Ad Lib Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Even if they did disband why would this affect the policies outlined in the white paper which will probably be implemented as a constotutional right? 1. The White Paper did not say childcare would be a constitutional right 2. It would be utterly insane to put childcare into the constitution 3. The SNP do not plan to put a constitutional obligation on all successor governments to spend more than half a billion pounds, inflation-proofed, on childcare indefinitely to deliver their very specific policy pledge The only way the SNP can guarantee that we will get their independence contingent childcare policy into effect by 2024 is if they still exist as a party in 2020-2024. If they have no intention of existing for that long in an independent Scotland, they are actively deceiving the electorate. An incredible statement by a Lib Dem man. Hardly. You should never trust political parties of any hue to keep their promises. Politicians are, damn as near every one of them, pathological liars making impossible or undesirable promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 What a load of rubbish. What on earth are you talking? Exactly the same? Do the SNP favour the bedroom tax? Do they want to demonise the poor and the disabled? Do they want to stop immigrants from coming here? Do they want to charge pensioners for their pills? Do they want to nationalise Scottish Water? Do they support privatisation of the postal service? Do they want to keep nuclear weapons? Do they want to invade foreign countries? Do they want to start building nuclear power plants? Do they want to immediately start fracking across the central belt? Do they want to cover up child sex abuse in the Scottish Parliament? Do they want to pull out of the EU? Exactly the same? The only thing which is exactly the same is the tired pish you spout. Is that the bedroom tax that the SG focussed on making as much political capital out of and the opposition parties had to point out they could get around it? The SG that has just magiced up £500million and some of it will be spent on a project they couldn't afford 5 years ago and sold off the land on the cheap? The SG whose health minster makes great play of avoiding a conflict of interest after pulling strokes behind the scenes, The SG who hands tax breaks to the rich and who plan to cut corporation tax in a race to the bottom. A SG who presides over underfunding of schools at a time of massive exam changes. A SG who funds 1000 extra police at a time when crime is plummeting across the western world cos its an election promise but at the same time stands by as police stations close and more and more police become armed; whilst cheaper to employ civilian staff are made redundant. A SG who couldn't possibly commit to renationalising the Royal Mail as the costs are unknown and stuck by that position for all of 18 hours when the decided that no matter how poor the poor are we need to spend an unknown fortune re-nationalising it. A SG who state they have legal advice re the EU when really they don't and they spend public money hiding that fact. A SG who stand by dirty tricks by spin doctors. You last comment just sums up your anti democratic position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Is that the bedroom tax that the SG focussed on making as much political capital out of and the opposition parties had to point out they could get around it? The opposition parties that are responsible for the bedroom tax? Who made political capital out of the situation with no comeback, no risk? Who until recently capped the amount the SG could spend on mitigating the effects of the tax so that at no point could it fully cover the problem until very recently? The rest of your post was worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 The opposition parties that are responsible for the bedroom tax? Who made political capital out of the situation with no comeback, no risk? Who until recently capped the amount the SG could spend on mitigating the effects of the tax so that at no point could it fully cover the problem until very recently? The rest of your post was worse. Or there is the SG that says the EU wont allow the working wage but wont fight them on it; whilst it is happy to go for minimum pricing on alcohol and fight the EU the whole way for that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 The main yes party would probably dissolve after a yes vote though after being an interim Government. Are you saying we should just settle for the shite we're being served now? Your opinion that the yes campaign is a false picture of unity and what can be achieved post yes is interesting. If they are going to split it makes the white paper even more of a sham than it already is. I agree that the yes campaigners have dropped anything that could scare the horses to focus on their core rationale - pragmatic politics or totally misleading people in the most important vote of a lifetime ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Or there is the SG that says the EU wont allow the working wage but wont fight them on it; whilst it is happy to go for minimum pricing on alcohol and fight the EU the whole way for that one? Has the EU opposed minimum alcohol pricing?Has the SG not implemented the living wage? These are questions you should probably contemplate further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 1. The White Paper did not say childcare would be a constitutional right 2. It would be utterly insane to put childcare into the constitution 3. The SNP do not plan to put a constitutional obligation on all successor governments to spend more than half a billion pounds, inflation-proofed, on childcare indefinitely to deliver their very specific policy pledge . 