Tories

[ronaldo7]

In this post truth era, you've got to hand it to Tory MSP, Jamie Greene. Greene by name, but Green by nature.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-eternal-opposition/

[brianmc]

Ooft, twat.

[allmodcons]

In this post truth era, you've got to hand it to Tory MSP, Jamie Greene. Greene by name, but Green by nature.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-eternal-opposition/

Rather embarrassing but, sadly, not surprising!

[Glory Lurker]

The Tories would scrap Holyrood if they could, so it's little surprise that they don't bother to learn what it actually does.

[ronaldo7]

Another Tory Millionaire using Parliament to look after her own interests.

https://t.co/t5BfWXitdD

[RyeSloan]

In this post truth era, you've got to hand it to Tory MSP, Jamie Greene. Greene by name, but Green by nature.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-eternal-opposition/

But wait a minute..Nicola Sturgeon herself said the following (as per the SNP's own website)

We will also continue to invest in the infrastructure that businesses need. Our manifesto pledged to deliver superfast broadband to 100% of premises in Scotland by 2021. This will improve productivity across Scotland and transform connectivity for businesses based in remote and rural areas. Over the next few months we will set out our detailed timetable for achieving this goal

[johnbc70]

But wait a minute..Nicola Sturgeon herself said the following (as per the SNP's own website)

We will also continue to invest in the infrastructure that businesses need. Our manifesto pledged to deliver superfast broadband to 100% of premises in Scotland by 2021. This will improve productivity across Scotland and transform connectivity for businesses based in remote and rural areas. Over the next few months we will set out our detailed timetable for achieving this goal

Just like previous manifestos that promised lower class sizes (failed) eradicating student debt (failed, and has doubled since they came to power) so let's see how they get on with this.

[heretoday]

Good to know the Government is on our side, according to the PM.

There was I thinking the opposite.

Gives me a warm Christmassy feeling.

[McD]

But wait a minute..Nicola Sturgeon herself said the following (as per the SNP's own website)

We will also continue to invest in the infrastructure that businesses need. Our manifesto pledged to deliver superfast broadband to 100% of premises in Scotland by 2021. This will improve productivity across Scotland and transform connectivity for businesses based in remote and rural areas. Over the next few months we will set out our detailed timetable for achieving this goal



100% is a very definite target, and by selecting that, they leave themselves open to criticism if just a single property doesn't get those speeds within 4 years.

[RyeSloan]

Further more if broadband targets were not enough it appears the Scottish Government does have some applicable powers after all...

From the Herald:

On June 12, the Scottish Government said a plan to increase and improve mobile coverage in Scotland had been agreed with mobile operators in a move that attempted to increase commercial investment in 4G mobile in Scotland.

While primary responsibility over mobile coverage lies with the UK government, the Scottish government said it had used its own powers to "take forward a series of actions, with tangible steps alongside public sector partners to support its ambition".

[ronaldo7]

But wait a minute..Nicola Sturgeon herself said the following (as per the SNP's own website)

We will also continue to invest in the infrastructure that businesses need. Our manifesto pledged to deliver superfast broadband to 100% of premises in Scotland by 2021. This will improve productivity across Scotland and transform connectivity for businesses based in remote and rural areas. Over the next few months we will set out our detailed timetable for achieving this goal


Further more if broadband targets were not enough it appears the Scottish Government does have some applicable powers after all...

From the Herald:

On June 12, the Scottish Government said a plan to increase and improve mobile coverage in Scotland had been agreed with mobile operators in a move that attempted to increase commercial investment in 4G mobile in Scotland.

While primary responsibility over mobile coverage lies with the UK government, the Scottish government said it had used its own powers to "take forward a series of actions, with tangible steps alongside public sector partners to support its ambition".

Our manifesto did indeed mention your top quote. Is their any reason why we shouldn't have ambitions to provide broadband to 100% of premises by 2021?

On your second quote from the HERALD, the Government are continually trying to get round the rules which we're tied to by Westminster, it's just that we shouldn't be held back from trying to achieve our ambitions.

