Scottish Independence

[Blaven]

Watch this video from the new No Borders group right to the end. That's the best they can come up with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yspH0QcWP4I

This is a good example of the boy thats thot aboot it,is up for it and the boy that cant be arsed thinkin aboot it, isnay.

Brilliant. Well done.

Find me more.

[pandarilla]

I'm fairly ambivalent about it. I think on balance it probably is better to have a local income tax. The problem with the SNP proposal back the 2007 Parliament was that they weren't proposing a local income tax at all. They wanted to set a national rate of 3p in the £, effectively depriving councils of any autonomous tax-raising responsibilities whatsoever.

I think a local income tax would be a fantastic and progressive move for us to make.

[Mr. Bojangles]

This No Borders has to be a piss take

Just look at the video, the women from Cardonald. They've subtitled it!

http://www.votenoborders.co.uk/people_s_voices

I particularly like "Farah's voting no for common sense". The common sense being that if we vote yes there's going to be a bloodbath.

[DAFC]

Well bitter together has succeeded in bringing down the level of debate to whatabootery and fear and the SNP have been bogged down trying to clear this.

I would bet my mortgage on the No vote winning due to around half of the vote decided by fear and uncertainty.

The future of politics in Scotland looks bleak with the SNP finished, Labour shown up as liars and betrayers of the people of Scotland. What the hell is left?

A multimillion pound circus in Edinburgh that is the laughing stock of Westminster and any Scottish MP will be shouted down for decades in parliament.

Well done Labour, what utter sellouts.

What is the motivation for Labour to constantly attack the Yes vote, what is the alternative and finally what do they think they are going to achieve with a No vote?

I haven't heard one advantage in over a year from the No camp other than scaremongering.

[DAFC]

Labour didn't seem bothered about Putin when Jack shook hands with him.

Would be good to find out what he said but I can't see it online.

Liebour

[Confidemus]

Labour didn't seem bothered about Putin when Jack shook hands with him.

Would be good to find out what he said but I can't see it online.

Liebour

The First Minister said: "The President's visit gives us a unique opportunity to promote ourselves to, and develop links with, Russia."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/mcconnell-hails-putin-s-capital-visit-1-883906

[Blaven]

Who else thot Patsy ferguson was going to cry on newsnight tonight?

I was waiting on her saying " wont anyone please think of the children".

[DAFC]

The First Minister said: "The President's visit gives us a unique opportunity to promote ourselves to, and develop links with, Russia."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/mcconnell-hails-putin-s-capital-visit-1-883906

Not sure why Salmond didn't bring this up in question time today? It was the first thing I thought of.

Labour need to be shown up.

[ayrmad]

I'll just butt in regarding the CT freeze, there's no way the freeze has been regressive to any great extent, while those up at the top will have saved more than the poor there is no way they've saved more as a % of wages, the marked rise in inequality over recent years means that Ad Lib & Co are talking out their arse.

We don't even need to get into the consequences of those on or below the breadline having to pay £5, £10 or £15 per week extra to see that the CT argument is just bollocks.

[Baxter Parp]

Not generally, no. Cutting it from 31% to 28% is, however, less regressive than cutting it from 21% to 18%.

But cutting it is regressive and Labour have cut it twice and the snp never have, ergo the Labour party is more right-wing. Duh.

Your rules, chum.

[Ad Lib]

And what in your opinion is the connection between house size and income?

I can save you a bit of trouble by telling you there isn't one?

You might well ask why people who are struggling in bigger houses don't simply sell their house and downsize.

Of course anyone who understands house ownership will tell you there are 2 main problems with that.

Firstly, selling your house can take years.

Secondly, most house prices have not recovered and millions are in negative equity so that's not a go-er either.

Or you could introduce means testing. That would be fair yes?

Yeah. Not really because you'd spend more on the means testing setup than you would save.

So, that's the reason why messing about with council tax bands won't help and it's the reason why means testing won't help either.

Neither of them addresses the fundamental problem that people in in trouble now. Today! Not next month. Now!

What you are advocating is handwringing.

Your inexperience is seriously showing through here.

Stop talking bollocks.

Of course there isn't perfect correlation between house value and your income. But that's an argument against the imposition of ANY wealth-based taxes that concern themselves with anything other than liquid assets. If you live in a £300k home and you can't afford a 1% increase on your council tax, then frankly, fucking tough. Sell up and move, and sell for less than you bought it for if it won't shift. If you own a £300k house you are already richer than the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland and we shouldn't feel any sympathy for you.

Negative equity? Fucking tough. You bought it.

People in big houses should pay more towards public services than people in studio flats, and at that, more than they do at the moment. Fair is fair. Deal with it.

