SlipperyP Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 The people of Scotland have become a lot more political aware of the back of the referendum. This has broken the Labour backs, as they have been the party for so long to ride the wave of lies, propaganda & down right wankerish. They have been living off the poor for years, the people have seen what they really stand for, yes it may have taken some longer than others, however (Fuzzy) these people are coming together and going to give then a right good shoein'. I for one will watch on the sidelines and hope everyone one of my fellows (you) put yer pit boots on and give them one big hoof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Thoroughly competent? Justice Bill? Failure to control Police Scotland's use of stop-and-search? Not passing on the full increases in English health spending? A&E crisis and chronic underfunding of the NHS particularly in Aberdeen? And stopping councils making up the difference by using punitive measures to freeze their resources? Curriculum for Excellence introduction? Cutting college places? The reason the SNP are doing so well in the polls is at least partly that a lot of smart people have suspended their critical faculties as to what their actual record as a government has involved. It's become an article of faith rather than a self-critical political movement. They have done a far better job than any previous Scottish government and a lot better than the current Lib Dem lot in Westminster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 There is absolutely no basis in which my candidacy for the Liberal Democrats invalidates a single one of the criticisms I made of the assertion that the SNP have been "thoroughly competent". I didn't say it was "due to the referendum". I'm talking about the changed nature of the SNP as a political movement over the course of 8 years. Winning an election is no indication of competence, especially when your benchmark is Scottish Labour. In a world of blind men the cyclops is king and all that. Didn't insult anyone. Erm yeah it does Einstein, as in comparison your joke of a party have been as competent as a watery shite. You implied quite clearly it was due to the referendum, till I pointed out the majority they currently enjoyed was secured before it. Maybe you're not as smart as you think Einstein. You insulted all SNP voters by saying, and I will quote you word for word here "The reason the SNP are doing so well in the polls is at least partly that a lot of smart people have suspended their critical faculties as to what their actual record as a government has involved. It's become an article of faith rather than a self-critical political movement." So there you go Einstein, the SNP are polling at 50% right now, you just insulted 50% of the electorate of Scotland. Bet you don't do that at your hustings. This is why I dislike you, you are a nasty, arrogant scumbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 In your opinion, however perception is everything. We were all told 'devo-max', 'home-rule' and 'as near to full federalism as possible' and the vow delivered none of that. 1. The vow did not promise Devo Max. It explicitly referred to continued pooling of welfare resources, for example. 2. We already have home rule. We've had that since 1997. 3. The Smith Commission does deliver a form of fiscal quasi federalism: structurally as near to it as you can get without a Parliament or devolved assemblies for England. So suck it up Einstein, the vow didn't include compensatory measures for rUK if any of these super duper new powers benefited us at their expense, but that's what we're having proposed now, they didn't include a UK veto but the Smith Commission did. The Smith Commission proposals don't have "compensatory measures for rUK". I've read it. Have you? The Smith Commission doesn't include a "UK veto". Only a complete bellend could say the vow has been fully delivered. Or, you know, someone who read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Erm yeah it does Einstein, as in comparison your joke of a party have been as competent as a watery shite. "Thoroughly competent" is an absolute measure, not a relative one. You implied quite clearly it was due to the referendum, till I pointed out the majority they currently enjoyed was secured before it. Maybe you're not as smart as you think Einstein. I implied no such thing. You insulted all SNP voters by saying, and I will quote you word for word here "The reason the SNP are doing so well in the polls is at least partly that a lot of smart people have suspended their critical faculties as to what their actual record as a government has involved. It's become an article of faith rather than a self-critical political movement." That doesn't insult "all SNP voters". For a start, not all SNP voters are smart. So there you go Einstein, the SNP are polling at 50% right now, you just insulted 50% of the electorate of Scotland. Bet you don't do that at your hustings. Incorrect. I did not insult 50% of the electorate. This is why I dislike you, you are a nasty, arrogant scumbag. I'm happy to live with your disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 1. The vow did not promise Devo Max. It explicitly referred to continued pooling of welfare resources, for example. 2. We already have home rule. We've had that since 1997. 3. The Smith Commission does deliver a form of fiscal quasi federalism: structurally as near to it as you can get without a Parliament or devolved assemblies for England. The Smith Commission proposals don't have "compensatory measures for rUK". I've read it. Have you? The Smith Commission doesn't include a "UK veto". Or, you know, someone who read it. !. The vow doesn't actually exist Einstein, it is an authorless front page in a newspaper. What we were promised by UK politicians including members of the cabinet was 'home-rule', 'devo-max' and 'as near to full federalism as possible'. Smith delivered none of that, not even close. 2 No we don't, you're either being obtuse or are thicker than you pretend, Scotland has nothing like home-rule not even close. Google it and educate yourself. A Home Rule for Scotland bill actually passed WM in 1914 btw, and still hasn't been enacted. 3. No it doesn't, as ever you talk tripe and that wasn't part of the vow either Cameron himself proposed compensatory measures three days ago, try and keep informed. The Smith Commission includes a UK veto over all welfare changes. Maybe you should read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 1. The vow doesn't actually exist Einstein, it is an authorless front page in a newspaper. What we were promised by UK politicians including members of the cabinet was 'home-rule', 'devo-max' and 'as near to full federalism as possible'. Smith delivered none of that, not even close. If it doesn't exist how can it have been broken? 