When will indyref2 happen?

[SandyCromarty]

21 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Sandy- some fairly sensible advice there. Totally agree about life’s ups and downs. Never take anything for granted.

Regarding furlough, I currently have some people on 80% furlough as business is completely shut. What they tell me is that they’re not worse off as they have less tax and NI plus no travel expenses to work. In addition there isn’t much to spend their money on recreationally so all in all they’re , in some cases better off, but certainly not worse off. It’s a strange old world.

There are thousands who have already lost their jobs as major companies closed never to re-open plus all the knock on effect that has on the likes of trades which maintained the businesses, then there are the suppliers and the goods trucking companies etc etc. 

You and your employees are in a fortunate position as of now but as retail and industry open up after lockdown everybody is facing a whole new world, the marketplace has physically shrunk and competition for the business remainder will be fierce.

As I was saying to the other fella if you can maintain your health and can financially get by day by day plus having a good relationship with your partner then this horrible future we are facing will be easier on you.

I know the tough times all too well having come through a couple of severe downturns in the oil and gas but we came through Ok.

 

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, SandyCromarty said:

Stop right there, never ever feel you've let yourself down financially, as long as you have enough to get by and you're in a good stable relationship then you're rich.

Look around you right now, there are plenty who have got to the top of that greasy pole thinking they have it all and now they are flat on their arses, I do not grudge for a minute people making money and are at the top of their world but you can never foretell the financial future, wealth is relative, happiness and health are free and more desirable.

I think you missed the sarcasm in their post - they were saying that that's what Tories say, not that they believe it.

[Gordon EF]

40 minutes ago, strichener said:

I have no doubt that some employees are saving money on travelling but if significant numbers are spending 20% of their wages doing this then I would be surprised.

That was my first thought but, to be fair, I think a lot of people's weekly outgoings will have come down outside of things like travel costs as well. No/drastically reduced trips to pubs, restaurants, cinema, football. No foreign holidays. Being on furlough made me realise just how much I spend on shite like takeaway coffee and lunches when I was going to work.

That's not to say being on furlough is great and financially better. It's totally dependent on people's individual circumstances and what their outgoings were like before but I imagine there are some people who could be on 80% salary and be financially better off once regular outgoings drop due to lockdown.

[Dawson Park Boy]

45 minutes ago, strichener said:

Of course they have less tax and NI, they are earning less.  However it is not No tax or NI and therefore the net effect may be < 20% difference but it is still less than their normal wage.  In some cases people aren't getting 80% of their normal income as variable paid workers can be based on the average of the previous years earnings or the same period the year before.  Most minimum wage employees people would have been earning less last year than this and therefore the 80% is on a lower number.

I have no doubt that some employees are saving money on travelling but if significant numbers are spending 20% of their wages doing this then I would be surprised.

A drop of 20% on Gross earnings translates into a drop of around 10% on net earnings depending on income levels.

Net earnings is the important thing.

Furlough is a lifesaver and - well done Sunak.

[Dawson Park Boy]

3 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

That was my first thought but, to be fair, I think a lot of people's weekly outgoings will have come down outside of things like travel costs as well. No/drastically reduced trips to pubs, restaurants, cinema, football. No foreign holidays. Being on furlough made me realise just how much I spend on shite like takeaway coffee and lunches when I was going to work.

That's not to say being on furlough is great and financially better. It's totally dependent on people's individual circumstances and what their outgoings were like before but I imagine there are some people who could be on 80% salary and be financially better off once regular outgoings drop due to lockdown.

A fair analysis.

[Futureboy]

1 hour ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Sandy- some fairly sensible advice there. Totally agree about life’s ups and downs. Never take anything for granted.

Regarding furlough, I currently have some people on 80% furlough as business is completely shut. What they tell me is that they’re not worse off as they have less tax and NI plus no travel expenses to work. In addition there isn’t much to spend their money on recreationally so all in all they’re , in some cases better off, but certainly not worse off. It’s a strange old world.

An example of one here, but I was worse off after 8 months of furlough. Sure, I saved travel costs, but my utility bills increased and there was no reduction in for example child maintenance costs to reflect the fact I was only on 80% of my salary. 

[jakedee]

Sandy- some fairly sensible advice there. Totally agree about life’s ups and downs. Never take anything for granted.
Regarding furlough, I currently have some people on 80% furlough as business is completely shut. What they tell me is that they’re not worse off as they have less tax and NI plus no travel expenses to work. In addition there isn’t much to spend their money on recreationally so all in all they’re , in some cases better off, but certainly not worse off. It’s a strange old world.

