The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

It looks to me that the Labour vote will hold up not too badly in the General Election as we know the margins are too great in a lot of the seats they hold. It`s fair to say that the turnout is likely to be way down and even some Labour voters staying at home should see them cling on to the majority of what they have. The next Scottish election is when they will " suffer " imo. The SNP, under Salmond, have shown they can run things up here and have different priorities than the westminster 2. By then it will be interesting to see if they have the old " levers of power ".

Will be in Glasgow with the weans on Sunday and I see they are having a Hope over Fear thing with speakers and a few bands in George Sq. I was thinking the other day that it was a pity we missed out on the big street parties. Maybe next time

I`m sure that Sir Ian will be along in a minute to correct this but there are some nice references to investment in infrastructure and renewables in this crazy article and a few of the big players get a mention. If only we`d known.....

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/9460-oil-industry-could-be-here-until-2100-consultant

Edited October 8, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

The SNP, under Salmond, have shown they can run things up here and have different priorities than the westminster 2.

yep, they've shown they can use Westminster policies against the Westminster parties, with a priority of sowing division via that to try to create the grounds for separation.

They're not enacting policies with the Scottish people in mind (tho the middle classes are sucking them up anyway), they're enacting policies for their own purposes. Right now, the two things are coinciding.

It would, of course, be a very different ball game if policies in Scotland were funded by direct taxes on Scotland, within either indy or greater devolution. If we're having devolution (which as time passes I come to more-believe a bad mistake [tho that's not a call for the status quo]) then I don't think taxes on Scotland from Scotland can come soon enough.

Edited October 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

I agree about tax... Which one is why I voted yes but the ability to fiddle with bits of the taxation system & not others, which is what we're likely to end up with, is the worst of both worlds!

And devo is here to stay. You would be as well to moan about the rain!

[eFestivals]

I agree about tax... Which one is why I voted yes but the ability to fiddle with bits of the taxation system & not others, which is what we're likely to end up with, is the worst of both worlds!

Yep - and so it resolves nothing, and only leads on to my question below.

And devo is here to stay. You would be as well to moan about the rain!

yep, but what actual advantage does it bring, apart from the ability to more-easily split in the future, and create the divisions to bring about that split?

Do bare in mind that no matter what you might want, the majority of the people in Scotland don't want that split.

Yes, devolution allows Scotland to screw over the rest of the UK by extracting extra money from it "otherwise we'll leave", but it also ensures that leaving will eventually happen too - even if Scotland doesn't want it. Scotland has got rUK by the short and curlies less than it might think.

Scotland thinks its own govt is wonderful, in big part because of the representation that PR gives its people ... and yet nothing of PR for Westminster is loudly called for from Scotland when it has the ability to exert pressure, when it says that Westminster is the problem.

Either people in Scotland aren't joining up the dots into something coherent and consistent, or people are happily going along with things because they can see the divisions that are being created and want those divisions to be even greater (to basically fuck over the sovereign will of majority of the people of Scotland). To my mind it's both of these.

People are getting played by the nationalists for the advantage of those nationalist and few realise.

[LJS]

It brings the advantage of a government in Scotland which has been able to use the same money that Scotland was supposedly always receiving to actually deliver some benefits to the people is Scotland.

I don't see how Scotland bears any more blame than any other part of the UK for the lack of PR in Westminster elections. If the main UK parties really gave half a fuck for democracy they would have had pr ages ago.

That doesn't mean they couldn't have made better use of it in my opinion, but it would be hard to argue that free personal care, free prescriptions, no tuition fees are bad things.

They have also been able to effectively magic away the bedroom tax.

Edited October 9, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

It brings the advantage of a government in Scotland which has been able to use the same money that Scotland was supposedly always receiving to actually deliver some benefits to the people is Scotland.

That's not quite true - or at least, it's not all of it.

It allows Scotland to decide how it wants that money spent. For every pound towards one idea, there's a pound from another idea.

I don't see how Scotland bears any more blame than any other part of the UK for the lack of PR in Westminster elections.

