The Politics Thread

[Tommy]

4 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Thanks.
I know this is a subject close to your heart from previous posts.

I thought it was more connected to you retiring

I did go sideways by my answer so sorry for that.

Now being retired and with my wife health, biggest issue for me is who do I trust more on social care since most of us will likely need it.

Normally I would never trust the Tories on health issues, but now with our experience with dealing with SNP health ministers, I now don't really trust anybody.

 

 

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I did go sideways by my answer so sorry for that.
Now being retired and with my wife health, biggest issue for me is who do I trust more on social care since most of us will likely need it.
Normally I would never trust the Tories on health issues, but now with our experience with dealing with SNP health ministers, I now don't really trust anybody.
 
 
 

It's devolved and NHS in Scotland has always been seperate from English nhs. I think it's actually a year or so older up here.

SNP won't always run Scottish government, I reckon independence would see snp imode within 5 years due to differing factions within it.

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

The Crown Estate is a vast historic land grab that includes coastline and part of estuary and sea bed if I recall.

The money generated from it, isn't necessarily dependent on having a royal family and its only recently that the Queen agreed to give up some of the money made from it.

But my point still stands, if this was privately owned land generating profit, 75% would not go to the British government, most would go to the land owners. 

There are also other ways they generate income because the people are high level public interest. Prince Philip taken to hospital today and it becomes the number one trend in UK almost immediately despite the Brexit votes at the same time. People can deny it all they want but a family that has such high public interest and profile, generate big bucks both directly and indirectly. 

Much more analysis is online, the RF generate more from UK than they take out, by far, it's fact. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by bazil85

[windae cleaner]

2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

It's devolved and NHS in Scotland has always been seperate from English nhs. I think it's actually a year or so older up here.

SNP won't always run Scottish government, I reckon independence would see snp imode within 5 years due to differing factions within it.

I often wondered what would happen to the party once they get their aim

[windae cleaner]

Just now, bazil85 said:

But my point still stands, if this was privately owned land generating profit, 75% would not go to the British government, most wold go to the land owners. 

There are also other ways they generate income because the people are high level public interest. Prince Philip taken to hospital today and it becomes the number one trend in UK almost immediately despite the Brexit votes at the same time. People can deny it all they want but a family that has such high public interest and profile, generate big bucks both directly and indirectly. 

Much more analysis is online, the RF generate more from UK than they take out, by far, it's fact. 

But do they?

The Queen is on  Christmas Day but does anyone watch it or listen to it

My experience it's on the background but no one is bothered

There is Royalists out there but not that many

[bazil85]

Just now, windae cleaner said:

But do they?

The Queen is on  Christmas Day but does anyone watch it or listen to it

My experience it's on the background but no one is bothered

There is Royalists out there but not that many

They absolutely and categorically do. It is beyond doubt and evidence for it can be found online from multiple, peer reviewed sources. 

6.4 million last year, or to put that another way, the most watched thing on Christmas day. It is shown on BBC and ITV, does the income ITV makes for charging adverts during that time and the tax owed, associate with Royal income? If the monarchy was abolished, it wouldn't be there. On a similar note 23.7 million watched Harry and Meghan's wedding last year. That interest generates income through TV deals at home and abroad, picture deals, memorabilia, etc. If you abolish the monarchy, the interest in those people might still exist in their lifetime but they would be claiming the income personally, not to the crown and as such to the government. In future generations, all the income from princes, princesses, queens and kings goes. 

I think you should check into that a bit more. As said, the interest in the Royal Wedding (and others) was global. Birth of the children as well. We can also look at this from a charity perspective, charities often have members of the Royal Family involved. People can think that isn't required but in reality having someone from the Royals attached generates more interest and revenue. 

I feel you'd be surprised at the number of royalists globally. I personally am not but I do know the details behind their benefit to this country. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

But my point still stands, if this was privately owned land generating profit, 75% would not go to the British government, most would go to the land owners. 
There are also other ways they generate income because the people are high level public interest. Prince Philip taken to hospital today and it becomes the number one trend in UK almost immediately despite the Brexit votes at the same time. People can deny it all they want but a family that has such high public interest and profile, generate big bucks both directly and indirectly. 
Much more analysis is online, the RF generate more from UK than they take out, by far, it's fact. 

Your point doesn't stand because it is land that would belong to the people /nation.

