When will indyref2 happen?

[ayrmad]

1 hour ago, NotThePars said:

Seeing some people deploy the "nasty nat" thing earnestly on Twitter and the wider media as well. Will be interesting to see whether they go down the abusive Scottish nationalists route again after a British nationalist murdered a sitting MP in 2016 and a bunch of them brutally assaulted an asylum seeker.

Of course they will, I'm sure they'll manage to find a tweet abusing JK Rowling to balance out anything like the above that happens to a Yesser.

[sergie's no1 fan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-39529555

[Mark Connolly]

Scottish horse wins the National.

Get it done now.

[gaz5]

"In a separate development, a cross-party group of 50 senior European politicians have pledged their "full support" for an independent Scotland's membership of the EU in a letter to the Scottish Parliament's Presiding Officer Ken MacIntosh.

The MEPs and parliamentarians from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Greece and Malta, say "Scotland would be most welcome as a full member of the European Union" if Scotland votes for independence and pledged to make the process "swift, smooth and orderly as possible".

The European politicians criticised the UK government for pursuing a hard Brexit, and for refusing to "properly take into account the preferences of Scottish citizens in the withdrawal process".

They said they recognised that "Scotland voted strongly to remain in the EU" and that now "the question of Scotland's constitutional future, and your relationships with the UK and EU, are for the people of Scotland to decide.""

Seems to be more of this coming all the time as the EU look to strengthen a negotiating position while at the same time dismantling one of the fundamental scaremongering tactics of past and present.

That's from the BBC by the way, not an indy friendly source, before any accusations fly. :-)

[Mr.Bojangles]

2 hours ago, gaz5 said:

"In a separate development, a cross-party group of 50 senior European politicians have pledged their "full support" for an independent Scotland's membership of the EU in a letter to the Scottish Parliament's Presiding Officer Ken MacIntosh.

The MEPs and parliamentarians from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Greece and Malta, say "Scotland would be most welcome as a full member of the European Union" if Scotland votes for independence and pledged to make the process "swift, smooth and orderly as possible".

The European politicians criticised the UK government for pursuing a hard Brexit, and for refusing to "properly take into account the preferences of Scottish citizens in the withdrawal process".

They said they recognised that "Scotland voted strongly to remain in the EU" and that now "the question of Scotland's constitutional future, and your relationships with the UK and EU, are for the people of Scotland to decide.""

Seems to be more of this coming all the time as the EU look to strengthen a negotiating position while at the same time dismantling one of the fundamental scaremongering tactics of past and present.

That's from the BBC by the way, not an indy friendly source, before any accusations fly. :-)
 

It is funny that they hid that within an unrelated article about Salmond talking on the Andrew Marr show.

I wonder if that would have been headline material if it was a group of MEPs pledging to obstruct Scotland.

[git-intae-thum]

12 hours ago, Mr.Bojangles said:

It is funny that they hid that within an unrelated article about Salmond talking on the Andrew Marr show.

I wonder if that would have been headline material if it was a group of MEPs pledging to obstruct Scotland.

Its the bbc way.

[1320Lichtie]

Its the bbc way.

Correct.

c***s.

[Baxter Parp]

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/04/10/the-foundations-of-scottish-taxation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+org%2FlWWh+(Tax+Research+UK+2)

The Foundations of Scottish Taxation.

Richard Murphy will give evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Constitution Committee

[John Lambies Doos]

Its the bbc way.

Even the Scotsman are running this story.
The BBC stink

[Jacksgranda]

On ‎07‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 12:48, Granny Danger said:

Why can't we just let children starve?  There appears to be a shortage of starving childern in the UK compared to other countries.

For the first 20 years of my life I lived in cardboard box in the middle of a swamp and starved to death on a regular basis.  It never did me any harm.

Cardboard box? We dreamed of having a cardboard box...

[DublinMagyar]

You are getting the usual ludicrously emotional responses to your post but its a reasonable point that you have.
Its not an opinion I agree with but rather than spout like a hysterical 3 year old let me explain why.
Supporting children in this way is not a cost, its an investment.
Keeping kids out of poverty means they are more likely to stay out of poverty.
I say poverty even though we really dont have anything like true poverty in the UK - we are not short of chaotic adults who cant organise a piss up in a brewery though, a cultural entitlement complex which seems stubbornly resistant to all efforts to eradicate it and a cultural problem with accepting personal responsibility (everything is always someone elses fault).
Nevertheless, a kid out of poverty who stays out of poverty is more likely to become better educated, earn more money and pay more tax than the child benefit they received as kids. A hell of a lot more.
You will need that extra tax as you enter retirement because there are fewer and fewer kids being born by the looks of it. Its not just retirement either. Its road building, the NHS, everything whcih will suffer if we make cuts which drop kids into poverty.
And therein lies the dilemma. We have hundreds of thousands of adults who want everyone to fund their lifestyles. We need to identify them and quite rightly deal with them. Unfortunately it is hard to see how to do that without fucking over their kids as well and turning those kids into the next bunch of lazy wasters. Answer that conundrum.

Gas Chambers and Zyklon showers should keep you happy.

[mjw]

Hysterical crap.

