The Scottish Politics thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
aguero93:20 said:
I can't speak for the Scots, but I'd imagine it has something to do with where the Tories spent the recent 'levelling up' money and their viewpoint that the constituencies most 'in need' are wealthy home counties Tory voting consituencies.
Click to expand...
Equally wrong. Im no fan of the way this or previous UK governments have used UK tax for their own political gain.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
What isn't true, The Barnette formula the extra tax revenue?

Perhaps you should write to the academics at the University of Strathclyde and tell them they are wrong?

fraserofallander.org

Higher income taxes and public spending in Scotland? | FAI

Since February’s Budget, there has been discussion about income tax in Scotland and public spending. Oddly, the debate was sparked by adverts – rather good ones we might add! – on the Tube promoting…
fraserofallander.org fraserofallander.org
Click to expand...

No issue with the Barnett formula. It recognises what you refuse to. That the UK is a union of nations, and that Scotland (and other constituent nations) aren't just regions.

There is a joint contribution, over decades and decades, and a share of that contribution shared back. Plus then topped up with higher income tax locally, across almost every earning bracket, increasing exponantilnally. Used as decided by a devolved elected parliament.

I don't think either of us are qualified to judge the minute detail and fairness of the specific shares (I certainly am not, maybe you are, not my place to say), but the principle is there.

The 'know your place' attitude is in itself patronising, but then also redefining that place is what my issue is.



And no, that isn't buying snp propaganda btw, for the record. It is this reinterpreting of the union that only helps the nats narrative.
 
Coatigan said:
No issue with the Barnett formula. It recognises what you refuse to. That the UK is a union of nations, and that Scotland (and other constituent nations) aren't just regions.

There is a joint contribution, over decades and decades, and a share of that contribution shared back. Plus then topped up with higher income tax locally, across almost every earning bracket, increasing exponantilnally. Used as decided by a devolved elected parliament.

I don't think either of us are qualified to judge the minute detail and fairness of the specific shares (I certainly am not, maybe you are, not my place to say), but the principle is there.

The 'know your place' attitude is in itself patronising, but then also redefining that place is what my issue is.



And no, that isn't buying snp propaganda btw, for the record. It is this reinterpreting of the union that only helps the nats narrative.
Click to expand...
There's no know your place attitude?? So stop twisting things and making something up to try and attain some kind of moral high ground.

There is no need to get so agressive. This was is a simple debate about how Scotland can seemingly afford a 4% pay rise for NHS staff when the rest of the UK has been told it cannot.

I dont agree agree with the barnett formula and stated my reasons. You do agree with it, fair enough.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Did he say you were being forced into another referendum? I thought he was just saying it had already happened so there was no need for another within a generation of the last?
Click to expand...
It always makes me laugh when cunts like Johnson say it's a once in a generation thing. As if one man, Salmond who is attributed with that quote can decide on behalf of a country when they can vote again. Where are we living, North Fucking Korea?

Let's just look at that proposition. A single individual, with one vote, makes a stupid comment, a man who was hated by the establishment, derided, called all the cunts of the day, dismissed as a nutcase, says that, and suddenly opponents of Indy, terrified of the effect of it on the UK, now herald him as the sole voice dictating democratic rights of millions of people for a generation.

I actually fee embarrassed for people when they regurgitate that and expected better from someone with a brain in their head like you.

You cannot park democracy for 40 years because a single guy said a stupid thing.
Imagine for a minute the SNP win a landslide, every age group aoart from the old are in favour and we are told by Tories and Labour that no, we are suspending democracy and no matter if every single **** of us wanted it, Salmond spoke, so 16 year old first time voter, come back when you're 50.

The bottom line is this, in a democracy where the electorate vote for it we could have one every time we had a mandate. That is just how democracy works. Now I know that Johnson would love a dictatorship, where one man decides the future, but anybody spouting thst shite regarding that statement is either shit scared of it, or hasn't the first clue about how democracy works.

Is that the future for the UK? Even more reason for us to say, well England, you don't seem to mind taking it up the arse, but we do.

My Grandson is five, my granddaughter 2, am I to say, sorry my wee darlings, a guy who you have never heard of decided that you will both be in your 40's before you can even consider this, no matter how many of your generation want it. Thems the rules.

So, as this becomes more of a prospect this year people, please don't come out with this. It's not smart or clever. In fact, it's the absolute opposite. We will have Indy Ref2 if our people vote for the party who have it in their manifesto. And nobody, especially a fucktard, lying, useless conmam like Johnson is going to stop it. And if you believe in democracy, even if you disagree with how we vote, or think it's a bad idea, please remember, no **** is asking you. If you want to vote against it, move here. Other than that support the right. If we go down the road of denying the political will of a people, then you don't believe in democracy unless it suits you. That's not democracy, that's a scared shitless establishment trying to negate a whole country's right to decide it's own future, not our part in someone else's.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
They are relvant but you should not forget that they raise a fraction of your expenditure. To think otherwise is to fall for the SNPs propaganda.

