More Tory lies

[JackLadd]

So the SNP that cried about "sterity" since 2009 voted against the social tax in Commons. I will expect Sturge to return the annual 1.2bn. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

Just now, JackLadd said:

So the SNP that cried about "sterity" since 2009 voted against the social tax in Commons. I will expect Sturge to return the annual 1.2bn. 

Dry your eyes and have night off.

[Ked]

41 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

I agree completely.  People know how to spend their money better than Govts do.

As long as they don't whinge about the public services,  care home fees etc and compare pensions etc to Scandinavia,  for example. 

I can whinge if my money has lined the pockets of charlatans whoncreamed of billions under covid.

I can whinge at the money spent bombing people because some privately educated arsehole prayed with another arsehole.

 

Whinging about  what my 20% is spent on isnt your judgement .

[JackLadd]

6 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Dry your eyes and have night off.

 

You don't like facing up to SNP lies and hypocrisy I know. It's what being in a cult entails.

[The Real Maroonblood]

3 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

You don't like facing up to SNP lies and hypocrisy I know. It's what being in a cult entails.

Your trolling is piss poor.

Must try harder.

[JackLadd]

3 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Your trolling is piss poor.

Must try harder.

 

 

How is it trolling? They voted against the social tax. Fact. You need to look in the mirror for the nearest troll. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

13 minutes ago, Ked said:

I can whinge if my money has lined the pockets of charlatans whoncreamed of billions under covid.

I can whinge at the money spent bombing people because some privately educated arsehole prayed with another arsehole.

 

Whinging about  what my 20% is spent on isnt your judgement .

Lazy stereotypes.  Rest assured; your 20% pays for the NHS, education, armed forces etc. The only people being "bombed" are those who need "bombed".

Nobody "gives" your tax to "their pals".

[Ked]

9 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Lazy stereotypes.  Rest assured; your 20% pays for the NHS, education, armed forces etc. The only people being "bombed" are those who need "bombed".

Nobody "gives" your tax to "their pals".

Needs bombed?

No one needs that.

Try 20% of covid related contracts awarded through the hotline that's been flagged up as corrupt .

Not millions but billions 

Try tory ex PM s securing deals.

 

I am conservative I am not a fascist.

 

Oh who needs bombed?

The country with wmds?

The drones

The Syrians The Yemenis.

The every day people.

[Ked]

15 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Lazy stereotypes.  Rest assured; your 20% pays for the NHS, education, armed forces etc. The only people being "bombed" are those who need "bombed".

Nobody "gives" your tax to "their pals".

What's lazy about my stereotypes .

[The Mighty Thor]

7 hours ago, JackLadd said:

Another 1.2bn in the Shortbread tin Barnet kitty. What will the newly formed SGNP do with it? Promote ref2 with lies is a given. 

 

6 hours ago, JackLadd said:

So the SNP that cried about "sterity" since 2009 voted against the social tax in Commons. I will expect Sturge to return the annual 1.2bn. 

Fascinating.

 

This is a brilliant example of the gymnastics of logic required by our resident 'uncle tams' to take a poorly conceived example of 'policy on the hoof' from the worst government in living memory which will disproportionately penalise those with the least to give and try to turn it into another SNP failing. 

It's a 10% tax rise to be borne by the lower end of society, pure and simple.

 

I'm going to call that you've lifted that from whichever dark corner of twitter or Facebook you inhabit with the other 'uncle tams' as you've not got the smarts for it yourself. 

[Unknown user]

10 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Yes, but don't they also pay much more in tax.

I think it was last year, I seen a documentary, which was mention on here, but I don't know which thread, anyway it was about Denmark and they compared two couples, one in the UK and the other in Denmark, both same sort of income, housing, child etc etc, anyway the Danish couple paid something like 50% in tax and had to really budget to get through the month, but they had all these great services such as state child care, public transport and all that sort of thing.  The British couple in comparism paid something like 25%-30% tax & NI and had lots of disposable income, could go holiday's, new car, meals out, but had crap services.

 

IIRC the general concensus was that the British public wouldn't pay an extra 20% for example in tax for better services, they are too used to low tax rates, but still want great services, until something changes in the mindset of the British public then any thoughts of a Scandinavian type set up is a none starter and we'll just go round in circles moaning about poor services.

 

Denmark are an extreme end of the spectrum, they have the highest tax to gdp ratio in the world.

It doesn't seem reasonable to use such an extreme as an example of how other countries do it, they're a complete outlier.

 

I've lived under higher taxes in Holland, I had no issues. But there was one major factor that made it possible - higher wages.

