The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

She'd love you more than I. You said the Scots can't have socialism because it's affordable, a Thatcherite position.

when you're losing the argument you always have to resort to making it up like the good snipper you are.

Nothing that the SNP advocates is affordable, and even the SNP know it. They've described their own financial policies as "suicide".

That's the whole bleedin' point of why your countrymen rejected the SNP's fantasy world. You can only sell a turd to the very very stupid.

I post how I'd be okay with very wealthy Londoners paying more tax to pay for the London poor and that's a Thatcherite position?

Where did matey say anything about paying more tax?

Matey is taking the SNP line, that money will rain from heaven when London gets to keep all it's own taxes.

And unlike the SNP line, London actually has the money to cause that rain.

And that's because it pays more in taxes than it gets back, because currently it'#s sending lots of it's money north, and that travelling doesn't stop at your imaginary line.

Which bit of GERS are still having trouble with?

It's not the Thatcher I remember and if it were she might not be as widely hated as we all pretended she was.

Thatcher would have loved the SNP. Thatcher, just like the SNP, was all about people paying themselves for what they use and not leeching off others.

Which for Scotland means you'd stop getting that £10Bn transfer from rUK each year, and will have to live on your own money.

SNP policy matches UKIP policy here (one big Thatcherist love-in), tho the SNP haven't got the bottle to follow thru because they know even those as daft as you will wise up to them having been bullshitting.

[eFestivals]

That doesn't really address the question. Unless I am mistaken the costs of major London infrastructure projects comes out of UK wide budgets, no doubts under whatever version of pfi we currently use. In other words, we will all be paying for them for decades to come.

London & the south east gets shit loads of transport spending, but gets fuck-all agricultural subsidies. Etc, etc, etc.

Which funnily enough gets to mean that even with all of those infrastructure costs carried by (just) London, London is still more than paying it's way.

And anyway, if you're going to keep using this argument as somehow supportive of Scotland you'll need to get Alex to get the costs written back into GERS.

Or do the rules only work to your advantage, every time? Is that the new better Scottish politics really only a better way of lying?

(I know it's inconvenient for your arguments but it should be pointed out that "London's" infrastructure spending directly benefits nearly 50% of the UK's population on a daily basis, so that "shit loads" is not actually "shit loads" on a proportional basis. I just thought I'd share that with you, so you have an extra fact to continually ignore, just as you always ignore the fact of these spends being removed from GERS)

[LJS]

London & the south east gets shit loads of transport spending, but gets fuck-all agricultural subsidies. Etc, etc, etc.

Which funnily enough gets to mean that even with all of those infrastructure costs carried by (just) London, London is still more than paying it's way.

And anyway, if you're going to keep using this argument as somehow supportive of Scotland you'll need to get Alex to get the costs written back into GERS.

Or do the rules only work to your advantage, every time? Is that the new better Scottish politics really only a better way of lying?

(I know it's inconvenient for your arguments but it should be pointed out that "London's" infrastructure spending directly benefits nearly 50% of the UK's population on a daily basis, so that "shit loads" is not actually "shit loads" on a proportional basis. I just thought I'd share that with you, so you have an extra fact to continually ignore, just as you always ignore the fact of these spends being removed from GERS)

As ever Neil, I have learned so much from you. Until now I believed that Balham's banana plantations & Fulham's fig orchards received massive subsidies at my expense. We'll, you live & learn.

Now, I wonder if you can continue my education by exposing how nearly 50% of us benifit from all the dosh spent in London.

I know you wouldn't bandy about stats like "nearly 50%" unless you had hard facts to back them up.

[eFestivals]

Now, I wonder if you can continue my education by exposing how nearly 50% of us benifit from all the dosh spent in London.

Around 50% of the UK population lives in London and the South East/home counties/easily commutable areas.

(not forgetting those who communte from the likes of Devon & Cornwall, even [i've met plenty] ... the numbers commuting from Bristol, even, are astounding!)

All of the dosh you attribute to London for transport isn't actually all spent within just London. Some (much?) of it stretches beyond the GLC boundaries.

