morty
Registered user
watching the salmond/darling debate,my god salmond has made a complete arse of himself,he’s fucking clueless.
Yes or no. Scottish residents only please
- Thread starter Den
- Start date
- Status
Deleted account 210516001
Registered user
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 5,306
- Reaction score
- 1
I don't think he did that bad but Captain darling was better than I thought he was going to be. The big difference for me was in the quality of points raised by the audience from either side of the debate. I really expected the Yes campaign to have some killer questions planted in the audience. Instead they came over as not really very clued up about the nuts and bolts of the debate while the No supporters did manage to land some telling punches. I doubt if the debate will have changed minds on either side and I feel sorry for any genuine undecided voters who tuned in hoping for answers that would make it easier to jump one way or the other. This always was and still remains about a leap of faith in the poor light if not actual darkness. Some people have either a lot more faith or a lot less to lose and are willing to make that leap. Others, like me, remain unwilling to make that leap either because we still have too many unanswered questions to sustain the faith or because we have too much to lose if it goes wrong and little to gain personally if it goes right.
I agree with you Mr Bennysdad. I think Mr Salmond wasted the opportunity he had. Ive heard better debates in the pub. Darling was a bit shouty though and wasted a lot of time.
Like yourself, it is not going to change my mind. I have my reasons why I am voting yes and it is not all about money (of which I have very little)
There's no answer to this debate, as no one gives us a truthful answer to anything. Darling was, as usual defensive, nothing positive. Salmond, was not good, the debate was a waste of time we are no further on.
What I am sick of, is, the South East getting billions and billions of our (the UK's) money year on year, when we get a Bedroom Tax, FFS !!
What I am sick of, is, the South East getting billions and billions of our (the UK's) money year on year, when we get a Bedroom Tax, FFS !!
AberdeenAngus
Registered user
Deleted account Cooperman
Registered user
Why did Salmond deliver his closing words by walking away from his lectern 
It left a final false image - too much media coaching?
It left a final false image - too much media coaching?
A bit? I thought both were piss poor. I doubt if the Don't Knows will be any the wiser on how they will vote after this
What I am sick of, is, the South East getting billions and billions of our (the UK's) money year on year, when we get a Bedroom Tax, FFS !![/QUOTE]
Please explain?
Does it not apply to England as well?
And is it not only to apply to those on benefits?
To stop other peoples(my)(your) money being squandered on paying for those who have houses too big for their needs?
Where's the issue?
Please don't invent arguments based on imaginary injustices.
Please explain?
Does it not apply to England as well?
And is it not only to apply to those on benefits?
To stop other peoples(my)(your) money being squandered on paying for those who have houses too big for their needs?
Where's the issue?
Please don't invent arguments based on imaginary injustices.
Living on the Lairds Estate has rubbed-off on you Gerry.
If I and my family have lived in the same council house for decades, improved it, maintained the garden, lived in the same community, paid my rent etc etc, and one or two of my kids move out, do you think it is right, that the council puts my rent up, or worse, tells my that they will rehouse me in a completely different place ? ... OR, if on benefits, force a change of house.
I thought we stopped things like that when we became civilised and stopped packing folk on ships and sending them overseas.
Thats the difference between my mind and yours Gerry. We Scottish still recognise 'community and community ties' and what that means.
Deleted account 210516001
Registered user
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 5,306
- Reaction score
- 1
I don't think you have quite grasped the concept. If you pay your rent there is no change if your kids move out. If you want to keep paying rent for a bigger property than you need you are perfectly entitled to do that. There is no tax for having a spare room. The change is if I pay your rent through my taxes I don't see why I should keep paying rent for a bigger house than you need if your kids move out. There is nothing wrong with that principal. What is wrong is cutting someone's benefit where they are willing to move to a smaller house and cannot because there is not one available.
newboy
mechanical buffoon
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,740
- Reaction score
- 1
I actually object to the whole council house process..
Happy for my generously donated tax to assist those in trouble with housing.
But it's when they consider it their house it gets my bilge...
If you need a 3 /4/5 bed house cos you have that many kids, then fine. If the local authority has enough people paying in to the system and has enough available social then you should get it and simply pay rent for it. Your need is greater than the poor sod on the rung below you in life..
But then when your needs change - you change rungs on the social support ladder or climb up it and into the real world of housing like the rest of us...
Life is snakes and ladders for most people - but not for those who want social support obviously - they watch those paying with a smile on their face...
I worked in a housing association for a while - to hear the tenants complain about this, that and the other was mind boggling... And the unbridled anger when a suggestion to downsize them to a more suitable house for their family was made - jesus, one even called in her MP!!
Happy for my generously donated tax to assist those in trouble with housing.
But it's when they consider it their house it gets my bilge...
If you need a 3 /4/5 bed house cos you have that many kids, then fine. If the local authority has enough people paying in to the system and has enough available social then you should get it and simply pay rent for it. Your need is greater than the poor sod on the rung below you in life..
