The rise and fall of The SNP.

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

A few tax evaders hanging from lampposts will close the loopholes but it wont change society. Radical surgery is required.

 

It is, yeah.

 

[Pans Jambo]

6 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

These are all opinions and guesses not facts. Whilst the UK benefited when oil revenues were high Scotland has benefited when the oil crashed and indeed before in the 250 years before the oil arrived. Better Together in action for the whole UK methinks.

 

I've not been" lathering about a few Billion quid" . Thirty Billion plus actually and counting. I was just pointing it out but of course incurred the wrath of the Tartan Taliban who refuse to believe anything coming from Westminster is true or good.

[coconut doug]

3 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

You are right cheery soul are you not. 

 

I am well aware that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It will have to paid for. What is the alternative. Letting companies and household collapse? Something had to be done.

There are lots of possibilities many of which could be better for Scotlland than that currently offered. Why can't you see that? 

 

[jambos are go!]

9 hours ago, coconut doug said:

There are lots of possibilities many of which could be better for Scotlland than that currently offered. Why can't you see that? 

 

Enlighten me.

[Pans Jambo]

14 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Privatise the profits, Nationalise the losses. It's the Capitalist way.

 

You know, the system that needs bailed out by socialism every 10 years or so.

[coconut doug]

2 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

Enlighten me.

 

So far this has proved to be beyond the collective ability of JKB. This is something you have to do for yourself.

 

You might start by engaging constructively in the conversations rather than just offering questions or trite remarks like the one above.

 

Going back to my previous point. Do you accept that the current arrangements discriminate in favour of London and the SE where wages are higher?

 

If so can you see that the government might have offered assistance more efficiently?

[jambos are go!]

London is a white collar City which has around a third of Covid19 cases in the UK. So there might a lot of home working possible therefore avoiding Bailout payments . On the other hand the disease seems rampant. I would rather have a bailout than coivid 19 me thinks.

 

I think the average wage in the UK is Around 27k and I imagine it is much higher in London and the South East. So they stand to lose a lot more than the average British worker given 2500 limit a month equates to 30k a yea r which is around the national average.

 

 I will continue to expose nonsense when I see it.

[JackLadd]

Sturgeon will likely come out of C19 enhanced, even I can see she is effective in her role, but that doesn't mean Aye2 should happen or that if it did - and she succeeded in convincing enough dafties - that Scotland wouldn't suffer hugely. The SNP are not remotely capable of creating a separate self-sustaining nation state, certainly not in the current climate. The thought alone of being on some Scots pound with a customs border with England would see all the money and talent leave Scotland next day. And all the no vote ex-pats that sit on their arses in England and elsewhere (like that Wings Over Scotland clown) and pontificate how great iScotland would be are not going to come running back and give up their UK passports and sterling either. So, Sturgeon, well done on managing this crisis and showing that you are a capable administrator, no doubt the best person to be in charge right now, BUT in no way does that validate the folly of breaking up the Union and going cap in hand to Brussels.     

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, jambos are go! said:

I will continue to propagate nonsense when I see it.

 

We know.

[jambos are go!]

7 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

So far this has proved to be beyond the collective ability of JKB. This is something you have to do for yourself.

 

You might start by engaging constructively in the conversations rather than just offering questions or trite remarks like the one above.

 

Going back to my previous point. Do you accept that the current arrangements discriminate in favour of London and the SE where wages are higher?

 

If so can you see that the government might have offered assistance more efficiently?

Another point . The fact that wages in the London Area are higher means that the limit of 2500 discriminates against Londoners and favours areas workers in the rest of the UK. Do you agree???

[Space Mackerel]

3 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

Another point . The fact that wages in the London Area are higher means that the limit of 2500 discriminates against Londoners and favours areas workers in the rest of the UK. Do you agree???

You only get the max £2500 if your profits are BELOW £50,000 per financial year. 

[jambos are go!]

23 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

You only get the max £2500 if your profits are BELOW £50,000 per financial year. 

Dear oh dear. I give up. Almost

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, jambos are go! said:

London is a white collar City which has around a third of Covid19 cases in the UK. So there might a lot of home working possible therefore avoiding Bailout payments . On the other hand the disease seems rampant. I would rather have a bailout than coivid 19 me thinks.

 

I think the average wage in the UK is Around 27k and I imagine it is much higher in London and the South East. So they stand to lose a lot more than the average British worker given 2500 limit a month equates to 30k a yea r which is around the national average.

