence. There is no 'need' for cuts to be made, it is an ideological decision rather than a practical one. To that extent both Labour and the LibDems are both aligning themselves with the Tory position. For Labour that was an electoral decision rather than a political one; they thought it would help them win the election. They were wrong.

But even if it's a choice to make some cuts in some areas, that doesn't mean you're aligning yourself with the Tories.

[bogsideloyal]

3. Foodbanks

4. Poverty

5. Run out of oil

[Savage Henry]

A guid question.

The SNP won a majority in the Scottish Parliament but that disnae mean Independence.

The SNP get a huge majority in Scotland in the UK parliament but that disnae mean independence.

Noo I ken that the SNP didnae fight this recent election by using the Independence card.

But f**k me there cannae be a Scottish voter wha disnae ken that the main plank of the SNP is Independence.

If the tories or labour had won 56 oot o' 59 seats in Scotland they wid be shoutin' frae the rooftops that the people of Scotland had spoken.

*Good

*doesn't

*Now

*know

*Can't

*Who

*out

*of

*would

*from

The main plank of SNP policy certainly isn't independence. In fact, it's quite possible to vote SNP and vote no to Independence. In fact, a sizeable number of SNP voters oppose its own position on the union.

Which is a great thing, because there is so much more to the SNP than independence. It was not always thus. Many SNP voters see a bigger cause than Independence.

[Wee Willie]

There must be some thick c**ts on here if you have tae translate my post.

The main plank of the SNP is Independence.

Ask onybody whit the SNP stand for and I bet they wid say Independence.

Your last sentence - Many SNP voters see a bigger cause than Independence.

Whit is a bigger cause (for the SNP) than independence ?