Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh....

And as if having one SNP MP exposed for dodgy dealings wasn't bad enough, just a few days later, there's a second one.

Alert readers may remember the furore caused by highly offensive remarks of SNP MP Paul Monaghan when he said living in the UK under the Conservative government was akin to living in Hitler's Third Reich.

Not to mention being exposed as a cybernat, and posting comments online under a fake name, comments which are frankly too offensive to repeat here but involved slurs on the Royal Family and smear campaigns against opponents.

Well as it happens, he appears to have a rather sordid history himself...

He used to own/run a home for the elderly, which faced allegations of ill-treatment of residents and sexual harassment of staff in the mid 90's, and was ultimately shut down by social care services.


http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-selection-under-fire-over-second-mp-1-3906656#ixzz3ne7X2VzD

Given the above are a matter of public record and were reported in the press, the SNP vetting process now looks utterly incompetent, particularly given Monaghan was also suspended from his job with Highland Police before quitting prior to a disciplinary hearing.

I suspect this story will also run and run....

I suspect you're completely wasting your time hoping so. I'm afraid that buying homes below market value isn't a crime as yet. In fact, even Location, Location, Location love a good deal. It's the mortgage fraud that's the issue. There are loads and loads of MP's with 'interests' in 'property'.

Regarding Paul Monaghan ? Isn't that story something dredged up from the 1990's ? About 25 years ago ? It's kind of getting a little desperate. If that really is the best the media have in smears.. Is that the best they could find ?

People vote for policies. Not stories dredged up from the mists of time ( and I suspect Mr Monaghans' comments aren't far from what a lot of Labour people also think about living under the Tories ).. and vague reports about family members who may or may not have...insert whatever you like.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I call that for what it is, an artificial way of gerrymandering for three objectives

1. To maintain the illusion of greater austerity than there actually is, while blaming the lack of funds on Wicked Westminster and the lack of Magic Powers
2. To maintain an ability to preload any given financial year which might contain a Neverendum with additional funds to give the impression of fiscal security and responsibility
3. The maintenance of the SNP war chest from which to draw for their next White Paper and other misuses of Public money


It is surely realised by now by even the most witless of SNP supporters that to maintain the aspirations of a high welfare expenditure (I include the education budget in that), it would be necessary to increase taxes to pay for it. Yet the SNP dodge fiscal honesty and play their pathetic games with Scottish people's lives.

The higher than UK average Scottish funding is intended to mitigate shortfalls of funding in Scotland, not act as a misappropriated treasure chest for the SNP.

So then string. How do you explain underspends when Labour was in Scottish Govt ? They did so quite a lot and even handed 'unused' money back to Westminster instead of rolling it into the next years Scottish budget ?

I expect you've gotten a bit caught up with leaping in instantly with the SNP BAD stuff.. and neglected to process the fact that underspends are a part of Scottish Govt life. And always have been.

Or are you happy to apply the same rant to Labour govt's in charge too ? And there were no 'neverendum's' on the cards then either. There's an election in the offing. Labour are desperate to win seats back. I seriously doubt an SNP govt apparently 'living within it's means'.. is going to be any sort of vote loser any time soon. Both the Tories and Labour live by that mantra these days. I see no reason to castigate the SNP for simply doing the same.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ouch....

No. I don't think so

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Social justice, SNP style.....

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So then string. How do you explain underspends when Labour was in Scottish Govt ?

A clumsy attempt at deflection Shakey but I'm not going to humour you. Being concerned with the here and now I don't feel the need to explain anything about Labour's action all those years ago. Different times, different political realities.

I think my criticism of the SNP is very much to the point, an SNP that is blathering on about Westminster-imposed austerity while not bothering to use the tools and available budget to mitigate the situation.

Purely cynical whinging on the SNP's part.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

How do you explain underspends when Labour was in Scottish Govt ?

I see no reason to castigate the SNP for simply doing the same.

So your entire argument revolves around the SNP simply being as incompetent as Labour.

Well that's one way to get me to agree with you.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Regarding Paul Monaghan ? Isn't that story something dredged up from the 1990's ? About 25 years ago ?

I completely forgot that sexual harassment is perfectly fine so long as it didn't happen last week.

What was I thinking....:o

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

A clumsy attempt at deflection Shakey but I'm not going to humour you. Being concerned with the here and now I don't feel the need to explain anything about Labour's action all those years ago. Different times, different political realities.

I think my criticism of the SNP is very much to the point, an SNP that is blathering on about Westminster-imposed austerity while not bothering to use the tools and available budget to mitigate the situation.

Purely cynical whinging on the SNP's part.

Nah. You just failed to see that I'd posted that Labour Governments in Scotland had underspends too. Sometimes massive ones. It isn't deflection to ask why it's ok for a Labour govt to do so, but not the SNP.

It's not a set amount each year Scotland gets. And I can only assume that capital investments in infrastructure ( bridges, railways and such like ) are difficult to budget down to the last penny on. Among other things. Always good to have a little left over in case of 'eventualities'.. ( like Westminster cuts, and Tory governments cutting Barnet )..especially if it can be rolled over into the next years pot.

Prudent in fact. Living within one's means.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nah. You just failed to see that I'd posted that Labour Governments in Scotland had underspends too. Sometimes massive ones. It isn't deflection to ask why it's ok for a Labour govt to do so, but not the SNP.

It's not a set amount each year Scotland gets. And I can only assume that capital investments in infrastructure ( bridges, railways and such like ) are difficult to budget down to the last penny on. Among other things. Always good to have a little left over in case of 'eventualities'.. ( like Westminster cuts, and Tory governments cutting Barnet )..especially if it can be rolled over into the next years pot.

Prudent in fact. Living within one's means.

No- I'll not let you get away with that irrelevant point, my post explained why, different times different politics and austerity.

I stick by what I wrote.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Social justice, SNP style.....

We'll see. Due course and all that. But like I said, BMV markets aren't illegal, though personally I'm not keen on the predatory nature of the business. But they exist. All buyers and sellers in Scotland have by law to employ solicitors.. ( so I assume the sellers had their own representation and solicitors right ? ) and one lady bought her council house for 21k.... and seems furious that Michelle Thompson's solicitor bought it for 51K. I assume she had the option to refuse if she felt 30k wasn't enough profit and could've gone elsewhere rather than accepting the offer ?
In any case, it doesn't seem that she did particularly badly from that deal.

It's the fact that the deals were 'back to back' that's the problem for her solicitor and why he was struck off. He's the one that needs to answer the questions re mortgage fraud. If Thomson was aware then she should of course resign as an MP immediately. But we'll have to wait for investigations to conclude. Even if Mrs Thomson DOES have questions to answer and it gets to court.. Then there's very little chance of a fair trial now...given the newspaper headlines and front page kangaroo court convictions by the press such as you present.

At the present time Thomson is not being investigated, and hasn't been charged with anything at all. She has been found 'guilty' by association to this solicitor, and the SNP are now seemingly 'guilty' by association with Thomson. By the press and by people like yourself who have nothing else to pin on the SNP, and so have leapt like starving vultures on this. I hope they don't live to regret some of those headlines ( well actually I do ).