Jump to content

What has the SNP done for the Highlands


Alex MacLeod

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

But we wouldn't have become an independent country in the three horse race, DD.or remained with the status quo.......we'd have gone with the  Devo-max option, because it would have had the highest vote share....even I know that...and that is precisely why Westminster removed it.....because they were convinced  that, without that in the mix, the status quo would prevail, given the levels the polling showed it was at in 2012 and given their belief that the majority of the undecided would boost that winning margin by settling for the devil they knew.....and the Westminster thumb could happily stay on the Scottish neck without any change at all.

 

Before the Edinburgh Agreement removed the Devo-max option, polling had YES and NO pretty much eexie peexie at around 25%,  with Devo-max at 41% and the rest undecided....so not enough undecideds to make the result either independence or the status quo.  Without the Devo-Max option included, NO, before the Edinburgh Agreement, had a 28% lead and there weren't enough undecideds to pull YES ahead even if they all went for YES.

 

Care to explain just how Alex Salmond, or any Scottish Government FM, could put pressure on the Prime Minister of a sovereign UK Parliament to do anything he doesn't want to do?  Might come in useful for future reference.

 

Was pleased to see the intended reduction  in blood alcohol limits..but I think it should have been reduced to zero....though I can't see that it is going to stop drink drivers anyway. What might do more good would be to stop treating vehicular manslaughter as if it was a "road traffic accident", when it is no accident that people drive dangerously and/or with drink/drugs taken......it is a deliberate act on their part..and the people they kill are just as dead if they had taken a knife to them on the street. 

 

 

You know as well as I do that if there had been the three options on the ballot paper, independence would have got the biggest share.  As I have said numerous times before, if someone's favourite option is devo-max then the one thing they would not have done in the referendum we have just had is to vote "YES".  It is therefore reasonable to assume that all those who voted "YES"  wanted independence.  And if you want independence you are not going to vote for a unionist option just because devo-max gets stuck on the ballot paper.  The vote for independence would have been broadly as it was with the YES/NO choice.  The only way the vote for independence would not have got the biggest share is if the unionist vote was split 90/10 or more one way or another and if you think 90% of those who voted "NO"  want devo-max you are seriously deluding yourself. 

 

In addition, had devo-max been an option, the unionist parties would have been split between the two options and you can imagine the mischief the SNP would have made about that!    The arguments about the level of devolution which is desirable would have resulted in a lack of focused opposition to the case for independence and my guess is that the YES vote would actually have been a little higher. 

 

In any case, you still refuse to answer the simple question of whether in the event of a 3 option referendum, granting Scotland independence when only 35 - 40% of the electorate voted for it would have been acceptable democracy. 

 

As to how to put pressure on Cameron, I've already told you in my post - and in one before!  Had the Scottish Government got a mandate from the Scottish electorate on the specific issue of negotiating a separation settlement to put to the people, Cameron would have had absolutely no option but to cooperate fully.  Failure to do so would clearly be to ignore the stated wish of a majority within a democratic process and nothing would fan the flames of nationalism more.  Had it been in the "YES" campaign's interest  for the electorate to know what it was voting on then it would have been a devastating tactic - but of course it was not in their interest so they didn't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

But we wouldn't have become an independent country in the three horse race, DD.or remained with the status quo.......we'd have gone with the  Devo-max option, because it would have had the highest vote share....even I know that...and that is precisely why Westminster removed it.....because they were convinced  that, without that in the mix, the status quo would prevail, given the levels the polling showed it was at in 2012 and given their belief that the majority of the undecided would boost that winning margin by settling for the devil they knew.....and the Westminster thumb could happily stay on the Scottish neck without any change at all.

 

Before the Edinburgh Agreement removed the Devo-max option, polling had YES and NO pretty much eexie peexie at around 25%,  with Devo-max at 41% and the rest undecided....so not enough undecideds to make the result either independence or the status quo.  Without the Devo-Max option included, NO, before the Edinburgh Agreement, had a 28% lead and there weren't enough undecideds to pull YES ahead even if they all went for YES.

 

Care to explain just how Alex Salmond, or any Scottish Government FM, could put pressure on the Prime Minister of a sovereign UK Parliament to do anything he doesn't want to do?  Might come in useful for future reference.