As is the hundreds of thousands of people wanting their lifestyle paid for nonsense.
Despite your desperate attempts to say otherwise, the amount of people who want to work for a decent wage, far far outnumber those who don't.

[DublinMagyar]

As is the hundreds of thousands of people wanting their lifestyle paid for nonsense.
Despite your desperate attempts to say otherwise, the amount of people who want to work for a decent wage, far far outnumber those who don't.

Thank you mjw. Right wing extremists like Oaksoft will never understand satire.

Or the human race.

[JamieThomas]

Or not raping and murdering rent boys.

[NotThePars]

3 hours ago, oaksoft said:

You are getting the usual ludicrously emotional responses to your post but its a reasonable point that you have.

Its not an opinion I agree with but rather than spout like a hysterical 3 year old let me explain why.

Supporting children in this way is not a cost, its an investment.

Keeping kids out of poverty means they are more likely to stay out of poverty.

I say poverty even though we really dont have anything like true poverty in the UK - we are not short of chaotic adults who cant organise a piss up in a brewery though, a cultural entitlement complex which seems stubbornly resistant to all efforts to eradicate it and a cultural problem with accepting personal responsibility (everything is always someone elses fault).

Nevertheless, a kid out of poverty who stays out of poverty is more likely to become better educated, earn more money and pay more tax than the child benefit they received as kids. A hell of a lot more.

You will need that extra tax as you enter retirement because there are fewer and fewer kids being born by the looks of it. Its not just retirement either. Its road building, the NHS, everything whcih will suffer if we make cuts which drop kids into poverty.

And therein lies the dilemma. We have hundreds of thousands of adults who want everyone to fund their lifestyles. We need to identify them and quite rightly deal with them. Unfortunately it is hard to see how to do that without fucking over their kids as well and turning those kids into the next bunch of lazy wasters. Answer that conundrum.

 

[pandarilla]

You are getting the usual ludicrously emotional responses to your post but its a reasonable point that you have.
Its not an opinion I agree with but rather than spout like a hysterical 3 year old let me explain why.
Supporting children in this way is not a cost, its an investment.
Keeping kids out of poverty means they are more likely to stay out of poverty.
I say poverty even though we really dont have anything like true poverty in the UK - we are not short of chaotic adults who cant organise a piss up in a brewery though, a cultural entitlement complex which seems stubbornly resistant to all efforts to eradicate it and a cultural problem with accepting personal responsibility (everything is always someone elses fault).
Nevertheless, a kid out of poverty who stays out of poverty is more likely to become better educated, earn more money and pay more tax than the child benefit they received as kids. A hell of a lot more.
You will need that extra tax as you enter retirement because there are fewer and fewer kids being born by the looks of it. Its not just retirement either. Its road building, the NHS, everything whcih will suffer if we make cuts which drop kids into poverty.
And therein lies the dilemma. We have hundreds of thousands of adults who want everyone to fund their lifestyles. We need to identify them and quite rightly deal with them. Unfortunately it is hard to see how to do that without fucking over their kids as well and turning those kids into the next bunch of lazy wasters. Answer that conundrum.

It's not hundreds of thousands but other than that there's a lot of harsh truths in this post.

I would add a point that the chaotic adults you speak of probably came from incredibly difficult backgrounds themselves. As a society we should take a bit more responsibility - rather than just expect them to sort their own lives out when they turn 18.

There absolutely is a sense of entitlement (obviously not just Scotland, or even the UK) that pervades many of these problems. It's a very difficult problem to tackle, and I'd suggest we would disagree entirely on solutions.

[DrewDon]

I have to agree with Oaksoft here. It is about time that we properly clamped down on the wealthy tax dodgers, reckless bankers and exploitative employers who have engaged and continue to engage in deeply unethical behaviour and practices to fund their entitled, extravagant lifestyles at the expense of decent, hardworking, honest people all over the country. 

[Fide]

6 hours ago, DrewDon said:

I have to agree with Oaksoft here. It is about time that we properly clamped down on the wealthy tax dodgers, reckless bankers and exploitative employers who have engaged and continue to engage in deeply unethical behaviour and practices to fund their entitled, extravagant lifestyles at the expense of decent, hardworking, honest people all over the country. 

Unfortunately, the Tories have no interest in truly going after the wealthy tax dodgers, reckless bankers and exploitative employers.  That's their main voting demographic and they can't be upsetting the apple cart there.

Anyway, why tax the rich when you can have an ideological kick at the poor and disabled?

[madwullie]

I'm no expert so happy to stand corrected, but is it not the case that not only is the  amount of money that we could save cracking down on those very rich who are able to be creative with taxes substantially more than "benefit cheats" but also that the amount of people who are actively trying to scam the system for a few hundred notes a week is a fair bit less than the public perception?

If so surely then it is a problem of proportionality, probably stemming from the reporting of these issues in the media, and the fact that "we" keep voting for parties who are happy to continue with things as is as it benefits them to do so. It probably ly doesn't help that clamping down on benefit cheats is quite an emotive issue and as a single issue could persuade people to vote for one party ovrr another, whereas clamping down on corporate fraud, no matter how much we want to see it is hardly an issue to get your teeth stuck into and sway you on voting day

[williemillersmoustache]

So glad to hear we don't have 'real' poverty here. Phew.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Pie and Bovril mobile app