Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[doctor jambo]

THe health budget would be adequate but for a few brave decisions that have not been made

1- targets for some things need removed- minor ops , hip replacements, knees etc etc- these are things people often want but do not need NOW and can be delayed until funds are available to carry them out- to meet these targets extra surgery is carried out and staff paid to come in to meet this target- comes out other budgets for acute services

2- recommence prescription charges for those who can afford them- teh extra money is always handy in the health service

3- over the counter presciptions should be more widely utilised- across the country since the abolition of script charges the number of patients who phone up requesting paracetamol/ibuprofen etc is crazy- but they do it because it is free. It saves them 42p or whatever but its phone call- practicce staff-GP-print - sign-file- patient collect- pharmacy dispensing charge. Truly an astronomical cost for such things

[RXTech]

But you've just criticised the UK for spending more on London?!

 

So it's fine for this to happen in Scotland - just not in the UK.

 

Erm, London is already incredibly wealthy, Glasgow isn't.

 

[modedit]

 

[TheMaganator]

Erm, London is already incredibly wealthy, Glasgow isn't.

 

[modedit]

You have missed th epoint entirely. [modedit]

[TheMaganator]

On point one are you saying we should raise more tax per head for the UK exchequer and we should then pay extra tax to the Scottish Government to supplement the Block Grant? Really? I mean do you actually believe that is what we should be doing?

Nope. All money raised by the devolved powers would stay in Scotland.

 

The SNP wont put it up and use the revenue to help people because they think it'd be unpopular and hinder their independence project. They could do more now but they choose not to. They choose not to because their priority is independence

[doctor jambo]

The other thing re health budgets is move consultants over to a more GP type pay system- pay-per-results inessence, and if you dont meet your targets you lose money (and include waiting times in that)

In GP land that means if you are not fulfilling all your obligations you dont get paid more to manage them- quite the reverse.

It means the Consultants would be forced to work longer for , basically, free, to meet their obligations

Cannot see them going for it though

[TheMaganator]

You are miss reading my post.

 

I am saying we already more than we get back in the block grant and then on top of this it is being suggested should pay more to the Scottish Government to increase the revenue they have to spend.

 

If we were an independent country all our taxes we would be kept here and spent however the Government of the time chooses.

We actually have more spent on us than we raise:

 

We contribute ?56.9bn

We receive ?64.5bn (these are the Scottish governments own figures btw)

We run a deficit of ?7.6bn

 

That aside, the point remains, if the SNP have powers that they do not use. They have done for years. They could raise more money to be spent on what they think would help the people of Scotland but they choose not to.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Erm, London is already incredibly wealthy, Glasgow isn't.

 

[modedit]

 

You missed he point. You complained London gets more spent on it. You then defended Glasgow getting similar treatment because it has a large population, whilst adding it makes money for Scotland... Like London. Do you not see that discrepancy?

 

 

 

Nationalist cause? I am not a nationalist. A large proportion of those intending to vote YES are not nationalists.

 

This referendum is about the future governance of Scotland - it's about the governance of the people who live in Scotland being in the hands of those people.

 

I don't get why yes voters run from being nationalists and then brand unionists nationalists. The fact is a vote for yes is to place your Scottish identity first and gives you governance by your own nationality, solely. Civic nationalism, natioanlism, ethnic nationalism, it's all the same side of the coin. It places one identity and people above others in importance. That is what a yes vote does. It is, to me, not in line with the ideals of say socialism and internationalism which is a coming together of people.

 

 

OK - to address points in Jambos are go's post:

 

 

2) Its headline policies on council tax and student fees gives benefits to the better off and a change could release funds to tackle this issue. The Scottish government is mitigating a large proportion of the cost of the freeze in Council tax by diverting funds for other areas. Holyrood currently depends on its funding from the Westminster allocated block grant which has been cut in proportion to Treasury budget levels.

 

I don't get your point. Are you saying that the Scottish government are right to run this regressive tax freeze by diverting money that'd be better spent elsewhere? Or are fine because they only have the bloc grant to worry about and little fiscal accountability as the services affected are council run and council cut?

 

The money spent here would be much better spent going into housing stock and anti poverty measures. Not giving the richest a cheque back at the end of each year it runs.

