Indyref 2 (2)

[hampden_loon2878]

4 hours ago, aaid said:

So your vote for independence is dependent upon who the leader of the SNP is, nice to know that. 

You putting words in my mouth again, nea like you 

[hampden_loon2878]

2 hours ago, scotlad said:

If there was a plan to split the independence movement (and there almost certainly is/will have been) then it's working a treat so far. Look at the way things are currently compared to just four or five years ago.

It's also perturbing that Salmond and Wings are singing from exactly the same hymn sheet, and it's not independence they're singing about.

That figures. If I was an uber Tory I'd be delighted if Ash Regan became SNP leader, for much the same reason as I - not being an uber Tory - would be delighted if Annie Wells became Scottish Tory leader!

Luckily I don't think Ash Regan is bright enough to mount a serious attempt - let alone a successful attempt - to become SNP leader.

If you think it’s salmond causing the split then you need to look closer 

[scotlad]

3 hours ago, aaid said:

I agree, but it’s something I’ve picked up over the weekend that someone’s has decided to push her forwards.

If the likes of Dunlop are the ones pushing her it's safe to say she should be nowhere near the job.

[scotlad]

47 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

If you think it’s salmond causing the split then you need to look closer 

I'm keeping an open mind.

I find it strange that Wings has so drastically changed his tune these past couple of years and is now more interested in engaging in a culture/IDpol war that didn't exist a few years ago. Salmond, via his Alba party, appears firmly on the same side.

[hampden_loon2878]

57 minutes ago, scotlad said:

I'm keeping an open mind.

I find it strange that Wings has so drastically changed his tune these past couple of years and is now more interested in engaging in a culture/IDpol war that didn't exist a few years ago. Salmond, via his Alba party, appears firmly on the same side.

It didn’t exist because it hadn’t been pushed by sturgeon against the party’s will, remember when the NEC voted down the amendments in 2020 only for it to be pushed by sturgeon with back hand tactics? That was the point where she showed her hand and didn’t give a shit what the wider party or voting public thought on the matter. Ask yourself, why has she pretty much pulled the house down over this issue for? Has it furthered the cause for independence? 

[TDYER63]

25 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

It didn’t exist because it hadn’t been pushed by sturgeon against the party’s will, remember when the NEC voted down the amendments in 2020 only for it to be pushed by sturgeon with back hand tactics? That was the point where she showed her hand and didn’t give a shit what the wider party or voting public thought on the matter. Ask yourself, why has she pretty much pulled the house down over this issue for? Has it furthered the cause for independence? 

What did she do ? I genuinely dont remember as it is is not something I would have been too familiar with. 

[scotlad]

2 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

What did she do ? I genuinely dont remember as it is is not something I would have been too familiar with. 

I remember some of the "wokeists", like Fiona Robertson and Alyn Smith, losing senior positions on the NEC, and that the rank and file membership haven't been able to vote directly on the make-up of these committees ever since (and admittedly, that's pretty bad).  What I don't remember, though, is GRR being kicked into the long grass.

[hampden_loon2878]

37 minutes ago, scotlad said:

I remember some of the "wokeists", like Fiona Robertson and Alyn Smith, losing senior positions on the NEC, and that the rank and file membership haven't been able to vote directly on the make-up of these committees ever since (and admittedly, that's pretty bad).  What I don't remember, though, is GRR being kicked into the long grass.

Maybe kicked into the long grass is the wrong way to describe it, but there was major kick back and the hierarchy didn’t like it one little bit 

[aaid]

2 hours ago, scotlad said:

I remember some of the "wokeists", like Fiona Robertson and Alyn Smith, losing senior positions on the NEC, and that the rank and file membership haven't been able to vote directly on the make-up of these committees ever since (and admittedly, that's pretty bad).  What I don't remember, though, is GRR being kicked into the long grass.

That’s because it didn’t happen.   The 2020 Conference was held remotely - COVID - and there was a concerted effort to get a number of gender critical candidates elected to various positions and coincidentally to get some, like those you mention voted off.

They succeeded to some extent but not enough to majority change direction.  It was also when the NEC started to leak like a sieve.  With retrospect, that was the start of all the problems and Sturgeon should’ve been a lot more ruthless then.

With the benefit of hindsight, given that within a matter of months, those people had jumped ship to Alba and stood in the 2021 HR election, you have to ask yourself did Alex Salmond exploit the division or did he set out to create it,

[hampden_loon2878]

1 minute ago, aaid said:

That’s because it didn’t happen.   The 2020 Conference was held remotely - COVID - and there was a concerted effort to get a number of gender critical candidates elected to various positions and coincidentally to get some, like those you mention voted off.

They succeeded to some extent but not enough to majority change direction.  It was also when the NEC started to leak like a sieve.  With retrospect, that was the start of all the problems and Sturgeon should’ve been a lot more ruthless then.

With the benefit of hindsight, given that within a matter of months, those people had jumped ship to Alba and stood in the 2021 HR election, you have to ask yourself did Alex Salmond exploit the division or did he set out to create it,

No the devision rests at the feet of the leader of the SNP, she allowed a minority of fucking nut jobs take over the party

[Kirk]

On 1/25/2023 at 9:22 PM, Tartan_Tonna said:

The UK Government  has tonight changed its transgender prisoner policy framework to ensure that the Scottish convicted double rapist won't be staying at Cornton Vale female estate unless he chops off his penis. All trans sex offenders will be moved to the male estate.

How unfortunate for Nicola Sturgeon that she didn't see this coming. Particularly after her comments on BBC radio 4 this afternoon saying it's the prison service that makes the decision on where they are housed. She didn't condemn the placement of him in Corton Vale. 

All of the rape enabling SNP MPs that voted against the GRC amendment to stop male rapists in female prisions will be disappointed by tonight's development.

Disappointment I'd imagine also shared by Petunia Murrell, when charges are finally brought around the massive scale fraud police investigation into the missing, woven through accounts, second independence pretenderendum 600K! 

Better not drop the soap in Barlinnie. Some of those violent inmates haven't seen a woman in a loooongg time!

SNP. Stronger for rapists. As long as they're not wearing a football strip of course!

A man's a man, for a' that. 

Happy Burns Nicht!

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework

you're a fucking loonball

On 1/28/2023 at 9:08 AM, Squirrelhumper said:

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/trans-woman-battered-male-inmate-28511707

One of the 15 men in female prisons. 

How anyone can say that is acceptable is beyond me.

 

should be hung for being a pedo.

 

[Malcolm]

9 hours ago, aaid said:

What do you understand by a wealth tax and what would you suggest as a reform for council tax, or do you think that council tax is okay?

 

well according to the greens, they want to look at a recurring wealth tax on individuals with assets over £1m which sounds a lot but would include most of the middle class (would include all savings, pensions, housing assets).  

council tax or rateable value works fine, recognising discounts for single occupancy.  Personally a flat tax per working adult in the house would seem to me to be fairer, but that would be akin to a poll tax which I imagine wouldn’t be very popular!

tax on wealth is plain wrong, you have already paid tax in generating that wealth in the first place.  The amount of taxation is already driving early retirement from the workforce… why bother working if it’s not worthwhile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[aaid]

1 minute ago, Malcolm said:

 

well according to the greens, they want to look at a recurring wealth tax on individuals with assets over £1m which sounds a lot but would include most of the middle class (would include all savings, pensions, housing assets).  

council tax or rateable value works fine, recognising discounts for single occupancy.  Personally a flat tax per working adult in the house would seem to me to be fairer, but that would be akin to a poll tax which I imagine wouldn’t be very popular!

tax on wealth is plain wrong, you have already paid tax in generating that wealth in the first place.  The amount of taxation is already driving early retirement from the workforce… why bother working if it’s not worthwhile.

The sort of taxes you are talking about are not coming in this side of independence - because they are reserved - and in reality not after either.

Your second point isn’t akin to a poll tax, it is the poll tax and we don’t need to rehearse the reason why that was so unpopular.

It’s false to claim that you’ve already paid tax on wealth.  You pay income tax on your labour and capital gains on “unearned” income, which is of course at a much lower rate and which you only pay when you access it.  

[Malcolm]

21 minutes ago, aaid said:

The sort of taxes you are talking about are not coming in this side of independence - because they are reserved - and in reality not after either.

Your second point isn’t akin to a poll tax, it is the poll tax and we don’t need to rehearse the reason why that was so unpopular.

It’s false to claim that you’ve already paid tax on wealth.  You pay income tax on your labour and capital gains on “unearned” income, which is of course at a much lower rate and which you only pay when you access it.  

So wealth should not be taxed.  As you say you pay tax on capital gain and income already which is the creation of wealth.  After that its inherently yours, your ownership.  Why should you be taxed for ownership.

”you will own nothing and be happy”… the WEFs communist dream.

 

[slasher]

You might as well close this thread. Indyref2 is dead in the water as far as I can see and the SNP are now bogged down in a completely self inflicted gender recognition swamp.

I am now of the opinion that Sturgeon needs to go next year sadly.

[scotlad]

8 minutes ago, slasher said:

You might as well close this thread. Indyref2 is dead in the water as far as I can see and the SNP are now bogged down in a completely self inflicted gender recognition swamp.

I am now of the opinion that Sturgeon needs to go next year sadly.

It wasn't self-inflicted, not completely anyway.  It was/is a bear trap (no pun intended) that they could have side-stepped but have blundered into instead. 

The whole thing has been misreported (almost certainly on purpose) but they must have known that was likely to happen. 

If Sturgeon can come out of this smelling of roses then she can survive anything.  Otherwise, I think she might be done.

[ParisInAKilt]

On 1/30/2023 at 8:53 PM, hampden_loon2878 said:

Yes with the leadership, most would vote yes, who that leader would be? god knows 

Give people a vote now, even those enraged at Sturgeon because of GRR and I’d guess most would still vote yes. 