And it's very definitely serving people from further afield than London, by making public transport into London for those outside viable, and taking load of the roads in those surrounding areas (not that you'd know it, given the 30+ mile rush-hour queues sometimes nowadays)

I'm guessing that you have little idea of just how full the roads, trains, tubes, coaches, and buses are in London and into London (you can barely get onto the train, there's no chance of a seat if you live within 40 miles). I used to go to London regularly; I've worked in London, driving in every day; I do my utmost to avoid the place nowadays, because I find those levels of under-capacity a nightmare that should be avoided at all costs.

Now, you can rail all you like about the fuck-ups in policy which took London to where it is, but it is where it is and that needs to be managed. The spend is crisis management (and still failing to deal with demand), it's not plush upgrades for pampered richies.

I know you wouldn't bandy about stats like "nearly 50%" unless you had hard facts to back them up.

Check the UK population distribution.

50% of the UK is essentially London-dependent.

[eFestivals]

according to here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England

there's approx 23M within what it defines as 'south east', 'greater London', and 'east' - which are roughly the areas that have a sizeable 'London dependency' as the commuter areas.

It's not quite as many as I'd thought, but it's getting close to 50% of England.

[gary1979666]

I think you're stretching it by those figures, would say you can count the 17m from London and the SE directly benefitting on a regular basis. But I wouldn't be surprised if the amount who benefit from farther afield on a less regular basis is a lot higher than the 50%. Think of the businesses / tourists who use the London airports / Eurostar or even come into a London station and back out again. Then there's those who indirectly benefit from London's investment - ie the jobs in the regions of branches of London firms.

Not sure how you can even get close to estimating this figure, but it's clearly naive to assume that it doesn't provide a wide spread benefit. Not saying it doesn't cause issues either, far from perfect, but London gives a lot of value to the uk as a whole.

[LJS]

Around 50% of the UK population lives in London and the South East/home counties/easily commutable areas.

(not forgetting those who communte from the likes of Devon & Cornwall, even [i've met plenty] ... the numbers commuting from Bristol, even, are astounding!)

All of the dosh you attribute to London for transport isn't actually all spent within just London. Some (much?) of it stretches beyond the GLC boundaries.

And it's very definitely serving people from further afield than London, by making public transport into London for those outside viable, and taking load of the roads in those surrounding areas (not that you'd know it, given the 30+ mile rush-hour queues sometimes nowadays)

I'm guessing that you have little idea of just how full the roads, trains, tubes, coaches, and buses are in London and into London (you can barely get onto the train, there's no chance of a seat if you live within 40 miles). I used to go to London regularly; I've worked in London, driving in every day; I do my utmost to avoid the place nowadays, because I find those levels of under-capacity a nightmare that should be avoided at all costs.

Now, you can rail all you like about the fuck-ups in policy which took London to where it is, but it is where it is and that needs to be managed. The spend is crisis management (and still failing to deal with demand), it's not plush upgrades for pampered richies.

Check the UK population distribution.

50% of the UK is essentially London-dependent.

My brother lived in London for many years & I have visited it mny times. Most recently, a couple of years ago. I know what it's like & can imagine few things worse than spending 3 or 4 hours a day commuting to and from work.

Whether investing billions to enable more & more people to commute from further & further away is sensible is highly debatable, in my view.

However, any other policy would require a government prepared to interfere in the workings of the free market, so it's fanciful nonsense, sadly.

[eFestivals]

I think you're stretching it by those figures, would say you can count the 17m from London and the SE directly benefitting on a regular basis.

Look at the map on that page i linked to. If the SE should be included then 'East' definitely should too.

Just as plenty commute daily from the likes of Portsmouth and Southampton and Brighton, plenty commute daily from Petersborough and Ely and King Lynn.

I wasn't trying to stretch it, which is precisely why I shot down my own initial claim of 50%. I've lived in the SE most of my life, so i know exactly how it works with everything London-centric.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the amount who benefit from farther afield on a less regular basis is a lot higher than the 50%. Think of the businesses / tourists who use the London airports / Eurostar or even come into a London station and back out again. Then there's those who indirectly benefit from London's investment - ie the jobs in the regions of branches of London firms.