 

 

3)Holyrood and local councils are happy to see social problems concentrated (or ghettoised in) certain locations like Carlton in Glasgow( the source of the headline figure) I pressume you mean Calton? No-one wishes to see social problems contained in ghettos other than those who might wish the problems swept under the carpet and out of sght. The current Scottish government certainly is not happy with the current situation and to suggest otherwise would be beneath contempt. One of the driving forces behind the drive for independence is to be able to tackle those problems and solve them - not just leave them out of sight and out of mind. Too many on the NO side are doing just that and are seemingly happy to do so.

 

 

Ms Sturgeon led the Health and Wellbeing directorate of the SG for 6 years. What tangible improvements have we seen? Where were the brave and bold policies to change Scotland for the better under her stewardship of that department? Where was the slum clearances and the new council housing stock? The big push to change Scottish culture in health and diet? Not enough was done for fear of upsetting folk. The put all their eggs in more punitive measures like the alcohol minimum pricing, which has dubious legality, and not enough effort in preventative measures by educating the public in healthy eating and fitness. Leisure centres and public health centres are on the down, not up. That's what we needed. Never got it.

 

 

4) Holyrood also has control of huge spending on Health and it most certainly has the tools to do the job. The health budget has been cut in line with spending cuts made in NHS spending south of the border with large cuts still to come in the pipeline. Holyrood can only maintain current levels of spending by making savings elsewhere to compensate. To suggest that Holyrood has 'huge spending on the Health and it most certainly has the tools to do the job' is at the very least disingenuous. Until we have the total package of fiscal powers at our disposal those problems can only be tinkered with.

 

Wrong. The health budget is arguably eating into other budgets and starving them of money because we are failing to make the health service more local and locally run and leaving it centralised and overly beauraucratic. Health is Holyroods biggest expenditure. You'd think that budget would be focused better to actually tackle these illnesses and ailments we see in society.

 

 

5) Regardless of the result of the Referendum there should be public insistence on Holyrood to use its powers to tackle Scotlands need. Jeezo - give me strength.

 

What's wrong with that argument? We should never take it for granted that politicians will actually do what we want by virtue of independence or do what's right when it may not be easy. Jeezo give me strength if we shouldn't demand more of our political leaders to end the poverty and injustice we see.

 

Believe me I will demand more of my leaders if it's a no or a yes vote, be it Holyrood, Westminster, Edinburgh council or the EU. Because, frankly all of them are taking too many easy options than making decisions which will actually benefit the real people of these lands.

 

Jeez oh indeed.

[JamboX2]

 

I don't agree, I think the principle of free prescriptions is a fair one. Why should a person who is means tested as can afford prescriptions be forced to pay for something like hayfever meds and then have a portion of their tax pay for someone else who is means tested as can't afford for the same medicine? If you have a free NHS it should be free for all.

 

Equally, why should the NHS subsidise paracetamol and aspirin? That's one of its largest prescriptions. Surely there has to be limits to this policy. The old, young and poorest and those suffering the worst health problems should get free medicine. Should we rob the wider NHS budget for the benefit of an advocate getting aspirin for free?

[AlphonseCapone]

The other thing re health budgets is move consultants over to a more GP type pay system- pay-per-results inessence, and if you dont meet your targets you lose money (and include waiting times in that)

In GP land that means if you are not fulfilling all your obligations you dont get paid more to manage them- quite the reverse.

It means the Consultants would be forced to work longer for , basically, free, to meet their obligations

Cannot see them going for it though

 

As much as your idea might be nice it is not quite as simple as saying to a consultant, from now it will be like this...

[AlphonseCapone]

THe health budget would be adequate but for a few brave decisions that have not been made

1- targets for some things need removed- minor ops , hip replacements, knees etc etc- these are things people often want but do not need NOW and can be delayed until funds are available to carry them out- to meet these targets extra surgery is carried out and staff paid to come in to meet this target- comes out other budgets for acute services

2- recommence prescription charges for those who can afford them- teh extra money is always handy in the health service

3- over the counter presciptions should be more widely utilised- across the country since the abolition of script charges the number of patients who phone up requesting paracetamol/ibuprofen etc is crazy- but they do it because it is free. It saves them 42p or whatever but its phone call- practicce staff-GP-print - sign-file- patient collect- pharmacy dispensing charge. Truly an astronomical cost for such things

 

On point 2, the money to be made from this is no where near as much as people think, most people receiving prescriptions are in the exempt categories anyway.

