Jump to content
Gorgiewave

Scottish Election 2016 Megathread

Recommended Posts

Nookie Bear

A few months back Scotland had lower unemployment than the rest of the UK.

Now it's higher.

I assume the differences change on a monthly basis.

 

I'm not one for pissing my pants over something that changes so often.

 

True, but Edinburgh is now creating jobs at a faster rate than anywhere else inthe UK than this time last year.

 

Stats can prove anything you want, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mighty Thor

For someone who ignored the will of the Scottish people last September Sturgeon likes to repeat constantly that snp must impresss the will of the Scottish people on Westminster now despite actually only speaking for 35% of the electorate.

 

How did Nicola Sturgeon ignore the will of the Scottish People last September?

 

The SNP polled 50% of those that got off their arses to vote, therefore she quite rightly takes that as a mandate to speak on behalf of the Scottish people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambo1185

The Labour party will do two things.

1. They will elect entirely the wrong person as leader (see Ed Miliband)

2. they will move back to the left thereby rendering themselves un-electable in every part of the country where there's never been a coal mine/steel works/shipyard.

Completely agree. Findlay is spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambo1185

To the poster who asked about the tory candidate selection process, its quite intense. Basically like a long interview process. Have to send off a form with various competency based questions then attend a group assessment day.

 

If you get through that you are approved as a candidate for future elections but you then need to stand for selection.

 

Should be fun. Im going to cover Mhairi Blacks house in Tory posters and a few hearts scarves during the night. She lives a few doors down and supports Thistle ffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

An actually progressive policy would be to charge university tuition fees to those who can afford it (without a great struggle). There is a fair body of such people in Scotland. Most of those whose children attend private school could afford to pay for university. And those who otherwise have good salaries. This would have been true in my case and in the case of my sister.

 

Then universities would have more money to offer grants and/or spend on research and/or raise lecturers' salaries and/or improve facilities, etc.

 

Charging people who can afford to pay.

 

But no, the SNP wants to buy the votes of these wealthy parents by offering them free university.

They are not offering free university

University is free- to all, as education should be.

It is not a bribe to not charge someone for something that others get for free.

Bear in mind also that the parents paying for private school are subsidising others "free" education already by paying for a state school place through taxation then not using it.

And "free" school meals at state school, but not private school

So the stingy millionaire gets the free meals for their kids, whilst the parent willing to sacrifice living standards for good education gets screwed over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

They are not offering free university

University is free- to all, as education should be.

It is not a bribe to not charge someone for something that others get for free.

Bear in mind also that the parents paying for private school are subsidising others "free" education already by paying for a state school place through taxation then not using it.

And "free" school meals at state school, but not private school

So the stingy millionaire gets the free meals for their kids, whilst the parent willing to sacrifice living standards for good education gets screwed over?

 

Sorry, but I'm not having that.  Those that send their kids to private schools are doing so out of their own choice.  They are not subsidising state education.

 

By that logic, childless taxpayers are subsidising state education too.  Should we be free to pick and choose what our taxes are spent on?  Of course not.

 

I also supposrt free school meals for a number of reasons, mainly that in a lot of cases this will be the only decent meal the poor kid will get all day.  Also, if the State makes it a legal obligation to send your kid to school, the least they can do is feed them.  In loco parentis and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

 

Written by Neil Findlay, who was defeated by Jim Murphy for the Scottish leadership of Labour (I hope it's alright to copy and paste in its entirety. Is there copyright on facebook posts?):

 

https://www.facebook.com/neil.findlay3/posts/932021963514650?fref=nf

 

My article of what Labour should do now

Neil Findlay, Labour MSP for the Lothians, says this is not a time for people to stay quiet.

 

So it wasn?t a tsunami, earthquake, tidal wave or landslide ? it was all of them and as many other cataclysmic metaphors as you want to throw in. Scottish Labour was obliterated at the polls with majorities in the 10?s and 20?s of thousands wiped out at a stroke with only Ian Murray left clinging on. (A Hearts supporter and Scottish Labour MP ? you can?t say that guy isn?t up for a challenge, and well done to him on both campaigns.)

So are we now entering a new period where politics is not based on a comparing policy positions or manifestos but on a national mood, where like ?New Labour? in 1997 it just becomes ?the thing to do?? In workplaces, amongst the creative community, the voluntary sector, in polite circles and pubs and bars it has become cool to support the SNP. A bit like Chelsea FC ? hardly anyone supported them when they were rubbish but now they are winning everyone?s a fan.