 

Was pleased to see the intended reduction  in blood alcohol limits..but I think it should have been reduced to zero....though I can't see that it is going to stop drink drivers anyway. What might do more good would be to stop treating vehicular manslaughter as if it was a "road traffic accident", when it is no accident that people drive dangerously and/or with drink/drugs taken......it is a deliberate act on their part..and the people they kill are just as dead if they had taken a knife to them on the street. 

 

 

You know as well as I do that if there had been the three options on the ballot paper, independence would have got the biggest share.  As I have said numerous times before, if someone's favourite option is devo-max then the one thing they would not have done in the referendum we have just had is to vote "YES".  It is therefore reasonable to assume that all those who voted "YES"  wanted independence.  And if you want independence you are not going to vote for a unionist option just because devo-max gets stuck on the ballot paper.  The vote for independence would have been broadly as it was with the YES/NO choice.  The only way the vote for independence would not have got the biggest share is if the unionist vote was split 90/10 or more one way or another and if you think 90% of those who voted "NO"  want devo-max you are seriously deluding yourself. 

 

In addition, had devo-max been an option, the unionist parties would have been split between the two options and you can imagine the mischief the SNP would have made about that!    The arguments about the level of devolution which is desirable would have resulted in a lack of focused opposition to the case for independence and my guess is that the YES vote would actually have been a little higher. 

 

In any case, you still refuse to answer the simple question of whether in the event of a 3 option referendum, granting Scotland independence when only 35 - 40% of the electorate voted for it would have been acceptable democracy. 

 

As to how to put pressure on Cameron, I've already told you in my post - and in one before!  Had the Scottish Government got a mandate from the Scottish electorate on the specific issue of negotiating a separation settlement to put to the people, Cameron would have had absolutely no option but to cooperate fully.  Failure to do so would clearly be to ignore the stated wish of a majority within a democratic process and nothing would fan the flames of nationalism more.  Had it been in the "YES" campaign's interest  for the electorate to know what it was voting on then it would have been a devastating tactic - but of course it was not in their interest so they didn't do it.

 

 

Excuse me, DD.but you are just saying the same thing in different ways in every post now.....and simply not accepting that, as far as those who want independence, like me, are concerned,  we would have been content with devo-max in the short/medium term...but continued to try for independence, to remove nuclear weapons and war-mongering, if nothing else....and would have been chuffed to bits with independence.. There is a difference between being chuffed to bits and content, of course.....but either is preferable to being sick to the stomach because we are still completely thralled to austerity and continuing cuts, the trashing of people on benefits, the kowtowing to the rich, the fire sale of anything in the country which isn't nailed down to benefit themselves and their friends...and the relentless growth in UK debt which has been used to increase wealth/income inequality, and not reduce it.  Which part do you not get of the fact Devo-max had, when it was removed from the Edinburgh agreement, a substantial lead over either of the other options.....and a three-way split would not have dented that lead. Those of us who were actively involved in the campaign were well aware that people voted for independence because there was no devo-max option..just as we were aware that people were going to vote NO because there was no devo-max option.

 

So, because we might have made mischief after a three-way referendum, if it didn't go the way 25% of us really, really wanted,  we are now in a position in which Westminster has handed 45% of us a pot to stir. Way to go, Westminster!  

 

Which part of the referendum was in the 2011 manifesto do you not quite get, DD?   That was the mandate for the referendum...and winning the referendum would have been the mandate for the Scottish Government to negotiate with Westminster.  Are you really naive enough to think that Westminster would have negotiated ahead of a referendum on spec......just in case....when they wouldn't negotiate when the campaign was on......and are you really naive enough to believe that they wouldn't have ignored all international law etc while doing so.....because it was all just theory?  And are you really naive enough to assume that they would be fair to Scotland when there was no obligation on them to be fair to Scotland in such a hypothetical situation? And can I sell you an imaginary bridge over the sea to Orkney, brand new and unpainted, for you to choose your own colour scheme? :rolleyes:

Edited by Oddquine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddquine, the reason why I have been saying the same thing in different ways is to try to get you to acknowledge a simple fact about democratic principle, but you repeatedly fail to answer the question.  Let's try one more time - do you or do you not think it would be democratically acceptable for Scotland to be afforded independence based on only 35 - 40% voting for it in a 3 way option referendum whilst 60 - 65% voted to stay in the union with one or other of the other two options.  It's a simple question and a simple yes or no answer is all that is required.

