Mr Rational Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 No? You should try them. It gives them a certain hard to resist itch.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I think the response of different independence supporters to the basic ethics of using distressed sales for a quick profit, while maintaining support for social justice and economic equality, is very telling. You have people like archie guevara who are prepared to say that they are really uncomfortable with these practices even if they fall within the letter of the law. These people have a clear and consistent commitment to social justice and though generally believing that institutions in the independence movement are less bad for upholding those values are willing to respond to the evidence and call the SNP out if necessary. Then there's the Nat-loyalists, whose public and superficial criticisms of the British state and in particular the Labour Party are that they have "abandoned" a commitment to social justice, and will point to instances of personal advancement and any policies pursued by Westminster to the right of Harold Wilson as evidence of a failed project. Yet as soon as one of their own is seen to behave in a similar way, suddenly all that matters is the letter of the law, not the ethics, and behaviour that characterises the harsher edges of the free market are presented as perfectly reasonable choices. It's Tartan exploitation good, Wastemonster exploitation bad. I would rather that this fake latter group just dropped the pretence of caring about social justice and just admitted that they are centre-right leaning nationalists rather than social justice warriors. Just admit your worldview is actually to the right of the Labour Party and that you have a lot more in common beyond the constitutional question with Tories than you do with Labour. For you independence isn't the archie guevara project to close the wealth gap and eliminate poverty; for you the SNP is about a modest shift towards your own mercantilist self interest and far from being agitators for social justice those alliances you have formed are crushingly strategic and not indicative of real unity of belief and purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Or there's just a siege mentality where some nationalists are absolutely unable to criticise their own out of a sense of 'us and them' rather than any inherent conservative leanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 So, gazing into your crystal ball, can you tell me exactly what Michelle Thomson has done wrong? Interesting how she buys 2 homes and on the very same day she buys them she sells then on to her own HUSBAND for a large profit,i bet that happens all the time with couples who are married. Fide if this was a labour mp you would be all over this like a scabby rash having a right rant at them so none of your moral rubbish please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 You have to laugh at a Lib Dem telling anyone that their politics is closer to the Tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Interesting how she buys 2 homes and on the very same day she buys them she sells then on to her own HUSBAND for a large profit,i bet that happens all the time with couples who are married. Fide if this was a labour mp you would be all over this like a scabby rash having a right rant at them so none of your moral rubbish please. The lady last night was raging that she took the ONLY offer on the table and DOUBLED her money. She could have said no. It's not like it was a vulnerable person with no mind of their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Yeah it closer to that - it's a siege mentality. I get the 'whole world is against us, we must protect our own - 'no matter the cost' view. God knows we have been battered from all angles since time began but to me, we also shouldn't be above scrutiny - or discipline either. I'm not a member at the moment and despite all I have done over the decades (now), I'm struggling to renew. There's a part of me that is shouting 'get involved' and don't be daft, but I'm extremely uncomfortable with a lot of branch stuff and some of the newbies are just getting on my tits and that has been members as well as candidates. With the new intake, we were always going to get folk that were in it for career advancement and nothing else, some would come with 'baggage' and some would be plain outright dodgy. I reckon she will prob come out of this but will be tarnished no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 No. Because it depends on your definition of "wrong". Personally, (and I may be in a minority here on the basis of what I've seen online on nationalist websites and Twitter) I think it's wrong for somebody who loudly champions social justice, to be involved in such a patently grubby, backhander-based, money making scheme. I fully accept that it'spossibly hypocritical of me to feel that way if I buy Kenyan runner beans, or Primark underpants, but I've not gone to Kenya to negotiate the deal with the bean farmer, so I reckon that's probably safe. I'm not ready for hand knitted underpants either. My politics lead me to be fundamentally opposed to ISAs but sometimes you just have to accept that they're just part of how the world works. I will wait until the full details are disclosed but I'm perfectly prepared to condemn Thomson if the deals are as grubby and underhand as they are being portrayed. In fact some of the more vocal nats on here have already said exactly that so I don't exactly see the problem. As if party loyalty is limited to the SNP. Ad Lib you're nothing but a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I think the response of different independence supporters to the basic ethics of using distressed sales for a quick profit, while maintaining support for social justice and economic equality, is very telling. You have people like archie guevara who are prepared to say that they are really uncomfortable with these practices even if they fall within the letter of the law. These people have a clear and consistent commitment to social justice and though generally believing that institutions in the independence movement are less bad for upholding those values are willing to respond to the evidence and call the SNP out if necessary. Then there's the Nat-loyalists, whose public and superficial criticisms of the British state and in particular the Labour Party are that they have "abandoned" a commitment to social justice, and will point to instances of personal advancement and any policies pursued by Westminster to the right of Harold Wilson as evidence of a failed project. Yet as soon as one of their own is seen to behave in a similar way, suddenly all that matters is the letter of the law, not the ethics, and behaviour that characterises the harsher