And over the last few years a new adjective, whose definition appears to be ?negative, old style, distant politics?, came into our lexicon: ?Westminster? ? no longer just a place! At every turn this was skilfully used to exemplify everything that people dislike about the UK political system. This feeling grew and grew and, despite some major and positive developments under the Blair/Brown governments ? big reductions in poverty, the national minimum wage, tax credits etc. ? it was the Iraq war and later the expenses scandal that were the heavy straws that broke the camel?s back resulting in mass public opposition and disenchantment, membership resignations and a huge breach of trust with the electorate.

Despite Labour delivering the new Scottish parliament, the fixing of candidate selections left a largely unknown and comparatively inexperienced group in government. Donald Dewar?s death, the McLeish shambles and McConnell period compounded our problems. We were seen us dull and lacking in ambition, always appearing to look over our shoulder for someone else?s permission and afraid to take too many bold policy positions (the smoking ban one of the very obvious exceptions). This culminated in Labour being out of office since 2007.

At the same time the SNP became (along with Sinn Fein) the cleverest electoral force in the country with high quality strategists, policy advisers and media operators and in Alex Salmond they had one of the sharpest political minds around. The fact that it won a single seat majority in 2007 followed by an outright majority in 2011 was truly remarkable and brought the inevitable referendum in 2014.

It is my view that the decision (by whom I still don?t know) to establish the ?Better Together? campaign in 2011 was one of the biggest political misjudgements in Labour?s 100 year history. That decision was taken with no reference to party members, MPs, MSPs, trade unions or indeed anyone that I know. It was a disastrous call! We had spent the previous 30 years successfully demonising the Tories as the enemy of the Scottish people, particularly the Scottish industrial working class and yet now the party of the workers was going to campaign alongside our traditional enemy.

Ironically the Yes camp including Trotskyists and venture capitalists, climate change deniers and greens and tax justice campaigner and tax avoiders did not see any contradictions within its ranks nor did it attract similar charges of betrayal or collaboration. The Labour broad left and many in the trade unions protested at Labour?s ?Better Together? alliance and refused to get involved, eventually supporting the belated ?United with Labour? campaign when it was launched, while others organised around ?The Red Paper collective.?

Saying we were ?Better Together? meant bugger all to someone who was unemployed or in a low paid, zero hours contract. It meant nothing to communities hurting from the impact of austerity imposed upon them by the very Tories Labour campaigned alongside, and it meant nothing to young people who wanted a message of hope for the future. The campaign should have been based on the principle of radical federalism and solidarity: the need for Labour to improve the lives of working people across the UK where the interests of a worker in Livingston is the same as a worker in Liverpool and the need for a strong, united Labour movement to challenge the excesses of capitalism, austerity and inequality.

We should also have reminded people that it?s the Labour Party and the wider movement that has always been at the forefront of delivering the greatest change and social progress in our history ? the NHS, the welfare state, Health and Safety legislation, equality legislation, the minimum wage, social housing, education and the Scottish Parliament. But that case was never properly made, as ?Better Together? offered a negative narrative rather than one of hope and social progress. This was a huge and fundamental mistake and contributed to the inevitable result that was to follow.

Nevertheless, we have entered an astonishing period where, despite Labour being out of power in Scotland for 8 years and for five years at Westminster, we are still somehow blamed for every problem that affects our country (a situation that is even more baffling in areas where Labour does not run the local council either). And during that period we have witnessed:

Our NHS teetering on the brink ? its budgets cut more than in Tory England, waiting times increasing, social care in crisis and increasing numbers of GP surgeries closed to new patients.

Council services being decimated with an 8 year council tax freeze costing 70,000 jobs destroying our public services ? a policy that benefits the wealthy most and punishes the poor who rely on those services. Where was/is the Labour campaign to defend local government jobs and services?

Our colleges have lost 130,000 places largely for working class students.

The implementation of the new school curriculum has been a predictable mess.

Our police services are in turmoil with stations closing, staff made redundant and stop and search on an industrial scale whilst the police are routinely armed.

The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act was passed without a single government backbencher voting against ? easily the worst piece of legislation of the devolution era.

The franchise of our railways flogged of to the Dutch, the Northern Ferries and sleeper services to SERCO with Cal Mac next for privatisation.

Plans to abolish corroboration, a pillar of our justice system, proposed then abandoned following an outcry.

