Jump to content

The Dirty Independence Question


Kyelo
 Share

Recommended Posts

But on the pooling and sharing......why are you so dismissive of what`s happening today on the Bill ?

You were puting the boot into Swinney earlier. Don`t you agree it`s his job to look after the future of Scottish tax payers remembering we voted to stay in the Union.

Less revenue coming North will hugely affect the " poor " you claim to support ? 

Or am I missing something ? Better together you said.

The Tories are looking to cut the money coming North. Your whole case on this thread has been to protect the poor from cuts.....you said. 

Tory cuts good SNP bad :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

But on the pooling and sharing......why are you so dismissive of what`s happening today on the Bill ?

You were puting the boot into Swinney earlier. Don`t you agree it`s his job to look after the future of Scottish tax payers remembering we voted to stay in the Union.

Less revenue coming North will hugely affect the " poor " you claim to support ? 

Or am I missing something ? Better together you said.

The Tories are looking to cut the money coming North. Your whole case on this thread has been to protect the poor from cuts.....you said. 

Tory cuts good SNP bad :P

What did you miss about what I said? :rolleyes:

Swinney is apparently asking for a change in the Barnet formula, to Scotland's further advantage.

It's fair enough that he tries, I guess, but if he's refused it's not reason enough to block the bill (tho apparently he will).

it's all speculation at the moment of course, but there's certainly hints along those sorts of lines.

I support the poor in England and Wales and NI too comfy - unlike you - and I'm not prepared to see Scottish standards of living higher than elsewhere at the expense of those others elsewhere. In comparison to elsewhere, Scotland is already well-provisioned for via Barnet (as a whole heep of stats can prove), so something more-advantageous to Scotland would be unfair on the others who would lose out as a result.

That's what happens when you don't put yourself first without thought of others. You actually care about those others. Perhaps try it? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

The Tories are looking to cut the money coming North. Your whole case on this thread has been to protect the poor from cuts.....you said. 

Tory cuts good SNP bad :P

By the very fact that Scotland will retain some of the tax money collected in Scotland via the new powers, there has to be an alteration of the Barnet formula.

What Swinney is (apparently) trying to do, tho, is alter the whole basis of Barnet, to forever-guarantee Scotland a particular percentage of whole-UK money, rather than the percentage being based on a population-share (which is how Barnet works now).

Do you think that Scotland should be allocated a chunk of money just because it's Scotland, without any regard to the numbers of people within Scotland, comfy?

Or do you think the amount of money Scotland is allocated should be in some way related to it's population share?

-------------

My whole case in this thread has been to protect the poor from the MUCH WORSE CUTS THAT INDY OR FFA WOULD CAUSE.

Just to be clear. :)

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Beeb the Tories have put forward an improved, revised offer. Some would suggest the original offer was unfair to Scotland. Swinney`s job is clearly to represent the Scottish tax payer and secure what he can for our future whilst we remain in the UK.

Of course, Swinney and I would prefer we didn`t have to have these ongoing deals with the Tories around our powers etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Do you think that Scotland should be allocated a chunk of money just because it's Scotland, without any regard to the numbers of people within Scotland, comfy?

Or do you think the amount of money Scotland is allocated should be in some way related to it's population share?

-------------

My whole case in this thread has been to protect the poor from the MUCH WORSE CUTS THAT INDY OR FFA WOULD CAUSE.

Just to be clear. :)

We disagree ( a lot ) but I do believe that your motivation IS to protect the poor.

Do I think Scotland should be allocated money because it`s Scotland ?

NO.

Do you think than in the coming decades the population in the South of England will continue to rise and rise and do you think this will make Scotland less expensive to run ?

There is no need for us to disagree on this. Stash just went after the SNP with all his Westmonster chat but I reckon you realise that Swinney`s job is to get the best deal for Scottish taxpayers however they voted in the referendum or whatever party they support.

A cut to the funding will hit the poorest the hardest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Do you think than in the coming decades the population in the South of England will continue to rise and rise and do you think this will make Scotland less expensive to run ?

If England can be run more cheaply then so can Scotland. :rolleyes:

Or are you saying that Scotland can only become more expensive to run, while also saying that Scotland can self-fund with a £10Bn shortfall in its self-funding? :lol:

The country votes to decide how much should be spent. The money is then distributed on an equal-ish basis (not equal because the higher costs of running Scotland due to geography are recognised and covered for via Barnet).

That's how it works.

You and Swinney want it to be worked in a different way, where Scotland is granted further privileges - at the expense of the poor of rUK.

How much clearly do you want to state that you don't give a shit abolut help[ing the poorest, Comfy? The poorest in Scotland already get the best deal in the UK according to you, via the wionders of the SNP ... but you want more.

How very caring and sharing of you. Not.

How very greedy of you.

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

There is no need for us to disagree on this. Stash just went after the SNP with all his Westmonster chat but I reckon you realise that Swinney`s job is to get the best deal for Scottish taxpayers however they voted in the referendum or whatever party they support.

A cut to the funding will hit the poorest the hardest.

A tory gets the best for themselves without regard for others.

Someone who believes in social justice doesn't.

Which side are you and Swinney on? The tory side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

According to the Beeb the Tories have put forward an improved, revised offer. Some would suggest the original offer was unfair to Scotland. Swinney`s job is clearly to represent the Scottish tax payer and secure what he can for our future whilst we remain in the UK.

Of course, Swinney and I would prefer we didn`t have to have these ongoing deals with the Tories around our powers etc.

because you want Scotland to be £10Bn a year poorer, more than the cost of your education system? :lol:

Yeah, a £10Bn a year poorer Scotland will be so much better. :lol::lol::lol:
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Do you think than in the coming decades the population in the South of England will continue to rise and rise and do you think this will make Scotland less expensive to run ?

Comfy, I have a question for you: 

As I understand it, the fiscal powers to be devolved will allow Scotland to raise and keep taxes on incomes & profits generated in Scotland, rather than them being collected by central government. If more is raised next year than this year, Scotland gets to keep and spend the difference. Do you think this is a good thing? 

Central government then says that as taxation on Scottish incomes & profits are being kept in Scotland, the amount of the block grant has to change, as their are no longer enough funds to keep sending the same money to Scotland and thereby disadvantaging Northern Ireland, Wales and England. The Barnett formula (a per capita indexation) remains for the rest of the block grant. Do you think that is fair? 

If you agree with both of the above points, then the only thing outstanding is the actual amount that the block grant is amended by. Caveman Swinney has suggested; 

Quote

We are not asking for a penny more than the Barnett formula would have delivered to Scotland.

If we are to believe the reports in the press, he has asked for per capita indexation on income tax to remain in the block grant for income tax as well as the remainder of the block grant not affected by the devolution of income tax. So essentially, he wants control of income tax rates & collection, but still wants a link to rUK population to be kept, meaning that if the rest of the UK grows, and becomes more expensive to run, Scotland gets a piece of that action too - essentially the Barnett formula in a different name. However the reverse is not true, so rUK will never get a piece of any extra income tax revenues generated in Scotland. Is that a fair analysis from your perspective. 

So my question would be, why are we bothering? Wouldn't it be better for the UK, the country that Scotland voted to remain a part of, to have 1 tax system, 1 tax collection agency and 1 central government redistributing that funding. What is the point of hiving off part of it for the benefit of only a small part of the country and then ring-fencing all funding to that small part of the country to the detriment of the rest of the country. 

Without talking about independence etc, is there a logical reason to do any of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Stash said:

So my question would be, why are we bothering? Wouldn't it be better for the UK, the country that Scotland voted to remain a part of, to have 1 system

For me, while I'm sympathetic to the idea of devolved power - after all, who doesn't want maximum control over their own lives? - this ultimately has me being against devolution and for centralisation.

After all, there is only one right way of doing things, and that right way will be the same everywhere. We just need to find what right is.

And in the meantime, efficiency, practicality & equality comes from a centralised system, and it avoids turning region against region as the SNP is doing with Scotland (and soon to feel the English bite-back, I reckon. If you think you've had it already, you ain't seen nothing yet).

