Oaky’s reasons for turning Quisling :-)

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Ruth Davidson is a politician that highlights the political shallowness and short attention span of many of today's voters.
She's all hot air and bluster. Scratch the surface and, in terms of politics, there's little or nothing there. She can put on a performance, in a "jolly hockey sticks" type of way though, which seems to keep a minority of Scots quite happy.
If she ends up UK leader of her party, then she will be fantastic in terms of entertainment value for non tory voters.
 

She gets a very easy time from the media as well, allowing her to disappear for a couple of weeks when there's difficult questions to answer and then she pops up to promote her book etc.

Big Annabel was a much better leader IMO.

[Bud the Baker]

Fallout from the current Dugdale/Wings over Scotland spat, another senior ScotLab politician endorses the "Branch Office" theory - Freudian Slip or what!

 

 

 

Quote

 

[TopCat]

Maybe oaky’s a polis!

[Wendy Saintss]

Comedy gold, indeed. Again you really are making a roaring arse of yourself in this thread.

Read what I wrote, not what you wish I'd written, then come back and apologise for your unwanted and unnecessary contribution to a civilised debate.

You haven’t got a scooby what you’re talk be about!

You’re so stupid. An arse of the highest order.

You’re mate’s sister in Canada still gets her UK pension!

Comedy gold! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[Wendy Saintss]

The latter us exactly what I believe will happen, why would you think otherwise? It won't be immediate, it will take 2 or 3 years, but it will happen. And don't forget the current Westminster MPs will be back, too, so a good few of those regional politicians will be out of a job.

What are they making a hash of with their current powers? On every measure I can think of, Scotland is performing better than the rUK equivalents. If the SG is making a hash of things, rUK is making a bigger hash of things. Be grateful you don't live elsewhere in the UK where lives are getting worse instead of no better.

As for same old, same old, have you seen Labour's new policies? Basically everything the SNP have already said they're aspiring to implement or have actually implemented.

I think everything you post can be laughed at now!

Your mate’s sister in Canada still gets her UK pension! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Fcuk me. I thought you were thick.... but that takes the biscuit!



Actually thick as fcuk! [emoji1]

[salmonbuddie]

I think everything you post can be laughed at now!

Your mate’s sister in Canada still gets her UK pension! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Fcuk me. I thought you were thick.... but that takes the biscuit!



Actually thick as fcuk! [emoji1]

You haven’t got a scooby what you’re talk be about!

You’re so stupid. An arse of the highest order.

You’re mate’s sister in Canada still gets her UK pension!

Comedy gold! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

You've achieved what I thought was impossible and made yourself look an even bigger arse with these two posts. Are you saying that a pensioner living abroad can't claim their UK pension where they live? You'd better let HMRC know

https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-if-you-retire-abroad

My mate's mother-in-law has a sister who emigrated to Canada (not my mate's sister, like everything else in your replies in this thread, you've made that up, he doesn't even have a sister). She, like thousands of other pensioners all over the world, gets her UK pension paid where she lives. What exactly are you struggling to understand with this?

[saintnextlifetime]

17 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've achieved what I thought was impossible and made yourself look an even bigger arse with these two posts. Are you saying that a pensioner living abroad can't claim their UK pension where they live? You'd better let HMRC know

https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-if-you-retire-abroad

My mate's mother-in-law has a sister who emigrated to Canada (not my mate's sister, like everything else in your replies in this thread, you've made that up, he doesn't even have a sister). She, like thousands of other pensioners all over the world, gets her UK pension paid where she lives. What exactly are you struggling to understand with this?

 

 

 

 

 

Well SB  , it looks like the poster you quoted feels compelled to correct others and that is probably why he cannot be corrected himself. The fact he has had almost as many aliases as Ho Chi Minh , is another matter. .

[stlucifer]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 6:45 PM, oaksoft said:

There is no hypocrisy. The 2014 Indyref was a once in a generation vote because the SNP leadership made that specifically clear. That wasn't the case with the EU vote.

We have seen significant powers transferred North as well since 2014 so I don't get the claim about the Vow being broken either.

We could do with both sides putting an end to spin and the treatment of everyone as stupid.

You are making the same mistake of simply assuming the SNP will run an independent Scotland. It could just as easily be a rainbow coalition of the others. Therefore your comparison between having a choice of SNP at Holyrood and Westminster after independence is fatally flawed.

Finally, for me, the problem with Project Fear wasn't being kicked out of the EU. I never thought that would be a thing. Project Fear was more about the lack of a coherent strategy over our proposed currency, our share of the national debt, our trade with the rest of the UK, borders at Gretna, splitting up of families, the risk to pensions and a raft of other stuff. The absolute killer was Osborne stating we could not have a currency union with RUK and Salmond having absolutely no backup plan.