A fracking moratorium announced for 2 years to get us past the UK and Scottish election but which will inevitably be followed by drilling across the central belt led by the union busters at INEOS.

Poverty and health and wealth inequality increasing as the middle class benefit most from free prescriptions, free university tuition, bus travel etc. whilst schools in the poorest areas lose classroom assistants, community health provision is in crisis and public transport fares rise. Incidentally, I fully support universal provision such as free prescriptions, school meals, bus passes etc. but without progressive taxation to pay for them they just become a middle class subsidy.

In the Scottish Parliament we saw the Scottish Government voting down Labour proposals to extend the living wage, end zero hours contracts, limit private sector rent increases etc. ? all Labour proposals ? all voted down by the SNP

But none of this matters in our post rational world.

Nor it appears do the commitments in the manifesto of the parties. If we are to believe what is promoted by the SNP and the media then the Scottish people wanted an alternative to austerity and a leftish policy agenda.

If that is the case then the Labour manifesto was much more to the left than the SNP on almost every issue. Labour promised:

More cash for the NHS,

A future fund for young people,

1000 extra nurses,

more Progressive taxation,

policies to end the need for food banks,

a youth jobs guarantee,

an end to zero hours contracts,

an increased minimum wage and an extension of the Living wage and

Investment to end food banks.

Add to this the assessment by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the SNP?s budget proposals would mean longer austerity rather than an end to it, and the disaster that full fiscal autonomy will bring (?7.6 billion of further cuts) and Labour should have been sweeping up votes and seats.

But none of this mattered ? people had switched off and refused to listen to anything Labour said. We could have offered a free million pound note to everyone who voted Labour and still this would have been rejected. This is not the fault of the electorate, we can?t blame the SNP ? it?s our fault, Labour?s fault. The people lacked faith in our sincerity.

So the ?7.6 billion question is where does Labour go from here?

Well of course that is the question that every Labour member, every trade union affiliate, every MSP, MEP and Ian Murray will have to address in the coming weeks. It is not a time for people to stay quiet; it is not a time for centralised solutions and for a management or top down fix. If you suffer a trauma or bereavement it is best that the whole family talks about it and learns from that grievous event and ultimately strives to make things better within the family. But for the Labour family time is short ? the Scottish Parliament elections are a year away and I know we all want to play a full part in rebuilding the party and movement we love. It is our movement and our values that have driven the campaigns for and delivered the greatest social change for working people in our history. We can do so again BUT this requires a full, free, open and democratic debate about how we go forward.

So here are a few thoughts on the way forward:-

We should look at creating an autonomous or federal structure within the Labour party giving the Scottish party the ability to develop its own policies, select candidates etc.

Re-democratise our party giving members back power to develop policy and end the top down fixes we have witnessed over the last few decades. Let?s not fear democratic debate, let?s embrace it.

Do not measure everything we do against what the SNP do but develop a policy agenda that is clearly steeped in Labour?s traditions and values

Take a clear anti austerity stance ? promoting fairness, equality and a broad range of progressive policies

Concentrate on what matters most to people ? a secure job, fair pay, a roof over their head, the NHS, education and dignity in old age.

At the earliest opportunity debate Trident and accept the party?s decision ? if it is different from the UK party ? so be it.

Oppose TTIP ? it is a huge threat to our public services and our democracy

Launch a campaign to defend public services especially local government which is being decimated, working with our councillors who are one of our greatest assets and are in the front line.

Re- build our relationship with the trade unions ? many trade unionists want a successful and effective Labour party, promoting an agenda that supports working people and their families.

Re- establish Political education within the party to stimulate debate and ideas and involve our members in policy development not just administration

Re-build and reinvigorate local parties with co-ordinated activity and campaigns in each constituency

Have a complete overhaul of our campaigning strategy ? move away from seeing a door knocking league table as evidence of a good or bad campaigning.

Use the talents and resources that are in our communities and embrace the people that are willing to help us. Who are the experts, the academics, the industry specialists, the community activists, the strategists, the teachers, lawyers, doctors, the workers, journalists, IT experts, the young people, people from the BME and LGBT community who will assist us if only they are asked?

There is much more to be said and done but this is a crucial time for Labour ? let us start the debate about how we bring about change but let us never lose sight of our timeless values of solidarity, community, cooperation, fairness, equality and justice. It is these values that make us all socialists.

