The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

So, me & Neil had a bit of a chat about taxation policy  - with Neil accusing me of all sort of terrible things because I dared to doubt the practicality of Labour's claim they would lob £100 at the poorest to make sure they didn't lose out. I pointed out that labour had been unable to give any detail at all how this would work. Neil insisted they had

Now, lo & behold...

 

Could Neil have been wrong?

 

Just saw this on the news LJS. It`s actually getting embarrassing now ( for Kez not Neil ). Hats off to you for calling this shambles of a policy from the start.

I remember our discussions on here waaay back about how Indy could be the only way back for Labour. The polls at the moment are unreal considering how long the SNP have been in power. 

I watched Kez defend ( well attempt to ) this policy last night and last week live on the leaders debates and now it`s scrapped. Total shambles. Bring back Murphy *

 

 

 

* I`m joking. 

[LJS]

15 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Just saw this on the news LJS. It`s actually getting embarrassing now ( for Kez AND Neil ). Hats off to you for calling this shambles of a policy from the start.

I remember our discussions on here waaay back about how Indy could be the only way back for Labour. The polls at the moment are unreal considering how long the SNP have been in power. 

I watched Kez defend ( well attempt to ) this policy last night and last week live on the leaders debates and now it`s scrapped. Total shambles. Bring back Murphy *

 

 

 

* I`m joking. 

corrected it for you Comfy

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Aye, neil all you " was on about the outside-normal-procedures method that was used to make the grant. "

As the comments above show clearly you were on about a bit more the "outside normal procedures" Only when your accusations prove groundless do you start to try & wriggle out of them. Its also odd that, as someone who showed such intense interest in this matter last year, you showed absolutely no interest in the outcome of the enquiry.

Firstly, some of those comments were made back to the idjut comments you and comfy kept making about how T was probably entitled to a grant - a part I've always accepted, but which both of you (comfy again just yesterday) continually raised as tho that was the only part of it.

And secondly, what you've quoted are facts. Cash did change hands to Robertson's missus, and via that cash changing hands DF got special access to govt ministers. No one disputes those facts (except idjuts like you).

12 hours ago, LJS said:

"Was the grant made outside of normal procedures? Yes it was.

Was the grant made in dodgy circumstances? Yes it was."

These are not borne out by anything other than your assertion. Even the Scottish media which came down pretty hard on Hyslop when the "story" first broke has reported the fact that she was cleared as fact. Only the below the lines Cyberbrits are keeping up the conspiracy theories.

Was the grant made outside of normal procedures? Yes it was. No one disputes it.

Do those outside-normal-procedures make it look dodgy? Yes it does - dodgy enough to cause parliamentary questions, a parliamentary committee investigation, and an Audit Scotland investigation.

FFS.

(but do note those investigations only investigated the Parliamentary end of things, and nothing of how and why Robertson's missus got the job in the first place - which might have been a mutually beneficial corrupt agreement, or it might not have been).

12 hours ago, LJS said:

You go on to claim " Audit Scotland only validated that T met the criteria for a grant - and that's despite Hyslop not fulfilling the SG's own requirements for making a grant  "

 

Well, let's look at how the BBC reported it 

 

"But Audit Scotland has now concluded there was a "clear rationale for the grant".

It said clear conditions had been attached to the money."

..." the watchdog said the Scottish government had the legal authority to make the grant.

It came out in committee that Hyslop hadn't followed procedures, because she hadn't read the paperwork. It's been widely reported previously, from Hyslop's own admission to an SG committee.

And what you've quoted there from the BBC confirms that Audit Scotland looked at whether T was entitled to a grant, not whether the awarding of the grant followed all procedures correctly.

FFS.

12 hours ago, LJS said:

And it said the decision to award the grant to DF Concerts had been a "legitimate policy decision" for Ms Hyslop, and was consistent with advice she received from Scottish government officials. There was also budget provision for the grant within the Culture and European Affairs budget for major events and themed years... "

"There is also evidence that Scottish government has taken steps to confirm that the money was spent in line with the grant conditions through its review of the final report provided by DF Concerts and related invoices."