edges of the free market are presented as perfectly reasonable choices. It's Tartan exploitation good, Wastemonster exploitation bad. I would rather that this fake latter group just dropped the pretence of caring about social justice and just admitted that they are centre-right leaning nationalists rather than social justice warriors. Just admit your worldview is actually to the right of the Labour Party and that you have a lot more in common beyond the constitutional question with Tories than you do with Labour. For you independence isn't the archie guevara project to close the wealth gap and eliminate poverty; for you the SNP is about a modest shift towards your own mercantilist self interest and far from being agitators for social justice those alliances you have formed are crushingly strategic and not indicative of real unity of belief and purpose. This mewling diatribe was brought to you by the Busted Flush Party. Interesting how she buys 2 homes and on the very same day she buys them she sells then on to her own HUSBAND for a large profit,i bet that happens all the time with couples who are married. Fide if this was a labour mp you would be all over this like a scabby rash having a right rant at them so none of your moral rubbish please. And I have already stated, numerous times, if she has done wrong, she should go. I was merely stating that she has not been found guilty of a single thing so far. Tsk, you Britnats, you're very excitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Or there's just a siege mentality where some nationalists are absolutely unable to criticise their own out of a sense of 'us and them' rather than any inherent conservative leanings. It's clearly both from where I'm standing. They are weathervane social justice believers. Inability to self-criticise has been a point opponents of the SNP have been making for quite a few years now. Some of us were ridiculed for daring to suggest it. By smart people. You have to laugh at a Lib Dem telling anyone that their politics is closer to the Tories. Of course my politics is closer to that of David Cameron than Jeremy Corbyn. I'm completely open about that. And that's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 It's clearly both from where I'm standing. They are weathervane social justice believers. Inability to self-criticise has been a point opponents of the SNP have been making for quite a few years now. Some of us were ridiculed for daring to suggest it. By smart people. You obviously have never been to a branch meeting on our side of the fence then. Believe me, the problems and criticism started when the second member joined, we are highly critical of people, candidates, policies etc, it's just that we choose to do it mainly behind closed doors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 It's clearly both from where I'm standing. They are weathervane social justice believers. Inability to self-criticise has been a point opponents of the SNP have been making for quite a few years now. Some of us were ridiculed for daring to suggest it. By smart people. That's us telt then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 You obviously have never been to a branch meeting on our side of the fence then. Believe me, the problems and criticism started when the second member joined, we are highly critical of people, candidates, policies etc, it's just that we choose to do it mainly behind closed doors. Why won't the SNP just have it out in public like everyone else does? The whole pretence of public unity is nauseating. It's actually what makes a lot of people suspicious of the SNP as a movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 There isn't anything illegal about buying homes from distressed buyers then flogging them to someone else at a big profit on the same day. I think it becomes illegal if the second buyer has obtained a mortgage on the full value of the property, they pay the full price to the buyer and they split the difference, a nice little earner. Haven't heard any evidence that that is what happened in this case but the solicitor who has been struck off should have notified the lender that this is what was happening, in order to allow the lender to guard against this sort of fraud. That's how it works I think? Any lawyers/fraudsters want to correct me? Also, I think the source of the second buyers deposit is also a factor in this. When I bought my house my parents gave me some money towards the deposit and I had to sign a disclaimer that this money wasn't a loan. If the second seller has been loaned the money for the deposit to facilitate the quick sale and mark-up but says they haven't then that's fraud as well. ETA, I don't think that even if Michelle Thomson is guilty that this will necessarily impact badly on the SNP. It might suggest they need to vet their candidates a wee bit better - surely someone could've worked out she'd been involved in property deals that lead to a lawyer being struck off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Why won't the SNP just have it out in public like everyone else does? The whole pretence of public unity is nauseating. It's actually what makes a lot of people suspicious of the SNP as a movement. 56 MPs say differently. And if it annoys you, well I'm sure there's a 'pleasing' picture somewhere.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie guevara Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Why won't the SNP just have it out in public like everyone else does? The whole pretence of public unity is nauseating. It's actually what makes a lot of people suspicious of the SNP as a movement. Oh come on. The 79 group? Jim Sillars and Margo? The SNP have learned from the mistake of taking huffs in public, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Oh come on. The 79 group? Jim Sillars and Margo? The SNP have learned from the mistake of taking huffs in public, that's all. Spot on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Why won't the SNP just have it out in public like everyone else does? The whole pretence of public unity is nauseating. It's actually what makes a lot of people suspicious of the SNP as a movement. Every day you turn into more of a frothing Britnat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Oh come on. The 79 group? Jim Sillars and Margo? The SNP have learned from the mistake of taking huffs in public, that's all. Spot on! This is PRECISELY the point though. Why don't the SNP know how to have a public argument without kicking people out their party? Other parties manage to tolerate public and vocal internal disagreement just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Mate, it's sounding like a whine now... Besides - disagreements over policies? You are aware we had a debate/rammy over NATO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.