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:

19 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

But my point still stands, if this was privately owned land generating profit, 75% would not go to the British government, most would go to the land owners. 
There are also other ways they generate income because the people are high level public interest. Prince Philip taken to hospital today and it becomes the number one trend in UK almost immediately despite the Brexit votes at the same time. People can deny it all they want but a family that has such high public interest and profile, generate big bucks both directly and indirectly. 
Much more analysis is online, the RF generate more from UK than they take out, by far, it's fact. 

Your point doesn't stand because it is land that would belong to the people /nation.

So are you suggesting that the land should be taken by the government and the income should go into the government purse? That's fine if that's what you believe but my point absolutely does stand because any lands that use the monarchy as a way to generate income would owe the individuals royalties going forward, they'd also likely have to buy the land at large cost that would go to these individuals as well because you can't lawfully strip land in the UK. But lets say you strip all the monarchy land and abolish it, two things will factually happen.

1. In the short-term those individuals will inherit all the rights related to their names, former titles, likenesses and public interest regarding any future marketability. That would mean all income from Royal Wedding, babies, public appearances, tourist artefacts, charity appearances and events would go to them as individuals, as currently happens with other people of public interest. That would mean massively more personal income for them and massively less government income for the country.  Their tax commitment would be the same as anyone else which is significantly less than what we see right now from their income. 

2. As generations roll on and the people are no longer alive associated with the British monarchy, the only income would be from tourists visiting what would likely be museums like Buck palace. That would still generate income but the other forms of interest from the people (which is big bucks, just need to look at people like the Kardashians and Jersey shore/ other similar reality programs) disappears and with it a part of government income. 

People don't need to like or support the monarchy but like I say, it's beyond doubt that they bring in much more than they cost. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

So are you suggesting that the land should be taken by the government and the income should go into the government purse? That's fine if that's what you believe but my point absolutely does stand because any lands that use the monarchy as a way to generate income would owe the individuals royalties going forward, they'd also likely have to buy the land at large cost that would go to these individuals as well because you can't lawfully strip land in the UK. But lets say you strip all the monarchy land and abolish it, two things will factually happen.
1. In the short-term those individuals will inherit all the rights related to their names, former titles, likenesses and public interest regarding any future marketability. That would mean all income from Royal Wedding, babies, public appearances, tourist artefacts, charity appearances and events would go to them as individuals, as currently happens with other people of public interest. That would mean massively more personal income for them and massively less government income for the country.  Their tax commitment would be the same as anyone else which is significantly less than what we see right now from their income. 
2. As generations roll on and the people are no longer alive associated with the British monarchy, the only income would be from tourists visiting what would likely be museums like Buck palace. That would still generate income but the other forms of interest from the people (which is big bucks, just need to look at people like the Kardashians and Jersey shore/ other similar reality programs) disappears and with it a part of government income. 
People don't need to like or support the monarchy but like I say, it's beyond doubt that they bring in much more than they cost. 

Just look up what the crown estate actually is.

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

11 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

So are you suggesting that the land should be taken by the government and the income should go into the government purse? That's fine if that's what you believe but my point absolutely does stand because any lands that use the monarchy as a way to generate income would owe the individuals royalties going forward, they'd also likely have to buy the land at large cost that would go to these individuals as well because you can't lawfully strip land in the UK. But lets say you strip all the monarchy land and abolish it, two things will factually happen.
1. In the short-term those individuals will inherit all the rights related to their names, former titles, likenesses and public interest regarding any future marketability. That would mean all income from Royal Wedding, babies, public appearances, tourist artefacts, charity appearances and events would go to them as individuals, as currently happens with other people of public interest. That would mean massively more personal income for them and massively less government income for the country.  Their tax commitment would be the same as anyone else which is significantly less than what we see right now from their income. 
2. As generations roll on and the people are no longer alive associated with the British monarchy, the only income would be from tourists visiting what would likely be museums like Buck palace. That would still generate income but the other forms of interest from the people (which is big bucks, just need to look at people like the Kardashians and Jersey shore/ other similar reality programs) disappears and with it a part of government income. 
People don't need to like or support the monarchy but like I say, it's beyond doubt that they bring in much more than they cost. 

Just look up what the crown estate actually is.

I know what it actually is, I demonstrated that and quoted  the income it is thought to have made last year. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by bazil85

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I know what it actually is, I demonstrated that and quoted  the income it is thought to have made last year. 