I'd hope we get our fair share of the cash released last week by the UK gov.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Our manifesto did indeed mention your top quote. Is their any reason why we shouldn't have ambitions to provide broadband to 100% of premises by 2021?

On your second quote from the HERALD, the Government are continually trying to get round the rules which we're tied to by Westminster, it's just that we shouldn't be held back from trying to achieve our ambitions.

I'd hope we get our fair share of the cash released last week by the UK gov.

Surely cash is allocated via Barnett Formula, and it is up to thr SG how it is spent? Or have i misunderstood?

Yout second para is quite an amazing statement. You do realise that the rules the SG aee tied to, are what have been agreed bia numerous democratic processes?

How would you feel if the UK Govt were continually trying to get around the current devo settlement? Would you accept that as fine?

[ronaldo7]

Surely cash is allocated via Barnett Formula, and it is up to thr SG how it is spent? Or have i misunderstood?

We get our pocket money which we've to be happy about, even when they're reducing it. Just imagine yer bairns if you told them their pocket money was being reduced year on year for the next 5 years

Yout second para is quite an amazing statement. You do realise that the rules the SG aee tied to, are what have been agreed bia numerous democratic processes?

I'm thinking more about this, old chap, all within the rules

http://www.alexsalmond.scot/press-releases/2016/12/21/salmond-backs-better-bt-connectivity-in-the-community

How would you feel if the UK Govt were continually trying to get around the current devo settlement? Would you accept that as fine?

.

[RyeSloan]

Our manifesto did indeed mention your top quote. Is their any reason why we shouldn't have ambitions to provide broadband to 100% of premises by 2021?

On your second quote from the HERALD, the Government are continually trying to get round the rules which we're tied to by Westminster, it's just that we shouldn't be held back from trying to achieve our ambitions.

I'd hope we get our fair share of the cash released last week by the UK gov.

So in other words the SG does have and can have influence over telecommunications...so much so they have manifesto commitments to it and their own initiatives for mobile coverage.

The Tory dude was obviously a bit confused and a bit dim but reading the wings article you would be forgiven for not being aware of such commitments from the SNP on the very matters it was lambasting him for daring to suggest the SNP had influence over.

[ronaldo7]

So in other words the SG does have and can have influence over telecommunications...so much so they have manifesto commitments to it and their own initiatives for mobile coverage.

The Tory dude was obviously a bit confused and a bit dim but reading the wings article you would be forgiven for not being aware of such commitments from the SNP on the very matters it was lambasting him for daring to suggest the SNP had influence over.

Influence is rather different from control in my book. I'd take back control any day:wink:

As you can see here...http://www.alexsalmond.scot/press-releases/2016/12/21/salmond-backs-better-bt-connectivity-in-the-community

This is influence, which may not achieve his objectives. If he had control, he could ensure it occurred.

[ronaldo7]

Here we go again. The "UK Government in Scotland office", has increased it's budget to levels unknown for others. Tories looking after Tories, whilst the rest suffer cuts.

https://t.co/751PPs3SqA

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Here we go again. The "UK Government in Scotland office", has increased it's budget to levels unknown for others. Tories looking after Tories, whilst the rest suffer cuts.

https://t.co/751PPs3SqA


With respect, do you not see that your whole SNP can do no wrong, tories and everyone else is evil schtick is actually counterproductive?

Tae see ourselves as others see us?

The UK Govt is our national, sovereign govt whether you like it or not. The office in scotland is not that big, amd id guess the reason your news story talks of percentages is because the actual figures will be relatively small.

Plus, is the civil service that runs this offoce of state is the same civil service that runs the scottish government? So how is it tories looking afyer tories?

And as scotland will soon be the highest taxed part of the UK, im not sure that everyone is suffering cuts purely as a result of UK govt policy.

[ronaldo7]

With respect, do you not see that your whole SNP can do no wrong, tories and everyone else is evil schtick is actually counterproductive?

Tae see ourselves as others see us?

The UK Govt is our national, sovereign govt whether you like it or not. The office in scotland is not that big, amd id guess the reason your news story talks of percentages is because the actual figures will be relatively small.