[Victorian]

16 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Denmark are an extreme end of the spectrum, they have the highest tax to gdp ratio in the world.

It doesn't seem reasonable to use such an extreme as an example of how other countries do it, they're a complete outlier.

 

I've lived under higher taxes in Holland, I had no issues. But there was one major factor that made it possible - higher wages.

 

This is the crucial thing.  The entire Tory obsession of being the party of low taxation,  free market economy,  small state,  deregulation,  business investment,  blah blah,  might have a chance of working if wages were enabled to reach a sustainable level.  But they never do.  The Tory system always allows predatory business to suppress wages below a level that can generate sustainable tax receipts.  

[manaliveits105]

Bill sailed through - great performance by Boris in Parliament ripping Labour and the fat hibby and another £1.2billion in Scotland’s NHS for Jimmy Krankie to mump aboot 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Denmark are an extreme end of the spectrum, they have the highest tax to gdp ratio in the world.

It doesn't seem reasonable to use such an extreme as an example of how other countries do it, they're a complete outlier.

 

I've lived under higher taxes in Holland, I had no issues. But there was one major factor that made it possible - higher wages.

 

Absolutely that's the key, it's the same in Germany, higher taxes but also higher wages, and I'd imagine near enough everywhere else apart from the UK where it's low tax and low wages.

 

Government & business are more than happy to keep wages low & the public are happy to pay low tax and I can't see any of that changing.

 

[JackLadd]

Priti growing a set. 🤔

[manaliveits105]

About time the french are taking the piss 

[The Mighty Thor]

39 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

Priti growing a set. 🤔

 

30 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

About time the french are taking the piss 

Aye sending Royal Navy frigates to try to turn around rubber dinghies will work 😂

 

Patel 'has secured legal advice' on the validity of this. of course she has.

 

Dead cat story for the foaming masses. 

[Victorian]

I wish Priti Patel would cherry pick out any HGV drivers before seeing off the Johnny Migrant armada.

[Cade]

Re-writing international Maritime law because Arsehole Patel wants to look hard on the front pages of the Mail and Express?

 

 

That's not how that works, you morons.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Cade

[SectionDJambo]

Like the French are going to bow down to Johnson & Co. Of course the French are taking the piss. Why wouldn’t they? The British would do exactly the same to them. Unfortunately for Britain, geography doesn’t give us the opportunity.

Global Britain is not about to be resurrected just because we left the EU. It’s just another catch phrase from Johnson to stir up the Rule Britannia mob. Just like the island in the middle of nowhere that Patel said she would send them all packing to. 
Cheerleading nonsense.

[Konrad von Carstein]

10 hours ago, BarneyBattles said:

 

I’ll just leave this here. 

[Roxy Hearts]

3 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Bill sailed through - great performance by Boris in Parliament ripping Labour and the fat hibby and another £1.2billion in Scotland’s NHS for Jimmy Krankie to mump aboot 

 

It's our money in the first place! We send our money down there and get some back for our budget. Any extra is ours anyway.

[Enzo Chiefo]

11 hours ago, Ked said:

Needs bombed?

No one needs that.

Try 20% of covid related contracts awarded through the hotline that's been flagged up as corrupt .

Not millions but billions 

Try tory ex PM s securing deals.

 

I am conservative I am not a fascist.

 

Oh who needs bombed?

The country with wmds?

The drones

The Syrians The Yemenis.

The every day people.

How about the wannabe suicide bomber in Kabul, the one who was killed by the Americans en route to murder innocent civilians. Do you agree?

[WorldChampions1902]

2 hours ago, JackLadd said:

Priti growing a set. 🤔

Not according to this BBC article. Purely a political stunt to keep the rabid English Nationalist on-side.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58495948

 

I found this wording from that article particularly ironic, 

• An EU law called Dublin III allows asylum seekers to be transferred back to the first member state they were proven to have entered but the UK is no longer part of this arrangement and has not agreed a new scheme to replace it

[Victorian]

15 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

It's our money in the first place! We send our money down there and get some back for our budget. Any extra is ours anyway.

 

It's actually a real misconception amongst a minority of the more gammon-esque corners of society that Scottish income tax and NIC receipts do not add to the overall UK receipts and then dispersed according to devolved arrangements.  In fact there are people who are completely ignorant of the fact that UK income tax and NIC applies to Scottish workers' earnings at all.  There's every reason to believe that some Uncle Tams are similarly ignorant.

[Enzo Chiefo]

18 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

It's our money in the first place! We send our money down there and get some back for our budget. Any extra is ours anyway.

The point that Nats can't seem to bring themselves to understand or acknowledge.  It's our money PLUS £10 to £12bn every year.

