The 2015 General Election Megathread

[deesidejambo]

The free education issue is simple.   I benefitted from it and I would gladly pay tax to allow others to do the same.  The problem is though that higher education is being overdone and many young people would benefit better by going into work and being trained on the job on vocational jobs like accountancy etc.     Universities turning students out onto the dole queue is not the way to do it.   Reduce the number of University/College places and make them free.

[AlphonseCapone]

I'm obliged for your input. I was going for antipathy, distrust and suspicion but, hey-ho, note to self to do better.

 

I take it that criticism is still permissible. If you suggest otherwise, that would be embarrassing.

On a point about Labour and doing something you completely ignore said point and go for the usual mantra of..."but the SNP".

 

I'll ignore the irony of you not being able to criticise others without deflecting onto something to do with the SNP.

[AlphonseCapone]

Sorry missed a word in there. Meant greater proportion of kids from poorest backgrounds, not proportion of kids generally

Ah yeah that makes more sense!

[JamboX2]

The report shows that Scotland falls behind England in all quartiles. So whilst not dismissing the very low rate at quartile one, it seems that Scotland lags in all areas.

 

Now, the stats may tell us something but I think we need to work out why students aren't making that move from secondary to higher education. Is it simply that exam results aren't good enough? Maybe, I don't know. If it is, then secondary education needs looked at. Yet it can't be looked at in isolation. Poverty, housing, employment of parents and even parental responsibility must all have an influence.

 

Working in HE, I deal with students coming in from various articulation routes, direct entries from colleges for example, something my institution has a pretty good record on.

 

Could it be that the financial strain on being a student puts people off? Despite tuition fees? Do some prefer to go into employment and earn from the off? I don't know. And I'm certainly not sticking up for the government, but I suspect were we to adopt the model used in England, we would see less and less students from the lower quartiles applying. Anecdotally, this is what I'm hearing from colleagues down South.

 

Education is one of the, if not the, most important ministries of government. It shapes individuals but also our society as a whole. Commoditising it is not, IMO, the answer.

 

As for the argument that the wealthy benefit from it, well the answer is simple (or perhaps simplistic!). Instead of charging fees, increase tax and funnel that money into education. The wealthiest then don't "benefit".

On your final point, it would still come from general taxation and not be set. I've increasingly become a fan of having a graduate tax for university students. Set to a progressive rate against your first graduate job wage and rising when you earn more.

 

I think you're right on separating and blocking up our view of education. Education doesn't start at P1. It starts much earlier. And the focus in Scotland for far too long has been on universities. If you're a child born to a family in a wealthier area of a town you're likely to attend playgroup, nursery and then primary. You're likely to go to nursery for longer because your parents can afford it.

 

My sister has a daughter. She's 4 years old. Her speech has improved incredibly since attending nursery. Her counting, language skills, social skills have all monumentally improved since she started at nursery a year ago. My sister only gets the standard allocated hours (ie an afternoon or morning a day per week, that might be more than the average as she herself has learning difficulties).

 

To me we aren't seeing a lot of children going to university who come from poorer backgrounds because we as a nation in the early days of devolution chose to back university tuition rather than the expansion of early years education that Wales and England opted for via sure start and other such programs. Those kids are no attending uni or in the later years of high school and the outcomes are clearly showing a higher attainment rate in England now than Scotland. Our Higher maths exam has a pass rate of 34% this year due to results!

 

Mates of mine who are teachers in secondary and primary tell me that the kids who got a more formal education early for various reasons are better performers on average than those who didn't.

 

However, it's also got to be said the cuts to colleges have exacerbated this situation a lot. The access courses, the higher and further education courses open to people a few years ago seem to be drying up and the key means of getting kids into uni who don't do well at school has been colleges. My mum went through this route in later life and she, being a teacher now, doesn't feel those avenues are as open and readily available as they were.

 

Even when you get to university and you don't pay fees you've also got to live and afford rents and what not. Especially if you don't have family in and around your uni of choice or the one you got into. I know people who couldn't do the Diploma In Legal Practice (a key part of going into the legal profession) because the living grant which used to apply to cover the course was cut by the Scottish government to not cover non-undergraduate courses.