But then when your needs change - you change rungs on the social support ladder or climb up it and into the real world of housing like the rest of us...
Life is snakes and ladders for most people - but not for those who want social support obviously - they watch those paying with a smile on their face...
I worked in a housing association for a while - to hear the tenants complain about this, that and the other was mind boggling... And the unbridled anger when a suggestion to downsize them to a more suitable house for their family was made - jesus, one even called in her MP!!
Please explain?
Does it not apply to England as well? of course it does
And is it not only to apply to those on benefits?
To stop other peoples(my)(your) money being squandered on paying for those who have houses too big for their needs?
Where's the issue? the issue is that a friend of mine who is on minimum pay, gets a council house, 2 bed then after the bedroom tax has to move out to live with his sister, causing him to now have to get a bus to work, which means he now has less to live on.
Please don't invent arguments based on imaginary injustices. Imaginary ? maybe in your world, you don't live in a council property I take it ?
[/QUOTE]
If the proposal was independence on the Norwegian model, i.e. out of the EU I would be voting yes and accept the risk of initial socialist governments proving disastrous. It is clear that the escalating gap between the rich and the poor needs to be addressed, technology has favoured the wealthy and that shouldn't be allowed to persist.
If the EU was on a planned path to revert to a common market and, as existing EU citizens, Scottish residents were guaranteed membership I would still vote Yes.
However, to divest ourselves of the yoke of Westminster and buckle on the yolk(
) of the current EU committed to a Federal States of Europe is not independence and would only make us weaker on a world stage so that has to be a No. Most recent legislation results from decisions handed down from the EU. We can look forward to compulsory tyre pressure monitoring systems in November as part of the nanny EU crusade. That's a perfectly good tyre pressure gauge rendered virtually obselete.
There is much talk about being governed from Westminster by people who received no votes from the Scottish people, this is of course absolute tosh but the first past the post system hides the truth unless you do a little digging. Labour had over 40% of the vote but the other three parties were all within a spread of 3.2% . The figures are all there if you look. Fortunately the current incumbents of Westminster are successfully fixing the mess made by the Blair/Brown gangs of self promoting comedians, liars and thieves. How far down the road to national bankruptcy would the current UK have to go before the majority of Scots stopped voting Labour? Would the electorate of a newly independent Scotland vote for the same Labour politicians that they elected to Westminster or would they suddenly develop political and economical awareness and vote for people that would at least balance the books. Perhaps then there could be hope for the SNP post independence but I wouldn't count on it.
Whilst I'm bumping my gums what about local authority housing, a subject raised by Den? It was established to provide decent accommodation for the poor but how many council houses are now occupied by families that have two or more cars outside, caravans and boats in the garden, Sky dishes on the wall and foreign, often multiple, holidays for the tenants each year? Something not right there but not altogether bad as long as the tenants are paying full cost and the local tax payer isn't subsidising them. Still not all good either as it is almost impossible to even get council accommodation in some areas no matter how dire your situation.
If the EU was on a planned path to revert to a common market and, as existing EU citizens, Scottish residents were guaranteed membership I would still vote Yes.
However, to divest ourselves of the yoke of Westminster and buckle on the yolk(
) of the current EU committed to a Federal States of Europe is not independence and would only make us weaker on a world stage so that has to be a No. Most recent legislation results from decisions handed down from the EU. We can look forward to compulsory tyre pressure monitoring systems in November as part of the nanny EU crusade. That's a perfectly good tyre pressure gauge rendered virtually obselete.There is much talk about being governed from Westminster by people who received no votes from the Scottish people, this is of course absolute tosh but the first past the post system hides the truth unless you do a little digging. Labour had over 40% of the vote but the other three parties were all within a spread of 3.2% . The figures are all there if you look. Fortunately the current incumbents of Westminster are successfully fixing the mess made by the Blair/Brown gangs of self promoting comedians, liars and thieves. How far down the road to national bankruptcy would the current UK have to go before the majority of Scots stopped voting Labour? Would the electorate of a newly independent Scotland vote for the same Labour politicians that they elected to Westminster or would they suddenly develop political and economical awareness and vote for people that would at least balance the books. Perhaps then there could be hope for the SNP post independence but I wouldn't count on it.
Whilst I'm bumping my gums what about local authority housing, a subject raised by Den? It was established to provide decent accommodation for the poor but how many council houses are now occupied by families that have two or more cars outside, caravans and boats in the garden, Sky dishes on the wall and foreign, often multiple, holidays for the tenants each year? Something not right there but not altogether bad as long as the tenants are paying full cost and the local tax payer isn't subsidising them. Still not all good either as it is almost impossible to even get council accommodation in some areas no matter how dire your situation.
[/QUOTE]
You don't understand the so-called 'bedroom tax' ... actually I prefer the alternative term 'spare room subsidy'....at all do you? Your pal was in a house and could'n't afford the rent....is that the issue?
How will independence alter that in a way they could'n't do already? And in fact, have done. They can't pay for it, like most of their promises, but thats never the point is it?