That's not what I'm saying. Scotland only has a proportional responsibility for it from the main angle.

Yet Scotland is also in a more powerful position right now, and it's demand would be heard more-so than demands from other directions. So despite having no greater responsibility, it has greater leverage.

And yet, and yet .... there's just been a long campaign where the main gripe (even from many no voters) was that the source of the problem was Westminster - and yet there's been no audible calls from Scotland for the reform of Westminster aside from what some would like Westminster to hand directly over.

So Scotland thinks PR is great, and that Westminster is shit - but does nothing to try and join those ideas together into a positive-for-itself situation. Something stinks!

That doesn't mean they couldn't have made better use of it in my opinion, but it would be hard to argue that free personal care, free prescriptions, no tuition fees are bad things.

They have also been able to effectively magic away the bedroom tax.

all these things have been at the expense of other things - and ironically, it's often been the poorest (who the yes-ers often claimed would be beneficiaries of indy) who have paid the price for what have mostly been luxuries for the middle classes.

And then the same yes-ers point at much the same (pandering to the middle classes) happening in England and say how nasty a thing it is to see.

I keep saying that there's so very many similarities between what's gone on around the SNP and what goes on around UKIP - cos in both cases their supporters imagine the party they're supporting stand for particular things when there's often plenty to show that doesn't hold true.

Their real appeal is that they're not "the other party's" and their policies are whichever set of words a supporter chooses to focus on while ignoring all the inconvenient bits.

And just to make it clear, I'm not suggesting that their policies are particularly similar, only that their methods of operation, and the reasons for each of their support, is.

Neither am I trying to suggest that rUK is in the same political groove as Scotland - but that's because Scotland has headed down a path and doesn't much care what it's leaving behind, or what it might encourage to follow it. (If you chose to do something separately, it's a bit rich to then complain that you're separate ).

Edited October 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

I keep saying that there's so very many similarities between what's gone on around the SNP and what goes on around UKIP - cos in both cases their supporters imagine the party they're supporting stand for particular things when there's often plenty to show that doesn't hold true.

Their real appeal is that they're not "the other party's" and their policies are whichever set of words a supporter chooses to focus on while ignoring all the inconvenient bits.

And just to make it clear, I'm not suggesting that their policies are particularly similar, only that their methods of operation, and the reasons for each of their support, is.

Neither am I trying to suggest that rUK is in the same political groove as Scotland - but that's because Scotland has headed down a path and doesn't much care what it's leaving behind, or what it might encourage to follow it. (If you chose to do something separately, it's a bit rich to then complain that you're separate ).

Yup, you keep pointing out the alleged similarities between the SNP & UKIP. Keeping saying something doesn't make it right

Not for the first time I feel obliged to leap to the defence of the SNP - a party that I am not a member of & probably will never be a member of..

So first of all...credit where credit is due - there are some similarities - so let me acknowledge them

Both parties are not the tories or labour so if you are fed up with both of them Ukip and or SNP are potentially a way to say "up yours" to the the Westminster 2.

Both are hostile to alien "governments" who they claim are not acting in the interests of the country they claim to represent.

And frankly that is where the similarities end.

So what about the differences.

One puts up posters specifically targeting "foreigners" for "stealing our jobs". the other proposes to invite more foreigners into the country to work here.

One can only gain representatives in European elections due to PR , the other has had elected MP's at Westminster continuously for over 40 years.

One feeds on "British Nationalism" , the other has consciously moved away from ethnic nationalism to embrace civic nationalism. (as is accepted by pretty much every serious commentator on modern Scottish politics)

One is overwhelmingly represented by reactionary old gits in suits whilst the other reflects the whole spectrum of society & positively welcomes diversity.

One has a constant stream of resignations as it becomes clear that they are predominantly a bit racist - the other doesn't

Oh & one has ssuccessfullygoverned a small country for several years & the other ...