It's perfectly simple; if we only had our own tax revenues and borrowing to spend, our public services would collapse.  Hope that explains it.

[Victorian]

5 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

The point that Nats can't seem to bring themselves to understand or acknowledge.  It's our money PLUS £10 to £12bn every year.

It's perfectly simple; if we only had our own tax revenues and borrowing to spend, our public services would collapse.  Hope that explains it.

 

That greatly depends on either argument's preferred 'truths' on how and what is classified as Scottish / UK derived receipts,  etc.

[The Mighty Thor]

24 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Not according to this BBC article. Purely a political stunt to keep the rabid English Nationalist on-side.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58495948

And of course the even more rabid SNP hating unionist types that populate this board.

 

This whole taking back control thing isn't really going very well 18 months after their VfromE day.

 

Shame. 

[Ked]

1 hour ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

How about the wannabe suicide bomber in Kabul, the one who was killed by the Americans en route to murder innocent civilians. Do you agree?

You said the only people who are  bombed need bombed.

That's a long way from any kind of truth.

 

In the case you cite above that can be justified.

One out of how many?

 

[JackLadd]

2 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

And of course the even more rabid SNP hating unionist types that populate this board.

 

This whole taking back control thing isn't really going very well 18 months after their VfromE day.

 

Shame. 

 

 

So your SGNP would be happy with a 1000 illegals landing in the Lothians a day demanding access to benefits, housing and bogus asylum? The average Krankie is stupid but not that stupid. The ones I know would be demanding action ala Priti. You have zero regard for the people of Kent who have to suffer this daily and it's consequences.

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

And of course the even more rabid SNP hating unionist types that populate this board.

 

This whole taking back control thing isn't really going very well 18 months after their VfromE day.

 

Shame. 

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Not according to this BBC article. Purely a political stunt to keep the rabid English Nationalist on-side.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58495948

 

I found this wording from that article particularly ironic, 

• An EU law called Dublin III allows asylum seekers to be transferred back to the first member state they were proven to have entered but the UK is no longer part of this arrangement and has not agreed a new scheme to replace it

How often was that law applied in relation to the UK before Brexit?

[Roxy Hearts]

3 hours ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

The point that Nats can't seem to bring themselves to understand or acknowledge.  It's our money PLUS £10 to £12bn every year.

It's perfectly simple; if we only had our own tax revenues and borrowing to spend, our public services would collapse.  Hope that explains it.

You believe what you want and it's the sort of answer I expect from unionists. The usual too poor etc. with the condescending manner as a final flourish to an inane post. UK 2 trillion in debt and Ian Wood wants more SCOTTISH oil to meet balance of payments!

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 hours ago, Ked said:

You said the only people who are  bombed need bombed.

That's a long way from any kind of truth.

 

In the case you cite above that can be justified.

One out of how many?

 

You were implying that we could do without bombs. We can't. 

I agree, too many innocent people get maimed or killed but, unfortunately,  that's not an argument for getting rid of bombs.

Happy to clarify that the targets of bombs are legitimate but, of course, not everybody "needs to be bombed".

[Enzo Chiefo]

44 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

You believe what you want and it's the sort of answer I expect from unionists. The usual too poor etc. with the condescending manner as a final flourish to an inane post. UK 2 trillion in debt and Ian Wood wants more SCOTTISH oil to meet balance of payments!

The oil actually belongs to the oil companies and is only accessible through UK wide investment. 

 

Alex Salmond tried the con trick in 2014 of pretending that the oil revenues would come to Scotland in totality. Confusing "turnover" not just with "profit" but with corporation tax levied against the profit. He then compunded matters by dividing the non existent revenue by 5 million to con all the dafties into believing a cheque would be landing on their doormats if they voted Yes.

 

No doubt Scotland will expect rUK to fund the decommissioning costs.

So, only Scotland's oil when it suits them then.

[The Mighty Thor]

2 hours ago, JackLadd said:

 

 

So your SGNP would be happy with a 1000 illegals landing in the Lothians a day demanding access to benefits, housing and bogus asylum? The average Krankie is stupid but not that stupid. The ones I know would be demanding action ala Priti. You have zero regard for the people of Kent who have to suffer this daily and it's consequences.

Can I respectfully suggest that you spend less time on the far right websites chief? It's impacting your ability to post coherently.

 

Firstly they are not 'illegals' they are people seeking asylum, not bogus asylum, just asylum. 

 

The average Krankie. I'm not really sure what that is but I'm assuming you mean people resident in Scotland that voted for the current government?

