Jump to content

The rise and fall of The SNP.


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Another one who’s much more likeable. 

Isn’t stuff like that good for economies? Building up your infrastructure? Create jobs etc? 
Cant be terrible having to invest heavily surely. 
Weren't the EU going to help Ireland build more stuff like that in the event of brexit meaning they’d just ship direct to and from the ROI? 

It is but it has to be funded somehow. We would be inheriting a debt mountain from the UK, plus running a big deficit that would prevent us getting into the EU. We'd probably have to go full on Communist with 5yr plans or full on Rooseveltian Capitalist-after-a-crash with 10 year plans! We'd have to look at the 100k "disabled" people in Glasgow alone and decide that a lot of them can work even if it is just from home - can't have people just surfing porn and talking on football forums with their high-speed internet connections...We'd have to go Roman and get the Armed Forces out of their barracks building infrastructure projects; perhaps even some chain gangs for the big prison population as mailbags and primary school chairs are not really that necessary...All this whilst having to review the NHS, care, free this, that and the next stuff...

 

I personally don't think the population is motivated enough to pull it off. Scots have always performed better overseas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 16.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • jack D and coke

    795

  • manaliveits105

    705

  • Smithee

    1077

  • Roxy Hearts

    648

2 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

It is but it has to be funded somehow. We would be inheriting a debt mountain from the UK, plus running a big deficit that would prevent us getting into the EU.

 

My understanding is that it's agreed in law and fact that Scotland owe £0 to the debt having not had the power to set the budgets that have created the debt since the union occurred.

 

Scotland might agree to take on some of the debt as part of a deal, but its actual, starting liability would be £0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

My understanding is that it's agreed in law and fact that Scotland owe £0 to the debt having not had the power to set the budgets that have created the debt since the union occurred.

 

Scotland might agree to take on some of the debt as part of a deal, but its actual, starting liability would be £0.

Well it cannot be both nil and agree to take on a share...This is typical of SNP economics - We had a referendum in 2014! We should already know the answer to this question...

 

I actually think the Scottish people got both Indyref and Brexit referendums right. You don't vote for the unknown, you vote for the status quo if the "leaders" cannot or will not answer the big questions.

Edited by Spellczech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spellczech said:

Well it cannot be both nil and agree to take on a share...This is typical of SNP economics - We had a referendum in 2014! We should already know the answer to this question...

 

Mmm, no. Like, this has nothing to do with the SNP, so going there really, really makes no sense.


It is nil. Full stop. From a legal perspective, Scotland owes nothing in debt because it hasn't, as an independent, sovereign nation, accumulated any debt. It is not responsible for the debt the UK has accumulated.

 

That doesn't mean, that as part of an agreement post-independence vote, Scotland couldn't agree to take on a portion of the UK's debt as part of the negotiations. The fact that it could choose to do that still in no way changes the fact that indeed, Scotland's debt is zero pounds sterling.

 

So please, take a moment to think about it if need be, and don't sling stuff like "this is typical of SNP economics".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Mmm, no. Like, this has nothing to do with the SNP, so going there really, really makes no sense.


It is nil. Full stop. From a legal perspective, Scotland owes nothing in debt because it hasn't, as an independent, sovereign nation, accumulated any debt. It is not responsible for the debt the UK has accumulated.

 

That doesn't mean, that as part of an agreement post-independence vote, Scotland couldn't agree to take on a portion of the UK's debt as part of the negotiations. The fact that it could choose to do that still in no way changes the fact that indeed, Scotland's debt is zero pounds sterling.

 

So please, take a moment to think about it if need be, and don't sling stuff like "this is typical of SNP economics".

Legal perspective means nothing if negotiation forces us to take on a mountain of debt. Lawyers make things difficult so that they can benefit, what other reason is there for legalese over plain English?

 

Neither you here, nor the SNP can answer the simple question as to whether post-Independence Scotland would be debt-free. It is a pretty fundamental question...Along with all the other fundamental questions about what currency; how do we reduce the deficit whilst maintaining all the socialist freebies etc that the SNP simple say "Manana" to...

Edited by Spellczech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
21 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

It is but it has to be funded somehow. We would be inheriting a debt mountain from the UK, plus running a big deficit that would prevent us getting into the EU. We'd probably have to go full on Communist with 5yr plans or full on Rooseveltian Capitalist-after-a-crash with 10 year plans! We'd have to look at the 100k "disabled" people in Glasgow alone and decide that a lot of them can work even if it is just from home - can't have people just surfing porn and talking on football forums with their high-speed internet connections...We'd have to go Roman and get the Armed Forces out of their barracks building infrastructure projects; perhaps even some chain gangs for the big prison population as mailbags and primary school chairs are not really that necessary...All this whilst having to review the NHS, care, free this, that and the next stuff...