Laughably, I read a comment by a snipper yesterday which said something like "England needs to get itself a nationalist party and then it can have more like the SNP gets more for Scotland". I almost wet-myself, as mostly SNP supporters used to claim their support was largely in response to English nationalism (that only they can see in the country that gets 120% back of what it pays, but that's a different argument), and the party of self-greed in England is usually called the tories.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

"England needs to get itself a nationalist party and then it can have more like the SNP gets more for Scotland".

Apart from everything else wrong with that, where on earth does this person thing the more will come from. There is no magic money tree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stash said:

Apart from everything else wrong with that, where on earth does this person thing the more will come from. There is no magic money tree!

I was pointing out that many snippers make the same noises as the tories nowadays. "Give me more for me, at someone else's expense, I don't care who, I don't care about them".

And it should be pointed out that the SNP signed up to the Smith thing of "Barnet to be the same", and now the SNP are trying to change it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I was pointing out that many snippers make the same noises as the tories nowadays. "Give me more for me, at someone else's expense, I don't care who, I don't care about them".

And it should be pointed out that the SNP signed up to the Smith thing of "Barnet to be the same", and now the SNP are trying to change it.

 

No you weren't. 

 

You were quoting from some nutter & trying to tar all those in favour of Indy with his brush. Do I have to start quoting some anti SNP  nutter every time you post shit like this? ... i mean its only fair that we have balance.

 

The real issue here is the Smith Commission's insistence that there should be "no detriment" (to either party) as a result of the resulting legislation. There has been no shortage of commentators suggesting  that this is unworkable in practice (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35364890). However the fact remains that it is a central part of the agreement and the parties are bound to try & achieve it. 

 

As representatives of their electorates both Westminster & Holyrood governments are obliged to try & get the best deal for their own side - in other words both were inevitably going to adopt negotiation positions which will (hopefully) result in a reasonable compromise in the end.

 

Neil, in his usual simplistic style will attempt to pin all the blame on the SNP for trying to rob the rest of the UK.

 

I prefer to see it as a normal negotiating process... 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

No you weren't. 

You were quoting from some nutter & trying to tar all those in favour of Indy with his brush. Do I have to start quoting some anti SNP  nutter every time you post shit like this? ... i mean its only fair that we have balance.

I was highlighting the change overall, where such things wouldn't have been said 2 years ago, but can sometimes flow quite freely now.

Let's face it, plenty on the indy side have had to massively change their position. You never hear "it's oor oil" now, and there's a reason why (and a whole heap of changed tunes s a result).

More laughably still, after decades of moaning about 'oor oil', the SNP don't want "Scotland's oil" for Scotland. The words 'oil money' didn't leave their lips at Smith.

 

Quote

The real issue here is the Smith Commission's insistence that there should be "no detriment" (to either party) as a result of the resulting legislation. There has been no shortage of commentators suggesting  that this is unworkable in practice (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35364890). However the fact remains that it is a central part of the agreement and the parties are bound to try & achieve it. 

It's definitely unworkable in practice, because Scotland no longer has guaranteed income.

It has to live or die by its own efforts, just like you've been asking for.

 

Quote

As representatives of their electorates both Westminster & Holyrood governments are obliged to try & get the best deal for their own side - in other words both were inevitably going to adopt negotiation positions which will (hopefully) result in a reasonable compromise in the end.

Nope. That's a point of view that only works if you're firstly of the view that Westminster wants to be mean to Scotland. :rolleyes:

If Westminster wanted to be mean to Scotland it would never have had the Barnet consequential in the first place, or the agreement to enshrine it again in the altered world you've asked for.

Barnet has always been population based. Why should it change, particularly to more* in Scotland's favour?
(*cos a good argument can be made that it's been over-generous to Scotland)

 

Quote

Neil, in his usual simplistic style will attempt to pin all the blame on the SNP for trying to rob the rest of the UK.

It's an asked-for change in Scotland's favour at rUK's expense. What have you missed? :rolleyes:

Scotland already gets the best deal in the UK. You're often crowing of the great effects.

 

Quote

I prefer to see it as a normal negotiating process...