 

Of course the ones you know would be demanding action 'ala Priti' as they probably populate the same extreme websites you do. Fools seldom differ. As for action by Priti, that itself is an oxymoron as Patel has singularly failed to do anything constructive on the subject other than don a 'border force' hi viz and look sullen on a patrol vessel.

 

I pay as much mind to the citizens of Kent as they do for the citizens of Scotland.

 

Aside that is your poster boy Farage not patrolling the Kent cost with a pair of binoculars to keep the 'illegals' and 'bogus asylum seekers' out?

 

 

 

 

[WorldChampions1902]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

How often was that law applied in relation to the UK before Brexit?

No idea. Your question should be answered by the U.K. Government. My inclination is that our U.K. government were somewhat lax in invoking that legislation. That being the case, why (?) is another question for the U.K. government. 
 

Cynics might suggest that a ‘reluctance’ on the part of the U.K. government to invoke that law was deliberate in preparation for a Brexit Referendum that would play on the immigration card.

Edited September 9, 2021 by WorldChampions1902

[Unknown user]

6 hours ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

The point that Nats can't seem to bring themselves to understand or acknowledge.  It's our money PLUS £10 to £12bn every year.

It's perfectly simple; if we only had our own tax revenues and borrowing to spend, our public services would collapse.  Hope that explains it.

 

Yeah only you Hardy Boys can see the truth eh?

 

FS Enzo do you really think you're so smart and people don't understand what you're saying, rather than they just don't agree with it? Seriously? That doesn't sound very smart TBQH.

[Enzo Chiefo]

8 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Yeah only you Hardy Boys can see the truth eh?

 

FS Enzo do you really think you're so smart and people don't understand what you're saying, rather than they just don't agree with it? Seriously? That doesn't sound very smart TBQH.

Why are you so obsessed with a hierarchy of smartness,  Smithee? This is a recurring theme that runs through your posts.

If someone claims that "we send the money we raise South and get some of it back " then that is factually incorrect and needs to be pointed out, again and again. That's all I was doing.

[Unknown user]

Just now, Enzo Chiefo said:

Why are you so obsessed with a hierarchy of smartness,  Smithee? This is a recurring theme that runs through your posts.

If someone claims that "we send the money we raise South and get some of it back " then that is factually incorrect and needs to be pointed out, again and again. That's all I was doing.

I'm responding to your post talking about people who can't understand, Enzo.

Since the early half of last year you've been patronising and calling people stupid, sheep, etc, putting your intellect on a podium it really does not deserve.

So aye, have some of it back.

[Francis Albert]

39 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

No idea. Your question should be answered by the U.K. Government. My inclination is that our U.K. government were somewhat lax in invoking that legislation. That being the case, why (?) is another question for the U.K. government. 
 

Cynics might suggest that a ‘reluctance’ on the part of the U.K. government to invoke that law was deliberate in preparation for a Brexit Referendum that would play on the immigration card.

Your first two words answer my question. Thanks.

The fact is no other country would willingly accept back immigrants who make it to the UK. Or indeed make any serious attempt to stop them making it as far as the UK as France is demonstrating. But of course as usual the UK is to blame. Even at the expense of dreaming up a conspiracy theory.

[Enzo Chiefo]

14 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I'm responding to your post talking about people who can't understand, Enzo.

Since the early half of last year you've been patronising and calling people stupid, sheep, etc, putting your intellect on a podium it really does not deserve.

So aye, have some of it back.

With all due respect,  Smithee, you seem to carry a massive chip on your shoulder.  

Dumbing down is a national trait in this country and comes from the dog-whistle behaviour of those at the top. Whether it's "Bairns not Bombs"  , NHYes" or, just yesterday, the rotund, Hibs windbag, Blackford referring to an extra £1.1bn funding for NHS Scotland as inflicting another "poll tax". With a cowed Scottish media frightened to challenge the SNP,  as evidenced by Robert Peston's revelation yesterday, it's incumbent on us to correct factually inaccurate statements about the Scottish economic position. 

I will continue to do that, regardless of your attempts to lower the intellectual bar.

[Roxy Hearts]

2 hours ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

The oil actually belongs to the oil companies and is only accessible through UK wide investment. 

 

Alex Salmond tried the con trick in 2014 of pretending that the oil revenues would come to Scotland in totality. Confusing "turnover" not just with "profit" but with corporation tax levied against the profit. He then compunded matters by dividing the non existent revenue by 5 million to con all the dafties into believing a cheque would be landing on their doormats if they voted Yes.

 

No doubt Scotland will expect rUK to fund the decommissioning costs.

So, only Scotland's oil when it suits them then.