 

 I will continue to expose nonsense when I see it.

 

You claim to be exposing nonsense. I made only one claim which is  "Do you accept that the current arrangements discriminate in favour of London and the SE where wages are higher?" so clearly you think this is the nonsense.

 

It is absolutely not nonsense and is easily checked. The average wage for London is more than £150 per week higher for the UK as a whole. This means that if all else is equal then Londoners availing themselves of the government scheme will be at least £100 per week better off than on average. That's going by your £27K figure which would give the average UK worker £21600. In London where the average salary is now around £37k https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8456/   a worker on the average London wage would now get very close to £30k .

 

 This i believe is irrefutable but you want us to believe there are other factors more prevalent in London which would mean payments to London companies are likely to be less overall. It's entirely possible of course but the case is not argued at all.

 

  You tell us that London is a white collar city so there might be a lot of home working and so less in bailouts but you offer no figures. Is there a correlation between the number of white collar workers and the uptake of the government scheme. If the system is going to be abused and it will surely it will be much easier for white collar employers to do that. I can't see them foregoing £30k per employee subsidy, can you?  

 

London does have more white collar worker but it is not substantially more and certainly not a game changer 

 

 How many Londoners would have to be homeworking before the money they took from the government was proportionately less than the rest of the country?

 

You also tell us that London has a third of UK Covid cases and that this statistic supports your notion that there will be more homeworking and less subsidy taken. I'm afraid that's totally beyond my level of comprehension.

 

You then tell us "I would rather have a bailout than coivid 19 me thinks." I honestly did not realise there was a choice.

 

You also seem to think Londoners are missing out because they are not getting their full wage and so many of them will lose a lot more than the average UK worker. My point is that they will get more than the average and that this arrangement is intrinsically unfair because of that fact. Don't you see that a proportionately higher amount of this £330 Billion will be spent in London. Londoners will get more support than others. People all over the country will be risking their lives for minimum wage while the already well salaried Londoners sit on their backsides being paid almost twice as much for doing nothing. 

[Unknown user]

3 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

Another point . The fact that wages in the London Area are higher means that the limit of 2500 discriminates against Londoners and favours areas workers in the rest of the UK. Do you agree???

Aye aye, calm doon, 3 question marks ffs

 

FWIW I don't agree at all, just because something's designed to help the worst off doesnt mean it's discriminatory against the best off.

 

Is unemployment benefit discriminatory towards the employed or simply aimed at those who actually need it?

 

Is the idea to keep the well off in the manner to which they've become accustomed or to keep everyone going?

[coconut doug]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Aye aye, calm doon, 3 question marks ffs

 

FWIW I don't agree at all, just because something's designed to help the worst off doesnt mean it's discriminatory against the best off.

 

Is unemployment benefit discriminatory towards the employed or simply aimed at those who actually need it?

 

Is the idea to keep the well off in the manner to which they've become accustomed or to keep everyone going?

 

That's my point £2500 a month is too much especially in the context of our miserly minimum wage and our £26k benefits cap. 

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

That's my point £2500 a month is too much especially in the context of our miserly minimum wage and our £26k benefits cap. 

 

The tories cant afford to alienate the middle classes.

As a nation we could have suspended rent, mortgages etc and gone down a universal basic income route where every single adult gets x amount. It costs much, much less to implement because of the simplicity, can be done quickly and simply and doesn't need to be done through businesses (so of course the tories will hate it).

 

But equality's no good, the poor don't deserve to be treated as well as the rich.

[jambos are go!]

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

 

You claim to be exposing nonsense. I made only one claim which is  "Do you accept that the current arrangements discriminate in favour of London and the SE where wages are higher?" so clearly you think this is the nonsense.

 

It is absolutely not nonsense and is easily checked. The average wage for London is more than £150 per week higher for the UK as a whole. This means that if all else is equal then Londoners availing themselves of the government scheme will be at least £100 per week better off than on average. That's going by your £27K figure which would give the average UK worker £21600. In London where the average salary is now around £37k https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8456/   a worker on the average London wage would now get very close to £30k .

 

 This i believe is irrefutable but you want us to believe there are other factors more prevalent in London which would mean payments to London companies are likely to be less overall. It's entirely possible of course but the case is not argued at all.

 

  You tell us that London is a white collar city so there might be a lot of home working and so less in bailouts but you offer no figures. Is there a correlation between the number of white collar workers and the uptake of the government scheme. If the system is going to be abused and it will surely it will be much easier for white collar employers to do that. I can't see them foregoing £30k per employee subsidy, can you?  