Given that a major part of  No campaign was that we would LOSE our EU status it's hardly fair to claim we should now accept the premise of a once in a generation concept. The goalposts have been moved drastically.

Just as the lies the "leave" campaign built their platform on should lead to a second referendum for EU membership in the UK, the "NO" campaign in Scotland's lies, deliberate or not, should allow for a rethink in when we get another chance to decide our future within. (or not), the UK.

As far as who would run an independent Scotland. The  whole reason of being for the SNP is to deliver independence. IF it succeeds it would have no reason for it to continue, We would then have a right to vote for the direction we, as an independent nation, choose. Left, right, middle. Self determination is what it's about and, I'm afraid that's what scares a lot of people.

However. As the disaster of leaving the EU becomes ever clearer, perhaps  that fear will outweigh that of actually having to make decisions for ourselves without the "mother's apron" that is predominately England.

Edited September 30, 2018 by stlucifer

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

Given that a major part of  No campaign was that we would LOSE our EU status it's hardly fair to claim we should now accept the premise of a once in a generation concept. The goalposts have been moved drastically.

Just as the lies the "leave" campaign built their platform on should lead to a second referendum for EU membership in the UK, the "NO" campaign in Scotland's lies, deliberate or not, should allow for a rethink in when we get another chance to decide our future within. (or not), the UK.

As far as who would run an independent Scotland. The  whole reason of being for the SNP is to deliver independence. IF it succeeds it would have no reason for it to continue, We would then have a right to vote for the direction we, as an independent nation, choose. Left, right, middle. Self determination is what it's about and, I'm afraid that's what scares a lot of people.

However. As the disaster of leaving the EU becomes ever clearer, perhaps  that fear will outweigh that of actually having to make decisions for ourselves without the "mother's apron" that is predominately England.

If the EU thing was so major, why are independence polls showing very little gain for Yes when the question of losing EU membership is brought up?

You are kidding yourself if you think the SNP are going to disband after independence. Why on earth would they?

Edited September 30, 2018 by oaksoft

[stlucifer]

32 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

If the EU thing was so major, why are independence polls showing very little gain for Yes when the question of losing EU membership is brought up?

You are kidding yourself if you think the SNP are going to disband after independence. Why on earth would they?

The full effects weren't, in fact even now, may not be realised yet by the Scots who were conned. During the campaign it was constantly pushed as a major concern. I think that it was a factor in the result. After all, small margins could have changed the outcome.

As for the SNP. What would they have to offer?  There would be no niche. They are, at the moment, a mish mash of political viewpoints with only one common goal. They are, as has been mooted, pandering to the masses with free prescriptions and free bus travel. I qualify for both but don't agree with either as it stands.

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

The full effects weren't, in fact even now, may not be realised yet by the Scots who were conned. During the campaign it was constantly pushed as a major concern. I think that it was a factor in the result. After all, small margins could have changed the outcome.

As for the SNP. What would they have to offer?  There would be no niche. They are, at the moment, a mish mash of political viewpoints with only one common goal. They are, as has been mooted, pandering to the masses with free prescriptions and free bus travel. I qualify for both but don't agree with either as it stands.

People were conned over what?

The SNP will find a niche. Right now there is nobody else who could run this country better according to more than a decade of voting at elections. There is zero prospect of them disbanding. The only people talking about this are their opponents. It's a ridiculous suggestion.

I also don't understand the problem with free prescriptions. No major party is talking about getting rid of them. Not even the Tories now. Free bus travel is available throughout the UK.

Which party is proposing to get rid of either of these policies?

Edited September 30, 2018 by oaksoft

[stlucifer]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

People were conned over what?

The SNP will find a niche. Right now there is nobody else who could run this country better according to more than a decade of voting at elections. There is zero prospect of them disbanding. The only people talking about this are their opponents. It's a ridiculous suggestion.

I also don't understand the problem with free prescriptions. No major party is talking about getting rid of them. Not even the Tories now. Free bus travel is available throughout the UK.

Which party is proposing to get rid of either of these policies?

What niche? Politically left, splitting the labour vote? Centre right or left? Liberal democrats? Right wing? Conservative. They would never be a force no matter their stance. Nope. No place after they get their wish.

As for prescription charges. No party would contemplate reintroducing them because they have been removed. Reintroducing  charges that have been removed would never be popular. My argument is that they should never have been taken away. The bus pass for people still in work is, IMO, wrong. My opinion. 

Edited September 30, 2018 by stlucifer

[oaksoft]

5 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

What niche? Politically left, splitting the labour vote? Centre right or left? Liberal democrats? Right wing? Conservative. They would never be a force no matter their stance. Nope. No place after they get their wish.

 

You are way too vague. They don't need to be any wing whatsoever. Your average guy in the street doesn't understand or care about these sort of titles. Only political obsessives care about this stuff. This isn't the 1980's any more.

