The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

in fact, that WoS article is so laughable I had to leave the Rev a comment.

Like my previous comments to the Rev I know it won't get published, but like my previous comments to the Rev I know he reads it and hurts and responds ... so expect that paragraph to quietly disappear in the near future.

[eFestivals]

hey comfy, I see that Mr Swinney himself has addressed your 2016 tax concerns and declared them an irrelevance.

Which gets to mean there's a whole year's advance warning of the need for a myth this time next year, when he will (as he also confirmed) be able to vary rates just as you wanted.

 

But just for reference, cos I stumbled across it earlier, here's the tax provisions in the 2012 Act that come into force in 2016 but are now irrelevant

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/11/section/25/enacted

Edited December 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

hey comfy, I see that Mr Swinney himself has addressed your 2016 tax concerns and declared them an irrelevance.

Which gets to mean there's a whole year's advance warning of the need for a myth this time next year, when he will (as he also confirmed) be able to vary rates just as you wanted.

 

But just for reference, cos I stumbled across it earlier, here's the tax provisions in the 2012 Act that come into force in 2016 but are now irrelevant

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/11/section/25/enacted

... & your point is?

[LJS]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I've now been and read the WoS article, and it's absolutely laughable - ONE BIG LIE!! - and you've called it "largely correct".

It's far worse than any false impression Severin might have been aiming at.

This is the laughable lying line I've been seeing endlessly in the last 24 hours by brainless snippers....

Suddenly and miraculously, Scotland has shed itself of its share of the UK national debt.

I'll point out again that I know Severin's article is dreadful, and that it spouts all that stuff without giving any context against the UK's position on whole-debt .... but I also know that Scotland's councils have been on a debt-spree since 2011, because the SNP have forced them to via SG policy. And I also know that the same debt-spree hasn't happened in England.

But to pretend that Scotland doesn't have it's fair share of UK national debt are words for the brain dead - and you referenced it and called it "largely correct".

Again you point is?

 

I called it largely correct. had I bothered to go into more detail, I would have  pointed out that the bit about the UK deficit is completely irrelevant. You will notice that I made no reference to this in my comments on Mr Carrol's piece.

I also pointed out that there is an argument to be made about the funding of Scottish Councils - my point is whatever the reason for the debt it is not Scottish Government debt nor is is directly the responsibility of the SNP.

Please note that I only referenced the Bathing Bishop because he had largely reached the same conclusions I had.  You conveniently chose to challenge Archbishop Stu's points...not mine.

 

I am glad you know acknowledge the article you linked to is " dreadful" Funny you didn't spot that yourself when gleefully linking to it.

 

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

... & your point is?

I was simply stating that comfy's concerns are sorted.

Tho I could point out that in the anti-austerity state there's no anti-austerity policy. The SNP are convinced that Scots don't wish to pay extra taxes for extra services - at least, not ordinary Scots.

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

Again you point is?

 

I called it largely correct. had I bothered to go into more detail, I would have  pointed out that the bit about the UK deficit is completely irrelevant. You will notice that I made no reference to this in my comments on Mr Carrol's piece.

I also pointed out that there is an argument to be made about the funding of Scottish Councils - my point is whatever the reason for the debt it is not Scottish Government debt nor is is directly the responsibility of the SNP.

Please note that I only referenced the Bathing Bishop because he had largely reached the same conclusions I had.  You conveniently chose to challenge Archbishop Stu's points...not mine.

when it's made such a huge laughable whopper it's not the article to be quoting or deeming "largely correct". You could have used a million other sources, and you presented that. All you proved is that you''re very easily led or you never bother to actually read stuff, take your pick.

The issue is about the debt levels growing faster than elsewhere in the UK, and how those debts fall due (at the expense of public services when they do) at an increasing rate - decided by...? The SNP.

And I know the councils are not SNP, but that's the squirrel. They're operating on a fixed budget under SNP instruction, and with an obligation to maintain services at SNP instruction. That instruction leaves them one place only: more debt.

 

 

Quote

I am glad you know acknowledge the article you linked to is " dreadful" Funny you didn't spot that yourself when gleefully linking to it.

My first words were "this looks like an ouch moment". My next words highlighted the article's shortcomings.

Fuck me, Scottish glee must be much more dour than I was thinking.

You can't help but make it up, can you?

 

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I was simply stating that comfy's concerns are sorted.