What's to negotiate on an agreement?

Swinney is trying to change what was agreed.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news following hard on the heels of the libdems half baked income tax proposals Labour have come up with some slightly more cooked proposals of their own. 

Quote

 

Scottish Labour calls for Scottish income tax rise

Labour has called for an immediate 1p increase in Scottish income tax rates.

The party said the move would raise about £500m every year, which it said would be enough to avoid cuts to education and other local services.

...

Scottish Labour said its plan for a 1p rise in income tax across all bands from April would be offset by taxpayers earning less than £20,000 receiving a £100 annual boost to their income through a payment scheme.

This £100 payment, which would be administered by councils, would be "far in excess" of the additional £20 which someone earning just above the minimum wage would pay in income tax over the course a year, the party said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35461968

 

Now this looks like a good workaround for the problem that although, at present, any tax rise will be" across the board" i.e. any rise in higher rates will also affect lower rtaes by the same amount and they have no power at all ( & won't if & when the new Scotland Act comes into force) over tax bands.

 

I like this idea in principle and would be perfectly happy to pay the extra taxation involved. 

 

It has been welcomed by Neil's new best mate 

 

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/srit-scottish-labours-proposal.html

 

although he does acknowledge that " There will I am sure be some devil in the detail of administration," but glosses over this & as always produces lots of nice tables & graphs combines with his usual gratuitous jibes at the SNP ( that's why Neil likes him)

For a more detailed discussion of the devil in the detail stuff, here's your man...

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2016/02/questions-questions.html

It remains to be seen whether Labour has really though this out & have come up with an imaginative solution to the fiscal straightjacket Scotland has been provided with. 

 

The SNP have yet to publish their taxation proposals for the forthcoming Holyrood elections.

 

I await them with interest...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I was highlighting the change overall, where such things wouldn't have been said 2 years ago, but can sometimes flow quite freely now.

Let's face it, plenty on the indy side have had to massively change their position. You never hear "it's oor oil" now, and there's a reason why (and a whole heap of changed tunes s a result).

More laughably still, after decades of moaning about 'oor oil', the SNP don't want "Scotland's oil" for Scotland. The words 'oil money' didn't leave their lips at Smith.

 

It's definitely unworkable in practice, because Scotland no longer has guaranteed income.

It has to live or die by its own efforts, just like you've been asking for.

 

Nope. That's a point of view that only works if you're firstly of the view that Westminster wants to be mean to Scotland. :rolleyes:

If Westminster wanted to be mean to Scotland it would never have had the Barnet consequential in the first place, or the agreement to enshrine it again in the altered world you've asked for.

Barnet has always been population based. Why should it change, particularly to more* in Scotland's favour?
(*cos a good argument can be made that it's been over-generous to Scotland)

 

It's an asked-for change in Scotland's favour at rUK's expense. What have you missed? :rolleyes:

Scotland already gets the best deal in the UK. You're often crowing of the great effects.

 

What's to negotiate on an agreement?

Swinney is trying to change what was agreed.

cutting through all the crap - what is to negotiate is how to put the principle of "no detriment" into practice. You talk as if this had already been agreed & the SNP are trying to move the goalposts, but then you would, wouldn't you?

 

& as for   "It's an asked-for change in Scotland's favour at rUK's expense" the Smith commission was established as the result of an "unasked-for change in the relationship between Scotland & the rest of the UK" offered by the Westminster establishment when they thought they might lose the Indy vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If England can be run more cheaply then so can Scotland. :rolleyes:

I know. Not sure why you are saying this ? Services cut etc has been happening for years. Local Govt cuts, pension cuts changes to the retirement age. I could go on.

I said the other day ( twice ) that the NHS, local Govt etc will be unrecognisable in years to come. It`s part of why I think your forecasts are little more than guesswork.

Scotland costs more to run. I know you accept this. What`s our land mass as a % of the UK ? As you say, it`s all down to the geography and more rural nature of Scotland.

No voters are expecting " No detriment ". Yes voters wanted something completely different. I thought you were on the side of these Scots who voted NO ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LJS said:

cutting through all the crap - what is to negotiate is how to put the principle of "no detriment" into practice. You talk as if this had already been agreed & the SNP are trying to move the goalposts, but then you would, wouldn't you?

