What's behind the SNP lead in the polls?

[Pete's Frontier]

You appear to be confused about not only the powers available to Holyrood but also where I have either disputed or agreed with the IFS figures. It all academic anyway as no-one supports FFA but the SNP. Speaking of academic, have you learned anything yet?

You dispute the IFS data but offer nothing, like your roguish party, to counter them. As it stands you have a couple of billion you can maybe draw down, nowhere near the deficit Sturgeon is going to force on Scotland. I ask again, as you are clearly bereft and obfuscating in true natz style, Where is the money coming from? C'mon Stavros, let's hear it?

[oddly optomistic]

You dispute the IFS data but offer nothing, like your roguish party, to counter them. As it stands you have a couple of billion you can maybe draw down, nowhere near the deficit Sturgeon is going to force on Scotland. I ask again, as you are clearly bereft and obfuscating in true natz style, Where is the money coming from? C'mon Stavros, let's hear it?

You managed to dig out any answers to my previous questions yet?

[pandarilla]

She can't borrow, that is all that matters you excuse for a shitsack.

Ms Sturgeon can maybe get £2bn a year according to the 2012 bill.

A £2 billion change in your position in the space of an hour. How much will we be getting by tomorrow?

[sophia]

"Thoroughly competent" is an absolute measure, not a relative one.

<-- eyes bled.

[strichener]

You dispute the IFS data but offer nothing, like your roguish party, to counter them. As it stands you have a couple of billion you can maybe draw down, nowhere near the deficit Sturgeon is going to force on Scotland. I ask again, as you are clearly bereft and obfuscating in true natz style, Where is the money coming from? C'mon Stavros, let's hear it?

So just to summarise your failures so far

1. We cannot borrrow

2. We cannot issue bonds

3. I dispute the IFS data

I have the ability just not the interest in disecting the IFS data. Can you claim the same? FFA is not on the table as I have already stated directly to you on more than one occassion.

[Pete's Frontier]

A £2 billion change in your position in the space of an hour. How much will we be getting by tomorrow?

It's possible she can draw down 2bn, I hold up my hand on that, although how that works in practice is another matter. She has never exercised that option. So, moany faced wee Sturgeon, who demands Westminster borrows another 140bn a year - incredible reckless and dangerous old style tax and spend - doesn't need to draw the extra room she was allowed in 2012. Is this crazy woman for real or what? Maybe she wants to wreck England, I don't know.

[strichener]

It's possible she can draw down 2bn, I hold up my hand on that, although how that works in practice is another matter. She has never exercised that option. So, moany faced wee Sturgeon, who demands Westminster borrows another 140bn a year - incredible reckless and dangerous old style tax and spend - doesn't need to draw the extra room she was allowed in 2012. Is this crazy woman for real or what? Maybe she wants to wreck England, I don't know.

You really are showing up your ignorance of the whole subject. The ability to borrow was included in the Scotland Act 2012. Scotland has not had the ability to use this since 2012. The power to borrow is up to a cumulative 2.2bln of capital expediture and 500m of revenue borrowing in total but is restricted to 10% of CDEL in any one year and 200m in the case of revenue borrowing. The borrowing powers are available from April this year.

[Pete's Frontier]

So just to summarise your failures so far

1. We cannot borrrow

2. We cannot issue bonds

3. I dispute the IFS data

I have the ability just not the interest in disecting the IFS data. Can you claim the same? FFA is not on the table as I have already stated directly to you on more than one occassion.

I'm still waiting to here where the £8bn is coming from Stavros, and your basis, data, for disputing the IFS data, She can access a limited amount, she is not a sovereign head and has no permission or rating on the bond market so good luck issuing bonds, She'd need at least a 20% fixed rate to get one buyer to risk her likely default.