So yes, Neil there are similarities just as there are similarities between me & Hitler - we both have the same number of legs - but I think you need to get real here. Criticise the SNP for getting their priorities wrong, criticise them for not fleshing out enough detail in their Indy plans, but please don't criticise them for being like Ukip - its just silly

[eFestivals]

Yup, you keep pointing out the alleged similarities between the SNP & UKIP. Keeping saying something doesn't make it right

and keep refuting it doesn't make it wrong.....

So first of all...credit where credit is due - there are some similarities - so let me acknowledge them

... as you've now acknowledged, in part at least.

And frankly that is where the similarities end.

Not so.

For many of each party's supporters, no matter a person's past supposed political leanings, they can find enough in what is claimed by UKIP or the SNP to support - even tho what they believe that party to stand for doesn't necessarily hold up.

You'll find plenty of people claim that UKIP stands for 'the common man' or even 'the working man', when for anyone whose brain is working they're more tory than the tories.

And you'll find plenty of claims of the greater left leanings of the SNP than Labour, tho there's much more to the SNP that shows them as having greater right leanings than Labour.

These things are not to the same extent with both parties, that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is about the self-deception that goes on with many of their supporters, who look for what they can support and try to ignore the inconvenient bits (often to the extent that they deny they exist at all).

They end up as being much less supported for what they really stand for, and instead have a large support of what might be called "antis" - people who support them because of what they are not (the other parties) rather than for what they are.

So yes, Neil there are similarities just as there are similarities between me & Hitler - we both have the same number of legs - but I think you need to get real here.

and I think you need to put away the automatic defence/rejection system, and stand back and try to take a properly considered view. Or even just properly read my words so that you haven't worded your response before you've finished reading the first sentence.

I've read countless opinions of the views of yes-ers, in both the mainstream media and the yes-supporting 'press'. It's those views that make clear that what I've said above is a large part of what is going on, that it's much the same as what goes on around UKIP (as becomes clear from the comments of their supporters).

It's more about disillusionment in others than support for those parties.

criticise the SNP for getting their priorities wrong, criticise them for not fleshing out enough detail in their Indy plans, but please don't criticise them for being like Ukip - its just silly

Critisise my words on what I've actually said rather than what you decide I'm saying by not having listened to what i've said. That's REALLY silly.

If you were listening, you'd have realised that I'm not talking about the SNP (or UKIP) with my words, but am instead listening to and talking about both's supporters.

Edited October 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

So anyway, I see the SNP have decided to change the tax regime in Scotland on the basis of helping the poorest at the expense of the richest. How does that actually stand up...?

Well, the stamp duty changes put the stamp duty threshold at above the price of the average Scottish house, meaning that it's those who are around median-average earners that are the greatest beneficiaries - and not a single "poor" person gets any benefit, because there's no benefit to those buying the cheaper houses, who already paid no stamp duty.

The SNP enacting policies to benefit the middle classes, and not helping the poorest as a left-leaning party would do? Who'd have thought it.

(.... and people in Scotland complain about the Labour party pandering to the middle classes, saying that Labour has deserted Scotland's poor ....)

I'll be interested to see if the denial I've mentioned in my previous post comes out to play about this policy that's a wonderful example of a nuLabour-ism from the SNP.

----

Having said that, as part of a range of tax changes, it's an idea that in theory I might support. After all, greater taxes on the rich is the only answer if salary reductions for the rich aren't going to happen.

And yet the whole thing can't be closed off from the rest of the world, and especially not from the country next door to where any Scot has the easiest of access ... the ground has been laid for a future Scotland, and sections of society will be seeing it as a future they don't much like and will consider their options. As will potential new migrants to Scotland, whose relocation north has just become less attractive.

And so a greater tax burden, tho hidden, has been placed just where the policy suggests it hasn't been. Blair would be proud of it.

[gary1979666]

One can only gain representatives in European elections due to PR , the other has had elected MP's at Westminster continuously for over 40 years.

Sadly no longer true!

[lost]

Shock for me was the other by election..