All of which seems to go well beyond what you have claimed.

It says that T qualified for a grant, and the grant was spent to the rules around that grant.

It doesn't say "every part of the process of making that grant fully followed procedures".

(we know that it didn't, as admitted by Hyslop previously).

FFS.

 

No wonder you're such a sucker for idiot things when your analysis skills are so very poor.

Audit Scotland *ONLY* say that T was entitled to a grant and the grant was spent as required.

All other parts were outside of their remit. The SG have already investigated Hyslop's specific actions around it and found fault with some of the specific actions she took (such as not reading the paperwork before making the grant).

And no one has looked into how and why Robertson's missus ended up with a job that the SG picked up the tab for and where she arranged for the SG to pick up that tab.

It may or may not be corrupt. We'll probably never know, because it's NOT been fully looked into.

If all this had happened in the same way around a tory and a tory govt, you wouldn't be issuing the free pass you've given the SNP. Enough of it remains uninvestigated for reasonable suspicions to remain.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

So, me & Neil had a bit of a chat about taxation policy  - with Neil accusing me of all sort of terrible things because I dared to doubt the practicality of Labour's claim they would lob £100 at the poorest to make sure they didn't lose out. I pointed out that labour had been unable to give any detail at all how this would work. Neil insisted they had

Now, lo & behold...

 

Could Neil have been wrong?

 

I *always* agreed with you that it was a nightmare in practical-implementation terms  - I called it a "dogs dinner", remember? - but I also said it was possible to do, and it was.

Meanwhile, it's not even a tax increase for the lowest paid anyway - as I always pointed out. Those earning £20k would pay just £10 extra a year. Those earning less would pay nothing at all and in fact gain - both in their pay packet, and with the extra govt services available to them.

Looking after the poor at the expense of the better off is called social justice. Why are you against it?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Just saw this on the news LJS. It`s actually getting embarrassing now ( for Kez not Neil ). Hats off to you for calling this shambles of a policy from the start.

I remember our discussions on here waaay back about how Indy could be the only way back for Labour. The polls at the moment are unreal considering how long the SNP have been in power. 

I watched Kez defend ( well attempt to ) this policy last night and last week live on the leaders debates and now it`s scrapped. Total shambles. Bring back Murphy *

 

 

 

* I`m joking. 

yep, it's well embarrassing for someone who says he wants to help the poor to be against helping the poor.

That's you that is.

Looking after the poor at the expense of the better off is called social justice. Why are you against it?

As I said 18 months ago, you'd end up arguing against what you were putting forwards at the start, and now both you and LJS are doing so.

(I'm waiting for the anti-EU stance, coming to snippers everywhere sometime soon after the UK votes remain [if it does] .. it'll be justified because iScotland can't live to the EU's fiscal rules around deficits, along with some bollocks about how it will free up the govt to nationalise stuff, etc, etc, - stuff the SNP would never do, of course).

You new line is "Down with higher taxes. Protect the doing OKs from having to help the poor."

The sad thing is you've not even realised that's what you're now doing.

 

[LJS]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

yep, it's well embarrassing for someone who says he wants to help the poor to be against helping the poor.

That's you that is.

Looking after the poor at the expense of the better off is called social justice. Why are you against it?

As I said 18 months ago, you'd end up arguing against what you were putting forwards at the start, and now both you and LJS are doing so.

(I'm waiting for the anti-EU stance, coming to snippers everywhere sometime soon after the UK votes remain [if it does] .. it'll be justified because iScotland can't live to the EU's fiscal rules around deficits, along with some bollocks about how it will free up the govt to nationalise stuff, etc, etc, - stuff the SNP would never do, of course).

You new line is "Down with higher taxes. Protect the doing OKs from having to help the poor."

The sad thing is you've not even realised that's what you're now doing.

 

It's not what I'm doing. I have repeatedly made it Crystal clear, I have no objection to higher taxes (including for me) as long as the lowest paid are protected. Labour made a big thing of their magic plan to do just that. I said it wouldn't work. You said it would. Labour have now effectively admitted they were wrong which means you were wrong too.