 

London does have more white collar worker but it is not substantially more and certainly not a game changer 

 

 How many Londoners would have to be homeworking before the money they took from the government was proportionately less than the rest of the country?

 

You also tell us that London has a third of UK Covid cases and that this statistic supports your notion that there will be more homeworking and less subsidy taken. I'm afraid that's totally beyond my level of comprehension.

 

You then tell us "I would rather have a bailout than coivid 19 me thinks." I honestly did not realise there was a choice.

 

You also seem to think Londoners are missing out because they are not getting their full wage and so many of them will lose a lot more than the average UK worker. My point is that they will get more than the average and that this arrangement is intrinsically unfair because of that fact. Don't you see that a proportionately higher amount of this £330 Billion will be spent in London. Londoners will get more support than others. People all over the country will be risking their lives for minimum wage while the already well salaried Londoners sit on their backsides being paid almost twice as much for doing nothing. 

The average  wage of around 27k covers the whole UK so the average UK worker will also be getting almost twice minimum wage. Do you disagree?priority.

You also only get the benefit of you are not working so employers  all over the UK can't claim if staff are working from hom e. 

 

 The debate seems to have moved on here to the distribution of the 330 billion because anything beneficial from Westminster must be attacked and discredited by the Tartan Taliban.

 

Hard to believe that less than a week ago the usual Tartan Taliban suspects o n here were saying I was talking nonsense when I said 330 Billion was being made available. They said it was only 30 Billion which has turned out be nonsense. But that is just passed over.

 

 

BTW I support tackling low wages and benefits levels as a UK wide priority

[jack D and coke]

7 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

The average  wage of around 27k covers the whole UK so the average UK worker will also be getting almost twice minimum wage. Do you disagree?priority.

You also only get the benefit of you are not working so employers  all over the UK can't claim if staff are working from hom e. 

 

 The debate seems to have moved on here to the distribution of the 330 billion because anything beneficial from Westminster must be attacked and discredited by the Tartan Taliban.

 

Hard to believe that less than a week ago the usual Tartan Taliban suspects o n here were saying I was talking nonsense when I said 330 Billion was being made available. They said it was only 30 Billion which has turned out be nonsense. But that is just passed over.

 

 

BTW I support tackling low wages and benefits levels as a UK wide priority

[coconut doug]

10 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

The tories cant afford to alienate the middle classes.

As a nation we could have suspended rent, mortgages etc and gone down a universal basic income route where every single adult gets x amount. It costs much, much less to implement because of the simplicity, can be done quickly and simply and doesn't need to be done through businesses (so of course the tories will hate it).

 

But equality's no good, the poor don't deserve to be treated as well as the rich.

Absolutely this. El Salvador adopted this approach straight away. The Labour voter JAG however tells us there is no alternative to the Tory plans. 

[GinRummy]

9 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Tartan Taliban is an absolute brilliant phrase. 😂😂😂

[ri Alban]

25 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Tartan Taliban is an absolute brilliant phrase. 😂😂😂

Not as good as Tory Scum!

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

Not as good as Tory Scum!

It’s funnier. 

[coconut doug]

10 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

The average  wage of around 27k covers the whole UK so the average UK worker will also be getting almost twice minimum wage. Do you disagree?priority.

You also only get the benefit of you are not working so employers  all over the UK can't claim if staff are working from hom e. 

 

 The debate seems to have moved on here to the distribution of the 330 billion because anything beneficial from Westminster must be attacked and discredited by the Tartan Taliban.

 

Hard to believe that less than a week ago the usual Tartan Taliban suspects o n here were saying I was talking nonsense when I said 330 Billion was being made available. They said it was only 30 Billion which has turned out be nonsense. But that is just passed over.

 

 

BTW I support tackling low wages and benefits levels as a UK wide priority

 

Yes I accept that £27k is the average wage and that the average UK worker will get a good bit more than minimum wage. That has no bearing on my argument though because we are an exceedingly unequal society and when the support package is viewed at regional levels it can be demonstrated that the amount of support for London far exceeds the support available for any other part of the UK and that is unfair. The average wage for London is around £37k and this means that the average wage for almost all other regions is considerably less than the UK  £27k average. It is around £23k in NE England. A worker in London on London average wage get more than £200 per week more than a worker on the average wage in the North East. Both will be doing nothing.

Do you understand that point and if so do you accept that it is unfair.

