Flora MaDonald Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Was listening to FMQ's earlier - Christ, it was like Christmas to the red and blues. In my humble opinion, this is one greedy quine, and she should be hurled out irrespective of what the polis come up with. Michael Stewart should've been in from day one anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Was listening to FMQ's earlier - Christ, it was like Christmas to the red and blues. In my humble opinion, this is one greedy quine, and she should be hurled out irrespective of what the polis come up with. Michael Stewart should've been in from day one anyway. As much as I like people realising that the SNP are no different to other capitalist led neoliberal parties... The discussion in Holyrood irritated me. The culprit in question is an MP and although Sturgeon has responsibility over her, FMQ's isn't the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 As much as I like people realising that the SNP are no different to other capitalist led neoliberal parties... The discussion in Holyrood irritated me. The culprit in question is an MP and although Sturgeon has responsibility over her, FMQ's isn't the place.Exactly. The utter waste of our parliaments time discussing a foreign parliament member is ridiculous. Typical as the Labour and Tory MSPs are as effective as chocolate fireguards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I very much doubt Alan is John Swinney... Who is the only person in Scotland worthy of such a tag. In my humble opinion. What about Fergus 'nationalising the energy companies is a terrible idea' Ewing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stocky Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 What about Fergus 'nationalising the energy companies is a terrible idea' Ewing? Aye, Fergus is the most right wing in the SNP.... Swinney is a commy compared to Fergus....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 What about Fergus 'nationalising the energy companies is a terrible idea' Ewing? Aye, Fergus is the most right wing in the SNP.... Swinney is a commy compared to Fergus....... Fergus is a puppy dog compared to Swinney who STILL wants to reduce corp tax 3% below rUK. A blow job to the man who gives Swinney the Trotsky treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Looks like the papers have decided she is guilty, so I suppose she must be. http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-twitching-corpses-of-truth/ As far as I can see, they haven't decided what she is guilty of yet though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPROAR Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 trying to be objective, if you read the judgement on the solicitor there is a strong inference Thomson 'might' have been involved in diddling some mortgage lenders - 'might' ( oh those poor banks..... ) if she has then I'm sure the polis will deal with it (though how there could be any hope of a fair trial now is beyond me... ) except for that I don't get it - some people are annoyed they sold a house to the highest offer and then are shocked it sold for more later ??? is that it or have I missed something else ? as for the Biz for Scotland 'story' - Tony Banks is a w@nk and no-one who works with him likes him so I am also struggling with that non-story - is there anything actually confirmed here as being genuinely illegal or immoral because I am not getting it... this whole thing looks to me like someone is telling tales - there might be an awful lot more personal agenda than real fact here........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I started to look into this and got side-tracked, but i saw something about buying someones house and then selling it for a 31k mark-up the same day. the implication being the person was desperate for the money, so could be pressured into selling low. However i never got looking further, so it could just be made up pish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iainmac1 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I started to look into this and got side-tracked, but i saw something about buying someones house and then selling it for a 31k mark-up the same day. the implication being the person was desperate for the money, so could be pressured into selling low. However i never got looking further, so it could just be made up pish. I don't see the problem here. Who would pay more for a house than what the owner is willing to sell for. There isn't a house sale that happens where there isn't negotiation. If they didn't sell to her they've would have sold to someone else. I offered below the valuation for my house and ended up getting it for 8k less than what the person paid for it just a year earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giblet Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 i think the problem may more lie in why then sell it immediately to you spouse at an inflated figure, 24 hours later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 i think the problem may more lie in why then sell it immediately to you spouse at an inflated figure, 24 hours later. Aye there must be something dodgy in that but I just cannae see what the angle is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Aye there must be something dodgy in that but I just cannae see what the angle is. I tend to think that myself. That said, I think it's surprising that in all the coverage, no-ones explained what the angle actually is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euan2020 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Aye there must be something dodgy in that but I just cannae see what the angle is. sounds similar to what you would do with shares - bed and breakfast deal possible she was using up her capital gains tax allowance for the year - likely the house was sold to the husband supported by a valuation fro surveyors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giblet Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 get a bigger mortgage on the bought property? (access to cash to use again?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Fergus is a puppy dog compared to Swinney who STILL wants to reduce corp tax 3% below rUK. A blow job to the man who gives Swinney the Trotsky treatment.Ach, John's alright. He said hello to me in Edinburgh once, which is more than some of my neighbours, work colleagues and certain members of my family can find it in their hearts to do. Then again, the prize on offer is tempting. I wonder, is the business tax idea Swinney's brainchild? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I don't see the problem here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPROAR Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 OK then - explain it for those of us who are a little hard of thinking........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 OK then - explain it for those of us who are a little hard of thinking........ I guess it depends whether you think preying on the weak and the vulnerable is acceptable or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPROAR Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I guess it depends whether you think preying on the weak and the vulnerable is acceptable or not. ok explain that bit to me..... I saw a couple who needed to sell their house. Some people came along and offered them more than they had paid for it (a lot more) and they decided to accept. There is no inference of illegality. They were then annoyed it later sold for a higher price. explain why I should be upset ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 ok explain that bit to me..... I saw a couple who needed to sell their house. Some people came along and offered them more than they had paid for it (a lot more) and they decided to accept. There is no inference of illegality. They were then annoyed it later sold for a higher price. explain why I should be upset ? I never mentioned illegality. Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPROAR Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I never mentioned illegality. Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be immoral. ok well explain the immorality to me ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I never mentioned illegality. Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be immoral. You're assuming that the people selling were somehow forced into selling at a very low price. I don't know the details but given the record of the mainstream media I would suspect very strongly that that didn't happen, although of course if asked by a newspaper the sellers would no doubt express their disappointment that they themselves couldn't manage to achieve the higher price. The business of buying and then selling on at a higher price shortly afterwards could be to do with tax reasons, or it could as has been suggested to enable a larger mortgage to be obtained - providing some one is prepared to put their name to a valuation for the higher amount then I fail to see how there is anything wrong with that. A higher mortgage means less capital tied up in the property, and as most folk realise rental often brings in more than the cost of a mortgage. What this is about is a blatant attempt to smear the SNP in the run up to the 2016 elections. Maybe Thomson has broken some law in which case she will I ope do the decent thing and resign. However far more likely is that she has not done anything wrong at all and that the whole matter is just another "SNP bad" storyline - incidentally why is BBC Scotland still running with this story when there's nothing new to report? I see there was another "story" about some SNP MP whose parents had some sort of problem with a nursing home. In 1995 FFS! When the MP was 20 years old. Desperate stuff - it's transparent what this is really about. I wonder how many MPs of the unionist persuasion have bought and sold property for profit. Why are they nor being smeared? I think we all know the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I see that the Australian SNP MP was supporting Australia on Saturday. Disgraceful stuff. Blah blah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPROAR Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I'd just like someone to clearly explain the immorality - I am am capable of understanding.... the thing that will save us from such p!sh pretendy moral outrage is when they find a number of Labour & Tory who do the same thing. Which they will and the press will ignore... for now I'd settle for a simple morality lecture.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.