Yep, it's a big pull.

As an example, the morning trains to London from Bristol are standing room only, and there's regular kick-offs about it.

(while people commuted from Bristol 30 years ago, it wasn't in anything like the same numbers).

Like it or not, London's draw has grown while the population in and around London has also grown (by 40% in the last 30 years)... while the population of Scotland stays pretty static and so doesn't need extra infrastructure at anything like the same rate per head.

This isn't me arguing that everything has been or is being done right with London things, it's simply a recognition of how things are. The spend is much more justified than many people in Scotland want to accept.

Not sure how you can even get close to estimating this figure, but it's clearly naive to assume that it doesn't provide a wide spread benefit. Not saying it doesn't cause issues either, far from perfect, but London gives a lot of value to the uk as a whole.

Yep.

[viberunner]

Where did matey say anything about paying more tax?

The rest of your post was just a lot of vented hot air but this was an actual question.

I believe we should look at London having greater control over income tax. We need the powers over our wealth to deal with the tragedy of our poverty.

And that seemed the crux of his argument. I even highlighted it.

But you being you you skim to the end eager for an opportunity to vent.

[Stash]

The rest of your post was just a lot of vented hot air but this was an actual question.

And that seemed the crux of his argument. I even highlighted it.

But you being you you skim to the end eager for an opportunity to vent.

He actually doesn't mention increasing the rate of taxation, just that he wishes to see more control over tax for London, so that they can spend the wealth they generate rather than pass it all on to other regions.

[eFestivals]

And that seemed the crux of his argument. I even highlighted it.

But you being you you skim to the end eager for an opportunity to vent.

he's talking about London keeping more of the tax money it already pays.

You know, the SNP's lie turned into reality, that keeping the money from that area would make that area gloriously rich.

This is how nationalism plays out. Me me me me. Only me and fuck you.

Are you really so daft that you didn't realise?

[russycarps]

The hero of the raving nationalists is at it again

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11650695/Alex-Salmond-tells-female-MP-behave-yourself-woman.html

Edited June 4, 2015 by russycarps

[LJS]

The hero of the raving nationalists is at it again

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11650695/Alex-Salmond-tells-female-MP-behave-yourself-woman.html

Good to see the telegraph focussing on the issues that matter.

Good to see russy concentrating on the telegraph.

[kaosmark2]

It was sexist, we all criticised Cameron for it and its right to criticise Salmond.

I find the telegraph interesting, as while I disagree with 90% of it politically, it at least frames its arguments well. It's also better to read material that won't just naturally support the views you already hold.

[eFestivals]

Good to see the telegraph focussing on the issues that matter.

Good to see the SNP concentrating on the issues that matter...?

SNP ready to order MPs into Parliament for 7am and block Labour committee appointments if Dennis Skinner's side does not back down in seats row

(and, just for a change, the SNP have invented a row, by claiming a 'right' that has never existed ... isn't it great to see them 'standing up for Scotland' with all the good effect of a wet fart ).

Edited June 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: ... isn't it odd how they're not picking fights with their (claimed ) enemy, but instead with the party they said they'd be supporting?

Anyone might think that plenty of people in England had worked out that's how it would play, and voted accordingly.

Edited June 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

PS: ... isn't it odd how they're not picking fights with their (claimed ) enemy, but instead with the party they said they'd be supporting?

Anyone might think that plenty of people in England had worked out that's how it would play, and voted accordingly.

It is crazy how the start of a new parlaiment works out:

-Georgie boy is announcing various cuts to defence / further education and more to come. Plans of EU ref and faffing with the HRA are underway. Basically making the most of the honeymoon period.

-Meanwhile the main opposition has gone all introspective again picking its new leader, which is effectively a bun fight to who can admit the fastest to what went wrong for Labour over the last 5 years!

-3rd biggest party are playing musical chairs.

Regardless of your political leanings a government needs good opposition and it just aint there at the crucial time.

[viberunner]

he's talking about London keeping more of the tax money it already pays.