[Pete's Frontier]

You really are showing up your ignorance of the whole subject. The ability to borrow was included in the Scotland Act 2012. Scotland has not had the ability to use this since 2012. The power to borrow is up to a cumulative 2.2bln of capital expediture and 500m of revenue borrowing in total but is restricted to 10% of CDEL in any one year and 200m in the case of revenue borrowing. The borrowing powers are available from April this year.

Where is the £8bn coming from Stavros? How many times do I need to ask you? Straight question, straight answer. Do you have anything to offer? Appears not. Typical deluded and stupid nat.

[oddly optomistic]

How many times do I need to ask you? Straight question, straight answer. Do you have anything to offer? Appears not. Typical deluded and stupid nat.

I could say the same to you

[strichener]

I'm still waiting to here where the £8bn is coming from Stavros, and your basis, data, for disputing the IFS data, She can access a limited amount, she is not a sovereign head and has no permission or rating on the bond market so good luck issuing bonds, She'd need at least a 20% fixed rate to get one buyer to risk her likely default.

You know the old saying about stopping digging. You are really asking me the equivalent of how Hibs are going to cope when they are playing in the Lowland League. It ain't happening.

[Ad Lib]

Nine posts in one & a half hours Ad Lib? Seriously?

The second last Saturday before polling day, & you have just spent one and a half hours of the afternoon arguing on a football forum instead of going out into East Renfrewshire chapping on doors, manning an info stall, leafletting at a local railway station, etc. & trying to everything you can to shore up your vote & perhaps keep the party's £500 deposit?

Meanwhile out in in Paisley and Glasgow today I've spotted the SNP (here, there, every f**king where), Communists, Greens & even the Socialist Equality Party all out trying to get their vote up.

No wonder the Lib Dems are in trouble when they've lazy wee b*****ds like you for candidates.

I am at home in bed with a fever and a sore throat.

[wirez]

I am at home in bed with a fever and a sore throat.

Get your doctor to give you a line for a fortnight off. It's probably for the best

[Ad Lib]

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."[/size]

Your thesis must have been shite then eh. You don't know what you're talking about.[/size]

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.[/size]

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.[/size]

You also chose to insult half the electorate of Scotland, good politics that. [/size]

I think my work here is done for now.[/size]

You know, I thought I smelt a rat. I've actually gone back and looked at the debate, as it was conducted, in Hansard, for 14th May 1914. This was one of the few Government of Scotland Bills even to be granted a "second reading", which is a debate on the principles of a bill, the first reading merely being its introduction to the house and being printed.

The link is here: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1914/may/15/government-of-scotland-bill

In this debate, there are a number of discussions about what should happen to the Bill in the event that it passes its second reading, namely, which set of committees it should go through for legislative scrutiny.

At the end of that day's proceedings, the official record states as follows:

It being Five of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next (22nd May).

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Two minutes after Five o'clock, till Monday next, 18th May.

It is clear from that record, that no vote was taken on 14th May 1914. The debate was adjourned, scheduled for a continuation on Friday 22nd May 1914.

Let's look at the orders of the day for the House of Commons on Friday 22nd May 1914:

Link: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/sittings/1914/may/22

Where's the Government of Scotland Bill? Oh wait. It's not there. Awkward.

The reason it's not there is because there wasn't enough Parliamentary time to continue the debate from 14th May. Since Friday 22nd May 1914 was the last time in May that the House of Commons sat, and since the Government of Scotland Bill was not on its business from after the adjournment of the 14th until 22nd May, One can only conclude that, whilst unlike other bills of its kind, it did receive a second reading, it is not correct to say that the bill "passed" its second reading. Indeed, the bill died, and others were introduced in its place.

The moral of this story? Don't trust BBC journalists for accurate statements of what happened in Parliament, let alone to give a judgment on "how close" a private members bill was to becoming law.

[Mr Rational]

You know, I thought I smelt a rat. I've actually gone back and looked at the debate, as it was conducted, in Hansard, for 14th May 1914. This was one of the few Government of Scotland Bills even to be granted a "second reading", which is a debate on the principles of a bill, the first reading merely being its introduction to the house and being printed.