[TheMaganator]

http://m.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/hardship-alert-1-3438203

Interesting letter in the Scotsman today from a Norwegian living in the UK

[Gizmo]

Nope. All money raised by the devolved powers would stay in Scotland.

 

The SNP wont put it up and use the revenue to help people because they think it'd be unpopular and hinder their independence project. They could do more now but they choose not to. They choose not to because their priority is independence

 

What was Labour's excuse then?

[IMA MAROON]

http://m.scotsman.co...alert-1-3438203

Interesting letter in the Scotsman today from a Norwegian living in the UK

When Norway wanted independence 99.5 per cent of the population voted Yes. I don?t see that sort of unity in Scotland today, and for that reason alone there should not be a referendum at all.

 

Yep, I think the non voters should be counted as No voters as non voters obviously do not want to separate.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

What was Labour's excuse then?

 

Being conceited.

 

This isn't about who's done worse than who. It's about the fact we can do more, we can do more now, and I'm sick to death of talk of a brighter tomorrow and no politician, of any party, actually doing anything that'll be a game changer. It's what annoys me about the yes camp. A new dawn is promised. Yet they forget that politicians will be an obstacle to this.

[Cade]

When Norway wanted independence 99.5 per cent of the population voted Yes. I don?t see that sort of unity in Scotland today, and for that reason alone there should not be a referendum at all.

 

 

Yep, I think the non voters should be counted as No voters as non voters obviously do not want to separate.

 

There shouldn't be a referendum unless yes are guaranteed almost 100%?

How does that one work then?

Do we hold one every year to see how close we are to 99.5% then go for the big one?

 

Ridiculous

Edited June 10, 2014 by Cade

[TheMaganator]

 

 

What was Labour's excuse then?

Do they need one? For starters they're not the ones complaining about not having enough powers.

 

The SNP complain almost daily about not having enough powers when the reality is they have much that they don't use. But they choose not to because it would be unpopular. They're putting independence above all else.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

There shouldn't be a referendum unless yes are guaranteed almost 100%?

How does that one work then?

Do we hold one every year to see how close we are to 99.5% then go for the big one?

 

Ridiculous

Thats not really the point he's making. He's saying a country has to be united for a venture like this.

 

I don't think I've ever known Scotland to be less united.

[JamboGraham]

 

 

 

On point 2, the money to be made from this is no where near as much as people think, most people receiving prescriptions are in the exempt categories anyway.

 

?57m per year.

[curriehearts]

Thats not really the point he's making. He's saying a country has to be united for a venture like this.

 

I don't think I've ever known Scotland to be less united.

 

Don't think Scotland was united when we entered the union. The precedent has already been set.

[Coco]

First Minister vows to go on and on.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-salmond-vows-to-stand-for-re-election-in-2016-1-3439068

 

My guess is that Nicola Sturgeon will assume leadership of the party swiftly after the referendum whether it is won or lost.

[The Comedian]

Don't think Scotland was united when we entered the union. The precedent has already been set.

 

Was about to make the same point.

 

[JamboX2]

 

First Minister vows to go on and on.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-salmond-vows-to-stand-for-re-election-in-2016-1-3439068

 

My guess is that Nicola Sturgeon will assume leadership of the party swiftly after the referendum whether it is won or lost.

 

No surprise. Whilst I find it hard to see how it will work politically if after his reason for existing in politics is defeated in September, I suppose it'll be down to his backbenchers and cabinet. And none of them will really dislodge him.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Don't think Scotland was united when we entered the union. The precedent has already been set.

That was 300 years ago - it's not comparing like with like, and you know it.

[curriehearts]

That was 300 years ago - it's not comparing like with like, and you know it.

 

Not comparing like with like seems to be favoured tactic in this Independence debate/ thread.

 

But we must also get perspective and context into this decision otherwise folk start running away with themselves.

Is it a big decision? Undoubtedly yes. Will there be fall out from the decision? Undoubtedly yes. Are we mature enough to handle it? Undoubtedly yes.

 

So all in all, life will move on.

[curriehearts]

 

Was about to make the same point.

 

 

...and I dare not mention the Jacobite uprisings....

[Alba gu Brath]

There shouldn't be a referendum unless yes are guaranteed almost 100%?

How does that one work then?

Do we hold one every year to see how close we are to 99.5% then go for the big one?

 

Ridiculous

 

Yup. This would invalidate every election. Since when did we ever get a nigh 100% turnout?