 

& as for   "It's an asked-for change in Scotland's favour at rUK's expense" the Smith commission was established as the result of an "unasked-for change in the relationship between Scotland & the rest of the UK" offered by the Westminster establishment when they thought they might lose the Indy vote. 

Spot on sir. Out of courtesy to Stash I shall have a go at answering his question ( I realise I may be wasting my time ) but I can`t put it better than this.... you`ve got it in a *nutshell.

It`s odd all this ( in my opinion ). These negotiations are as a result of the NO voters and their victory. All this is due to the side our resident unionists were on winning. You and I didn`t want this as we wanted to take full responsibility for ourselves.

 

* Squirell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stash said:

Comfy, I have a question for you: 

As I understand it, the fiscal powers to be devolved will allow Scotland to raise and keep taxes on incomes & profits generated in Scotland, rather than them being collected by central government. If more is raised next year than this year, Scotland gets to keep and spend the difference. Do you think this is a good thing? 

I don`t think this is accurate ( see link )

Central government then says that as taxation on Scottish incomes & profits are being kept in Scotland, the amount of the block grant has to change, as their are no longer enough funds to keep sending the same money to Scotland and thereby disadvantaging Northern Ireland, Wales and England. The Barnett formula (a per capita indexation) remains for the rest of the block grant. Do you think that is fair?

I`m not sure about this either, especially the last bit but I might not be following exactly what you mean. 

If you agree with both of the above points, then the only thing outstanding is the actual amount that the block grant is amended by. Caveman Swinney has suggested; 

See Link. Caveman Swinney :lol:

 

7 hours ago, Stash said:

If we are to believe the reports in the press, he has asked for per capita indexation on income tax to remain in the block grant for income tax as well as the remainder of the block grant not affected by the devolution of income tax. So essentially, he wants control of income tax rates & collection, but still wants a link to rUK population to be kept, meaning that if the rest of the UK grows, and becomes more expensive to run, Scotland gets a piece of that action too - essentially the Barnett formula in a different name. However the reverse is not true, so rUK will never get a piece of any extra income tax revenues generated in Scotland. Is that a fair analysis from your perspective. 

Your bit in red....Not sure I agree with that either.

So my question would be, why are we bothering? Wouldn't it be better for the UK, the country that Scotland voted to remain a part of, to have 1 tax system, 1 tax collection agency and 1 central government redistributing that funding. What is the point of hiving off part of it for the benefit of only a small part of the country and then ring-fencing all funding to that small part of the country to the detriment of the rest of the country. 

Will try and answer your questions within this last paragraph as a whole.

We are bothering as Scotland voted NO and The UK Govt offered this deal ( vow ) a few days before the vote ( when the first polls showed it could be on ). The United Kingdom is not the Country that Scotland voted to remain part of. Would you want England to have the same tax system as another country with a completely different demographic, different geography etc. Would you want England`s taxes to be collected outside of England...for talking sake the EU ? We already have / had 1 central Govt dealing with redistributing that funding. Plenty of English folks would argue that our Govt already hives off too much for certain parts of the Country ( I don`t mean Scotland ). I like the way you trust the Tories in all this and we now know ( from Dennis Healey ) that Scotland`s potential has been down played in the past. We also know that tax revenues per head in Scotland have been higher than in the rest of the UK in each of the last 34 ( thirty four ) years.

Do you think Holyrood should be shut down ?

 

SCOTLAND stands to lose £3.5billion from its budget within a decade if the Treasury blocks Finance Secretary John Swinney's plan for bringing new powers to Holyrood, according to one of the country's leading economists.

Endorsing Mr Swinney's position, he said it was the only system that satisfied the principles laid down by the Smith Commission, whose recommendations formed the basis of the Scotland Bill.

Using official population projections, and assuming Scottish tax revenues kept pace with the rest of the UK, he Scotland would not lose out as a result of slower population growth under the 'per capita' adjustment.

