Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

Rinoa wrote: »

Police in Scotland issuing warnings about threatening behaviour from SNP supporters.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3071622/Fears-voting-Scotland-disrupted-intimidating-SNP-supporters-plan-arrive-late-follow-counting-staff-police-issue-warnings-polling-stations.html

yep and it was proven to be false .... Next .....

elantan

elantan

and the local council adding in it is wrong

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It is.
No-one denies that, however the party is capable of putting that aside and acting on the interests of the electorate.

I repeat again, Sturgeon has clarified that a vote for the SNP is not a vote for another referendum and that it is simply to unite the voice of Scotland to be greater at Westminster



Grooooaaaaan!!!

Give it a rest, when will you learn that your baiting techniques don't work?

Really, you come across (to me anyway) as a man holding a sandwich board citing "The end of the world is nigh"

Nicola's only concern is the good name of the SNP (with the Scottish electorate) and then independence : all other statement are subsidiary.
Find me a single statement which says we has renounced the quest for independence and specifically will seek no advantage for Scotland from supporting Labour.


Why do you support the subsidy of the richer Scottish to the detriment of the poor?
It's not even a English v Scottish issue ; it really is a poor versa rich issue but uncle Alex and Aunty Nicola have made it some sort of proxy for Scottish independence.

elantan

Blinding hatred today ... you must be panicking:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

Find me a single statement which says we has renounced the quest for independence and specifically will seek no advantage for Scotland from supporting Labour.

Nicola Sturgeon: vote for SNP is not vote for second independence referendum

To your second carefully worded part of your question, of course the SNP MP's will be representing the electorate in their constituencies and therefore look to argue their point as effectively as they could.

Same as Conservative MP Andrew Jones would be looking for advantage for his party and electorate in Harrogate, or Labour MP Deborah Abrahams would for her party and constituency in Oldham East, or Lib Dems MP Simon Wright would for his party and constituency in Norwich South or UKIP MP John Douglas Wilson Carswell would for his party and constituency in Clacton.

I don't see what point you are making rather than trying to disrespect MP's from Scotland representing their electorate in Westminster

CLAPTON wrote: »

Why do you support the subsidy of the richer Scottish to the detriment of the poor?
It's not even a English v Scottish issue ; it really is a poor versa rich issue but uncle Alex and Aunty Nicola have made it some sort of proxy for Scottish independence.

I don't, but I believe in the free University tuition for all.

I'm very fortunate in being able that I could afford to put my children through University if needed, but I detest the potential that my or indeed other children's potential could be compromised because of government policy.

It should be means tested by ability, not affordability.

Why are you so against children of ability from poor background being allowed the opportunity to better themselves?

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Nicola Sturgeon: vote for SNP is not vote for second independence referendum

To your second carefully worded part of your question, of course the SNP MP's will be representing the electorate in their constituencies and therefore look to argue their point as effectively as they could.

Same as Conservative MP Andrew Jones would be looking for advantage for his party and electorate in Harrogate, or Labour MP Deborah Abrahams would for her party and constituency in Oldham East, or Lib Dems MP Simon Wright would for his party and constituency in Norwich South or UKIP MP John Douglas Wilson Carswell would for his party and constituency in Clacton.

I don't see what point you are making rather than trying to disrespect MP's from Scotland representing their electorate in Westminster



I don't, but I believe in the free University tuition for all.

I'm very fortunate in being able that I could afford to put my children through University if needed, but I detest the potential that my or indeed other children's potential could be compromised because of government policy.

It should be means tested by ability, not affordability.

Why are you so against children of ability from poor background being allowed the opportunity to better themselves?

The cost of UNi education runs into billions.

Subsidising uni education clearly helps the rich and not the poor.
It is equivalent to a massive tax cut for rich people.

There is no disincentives for the able but poor, to go to Uni as they pay nothing at the point of delivery.

The billions could be used to help the poorer but clever children to aspire to and achieve Uni education, it could be used to improve primary school education, it could be used to improve the health service or improve infrastructure or numerous things that help the less fortunate in society
instead is goes to
- the rich parents who would otherwise pay for their kids - £100,000s per rich parent with several kids
- it subsidises graduates who are going to earn a lot

but is doesn't help anyone that doesn't go to Uni (mainly the poor)
or any graduate that doesn't earn much more than 21,000

Uni fees don't stop anyone going to Uni that has the ability.

princeofpounds

Subsidising uni education clearly helps the rich and not the poor.

Should all subsidies, by necessity, go to the poor?


Or should we acknowledge that some subsidies could, possibly, be allocated on the basis of other factors, such as ability or utility?


It might be a massive tax cut for the rich, if you want to look at is that way, but they already pay so much more tax and require so much less expenditure than anyone else anyway.


I'm not necessarily against charging for university education. We are short of money and I understand much of the rationale.


But this specific and deeper idea that the only permissible role of state spending is to redistribute wealth seems never to be questioned, in university spending or anywhere else.

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

Should all subsidies, by necessity, go to the poor?


Or should we acknowledge that some subsidies could, possibly, be allocated on the basis of other factors, such as ability or utility?


It might be a massive tax cut for the rich, if you want to look at is that way, but they already pay so much more tax and require so much less expenditure than anyone else anyway.


I'm not necessarily against charging for university education. We are short of money and I understand much of the rationale.


But this specific and deeper idea that the only permissible role of state spending is to redistribute wealth seems never to be questioned, in university spending or anywhere else.

yes, indeed


there is a very Thatcherite 'trickle down theory' isn't there?

Give a lot to the rich and a little gets to the poor.

If Scotland doesn't need more money for the NHS or schools or for roads/infrastructure or to encourage the clever but disadvantaged to attend Uni, then wouldn't it be better to reduce taxation on the rich so they can choose how to spend it themselves?

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

...
If Scotland doesn't need more money for the NHS or schools or for roads/infrastructure or to encourage the clever but disadvantaged to attend Uni, then wouldn't it be better to reduce taxation on the rich so they can choose how to spend it themselves?

I don't mind Scotland having a different division of spend; roads vs education etc.

The key issue with me is the near £15bn per annum subsidy being shown towards Scotland, and whilst this exists there will always be the suspicion from other UK voters that the arrangement is being used to pay for things which know we can not afford down here.

Perhaps rather than reduce the £15bn subsidy we should increase general taxation and spend an additional £15bn on rUK. Then the voters down here can decide on improved roads / free prescriptions etc. It would put an end to any allegations of unfairness.