Left Back
-
Posts
6,711 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Left Back
-
-
4 minutes ago, alta-pete said:
I’d say explore a variable rate. Rates are only coming down, now is about the worst time to fix.
I've had a quick look at comparison sites. Not really finding anything (fixed or variable) where an initial 2 year term would be significantly cheaper than renewing on another two year term.
I've got until the end of April. Will see if rates come down a bit before making a decision.
0 -
31 minutes ago, Freedom Farter said:
No idea what you mean here.
There's nothing blind to blaming governments for what they do. It'd be blind to ignore what they do.
Capital gains tax and corporation tax are two examples of taxes on owners rather than on workers and which can be raised to increase revenue. Then with income tax, raises can be progressive. You're correct that the UK electorate overwhelmingly voted against that in 2019, though.
In Scotland, we voted ourselves free of tuition fees. As you point out, the policy isn't as good as it could be but a gain has still been made there. There's now a concerted effort to convince us to vote away that gain, as I laid out in my original comment. That can't happen until 2026 but its worth recognising the groundwork that's being laid.
In the interests of international comparison that's not how the higher tax countries tend to achieve higher taxes.
It's the same old argument. You want more tax paid but not by yourself.
0 -
10 minutes ago, Freedom Farter said:
Tuition is free in the Nordic nations which are similar in size to Scotland. Tuition is free in Germany which is similar in size to UK. It's a normal policy.
However, full implementation needs governance that supports it. In our case, austerity has led to restrictions on Holyrood's attempt at it and Westminster's lack of any attempt at it all.
Caps are OK as long as you can blame someone else. Is that better?
Of course an alternative to blindly blaming austerity and Westminster when comparing us to other countries is to look at how much they pay in tax. In your two quoted countries they both pay more tax than us which is why they can afford better pubic services. We supposedly want better public services in the country (well lots of people scream about it anyway) but people don't want to pay the tax to support it.
0 -
Got my illustration through today about my cheap mortgage fix ending. Extra £490 per month at the new fixed rate
0 -
4 minutes ago, Michael W said:
A Cabinet minister gets approximately £45k a year more than a standard MSP.
The bulk of it will be taxed at 45%, so using the assumption that all of it is and plus the 2% NI payable, you're looking at an extra £23,800 after tax. In practice it'll be more than that as about 8k of it will be taxed at 42%, but I can't be arsed working out the difference.
The story broke 3 months ago, leaving Matheson just under £6k up on where he would've been had he resigned then. That'll close the majority of the £8k gap between the £3k paid from expenses and the amount the Scottish Government was initially going to cover.
With Sunak and Starmer both taking flak today he's probably tried to bury this one. Once again showing the strategy doesn't work.
https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php
Let someone else do the working out.
Did his office still pay £3k of it? I thought he was paying the whole £11k back.
0 -
5 minutes ago, honestly united said:
Pretty much as expected really - injured players plus Ritchie out
Even though Rowe was OK at full-back last week personally I'd have thought about swapping him and Steyn round. I feel Steyn could be quite effective at full back.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Freedom Farter said:
The term "universal" in this context indicates non-means-tested. There will always be caps on universal benefits because budgets aren't infinite. The more amenable a government is to public investment, the larger the budgets.
So preventing young people from university because of a cap or making them pay for it = OK because budgets aren't infinite.
Capping child benefits to 2 children (for example) = cruel but the budgets still aren't infinite?
Am I getting this correct?
0 -
1 hour ago, ICTChris said:
Michael Matheson quits
Just in time for FMQ's to really drop Humza in it. Wonderful timing.
0 -
47 minutes ago, Freedom Farter said:
The Scotsman (Tory outlet) published an editorial a few days ago against free tuition fees in Scotland.
Fraser Nelson railed against free tuition fees on Question Time last week.
There was a comment on here against free tuition fees a few weeks back, with Lucy Hunter Blackburn cited. She has a PhD in education funding so she's certainly a qualified source. It's worth recognising her connections, though. Here's her output for Nelson's Spectator magazine:
Then here is her work being cited to oppose Corbyn's policy to abolish tuition fees in 2017: https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/this-is-why-not-everyone-in-scotland-thinks-free-uni
What I see happening here is a sustained campaign against free tuition fees in Scotland. It's being led by the usual right wing element and being joined by liberals associated with the Starmer movement. Both claim their opposition to free tuition fees is actually due to them caring about the poorest in society. They'll cite research by an academic like Hunter Blackburn. This is despite the standard socialist position always having been for the universal availability of benefits and against means-testing. It's also despite right wingers not giving a toss about society's poorest for the other 364 days in the year. Suddenly, when it's a chance to trick people into opposing a progressive policy, they claim to care.
Free tuition fees in Scotland are being campaigned against in this way because the policy is a threat. For as long as it exists in Scotland, it provides the threat of a good example. Corbyn in 2017 could point to it in Scotland when he was proposing it for England and Wales. This also goes for free prescription charges in Scotland which also provides the threat of a good example to England and Wales, and therefore must be extinguished. Going after free tuition fees first is the easier of the two because you can use an "it only benefits young people" notion to appeal to bitter oldies.
This right wing agenda is really about objectively harming the material conditions of the working class. They can't just say that, though, so instead they're trying to peddle it through the medium of the various identity debates. It was the SNP government who introduced these universal benefits in Scotland therefore right wingers seek to convince people these are SNP ideas (when in reality they're standard socialist positions). Straight away, that allows you to tell British identity folk, anti-trans folk (see that screenshot above) and whoever else that these policies must be reversed as they're just "SNP ploys". There's useful idiots on the SNP side, too. A Fergus Ewing constantly running down the Greens when Patrick Harvie was the sole voice defending free tuition fees on that Question Time debate last week. While Ewing's rage with the Greens might be over other policies, there's a danger there of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.
Free tuition fees in Scotland is not a universal benefit. It's capped so not every young Scottish person that wants to attend university qualifies, or is indeed offered a place at a Scottish university.
0 -
7 hours ago, Derry Alli said:
Was on a site in Montrose today doing a bit of work and went for dinner and come back to see an array of police and ambulance where I was to head to next. Some poor guy had died. Apparently quite a fit gut and at not even 50 yet, a shock. Terrible.
Probably not spent enough time in the gym.
0 -
Just now, Londonwell said:
If I was you I’d be more concerned why Boyle has went down like a tonne of bricks for no reason when he still had a chance of getting the ball. Absolutely clear as day dive, behave.
I reckon it was a dive as well but there was contact and that causes an issue.
Half the fuckwit pundits say on TV you’re entitled to go down if you feel contact or the ref doesn’t give it. It’s a mentality that’s in the game. Because there was contact I doubt VAR overturns it if it is given.
1 -
Entertaining last half hour. Both teams had chances, Hibs more and better. Fucked it though.
0 -
Pen for me
0 -
Hibs should be a couple up here.
0 -
If Princess Anne is too busy filling in for chuckles at the weekend who gets dibs on her nice heated seat at Murrayfield?..
0 -
Just now, DukDukGoose said:
Celtic won't pay the fee. Rangers can't.
He didn't catch him shin high because MacKenzie attempts to jump over it!
Really? Can’t jump very well. His foot was on the floor when thr Rangers boy brought his foot down.
1 -
1 minute ago, Bairnardo said:
The fact that he managed to get his boot down from.shin height to top of the boot doesn't mean he was in control. He absolutely steamed in to that challenge and got nowhere near the ball
It means he’s clearly in control as he didn’t wipe him out shim high as it looked like he might do. Had he done that then no doubt red card. Going in hard/fast doesn’t make you out of control. Catching someone on the foot is very rarely a red card. Getting nowhere near the ball is irrelevant.
1 -
Just now, DukDukGoose said:
What about our of control and endangering an opponent?
He wasn’t.
1 -
Warnock explosion incoming
0 -
Not a red for me
0 -
1 minute ago, Mark Connolly said:
Duk is trying to get himself sent off here
Surprised he didn’t walk there tbh. Ref shat it.
0 -
2 minutes ago, TheScarf said:
He should be in the England squad.
Wouldn’t look out of place to be fair. Overrated, overhyped, overpaid up himself pish.
1 -
Aberdeen keeper has had some decent saves but s shitemare for both goals.
0 -
Was just about to post how hopeless the sheep look…
0
Rugby Union
in All Other Sports
Posted
That might be the thinking when Kinghorn is fit seeing as he can play 10 (no laughing at the back)