Have you asked them about their heating Bill's? Any savings we've made on transport costs has just been transferred to higher heating costs.

[MONKMAN]

well done Sunak.

The way some people go on, you’d think the money came personally from the big bank of Rishi Sunak - man of the people. A hedge fund manager who married into one of the richest families on the planet and doesn’t give one f**k about the working class. He was fully insistent on ending the furlough scheme, completely against the wishes of the devolved nations, until shit hit the fan down south and it was needed in London.

[HTG]

Sunak's a c**t. He's getting an easy ride but we saw his true colours (and those of this govt) in the exchange with Burnham. 

[GordonS]

2 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

That was my first thought but, to be fair, I think a lot of people's weekly outgoings will have come down outside of things like travel costs as well. No/drastically reduced trips to pubs, restaurants, cinema, football. No foreign holidays. Being on furlough made me realise just how much I spend on shite like takeaway coffee and lunches when I was going to work.

That's not to say being on furlough is great and financially better. It's totally dependent on people's individual circumstances and what their outgoings were like before but I imagine there are some people who could be on 80% salary and be financially better off once regular outgoings drop due to lockdown.

I'm one of the lucky ones, I'm on full pay and working from home. I'm saving over £50 a week on travel plus a wedge on lunches, diet cokes etc. In the couple of years before the pandemic I went to about 60 football and rugby matches a year, so between tickets, travel and food I've saved a lot on that. I'm probably saving about £500 a month all in. If I were on 80% I would still be better off than before.

We're not rolling in it because we were in a serious hole before it happened, but it has helped us to climb a long way back up.

We know how lucky we are so we've kept paying for stuff like all the kids activities even though they can't do them, and I've used donate-a-ticket to give money to Linlithgow Rose's opponents in all their away fixtures. Folk give you a pat on the back for that stuff but honestly, for those in my position it's the bare minimum and I feel guilty about not doing more.

[Gordon EF]

18 minutes ago, GordonS said:

I'm one of the lucky ones, I'm on full pay and working from home. I'm saving over £50 a week on travel plus a wedge on lunches, diet cokes etc. In the couple of years before the pandemic I went to about 60 football and rugby matches a year, so between tickets, travel and food I've saved a lot on that. I'm probably saving about £500 a month all in. If I were on 80% I would still be better off than before.

We're not rolling in it because we were in a serious hole before it happened, but it has helped us to climb a long way back up.

We know how lucky we are so we've kept paying for stuff like all the kids activities even though they can't do them, and I've used donate-a-ticket to give money to Linlithgow Rose's opponents in all their away fixtures. Folk give you a pat on the back for that stuff but honestly, for those in my position it's the bare minimum and I feel guilty about not doing more.

Yeah, I've definitely not been adversely affected financially by the pandemic either (yet) and I accept I'm very lucky on that count. A year ago I was commuting to Glasgow 4 days a week. I got put on furlough for 4 months and I probably broke roughly even in terms on incomings and outgoings due to pretty substantial travel costs being avoided. Since then I've been working from home and there's no doubt I'm in a financially better position right now than I was a year ago before lockdown.

I think the effects of the pandemic have been hugely unequal. Some of that is definitely down to existing inequality. Some of it's down to dumb luck.

[strichener]

2 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

A drop of 20% on Gross earnings translates into a drop of around 10% on net earnings depending on income levels.

Net earnings is the important thing.

Furlough is a lifesaver and - well done Sunak.

Don't get me wrong, I think the furlough scheme has helped in the circumstance and I was originally of the opinion that 80% was too high as I thought that it made this an easy out for companies that maybe didn't even need to be using the scheme (and that is exactly what happened given that there were voluntary offers to pay back money claimed through the scheme by some companies). 

As for your 20% gross being around 10% net you are speaking utter tosh - only someone in the highest rate tax would be anywhere close to this and they would be receiving significantly less as they would be above the £2500 limit.  For example someone in Scotland on NMW working 37.5 hours per week would take home £293.19 per week at full rate and £248.36 on furlough which is a drop of 15.3%.  For someone on £15 per hour the drop is 16.7% and someone on £20 per hour it is £17.3%.  As you say net earnings are the important thing and the reduction is closer to the 20% than 10% in all earnings categories.

