vikingTON Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 That's an absolute tanking! Edit: Lemme guess the Record's spin, Salmond will be a 'smirking snake-oil salesman' while Labour 'have as strong a team and policies as they have a leader'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 That's an absolute tanking! Edit: Lemme guess the Record's spin, Salmond will be a 'smirking snake-oil salesman' while Labour 'have as strong a team and policies as they have a leader'! "Salmond accused of..." Anyway, I just realised something. I know who the Deputy FM is, its Nicola Sturgeon. Who is Labour's deputy? I genuinely, and I follow Scottish politics, have no idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
th1stleandr0se Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 goldie is a tory she has no chance, if she would just see the light and jump onto the nat bandwagon she could become the eternal ruler of the nation. I can't see that happening but my respect for her has grown. I've never supported the Tories but she seems to be using common-sense rather than rhetoric most of the time. xbl, you're right. I have no idea either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldWasp Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Tsksome anoraks you are! - Johann Lamont - she has done FMQ with wee Nikki a few times when Alex has been away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Tsksome anoraks you are! - Johann Lamont - she has done FMQ with wee Nikki a few times when Alex has been away Liebours leaders are unknown,they really are non descript Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 Tsksome anoraks you are! - Johann Lamont - she has done FMQ with wee Nikki a few times when Alex has been away Thats not a name I recall hearing! She any good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 Good news for the Lib Dems! Somebody actually took notice of Tavish Scott's performance in the debates! Fifers furious at Tavish Scott's Amazon attack Oh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Good news for the Lib Dems! Somebody actually took notice of Tavish Scott's performance in the debates! Fifers furious at Tavish Scott's Amazon attack Oh. I don't know enough about the ins and outs of that whole scheme, but I did think Tavish Scott's line was a bit odd from an outsider's perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Stud Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I don't know enough about the ins and outs of that whole scheme, but I did think Tavish Scott's line was a bit odd from an outsider's perspective. He's probably factually right. Large online retailers like Amazon are affecting High Street stores, hitting profits and putting staff onto the dole. You don't need to look too hard to find examples. Waterstones, HMV, Zavvi are just three off the top of my head. Thing is Amazon are going to put those jobs somewhere because you can't stop progress so it's a bit of a strange thing to attack. He'd have been as well taking on Tesco and Asda as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 He's probably factually right. Large online retailers like Amazon are affecting High Street stores, hitting profits and putting staff onto the dole. You don't need to look too hard to find examples. Waterstones, HMV, Zavvi are just three off the top of my head. Thing is Amazon are going to put those jobs somewhere because you can't stop progress so it's a bit of a strange thing to attack. He'd have been as well taking on Tesco and Asda as well. His line of attack had nothing to do with high street stores though. He was opposing the idea of government giving financial assistance to foreign firms. That is hugely peculiar. If you believe in government financially assisting any firms, you must believe that all firms, including foreign ones, ought to be eligible for that support. I happen to think that government shouldn't be involved at all, but at least Salmond's position was logically consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Stud Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 His line of attack had nothing to do with high street stores though. He was opposing the idea of government giving financial assistance to foreign firms. That is hugely peculiar. If you believe in government financially assisting any firms, you must believe that all firms, including foreign ones, ought to be eligible for that support. I happen to think that government shouldn't be involved at all, but at least Salmond's position was logically consistent. My memory might be failing, I did watch it in the early hours whilst working but I was fairly sure he kept saying "but how many jobs have been lost". I'm not going to go back and check, it was almost completely unwatchable the first time round. There was a few weird lines of attack on all sides though. Alex Salmond claiming that free further education was funded by graduates paying taxes was one cracker that someone should have picked up on. And god knows where Ian Gray was going with almost anything he said last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 There was a few weird lines of attack on all sides though. Alex Salmond claiming that free further education was funded by graduates paying taxes was one cracker that someone should have picked up on. To be fair though, thats undisputed. Graduates apparently earn more. This is used as a justification for fees. But those graduates already pay increased tax...because they earn more. So in effect, the government gains more money than if they hadn't gone to University. My memory might be failing, I did watch it in the early hours whilst working but I was fairly sure he kept saying "but how many jobs have been lost". I'm not going to go back and check, it was almost completely unwatchable the first time round. He did, because he was trying to say that the money used to attract Amazon should have been used for Scottish jobs, and Scottish small businesses. So in effect saying that we should have spent the money on ourselves rather than a big foreign conglomerate. And I can kind of see what he was trying to say, his argument was that these big companies were the ones putting small Scottish companies under pressure, and so by bringing these companies in, it doesn't really promote more enterprise in Scotland. I disagree with him though, because exactly as you say (I'm agreeing with you), those jobs are going to go somewhere, and attracting them to Scotland is a good thing. We want to see Scotland as a place where international companies can do business, not a wee parochial backwater. His going on about jobs was pretty much an emotive thing, but it didn't seem very well thought out to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law Stud Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 To be fair though, thats undisputed. Graduates apparently earn more. This is used as a justification for fees. But those graduates already pay increased tax...because they earn more. So in effect, the government gains more money than if they hadn't gone to University. Not in all cases they don't XBL - and you know it only too well. We've got a huge amount of graduates who are unemployed, a huge amount of graduates who are working in unskilled positions in call centres and in warehouses, and we've got a huge amount of graduates who will never move out of the basic rate tax band. And at the same time we've got the UK taxpayer paying £100,000 per annum to NHS GP's, Doctors and Surgeons, £100,000's to Politicians, and £100,000s to Lawyers who were educated at the expense of the kind of people who are your shop workers, plumbers, painters and factory workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Tavish Scott upsets fifers? He should have told the fuckers that their new bridge to edinburgh's getting scrapped and that the c***s should stop their car dependence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 Not in all cases they don't XBL - and you know it only too well. We've got a huge amount of graduates who are unemployed, a huge amount of graduates who are working in unskilled positions in call centres and in warehouses, and we've got a huge amount of graduates who will never move out of the basic rate tax band. And at the same time we've got the UK taxpayer paying £100,000 per annum to NHS GP's, Doctors and Surgeons, £100,000's to Politicians, and £100,000s to Lawyers who were educated at the expense of the kind of people who are your shop workers, plumbers, painters and factory workers. Well, I tried to engage you seriously. My mistake, never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 To be fair though, thats undisputed. Graduates apparently earn more. This is used as a justification for fees. But those graduates already pay increased tax...because they earn more. So in effect, the government gains more money than if they hadn't gone to University. Why should people who don't go to University but who earn more be made to pay for the education of those who did? They pay higher tax irrespective of whether or not they go to University. University is a service provided to individuals. They should be the ones covering the cost. If you absorb it into their pre-existing government theft figure, you're actually making them pay less "tax" towards public services. How petty and small-minded are they if they refuse to call it the Scottish Government? All through that piece they refer to the 'Scottish Executive'. Now, however much you may disagree with the rebranding, at least report consistently with reality! If I were a 'cyber-nat' <cough, xbl, cough> Id be minded to send them an email asking them what this scottish executive is, because i cant see mention of it anywhere else? You can send them an email and they will reply to you correctly pointing out that the Scotland Act, which gives Holyrood and its governing body power, refers to the Scottish Parliament and Executive. The "Government" tag is a re-branding exercise, but the correct legal term for the administration at Holyrood remains the Scottish Executive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 Why should people who don't go to University but who earn more be made to pay for the education of those who did? They pay higher tax irrespective of whether or not they go to University. University is a service provided to individuals. They should be the ones covering the cost. If you absorb it into their pre-existing government theft figure, you're actually making them pay less "tax" towards public services. Well in that case, doesn't that render the oft used justification of "graduates earn more" somewhat void? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Well in that case, doesn't that render the oft used justification of "graduates earn more" somewhat void? I don't use that argument. I think it's one of those straw men that misses the crux of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I was aware of that, but you would agree that this is pedantry of the pettiest degree? Something tells me legal best practice is not the telegraph's first concern here. I enjoy pedantry. If I were writing for the Telegraph I'd do it for no other reason than to get people frothing at the mouth in indignation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 I don't use that argument. I think it's one of those straw men that misses the crux of the debate. I never said you did, but seriously, almost every politician who believes in fees trots it out as the justification for bringing in fees. Anyway, do you think the Lib Dems are trying to reposition themselves in Scotland as the "local" party? Looking that article, Tavish Scott was all about encouraging Scottish businesses to grow. And thinking back, the Lib Dems are also all in favour of giving more powers to local councils, letting them set taxes themselves, a proper local income tax (rather than the SNP suggested national one), and he always seems to ask really local questions at FMQs, questions like "what about the ferry to the Isle of Jura, will you help that out?", "A factory in north Fife is in big trouble", and "the 10:47 train to Perth was 40 seconds late, why must its passengers suffer?". Am I reading too much into it, or is this the new effort of the Lib Dems to become more relevant in Scotland? I've been slagging them for years for not having a role, but thinking about it, if the SNP look for "a Scottish solution to Scottish problems", I reckon the Lib Dems are trying to go for "a Scottish solution to Scottish problems, in Scotland". As a Lib Dem voter, what do you think of my idle musings? I can see pros to it, but of course the great big issue is their position in independence, making it "a Scottish solution to Scottish problems, in Scotland, but staying in Britain". Of all the things the Lib Dems get slagged off for, I actually think its a bit unfair that they take such a pounding because of Nick Clegg. After all, they've long been the most federal of the Unionist bloc, and have always retained some independence of the British party (unlike London Labour). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.