The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

Excpet she hasn't done fuck all has she, Neil?

She's gone no further than anyone else in power, only making available spare resources from within existing resources.

If a country cared more, it would choose to do more for that specific purpose, instead of choosing to do not a jot more.

 

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

Oh my 3 day rant hasn't been against the Tories, Neil. It's been against those who seek to excuse their callousness and inhumanity. 

The only basis for your claim of "callousness and inhumanity" is what you thought was a firm explicit promise but actually never was (tho it's reasonable to assume it was).

Making an empty promise to help refugees is making an empty promise to help refugees. 

That's Cameron and Sturgeon.

Shame Cameron wasn't the one who withdrew his own pledge, while Sturgeon is the one who withdrew hers, cos that makes one worse than the other.

 

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

Which is what she has effectively been doing. It's why we've taken about a third of the Syrian refugeees who've come to the UK to date.

No, Scotland has taken proportionally-more *only* because Scotland has proportionally-more spare resources.

Spare resources is in the rules for accepting them!!!

 

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

Unfortunately this is based on the outright lie that she has done nothing.

she's done the minimum asked for by Westminster. She has done nothing extra.

 

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

I actually broadly agree with you on this, but where I disagree is your singling out of the SNP (as usual)  Reforming local taxation is a poisoned chalice. the SNP are far from alone in running scared of doing it. But only the SNP are to be held accountable. Funny that.

That's zero on behalf of a more-caring Scotland and everything because of Westminster.

 

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

I actually broadly agree with you on this, but where I disagree is your singling out of the SNP (as usual)  Reforming local taxation is a poisoned chalice. the SNP are far from alone in running scared of doing it. But only the SNP are to be held accountable. Funny that.

Hmmmm. As you say, it's a bit of a poisoned chalice.

So the serious parties steer clear of making promises they have no intention of fulfilling.

It's easy to promise the earth. You used to have all these hopes because the SNP were going to be that better party that would deliver better Scotland, and they turn out to be more conservative than the conservatives!

But worse than that - for where it goes - is that everyone still loves them. 

 

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

We had the old rating system - I have no idea how what the rich pay now relates to what they would have paid then.

If it worked the same as down here, they'll still be hugely quids-in.

 

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

the smart joined up thinking is to vote YES in indyref 2

cos the smart joined up way of thinking is to say currency doesn't matter, deficits don't matter, borders don't matter, and jobs and prosperity don't matter?

Fuck me, Scottish education has big problems.

 

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

I didn't cote for a tax cut for the rich.

you voted for a party that wanted to give one, and who you knew were NOT committed to taxing the rich more.

 

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

Kevin's graphs

of the effects of tory cuts.

you think they're great. Yeah, i know.

 

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

Yeah only Neil does facts. Like the facts about refugees I've blown out of the water over the past couple of days.

how about the fact that it took you two days to actually join the conversation you started!

 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'd imagine as her job is not a 9-5 position that would probably involve her having official papers in the house. Apparently that would be a problem

It would be the same problem for the Bristol major.

The issue is the confidentiality of the papers (standard data protection issues), not that they're super-serious papers that might start WW3 if they got out.

 

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

Yet again, I'm not ranting about Cameron, I'm ranting about you.

Sorry? You started a rant at cameron that was really at me, to demonstrate you're not giving out free passes to Sturgeon and hanging tories out to dry?

Oh my.

 

[LJS]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Sorry? You started a rant at cameron that was really at me, to demonstrate you're not giving out free passes to Sturgeon and hanging tories out to dry?

Oh my.

 

Did I really say that?

 

Oh no, I didn't, it was just Neil making shit up again.

 

Ho Hum Lol

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

Did I really say that?

 

Oh no, I didn't, it was just Neil making shit up again.

 

Ho Hum Lol

it's alright, you can stop now, the really embarrassing stuff is on the last page, so hopefully no one will click back to see it.