2 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

That was my first thought but, to be fair, I think a lot of people's weekly outgoings will have come down outside of things like travel costs as well. No/drastically reduced trips to pubs, restaurants, cinema, football. No foreign holidays. Being on furlough made me realise just how much I spend on shite like takeaway coffee and lunches when I was going to work.

That's not to say being on furlough is great and financially better. It's totally dependent on people's individual circumstances and what their outgoings were like before but I imagine there are some people who could be on 80% salary and be financially better off once regular outgoings drop due to lockdown.

Discretionary spending is just that.  Many people on the lowest incomes already have close to 0 discretionary spending.

[Gordon EF]

Just now, strichener said:

Discretionary spending is just that.  Many people on the lowest incomes already have close to 0 discretionary spending.

Yeah, and that they would be a group that won't be better off. Clearly if you're just getting by on 100% salary, dropping down to 80% is not going to be good and reduced travel costs alone aren't going to make up for that. I'm just saying that for some people, it's pretty conceivable to be on 80% salary and be financially better off than they were a year ago.

[HTG]

[DeeTillEhDeh]

My wife's pay during furlough was around 17.5% lower than she normally got - around £185 per month less.

[Futureboy]

11 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

My wife's pay during furlough was around 17.5% lower than she normally got - around £185 per month less.
 

Aye, I was about 17.5% off the back of a fag packet too, but it worked out at about 5.5 times more than I would have spent on fuel/commuting.  As happy as I was to still be getting an income, I definitely felt a hit over eight months of it.

I didn't enjoy one minute of furlough. Eight months of wondering when the call was coming to say I was punted (work in an industry hard hit by the effects of the virus).  Fortunately I've found another, better job...but furlough wasn't enjoyable for a lot of folk.

[BFTD]

5 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

Stop right there, never ever feel you've let yourself down financially, as long as you have enough to get by and you're in a good stable relationship then you're rich.

Look around you right now, there are plenty who have got to the top of that greasy pole thinking they have it all and now they are flat on their arses, I do not grudge for a minute people making money and are at the top of their world but you can never foretell the financial future, wealth is relative, happiness and health are free and more desirable.

As GordonS said, I was being cynical and sarky as per, but the sentiment is appreciated.

Thankfully I have some personal possessions I can sell off to help pay the bills but, considering that those on low incomes are still being penalised over the next four years, it'll be interesting to see where we are by the next General Election. I doubt the food banks will be able to cope.

[NotThePars]

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19145490.boris-johnson-will-dismiss-indyref2-calls-without-snp-majority-curtice-warns/

I know this was posted a few pages back but I have a couple of issues with this

1. “A coalition is irrelevant. I think it would be easier for the Unionists to deny the SNP a referendum if the SNP don’t get an overall majority,” he said.

“Just compare and contrast. In 2011 the SNP won a majority and David Cameron agreed to the referendum, in 2016 there was a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, but in 2017 Theresa May says no.”

Does anyone seriously believe the composition of the Scottish parliament had any serious impact on Theresa May's decision to say no?

2. "He added that the advantage for the SNP in having a majority is that the party can cite the agreement the Scottish Government got from Cameron and ask why such an agreement cannot be repeated by Johnson."

Who specifically is this supposed to appeal to?

Curtice sounds like he's primed and ready to have his wallet inspected and if the SNP hinge the validity of another referendum on an outright majority in a system designed to prevent that then they're taking an extremely high-risk strategy for a reward that arguably doesn't exist.

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by NotThePars

[BFTD]

It would be very uncomfortable for them, but I can't see the Westminster government agreeing to another independence referendum, even if a pro-independence party somehow won all the seats. We were granted the last one because Cameron thought there was no danger of losing. Two referendums and the p***k badly misjudged both of them. You couldn't mark the necks on this lot and they will brass out absolutely anything.

It's going to take legal action to find out if we're in a union, or if we're just a satellite of another nation, but part of the process is likely to be establishing that we're being told "absolutely, uncategorically, we will not let you leave, and we say you have no route in which to make that happen".

[Paco]

Is there any scope for the next Scottish Government to go a bit nuclear and change the voting system to outright FPTP?

It’d be a dreadful look, and it may be a moot point as the Greens would be needed to vote it through and they’d be voting to put themselves out of parliament.

But if a referendum is turned down due to the lack of a majority, in a system designed to prevent a majority, something has to give.

I don’t think even the most ardent Unionist would be under any illusion that the SNP, currently, would have a thumping majority in a FPTP system.