Is SCOTTISH oil drilled and explored by oil companies in our waters worth anything? Has the UK benefitted at all since it's discovery?

 

I'm not looking for an argument but why is it always UK money and Scotland always owes something, considering we've no debt and not created any on our own behalf? Don't bother with GERS or any other "independent" study!

[WorldChampions1902]

56 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Your first two words answer my question. Thanks.

The fact is no other country would willingly accept back immigrants who make it to the UK. Or indeed make any serious attempt to stop them making it as far as the UK as France is demonstrating. But of course as usual the UK is to blame. Even at the expense of dreaming up a conspiracy theory.

Whether or not countries would, “willingly accept back immigrants who make it to the U.K.” is irrelevant. The law is the law (yes, we all know that the Tories want to pick and choose which laws they wish to observe).
 

There is plenty of evidence that the U.K. has invoked law to deport “illegals”, so clearly it is workable. Goodness, we even deport people ILLEGALLY (Windrush anyone?). On the latter, I would agree that the U.K. “is to blame”. Nothing conspiratol  about that - just plain fact. 

[Ked]

3 hours ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

You were implying that we could do without bombs. We can't. 

I agree, too many innocent people get maimed or killed but, unfortunately,  that's not an argument for getting rid of bombs.

Happy to clarify that the targets of bombs are legitimate but, of course, not everybody "needs to be bombed".

Bomb away all you like .

From what I can gather we have bombed the shite out of the middle east.

It hasnt helped.

 

[Francis Albert]

18 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Whether or not countries would, “willingly accept back immigrants who make it to the U.K.” is irrelevant. The law is the law (yes, we all know that the Tories want to pick and choose which laws they wish to observe).
 

There is plenty of evidence that the U.K. has invoked law to deport “illegals”, so clearly it is workable. Goodness, we even deport people ILLEGALLY (Windrush anyone?). On the latter, I would agree that the U.K. “is to blame”. Nothing conspiratol  about that - just plain fact. 

So to repeat how many immigrants have been returned to their first entry country to the EU under this law? Not just from.thlle UK but from anywhere. The law is the law but some laws are uninforcible or uninforced.

 

[WorldChampions1902]

11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So to repeat how many immigrants have been returned to their first entry country to the EU under this law? Not just from.thlle UK but from anywhere. The law is the law but some laws are uninforcible or uninforced.

 

An hour ago you said quote, “Your first two words answer my question. Thanks.”

 

The definition of madness is oft described as “repeating the same action again and again and expecting a different outcome” (or words to that affect).

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

An hour ago you said quote, “Your first two words answer my question. Thanks.”

 

The definition of madness is oft described as “repeating the same action again and again and expecting a different outcome” (or words to that affect).

You have no idea of the answer to my question but you claimed that Brexit denied us access to an EU law which would have helped control illegal immigration. And my illegal is not like yours in inverted commas because illegal immigration does exist. As the ineffective and unenforced law you referred to demonstrates.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Francis Albert

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

With all due respect,  Smithee, you seem to carry a massive chip on your shoulder.  

Dumbing down is a national trait in this country and comes from the dog-whistle behaviour of those at the top. Whether it's "Bairns not Bombs"  , NHYes" or, just yesterday, the rotund, Hibs windbag, Blackford referring to an extra £1.1bn funding for NHS Scotland as inflicting another "poll tax". With a cowed Scottish media frightened to challenge the SNP,  as evidenced by Robert Peston's revelation yesterday, it's incumbent on us to correct factually inaccurate statements about the Scottish economic position. 

I will continue to do that, regardless of your attempts to lower the intellectual bar.

Ah never change

[Enzo Chiefo]

15 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Is SCOTTISH oil drilled and explored by oil companies in our waters worth anything? Has the UK benefitted at all since it's discovery?

 

I'm not looking for an argument but why is it always UK money and Scotland always owes something, considering we've no debt and not created any on our own behalf? Don't bother with GERS or any other "independent" study!

Yes, of course Roxy. Likewise,  I'm not looking for an argument either.

 

Sure, 40 years ago or so, Scotland contributed more, through oil revenues , to the UK exchequer than we received in return. That certainly benefited the UK. Now, however,the opposite is the case and we benefit to the tune of £10bn - £12bn per annum.

 

I'm just calling out the attempts to deflect from the economic facts about what separation would involve.

Were Sturgeon to admit the realities and conduct a grown up conversation about the pros and cons then I would say, "yes, fair enough". But she won't because she knows it would reduce the numbers in favour.

Instead, she treats the public like idiots and deflects, denies and obfuscates.