Jump to content

The Politics Thread


shull

Recommended Posts



It would be inhumane of me to as it has been clearly shown that someone is in danger, so I'm going to refrain meantime from further comments regarding his false accusations. To any member of his family I'm deeply sorry if any or all of my posts shown Stuart as the disturbed liar that clearly he is, have been instrumental in any change to his mental well being.



So you can't read Norwegian then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites


25 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 


So you can't read Norwegian then?

 

I'm sure that, like you (evidently), he could use any number of online translation services if he had the desire.

Stop trying so desperately to make yourself look remotely bright and well informed, Stuart. That ship sailed a long, long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that, like you (evidently), he could use any number of online translation services if he had the desire.

Stop trying so desperately to make yourself look remotely bright and well informed, Stuart. That ship sailed a long, long time ago.



The point I was making Drew is that Coward lied when he claimed he'd read the misinformed article in a Norwegian language newspaper.

Case proved I think
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew I should have got my petition in earlier.

"Conservative councillor in Surrey launches petition calling for support of UK membership of the European Union to be declared treason".

Said councillor looks as if he ate the cake and pie mountains.

Edited by melmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the wording:

"Amend the Treason Felony Act to make supporting UK membership of the EU a crime.

The Treason Felony Act be amended to include the following offences: 
'To imagine, devise, promote, work, or encourage others, to support UK becoming a member of the European Union; 
- To conspire with foreign powers to make the UK, or part of the UK, become a member of the EU.'

It is becoming clear that many politicians and others are unwilling to accept the democratic decision of the British people to leave the EU. Brexit must not be put at risk in the years and decades ahead. For this reason we the undersigned request that the Treason Felony Act be amended as set out in this petition.

(These provisions to become law the day the United Kingdom leaves the EU)"


It'll be fine, though, Scotland won't be part of the UK when what's left of it leaves the EU.


Link to comment
Share on other sites



Now where else have I seen advice like that? Oh yeah, The Scientology Cult. Only talk to your own, don't listen to naysayers, and believe 100% in the daft story about aliens.

Got to love when the Natsi try so desperately to pull the drawbridge up


You're a Scientologist? Explains a lot...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear. Mr Salmond has had his arse handed to him yet again. I guess this also debunks the ridiculous shite being peddled by Natsis on here about the Scottish deficit. We know Natsis don't like to do sums cause they don't like the answers, after all they believed the White Paper, but hopefully this article will help with its plain speaking style. Bottom line - Scotland is f**ked if we vote for Independence from the rest of the UK. Utterly f**ked.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/d-9065740

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

Kevin Hague, pet food salesman and unionist twitterer now being treated like a respected knowledgeable journalist.
No wonder the Daily Record is struggling. They'll be re- running the story about noise at St.Mirren training ground next. Oh, wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This



Now where else have I seen advice like that? Oh yeah, The Scientology Cult. Only talk to your own, don't listen to naysayers, and believe 100% in the daft story about aliens.

Got to love when the Natsi try so desperately to pull the drawbridge up


Then this

Oh dear. Mr Salmond has had his arse handed to him yet again. I guess this also debunks the ridiculous shite being peddled by Natsis on here about the Scottish deficit. We know Natsis don't like to do sums cause they don't like the answers, after all they believed the White Paper, but hopefully this article will help with its plain speaking style. Bottom line - Scotland is f**ked if we vote for Independence from the rest of the UK. Utterly f**ked.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/d-9065740



He never tires of trying to take Carlsberg's crown for irony, does he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

This

Then this

He never tires of trying to take Carlsberg's crown for irony, does he?
 

 

There's no irony in my post. The financial assertions of the White Paper are there today to be utterly ridiculed. Scotland spends £15Bn more per annum than it raises in income. It can do this because of the Barnett Formula which has been proven time and time again to be hugely beneficial to the people of Scotland. If Scotland becomes independent then the revenue the Scottish Government has to spend has to be generated through it's own tax take and through it's own investments so the £15Bn annual deficit is extremely relevant when considering what the country would look like without the generous subsidy from Westminster. How would the SNP fund a Scottish NHS? how would they pay benefits and pensions? What public services would they have to cut further still? And what taxes would have to be raised and by how much to make the books balance? If the SNP continues to refuse to answer those points then the credibility of the Independence argument remains completely and utterly destroyed. 

As the Daily Record article shows in very simple terms the bollocks spouted by Natsi's about it all being funded by the savings from not having to pay for Trident, or the renovations at Westminster, or the HS2 project simply don't hold water. So where else will those savings come from? And how the hell does the SNP square that huge deficit with it's promises of free childcare for all? 

It's time the SNP really were called to account. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tony soprano said:

Kevin Hague, pet food salesman and unionist twitterer now being treated like a respected knowledgeable journalist.
No wonder the Daily Record is struggling. They'll be re- running the story about noise at St.Mirren training ground next. Oh, wait...