However, he calculated that an alternative system known as "indexed deduction," which had been put forward as a possible compromise, would leave Scotland £3.5billion worse off after 10 years, with the loss increasing into the future

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14243646.Leading_economist__wrong_deal_to_secure_Scotland_Bill_powers_would_cost___3_5billion/

Edited by comfortablynumb1910
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

What's to negotiate on an agreement?

Swinney is trying to change what was agreed.

Eh ?

As we noted yesterday, the Tories have now put a revised offer on the table. Can you think why they would need to offer a revised deal. Perhaps, just maybe, the original offer didn`t stand up to " no detriment " scrutiny.

Again, this deal is required for the NO voters. YES voters didn`t want this. You championed the no voters as you were ( in your view ) fighting for the poor in Scottish society.

Now you appear to walking away from your earlier concerns for them ?

Remember it is only the YES voting Jocks you stand against.......;)  Just those `orrible snippers not the whole of Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/02/2016 at 7:18 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Do you think than in the coming decades the population in the South of England will continue to rise and rise and do you think this will make Scotland less expensive to run ?

 

 

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If England can be run more cheaply then so can Scotland. :rolleyes:

That is not what I asked.

Do you think than in the coming decades the population in the South of England will continue to rise and rise and do you think this will make Scotland less expensive to run ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

We are bothering as Scotland voted NO and The UK Govt offered this deal ( vow ) a few days before the vote ( when the first polls showed it could be on ).

 

If it's not good for the country though, why bother. We've had the vote, we're all one happy family. Lets stop putting fake divisions between us and start working together for mutual benefit, not just to the sole benefit of a really small, but vocal minority. 

 

29 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

The United Kingdom is not the Country that Scotland voted to remain part of. 

 

Enlighten me then. Was it Venezuela, Cuba, Norway...?

 

29 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

Would you want England to have the same tax system as another country with a completely different demographic, different geography etc. Would you want England`s taxes to be collected outside of England...for talking sake the EU ?

 

 

I don't really see where that squirrel fits in, however you do understand that Scotland is part of the UK don't you? There was rather a large debate about it recently, you couldn't have missed it surely?

 

29 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

 I like the way you trust the Tories in all this 

 

How did you come to this conclusion?

 

29 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

We also know that tax revenues per head in Scotland have been higher than in the rest of the UK in each of the last 34 ( thirty four ) years.

 

How do we know that, have we been dipping into Wings again? 

That particular calculation only works when oil revenues are included, and we all know how toxic that argument is for snippers at the moment. However ignoring that, as a region Scotland doesn't outperform all of the rest of the regions of the UK in tax revenues, but that wouldn't suit your one sided argument would it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wings? 

Again? 

Very near the conclusion of the indy debate dave put new powers on the table. No voters went for it. We are now seeing the negotiations. I wish we weren't. 

My squirrel answer was an attempt at answering your question. I agree it seems daft to let another country distribute our revenues. 

I'm aware that Scotland is part of the UK..as England is.

 

Do you think Holyrood should be closed down and everything run from Westminster? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Stash said:

If it's not good for the country though, why bother. We've had the vote, we're all one happy family. Lets stop putting fake divisions between us and start working together for mutual benefit, not just to the sole benefit of a really small, but vocal minority. 

What is this really small vocal minority? We are discussing the Scotland Act which delivers (or attempts to deliver) the stuff promised in the vow. Poll after poll shows the majority of Scots in favour of additional powers being devolved. 

If you are talking about Independence, then to describe those in favour as a "really small... minority" is frankly bizarre.

25 minutes ago, Stash said:

 

 

 

How do we know that, have we been dipping into Wings again? 

 

Comfy doesn't read Wings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From memory I have been on wings 1 (one) time via a link on here. Same with wiki that I was accused of using. I often link to BBC articles and avoid the national links for obvious reasons. I'm happy to have my views and opinions questioned...It happens quite a bit lol but I don't use wiki or wings,  I get enough people calling me a moron on here!!!! 

I assume stash was being funny. The rest of us know the 34 year thing has been mentioned on here once or twice over the years.

You match fit yet ljs?  If you don't mind me asking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...