You don't need to shift the bands for revaluing (though that is probably an exercise we should do given the first valuations happened 2 decades ago). All you have to do is change the numbers in the Local Government Finance Acts so that the proportional distribution of council tax among the bands is concentrated more towards the higher value homes.

But cutting it is regressive and Labour have cut it twice and the snp never have, ergo the Labour party is more right-wing. Duh.

Your rules, chum.

Please quote where I say that "the number of times" rather than "how much" and "relative to other countries" is the measure of how right wing a tax cut is.

Because I didn't say that. By your logic, someone who cuts corporation tax 1% every year for 5 years is more right wing than someone who cuts it 5% in 1 year then doesn't change it, even though the prevailing average rate of taxation in the latter case is lower and for longer.

You are a clown.

Yeah and in the process preventing an absolutely disastrous postcode lottery with all manner of soclai problems including house price inflation, postcode lottery poverty and corruption amongst countless other issues. Sometimes centralisation has it's purpose.

Just to be clear, you think that a local income tax set by councils will lead to house price inflation? Are you actually a cretin?

[H_B]

And what in your opinion is the connection between house size and income?

I can save you a bit of trouble by telling you there isn't one?

Really?

You all have some evidence to support this claim ?

[Confidemus]

Negative equity? Fucking tough. You bought it.

People in big houses should pay more towards public services than people in studio flats, and at that, more than they do at the moment. Fair is fair. Deal with it.

Have to admit, I agree with both those points. And before any of the BCC say "SNP policy! SNP policy!" - it ain't a dealbreaker.

[H_B]

Its just another in your increasingly long list if absurdly nonsensical claims.

[banterman86]

I'll just butt in regarding the CT freeze, there's no way the freeze has been regressive to any great extent, while those up at the top will have saved more than the poor there is no way they've saved more as a % of wages, the marked rise in inequality over recent years means that Ad Lib & Co are talking out their arse.

We don't even need to get into the consequences of those on or below the breadline having to pay £5, £10 or £15 per week extra to see that the CT argument is just bollocks.

Which completely overlooks the fact that it cuts off a revenue stream for Councils to rpovide public services more likely to be relied on those at the bottom. the debate can't be seen in a vacuum.

I'm not arguing for an across the board rise, I'd like to see some tinkering, the introduction of a new band and perhaps rises near the top and cuts near the bottom, but what we really need is reform of the whole system, now if only we had a party in Government, with a parliamnetary majority, who had a policy to do so eh? perhaps a party than run and won an election on such a commitment?

[Tio Pepe]

They are handwringing over what category a policy falls into whilst all around us people in our country are starving. It beggars belief.

It beggars belief that you can make a statement like that. Absolute nonsense.

[banterman86]

It beggars belief that you can make a statement like that. Absolute nonsense.

I don;t think we can deny the existence of poverty in Scotland, what makes the statement a bit foolish is that he's calling it "handwringing" to question whther or not a policy is perpetuationg poverty in Scotland.

[strichener]

Its just another in your increasingly long list if absurdly nonsensical claims.

Have to say that I agree with you here but I am surprised to see you dissenting from Ad-Lib's position.

You cannot complain about regressive taxes and then state that people in big houses should pay more towards services than someone in a smaller house. This is completely arbitory and doesn't take into account ability to pay.

[strichener]

Which completely overlooks the fact that it cuts off a revenue stream for Councils to rpovide public services more likely to be relied on those at the bottom. the debate can't be seen in a vacuum.

I'm not arguing for an across the board rise, I'd like to see some tinkering, the introduction of a new band and perhaps rises near the top and cuts near the bottom, but what we really need is reform of the whole system, now if only we had a party in Government, with a parliamnetary majority, who had a policy to do so eh? perhaps a party than run and won an election on such a commitment?

A regressive tax is regressive in it's own right and nothing to do with what the tax is spent on.

Your problem here is that when you take a regressive tax and then state that a higher proportion of that revenue is spend on the lower contributors then what you have is a policy that leads to the higher contributors receiving less for their money and therefore not regressive.

[H_B]

Have to say that I agree with you here but I am surprised to see you dissenting from Ad-Lib's position.

You cannot complain about regressive taxes and then state that people in big houses should pay more towards services than someone in a smaller house. This is completely arbitory and doesn't take into account ability to pay.

Im agreeing with Ad Lib not dissenting. I think he's absolutely correct.

But its patently absurd to deny a correlation between house value and income. That this isn't an absolute is obvious. I know of people who inherited family homes they could never buy and for sentimental reasons don't want to sell.

But most people with a big or should i say expensive house have one because they are in the upper bracket of earners.

Hence Ad Lib and banterman are correct. A CT freeze is unquestionably regressive.