May 2011 Election

[Reynard]

Did you only learn this phrase a couple weeks ago? Its fast becoming one of the hallmarks of your obfuscation attempts. Do you get a little twinge of smug satisfaction every time you drop it in?

It doesn't really matter what reasons are given, it doesn't excuse the fact that the majority of time, the three Unionist parties vote in lockstep. You say recently, but on alcohol pricing, on the "Tesco Tax" (charging Tesco the same as in England - Gasp!), on Calman, on basically everything apart from the budget, and certainly on all the high profile things, the three parties tend to vote together. I argue that Labour and the Tories vote together. I then provided some evidence. You claimed that they didn't, and never provided anything to prove your point. I'm of the opinion that the only reason the Labour-Lites have been trying to distinguish themselves is that they can see where this is all going. We're well on our way to having the SNP, and the North British Combined Unionist Party, with possibly only a couple seats for a few small parties.

Yep, two smaller parties can attempt to form a coalition, as you mentioned, Labour were trying to get the Lib Dems in power so that Jack "At least he wasn't Iain Gray" McConnell could cling on to power.

Remind us of how the SNP managed to get their budgets through every year? How did the block vote against the SNP go with that?

[xbl]

Remind us of how the SNP managed to get their budgets through every year? How did the block vote against the SNP go with that?

From the very post you quoted:

...on basically everything apart from the budget...

Still, I love the Tory attempts to rewrite history. All without evidence!

[Pink Freud]

Xbl, are these parties in opposition-yes or no?

[Savage Henry]

Is there any possibility of a coalition between two of the beaten parties. For instance,if Labour were the biggest party but the total of say the SNP and the Lib Dems was greater,could they form a coalition? Or is it incumbent (like the last time) for the biggest party to see if it can form a Government? I am sure Lab were courting the Lib Dems after the last election.

I'd imagine they'd follow the Westminster "decorum" and allow the largest party first dibs at forming a government, in other words give Labour (heaven forfend but that's the way it's gonna be) the chance to talk with the minority parties. Labour's attempts to derail the Cameron-Clegg pact with late in the day AV bollocks felt pretty distasteful at the general election. It would be unbecoming of the SNP to enter into negotiations if they weren't the largest party. Until, of course, it became clear that nobody wanted to work with Iain Gray.

[Reynard]

I'd imagine they'd follow the Westminster "decorum" and allow the largest party first dibs at forming a government, in other words give Labour (heaven forfend but that's the way it's gonna be) the chance to talk with the minority parties. Labour's attempts to derail the Cameron-Clegg pact with late in the day AV bollocks felt pretty distasteful at the general election. It would be unbecoming of the SNP to enter into negotiations if they weren't the largest party. Until, of course, it became clear that nobody wanted to work with Iain Gray.

Aye.There's simply no prospect of any of the other parties working with Labour. Maybe the loony tune greens or some shite like that. But it's more likely to be some sort of anti Labour coalition with the SNP heading it. Labour will be the biggest party this time, but hopefully not big enough to go it alone. There is absolutely no talent in their ranks whatsoever. The cupboard is fucking bare.

[Reynard]

From the very post you quoted:

Still, I love the Tory attempts to rewrite history. All without evidence!

The budget being the most important piece to get through the parliament. If the SNP failed to have th tories supporting it could you please tell me what would have then happened?

[capybara]

Aye.There's simply no prospect of any of the other parties working with Labour. Maybe the loony tune greens or some shite like that. But it's more likely to be some sort of anti Labour coalition with the SNP heading it. Labour will be the biggest party this time, but hopefully not big enough to go it alone. There is absolutely no talent in their ranks whatsoever. The cupboard is fucking bare.

This what i think will happen. Labour may will be the largest party but will they run a successful minority government? Would they last 4/5 years?

[Reynard]

This what i think will happen. Labour may will be the largest party but will they run a successful minority government? Would they last 4/5 years?

I think they would try to. It certainly wouldn't be successful. Everything Labour touches turns to shite after all.

[xbl]

Xbl, are these parties in opposition-yes or no?

United in opposition apparently.

The budget being the most important piece to get through the parliament. If the SNP failed to have th tories supporting it could you please tell me what would have then happened?

You can't play the budget card all the time. Yes, the other Unionists backed or abstained on various budgets, but that doesn't change the fact that on almost every other issue, the three parties voted practically as one. It doesn't matter how many times you jump up and down and shout about the budget, the fact remains that Labour and the Tories voted together more often than they did not.

[Pink Freud]

United in opposition apparently.