What he said was:

I believe we should look at London having greater control over income tax.

[viberunner]

I don't understand how anyone - aside from perhaps English Labour supporters - can claim Labour have a right to both the official opposition front benches AND the 3rd party front benches.

Even the Telegraph article linked seemed to give ground to the SNP article.

There is anger among the SNP that despite getting official third party status in Westminster Labour is refusing to fully vacate the second opposition front bench.

and, just for a change, the SNP have invented a row, by claiming a 'right' that has never existed

There is a convention that area is for the 3rd party and Skinner vacated it when Labour were in power.

Again, I fail to see why Labour should get all the front benches and the 3rd party should be related to the backbenches... but I have no doubt that such a position would deeply please you. Out of sight out of mind style of thing.

Well nay such luck son. We won & we're in.

[eFestivals]

It is crazy how the start of a new parlaiment works out:

-Georgie boy is announcing various cuts to defence / further education and more to come. Plans of EU ref and faffing with the HRA are underway. Basically making the most of the honeymoon period.

-Meanwhile the main opposition has gone all introspective again picking its new leader, which is effectively a bun fight to who can admit the fastest to what went wrong for Labour over the last 5 years!

-3rd biggest party are playing musical chairs.

Regardless of your political leanings a government needs good opposition and it just aint there at the crucial time.

yep, I agree ... tho at least Labour do have a decent reason for why they've ineffective at the moment. Being leaderless tends to have that effect.

As for what the SNP choose to do, I know exactly how they'll play things (the same loud noise and little action they play out in Holyrood, plus a big wedge and a large hammer), but beyond that I can't say I care very much.

They've pretty much achieved the fuck-things-up-in-the-UK (in a political sense) part of their mission and I can't see any way back within the realities of what the parties are prepared to do. From where i'm sat, I'm now of the opinion that the country I live in would be better served by Scotland being independent than remaining as part of the UK (tho with plenty of caveats).

[eFestivals]

What he said was:

Yes, he's talking in a 'Scotland' sense - where only a proportion of what is raised is handed over to Westminster.

In the case of the London - the only part of the UK running a surplus - that means the UK gets less and London gets more if the tax rate stays exactly as it is and London gets the same tax terms as Scotland is getting via Smith.

[eFestivals]

I don't understand how anyone - aside from perhaps English Labour supporters - can claim Labour have a right to both the official opposition front benches AND the 3rd party front benches.

There is a convention that area is for the 3rd party and Skinner vacated it when Labour were in power.

It's because there is no convention and there are no 3rd party designated benches.

As ever it's an SNP invention, a myth.

I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that those seats should be designated as the 3rd party's bench .... and perhaps they would be - if the SNP hadn't decided to act like children instead of asking the speaker to give a ruling.

Ever with the SNP it's not about what's in front of you.

[LJS]

Here guys have a wee listen to the appalingly sexist Salmond.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/04/alex-salmond-tells-female-tory-minister-behave-yourself-woman

This is the big issue on a day when the government announces yet more cuts on top of the massive cuts which have already disproportionately hit women. I think that sort of sexism is a bit more worthy of comment than Eck calling some Tory, "woman"

get real guys (& gals) ...(& orangutangs)

[russycarps]

even now you don't condemn the boorish oaf

This blind loyalty is really peculiar.

[LJS]

even now you don't condemn the boorish oaf

This blind loyalty is really peculiar.

Of course I condemn the boorish oaf (although i think you are being a little harsh on yourself describing yourself thus) but, yes i condemn you.

I always find it useful to take the advice of a woman (if I may use that word!) so I asked my 17 year old daughter who i am proud to say is against racism, sexism etc etc. I played her the clip & asked her if that was sexist & she replied "aye, maybe a bit, but then the house of commons is sexist"

So, yes it was a foolish remark, but in the great scheme of things, of absolutely no significance when compared with the institutionalised sexism that pervades the British establishment.

But carry on. Have your sport. complain about one word uttered by Salmond. Complain about the SNP's attempts to find somewhere to sit in the ridiculously cramped House of commons.

Continue to miss any issues of any significance or importance.