Tho I could point out that in the anti-austerity state there's no anti-austerity policy. The SNP are convinced that Scots don't wish to pay extra taxes for extra services - at least, not ordinary Scots.

No one on here has ever suggested the SNP would use the Calman powers forvtge simple reason that they are untargetted increasing tax on the lowest rate taxpayer by exactly the same %.as the highest rate . That's not my idea of "progressive"

 

Things will get a bit better next year although the Scottish Government will still have no power to change tax thresholds, which could be another tool to tweak the balance between lower earning & higher earning taxpayers.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

No one on here has ever suggested the SNP would use the Calman powers forvtge simple reason that they are untargetted increasing tax on the lowest rate taxpayer by exactly the same %.as the highest rate . That's not my idea of "progressive"

I agree, it's not progressive.

But there's been a lot of bleating about the poor, and how hard done-by they are, and here was the chance for ordinary Scots to help them - because the poorest would have been the beneficiaries of the extra tax raised.

So absolving the able from helping the poor? That's not progressive either.

It has shown, beyond doubt, that some have swallowed their own myths about their own land.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Things will get a bit better next year although the Scottish Government will still have no power to change tax thresholds, which could be another tool to tweak the balance between lower earning & higher earning taxpayers.

because every Scot has signed up to paying more tax if they've got the money, yeah, I know. That's what a differently-decent land Scotland is.

And it's nothing like the same thought process as happens with anyone (tory, lab, green, whoever) in the south east or anywhere else when the spotlight might fall on them, where no matter how much they earn they feel like they're still struggling, and that means that the new taxes should be falling on someone else, and not them.

And so that's nothing to do with why you need extra bands to tax fairly. The poor can wait and anti-austerity can wait, because it would be much more unfair to tax and help the poor, and that's all that nasty Westminster's fault that we have to penalise the poor to afford the nice things we've become used to and refuse to give up.

[LJS]

41 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

when it's made such a huge laughable whopper it's not the article to be quoting

 

I didn't quote it - what I said was 

[By the way, feel free to claim that I cribbed all this from the Bishop of Bath. I didn't  - I had already formed my views before I read the bishop. 

He is however largely correct in this instance so I invite you to have a read for a more detailed critique of Mr Carrol's hatchet job.]

I was merely no quote, no link. The points in my post were entirely my own. If by my use of the word "largely" you took it that I was endorsing every word of it, please accept my apologies. It was not my intention.

 

or deeming "largely correct". You could have used a million other sources, and you presented that. All you proved is that you''re very easily led or you never bother to actually read stuff, take your pick.

I didn't "use any sources" I gave you my own interpretation. I read you post linking & referencing Carroll's "dreadful" article several hours before I read the Bishop's sermon. If you really believe I worship in the Beatific Bishop's congregation, you really have not been paying attention. 

 

Quote

The issue is about the debt levels growing faster than elsewhere in the UK, and how those debts fall due (at the expense of public services when they do) at an increasing rate - decided by...? The SNP.

And I know the councils are not SNP, but that's the squirrel. They're operating on a fixed budget under SNP instruction, and with an obligation to maintain services at SNP instruction. That instruction leaves them one place only: more debt.

They are operating under a fixed budget that, as far as I am aware has suffered the same level of cuts as the Scottish budget as a whole. The Scottish works within a budget just as fixed as local authorities' budgets. As I said there is an argument, (that I have some sympathy with, that the the Scottish government should have tried to find more money for local government, but it is not the same as laying the blame for local governemnt debt at the feet of the SNP

 

Quote

 

 

My first words were "this looks like an ouch moment". My next words highlighted the article's shortcomings.

Did they really? Not to my eyes they didn't.

 

apologies if this post is a bit messy ( although as usual the content is superb) your forum keeps doing unexpected things

Edited December 16, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

25 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I agree, it's not progressive.

But there's been a lot of bleating about the poor, and how hard done-by they are, and here was the chance for ordinary Scots to help them - because the poorest would have been the beneficiaries of the extra tax raised.

So absolving the able from helping the poor? That's not progressive either.

It has shown, beyond doubt, that some have swallowed their own myths about their own land.

When was the last time a UK Government raised the basic rate of income tax? It will be close to 40 years ago, I'd imagine, if not more. Why? because it has become politically taboo thanks to the blessed Margaret & her head disciple St Tony. The SNP are so popular just now they might just get away with it although it would be exceedingly brave when they are only months away from an election. Personally, I would support it as long as they were using the additional money raised was used constructively. Although I think the SNP are fairly progressive under Nicola, I am not sure they are particularly brave.

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

because every Scot has signed up to paying more tax if they've got the money, yeah, I know. That's what a differently-decent land Scotland is.

And it's nothing like the same thought process as happens with anyone (tory, lab, green, whoever) in the south east or anywhere else when the spotlight might fall on them, where no matter how much they earn they feel like they're still struggling, and that means that the new taxes should be falling on someone else, and not them.

And so that's nothing to do with why you need extra bands to tax fairly. The poor can wait and anti-austerity can wait, because it would be much more unfair to tax and help the poor, and that's all that nasty Westminster's fault that we have to penalise the poor to afford the nice things we've become used to and refuse to give up.

You must feel better after that:)

[LJS]

It's interesting to contrast the different slant in these three articles on the OECD report on Scottish education

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35101835

http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/sturgeon-promises-bold-action-over-schools-failures-1-3976522

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/14146789.International_experts_call_for_shake_up_of_Scottish_curriculum/

Here's the Herald story for those unable to sneak behind the paywall

 

Quote

 

SCOTLAND'S new curriculum requires an overhaul and action is needed to deal with the exam attainment gap between schools in high and low performing council areas, according to international experts.

A raft of key changes to improve the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) has been called for by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Amongst the ongoing problems identified were that implementation of CfE was proceeding at varying speeds in different 

The international body, which called for action to address the exam attainment gap between the best and worst performing local authorities, also highlighted concern that insufficient use was being made of assessment information to support children’s learning.

The report said: "Too many teachers are unclear what should be assessed.... current assessment arrangements do not provide sufficiently robust information, whether for system-level policy-making, for local authorities or for individual schools."

The OECD went on to warn of a lack of independent research about how well the curriculum was being implemented saying: "There is extensive professional knowledge, but this is not balanced by large-scale research or evaluation projects... by either the universities or independent agencies.

"There is a clear need to know how CfE is actually being implemented in schools and communities across Scotland."

It even suggested CfE should be rebranded to make its purpose clear to parents and recommended the “Curriculum for Excellence and Equity” or “Raising Achievement and Attainment for All”.

The report, commissioned by the Scottish Government, comes as international comparisons show levels of academic achievement in Scotland are above international averages in science and reading while similar to the average in mathematics.

However, while there has been a "clear upward trend" in attainment this has not been the case in mathematics and there has also been a decline in basic literacy and numeracy skills

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon welcomed the document and said the Scottish Government shared the OECD view that an opportunity existed to "lead the world" in developing an new assessment framework - which includes her controversial plans for national testing.

She said: "I firmly believe the framework will play an important role in driving work to close the attainment gap and continually improve Scottish education."

However, Dr Alan Britton, a senior teacher at Glasgow University's School of Education, described some of the report's findings as "positive, but naive".

He said: "The OECD has proposed an enhanced role for local councils in the further development of CfE, but it does not take into account the fact that the bulk of local authority staff who used to play an important role in curriculum development and training are no longer there because of ongoing cuts.

"There is a lack of understanding in this report that there is very limited capacity in local authorities to lead this development work so the burden will fall on national bodies who are not always based placed to lead localised improvements in schools."

Larry Flanagan, general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) teaching union said the report confirmed that Scottish schools and levels of pupil attainment compared well internationally and with other UK countries.

"It also highlights the well-established challenges facing Scottish education, including the poverty-related attainment gap that continues to have a negative impact on too many young people across the country," he added.

"A range of recent statistics prove the extent of the attainment gap and the fact that literacy and numeracy are not as strong as they should be."Liz Smith, Scottish Conservative young person spokeswoman, said: "The OECD report confirms there are major issues in numeracy and it sends out a very stark message about addressing failing schools.

.

 

 

Here the BBC has given a fair & even handed summary of the report (which you can read here http://www.oecd.org/edu/Improving-Schools-in-Scotland-An-OECD-Perspective.pdf)

The Herald & Scotsman articles can find nothing positive to report until about 10 paragraphs in. A clear example of the constant & insistent anti SNP slant on the reporting of the Scottish Press. 

I accept there is no duty on the Press to be impartial - So I am not saying anything ought to be done about it - Although, I have today cancelled my subscription to the Herald , so from January 3rd, I shall be behind the paywall with the rest of you.

 

 

Here's what the report's executive summary says...

Quote

The Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) is an important reform to put in place a coherent 3-18 curriculum. It privileges learning and a holistic understanding of what it means to be a young Scot growing up in today’s world. At its heart are the four fundamental capacities: i) Successful Learners, ii) Confident Individuals, iii) Responsible Citizens, and, iv) Effective Contributors. Up to around age 15, the aim is to lay the foundations for lifetimes of learning through Broad General Education (BGE), incorporating primary and the first stages of secondary schooling but also early learning from age 3 onwards. BGE is the main object of this OECD review. There is a great deal to be positive about in such a review: learners are enthusiastic and motivated, teachers are engaged and professional, and system leaders are highly committed. There has been intensive activity to create suites of support materials and a drive to address excessive bureaucracy. There have been extensive professional learning events organised throughout Scotland. CfE has been anchored in consensus and a wider set of parallel reforms. These include teacher education, extensive work on qualifications and vocational educational and training, and the establishment of a National Parents Forum and a new Leadership College.

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by LJS
can't count

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I didn't quote it - what I said was 

You said what you thought it was.

Which only shows yourself up.

It's the most laughable piece of 'analysis' I've read about Scotland in all of the years I've been closely reading all the stuff about Scotland.

(And I don't believe that was an honest error, a slip of the mind, by the Rev either. It's a piece of deliberate deception of his readership, of what he must know are the most politically stupid people that can be found as he believes he can get away with that).

Edited December 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

They are operating under a fixed budget that, as far as I am aware has suffered the same level of cuts as the Scottish budget as a whole. The Scottish works within a budget just as fixed as local authorities' budgets. As I said there is an argument, (that I have some sympathy with, that the the Scottish government should have tried to find more money for local government, but it is not the same as laying the blame for local governemnt debt at the feet of the SNP

yes, they work with a fixed budget, but the extra borrowing shows how they've learnt to game the system they have to work with (and gaming of the system isn't something I'm slagging them off for. I'm slagging them for what they've chosen to do via that gaming of the system - tho mainly because you refuse to acknowledge what has actually gone on here).

Do you think councils have chosen all by themselves to increase their debts? If so, how come the same isn't happening in England where councils have had to work with the same cuts?

It's specific SG policy that has caused those council debts to grow by more than they could have done. The councils are under the control of the SG, remember? They work within the rules that the SG sets.

Edited December 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

When was the last time a UK Government raised the basic rate of income tax? It will be close to 40 years ago, I'd imagine, if not more. Why? because it has become politically taboo thanks to the blessed Margaret & her head disciple St Tony. The SNP are so popular just now they might just get away with it although it would be exceedingly brave when they are only months away from an election. Personally, I would support it as long as they were using the additional money raised was used constructively. Although I think the SNP are fairly progressive under Nicola, I am not sure they are particularly brave.

You must feel better after that:)

What you're saying is that the SNP won't go against the Thatcherite agenda.

I agree, completely. That's precisely what's happening.

And the reason they won't is because majority of the Scottish people (no differently to the majority of people in rUK) are Thatcherites at heart. They've bought into that agenda lock stock and barrel - which is why Blair was the suvccess that he was, with massive public support.

Your mistake is based firmly in the false idea that Scotland is different.

And it all reveals that the anti-austerity stuff was complete and utter bollocks. And you bought it, when it was always exceedingly clear that it was complete and utter bollocks.

What the SNP had hoped to do had Labour won in May was to have Labour raise the taxes to benefit Scotland, where the SNP could be absolved of any blame for raising taxes, but could claim having got Scotland showered with money.

For those who haven't put their head in the shit of fandom, it's always been easy to see.

[LJS]

Ahh, where would we all be without Neil to tell us what we really think!

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

Ahh, where would we all be without Neil to tell us what we really think!

Oh c'mon .... saying money is 'mine' and can't be the taxman's for the greater good is as Thatcherite as things can get. And that's what the SNP have just played out, exactly as you've said - because the SNP know that's how the people think (and you do too, which is why you referenced it).

If there's more money needed for public services it's for someone else to pay, not 'me' - *exactly* as you said yesterday when wanting more tax bands, so things can be set to absolve you from having to pay. That's for someone else to do...., which is you playing out your Thatcherite tendencies.

FFS.

Remember, the socialist idea of taxation is fair redistribution - but you won't trust a govt to make that redistribution. You insist any redistribution has to be done at the point of taxation ONLY, which is rejecting redistribution on the basis of need in favour of the basis of income-only.

(after all, a single person on minimum wage is not as needy as a family man and kids on the same income).

BTW, having read a little of the SNP's budget proposals, there was something in there I was was going to call a good thing, but it escapes me now for what it was (I'll post again if I remember) - just to try and get you to wake up to the fact you've got your head up your arse.

 

Edited December 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

BTW, having read a little of the SNP's budget proposals, there was something in there I was was going to call a good thing, but it escapes me now for what it was (I'll post again if I remember).

I've remembered.

It was the extra stamp duty (or whatever the Scottish equivalent is) on 2nd properties. A Good Thing.

Tho what's reminded me of it is just reading a piece which mentioned Gideon introduced the same thing for England a week or two ago, which i'd forgotten when I read that the SNP were doing it.

So it turns out that the SNP's best bit of budget is something they've copied from Tory policy, and is being introduced to maintain the similarity with rUK and not to have a difference they might get criticism for.

(honestly, I'd really forgotten that Gideon had just done it when I'd read about the SNP doing it).

[LJS]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You said what you thought it was.

Which only shows yourself up.

It's the most laughable piece of 'analysis' I've read about Scotland in all of the years I've been closely reading all the stuff about Scotland.

(And I don't believe that was an honest error, a slip of the mind, by the Rev either. It's a piece of deliberate deception of his readership, of what he must know are the most politically stupid people that can be found as he believes he can get away with that).

you may or may not be right about the Pictish Prelate's motives, I don't really care. My view is he does some sterling work but also talks a fair amount of guff which is why i virtually never link to The Church of Stu & why I always check his sources. I  shall repeat again that his stuff comparing the alleged Scottish Debt to UK debt is sqirrel max which is why i didn't use that point in my criticism of your chosen link. 

Talking of squirrels you attempt to focus almost entirely on a point made in an article I didn't link to or endorse, smells strongly of straw squirrel.

 

[LJS]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Oh c'mon .... saying money is 'mine' and can't be the taxman's for the greater good is as Thatcherite as things can get. And that's what the SNP have just played out, exactly as you've said - because the SNP know that's how the people think (and you do too, which is why you referenced it).

If there's more money needed for public services it's for someone else to pay, not 'me' - *exactly* as you said yesterday when wanting more tax bands, so things can be set to absolve you from having to pay. That's for someone else to do...., which is you playing out your Thatcherite tendencies.

FFS.

Remember, the socialist idea of taxation is fair redistribution - but you won't trust a govt to make that redistribution. You insist any redistribution has to be done at the point of taxation ONLY, which is rejecting redistribution on the basis of need in favour of the basis of income-only.

(after all, a single person on minimum wage is not as needy as a family man and kids on the same income).

BTW, having read a little of the SNP's budget proposals, there was something in there I was was going to call a good thing, but it escapes me now for what it was (I'll post again if I remember) - just to try and get you to wake up to the fact you've got your head up your arse.

 

I think, not for the first time, you oversimplify here. Of course people are not keen on tax rises - has anyone ever marched in favour of higher taxes, that doesn't make them all Thatcherites. I would contend that if it was deemed to be a good thing and if within the powers of ScotGov the extra money raised could make a real difference (& these are two very big Ifs giving the non-progressive nature of an across the board tax hike) the one party in the UK who coudl get away with it right now is the SNP whose polling lead seems pretty much indestructible. 

 

But they have become risk averse and deeply cautious. You can understand why - its a stance that has arguably got them to the dominant position they hold in Scottish Politics.

 

I can forgive them that for now with an election looming - I believe Swinney has said their manifesto will set out how they plan to use the Smith Tax powers. You are convinced they will not use them. If you are right, the chances of them winning my vote will diminish significantly.

 

You point about redistribution is somewhat bizarre considering your support for Osborne's upward redistribution in the budget, now rescheduled thanks to the HoL. The issue for ScotGov is while they will still have seriously limited powers over benefits making effective redistribution a tad trickier.

[Comfy Bean]

On 16/12/2015 at 3:37 PM, eFestivals said:

hey comfy, I see that Mr Swinney himself has addressed your 2016 tax concerns and declared them an irrelevance.

 

Hey Neil,

Do you mean in these quotes ( below ) and by "addressed" do you mean agreed with and by "irrelevance" do you mean restrictive 

He described the proposals as the "best package possible with severely restricted powers" but pledged that the government "would not penalise the poorest taxpayers".

"The income tax powers we currently have do not allow us to make income tax fairer and I will not penalise the poorest taxpayers. This is the best decision possible with severely restricted powers."

Source : STV news website. Struggled to find these quotes on the BBC site or in the usual papers.

[Stash]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

"The income tax powers we currently have do not allow us to make income tax fairer and I will not penalise the poorest taxpayers. This is the best decision possible with severely restricted powers."

Source : John Swinney 

I hope you understand that Swinney is being a little disingenuous with this statement. A flat rate tax increase would not disproportionately affect lower rate tax payers, in fact a flat rate impacts more on higher rate tax payers due to the thresholds on when income tax is payable. The truly poorest are likely not to be taxpayers at all. Swinney of course knows this, or at least I hope he does!

Swinney of course announced at the same time that in conjunction with the local authorities, the freeze on council tax would continue. 

If he wanted to decrease "tory austerity" he could have raised the SRIT as well as the council tax rates and targeted the extra income in areas where it would most help. Instead he either is offering a pre-election bribe, isn't brave enough to risk the current SNP vote or actually realises that despite the rhetoric, Scottish voters are not any more willing to see their taxes increase than anyone else in the country. Either way, the quote above doesn't tell anywhere near the true story and if it was made by anyone other than the SNP, you'd be all over it like a rash. 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

you may or may not be right about the Pictish Prelate's motives, I don't really care. My view is he does some sterling work but also talks a fair amount of guff which is why i virtually never link to The Church of Stu & why I always check his sources. I  shall repeat again that his stuff comparing the alleged Scottish Debt to UK debt is sqirrel max which is why i didn't use that point in my criticism of your chosen link. 

Talking of squirrels you attempt to focus almost entirely on a point made in an article I didn't link to or endorse, smells strongly of straw squirrel.

 

You say you check his sources, but you don't check what he writes so you can't check his sources.

Making the biggest lie it's possible for him to make is the very opposite of Sterling work. It's lies for the stupid - and you've just proven how effective those lies work on some.

It shows the Rev as a good manipulator. Everyone else who goes along with him are prize plums.

FFS.

How can you try and defend the undefendable? It shows how much you love to roll in shit instead of sense.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I think, not for the first time, you oversimplify here. Of course people are not keen on tax rises - has anyone ever marched in favour of higher taxes, that doesn't make them all Thatcherites. I would contend that if it was deemed to be a good thing and if within the powers of ScotGov the extra money raised could make a real difference (& these are two very big Ifs giving the non-progressive nature of an across the board tax hike) the one party in the UK who coudl get away with it right now is the SNP whose polling lead seems pretty much indestructible. 

 

But they have become risk averse and deeply cautious. You can understand why - its a stance that has arguably got them to the dominant position they hold in Scottish Politics.

 

I can forgive them that for now with an election looming - I believe Swinney has said their manifesto will set out how they plan to use the Smith Tax powers. You are convinced they will not use them. If you are right, the chances of them winning my vote will diminish significantly.

 

You point about redistribution is somewhat bizarre considering your support for Osborne's upward redistribution in the budget, now rescheduled thanks to the HoL. The issue for ScotGov is while they will still have seriously limited powers over benefits making effective redistribution a tad trickier.

they've not "become" risk averse and highly cautious. They've always done fuck all while talking big.

Keep eating your own shit.

Edited December 18, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Hey Neil,

Do you mean in these quotes ( below ) and by "addressed" do you mean agreed with and by "irrelevance" do you mean restrictive 

He described the proposals as the "best package possible with severely restricted powers" but pledged that the government "would not penalise the poorest taxpayers".

"The income tax powers we currently have do not allow us to make income tax fairer and I will not penalise the poorest taxpayers. This is the best decision possible with severely restricted powers."

Source : STV news website. Struggled to find these quotes on the BBC site or in the usual papers.

the only reason he won't penalise the poorest taxpayers is because he doesn't plan any redistribution of money towards the poorest.

Cos penalising taxpayers to help the poorest is what socialist redistribution is all about.