Why are you so against equal expenditure on a needs basis for all peoples of the UK?
Click to expand...
We sent £79b to the treasury, excluding oil revenue and whisky and get ,£35b back. That's why Tories are shit scared we tell them to bolt.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
There's no know your place attitude?? So stop twisting things and making something up to try and attain some kind of moral high ground.

There is no need to get so agressive. This was is a simple debate about how Scotland can seemingly afford a 4% pay rise for NHS staff when the rest of the UK has been told it cannot.

I dont agree agree with the barnett formula and stated my reasons. You do agree with it, fair enough.
Click to expand...

That is fair.

I don't intend continue to labour the point(s). We could nitpick what is aggressive, what is bitter or judging, but really let's both be better.

We disagree on a principle, that much is clear, and we will while it is there.

And it is there.
 
Coatigan said:
That is fair.

I don't intend continue to labour the point(s). We could nitpick what is aggressive, what is bitter or judging, but really let's both be better.

We disagree on a principle, that much is clear, and we will while it is there.

And it is there.
Click to expand...
thank you, Fwiw. I love Scotland and its people, ive spent more holidays up there than anywhere else. We even lived up there many years ago for a few months until we had to. move for work. We have Scottish friends and hope to be holidaying again north of the border this spring. That said i dont like politcians and they way they manipulate and divide people, i include the SNP and the UK gov in equal measure in that assessment.
 
Magicpole said:
We sent £79b to the treasury, excluding oil revenue and whisky and get ,£35b back. That's why Tories are shit scared we tell them to bolt.
Click to expand...
Well i could give you some alternative numbers. But i think the reason that Johnson or any UK PM doesnt want an independent Scotland is they dont want to go down in history as being PM when the union broke up. A politcian and his ego.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Well i could give you some alternative numbers. But i think the reason that Johnson or any UK PM doesnt want an independent Scotland is they dont want to go down in history as being PM when the union broke up. A politcian and his ego.
Click to expand...
That is also a factor. But he needs to realise it's not his choice. The more he dictates the more support will grow. We as a people have always found it too much when others try and tell us what to do. This will force waverers into our camp. He's that thick he doesn't realise this.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Needs based, Ie the same level of services available to all peoples of the UK. based on your needs not where you live. So if you live in Brora , land of giant killers ! you get the same level of financial support and services as the people who live in Oldham, Hackney, Antrim or Rhyl. As long as those people have the same personal income. I find it hard to see how anyone can argue against such a system.
Click to expand...
The Barnett formula is simply based on the spending of each country in 1979 and that has been extrapolated upwards since. The Barnett formulae convergence has been cancelled out by population growth in England compared to the other countries to maintain the gap between spending per head in the different countries. That does not make Scotland 'spongers'.

In fact moving to a 'needs' basis would almost certainly result in increases in funding as it is much more expensive to deliver similar services in geographically diverse areas (and Scotland has more of them). So I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your previous arguments that spend per head should be equal in each country. I thought that was what you were proposing.

What we can agree on is the Barnett Formulae is far from perfect. A needs based assessment might be fairer depending on how it was calculated (a bloody nightmare). Whatever way it was doled out someone would be unhappy and it wouldn't stop the irrefutable truth that a Tory administration in Westminster would have different priorities on spending than a centre/left party in Scotland. Hope that brings us a little closer together.
 
Magicpole said:
More chance of me becoming a Tory.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Now suppose you had a significant enough group of those Rangers types that said there is no way they would respect your democratic vote for independence and they would never surrender and decided to arm themselves to the teeth.
Would the SNP agree to give them their own little corner of Scotland to remain in the UK as a divorce settlement, to avoid a civil war.
Purely hypothetical I know. I mean it would never happen in a million years. (A hundred even).
 
Magicpole said:
It always makes me laugh when cunts like Johnson say it's a once in a generation thing. As if one man, Salmond who is attributed with that quote can decide on behalf of a country when they can vote again. Where are we living, North Fucking Korea?

Let's just look at that proposition. A single individual, with one vote, makes a stupid comment, a man who was hated by the establishment, derided, called all the cunts of the day, dismissed as a nutcase, says that, and suddenly opponents of Indy, terrified of the effect of it on the UK, now herald him as the sole voice dictating democratic rights of millions of people for a generation.

I actually fee embarrassed for people when they regurgitate that and expected better from someone with a brain in their head like you.

You cannot park democracy for 40 years because a single guy said a stupid thing.
Imagine for a minute the SNP win a landslide, every age group aoart from the old are in favour and we are told by Tories and Labour that no, we are suspending democracy and no matter if every single **** of us wanted it, Salmond spoke, so 16 year old first time voter, come back when you're 50.