Heywood and Middleton:

Liz McInnes (Lab) 11,633 (40.9%)

John Bickley (UKIP) 11,016 (38.7)

Iain Gartside (Con) 3,496 (12.3%)

Anthony Smith (LibDem) 1,457 (5.1%)

UKIP lost Heywood and Middleton by 617 votes, voting Tory let labour in. Throws up some big questions ahead of the general election.

[eFestivals]

Shock for me was the other by election..

Heywood and Middleton:

Liz McInnes (Lab) 11,633 (40.9%)

John Bickley (UKIP) 11,016 (38.7)

Iain Gartside (Con) 3,496 (12.3%)

Anthony Smith (LibDem) 1,457 (5.1%)

UKIP lost Heywood and Middleton by 617 votes, voting Tory let labour in. Throws up some big questions ahead of the general election.

Not too many, I reckon.

This was a bye-election, remember, and they throw up weird results that are rarely matched at general elections.

This was a Labour seat that Labour held in a bye election (where people often vote oddly) with a low turnout.

UKIP keep claiming that they get lots of Labour support, yet the vast majority of those are people who haven't voted since 1997 (tho that was probably less of the case in this bye election cos of the standard weird voting thing).

The tory vote slumped, the Labour vote held up (it actually increased its percentage support).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heywood_and_Middleton_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29#Elections_in_the_2010s

If it look bad for anyone, it's the tories it looks bad for.

[lost]

If it look bad for anyone, it's the tories it looks bad for.

That's exactly what I was thinking.. If those Tories think they have no chance of winning and switch to ukip tactically.

I'm thinking of seats near me. Northern areas which de- industrialised in the 80's which the Tories have no chance of winning.. They now have large numbers of unskilled distribution jobs that the eastern Europeans excel at and we also had the recent child grooming scandal in Rotherham which seems to be spreading to investigations in other areas

[LJS]

So anyway, I see the SNP have decided to change the tax regime in Scotland on the basis of helping the poorest at the expense of the richest. How does that actually stand up...?

Well, the stamp duty changes put the stamp duty threshold at above the price of the average Scottish house, meaning that it's those who are around median-average earners that are the greatest beneficiaries - and not a single "poor" person gets any benefit, because there's no benefit to those buying the cheaper houses, who already paid no stamp duty.

The SNP enacting policies to benefit the middle classes, and not helping the poorest as a left-leaning party would do? Who'd have thought it.

(.... and people in Scotland complain about the Labour party pandering to the middle classes, saying that Labour has deserted Scotland's poor ....)

I'll be interested to see if the denial I've mentioned in my previous post comes out to play about this policy that's a wonderful example of a nuLabour-ism from the SNP.

----

Having said that, as part of a range of tax changes, it's an idea that in theory I might support. After all, greater taxes on the rich is the only answer if salary reductions for the rich aren't going to happen.

And yet the whole thing can't be closed off from the rest of the world, and especially not from the country next door to where any Scot has the easiest of access ... the ground has been laid for a future Scotland, and sections of society will be seeing it as a future they don't much like and will consider their options. As will potential new migrants to Scotland, whose relocation north has just become less attractive.

And so a greater tax burden, tho hidden, has been placed just where the policy suggests it hasn't been. Blair would be proud of it.

Not quite sure what great social change he could have introduced through stamp duty. As I said before, in many ways giving us a couple of piddling taxes to play with is in many ways worse than giving us Nome at all.

That having been said, I don't have any issues with the levels he's pitched stamp duty at.

[LJS]

and keep refuting it doesn't make it wrong.....

... as you've now acknowledged, in part at least.

Not so.

For many of each party's supporters, no matter a person's past supposed political leanings, they can find enough in what is claimed by UKIP or the SNP to support - even tho what they believe that party to stand for doesn't necessarily hold up.

You'll find plenty of people claim that UKIP stands for 'the common man' or even 'the working man', when for anyone whose brain is working they're more tory than the tories.

And you'll find plenty of claims of the greater left leanings of the SNP than Labour, tho there's much more to the SNP that shows them as having greater right leanings than Labour.

