Jedi2

So the SNP have, after promising to do so, done all of these things. Good show.

Flip flops and U-turns: Replace the Council Tax Ban Woid Burning Stoves Climate Change Targets Upgrade the A9 Provide a laptop to every school pupil (now planning to be means tested) Oppose new licenses for oil and gas Have Independence or 'For Independence' on the Ballot Paper Back Matheson..then don't back Matheson over I-pad Gate Scrap Alcohol Advertising Take the GRA block to the Supreme Court And that's the tip of the iceberg

Socialsim? A new movement? Clearly the ethos of both definitions is the same if not the mass public ownership. Moving from common 'ownership of the means of production' to 'for the many, not the few, 'power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many'...'living in a spirit of Solidarity, Tolerance and Respect', still doesn't sound very 'right-wing'. In a society which has moved largely from factories to a service sector, the common ownership doesn't apply in the same way in any case.

With all the 'I didn't leave Labour, Labour left me' heard over the last few years, it's interesting that general policy positions haven't changed all that much from then until now Could it be rather Jim Murphy standing on his Irn Bru crates in 2014, and the 'working with the Tories/Better Together' rather than policy differences? A lot of SNP supporters 'got on board' pre and post-Referendum, with many having previously been Labour voters, as we know. It has taken 10 years to move on (for some) from Murphy et al, but the 'they are right-wing' still doesn't wash...either they have 'always' been right-wing, policy wise, (somewhat unlikely), or they aren't

Can they 'mitigate' the said cap..yes or no? After all they make a lot of noise about 'mitigating' the Bedroom Tax

If you think Labout are 'right-wing' today, then, given a lot of the similarities between their manifesto of now and pledges back in 1987 and 1992, they must have been 'right-wing' then as well: Comparisons: Massive house building programme (2024, 1987, 1992) Greater protection for victims of crime, particularly women/ more police on the beat (2024, 1987, 1992) Working in partnership with private firms to draw in investment to the state for job creation and get them to invest in public services along with the govt (2024, 1987, 1992) Tackling NHS Waiting Lists by more flexible working hours (weekends) extending access to GPS at weekends as well. Joining up the NHS with community care services (2024,1987,1992) Expansion of Nursery Education to 3 and 4 years olds/Breakfast clubs in all schools (2024,1987,1992) End hire and fire, (modern equivalent) zero hours contracts, strengthen trade union legislation/new deal for workers. (2024, 1987, 1992) Maintain taxation rates on income, VAT, and NI (2024, 1992). In 87 there was a call for Wealth Tax on the top 1% of earners. Maintain membership of NATO (2024, 1987,1992) In 87 there was a policy of scrapping Trident, obviously changed now. Investment in the Technologies of the day as a driver of economic growth (in 2024 obviously Green Energy) Nationalisation of rail (2024) In 87 and 92 water and gas were also included in Nationalisation. The point of choosing 87 and 92 as a comparison is the 'traditional' Labour 'values' which it is claimed they have abandoned, but yet in looking at priorities from their 'traditional' years to now, is there really 'that' much difference?

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-government-urged-scrap-two-30555267

And for what is now the 3rd time...did Kate Forbes 'support' VAT rises on QT. Answer: No. Therefore a fact. Of course you haven't referenced her (non) support for taxing oil and gas profits either (maybe the repeated Tory line the SNP like to use of it 'costing' 100,000 jobs). Still,no surprise given that the SNP are continuing to trot out their lie of £18 billion of Labour cuts. They will probably be backing Rishi up on his lie of £2000 Labour tax hikes on every household next

A 'Con'?. You are right the largest share of the debt is interest due on Government bonds, or gilts, which the B of E issues money for. However, if the B of E prints money indefinitely interest rates rise along with prices for basic goods and services, which generally hits the poorest harder. However nearly a third of the debt is to foreign investors. Default on that and obviously credit rating goes through the floor, value of the pound drops, and Imports become more expensive. In addition a fair chunk of debt is tied up in pension funds. Debt due to the Tories and in (part) fairness, Covid, is now at the highest since the early 1960s. Obviously we don't have to 'balance the books' on debt, but borrowing has to have a limit which of course makes spending more difficult. It doesn't mean 'austerity' but does mean less spending on some unprotected budgets. It's over to Labour to spend what is there, better than the Tories, and given that unlike the Tories they aren't chasing tax cuts, that's a start.