You can't play the budget card all the time. Yes, the other Unionists backed or abstained on various budgets, but that doesn't change the fact that on almost every other issue, the

three parties voted practically as one. It

doesn't matter how many times you jump up

and down and shout about the budget, the

fact remains that Labour and the Tories

voted together more often than they did not.

Uh..because they are in opposition. 25% of the time they voted with a minority government, no? Fucked if I can understand your problem here. The fact that a minority government has lasted a full term shows at the very least that there was responsible opposition, otherwise the Nats would have been paralysed from the beginning.

[Ad Lib]

Did you only learn this phrase a couple weeks ago? Its fast becoming one of the hallmarks of your obfuscation attempts. Do you get a little twinge of smug satisfaction every time you drop it in?

No, I didn't "learn it a couple of weeks ago". It's used all the time in legal discussion and I apologise if you're not capable of understanding its usage in common parlance. I'd have thought of all people on here as a PhD student you wouldn't be an anti-intellectual snob when it came to using more complex terminology.

It doesn't really matter what reasons are given, it doesn't excuse the fact that the majority of time, the three Unionist parties vote in lockstep. You say recently, but on alcohol pricing, on the "Tesco Tax" (charging Tesco the same as in England - Gasp!), on Calman, on basically everything apart from the budget, and certainly on all the high profile things, the three parties tend to vote together. I argue that Labour and the Tories vote together. I then provided some evidence. You claimed that they didn't, and never provided anything to prove your point. I'm of the opinion that the only reason the Labour-Lites have been trying to distinguish themselves is that they can see where this is all going. We're well on our way to having the SNP, and the North British Combined Unionist Party, with possibly only a couple seats for a few small parties.

The Tesco Tax was a tiny part of a huge piece of legislation called "the budget" on which vast swathes and the end product the Tories, SNP and Lib Dems agree. Alcohol pricing was surely more than a year ago? Anyway at Westminster the Coalition are now (quite wrongly, by the way) introducing a similar such scheme.

High profile things like what, though? The Referendum Bill and Calman are sort of "no shit Sherlock" stuff. The Local Income Tax I sincerely hope the Lib Dems get a fucking backbone over and help the SNP rather than stand about nervously abstaining like this time round (not voting with the SNP dosn't mean you're voting with Labour, btw). Other than that I'm really struggling to think of anything high profile the Scottish Parliament has *done* in the last 4 years other than pass budgets...

[xbl]

No, I didn't "learn it a couple of weeks ago". It's used all the time in legal discussion and I apologise if you're not capable of understanding its usage in common parlance. I'd have thought of all people on here as a PhD student you wouldn't be an anti-intellectual snob when it came to using more complex terminology.

The Tesco Tax was a tiny part of a huge piece of legislation called "the budget" on which vast swathes and the end product the Tories, SNP and Lib Dems agree. Alcohol pricing was surely more than a year ago? Anyway at Westminster the Coalition are now (quite wrongly, by the way) introducing a similar such scheme.

High profile things like what, though? The Referendum Bill and Calman are sort of "no shit Sherlock" stuff. The Local Income Tax I sincerely hope the Lib Dems get a fucking backbone over and help the SNP rather than stand about nervously abstaining like this time round (not voting with the SNP dosn't mean you're voting with Labour, btw). Other than that I'm really struggling to think of anything high profile the Scottish Parliament has *done* in the last 4 years other than pass budgets...

No, what I object to is the way you use it. Every time things look a bit uncomfortable and out of your depth, you drop in a wee phrase like that. Last I saw, we didn't speak latin in this country. I didn't see a "Latin" option on the census. You only try to obfuscate when things look bad for you, when you drop in a wee phrase like that, perhaps an "ad hominem", or a "prima facie", or a pointed declaration of a straw man. You use them to try and dazzle.

Alcohol pricing - blocked by three parties.

Referendum - despite efforts by the SNP, blocked by three parties.

Calman - three parties again.

Trams - Labour and Lib Dem this time.

Lockerbie - three parties combined to try and launch an investigation.

The budget apart, the three parties are in lockstep. I don't know why you're quibbling it. The facts back me up. You haven't presented a single one apart from to declare that I'm wrong. Because that empty pit of no evidence backs you up.

[Pink Freud]

Straw man. When did you learn that then.

[Reynard]

United in opposition apparently.

You can't play the budget card all the time. Yes, the other Unionists backed or abstained on various budgets, but that doesn't change the fact that on almost every other issue, the three parties voted practically as one. It doesn't matter how many times you jump up and down and shout about the budget, the fact remains that Labour and the Tories voted together more often than they did not.

Yes I can. No budget acceptance, then you hold an election. The SNP were propped up by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. In a big happy unionist love in with the SNP.

[xbl]

Yes I can. No budget acceptance, then you hold an election. The SNP were propped up by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. In a big happy unionist love in with the SNP.

Good luck getting that one to stick, Labour have been trying it for four years.

On another note, The Tories have announced that they plan to give NI control over corporation tax. Scotland on the other hand apparently isn't getting this power.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics/Duncan-Hamilton-Westminster-will-regret.6741015.jp

Any of the usual North British apologists going to defend that?

[Ad Lib]

No, what I object to is the way you use it. Every time things look a bit uncomfortable and out of your depth, you drop in a wee phrase like that. Last I saw, we didn't speak latin in this country. I didn't see a "Latin" option on the census. You only try to obfuscate when things look bad for you, when you drop in a wee phrase like that, perhaps an "ad hominem", or a "prima facie", or a pointed declaration of a straw man. You use them to try and dazzle.

You object to the way I use Latin? Flocci non faccio. Es stercus. Interfice te cochleare.

Or to use Anglo-Saxon (why wasn't that on the census, huh?) f**k off.

You are perpetuating a complete fallacy that I use Latin "because things look a bit uncomfortable and out of my depth". In fact nothing could be further from the truth. I use Latin because is it an integral part of the English language, because Latin phrases are often more concise than a fully English counterpart, and because I'm an arrogant arsehole who instinctively flaunts my linguistic competence and likes to show off. If you don't like that, feel free to ignore my posts.

Prima facie is a very simple latin phrase. It is much neater than saying "at first glance" or "on the face of it" or "when taken at face value". I suppose you'll be wanting me to just use "car" instead of "MGB GT 1.8 twin carburettor" next? Perite, canis filius.

Alcohol pricing - blocked by three parties.

Referendum - despite efforts by the SNP, blocked by three parties.

Calman - three parties again.

Trams - Labour and Lib Dem this time.

Lockerbie - three parties combined to try and launch an investigation.

The budget apart, the three parties are in lockstep. I don't know why you're quibbling it. The facts back me up. You haven't presented a single one apart from to declare that I'm wrong. Because that empty pit of no evidence backs you up.

I didn't say they didn't vote more closely over the Parliament as a whole. At the outset I said "recently". By that I actually meant "the last few months" but even if you take "the last 12 months" it's much of a muchness. You will always find that the parties of opposition will vote together more than they vote against each other. Usually for very different reasons. That is not an indication that they are more ideologically aligned, that they even agree on the specific issue, or that they are simply colluding to undermine the party of power. When Labour win this fucking shambles of an election, you will almost certainly see the same thing happening with the Tories, Lib Dems and SNP voting in lock-step against several key Labour policies (if they actually end up having any).

In the past few months, though, the Tories and Lib Dems at Holyrood have been cooperating with the SNP government far more than they have either been cooperating with Labour, or indeed Labour with the SNP. The only important thing the Scottish Parliament has the power to do is pretty much set the budget. That the anti-Labour alliance ensured that it went through with concessions and then proceeded to rip lumps out of Iain Gray's shitface excuse for a rabble in lockstep with Alex Salmond says a lot.

[vikingTON]

Prima facie is a very simple latin phrase. It is much neater than saying "at first glance" or "on the face of it" or "when taken at face value".

In what way is it 'neater' to communicate in a (dead) language not spoken by the vast majority of the population? The point of language is to convey opinions and ideas to a widespread audience, not to play conceited little posturing games from your virgin cocoon bedroom. For that purpose you can speak in Klingon on MSN and give the adults peace.

[Reynard]

Good luck getting that one to stick, Labour have been trying it for four years.

On another note, The Tories have announced that they plan to give NI control over corporation tax. Scotland on the other hand apparently isn't getting this power.

http://scotlandonsun...gret.6741015.jp

Any of the usual North British apologists going to defend that?

I couldn't give a f**k what goes on in Ireland. And I'm not all that interested in the diddy embra parliament either. I guess Scotland has the power to raise income tax a little bit.

Oh that's right. They can't. The SNP clearly don't like the idea of being responsible for levels of taxation as they give the power back to the main parliament in Westminster to decide for them. I guess NI made it known that if they got the power to set their own corporation tax levels to compete better with their neighbours over the border, they wouldn't hand it back unused.

[xbl]

I couldn't give a f**k what goes on in Ireland. And I'm not all that interested in the diddy embra parliament either. I guess Scotland has the power to raise income tax a little bit.