 

[LJS]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's alright, you can stop now, the really embarrassing stuff is on the last page, so hopefully no one will click back to see it.

 

no need t be embarrassed, Neil. 

well only a wee bit.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

no need t be embarrassed, Neil. 

well only a wee bit.

it's not me saying "it's a bit daft" about Sturgeon and damnation for Cameron for them doing the same thing.

 

[LJS]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's not me saying "it's a bit daft" about Sturgeon and damnation for Cameron for them doing the same thing.

 

It's not me trying to equate someone speaking in a personal capacity with someone speaking on behalf of the government.

[LJS]

next is the national anthem

 

Interestingly more Tories than English favour the truly awful "God save the Queen"

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

it's alright, you can stop now, the really embarrassing stuff is on the last page, so hopefully no one will click back to see it.

 

No Neil the really embarrassing stuff is on another thread

 

where you were wrong about  the eligibility Duns amendment always having eligibility guidelines

Where you were wrong about the Dubs amendment kids being additional to our  regulation commitments.

Where you were wrong about the timing of the Home Office massively restricting the eligibility guidelines 5 months after the act was passed.

 

But apparently I should be embarrassed for not holding Nicola sturgeon to account for something you yourself have admitted wasn't a promise.

 

 

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

No Neil the really embarrassing stuff is on another thread

 

where you were wrong about  the eligibility Duns amendment always having eligibility guidelines

then why weren't *all* kids from Calais taken in via Dubs, and instead just 80 of them?

Oh dear.

 

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Where you were wrong about the Dubs amendment kids being additional to our  regulation commitments.

Then why couldn't the UK govt go to Calais for years and years?

Oh dear.

 

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Where you were wrong about the timing of the Home Office massively restricting the eligibility guidelines 5 months after the act was passed.

You're wrong thinking I've even posted anything about this.

Oh dear.

 

 

9 hours ago, LJS said:

But apparently I should be embarrassed for not holding Nicola sturgeon to account for something you yourself have admitted wasn't a promise.

same as you've posted Cameron's word that show that wasn't a promise, either.

Which you've gone on a 5 day rant about.

While Sturgeon gets a free pass.

[pink_triangle]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

But apparently I should be embarrassed for not holding Nicola sturgeon to account for something you yourself have admitted wasn't a promise.

We are broadly in agreement about refugees but I do think about the Sturgeon pledge (or whatever you want to call it) you are going easier on her than you may if a conservative or Blairite labour MP had said exactly the same thing.  What she said was either a bit of a balls up, or an example of someone playing politics and it then backfiring on them.  Note this is no different to what all politicians do on a semi regular basis, politicians play politics, its in the job description.

An observation I would make is that SNP supporters seem very reluctant to ever criticise SNP politicians compared to supporters of other parties.

[eFestivals]

Just now, pink_triangle said:

What she said was either a bit of a balls up, or an example of someone playing politics and it then backfiring on them.

which is exactly what Cameron did with seemingly agreeing to 3,000 under dubs - it was never an explicit promise.

Tho it wasn't Cameron who backed out of his promise (that was done by May), while it was Sturgeon who backed out of hers.

Free pass for Sturgeon, five day rant about Cameron/tories.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

An observation I would make is that SNP supporters seem very reluctant to ever criticise SNP politicians compared to supporters of other parties.

To be fair, that's much the same for all supporters of all parties.

But what it isn't is the fair and balanced that LJS wants to believe he's being.

[pink_triangle]

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

To be fair, that's much the same for all supporters of all parties.

But what it isn't is the fair and balanced that LJS wants to believe he's being.

I disagree, I have regularly heard labour and Tory supporters criticising the leadership. A lot of the Tory grassroots hated Cameron.

