Jump to content

Benefit sanctions


Fide

Recommended Posts

And are you happy with the way Scotland is being governed 13 months on?

Not really, the SNP are making a roaring mess of it and all the Bravehearts are way too blinkered to see it, a decent opposition would have had them on the ropes by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 715
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yeah I agree with that. They're not perfect, make a few errors here and there. They're certainly performing better than any other government has since the Scottish Parliament was established.

There's also no question that Labour are far too much of a shambles to take advantage of any slip ups. Dugdale has all the debating skills of a shouty teenager. It's incredible that SLAB are so bad, she's the best option to lead them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your anger and bitterness should be aimed towards the SNP.

It was the SNP job to convince a majority of people that a yes vote was the right way forward for scotlands future and that we could govern our own country.

Perhaps you should question the SNP and why they failed and blame them for us still being better together.

Utter fail again kev.However that was a problem lots of drones just seen it as Labour v Snp as hotherstall tweet (spending tory money) and Davidsons (meeting above a pub) clearly show

Theres numerous quotes out there,Labour party before anything else

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not rating their record is a good reason to kick them out of office. But presenting them as some sort of evil incarnate, or suggesting that elected politicians literally want to dismantle the state as we know it, is nonsense and hyperbole. It is just as hyperbolic and inaccurate as the notion that Jeremy Corbyn hates Britain.

This is the internet. If I can't indulge in meaningless hyperbole I'm not playing.

I think if you believe the Tories are trying to make the best of a bad situation rather than having an ideological interest in crippling the public sector then you must have lived under a rock since 1979.

I understand your reticence to criticise though seeing as your party have been working hand in glove on the project for the past 5 years.

I'm not much interested in the NHS in England.

Local authorities in Scotland have had to make significant cuts year on year as a direct result of cuts in the block grant from Westminster. It amounts to a real terms reduction of 9% during the life of the last Westminster government. Just for clarity no Council tax rise would have kept pace with the impact of those cuts.

The net result has meant tens of thousands less posts in local public services in Scotland, a reduction in services and a pressurised demoralised workforce in what is left.

Some sacred cows like health and education have been protected from this. Although IMO should not have been and then would maybe have had an incentive to change practices that contribute to their piss poor outcomes for vulnerable families.

Glasgow needs to cut over £100 million over the next two years Or to put it another way the equivalent to 3000 jobs. Edinburgh also has to save over £100 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your anger and bitterness should be aimed towards the SNP.

It was the SNP job to convince a majority of people that a yes vote was the right way forward for scotlands future and that we could govern our own country.

Perhaps you should question the SNP and why they failed and blame them for us still being better together.

I'm neither angry not bitter - I'm simply pointing out that your desire (and that of your fellow British nationalists) to keep Scotland a region of a Tory-voting nation is why we have a Tory government (and why we will have a Tory government whenever the UK elects one). Your reluctance to believe "that we could govern our country" says rather more about you than it does about the SNP. You have just claimed that you think that we are still better together, Tories and all - again, I'm not sure why you're complaining and trying to blame others for the result of that. You should be delighted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, the SNP are making a roaring mess of it and all the Bravehearts are way too blinkered to see it, a decent opposition would have had them on the ropes by now.

The SNP could discover a cure for cancer in Scottish water and the Union-Jack-waving Uncle Tams would complain it was robbing universities of research funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, the SNP are making a roaring mess of it and all the Bravehearts are way too blinkered to see it, a decent opposition would have had them on the ropes by now.

They are doing a good enough job in the grand scheme of things although they have made many mistakes.

Regardless of how good or bad a job they are doing if the opposition hasn't been able to have them on the ropes on some of their mistakes, after eight years in government, it is arguable that they never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are doing a good enough job in the grand scheme of things although they have made many mistakes.

Regardless of how good or bad a job they are doing if the opposition hasn't been able to have them on the ropes on some of their mistakes, after eight years in government, it is arguable that they never will.

Apparently it's enough to holler that they're making an "almighty mess" of things without pointing out exactly what it is they're doing badly and in what areas, or indicating who would do a better job of governing and Scotland and why.

Whenever I see people whinging about "blinded Bravehearts" and offering no alternative with regard to who they'd like to see governing Scotland, it strikes me that these folk don't actually care who is in power in Holyrood, or what they do, or of what ideological vision they have for the nation's future; as long as it's a party opposed to Scotland ever becoming a sovereign state, it doesn't matter which one or what they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Whenever I see people whinging about "blinded Bravehearts" and offering no alternative with regard to who they'd like to see governing Scotland, it strikes me that these folk don't actually care who is in power in Holyrood, or what they do, or of what ideological vision they have for the nation's future; as long as it's a party opposed to Scotland ever becoming a sovereign state, it doesn't matter which one or what they do.