[ParisInAKilt]

10 minutes ago, scotlad said:

It wasn't self-inflicted, not completely anyway.  It was/is a bear trap (no pun intended) that they could have side-stepped but have blundered into instead. 

The whole thing has been misreported (almost certainly on purpose) but they must have known that was likely to happen. 

If Sturgeon can come out of this smelling of roses then she can survive anything.  Otherwise, I think she might be done.

Who set the trap? Seems entirely self inflicted. 

[slasher]

18 minutes ago, scotlad said:

It wasn't self-inflicted, not completely anyway.  It was/is a bear trap (no pun intended) that they could have side-stepped but have blundered into instead. 

The whole thing has been misreported (almost certainly on purpose) but they must have known that was likely to happen. 

If Sturgeon can come out of this smelling of roses then she can survive anything.  Otherwise, I think she might be done.

We’ll have to disagree on whether it was self inflicted or not, I think it patently is. Sadly I think it also exhibits just how little independence has been prioritised by policy makers in the current SNP. They must have had some knowledge of how this was going to play out after all unionist misrepresentation of the facts isn’t new.Any policy changes that could damage the independence cause would be kicked into the long grass by any serious party. At this point I’ve pretty much lost all faith.

Edited January 31, 2023 by slasher

[aaid]

15 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Who set the trap? Seems entirely self inflicted. 

At the time when this started off, the UKG were planning to do something similar.  

Then you have a change of government, and a massive shift in the direction of that government - during a parliament, which is pretty unprecedented - and they do a complete 180 and not only drop it but are ideologically opposed.

If you are the SG at that point do you do the same and ditch you’re already committed and be then annoy one part of your support, or do you continue on as you were doing - particularly where you’ve got cross party support?

Edited January 31, 2023 by aaid

[Diamond Scot]

11 hours ago, Malcolm said:

So wealth should not be taxed.  As you say you pay tax on capital gain and income already which is the creation of wealth.  After that its inherently yours, your ownership.  Why should you be taxed for ownership.

”you will own nothing and be happy”… the WEFs communist dream.

 

The vast majority of people with "wealth" havent earned it or paid much if any tax on it. Wealth is passed from generation to generation. That wealth is usually used to create more wealth and sometimes comes from being in a position to exploit those who dont have wealth.

A classic example being a friend of mine whose grandparent was very succussful and made alot of money, passed it down to his Dad who in turn made more money and then my mates Dad has given loads to him. Despite going to Uni and getting a good degree, he doesnt work in that profession. He used his "wealth" to snap up cheap properties, do abit of work on them and then sell for much more. He also has a load of properties that he rents out. Now society will say he is successful and has "earned" his income and paid tax on it etx but the fact remains that he was only in a position to do so because of his family wealth allowing him to go and buy numerous properties without mortgages etc.

Im not saying that you shouldnt be allowed to hand stuff down to your kids etc but when dealing with vast wealth there has to be a better way to redistribute the money whilst leaving enough for the rich children.

[slasher]

5 minutes ago, aaid said:

At the time when this started off, the UKG were planning to do something similar.  

Then you have a change of government, and a massive shift in the direction of that government - during a parliament, which is pretty unprecedented - and they do a complete 180 and not only drop it but are ideologically opposed.

If you are the SG at that point do you do the same and ditch you’re already committed party and be then annoy one part of your support, or do you continue on as you were doing - particularly where you’ve got cross party support?

You don’t allow a pressure group that exists solely for the purpose of getting this legislation through to drive policy and you have the foresight to realise that controversial change like this is better left until another time. They simply didn’t have to go there and now they are bogged down in it for fuck knows how long if it ends up in court which it almost certainly will.

[ParisInAKilt]

11 minutes ago, aaid said:

At the time when this started off, the UKG were planning to do something similar.  

Then you have a change of government, and a massive shift in the direction of that government - during a parliament, which is pretty unprecedented - and they do a complete 180 and not only drop it but are ideologically opposed.

If you are the SG at that point do you do the same and ditch you’re already committed and be then annoy one part of your support, or do you continue on as you were doing - particularly where you’ve got cross party support?

So the Tories? What a surprise 😂

[phart]

Oxfam had a study that showed that 70% of created new wealth went to 1% of people.

It's like gravity if you start with more mass you have a much better chance of attracting more mass. Same with money.

 

[aaid]

12 minutes ago, slasher said:

You don’t allow a pressure group that exists solely for the purpose of getting this legislation through to drive policy and you have the foresight to realise that controversial change like this is better left until another time. They simply didn’t have to go there and now they are bogged down in it for fuck knows how long if it ends up in court which it almost certainly will.

By the same perspective, do you also allow a pressure group to stop legislation that is in train.

I'll give you the benefit of looking at it from the position where we are - where all you see is opposition but no support for the bill - there is another side to the coin here, that's all I am saying.