The SNP just need to demonstrate they are the best to govern the country. That involves creating and enacting policies which people like such as free prescriptions and free tuition. They have successfully defied a "wing" classification for over a decade.

They will continue to govern as long as they continue to be seen as the best party to govern. The rest can try and witter on about left wing, right wing labels until the cows come home.

Edited September 30, 2018 by oaksoft

[stlucifer]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

You are way too vague. They don't need to be any wing whatsoever. Your average guy in the street doesn't understand or care about these sort of titles. Only political obsessives care about this stuff. This isn't the 1980's any more.

The SNP just need to demonstrate they are the best to govern the country. That involves creating and enacting policies which people like such as free prescriptions and free tuition. They have successfully defied a "wing" classification for over a decade.

They will continue to govern as long as they continue to be seen as the best party to govern. The rest can try and witter on about left wing, right wing labels until the cows come home.

But they can't introduce free prescriptions or free tuition again. Other parties will be advocating whatever  policies they would platform on. What gives them the edge is the added incentive of self governing. With that realised they would wither on the vine as their MAIN reason for being would have been achieved. The left, centre right points of view are still valid as it represents political beliefs.

Edited September 30, 2018 by stlucifer

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

But they can't introduce free prescriptions or free tuition again. Other parties will be advocating whatever  policies they would platform on. What gives them the edge is the added incentive of self governing. With that realised they would wither on the vine as their MAIN reason for being would have been achieved. The left, centre right points of view are still valid as it represents political beliefs.

The SNP would need to come up with new policies but the other parties are in exactly the same boat. None of them can use free prescriptions either.

As for core reasons for existence, what are Labour's? What are the Tory's? I can't see any core raison d'etres from either of those. I think supporters of both these parties should be more concerned about that rather than obsessing over the hypothetical future of the  SNP post independence.

I disagree about left, centre and right wings. None of the major political parties in the UK can describe themselves as just one thing.  Labour support tuition fees for students, the Tories support free healthcare at the point of need and a council tax freeze in England. We are living in a time of pretty much homogeneous politics. What are the core policy differences? A focus on left, centre and right is the politics of a byegone era. I doubt the average man on the street could define what centre ground politics even is. I doubt he could give a coherent explanation of the difference between left and right. 

Edited September 30, 2018 by oaksoft

[stlucifer]

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

The SNP would need to come up with new policies but the other parties are in exactly the same boat. None of them can use free prescriptions either.

As for core reasons for existence, what are Labour's? What are the Tory's? I can't see any core raison d'etres from either of those. I think supporters of both these parties should be more concerned about that rather than obsessing over the hypothetical future of the  SNP post independence.

I disagree about left, centre and right wings. None of the major political parties in the UK can describe themselves as just one thing.  Labour support tuition fees for students, the Tories support free healthcare at the point of need and a council tax freeze in England. We are living in a time of pretty much homogeneous politics. What are the core policy differences?

The first point. Yes they would and that's policies that the other parties would be coming up with. These parties have identities which don't require re -evaluation in light of successfully completing their mandate. 

As for the homogeneous claim. The Labour party are certainly not. At least not under Corbyn. They believe inn wholesale renationalisation and increasing the tax burden of the more affluent. As for tuition fees. No they don't. They have pledged to scrap them in their 2017 manifesto . And the Tories claim to believe in free healthcare while squeezing the NHS to breaking point and privatising it by stealth.

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, stlucifer said:

The first point. Yes they would and that's policies that the other parties would be coming up with. These parties have identities which don't require re -evaluation in light of successfully completing their mandate. 

As for the homogeneous claim. The Labour party are certainly not. At least not under Corbyn. They believe inn wholesale renationalisation and increasing the tax burden of the more affluent. As for tuition fees. No they don't. They have pledged to scrap them in their 2017 manifesto . And the Tories claim to believe in free healthcare while squeezing the NHS to breaking point and privatising it by stealth.

But Jeremy Corbyn won't be in charge of an independent Scotland if Scottish Labour are elected up here and we already have free tuition up here anyway so that's not going to sway anyone. Corbyn will need to explain to the rest of the UK how he is going to fund free education for 50% of the young people going through school right now. He'll either have to tax the arse off everyone else, make massive cuts elsewhere or deny university access to anyone but the elite 10 to 20% of the young (something I would support incidentally). None of that affects Scotland post independence though.

You mention tax increases but I can't remember the last time anyone voted in a government promising crushing tax increases. 1970's was it?
You mention "more affluent people". Are you talking about the people with enough wealth to simply move to another country where they won't be shafted by the government? How does that help the country? You can only tax the more affluent if you also tax the middle classes as well. There aren't enough of the former (only about 10,000 to 14,000 in Scotland if I recall) to make a difference and you need more from the latter to compensate for those who flee to another country. Once you start threatening to tax the middle classes on the £40k to £100k salaries (because those are the salaries where you have enough people to make it financially work because they generally won't leave), you are unelectable.