Can only assume that you are talking about the Lib Dems here. I would agree. On some issues they are to the left of Labour. It certainly couldn't be 'decade of austerity/firewall of Scottish assets/Private Finance for the NHS', SNP.

So rattling around in your own empty head is But but but Kate said 'wait for the Manifeeestoo' My point that, on QT she did not support VAT on Private Schools still stands. Doesn't say either way if she agrees with the said Manifesto or not. I'm more likely to take Kate Forbes at face value, from her own mouth, than what 'some guy on the Internet who would claim that saying John Swinney is leader of the SNP' is a 'lie', purports. .

There has certainly been chat about increasing personal gains tax. Going for dividends and interest would, I agree be positive as well. The advantage of going in with 'no increases in income tax, NI and VAT' is the room to tax other areas, while sticking to the manifesto. You are also right about wealth taxes, though good in theory, those with the most of course have ways of avoiding it.

Kate Forbes on QT recently said she personally didn't think VAT on private schools was a good idea. You will note I never mentioned the SNP manifesto. So, it's you who is in fact lying (again)

Don't disagree on any of the measures listed. A wealth tax of an Increase of 1% on the top earners would bring in around £5.5 billion per year. Tax Avoidance by multinationals in the UK could claw back £11.5 billion a year And Trident running costs £3 billion a year. No harm in bringing in an extra £20 odd billion with these measures. (And I appreciate that Labour aim to keep Trident and not increase income taxes). Closing non-dom loopholes, as Labour propose is worth about £4 billion a year. The issue with the debt remains the current high interest on govt repayments and costing that £112 billion this year (roughly equivalent to the whole Education budget). Labour will still borrow (they will have to), and compared to the Tories the spend should go towards the NHS, poverty, and housing etc (the aim to tax property developer profits to fund 1.5 million new homes is a good one). I agree that there probably won't be 'miracles' but still a definite upgrade and improvement on the last 14 years.

'Soon enter a period of government where there will be no excuses' How would you go about spending when debt to GDP is at 98% (Genuine question). Much more borrowing obviously takes it up over 100%. Onve that happens you run the risk of panic on international money markets, making thr pound less competitive, and pushing up interest rates. Tax rises naturally, always an option, but is it right to raise income taxes on folk with less cash? So where do Labour find the money? Already have Windfall Tax on oil and gas profits and VAT on private schools (both opposed by the likes of Kate Forbes), as well as higher taxes on property developers. The Tories have left us in a position with Brexit, Truss as well as low growth, where the economy is a complete mess. That takes time to address and yes, unfortunately requires levering private investment by the govt to make up shortfalls. The B of E can't just keep printing money without hiking interest rates with the knock on effect effect on prices and mortgages (again). In fairness you do also cite 'the next five years' but it's going to take time to make the right spending choices and bring in investment. No govt could simply be splurging the cash right away in current circumstances.

So Labour essentially get what..a few weeks, months? to overturn the Tory damage of 14 years before they are dismissed as 'useless/just pandering to the right wing media/no different to the Tories'

All about 'could they do it'? (Scrap the two child cap)? Here's a different one: https://www.ippr.org/articles/scrap-the-cap-if-not-us-who