This more than anything else. And ultimately these people are screwed. Unless the SNP pass laws that requires all cute puppies and kittens to be sent for vivisection and banning Irn Bru I can see them remaining in government until something radical happens .IMO It is hard to see any scenario other than full federalism or independence that could prevent this. .

In the mean time the SNP will continue to stand up for the people of Scotland, making policies that they see are best for Scotland, making a few f**k ups along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This more than anything else. And ultimately these people are screwed. Unless the SNP pass laws that requires all cute puppies and kittens to be sent for vivisection and banning Irn Bru I can see them remaining in government until something radical happens .IMO It is hard to see any scenario other than full federalism or independence that could prevent this. .

In the mean time the SNP will continue to stand up for the people of Scotland, making policies that they see are best for Scotland, making a few f**k ups along the way.

I agree, and you're on to something with "full federalism or independence". The genie is out the bottle. The SNP do well because they have a clear, understandable vision for Scotland's future: they want it to be a full sovereign state, like Denmark, Norway, or even the UK. One can criticise their longterm vision (for example, I'd be voting for a republican party in an independent Scotland) but their goal of terminating the Treaty of Union and re-establishing Scotland's sovereignty is pretty clear.

Meanwhile, the unionist parties' vision for Scotland is entirely unclear. They want a "fair and equal Scotland", but under Tory rule. They want a "powerhouse devolved parliament", but oppose federalism and FFA. They want "as close to federalism as possible" but do not want Scotland to be able to manage all Scottish resources or finances. They think the vow has been delivered, but also not delivered. They support the Smith proposals, but don't think they go far enough. They think devolution is a journey, but do not recognise a destination. Their half-hearted approach to Scotland's constitution is an absolute shambles; it's as though they recognise a desire for autonomy exists, but have no idea how to satisfy it without sacrificing power over (and revenue from Scotland), which is what actually motivates their support of the union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SNP could discover a cure for cancer in Scottish water and the Union-Jack-waving Uncle Tams would complain it was robbing universities of research funding.

Is that the scottish water thats just went to a private english company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I didn't even know this statute existed until you mentioned it.

2. Which measures, specifically, do you think are "ideological"?

3. What in the name of any deity of choice makes you think that a statute that, as far as I can see, consolidates and amends the general framework of the sale and supply of goods and services in a way that incorporates, among other things, digital content into that legal framework and widens applicability of alternative dispute resolution to sale and supply of goods and services, is in any way relevant to the question of whether or not "Westminster" is directing an "ideological war" against "the public sector"?

1. And here we have it, Ladies & Gentlemen. Ad Lib could be an MP by now, yet he isn't even aware of a statute that was supported through Westminster by his Lib Dem colleagues in the last Coalition.

I assume they were in the bars whilst the actual debate was going on, and just trooped down to go through the lobbies with their Tory chums when the division bell rang?

2. Section 77, Schedule 5 and schedule 6.

3. You obviously haven't read the whole statute and are concentrating on the headline effects. The ideological measures are hidden away in the schedules.

In brief, the coalition declared "war" on public sector "red tape". Mainly, this "war" has consisted of consolidating legislation then declaring that "We've got rid of six pieces of legislation and replaced them with one". What they don't mention is that the one set of regulations faithfully replicates all the provisions of the six, with only minor changes in nomenclature. As an example, look at the new Petroleum (Consolidation) Regulations.

The CRA '15 takes this a step further. In the guise of consolidating powers available to Enforcement Officers, it introduces a requirement to notify traders 48 hours in advance of routine inspection.

Now, what would you do if you were a trader with counterfeit goods in your shop and you received a letter telling you that you were going to be inspected next Tuesday?

The letter also must contain a specific paragraph warning the trader about the obstruction offences. The legislation has only been in force for 10 days, but I'm aware that local authorities are already receiving complaints from legitimate traders.

The complaints fall into 3 main categories

a) Why are you wasting my council tax by writing to me to tell me you're coming to visit?

b) I'm a legitimate trader & welcome your visit. But why are you telling dodgy traders you're coming to visit?

c) Why are you warning me about obstruction offences in advance of the visit? We've always had a good relationship. Why the officious language in the letter?

I think it's pretty clear that this legislation has actually increased "red tape" in an attempt to further demonize public servants. Accordingly, I feel justified in describing it as ideological.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that the scottish water thats just went to a private english company.

Stop posting please. Every one of your posts is misinformed.

A little suggestion on this particular one - see if you can find out who Business Stream are, what they do and why it went out to tender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that the scottish water thats just went to a private english company.

Yes - for perfectly unavoidable and understandable reasons that might be a little over your head. Are you feigning Scottish nationalism now? Surely, tendering rules aside, you would have been delighted for an "English" company to be involved? We are, as you wanted, one nation - why are you stoking the fires of division?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...