We are discussing the £330billion rescue package. Discussion of the chancellor’s £30billion stimulus was with another poster and you were confused because each of you were talking about different things. Nothing to do with me. Nice attempt at deflection though.

Your Tartan Taliban comment is the next natural step i.e. abuse. This package is not a good package. It skews resources to London and the better off. Smithee outlined a far more sensible and effective range of options and gave reasons for them being better. Are you telling us that our reasoning is flawed because we are the Tartan Taliban?

You tell us “BTW I support tackling low wages and benefits levels as a UK wide priority” . If you do you should not support this scheme which is only helping the better off to avoid low wages. For many people particularly those o/s London wages will fall below minimum.

[Pans Jambo]

What Mandate for a 2nd Indyref are you talking about???

 

 

[GinRummy]

2 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

What Mandate for a 2nd Indyref are you talking about???

 

 

There’s no doubt a case for it but what strikes me as really unfair is that if they had another referendum and it was another no, if the snp then got a boost in voting figures after it does that mean we just keep having referendums every few years?

 

The Yes voters only need to win once but if that win comes hot on the heals of a few defeats it stinks tbh. 

[ri Alban]

4 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

There’s no doubt a case for it but what strikes me as really unfair is that if they had another referendum and it was another no, if the snp then got a boost in voting figures after it does that mean we just keep having referendums every few years?

 

The Yes voters only need to win once but if that win comes hot on the heals of a few defeats it stinks tbh. 

It just means Scotland has changed it's mind. Unionists can campaign for rejoining post referendum. But it would have to be by referendum. 

[GinRummy]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

It just means Scotland has changed it's mind. Unionists can campaign for rejoining post referendum. But it would have to be by referendum. 

They can argue about it all they like but once we’re out we’re out imo and that’s why it seems fundamentally unfair. The last referendum was billed as a once in a generation vote. People already knew there was to be a referendum on eu membership and already knew the tories were in a strong position in England. 

[Pans Jambo]

9 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

There’s no doubt a case for it but what strikes me as really unfair is that if they had another referendum and it was another no, if the snp then got a boost in voting figures after it does that mean we just keep having referendums every few years?

 

The Yes voters only need to win once but if that win comes hot on the heals of a few defeats it stinks tbh. 

Its called democracy.

Truth is, the SNP isn't going away and neither is the constitutional question.

[manaliveits105]

Still be naw though - mon the 55 

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, GinRummy said:

They can argue about it all they like but once we’re out we’re out imo and that’s why it seems fundamentally unfair. The last referendum was billed as a once in a generation vote. People already knew there was to be a referendum on eu membership and already knew the tories were in a strong position in England. 

Please stop with that "once in a generational" pish. 

If you want to bang the drum why not say "once in a generation unless there's a material change of circumstances"? 

Seems folk have forgotten about that last part.

 

[Pans Jambo]

2 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Still be naw though - mon the 55 

Lets have the referendum and see. Naw?

[GinRummy]

Just now, Pans Jambo said:

Its called democracy.

Truth is, the SNP isn't going away and neither is the constitutional question.

Already said earlier in the thread that an independent Scotland is only a matter of time. The politics of the uk and the politics of the Scottish voter are completely incompatible. 
 

It strike me as undemocratic to keep calling for a referendum until getting the answer you want. What I would say is if we do have another one in the next few year (likely imo) a set minimum timescale for the next one, whether that’s ten, twenty or thirty years, needs to be agreed beforehand, in the event of a no.

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, Pans Jambo said:

Please stop with that "once in a generational" pish. 

If you want to bang the drum why not say "once in a generation unless there's a material change of circumstances"? 

Seems folk have forgotten about that last part.

 

I didn’t introduce it to the debate. Alex Salmond did, so no I won’t stop. The possibility of Brexit was already known, the tories already had power. 

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, GinRummy said:

Already said earlier in the thread that an independent Scotland is only a matter of time. The politics of the uk and the politics of the Scottish voter are completely incompatible. 
 

It strike me as undemocratic to keep calling for a referendum until getting the answer you want. What I would say is if we do have another one in the next few year (likely imo) a set minimum timescale for the next one, whether that’s ten, twenty or thirty years, needs to be agreed beforehand, in the event of a no.

Disagree with that even if its a Yes vote. Its a fundamental right to be able change your mind. The most powerful man on the planet can only stay in office for 4 years before the electorate get the chance to change their minds (or not). 