Plus, is the civil service that runs this offoce of state is the same civil service that runs the scottish government? So how is it tories looking afyer tories?

And as scotland will soon be the highest taxed part of the UK, im not sure that everyone is suffering cuts purely as a result of UK govt policy.

You seem obsessed with the SNP. I never mentioned them. This threads about the Tories. Plenty others to choose from.

[Glory Lurker]

Here we go again. The "UK Government in Scotland office", has increased it's budget to levels unknown for others. Tories looking after Tories, whilst the rest suffer cuts.

https://t.co/751PPs3SqA

In fairness to them, ever more shrill howling of "EAT YOUR CEREAL!!!" doesn't come cheap.

[RyeSloan]

Here we go again. The "UK Government in Scotland office", has increased it's budget to levels unknown for others. Tories looking after Tories, whilst the rest suffer cuts.

https://t.co/751PPs3SqA

The article suggests people are entitled to ask what the increased budget had been spent on...shame no one bothered to find out before they ran off lambasting it and making a pointless comparison so the SG budget.

There may well be good reasons (or not!) for the only increase that is actually quantified but again we are left in the dark.

Rather than just lambasting anything and everything some detail might actually help otherwise it's just comes over as petty politicking.

[Glory Lurker]

The article suggests people are entitled to ask what the increased budget had been spent on...shame no one bothered to find out before they ran off lambasting it and making a pointless comparison so the SG budget.

There may well be good reasons (or not!) for the only increase that is actually quantified but again we are left in the dark.

Rather than just lambasting anything and everything some detail might actually help otherwise it's just comes over as petty politicking.

This is an infuriatingly fair point that can't be argued with. That is quite unsettling.

Thank god that proper investigation is not required, given it's the Tories who're behind it. The increase can only be due to an attempt to keep the jock hoi polloi in its place, so it's all cool in cracking on with sticking it to Mundell and his crew! Yas!

:greengrin

[johnbc70]

SNP = Good
Anything Else = Bad

[Glory Lurker]

SNP = Good
Anything Else = Bad

Correct. :agree::agree::agree:









:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

The article suggests people are entitled to ask what the increased budget had been spent on...shame no one bothered to find out before they ran off lambasting it and making a pointless comparison so the SG budget.

There may well be good reasons (or not!) for the only increase that is actually quantified but again we are left in the dark.

Rather than just lambasting anything and everything some detail might actually help otherwise it's just comes over as petty politicking.

I thought you were a small g kind of guy too.:wink:

I can't for the life of me wonder why that budget has risen so much when all WM seems to talk about is cuts. This is the same department who propagated the lie which Carmichael started. They're maybe getting all their ducks in a row for project fear MK2

With the SG taking on more responsibilities and the Scottish office relinquishing some, you'd think it would be the other way round.

That's Tories for you though. They've moved the UK debt skywards since coming to power. Go them eh.

[ronaldo7]

SNP = Good
Anything Else = Bad


:not worth

[RyeSloan]

I thought you were a small g kind of guy too.:wink:

I can't for the life of me wonder why that budget has risen so much when all WM seems to talk about is cuts. This is the same department who propagated the lie which Carmichael started. They're maybe getting all their ducks in a row for project fear MK2

With the SG taking on more responsibilities and the Scottish office relinquishing some, you'd think it would be the other way round.

That's Tories for you though. They've moved the UK debt skywards since coming to power. Go them eh.

You would think it would be the other way around but there may be good reason why it's not. That's my point you can't complain about it until you understand why it is the case. Simply to complain because it is without knowing the why is just complaining for the sake of it and benefits no one.

I'm also not sure it's just WM that talks about cuts all the time btw [emoji6]

And as you know I'm all for discussions on how there can be so many cuts and austerity and too much too far yet still we spend more and more of what we don't have! A habit that is not restricted to the Tories that's for sure...

[ronaldo7]

Didn't know whether to put his into the Fake news thread, however, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

Theresa the Appeaser has claimed that she got justice for the 96 during PMQs.

Some in Liverpool, Not happy. Is she re-writing history?

https://t.co/mEAWhL57bf

[Future17]

Didn't know whether to put his into the Fake news thread, however, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

Theresa the Appeaser has claimed that she got justice for the 96 during PMQs.

