The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

Today, I'm rather fucked off with Sturgeon.

Instead of putting Salmond back in his box and telling the loser to shut his trap, Sturgeon has expressed her delight at Salmond campaigning in England for the tories.

And to add to her idiocy, she's seemingly demanded PR of Labour, which guarantees it won't happen unless its explicitly stated in Labour's manifesto when it's published on 2nd April. No matter how sound an idea is, Labour cannot be seen to be on the SNP's string.

Whereas if she'd not let Salmond loose to gain the tories votes, and kept quiet on PR to let the vote distribution drive the idea home with the electorate, there might have been a chance of having it. She's surely killed it instead.

It's all very well knowing how to pull the strings of religious fanatics, but there's more than that at play here.

I'm a little surprised at your disappointment as according to you the SNP are irrelevant & voting for them will lead to a Tory government so quite why you would care about their policies is a mystery to me.

However let me reassure you. Here's what she said about Salmond.

In an interview with Holyrood magazine published to coincide with the start of the SNP conference in Glasgow, she described Mr Salmond as an “asset” to the SNP and insisted his interventions over the past week have complemented hers.

But she said she would “make sure” she was in London to take charge of “any negotiations” with Labour and she would decide the party’s demands while Mr Salmond and the other SNP MPs “on a day-to-day basis in the House of Commons will be the ones doing the work.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11501429/Nicola-Sturgeon-I-will-lead-Labour-talks-while-Alex-Salmond-does-day-to-day-work.html

Do remember he is currently flogging a book so its hardly surprising he is trying to grab as many headlines as he can.

& here's what she said about PR

Ours will also be a voice for democratic reform.

We'll push for a fair voting system to be back on the agenda.

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/mar/nicola-sturgeons-address-snp-conference

Hardly a red line there.

It will surprise you to learn that I was neither in Glasgow in person to worship at The Blessed Nicola's feet not was i watching her speech with a glass of Buckfast in hand. However having now read the text, I find it hard to find much to disagree with in it. And if you are able to read it with an open mind, I can't imagine you would either in the stuff that applies UK wide.

Add this into the mix...

THE SNP will today make restoring a 50p top rate of income tax a manifesto promise for the coming election.

Deputy leader Stewart Hosie will give the commitment in his address to the party's spring conference in Glasgow this afternoon.

The change means SNP MPs would support Labour's plan to restore the 50p rate in the next budget - a further indication of SNP willingness to cooperate with Ed Miliband in a hung parliament.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/snp-promise-to-restore-50p-top-rate-of-income-tax-hints-at-co-operation-w.121877657

...and there is really nothing not to like about the SNP's GE pitch.

All we need now is for Labour to confirm (as the SNP have) that they will vote down any Tory minority Government.

Edited March 29, 2015 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

Today, I'm rather fucked off with Sturgeon.

Today !?!?!?!?!?!?

Is this because of the higher rate tax introduction now confirmed ? I know you mocked those who believed it would happen ( most recently 13/3 ) but like the decision not to reduce corp tax you should just accept ( or applaud ) the direction she is going in

103,000 members now and the only party I have heard ruling out ANY deal with the Tories. No sign of Jimbo today. Another pesky issue around his expenses again so keeping his head down. Not good alongside his work last week cutting ribbons at foodbanks.

Edited March 29, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

Today, I'm rather fucked off with Sturgeon.

Instead of putting Salmond back in his box and telling the loser to shut his trap, Sturgeon has expressed her delight at Salmond campaigning in England for the tories.

And to add to her idiocy, she's seemingly demanded PR of Labour, which guarantees it won't happen unless its explicitly stated in Labour's manifesto when it's published on 2nd April. No matter how sound an idea is, Labour cannot be seen to be on the SNP's string.

Whereas if she'd not let Salmond loose to gain the tories votes, and kept quiet on PR to let the vote distribution drive the idea home with the electorate, there might have been a chance of having it. She's surely killed it instead.

