HardyBamboo Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 If certain SNP members did lie or deliberately mislead the public on this matter then I condemn them for it and I think that's disgraceful behaviour. If, on the other hand, it is a change of position based on new evidence/changing circumstances then I don't have a problem with it. I'm not saying it applies to anyone on this thread because I don't know enough about this situation but I have met people in every day life who almost religiously fail to criticise anything the SNP do. It's unhealthy, and it undermines the Yes argument that the referendum is not about the SNP. While I still think the SNP are 'less bad' for this type of thing than the main Westminster parties, and I will be voting yes regardless, they shouldn't be immune from criticism. Kenny McAskill alone appears determined to have the whole party tarred as incompetent fuckwits. I agree with you about Kenny McAskill but think this comment is a wee bit harsh. PS - this thread has got way off topic.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 On the subject of a party lying Remember the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The changing positions description is perhaps valid. Perhaps people will think the SNP will change positions again over a number of things in the event they get a yes vote. They were so certain of their position on this relatively uncomplicated matter but now its changed - what other certain positions do they have that will prove to be wrong and have to be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The changing positions description is perhaps valid. Perhaps people will think the SNP will change positions again over a number of things in the event they get a yes vote. They were so certain of their position on this relatively uncomplicated matter but now its changed - what other certain positions do they have that will prove to be wrong and have to be changed. And is it only the SNP that change position on things??? New Labour rightly broke from old Labour and celebrated the power of private enterprise to energise our country clicky So when other partys change position its to be celebrated? The No campaign and Unionists constantly muddy the water between SNP party policies and the Wider Yes campaign, I just hope the wider electorate can see past all the personalisation of Yes Scotland which is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 And is it only the SNP that change position on things??? So when other partys change position its to be celebrated? The No campaign and Unionists constantly muddy the water between SNP party policies and the Wider Yes campaign, I just hope the wider electorate can see past all the personalisation of Yes Scotland which is going on. WoS are proudly saying they've had 800000 pageviews this week, the electorate are educating themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 WoS are proudly saying they've had 800000 pageviews this week, the electorate are educating themselves. and I wonder how many dailys can say the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 Imagine if a news interviewer had said to an indian politician that he justs wants "to have his curry and eat it". In sure there would have been an uproar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkZIu6LiPRA#t=308 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Good for you, the rest of us will just see what's happening as a whole while you continue your crusade, September 19th could be a real bummer for you, the thought of poor people getting treated with a bit of dignity must keep you up at night. Well, I think the best way to stop that is to slash corporation Tax, so that inequality in society flourishes. Oh wait, that's your scheme isn't it? Ayrmad - Friend of the Fat Cats and the CBI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 but I have met people in every day life who almost religiously fail to criticise anything the SNP do. It's unhealthy, and it undermines the Yes argument that the referendum is not about the SNP. Quite. And that's really the point. The SNP are liars, and incompetent arseholes at times. Acknowledging that, whilst stating that it's in no way an argument against voting Yes is perfectly healthy. It's just something the NCC are incapable of doing. Even Patrick Harvie and Joseph Stiglitz have absolutely torched their Corporation Tax plans, but we still have the nodding dogs barking along in support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Even Patrick Harvie and Joseph Stiglitz have absolutely torched their Corporation Tax plans, but we still have the nodding dogs barking along in support. That's as maybe, but I still think cutting CT is absolutely the correct thing to do. CT should be paid in the jurisdiction where the economic activity takes place. I would happily have a 0% CT rate in Scotland if it meant that the economic activity took place from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I don't believe that the SNP are liars. They are a party of integrity and that integrity isn't really questionable at this point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 CT should be paid in the jurisdiction where the economic activity takes place. But it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Quite. And that's really the point. The SNP are liars, and incompetent arseholes at times. Acknowledging that, whilst stating that it's in no way an argument against voting Yes is perfectly healthy. It's just something the NCC are incapable of doing. Even Patrick Harvie and Joseph Stiglitz have absolutely torched their Corporation Tax plans, but we still have the nodding dogs barking along in support. you rather miss the point that we are not voting the SNP into power in this referendum. If you don't like their corporation tax plans then you can campaign to send them packing in the first general election in an independent Scotland. Or, of course, you could continue to let the likes of George Osborne and Ed Balls white knight on behalf on behalf of the poor with their deep and generous raft of legislation, aimed at helping them out to build a better life for themselves...legislation that has LibDem orange bookers nodding like the Churchill dog in agreement. Oh, er, wait.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 you rather miss the point that we are not voting the SNP into power in this referendum. If you don't like their corporation tax plans then you can campaign to send them packing in the first general election in an independent Scotland. I'm not missing that point at all. Several posters have used the "social justice" and "fairer society" argument, to criticise the UK and suggest things are going to be different in an Independent Scotland. The point I made, which the SNP fanboys laughably are trying to deny, is that the SNP's plan to reduce CT is actually going to create a more unequal society. You are also ignoring the fact the SNP's White Paper is an Independence white paper for the referendum, not a party political one for the election following it. By all means point out that a future Scottish government could create a fairer society. So could a future UK government. But the SNP aren't the vehicle to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 so, in summary, the last two pages of contributions from you have been concern-trolling and yet another spin on the turntable of your crackly hatred of the SNP, at 78 speed? The fanboys are annoying, pop-eyed haterzzz like yourself really aren't any better. The SNP's utterly shit neo-liberal policies on corporation tax, road building, public transport and zealous centralisation of as much power as they can at the centre, are not reasons to vote No in September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'm not missing that point at all. Several posters have used the "social justice" and "fairer society" argument, to criticise the UK and suggest things are going to be different in an Independent Scotland. The point I made, which the SNP fanboys laughably are trying to deny, is that the SNP's plan to reduce CT is actually going to create a more unequal society. You are also ignoring the fact the SNP's White Paper is an Independence white paper for the referendum, not a party political one for the election following it. By all means point out that a future Scottish government could create a fairer society. So could a future UK government. But the SNP aren't the vehicle to do it. I'm seriously beginning to question your intellect now, anyone that thinks we're voting for the SNP in September is a fcuking numpty, as for your starting point, social justice and a fairer society don't register at all at Westminster, so any attempt to improve it post independence will be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The point I made, which the SNP fanboys laughably are trying to deny, is that the SNP's plan to reduce CT is actually going to create a more unequal society. Pish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 But it isn't. Actually, it is exactly what it is supposed to do. That is the reason we have international transfer pricing rules for corporates. it is abused - it would be down the Scottish govt to draft sensible rules on the matter - for instance a reduced rate for manufacturing. It would be fairly straightforward to judge where the value-add is in that scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Actually, it is exactly what it is supposed to do. That is the reason we have international transfer pricing rules for corporates. But it doesn't work that way. Which is why Starbucks pays no tax on it's huge UK earnings for example, and why Google takes advantage of Ireland and the Netherlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 But it doesn't work that way. Which is why Starbucks pays no tax on it's huge UK earnings for example, and why Google takes advantage of Ireland and the Netherlands. Bollocks. Starbucks actively avoids paying UK tax by a farcical pretence that it's paying its head office fees for supplies at vastly over-inflated prices. Google is able to take advantage of Ireland and the Netherlands because the political will isn't there to challenge them and stop them. With a sensible tax regime we can stop all this nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.