The Crown Estate belongs to the UK. Its ours, the Queen is a figurehead unless you think a hereditary monarch should own and rent out the seabed, shopping centres etc, etc.

I'm not getting into these long winded exchanges that you post continually for days on end. If you want that contact bud the baker or buddin EK.
It's nearly Christmas - I've got grinching to do.

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

The Crown Estate belongs to the UK. Its ours, the Queen is a figurehead unless you think a hereditary monarch should own and rent out the seabed, shopping centres etc, etc.

I'm not getting into these long winded exchanges that you post continually for days on end. If you want that contact bud the baker or buddin EK.
It's nearly Christmas - I've got grinching to do.

You don't need to. You don't think the monarchy generates enough income to keep, I do. Just different opinions. 

I've provided details of where my opinion comes from (the observable income), I'm sure you'll have the same for why you think they don't. Those particular posters don't agree that people can have different opinions from them, I however do. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Is Scotland different or is UK just bizarre?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/scotland-isnt-different-its-britain-thats-bizarre/

[faraway saint]

12 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

The Crown Estate belongs to the UK. Its ours, the Queen is a figurehead unless you think a hereditary monarch should own and rent out the seabed, shopping centres etc, etc.

I'm not getting into these long winded exchanges that you post continually for days on end. If you want that contact bud the baker or buddin EK.
It's nearly Christmas - I've got grinching to do.

Where's my cuddle then grumpy? 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

You don't need to. You don't think the monarchy generates enough income to keep, I do. Just different opinions. 
I've provided details of where my opinion comes from (the observable income), I'm sure you'll have the same for why you think they don't. Those particular posters don't agree that people can have different opinions from them, I however do. 

Actually you haven't, you've provided a long list of income. You haven't differentiated on whether this income, or even some of it, would still be generated without a monarchy.
You havent then weighed up what's left as income against the cost of having a monarchy. And I font mean the propaganda that's put out each year telling us what the royal family costs.
Oh and you've thrown in some pish about Royal babies as though the weirdos that stand outside a hospital for days on end generate income for the UK.

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

It's devolved and NHS in Scotland has always been seperate from English nhs. I think it's actually a year or so older up here.

SNP won't always run Scottish government, I reckon independence would see snp imode within 5 years due to differing factions within it.

The women were told by the Scottish Government that even with health being devolved, they couldn't ban it since MHRA are the regulator for Mesh implants for the UK, and they are still saying the benefit outweighs the risks.

No surprise since a large part of their funding come from the companies that makes those devices and others. 

Though they would be new parties running an independence Scotland, my fear is that it would still be the same politicians just under a new party name. 

  

[oaksoft]

On 12/19/2019 at 11:36 AM, bazil85 said:

Clear Shull hasn’t moved with his Right Wing, Tory, Unionist POV but interested to know if anyone has changed their stance on independence? I was yes in 2014 but I wouldn’t want to put my cards on the table just yet with the current situation.

I do fully agree another referendum is justified though.

Couldn't care less what shull thinks. He's on ignore.

I have moved from Yes to No for the moment but the power over whether, when and how often the vote should take place should be with Holyrood and nobody else and that power should have been transferred this week after the SNPs election landslide.

I'm not against Independence on principle. It's a timing issue more than anything,

There's an inevitability about all this but for me the timing is wrong.

[oaksoft]

5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

You can ask whatever you want or look into the research. People not willing to educate themselves on a subject (not saying anyone in particular wont) doesn't invalidate it. 

When you say "research" do you really mean "they have told me that this is true, they have full access to the relevant accounts and they have no reason to lie"?

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, Tommy said:

My trust of the SNP leadership had gone well down by the way they have been dealing with a health issue my wife has.

1st health minster was Alex Neil, and he did the right thing by not believing everything his advisers told him.

2nd health minster was Shona Robison, who was a waste of space and believe everything she was told by her advisors.

3rd health minster is the current 1 called Jeane Freeman, who seems to be listening more to the patients rather than her advisors.

The advisors were mostly surgeons who get funded by the big companies for reports and trials but have conflict of interest.

In 6 years of campaign, it was only last month when the campaigners finally got a meeting with the 1st minster.

 I have meet dozens of MSP in the last 6 years and only a handful of them would I trust.

I have really found out in the last 6 years how the general public is treated by most politicians in government, and I don't like what I see.

