The Fecking Naany State

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, St.Ricky said:

But -- They will also have gained others. Thats politics - Real Politics if you like.

Great to exchange thoughts

Possibly, but the fear is that Scotland is in a bit more of a unique (maybe not completely) situation to other countries. In that people will vote if they are nationalist or unionist.

You probably will get unionists that like this approach, like some people on here but because the union trumps everything else politically, they won't vote SNP. They might of gained votes but I'm sure everyone must agree, the pool of where SNP can get support from voters in this country is massively diminished compared to say voters in England. 

All ifs and buts and like I say, my main point of reference for this, is the massive drop in people that voted SNP in 2015 and didn't vote SNP in 2017. There will be other factors I'm sure but nanny state policy will certainly feature as a reason. 

[St.Ricky]

7 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Possibly, but the fear is that Scotland is in a bit more of a unique (maybe not completely) situation to other countries. In that people will vote if they are nationalist or unionist.

You probably will get unionists that like this approach, like some people on here but because the union trumps everything else politically, they won't vote SNP. They might of gained votes but I'm sure everyone must agree, the pool of where SNP can get support from voters in this country is massively diminished compared to say voters in England. 

All ifs and buts and like I say, my main point of reference for this, is the massive drop in people that voted SNP in 2015 and didn't vote SNP in 2017. There will be other factors I'm sure but nanny state policy will certainly feature as a reason. 

Scotland has mirrored trends emerging throughout the 80s, 90s and since on a worldwide basis where tensions between localisation v globalisation have grown and led to change. The tension continues as can be seen in Independence,  Brexit etc. Two sides of the same coin.

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Education doesn't matter if you are on a tight budget and can get unhealthy prepared meals for half or a third of the cost making the meal from scratch.

Fruit and veg in our supermarkets is very expensive in comparison to 'junk food'.
 

Can you give us some examples?

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

They lost over 13% of their vote share in two years, that's massive. I'm not saying it's all just down to this but it's clear to see from social media this is unpopular. Unpopularity = lost votes. Like I say, it doesn't matter who thinks it's right or wrong/ good or bad to do this. It's still be seen as babysitter stuff, tellingg people how to live their life. 

It was also  clear from social media that we were going to vote Yes in 2014.

Facebook and Twitter do not reflect real life.

[bazil85]

8 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Scotland has mirrored trends emerging throughout the 80s, 90s and since on a worldwide basis where tensions between localisation v globalisation have grown and led to change. The tension continues as can be seen in Independence,  Brexit etc. Two sides of the same coin.

I don't disagree with that but I don't see how it's relevant in the SNP not going to win unionist votes in this country because of their views.

If you have any other clearer data than the 13% fall in support for the SNP in two years that suggests the nanny state laws are actually winning support, please feel free to share. I've seen plenty of people unhappy with the approach on social media but I don't think I've seen a single instance where someone now will vote SNP because of this approach, when they previously did not. I know it's not the be all and end all but it certainly is a good yard stick. 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

It was also  clear from social media that we were going to vote Yes in 2014.

Facebook and Twitter do not reflect real life.

No it wasn't, not even close! Are you serious?

Everything on social media including polls, pages set up to protect/ split the union all suggested the No vote would win. From memory I think there was actually only one vote in the whole time that put Yes ahead by 1 or 2%  that lasted about a week so was clearly an anomaly. 

[oaksoft]

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

No it wasn't, not even close! Are you serious?

Everything on social media including polls, pages set up to protect/ split the union all suggested the No vote would win. From memory I think there was actually only one vote in the whole time that put Yes ahead by 1 or 2%  that lasted about a week so was clearly an anomaly. 

I am not talking about official polls. I am talking about online stuff only.

After the vote, everyone talked about the Silent Majority for a reason.

I certainly don't recall you or anyone else talking about a massive No presence online at the time.

You are attempting to rewrite history here.

Edited October 5, 2018 by oaksoft

[bazil85]

8 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I am not talking about official polls. I am talking about online stuff only.

After the vote, everyone talked about the Silent Majority for a reason.

I certainly don't recall you or anyone else talking about a massive No presence online at the time.

You are attempting to rewrite history here.

You seem to be talking about active nationalists on nationalist social media. Of course it'll seem more like Yes would win, the same way as when score predictions are done on St Mirren sites, it seems like St Mirren are more likely to win.

Social media and interaction in general did not put Yes as the most likely to win. The same way as social media is not painting a picture that unionists are starting to support the SNP because they are pushing laws that tell people how to live their life.  