The link is here: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1914/may/15/government-of-scotland-bill

In this debate, there are a number of discussions about what should happen to the Bill in the event that it passes its second reading, namely, which set of committees it should go through for legislative scrutiny.

At the end of that day's proceedings, the official record states as follows:

It is clear from that record, that no vote was taken on 14th May 1914. The debate was adjourned, scheduled for a continuation on Friday 22nd May 1914.

Let's look at the orders of the day for the House of Commons on Friday 22nd May 1914:

Link: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/sittings/1914/may/22

Where's the Government of Scotland Bill? Oh wait. It's not there. Awkward.

The reason it's not there is because there wasn't enough Parliamentary time to continue the debate from 14th May. Since Friday 22nd May 1914 was the last time in May that the House of Commons sat, and since the Government of Scotland Bill was not on its business from after the adjournment of the 14th until 22nd May, One can only conclude that, whilst unlike other bills of its kind, it did receive a second reading, it is not correct to say that the bill "passed" its second reading. Indeed, the bill died, and others were introduced in its place.

The moral of this story? Don't trust BBC journalists for accurate statements of what happened in Parliament, let alone to give a judgment on "how close" a private members bill was to becoming law.

I just normally watch porn on a Saturday night but each to their own....

[sophia]

You know, I thought I smelt a rat. I've actually gone back and looked at the debate, as it was conducted, in Hansard, for 14th May 1914. This was one of the few Government of Scotland Bills even to be granted a "second reading", which is a debate on the principles of a bill, the first reading merely being its introduction to the house and being printed.

The link is here: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1914/may/15/government-of-scotland-bill

In this debate, there are a number of discussions about what should happen to the Bill in the event that it passes its second reading, namely, which set of committees it should go through for legislative scrutiny.

At the end of that day's proceedings, the official record states as follows:

It is clear from that record, that no vote was taken on 14th May 1914. The debate was adjourned, scheduled for a continuation on Friday 22nd May 1914.

Let's look at the orders of the day for the House of Commons on Friday 22nd May 1914:

Link: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/sittings/1914/may/22

Where's the Government of Scotland Bill? Oh wait. It's not there. Awkward.

The reason it's not there is because there wasn't enough Parliamentary time to continue the debate from 14th May. Since Friday 22nd May 1914 was the last time in May that the House of Commons sat, and since the Government of Scotland Bill was not on its business from after the adjournment of the 14th until 22nd May, One can only conclude that, whilst unlike other bills of its kind, it did receive a second reading, it is not correct to say that the bill "passed" its second reading. Indeed, the bill died, and others were introduced in its place.

The moral of this story? Don't trust BBC journalists for accurate statements of what happened in Parliament, let alone to give a judgment on "how close" a private members bill was to becoming law.

^

Not really all that ill.

My guess is that the sheer hopelessness of being a Lib Dem in 2015 has driven Ad Lib back to the anonymity of his bedroom and into the warmth of P&B.

[Ad Lib]

^

Not really all that ill.

My guess is that the sheer hopelessness of being a Lib Dem in 2015 has driven Ad Lib back to the anonymity of his bedroom and into the warmth of P&B.

Yeah, cause having a fever stops you being able to type from your bed.

[NotThePars]

Nobody still seriously believes the vow was a game changer in the election, right? It's just a useful stick to beat the Westminster parties with.

[1320Lichtie]

Nobody still seriously believes the vow was a game changer in the election, right? It's just a useful stick to beat the Westminster parties with.

It would've fooled some numpties. Not enough to swing it though.

[wirez]

Nobody still seriously believes the vow was a game changer in the election, right? It's just a useful stick to beat the Westminster parties with.

Well I dunno. Not many folk will openly admit to being the victim of a confidence trickster.

The Vow; as sold by arch-unionist fud Broon, would have have certainly struck a chord with some folk.

Especially with the semi-daft auld gullible yins (team Hay)