bendan Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 I don't know ? But what it appears is that the SG have added more benefits for the rich on top of what is labelled an unbalanced tax system ? Just to win the referendum? The whole point of reducing the APD is so that Scotland does not compound its existing geographical disadvantage, and that remote communities in Scotland are not unfairly burdened. If something can help Scotland to grow and develop and also stop the more distant communities from being quite so isolated from the rest then I am willing to accept it, even if the rich benefit, too. Are you saying you just want to penalise the rich, irrespective of the consequences on the rest of us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 I don't know ? But what it appears is that the SG have added more benefits for the rich on top of what is labelled an unbalanced tax system ? Just to win the referendum? Its not about the SNP. Its not about the transition period. Its about the election we have after independence, and then the election after that. We get much more of a say over politics. The parties would have to appeal to Scottish voters instead of middle England - and therefore the governments we return would be more left-leaning than any of the options we currently have in Westminster. You need to think about the bigger picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Just to win the referendum? I think thats the key point. After its won. Its a different political world. Just think no more petty Labour/SNP squabbles. With the constitution settled, we can get on and do things for Scotland. Until independence that will never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 So the SNP give tax breaks to the rich to win the referendum and then the likelihood is they will be taxed more ? I can see where that's going. In the meantime councils struggle to provide services, there are redundancies all over the place and we cant afford to introduce the new curriculum for excellence exams on schedule and kids need to pay for the music tuition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecto Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Of course there is always the possibility, that the SNP may lead us into independence, and do all of the work in the transition period, but not be the party who form the 1st government, of course all this is dependant on a "Yes" vote in September Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flogelsleftpeg Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Ive read alot of stuff from "yes" voters recently about this not being a vote for salmond or the SNP, but one for Scotlands future. Do any of you feel that Mr Salmond dhould possibly have taken a step back from the campaign to allow the "Im not voting for that granny shagger" etc to be removed from the debate, perhaps allowing for that cloud to be removed from certain peoples perspective on the whole vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Ive read alot of stuff from "yes" voters recently about this not being a vote for salmond or the SNP, but one for Scotlands future. Do any of you feel that Mr Salmond dhould possibly have taken a step back from the campaign to allow the "Im not voting for that granny shagger" etc to be removed from the debate, perhaps allowing for that cloud to be removed from certain peoples perspective on the whole vote? Why should he? Because of a few people's misguided perceptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecto Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Ive read alot of stuff from "yes" voters recently about this not being a vote for salmond or the SNP, but one for Scotlands future. Do any of you feel that Mr Salmond dhould possibly have taken a step back from the campaign to allow the "Im not voting for that granny shagger" etc to be removed from the debate, perhaps allowing for that cloud to be removed from certain peoples perspective on the whole vote? Why should he? Because of a few people's misguided perceptions? Think the point been made is made is Salmond is such a strong character and at times does seem to dominate the proceedings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Ive read alot of stuff from "yes" voters recently about this not being a vote for salmond or the SNP, but one for Scotlands future. Do any of you feel that Mr Salmond dhould possibly have taken a step back from the campaign to allow the "Im not voting for that granny shagger" etc to be removed from the debate, perhaps allowing for that cloud to be removed from certain peoples perspective on the whole vote? Perhaps, but I think he's biding his time until closer to the referendum date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 So the SNP give tax breaks to the rich to win the referendum and then the likelihood is they will be taxed more ? I can see where that's going. In the meantime councils struggle to provide services, there are redundancies all over the place and we cant afford to introduce the new curriculum for excellence exams on schedule and kids need to pay for the music tuition. From you're previous posts I make the assumption that you are a Labour supporter. Apologies if I assume wrongly. On this issue, please try to put aside party rivalry. You are failing to see past the SNP. It is highly possible that the SNP will cease to exist shortly after independence. The party will fracture across the political rainbow. Many SNP voters may well vote for and join a new Scottish Labour. I suspect like most people supporting independence, I do not agree with all the SNP's policies and after independence I will not vote for them. I support independence, however as its obviously the only way we will get a chance to really improve things. As regards to the second part of your post, these issues are down to a Westminster squeeze on the Scottish budget. Nothing either a labour or SNP administration at Holyrood can do. A good example of why we need full independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flogelsleftpeg Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Perhaps, but I think he's biding his time until closer to the referendum date. He's a very devisive character, I personally feel the further he is away from the Yes campaign the more like a yes will be in September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 I think a lot of things could fragment post a yes vote - including the assertions and certainties that are being trotted out by the SNP and yes camp. Lots of thoughts and opinions are being hidden in the quest for people's ultimate aims, which is perhaps fair enough from their perspective but it leads me to not trust them enough to take the huge risk. If they can't be open and clear about basic things that I can understand god knows what lies in the details and complexities. As an aside; the SNP are leading the yes campaign and everyone seems to accept that except when the SNP make a wrong move and then its 'the yes camp is wider than the SNP' - I just don't buy it. Our budget has been squeezed that much that the SG have handed out freebies and cut taxes for the purposes of achieving a yes. Whilst going for a more 'local' approach in terms of Scotland the SG have centralised more and more in terms of local and central government. Our budget is that tight we have 1000 extra police officers at a time when crime is in decline almost everywhere. We have masses of things within our power just now and I don't see any great quality or leadership there to make me think that the move is worth the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 He's a very devisive character, I personally feel the further he is away from the Yes campaign the more like a yes will be in September. He is divisive but I think those who harbour irrational hatred and "I'm voting no because I dinny like that Salmond" types are steadfast no anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 I think a lot of things could fragment post a yes vote - including the assertions and certainties that are being trotted out by the SNP and yes camp. Lots of thoughts and opinions are being hidden in the quest for people's ultimate aims, which is perhaps fair enough from their perspective but it leads me to not trust them enough to take the huge risk. If they can't be open and clear about basic things that I can understand god knows what lies in the details and complexities. As an aside; the SNP are leading the yes campaign and everyone seems to accept that except when the SNP make a wrong move and then its 'the yes camp is wider than the SNP' - I just don't buy it. Our budget has been squeezed that much that the SG have handed out freebies and cut taxes for the purposes of achieving a yes. Whilst going for a more 'local' approach in terms of Scotland the SG have centralised more and more in terms of local and central government. Our budget is that tight we have 1000 extra police officers at a time when crime is in decline almost everywhere. We have masses of things within our power just now and I don't see any great quality or leadership there to make me think that the move is worth the risk. You fear risk and uncertainty. Fair enough. So do I. I fear the risk and uncertainty of staying in a UK, financially and morally broken. The only UK certainties are that the wealth gap will grow, as will food banks and the amount of our kids living in poverty. Obscene. Scotland is a resource rich nation. We are getting poorer. Why? As has been categorically proved we have the potential to be a substantially wealthier nation. It will be unforgivable if small minded party politicking hinders this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Ive read alot of stuff from "yes" voters recently about this not being a vote for salmond or the SNP, but one for Scotlands future. Do any of you feel that Mr Salmond dhould possibly have taken a step back from the campaign to allow the "Im not voting for that granny shagger" etc to be removed from the debate, perhaps allowing for that cloud to be removed from certain peoples perspective on the whole vote? I think something along those lines will happen nearer the time, I said as much months ago, I think the law squad were too busy flogging their dead horse to notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 You fear risk and uncertainty. Fair enough. So do I. I fear the risk and uncertainty of staying in a UK, financially and morally broken. The only UK certainties are that the wealth gap will grow, as will food banks and the amount of our kids living in poverty. Obscene. Scotland is a resource rich nation. We are getting poorer. Why? As has been categorically proved we have the potential to be a substantially wealthier nation. It will be unforgivable if small minded party politicking hinders this. The term 'categorically proved we have the potential' is meaningless. It's a bit like 'Its been categorically proved that I have the potential to be a substantially wealthier person........... by winning the lottery'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Businessman wants more business type of thing. Patrick Harvie wont agree to airlines getting cheaper tax options, if he really is a "Green". More humdrum. Are the greens in power then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Are the greens in power then? The Greens seem to think they are, or will be in power soon.. Green policies are what is strangling the progress of any country. Their policies fail, big style. The Co-founder of Greenpeace is somewhat ashamed to be associated with the terrapins of greenery. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/greenpeace-cofounder-patrick-moore-tells-us-senate-there-is-no-proof-humans-cause-climate-change-9159627.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 The Greens seem to think they are, or will be in power soon.. Green policies are what is strangling the progress of any country. Their policies fail, big style. The Co-founder of Greenpeace is somewhat ashamed to be associated with the terrapins of greenery. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/greenpeace-cofounder-patrick-moore-tells-us-senate-there-is-no-proof-humans-cause-climate-change-9159627.html Here's a clue: they're not, probably never will be. They're not in position to agree or reject anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Here's a clue: they're not, probably never will be. They're not in position to agree or reject anything. Oh dear. You do realise that YES side is composed of SNP, Greens and a few Labour for Independence characters. As I said earlier, Greens policies have done away with a few jobs now. How many more jobs do you want them to do away with? Them is poison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.