 

Social mobility is affected by all this. Free tuition is good and it's a great benefit of being Scottish in the UK (after all UK students in Scotland pay for it in their fees to Scottish unis!) but it's become a scared cow and a bit of a false policy to promote social mobility.

 

I'd seriously do the higher taxes on higher earners Boris, but I think if you want big improvements in educational outcomes for children from poorer backgrounds then we need to pump money into early years education (IMO compulsory from 3), improve the access to college and the courses colleges offer, whilst improving education at secondary level.

 

I have never understood why the government will ring fence health, when education as you say is vital to the country. Personally it's more vital than health.

[Cade]

They have to be desperate to find fault in this. The fact they reused an image used in other material shows they didn't deliberately try and fool anyone. When I go to a website and see a picture of a guy with headset on, looking like he's ready to take my call, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that he is most likely from a stock photo collection and doesn't actually work for the company.

 

Wings over Scotland brought up the same kind of arguments during indyref and it is really scraping the barrel for things to be aggrieved about.

You've misunderstood.

People are well aware that stock photos are used. That is not the issue.

The stories themselves were invented by the DWP.

The entire thing is a fake, designed to kid on that sanctions actually help people(!)

[Hasselhoff]

You've misunderstood.

People are well aware that stock photos are used. That is not the issue.

The stories themselves were invented by the DWP.

The entire thing is a fake, designed to kid on that sanctions actually help people(!)

They were illustrative comments which reflected the opinions of some of those they spoke to. Similar to the rubbish Better Together advert where that woman supposedly spoke the opinions of people in the street.

 

ToryBad again though - they get criticised so often now by the opposition, I've stopped listening to the criticism as it is clearly just desperation to be annoyed at anything

[JAYEL]

They were illustrative comments which reflected the opinions of some of those they spoke to. Similar to the rubbish Better Together advert where that woman supposedly spoke the opinions of people in the street.

 

ToryBad again though - they get criticised so often now by the opposition, I've stopped listening to the criticism as it is clearly just desperation to be annoyed at anything

 

Wow

 

 

 

Anyway back in the real world......

 

.http://newsnet.scot/?p=115484

 

Summed up perfectly

[JamboX2]

Not really sure what her issue is? Is she saying that the SNP is riddled with these "purists"? Or is she simply saying that they exist?

 

If it's the latter, then I don't doubt that they do, but I'm not sure to what extent they have any influence (none as she would seem to conclude herself).

She's saying the independence movement is a movement which clothed itself in being about "progressive" politics. Now to me that's a vacuous statement with no policy or ideological basis. But in effect it courted the left. And did so very well. The narrative was "you'll never get what you want in the UK, so we need independence to be left wing". But when offered by a prospective movement of social justice, left wing politics, internationalism and opposed to austerity it's rejected by elements of the group because of one disagreement.

 

As a labour supporter I've never seen the SNP as a party we couldn't do business with. On the contrary I think there's been common ground on many issues. I think Salmond toyed ably with Labour, drawing them in and then deftly pushing them back when he was First Minister. All parties working across party lines need to be cautious of the other sides intent.

 

But I suppose the point I take from the article is simple. Independence is a noble cause. You can fill it with a number of alternative visions of the future, of different poltiical theories, but if you believe in left wing politics and social justice then you need to work with whoever else believes in that regardless of their position on independence.

 

Politics is more than one cause. By comparing that to the factionalism of the left I think the writer has hit the nail on the head.

[deesidejambo]

She's saying the independence movement is a movement which clothed itself in being about "progressive" politics. Now to me that's a vacuous statement with no policy or ideological basis. But in effect it courted the left. And did so very well. The narrative was "you'll never get what you want in the UK, so we need independence to be left wing". But when offered by a prospective movement of social justice, left wing politics, internationalism and opposed to austerity it's rejected by elements of the group because of one disagreement.

 

As a labour supporter I've never seen the SNP as a party we couldn't do business with. On the contrary I think there's been common ground on many issues. I think Salmond toyed ably with Labour, drawing them in and then deftly pushing them back when he was First Minister. All parties working across party lines need to be cautious of the other sides intent.

 

But I suppose the point I take from the article is simple. Independence is a noble cause. You can fill it with a number of alternative visions of the future, of different poltiical theories, but if you believe in left wing politics and social justice then you need to work with whoever else believes in that regardless of their position on independence.