1. I didnt say it did. Although it says that Education could become constitutional and as it links childcare with education then the possibility/probability is clear to see 2. Of course it wouldnt. Your own right wing elitist views will not accept this anyway so little point in asking you why. 3. No one has suggested they do. The SNP will not be the sole writers of the constitution. Its silly to base your views on that notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Has the EU opposed minimum alcohol pricing? Has the SG not implemented the living wage? These are questions you should probably contemplate further. Fair enough; my terminology was not accurate but its clear what I am driving at. A lot of opinion says EU law prohibits minimum pricing and the SG is willing to fight that challenge. The SG also says that the living wage for all public contracts is against EU law and therefore defeated it in parliament - they are not taking that one to the European courts. Interesting that the SG is not planning to increase the price of alcohol via taxation but is instead pursuing minimum pricing which would benefit the suppliers and manufacturers rather than the public purse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Interesting that the SG is not planning to increase the price of alcohol via taxation but is instead pursuing minimum pricing which would benefit the suppliers and manufacturers rather than the public purse. In fairness alcohol taxation is a reserved matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 In fairness alcohol taxation is a reserved matter. Yes but they are planning to become independent pretty soon which makes the long running challenge within the current constitution seem like a waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Fair enough; my terminology was not accurate but its clear what I am driving at. A lot of opinion says EU law prohibits minimum pricing and the SG is willing to fight that challenge. The SG also says that the living wage for all public contracts is against EU law and therefore defeated it in parliament - they are not taking that one to the European courts. Interesting that the SG is not planning to increase the price of alcohol via taxation but is instead pursuing minimum pricing which would benefit the suppliers and manufacturers rather than the public purse. If this was really the case, then why is it the manufacturers that are fighting against it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Fair enough; my terminology was not accurate but its clear what I am driving at. A lot of opinion says EU law prohibits minimum pricing and the SG is willing to fight that challenge. The SG also says that the living wage for all public contracts is against EU law and therefore defeated it in parliament - they are not taking that one to the European courts. Interesting that the SG is not planning to increase the price of alcohol via taxation but is instead pursuing minimum pricing which would benefit the suppliers and manufacturers rather than the public purse. It's true though, you can't force a company to pay more than the lawful minimum wage. They aren't going to change that law very soon. When were independent we can hike the minimum wage up to sensible levels. How much will suppliers and manufacturers benefit when people start drinking less alcohol? Which is the real aim. And also why suppliers and manufacturers are against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Yes but they are planning to become independent pretty soon which makes the long running challenge within the current constitution seem like a waste of money. What long running challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 If this was really the case, then why is it the manufacturers that are fighting against it? Clearly some alcohol manufacturers feel the increase in cost would impact on them; either at the currently proposed level or feel that once the principle of minimum pricing is in place a government would be inclined to keep raising it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 What long running challenge? The initial legislation was passed in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Clearly some alcohol manufacturers feel the increase in cost would impact on them; either at the currently proposed level or feel that once the principle of minimum pricing is in place a government would be inclined to keep raising it. So who should we care about more? The drinker or the supplier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 The point is the SG is happy to follow thro 'no cost' policies (other than the legal fees which may be significant?) which will incur EU related challenges but will not do so to cement the living wage across public sector contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 The initial legislation was passed in 2012. And who has challenged it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 The point is the SG is happy to follow thro 'no cost' policies (other than the legal fees which may be significant?) which will incur EU related challenges but will not do so to cement the living wage across public sector contracts. Perhaps the SG feels that trying to get EU law changed to force employers to pay higher wages than the national minimum is a complete waste of time and money while minimum alcohol pricing on health grounds is actually possible and therefore worthwhile. As far as I'm aware the EU haven't objected yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 And who has challenged it? http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Minimum-pricing-will-be-heard-in-Europe-c0e.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.