 

As to the point re. poverty - at whos door do we lay the blame if not ultimately at London's? These problems go back a century or more and won't be solved by a half-assed devo parliament. If we are serious about solving our own problems then we need the powers do so.

 

Why on earth would anyone think that Cameron, Clegg, Hague and Osbourne are better placed to run the 'important' remainder than we are?

 

And why on earth would it not be logical to see a relation between small nations self-determination and their prosperous societies? We are only 8% of the UK. The numbers are weighed against us. Our voice is lost and we'll never be top of the priorities for any govt in Westminster.

[Alba gu Brath]

No surprise. Whilst I find it hard to see how it will work politically if after his reason for existing in politics is defeated in September, I suppose it'll be down to his backbenchers and cabinet. And none of them will really dislodge him.

 

 

Fact is, AS remains a popular politician. Unthinkable after, what 7 years in office? I can't think of anyone who comes close to him in Scottish or UK politics when you think of what he's achieved in terms of election victories and retaining popularity. Boris Johnson maybe, in terms of populairty, to an extent. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone in Labour.

 

And while the Yes vote is still a minority one, if the polls are correct, it has gone from being the perennial 25 to 30% as it was for years to 40 to 45% and only needing a single figure swing for a majority. That's progress.

[Don Draper]

http://m.scotsman.co...alert-1-3438203

Interesting letter in the Scotsman today from a Norwegian living in the UK

 

"If Scots are willing to go through decades of hardship in order to build their own country, then fine, but no-one should assume that independence is a silver bullet that will automatically transform Scotland into Norway."

 

I don't think I've ever met an independence supporter who thinks it will be a panacea, and yet this shoddy, rather immature line is trotted out a lot. Amazingly enough, a lot of folk are perfectly willing to undergo some initially tougher times if it means that they will ultimately be in control of their own affairs.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

"If Scots are willing to go through decades of hardship in order to build their own country, then fine, but no-one should assume that independence is a silver bullet that will automatically transform Scotland into Norway."

 

I don't think I've ever met an independence supporter who thinks it will be a panacea, and yet this shoddy, rather immature line is trotted out a lot. Amazingly enough, a lot of folk are perfectly willing to undergo some initially tougher times if it means that they will ultimately be in control of their own affairs.

It isn't how it is being sold to the undecideds though.

[IMA MAROON]

There shouldn't be a referendum unless yes are guaranteed almost 100%?

How does that one work then?

Do we hold one every year to see how close we are to 99.5% then go for the big one?

 

Ridiculous

 

Every 50 to 100 years would be fine.

 

The only people that should be voting are the ones that want to break away. If they ever reach 70% or so of the population then Scotland should separate from the UK.

[JamboX2]

...and I dare not mention the Jacobite uprisings....

 

There were more Scots in Cumberland's Army at Culloden than in the Jacobite one. What does that say? I also don't think the presbyterian Scottish public was too enamoured with a catholic king who's dad had been booted from the throne by Parliament for not reflecting the religion and attitude of his people...

 

Fact is, AS remains a popular politician. Unthinkable after, what 7 years in office? I can't think of anyone who comes close to him in Scottish or UK politics when you think of what he's achieved in terms of election victories and retaining popularity. Boris Johnson maybe, in terms of populairty, to an extent. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone in Labour.

 

And while the Yes vote is still a minority one, if the polls are correct, it has gone from being the perennial 25 to 30% as it was for years to 40 to 45% and only needing a single figure swing for a majority. That's progress.

 

Yeh he's still popular. But he's a marmite character. I personally have little time for him. Too big headed, too much hyperbole and an aloofness I don't have much truck with. Personal opinion.

 

Blair done well, 6/7 years before his poll ratings began a slump which they never recovered from. Blair won 3 majorities in a row, as did Thatcher. Not a small achievement, and certainly comparable to Salmond's achievements if we consider how hated Blair and Thatcher were to many when they won their third elections. Salmond has won 2 elections, one by a seat, and amazingly a majority (helped by the fact that the LibDems emploded more than expected) in a PR system. Again strong electoral performances. But not unusual in the UK.

 

Just because someone is popular does not necessarily make him either a good leader nor have the right policies. It generally means they appeal to a wide portion of the electorate and doesn't upset anybody. Sadly that type of politics is stalling us. Things we need to see is being left because it's hard and may upset the electorate in the run up to the referendum. That to me is an unacceptable fact of Scotland right now. Not quite on hold, but certainly delaying major issues on local government finance, provision of the social services and how we reform education to stop the reverse of those from poorer backgrounds attending university.