It's all very well knowing how to pull the strings of religious fanatics, but there's more than that at play here.

Or......last Sunday, Salmond destroyed the one and only line Jim Murphy offered. Vote Tory Get SNP was wiped out across a sunday morning`s tv studios plus a book got plugged as LJS rightly pointed out. Meanwhile NS was back home taking care of business. She knows Salmond gets the coverage from your right wing raging press and it seems to have assured some soft ex labour voters up my way.

She puts PR in the headlines as well as keeping the Trident renewal in the press and your hatred of all things SNP leads you to paint these as bad things

" her idiocy "

[Comfy Bean]

So .... it's now proven that Salmond lost the indy campaign more votes than 'the vow' gained votes against it.

And i'm guessing that snippers are liking immigration more than a little less now.

Not at all sir. I think you totally misjudge feelings North of the border. Personally I`m delighted with the official SNP response.

A MAJORITY of voters born in Scotland said Yes to independence.

But nearly three-quarters of people from elsewhere in the UK voted No.

The biggest study yet of how Scotland made its historic decision on September 18 has found that the votes of people born outside Scotland were crucial to the result.

How the electorate voted (by place of birth) - [blue = YES] [Green = NO]

While 52.7 per cent of native-born Scots voted Yes, a massive 72.1 per cent of voters from England, Wales or Northern Ireland backed the Union.

There were more than 420,000 Britons from elsewhere in the UK living in Scotland when the last census was taken.

And if they cast their ballots in line with the findings of the Edinburgh University study,

more than 300,000 of them will have voted No.

That’s a significant number in a contest that ended with 2,001,926 votes for No and 1,617,989 for Yes.

Voters born outside the UK also rejected independence, with 57.1 per cent voting No.

SNP MSP Christian Allard, who was himself born in France, said: “Scotland is the country of everyone who lives here, regardless of where they were born, and we take decisions on our future together.

“The diversity of Scotland’s population is a matter for celebration.

“While we were disappointed with the result of the referendum, this study shows that a

clear legacy has been greater political involvement, particularly among young people.

“And that is something to be proud of.”

Edited March 29, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

The word on the street is that Sturgeon is not keen to have another referendum until support for Indy is sitting at around 60% which seems a perfectly sensible policy to me

would that be the same word on the street which says the dire state of the Scotytish economy means nothing, and iScotland will be gloriously rich?

Don't make it up for yourselves, let Sturgeon say it.

Mind you, when she says Salmond campaigning for the tories is a good thing but she wants a Labvour govt, you know she's the same duplicious as Salmond, and it's all about fucking up the UK.

Edited March 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I'm a little surprised at your disappointment as according to you the SNP are irrelevant & voting for them will lead to a Tory government

what part of wanting a good and effective govt are you missing?

When Salmond goes out campaigning for the tories with Sturgeon's explicit approval, it'#s clear the SNP are not trying to give that.

so quite why you would care about their policies is a mystery to me.

because policies mean fuck all if they can't be implemented?

Sturgeon is making sure that what she suggests can't be implemented.

Here's what she said about Salmond.

she said a lot more than just that. She gave more than that one interview.

But you'd know that if you were paying attention, right? Oh.....

Do remember he is currently flogging a book so its hardly surprising he is trying to grab as many headlines as he can.

there's nothing in his book about him campiagning for a tory govt, but he's doing it anyway.

& here's what she said about PR

Hardly a red line there.

1. you have to believe she's honest. Her support for Salmond's troty campaign proves she's not.

2. you're missing the essential parts of UK politics. For a start, in rUK, the electorate don't see politics as blind-faith religion.

It will surprise you to learn that I was neither in Glasgow in person to worship at The Blessed Nicola's feet not was i watching her speech with a glass of Buckfast in hand. However having now read the text, I find it hard to find much to disagree with in it. And if you are able to read it with an open mind, I can't imagine you would either in the stuff that applies UK wide.

where did she say "the SNP nop longer want indie"?