So to answer your question, it is trust or the lack of it that has maybe turned me away from the SNP.

www.scottishmeshsurvivors.com  

To be fair, the issue of independence is different from the issue of who runs the country after the event.

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

Actually you haven't, you've provided a long list of income. You haven't differentiated on whether this income, or even some of it, would still be generated without a monarchy.
You havent then weighed up what's left as income against the cost of having a monarchy. And I font mean the propaganda that's put out each year telling us what the royal family costs.
Oh and you've thrown in some pish about Royal babies as though the weirdos that stand outside a hospital for days on end generate income for the UK.

Looks like another that needs me to move to their opinion. I have shown what income would transfer to them as private individuals, if the monarchy was abolished. If you don’t think public interest generates income in this case, fine. 

As I said earlier, contact some news outlets & magazines and see if they generate taxable income when publishing stories on the royal family including the new additions. Same goes for the commemorative aspects of the young prince & princesses 

[bazil85]

25 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

When you say "research" do you really mean "they have told me that this is true, they have full access to the relevant accounts and they have no reason to lie"?

No I don’t, although the latter regarding why they’d lie is a point. 

 

[antrin]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

So are you suggesting that the land should be taken by the government and the income should go into the government purse? That's fine if that's what you believe but my point absolutely does stand because any lands that use the monarchy as a way to generate income would owe the individuals royalties going forward, they'd also likely have to buy the land at large cost that would go to these individuals as well because you can't lawfully strip land in the UK. But lets say you strip all the monarchy land and abolish it, two things will factually happen.

1. In the short-term those individuals will inherit all the rights related to their names, former titles, likenesses and public interest regarding any future marketability. That would mean all income from Royal Wedding, babies, public appearances, tourist artefacts, charity appearances and events would go to them as individuals, as currently happens with other people of public interest. That would mean massively more personal income for them and massively less government income for the country.  Their tax commitment would be the same as anyone else which is significantly less than what we see right now from their income. 

2. As generations roll on and the people are no longer alive associated with the British monarchy, the only income would be from tourists visiting what would likely be museums like Buck palace. That would still generate income but the other forms of interest from the people (which is big bucks, just need to look at people like the Kardashians and Jersey shore/ other similar reality programs) disappears and with it a part of government income. 

People don't need to like or support the monarchy but like I say, it's beyond doubt that they bring in much more than they cost. 

This is bollocks.

The Royals don't generate more money than they cost.

Tourists don't come to the UK to see Royals or because we 're infested by Royals. 

France has millions more tourists than the UK.  They guillotined their monarchy long ago.  Yet tourists still go to visit those old Monarchical residences which were, of course, all constructed by the brains and brawn of working class people.

 

[BuddieinEK]

 

 

 

I'm not getting into these long winded exchanges that you post continually for days on end. If you want that contact bud the baker or buddin EK.

 

 

You evil man.

Just when I was starting to admire your puppy training attempts!

 

Oops... More shit from your puppy!

[Cornwall_Saint]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

To be fair, the issue of independence is different from the issue of who runs the country after the event.

Precisely. There are indeed many who currently vote SNP purely for the independence push, and will abandon them afterwards. I’ve seen a fair number say they’ll immediately switch to the Scottish Greens once independence is secured.

I do think the SNP have a decent record and can’t see any major improvement being made under a different party, but I do understand the need to vote SNP purely for independence reasons and I get that a chunk of their vote share will drop when that day comes and Scotland is finally free.

[bazil85]

37 minutes ago, antrin said:

This is bollocks.

The Royals don't generate more money than they cost.

Tourists don't come to the UK to see Royals or because we 're infested by Royals. 

France has millions more tourists than the UK.  They guillotined their monarchy long ago.  Yet tourists still go to visit those old Monarchical residences which were, of course, all constructed by the brains and brawn of working class people.

 

It’s not bollocks, I doubt France has more tourist income regarding their royal family. 

1. Tourist income 

2. Public interest in the individuals 

3. Crown estate 

these are income streams. You take away the royals, it impacts them. Taking away the third, do you genuinely think public interest in the royals doesn’t bring in money? Just have to google search them to see the number of news outlets that cover practically all aspects of their lives. They do that for such things as advertising income, which is taxable. 

It’s staggering that people do not get that other people are interested in something that they’re not 😂