Ah now see this is the standard cultist way to deal with criticism. Thanks for this glorious example Tony. Remember all those TV documentaries on the scientologists when they produced their own cameramen to film the reporter and camera crew? Remember the stalking out the reporters personal life desperately trying to find some sort of scandal to silence the critic? 

His figures are accurate, his criticism of Alex Salmond's sneering at being questioned on the subject utterly valid, yet instead with deal with the facts as they have been presented you choose to smear. This is one of the reasons the 55% will never vote for Independence. It's sad really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, El Gingero said:

I agree with you Stuart that presently it would be a financial disaster for Scotland to be independent but the Tory party at Westminster are making some people want to be independent at whatever cost to Scotland.

I honestly don't think they are El Gingero. Ruth Davidson is now regularly polling as the most respected politician in Scottish Politics. Her approval rating even amongst traditional Labour voters and SNP voters is substantially higher than that of Nicola Sturgeon. The Conservatives even put in a strong showing in the last Scottish Election pushing themselves into second place in Scotland and denying the SNP a majority. Theresa May is also more respected in Scotland than David Cameron ever was, perhaps because of the perception that she's less posh and that she's far less likely to tolerate fools. Even the latest opinion polls show that support for Scottish Independence peaked some time ago and that there is very little support in Scotland for a second referendum no matter whether it's a "hard" or "soft" Brexit - whatever the f**k those terms are supposed to mean. 

The SNP are even finding out, to their cost now, that they can't hide their politicians in England and make loads of boasts about how they run Holyrood relying on the ignorance of the audience not to pick them up on their lies. 

I think Independence is a dead duck now. The current SNP leadership and that under Alex Salmond have ensured through their mismanagement and their lack of credibility that the  majority of Scots will never trust them on the independence issue ever again. Views on that are more entrenched than ever now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Oh dear. Mr Salmond has had his arse handed to him yet again. I guess this also debunks the ridiculous shite being peddled by Natsis on here about the Scottish deficit. We know Natsis don't like to do sums cause they don't like the answers, after all they believed the White Paper, but hopefully this article will help with its plain speaking style. Bottom line - Scotland is f**ked if we vote for Independence from the rest of the UK. Utterly f**ked.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/d-9065740

Hague is a reactionary trumpet.

Anyway, that aside (and apologies if this has already been asked of you) but could you kindly explain how Scotland can find itself with its own deficit when it cannot borrow and receives a block grant from the UK government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Drew said:

Hague is a reactionary trumpet.

Anyway, that aside (and apologies if this has already been asked of you) but could you kindly explain how Scotland can find itself with its own deficit when it cannot borrow and receives a block grant from the UK government?

The deficit is the calculated difference on the GERS report between the amount given to Scotland through the Barnett Formula and the amount of income generated from Scotland. It's simple and it's clear. Scotland gets more money to spend than it raises. Alex Salmond was quick to produce the GERS figures when it showed back in 2013 than Scotland was generating slightly more in tax revenues than it was getting back through the Barnett Formula. He's not quite as accepting of the GERS report since it has started to show the actual perilous state of Scottish finances. 

I've got to add that I'm sad to see you also abusing Kevin Hague. He's produced his figures and shown his calculations. If those are wrong then argue with the case he puts forward. Don't smear him by calling him a "reactionary trumpet". I would have thought out of all of the eejits on this forum that you might have been above that. :rolleyes:

Edited by Stuart Dickson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Hague is a reactionary trumpet.

Anyway, that aside (and apologies if this has already been asked of you) but could you kindly explain how Scotland can find itself with its own deficit when it cannot borrow and receives a block grant from the UK government?


Yoons like to conveniently forget that Scotland has very limited borrowing powers and will continue to have limited borrowing even once the Scotland Act is introduced.

The GERS figures are skewed to make Scotland look bad - not my opinion, the opinion of Iain Lang the Tory ex sec of state for Scotland who introduced GERS.

Don't forget Scotland's finances are currently calculated to include our share of UK infrastructure spending. Off the top of my head that would include London crossrail, London Olympics, proposed HS2 rail from London to Birmingham and the refurbishment of Westminster (currently around £7 billion but it's early days for that estimate).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

The deficit is the calculated difference on the GERS report between the amount given to Scotland through the Barnett Formula and the amount of income generated from Scotland. It's simple and it's clear. Scotland gets more money to spend than it raises. Alex Salmond was quick to produce the GERS figures when it showed back in 2013 than Scotland was generating slightly more in tax revenues than it was getting back through the Barnett Formula. He's not quite as accepting of the GERS report since it has started to show the actual perilous state of Scottish finances. 