 

To me Salmond, and his government and his party, have offered little evidence of having thought much about this. I note this because I can't cite a policy which will change these major issues.

 

Independence is no cure for this. I'm open to Yes happening, but lets face it, if Yes wins we delay another 2 years while the Scottish Parliament is totally focused on setting up an independent nation and it's government focused on negotiating separating Scotland from the UK state. So then we get to 2016 and an election likely to be acrimonius and bitter with those who voted No or stood with No being called everything under the sun, especially untrustworthy, by those who stood and voted for Yes (btw, I see that with No as well).

 

Yes we're mature enough to deal with it as a people. I don't know if our politicians are, and they show a lack of class and decorum in this debate repeatedly. Watch any debate on STV for that. Even in both Parliaments the Scottish representatives act like squabbling children, Pete Wishart, Kenny MacAskill, Jackson Carlaw, Ian Davidson and Maragaret Curran to name a few of the worst offenders.

 

Where is the polls showing up to 40/5%? Not seen many polls showing this. The BBC's poll tracker, has 5 pollster results, and the highest Yes one is 40% and is in Pannelbase, the rest are between 30 and 37%. Hardly the sea change when we take an average that you claim.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

"If Scots are willing to go through decades of hardship in order to build their own country, then fine, but no-one should assume that independence is a silver bullet that will automatically transform Scotland into Norway."

 

I don't think I've ever met an independence supporter who thinks it will be a panacea, and yet this shoddy, rather immature line is trotted out a lot. Amazingly enough, a lot of folk are perfectly willing to undergo some initially tougher times if it means that they will ultimately be in control of their own affairs.

Have any SNP or Yes leaders ever explained or outlined these tougher times? What they'll be, how long it'll last etc? Obviously they can't say exactly - but a rough idea...

 

I don't recall any outline or acceptance of tougher times from those leading the charge to seperate.

[TheMaganator]

It'll be interesting to see how Salmond handles this, if true.

 

It certainly looks bad. Government agents circulating false info to the cyber loonies to aid in their attacks.

 

[Norm]

.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Normthebarman

[TheMaganator]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10891229/Alex-Salmonds-office-implicated-in-smear-attack-on-mother-who-spoke-up-for-the-Union.html

 

It was one of Salmond's special advisors. Imagine my surprise to read that cybernat-in-chief has muddy paws in the smear too

[jack D and coke]

Without trying to seem unsympathetic has she said what this vile abuse is? Is this like Ian Murray saying he was targeted by vile nationalist thugs when someone stuck 4 tiny stickers on his window? It's like that actress woman who said she was being abused the other week when you scrolled right through her twitter feed there was only two messages where people had actually swore, there was no abuse and she had previously told a Yes voter to "****off and die" after he questioned her. This is the war cry of the unionist, "oh the cybernats a bad person swore at me over the internet". If you want to stick your head above the parapit in this debate you need to have a thicker skin IMO. Unionists need to stop acting like spoilt little brats and grow a pair.

[TheMaganator]

Without trying to seem unsympathetic has she said what this vile abuse is? Is this like Ian Murray saying he was targeted by vile nationalist thugs when someone stuck 4 tiny stickers on his window? It's like that actress woman who said she was being abused the other week when you scrolled right through her twitter feed there was only two messages where people had actually swore, there was no abuse and she had previously told a Yes voter to "****off and die" after he questioned her. This is the war cry of the unionist, "oh the cybernats a bad person swore at me over the internet". If you want to stick your head above the parapit in this debate you need to have a thicker skin IMO. Unionists need to stop acting like spoilt little brats and grow a pair.

Well there is one quote in the article

 

: ?A liar now and forever whatever the outcome of the vote, a known Quisling and collaborator.?

 

That's pretty disgusting. You've said this before - if you get involved you should get thicker skin and accept abuse. I don't agree.

 

More to the point - this smear has come from Salmond's office. Directly from his office. That, whatever way you try to dress it up, is the government smearing those that speak against it. That's coming from a background of threatening to withdraw funding from people who oppose them and people scared to speak out. It's a disgrace

[TheMaganator]

I'll probably regret asking this and could probably do with a quick google.

 

Anyway what's the extent of movement across votes since campaigns started?