If you recall, I commented that I would have preferred a more constructive response from the SNP as I support the aim behind Labour's proposal.

However, that is all far too nuanced for you so you just resort to your usual baseless insults.

[LJS]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Firstly, some of those comments were made back to the idjut comments you and comfy kept making about how T was probably entitled to a grant - a part I've always accepted, but which both of you (comfy again just yesterday) continually raised as tho that was the only part of it.

And secondly, what you've quoted are facts. Cash did change hands to Robertson's missus, and via that cash changing hands DF got special access to govt ministers. No one disputes those facts (except idjuts like you).

Was the grant made outside of normal procedures? Yes it was. No one disputes it.

Do those outside-normal-procedures make it look dodgy? Yes it does - dodgy enough to cause parliamentary questions, a parliamentary committee investigation, and an Audit Scotland investigation.

FFS.

(but do note those investigations only investigated the Parliamentary end of things, and nothing of how and why Robertson's missus got the job in the first place - which might have been a mutually beneficial corrupt agreement, or it might not have been).

It came out in committee that Hyslop hadn't followed procedures, because she hadn't read the paperwork. It's been widely reported previously, from Hyslop's own admission to an SG committee.

And what you've quoted there from the BBC confirms that Audit Scotland looked at whether T was entitled to a grant, not whether the awarding of the grant followed all procedures correctly.

FFS.

It says that T qualified for a grant, and the grant was spent to the rules around that grant.

It doesn't say "every part of the process of making that grant fully followed procedures".

(we know that it didn't, as admitted by Hyslop previously).

FFS.

 

No wonder you're such a sucker for idiot things when your analysis skills are so very poor.

Audit Scotland *ONLY* say that T was entitled to a grant and the grant was spent as required.

All other parts were outside of their remit. The SG have already investigated Hyslop's specific actions around it and found fault with some of the specific actions she took (such as not reading the paperwork before making the grant).

And no one has looked into how and why Robertson's missus ended up with a job that the SG picked up the tab for and where she arranged for the SG to pick up that tab.

It may or may not be corrupt. We'll probably never know, because it's NOT been fully looked into.

If all this had happened in the same way around a tory and a tory govt, you wouldn't be issuing the free pass you've given the SNP. Enough of it remains uninvestigated for reasonable suspicions to remain.

What are you on?. As your original parcel of conspiracies has failed to stand up, you now invent a new & even further-fetched one: the SNP were effectively paying this consultant woman's wages.

Why on earth would they want to do that? If they are going to pay her wages, wouldn't it be better to employ her directly &have her working for the Scottish Government?

Oh wait, I've got it...she was an undercover agent sent to infiltrate TITP and make it into an SNP puppet.

Even by your bitter SNP baaaad standards you have excelled yourself.

[Comfy Bean]

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

You new line is "Down with higher taxes. Protect the doing OKs from having to help the poor."

Hey Neil, think this was aimed in my direction. Would you mind explaining why you have used quotation marks ?

[Comfy Bean]

On 30/03/2016 at 9:18 AM, eFestivals said:

It's not the NO voters I'm mocking.

 

On 23/03/2016 at 8:01 AM, eFestivals said:

happy Independence Da ... oh. Hang on.

Happy Dependence Day.

That £15Bn? You're welcome.

 

In my opinion you are constantly knocking the no voters. They wish to continue with the current arrangements, I`d prefer we ran our own affairs, made our own decisions etc. 

I didn`t vote to remain " dependent ". Not sure how to interpret " You`re welcome ".

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, LJS said:

It's not what I'm doing. I have repeatedly made it Crystal clear, I have no objection to higher taxes (including for me) as long as the lowest paid are protected.

Under Labour's (supposedly revised) plans and the LibDems plans those getting less than £19k would get extra money, and those above would pay more - with those on £20k paying just a tenner more a year.

And everyone gets greater public services, with (if things go the same way as normal) a disproportionate amount of those services targeted towards the poor.