I've got to add that I'm sad to see you also abusing Kevin Hague. He's produced his figures and shown his calculations. If those are wrong then argue with the case he puts forward. Don't smear him by calling him a "reactionary trumpet". I would have thought out of all of the eejits on this forum that you might have been above that. :rolleyes:

Now, now, Stuart, you're not above calling people out who you don't respect. I don't respect Kevin Hague. He has a highly partisan agenda, and will as happily manipulate figures to reflect that agenda as any politician (including Salmond) would. As such, he is no more above criticism than anyone else (including Salmond, who you are so fond of abusing).

Onto GERS, you do know that this was a construct that was very deliberately and specifically introduced to undermine the case for ANY devolution of power to Scotland?

This contention that it is possible to extrapolate a defecit based on what Scotland receives via a block grant and what it generates in income is utterly spurious.  A deficit is a calculation based on borrowing versus revenue (income). When Scotland's income is dictated by a grant awarded from Whitehall, the calculation becomes yet another construct.

We've been through this before, Stuart. Much like Oaksoft doesn't do fitba, you don't do economics, and no amount of frenzied Wikipedia trawling is going to change that fact, I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Drew said:

Now, now, Stuart, you're not above calling people out who you don't respect. I don't respect Kevin Hague. He has a highly partisan agenda, and will as happily manipulate figures to reflect that agenda as any politician (including Salmond) would. As such, he is no more above criticism than anyone else (including Salmond, who you are so fond of abusing).

Onto GERS, you do know that this was a construct that was very deliberately and specifically introduced to undermine the case for ANY devolution of power to Scotland?

This contention that it is possible to extrapolate a defecit based on what Scotland receives via a block grant and what it generates in income is utterly spurious.  A deficit is a calculation based on borrowing versus revenue (income). When Scotland's income is dictated by a grant awarded from Whitehall, the calculation becomes yet another construct.

We've been through this before, Stuart. Much like Oaksoft doesn't do fitba, you don't do economics, and no amount of frenzied Wikipedia trawling is going to change that fact, I'm afraid.

It's not a construct Drew. Scotland spends more than it earns. If it was an Independent country Scotland would be heavily in debt with an a national annual budget deficit against GDP 250% higher than that of the UK. 

If Hague has manipulated the figures please can you show, in the same plain speaking terms where he has done so, where his logic is flawed, and where the Scottish Government would find the £15Bn needed annually just to keep spending at it's current levels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

It's not a construct Drew. Scotland spends more than it earns. If it was an Independent country Scotland would be heavily in debt with an a national annual budget deficit against GDP 250% higher than that of the UK. 

If Hague has manipulated the figures please can you show, in the same plain speaking terms where he has done so, where his logic is flawed, and where the Scottish Government would find the £15Bn needed annually just to keep spending at it's current levels. 

Have a wee look at the OECD figures on respective GDP of UK and Scotland.

Again, though, quite how a GDP can be calculated for what is effectively a region of the UK is anyone's guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no irony in my post. The financial assertions of the White Paper are there today to be utterly ridiculed. Scotland spends £15Bn more per annum than it raises in income. It can do this because of the Barnett Formula which has been proven time and time again to be hugely beneficial to the people of Scotland. If Scotland becomes independent then the revenue the Scottish Government has to spend has to be generated through it's own tax take and through it's own investments so the £15Bn annual deficit is extremely relevant when considering what the country would look like without the generous subsidy from Westminster. How would the SNP fund a Scottish NHS? how would they pay benefits and pensions? What public services would they have to cut further still? And what taxes would have to be raised and by how much to make the books balance? If the SNP continues to refuse to answer those points then the credibility of the Independence argument remains completely and utterly destroyed. 

As the Daily Record article shows in very simple terms the bollocks spouted by Natsi's about it all being funded by the savings from not having to pay for Trident, or the renovations at Westminster, or the HS2 project simply don't hold water. So where else will those savings come from? And how the hell does the SNP square that huge deficit with it's promises of free childcare for all? 

It's time the SNP really were called to account. 

You don't see the irony of accusing Indy supporters of only reading pro-indy literature at the same time as only quoting pro-unionist literature (and after stating that you'd never read pro-indy websites)?

I knew you struggled with the English language, but jeezo, that's some going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ITheresa May is also more respected in Scotland than David Cameron ever was, perhaps because of the perception that she's less posh and that she's far less likely to tolerate fools.




Stuart, are you really sure that you meant to type this? Mibbes I don't pay enough attention but Respected for being less posh!..... and not tolerating fools! Is yon Boris 1/fool then?

I don't know what the optimum posh/un-posh respect index is .....?

Aye, maybe I'm not paying attention to who is speaking on my behalf....


Carry on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said:

It's not a construct Drew. Scotland spends more than it earns. If it was an Independent country Scotland would be heavily in debt with an a national annual budget deficit against GDP 250% higher than that of the UK. 

If Hague has manipulated the figures please can you show, in the same plain speaking terms where he has done so, where his logic is flawed, and where the Scottish Government would find the £15Bn needed annually just to keep spending at it's current levels. 

 

CsyQs11XEAAVDWB.jpg

Cu6fVOOWIAATDrr.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...