The Politics Thread

[salmonbuddie]

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

Ahem...

Also interesting

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/scotland-isnt-different-its-britain-thats-bizarre/

[Guest TPAFKATS]

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 

The majority of newspapers in this country pays no tax as they are all registered in tax havens.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Worth posting twice?

[Tommy]

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

I am aware of that but when you lose trust in a certain group of people, it isn't easy getting it back. If a vote comes along, i would likely vote the way my son vote and my wife would do the same with my daughter.

[salmonbuddie]

Worth posting twice?

I posted it in the Boris thread too, before you did here, so, yes, defo, worth posting twice

[emoji846]

[bazil85]

59 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

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 

The majority of newspapers in this country pays no tax as they are all registered in tax havens.

That’s not strictly true either but Different issue completely. It doesn’t invalidate the income of the Royal Family 

[delpierro]

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 [emoji23]

Bollocks. Put a flume tower in Buckingham Palace and you would attract more tourists.
only lickspittles, hat doffing subjects support the Royalty.
Parasites.

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, delpierro said:

Bollocks. Put a flume tower in Buckingham Palace and you would attract more tourists.
only lickspittles, hat doffing subjects support the Royalty.
Parasites.

[delpierro]

Lickspittle.

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, delpierro said:

9 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Lickspittle.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

That’s not strictly true either but Different issue completely. It doesn’t invalidate the income of the Royal Family 

Ffs, it invalidates your point about the royals generating tax revenue through newspapers which was the point you were making.

[delpierro]

Now, remember tae wipe the sticky mess off yer Princess Diana plate!! [emoji2957]

[faraway saint]

7 minutes ago, delpierro said:

Now, remember tae wipe the sticky mess off yer Princess Diana plate!!

Now, remember, wipe your attempt at a sticky mess off your well played copy of Braveheart. 

[Tam M]

I was Yes in 2014, and I’ve never moved from that position. I have no particular affliction to any particular party and in an independent Scotland would vote for the party with a manifesto I agreed with the most. I would hope with independence we would see an emerging of a number of new parties.

For me the recent General Elections and EU Referendum just demonstrates how far apart the political landscape is in Scotland compared to England.

I am expecting my first child next year with my Polish girlfriend, so remaining in the EU is more of a driver for me than before - although pleased to say she had settlement status granted recently.

The FPTP system is outdated and needs changed. The system for Scottish elections means it is extremely difficult to get a majority meaning all parties need to work together, and this also appeals to me.

The key element for me however, is I don’t want a WM government we don’t vote for making decisions that impact Scotland. In an independent Scotland, if the government is not performing we can hold them account at the next election. With so much power held at WM, we have no say at the minute, and I find it bonkers. I just want decisions for Scotland made by a Scottish government voted by those who live in Scotland.

[antrin]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

That’s not strictly true either but Different issue completely. It doesn’t invalidate the income of the Royal Family 

The newspapers are owned by a handful of non resident non taxpaying mostly non British parasites.

any money made by them from royal pish is inconsequential for the well-being of this nation..  just like our nationalised industries having been sold off by thatchers tories and are now in the hands of foreign governments, the(basically foreign) British royals are generating a little dosh that is lapped up by other foreigners.

and uk tourist income IS less than that of France - a simple fact.  I work in the tourist industry, so now you don’t have to doubt reality.

 

 

[jaybee]

13 hours ago, DougJamie said:

TBF- Alex Salmond is a twat...………...

Must be at least 20 brain cells between the lot of them

what that many?////

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, antrin said:

The newspapers are owned by a handful of non resident non taxpaying mostly non British parasites.

any money made by them from royal pish is inconsequential for the well-being of this nation..  just like our nationalised industries having been sold off by thatchers tories and are now in the hands of foreign governments, the(basically foreign) British royals are generating a little dosh that is lapped up by other foreigners.

and uk tourist income IS less than that of France - a simple fact.  I work in the tourist industry, so now you don’t have to doubt reality.

 

 

Driving a tourist bus does not make you an expert in the comparative tourist industries in the UK and France. That would be like a hospital toilet cleaner claiming to be an expert in A & E waiting times.

Hilarious attempt to fluff your own pillows though.

[bazil85]

11 hours ago, delpierro said:

Bollocks. Put a flume tower in Buckingham Palace and you would attract more tourists.
only lickspittles, hat doffing subjects support the Royalty.
Parasites.

People don't need to like them but I see no reason to live and let live. If people want to spend money on the Royals fine. They generate income, that is fact. 

[bazil85]

10 hours ago, antrin said:

The newspapers are owned by a handful of non resident non taxpaying mostly non British parasites.

any money made by them from royal pish is inconsequential for the well-being of this nation..  just like our nationalised industries having been sold off by thatchers tories and are now in the hands of foreign governments, the(basically foreign) British royals are generating a little dosh that is lapped up by other foreigners.

and uk tourist income IS less than that of France - a simple fact.  I work in the tourist industry, so now you don’t have to doubt reality.