Care to tell me why you object to that, when the poor are protected *EXACTLY* as you say you want?

 

14 hours ago, LJS said:

Labour made a big thing of their magic plan to do just that. I said it wouldn't work. You said it would. Labour have now effectively admitted they were wrong which means you were wrong too.

It's possible to make the payments to those poor in exactly the way Labour suggested.

But it's a dogs dinner, that would have high costs for small effect, and where that system would only be in place for less than a year anyway ... so the smart move is to not do it (which I'd always said anyway), especially as the poorest would be richer and not poorer anyway.

Them having realised its a crap idea is something different to anyone being wrong about its possible implementation.

15 hours ago, LJS said:

However, that is all far too nuanced for you so you just resort to your usual baseless insults.

I presume that when you say 'nuanced' you really mean 'lies', yeah?

Labour haven't changed their minds because it can't be done, but because it's a crap idea and an unnecessary idea when the poor are not being made poorer by the 1% rise.

FFS.

 

[eFestivals]

15 hours ago, LJS said:

What are you on?. As your original parcel of conspiracies has failed to stand up, you now invent a new & even further-fetched one: the SNP were effectively paying this consultant woman's wages.

Why on earth would they want to do that? If they are going to pay her wages, wouldn't it be better to employ her directly &have her working for the Scottish Government?

Oh wait, I've got it...she was an undercover agent sent to infiltrate TITP and make it into an SNP puppet.

Even by your bitter SNP baaaad standards you have excelled yourself.

It's all of the same thing I've ever said. The whole scenario is full of shady aspects from all angles.

If the SNP employ her directly - something they'd already stopped doing for some reason - the SNP carry the cost.
If the SNP appoint her to an SG role they have to justify to the public putting a crony in a govt post.

None of the shady angles have been investigated, only whether T qualifies for a grant.

I've never said that it is corrupt, just that it looks corrupt. Care to tell me how it doesn't look corrupt?

If something tory looked corrupt in the way this does you wouldn't be giving the tories the free pass you're giving the SNP.

FFS.

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Hey Neil, think this was aimed in my direction. Would you mind explaining why you have used quotation marks ?

Why, cos you'd like a diversion from what you're now against - higher taxes and better public services?

----

Snippers everywhere are - just like you - now arguing against higher taxes and better public services with the money, with "protect the poor" and "do better for the poor" abandoned.

Both you comfy, and LJS, are arguing against higher taxes where the poor are protected from paying extra.

----

And do you remember during the indyref how the suggestion of people and businesses heading south was brushed off as 'buster', lies', and 'scaremongering'?

Just last week, your hero announced in Holyrood that it was true.

And now snippers everywhere are following the same line. The rich will flee Scotland if Scotland higher-taxes them.

It's yet another case of snippers now arguing the opposite of the argument they used during the indyref, arguing the "unionist" line. 

(the anti-EU is still to come, as I've been saying for 2 years ... it might take another ten years, but it's coming I guarantee)

According to the SNP's line, raising more money in Scotland from the rich is only possible if Scotland has 'all of the economic levers' .... and yet if the plan is to better tax the rich exactly the same issue is there as Sturgeon said in Holyrood last week, that they'll head south to avoid it if they're wanting to avoid higher taxes.

Having 'all of the economic levers' is bollocks. Either you're prepared to try and take more money from those not in need (which tax is used makes fuck all difference, it's still money from those same people), or you accept that you can't.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

In my opinion you are constantly knocking the no voters. They wish to continue with the current arrangements, I`d prefer we ran our own affairs, made our own decisions etc. 

I didn`t vote to remain " dependent ". Not sure how to interpret " You`re welcome ".

How am I knocking the no voters?

They voted to keep receiving that £15Bn a year, and as far as i'm concerned they're welcome to keep receiving it.

I'm less happy to be sending it to someone like you, who doesn't have the intelligence to appreciate what it does for you. It pays for all of the SNHS, and more. I suspect that the only way you'll ever appreciate it would be if you lost it, to see the damage you want to bring on yourself and your country.

I'm exceedingly pleased that those no voters protected Scotland's poor from the massive harm your stupidity would have caused them. A Scotland without that money would shit on its poor. It wouldn't have any other choice.

Edited April 1, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

13 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Hey Neil, think this was aimed in my direction. Would you mind explaining why you have used quotation marks ?

 

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Why, cos you'd like a diversion from what you're now against - higher taxes and better public services?

Erm.....no 

You posted "  You new line is "Down with higher taxes. Protect the doing OKs from having to help the poor." "

Your use of quotation marks implied you were quoting something I had actually said. I was politely asking you if you think I had ever said this ?  My next request would have been for you to take a moment to quote me saying it.

Your now saying why should you and repeating what you claimed I said. Can we not rise above this childish and tedious nonsense 

Our discussion isn`t going to get very far if every time someone is asked to back up their point they just say " why " ?

I think higher taxes are needed and slowly we ( in Scotland ) are heading in that direction while the Tories in Westminster are taking a different path.

Someone posted an article on here the other day ( had a quick look but can`t remember who it was to link it ) that showed 80plus% of Scots now think the Scottish Govt should have control over tax up here. SLOWLY we are seeing the increases in the top 4 bands for council tax, the lifting of the freeze and the Westminster policy of tax cuts for folk on over £43k binned in Scotland. As I said the other day, the Tory unionist party plus UKIP are going mental about higher tax up here and talking about " higher tax here " signs on the border. NS has not ruled out a 50% band in the next parliament You may recall over 50% down your way voted for these 2 parties yet 81% of Scots are comfortable with allowing the SG to take a different path on tax. Ruth Davidson said on the box the other night she wants a tax cut up here.

Since she is the self proclaimed champion of the NO voters ( who you never slag lol ) what do you make of what she is saying around tax*

 

 

 

* She actually said it unlike the stuff you are pretending I said 

Of course, feel free to quote a post of mine where I say what you claim and we can take it from there or.....I suppose " Why " would work for you 

 

p.s. You used that line about China the other day and I had previously asked who had originally said it. It was a genuine question as I thought I had heard it before. We concluded it was a line of your own but I owe you an apology. Willie Rennie said it ages ago. You may or may not know that but the bold Willie used it again on the radio yesterday. Using his lines on Scottish politics is an interesting tactic. Perhaps you should stick to the carrot for the rabid thing. I like it plus it`s your own and it works well with your T in the Park / SNP bad crusade. 

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by comfortablynumb1910
Spelling

[Comfy Bean]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Having 'all of the economic levers' is bollocks. Either you're prepared to try and take more money from those not in need (which tax is used makes fuck all difference, it's still money from those same people), or you accept that you can't.

Why " bollocks ".

Do you think Holyrood should be shut down or if you prefer to put it another way, do you think it should never have been opened ?

If you are inclined to answer this, please don`t mention the SNP in your response. As you know we have had and will have again other parties in the majority.

The Parliament and " powers " you mention are about the Scottish people NOT the SNP. I know you know this but you sometimes seem to imply this is all about St Nic, King Salmond or the White Parchment. We both know you know this but you like to play the daftie sometimes 

Are you against parliaments in other Countries away from England ( Westminster ) ?

[Comfy Bean]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

I'm less happy to be sending it to someone like you...........

I like the way this is going. I sense another " Happy Dependence Day " type post.

[eFestivals]

37 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Why " bollocks ".

because if the rich don't want more money taken off them via income taxes - which is Sturgeon's line, don't forget - they won't be any less keen via other taxes.

Whichever tax is used, it's still taking money of the same rich people.

FFS, join up the dots.

Extra levers would be just extra unused levers. If they won't accept it via income taxes and will head south instead, they won't accept it via other taxes.

 

 

[eFestivals]

36 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I like the way this is going. I sense another " Happy Dependence Day " type post.

You say you don't want it, because you support Scotland self funding.

All I'm doing towards you is wanting your wish to come true, just for you ... to see you scream in anger at your own stupidity.

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Do you think Holyrood should be shut down or if you prefer to put it another way, do you think it should never have been opened ?

If you are inclined to answer this, please don`t mention the SNP in your response. As you know we have had and will have again other parties in the majority.

The Parliament and " powers " you mention are about the Scottish people NOT the SNP. I know you know this but you sometimes seem to imply this is all about St Nic, King Salmond or the White Parchment. We both know you know this but you like to play the daftie sometimes 

Are you against parliaments in other Countries away from England ( Westminster ) ?

You vote for the don't-use-those powers party.

Do you do that because you want those Scottish Govt powers used or because you don't?

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Both you comfy, and LJS, are arguing against higher taxes where the poor are protected from paying extra.---

No we're not. 

[eFestivals]

52 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

Erm.....no 

You posted "  You new line is "Down with higher taxes. Protect the doing OKs from having to help the poor." "

Your use of quotation marks implied you were quoting something I had actually said. I was politely asking you if you think I had ever said this ?  My next request would have been for you to take a moment to quote me saying it.

I'm paraphasing you.

You say you want more public spending, but you won't support the parties who pledge to spend more by raising more. Which is the truth, comfy? Your weasely words that you won't follow thru on with your vote, or how you vote?

It's bleeding obvious really. You want greater public spending but only if you can get someone else to pay for it. So much for the nation of iScotland.

 

52 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think higher taxes are needed and slowly we ( in Scotland ) are heading in that direction while the Tories in Westminster are taking a different path.

Laughable. I can piss more wealth than the extra tax Sturgeon is raising.

Those pathetic "rises" are a carrot for the rabid, and you're very happily chewing ... mostly your own shit.

 

52 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Someone posted an article on here the other day ( had a quick look but can`t remember who it was to link it ) that showed 80plus% of Scots now think the Scottish Govt should have control over tax up here.

Which would help how, exactly?

The rich would head south, remember? Your hero told the nation that just last week (and just a week after she'd said she'd act like Westminster)..

It doesn't matter what tax you use to tax the rich. If you're taking more from the rich with *ANY* tax, Sturgeon's words still apply.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

No we're not. 

So please explain to me how a 1% rise for the next tax year will cost the poor more than they currently pay in taxes.

Anyone earning less than £19k would be protected from paying extra, and would in fact be better off - PLUS they'd have more public services.

You're not protecting the poor from tax rises with your objection, you're protecting yourself. It's indisputable.

Edited April 1, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You say you don't want it, because you support Scotland self funding.

All I'm doing towards you is wanting your wish to come true, just for you ... to see you scream in anger at your own stupidity.

I support Scotland being an independent country as do many others.

Should it not be " scream in anger at your own stupidity " from your cave ?

Your right of course. There is gross stupidity in these words 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I support Scotland being an independent country as do many others.

That's fine. I've no problem with that.

I do have a problem with the lies you support to try and bring it about.

Your dream is of a much poorer Scotland.

If you respect your countrymen tell them of the real effects of your dream, and not bullshit.

[Comfy Bean]

32 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

because if the rich don't want more money taken off them via income taxes - which is Sturgeon's line, don't forget - they won't be any less keen via other taxes.

Whichever tax is used, it's still taking money of the same rich people.

FFS, join up the dots.

Extra levers would be just extra unused levers. If they won't accept it via income taxes and will head south instead, they won't accept it via other taxes.

 

 

Here we go again with this " sturgeon`s line "

Her actual line is that she has ruled out a 50% rate this year but not for the whole parliament term. She has given her reason for that as LJS linked to the other week and I suspect you already know.

For now, the richer will not receive the westminster tax cut but should hopefully survive and be able to pay the increase in their council tax. 

Are you avoiding commenting on the Tory line up here on tax ?

Should we gain independence then some rich folk will vote for it and be happy with this general direction of tax. If not, they will continue to vote no or flea south as you put it. of course you never slag off these no voters.

I believe they are entitled to vote how they wish and life wherever they think suits them. No hard feelings etc.

We know from your article that 80+% of Jocks are happy to have their tax set by Holyrood not Westminster. Have a think about that .......