Add this into the mix...

.... the exact opposite of what Salmond has been campigning on behalf of the tories with,

...and there is really nothing not to like about the SNP's GE pitch.

apart from their aimt to make the UK ungovernable.

All we need now is for Labour to confirm (as the SNP have) that they will vote down any Tory minority Government.

The SNP don't accept the right of any grouping of MPs in Westminster to govern. Parties that support thwe UK do.

I see you've missed that part. Why is that?

[eFestivals]

Is this because of the higher rate tax introduction now confirmed ?

in part - the dupliciousness of the SNP has been exposed again ... but surp[rise surprise you've not noticed.

I know you mocked those who believed it would happen

perhaps because just 6 months ago they were all about tax cuts for the wealthy and the poor picking up the tab?

Which you didn't notice.

( most recently 13/3 ) but like the decision not to reduce corp tax you should just accept ( or applaud ) the direction she is going in

how can dupliciousness be applauded?

Salmond has been going round saying "no tax rises", and Sturgeon said he's been sasying nothing she doersn't endorse.

Funny that, eh? She endorses no rise while endorsing a rise. Either she's insane or you have to agree about her dupliciousness.

103,000 members now

and not one of them with a brain that can face up to the tax cuts of their dreams.

No sign of Jimbo today. Another pesky issue around his expenses again

why no mention of the SNBP-ers on the same list, comfy? Funny that.

And why no mention of 50% of SNP MPs being on the fiddle last time expenses came around - a higher proportion than any other party?

[eFestivals]

Or......last Sunday, Salmond destroyed the one and only line Jim Murphy offered. Vote Tory Get SNP was wiped out across a sunday morning`s tv studios plus a book got plugged as LJS rightly pointed out. Meanwhile NS was back home taking care of business. She knows Salmond gets the coverage from your right wing raging press and it seems to have assured some soft ex labour voters up my way.

Salmond pushed up the tory support and proved Murphy correct. Haven't you noticed the polls in the last week?

And NS was back home, taking care of duplicious business, saying the opposite to Salmond.

She puts PR in the headlines as well as keeping the Trident renewal in the press and your hatred of all things SNP leads you to paint these as bad things

One daty you might discover there's more to it than goes on in your tiny mind.

I support those things as objectioves. As objectives, they come about via good campaigning and not duplicious bollocks.

What part of the tail wagging the dog aren't you getting?

And why do you think rUk is going to go along with that?

You're about to find out what English nationalism really means, and unlike the myths you work to, you'll find out what 'horrid' is really all about.

[eFestivals]

Not at all sir. I think you totally misjudge feelings North of the border. Personally I`m delighted with the official SNP response.

did their response include "Salmond lost us indy"?

Did that response also include "we accept that the people of Scotland don't want indie"?

Or did they push the line that it was only those horrid forgeigners lose Scotland its independence, by mentioning foirst about how a "MAJORITY of voters born in Scotland said Yes"?

And did that pan out into lots of expressions of hatred of theose nasty foriegners by the SNP Cybernat army?

[eFestivals]

I see that comfy's claim of the SNP "unconditionally" supporting Labour was shown as bollocvks yesterday, by a very clear demand that the SNP would have to approve all Labour policy.

In Scotland, people like you really believe the tail will wag the dog.

You're going to be surprised to find it will not pan out like that. Fancy a bet?

[Comfy Bean]

in part - the dupliciousness of the SNP has been exposed again ... but surp[rise surprise you've not noticed.perhaps because just 6 months ago they were all about tax cuts for the wealthy and the poor picking up the tab?Which you didn't notice. :lol:how can dupliciousness be applauded?Salmond has been going round saying "no tax rises", and Sturgeon said he's been sasying nothing she doersn't endorse.Funny that, eh? She endorses no rise while endorsing a rise. Either she's insane or you have to agree about her dupliciousness. and not one of them with a brain that can face up to the tax cuts of their dreams.why no mention of the SNBP-ers on the same list, comfy? Funny that.And why no mention of 50% of SNP MPs being on the fiddle last time expenses came around - a higher proportion than any other party?