2 No we don't, you're either being obtuse or are thicker than you pretend, Scotland has nothing like home-rule not even close. Google it and educate yourself. A Home Rule for Scotland bill actually passed WM in 1914 btw, and still hasn't been enacted. Wrong. I've quite literally written a thesis chapter on this. There were a series of Government of Scotland Bills introduced by Liberal and latterly Labour back-benchers from the late 1800s through to 1928. They often mirrored the provisions of the government-led bills for Ireland, but none of them got beyond second reading. None of them "passed". Home Rule is defined as: "The right to local self-government including the powers to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals, and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur debt." All things Scotland's Parliament can do. 3. No it doesn't, as ever you talk tripe and that wasn't part of the vow either Yes it does. And I didn't say it was part of the vow. You were the one that said it was a broken promise. Which it wasn't because it was neither a promise nor broken. Cameron himself proposed compensatory measures three days ago, try and keep informed. Conservative Party policy is irrelevant to this. The Smith Commission includes a UK veto over all welfare changes. Maybe you should read it. No it doesn't. Read the legislation. It gives an administrative power to the UK Government to have to be consulted on the timing of the implementation of any welfare power introduced by Holyrood. That's an entirely sensible provision consistent with the Smith Commission recommendations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29048884 "The bill passed its second reading in parliament in May 1914, coming within a whisker of being made law." Your thesis must have been shite then eh. You don't know what you're talking about. And the vow doesn't exist in the form you are trying to hold it account to ie the text of the DR article. It was a pledge for 'home-rule' and 'devo-max' made by UK politicians including members of the cabinet and that hasn't been delivered. I have seen you get into drawn out exchanges as you are too childish to admit you are ever wrong and refuse to accept you don't know everything, turns out you were wrong here and didn't know quite a few things. You also chose to insult half the electorate of Scotland, good politics that. I think my work here is done for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I've missed Ad Lib turning threads into tedious pedantic drivel. Welcome back libby. You may have met your match with fuzzy though. He's pretty determined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I have to go out now but think he has exposed what a cretin he is amply by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Home Rule is defined as: "The right to local self-government including the powers to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals, and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur debt." All things Scotland's Parliament can do. . It depends how you read that definition. Scotland has some power but not full control. I wouldn't say Scotland has home rule at this stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29048884"The bill passed its second reading in parliament in May 1914, coming within a whisker of being made law." Read what I said. None of the bills got beyond second reading. Moreover, that's nowhere near "within a whisker of being made law". Loads of private members bills get to a vote at second reading. That's barely the beginning of the legislative process. It would still have needed to go to Committee, then to Third Reading, then begin the same process in the (then Tory dominated) Lords. It was going nowhere. It's a chronic misrepresentation by the BBC to say it was within a whisker of making it into law. Your thesis must have been shite then eh. You don't know what you're talking about. Wrong. And the vow doesn't exist in the form you are trying to hold it account to ie the text of the DR article. It was a pledge for 'home-rule' and 'devo-max' made by UK politicians including members of the cabinet and that hasn't been delivered. Either the vow exists, in which case we have specific words of a promise, or it doesn't, in which case we have genera statements of intent from individual politicians. Which is it? I have seen you get into drawn out exchanges as you are too childish to admit you are ever wrong and refuse to accept you don't know everything, turns out you were wrong here and didn't know quite a few things. Wrong. You also chose to insult half the electorate of Scotland, good politics that. Wrong.I think my work here is done Amen to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 It depends how you read that definition. Scotland has some power but not full control. I wouldn't say Scotland has home rule at this stage. No part of the definition requires full and/or exclusive control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 No part of the definition requires full and/or exclusive control. It doesn't mention partial control either. As I say, depends how you read it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 It doesn't mention partial control either. As I say, depends how you read itIt doesn't mention control at all. It's about having powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I thought the lib dems stood for a federal uk:huh: Not sure they have a clue what they stand for anymore tbh. Clegg would jump into bed with anyone for a bit of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 No part of the definition requires full and/or exclusive control. Whose definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddly optomistic Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 It doesn't mention control at all. It's about having powers. It says having the powers, not some of the powers. I therefore think it is open to interpretation. In much the same way that legislation is open to interpretation depending on the lawyer arguing. Are you seriously claiming Scotland has home rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gullane No 4 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 You're a great poster, read quite a few posts of yours and thought fucking fantastic post. He told me to feck off on my very first post. I have a long memory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Erm yeah it does Einstein, as in comparison your joke of a party have been as competent as a watery shite. You implied quite clearly it was due to the referendum, till I pointed out the majority they currently enjoyed was secured before it. Maybe you're not as smart as you think Einstein. You insulted all SNP voters by saying, and I will quote you word for word here "The reason the SNP are doing so well in the polls is at least partly that a lot of smart people have suspended their critical faculties as to what their actual record as a government has involved. It's become an article of faith rather than a self-critical political movement." So there you go Einstein, the SNP are polling at 50% right now, you just insulted 50% of the electorate of Scotland. Bet you don't do that at your hustings. This is why I dislike you, you are a nasty, arrogant scumbag. You complain about being insulted then end with an insult yourself, sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.