[LJS]

32 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

We are broadly in agreement about refugees but I do think about the Sturgeon pledge (or whatever you want to call it) you are going easier on her than you may if a conservative or Blairite labour MP had said exactly the same thing.  What she said was either a bit of a balls up, or an example of someone playing politics and it then backfiring on them.  Note this is no different to what all politicians do on a semi regular basis, politicians play politics, its in the job description.

I don't know if you have seen the interview in question. Herre it is in case you haven't

 

I think in a sense this was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If she answers by saying that she would not be prepared to take refugees, I am sure her critics, Neil amongst them, would still be dining out on it. Saying she is happy for ordinary folk to take refugees while she doesn't.

She is clearly keen to talk about what can actually be done to help refugees.  

I'm sure she colloid have come up with a better worded answer but it's silly froth really.

To equate it with the Tories' current u-turn is just silly. Their's is a cynnical change of plicy ehich will impact thousands of kids.

32 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

An observation I would make is that SNP supporters seem very reluctant to ever criticise SNP politicians compared to supporters of other parties.

I know you are very happy to criticise the leader of the party you support.  

The truth is that I think Nicola Sturgeon does a pretty good job. I have criticised her taxation policy and I think in general she is far too cautious. But the thing is, with Neil about there is no shortage of criticism of the "poison dwarf" as he beautifully called her once so in general, I take her side on here. 

I do find it a bit rich when Neil makes this point, considering how much time & efforet he expends making excuses for the Tories.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I disagree, I have regularly heard labour and Tory supporters criticising the leadership. A lot of the Tory grassroots hated Cameron.

just occasionally LJS will criticise the SNP - but as gently as possible, never with the same venom he'd use for the tories or Labour doing the same thing

Which is pretty much how it goes for supporters of any parties.

The difference with SNP supporters is they won't actually engage with the facts around things in trying to justify a policy or formulate a position - because the facts are too inconvenient to allow them to do that. It's with that part of things that the SNP are devoid of criticisms by their supporters.

 

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

I think in a sense this was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If she answers by saying that she would not be prepared to take refugees, I am sure her critics, Neil amongst them, would still be dining out on it. Saying she is happy for ordinary folk to take refugees while she doesn't.

Which, funnily enough, is *EXACTLY* what happened with Cameron.

One geezer stands up and says 3,000 refugee kids would be a great thing. Cameron agrees - because if he didn't he'd look a heartless c**t.

Meanwhile, I keep on pointing out that Sturgeon could do the same with May to get more refugee kids in, by giving an absolute commitment (with Scottish funding) for Scotland to look after them  - because May isn't going to put herself in that heartless c**t position either. 

Free pass for Sturgeon, damnation for Cameron (and May).

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, LJS said:

The truth is that I think Nicola Sturgeon does a pretty good job

but the UK doesn't?

Despite going further than Sturgeon ever has - by making solid firm commitments and following thru on them, to the extent of being the biggest (proportuional) funders for this sort of help in the world?

Sturgeon blows guff, and doesn't follow thru with the more she says she'd like to do. It's as worthless as a Cameron 'promise'.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Which, funnily enough, is *EXACTLY* what happened with Cameron.

One geezer stands up and says 3,000 refugee kids would be a great thing. Cameron agrees - because if he didn't he'd look a heartless c**t.

Meanwhile, I keep on pointing out that Sturgeon could do the same with May to get more refugee kids in, by giving an absolute commitment (with Scottish funding) for Scotland to look after them  - because May isn't going to put herself in that heartless c**t position either. 

Free pass for Sturgeon, damnation for Cameron (and May).

She has repeatedly made clear that refugees are welcome. She has committed Scot gov money to support the process.

She does not have the power to do any more. Immigration  is a reserved power.

[eFestivals]

Hey LJS, in the new wonderful sovereign Scotland - with a £15Bn deficit - how well do you think the 0.7% of GDP that the UK spends on aid is going to hold up, when the choice will be that aid to non-Scots or paying for Scottish pensions, Scottish education and Scottish health services?