Oh that's right. They can't. The SNP clearly don't like the idea of being responsible for levels of taxation as they give the power back to the main parliament in Westminster to decide for them. I guess NI made it known that if they got the power to set their own corporation tax levels to compete better with their neighbours over the border, they wouldn't hand it back unused.

Wrong. I don't think any more needs to be said.

You object to the way I use Latin? Flocci non faccio. Es stercus. Interfice te cochleare.

Or to use Anglo-Saxon (why wasn't that on the census, huh?) f**k off.

You are perpetuating a complete fallacy that I use Latin "because things look a bit uncomfortable and out of my depth". In fact nothing could be further from the truth. I use Latin because is it an integral part of the English language, because Latin phrases are often more concise than a fully English counterpart, and because I'm an arrogant arsehole who instinctively flaunts my linguistic competence and likes to show off. If you don't like that, feel free to ignore my posts.

Prima facie is a very simple latin phrase. It is much neater than saying "at first glance" or "on the face of it" or "when taken at face value". I suppose you'll be wanting me to just use "car" instead of "MGB GT 1.8 twin carburettor" next? Perite, canis filius.

Its a very simple phrase is it? Its not commonly used, and you know its not commonly used because, as you said yourself "It's used all the time in legal discussion". Legal Discussion. This is a forum, not a pseudo legalese latin forum. Regardless of your tiresome counting of angels style semantics, and regardless of the presence of Dickson, this is not a law forum. And what you are doing is confirming what I accused you of. You like to drop in terms like these because you think it dazzles and obfuscates. It might dazzle some, but this is the wrong audience for debating club style tricks. Furthermore, I do get amused when you go on these verbal binges. You're like a kid with a new toy. You find a phrase, decide you like it, appropriate it, drop it into conversation, and preen about how very clever you are. But not all the time. Oh no, its only ever when you're out of your depth or under attack. "Defending the indefensible? Try Latin". After a while though, someone gets fed up of it, points out how absurd it is, and you drop the phrase like a hot tattie and slink back to the shadows.

See Swampy's deconstruction of your pointless and persistent usage of Ad Hominem, the way you've stopped screaming "STRAW MAN!!!!" at every possible opportunity, and now, I'd hope that your ridiculous use of a dead language phrase to dazzle laymen will stop.

I didn't say they didn't vote more closely over the Parliament as a whole. At the outset I said "recently". By that I actually meant "the last few months" but even if you take "the last 12 months" it's much of a muchness. You will always find that the parties of opposition will vote together more than they vote against each other. Usually for very different reasons. That is not an indication that they are more ideologically aligned, that they even agree on the specific issue, or that they are simply colluding to undermine the party of power. When Labour win this fucking shambles of an election, you will almost certainly see the same thing happening with the Tories, Lib Dems and SNP voting in lock-step against several key Labour policies (if they actually end up having any).

Really? Are you sure on that one?

[Ad Lib]

In what way is it 'neater' to communicate in a (dead) language not spoken by the vast majority of the population? The point of language is to convey opinions and ideas to a widespread audience, not to play conceited little posturing games from your virgin cocoon bedroom. For that purpose you can speak in Klingon on MSN and give the adults peace.

It is neater because it sounds better and uses fewer words (and in the case of the latter two alternatives, fewer syllables). The point of language is to convey information. I don't care who understands and who doesn't understand what I say. I am not directing what I say at a wide audience. If the language I use restricts the readership to those capable of understanding it, so be it.

I couldn't give a f**k what goes on in Ireland. And I'm not all that interested in the diddy embra parliament either. I guess Scotland has the power to raise income tax a little bit.

Oh that's right. They can't. The SNP clearly don't like the idea of being responsible for levels of taxation as they give the power back to the main parliament in Westminster to decide for them. I guess NI made it known that if they got the power to set their own corporation tax levels to compete better with their neighbours over the border, they wouldn't hand it back unused.

I really couldn't care less who sets corporation tax as long as it's low to non-existent. Thankfully the Coalition have been aiming to cut it consistently.

Milton Friedman made a very compelling case about taxes against business which the Coalition would do well to use. Taxes on business isn't tax on business at all; it's tax on individuals.

Take payroll taxes like NI for example: they are a tax on employment, therefore are factored into the total cost an employer assumes when employing someone. Thus it is really a cut out of the pay-packet of the employee. That means that, for example, in the UK the lowest income tax band is 20%(Base Rate)+11%(Employee NIC)+12.8%(Employer NIC) = 43.8%. That's outrageous.