Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Froggitt

Leanne1812 wrote: »

You made me smile Elantan as my hubby & I were chatting earlier and laughing saying we think we might be conservatives!:rotfl: I do like Ruth Davidson and agree with some of what she says but I cannot support a party that I feel looks after the top of the tree first & foremost.

It's not so much the top of the tree, as the wealth creators. People who create successful businesses and employ people. Policies that force those wealth creators to move to lower tax countries (taking their businesses and their jobs with them) directly impact the poorer in society.


Also if HSBC is thinking of relocating to Hong Kong or Singapore, that's an £8bn hole in the budget to fill......so as much as the SNP and Labour may want to tax the rich and the banks, if the rich and the banks disappear, its a pretty pointless tax.

IveSeenTheLight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Murdoch wants the SNP squeezing Labour out in Scotland, and the Tories squeezing them out in England. Well duhhh ! Wake up Hamish..

Newspapers just go with what they think their buyers want to read.
Hence in England, the Sun back Tories and warns against the SNP, whilst in Scotland, they cite Sturgeon as an inspirational leader.

Be careful what you read and always consider the background

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

It's rather like discussing debt with Mr Micawber, "Something will come along".

One could say the same when debating with a Conservative voter.

They seem to say one thing in the hope that it sticks whilst refutting that falacy later.

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed....

Although in the case of Scotland, 'something' turns out to be just more debt....

Hmmm, it's interesting how you read that chart.
Certainly over the whole period, it appears that the relative debt has been built up in the RoUK.

If fairness applied across the UK, that graph should be pretty much 0 through the whole period.

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Lets change the scenario to reality. Rather than your over optimistic money grows on trees one. You are not paying off your debt. Your debt is growing. Not only that but there is a very real possibility that the USA will change it's monetary policy in the next 18 months. So your cheap mortgage may not remain low indefinately. The world will move into a different era than the one it's enjoyed for the past 6 years.

Like I said, lt's all about choices - we have a choice about how quickly we reduce the annual defecit, how much we choose to spend and how much we choose to invest. All these will have an effect on when the annual defecit is reduced or eliminated and when the total national debt is cut.

Parties seem to like comparing national budgets to family ones. The current offer by the main parties at Westminster seems to be for us NOW to solve a problem that has taken decades or longer to create. Hence the analogy I used.

What disgusts me is that those claiming to have made the "difficult decisions" know well that these decisions have scarcely touched the already wealthy and powerful - the decisions certianly will not push any of their backers into poverty or using a food bank.

The Conservatives, for instance, want to continue to bear down on the country's debt - a fair enough objective, but they don't propose to raise a penny of it from the better off. True, they intend to crack down on tax evasion and avoidance - but to me that makes no odds - it would be immoral for any party NOT to clamp down on those who break the law, or to take steps to try to stop legal, but unintentionally allowed "aggressive" avoidance. They should have done it anyway whether there was a deficit or not. At its most basic, everyone with an ISA "evades" tax but they do it by a legal means arising from deliberate, publicly debated, government policy.

(FWIW, I have said on this forum before that I don't consider the ongoing tax-free status of shares ISAs to be sustainable. The country is broke, seemingly, yet these "hard working families" pay income tax on everything above the personal allowance. Meanwhile you can sit on your @rse and have tens of thousands of pounds dividend income from ISAs and pay zip. By all means have a substantial personal allowance - (say the average take home pay for a skilled worker?) but all of it tax free for ever? I don't see how a country that is so poor that employed folk have to use food banks can afford it. I have a shaes ISA, BTW.)

They talk about wanting to save a pound out of every hundred the Government spends - that's fine. But these pounds are not going to come from all people equally. The cumulative effect of all these unspent "pounds" means that those bearing the cuts are the ones who rely on these same government pounds for a significant part of, or their only, source of income - when they are already struggling - like disability living allowance/PIPs, and other support for the poor, the sick and the unemployed, for instance. By that means they continue to allow (for want of a better expression) their "pals" to carry on as if none of the country's problems are any of their responsibility or concern, I consider that cruel, unjust and, frankly, evil.