I didn't know there was a list. this is on top of jimbos previous expenses problem. You and I previously helped him to buy a flat in London. Due to rule changes he now rents it out and he rents out a different flat. No prizes for guessing who pays his rent. I'm on my phone so can't link to the article but not sure why your defending the labour leader in Scotland?

[Comfy Bean]

I see that comfy's claim of the SNP "unconditionally" supporting Labour was shown as bollocvks yesterday, by a very clear demand that the SNP would have to approve all Labour policy.In Scotland, people like you really believe the tail will wag the dog.You're going to be surprised to find it will not pan out like that. Fancy a bet?

patience sir. You know fine well I didn't say the offer was unconditional..... Yet. I'm saying that I believe they will make an unconditional offer of support to form an anti tory block of MP's to lock dave out. I'm not saying I will be right but I think scotland wants dave out and with labours support this can happen. If they make an unconditional offer will you support it or would you prefer dave gets back in?

Of course labour might not need any offer but it's looking likely at the moment.

[eFestivals]

I didn't know there was a list.

and that's because you're reading the snippers-approved edited highlights, designed to keep you dumb but onside. I have mentioned this before, and more than a few times.

There is a list. It includes the SNP on the take.

this is on top of jimbos previous expenses problem.

like SNP-ers on the take same as previously, you mean...?

You and I previously helped him to buy a flat in London. Due to rule changes he now rents it out and he rents out a different flat. No prizes for guessing who pays his rent. I'm on my phone so can't link to the article but not sure why your defending the labour leader in Scotland?

Yep, I'm aware. There's 46 MPs at it, as far as I recall. And, no matter how we might regard it, it's currently allowed within the expenses rules.

The problem are the rules, rather than how some people (y0u included) might choose to interept them.

With regard to what Murphy or any of those other 45 MPs are doing, it's not necessarily quite the greedy thing you're taking it as. When the rules were different, these MPs took on mortgages that their expenses would cover; under changed rules they have to cover that cost themselves.

Because London property is so expenseive, and because they've possibly got a 'primary' property elsewhere, they have the choice of selling up that London property (which saves the tax payer nothing, and costs the tax payer nothing), or keeping that property and have that property pay it's own way thru being rented out (which saves the tax payer nothing, and costs the tax payer nothing).

I think that most of us would choose to keep an investment we already had if it could be self-financing, don't you?

(I'm not entirely sure that I would in fact, but most people think I've got a pretty strange take on these things. Most people would tajke the view that they'd be doing nothing different to others, so why shouldn't they do it too. Landlordism is hardly the worst crime of society or even within Parliament.).

Edited March 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

and that's because you're reading the snippers-approved edited highlights, designed to keep you dumb but onside. I have mentioned this before, and more than a few times.There is a list. It includes the SNP on the take. like SNP-ers on the take same as previously, you mean...? Yep, I'm aware. There's 46 MPs at it, as far as I recall. And, no matter how we might regard it, it's currently allowed within the expenses rules.The problem are the rules, rather than how some people (y0u included) might choose to interept them.With regard to what Murphy or any of those other 45 MPs are doing, it's not necessarily quite the greedy thing you're taking it as. When the rules were different, these MPs took on mortgages that their expenses would cover; under changed rules they have to cover that cost themselves.Because London property is so expenseive, and because they've possibly got a 'primary' property elsewhere, they have the choice of selling up that London property (which saves the tax payer nothing, and costs the tax payer nothing), or keeping that property and have that property pay it's own way thru being rented out (which saves the tax payer nothing, and costs the tax payer nothing).I think that most of us would choose to keep an investment we already had if it could be self-financing, don't you? (I'm not entirely sure that I would in fact, but most people think I've got a pretty strange take on these things. Most people would tajke the view that they'd be doing nothing different to others, so why shouldn't they do it too. Landlordism is hardly the worst crime of society or even within Parliament.).