 

 

As Jambo X2 has said, hard to disagree with this but it raises the question....why didn't he step out of line at the time of Better Together?  Does he really think that a UK Labour Party would follow these policies too?  Quite rightly, the SNP as the incumbent Government need held to account and hopefully their errors (as well as any successes) will be highlighted.

 

If anything, the above from Findlay reads to me like the manifesto of post independence Scottish Labour Party, because let's face it, for Labour to win at Westminster they swing further to the right.

 

I'd happily vote Labour, but not for a Labour Party that is essentially full of Tory Wets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

Sorry, but I'm not having that.  Those that send their kids to private schools are doing so out of their own choice.  They are not subsidising state education.

 

By that logic, childless taxpayers are subsidising state education too.  Should we be free to pick and choose what our taxes are spent on?  Of course not.

 

I also supposrt free school meals for a number of reasons, mainly that in a lot of cases this will be the only decent meal the poor kid will get all day.  Also, if the State makes it a legal obligation to send your kid to school, the least they can do is feed them.  In loco parentis and all that.

Strange rationale Boris.

Of course its a subsidy.

As happens its one I approve of also.

However it should be means tested- otherwise what you have is kids from better off families being fed for free (this is tax money mind- its not free at all, and what that has meant in effect is the middle classes now putting their kids into school dinners when they didn't before because its free- causing pointless burden to the state)

I'd rather free school meals for the worse off right the way through school

OR free meals for all

Not some have baked policy that actually changed nothing for the "poor" AS THEY GOT FREE MEALS ANYWAY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nookie Bear

Strange rationale Boris.

Of course its a subsidy.

As happens its one I approve of also.

However it should be means tested- otherwise what you have is kids from better off families being fed for free (this is tax money mind- its not free at all, and what that has meant in effect is the middle classes now putting their kids into school dinners when they didn't before because its free- causing pointless burden to the state)

I'd rather free school meals for the worse off right the way through school

OR free meals for all

Not some have baked policy that actually changed nothing for the "poor" AS THEY GOT FREE MEALS ANYWAY

 

Yep, we do that even though we can afford the ?1.80 per meal it usually cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

Strange rationale Boris.

Of course its a subsidy.

As happens its one I approve of also.

However it should be means tested- otherwise what you have is kids from better off families being fed for free (this is tax money mind- its not free at all, and what that has meant in effect is the middle classes now putting their kids into school dinners when they didn't before because its free- causing pointless burden to the state)

I'd rather free school meals for the worse off right the way through school

OR free meals for all

Not some have baked policy that actually changed nothing for the "poor" AS THEY GOT FREE MEALS ANYWAY

 

Well, as I say, I agree with free meals for all who attend state education.

 

If one chooses to send their child to be privately educated then the contract is different.  Although you could argue with all those fees the establishment could rustle up a lunch for the wee souls!

 

I don't agree that it's a subsidy though - you pay your tax and then that money is spent by the government, unless of course everything the government funds is subsidised, which to be literal it could be argued it is, but that's semantics, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

Well, as I say, I agree with free meals for all who attend state education.

 

If one chooses to send their child to be privately educated then the contract is different.  Although you could argue with all those fees the establishment could rustle up a lunch for the wee souls!

 

I don't agree that it's a subsidy though - you pay your tax and then that money is spent by the government, unless of course everything the government funds is subsidised, which to be literal it could be argued it is, but that's semantics, imo.

YOu agree with free school meals for the wealthy, when, if the money is available for such a pet project it could be spent on poverty alleviation measures?

( detect someone getting free school meals for their kid Boris.............how very socialist- self interest? Surely not:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

YOu agree with free school meals for the wealthy, when, if the money is available for such a pet project it could be spent on poverty alleviation measures?

( detect someone getting free school meals for their kid Boris.............how very socialist- self interest? Surely not:)

 

No, I write the cheque for my boy's lunches every week (two a week, the rest his Mum sends him to school with a packed lunch).  Not sure what happens when goes to Heriots though.

 

I'd increase the "subsidy" the wealthy pay by increasing tax, but that's another argument. :wink:

 

Arguably, free school meals is a poverty alleviation measure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke

Hard to disagree with any of Neil's points there. Hope we see him able to further that change in the party in the next few years.

Apart from the fact we'd have all turned down million pound notes to vote for the ESS ENN PEE such is the brainwash :facepalm:

 

To give him a little break though he seems to understand the biggest mistakes they've been making and I was glad to see him admit they started the demonising of the Tories. Absolutely loathsome politics.