For a politician, a decision is not a "difficult" one if it does not affect that politician personally or those upon whom that politician relies for politicl support. The Conservative Party is not interested in "difficult" decisions - it is interested in cowardly ones.

WR

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

I doubt that Miliband, Cameron and the vast majority of people have any distaste for Scotland. They do however, like me, have no taste for divisive Nationalists and the hatred they bring with them.

Generali,

The only people who bring hatred into these forums are so called unionists.

Generali wrote: »

Once again you conflate the SNP and Scotland. Scotland isn't voting SNP. A lot of Scottish people, perhaps even half of Scottish people, are voting SNP. That's not the same thing as Scotland voting SNP, not by a long chalk.

Of course you are correct statistically on this, which beggers the question, when was there last a 50% vote or more for one party in the UK?

Once again you are promoting PR, which the SNP have in their manifesto, yet the Conservatives do not.

Do you just want to change the voting system when the votes don't go in your favour?

Of course, you would prefer that the elected members in Scotland were split amongst all parties, in order to strengthen your likelihood of a Conservative government at Westminster.

Maybe, the Conservative ought to try and address the issue they have across the whole of the UK, instead of relying on their safe seats and hope the other parties capitulate

IveSeenTheLight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well see that's the strange thing in this double standard world of yours Generali.

........................

Again, then I must point out your double standards.

I have the utmost respect to Generali on many issues, but certainly when it comes to politics, he has a staunch no movement, no understanding of what happens outside of his preference.

It is distasteful when he lowers himself to "lies, division and bitterness" he posts on these forums

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

That, of course, is what we expect from divisive hate-fueled Nationalist parties. It is what they do.

Its what you do when discussing politics Generali.

Have a look back and read who brings up hatred or racism. It's not the SNP voters.

Lets try to get back to debating the points at hand and consider the points from all sides f the debate

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure why you don't understand this bit so I'll try again using very short words. The important bit is in bold, I'm not being shouty, just using it for emphasis.

The parties that win the three largest numbers of seats get to have a member on each select committee. As a result, the SNP will have to work with Labour and the Conservatives and Labour and the Conservatives will have to work with the SNP. If they don't there'll be chaos.

However, no party is obliged to include any other party in any sort of a deal.

The current PM gets the first go at setting up a Government. If (s)he is confident that he can then he will go to the Queen to ask if he can prepare the Queen's Speech. If he can't then the leader of the next biggest group gets a go and so on. If Cam or Miliband can't do it then Ms S would get a chance. Perhaps she could persuade enough of the Labour Left plus some odds and sods to form a Government or perhaps she can't. Perhaps she won't even get the chance because someone else will get in there first.

If nobody can form a Government, Cameron remains as PM and a new election is called.

In The FPTP system, if neither Conservatice or Labour cannot form a government, there's no way the third largest party (regardless of whom they are) with only 50 odd seats would be able to form a government.

So whilst your trying to be humorous, it simply wont happen.

Most likely is that there would be a minority government that would have to work bloody hard with the other parties to gain acceptance of policies for the duration of the next parliament.

It wouldn't be easy, but it can be done.

Most likely a Labour minority government on a vote by vote basis.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Generali,

The only people who bring hatred into these forums are so called unionists.



Of course you are correct statistically on this, which beggers the question, when was there last a 50% vote or more for one party in the UK?

Once again you are promoting PR, which the SNP have in their manifesto, yet the Conservatives do not.

Do you just want to change the voting system when the votes don't go in your favour?

Of course, you would prefer that the elected members in Scotland were split amongst all parties, in order to strengthen your likelihood of a Conservative government at Westminster.

Maybe, the Conservative ought to try and address the issue they have across the whole of the UK, instead of relying on their safe seats and hope the other parties capitulate

Nope. Wrong on all counts.

FPTP works very well when you effectively have a 2 party system. With a 6 party system it's ludicrous. The Greens, UKIP and Lib Dems will all get far more votes than the SNP but far fewer seats.

PR all but ensures that there will never be a Conservative Government again.