May 2011 Election

[Law Stud]

I know you're trolling but it brings up a decent point. Why are the people who want the SP to have the least powers, the ones who shout the loudest in condemning it for having less powers or being a 'toy parliament', like that renowned political commentator, Davie Provan?

I've no idea what Davie Provan said, but from my personal point of view I was happy that the Scottish Parliament had tax variance powers from inception. I thought it was a real opportunity to push Scotland ahead of the rest of the UK. A 3% tax cut would bring in investment and business and it may even have seen some sort of migration of the wealthy in the North of England to areas like Dumfries and Galloway.

But what has happened instead. Since inception we've seen successive First Ministers talk about using tax variance powers to INCREASE taxation in Scotland. And when the SNP get their first shot in office they manage to f**k it up so badly that the tax variance power is relinquished. More than that though, when tinkering with taxation the SNP decide to go down the route of free prescriptions for all - and then trumpet that out as though it deserves applause when frankly it is one of the most absurd tax cuts I've ever seen. Now, someone like me who pays a top level of income tax of 50% has a choice. I can simply to the supermarket when I have a cough and purchase a bottle of Robitussin for £3.00 or I can visit my NHS GP and get a free prescription for a bottle of similar stuff, only the label says "Stuart Dickson - take four times a day". Whilst the poorest people in our society save f**k all because they were getting free prescriptions in the first fucking place!

Another great tax cut, free parking at hospitals. Yes, now fat b*****d nurses who can hardly raise their arse out of their seat at the nursing station to do their fucking job and who spend all day grazing on whatever patient food they can swipe can park immediately outside their ward, ensuring that patient visitors can't park anywhere near the hospital.

Another great tax cut, free toll bridges.

Yeah the bottom line is the less power these fannies at Holyrood have the better for all concerned. It's like giving scissors to a child. You can tell them not to run with them, and you can tell them to be careful not to cut themselves but at the end of the day you'll soon realise that if you are going to give them scissors at all it's best to give them the plastic safety ones that won't cut paper never mind little fingers....

[xbl]

Thankfully the Sun were wrong. The SNP have proved to be completely harmless constitutionally. And in fact allowed the one tax power available to them to f**k off. I'm all for another dose of them as long as they stay dull and boring.

But what has happened instead. Since inception we've seen successive First Ministers talk about using tax variance powers to INCREASE taxation in Scotland. And when the SNP get their first shot in office they manage to f**k it up so badly that the tax variance power is relinquished. More than that though, when tinkering with taxation the SNP decide to go down the route of free prescriptions for all - and then trumpet that out as though it deserves applause when frankly it is one of the most absurd tax cuts I've ever seen. Now, someone like me who pays a top level of income tax of 50% has a choice.

Its good that you both read the Scotsman. This has been shown to be untrue on so many levels though, that its clear that the two biggest rightie wind up merchants are the only ones still buying it.

[Reynard]

Its good that you both read the Scotsman. This has been shown to be untrue on so many levels though, that its clear that the two biggest rightie wind up merchants are the only ones still buying it.

Ah great. It's good to know that the beads of sweat on Swinneys brow and his ducking and diving over the issue were for no reason at all.

Is the Scotsman not a good newspaper? I've never bought a copy of it in my life actually. East coast biased parochial shite.

[xbl]

Ah great. It's good to know that the beads of sweat on Swinneys brow and his ducking and diving over the issue were for no reason at all.

So do you know what the situation is with the tax powers? Can you explain them to us, since you're clearly right and we're all wrong?

[Gordon EF]

lots

So you don't care where laws come from, just that they suit your needs/views? A fair enough point of view but it's certainly not how you come across in most posts I've seen on the subject where you come across as against the Scottish parliament, on principle. (I don't read all of these gargantuan political threads, so that might not be a representative view of you).

Again, I know your trolling but the points you raise are worth responding to. The prescription charge and free parking were obviously about not passing on (sometimes disproportionate) costs to those who are chronically ill or relatives of those who are hospitalised. They seem like excellent ideas to me. I'd rather not live in a society which passes on the cost of treatment to the chronically ill or penalises parents for visiting sick children in hospital.

Some things it's clear that an individual should pay for if/when they need/want them, some things it's much fairer to pay for collectively so that the individual doesn't have to take all the cost when they need them. I think that's abundantly clear in a fair, civilised society. All that should be left to argue over is where we draw the line. Since you don't even seem to agree on the first point, I think your views are completely extreme and somewhat retarded.