 

I don't know about anybody else but I'm still not feeling it from labour. Granted I wasn't a labour man, I'm not loyal to any party, but I'm not feeling it from them.....It doesn't feel genuine. I don't like the Chumna guy either. Smarmy ***** who looks and sounds every inch a Conservative politician.

 

He might appeal to the south of England and the city but he'll go down like a burning jumbo jet in the north and Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMac

YOu agree with free school meals for the wealthy, when, if the money is available for such a pet project it could be spent on poverty alleviation measures?

( detect someone getting free school meals for their kid Boris.............how very socialist- self interest? Surely not:)

the rationale for free school meals is that it removes the stigma from recieving it for free when other kids are paying. By giving it to everyone we can ensure that the ones that ones whos parents are to shit to feed them are looked after. Studies show that obviously kids need food to concentrate.

I know it may sound crazy but if we are going to brwak the poverty cycle we need to catch these kids as young as possible to help them not turn out like their parents. Free school meals is just the firat stwp amd worth every penny.

Edited by IMac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aussieh

For someone who ignored the will of the Scottish people last September Sturgeon likes to repeat constantly that snp must impresss the will of the Scottish people on Westminster now despite actually only speaking for 35% of the electorate.

50.02% if people dont vote thats their business, but they dont count.

So your 35% pish is in fact, PISH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

the rationale for free school meals is that it removes the stigma from recieving it for free when other kids are paying. By giving it to everyone we can ensure that the ones that ones whos parents are to shit to feed them are looked after. Studies show that obviously kids need food to concentrate.

I know it may sound crazy but if we are going to brwak the poverty cycle we need to catch these kids as young as possible to help them not turn out like their parents. Free school meals is just the firat stwp amd worth every penny.

The problem is the free this and free that and free the other- that is the economic madness of the left

-personal care

-prescriptions

-school meals

-child care

None of it is free

someone is paying for it

we are is a budget black hole, yet continue to chuck freebies around like the money tree is in bloom

-it isn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

The problem is the free this and free that and free the other- that is the economic madness of the left

-personal care

-prescriptions

-school meals

-child care

None of it is free

someone is paying for it

we are is a budget black hole, yet continue to chuck freebies around like the money tree is in bloom

-it isn't

 

I guess it is about prioritising what we spend our money on.  And looking at ways of maximising revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMac

The problem is the free this and free that and free the other- that is the economic madness of the left

-personal care

-prescriptions

-school meals

-child care

None of it is free

someone is paying for it

we are is a budget black hole, yet continue to chuck freebies around like the money tree is in bloom

-it isn't

it is about priorities as boris has said.

We need to prepre now if we are going to keep improving the economy and that means getting these kids in the best position to be successful adults. Comprehensive child care/education is what is needed. That starts at 1 year of age with government financed nursery to allow parents to return to work. Free meals at schools proper incorperation of sporta for both boys and girls to nurture healthy life styles and government subsidised higher education. If that can't improve our society then nothing will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

I guess it is about prioritising what we spend our money on.  And looking at ways of maximising revenue.

BY providing free school meals for the children of Solicitors, Accountants , Dr's etc?

Parents who can afford Range Rovers and huge houses need free school meals for their kids?

Is that a valid use of tax money?

If that is the case restore child benefit for all and remove the school meals.

In these times when we are trying to protect the MOST vulnerable, to be handing out anything non means tested is frankly wrong.

The money should be better used

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunky Dory

BY providing free school meals for the children of Solicitors, Accountants , Dr's etc?

Parents who can afford Range Rovers and huge houses need free school meals for their kids?

Is that a valid use of tax money?

If that is the case restore child benefit for all and remove the school meals.

In these times when we are trying to protect the MOST vulnerable, to be handing out anything non means tested is frankly wrong.

The money should be better used

 

It's a good policy.  You don't understand that stigma of receiving free school meals because of socio-economic status.  The cost is relatively small when compared to the positive outcomes that it can have for children's development.

 

Policies such as these should always be universal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh

They are not offering free university

University is free- to all, as education should be.

It is not a bribe to not charge someone for something that others get for free.

Bear in mind also that the parents paying for private school are subsidising others "free" education already by paying for a state school place through taxation then not using it.

And "free" school meals at state school, but not private school

So the stingy millionaire gets the free meals for their kids, whilst the parent willing to sacrifice living standards for good education gets screwed over?

