The Snobbery Thread

[Steve_Wilkos]

I despise homeless people and go out of my way to harass them.

On a night out years ago in Middlesbrough, I offered a homeless a tenner if I could boot it in the balls. I then booted it in the balls and left without paying while it was writhing on the floor in agony.

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

On 12/10/2021 at 21:55, The_Kincardine said:

If you define snobbery in terms of social stratification then E'burgh is the most snobbish city in Britain. 

I can't think of another city where 25% of pupils go to fee paying schools, for example.  You also have a clique around the West End/New Town/Stockbridge which is dominated by old money - Fettes/Loretto/Gordonstoun - types with a double upper in town and a shooting estate in Angus/Perthshire/A'deenshire.

To the Old Money clique you have to add the legal types - partners in long-established law firms or QCs or judges ranging from PFs to the Court of Session wigs.

Then add in those making a huge living in E'burgh's financial services industry - many of whom are the scion of the Old Money brigade and/or who went to school with each other.

There is just nowhere in England which has a village for the privileged classes in the way that Edinburgh does.

Proper Tories live in Edinburgh. It seems to me sometimes that in the rest of Scotland Tories is another word for Rangers fans but here in Edinburgh the Tories are the real deal. They don't give a fcuk about Rangers. They don't even like football.

Edinburgh and Scotland are two different places. Edinburgh being far better, obviously.

[ICTChris]

18 minutes ago, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

Proper Tories live in Edinburgh. It seems to me sometimes that in the rest of Scotland Tories is another word for Rangers fans but here in Edinburgh the Tories are the real deal. They don't give a fcuk about Rangers. They don't even like football.

Edinburgh and Scotland are two different places. Edinburgh being far better, obviously.

The Scottish Conservatives are generally a rural party. The Scottish seats they hold in Westminster and Holyrood are all either in the Borders or the North East, with the exception of one seat in Glasgow I think?

Seems fairly unlikely that all these places are teeming with the Orange vote.

[Empty It]

Real Tories couldn't give a toss about football, unlike those plastic Tories Rangers fans. Real Tories only follow egg tossing.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

The Scottish Conservatives are generally a rural party. The Scottish seats they hold in Westminster and Holyrood are all either in the Borders or the North East, with the exception of one seat in Glasgow I think?

Seems fairly unlikely that all these places are teeming with the Orange vote.

They've only become a rural party in the past forty years, once the staunch (and Orangeist in obvious places) working class vote became detached from actual Protestant religious observance, and then Thatcher's influence in the Central Belt. As the Unionist (referring to Ireland, not Scotland) Party, they were an enormously successful party of the staunch into the 1960s. 

The likes of Murdo Fraser have been trying to dredge up that particular legacy since 2014. 

[19QOS19]

I despise homeless people and go out of my way to harass them.

On a night out years ago in Middlesbrough, I offered a homeless a tenner if I could boot it in the balls. I then booted it in the balls and left without paying while it was writhing on the floor in agony.

^^^ Frank Reynolds

[The_Kincardine]

7 hours ago, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

Proper Tories live in Edinburgh. It seems to me sometimes that in the rest of Scotland Tories is another word for Rangers fans but here in Edinburgh the Tories are the real deal. They don't give a fcuk about Rangers. They don't even like football.

Edinburgh and Scotland are two different places. Edinburgh being far better, obviously.

Well the Blue Tories cancelled out by the True Tories today - just.

BUT you're right.  E'burgh is a great city.

[ICTChris]

Read this interesting article, made me think of this thread. I have a few issues with the article and it’s obviously about the USA so doesn’t translate directly to the UK.

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22673605/upper-middle-class-meritocracy-matthew-stewart

[milton75]

On 07/10/2021 at 17:46, topcat(The most tip top) said:

That's the secret short cut that we're not supposed to tell people about

Mon now. I've not lived in Edinburgh for about 20 years, and everyone I knew then used that wee alley.

On 12/10/2021 at 15:02, Billy Jean King said:

On 12/10/2021 at 14:45, Ross. said:

Sadly, I feel you are being more than ambitious to suggest that anyone around the age of 40 or under will be retiring at 67. I’ll be surprised if the pension age isn’t 5 years older at least by the time I get to that point, and I’m a few months short of turning 40.