The SNP could of course abolish the two child cap but chooses not to. https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-could-axe-controversial-two-30515520 As the IFS (yes, them again, point out) Spending on social security benefits and state pensions is the biggest area of public spending: across Great Britain, it is forecast to be £277 billion in 2023–24, of which 55% goes to pensioners (£153 billion) and 45% to those of working age and children (£124 billion) (Department for Work and Pensions 2003). https://ifs.org.uk/publications/constraints-and-trade-offs-next-government There has been a significant increase in health related benefits claims since Covid (as expected). Surely if more people are in work rather than benefits the overall cost is reduced? (And yes, it does still require decent paid job creation) As the IFS also points out, with public debt to GDP ratio at over 90% (highest since the 1960s), and interest on debt repayments rising, (currently £112 billion a year) any incoming govt, to invest in Health, Education, Benefits and Social Care, has to make cuts elsewhere. You can't keep borrowing indefinitely or bring in tax hikes when folk are already struggling The Tories have wrecked the Economy with Truss' mad plans, Brexit, and their misuse of Covid funds, and delivered low growth into the bargin. There isn't a magic wand that waves it all away in a few months or a year or two (or gets us jumping back into the EU next year). It takes time, to get things growing again, and bring in new investment while trying to get debt to fall..not an easy balance. The whole Labour 'signing up to Tory cuts' is a smokescreen..they aren't. Rather they are going in trying to repair a lot of damage.

Any updates on MSP's using public money to pay for sending out SNP GE leaflets yet?

For all the 'Youth Development' chat, we currently have a good core of young players whether already in the senior squad (Hickey, Gilmour Ferguson) or coming through from the Under 21s..David Watson, Lennon Miller, Tommy Conway, Ben Doak. Whoever the manager is, should be looking to these guys for the WC campaign..there is enough there, if properly used, to build a team capable of getting to the USA. It's the more 'experienced' ones the Hanleys, McGregor, McGinn, Adams etc, who don't look as 'up to it', longer term. Is Clarke likely to turn to a midfield of Watson, Gilmour, Miller with Doak eg up front though?

The same one yes. And the same one which had Murray Foote as its Chief Editor at the time, the man who orchestrated the Vow, and is now of course Chief Exec of...the SNP.

Don't think print media has anything like the influence it once did though.

Ultimately when deciding if a manager should stay or go you probably look at the question of 'is the current incumbent going to enable us to progress, or has he done as much as he can?' In Clarke's case in now looks like the latter. An ability to get enough results to get to (expanded) tournaments, but once there, doesn't look like moving to the 'next' level. On that basis..the record suggests, if he stays we 'might' get to the WC, but what then? So, overall, change needed to try and finally get to that 2nd round.

Yousaf's 'plan' whatever way it is spun, was to 'declare' that, with the most seats at a GE that Scotland was then 'Independent'. For him to (also) declare that there would be a 'period of negotiation' on sorting out the details of that (presumably division of assets, debt share, towing Trident to the South of England) is semantics with regard to 'involving the partner you are leaving' in this case, the rUK...as the 'declaration' of Independence would already have been made. What I will give Swinney, with his change of focus from most seats, make a declaration/negotiate, to most seats, ask for a Ref, is that he is playing a more clever game. Win most seats, knowing that WM will say 'No' ramps up support for Holyrood in 2026...(its 'big, bad, Wastemonster denying democracy again) Don't win the most seats and he can still fashion the Holyrood election as 'another shot', with another 'pro-Indy' majority being enough to...ask for another Ref, again keeping his supporters onside. That is a lot better than Yousaf, who the public wouldn't have taken seriously with a 'declaration' on 29 odd seats, following a loss of somewhere around 20 seats to do so.

'Hadn't really mentioned before' ie..referenced BOTH the IFS mention of the potential 6 to 16 billion cuts (which are based on a projection of the next financial year, not beyond that), AND the deade of austerity under SNP plans in my original post on it...yet more lies. The SNP last time I checked, want to keep the monarchy, and it's in Labour's manifesto (yes, as it has been many times before) to replace the H of L. You are quite right that local government has been cut to the bone in Scotland, largely through the middle-class sop of continued Council Tax freeze. Still no acknowledgement that the IFS don't reckon on 'some expenditure cuts' under the SNP's plans, but a decade of slashing public services. I think the very definition of 'picking and choosing' is castigating Labour's position (inheriting a Tory wrecked economy with little room for manoeuvre), while ignoring a 10 year plan which would see Scotland significantly worse off.I get the 'oh, but all better in the long run', but 10 years of misery first?