 

You also persist in the view that people voted yes because there was no devo-max option but persistently ignore the argument I have used that this makes no sense at all.  If devo-max is someone's preferred option then by definition they want to remain in the Union.  So why on earth would they vote for independence?  In the recent referendum, the only way to get devo-max was to vote "NO" and then, having established that Scotland is to remain in the union move on to the next stage about discussing the level of devolution the people want.  It is really basic stuff.  You keep referring to "numpties" in your posts, but if anyone can reasonably be described as a numpty it is someone who wanted devo-max in the union but voted for Independence.  Of course, if it is actually the case that people did vote YES on this basis, then that further reduces the minority who actually wanted independence and strengthens the case for putting aside any thought of another referendum for the time being.

 

I absolutely do accept that many who wanted independence would have been happy with devo-max in the mean time. But don't have a go at me about it. It was the party of independence who ignored the polls and charged ahead with the referendum on Independence thereby ignoring the popular support for devo-max! Had they gone down the devo-max road it could have been in place by now.

 

And of course I absolutely "get" the bit in the SNP manifesto about a referendum.  It was in their manifesto, they got elected, they kept their manifesto pledge and had a referendum.  Good for them.  But that is not a mandate in the sense I am talking about.  They were elected by less than half the electorate and many of them were not supporters of independence but voted SNP because they felt they were doing a decent job governing at Holyrood.  It was a mandate to hold a referendum but it in no way demonstrated the support of a majority of the country for a referendum, and with the polls showing a large majority opposed to independence it was perfectly reasonable for the UK Government not to waste time negotiating on a draft settlement for something they were clear the people didn't want.

 

On the other hand, if the Scottish Government had done as I suggested and asked the electorate if it wanted the two Governments to negotiate a separation package to put to the people, and if the people had voted for that, then that would have been a clear mandate on this specific issue.  And not only would it have been a clear mandate to the Scottish Government, it would also have been a clear mandate to the UK Government to negotiate.  In those circumstances it would have been inconceivable that the UK Government would not have negotiated because the clear implication of not doing so would have been that the likely settlement would make independence look attractive.  Refusal to negotiate in those circumstances would have fanned the flames of nationalism north of the Border like nothing else could and would have been political suicide South of the Border.

 

As I say, of course I get the point that the SNP had a mandate to hold a referendum.  But that was part of a general mandate for Government.  The mandate I am suggesting the SNP should have sought is immensely more powerful because it demonstrates the wish of a majority of the electorate on a specific topic.  I am sure Alex Salmond gets that distinction just as I am sure about the reasons why he decided not to seek such a powerful mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm away from this site for a while and still the same arguement roars on. The referendum has passed and the result, reluctantly, accepted by most voters. What happens next remains to be seen but it should not be debated on this thread.

My intention, is opening this thread, was to debate what an SNP administration has done for the Highlands. It was not intended to promote or continue the Doofers Dad / Oddquine spats from another thread so pleeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaasssse can we stay on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have given us average speed cameras from just down the road all the way down the A9 to just short of Stirling.

 

Now everyone drives at 50mph  lorries, vans and cars.

The only ones who seem to have the freedom of choice to use it or not are tourists and central belt football fans, they have the option not to go North of Perth, everyone else has to put up with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to use them to our advantage for tourism imo 'Come up to the Highlands and enjoy the stunning mega pylons and the longest stretch of ASCs in the UK.' That can be out USP as they say on the Apprentice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have given us average speed cameras from just down the road all the way down the A9 to just short of Stirling.

 

Now everyone drives at 50mph  lorries, vans and cars.

The only ones who seem to have the freedom of choice to use it or not are tourists and central belt football fans, they have the option not to go North of Perth, everyone else has to put up with it.

Is that what it's like now since the 'switch on'? I've not been on it yet! I suppose many folk will be tentative to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subsequent to Alex' plea to return to the topic as originally defined, responses seem mainly to have been about the average speed cameras, for which there is already an existing thread. So if there is a shortage of material here, let me try to make two suggestions within the title of the topic- What has the SNP done for the Highlands?

 

* The SNP has given Highand Council a huge headache about what to cut next since the Scottish Government persists with its Council Tax Freeze which prevents the Highland Council (and others) from raising more money in that way. Even Highland Council's budget leader, SNP councillor Maxine Smith, yesterday stuck her head above the parapet and mentioned this - hence risking a right good handbagging from Nicola when she inherits Beaut House. So the reality is that SNP policy has resulted in Highland Council having to contemplate the possibility of four weekly bin collections, sending kids home from school on Friday afternoons, closing swimming pools and libraries, cutting spending on Gaelic, and a lot more. The SNP will of course defend itself by:-

1 - blaming "Westminster".