Anyone basing "retirement age" on when they will be getting their state pension needs a major rethink and quickly. I had it pointed out to me a long time ago that if you were working, the state pension should be looked upon as a bonus, a "top up" if you like to private provision. I've been working on that proviso for decades and hope to retire certainly in the next 5 years maybe even sooner and that's a good 8-10 years shy of "the pension". Even that close I'm far from certain the state pension will be anything like it is now and I fully expect at least 1 further push back on the state retiral age. If under 40 I would simply forget you are going to get a state pension and concentrate on making personal provision.

While I think you're right in practical terms, I disagree on principle. I'm paying a tax and I'm in my early 40s. Surely State Pensions should be viewed in the same way as the NHS; I'm paying in now so I can access a share of the system later.

If the prevailing wisdom is that there won't be a State Pension for me, or at least not one worth banking on, then does it follow that I should take cognisance of that issue now and refuse to pay that portion of my current tax burden? I could invest it in something else instead, and use it in my dotage.
It seems backwards though; I would naively posit that the point of paying into the State is that is guarantees something that otherwise might not be guaranteed, albeit at a lower payout. Paying into the State should confer a certain level of trust and reassurance, and if that's not there then all I'm doing is paying to give the current generation of old c-nts a lifestyle that I can't expect for myself. I don't think that really engenders feelings of good faith in the system.

[coprolite]

12 minutes ago, milton75 said:

Mon now. I've not lived in Edinburgh for about 20 years, and everyone I knew then used that wee alley.

While I think you're right in practical terms, I disagree on principle. I'm paying a tax and I'm in my early 40s. Surely State Pensions should be viewed in the same way as the NHS; I'm paying in now so I can access a share of the system later.

If the prevailing wisdom is that there won't be a State Pension for me, or at least not one worth banking on, then does it follow that I should take cognisance of that issue now and refuse to pay that portion of my current tax burden? I could invest it in something else instead, and use it in my dotage.
It seems backwards though; I would naively posit that the point of paying into the State is that is guarantees something that otherwise might not be guaranteed, albeit at a lower payout. Paying into the State should confer a certain level of trust and reassurance, and if that's not there then all I'm doing is paying to give the current generation of old c-nts a lifestyle that I can't expect for myself. I don't think that really engenders feelings of good faith in the system.

It's always been quite clear tgat the state pension is current spending paid by current tax and not a funded pot. 

But i agree that it feels off that today's 20 somethings are paying for something they can't expect themselves. Also they're paying for it as a top up for a lot of people who had final salary occupational schemes and free university education. 

The triple lock should protect today's 20 somethings' rights to a decent level of pension. But it doesn't guarantee they can take it before dropping dead on the shop floor. It also appears to be something that can be switched off whenever it suits. 

 

[Michael W]

49 minutes ago, coprolite said:

It's always been quite clear tgat the state pension is current spending paid by current tax and not a funded pot. 

 

Yep. You are basically paying the pensions of current pensioners and buying your own entitlement to one later in life, which the government moving the goalposts every few years on when you will actually get it. Whilst I appreciate the arguments about the UK State Pension being ungenerous, I also don't see why workers and in particularly young workers should be made to pay more in taxes to fund a rise in the amount given. 

I also have very little expectation that the State Pension will be a thing when I retire. 

[Ross.]

2 hours ago, milton75 said:

Paying into the State should confer a certain level of trust and reassurance, and if that's not there then all I'm doing is paying to give the current generation of old c-nts a lifestyle that I can't expect for myself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Against_State_Pension_Inequality
 

If you have any trust in the government on this topic, you are an idiot. They have already shown they will change the rules as they see fit and to hell with those it affects.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

On 17/10/2021 at 11:50, ICTChris said:

Read this interesting article, made me think of this thread. I have a few issues with the article and it’s obviously about the USA so doesn’t translate directly to the UK.

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22673605/upper-middle-class-meritocracy-matthew-stewart

thanks for sharing that, I found this related but very different take from Patrick Wyman quite interesting although not so much snobbery-related https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/trump-american-gentry-wyman-elites/620151/

[ICTChris]

Yeah I see the kind of parallels between what both describe.  The issue I have with pieces like those is that while they are insightful they can bleed over into making sweeping generalisations about very large and varied groups of people.  That said, the article you shared did remind me a lot of growing up in Inverness, there were a few rich people and families in the town and now as I get older its all being handed over to the people I was in school with.  The UK is a very different environment to the USA though and Inverness itself is different to a lot of other places in Scotland. 

For full disclosure I probably come from a family like that, or at least I would've if my dad hadn't sold up all his businesses and retired rather than handing any of it to his kids  

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

5 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Yeah I see the kind of parallels between what both describe.  The issue I have with pieces like those is that while they are insightful they can bleed over into making sweeping generalisations about very large and varied groups of people.  That said, the article you shared did remind me a lot of growing up in Inverness, there were a few rich people and families in the town and now as I get older its all being handed over to the people I was in school with.  The UK is a very different environment to the USA though and Inverness itself is different to a lot of other places in Scotland. 

For full disclosure I probably come from a family like that, or at least I would've if my dad hadn't sold up all his businesses and retired rather than handing any of it to his kids  

Yeah I know what you mean about the generalisations that's fair for both. And there's other faults like the repetition  of imagery (McDonalds franchises etc) but I did think it described something which is quite generally true which like you I recognise from growing up in Perthshire, whereas your article made me think a lot of some people I've met as a (very junior) worker in FS in Edinburgh so while they're American there's definitely a relevance. 

[ICTChris]

3 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

Yeah I know what you mean about the generalisations that's fair for both. And there's other faults like the repetition  of imagery (McDonalds franchises etc) but I did think it described something which is quite generally true which like you I recognise from growing up in Perthshire, whereas your article made me think a lot of some people I've met as a (very junior) worker in FS in Edinburgh so while they're American there's definitely a relevance. 

I do think a lot of people, including me, underestimate the money made from running a few McDs franchises.  I know a few friends of friends who work in that world and they make absolutely massive profits.  A friend of mine's partner does the books for a guy who runs several, he makes literally hundreds of thousands a year from them.

 

Edited October 18, 2021 by ICTChris

[The Other Foot]

On 15/10/2021 at 05:13, Paul Kersey said:

I've always argued that any food snob who drones on about authentic Indian or Thai food should be forced to squat over an authentic Indian or Thai toilet afterwards.

 

That's not an authentic Indian or Thai toilet. It's far too nice. 

 

Spoiler

 

Edited October 18, 2021 by The Other Foot

[throbber]

I don’t find Edinburgh that snobby, particularly not since I’ve been living in the suburbs but a few weeks ago I was walking in Stockbridge and a young 15 year old boy who was dressed in a blazer and shorts was walking towards me with I assume was his mother. Anyway they stopped to give way to me and my daughter but as my daughter was dithering about the woman got impatient and the pair of them barged past us and the mother made an audible tut at me as she walked by. Needless to say I was gobsmacked and didn’t react in any way but if I could go back in time I would run after her and punch her right in the face. I don’t think I’ve ever been so offended in my life.

[resk]

9 hours ago, milton75 said:

 

If the prevailing wisdom is that there won't be a State Pension for me, or at least not one worth banking on, then does it follow that I should take cognisance of that issue now and refuse to pay that portion of my current tax burden? I could invest it in something else instead, and use it in my dotage.
 

I'm not sure it's "prevailing wisdom" though.  It's mostly just people online getting all furious in advance about an imaginary law change that might never happen.  

Certainly there's a chance nobody gets any state pension in the future, or it's means-tested or something, but I wouldn't say it's definite.  Also, assuming you're a normal employee on weekly / monthly payroll, there's not really a way of opting out of National Insurance contributions.  

"Hi, is that HMRC?  Yes, I'd like to stop paying NI because someone on P&B told me I wouldn't be getting a state pension".  

[tamthebam]

North Sea oil has been merrily contributing to the Westminster drain for most of my life and I have to work until I'm 67 for one of the stingiest pensions in Western Europe. Meanwhile in Norway: "stick another bundle of notes on the fire, Olaf, it'll annoy that wee Swedish cow Greta.."

My ma should have married a Norwegian rather than a Scot.