 

I personally don't think the population is motivated enough to pull it off. Scots have always performed better overseas...

Ok well that’s start with that. What debt mountain? What money has Scotland borrowed? I accept there probably would be some but if we are to take on this “debt mountain” you think the rUK will enter negotiations with us so we can pay? We’ll have currency sorted possibly no? Or they’ll just screw us over and basically accept we’re going to default and then be broke for people to start piling over the border into England as refugees? People seem to think we’d vote Yes on the Monday and on the Tuesday that’s everything up in the air and chaos ensues. Take brexit for example, we’re into year 4 and we’re still for intents and purposes still in it. There is no defecit stopping us entering the EU, that’s the single currency that requires 3% defecit controls. 
Your last paragraph I don’t necessarily disagree with though. I almost think we’ve become too reliant though. Stand on our own might be the making of the nation we’re not any better or worse than Ireland or England for that matter. 

Edited by jack D and coke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spellczech said:

Legal perspective means nothing if negotiation forces us to take on a mountain of debt. Lawyers make things difficult so that they can benefit, what other reason is there for legalese over plain English?

 

All I have said is that from a legal starting point, the debt is zero. That's not legalese, that is plain English, and it's an important, very simple fact. Not difficult at all, and not benefiting anyone but Scotland.

 

Indeed, if you think a starting debt amount of zero is a weakness from a negotiating perspective with an opposing party with an absolute mound of self-inflicted debt, then well, we have exceptionally different opinions of how negotiating is meant to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
4 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Legal perspective means nothing if negotiation forces us to take on a mountain of debt. Lawyers make things difficult so that they can benefit, what other reason is there for legalese over plain English?

 

 

'a mountain of debt' isn't plain English either to be fair

 

Clearly we would take on some debt as part of the negotiation, but the amount would need to be agreed, it isn't a fixed legal liability (yet)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

All I have said is that from a legal starting point, the debt is zero. That's not legalese, that is plain English, and it's an important, very simple fact. Not difficult at all, and not benefiting anyone but Scotland.

 

Indeed, if you think a starting debt amount of zero is a weakness from a negotiating perspective with an opposing party with an absolute mound of self-inflicted debt, then well, we have exceptionally different opinions of how negotiating is meant to work.

but it doesn't answer the question. Your very next sentence contradicted it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

My understanding is that it's agreed in law and fact that Scotland owe £0 to the debt having not had the power to set the budgets that have created the debt since the union occurred.

 

Scotland might agree to take on some of the debt as part of a deal, but its actual, starting liability would be £0.

 

15 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Well it cannot be both nil and agree to take on a share...This is typical of SNP economics - We had a referendum in 2014! We should already know the answer to this question...

 

I actually think the Scottish people got both Indyref and Brexit referendums right. You don't vote for the unknown, you vote for the status quo if the "leaders" cannot or will not answer the big questions.

 

12 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Mmm, no. Like, this has nothing to do with the SNP, so going there really, really makes no sense.


It is nil. Full stop. From a legal perspective, Scotland owes nothing in debt because it hasn't, as an independent, sovereign nation, accumulated any debt. It is not responsible for the debt the UK has accumulated.

 

That doesn't mean, that as part of an agreement post-independence vote, Scotland couldn't agree to take on a portion of the UK's debt as part of the negotiations. The fact that it could choose to do that still in no way changes the fact that indeed, Scotland's debt is zero pounds sterling.

 

So please, take a moment to think about it if need be, and don't sling stuff like "this is typical of SNP economics".


In the Scottish Growth Commission doc produced, the SNP have said that they would commit to £5b p/a for debt and deficit repayments, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spellczech said:

but it doesn't answer the question. Your very next sentence contradicted it.

 

Okay first, what question?

 

And second, no it doesn't.

 

3 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

'a mountain of debt' isn't plain English either to be fair

 

Clearly we would take on some debt as part of the negotiation, but the amount would need to be agreed, it isn't a fixed legal liability (yet)

 

^ Gets it. Depending on the negotiations, Scotland could ultimately decide to take on zero debt if it wanted. The point is, it starts from zero. Agreeing to take on some in exchange for any number of favourable concessions that benefit Scotland is not the same thing as "inheriting a mountain of debt". It's just not, and it's not legalese to point that out, at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotland has no debt. It is not an independent nation and has borrowed nothing.

The UK borrows vast sums and tries to allocate 10% of that to Scotland, even though nowhere near 10% of that borrowing is spent on anything that benefits Scotland.

 

It does have a deficit. Scottish tax take is not as large as current expenditure.

How much of that expenditure the Scottish government currently has powers to control is debatable.

Scotland doesn't have full powers over tax either.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

'a mountain of debt' isn't plain English either to be fair

 

Clearly we would take on some debt as part of the negotiation, but the amount would need to be agreed, it isn't a fixed legal liability (yet)

It sure isn't. But it was merely a line to throw in to demonstrate how unquantifiably unknown the figure is still, even 5 years after we were asked to vote on it...

 

I actually think Sturgeon is one of the 2 most talented politicians in the World, and by a long way. However, would I follow her? Not sure, would she not just do a Farage once she gets the vote she wants?  Now if she stuck around she might come to resemble the World's smartest and sharpest politician: Vladimir Putin...Not sure I would want that either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Continental Op
27 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Well it cannot be both nil and agree to take on a share...This is typical of SNP economics - We had a referendum in 2014! We should already know the answer to this question...

 

I actually think the Scottish people got both Indyref and Brexit referendums right. You don't vote for the unknown, you vote for the status quo if the "leaders" cannot or will not answer the big questions.

Agree to service share of UK debt in return for sharing the £, protection of the Bank of England and current common services like DVLA etc.. Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Well it cannot be both nil and agree to take on a share...This is typical of SNP economics - We had a referendum in 2014! We should already know the answer to this question...

 

I actually think the Scottish people got both Indyref and Brexit referendums right. You don't vote for the unknown, you vote for the status quo if the "leaders" cannot or will not answer the big questions.

Actually, I think you'll find that Scotlands debt is a percentage share of UK debt which it is charged interest on under the Barnet Formula.

Scotland has never had debt. Scotland has given the UK treasury more money than it has received in the last 50 years. 

 

And if it has a proportion of UK debt. It also has the same proportion of UK assets which I'm pretty sure will be worth more than the debt. 

Edited by Cruyff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

 


In the Scottish Growth Commission doc produced, the SNP have said that they would commit to £5b p/a for debt and deficit repayments, I think.

 

Just quoting my own post here, to add this:

 

Honouring debts

The commission is clear that while an independent Scotland would not start out with any debt of its own, it would honour its "historic" commitment to the UK's existing national debt.

This would happen via an "Annual Solidarity Payment" of £5bn a year, to go towards previous UK debt and shared commitments such as international aid.

£5bn a year sounds like a lot in the first instance, but the report argues that after a generation or so of inflation and economic growth it would represent a dwindling share of Scotland's GDP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Cade said:

Scotland has no debt. It is not an independent nation and has borrowed nothing.

The UK borrows vast sums and tries to allocate 10% of that to Scotland, even though nowhere near 10% of that borrowing is spent on anything that benefits Scotland.

 

It does have a deficit. Scottish tax take is not as large as current expenditure.

How much of that expenditure the Scottish government currently has powers to control is debatable.

Scotland doesn't have full powers over tax either.

 

 

 

Correct. 

Little fiscal powers, tax, borrowing etc... 

No monetary powers. 

No true accurate measure on Scottish exports. 

70.4% of Scottish Revenue is reserved. 

36.6% of Expenditure is reserved. 

 

Screenshot_20200226-141602.thumb.png.19e3e2ac8c7264465cdf87e6e5623b97.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, weehammy said:

Further coverage of the issue in the Scotland section of today’s BBC News online.

 

 

 

I've read this BBC article and scanned the report and there is little new in it as far as i can see merely a collation of previously published exam results.  You and the Conservative party seem to have an issue about the time of day it was published. I'm not sure i understand why you think this pertinent, do these reports not stay on government websites forever?  You told us midnight but the BBC says 8PM. Could civil servants have been working flexitime or did they have a deadline to meet? Doesn't sound sneaky to me. 

 

        John Swinney said the report was released in response to a FOI request. The BBC tell us this request came from a lecturer and former teacher. Is this Lindsay Paterson's involvement or is there more from him that the BBC haven't mentioned? That is what i wanted to see as i know that he has a profound understanding of Scottish education. The way you worded your post suggested that he was merely concerned with the timing of the publication "Check out Professor Lindsay Paterson’s withering critique of the way Swinney snuck out the latest disappointing education information ( released at midnight the other day)." but i cannot image professor Paterson spending much if any time over the timing of release of a government report never mind producing a withering critique of the timing. I assume he was critical of the content of the report, maybe you could give a quote or two.

 

For an alternative view and more nuanced interpretation of the exam results you could try this.

 

https://mrpriestley.wordpress.com/2019/11/08/curriculum-for-excellence-and-attainment-in-national-qualifications/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

It sure isn't. But it was merely a line to throw in to demonstrate how unquantifiably unknown the figure is still, even 5 years after we were asked to vote on it...

 

I actually think Sturgeon is one of the 2 most talented politicians in the World, and by a long way. However, would I follow her? Not sure, would she not just do a Farage once she gets the vote she wants?  Now if she stuck around she might come to resemble the World's smartest and sharpest politician: Vladimir Putin...Not sure I would want that either

 

 

Lol, I'm not sure Sturgeon would be flattered by that!

 

I agree the figure is unknown - it's 'to be negotiated' so it can't really be known - huge figures were mentioned at the time of the referendum but of course that was by the UK government.

 

In my opinion it would be wrong for either party to say that Scotland if it went independent would have a specific amount of debt. However there is no doubt in my mind that part of the settlement would be for Scotland to take on some of the UK debt - probably need to go to arbitration as it wouldn't be an easy discussion.


Take an example  - defence spending - how much of UK debt has been run up by purchasing aircraft carriers and nuclear subs - neither of which the SNP is saying it will want or have any use of in future - should Scotland take part of that debt. i would say no but UK govt would argue it protected us while we were in the Union....

 

I guess you could argue it is quantifiable as the Scottish Government could work out what (probably very small portion) of the debt it does think we should be liable for but that would probably be politically naive

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

Lol, I'm not sure Sturgeon would be flattered by that!

 

I agree the figure is unknown - it's 'to be negotiated' so it can't really be known - huge figures were mentioned at the time of the referendum but of course that was by the UK government.

 

In my opinion it would be wrong for either party to say that Scotland if it went independent would have a specific amount of debt. However there is no doubt in my mind that part of the settlement would be for Scotland to take on some of the UK debt - probably need to go to arbitration as it wouldn't be an easy discussion.


Take an example  - defence spending - how much of UK debt has been run up by purchasing aircraft carriers and nuclear subs - neither of which the SNP is saying it will want or have any use of in future - should Scotland take part of that debt. i would say no but UK govt would argue it protected us while we were in the Union....

 

I guess you could argue it is quantifiable as the Scottish Government could work out what (probably very small portion) of the debt it does think we should be liable for but that would probably be politically naive

 

The report is based on the idea that an independent Scottish state would cost about £450m to set up. This figure was provided by Prof Patrick Dunleavy from the London School of Economics.

The commission reckon that an independent Scotland would start out with an annual budget deficit of just under 6%, having adjusted for things like reduced defence spending and debt-servicing costs.

This deficit rate would then be whittled down over subsequent years via sensible budgeting - although not by austerity, which is seen as being counter-productive.

The model set out in the report reckons this will really start to make a difference in about year four post-independence, and that the deficit will be under control - so under 3% of GDP per year - by year ten.

There is also a pledge that while running a deficit in the early years, Scotland wouldn't allow a pile of new debt to accumulate above the value of 50% of GDP.

 

and as above:

 

Honouring debts

The commission is clear that while an independent Scotland would not start out with any debt of its own, it would honour its "historic" commitment to the UK's existing national debt.

This would happen via an "Annual Solidarity Payment" of £5bn a year, to go towards previous UK debt and shared commitments such as international aid.

£5bn a year sounds like a lot in the first instance, but the report argues that after a generation or so of inflation and economic growth it would represent a dwindling share of Scotland's GDP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scott herbertson
3 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

The report is based on the idea that an independent Scottish state would cost about £450m to set up. This figure was provided by Prof Patrick Dunleavy from the London School of Economics.

The commission reckon that an independent Scotland would start out with an annual budget deficit of just under 6%, having adjusted for things like reduced defence spending and debt-servicing costs.

This deficit rate would then be whittled down over subsequent years via sensible budgeting - although not by austerity, which is seen as being counter-productive.

The model set out in the report reckons this will really start to make a difference in about year four post-independence, and that the deficit will be under control - so under 3% of GDP per year - by year ten.

There is also a pledge that while running a deficit in the early years, Scotland wouldn't allow a pile of new debt to accumulate above the value of 50% of GDP.

 

and as above:

 

Honouring debts

The commission is clear that while an independent Scotland would not start out with any debt of its own, it would honour its "historic" commitment to the UK's existing national debt.

This would happen via an "Annual Solidarity Payment" of £5bn a year, to go towards previous UK debt and shared commitments such as international aid.

£5bn a year sounds like a lot in the first instance, but the report argues that after a generation or so of inflation and economic growth it would represent a dwindling share of Scotland's GDP.

 

 

Thanks

 

That's very clear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

Thanks

 

That's very clear


I agree though, that the figures quoted in the commission could turn out to less than the real time costs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
3 hours ago, Boris said:

 

I think I may have said this before, but sure the Govt needs called out if failing, but what is the alternative?  That's why, I think, the better than England thing gets trotted out.

 

What would the Scottish Tories do differently from their southern overlords?

 

One could conclude that while it is shit, if that mob were in control it would be shitter.

You may well be right but equally the key topics here are NHS, Education, Policing which are devolved so the Scottish parties could do as they saw fit for Scotland without direct interference from the Southern overloads as you put it.   

 

if the view is that we in Scotland should never vote for anyone other than SNP due to fact the other parties are seen as controlled on devolved matters by Westminster then it calls into question why have a Scottish Parliament at all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

Am I? That's funny. I reviewed my post and don't see this at all. Can you point it out to me?

Well the first half of your post clearly is trying to make the point that “they are doing a great job on education” as per my response.

 

and your three words at the end are a supremely sarcastic way of suggesting that everyone who says the SNP are failing on education are talking nonsense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

You may well be right but equally the key topics here are NHS, Education, Policing which are devolved so the Scottish parties could do as they saw fit for Scotland without direct interference from the Southern overloads as you put it.   

 

if the view is that we in Scotland should never vote for anyone other than SNP due to fact the other parties are seen as controlled on devolved matters by Westminster then it calls into question why have a Scottish Parliament at all.  


The Scottish branches of the other parties don’t break from Westminster policy though. You saw how that worked with both Kezia and Ruth finding themselves at odds with their English party HQs and just having to toe the line. 
 

Justin provides you with an example of where the Scottish Education system is performing well. Both myself and @Roxy Hearts have provided personal anecdotal accounts of why we believe the Scottish system to be better in terms of higher education. You can’t just stubbornly disregard these things and get angry at folk because they offer a different perspective.

 

I happen to think Police Scotland was a totally shit idea personally. I’ve said as much a few times. I don’t agree with it. On balance however, SNP policies and use of devolved powers have been positive imo. 
 

I know people who work in the Scottish NHS who don’t agree with the people you know there. You nor I can speak for all of them, as if they are all in political agreement on the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Another Converted 😎

 

image.thumb.png.87b37f94eae5143d90a7c001902a579a.png


I have seen a fair few people moving in this direction. I feel it must be larger than the reverse. I may be wrong, but it certainly feels that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
1 minute ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


I have seen a fair few people moving in this direction. I feel it must be larger than the reverse. I may be wrong, but it certainly feels that way. 

 

I've met loads mate, even a young Borders Tory voting couple at the Festival last year who are fed up of the English Tories and Brexit.

 

If they have changed then anyone can (apart from all the auld duffers you see on social media,) they are beyond help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

image.png.7d4901c77c5bcf42bbfa87a7506b58c9.png

More freebies to the people who don't contribute. Why do I have to pay for other peoples kids to get free education up to tertiary level whether they are suited to it or not; money towards nurseries; free prescriptions and now free travel? I even have to pay for them to have IVF if they are unable or incapable because they don't have the right bits, to have them naturally...

 

Surely a sensible government would be seeking to get its people to be responsible for and pay for their own children, and make having children a balanced choice and not just another unthinking freebie?

 

The biggest problem with socialism is that it removes the consideration aspect of decisions. People have children they don't want or are too ill-educated to avoid having or even to raise, or because they are a means to an end (social housing).

 

The problem with giving benefits/freebies is that it is nigh on impossible to take them away again once you realise you cannot afford them, or they are being abused...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

I've met loads mate, even a young Borders Tory voting couple at the Festival last year who are fed up of the English Tories and Brexit.

 

If they have changed then anyone can (apart from all the auld duffers you see on social media,) they are beyond help.


It’s always going to be difficult to properly gauge, but I do know plenty people who voted NO who are now YES. A few are English born who have settled here.

 

Could be just as many moving in the other direction though, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

More freebies to the people who don't contribute. Why do I have to pay for other peoples kids to get free education up to tertiary level whether they are suited to it or not; money towards nurseries; free prescriptions and now free travel? I even have to pay for them to have IVF if they are unable or incapable because they don't have the right bits, to have them naturally...

 

Surely a sensible government would be seeking to get its people to be responsible for and pay for their own children, and make having children a balanced choice and not just another unthinking freebie?

 

The biggest problem with socialism is that it removes the consideration aspect of decisions. People have children they don't want or are too ill-educated to avoid having or even to raise, or because they are a means to an end (social housing).

 

The problem with giving benefits/freebies is that it is nigh on impossible to take them away again once you realise you cannot afford them, or they are being abused...


I’m going to have a wee stab in the dark here and just assume you are being facetious? :D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
1 minute ago, Spellczech said:

More freebies to the people who don't contribute. Why do I have to pay for other peoples kids to get free education up to tertiary level whether they are suited to it or not; money towards nurseries; free prescriptions and now free travel? I even have to pay for them to have IVF if they are unable or incapable because they don't have the right bits, to have them naturally...

 

Surely a sensible government would be seeking to get its people to be responsible for and pay for their own children, and make having children a balanced choice and not just another unthinking freebie?

 

The biggest problem with socialism is that it removes the consideration aspect of decisions. People have children they don't want or are too ill-educated to avoid having or even to raise, or because they are a means to an end (social housing).

 

The problem with giving benefits/freebies is that it is nigh on impossible to take them away again once you realise you cannot afford them, or they are being abused...

 

Why should I have to pay thousands of pounds in tax to pay for schools? I don't have kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
1 minute ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


I’m going to have a wee stab in the dark here and just assume you are being facetious? :D

 

 

 

Wit till the "bribing the young" voters chat starts :rofl:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Space Mackerel said:

 

Wit till the "bribing the young" voters chat starts :rofl:

 

 


I think his post was at least partly tongue in cheek. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Well the first half of your post clearly is trying to make the point that “they are doing a great job on education” as per my response.

 

and your three words at the end are a supremely sarcastic way of suggesting that everyone who says the SNP are failing on education are talking nonsense.  

 

That's certainly one particularly motivated way of reading things into what I wrote.

 

But no,

image.jpeg.1caaa0d11705f780f243c4051e25b60f.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
2 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:


I think his post was at least partly tongue in cheek. 👍

 

He/she thought the Spanish still had a veto on Scotland joining the EU until a few hours ago. 😕

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

He/she thought the Spanish still had a veto on Scotland joining the EU until a few hours ago. 😕


Yes, I know. It was me who was replying to him.

 

I just don’t believe that his last post was entirely serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
Just now, Special Officer Doofy said:


Yes, I know. It was me who was replying to him.

 

I just don’t believe that his last post was entirely serious.

 

You cannot take many of the Unionists posts on here seriously, most of it is ill informed drivel gleaned off Annie Wells Facebook page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor
27 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Auld Carcrash having another yin. 

 

Unionist GRIEVANCE! 😁😁😁
 

 

Jackson brings the same levels of fuddery to the job as mooth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
Just now, The Mighty Thor said:

Jackson brings the same levels of fuddery to the job as mooth. 

The unionist politicians in that Scottish Parliament are atrocious. It’s almost like they don’t want power anymore. Goon after bigger goon after bigger goon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this free buses for under 18 going to work? Do they all get bus passes? Can they use them anytime? Who get priority at peak times? Workers, Pensioners, school kids, students? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

manaliveits105

As governments worldwide have taken climate change on board green parties are superfluous and Patrick Harvie is an irrelevance which fits in perfectly with the sexual nuisance party politics

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor
1 minute ago, manaliveits105 said:

As governments worldwide have taken climate change on board green parties are superfluous and Patrick Harvie is an irrelevance which fits in perfectly with the sexual nuisance party politics

 

There is much to admire in this one.

 

Good work 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
47 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

The unionist politicians in that Scottish Parliament are atrocious. It’s almost like they don’t want power anymore. Goon after bigger goon after bigger goon. 


You can just imagine all the under 55’s flocking  back to Jackson Carlaw and Annie Wells eh? :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
35 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

There is much to admire in this one.

 

Good work 👍


I think he means I like cheese but I don’t like cheese too? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor
7 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:


I think he means I like cheese but I don’t like cheese too? 

Never try to second guess a mind and intellect like that. 👍

Edited by The Mighty Thor
Link to comment
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.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...