As I said...I can't link just now but it was on stv news. Who's the SNP guy on the list. To be clear I'm talking about murphy new issues. We know he got done before. Do you agree that you helped buy him his first flat that he know chooses not to live in?

He's renting it out and living nearby and we are paying his rent ffs.

[eFestivals]

patience sir. You know fine well I didn't say the offer was unconditional..... Yet.

I'm pretty sure you said it was and I spent several days laughing at the idea.

I'm saying that I believe they will make an unconditional offer of support to form an anti tory block of MP's to lock dave out. I'm not saying I will be right but I think scotland wants dave out and with labours support this can happen. If they make an unconditional offer will you support it or would you prefer dave gets back in?

I say what happens is the result of how people vote and how the parties wish to do deals - or not - with each other.

If the SNP demand a price that Labour don't feel they can or should meet, then Labour will be right to tell the SNP where to shove it. You know, no different at all to how the SNP have already said the tories can offer them nothing at all which would be an acceptable price.

Why do you think what Labour decides to do should be pre-decided for it by a bunch of financial incompetents whose aim is wrecking and nothing constructive?

In my own view it's how people have voted that is what matters, not self-serving diktats by wreckers before that vote, and where the terms have yet to be stated.

[eFestivals]

As I said...I can't link just now but it was on stv news. Who's the SNP guy on the list.

SNP MP Angus McNeil - who's done the same as Murphy but pocketed more than Murphy.

(oh, and who owns three houses, compared to Murphy's two)

http://www.channel4.com/news/mps-expenses-46-claim-in-london-despite-owning-a-property

And the calls to vote against McNeil can be heard from snippers where....? :lol:

Hate Labour, obey the SNP without question.

To be clear I'm talking about murphy new issues. We know he got done before.

Do you agree that you helped buy him his first flat that he know chooses not to live in?

We helped him get a mortgage on that flat - not quite the same thing, unless you know for sure it's already all paid off?

He's renting it out and living nearby and we are paying his rent ffs.

and if he sells that house that is probably mortgaged up to the hilt which her can't afford to cover, we're still paying his rent. The same is probably true with most of those other MPs too.

I don't much like the situation, but it's a consequence of the rule changes, where those rule changes have left some people with liabilities which their wages and new expense regiume can't cover. The obvious thing just bout anyone would do in that situation is sell-up or have that asset self-finance (via renting it out).

If you'd got a house which would cover its own costs via being rented that meant in the future you got a free house via that, would you turn that opportunity away? I very much doubt it.

Edited March 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: that makes the SNP the most proportionally corrupt party in Westminster via the SNP's own rules of condemnation.

[eFestivals]

comfy made the following post in the general election thread, and as he rightly says it's better dealt with here...

No idea why you are dragging this across 2 threads

In summary, I highlighted on the Indy thread, although in fairness to Neil it is now relevant to this thread, that Jim Murphy has been exposed ( yet again ) over his expenses claim. We all bought millionaire murphy a flat in London under the old expenses arrangements. Now with the new rules he cant get the same amount of dough so he rents out this flat and has moved to a new flat which he rents out ( guess who pays his rent ).

Over on the Indy thread we have discussed Mr Murphys expenses claims before not to mention his views on Iraq, immigration, tuition fees, Israel, torture, Trident, fracking and a Commons motion signed by amongst others Tony Benn against him. I don`t " hate " the fella but at the time he was appointed I was disappointed that Scottish Labour picked him to fly up from London after the Scottish Leader resigned days after the Indy voted describing their own party as a " London branch " and I agreed with the Unions that he would be the death of the Scottish Labour party. I have also stated many times that I don`t think the SNP will get the 50seats they are polling but we are all agreed ( i think ) that there has been no " Murphy bounce ". He predicted in January that they wouldn`t lose a seat in Scotland and his latest leaflet is claiming to Scottish pensioners who live in his area that the SNP want to scrap UK pensions ( remember we voted to remain in the UK ). I highlighted this morning that Murphy was caught out ( again ) on his expenses during a week where he has been cutting ribbons at foodbanks

He currently sits on a massive majority and may well hang on but the latest tactic with the pensioners is typical of the man.

Neil continues to defend Murphy even though there is now talk of the Unions swinging in behind the SNP in Scotland. They will decide in Brighton in July. The SNP as we know have ruled out a deal with the Tories but Murphy will do no such thing. Some would say he is quite comfortable with their views on immigration, Trident, austerity etc

Neils continuing defence of Murphy is now reduced to comparing him to the SNP`s Angus McNeil ( see the Indy thread ).

This will be the Angus MacNeil he is referring to........

http://metro.co.uk/2010/08/22/mp-told-to-claim-six-times-as-much-487520/

[eFestivals]

What are you getting confused about comfy?

If there's a story here about Murphy being on the take, then there's *exactly* the same story about Angus MacNeil. They've been doing an identical thing.

They've both been 100% within the (new) expenses rules with what they've been doing.

Factual errors in your rant:-

"We all bought millionaire murphy a flat " - Factually incorrect.

The old expenses regime paid mortgage interest but did not pay down the capital sum. Therefore the taxpayer cannot be said to have bought him a flat.

However, he has of course benefited via having that flat, via house price inflation. Houses are a good investment? Who knew?

There is or was a rule where some of the gain in value in circumstances such as this have to be paid back to Parliament when the property is sold, tho I'm not clear on the detail. And, as a 2nd home it will be taxable as capital gains at sale. It's not an entirely free lunch.

But it is an opportunity to make some easy dosh for those who'd bought property's with the help of their expenses.

Issues like this will never go away entirely for all the while MPs claim expenses, because they will always take the advantagous route if it's not closed off to them - but in cases such as this "scandal" just about everyone would have done the same as these MPs, because just about everyone takes advantage of the legal opportunities they're presented with.

"Neil continues to defend Murphy" - Factually incorrect.

Nope, i'm pointing out your hypocrisy, where you condemn Murphy and give Angus MacNeil a free pass for doing EXACTLY the same thing.

I'm pointing out that you've been suckered by propagandaists, who are spinning you misinformation - LYING TO YOU - and that you're thinking those are the people who will give you a better Scotland.

"Neils continuing defence of Murphy is now reduced to comparing him to the SNP`s Angus McNeil " - Factually incorrect.

It's not "reduced" to anything. These are the facts that someone chose to hide from you, to lie to you about.

I compared them, because over this issue they're exactly the same.

What is very different here are your views, where you condemn one but give the other a free pass for doing the same thing.

FFS.

[eFestivals]

another post of comfy's from the general election thread...

I think I have backed up fine how you can`t compare Jim Murphy with Angus MacNeil. For me they could hardly be different. In fairness i dont know if I had posted the links by the time you reponded with the above.

I said in my post that I had " no idea why you were dragging this across 2 threads ". I can only assume you didn`t know the history with the 2 guys you were trying to compare. Hopefully we have been able to clear things up. Happy to take it back to Indy as you suggest That was the tread I raised it in in the first place

If anyone else has a view on The Scottish Labour leader that is relevant to the General Election then I would be interested to hear it. Think it`s worth going beyond vote SNP get Tory ( now defunked ) and addressing whether Labour should be taking any blame for their demise ( according to the polls ) in Scotland. I doubt very much that everyone thinks it`s down to the brilliance of King Alex of Salmond

[eFestivals]

you can`t compare Jim Murphy with Angus MacNeil.

You condemned Murphy for renting out his London flat and then renting another flat.

You won't condemn MacNeil for renting out his London flat and then renting another flat.

Condemnation for Murphy, a free pass for MacNeil.

What are you missing comfy, apart from a modicum of sense?

[Comfy Bean]

OK...........

Happy to amend my " rant " as follows.

We " Helped " buy millionaire Murphy a flat in Londo which he has now decided to rent out and move in to another one which he has chosen to rent not buy this time and all of us are paying towards his new rent. I would add that there is a part of me thinks he could have just stayed in the first flat. Anyone any idea on why he chose to move and rent ?

Neil continues to defend Murphy :

In fairness I`m taking your silence on the many issues I raised ( again ) on Murphy as you defending him which is perhaps unfair. Would you like to clear that up. I accept you haven`t defended him at this point and will be glad to hear your views on our Scottish Labour Leader. I am already aware of your views on NS and KAS.

Finally I don`t feel like a hypocrite for attacking Murphy. I posted various links and quotes that all seemed pretty factual to me. Fair enough if you disagree. It`s all about opinions.

[eFestivals]

Happy to amend my " rant " as follows.

We " Helped " buy three-home millionaire MacNeil a flat in Londo which he has now decided to rent out and move in to another one which he has chosen to rent not buy this time and all of us are paying towards his new rent. I would add that there is a part of me thinks he could have just stayed in the first flat. Anyone any idea on why he chose to move and rent ?

there you go, I helped you with the consistency you're struggling with.

Edited March 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Neil continues to defend Murphy :

I've never once defended him. FFS.

I've just pointed out your blatant bias-ness, where you condemn Murphy but not MacNeil - when they've done identical things.

It's both or none.

Anything else just shows how little sense comes along with your thoughts.

[Comfy Bean]

You condemned Murphy for renting out his London flat and then renting another flat.

You won't condemn MacNeil for renting out his London flat and then renting another flat.

Condemnation for Murphy, a free pass for MacNeil.

What are you missing comfy, apart from a modicum of sense?

You are cherry picking my condemnations of Murphy with what your dragging across from the GE thread

Here`s some stuff that I thought was relevant around the fella MacNeil. I await your response on the Murphy stuff that you have left over on the other thread. As I have said, me ( plus most of Scotland it would seem ) are happy to condemn Murphy for many many reasons. So far.......you are not

Angus MacNeil , the lowest-claiming backbencher in Scotland last year, has been told he can no longer charge taxpayers £252 a month for his twobedroom London flat.

Instead, he must claim up to £1,450 for a one-bedroom flat – nearly six times more. Mr MacNeil appealed to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to allow him to continue his modest claim but was told he was ‘an anomaly’.

Mr MacNeil, the nationalist MP for the Western Isles, said his ‘hardearned reputation’ for low claims had been trashed by IPSA.

He added: ‘I am gutted. I will be staying in hotels for a while until I find somewhere else and I don’t want to do that either.The biggest loser in all this is the taxpayer.’

MPs’ expenses have been under the spotlight since last year’s revelations about some of their extraordinary and extravagant claims.

Since May’s general election, IPSA has been besieged by complaints from MPs complaining that tough new rules are leaving them out of pocket.

Some 242 members have received more than £1million in interest-free emergency loans while waiting for claims to be paid out.

However, Mr MacNeil’s situation has arisen because he was claiming themortgage interest on his Lambeth flat, which he bought four years ago for £200,000 with a 95 per cent mortgage.

In the expenses shake-up, existing members who were re-elected have been banned from claiming mortgage interest to stop them from profiting on property price appreciation.

Now, he has to move out of the flat and rent it out, making him about £10,000 profit a year – but he does not want the money.

‘It is a crazy situation,’ Mr MacNeil said.

‘I have saved the taxpayers something like £37,000 over the last four years by only claiming the mortgage interest.’

However, IPSA insisted the new system was cheaper to run and saved the taxpayer £11.7million a year.

A spokesman said: ‘When you make significant changes to a system there may be a handful of cases where you have people having to claim more – and Mr MacNeil may be one of them – but these changes are based on a principle for the long-term.’

Edited March 30, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910