Blog here & a few links to the 'poll of polls'

 

EDIT: sorry - forgot link http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/06/referendum-race-becalmed-no-change-from-tns-bmrb/

Edited June 11, 2014 by TheMaganator

[jack D and coke]

Well there is one quote in the article

 

: ?A liar now and forever whatever the outcome of the vote, a known Quisling and collaborator.?

 

That's pretty disgusting. You've said this before - if you get involved you should get thicker skin and accept abuse. I don't agree.

 

More to the point - this smear has come from Salmond's office. Directly from his office. That, whatever way you try to dress it up, is the government smearing those that speak against it. That's coming from a background of threatening to withdraw funding from people who oppose them and people scared to speak out. It's a disgrace

Is that it? Dear oh dear. Yeah the labour party she campaigns for and her namesake Lally have no previous for dirty tricks right enough. We're they not found out for giving all their pals jobs when in charge of Glasgow city council?

 

The article is full of "sickening" "disgusting abuse" "heartfelt speech" and don't forget the "disabled child" bit and although I don't think anybody should have to be subject to abuse, or actual abuse not this kiddy on stuff to make nationalists look scary, but if that is the worst thing anybody has to say to her in her normal life as an activist for the Labour Party then she will be a very lucky lady.

 

I'm not defending abuse of any sort btw but the hysterical story is in itself a smear story.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

Is that it? Dear oh dear. Yeah the labour party she campaigns for and her namesake Lally have no previous for dirty tricks right enough. We're they not found out for giving all their pals jobs when in charge of Glasgow city council?

 

The article is full of "sickening" "disgusting abuse" "heartfelt speech" and don't forget the "disabled child" bit and although I don't think anybody should have to be subject to abuse, or actual abuse not this kiddy on stuff to make nationalists look scary, but if that is the worst thing anybody has to say to her in her normal life as an activist for the Labour Party then she will be a very lucky lady.

 

I'm not defending abuse of any sort btw but the hysterical story is in itself a smear story.

We had enough issues with the word "quisling" on this thread. Personally, I think it is out of order.

[jack D and coke]

We had enough issues with the word "quisling" on this thread. Personally, I think it is out of order.

Yeah it's worthy of that hysterical article right enough. Nats are all scary nazi loony types. Just forget the Kim Jong and Nazi remarks from Darling the week before. Where was the big scandalous articles condemning that? Aw Darling was just kidding eh haha. I wasn't laughing. Wouldn't be like everybody I know who's voting No to actually think that way either. Cybernat is a buzzword for people who can't win debates and at the first hint of questions start crying like babies. It's a huge issue, people are getting emotional about it, grow a pair FFS.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

Yeah it's worthy of that hysterical article right enough. Nats are all scary nazi loony types. Just forget the Kim Jong and Nazi remarks from Darling the week before. Where was the big scandalous articles condemning that? Aw Darling was just kidding eh haha. I wasn't laughing. Wouldn't be like everybody I know who's voting No to actually think that way either. Cybernat is a buzzword for people who can't win debates and at the first hint of questions start crying like babies. It's a huge issue, people are getting emotional about it, grow a pair FFS.

FWIW, I agree that Darling was out of order too. I would say though that it is my impression that Nats tend to have more hotheads than Unionists.

[TheMaganator]

 

Is that it? Dear oh dear. Yeah the labour party she campaigns for and her namesake Lally have no previous for dirty tricks right enough. We're they not found out for giving all their pals jobs when in charge of Glasgow city council?

 

The article is full of "sickening" "disgusting abuse" "heartfelt speech" and don't forget the "disabled child" bit and although I don't think anybody should have to be subject to abuse, or actual abuse not this kiddy on stuff to make nationalists look scary, but if that is the worst thing anybody has to say to her in her normal life as an activist for the Labour Party then she will be a very lucky lady.

 

I'm not defending abuse of any sort btw but the hysterical story is in itself a smear story.

That was just one quote. Whatever it was it had her mother in tears.

 

Anyway - you've ignored the part about it coming from Salmond's office which is the real story here

[Boris]

 

That aside, the point remains, if the SNP have powers that they do not use. They have done for years. They could raise more money to be spent on what they think would help the people of Scotland but they choose not to.

 

the current tax raising powers of the Scottish Parliament are a red herring imo.