These things are not to the same extent with both parties, that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is about the self-deception that goes on with many of their supporters, who look for what they can support and try to ignore the inconvenient bits (often to the extent that they deny they exist at all).

They end up as being much less supported for what they really stand for, and instead have a large support of what might be called "antis" - people who support them because of what they are not (the other parties) rather than for what they are.

and I think you need to put away the automatic defence/rejection system, and stand back and try to take a properly considered view. Or even just properly read my words so that you haven't worded your response before you've finished reading the first sentence.

I've read countless opinions of the views of yes-ers, in both the mainstream media and the yes-supporting 'press'. It's those views that make clear that what I've said above is a large part of what is going on, that it's much the same as what goes on around UKIP (as becomes clear from the comments of their supporters).

It's more about disillusionment in others than support for those parties.

Critisise my words on what I've actually said rather than what you decide I'm saying by not having listened to what i've said. That's REALLY silly.

If you were listening, you'd have realised that I'm not talking about the SNP (or UKIP) with my words, but am instead listening to and talking about both's supporters.

I think the day when Ukip win their first Westminster seat is a good day to compare the reasons why people vote for each party & 35 years ago when the Snp were winning their first byelections, they could be compared to Ukip now. Largely a single issue party & often a protest vote more than anything else.

Now they are in the middle of their second term in government in Scotland & whilst , no doubt, some people will vote for them because they are not Labour or Tories, many more are judging them on their record. The fact that they tend to do less well in Westminster elections than in Holyrood suggests to me they are less a party of protest than you suggest.

[eFestivals]

That's exactly what I was thinking.. If those Tories think they have no chance of winning and switch to ukip tactically.

which will 100% ensure a Labour victory, as they'll end up as the biggest party.

I'm thinking of seats near me. Northern areas which de- industrialised in the 80's which the Tories have no chance of winning.. They now have large numbers of unskilled distribution jobs that the eastern Europeans excel at and we also had the recent child grooming scandal in Rotherham which seems to be spreading to investigations in other areas

Rotherham is a seat that Labour might well lose as a result of that scandal, but that'll be a special instance.

It's quite possible that UKIP will take a few other seats from Labour too, but any impact on Labour will be much magnified onto the tories - where UKIP votes will cause Labour to win from the tories in many instances.

What i don't get is how so many ex-Labour voters reconsile themselves to the idea that UKIP supports many similar things, when they're clearly more tory than the tories - how are these people not noticing that it's the ultra-right-wing tories that have defected to them, and not 'wet' tories.

[eFestivals]

Not quite sure what great social change he could have introduced through stamp duty.

Well, for instance, they could have bumped up stamp duty on the rich but kept the current threshold in the same place - and that would have given extra money to spend on the poor.

Instead, it's something that is only to the advantage of the middle classes, with nothing for the poor.

As I said before, in many ways giving us a couple of piddling taxes to play with is in many ways worse than giving us Nome at all.

we're both agreed on that one.

That having been said, I don't have any issues with the levels he's pitched stamp duty at.

so you don't have any issues with tax cuts for the middle classes and nothing for the poor.

That's EXACTLY what you're saying in this policy's effect.

I'll take this moment to remind you of the views you were posting when you first joined this thread, that you wished to see more done for the poor.

And also that Scotland was solidly for the idea of doing more for the poor.

Your "don't have any issues" shows that your views have changed or that you're not making proper consideration.

And Scotland's silence about there being nothing for the poor shows that Scotland is NOT solidly behind the idea of doing more for the poor.

Yes, I know this is only small beer in the scheme of things, but it's still indicative of what's gone on (see my UKIP comments above! ) - cos it's one of many of the same, that so many in Scotland who say (or, at least, have said) one thing don't condemn the opposite to what they've said and instead give it their implicit approval.

Edited October 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I think the day when Ukip win their first Westminster seat is a good day to compare the reasons why people vote for each party

That's exactly what i've done above.