 

Politics is more than one cause. By comparing that to the factionalism of the left I think the writer has hit the nail on the head.

Independence is more of an ideology than a political issue.  It plays into a sense of belonging personal issue for people.   That is why this thread will never end - people mix up party politics with their internal feelings of belonging.   The question is where do we draw the line?

 

For example, what would Nats say if Shetland decided to become independent?   Would they immediately recognise and accept this "will of the people" or resist it?

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Report shows Scotland by far the worst in UK at getting poorest pupils to university

http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2015/08/report-shows-scotland-by-far-the-worst-in-uk-at-getting-poorest-pupils-to-university/

 

Free tuition fees disproportionately benefit the wealthiest in Scotland.

 

The SNP are failing the poorest children in Scotland.

very good of a Tory to care about the poor.

[JamboX2]

Wow

 

 

 

Anyway back in the real world......

 

.http://newsnet.scot/?p=115484

 

Summed up perfectly

"Her idea of opposition is apparently to use the NHS, Education and Police Scotland to attack the SNP. She said so in a recent BBC interview. This is precisely the politicking that has led to the party?s demise north of the border."

 

A quote from the article.

 

So the opposition shouldn't critique government failings or query bad policy or question police force ineptitude?

 

What should the opposition do then? What is opposition meant to be?

 

That article made a number of points with no backing of facts to prove or disprove what it said - NHS spending for one. Police Scotland is a totally inept organisation which has been badly designed, poorly led and government has fiddled whilst it's gone on. Why shouldn't that be "opposed"? Are the Liberals, Greens and Tories wrecking balls here too? All agree with Labour that Police Scotland is not working and that the education and health services aren't in best condition due to SNP policy.

 

Is the Sunday Herald purely out to get the SNP due to its campaign against the police over stepping the mark on hand guns and listening into journalists? Is the Whiskey Industry, an industry which would be vital if independent, a unionist industry out to stifle independence because it opposes minimum pricing? Are the concerns by Amnesty International and the Scottish Human Rights Council on devolution of abortion law or on the stop and search of children without just cause merely anti-SNP positions?

 

Are any of these concerns merely more than doing Scotland down?

 

This goes back to the point the article I posted made well, the SNP and the independence movement risk becoming narrow and introverted. Blind to any negatives or poor outcomes of their actions and deaf to criticism. That will alienate people over time.

[JamboX2]

Independence is more of an ideology than a political issue. It plays into a sense of belonging personal issue for people. That is why this thread will never end - people mix up party politics with their internal feelings of belonging. The question is where do we draw the line?

 

For example, what would Nats say if Shetland decided to become independent? Would they immediately recognise and accept this "will of the people" or resist it?

Tavish Scott, Liam McArthur and Alastair Carmichael, the three Liberal representatives of Shetland and Orkney for Holyrood and Westminster all backed the direct devolution of powers from Westminster to Shetland and Orkney (and other interested island communities) during the referendum. The campaign was called "Our Islands, Our Future" and was led by the politically neutral (ie no party affiliation) local councils for these islands.

 

The SNP opposed it at first and offered a damp squib of an offer in response to it. When pressed by Tavish Scott in parliament the then Local Government minister Derek MacKay opposed the idea of devolution for the islands if Scotland was independent and the SNP leadership endorsed that position.

 

Now that was a year or two ago, but Edinburgh and Lerwick are further apart than Edinburgh and London. If London doesn't understand our needs as much as we'd like then are we really saying Edinburgh gets what life in Shetland is like? What being a rural, island community is? What they need? How their schools and hospitals should be structured? How their police are run?

 

Personally, I'm a big proponent of devolution of power in Scotland. Closer to the people. But independent or not is happily hand a lot of power to the island communities - schools, childcare, health, social services, public transport and powers around economic development should certainly be devolved.

[JAYEL]

"Her idea of opposition is apparently to use the NHS, Education and Police Scotland to attack the SNP. She said so in a recent BBC interview. This is precisely the politicking that has led to the party?s demise north of the border."

 

A quote from the article.

 

So the opposition shouldn't critique government failings or query bad policy or question police force ineptitude?