Do you reckon Scotland will vote itself worse conditions in order to show how much it cares for those who get the shit end of the stick?

Edited February 17, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

She has repeatedly made clear that refugees are welcome.

As has May and Cameron.

To the extent of actually doing something, unlike Sturgeon.

 

Just now, LJS said:

She has committed Scot gov money to support the process.

As has English money been committed for refugees in England.

 

Just now, LJS said:

She does not have the power to do any more. Immigration  is a reserved power.

She can hold Westminster to account, by showing that Scotland can do more than Westminster - tho only if Scotland wants to do more than Westminster, of course.

If Sturgeon stood up and said "I can take 500 kids, right now. Let them in Mrs May", May would comply.

May is not going to do the heartless c**t thing that Sturgeon wouldn't do and Cameron wouldn't do. She's a politician, just like they are.

No one gives a shit about the numbers who might come in. What they give a shit about is who is paying and what they lose because of paying - which is *exactly* why Sturgeon isn't offering to pay any more than Westminster is.

[LJS]

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As has May and Cameron.

To the extent of actually doing something, unlike Sturgeon.

 

As has English money been committed for refugees in England.

 

She can hold Westminster to account, by showing that Scotland can do more than Westminster - tho only if Scotland wants to do more than Westminster, of course.

If Sturgeon stood up and said "I can take 500 kids, right now. Let them in Mrs May", May would comply.

Amazing, A couple of days ago you couldn't find any kids and even if we could they would encourage people traffickers but today you've magicked up 500 and I guess we just don't tell the traffickers? The efforts you go to to try & discredit Sturgeon are remarkable.

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

May is not going to do the heartless c**t thing that Sturgeon wouldn't do and Cameron wouldn't do. She's a politician, just like they are.

No one gives a shit about the numbers who might come in. What they give a shit about is who is paying and what they lose because of paying - which is *exactly* why Sturgeon isn't offering to pay any more than Westminster is.

Sturgeon has repeatedly stated that Scotland is happy to accept refugees but more than just saying it she has played a part in ensuring that we have taken about a third of the refugees that have arrived under the Syrian Resettlement programme, as well as a sixth of the Dubs kids that have arrived in the UK.  Actions speak louder than words.

You started off by accusing her of doing nothing. That was incorrect. She is clearly committed to Scotland taking its share of refugees. I have said before that I do not have enough information to know whether she should be doing more. You don't have that information either but you just assume that she is doing nothing because that is what you do.

[LJS]

45 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Hey LJS, in the new wonderful sovereign Scotland - with a £15Bn deficit - how well do you think the 0.7% of GDP that the UK spends on aid is going to hold up, when the choice will be that aid to non-Scots or paying for Scottish pensions, Scottish education and Scottish health services?

Do you reckon Scotland will vote itself worse conditions in order to show how much it cares for those who get the shit end of the stick?

I'm quite sure Scotland will at least maintain the %GDP of foreign aid that the UK currently sends. I'll certianly be looking for such a commitment from any party that gets my vote.

(you can reply about the £15Bn deficit & shutting hospitals if you wish - you will however be wasting your time as it has been covered about 15Bn times) 

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

Amazing, A couple of days ago you couldn't find any kids and even if we could they would encourage people traffickers but today you've magicked up 500 and I guess we just don't tell the traffickers? The efforts you go to to try & discredit Sturgeon are remarkable.

Fuck me, you love your diversion techniques, don't you?

You're the one saying there's kids and you're the one saying Sturgeon cares more.

So if there's the kids, she is perfectly able to show that she cares more via a challenge to May in the way I suggested.

Sturgeon hasn't made that challenge. She only said May should do more, not that she's willing to go beyond what May might offer.

FFS.

(all that aside, the limitations around Dubs is fuck all to do with the challenge to May I'm suggesting - because at no point have I said there's no one that can be helped, only that there's a shortage of kids who can meet the Dubs criteria)