The bottom line is this, in a democracy where the electorate vote for it we could have one every time we had a mandate. That is just how democracy works. Now I know that Johnson would love a dictatorship, where one man decides the future, but anybody spouting thst shite regarding that statement is either shit scared of it, or hasn't the first clue about how democracy works.

Is that the future for the UK? Even more reason for us to say, well England, you don't seem to mind taking it up the arse, but we do.

My Grandson is five, my granddaughter 2, am I to say, sorry my wee darlings, a guy who you have never heard of decided that you will both be in your 40's before you can even consider this, no matter how many of your generation want it. Thems the rules.

So, as this becomes more of a prospect this year people, please don't come out with this. It's not smart or clever. In fact, it's the absolute opposite. We will have Indy Ref2 if our people vote for the party who have it in their manifesto. And nobody, especially a fucktard, lying, useless conmam like Johnson is going to stop it. And if you believe in democracy, even if you disagree with how we vote, or think it's a bad idea, please remember, no **** is asking you. If you want to vote against it, move here. Other than that support the right. If we go down the road of denying the political will of a people, then you don't believe in democracy unless it suits you. That's not democracy, that's a scared shitless establishment trying to negate a whole country's right to decide it's own future, not our part in someone else's.
Click to expand...
I didn't even realise it was Salmond that said it - I was only asking :-)
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I didn't even realise it was Salmond that said it - I was only asking :-)
Click to expand...
I know, but, having a think about it, tells you it's a smokescreen from frightened opponents and wholly contradictory to democracy. Not like that woukd bother Tories. If they had their way, we still wouldn't even have the fucking vote. Champions of the Working Class though, if you're a docile, forelock tugging, thick as fuck twat.
 
Magicpole said:
It always makes me laugh when cunts like Johnson say it's a once in a generation thing. As if one man, Salmond who is attributed with that quote can decide on behalf of a country when they can vote again. Where are we living, North Fucking Korea?

Let's just look at that proposition. A single individual, with one vote, makes a stupid comment, a man who was hated by the establishment, derided, called all the cunts of the day, dismissed as a nutcase, says that, and suddenly opponents of Indy, terrified of the effect of it on the UK, now herald him as the sole voice dictating democratic rights of millions of people for a generation.

I actually fee embarrassed for people when they regurgitate that and expected better from someone with a brain in their head like you.

You cannot park democracy for 40 years because a single guy said a stupid thing.
Imagine for a minute the SNP win a landslide, every age group aoart from the old are in favour and we are told by Tories and Labour that no, we are suspending democracy and no matter if every single **** of us wanted it, Salmond spoke, so 16 year old first time voter, come back when you're 50.

The bottom line is this, in a democracy where the electorate vote for it we could have one every time we had a mandate. That is just how democracy works. Now I know that Johnson would love a dictatorship, where one man decides the future, but anybody spouting thst shite regarding that statement is either shit scared of it, or hasn't the first clue about how democracy works.

Is that the future for the UK? Even more reason for us to say, well England, you don't seem to mind taking it up the arse, but we do.

My Grandson is five, my granddaughter 2, am I to say, sorry my wee darlings, a guy who you have never heard of decided that you will both be in your 40's before you can even consider this, no matter how many of your generation want it. Thems the rules.

So, as this becomes more of a prospect this year people, please don't come out with this. It's not smart or clever. In fact, it's the absolute opposite. We will have Indy Ref2 if our people vote for the party who have it in their manifesto. And nobody, especially a fucktard, lying, useless conmam like Johnson is going to stop it. And if you believe in democracy, even if you disagree with how we vote, or think it's a bad idea, please remember, no **** is asking you. If you want to vote against it, move here. Other than that support the right. If we go down the road of denying the political will of a people, then you don't believe in democracy unless it suits you. That's not democracy, that's a scared shitless establishment trying to negate a whole country's right to decide it's own future, not our part in someone else's.
Click to expand...
That is a top, top post mate. How dare he say no to a further referendum if the Scottish people want one. Anybody would think we were under the occupancy of a dictatorship. What next? The BBC becomes a propaganda machine for the government? Oh wait....

I think if the SNP can get an overall majority she has her mandate. The ability to govern with the Greens would also do.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
That is a top, top post mate. How dare he say no to a further referendum if the Scottish people want one. Anybody would think we were under the occupancy of a dictatorship. What next? The BBC becomes a propaganda machine for the government? Oh wait....

I think if the SNP can get an overall majority she has her mandate. The ability to govern with the Greens would also do.
Click to expand...
It's laughable. Moronic, but laughable.
 
ganganvince said:
news.sky.com

Alex Salmond becomes leader of new pro-independence Alba Party ahead of Scottish elections

Scotland's former first minister Alex Salmond has re-entered frontline politics to become the leader of the new pro-independence Alba Party.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
bb3_tU.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top