 

What should the opposition do then? What is opposition meant to be?

 

That article made a number of points with no backing of facts to prove or disprove what it said - NHS spending for one. Police Scotland is a totally inept organisation which has been badly designed, poorly led and government has fiddled whilst it's gone on. Why shouldn't that be "opposed"? Are the Liberals, Greens and Tories wrecking balls here too? All agree with Labour that Police Scotland is not working and that the education and health services aren't in best condition due to SNP policy.

 

Is the Sunday Herald purely out to get the SNP due to its campaign against the police over stepping the mark on hand guns and listening into journalists? Is the Whiskey Industry, an industry which would be vital if independent, a unionist industry out to stifle independence because it opposes minimum pricing? Are the concerns by Amnesty International and the Scottish Human Rights Council on devolution of abortion law or on the stop and search of children without just cause merely anti-SNP positions?

 

Are any of these concerns merely more than doing Scotland down?

 

This goes back to the point the article I posted made well, the SNP and the independence movement risk becoming narrow and introverted. Blind to any negatives or poor outcomes of their actions and deaf to criticism. That will alienate people over time.

 

What were her suggestions for change  ?

 

 

 

Probably just make another call to GUS

 

 

http://newsnet.scot/?p=115479

[JamboX2]

What were her suggestions for change ?

 

 

 

Probably just make another call to GUS

 

 

http://newsnet.scot/?p=115479

Care to engage with the point about what is a justifiable opposition?

 

What doesn't constitute purely SNPBad rhetoric?

 

I agree that Labour haven't been saints but they've hardly been leading an insurgency against the SNP. They've acted as any opposition does. Oppose and critique government policy they have concerns with.

[aussieh]

Independence is more of an ideology than a political issue. It plays into a sense of belonging personal issue for people. That is why this thread will never end - people mix up party politics with their internal feelings of belonging. The question is where do we draw the line?

 

For example, what would Nats say if Shetland decided to become independent? Would they immediately recognise and accept this "will of the people" or resist it?

The people of shetland can vote to become indy, or brit all they want, but theyll not be doing on Scotlands land.

[aussieh]

Care to engage with the point about what is a justifiable opposition?

 

What doesn't constitute purely SNPBad rhetoric?

 

I agree that Labour haven't been saints but they've hardly been leading an insurgency against the SNP. They've acted as any opposition does. Oppose and critique government policy they have concerns with.

Pity, they dont do the same in WM. Edited August 18, 2015 by aussieh

[Boris]

Interesting opinion piece regarding the Labour Leadership election by George Monbiot in The Guardian today.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-rivals-chase-impossible-dream

 

Interesting piece, one I would agree with, especially the analysis of current Labour electoral ineptitude.

[jack D and coke]

Can somebody explain how this works?

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13611708.Energy_firm_warns_of_power_generation_tax_for_being_in_Scotland_as_it_abandons_station_plans/?ref=mr&lp=18

How does it cost more up here to run these things and why?

[HaymarketJambo]

What does Ruth Davidson do ?

 

Not sure what does she seems to think she talks a good game?

 

If the rumours are true and she stands in Edinburgh Central for MSP I might even lend the Labour Party one of my two votes to hopefully make sure she doesn't even get in as a list MSP for Edinburgh?  

[Boris]

Can somebody explain how this works?

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13611708.Energy_firm_warns_of_power_generation_tax_for_being_in_Scotland_as_it_abandons_station_plans/?ref=mr&lp=18

How does it cost more up here to run these things and why?

 

According to...The National Grid, which manages the network of pylons and cables, defended the charging, saying it was set by energy regulator Ofgem and that it was actually providing savings for Scottish consumers.

"It is a locational arrangement, which means the further you are away from demand for electricity, which is the south of England, the more you you have to contribute to the cost of getting your electricity to the market," said a National Grid spokeswoman. "It has the effect, actually, of reducing the bills for Scottish consumers because there is in Scotland enough electricity to meet their needs, so they end up with ?11 less on their bill per year because of the arrangements."

If there is demand in the South of England, why aren't the power companies passing on the cost of transmission to the consumer?

Or simply let's keep the electricity in Scotland?  Is that possible?  Can it be "stored"?

[Psychedelicropcircle]

According to...The National Grid, which manages the network of pylons and cables, defended the charging, saying it was set by energy regulator Ofgem and that it was actually providing savings for Scottish consumers.

"It is a locational arrangement, which means the further you are away from demand for electricity, which is the south of England, the more you you have to contribute to the cost of getting your electricity to the market," said a National Grid spokeswoman. "It has the effect, actually, of reducing the bills for Scottish consumers because there is in Scotland enough electricity to meet their needs, so they end up with ?11 less on their bill per year because of the arrangements."

If there is demand in the South of England, why aren't the power companies passing on the cost of transmission to the consumer?

Or simply let's keep the electricity in Scotland? Is that possible? Can it be "stored"?

No an expert on NG but one of the problems with renewables is its lack of storage.

[Cade]

Even the national grid has very little storage, if any.

Electricity is generated at a steady rate with extra being made available on demand.

Some of the big hydro plants are fully automated and only open the sluices to the turbines when the national grid sends a message to them due to increased instant demand.

[JAYEL]

The more i hear about Jeremy Corbyn the more i think George Galloway

 

 

Maybe Corbyn will make him Deputy leader.

[Hasselhoff]

https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/one-year-on-nearly/

 

Interesting article by Adam Tompkins - don't expect any hardcore Yes supporters to read it but would be good to see what you think of what he is suggesting.

[JAYEL]

https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/one-year-on-nearly/

 

Interesting article by Adam Tompkins - don't expect any hardcore Yes supporters to read it but would be good to see what you think of what he is suggesting.

 

 

1st line says it all........

 

 

This time last year I was terrified that we were about to lose our country.

 

 

 

The rest is more  nonsense

[HaymarketJambo]

1st line says it all........

 

 

This time last year I was terrified that we were about to lose our country.

 

 

 

The rest is more  nonsense

 

Your spot on. 

[Cade]

""independence feels further away than ever.""

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2015 by Cade

[Hasselhoff]

""independence feels further away than ever.""

 

 

 

 

He even acknowledges that snp may win every seat in Scotland but what can they do with it? A vote for snp is not a vote for independence. Indy didn't even win when the oil price was high and Greece hadn't suffered under currency union. Why would people be more willing to vote yes now?

 

Snp are almost at their peak and there is only one direction from there.

 

Talking of SNP, had to laugh at the story doing the rounds today that Michelle Thomson of Business for Scotland has had her name exposed on the list of people on that affairs website. Naturally she is blaming it on someone else, probably the Tories.

[JAYEL]

He even acknowledges that snp may win every seat in Scotland but what can they do with it? A vote for snp is not a vote for independence. Indy didn't even win when the oil price was high and Greece hadn't suffered under currency union. Why would people be more willing to vote yes now?

 

Snp are almost at their peak and there is only one direction from there.

 

Talking of SNP, had to laugh at the story doing the rounds today that Michelle Thomson of Business for Scotland has had her name exposed on the list of people on that affairs website. Naturally she is blaming it on someone else, probably the Tories.

 

 

There will be no mistake the next time.

[Adam Murray]

""independence feels further away than ever.""

 

 

 

It certainly seems further away than it did this time last year.

[HaymarketJambo]

He even acknowledges that snp may win every seat in Scotland but what can they do with it? A vote for snp is not a vote for independence. Indy didn't even win when the oil price was high and Greece hadn't suffered under currency union. Why would people be more willing to vote yes now?

 

Snp are almost at their peak and there is only one direction from there.

 

Talking of SNP, had to laugh at the story doing the rounds today that Michelle Thomson of Business for Scotland has had her name exposed on the list of people on that affairs website. Naturally she is blaming it on someone else, probably the Tories.

 

I kind of agree with you that the SNP are nearly at their peak and are looking but are on course to do well in the Holyrood Elections next year.

 

As for another indy vote, if it was to happen again, hopefully it would be a shorter campaign this time?

 

I don't think Scotland would become another Greece, take the oil away, Scotland still could look after it's self even if it didn't have the oil anyway, but it would have live within its means. 

 

I think a Mr Osborne from Westminster would like the oil price be a  tad higher?         

[Boris]

He even acknowledges that snp may win every seat in Scotland but what can they do with it? A vote for snp is not a vote for independence. Indy didn't even win when the oil price was high and Greece hadn't suffered under currency union. Why would people be more willing to vote yes now?