 

 

Personally I only think Primary and Secondary education should be free as a right.  Further education is more of a choice than a right and therefore should not be free.  Scholarships should be available to those who cannot afford fees. Too much emphasis was put on "having to go to Uni" by the last Labour gov. So much so they dumbed down the system by artificially creating Universities out of Polytechnics and Colleges while almost ignoring apprenticeships.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

It's a good policy.  You don't understand that stigma of receiving free school meals because of socio-economic status.  The cost is relatively small when compared to the positive outcomes that it can have for children's development.

 

Policies such as these should always be universal.

it isn't universal

And is it therefore OK to stigmatise them once they leave P3?

THe older they are the more aware of the differences

If its about stigma then give them free meals at secondary school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunky Dory

it isn't universal

And is it therefore OK to stigmatise them once they leave P3?

THe older they are the more aware of the differences

If its about stigma then give them free meals at secondary school

 

I was stating that such a policy is good and should be universal, not commenting on the semantics.  I agree, as children grow, their differences become more evident, surely giving weight to my argument that if gaps can be bridged then there should be efforts made to do so.

 

There is a difference with secondary education where they gain more autonomy, it's different when children that rely on parental guidance for all/most aspects of their lives.

 

Just stating that it's a good policy in general, and disagreeing with your initial comment that it should not be made available to everyone.  Which, is shortsighted to be frank,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chewie

Just my opinion but vocational degrees, particularly in science, industry, engineering, geolgy etc and qualifications in all  aspects of medicince, care and teaching should be funded by the government as these are (in most cases) going to provide either a boost to the GDP or a service which we need. The caveat to that would be that you have to work this field to qualify for it being free. If not, you're required to pay it back.

 

Degrees in other areas should be privately funded.

 

It's a harsh stance to take but I see a lot of people doing degrees in which they have only done as an interest and end up working in a totally unrelated field, for example taking up a banking job.

 

 

(I think that this was something that UKIP was trying to push, as much as it pains me to say it)

Edited by Chewie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
h-e-a-r-t-s

I was stating that such a policy is good and should be universal, not commenting on the semantics. I agree, as children grow, their differences become more evident, surely giving weight to my argument that if gaps can be bridged then there should be efforts made to do so.

 

There is a difference with secondary education where they gain more autonomy, it's different when children that rely on parental guidance for all/most aspects of their lives.

 

Just stating that it's a good policy in general, and disagreeing with your initial comment that it should not be made available to everyone. Which, is shortsighted to be frank,.

I recall the so called stigma of having different lunches from everyone else, but for allergy reasons other than money, but of course peers at that age didn't know the difference and (I assume) just considered me to be odd. But you grow up and you toughen up and get over it, it's character building. I think it's absolutely mental to have a non progressive tax in place just to protect the feeling of the kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

I was stating that such a policy is good and should be universal, not commenting on the semantics.  I agree, as children grow, their differences become more evident, surely giving weight to my argument that if gaps can be bridged then there should be efforts made to do so.

 

There is a difference with secondary education where they gain more autonomy, it's different when children that rely on parental guidance for all/most aspects of their lives.

 

Just stating that it's a good policy in general, and disagreeing with your initial comment that it should not be made available to everyone.  Which, is shortsighted to be frank,.

If you really want to do something constructive for the kids diet wise you make school meals FREE and MANDATORY at secondary school. otherwise all your good work is undone by Greggs and chips.

I also fail to see how when the appetite and calorific intake rises as the kids get older then their parents can suddenly afford to feed them again.

BUt we're not dealing with sense here are we- it was a stupid policy that is wasting money.

The SNP mantra is a tax and spend one

Reminds me of the New Labour spurge on things in the hay day

Everything is free and it will never end............................................................oh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMac

If you really want to do something constructive for the kids diet wise you make school meals FREE and MANDATORY at secondary school. otherwise all your good work is undone by Greggs and chips.

I also fail to see how when the appetite and calorific intake rises as the kids get older then their parents can suddenly afford to feed them again.

BUt we're not dealing with sense here are we- it was a stupid policy that is wasting money.

The SNP mantra is a tax and spend one

Reminds me of the New Labour spurge on things in the hay day

Everything is free and it will never end............................................................oh.

sounding like a good tory.

 

I don't want to pay for that. The world needs ditch diggers.

 

What a lovely life you must lead.