From what you say, you seem to be reasonably well off, so slightly lower tax and slightly smaller government would probably suit you, personally, so that's what you want. If you were in different circumstances, you would almost certainly be extremely left wing, as it would suit you.

[xbl]

:: swoon ::

BBC Scotland's political editor, in his blog about Scottish Politics, has acknowledged that a debate happened last night: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2011/03/tax_battle.html

To save you time, I'll quote his summary of the debate in its entirety:

...

...

Council taxation has become central to this Holyrood election campaign - as evident from last night's STV leaders debate.

...

...

Yes. That was ALL he had to say about the debate. Better than the Daily Record I suppose...

[ICTChris]

:: swoon ::

BBC Scotland's political editor, in his blog about Scottish Politics, has acknowledged that a debate happened last night: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2011/03/tax_battle.html

To save you time, I'll quote his summary of the debate in its entirety:

Yes. That was ALL he had to say about the debate. Better than the Daily Record I suppose...

Are the BBC not doing a debate as well? Brian will certainly out-fat Ponsonby but will he do a better job of managing the debate? I think he will, things couldn't be done much worse than last night.

[xbl]

Are the BBC not doing a debate as well? Brian will certainly out-fat Ponsonby but will he do a better job of managing the debate? I think he will, things couldn't be done much worse than last night.

If I recall rightly, in the 2010 election, they got in Glen Campbell to chair it, while Unionist Brian provided "expert analysis". I hope they improve the format though, I think we're all in agreement that last night was a bit of a rubbish format to use. Oh, and the BBC are having their debate on the 1st of May I think, in Perth.

[Swampy]

Union Brian probably avoided bigging up the debate simply as he didn't want to mention the competition too much, not just because he's a craven unionist blowhard.

[Ad Lib]

Union Brian probably avoided bigging up the debate simply as he didn't want to mention the competition too much, not just because he's a craven unionist blowhard.

Yeah, I suspect that's the case too.

The debate was hardly hyped up like the GE ones either.

[Reynard]

Yeah, I suspect that's the case too.

The debate was hardly hyped up like the GE ones either.

It certainly wasn't. I forgot it was on until I was reading here.

I didn't like the GE ones much but last night was a step down from those. I suppose when the turnout is so pish up here and when a lot of the ones that did get off their arses to vote were too thick to work out what they were supposed to be doing in the booth, watching a leadership debate with leaders most folk would walk past in the street and not recognise isn't going to be a ratings winner.

[xbl]

I apologise if I seem dense here, but it turns out the Herald have a dedicated election section, which I never spotted, so they do have full coverage of last night!

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/election-2011

[Law Stud]

So you don't care where laws come from, just that they suit your needs/views? A fair enough point of view but it's certainly not how you come across in most posts I've seen on the subject where you come across as against the Scottish parliament, on principle. (I don't read all of these gargantuan political threads, so that might not be a representative view of you).

Again, I know your trolling but the points you raise are worth responding to. The prescription charge and free parking were obviously about not passing on (sometimes disproportionate) costs to those who are chronically ill or relatives of those who are hospitalised. They seem like excellent ideas to me. I'd rather not live in a society which passes on the cost of treatment to the chronically ill or penalises parents for visiting sick children in hospital.

Some things it's clear that an individual should pay for if/when they need/want them, some things it's much fairer to pay for collectively so that the individual doesn't have to take all the cost when they need them. I think that's abundantly clear in a fair, civilised society. All that should be left to argue over is where we draw the line. Since you don't even seem to agree on the first point, I think your views are completely extreme and somewhat retarded.

From what you say, you seem to be reasonably well off, so slightly lower tax and slightly smaller government would probably suit you, personally, so that's what you want. If you were in different circumstances, you would almost certainly be extremely left wing, as it would suit you.

Ofcourse it would suit me - it would suit the rest of the UK too. You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think we are getting value for money from the £431m spent on the Parliament building and from the £21m per annum (2007/2008 figures) paid to MSP's and their administrative staff at Holyrood.

I'm struggling to think of a situation where I might become extremist left wing. Perhaps if I was a workshy benefit thief? Who knows. I certainly wasn't left wing in any way shape or form when as an apprentice earning £75.00 per week I found myself having to pay the Poll Tax without any concession.

As for the NHS, if Salmond and his SNP cronies really wanted to help the chronically ill he would have changed the system so that you pay a fee (say £20) to see your GP, but the course of medicine that he prescribes is free of charge. That would have been more sensible than the ridiculous scheme he's concocted where now anyone with a slight sniffle will see a financial benefit in going to their GP's to get a prescription for cough medicine and mentholated crystals. And perhaps you would care to explain to me how free parking has benefited patients and their relatives where now car parks are now so full of staff cars that patients, certainly in Wishaw, face a choice of getting a taxi, or parking at the Sports Centre, Tesco or on the road some a half mile or so away.

[The Real Zippy]

I saw the Daily Record headline and then I sat in a corner and cried. How could anyone, no matter how warped their outlook and no matter how red-tinted their spectacles, write that Iain Gray was anything other than abysmal last night and purport to maintain a shred of integrity?

I expected nothing less from that rancid rag. This is the same paper that keeps playing the class war card - 'Tory toffs', 'Osborne and his millionaire pals' when they are far too thick to realise that there were just as many millionaires in the last Labour Cabinet.

Then again, why let the facts get in the way of some good old Trotskyite mud-slinging.

[archie guevara]

Ofcourse it would suit me - it would suit the rest of the UK too. You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think we are getting value for money from the £431m spent on the Parliament building and from the £21m per annum (2007/2008 figures) paid to MSP's and their administrative staff at Holyrood.

I'm struggling to think of a situation where I might become extremist left wing. Perhaps if I was a workshy benefit thief? Who knows. I certainly wasn't left wing in any way shape or form when as an apprentice earning £75.00 per week I found myself having to pay the Poll Tax without any concession.

As for the NHS, if Salmond and his SNP cronies really wanted to help the chronically ill he would have changed the system so that you pay a fee (say £20) to see your GP, but the course of medicine that he prescribes is free of charge. That would have been more sensible than the ridiculous scheme he's concocted where now anyone with a slight sniffle will see a financial benefit in going to their GP's to get a prescription for cough medicine and mentholated crystals. And perhaps you would care to explain to me how free parking has benefited patients and their relatives where now car parks are now so full of staff cars that patients, certainly in Wishaw, face a choice of getting a taxi, or parking at the Sports Centre, Tesco or on the road some a half mile or so away.

Sounds to me that you are an anarchist.

[Scary Bear]

Oh man, thats wonderful! Anyone want to hear what the Daily Record made of it?

Scottish leaders' debate: First Minister Alex Salmond under fire on release of Lockerbie bomber Megrahi

Whit?

And they go on! Here's their take on Iain Gray:

Whit?

The Daily Record really is a tragic waste of paper. Who still reads this rag? I can only think that it's readership is holding up due to daft auld c***s living longer. Hopefully a few more freezing cold winters will sort that out.

Surely no self respecting young building trade worker still buys this tit-free paper. Even it's problem page is shite. The Sun has Dear Deirdrie, which has lots of cheap titlation and semi-erect moments in it; the Record has a lesbian man-hater, whose every reply is against men. The Sun pisses all over the Record's Sport too, then wipes it's cock on their duvet.

My father-in-law still buys the Record. At some point I'll have to ask him why.

[Sunrise]

61% of Record readers vote Labour and the letters page is filled often by Labour-rants. One corker likened Salmond to Mussolini in that he "promised much but destroyed his country". There are some idiots out there and the Record fuels them!

Still a more Scottish paper than The Scum though just is vapidly written for brainwashed idiots.

[ICTChris]

61% of Record readers vote Labour and the letters page is filled often by Labour-rants. One corker likened Salmond to Mussolini in that he "promised much but destroyed his country". There are some idiots out there and the Record fuels them!

Still a more Scottish paper than The Scum though just is vapidly written for brainwashed idiots.

Do you have a link to that survey? Not disputing it but I'd be interested to see a breakdown of the voting intentions of readers of all Scottish papers.

[Ivo den Bieman]

First grumblings of discontent at Labour's pisspoor election "campaign" here

[Ivo den Bieman]

The thing is, the election campaign is having absolutely zero impact out there. I work in a place where people are generally interested in politics and pay attention to the news. I have yet to have one conversation on the subject of the forthcoming Scottish elections, apart from this thread. There is no evidence whatever of local campaigns either where I live, or where I work.

Add into the mix a very late and awkwardly timed Easter- where everything, including the media, will largely shut down for a long weekend- two weeks before polling day, and you have a very odd and low key election campaign indeed. If turnout is low that's (traditionally) been bad news for Labour. At the moment, given the near-invisibility of the campaign, and the perceived irrelevance of the Scottish parliament to the issues that are dominating the news agenda- Libya and the other Arab revolutions, the Japanese catastrophe, the continuing economic crisis- it's hard to see anything other than a low turn out.