I'm not re-writing history, you can see from the evidence I'm not re-writing history. No won, that was backed up by polls, that's backed up by better together social media presence, that's backed up by the bookies odds in 2014. If you were a Yes voter, I don't doubt the majority of social media interaction you had was Yes voters. I would also compel you  to consider your demographic of Paisley and Glasgow, two solid yes areas. Social media in general over all of Scotland did not point more to yes.  

I don't for a second think social media is defining in regards to peoples minds on subjects. It is like I say a good yard stick and that can easily be backed-up by the loss in support for SNP from 2015-2017

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The individual consumers all get a vote in the next GE and SE. 
Medical experts have been able to put out positive feedback? I'm assuming this isn't backed with statistics or facts though, how could it possibly be in such a short period of time after implementation? Did the Monday after see a big drop in AA meeting attendance numbers? Drop in A&E numbers on Saturday nights in Glasgow? Drop in obesity, cancer, heart and liver conditions linked to alcohol right away? No. All 'positive feedback at this time is purely speculation.
The alcohol tax without any foundation is not going to stop Joe Bloggs getting hammered at the weekend as he always has. And there actually is specific research that has shown as a country we aren't doing enough in the education of alcohol abuse. A recent one for example showed that over 50% of tested alcoholic drink labels did not contain up to date health warnings on alcohol consumption. 
Yep and poor people and alcohol abuse are linked. Putting up prices is that likely for the poor to go 'Oh I'll just stop drinking all together' or more likely to result in even less money for food... Food that will likely be getting more expensive as well with the nanny state laws on junk food which is also linked to low income. All this stuff without education is simply the SNP squeezing the most vulnerable for more money. Very socialist party indeed... 

Scotland isn't the first country to implement minimum pricing you know.
Even when folk are agreeing with you, even only partially, you are still are finding issues.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Can you give us some examples?

Do your own research next time you are in morrisons compare the cost of strawberries with haribos [emoji39]

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

I am not talking about official polls. I am talking about online stuff only.

After the vote, everyone talked about the Silent Majority for a reason.

I certainly don't recall you or anyone else talking about a massive No presence online at the time.

You are attempting to rewrite history here.

I think you are correct and I believe that our referendum attracted considerable international attention on the way in which online and also community based initiatives were used. 

The No side made less use of both but upped their game by the last elections. 

[bazil85]

38 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Scotland isn't the first country to implement minimum pricing you know.
Even when folk are agreeing with you, even only partially, you are still are finding issues.

Didn't say it was. Like I say, I'm not here to change anyone's opinion. I'm just detailing what mine is. 

My whole point is it doesn't matter if people think one way or another, there will be people that use nanny state laws as reason not to vote for SNP. That's it in a nutshell. People can dislike it, argue with it, ignore it. It won't stop it being true.  

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Didn't say it was. Like I say, I'm not here to change anyone's opinion. I'm just detailing what mine is. 

My whole point is it doesn't matter if people think one way or another, there will be people that use nanny state laws as reason not to vote for SNP. That's it in a nutshell. People can dislike it, argue with it, ignore it. It won't stop it being true.  

Truly... I don't think any of us are disagreeing with you when you say some people may not vote SNP because of it. 

Where people differ is on the impact this might have and that some may vote in favour who didn't before. 

Edited October 5, 2018 by St.Ricky

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Do your own research next time you are in morrisons compare the cost of strawberries with haribos

You've got me in the mood to visit Asda now for a pack of sweets.

On a more serious note though, I can prepare a sweet and sour chicken stir fry dinner for £1.50 per person. Takes 10 minutes to cook and the the veg comes pre-shredded and mixed.

I can prepare a meal of potatoes, veg and fresh fish (no breadcrumbs or batter) for around £1.30. Again it takes 10-15 minutes to cook.

I can prepare a salmon and pasta salad for dinner using thousand island dressing for around £1 per person.

A single cucumber costs about 60p, a lettuce is about 60p too. A pack of tomatoes is about 70p. An entire cabbage is about the same price.

If anyone wants an entire healthy food budget for a week which undercuts processed food, I am happy to work one out.

The barrier to eating healthily isn't about money because in most cases, eating healthy food is considerably cheaper than eating processed food. Using price as the barrier is just an excuse.

The barrier is about convenience.

It is more convenient to buy a takeaway than to prepare a stir fry despite the extra cost and health issues.

The other major issue compounding the convenience problem is that people are very poor at understanding what represents the correct portion size for a person.

So, convenience and portion size education are the problems to be tackled IMO.

A junk food tax won't solve either directly but if it nudges people to sart thinking about alternatives (and it absolutely will - just as plastic bag, tobacco and alcohol taxes did) that would be a good start. We need to do something and in order to get anywhere we need to stop raising the false flag of "attacks on the poor".