Snp are almost at their peak and there is only one direction from there.

Talking of SNP, had to laugh at the story doing the rounds today that Michelle Thomson of Business for Scotland has had her name exposed on the list of people on that affairs website. Naturally she is blaming it on someone else, probably the Tories.

I suspect that if there is another referendum, currency union will not be on the table, so strike that out.

 

Take oil out of the equation too, Scotland can still look after itself.

[Hasselhoff]

I suspect that if there is another referendum, currency union will not be on the table, so strike that out.

 

Take oil out of the equation too, Scotland can still look after itself.

Yep, currency union will be out and so it is either the Euro or a Scottish currency. The latter would make most sense if they really are going to grasp these economic levers that the Gov complain that they can do little without.

 

Taking an even further leap into the unknown on currency is high risk and so anyone with pensions, savings etc. will even more averse to the idea. Yes arguments from last time on why the currency union was the preferred option will now come back to bite them too.

 

As for oil not being needed, GERS data has highlighted that we would need to either cut public spending or increase taxes to make up the difference from what we currently get from being in the UK. When it comes to the crunch, people won't vote to pay more of their hard-earned money just to get what they have today.

[Boris]

Yep, currency union will be out and so it is either the Euro or a Scottish currency. The latter would make most sense if they really are going to grasp these economic levers that the Gov complain that they can do little without.

Taking an even further leap into the unknown on currency is high risk and so anyone with pensions, savings etc. will even more averse to the idea. Yes arguments from last time on why the currency union was the preferred option will now come back to bite them too.

As for oil not being needed, GERS data has highlighted that we would need to either cut public spending or increase taxes to make up the difference from what we currently get from being in the UK. When it comes to the crunch, people won't vote to pay more of their hard-earned money just to get what they have today.

What will they have after a Tory administration hell bent on taking things from the people? The neoliberal agenda is central to how we (won't) progress as a nation or society.

[Hasselhoff]

What will they have after a Tory administration hell bent on taking things from the people? The neoliberal agenda is central to how we (won't) progress as a nation or society.

A Tory administration making sure the country lives within its means without spending like there is no tomorrow, ensuring that out children and their children don't suffer because of our short-sightedness. I'd rather the Tories responsible attitude any day. Once the country is creating a surplus again, the money not being frittered on debt repayment can be used for good in the country.

[AlphonseCapone]

He even acknowledges that snp may win every seat in Scotland but what can they do with it? A vote for snp is not a vote for independence. Indy didn't even win when the oil price was high and Greece hadn't suffered under currency union. Why would people be more willing to vote yes now?

 

Snp are almost at their peak and there is only one direction from there.

 

Talking of SNP, had to laugh at the story doing the rounds today that Michelle Thomson of Business for Scotland has had her name exposed on the list of people on that affairs website. Naturally she is blaming it on someone else, probably the Tories.

Greece wasn't suffering last September? No idea what planet you've been on.

[Hasselhoff]

Greece wasn't suffering last September? No idea what planet you've been on.

Was Greece in the news daily last September on the verge of bankruptcy? Emergency referendums which counted for nothing anyway? Using a currency that is controlled elsewhere with little input on how it is managed has been demonstrated as being a particularly bad idea by Greece.

[AlphonseCapone]

Was Greece in the news daily last September on the verge of bankruptcy? Emergency referendums which counted for nothing anyway? Using a currency that is controlled elsewhere with little input on how it is managed has been demonstrated as being a particularly bad idea by Greece.

See if something isn't in the news, that doesn't mean folk aren't suffering. Greece has been on the verge of bankruptcy for years, you'd need to live in a bubble to think otherwise.

 

But you're right, currency unions are stupid.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/one-year-on-nearly/

 

Interesting article by Adam Tompkins - don't expect any hardcore Yes supporters to read it but would be good to see what you think of what he is suggesting.

Wot does he mean when saying the yes campaign should never been 'allowed' to get this far? More unionist pish and a pipe dream if he thinks it's settled.

[Thunderstruck]

Was Greece in the news daily last September on the verge of bankruptcy? Emergency referendums which counted for nothing anyway? Using a currency that is controlled elsewhere with little input on how it is managed has been demonstrated as being a particularly bad idea by Greece.