 

 

Can we all not agree that scotland is a prosperous country and a grwat place to live. Despite this a segment of the population has consistently been let down by our governments. Including the glorious snp. Things need to get better for these people and it is going to cost money but I see it as an investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
manaliveits105

50.02% if people dont vote thats their business, but they dont count.

So your 35% pish is in fact, PISH.

BUT FACT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

sounding like a good tory.

 

I don't want to pay for that. The world needs ditch diggers.

 

What a lovely life you must lead.

 

 

Can we all not agree that scotland is a prosperous country and a grwat place to live. Despite this a segment of the population has consistently been let down by our governments. Including the glorious snp. Things need to get better for these people and it is going to cost money but I see it as an investment.

You've got the wrong end of the stick

My gripe is NOT with free school meals for the kids that need it

My gripe is that tax take is being spent on providing free school meals for those who most certainly CAN afford it.

Real example:-

I have a friend who is a full time Doc, as is his wife.

MIllion quid house, a boat and holiday home

Since introduction of free school meals they no longer have to pay for their kids' lunches.

 

Other friend took extra job so now works 7 days a week most weeks to send child to private school and downsized home to lower mortgage for same reason- no free school meals.

 

Is this "fair", or even a good use of taxpayers cash? Or could the money be better spent on those more deserving?

(and I fail to see how that is "Tory"- not wanting tax payers cash to be spent feeding the progeny of the rich)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gorgiewave

sounding like a good tory.

 

I don't want to pay for that. The world needs ditch diggers.

 

What a lovely life you must lead.

 

 

Can we all not agree that scotland is a prosperous country and a grwat place to live. Despite this a segment of the population has consistently been let down by our governments. Including the glorious snp. Things need to get better for these people and it is going to cost money but I see it as an investment.

 

He's not proposing letting people starve, FFS. He's asking that parents who can easily afford meals pay for them; those who can't, shouldn't be expected to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getintaethem

Tom Gallagher offers sustenance for the Unionists:

 

http://www.thecommentator.com/author/tom_gallagher/23

I've just read that. Very long winded, but no real substance. The basic jist of it is that the Scottish electorate should be ignored. No negotaitions, no debate, stick your fingers in your ears and screw your eyes shut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gorgiewave

I've just read that. Very long winded, but no real substance. The basic jist of it is that the Scottish electorate should be ignored. No negotaitions, no debate, stick your fingers in your ears and screw your eyes shut.

 

I'd love that to happen, but it won't, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

You've got the wrong end of the stick

My gripe is NOT with free school meals for the kids that need it

My gripe is that tax take is being spent on providing free school meals for those who most certainly CAN afford it.

Real example:-

I have a friend who is a full time Doc, as is his wife.

MIllion quid house, a boat and holiday home

Since introduction of free school meals they no longer have to pay for their kids' lunches.

 

Other friend took extra job so now works 7 days a week most weeks to send child to private school and downsized home to lower mortgage for same reason- no free school meals.

 

Is this "fair", or even a good use of taxpayers cash? Or could the money be better spent on those more deserving?

(and I fail to see how that is "Tory"- not wanting tax payers cash to be spent feeding the progeny of the rich)

 

Hang on - the State are under no obligation to provide free meals at private education establishments.  Your friend is making a conscious decision to send their kid to a fee paying school.  Completely different to your (rich) friend who sends his kids to state school.

 

Easy way to solve the problem of rich people's kids benefiting from free school meals is to tax the rich folk more.  

 

Some things simply should be universal.  School dinners are one of those things for me.  From p1-s6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

I've just read that. Very long winded, but no real substance. The basic jist of it is that the Scottish electorate should be ignored. No negotaitions, no debate, stick your fingers in your ears and screw your eyes shut.

 

Read this

 

"Making apt parallels with Ireland is not reckless but prudent because the emotions which have been stoked among sections of the Scottish population are just as intense now as in Ireland then."

 

My word.  Hyperbole or what!

 

Seems a million miles away from my experience....but what do you expect from an article on a neo-con website?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

Hang on - the State are under no obligation to provide free meals at private education establishments.  Your friend is making a conscious decision to send their kid to a fee paying school.  Completely different to your (rich) friend who sends his kids to state school.

 

Easy way to solve the problem of rich people's kids benefiting from free school meals is to tax the rich folk more.  

 

Some things simply should be universal.  School dinners are one of those things for me.  From p1-s6.

