AUFC90 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Still waiting on Ad Libs condemnation of the Lib Dems cronyism regarding T in the Park Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Still waiting on Ad Libs condemnation of the Lib Dems cronyism regarding T in the Park I've not read the article relating to the circumstances in which it is alleged that the Labour-LibDem coalition provided funds to TITP when they were in office. Perhaps you could point me to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Why would the circumstances matter? Under what circumstances would it have been ok to give the owners of T in the Park money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Why would the circumstances matter? Under what circumstances would it have been ok to give the owners of T in the Park money? I was going to post exactly this last night but my phone was playing up. When you have previously covered all the circumstances by posting This assumes that they are inherently or presumptively entitled: 1. To exist 2. To hold their concert at a specific venue 3. To hold their concert more than once 4. To hold their concert repeatedly at the same venue Why should the state create any of these presumptions or compensate a private company on the basis of those presumptions not being held to? If DF Concerts want a permanent site, they can buy one and do the proper diligence as to its long-term suitability and take into account the possibility of the site subsequently becoming unuseable. Otherwise they can suck it up. Then you really don't need any further details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I've not read the article relating to the circumstances in which it is alleged that the Labour-LibDem coalition provided funds to TITP when they were in office. Perhaps you could point me to it? The floor is yours Libbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Is there a plague in this thread as Ad Lib is certainly avoiding it like there is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 This is almost as delicious as Jmo's scoop of the election. Ad Lib Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I simply asked to be linked to the article. I suspect there is no good case for the Labour-Liberal regime to have given TITP money. I want to know the circumstances because I want to see what justifications were offered. The fact that I am unlikely to find those justifications persuasive given what I said before isn't the point. I want to know if the justifications offered fall within the range of reasonable disagreement between me and others about what criteria should be used to decide whether to give money to an operation like TITP. The Scottish Government's decision in this specific case fell, in my view, outside of the reasonable range of decisions a Cabinet Secretary was entitled to take. I don't know enough about the Lab-Lib situation beyond the words on the front page of the Sunday Herald. Their justifications then may be ones which other reasonable people might be satisfied by. I want to know how comparable the two situations were. I maintain as a matter of personal opinion that no commercial music festival should receive public funding. That's not what is objectionable about the SNP grant. What is objectionable is the specific justifications they offered, the timing of the decision, the lack of evidence or logic to support their suppositions about the long-term viability of the festival in Scotland, and the lobbying relationships that gave rise to the grant application. Some or all of these factors may be shared in the Lab-Lib case. I want to know if that's the case before passing comment. Is that unreasonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 You'll have to explain the benefits to Scotland of HS2, Crossrail, The Olympics, and the Millennium Dome because I'm struggling to see it. When's our Commonwealth redemption cheque due ? We've dealt with HS2. Crossrail classes as England only expenditure and has Barnet consequentials. Those politicians who continually suggest otherwise are either lying to wind up the more stupid and gullible among the electorate or they're stupid. The Olympics, I shouldn't have to explain the benefits/problems to a nation as a whole of hosting the Olympics. I can't remember the exact funding situation regarding the Dome and can't be bothered looking it up, but my memory suggests it was lottery funded. What benefit does someone in Dumfries & Galloway or someone in Orkney derive from the new Forth crossing? Why should they part fund it rather than only those in Lothians and Fife? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 What benefit does someone in Dumfries & Galloway or someone in Orkney derive from the new Forth crossing? Why should they part fund it rather than only those in Lothians and Fife? The road that crosses the Forth goes to Orkney. HTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 We've dealt with HS2. Crossrail classes as England only expenditure and has Barnet consequentials. Those politicians who continually suggest otherwise are either lying to wind up the more stupid and gullible among the electorate or they're stupid. The Olympics, I shouldn't have to explain the benefits/problems to a nation as a whole of hosting the Olympics. I can't remember the exact funding situation regarding the Dome and can't be bothered looking it up, but my memory suggests it was lottery funded. What benefit does someone in Dumfries & Galloway or someone in Orkney derive from the new Forth crossing? Why should they part fund it rather than only those in Lothians and Fife? We have to pay towards crossrail, sewers, HS2 I'm afraid. The new forth road bridge is a benefit to Scotland and funded by Scottish taxpayers only. Last time I checked Dumfries and Orkney is in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 We have to pay towards crossrail, sewers, HS2 I'm afraid. The new forth road bridge is a benefit to Scotland and funded by Scottish taxpayers only. Last time I checked Dumfries and Orkney is in Scotland. No we don't. Crossrail is England only expenditure and we gain through Barnet as a result. HS2 we pay 2% - the agreed figure. Sewers in London are funded by Thames Water. You obviously hold more store by some man-made boundaries than others. By your argument HS2 is a benefit to the UK and Scotland were part of the UK last time I checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 No we don't. Crossrail is England only expenditure and we gain through Barnet as a result. HS2 we pay 2% - the agreed figure. Sewers in London are funded by Thames Water. You obviously hold more store by some man-made boundaries than others. By your argument HS2 is a benefit to the UK and Scotland were part of the UK last time I checked. The man made boundaries apply to block grants and financial matters which is what we're discussing.ETA you'll have to prove that we don't pay for crossrail and the sewers. Im sure the sewers come out the reserve fund which means we pay. And only 2% of HS2 ? Thats alright then ay ? Still a LOT of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Heliums Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 The Olympics, I shouldn't have to explain the benefits/problems to a nation as a whole of hosting the Olympics. Perhaps you shouldn't. But someone should be able to surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 The government have been cleared of any wrongdoing according to the watchdog. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35895948 Regardless of your own position on the government providing these funds, Time for some to accept they were wrong with regards to cronyism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Surprise surprise. Another attempted SNP smear falls flat on it's face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Glorious. Comments pages on the likes of the Courier are absolutely fantastic reading at the moment, as the yoons are seeing virtually every bullshit story they fire up about the SNP have literally no effect on their polling whatsoever. It's like a support group for the servile. Wonderful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 The Olympics, I shouldn't have to explain the benefits/problems to a nation as a whole of hosting the Olympics.My Team: West Ham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.