As for widescale renationalisation? Who except Labour is demanding for that? I can see merit in renationalising the rail industry but there is no merit in creating monopolies anywhere else. You will end up with higher prices, because the unions will gain traction again and force massive wage increases for staff, and no choice for people. We've had all this nearly half a decade ago and we have consistently voted it out ever since.

Finally, you mention that the Tories and Labour don't need to re-evaluate their core identities. Yes they do because for more than a decade they have not been anywhere close to ousting the SNP. It's this kind of dinosaur thinking which has kept us with one government for that long and frankly I don't see when they will ever be thrown out. Do you see them getting elected out of power anytime in the next 10 to 20 years?

Edited September 30, 2018 by oaksoft

[stlucifer]

7 hours ago, oaksoft said:

But Jeremy Corbyn won't be in charge of an independent Scotland if Scottish Labour are elected up here and we already have free tuition up here anyway so that's not going to sway anyone. Corbyn will need to explain to the rest of the UK how he is going to fund free education for 50% of the young people going through school right now. He'll either have to tax the arse off everyone else, make massive cuts elsewhere or deny university access to anyone but the elite 10 to 20% of the young (something I would support incidentally). None of that affects Scotland post independence though.

You mention tax increases but I can't remember the last time anyone voted in a government promising crushing tax increases. 1970's was it?
You mention "more affluent people". Are you talking about the people with enough wealth to simply move to another country where they won't be shafted by the government? How does that help the country? You can only tax the more affluent if you also tax the middle classes as well. There aren't enough of the former (only about 10,000 to 14,000 in Scotland if I recall) to make a difference and you need more from the latter to compensate for those who flee to another country. Once you start threatening to tax the middle classes on the £40k to £100k salaries (because those are the salaries where you have enough people to make it financially work because they generally won't leave), you are unelectable.

As for widescale renationalisation? Who except Labour is demanding for that? I can see merit in renationalising the rail industry but there is no merit in creating monopolies anywhere else. You will end up with higher prices, because the unions will gain traction again and force massive wage increases for staff, and no choice for people. We've had all this nearly half a decade ago and we have consistently voted it out ever since.

Finally, you mention that the Tories and Labour don't need to re-evaluate their core identities. Yes they do because for more than a decade they have not been anywhere close to ousting the SNP. It's this kind of dinosaur thinking which has kept us with one government for that long and frankly I don't see when they will ever be thrown out. Do you see them getting elected out of power anytime in the next 10 to 20 years?

I mention. I mention? I was countering your notion that all parties were much the same. You are now rehashing and moving goalposts in an attempt to not admit you were wrong in the statement that  there was little difference between parties and that SNP would be  a viable party post separation. Fudge, fudge and more fudge and it's boring. 

[smcc]

i am enjoying this debate between Lucy and Oaky but i wonder if Oaky can explain how anyone can be elected out of power.

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, smcc said:

i am enjoying this debate between Lucy and Oaky but i wonder if Oaky can explain how anyone can be elected out of power.

It's a new thing they are trying out after independence.

[oaksoft]

6 hours ago, stlucifer said:

I mention. I mention? I was countering your notion that all parties were much the same. You are now rehashing and moving goalposts in an attempt to not admit you were wrong in the statement that  there was little difference between parties and that SNP would be  a viable party post separation. Fudge, fudge and more fudge and it's boring. 

How am I moving the goalposts?

We were talking about who would run an independent Scotland and you are wittering on about Jeremy Corbyn.

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by oaksoft

[stlucifer]

7 hours ago, oaksoft said:

How am I moving the goalposts?

We were talking about who would run an independent Scotland and you are wittering on about Jeremy Corbyn.

 

Nope. You said, and I quote, "None of the major political parties in the UK can describe themselves as just one thing".

Perhaps you should spend that 13 seconds looking at your own posts.

 

 

[oaksoft]

5 hours ago, stlucifer said:

Nope. You said, and I quote, "None of the major political parties in the UK can describe themselves as just one thing".

Perhaps you should spend that 13 seconds looking at your own posts.

 

 

I was using that to make a general point in a specific context. If you want to split hairs because you are losing the argument be my guest.

[stlucifer]

5 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I was using that to make a general point in a specific context. If you want to split hairs because you are losing the argument be my guest.

So you were wrong then, (ETA) TWICE? And that's a conservative, (with a small "c"), estimate!

I have to say, I love your interpretation of losing.

Squirm, squirm.

Edited October 2, 2018 by stlucifer

[oaksoft]

 

Well that WAS an interesting chat until you reverted to primary school behaviour.

FFS