2 - claiming that it has given £70 million nationally to offset this - which is rather like farting at a wind farm.

3 - asserting that its policy is "popular"- although possibly not based on a poll among people who have their kids coming home from school Friday lunchtimes and stepping over four week old rubbish rotting at their front doors.

 

* The SNP, following its scaremongering about a Referendum NO vote leading to more privatisation of NHS Scotland (which it controls) has, according to a report published today, actually presided over increased private service use within NHS Scotland. And the Highlands? Well up here we lead the privatisation trend with an increase of 40% in the use of private facilities in the last year. NHS Highland (the responsibility of the SNP) also has a particularly poor record in terms of budget control and waiting times, according to the same report.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles the SNP will scrap the local council tax in favour of a fairer local income tax which will mean that you, on your pension, will pay less than high earners.

And how much local control would councils have over the rate of that tax and hence over what levels of services they can provide?

When is this change scheduled to take place by the way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Charles the SNP will scrap the local council tax in favour of a fairer local income tax which will mean that you, on your pension, will pay less than high earners.

And how much local control would councils have over the rate of that tax and hence over what levels of services they can provide?

When is this change scheduled to take place by the way?

 

If it hadn't been for the recession, the year on year cuts in public spending, the limit on how much a Scottish Government was allowed to vary income tax, and the clawback which would have resulted from varying the tax at all, we'd have had it in the 2007-2011 term. And as it is collected by HMRC and not by individual councils, it has to be centrally set.  It will take place when we get devo-Max and control of all our revenues and the spending of them....or independence and control of all our revenues and the spending of them..   I'm not holding my breath over the first option, though.  It won't be introduced as long as we receive pocket money which can be reduced at the whim of Westminster and would be readjusted downwards if we raise income tax levels.

 

After all, if simply raising income tax levels to fund decisions which would help reduce the inequality of income within Scotland would have made the Scottish taxpayer no worse off regarding over all income to spend....don't you think it would have happened at some stage after 1999? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

* The SNP, following its scaremongering about a Referendum NO vote leading to more privatisation of NHS Scotland (which it controls) has, according to a report published today, actually presided over increased private service use within NHS Scotland. And the Highlands? Well up here we lead the privatisation trend with an increase of 40% in the use of private facilities in the last year. NHS Highland (the responsibility of the SNP) also has a particularly poor record in terms of budget control and waiting times, according to the same report.

 

I had a quick look at the Audit Scotland report yesterday and I think it said that in Scotland as a whole there was actually a small drop in the use of private facilities last year although it certainly rose quite a bit in the Highlands.  It has also certainly increased significantly in Scotland as a whole over the years during the SNP's tenure of the NHS in Scotland. However, what is more alarming are aspects around NHS funding detailed by the Audit Commission.

 

The report identifies that the Government's National Resource Allocation Committee has a formula which was developed to allocate funding to the Health Boards, but that last year actual funding to NHS Highland was £11.3 million short of that and this year the shortfall is £12.3 million.  The Government provided £2.5 million "brokerage" last year to allow the Health Board to balance it's books, yet despite the fact that according to it's own formula it is underfunding the Board, the Government are insisting this loan is paid back over the next 3 years.

 

To add insult to injury, the report also confirms that this SNP Government is cutting funding in real terms to the NHS by 0.9% over the next two years 

 

What has the SNP done for the Highlands?  It has placed unreasonable financial constraints on the NHS in the Highlands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very easy to take a figure out of a report and claim it to be a funding cut. How much of this funding cut is because cost of some services have come down? For example the SG is puting funds into smoking and alcohol/drug abuse initiatives, including financial rewards to those who quit smoking. Those initiatives are set to reduce the numbers being treated for smoking and alcohol/drug related illness thus reducing costs to NHS Scotland.

 

As for financial constraints NHS Highland is no different to any other health board. Many of those constraints could have been addressed had previous governments not put in place systems of control of health boards whereby the people running them take a large amount of the funds in salaries. Get back to the days of matrons and dedicated nurses and doctors running the services and we'll get back to a financially sound health service.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy