lichtgilphead

Has the court actually made a judgement (because you didn't turn up for a previously arranged hearing) or is it an invitation to a hearing to put your case?

Is the letter actually from the court or is it just a baseless threat to take you to court?

Piccadilly or Victoria?

I'm sure that if my comparison with standing up for your principles is "quite frankly pathetic", then better posters than you will be queuing up to condemn me. However, I cannot see past the UK's two main parties appearing to support genocide in 2024. So far, people have suggested that the UK's reasons may relate to arms sales, or to remaining the USA's lap dog, or to pretending that any condemnation or boycott will have no effect on the situation. All I'm asking you to do is to clarify which of these positions you support, or whether you have another (as yet undisclosed) reason for supporting the UK's inaction. Your unwillingness to answer speaks volumes.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you haven't answered the question. Should the UK stand on their principles (like in 1939) or on their hopes to sell weaponry (like now) Simple question.

Why not record that fact then? Make voting compulsory, but allow voters to make a "I don't want to participate" vote that remains in force until revoked?

I know that I'm risking invoking Godwin's Law here, but would @Left Back have suggested that Germany was "far more important to the UK’s security and economy" than the Poles in 1939?

They voted for an immediate ceasefire at the UN Security Council. So did 12 other current members our of the 15 (China, Russia Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Korea Republic, Sierra Leone, Slovenia & Switzerland) One permanent member bravely abstained, and one vetoed. Can you guess who these two countries were?

When I started going to Gayfield, our goalie was Gordon Marshall. His son (also Gordon) played for Scotland whilst with an obscure Glasgow club. Eric Sellars & his son Barry both also played for the Lichties. Finally, at one point, Arbroath had 2 players called Scott Peters. They weren't related, but as neither had a middle name, they were distinguished by using 'senior' and 'junior' On a preseason tour down south, the opposition programme mentioned how rare it was to see a father & son playing together...

The Clyde is tidal up to Glasgow Green. Depending on your thoughts about that, it means either 6 or 8 teams are 'seaside', not 7 as the OP said.

I would make voting compulsory, but would put a space under the details of the candidates where voters could write "none of the above" or their own preferred candidate. In Australia, where they use this system, it has been suggested that Mickey Mouse often receives most write-in votes, sometimes beating some (or all) official candidates. This may be an urban myth though.

It's always read out at the count. In addition, the total number of rejected ballots forms part of the official result

What am I missing here? I would say that Airdrie & Dunfermline aren't coastal. Who is the third?

Oh look! Another new dotting account @Reiver I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

I've never greeted to the Mods, stop making up shite. Maybe you should ask them why they removed your sick posts before accusing others.

Why don't you complain to the Mods, Stormzy? Is it because you've been banned from the site under at least 3 previous usernames? I just thought it was ironic that someone on yet another alias was posting on the scams thread. Oh, BTW, I'll not be taking any instructions from a permabanned loser about which threads I can post in. Now, why don't you go and set up another dotting account to cheer up your miserable life.

Which alias were you using at the time?

I take your point, but practically all government income (be it local or national) is provided by taxpayers. The state's total tax take is a subject for another day.

Cunnt was already taken?

So, you admit that the baseline is not zero. Fair enough. I thought that you claimed to be left of centre? Your preferred policies appear to be aimed at taxing the poor more heavily! Council tax: SG doing nothing = Councils raising council tax so an extra £144m (at least) being transferred from the pockets of the public to government coffers, instead of being shuffled between government bank accounts. You want to increase a regressive tax (Council tax) instead of moving to a more progressive income tax system. A low-paid band A council tax payer in Argyll & Bute would pay an extra ~£50 instead of getting an income tax cut, whilst someone in a band H house on a salary of £100000 would pay an extra ~£181 council tax instead of having an income tax rise of around £750. Income tax: SG doing nothing means the £307m additional revenue from freezing (i.e. doing nothing) would still happen Again, you want to increase taxes on the lower-paid. Doing nothing means that the increases of the allowances in the starter, basic & intermediate bands wouldn't happen either. This will result in the SG getting additional income tax receipts. Will this pay for the toys, manicures & cocktails? Effectively, you are transferring the extra £86m tax burden from the people who earn over £75000 onto the people that earn under £75000, who will all pay more than they would have had the allowances not been raised. This will affect the taxpayer on £25000 to lose proportionately more than the taxpayer on £70000. SG doing nothing means the extra £82m wouldn’t be raised. Tax cuts for the rich all round! Hurrah! No wonder the Tories on here give you greenies. You're as bad as they are. Anyway, I'm done with your nonsense. Away and peddle your regressive taxation theories elsewhere.

I must have missed the lecture on the effect of free toys, manicures & cocktails on economic theory. Strip away the padding, however, and we're left with 3 assertions from @Left Back 1) The baseline would be zero if no tax changes had been made Absolute nonsense. Wage inflation running at 6.2% would have meant additional tax income, changes to the block grant from Westminster will have an effect etc, etc etc 2) Not allowing the Local Authorities to raise Council Tax means that the SG will lose £144m More nonsense. The SG have offered LA's £144m not to raise council tax (I've already stated that I disagree with this policy - it should be more). This offer is funded from the SG's budget - which MUST balance. What does it matter if LA's receive slightly more money from central taxation rather than local taxation, when the total income remains the same. 3) Tax changes only raise £82m If you look properly at the article linked by @Left Back, you only need to read the next f*cking line to get the full picture. The SFC estimate that introducing the new 45p Advanced rate band and increasing the Top rate by 1p will raise an additional £82 million in 2024-25. The Scottish Government estimate that freezing the Higher rate threshold in 2024-25 has added an additional £307 million to the Scottish Income Tax forecast, relative to it increasing in line with CPI inflation of 6.7 per cent In conclusion, the fact that none of @Left Back's assersions stand up to the most basic scrutiny only confirms his economic illiteracy. I think I'm done here.

I didn't mean to refer to you - apologies if it read that way. It's @Jedi2 that claims that the SNP has raised the income tax on the low paid

Well, you're practically quoting their nonsense about taxation in Scotland. Lie with rthe dogs, you get fleas. Here's the relevant definition "A progressive tax involves a tax rate that increases (or progresses) as taxable income increases. It imposes a lower tax rate on low-income earners and a higher tax rate on those with a higher income. This is usually achieved by creating tax brackets that group taxpayers by income range." It is more progressive than both the previous Scottish tax regime and the far flatter rUK tax regime. I don't support the Council Tax freeze. Look back to my posts when it was announced. Stop making stuff up. I specifically stated that "overall taxation revenues will pretty definitely rise due to wage inflation" If you don't understand the difference between a rise in revenue due to wage inflation and a rise in revenue due to changing tax rates, then you shouldn't be commenting on tax matters. What figures you presented? Your back of a fag predictions about the cost of freezing council tax & raising tax on high earners? If you had quoted a repurable source, I might have responded. Ah, back to the sarcasm when you have nothing left to say. Well done you. I've already said that I'm a huge fan of both the bayonetting babies policy and the introduction of tax-free status for the people that carry it out. Obviously, I was taking the piss out of your original claim that I would support anything the SNP put forward. There are plenty SNP policies I disagree with, but I actually look at each case on its merits, rather than using the Bain Pri/nciple so beloved of Scottish Labour

So, the vast majority of low earners in Scotland pay less than low earners in rUK. You say that like it's a bad thing. I have never disputed that a Scottish income tax payer pays more than a fUK taxpayer if he earns above £27850. Personally, I would argue that the Scottish income tax system is more progressive and therefore fairer, even though it impacts my own wage packet. However, if we're going to compare tax rates in different areas of the UK, let's also look at council tax. Why should the poor citizens of Rutland be penalised by the highest council tax in the land? Why is the Scottish average band D council tax £100 less than the average English equivalent? Let's also look at the VAT paid on electricity bills. Scotland has the highest electricity prices in the UK, and therefore pays more tax Funny how those taxes are never mentioned mentioned when a few pennies on a £30000 salary makes the front pages of the Mail/Exoress on a daily basis I've already said that I prefer a more progressive tax system. Obviously, I hope that it raises more revenue. The proof will be in the pudding as 2024/25 tax year hasn't started yet. I count you amongst the gullible, however. Is it the Mail or the Express that you gat your opinions from? Before you ask, btw, I also believe that the baby-bayonetting squad should be given a personal allowance of £1000000 before they pay income tax. EDITED TO ADD: I didn't bring up the comparison with rUK, so I'm not sure why @Left Back is having a go at me

Thank you, Nostradamus. We're all doomed! Would you rather move to the rUK system, where people on above average wages taxed less and those below average income are taxed more? See @Trogdor's table above for examples And yes, obviously I'm all for bayonetting babies. I post about it all the time, Nutter. If you earned £27850 in 2007, you would have had a £5225 personal allowance, paid 10% on the next £2230 and 22% on the rest. I make that a total income tax bill of (0 + 223 +4487) which makes a total of £4710. Your table says you would pay only £3259 in 2024.25. As far as I recall, the £27850 relates to comparing Scottish income tax with the income tax paid in rUK. So what? I have never denied that the Scottish Government are targeting tax rises on those earning more than £75000. That's what a progressive tax system is all about. Agreed that less revenue is possible, but falling population will also be affected by the UK Govt's immigration policies. We already need more people in Scotland. More taxpayers means more revenue.