But its not universal- that is my whole point

It is being means tested by an extremely crude measure- state vs private based on ludicrous assumptions about both ( I suspect based on the prejudice of the state party)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gorgiewave

"Looked after children". This is to be extended to the entire nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

"Looked after children". This is to be extended to the entire nation.

It never ceases to amaze me that this is not a contravention of the ECHR

If the ECHR cannot protect the rights of a family to be just that then Dave is right to knock it out the park

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gorgiewave

It never ceases to amaze me that this is not a contravention of the ECHR

If the ECHR cannot protect the rights of a family to be just that then Dave is right to knock it out the park

 

Could you give an estimate of the proportion of the patients you treat who are substantially responsible for their own ill-health? Smokers, heavy drinkers, bad diet, no exercise, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke

I'd love that to happen, but it won't, unfortunately.

:cornette:

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gorgiewave

:cornette:

:rofl:

 

We said No, end of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

Could you give an estimate of the proportion of the patients you treat who are substantially responsible for their own ill-health? Smokers, heavy drinkers, bad diet, no exercise, etc.

Not possible- most things are the result of behaviours

Sport injuries, road accidents, almost any diet in the world can be bad for you (even onions are carcinogenic).

Besides, we are all human- and its just a shame all the fun things are bad for you!

Live and let live

I'd be happy patching up the results of life's excesses all day frankly.

Boring lives otherwise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

But its not universal- that is my whole point

It is being means tested by an extremely crude measure- state vs private based on ludicrous assumptions about both ( I suspect based on the prejudice of the state party)

 

No, it is universal, or rather it should be universal, within the state system.

 

If one chooses to go private then that's one's look out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gorgiewave

No, it is universal, or rather it should be universal, within the state system.

 

If one chooses to go private then that's one's look out!

 

Why shouldn't the wealthy pay extra? I thought you were a socialist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cast No Shadow

I'm already tumescent for what will be yet another SNP mega-landslide.

 

Let the seethers seethe.

 

:jjyay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

No, it is universal, or rather it should be universal, within the state system.

 

If one chooses to go private then that's one's look out!

 

Its selectively universal?

I'm not sure that can even be a real thing.

What you mean is its discriminatory, but in a way that the SNP finds acceptable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

Why shouldn't the wealthy pay extra? I thought you were a socialist?

 

The extra should come through taxation, not piecemeal on individual services.

 

Stop being so obtuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris

Its selectively universal?

I'm not sure that can even be a real thing.

What you mean is its discriminatory, but in a way that the SNP finds acceptable

 

No it isn't discriminatory, because it would be universal within the state system, within the powers of the state and as such funded by taxation.

 

If you opt out, you opt out.  That's your choice.  But be aware that your taxes will continue to fund such a system.

 

It isn't the state being selective, but the individual (by choosing a fee paying school)

Edited by Boris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aussieh

"Looked after children". This is to be extended to the entire nation.

I believe the children are our future, feed them free, and let them lead the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo

No it isn't discriminatory, because it would be universal within the state system, within the powers of the state and as such funded by taxation.

 

If you opt out, you opt out.  That's your choice.  But be aware that your taxes will continue to fund such a system.

 

It isn't the state being selective, but the individual (by choosing a fee paying school)

 

It is discriminatory, because it has come into a system that pre-exists, with choices already made, based entirely on what school you attend- not on wealth, ability to pay or any other factors.

Had the policy been "free school meal for all, except if you are in Catholic schools", it would rightly be viewed as selective on government determined criteria.

This is a prejudice driven policy at heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Brightside

the rationale for free school meals is that it removes the stigma from recieving it for free when other kids are paying. By giving it to everyone we can ensure that the ones that ones whos parents are to shit to feed them are looked after. Studies show that obviously kids need food to concentrate.

I know it may sound crazy but if we are going to brwak the poverty cycle we need to catch these kids as young as possible to help them not turn out like their parents. Free school meals is just the firat stwp amd worth every penny.

Problem is that it is only for P1-P3, so that reasoning doesn't stack up.

Even if they could afford to give free meals to all kids P1-P7 kids will still work out who is less well off based on clothes, trainers and phones etc.

Currently some kids are eligible for free school meals I would use the money spent on the free meals for all to give these kids an evening meal.

 

One way to remove the stigma of free meals would be to issue all kids with a card to use in the dinner hall. Parents who can afford it top up the card on a monthly basis. Parents who can't don't need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...