May 2011 Election

[Ad Lib]

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).

Yeah, I wasn't saying you were; simply that I actually agree with you it's not a material consideration.

I dunno about the repositioning. It certainly ties in closely with the Lib Dem grass roots pet projects of localism, and it is quite central to their basic doctrines even though it's not translated into practice in easily 2 decades. It's a lot closer to what I would recognise as true liberalism and it's the reason I find it quite annoying for the Lib Dems to be termed "Labour Lite" or for the two parties to be brought together under a "progressive centre-left" barrier. That's just not what the liberals are supposed to be about at all. Labour are a party who believe in centralisation; the complete antithesis of the founding principles of liberalism.

That's an interesting gloss you've got on the SNP/LibDem mantras, and actually quite a good way of putting it. I think the real difference between the two is a philosophical one, but not one which represents a meaningful tangible cleavage beyond the sovereignty debate. That's probably why the Lib Dems get crowded out up here.

They're not very interested in express sovereign boundaries, but rather a much more global polity with weak autonomous units that mingle in about them. That's why they're such Euroenthusiasts yet believers in local councils. Meanwhile the SNP I think the emphasis seems to be more about strongly autonomous state units based on quite expressly "national" lines. They seem (philosophically) a bit more comfortable with centralist organisation, albeit in the context of devolution from a much bigger state unit (the UK).

I've said it before and I'll say it again on the Lib Dems: it's not fair that they're taking a pounding, both because of their federal structure, but also because actually Nick Clegg has been made a scapegoat by very lazy populist politics and an ingrained vitriolic hatred of so much as not spitting on a blue rosette.

[Law Stud]

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.

More than that though Ad Lib - why should those who didn't go to university and earn LESS be made to pay for the education for those future Solicitors, Accountants, Engineers, Surveyors, or Architects? It's not as though the Solicitor will offer Roger the Refuse Collector some free conveyancing when it comes to his home purchase as a token of his gratitude. No, the greedy grasping fucker will be looking to squeeze every penny out of the poor b*****d, and then just after he's cleaned him out his receptionist will produce a charity box and demand a further donation.

Salmonds argument in the debate regarding tuition fees should have been beaten down, battered and kicked repeatedly in the bollocks. It's because of the insistance of the Scottish Government that Further Education be free that we see plummiting standards amongst our graduates and I dread to think how much worse it's going to get when English Universities start to charge their £9000 per annum fees. It's quite obvious that the English Universities will very quickly have the money to invest in the latest equipment and machinary whilst Scottish Universities will still be using the reconditioned remnants of the steam age.

[sparky88]

More than that though Ad Lib - why should those who didn't go to university and earn LESS be made to pay for the education for those future Solicitors, Accountants, Engineers, Surveyors, or Architects? It's not as though the Solicitor will offer Roger the Refuse Collector some free conveyancing when it comes to his home purchase as a token of his gratitude. No, the greedy grasping fucker will be looking to squeeze every penny out of the poor b*****d, and then just after he's cleaned him out his receptionist will produce a charity box and demand a further donation.

Salmonds argument in the debate regarding tuition fees should have been beaten down, battered and kicked repeatedly in the bollocks. It's because of the insistance of the Scottish Government that Further Education be free that we see plummiting standards amongst our graduates and I dread to think how much worse it's going to get when English Universities start to charge their £9000 per annum fees. It's quite obvious that the English Universities will very quickly have the money to invest in the latest equipment and machinary whilst Scottish Universities will still be using the reconditioned remnants of the steam age.

Source for the bit in bold? The top Scottish universities are still amongst the best in Britain.

I really don't understand the 'why should those who didn't go to university and earn LESS be made to pay for the education for those future Solicitors, Accountants, Engineers, Surveyors, or Architects?' argument. Why shouldnt they, any more than should I pay for primary school children, even though I'll never go to a primary school again?

That argument has been cooked up by politicians to make people forget the hyporcrisy of people, benefitting from a free education, imposing fees on a younger generation. Whichever way you look at it, a degree was far more valuable when they were at university (look at the legions of unemployed graduates struggling to find work)

[Reynard]

Source for the bit in bold? The top Scottish universities are still amongst the best in Britain.

I really don't understand the 'why should those who didn't go to university and earn LESS be made to pay for the education for those future Solicitors, Accountants, Engineers, Surveyors, or Architects?' argument. Why shouldnt they, any more than should I pay for primary school children, even though I'll never go to a primary school again?

That argument has been cooked up by politicians to make people forget the hyporcrisy of people, benefitting from a free education, imposing fees on a younger generation. Whichever way you look at it, a degree was far more valuable when they were at university (look at the legions of unemployed graduates struggling to find work)

It was more valuable back then simply because less peole went to universit. It was free because less people went to university and I suppose the taxpayer could pick up the tab for them. There are too many students, too many universities and the taxpayer can't pick up the tab any more so the students themselves will have to make a decision whether they want to get this degree so badly that they are willing to cough up a bit towards it once they graduate and start earning decent wedge.

They seem happy to whine about paying for some of their education, but they will quite happily go baw deep into debt to buy a house,car,clothes or whatever.

Further education will never be free ever again in this country because the country can't afford it now.

[doulikefish]

Free prescription charges kick in today,law stud will be happy as he seems to spend most of his time at the nhs

[vikingTON]

Not in all cases they don't XBL - and you know it only too well.

Completely irrelevant to Mr Salmond's point. Do keep up with this politics thing or we're going to have to send you to the sub-Napier remedial class.

[Scary Bear]

Actually I should have added to my last post and pointed out that whilst the Labour councillors and the local MSP have been extremely helpful whenever I've made a request of them in recent years the SNP have been anything but. Any e-mails sent to Alex Salmond are responded to by his p***k of a secretary - I can't for the life of me remember his name but he comes across as an utter tool. Fiona Hyslop responded to my request regarding local education by sending me a book which was filled with some of the most ridiculous grammatical and spelling mistakes I'd ever seen - so much so even I could spot it. And the last SNP electoral candidate that darkened my door was dour p***k.

I've written to my MSP (Labour) in Kirkcaldy in 2010 and to my MSP (Labour) in Edinburgh in 2006. I've written to a Labour Councillor in 2005.

2005 - Contacted Labour Councillor. Wrote to him 4 times before getting a response. Only received a response because I also cc'd the local MP, MSPs, Head of Council, etc. Not impressed. The guy was hopeless.

2006 - I had cause to write to my local constituency MSP (Labour) when I lived in Edinburgh. Her secretary took a while to respond and was quite unhelpful when she did respond. The best responses were from the SNP list MSP (McAskill) and the Conservative MSP (Lord James Douglas Hamilton). Didn't even get a response from the Green or the two Lib-dems.

2010- Contacted my MSP regarding the issue of high peak rate train fares between Edinburgh and Kirkcaldy. Not a particularly helpful response in that she suggested I should contact the transport committee and left it at that, even though it would have been a chance for her to put the boot into the SNP. SNP list guy contacted me, said he was busy but would get back to me soon - still waiting. SNP Transport Minister(the guy who was sacked recently) wrote to me basically saying 'away and f**k off, I don't care'. Transport Scotland did likewise (which tends to make me think there was fairly shit communication between the then Transport Minister and Transport Scotland, as they both answered the samepoint in similar style).

So, i'm rather surprised that Labour politicians in the West of Scotland are so much better at representing their constituents, especially when I see some of the pond life that passes for Labour Councillors, MSPs and MPs.

I'm actually thinking of voting Tory and either SNP/Green this time round. I haven't been that impressed with the SNP, but the thought of Labour getting in again doesn't do much for me. The parliament doesn't have many high profile politicians who are competent. Goldie and Salmond are the best of the leaders.

I feel bad that the only parties I haven't voted for, ever, are the Tories and the SSP/Solidarity/whatever other Loony left fringe party is doing the rounds...oh! and the pensioners party. Maybe I'll vote Tory on the constituency vote, safe in the knowledge the Labour candidate could be standing with his trousers down playing with himself at the door to the polling station and shouting foul sexual abuse at pensioners and he'd still win. I could then vote for one of the loony left parties on the list vote, so becoming one of an elite band who vote Tory and SSP.

I haven't even seen who my choices are yet for my consituency. I'll look at what they've achieved with their life and what their background is before making a final choice. Either way i'm getting Labour for my constituency MSP.

[sparky88]

It was more valuable back then simply because less peole went to universit. It was free because less people went to university and I suppose the taxpayer could pick up the tab for them. There are too many students, too many universities and the taxpayer can't pick up the tab any more so the students themselves will have to make a decision whether they want to get this degree so badly that they are willing to cough up a bit towards it once they graduate and start earning decent wedge.

They seem happy to whine about paying for some of their education, but they will quite happily go baw deep into debt to buy a house,car,clothes or whatever.

Further education will never be free ever again in this country because the country can't afford it now.

The taxpayer can pick up the tab for them (and are doing so in Scotland with no drop noticeable drop in standards)

Plenty of European countries manage without tuition fees. In fact, I know quite a few Finnish people who study here, and their government pays their tuition fees and living costs whilst in Scotland.

[ICTChris]

Any e-mails sent to Alex Salmond are responded to by his p***k of a secretary - I can't for the life of me remember his name but he comes across as an utter tool. Fiona Hyslop responded to my request regarding local education by sending me a book which was filled with some of the most ridiculous grammatical and spelling mistakes I'd ever seen - so much so even I could spot it

It's pretty disgusting that the First Minister doesn't personally respond to every green inked note he recieves from foaming obese idiots.

[Reynard]

The taxpayer can pick up the tab for them (and are doing so in Scotland with no drop noticeable drop in standards)

Plenty of European countries manage without tuition fees. In fact, I know quite a few Finnish people who study here, and their government pays their tuition fees and living costs whilst in Scotland.

Of course they can. The taxpayer could be paying my mortgage and buying my weekly shopping as well.

[xbl]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/City-witholds-magazine-after-claims.6743939.jp

Labour has been accused of breaking electoral law by distributing alleged anti-SNP "propaganda" in a publicly funded magazine.

Glasgow city council has withdrawn copies of a council publication which included an article by Labour council leader Gordon Matheson accusing finance secretary John Swinney of "threats" and "broken promises". Councils are banned from publishing any material which is designed to affect support for a political party at any time, but particularly during elections.

According to the SNP, the council's lawyer wrote to councillors earlier this month to warn them against using the Glasgow magazine, which is delivered to 300,000 homes around the city, for party political statements. However, in an article in it Mr Matheson said: "This year John Swinney offered councils a 2.6 per cent funding cut, but threatened to withhold an extra £50 million unless we agreed to demands designed to win his party votes in May. "Even though we signed up to his deal Mr Swinney broke his promise and cut our budget by 3.6 per cent anyway, forcing us to find millions in additional savings this year."

£42,000 spent on it before it was withdrawn. Go Glasgow Labour!

[xbl]

Oh, and another one that gave me a laugh, I just had a look at the Daily Telegraphs Scotland page: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/, and there have been quite a few stories published in the last 2 days!

Alex Salmond defends local income tax secrecy

When will Alex Salmond answer voters' questions on his secret tax plans?

Libya: senior aide of Saif Gaddafi 'sent to London for talks on exit strategy

Libya: dilemma over defector's 'electrifying' Lockerbie information

Profile: Moussa Koussa, high-profile Lockerbie spymaster

Libya: Scottish prosecutors seek Moussa Koussa interview

Alex Salmond accused of conning voters over manifesto

Alex Salmond's fight to protect local income tax secrets

[OldWasp]

Thats not a name I recall hearing!

She any good?

Dont know what she's like as a local MSP, but coped OK at FMQ. A tad aggressive in questioning which wee Nikki responded to in a similar style.

[Swampy]

Free prescription charges kick in today,law stud will be happy as he seems to spend most of his time at the nhs

haha m8! ats a bebo!

[Ad Lib]

I really don't understand the 'why should those who didn't go to university and earn LESS be made to pay for the education for those future Solicitors, Accountants, Engineers, Surveyors, or Architects?' argument. Why shouldnt they, any more than should I pay for primary school children, even though I'll never go to a primary school again?

Because primary and secondary education is compulsory whereas tertiary isn't.

That argument has been cooked up by politicians to make people forget the hypocrisy of people, benefiting from a free education, imposing fees on a younger generation. Whichever way you look at it, a degree was far more valuable when they were at university (look at the legions of unemployed graduates struggling to find work)

No, people who are opposed to reform use the "but you had a free education" as a wrecking ball to prohibit rational discussion about the future of tertiary education funding.

Plenty of European countries manage without tuition fees. In fact, I know quite a few Finnish people who study here, and their government pays their tuition fees and living costs whilst in Scotland.

I take it you don't actually understand that we're obliged to provide free tertiary education to anyone else in the European Union who's not from England/Wales/Northern Ireland because of EU equality legislation? The Finish government won't be "paying their tuition" at all; SAAS will.

[Swampy]

Because primary and secondary education is compulsory whereas tertiary isn't.

The last two years of high school aren't compulsory. Should these be paid for by the individual?

[Ad Lib]

The last two years of high school aren't compulsory. Should these be paid for by the individual?

If they're not to be compulsory, I think there's a good case for that, yes.

Although I do notice that the Coalition have plans down south (at least) to make full-time education compulsory to the age of 18.

[vikingTON]

Oh suprise suprise, another posturing answer pandering to make-believe 'values'.

[Ad Lib]

Oh suprise suprise, another posturing answer pandering to make-believe 'values'.

At what point have I even indirectly referred to "values", let alone those which are "make-believe"? Stop being such a complete and utter c**t of a human being.

[sparky88]

Because primary and secondary education is compulsory whereas tertiary isn't.

No, people who are opposed to reform use the "but you had a free education" as a wrecking ball to prohibit rational discussion about the future of tertiary education funding.

I take it you don't actually understand that we're obliged to provide free tertiary education to anyone else in the European Union who's not from England/Wales/Northern Ireland because of EU equality legislation? The Finish government won't be "paying their tuition" at all; SAAS will.

Should we therefore retrospectively bill those that received their university education for free in the past? university was as compulsory then as now.

Yeah I forgot about other EU countries getting their education free, but students from other countries are still offered a lot more help financially than those here. So many EU students are here because their governments helps them to stay here. Even from countries where it is far cheaper to live than here - places like Poland. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to Scotland with its own students. To be clear, I'm not talking about tuition fees, I'm just talking about living costs. And most countries in Europe are tuition fee-free.