I think you'll find the current Westminster government can't afford the way we live now, the debt burden is reaching critical point where the interest payments will out strip income. We currently pay £43 billion pa in interest, this Mr gerrarddwatts is no joking matter and arguing over bedroom tax/spare room subsidy will make not a jot of difference. Whether we get independence or not and whether Mr Salmond can afford to run a potential bankrupt economy is immaterial unless we get to grips with this.
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/
I think Mr salmond has an ulterior motive, anyway, he doesn't want independence as he'll have a huge headache getting to grips with all the unanswered questions. What he ultimately wants is more power to Scotland from Westminster, this is his real agenda......and guess what ? it's working !
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/
I think Mr salmond has an ulterior motive, anyway, he doesn't want independence as he'll have a huge headache getting to grips with all the unanswered questions. What he ultimately wants is more power to Scotland from Westminster, this is his real agenda......and guess what ? it's working !
Another reason to get rid of Westminster/Conservative control
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/04/28/the-shooting-party/
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/04/28/the-shooting-party/
Now here is an interesting bit from the last post's attachment Gerry. Hmmm.
Can't bite the hand that feeds ye !
. Is the article true, or another bit of misinformation ?
Three days later – on Friday – the government announced that it will raise the subsidy it provides for grouse moors from £30 per hectare to £56(5). Yes, you read that right: the British government subsidises grouse moors, which are owned by 1% of the 1% and used by people who are scarcely less rich. While the poor are being forced out of their homes through government cuts, it is raising the payments – across hundreds of thousands of hectares – that some owners use to burn and cut the land (helping to cause floods downstream), shoot or poison hen harriers and other predators, and scar the hills with roads and shooting butts(6). While the rest of us can go to the devil, the interests of the very rich are ringfenced.
Before examining the wider picture, let’s stick with the shooting theme for a moment, and take a look at the remarkable shape-shifting properties of that emblem of Downton Abbey Britain: the pheasant. Through a series of magnificent legal manouevres it becomes whatever the wealthy want it to be.
When pheasants are reared, they are classed as livestock: that means the people who raise them are exempt from some payments of value added tax and certain forms of planning control, on the grounds that they are producing food(7). But as soon as they’re released they are classed as wild animals. Otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed to shoot them. But if you want to re-capture the survivors at the end of the shooting season to use as breeding stock, they cease to be wild and become livestock again, because you aren’t allowed to catch wild birds with nets(8). If, however, pheasants cause damage to neighbouring gardens, or to cars, or to the people travelling in those cars, the person who released them bears no liability, because for this purpose they are classed as wild animals – even if, at the time, they are being rounded up as legal livestock(9). The pheasant’s properties of metamorphosis should be a rich field of study for biologists: even the Greek myths mentioned no animal that mutated so often.
In the treatment of pheasant and grouse shoots we see in microcosm what is happening in the country as a whole. Legally, fiscally and politically, the very rich are protected from the forces afflicting everyone else.
Can't bite the hand that feeds ye !
. Is the article true, or another bit of misinformation ?Three days later – on Friday – the government announced that it will raise the subsidy it provides for grouse moors from £30 per hectare to £56(5). Yes, you read that right: the British government subsidises grouse moors, which are owned by 1% of the 1% and used by people who are scarcely less rich. While the poor are being forced out of their homes through government cuts, it is raising the payments – across hundreds of thousands of hectares – that some owners use to burn and cut the land (helping to cause floods downstream), shoot or poison hen harriers and other predators, and scar the hills with roads and shooting butts(6). While the rest of us can go to the devil, the interests of the very rich are ringfenced.
Before examining the wider picture, let’s stick with the shooting theme for a moment, and take a look at the remarkable shape-shifting properties of that emblem of Downton Abbey Britain: the pheasant. Through a series of magnificent legal manouevres it becomes whatever the wealthy want it to be.
When pheasants are reared, they are classed as livestock: that means the people who raise them are exempt from some payments of value added tax and certain forms of planning control, on the grounds that they are producing food(7). But as soon as they’re released they are classed as wild animals. Otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed to shoot them. But if you want to re-capture the survivors at the end of the shooting season to use as breeding stock, they cease to be wild and become livestock again, because you aren’t allowed to catch wild birds with nets(8). If, however, pheasants cause damage to neighbouring gardens, or to cars, or to the people travelling in those cars, the person who released them bears no liability, because for this purpose they are classed as wild animals – even if, at the time, they are being rounded up as legal livestock(9). The pheasant’s properties of metamorphosis should be a rich field of study for biologists: even the Greek myths mentioned no animal that mutated so often.
In the treatment of pheasant and grouse shoots we see in microcosm what is happening in the country as a whole. Legally, fiscally and politically, the very rich are protected from the forces afflicting everyone else.
Den, what you have pointed out is not unique to the Scots, we all get screwed by the rich, powerful and connected in one way or another.
- Status