[GinRummy]

4 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Still be naw though - mon the 55 

I think it’s be yes this time. Obviously people get cold feet but my feeling is there’s enough support for it. The issue is the uk government would try and time it when support is on the decline. It’s going to happen, just set a date now for a year or two years ahead and stick to it, regardless of politics at that time. 

[Pans Jambo]

2 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

I didn’t introduce it to the debate. Alex Salmond did, so no I won’t stop. The possibility of Brexit was already known, the tories already had power. 

So complete the sentence then. 

 

There HAS been a material change has there not?

[GinRummy]

Just now, Pans Jambo said:

Disagree with that even if its a Yes vote. Its a fundamental right to be able change your mind. The most powerful man on the planet can only stay in office for 4 years before the electorate get the chance to change their minds (or not). 

Of course you disagree with it, you want independence. The more votes there are the more likely you are to get it.

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, GinRummy said:

Of course you disagree with it, you want independence. The more votes there are the more likely you are to get it.

You dont think folk should have the right to change their minds?

[GinRummy]

Just now, Pans Jambo said:

So complete the sentence then. 

 

There HAS been a material change has there not?

I won’t be railroaded into you putting words in my mouth. I think there is a case for another vote but in the event of a no there needs to be a halt to the constant ramping up for the next one. 

[Pans Jambo]

1 minute ago, GinRummy said:

I won’t be railroaded into you putting words in my mouth. I think there is a case for another vote but in the event of a no there needs to be a halt to the constant ramping up for the next one. 

I'm not, you're deliberately missing a vital part of the sentence which changes the argument completely makes your point null and void.

 

It's OK though.

Edited April 2, 2020 by Pans Jambo

[GinRummy]

Just now, Pans Jambo said:

You dont think folk should have the right to change their minds?

I’ve already explained earlier, it’s my belief that there’s no going back from independence. If things don’t go well after it I don’t believe there will ever be a chance to rejoin the uk. People would not be able to change their minds then, all imo obviously. 

[GinRummy]

Just now, Pans Jambo said:

I'm not, you're deliberately missing a vital part of the sentence which makes changes the argument completely makes your point null and void.

 

It's OK though.

Spell out what I’m missing. I think I’ve answered everything.

[Pans Jambo]

1 minute ago, GinRummy said:

I’ve already explained earlier, it’s my belief that there’s no going back from independence. If things don’t go well after it I don’t believe there will ever be a chance to rejoin the uk. People would not be able to change their minds then, all imo obviously. 

There will be no need to go back from independence. There's many a precedent for that!

(No single country that has gained independence from UK has asked to return to it).

[Pans Jambo]

2 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Spell out what I’m missing. I think I’ve answered everything.

"Material change in circumstances" part.

[GinRummy]

Just now, Pans Jambo said:

"Material change in circumstances" part.

So the Brexit vote or the unprecedented swell in snp support or...

[Pans Jambo]

3 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

So the Brexit vote or the unprecedented swell in snp support or...

Its Brexit.

Scotland was told vote No and remain part of the EU. Morning after the No vote, big Dave stood outside number 10 and announced EVEL and a Brexit vote and the rest is history.

[GinRummy]

5 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

There will be no need to go back from independence. There's many a precedent for that!

(No single country that has gained independence from UK has asked to return to it).

I never said they had.  It’ll become a circular argument but how many countries have voted on leaving British rule more than once?

 

[ri Alban]

21 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

They can argue about it all they like but once we’re out we’re out imo and that’s why it seems fundamentally unfair. The last referendum was billed as a once in a generation vote. People already knew there was to be a referendum on eu membership and already knew the tories were in a strong position in England. 

Tories weren't pro Brexit. This once in a generation bollox is that, bollox. As and NS would say something just to shut twat Unionist reporters up.  

Oh the EU referendum only came to be when the conservative party won the 2015 election, so sorry that's false anaw.

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, Pans Jambo said:

Its Brexit.

Scotland was told vote No and remain part of the EU. Morning after the No vote, big Dave stood outside number 10 and announced EVEL and a Brexit vote and the rest is history.

We knew a Brexit vote was on the cards before the independence vote but the Scottish people bottled it. I’m not against another vote but can’t help feeling, if it’s a no, there’ll be other reasons to plan for the next one as soon as the votes have been counted. 

[Pans Jambo]

1 minute ago, GinRummy said:

I never said they had.  It’ll become a circular argument but how many countries have voted on leaving British rule more than once?

 

I dont know the answer to that. Probably none but I would guess most of them left through blood letting.