And people vote for them in very many cases NOT because they support their policies.

For example, you've just voiced your support for an SNP policy which is at odds with the views you posted around the beginning of the year - so do you support the SNP policies that benefit the middle classes, or do you support more being done for the poor? The two are not compatible with this specific policy.

See what I mean?

Exactly the same goes on with UKIP supporters. They don't match things up.

Edited October 10, 2014 by eFestivals

[LondonTom]

What i don't get is how so many ex-Labour voters reconsile themselves to the idea that UKIP supports many similar things, when they're clearly more tory than the tories - how are these people not noticing that it's the ultra-right-wing tories that have defected to them, and not 'wet' tories.

I'd guess that its Labour/Tory (Labour especially) saying nothing about the EU/Imigration. I reckon if they argued the case, they could actually win, it its just they seem scared to take it on.

Something like policies on stopping employers paying lower wages to imigrants (living wage rather minimum wage would be a start at this I guess) and in Newham/London at least something to stop landlords being able to cram stupid amounts of people into one house at the lower end of the market or just sorting housing out properly. I'd imagine would kill off most UKIP support among the working classes, instead of just trying to claim everyone who supports UKIP is a massive racist and fruitcake. (Their MPs/membership may well be but I don't think most people who vote UKIP really think about it much.)

[eFestivals]

I'd guess that its Labour/Tory (Labour especially) saying nothing about the EU/Imigration. I reckon if they argued the case, they could actually win, it its just they seem scared to take it on.

Immigration and the EU are of course in the mix to some extent, but it goes much bigger than that, from the comments I read under newspaper articles. These people often end up saying that UKIP policy is the direct opposite to what all indications say it will be.

You can't actually pin UKIP down to any policies, because they don't actually have any! This is a big part of how they pull off their trick.

It's different with the SNP/Scottish independence, tho ends up being quite similar all the same. During the indy campaign there were loads of claims about how Scotland would be better as an independent nation, but very few of these claims were actually made by the SNP. But .... the SNP didn't ever get explicit enough with things (preferring instead the rhetoric that went down so well in many quarters) in many directions (including rebutting what so many were saying that couldn't have passed them by), which allowed these claims to gain a status well-beyond anything that could be stood up against the facts. By allowing these claims to stand, they got a lot of support they probably* wouldn't otherwise have got.

(* has to be a 'probably' there, rather than certain, because for so many the belief in [just] indy itself became the over-riding thing as the campaign went on, rather than anything that indy might have delivered).

Something like policies on stopping employers paying lower wages to imigrants (living wage rather minimum wage would be a start at this I guess) and in Newham/London at least something to stop landlords being able to cram stupid amounts of people into one house at the lower end of the market or just sorting housing out properly. I'd imagine would kill off most UKIP support among the working classes, instead of just trying to claim everyone who supports UKIP is a massive racist and fruitcake. (Their MPs/membership may well be but I don't think most people who vote UKIP really think about it much.)

That's an idea which makes a lot of sense, but sense isn't coming into it - that's really what i'm getting at.

Many of these people have stopped listening to 'the normal parties' so anything those trad parties might say isn't really too likely to woo those people back. But those people are also not listening (or paying attention) to what their alternative choice of party is saying either.

At the end of the day, the fact that their new choice of party is not one of those old parties is all it's needing - and they make up their own ideas to reconcile what they really might think inside with what that party really stands for.

These 'new' parties don't have any answers. They're disillusionist parties for the politically disillusioned.

[eFestivals]

PS: I'm of course not suggesting that's how it works for every individual, and the age-maturity of the SNP means they of course have plenty of genuine support; it's the newer converts to the SNP's ideas which don't actually hold the SNP's ideas.

[kaosmark2]

I think the claims about UKIP winning a seat making waves in UK politics are ridiculous. The Greens won a seat in an actual GE without a by-election and a party-switch by an incumbent and they're still being talked about as irrelevant. I don't think UKIP's influence is much larger. Bigger rise in recent years maybe, but I suspect in share of the vote and seats they'll be pretty similar next year.

It'll still be a 2+1 with a few smaller parties getting the odd seat.

As Neil said earlier, by-elections throw up weird results. The future balance of politics will take at least 3 GEs to swing without an electoral system change (and tbh, it'll probably require 4+ to get another chance at a new voting system).

[eFestivals]

I'm hoping that the rise of UKIP will help bring about PR for Westminster - yes, the swivel-eyed loons might have a use after all.

The price to be paid for that will be some unhealthily large support via PR for UKIP - tho only initially, I think. In much the same way as PR has opened up the political possibilities for Scotland, it will do much the same for Westminster - tho as with Scotland it will take a while to get into its stride with that. So any large UKIP benefit will be short-term.

[LJS]

So anyway, I see the SNP have decided to change the tax regime in Scotland on the basis of helping the poorest at the expense of the richest. How does that actually stand up...?

Well, the stamp duty changes put the stamp duty threshold at above the price of the average Scottish house, meaning that it's those who are around median-average earners that are the greatest beneficiaries - and not a single "poor" person gets any benefit, because there's no benefit to those buying the cheaper houses, who already paid no stamp duty.

The SNP enacting policies to benefit the middle classes, and not helping the poorest as a left-leaning party would do? Who'd have thought it.

from the herald...

Swinney's stamp duty revamp is tax on middle classes, say estate agents

Just a small correction of a factual innacuracy, Neil.

the average house price in Scotland is £162,122, the threshhold for the new property tax is £135,000.

so your statement above (the stamp duty changes put the stamp duty threshold at above the price of the average Scottish house) is completely wrong. And of course as in the rest of the UK there are significant regional differences in house prices so in some areas the average price will be even further above the threshold.

The only way this tax could be genuinely redistributive is if John Swinney had increased the total tax take & then spent that money on something that benefits the less affluent sectors of society. But this tax only raises about £440m so any extra revenue is not going to be significant & not worth the grief when the middle classes kick & scream.

What it is in another unremarkable & perfectly sensible move from the SNP. You continue to feel the need to try & frame everything they do as if they are all little McThatcherites. Not for the first time, you just end up looking a wee bit silly.

[Comfy Bean]

all these things have been at the expense of other things - and ironically, it's often been the poorest (who the yes-ers often claimed would be beneficiaries of indy) who have paid the price for what have mostly been luxuries for the middle classes.

And then the same yes-ers point at much the same (pandering to the middle classes) happening in England and say how nasty a thing it is to see.

Neil, I`ve been around these excellent boards long enough to realise that you are not a fan of Dave or the Tories. I know, you know, that the Bedroom Tax only affects those poor folks living below the " needs allowance " and in Local Authority Housing. Can you not bring yourself to congratulate the SNP ( Salmond in your world at that time ) for diverting funds at the expense of other things as you point out.. to save the poorest in Scotland from losing up to 25% of their housing benefit where they had spare rooms. You have continually ignored links that I have posted on how they ran a programme round my way to insulate the homes of those living in fuel poverty but specifically on the Bedroom Tax in Scotland : do you congratulate Salmond on this policy that bucks the westminster trend of " austerity " ? Years ago he effectively abolished the bedroom tax.

To do otherwise ( not congratulate ) would make me question your balanced view on all other things Indy.

I keep saying that there's so very many similarities between what's gone on around the SNP and what goes on around UKIP - cos in both cases their supporters imagine the party they're supporting stand for particular things when there's often plenty to show that doesn't hold true.

I`m not sure on how you think there are similarities with their supporters ?

Your the one with the crystal ball but I would predict with confidence that nowhere in Scotland would UKIP win a seat under a first past the post system - nowhere. I feel your shame, " we " voted to return power to the Westminster establishment when we had the chance to do things ( differently ) for ourselves

On Sunday, 1000`s will gather in George Sq, Glasgow for a " Hope " rally with speakers and bands. The dream will never die

Edited October 10, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910