I can see what you mean as, despite protracted Economic problems and real austerity, the election of ?????? in the Jan 2015 elections did escalate a drama into a full-blown crisis.

[aussieh]

A Tory administration making sure the country lives within its means without spending like there is no tomorrow, ensuring that out children and their children don't suffer because of our short-sightedness. I'd rather the Tories responsible attitude any day. Once the country is creating a surplus again, the money not being frittered on debt repayment can be used for good in the country.

Your last sentence. aye good one.

Sorry, my mistake, London is the country.

Edited August 20, 2015 by aussieh

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Your last sentence. aye good one.

Sorry, my mistake, London is the country.

Does the hoff know the difference between debt & deficit?

[Hasselhoff]

Does the hoff know the difference between debt & deficit?

Sigh, of course, I voted No. I'm beginning to think you don't though.

 

Surplus means no longer in deficit. We would be earning more than we are spending. The debt goes doen instead of up. Not rocket science. The money we are earning can then be spent on good things for the country as I previously stated.

[Hasselhoff]

Wot does he mean when saying the yes campaign should never been 'allowed' to get this far? More unionist pish and a pipe dream if he thinks it's settled.

Paranoia as usual. He means that the No side were far too complacent and didn't put much effort into arguing for the union as we took it for granted it would be a No. Momentum was with Yes and it almost backfired. If/when we have another Indyref, a lot of no voters won't just sit back and watch like last time as SNP/Wings/BfS etc. spread inaccurate propaganda and almost ruined our country.

[aussieh]

Paranoia as usual. He means that the No side were far too complacent and didn't put much effort into arguing for the union as we took it for granted it would be a No. Momentum was with Yes and it almost backfired. If/when we have another Indyref, a lot of no voters won't just sit back and watch like last time as SNP/Wings/BfS etc. spread inaccurate propaganda and almost ruined our country.

Ruin, In what way exactly?

[aussieh]

Paranoia as usual. He means that the No side were far too complacent and didn't put much effort into arguing for the union as we took it for granted it would be a No. Momentum was with Yes and it almost backfired. If/when we have another Indyref, a lot of no voters won't just sit back and watch like last time as SNP/Wings/BfS etc. spread inaccurate propaganda and almost ruined our country.

So, with a national debt of 1.5 trill pound, what stops The great UK being down graded/ rated? Edited August 20, 2015 by aussieh

[Hasselhoff]

So, with a national debt of 1.5 trill pound, what stops The great UK being down graded/ rated?

Our ability to pay it.

 

It is beyond the comfortable level of debt to have but we have a responsible party in place to focus on getting it down.

[Hasselhoff]

Ruin, In what way exactly?

We would have been a minimum of ?7bn per year worse off than we are in the UK. What do you cut spending on to make up that shortfall?

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Sigh, of course, I voted No. I'm beginning to think you don't though.

 

Surplus means no longer in deficit. We would be earning more than we are spending. The debt goes doen instead of up. Not rocket science. The money we are earning can then be spent on good things for the country as I previously stated.

Hoff I've no idea how old you are but you'll be a long time dead waiting on this countries politicians clearing 1.5 trillion. As for being paranoid I doubt it. Next year the SNP will win another majority, then if the Labour Party hasn't found its values by 2020 the SNP will retain its MP numbers at WM. there will come a time when the unionist parties will have to face the facts they'll be unelectable in Scotland, and by kbing everything the SNP asks for in WM it'll start to look like a mild form of dictatorship.

[Boris]

Sigh, of course, I voted No. I'm beginning to think you don't though.

 

Surplus means no longer in deficit. We would be earning more than we are spending. The debt goes doen instead of up. Not rocket science. The money we are earning can then be spent on good things for the country as I previously stated.

 

Like even greater tax breaks for the rich?

 

A Tory government is NEVER going to reinvest into the country as it is completely the opposite of their political mantra.

 

Deficit reduction is simply a smoke screen for them to dismantle the apparatus of the state, to hive off public services to private contractors which ultimately reduces service delivery, quality and affordability to those with little disposable income.

 

Do we have to go back to the Victorian era and then fight all those battles again?