Some in Liverpool, Not happy. Is she re-writing history?

https://t.co/mEAWhL57bf

Did she not also make some comment at this week's PMQs about having secured pardons for those convicted of historic homosexuality offences? I didn't actually hear it, but read a comment on the BBC website about Angus Robertson picking her up on it.

[ronaldo7]

Did she not also make some comment at this week's PMQs about having secured pardons for those convicted of historic homosexuality offences? I didn't actually hear it, but read a comment on the BBC website about Angus Robertson picking her up on it.

They tried to take the plaudits for the Turing bill, which was brought to parliament by John Nicolson MP. They talked out his bill and introduced another to make it look like they secured the pardons. They didn't want his bill to go forward.

He was quite rightly very upset when his bill was filibustered by a government minister. Shower of *******s.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/blog/pardon-should-go-further

http://www.cityam.com/251989/parliament-fails-pass-turing-bill

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37707030

[ronaldo7]

Great stuff in Parliament today where Ivan McKee sliced and diced Murdo Fraser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuLlFJiGMIs

[ronaldo7]

If this is what's meant by British values, they can shove them where the sun don't shine. This lady may have been in the system for some time, but to leave her high and dry leaves a very bad taste.

https://t.co/L6rWKlFN0P

[Hibbyradge]

If this is what's meant by British values, they can shove them where the sun don't shine. This lady may have been in the system for some time, but to leave her high and dry leaves a very bad taste.

https://t.co/L6rWKlFN0P

It's revolting and depressing. The world is depressing right now.

As an aside, I wonderhow Buzzfeed got the story cos no other outlets seem to be reporting this.

[ronaldo7]

It's revolting and depressing. The world is depressing right now.

As an aside, I wonderhow Buzzfeed got the story cos no other outlets seem to be reporting this.

Possibly this. https://t.co/oxOyMGvYu5

More info on the first link.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

If this is what's meant by British values, they can shove them where the sun don't shine. This lady may have been in the system for some time, but to leave her high and dry leaves a very bad taste.

https://t.co/L6rWKlFN0P

That's absolutely terrible. I'm genuinely shocked that our government treats people like that.

The article said she has a British husband, I thought that would give her an automatic right to stay.

[ronaldo7]

That's absolutely terrible. I'm genuinely shocked that our government treats people like that.

The article said she has a British husband, I thought that would give her an automatic right to stay.

He was a full time gas engineer and got sick in 2015. She was his carer, but as he's on sickness benefit, he's not earning enough.

[ronaldo7]

More Tory deportations.

https://t.co/Wg7vxTfdcc

[Holmesdale Hibs]

He was a full time gas engineer and got sick in 2015. She was his carer, but as he's on sickness benefit, he's not earning enough.

That's even worse. What a horrible thing to happen.

Is this the direct result of a Tory policy or have we always treated people like this? I can't remember hearing anything specific but I don't follow the news so closely these days.

[Moulin Yarns]

Woman deported after 27 years married with a family living in Britain. All because she went to Singapore to care for her parents.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099574 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099574)

[speedy_gonzales]

Woman deported after 27 years married with a family living in Britain. All because she went to Singapore to care for her parents.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099574 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39099574)
This is the same case that was discussed further up the thread, there does seem to be more information in this BBC article, clearly the government are getting their side of the story out there!
One significant difference in this story is the fact she had spent most of her life in Singapore. This wasn't the case in initial reporting as it stated she'd lived in the UK for almost 30 years, and at 53 years old then that would have made it seem she had indeed lived most of her life here. Turns out she first came over 30 years ago, but spent extended times back home in Singapore. After numerous returns to the UK she made applications for "leave to remain" and all were denied. In fact, if the BBC site is to be believed she lived here from 1988-1992, 2003-2005 & 2013 to present, 10 years of her 53 years???

Fake news anyone?