Edited October 5, 2018 by oaksoft

[saintnextlifetime]

2 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Do your own research next time you are in morrisons compare the cost of strawberries with haribos

You got lucky there , you could easily have been asked to provide a peer reviewed paper.  .

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

You seem to be talking about active nationalists on nationalist social media. Of course it'll seem more like Yes would win, the same way as when score predictions are done on St Mirren sites, it seems like St Mirren are more likely to win.

Social media and interaction in general did not put Yes as the most likely to win. The same way as social media is not painting a picture that unionists are starting to support the SNP because they are pushing laws that tell people how to live their life.  

I'm not re-writing history, you can see from the evidence I'm not re-writing history. No won, that was backed up by polls, that's backed up by better together social media presence, that's backed up by the bookies odds in 2014. If you were a Yes voter, I don't doubt the majority of social media interaction you had was Yes voters. I would also compel you  to consider your demographic of Paisley and Glasgow, two solid yes areas. Social media in general over all of Scotland did not point more to yes.  

I don't for a second think social media is defining in regards to peoples minds on subjects. It is like I say a good yard stick and that can easily be backed-up by the loss in support for SNP from 2015-2017

I have to be honest, I don't keep up with politics to this extent anymore but I would be interested in knowing what polls are supporting your views on the SNP losing support.

The polls I have looked at today (and they are a few months out of date) all indicate that the SNP are recovering well in both Holyrood and Westminster intentions.

Have you got something more up to date?

[oaksoft]

1 minute ago, saintnextlifetime said:

You got lucky there , you could easily have been asked to provide a peer reviewed paper.  .

I already cracked this joke on another thread.

Get your own patter.

[saintnextlifetime]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I already cracked this joke on another thread.

Get your own patter.

Oh , I must apologise.  I forgot you were a funny guy. .

[stlucifer]

3 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Scotland isn't the first country to implement minimum pricing you know.
Even when folk are agreeing with you, even only partially, you are still are finding issues.

What other nations have a minimum  price for booze as I think they are? Many countries tax drink heavily but their respective governments get  the revenue. NOT the retailers. The retailers can still discount if they wish.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

What other nations have a minimum  price for booze as I think they are? Many countries tax drink heavily but their respective governments get  the revenue. NOT the retailers. The retailers can still discount if they wish.

Canada or at least a few of the provinces is probably the most high profile. There's also a number of ex soviet countries including Ukraine and some of the Stan's.

[stlucifer]

10 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

49 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

What other nations have a minimum  price for booze as I think they are? Many countries tax drink heavily but their respective governments get  the revenue. NOT the retailers. The retailers can still discount if they wish.

Canada or at least a few of the provinces is probably the most high profile. There's also a number of ex soviet countries including Ukraine and some of the Stan's.

Must have changed as, though It was a few years ago, but when I was in Canada, Toronto and Vancouver, the price was high but that was due to tax. A different thing from giving cash to retailers. I'm sure I also read the SNP said it was a first.

 

ETA Not saying it's true but.....

 

https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2018/05/scotland-becomes-first-country-to-implement-minimum-unit-price-for-alcohol/

Edited October 5, 2018 by stlucifer

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Must have changed as, though It was a few years ago, but when I was in Canada, Toronto and Vancouver, the price was high but that was due to tax. A different thing from giving cash to retailers. I'm sure I also read the SNP said it was a first.

British Columbian which would include vancouver and saskatchewan (spelling?) are the provinces. In Canada I'm sure the government has a monopoly on stores selling alcohol as another way of controlling prices and also tax?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

As for saying this is a minority view, it might be but SNP are wagering it's a minority that won't impact their number of seats. We've seen the potential for this not to be true in last years GE. 

Actually there's been no potential for this in the last general election.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

This policy is the one the thread is about. For me it links into other nanny state laws as well, everything from alcohol pricing to smacking kids. 

You really think having a law that says it's wrong to hit children is a bad thing?

[stlucifer]

13 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

6 hours ago, bazil85 said:

This policy is the one the thread is about. For me it links into other nanny state laws as well, everything from alcohol pricing to smacking kids. 

You really think having a law that says it's wrong to hit children is a bad thing?

Having a law that PROTECTS kids is a good thing. Taking away a parents last liner of defence/protection/control, and yes control is sometimes necessary, is wrong. I have grandchildren who now think it's ok to abuse their parents when they don't get their way knowing that the parents will want to "discuss".  Sorry. If a child is going over the mark then there will be times when it might be better to discipline quickly and show the error of the kid's way. The severity of the corporal punishment is the difference.