 

Holyrood, as I understand it, only has the power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax by +/- 3p

 

Now, no government is going to raise the basic rate as that would affect so many more people in a negative way than being able to increase the higher rates of income tax.

 

A deliberate move by Westminster in the Scotland Act to make it look like the parliament had "tax teeth", so to speak.

[jack D and coke]

That was just one quote. Whatever it was it had her mother in tears.

 

Anyway - you've ignored the part about it coming from Salmond's office which is the real story here

I couldn't give a flying **** if it came from Salmonds own personal PC tbh no offence. The cry baby tactic of unionists is really starting to boil my water, what a bunch of big girls blouses they look honestly. How touchy are these people who put themselves in the public eye? Look at the stick ann budge got from our own supporters after day one in the job? Have you never had a bad argument with your mrs and said stuff you didn't really mean? I've had punch ups with my best pals but after it I'm cuddling them saying sorry. FFS people get emotional over things that matter and it's words at the end of the day. This is what's deeply wrong with politics these days you can't open your mouth and day anything without them using it to deflect from the real issues and use it as a stick to beat thousands of people with. They are the real disgrace here. Oh and it made her mother cry?

[jack D and coke]

FWIW, I agree that Darling was out of order too. I would say though that it is my impression that Nats tend to have more hotheads than Unionists.

Well I've came across plenty fruit loops on the unionist pages trust me. I'm not a little girl though and don't get upset when bad men say swear words to me over the internet.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

I couldn't give a flying **** if it came from Salmonds own personal PC tbh no offence. The cry baby tactic of unionists is really starting to boil my water, what a bunch of big girls blouses they look honestly. How touchy are these people who put themselves in the public eye? Look at the stick ann budge got from our own supporters after day one in the job? Have you never had a bad argument with your mrs and said stuff you didn't really mean? I've had punch ups with my best pals but after it I'm cuddling them saying sorry. FFS people get emotional over things that matter and it's words at the end of the day. This is what's deeply wrong with politics these days you can't open your mouth and day anything without them using it to deflect from the real issues and use it as a stick to beat thousands of people with. They are the real disgrace here. Oh and it made her mother cry?

So it would be perfectly ok for a politician to call her a "traitorous bitch" by that logic?

 

 

[Boris]

I disagree.

 

Politics shouldn't be a popularity contest.

 

The government should have the courage of its conviction. If it believes it needs money to improve things it should. Things don't pay for themselves.

 

The government has the power it chooses not to use. Can't really take the moral high ground IMO because don't want to upset voters.

 

I think that what I find strange why people think we'll move to a Norway model and be a more socially aware side. We are pretty self centred, we don't like high taxes and we are fundamentally a slight right of centre nation.

 

I'm not against tax increases, however if they are to the detriment of the majority of people then it's the wrong answer. A bit like increasing VAT. We have a graduated tax system for a reason.

[TheMaganator]

 

I couldn't give a flying **** if it came from Salmonds own personal PC tbh no offence. The cry baby tactic of unionists is really starting to boil my water, what a bunch of big girls blouses they look honestly. How touchy are these people who put themselves in the public eye? Look at the stick ann budge got from our own supporters after day one in the job? Have you never had a bad argument with your mrs and said stuff you didn't really mean? I've had punch ups with my best pals but after it I'm cuddling them saying sorry. FFS people get emotional over things that matter and it's words at the end of the day. This is what's deeply wrong with politics these days you can't open your mouth and day anything without them using it to deflect from the real issues and use it as a stick to beat thousands of people with. They are the real disgrace here. Oh and it made her mother cry?

If you're happy with the Government smearing those who disagree with them then fine.

 

We disagree entirely on that.

[jack D and coke]

So it would be perfectly ok for a politician to call her a "traitorous bitch" by that logic?

If you're happy with the Government smearing those who disagree with them then fine.

 

We disagree entirely on that.

I wish politicians would throw the shackles off and actually say what they meant for a change. Maybe more people would give a **** instead of the refusing to answer any questions at all, ever.

 

As for the smearing Salmond has been compared with everyone from Hitler to Mugabe to Pol Pot from MP's to the media etc so the smears are equal IMO.

 

My whole point is in a issue of this magnitude and emotional charge that I could care a rats arse what these eejits are calling each other. These people will be gone and forgotten and we will have a decision to live with one way or another and I'm going to care about some arsehole claiming he was called a quisling once over in the internet or that somebody's mum cried? Geez peace.