[Moulin Yarns]

This is the same case that was discussed further up the thread, there does seem to be more information in this BBC article, clearly the government are getting their side of the story out there!
One significant difference in this story is the fact she had spent most of her life in Singapore. This wasn't the case in initial reporting as it stated she'd lived in the UK for almost 30 years, and at 53 years old then that would have made it seem she had indeed lived most of her life here. Turns out she first came over 30 years ago, but spent extended times back home in Singapore. After numerous returns to the UK she made applications for "leave to remain" and all were denied. In fact, if the BBC site is to be believed she lived here from 1988-1992, 2003-2005 & 2013 to present, 10 years of her 53 years???

Fake news anyone?

The thing that I don't get is her husband, children and grandchild are all British so why is she being deported to Singapore?

Edit: I know about the husbands earnings, but does that mean when someone retires or is too ill to work (this case) the spouse just gets punted!?

What a sick country we live in.

[speedy_gonzales]

The thing that I don't get is her husband, children and grandchild are all British so why is she being deported to Singapore?

Edit: I know about the husbands earnings, but does that mean when someone retires or is too ill to work (this case) the spouse just gets punted!?

What a sick country we live in.
I think the rules aren't as simple as being portrayed in the media, but the two main ones are earnings(one partner must demonstrate earnings of nearly £19K.p.a) and being able to prove residency in the country for "long stretches of uninterrupted time". Unfortunately it would appear Irene has spent nowhere near enough time in the UK to qualify for "leave to remain". Whilst it must be heart wrenching for her, her partner and the kids involved, coupled with the fact her partner is ill, there was always the risk this could happen, the rules haven't changed and she never attained legal residency in the 30 years of visiting this country.

I have an ex-colleague that has been teaching English in Thailand for the last 10 years. He has came back to Scotland with his wife, who is Thai. He is desperately scrabbling about looking for a job in his original field back here in Scotland that pays £19K. He has a kid also, I'm unsure what nationality his son has, but he knows he might have to go back to Thailand (or somewhere else)if he can't satisfy the rules. Leaving his wife is not an option!

[ronaldo7]

The visa rules currently state,

An application must demonstrate a person has strong family ties to the UK, has lived in the UK most of their life, their current circumstances and why they have lived outside the UK

I can't see why they would reject her application given she meets the rule above. Strong family ties, and she lived outside the Uk due to looking after her failing parents.

[speedy_gonzales]

The visa rules currently state,

An application must demonstrate a person has strong family ties to the UK, has lived in the UK most of their life, their current circumstances and why they have lived outside the UK

I can't see why they would reject her application given she meets the rule above. Strong family ties, and she lived outside the Uk due to looking after her failing parents.
She hasn't lived most of her life in the U.K., might be as low as 10 out of 53 years,,,,not remotely close!

[wpj]

The Trump headlines deflect some of our more shameful behaviour. Instead of a good day to bury bad news we now have bad weeks and months to do so. There will be exceptions to every law and rule But surely there has to be some common sense applied?

[speedy_gonzales]

There will be exceptions to every law and rule But surely there has to be some common sense applied?
Bureaucrats & common sense do not go hand in hand!
Whilst I'd like to think every case was treated in a unique way, the reality is they will be processed with a strict "rules is rules" policy.

[steakbake]

I think the rules aren't as simple as being portrayed in the media, but the two main ones are earnings(one partner must demonstrate earnings of nearly £19K.p.a) and being able to prove residency in the country for "long stretches of uninterrupted time". Unfortunately it would appear Irene has spent nowhere near enough time in the UK to qualify for "leave to remain". Whilst it must be heart wrenching for her, her partner and the kids involved, coupled with the fact her partner is ill, there was always the risk this could happen, the rules haven't changed and she never attained legal residency in the 30 years of visiting this country.

I have an ex-colleague that has been teaching English in Thailand for the last 10 years. He has came back to Scotland with his wife, who is Thai. He is desperately scrabbling about looking for a job in his original field back here in Scotland that pays £19K. He has a kid also, I'm unsure what nationality his son has, but he knows he might have to go back to Thailand (or somewhere else)if he can't satisfy the rules. Leaving his wife is not an option!

His son should be UK national if your pal was UK citizen at the time of his birth.