 

As I have said, different issue. They generate tax income in the UK, that is fact. They also generate income in many different ways. 

Tourist income is wide and varied, my point was I very much doubt income related to the old French Royal family is less than income related to the UK one. Monarch related income has estimates as high as multiple billion pounds. To put that another way, many times more than they cost. 

[bazil85]

11 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Ffs, it invalidates your point about the royals generating tax revenue through newspapers which was the point you were making.
 

No it doesn't tax revenue from Newspapers in the UK isn't zero ffs. 🤣

[jaybee]

9 hours ago, oaksoft said:

11 hours ago, antrin said:

The newspapers are owned by a handful of non resident non taxpaying mostly non British parasites.

any money made by them from royal pish is inconsequential for the well-being of this nation..  just like our nationalised industries having been sold off by thatchers tories and are now in the hands of foreign governments, the(basically foreign) British royals are generating a little dosh that is lapped up by other foreigners.

and uk tourist income IS less than that of France - a simple fact.  I work in the tourist industry, so now you don’t have to doubt reality.

 

 

Driving a tourist bus does not make you an expert in the comparative tourist industries in the UK and France. That would be like a hospital toilet cleaner claiming to be an expert in A & E waiting times.

Hilarious attempt to fluff your own pillows though.

Does reading the Guardian make you and intellectual?

[jaybee]

4 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

25 minutes ago, jaybee said:

Does reading the Guardian make you and intellectual?

No, that's the Daily Mail you're thinking of.

Ain't that the one that comes in Gaelic?  😎

[Guest TPAFKATS]

No it doesn't tax revenue from Newspapers in the UK isn't zero ffs. [emoji1787]

Seriously?
How much is tax revenue from UK newspapers? Obviously you will be able to link all of it to having a royal family [emoji1]
Or is it just some of it? If so how much of it?

Ill awaited your detailed response with baited breath, because that last one wasnt even close to being classed as tenuous.

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

It doesn't invalidate it, but people not willing to provide the sources of the information to support their claims does tend to invalidate the claim, in most cases. If you disagree, then you can give me that £50 you owe me.

Your opinion, my opinion on a discussion forum is that often people can do their own research. Especially on a subject where information is so readily available. As for the £50, simply incorrect.

First of all, I think you'll find I asked a question. If you want to call a question my "go to" then you wire in. I only asked because you used your "go to" of unsupported assertions.

Bringing back up the subject from other post, yet more proof of your dishonesty. 

I think the point is that unsupported allegations don't really deserve consideration. Why should anyone waste their time looking up evidence to support someone else's claim?

They aren't unsupported, the information is there for anyone that want's to research it. Again bringing up an interest you apparently don't have interest in, hence why I don't believe that claim. 

The relevant thing is whether they make more from the advertising than if they were showing "non-royal" stuff. Same idea for papers/magazines. The real answer to that is nobody 100% knows, it can only be "guessed at". (Unless you are talking about some magazine that only deals in royal stuff. But, then again, the person may have started some other magazine or something else that makes more.). Do most people buy a particular issue of a paper because it has a picture of a royal baby on the front or for some other reason, e.g. sport, and the baby pic is just something that comes with their sport fix?

Publishing stories on the Royals does not mean they can't publish stories on other subjects through different medium in the modern world. People can deny they make money but evidence backs up they do through public interest. If you want evidence to support this, you can look as recently as yesterdays Twitter trends regarding big Phil. This again seems to be your pedantic nature, making up possible scenarios that I doubt any logical thinking person would believe for sake of argument. Magazines as an example will pay big bucks for these rights, common sense tells us their commercial teams would have done analysis to determine they're profitable.

Wriggle, wriggle.

Good comeback 

That's not very nice.

No it wasn't. It was the exact opposite.

It was early in the morning, give me peace 

Wriggle, wriggle.

Good comeback 

So many wrong things in so few posts, are you trying to set a record?

Two incorrect points, absolutely, they were mistakes through tiredness, must be the best day of your life. Rest is not wrong. Good effort and glad to see you back on new points from me worth your time. 

 

 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Seriously?
How much is tax revenue from UK newspapers? Obviously you will be able to link all of it to having a royal family
Or is it just some of it? If so how much of it?

Ill awaited your detailed response with baited breath, because that last one wasnt even close to being classed as tenuous.

Do you genuinely think it's zero? I have never once claimed all the income links back to having the royal family. If you think press, magazines and online content does not raise any tax income whatsoever that's your choice. It sounds absolute tinfoil hat ridiculous to me though.

It;s factual that the RF are public interest, do you genuinely disagree on this? 🤣