phart
-
Posts
11,945 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
32
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by phart
-
-
He made comments about wanting an elected second chamber in an independent Scotland. Then Cherry made a twitter post about wanting a peerage in the House of Lords.
Uncritically parrotting what you read on social media isn't a good way to be informed about anything. The SNP is imploding as all empires do when they don't have leaders strong enough to remain cohesive. I'd pay little mind to the petty bickering around this rather than picking a side and amplifying their pettiness.
-
Good luck getting academics to come out in public in the future for anything. A lot of them are fuck. Dealing with political media and the perpetually online partisan half-wits.
-
The whatsapp messages is a non-story.
Folk being rage-baited by the media as usual.
-
Hislop went in on the Tories about the post-office scandal. Always fun to see someone who knows what they are talking about take on some random just trying to deflect.
Jake Berry was the other guy.
-
Happy new year
-
43 minutes ago, Malcolm said:
what about at £150k a year? I believe that the difference is £6k - that is the reported figure. That is before any further tax cuts from uk gov.they are hardly outlandish opinions. Fairly common amongst people I interact with or on twitter or LinkedIn (where the snp have been particularly bashed)
3606.30
There is no need to believe anything, it's a simple calculation only the innumerate cannot do it.
If you're innuemerate then you should at least have the self-awareness to be silent on economic matters.
I find it hard to believe this is anything else than weaponised incompetence for the purpose of trolling. However it is a reflection of our society where it is not out of the realms of possibility that someone who cannot perform the most basic maths calculations spends considerable time opining on detailed economic subjects earnestly thinking that they have any worth.
-
57 minutes ago, Malcolm said:
jeremy Hunt considering tax cuts apparently on the back of low inflation figures. Source is the Times. If that’s not a Get It Right Up You to Humzah I don’t know what is.Scots will enviously sit round the table from colleagues in the same teams with the same salary but taking home £6k plus less.
this is not what I signed up for when I signed up for devolution back in the day. If I remember correctly there were two questions, one on the parliament and one on its tax varying powers which was limited to plus or minus 3%. When did this change?
when do we get to revote on devolution?
At 125k a year the difference is £3106.30 : source HMRC calculators
at 75k it is 2106.30
at 49k it is just over 1300
I think one of the reasons why you have such outlandish opinions Malcolm is because all your logic is predicated on your own wild imagings instead of reality, or as they say in computer science "shite in =shite out"
Different taxation rates will of course be a political topic. However it has to be framed rationally and using figures that are easily obtainable otherwise one can only conclude either utter incompetence or not a good faith argument.
-
1 hour ago, dan cake said:
Nicholas Rossi has his appeal against extradition turned down, hope he gets everything thats coming to him and doesn’t dodge a heavy sentence due to faking mental illness as well as physical “illness”. Doing a Rossi is a commonly used term in my work for some of the impostors that are employed there
It's a wild story
-
-
Got to love the Irony as well
-
3 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:
That isn't what we are saying that doesn't address the principle at all as presented in our posts.
It just shows that UK government are legally entitled to reach into Scottish politics and push the reset button and folk are happy for them to do so.
-
Wasn't the issue UK government blocking Scottish legislation. The law being blocked is irrelevant to process of being able to block it.
-
10 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:
I think we're describing different things.
There will be no section 30 without a mandate.
Section 30 is at the whim of whoever is primeminister.
-
12 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:
Sorry I dont agree and dont get what you mean. The mechanism and mandates are different things in my eyes.
A mandate is the authority given by the electing franchise.
The mechanism is how you go about taking a mandate forward.
You could have a mechanism but no mandate. Or a mandate but no mechanism.
mandate meaning legal authority to have a referendum.
The main point is without a section 30 there would be no referendum. A vote in the Scottish parliament , majority of seats don't give that.
-
23 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:
Do you mean a mandate or a vote in parliament because I think they are different things?
One recommends the other.
What constitutes a mandate is up for debate though, I grant you.
I would like to think a majority of votes, never mind seats, should clear that hurdle mind you.
The only mandate is the section 30, everything else is just pressure to get a section 30 granted.
Now we're probably all in agreement that is a shit state of affairs. It's the mechanism though.
Cameron granted a section 30 to Salmonds government for the 2014 referendum to happen.
-
Is that even true? What "mandate"? Folk seem very confused by how the process for holding the referendum actually comes about. Parliament hadn't approved anything beyond asking for a section 30.
It's funny how that pic keeps coming up, I posted it years back and thplinth then took it as his profile pic. Now it appears all the time.
-
15 hours ago, dan cake said:
Admittedly I know fuck all about politics but why the fuck isn’t the women that sits next to him leading the party, he has no personality whatsoever whereas Rayner would rip the tories a new one at every opportunity
-
-
-
1 minute ago, mccaughey85 said:
I am able to differentiate between libel, false allegations etc and freedom of speech.
The 2 are very different things. As I said let the courts deal with libel, false allegations.
Your confusing two different issues.
absolutely not you've not differentiated anything, you just state no opinions or topics should be banned, then folk give opinions and topics as examples and you say they don't count. That's not coherent.
-
4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:
I don't think any topics are banned and thats how I want it to be. You take that for granted and would probably appreciate the liberty you currently have if you lived in a country where certain censorship and restrictions hinder ppls freedom of expression.
It should be up to you to name the subjects or opinions you think shouldn't be discussed if you don't want freedom of speech.
What about any topic which is not true and espousing it causes harm, i.e. false accusations. You said it isn't to do with this, but then make a statement where it is part of the group. It's very unclear what you are trying to say. Can you give an explanation what free speech absolutism actually means in practice.
How about the opinion that someone is a criminal or fraudster when they aren't?
-
1 minute ago, mccaughey85 said:
Eh? False allegations and libel has nothing to do with this subject.
It's about ppl being able to say their opinions and freely express ideas no matter what they might be. If those ideas are stupid and ludicrous then the general public will reject them anyway.
If it's libel or false allegations then let the courts do their job.
I defined what I meant by Freedom of speech at the beginning of the conversation and it is exactly what i said if it is in the absolute form. It's good to see you aren't a free speech absolutist then. We have no further business it seems.
-
32 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:
So what would you consider unacceptable subjects or beliefs for ppl to express or talk about?
It's not a case of specific subjects or beliefs, it's a case of categories for instance libel/slander, things that fall under the harm principle. Like saying this product contains no nuts when it does. Harrassment. Inciting violence. Intimidation, threats etc.
-
20 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:
I did say arguably. Its written in their constitution tbf.
End of the day its a big country with alot of different states so I am guessing that free speech will sometimes be upheld and other times it will be curtailed by ppl who choose to ignore other ppls rights.
Absolute free speech has never existed.
In where Free Speech means the right to say anything you want at anytime to anyone anywhere without government getting involved. Even the folk who wrote the first amendment didn't see it like that as evidenced by legislation written by them with restrictions etc.
These conversations were had centuries ago and written about in the intervening decades. However folk like to bring it up again like children drinking for the first time oblivious to the fact their parents did the same and so did their parents.
The news thread
in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere
Posted
To be fair if there is a decent chance you're about to be reamed in an election and will be needing a job , GB news is a good bet for a former Tory.