Getting his wife here: complicated. He could go do some work in an EU country and apply for an EEA family permit after six or so months. In these times of Brexit though, it could be unreliable if the negotiations go stupidly wrong or TMay decides the UK won't accept those rules anymore.

Otherwise he's looking for 18,600 salary or personal savings of 62,500. There was a court case recently (22nd Feb) which although upheld the minimum rules, he should keep an eye on it as they might - might - come up with some alternative ways of meeting it (third party support etc) and there may be some changes on how they assess applications in relation to the best interests of the child.

[speedy_gonzales]

His son should be UK national if your pal was UK citizen at the time of his birth.

Getting his wife here: complicated. He could go do some work in an EU country and apply for an EEA family permit after six or so months. In these times of Brexit though, it could be unreliable if the negotiations go stupidly wrong or TMay decides the UK won't accept those rules anymore.

Otherwise he's looking for 18,600 salary or personal savings of 62,500. There was a court case recently (22nd Feb) which although upheld the minimum rules, he should keep an eye on it as they might - might - come up with some alternative ways of meeting it (third party support etc) and there may be some changes on how they assess applications in relation to the best interests of the child.
He's been back in Scotland with his wife & kid since the turn of the year. He landed some contract work but he needs to make it permanent to satisfy the rules. He did mention that he might live in Ireland for a year to secure a permit for his wife here (UK),,,that ties in with what you say re EEA permit rules.
Ridiculous that he has to go to such lengths, but it's either that or risk having his wife deported at a later date!

[steakbake]

He's been back in Scotland with his wife & kid since the turn of the year. He landed some contract work but he needs to make it permanent to satisfy the rules. He did mention that he might live in Ireland for a year to secure a permit for his wife here (UK),,,that ties in worthy what you say re EEA permit rules.
Ridiculous that he has to go to such lengths, but it's either that or risk having his wife deported at a later date!

It's outrageous. I deal with these quite a lot. Once had a couple turned down - they had well over 80k in personal funds but UKVI didn't like the bank statements because they had not been using the account "regularly". It was his savings - he'd held them for years and just hadn't touched them. That's not even in the rules as a requirement but he had no right of appeal.

[Colr]

It's outrageous. I deal with these quite a lot. Once had a couple turned down - they had well over 80k in personal funds but UKVI didn't like the bank statements because they had not been using the account "regularly". It was his savings - he'd held them for years and just hadn't touched them. That's not even in the rules as a requirement but he had no right of appeal.

Individuals are being held hostage in a political game but this is what happens when feckwits like Corbyn allow the Tories free reign with the country.

[Hibrandenburg]

Bureaucrats & common sense do not go hand in hand!
Whilst I'd like to think every case was treated in a unique way, the reality is they will be processed with a strict "rules is rules" policy.

And they Grey Men will happily carry-out orders.

[Hibrandenburg]

It's a show of appeasement from the tories to win back voters who strayed over to UKIP. The tories will be delighted that this is now out there but not headline news.

[speedy_gonzales]

Re Irene Clemmel case, an interesting Blog from a Singaporean national that knows how the system works.

Irene Clemmel Blog (http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html)

As was suspected by some other commentators on social media, there was more to this case than meets the eye. As the blogger writes though, it's fairly left-wing media portraying the government out to be a hater of the people.

[Bristolhibby]

It's outrageous. I deal with these quite a lot. Once had a couple turned down - they had well over 80k in personal funds but UKVI didn't like the bank statements because they had not been using the account "regularly". It was his savings - he'd held them for years and just hadn't touched them. That's not even in the rules as a requirement but he had no right of appeal.

Not sure about this as a legitimate business idea.

How about your mate pays me £20k pa for a share in my company. For that year, I will pay him a salary of £19k. He is my employee with a contract.

He gets his wife residency, and after two years he gets his family together.

J

[Hibbyradge]

Not sure about this as a legitimate business idea.

How about your mate pays me £20k pa for a share in my company. For that year, I will pay him a salary of £19k. He is my employee with a contract.

He gets his wife residency, and after two years he gets his family together.

J

I'll do it for £19750 :wink: