The Leaders Debate

[pontius pilate]

I've already posted on here about relative and absolute poverty. I've also put my two pence worth into the nurse's situation. Now here's mine I work in a school and earn less than 14,000 per year. My partner doesn't work as our daughter is on the A.S.D and she also has hyperacousis and anxiety disorder we have on occasion used food banks in four occassions and I'm not proud of that far from it I believe that they should only be used for those in absolute poverty. We have had to trim our expenses accordingly we kept the car we pay our rent council tax and utility bills got rid of sky but kept phone line and broadband that is a God send. The other half stopped having her weekly treat as a means to respite and I have had to sadly give up my season ticket. I never went to any cup games this season or those out with the season ticket plan I couldn't justify it. It's hard but we are happy and are saving for a holiday next year. Who can I blame for that I am doing a job I love assisting kids who need help. Anyways that's my tuppence worth in.

GGTTH

[easty]

But how bad do things have to get before people can no longer simply further tighten their belts and 'live within their means' but can no longer manage? And why should they have to - why should nurses have their pay cut by 14% and be told to 'live within their means', when there are bankers bonuses still being paid and top earners still see their incomes rise since 2010? I'm not having that.

What have bankers bonuses got to do with nurses pay?

[EH6 Hibby]

I'm a single parent who earns under 20k a year and I can not only afford to put food on the table and pay for things that would be considered luxuries like a car, fibre broadband and mobile phone contracts for both myself and my son, I can also if I'm careful with money, afford to go on holiday abroad every year.

I understand that unforeseen circumstances hit everyone, but if a single person earning £23k a year is regularly having to use foodbanks, then I think they need to make changes to their lifestyle.

[Hibernia&Alba]

What have bankers bonuses got to do with nurses pay?

Everything. The nurses have seen their real term income drop by 14% as a consequence of the austerity era created by the banking collapse and bail outs. So, whilst the nurses and other groups re-pay their debt, those responsible walk away. This is cause and effect; the society we live in.

Live within your means - pay cut
But I don't have much
Live within your means
But what of those responsible for my pay cut?
Pay rise. Now live within your means.

[easty]

Everything. The nurses have seen their real term income drop by 14% as a consequence of the austerity era created by the banking collapse and bail outs. So, whilst the nurses and other groups re-pay their debt, those responsible walk away. This is cause and effect; the society we live in.

*****. Our NHS costs an absolute fortune, and that's not because of bankers and their bonuses or their bail out.

[Hibernia&Alba]

*****. Our NHS costs an absolute fortune, and that's not because of bankers and their bonuses or their bail out.

You're saying the 14% real terms pay cut of nurses since 2010 is unconnected to the austerity programme which arose in the wake of the banking collapse of 2008. Seriously?

[lucky]

Those attacking the nurse should have a word. She raised a valid point about pay caps in the NHS. Surely the issue is why this progressive SNP government voted against breaking the pay cap last month in the Scottish Parliament rather than attack a individual.

[easty]

Everything. The nurses have seen their real term income drop by 14% as a consequence of the austerity era created by the banking collapse and bail outs. So, whilst the nurses and other groups re-pay their debt, those responsible walk away. This is cause and effect; the society we live in.

Live within your means - pay cut
But I don't have much
Live within your means
But what of those responsible for my pay cut?
Pay rise. Now live within your means.

Look they haven't had a pay cut, you can keep saying it, and I know where you're getting it from, but it's not a pay cut. Their pay doesn't stretch as far as it did before.

5 years ago I was in my 3rd year at a company called Gamestec, the economy was ***** then as well, I got 0% pay rise a year for 3 years. I didn't claim they'd given me a pay cut. I accepted that they couldn't just magic up some money for me. I wasn't blaming the bankers either.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Look they haven't had a pay cut, you can keep saying it, and I know where you're getting it from, but it's not a pay cut. Their pay doesn't stretch as far as it did before.

5 years ago I was in my 3rd year at a company called Gamestec, the economy was ***** then as well, I got 0% pay rise a year for 3 years. I didn't claim they'd given me a pay cut. I accepted that they couldn't just magic up some money for me. I wasn't blaming the bankers either.

You haven't said why you feel it's unconnected to the austerity programme subsequent to the bail out..............

And if you received no pay rise at all for three years, you did take a real terms pay cut. Sorry, but you did. Still, you could be a nurse and be on seven years real terms pay cut and counting.

[JimBHibees]

The point i'm making is that people still manage on half of her salary, how can she not apparently manage?

Another thing I don't understand is that she mounted an attack against the Scottish Government on nurses pay, when she works for the private health care company BUPA. :confused:

is that true?

[easty]

You're saying the 14% real terms pay cut of nurses since 2010 is unconnected to the austerity programme which arose in the wake of the banking collapse of 2008. Seriously?

I'm saying you cannae blame bankers bonuses for nurses pay

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'm saying you cannae blame bankers bonuses for nurses pay

I'm saying you can. Those who caused the crisis should be re-paying it; the nurses damn well didn't nearly destroy the economy. So who was it?

[Moulin Yarns]

Heard nurse Austin interview on the radio. She said that she had needed to get help from foodbanks twice in the last 5 years.

A bit of perspective on the whole debate.

[easty]

I'm saying you can. Those who caused the crisis should be re-paying it; the nurses damn well didn't nearly destroy the economy. So who was it?

And I'm saying you cannae.

It's such a lazy argument to say "oh but the bankers still get their bonuses". I know plenty folk who work at various banks, they all get bonuses, they had nothing to do with the economic crash. It's no more their fault as it is the nurses.

[Hibernia&Alba]

And I'm saying you cannae.

It's such a lazy argument to say "oh but the bankers still get their bonuses". I know plenty folk who work at various banks, they all get bonuses, they had nothing to do with the economic crash. It's no more their fault as it is the nurses.

It isn't a lazy argument, and I'm not talking about individual bank staff but the institutions and boardrooms. It's called being held accountable for egregious wrong, just as we tell the poor they must take responsibility for themselves. Millions of people are being caused hardship and worry for something they didn't cause. They weren't included in the bounty when the financial institutions were booming and paying themselves very richly, but, when it all caved in due to greed and criminality, they were handed the bill. Don't tell me we are blaming the wrong organisations here. Nurses are just one group who have been caused seven years of harm by the events of 2008/09. Yes, the Tories use the crisis as a front for an ideological attack upon public services, but there was a crisis which has brought terrible consequences upon society, the poor most of all. Socialism for the rich - bank bailouts, sweetheart deals, tax breaks - and market discipline for the poor.

[easty]

It isn't a lazy argument, and I'm not talking about individual bank staff but the institutions. It's called being held accountable for egregious wrong, just as we tell the poor they must take responsibility for themselves. Millions of people are being caused hardship and worry for something they didn't cause. They weren't included in the bounty when the financial institutions were booming and paying themselves very richly, but, when it all caved in due to greed and criminality, they were handed the bill. Don't tell me we are blaming the wrong organisations here. Nurses are just one group who have been caused seven years of harm by the events of 2008/09. Yes, the Tories use the crisis as a front for an ideological attack upon public services, but there was a crisis which has brought terrible consequences upon society, the poor most of all. Socialism for the rich - bank bailouts, sweetheart deals, tax breaks - and market discipline for the poor.

Naw you're right of course. If it wasn't for the bank bailout the NHS corridors would be paved with gold, you'd never wait more than 7 seconds for an appointment and nurses wouldn't know what to do with all that disposable income they had.

[marinello59]

Apols if this is already covered - I haven't read back. Independent NHS pay review recommendations have been met or (albeit slightly) exceeded for lowest paid staff in Scotland since the "Agenda for Change" pay scales were introduced. I don't believe this is the case in England, hence for example junior doctors' industrial action there but not here.

Not great but yet more Scot gov mitigation?

It is. And perhaps an argument for Independence so more can be done. It's really sad that an issue which affects thousands of Scots, the cap on health workers pay, is being toally ignored by so many supporters of the SNP in order to concentrate on demonising one woman. It should have been turned in to an all out attack on the Tories.

[marinello59]

Heard nurse Austin interview on the radio. She said that she had needed to get help from foodbanks twice in the last 5 years.

A bit of perspective on the whole debate.


A bit of over spin from her last night then? She should turn pro and stand for election. :greengrin

[Hibernia&Alba]

Naw you're right of course. If it wasn't for the bank bailout the NHS corridors would be paved with gold, you'd never wait more than 7 seconds for an appointment and nurses wouldn't know what to do with all that disposable income they had.

Now you're being silly, mate. The grand narrative is that the neoliberal system is rigged in favour of a tiny elite: socialise the risks and privatise the rewards. The same groups who, during the good times, eulogise the free market and say government needs to get out of the way and deregulate, are the same groups who run to government when their actions destroy it all: for 2008 see 1929. Socialism for the top, market discipline for everybody else. They take tens of billions in bail outs, hand us the bill, and you and I must now 'live within our means' and 'take tough decisions'. Spending is slashed, jobs are shed, insecurity imposed. Meanwhile where are Fred Goodwin and his ilk? What do they know of food banks and pay freezes?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Now you're being silly, mate. The grand narrative is that the neoliberal system is rigged in favour of a tiny elite: socialise the risks and privatise the rewards. The same groups who, during the good times, eulogise the free market and say government needs to get out of the way and deregulate, are the same groups who run to government when their actions destroy it all: for 2008 see 1929. Socialism for the top, market discipline for everybody else. They take tens of billions in bail outs, hand us the bill, and you and I must now 'live within our means' and 'take tough decisions'. Spending is slashed, jobs are shed, insecurity imposed. Meanwhile we are Fred Goodwin and his ilk?

I dont agree with everything you say, but i find your posts among the most compelling on here, and i habe no doubt that your views are sincere and are well thought out.

I think what easty says has some merit too. The deficit of course existed before the crash, and there was increasingly profligate spending from the then govt. The crash obviouslu brought everyrhing to a very sharp point. But those nurses benefited from the boom years as public spending was rising.

I do however see your point about 'corporate welfare' and the undeniable unfairness that those who were most culpable are not taking the brunt of the pain. I know govt had to act, and by general consensus what darling amd brown did was right and important actions at a time of genuine threat and crisis. But equally, how do you punish the goose that lays the golden eggs?

Its not easy, bit in general nurses are not paid badly, although have obviously had their pay squeezed by inflation in recent years.

[ColinNish]

is that true?

Yes it is true.

[Glory Lurker]

Why did the BBC invite her back to raise a point about a devolved issue at a general election debate? After Harvie pointed out that the debate was veering into devolution territory by discussing education, Sarah Smith acknowledged that this was not a topic relevant to Westminster but people's feelings on it would probably influence how people vote. The debate was positively framed so as to include devolved matters, so became about the SNP's record at Holyrood and not the Tories record at Westminster, which is well off-kilter for a general election programme.

There is also the question as to whether it's appropriate that one of the main BBC Scotland politics people is the daughter of a former Labour leader and a current Labour peer.

It's in all our interests that the BBC can either be seen to be neutral, or declares its hand otherwise.

Oh, and before anyone gets excited, no I am not defending the online abuse.

[RyeSloan]

Heard nurse Austin interview on the radio. She said that she had needed to get help from foodbanks twice in the last 5 years.

A bit of perspective on the whole debate.

Interesting.

Also looked to see what the nurses use foodbanks evidence was...strangely enough it's hard to find. The main source seems to be the RCN through anecdotal evidence from their reps and an interpretation of their crisis grants. These grants (totalling 500 out of a membership of over 400k) are given for many reasons and they don't seem to have supplied any detailed breakdown barring stating that some will have been used for basics like food. Also of the grants given only 1 in 4 were to full time employees.


Ensuring people are able to work and afford to eat would seem a very sensible thing to make sure happens as well as to debate if required. Sadly this discussion seems to be based on flimsy evidence that sheds no light on the scale or frequency of the implied problem. Hardly helps the debate to be an informed one.

[McD]

She lied through her teeth and the typical imposters are around trying to defend her. :rolleyes:

A food bank isn't a place where you simply turn up and recieve free food. You need to go through a health adviser who assess you on everything before you can recieve vouchers.

Now just imagine for a moment a single mother who's child is already grown up and at university claiming that she can't afford to live on her own on a 23K p/a salary and requires foodbank vouchers to feed herself.

She'd been shown the exit door without hesitation.


Can you categorically prove she's lied?



I'm not arguing about other nurses though. There may well be other nurses who go to foodbanks. Manly those who meet the criteria that I just mentioned in a previous comment.

My argument is purely about a bare faced lie told by someone with an agenda. People like her don't help the case for nurses who really are on hard times.


you are coming across as that someone. You've raised some really valid points (I generally find your thoughts interesting), but by refusing to accept anyone else's points, and that there is likely some truth in the middle of the 2 extremes, you do come across as someone very blinkered.

[High-On-Hibs]

Can you categorically prove she's lied?





you are coming across as that someone. You've raised some really valid points (I generally find your thoughts interesting), but by refusing to accept anyone else's points, and that there is likely some truth in the middle of the 2 extremes, you do come across as someone very blinkered.

If I accepted other peoples points that directly conflicted my own, then I would be denouncing my own points.

People are entitled to hold any view they wish. I just find it frustrating when you provide a series of evidence to back up your own point, then you're told that your evidence isn't good enough by other people who provide absolutely nothing at all to back up their disagreement with the point made.

As for proving that she lied. What level of proof would be proof enough in your view?

[marinello59]

If I accepted other peoples points that directly conflicted my own, then I would be denouncing my own points.

People are entitled to hold any view they wish. I just find it frustrating when you provide a series of evidence to back up your own point, then you're told that your evidence isn't good enough by other people who provide absolutely nothing at all to back up their disagreement with the point made.

As for proving that she lied. What level of proof would be proof enough in your view?

What do you think about the actual points raised by her though. Do you find it acceptable that some of our most valued public sector employees have seen their true value of their salary reduced by 14% since 2010?

[Mr Grieves]

On to tonight's leader's interview, Andrew Neil has destroyed any credibility Theresa May had left. That was an absolute car crash of an interview

[Pretty Boy]

On to tonight's leader's interview, Andrew Neil has destroyed any credibility Theresa May had left. That was an absolute car crash of an interview

Good to see.

She is single handedly throwing this way and it's proper car crash stuff as you say. The Tories would do well to abandon the 'strong and stable' stuff and hide her from view as much as possible. Big chance for Corbyn to capitalise when he gets his turn with Neil.

If he deals with the inevitable IRA questions better than he did over the weekend and shifts the interviews towards policy as much as possible he could very well make it game on.

[snooky]

I wasn't being en tirely serious with that one. :greengrin
She has suggested that the meals etc were paid for by friends. I have no idea of the truth of any of this, I'm guessing that as usual it will all lie somewhere in the middle of each extreme viewpoint.

Good choice of word under the circumstances :wink:

[pacoluna]

What do you think about the actual points raised by her though. Do you find it acceptable that some of our most valued public sector employees have seen their true value of their salary reduced by 14% since 2010?

Her question would have been better aimed towards Ruth then, as I said before she has got of scot-free. When challenged she is as useless and flustered as May.

However I stick to my view that someone on 23g a year should manage just fine without using food banks.

[snooky]

It's divide and rule. Instead of questioning why we have food banks in what is supposedly one of the richest societies in human history, we have working people turning on each other and questioning each other's right to use them. This is exactly what those who welcome the current set up want.

Exactimondo, H&A.The Tories are laughing their asses off at this whole escapade.
Deck chairs, Titanic and a Conservative iceberg come to mind.

[snooky]

It isn't a lazy argument, and I'm not talking about individual bank staff but the institutions and boardrooms. It's called being held accountable for egregious wrong, just as we tell the poor they must take responsibility for themselves. Millions of people are being caused hardship and worry for something they didn't cause. They weren't included in the bounty when the financial institutions were booming and paying themselves very richly, but, when it all caved in due to greed and criminality, they were handed the bill. Don't tell me we are blaming the wrong organisations here. Nurses are just one group who have been caused seven years of harm by the events of 2008/09. Yes, the Tories use the crisis as a front for an ideological attack upon public services, but there was a crisis which has brought terrible consequences upon society, the poor most of all. Socialism for the rich - bank bailouts, sweetheart deals, tax breaks - and market discipline for the poor.

The Icelanders knew how to sort out their financial crash. We should have followed suit, IMO.

[marinello59]

Her question would have been better aimed towards Ruth then, as I said before she has got of scot-free. When challenged she is as useless and flustered as May.

However I stick to my view that someone on 23g a year should manage just fine without using food banks.

A blanket judgement that many in the Tory party will share with you. Means testing for food banks then? Again, the Tories will love that rather than condemning the fact that they exist at all the argument has become who should be entitled to use them or not. People slip in and out of poverty, things are not that simple to pre-judge.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Good to see.

She is single handedly throwing this way and it's proper car crash stuff as you say. The Tories would do well to abandon the 'strong and stable' stuff and hide her from view as much as possible. Big chance for Corbyn to capitalise when he gets his turn with Neil.

If he deals with the inevitable IRA questions better than he did over the weekend and shifts the interviews towards policy as much as possible he could very well make it game on.

Just read she apparently accused corbyn of "playing politics" with the care u-turn. My most hated phrase, but its always a good indicator that a politician is rattled or annoyed.

[marinello59]

Just read she apparently accused corbyn of "playing politics" with the care u-turn. My most hated phrase, but its always a good indicator that a politician is rattled or annoyed.

I've just seen that. She is utterly hopeless.

[snooky]

I've just seen that. She is utterly hopeless.

Theresa Meh

[stantonhibby]

Just read she apparently accused corbyn of "playing politics" with the care u-turn. My most hated phrase, but its always a good indicator that a politician is rattled or annoyed.

She is certainly rattled and Neil gave her a hard time. Will be interesting to see how Corbyn fares against him.

[Mr Grieves]

Good to see.

She is single handedly throwing this way and it's proper car crash stuff as you say. The Tories would do well to abandon the 'strong and stable' stuff and hide her from view as much as possible. Big chance for Corbyn to capitalise when he gets his turn with Neil.

If he deals with the inevitable IRA questions better than he did over the weekend and shifts the interviews towards policy as much as possible he could very well make it game on.

Neil's a shrewd operator so it'll be a tough one for Corbyn to control.

All the momentum is with Labour - reduced UK wide lead for the tories in the weekend's polls and a complete reversal in the Welsh poll today. It's getting interesting.

[Pretty Boy]

Neil's a shrewd operator so it'll be a tough one for Corbyn to control.

All the momentum is with Labour - reduced UK wide lead for the tories in the weekend's polls and a complete reversal in the Welsh poll today. It's getting interesting.
I'm very much leaning towards voting Labour now which was unthinkable a month ago. In fact it was almost unthinkable a week ago.

The power of (relatively) positive canpaigning is obviously having an effect on me.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

She is certainly rattled and Neil gave her a hard time. Will be interesting to see how Corbyn fares against him.

Hes a very good interviewer imo.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I'm very much leaning towards voting Labour now which was unthinkable a month ago. In fact it was almost unthinkable a week ago.

The power of (relatively) positive canpaigning is obviously having an effect on me.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Likewise - Edinburgh South is a bit of a 3-way split, and i dont want to vote SNP because i dont want my vote to be used to endorse indyref2, so bizarrely, its between labpur (fat wee jambo that ian murray is) amd the Tories. Im still highly scsptical of labour, but i believe murray is a good constituency MP, and also i just wonder what is the worst that can happen under labour?

Brexit is still a worry though with labour, as is defence.

Its difficult

[makaveli1875]

I'm very much leaning towards voting Labour now which was unthinkable a month ago. In fact it was almost unthinkable a week ago.

The power of (relatively) positive canpaigning is obviously having an effect on me.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Same here , still not 100% convinced about Corbyn but he's stepped up his game a bit since the election was called and it seems like the tide is turning .

[Swedish hibee]

These food banks that everyone is talking about, who runs them? Is it a profit business or charity based? Do 'normal' folks donate all the food or do food companies give a percentage of food to them?
No hate back please- I just don't understand how they work business wise.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

These food banks that everyone is talking about, who runs them? Is it a profit business or charity based? Do 'normal' folks donate all the food or do food companies give a percentage of food to them?
No hate back please- I just don't understand how they work business wise.

Think it is charities, churches etc that run them.

I do wonder how much they are a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[marinello59]

These food banks that everyone is talking about, who runs them? Is it a profit business or charity based? Do 'normal' folks donate all the food or do food companies give a percentage of food to them?
No hate back please- I just don't understand how they work business wise.

They're charities with most donations coming from members of the public via collections etc.

[The Harp Awakes]

On to tonight's leader's interview, Andrew Neil has destroyed any credibility Theresa May had left. That was an absolute car crash of an interview

Here's the lnk:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2017-39979839

Wow! That was a gobsmackingly awful performance from Theresa May. Scary that a any politician, let alone a Prime Minister, can have such a shallow understanding of her own manifesto and party's proposals.

Really made me the think that the Tory's will make an absolute hash of the Brexit negotiations. Sounded like she's not got a clue about anything.

[snooky]

Hes a very good interviewer imo.

Agreed, but I don't like him.
Jean Freeman chewed him up & spat him out pre-Indyref1

[Moulin Yarns]

These food banks that everyone is talking about, who runs them? Is it a profit business or charity based? Do 'normal' folks donate all the food or do food companies give a percentage of food to them?
No hate back please- I just don't understand how they work business wise.

https://www.trusselltrust.org

The main provider of food banks. Collect food donations from the public

[Speedy]

Here's the lnk:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2017-39979839

Wow! That was a gobsmackingly awful performance from Theresa May. Scary that a any politician, let alone a Prime Minister, can have such a shallow understanding of her own manifesto and party's proposals.

Really made me the think that the Tory's will make an absolute hash of the Brexit negotiations. Sounded like she's not got a clue about anything.

Couldn't get past 20 minutes of that.

ATFQ!

Why is it politicians all seem unable to answer a simple question.

[Speedy]

Agreed, but I don't like him.
Jean Freeman chewed him up & spat him out pre-Indyref1

Agreed, I've never liked him either.

[snooky]

Couldn't get past 20 minutes of that.

ATFQ!

Why is it politicians all seem unable to answer a simple question.

They can but they don't want to.
The first lesson in politics - how to dodge a bullet (i.e. a bad question to answer)

[Speedy]

They can but they don't want to.
The first lesson in politics - how to dodge a bullet (i.e. a bad question to answer)

It would be appreciated if they took a few lessons to make it more subtle :greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

They can but they don't want to.
The first lesson in politics - how to dodge a bullet (i.e. a bad question to answer)

In their defence, we make it difficult for them.

If they make a mistake, they get pilloried (a la diane abbott).

If they answer honestly, they get pilloried if they say anything remotely unpopular (which of course all governments or prospective governments have to do from time to time).

Lool at May now - unravelling because she actually tried (hamfistedly admittedly) to be honest amd deal with a serious societal problem, and it is blowinh up in her face. Politically, it would have been better for her to just lie in her manifesto.

There is often no advantage to honesty, and we as a public are partly responsible for that.

[pacoluna]

Likewise - Edinburgh South is a bit of a 3-way split, and i dont want to vote SNP because i dont want my vote to be used to endorse indyref2, so bizarrely, its between labpur (fat wee jambo that ian murray is) amd the Tories. Im still highly scsptical of labour, but i believe murray is a good constituency MP, and also i just wonder what is the worst that can happen under labour?

Brexit is still a worry though with labour, as is defence.

Its difficult
Maybe if kez didn't seem to want to vilify every Nat out there and base her whole rhetoric on attracting unionist votes Scottish Labour may have gained SNP votes in this election. I am drawn to Corbyn however kezia is a huge put off. I would be reluctantly willing to to hold back a 2nd ref for just now if Labour were to be in government under Corbyn and Corbyn only!

[McD]

If I accepted other peoples points that directly conflicted my own, then I would be denouncing my own points.

People are entitled to hold any view they wish. I just find it frustrating when you provide a series of evidence to back up your own point, then you're told that your evidence isn't good enough by other people who provide absolutely nothing at all to back up their disagreement with the point made.

As for proving that she lied. What level of proof would be proof enough in your view?


Theres a difference in accepting other's points yet not agreeing with them, and denouncing your own points.

As for evidence, what have you provided? Here's some of what you've said:

- she's a liar....you've not proved that in any way. She may have used food banks. You've stated that's a lie. So to answer the question above, I'd like some proof, any proof to your claim. You don't have any.

- she's a plant...again, you've offered no proof, beyond stating it as a fact. However suspicious the circumstances of her being on a second time, you have not provided any proof whatsoever. whether I agree or disagree on this point, neither of us can prove/disprove either way.



I wholeheartedly agree people are entitled to hold any view (within reason, and everything you've mentioned on this thread is within reason imo), others will equally find it frustrating that they will consider they've provided you with evidence to the contrary of some of your points, only for you to tell them their evidence isn't good enough.


i don't want this to come across as a dig mate, as I mentioned before I find your input and thoughts all across this board interesting and thought provoking. In this instance, my view is that the truth (the full truth) is somewhere in the middle of all this, i.e., she has used food banks and raises valid points, and also that she was put back on for a second time in order to push a point that was loaded to put NS under pressure.

[McD]

Maybe if kez didn't seem to want to vilify every Nat out there and base her whole rhetoric on attracting unionist votes Scottish Labour may have gained SNP votes. I am drawn to Corbyn however kezia is a huge put off. I would be reluctantly willing to to hold back a 2nd ref for just now if Labour were to be in government under Corbyn and Corbyn only!



Thats an interesting point, especially given in the not too distant past, it was the exact opposite that a lot of people were saying.

[snooky]

In their defence, we make it difficult for them.

If they make a mistake, they get pilloried (a la diane abbott).

If they answer honestly, they get pilloried if they say anything remotely unpopular (which of course all governments or prospective governments have to do from time to time).

Lool at May now - unravelling because she actually tried (hamfistedly admittedly) to be honest amd deal with a serious societal problem, and it is blowinh up in her face. Politically, it would have been better for her to just lie in her manifesto.

There is often no advantage to honesty, and we as a public are partly responsible for that.

Don't buy into that, SHB. That's victim blaming, IMO.
Politicians should have integrity however, through the years that quality has slipped into the abyss.
I regard most of them as a bunch of self-serving rogues (of varying degrees in roguishness of course).
Billy Connolly summed it up perfectly.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Maybe if kez didn't seem to want to vilify every Nat out there and base her whole rhetoric on attracting unionist votes Scottish Labour may have gained SNP votes in this election. I am drawn to Corbyn however kezia is a huge put off. I would be reluctantly willing to to hold back a 2nd ref for just now if Labour were to be in government under Corbyn and Corbyn only!

I still think corbyn is an arse, and almost certainly unfit to be PM, but i do also believe he is decent and does believe in what he peddles. And he certainly doesnt do anything to seize power, so he is not craven.

I think the mnaifesto is a bit daft, in that it is just a wishlist of lots of things for free, but im just starting to womder that even if they did kok it up, whats the worst that can happen?

Im genuienly undecided, bit mrs harp told me she is voting labour and it has made me think - as have a few of the posters on here. Maybe rolling the dice, mixing things up a bit and seeing what happens isnt the worst idea?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Don't buy into that, SHB. That's victim blaming, IMO.
Politicians should have integrity however, through the years that quality has slipped into the abyss.
I regard most of them as a bunch of self-serving rogues (of varying degrees in roguishness of course).
Billy Connolly summed it up perfectly.

I agree they should, and i admire when they do, but i can see why they are so defensive or even disingenuous when we all act like a baying mob waiting on them to trip up.

[JeMeSouviens]

Maybe if kez didn't seem to want to vilify every Nat out there and base her whole rhetoric on attracting unionist votes Scottish Labour may have gained SNP votes in this election. I am drawn to Corbyn however kezia is a huge put off. I would be reluctantly willing to to hold back a 2nd ref for just now if Labour were to be in government under Corbyn and Corbyn only!

Scot Lab's manifesto launch was all about stopping the SNP. They promised never to support indy and Dugdale dropped more hints that tactical voters might want to think about the Tories in some areas.

Woeful stuff.

I quite like some of UK lab's policy but they're hopelessly divided and the Scot branch is just hopeless. If I lived in a lab-con marginal I'd vote lab* but I don't so SNP it will be.

* I'd rather chew my own arm off than vote Tory to be fair.

[JeMeSouviens]

In their defence, we make it difficult for them.

If they make a mistake, they get pilloried (a la diane abbott).

If they answer honestly, they get pilloried if they say anything remotely unpopular (which of course all governments or prospective governments have to do from time to time).

Lool at May now - unravelling because she actually tried (hamfistedly admittedly) to be honest amd deal with a serious societal problem, and it is blowinh up in her face. Politically, it would have been better for her to just lie in her manifesto.

There is often no advantage to honesty, and we as a public are partly responsible for that.

Nah, not buying that. They tried to sneak a difficult policy in among an expected landslide expecting next to no scrutiny. As soon as it appears unpopular and there's a sniff of negative publicity, it's u-turn and frankly rubbish spinning trying to lie their way out of it.

[Speedy]

I agree they should, and i admire when they do, but i can see why they are so defensive or even disingenuous when we all act like a baying mob waiting on them to trip up.

You're right but it just goes to show the system is broken.

The media and guys like Andrew Neil all stir it up for their own benefit.

[G B Young]

Theres a difference in accepting other's points yet not agreeing with them, and denouncing your own points.

As for evidence, what have you provided? Here's some of what you've said:

- she's a liar....you've not proved that in any way. She may have used food banks. You've stated that's a lie. So to answer the question above, I'd like some proof, any proof to your claim. You don't have any.

- she's a plant...again, you've offered no proof, beyond stating it as a fact. However suspicious the circumstances of her being on a second time, you have not provided any proof whatsoever. whether I agree or disagree on this point, neither of us can prove/disprove either way.



I wholeheartedly agree people are entitled to hold any view (within reason, and everything you've mentioned on this thread is within reason imo), others will equally find it frustrating that they will consider they've provided you with evidence to the contrary of some of your points, only for you to tell them their evidence isn't good enough.


i don't want this to come across as a dig mate, as I mentioned before I find your input and thoughts all across this board interesting and thought provoking. In this instance, my view is that the truth (the full truth) is somewhere in the middle of all this, i.e., she has used food banks and raises valid points, and also that she was put back on for a second time in order to push a point that was loaded to put NS under pressure.

The only irrefutable lie told was by Joanna Cherry in her over-hasty briefing of journalists that the nurse is married to a Tory councillor. She has, rightly, apologised for endorsing a twitter rumour as fact but not before the nurse came under a whole heap of unwarranted flak. Judging by the attitude of some towards this woman you'd think she was owe the SNP an apology for daring to raise what (as you say) were valid points.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Nah, not buying that. They tried to sneak a difficult policy in among an expected landslide expecting next to no scrutiny. As soon as it appears unpopular and there's a sniff of negative publicity, it's u-turn and frankly rubbish spinning trying to lie their way out of it.

Fair enough, bit by your own admission you hate the tories, so you are hardly an unbiased commentator!

We can agree to disagree, i just dont see what the advantage to them would be of doing that.

[ronaldo7]

Not my favourite source, but (I can't believe I'm saying this) a relatively balanced view on #nursegate


https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-pertinent-questions/

You can read between the lines if you want but he raises some good points

Some good points in there. Now the most read post on the site since 2014.

[marinello59]

Some good points in there. Now the most read post on the site since 2014.

Agreed, it's a well balanced piece.

[snooky]

Agreed, it's a well balanced piece.

Totally off the subject.
In your avatar M59, what do the folk in the boat reply to "Where are you from?"
I can't make it out - too blurred.

[JeMeSouviens]

Totally off the subject.
In your avatar M59, what do the folk in the boat reply to "Where are you from?"
I can't make it out - too blurred.

"Earth"

[snooky]

"Earth" :aok:

[marinello59]

"Earth"

I will take this golden opportunity to agree with you. :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

I will take this golden opportunity to agree with you. :greengrin

You calling me disagreeable? :grr::wink:

[marinello59]

You calling me disagreeable? :grr::wink:
:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

A bit more in depth analysis of the BBC, and Nursegate.

https://t.co/76ai6IgFin

[marinello59]

A bit more in depth analysis of the BBC, and Nursegate.

https://t.co/76ai6IgFin

There's really nothing new there though is there? Apart from the revelation that the nurse in question may not be an SNP supporter. I'm shocked. :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

There's really nothing new there though is there? Apart from the revelation that the nurse in question may not be an SNP supporter. I'm shocked. :greengrin

I was just catching up with it all, after being out of the country for a while. The piece seemed to cover most of the bases, until Kezia decided to write directly to "Claire".:wink:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/kezia-dugdale-fact-check-part-682/

[lucky]

Still missing the point that the SNP voted down doing away with the NHS pay cap in the Scottish parliament. The nurse is being vilified but for me the real villains in this are the people who support keeping pay low for public service workers.

[JimBHibees]

I was just catching up with it all, after being out of the country for a while. The piece seemed to cover most of the bases, until Kezia decided to write directly to "Claire".:wink:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/kezia-dugdale-fact-check-part-682/

Shameful from Dugdale.

[ronaldo7]

Still missing the point that the SNP voted down doing away with the NHS pay cap in the Scottish parliament. The nurse is being vilified but for me the real villains in this are the people who support keeping pay low for public service workers.

Nurses pay is formulated under an Independent review body is it not? It has been fully funded by the Scottish Government, has it not? Nurses are paid more in Scotland than England are they not?

We all want more pay, how are we to pay for it?

[Hibrandenburg]

Nurses pay is formulated under an Independent review body is it not? It has been fully funded by the Scottish Government, has it not? Nurses are paid more in Scotland than England are they not?

We all want more pay, how are we to pay for it?

Exactly! The contradictions from the Unionist parties is galling, without full fiscal control we can only pay that what our pocket money can cover.

[marinello59]

I was just catching up with it all, after being out of the country for a while. The piece seemed to cover most of the bases, until Kezia decided to write directly to "Claire".:wink:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/kezia-dugdale-fact-check-part-682/

Good grief. On what planet would writing that letter be a good idea.

[ronaldo7]

Good grief. On what planet would writing that letter be a good idea.

Kezia's World.:greengrin

[marinello59]

Exactly! The contradictions from the Unionist parties is galling, without full fiscal control we can only pay that what our pocket money can cover.

So why wasn't the full force of this turned on to the Tories rather than the Nurse. The actual issue seems of no real concern to so many suppprters of a 'left' leaning party. Pay has dropped by 14% in real terms since 2010 but barely a mention of that from SNP supporters on here or elsewhere.

[snooky]

So why wasn't the full force of this turned on to the Tories rather than the Nurse. The actual issue seems of no real concern to so many suppprters of a 'left' leaning party. Pay has dropped by 14% in real terms since 2010 but barely a mention of that from SNP supporters on here or elsewhere.
Basically, there's two issues here. One is the question mark against nursey's credibilty and motives. The second is nurses' pay.
I agree with Marinello, the SNP should have deflected the question to the Tories. The BBC and Labour do not come out this unscathed though. This whole nursey thing stinks of political manipulation from start to finish.

[lucky]

Nurses pay is formulated under an Independent review body is it not? It has been fully funded by the Scottish Government, has it not? Nurses are paid more in Scotland than England are they not?

We all want more pay, how are we to pay for it?

What happened to the will of the Scottish parliament argument? If the SNP had supported removing the cap nurses would have got a pay rise in line with inflation. But blaming others is why they aren't winning the independence debate with the Scottish people

[Hibrandenburg]

So why wasn't the full force of this turned on to the Tories rather than the Nurse. The actual issue seems of no real concern to so many suppprters of a 'left' leaning party. Pay has dropped by 14% in real terms since 2010 but barely a mention of that from SNP supporters on here or elsewhere.

Again, without full fiscal control, how can the SNP do anything about it?

I think the outrage stems from the utter frustration from the pro indy side at the real or perceived bias of the media. I think they thought they'd caught the BBC red handed (I still think they did but that argument has been done to death and the BBC have managed to wiggle out of it) and jumped the gun in their condemnation.

[marinello59]

Again, without full fiscal control, how can the SNP do anything about it?

I think the outrage stems from the utter frustration from the pro indy side at the real or perceived bias of the media. I think they thought they'd caught the BBC red handed (I still think they did but that argument has been done to death and the BBC have managed to wiggle out of it) and jumped the gun in their condemnation.

Again.....That's why I have kept saying this should have been turned on to the Tories. :greengrin
As for the outrage it played out badly as even Wings (sort of) conceded. It achieved nothing other than let the SNP faithful vent. To outsiders, rightly or wrongly, it looked like an attrempt to trash anyone who dared to criticise their leader. That does absolutely nothing to win people over, an utter waste of energy. We lost the last time because to much time was spent by Yes supporters talking to themselves, I had hoped that lessons had been learned. I'm not so sure they were.
On the plus side, Kezia's hamfisted letter has neutered attempts by labour to make any political capital out of this.

[ronaldo7]

What happened to the will of the Scottish parliament argument? If the SNP had supported removing the cap nurses would have got a pay rise in line with inflation. But blaming others is why they aren't winning the independence debate with the Scottish people

Kezia's been caught out, and you're talking about blaming others...Great.

You've not answered any of my questions. I wonder why?

Maybe the choices you would make would be different, if so, let's hear them. Where would you take the cash from?

This is a part of the report from the pay body this year.

" The Scottish Government told us that their Public Sector Pay Policy – a 1 per cent pay award for all staff with an additional uplift for those whose full-time equivalent basic salary is £22,000 or under – is funded because they are uplifting the budgets to Health Boards by 1.5 per cent. It is clear that a pay award higher than this would require trade-offs in terms of service levels, investment decisions and potentially staff numbers, with associated implications for workload and pressures on staff and service delivery unless accompanying actions were taken to manage demand".

Do you want redundancies, lower service levels, lower investment, which is it to be?

[High-On-Hibs]

Kezia's been caught out, and you're talking about blaming others...Great.

You've not answered any of my questions. I wonder why?

Maybe the choices you would make would be different, if so, let's hear them. Where would you take the cash from?

This is a part of the report from the pay body this year.

" The Scottish Government told us that their Public Sector Pay Policy – a 1 per cent pay award for all staff with an additional uplift for those whose full-time equivalent basic salary is £22,000 or under – is funded because they are uplifting the budgets to Health Boards by 1.5 per cent. It is clear that a pay award higher than this would require trade-offs in terms of service levels, investment decisions and potentially staff numbers, with associated implications for workload and pressures on staff and service delivery unless accompanying actions were taken to manage demand".

Do you want redundancies, lower service levels, lower investment, which is it to be?

You're sadly wasting your time. For a lot of people in Scotland the SNP are damned if they don't and damned if they do. They just hate the SNP regardless of the decisions taken. They'll whinge about decisions not being taken by the SNP, but if the SNP then do take those decisions, they are then attacked by the very same people for the consequences as a result of those decisions taken.

There is no getting through to people who think this way. You can't do a damn thing about it. That's why it's frustrating.

[lucky]

Kezia's been caught out, and you're talking about blaming others...Great.

You've not answered any of my questions. I wonder why?

Maybe the choices you would make would be different, if so, let's hear them. Where would you take the cash from?

This is a part of the report from the pay body this year.

" The Scottish Government told us that their Public Sector Pay Policy – a 1 per cent pay award for all staff with an additional uplift for those whose full-time equivalent basic salary is £22,000 or under – is funded because they are uplifting the budgets to Health Boards by 1.5 per cent. It is clear that a pay award higher than this would require trade-offs in terms of service levels, investment decisions and potentially staff numbers, with associated implications for workload and pressures on staff and service delivery unless accompanying actions were taken to manage demand".

Do you want redundancies, lower service levels, lower investment, which is it to be?

Use the tax powers that the parliament has but that we know the so called progressive SNP won't do that

[lucky]

You're sadly wasting your time. For a lot of people in Scotland the SNP are damned if they don't and damned if they do. They just hate the SNP regardless of the decisions taken. They'll whinge about decisions not being taken by the SNP, but if the SNP then do take those decisions, they are then attacked by the very same people for the consequences as a result of those decisions taken.

There is no getting through to people who think this way. You can't do a damn thing about it. That's why it's frustrating.

Whilst the cult can see no wrong in what they do. Maybe if our country was not so divided we could have a different political debate rather one based on flags and borders.

[weecounty hibby]

Whilst the cult can see no wrong in what they do. Maybe if our country was not so divided we could have a different political debate rather one based on flags and borders.
And there we have it ladies and gentlemen. A discussion around NHS spending turned round by a Labour supporter to the constitution. One trick ponies and unfortunately for you and probably everyone else the Tories are better at it than Labour.

[ronaldo7]

Use the tax powers that the parliament has but that we know the so called progressive SNP won't do that

We've already used the tax powers to change the thresholds of the bandings. Did you miss that?

Come on Lucky, I've asked you a number of times, where is the money coming from? How much? Where is it going. Are you still planning to tax people on £11.5k another 1p?

Some detailed plans would be good.:greengrin

[Just Alf]

Lucky has a point to be fair. Highlighting the tax powers we do have shows up how they're inadequate for what we need to actually make a difference, yet another excellent way to show that having independence and therefore access to all the financial levers a government can have is the way to go.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Lucky has a point to be fair. Highlighting the tax powers we do have shows up how they're inadequate for what we need to actually make a difference, yet another excellent way to show that having independence and therefore access to all the financial levers a government can have is the way to go.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Nae argument here.:greengrin

I just wonder when the SLAB will start fighting the Tories in Scotland, instead of getting into bed with them.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You're sadly wasting your time. For a lot of people in Scotland the SNP are damned if they don't and damned if they do. They just hate the SNP regardless of the decisions taken. They'll whinge about decisions not being taken by the SNP, but if the SNP then do take those decisions, they are then attacked by the very same people for the consequences as a result of those decisions taken.

There is no getting through to people who think this way. You can't do a damn thing about it. That's why it's frustrating.

Thats the reality of government im afraid. Its grown up politics, none of this 'a big boy did it ran away'.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Lucky has a point to be fair. Highlighting the tax powers we do have shows up how they're inadequate for what we need to actually make a difference, yet another excellent way to show that having independence and therefore access to all the financial levers a government can have is the way to go.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

The tax powers arent inadequate, the SNP govt just doesnt like making unpopular decisions. Why not combat austerity with the powers they have? It wouldnt be because its a useful bete noir to blame everything on amd help foster grievance would it...?

[Hibrandenburg]

Thats the reality of government im afraid. Its grown up politics, none of this 'a big boy did it ran away'.

But the big boy holds the purse strings.

[Hibbyradge]

You're sadly wasting your time. For a lot of people in Scotland the SNP are damned if they don't and damned if they do. They just hate the SNP regardless of the decisions taken. They'll whinge about decisions not being taken by the SNP, but if the SNP then do take those decisions, they are then attacked by the very same people for the consequences as a result of those decisions taken.

There is no getting through to people who think this way. You can't do a damn thing about it. That's why it's frustrating.

That applies to the Conservative party too. And Labour.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

But the big boy holds the purse strings.

But all govts have 'purse strings'. No govt can simply gove everyone everything they want. Governing is difficult.

An indy Scotland wouldbt be able to give huge payrises to all public sector workers. And the problems in health ae more acute because of the spiralling costs of healthcare.

NhS Scotland currently has a budget of around 13 billion a year. About 85% of that budget is staff costs. Any rises to those stafg costs need to be borne by someone, either we as a public pay more for our greater health needs, or othet departments take the hit.

There is no free money.

And the big boy doesnt hold all of the purse strings. Just the ones that the scottish people voted for the big boy to keep control of. So how about the SG get on with their job and take responsibility for the areas where they have the power to act.

I accept the SNP want indy, but more people didnt so stop moaning and get on with being a responsible govt.

[JimBHibees]

The tax powers arent inadequate, the SNP govt just doesnt like making unpopular decisions. Why not combat austerity with the powers they have? It wouldnt be because its a useful bete noir to blame everything on amd help foster grievance would it...?

They have mitigated some of the worst Tory cuts like the bedroom tax.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

They have mitigated some of the worst Tory cuts like the bedroom tax.

And that is how devolution is supposed to work.

Aside from constant moaning starting to grate, there is a more serious point.

I dont want indy to be won by 50.1 vs 49.9 and further division and acrimony. I want it to happen because it is largely accepted by most that it is the obvious answer, and the majority can make that decision without it seeming like a huge gamble or huge leap - ideally, it should happen when it feels like a natural step.

That will be best achieved by the SG and SP maximising devolution to demonstrate that decisions made in Edinburgh are btter for us, and that those decisions can make a real sifference to people and that the SG / SP is mature enough. Then it would, imo be a case of incrementally taking on more power until the point that most scots wake up and think, actially wr pretty much are independent.

At the moment it feels like we are all working to a deadline imposed by tge SNP for their own political ends, and while i absolutely accept that 50% +1 should mean indy, there is no doubt in my mind that would not be the ideal way to do it, via a rancorous ref campaign.

I think the SNP were at their best as a govt back in 2007-2011 when indy still seemed fairly distant, and where they saw their job as proving that the SG can be relentlessly competent amd beneficial to all Scots.

It now feels too desperate, and too much like a campaign and that is by definition divisive.

[snooky]

And that is how devolution is supposed to work.

Aside from constant moaning starting to grate, there is a more serious point.

I dont want indy to be won by 50.1 vs 49.9 and further division and acrimony. I want it to happen because it is largely accepted by most that it is the obvious answer, and the majority can make that decision without it seeming like a huge gamble or huge leap - ideally, it should happen when it feels like a natural step.

That will be best achieved by the SG and SP maximising devolution to demonstrate that decisions made in Edinburgh are btter for us, and that those decisions can make a real sifference to people and that the SG / SP is mature enough. Then it would, imo be a case of incrementally taking on more power until the point that most scots wake up and think, actially wr pretty much are independent.

At the moment it feels like we are all working to a deadline imposed by tge SNP for their own political ends, and while i absolutely accept that 50% +1 should mean indy, there is no doubt in my mind that would not be the ideal way to do it, via a rancorous ref campaign.

I think the SNP were at their best as a govt back in 2007-2011 when indy still seemed fairly distant, and where they saw their job as proving that the SG can be relentlessly competent amd beneficial to all Scots.

It now feels too desperate, and too much like a campaign and that is by definition divisive.

I agree, SHB. a close vote around the 50/50 is terribly divisive either way. Alas, I can't see there being much change from that ratio in the near future. Methinks we're in for a long haul of friction between the ayes and nays until something major swings voters on one side over to the other.

[grunt]

I dont want indy to be won by 50.1 vs 49.9 and further division and acrimony. I want it to happen because it is largely accepted by most that it is the obvious answer, and the majority can make that decision without it seeming like a huge gamble or huge leap - ideally, it should happen when it feels like a natural step.

If it was ok for #brexit it should be ok for #scotref.

[Hibrandenburg]

But all govts have 'purse strings'. No govt can simply gove everyone everything they want. Governing is difficult.

An indy Scotland wouldbt be able to give huge payrises to all public sector workers. And the problems in health ae more acute because of the spiralling costs of healthcare.

NhS Scotland currently has a budget of around 13 billion a year. About 85% of that budget is staff costs. Any rises to those stafg costs need to be borne by someone, either we as a public pay more for our greater health needs, or othet departments take the hit.

There is no free money.

And the big boy doesnt hold all of the purse strings. Just the ones that the scottish people voted for the big boy to keep control of. So how about the SG get on with their job and take responsibility for the areas where they have the power to act.

I accept the SNP want indy, but more people didnt so stop moaning and get on with being a responsible govt.

Piffle! An independent Scotland would be able to do much more with full fiscal control over its spending. We've already established we pay in more than we get out. We could choose to divert money from other areas rather than just simply raise taxes.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Piffle! An independent Scotland would be able to do much more with full fiscal control over its spending. We've already established we pay in more than we get out. We could choose to divert money from other areas rather than just simply raise taxes.

Have we? I must habe missed that.

Current spending is already at deficit levels, debt is already high, the costs of setting up a new country would habe to be included, and there would almost certainly be financial, economic and business uncertainty for a few years ( at least) aftwt indy.

I find it odd that someone who sees brexit as a huge disaster seems to think indy will be easy?

Very few govts can spend everything they would like to, politics effectively is arguinh over the allocatiob of finite resources.

Of course we could pay nurses more without raising taxes, but that would mean cuts elsewhere. Sure, we can cut trident or decence, but then we habe thousands made unemployed and anship building industry that would be in serious jeopardy.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If it was ok for #brexit it should be ok for #scotref.

Kinda missed the point i was making

[Moulin Yarns]

Have we? I must habe missed that.

Current spending is already at deficit levels, debt is already high, the costs of setting up a new country would habe to be included, and there would almost certainly be financial, economic and business uncertainty for a few years ( at least) aftwt indy.

I find it odd that someone who sees brexit as a huge disaster seems to think indy will be easy?

Very few govts can spend everything they would like to, politics effectively is arguinh over the allocatiob of finite resources.

Of course we could pay nurses more without raising taxes, but that would mean cuts elsewhere. Sure, we can cut trident or decence, but then we habe thousands made unemployed and anship building industry that would be in serious jeopardy.


Really?? regurgitating the same misinformation released during the Indyref won't work when so much of it was debunked last time

http://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/uk-trident-operational-berths/ministry-defence-reveals-just-520-faslane-jobs-depend-trident


Claims that Scotland would lose thousands of jobs if the Trident nuclear weapons system is taken out of service or moved elsewhere have been thrown into question following an admission by the Ministry of Defence that only 520 civilian jobs at HM Naval Base Clyde are dependent on Trident.


About 3,500 of the jobs at the Clyde base are uniformed Royal Navy personnel, 1,700 are contractors and 1,600 are other civilian employees, most of whom work principally on other aspects of the Navy's submarine programme, rather than Trident. Claims that all these jobs would be lost are based on the unlikely assumption that the Ministry of Defence would close the entire Faslane base immediately.


An expert study into the economic consequences of cancelling Trident commissioned by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Scottish CND concluded that the total reduction in direct and indirect civilian employment across Scotland if Trident was scrapped would be less than 1800 and that this reduction would not take place until after 2022.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/23/trident-workers-better-employed-eleswhere

[High-On-Hibs]

Whilst the cult can see no wrong in what they do. Maybe if our country was not so divided we could have a different political debate rather one based on flags and borders.

I wholeheartedly agree. The Conservative "UK Independence" Party are a disgrace.

[High-On-Hibs]

The tax powers arent inadequate, the SNP govt just doesnt like making unpopular decisions. Why not combat austerity with the powers they have? It wouldnt be because its a useful bete noir to blame everything on amd help foster grievance would it...?

They are inadequate to a degree. Yes, there are certain powers that the Scottish Government could utilize, but changing them from how they're set right now, would more than likely result in a reduction of revenue, not an increase. As much as tax increases will be necessary to combat austerity, the economy also has to retain a reasonable degree of competitiveness. The only way to achieve both is with maximum leverage over all of Scotlands economic matters. Something that Scotland will never been given as a member state of the United Kingdom. The only powers they will devolve are powers that will ultimately be damaging to the Scottish economy if tampered with, without access to other powers that will never be devolved.

[grunt]

Kinda missed the point i was makingI seem to do that a lot with your posts, but not with others. Not sure why that is.

What was your point again?


That will be best achieved by the SG and SP maximising devolution to demonstrate that decisions made in Edinburgh are btter for us, and that those decisions can make a real sifference to people and that the SG / SP is mature enough. Then it would, imo be a case of incrementally taking on more power until the point that most scots wake up and think, actially wr pretty much are independent. This is impossible when you've got a Tory Govt in Westminster. They are determined not to allow the Scots to have any real control over their future, and if they get in again just watch them remove powers from the devolved parliament.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Really?? regurgitating the same misinformation released during the Indyref won't work when so much of it was debunked last time

http://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/uk-trident-operational-berths/ministry-defence-reveals-just-520-faslane-jobs-depend-trident





https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/23/trident-workers-better-employed-eleswhere

I said trident and defence.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I seem to do that a lot with your posts, but not with others. Not sure why that is.

What was your point again?

This is impossible when you've got a Tory Govt in Westminster. They are determined not to allow the Scots to have any real control over their future, and if they get in again just watch them remove powers from the devolved parliament.

Well stop reading them, simple solution.

[Swedish hibee]

You're sadly wasting your time. For a lot of people in Scotland the SNP are damned if they don't and damned if they do. They just hate the SNP regardless of the decisions taken. They'll whinge about decisions not being taken by the SNP, but if the SNP then do take those decisions, they are then attacked by the very same people for the consequences as a result of those decisions taken.

There is no getting through to people who think this way. You can't do a damn thing about it. That's why it's frustrating.

I think the whole 'once in a lifetime' referendum issue still hurts many people who voted. You had your vote, but yet the leader is still posing alongside Yes signs.
As a neutral- I feel she has played this all wrong. And folk have switched off completely now.

[High-On-Hibs]

I think the whole 'once in a lifetime' referendum issue still hurts many people who voted. You had your vote, but yet the leader is still posing alongside Yes signs.
As a neutral- I feel she has played this all wrong. And folk have switched off completely now.

As someone living in Scotland, I disagree with you entirely.

[marinello59]

As someone living in Scotland, I disagree with you entirely.

Why does your location make your view any more valid? Genuinely confused.

[Swedish hibee]

As someone living in Scotland, I disagree with you entirely.

I merely pointed my opinion as a complete neutral I have no bias to either left or right.
My location doesn't matter. And I'm ashamed that on an open forum, it would matter to you.
So much for the Hibs worldwide family.

[easty]

I merely pointed my opinion as a complete neutral I have no bias to either left or right.
My location doesn't matter. And I'm ashamed that on an open forum, it would matter to you.
So much for the Hibs worldwide family.

Ashamed? Honestly, this forum gets more touchy by the day.

Your location does matter, if you're in Sweden, as your name suggests, then you can't really see whether "folk have switched off", and I'd agree with H-O-H, I think you're wrong.

[Swedish hibee]

Ashamed? Honestly, this forum gets more touchy by the day.

Your location does matter, if you're in Sweden, as your name suggests, then you can't really see whether "folk have switched off", and I'd agree with H-O-H, I think you're wrong.

How do you know how much time I spend in Edinburgh? Do I need to show my passport upon logging in?
Me touchy???! Oh please.
I just don't understand why a location matters to you?
So by your logic, you yourself cannot comment on the recent Manchester bombing as you don't live there as you can't see what is going on in that city.?

[ronaldo7]

I think the whole 'once in a lifetime' referendum issue still hurts many people who voted. You had your vote, but yet the leader is still posing alongside Yes signs.
As a neutral- I feel she has played this all wrong. And folk have switched off completely now.

How have you gauged the bit in bold mate?

[grunt]

Ms Sturgeon faces Andrew Neil.

How do we think she fared?
How do we think she performed as against JC and MT?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08rz2zx/the-andrew-neil-interviews-election-2017-nicola-sturgeon

[ronaldo7]

Ms Sturgeon faces Andrew Neil.

How do we think she fared?
How do we think she performed as against JC and MT?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08rz2zx/the-andrew-neil-interviews-election-2017-nicola-sturgeon

She was simply magnificent. Across her brief, and parried him away several times. She even had a go at him, and put him on the back foot. Not often you see that of Mr Neil.

If Nicola had been in the Scottish Labia party, she'd have been up against the weak and wobbly one for PM. :greengrin

[High-On-Hibs]

Why does your location make your view any more valid? Genuinely confused.

Because somebody who lives here 24/7 is more than likely going to have a stronger grasp of the political landscape of that country as opposed to someone who drops by every now and then.

I don't mean that in a disrespecful way, it's just logical.

I could give my opinion of the Sweedish political landscape, but obviously somebody who lives there is going to have a considerably better grasp on it than myself.

[marinello59]

Because somebody who lives here 24/7 is more than likely going to have a stronger grasp of the political landscape of that country as opposed to someone who drops by every now and then.

I don't mean that in a disrespecful way, it's just logical.

I could give my opinion of the Sweedish political landscape, but obviously somebody who lives there is going to have a considerably better grasp on it than myself.

Sometimes it good to see ourselves as others see us.
I guess if they agreed with you it wouldn't be an issue though, you don't seem to feel the need to stress your location to anybody else. :wink:

[High-On-Hibs]

She was simply magnificent. Across her brief, and parried him away several times. She even had a go at him, and put him on the back foot. Not often you see that of Mr Neil.

If Nicola had been in the Scottish Labia party, she'd have been up against the weak and wobbly one for PM. :greengrin

I thought she did ok under the circumstances, but wasn't blown away either. I personally can't stand Andrew Neil. He has a habit of asking a question, only to talk over the person/politician trying to answer the question. He comes across as fairly obnoxious. But I suppose his job is to make politicians as uncomfortable as he can, regardless of the tactics he uses to achieve that impact.

Nicola held her own pretty well. You could tell Andrew was nit picking at statistics that suited the "SNP have failed education" narrative. While continuing to ignore the overall picture which isn't anywhere near as bleak as the narrative is making it out to be.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Ashamed? Honestly, this forum gets more touchy by the day.

Your location does matter, if you're in Sweden, as your name suggests, then you can't really see whether "folk have switched off", and I'd agree with H-O-H, I think you're wrong.

I dont think Hibrandenburg will like this much...

[stantonhibby]

She was simply magnificent. Across her brief, and parried him away several times. She even had a go at him, and put him on the back foot. Not often you see that of Mr Neil.

If Nicola had been in the Scottish Labia party, she'd have been up against the weak and wobbly one for PM. :greengrin

Sycophants r us

[grunt]

Sycophants r usPerhaps.

Or possibly, objectively, she was more assured, more in touch with facts and statistics to support her views, less easily thrown by difficult questions. Compare her - honestly - with Theresa May's car crash performance. Who would you rather have on your side in difficult Brexit negotiations?

[ronaldo7]

Sycophants r us

:tee hee:

Anything to add on the subject matter, or has the cat caught yer tongue.:wink:

[stantonhibby]

:tee hee:

Anything to add on the subject matter, or has the cat caught yer tongue.:wink:

Didn't, see the interview. Tbh I'm not surprised if she did well as she is an impressive communicator, I'll have a watch and see what made her ' simply magnificent' !

[stantonhibby]

Perhaps.

Or possibly, objectively, she was more assured, more in touch with facts and statistics to support her views, less easily thrown by difficult questions. Compare her - honestly - with Theresa May's car crash performance. Who would you rather have on your side in difficult Brexit negotiations?

No argument from me on Mrs May......proving to be anything but strong and stable

[ronaldo7]

Didn't, see the interview. Tbh I'm not surprised if she did well as she is an impressive communicator, I'll have a watch and see what made her ' simply magnificent' !

So you shot from the hip, without actually knowing what went on. :rolleyes:

I'll remember that next time.:wink:

It's like watching Benny Brazil (corbyn) v Frank Sauzee. Oor Nicola.:aok:

[marinello59]

She was simply magnificent. Across her brief, and parried him away several times. She even had a go at him, and put him on the back foot. Not often you see that of Mr Neil.

If Nicola had been in the Scottish Labia party, she'd have been up against the weak and wobbly one for PM. :greengrin

She was good but magnificent might just be taking it a wee bit too far. All in all I don't think she is having a great election campaign. It doesn't matter much though given the poor quality of opposition she is up against.

[easty]

How do you know how much time I spend in Edinburgh? Do I need to show my passport upon logging in?
Me touchy???! Oh please.
I just don't understand why a location matters to you?
So by your logic, you yourself cannot comment on the recent Manchester bombing as you don't live there as you can't see what is going on in that city.?

Aye you're right...no touchy at all eh.

Location doesn't matter to me. I don't care where you are, or what you do with your passport. H-O-H's reply to M59 pretty much sums it up for me.

The Manchester situation, that wouldn't be going by my logic, not really, it's not the same. But you know that, so good point...well made.

[ronaldo7]

She was good but magnificent might just be taking it a wee bit too far. All in all I don't think she is having a great election campaign. It doesn't matter much though given the poor quality of opposition she is up against.

I've said before, you should have a tongue in cheek smiley.:wink:

The Election has been a bit of a damp squib at the moment. :agree:

[marinello59]

I've said before, you should have a tongue in cheek smiley.:wink:

The Election has been a bit of a damp squib at the moment. :agree:

Agreed. Although if Corbyn keeps closing the gap down south it could get interesting. I'd love to see May's face if the landslide she expected fails to materialise. :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

I dont think Hibrandenburg will like this much...

Hibrandenburg thinks everybody has a right to an opinion, I don't agree with him but can see where he's coming from. Sometimes it helpful to be outside looking in, there's less emotions to blur your take on things.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Agreed. Although if Corbyn keeps closing the gap down south it could get interesting. I'd love to see May's face if the landslide she expected fails to materialise. :greengrin

I have to say, that would be a priceless moment and would put her right up (or down?) there with the greatest political **** ups in British history - right there with dode robertson's devolution quip.

I think the tories will still win, but she could win and still be weakened by the result, if that makes sense.

[marinello59]

Hibrandenburg thinks everybody has a right to an opinion, I don't agree with him but can see where he's coming from. Sometimes it helpful to be outside looking in, there's less emotions to blur your take on things.

You're arguing with yourself now?

[Hibrandenburg]

You're arguing with yourself now?

One simply desires an intelligent debate.:wink:

[marinello59]

One simply desires an intelligent debate.:wink:
:greengrin

[Swedish hibee]

Because somebody who lives here 24/7 is more than likely going to have a stronger grasp of the political landscape of that country as opposed to someone who drops by every now and then.

I don't mean that in a disrespecful way, it's just logical.

I could give my opinion of the Sweedish political landscape, but obviously somebody who lives there is going to have a considerably better grasp on it than myself.

So what about people who leave Scotland for work? Armed forces, doctors, workers in the Gulf, gap students ect ect. Does their opinion not matter either as according to your logic, it doesn't as their not in Scotland 24/7 either..

And finally is this just for politics? Or can't I comment on Hibs over on the main forum? Or Billy Connolly, Tesco carrier bags or whatever the latest thread is here on the Holy ground....

[Colr]

So what about people who leave Scotland for work? Armed forces, doctors, workers in the Gulf, gap students ect ect. Does their opinion not matter either as according to your logic, it doesn't as their not in Scotland 24/7 either..

And finally is this just for politics? Or can't I comment on Hibs over on the main forum? Or Billy Connolly, Tesco carrier bags or whatever the latest thread is here on the Holy ground....

First the bounce, now the net.

[High-On-Hibs]

So what about people who leave Scotland for work? Armed forces, doctors, workers in the Gulf, gap students ect ect. Does their opinion not matter either as according to your logic, it doesn't as their not in Scotland 24/7 either..

And finally is this just for politics? Or can't I comment on Hibs over on the main forum? Or Billy Connolly, Tesco carrier bags or whatever the latest thread is here on the Holy ground....

Where did I say your opinion doesn't matter? If you can point that one out to me, then I will apologize. Otherwise, quit being a drama queen.

[EH6 Hibby]

So what about people who leave Scotland for work? Armed forces, doctors, workers in the Gulf, gap students ect ect. Does their opinion not matter either as according to your logic, it doesn't as their not in Scotland 24/7 either..

And finally is this just for politics? Or can't I comment on Hibs over on the main forum? Or Billy Connolly, Tesco carrier bags or whatever the latest thread is here on the Holy ground....

As a neutral in this particular argument, I think you are being waaaay too touchy. Someone disagreed with you, they didn't say you weren't allowed an opinion because you don't live here. There's a difference.

[Swedish hibee]

As a neutral in this particular argument, I think you are being waaaay too touchy. Someone disagreed with you, they didn't say you weren't allowed an opinion because you don't live here. There's a difference.

I dont mind anyone didn't like my view of Nicola Sturgeon. And it's good than many watched & didn't switch off like me. My mindset is very different to Scottish which I'm happy with- that's what gets conversation going.
What I had an issue with was HOH comment "as a Scot living in Scotland" What difference does that make???
How does the poster know I'm not living in Leith Walk now? There are many hot blondes in Leith now haha! Anyway that's it from me.

[Moulin Yarns]

I said trident and defence.


And I answered on Trident, but you don't bother to accept it. Your choice.

As for Defence, well, looks like there won't be as many as you think facing unemployment if the current government continues the way they are.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

And I answered on Trident, but you don't bother to accept it. Your choice.

As for Defence, well, looks like there won't be as many as you think facing unemployment if the current government continues the way they are.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/forces-braced-cuts-defence-cash-squeeze/

Because its a supplementary point - if you cut trident and other defence budgets in am indy scotland, then that will mean job losses, particuarly in clyde shipbuilding i would think. I was just using this as a point to illustrate that public pounds can only be spent once.

Ok, so you accept there would be job losses then. Thats my point, thanks for agreeing :-)

[Just Alf]

Because its a supplementary point - if you cut trident and other defence budgets in am indy scotland, then that will mean job losses, particuarly in clyde shipbuilding i would think. I was just using this as a point to illustrate that public pounds can only be spent once.

Ok, so you accept there would be job losses then. Thats my point, thanks for agreeing :-)

Depends who was in power, if it was the SNP they'd stated last time out they'd intend to stop paying towards Trident but would increase spending on conventional forces, including a ship or 2 to be based in Scotland that we currently don't have. The net result was expected to be a slight increase in defence employment. The rest of the Trident "saving" was to be used elsewhere including helping to reduce any ongoing deficit. It'd be up to Labour or the Tories how they'd manage it.

[Moulin Yarns]

Because its a supplementary point - if you cut trident and other defence budgets in am indy scotland, then that will mean job losses, particuarly in clyde shipbuilding i would think. I was just using this as a point to illustrate that public pounds can only be spent once.

Ok, so you accept there would be job losses then. Thats my point, thanks for agreeing :-)

Right! The point about Faslane, in an independent Scotland, is it would be the base for the Scottish Defence forces, without Trident. Or did you miss that bit in the white paper?

All the cuts referred to are in UK defence, meaning that the cuts are happening under the Tories UK government. What happens in an Iscotland are unknown, but were debated in length 2 years ago.

What this has to do with the current election, or leaders (and Tory substitutes) debate is lost on me, but you brought it up so I replied.

I didn't agree anything with you as you suggest there will be mass unemployment due to defence cuts in an independent Scotland, I merely pointed out there was already unemployment in defence due to Tory defence cuts.

[Hibrandenburg]

Because its a supplementary point - if you cut trident and other defence budgets in am indy scotland, then that will mean job losses, particuarly in clyde shipbuilding i would think. I was just using this as a point to illustrate that public pounds can only be spent once.

Ok, so you accept there would be job losses then. Thats my point, thanks for agreeing :-)

The trident programme is funded by tax payer's money and there are only savings to be made, trident doesn't add a single penny to the Scottish economy other than provide jobs at the taxpayer's expense. It's money thrown down the drain and any money saved could be reinvested elsewhere providing more jobs in the public sector that actually benefit society.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The trident programme is funded by tax payer's money and there are only savings to be made, trident doesn't add a single penny to the Scottish economy other than provide jobs at the taxpayer's expense. It's money thrown down the drain and any money saved could be reinvested elsewhere providing more jobs in the public sector that actually benefit society.

This discussion has gone way off track! The point being, unless you increase govt revenue in (i.e. taxes) then any increase to public sector pay would have to be taken from other areas of public spending. I was just using decence spending as an example.

Bearing in mind the costs scotland eould incur on indy, the fact we would likely begin with significant natiobal debt and an existing deficit, not to mention the prospect of significant capital flight, then it is unlikely an indy scotland would be handing out huge public sector pay increases.

You are right that the SG doesnt hold all of the purse strings, but you are wrong to suggest that by holding all of them, there will be loads more money sloshing around considering our likely starting point.

For the rscord, i have a vested interest in nurses pay being as high as possible, so im all for huge payrises, but someone, somewhere had to pay for it. Amd the SNP afe so reluctant to use the tax powers already available to them, so im not sure where the money is going to come from.

[grunt]

Sure, we can cut trident or decence, but then we habe thousands made unemployed and anship building industry that would be in serious jeopardy.


I was just using decence spending as an example.
We're supposed to guess that, are we?


Bearing in mind the costs scotland eould incur on indy, the fact we would likely begin with significant natiobal debt and an existing deficit, not to mention the prospect of significant capital flight, then it is unlikely an indy scotland would be handing out huge public sector pay increases.There's a possibility that an independent Scotland within Europe could attract significant capital investment. I'm not sure why you assume capital flight?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

We're supposed to guess that, are we?

There's a possibility that an independent Scotland within Europe could attract significant capital investment. I'm not sure why you assume capital flight?

What currency would that investment be in?

A significant amount of people who have pension pots, savings etc in sterling might feel better about keeping it in sterling, or even euros, rather than risk the vagaries of a new currency.

Id imagine many that own the billions under management by edinburgh based asset managers might feel similarly.

So yeah you are right that capital inv is a possibility, but surely you would have to concede that capital flight is also a possibility?

[grunt]

A significant amount of people who have pension pots, savings etc in sterling might feel better about keeping it in sterling ...Because that's done so well over the last year.

[Colr]

We're supposed to guess that, are we?

There's a possibility that an independent Scotland within Europe could attract significant capital investment. I'm not sure why you assume capital flight?

Many London finance companies are heading to Dublin.

[grunt]

Many London finance companies are heading to Dublin.I know. Which is one of the reasons I think delaying the next Scottish referendum is a mistake. Oh well, here's what you could have won.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Because that's done so well over the last year.

Good argument.

The default position of a nationaliat when faced with an inconvenient truth - "aye, but its no as bad an england".

I respectfully suggest a better argument than that will be needed to calm fears.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I know. Which is one of the reasons I think delaying the next Scottish referendum is a mistake. Oh well, here's what you could have won.

No company would take the risk of moving from brexit london, to a newly post indy Scotland whose own EU membership is unsure.

Why would they, when they can move to another country that doesnt have that doubt hanging over it?

[High-On-Hibs]

Good argument.

The default position of a nationaliat when faced with an inconvenient truth - "aye, but its no as bad an england".

I respectfully suggest a better argument than that will be needed to calm fears.

Eh no, it is as bad as it is in England, because the pension pot is tied to the same government under the same currency. :confused: I think that's the point.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Eh no, it is as bad as it is in England, because the pension pot is tied to the same government under the same currency. :confused: I think that's the point.

So an as yet unnamed, un-invented currency, backed by a small, newly formed country would be a safer bet than sterling, the currency that everyones saving will already be in? Im not sure that is true.

Faced with that question, i would be keeping my savings in sterling, or failing that euros (if part of EU etc)

People will understandably be risk-averse, at least to begin with. Its the rational position to take.

[Moulin Yarns]

Good argument.

The default position of a nationaliat when faced with an inconvenient truth - "aye, but its no as bad an england".

I respectfully suggest a better argument than that will be needed to calm fears.

The inconvenient tRuth right enough?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/business-consumer/travellers-scottish-bank-notes-better-1863134

[RyeSloan]

So an as yet unnamed, un-invented currency, backed by a small, newly formed country would be a safer bet than sterling, the currency that everyones saving will already be in? Im not sure that is true.

Faced with that question, i would be keeping my savings in sterling, or failing that euros (if part of EU etc)

People will understandably be risk-averse, at least to begin with. Its the rational position to take.

People with substantial capital either personally or under management are risk adverse to start with!

The concept of their NOT being capital flight from Scotland in the event of an independence event based on a new currency is simply fanciful and I would go as far to say that capital controls would be one of the first actions of a new Scottish central bank....which of course would only ensure that the flight before they are introduced would be substantial.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

People with substantial capital either personally or under management are risk adverse to start with!

The concept of their NOT being capital flight from Scotland in the event of an independence event based on a new currency is simply fanciful and I would go as far to say that capital controls would be one of the first actions of a new Scottish central bank....which of course would only ensure that the flight before they are introduced would be substantial.

I dont know how it wpuld work. My assets in sterling would presumably stay in sterling - surely a new SG couldnt simply commandeer my pension, and convert it into a new currency witjout my consent, could it?

Amd if so id expecy my provider to simply move operations to England to stop that happening?

[snooky]

The inconvenient tRuth right enough?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/business-consumer/travellers-scottish-bank-notes-better-1863134

That's only because they heard there once was an HKT on Hibs books. :wink:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The inconvenient tRuth right enough?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/business-consumer/travellers-scottish-bank-notes-better-1863134

I see what you did there. You made the R in truth a capital to make it look like Ruth, which is the first name of the scottish tory leader, Ruth Davidson. And accompanied by a link to that well known paper of repute, that is a must read for all discerning business people and economists, the Daily Record. Bravo sir, bravo.

[Moulin Yarns]

I see what you did there. You made the R in truth a capital to make it look like Ruth, which is the first name of the scottish tory leader, Ruth Davidson. And accompanied by a link to that well known paper of repute, that is a must read for all discerning business people and economists, the Daily Record. Bravo sir, bravo.

It may only be a 2% difference, but when you exchange large sums it all adds up.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It may only be a 2% difference, but when you exchange large sums it all adds up.

So a firm with three outlets in hong kong is proof of confidence in a future scottish currency? Jesus wept.

Im beginning to see why the yes side lost the economic arguments so disastrously last time around...

Maybe if the yes side saw concerns such as i raised as a problem to solve, a barrier to overcome, rather than an opponent to be shouted down (with nonsense stories from the daily record, no less), they might have more success in presenting a feasible, or even attractive economic case for independence.

[easty]

So a firm with three outlets in hong kong is proof of confidence in a future scottish currency? Jesus wept.

Im beginning to see why the yes side lost the economic arguments so disastrously last time around...

Maybe if the yes side saw concerns such as i raised as a problem to solve, a barrier to overcome, rather than an opponent to be shouted down (with nonsense stories from the daily record, no less), they might have more success in presenting a feasible, or even attractive economic case for independence.

But that said, the one article GF has used is more than you've provided on the matter, isn't it?

[Moulin Yarns]

So a firm with three outlets in hong kong is proof of confidence in a future scottish currency? Jesus wept.

Im beginning to see why the yes side lost the economic arguments so disastrously last time around...

Maybe if the yes side saw concerns such as i raised as a problem to solve, a barrier to overcome, rather than an opponent to be shouted down (with nonsense stories from the daily record, no less), they might have more success in presenting a feasible, or even attractive economic case for independence.

I know it is stretching credibility, but from the Daily Record it is not a nonsense story, but in fact true.

It was also an illustration that not everything in an Independent Scotland will be as doom laden as you seem to believe.

Imagine a country where we welcome immigrants?
Imagine a country where everyone is given a basic income, regardless of employment status?
Imagine a country generating enough energy from renewable sources that polluting fossil fuels can remain in the ground?
Imagine a country where democracy is returned to the people at a local level?
Imagine a country that works with other nations, rather than cuts all ties to have to negotiate trading with all other countries?
Imagine a country that values the environment, and doesn't try to kill anything that moves?
Imagine a country where services are paid for by those that can afford to?
Imagine a country where minorities are integrated into society?

A hell of a lot better than your vision, that's for sure.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

But that said, the one article GF has used is more than you've provided on the matter, isn't it?

Yeah you are right, i have failed to prove a future, hypothetical position. Lets not let logic and common sense, as well as lived experience from just three years ago get in the way of that weighty academic tome from the Daily Record, a paper that most hibs fans wouldnt wipe their arse with and wouldn't believe even if it told us that we play in green.

Lets all vote for indy, some guy who owns three money changing stalls in hong kong says the currency will be fine.

[ronaldo7]

The inconvenient tRuth right enough?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/business-consumer/travellers-scottish-bank-notes-better-1863134

:tee hee::fishin::a bite:

[easty]

Yeah you are right, i have failed to prove a future, hypothetical position. Lets not let logic and common sense, as well as lived experience from just three years ago get in the way of that weighty academic tome from the Daily Record, a paper that most hibs fans wouldnt wipe their arse with and wouldn't believe even if it told us that we play in green.

Lets all vote for indy, some guy who owns three money changing stalls in hong kong says the currency will be fine.

Aye, but what makes your hypotheticals any more credible than anyone else's? That's more the point.

I dunno what logic and common sense you're on about.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I know it is stretching credibility, but from the Daily Record it is not a nonsense story, but in fact true.

It was also an illustration that not everything in an Independent Scotland will be as doom laden as you seem to believe.

Imagine a country where we welcome immigrants?
Imagine a country where everyone is given a basic income, regardless of employment status?
Imagine a country generating enough energy from renewable sources that polluting fossil fuels can remain in the ground?
Imagine a country where democracy is returned to the people at a local level?
Imagine a country that works with other nations, rather than cuts all ties to have to negotiate trading with all other countries?
Imagine a country that values the environment, and doesn't try to kill anything that moves?
Imagine a country where services are paid for by those that can afford to?
Imagine a country where minorities are integrated into society?

A hell of a lot better than your vision, that's for sure.

Imagine. Yeah, im sure the yes campaign will have great success with that when they get asked about currency. It doesnt matter about the value of your pension Mr Bhoy, imagine all those foxes that are now alive as a result of Mr Fleece's radical independence agenda.

Now, where did put my John Lennon CDs...

[easty]

Now, where did put my John Lennon CDs...

Maybe it's under your pessimists handbook...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Aye, but what makes your hypotheticals any more credible than anyone else's? That's more the point.

I dunno what logic and common sense you're on about.

Im not saying they are. Its up to those arguing for change to make the case, and convince those who have reservations.

If you cant see the common sense or logic, then thats fine. Bit many others can, amd many others did just three ahort years ago.

I find it funny that ypu guys are all here defending an economic case that even the SNP no longer find credible, amd they are working very hard to try and come up with a new way of addressing what was viewed as by far amd away the yes campaign's biggest weakness.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Maybe it's under your pessimists handbook...

Maybe. But pessimists votes count just the same as hopeless dreamers' do mate.

[easty]

Maybe. But pessimists votes count just the same as hopeless dreamers' do mate.

I know, I know. I'm on my phone so I couldn't put a smiley on my post.

[Moulin Yarns]

Yeah you are right, i have failed to prove a future, hypothetical position. Lets not let logic and common sense, as well as lived experience from just three years ago get in the way of that weighty academic tome from the Daily Record, a paper that most hibs fans wouldnt wipe their arse with and wouldn't believe even if it told us that we play in green.

Lets all vote for indy, some guy who owns three money changing stalls in hong kong says the currency will be fine.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1224903/scottish-independence-gets-boost-hong-kongs-money-markets

Happy now? a 'non-partizan' source


The company has three outlets locally not in total. Income in 2007 $61Billion so not a back street boy doing dodgy deals

[RyeSloan]

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1224903/scottish-independence-gets-boost-hong-kongs-money-markets

Happy now? a 'non-partizan' source
not in total. Income in 2007 $61Billion so not a back street boy doing dodgy deals

I think you've taken this joke too far now [emoji23]

[snooky]

Imagine. Yeah, im sure the yes campaign will have great success with that when they get asked about currency. It doesnt matter about the value of your pension Mr Bhoy, imagine all those foxes that are now alive as a result of Mr Fleece's radical independence agenda.

Now, where did put my John Lennon CDs...

You're just dying to play "Power to the People" aren't you, SHB :wink: :greengrin

[marinello59]

A good performance from Corbyn there. Is this really the same man who gave such a shambolic acceptance speech after he was elected leader?

[Mon Dieu4]

A good performance from Corbyn there. Is this really the same man who gave such a shambolic acceptance speech after he was elected leader?

He did really well, here's when goes downhill and not due to Corbin, Paxman is like Andrew Neil, tries to make himself the star of the show by being argumentative for the sake of it

[marinello59]

He did really well, here's when goes downhill and not due to Corbin, Paxman is like Andrew Neil, tries to make himself the star of the show by being argumentative for the sake of it

Exactly as you say. Paxman is in full on bully mode.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Im watching on pause, so hes still talking but i have to say, the boy done good.

Hes been very impressive, fair play, he has upped his game a lot and dare i say, actually came across as quite statesmanlike.

[3pm]

Paxman likes to point out JC's beliefs are not reflective of the party manifesto!!

[marinello59]

So has May got to listen to all of Corbyn's answers before she appears? Hardly seems fair. I predict she will spend more time trashing Corbyn than promoting her own policies.

[3pm]

So has May got to listen to all of Corbyn's answers before she appears? Hardly seems fair. I predict she will spend more time trashing Corbyn than promoting her own policies.

Might put Prison Break on now!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Paxman's line of questioning on the manifesto is a bit weird

[Mon Dieu4]

How vast sways of the country can't see through her is beyond me, clearly says one thing but will do another and that's after two questions

[Hibs Class]

A good performance from Corbyn there. Is this really the same man who gave such a shambolic acceptance speech after he was elected leader?

Just in so have missed TV tonight...was there a leaders debate or 1:1 interview. Did Corbyn say anything on Diane Abbott? I know that he was previously scraping the barrel to form a shadow cabinet, but if he has any hope of forming a government I cannot believe he could risk putting her near any senior position, let alone Home Secretary. She is an even greater liability to Labour than JC himself.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Just in so have missed TV tonight...was there a leaders debate or 1:1 interview. Did Corbyn say anything on Diane Abbott? I know that he was previously scraping the barrel to form a shadow cabinet, but if he has any hope of forming a government I cannot believe he could risk putting her near any senior position, let alone Home Secretary. She is an even greater liability to Labour than JC himself.

Dont think so, bit i missed the beginning.

[Bristolhibby]

Paxman's line of questioning on the manifesto is a bit weird

I know, he obviously had an attack line to go after.

He genuinely seemed to struggle that it is the Labour party's manifesto, not JCs.

Nicked this from Kevin McGuire

Corbyn adopting the tone with Paxo of a kindly neighbour explaining to the oddball next door why the bins must be put out on a Tuesday.

J

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I know, he obviously had an attack line to go after.

He genuinely seemed to struggle that it is the Labour party's manifesto, not JCs.

Nicked this from Kevin McGuire

Corbyn adopting the tone with Paxo of a kindly neighbour explaining to the oddball next door why the bins must be put out on a Tuesday.

J

It was a fair enough question to ask, i just dont know why he kept saying it over and over.

It shows how far we gone down ghe road of presidential govt that he thinks its so weird.

[yonder1875]

Paxman is going through May here.

[marinello59]

No wonder May has avoided any head to head debate.

[bawheid]

This is a car crash for May. She's been exposed as being totally useless in this election campaign.

[Mon Dieu4]

I really hope that in the next Scottish Referendum that someone starts **** stirring and saying we will just walk away and not pay for anything

She only got claps due to her EU stance, she is shocking when put on the spot

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That was the best format for an election q&a programme - much betyer than debates imo.

May was ok, its definitely not het strong suit and she doesnt look natural or comfortable being put on the spot. But i actually thought she dealt better with paxman as she did with the audience questions.

Corbyn was superb though, i thought he breezed through it up until the points about the falklands and mcdonnell on mi5, but even though that was difficult territory he did ok. Very impressive performance by him.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'll take some stick for this but I like to watch the audiences reactions to the speakers and couldn't help but notice that those clapping May looked considerably more dingbatish than those who weren't.

[weecounty hibby]

I thought Pa man was terrible. Particularly with Corbyn. He asked the same question about the manifesto five different ways. And for someone so clever he either didn't get that it is decided by the party and not just the leader or he didn't want to get it. Really poor interview technique. Thought JC was ok and May again was anything but strong and stable

[makaveli1875]

didnt see it , did Paxman roast May as badly as Andrew Neil the other day ?

[Hibrandenburg]

didnt see it , did Paxman roast May as badly as Andrew Neil the other day ?

Maybe got a C minus with Pacman but a resounding F with the audience and again confirming she cannot connect with the average Joe on the street.

[steakbake]

May was toecurlingly bad at times. The audience were laughing at her being confronted by her own words. Paxman was vicious with Corbyn but he's taken 2+ years of s**t and he seemed pretty calm -he made Paxo look a bit pointless.

I think the Corbyn camp will be far happier.

[lucky]

Corbyn was excellent tonight again, Paxman tried to get at him but he handled himself well. May on the other hand struggled throughout. Her best answers were on Brexit but as Paxman pointed out she did not support that.

[The Harp Awakes]

Corbyn was excellent tonight again, Paxman tried to get at him but he handled himself well. May on the other hand struggled throughout. Her best answers were on Brexit but as Paxman pointed out she did not support that.

As a neutral onlooker, I thought:

Corbyn handled himself pretty well throughout. Paxman was clearly out to get him and wouldn’t let Corbyn speak over the manifesto question which was a bit bizarre, as Corbyn's answer about the party deciding on the manifesto (not him) was a perfectly reasonable one.

I thought May was absolutely hopeless, and looked very uncomfortable throughout. That added to her recent U turns on key policy issues, really makes a mockery of the image she is trying to create of herself as being tough and stable. She looks anything but when put under pressure.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I didn't see it, but am not surprised by the comments about May's performance being poor. I posted her Andrew Neil interview, which was disastrous for her. She's clearly a naturally shy person who doesn't like confrontation, and that would be perfectly okay if the policies were defensible, but, IMHO, they just aren't. In the blanket media age it must be difficult for someone who lacks self confidence to be constantly under the spotlight, but her government is failing millions of people, the poorest the most, and her personality isn't resilient against fierce criticism of that record.

[Pretty Boy]

A solid 3-0 win for Corbyn last night. Came across far better, and dare I say stronger, than May. He's definitely had some tuition in public speaking which is great. It's not always about what you say but how you say it.

May is arguably a bigger liability to her party than Corbyn was a few weeks back.

[ronaldo7]

Good win for Corbyn last night. If people can't see through May's bluff and bluster now, theirs no chance for us.

Paxman didn't land a blow on Corbyn even after bringing up all of his past.

[lucky]

Good win for Corbyn last night. If people can't see through May's bluff and bluster now, theirs no chance for us.

Paxman didn't land a blow on Corbyn even after bringing up all of his past.

FFS, I've got to agree with you :greengrin

[Pretty Boy]

According to someone on Twitter Paxman interrupted Corbyn 49 times in just under 20 minutes. How can you accuse someone of not answering a question when you won't let them speak?

[Colr]

According to someone on Twitter Paxman interrupted Corbyn 49 times in just under 20 minutes. How can you accuse someone of not answering a question when you won't let them speak?

That annoys the hell out of me. I get annoyed when other panel members keep interrupting answers as well instead if waiting their term. Hosts don't seem to want to tell them to stop for some reason.

[Geo_1875]

Good argument.

The default position of a nationaliat when faced with an inconvenient truth - "aye, but its no as bad an england".

I respectfully suggest a better argument than that will be needed to calm fears.

Why would anyone waste time putting forward an argument for independence when you haven't put forward anything positive for the status quo.

I really am getting fed up of you repeating the same unionist argument day after day after day.

You say an independent Scotland would have debt and a deficit. Well guess what. The UK has debt and a deficit.

I'm not an SNP member or a Nationalist but I would like to try something different. I've lived and worked under Labour and Tory governments since leaving school in 1975 and they've done nothing for Scotland.

[G B Young]

Corbyn all over the place on Women's Hour this morning:

In full: Corbyn pressed for child care figures


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/96/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2015/5/12/e03ee74d-1bb2-436e-a421-b1b3b64c2b9d.jpg

BBC Radio 4



Posted at10:52
On Woman's Hour, Jeremy Corbyn was asked how much it would cost to provide non means-tested child care for 1.3m children.
"It will obviously cost a lot to do so, we accept that," he said, adding that Labour wants to make childcare universal and will fund it mainly through corporation tax changes.
Asked whether he has the figures, he said: "Yes I do."
Pressed, he said: "I'll give you the figure in a moment."
"You're logging into your iPad here," presenter Emma Barnett observes.
"Can I give you the exact figure in a moment please?" the Labour leader said.
Asked whether this indicated that voters cannot trust Labour with their money, he answered: "Not at all."
He argued that investing in children in early years means they do better in school and added: "I want to give you an accurate figure."
Eventually, presenter Emma Barnett quotes shadow education secretary Angela Rayner, who was on Today earlier: "£2.7bn, then £4.8bn... with half a billion to reverse cuts to the Sure Start scheme. Does that sound about right?"
"It does sound correct," Mr Corbyn says.


Laura Kuenssberg
✔@bbclaurak (https://twitter.com/bbclaurak)
Paxman bellowed at Corbyn for half an hour last night and got nowhere. @Emmabarnett (https://twitter.com/Emmabarnett) has taken him to the cleaners with quiet, forensic Qs

[lucky]

Corbyn all over the place on Women's Hour this morning:

In full: Corbyn pressed for child care figures


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/96/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2015/5/12/e03ee74d-1bb2-436e-a421-b1b3b64c2b9d.jpg

BBC Radio 4



Posted at10:52
On Woman's Hour, Jeremy Corbyn was asked how much it would cost to provide non means-tested child care for 1.3m children.
"It will obviously cost a lot to do so, we accept that," he said, adding that Labour wants to make childcare universal and will fund it mainly through corporation tax changes.
Asked whether he has the figures, he said: "Yes I do."
Pressed, he said: "I'll give you the figure in a moment."
"You're logging into your iPad here," presenter Emma Barnett observes.
"Can I give you the exact figure in a moment please?" the Labour leader said.
Asked whether this indicated that voters cannot trust Labour with their money, he answered: "Not at all."
He argued that investing in children in early years means they do better in school and added: "I want to give you an accurate figure."
Eventually, presenter Emma Barnett quotes shadow education secretary Angela Rayner, who was on Today earlier: "£2.7bn, then £4.8bn... with half a billion to reverse cuts to the Sure Start scheme. Does that sound about right?"
"It does sound correct," Mr Corbyn says.


Laura Kuenssberg
✔@bbclaurak (https://twitter.com/bbclaurak)
Paxman bellowed at Corbyn for half an hour last night and got nowhere. @Emmabarnett (https://twitter.com/Emmabarnett) has taken him to the cleaners with quiet, forensic Qs





Delighted he wanted to get the exact figures rather than make them up and end up doing a u turn

[High-On-Hibs]

Why would anyone waste time putting forward an argument for independence when you haven't put forward anything positive for the status quo.

I really am getting fed up of you repeating the same unionist argument day after day after day.

You say an independent Scotland would have debt and a deficit. Well guess what. The UK has debt and a deficit.

I'm not an SNP member or a Nationalist but I would like to try something different. I've lived and worked under Labour and Tory governments since leaving school in 1975 and they've done nothing for Scotland.

Indeed. One of the most frustrating aspects about all of this are those parties making independence all about the SNP and people continuing to buy that line.

The amount of people who won't back independence because "they don't like SNP policy". Short sightedness doesn't even begin to cover it.

[G B Young]

Corbyn 'surprised' at CND revelation


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/96/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2015/5/12/e03ee74d-1bb2-436e-a421-b1b3b64c2b9d.jpg

BBC Radio 4



Posted at10:55
Jeremy Corbyn was also asked whether he is still vice-president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament because it says so on the group's website.
The Labour leader said he didn't think so and was surprised to learn that the website hasn't been updated.
His manifesto, of course, commits to renewal of the UK's nuclear weapons system Trident.

[G B Young]

Following the BBC thread, it sounds like this was a car crash interview for Corbyn.

Corbyn interview raises tough questions for Labour


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/96/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2015/3/20/7018b5eb-dbd6-40c1-b340-f13ec12b0e66.png

Norman Smith
Assistant political editor



Posted at11:08
This was on a par, or possibly even worse, than Diane Abbott getting into a pickle on the cost of Labour's policing pledges.
Jeremy Corbyn was clearly struggling badly on the day's key policy and it raises all the sorts of questions that Labour has been dogged by.
Just how clear, how thorough, how diligent are its spending plans?

[High-On-Hibs]

Corbyn all over the place on Women's Hour this morning:

In full: Corbyn pressed for child care figures


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/96/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2015/5/12/e03ee74d-1bb2-436e-a421-b1b3b64c2b9d.jpg

BBC Radio 4



Posted at10:52
On Woman's Hour, Jeremy Corbyn was asked how much it would cost to provide non means-tested child care for 1.3m children.
"It will obviously cost a lot to do so, we accept that," he said, adding that Labour wants to make childcare universal and will fund it mainly through corporation tax changes.
Asked whether he has the figures, he said: "Yes I do."
Pressed, he said: "I'll give you the figure in a moment."
"You're logging into your iPad here," presenter Emma Barnett observes.
"Can I give you the exact figure in a moment please?" the Labour leader said.
Asked whether this indicated that voters cannot trust Labour with their money, he answered: "Not at all."
He argued that investing in children in early years means they do better in school and added: "I want to give you an accurate figure."
Eventually, presenter Emma Barnett quotes shadow education secretary Angela Rayner, who was on Today earlier: "£2.7bn, then £4.8bn... with half a billion to reverse cuts to the Sure Start scheme. Does that sound about right?"
"It does sound correct," Mr Corbyn says.


Laura Kuenssberg
✔@bbclaurak (https://twitter.com/bbclaurak)
Paxman bellowed at Corbyn for half an hour last night and got nowhere. @Emmabarnett (https://twitter.com/Emmabarnett) has taken him to the cleaners with quiet, forensic Qs





Good for him. He wasn't sure what the exact figure was and was confident enough to have a recheck for accuracy.

The lady who's not for turning would have pretended to know the exact figure and would have.... erm, u-turned on it later on.

[High-On-Hibs]

Following the BBC thread, it sounds like this was a car crash interview for Corbyn.

Corbyn interview raises tough questions for Labour


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/96/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2015/3/20/7018b5eb-dbd6-40c1-b340-f13ec12b0e66.png

Norman Smith
Assistant political editor



Posted at11:08
This was on a par, or possibly even worse, than Diane Abbott getting into a pickle on the cost of Labour's policing pledges.
Jeremy Corbyn was clearly struggling badly on the day's key policy and it raises all the sorts of questions that Labour has been dogged by.
Just how clear, how thorough, how diligent are its spending plans?




Following all BBC threads, all Labour interviews are car crashes.

As for those who can form their own independent views, they'll make up their own mind. :cb

[easty]

Corbyn all over the place on Women's Hour this morning:

In full: Corbyn pressed for child care figures


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/96/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2015/5/12/e03ee74d-1bb2-436e-a421-b1b3b64c2b9d.jpg

BBC Radio 4



Posted at10:52
On Woman's Hour, Jeremy Corbyn was asked how much it would cost to provide non means-tested child care for 1.3m children.
"It will obviously cost a lot to do so, we accept that," he said, adding that Labour wants to make childcare universal and will fund it mainly through corporation tax changes.
Asked whether he has the figures, he said: "Yes I do."
Pressed, he said: "I'll give you the figure in a moment."
"You're logging into your iPad here," presenter Emma Barnett observes.
"Can I give you the exact figure in a moment please?" the Labour leader said.
Asked whether this indicated that voters cannot trust Labour with their money, he answered: "Not at all."
He argued that investing in children in early years means they do better in school and added: "I want to give you an accurate figure."
Eventually, presenter Emma Barnett quotes shadow education secretary Angela Rayner, who was on Today earlier: "£2.7bn, then £4.8bn... with half a billion to reverse cuts to the Sure Start scheme. Does that sound about right?"
"It does sound correct," Mr Corbyn says.


Laura Kuenssberg
✔@bbclaurak (https://twitter.com/bbclaurak)
Paxman bellowed at Corbyn for half an hour last night and got nowhere. @Emmabarnett (https://twitter.com/Emmabarnett) has taken him to the cleaners with quiet, forensic Qs





I didn't listen to it, but the transcript doesn't scream "all over the place" to me.

He's asked a question, which he wants to answer correctly, rather than picking a number out of thin air that could be wrong. So he goes to check, on his ipad (is that a bad thing? why?) then he's prompted by the host of the show, and agrees with her.

When politicians get the figure they're asked about wrong, they're absolutely slated for it...when they attempt to check the figure they're "all over the place".

But, like I said, I didn't listen to it, so maybe there's more to it than the section you've quoted.

[G B Young]

Following all BBC threads, all Labour interviews are car crashes.

As for those who can form their own independent views, they'll make up their own mind. :cb


I've listened to it now and he clearly had no idea of the figure, nor how to find it on his ipad. He actually ended up asking the presenter what HER estimate would be!! Painful to listen to.

I do agree that the slaughtering of politicians over their interview blunders can be well OTT, but for such high-ranking figures as Corbyn and Abbott it doesn't look good.

It's a long way from being his Neil Kinnock moment tho :wink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V58dOl84MaI

[CropleyWasGod]

Corbyn 'surprised' at CND revelation


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/96/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2015/5/12/e03ee74d-1bb2-436e-a421-b1b3b64c2b9d.jpg

BBC Radio 4



Posted at10:55
Jeremy Corbyn was also asked whether he is still vice-president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament because it says so on the group's website.
The Labour leader said he didn't think so and was surprised to learn that the website hasn't been updated.
His manifesto, of course, commits to renewal of the UK's nuclear weapons system Trident.




He resigned on 17 October 2015, according to Companies House.

Decent research on the part of the BBC would have nailed that.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Why would anyone waste time putting forward an argument for independence when you haven't put forward anything positive for the status quo.

I really am getting fed up of you repeating the same unionist argument day after day after day.

You say an independent Scotland would have debt and a deficit. Well guess what. The UK has debt and a deficit.

I'm not an SNP member or a Nationalist but I would like to try something different. I've lived and worked under Labour and Tory governments since leaving school in 1975 and they've done nothing for Scotland.

Thats fine, well try something different, you should vote however you want to.

Its not my job to put forward a case for the staus quo, my status quo might be very different to someone else's. And as acountry we voted, so the onus is on those agitating for change to make the case. Plus i dont want to sell anytjing to anyone, that implies lying amd making a case to suit my agenda. But i have no fixed agenda, at such times the status quo was obviously not working and the gamble of indy became the obvious answer, i woyld vote fpr it.

I live in a prosperous city with a good quality of life. I dont want to risk that on some half baked proposal. If you, or anyone else ismt happy with their lot, or just fancies a change then you can vote for it next time.

Im not against indy on principle, but im not going to vote for something unless im pretty sure it will improve rather make worse, my circumstances. If / when that happens, ill consider it. But as there is no indyref2 at the moment, it is moot.

And i votes yes last time by the way, and i know the SNP very well, so please dont lecture me about 'unionist' this or that. Ots not my fault the case last time was economically illiterate.

[grunt]

Plus i dont want to sell anytjing to anyone, that implies lying amd making a case to suit my agenda. That's an interesting view. So by making a case for independence, you think we're lying?

[Colr]

Corbyn all over the place on Women's Hour this morning:

In full: Corbyn pressed for child care figures


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/96/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2015/5/12/e03ee74d-1bb2-436e-a421-b1b3b64c2b9d.jpg

BBC Radio 4



Posted at10:52
On Woman's Hour, Jeremy Corbyn was asked how much it would cost to provide non means-tested child care for 1.3m children.
"It will obviously cost a lot to do so, we accept that," he said, adding that Labour wants to make childcare universal and will fund it mainly through corporation tax changes.
Asked whether he has the figures, he said: "Yes I do."
Pressed, he said: "I'll give you the figure in a moment."
"You're logging into your iPad here," presenter Emma Barnett observes.
"Can I give you the exact figure in a moment please?" the Labour leader said.
Asked whether this indicated that voters cannot trust Labour with their money, he answered: "Not at all."
He argued that investing in children in early years means they do better in school and added: "I want to give you an accurate figure."
Eventually, presenter Emma Barnett quotes shadow education secretary Angela Rayner, who was on Today earlier: "£2.7bn, then £4.8bn... with half a billion to reverse cuts to the Sure Start scheme. Does that sound about right?"
"It does sound correct," Mr Corbyn says.


Laura Kuenssberg
✔@bbclaurak (https://twitter.com/bbclaurak)
Paxman bellowed at Corbyn for half an hour last night and got nowhere. @Emmabarnett (https://twitter.com/Emmabarnett) has taken him to the cleaners with quiet, forensic Qs





How much additional tax would be paid by women being able to work and by the additional childcare men and women employed.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That's an interesting view. So by making a case for independence, you think we're lying?

Who do you mean by 'we'?

I think the SNP, like all parties have spun things to the point of being outright lies at times, yeah.

If you are agitating for something, then you will often downplay the bad things and exaggerate the good things, and from there it is a fine line.

For example, i dont think i have ever heard the SNP admit that there might be any downsides to independence. Now that just stretches credulity. Of course you may believe it will be overwhelmingly good, but not a single downside? Really not one? That could be construed as a lie, couldnt it?

[High-On-Hibs]

Who do you mean by 'we'?

I think the SNP, like all parties have spun things to the point of being outright lies at times, yeah.

If you are agitating for something, then you will often downplay the bad things and exaggerate the good things, and from there it is a fine line.

For example, i dont think i have ever heard the SNP admit that there might be any downsides to independence. Now that just stretches credulity. Of course you may believe it will be overwhelmingly good, but not a single downside? Really not one? That could be construed as a lie, couldnt it?

That's a fair point. However, they're at least attempting to make a positive case for independence. There have been literally zero positive cases for British Unionism. Just fear and smear. I think it's easy to suggest that all political parties should be more "realistic". The problem is that not a single political party can really see what is ahead, so all they really have is spin. Anything spun can be unspun, but if they try to sell something to the electorate as an absolute indisputable fact.... well that puts parties in a very tough situation when it doesn't come to fruition.

[Moulin Yarns]

Laura Kuenssberg - Fascinating-seems hardly any mention of independence at SNP Launch, @BBCNormanS (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS) and @BBCsarahsmith (https://twitter.com/BBCsarahsmith) there

Interesting .. 10 point manifesto pledgesfrom @theSNP (https://twitter.com/theSNP) . Independence"mandate" comes in at number 10 #ge17 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ge17?src=hash)

Who is obsessed?

[CropleyWasGod]

Laura Kuenssberg - Fascinating-seems hardly any mention of independence at SNP Launch, @BBCNormanS (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS) and @BBCsarahsmith (https://twitter.com/BBCsarahsmith) there

Interesting .. 10 point manifesto pledgesfrom @theSNP (https://twitter.com/theSNP) . Independence"mandate" comes in at number 10 #ge17 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ge17?src=hash)

Who is obsessed?




What do you reckon is the strategy behind waiting until 9 days before the election to publish the manifesto?

Is it to react to the others?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Laura Kuenssberg - Fascinating-seems hardly any mention of independence at SNP Launch, @BBCNormanS (https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS) and @BBCsarahsmith (https://twitter.com/BBCsarahsmith) there

Interesting .. 10 point manifesto pledgesfrom @theSNP (https://twitter.com/theSNP) . Independence"mandate" comes in at number 10 #ge17 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ge17?src=hash)

Who is obsessed?




P3 in sturgeon's foreword -

"This election wont decide whether or not scotland will become independent- but a vote for the SNP will reinforce the right of the scottish parliament to decide when a referendum should happen".

Worth noting that the Scottish Parliament has no such right to be reinforced, legally speaking.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What do you reckon is the strategy behind waiting until 9 days before the election to publish the manifesto?

Is it to react to the others?

It was delayed because of Manchester from last week

[Moulin Yarns]

What do you reckon is the strategy behind waiting until 9 days before the election to publish the manifesto?

Is it to react to the others?

Remember it was due to be launched last Tuesday but events in Manchester led to it being put back.

The concert hall had gigs on the rest of the week as part of the Perth Festival of Arts.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Nicola is a star, so proud :agree: leave the independence obsession in this GE to windbag ruthie babe(and her running mate kezia dugdale)

[easty]

For example, i dont think i have ever heard the SNP admit that there might be any downsides to independence. Now that just stretches credulity. Of course you may believe it will be overwhelmingly good, but not a single downside? Really not one? That could be construed as a lie, couldnt it?

Why would they possibly mention any possible downside to independence? Are you making a serious point here or on the wind up?

[CropleyWasGod]

Remember it was due to be launched last Tuesday but events in Manchester led to it being put back.

The concert hall had gigs on the rest of the week as part of the Perth Festival of Arts.

... puts the "conspiracy theory" box away again.

:rolleyes:

[easty]

P3 in sturgeon's foreword -

"This election wont decide whether or not scotland will become independent- but a vote for the SNP will reinforce the right of the scottish parliament to decide when a referendum should happen".

Worth noting that the Scottish Parliament has no such right to be reinforced, legally speaking.

You said legally speaking, not the SNP, so...

[grunt]

... puts the "conspiracy theory" box away again.

:rolleyes::agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

:agree:

:greengrin

I'm such a cynic. Any time a politician does something out of the ordinary, that box comes out :greengrin

[grunt]

Worth noting that the Scottish Parliament has no such right to be reinforced, legally speaking.Union of equals, eh?

[Slavers]

Union of equals, eh?

Thankfully this restriction is in place as the SNP would just hold referendum after referendum.

[grunt]

:greengrin

I'm such a cynic. Any time a politician does something out of the ordinary, that box comes out :greengrinIt's all lies anyway, apparently.

[grunt]

Thankfully this restriction is in place as the SNP would just hold referendum after referendum.
Got to keep those rebellious Scots in their place, eh?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Why would they possibly mention any possible downside to independence? Are you making a serious point here or on the wind up?

It was in response to a question from grunt about campaigners lying to the public.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You said legally speaking, not the SNP, so...

Yeah, thats why i used quotation marks on the bit i quoted...!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Union of equals, eh?

Im just stating the facts. Its the settlement that people voted for.

[Slavers]

Got to keep those rebellious Scots in their place, eh?

It never seems to register with SNP supporters that the majority of Scots don't want a 2nd independence referendum anytime soon.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Got to keep those rebellious Scots in their place, eh?

Yeah, we are all so disenfranchised and oppressed by those nasty english. We demand a vote evey three years until we get what we want.

FREEDOM!!!!!

[Betty Boop]

It never seems to register with SNP supporters that the majority of Scots don't want a 2nd independence referendum anytime soon.

:agree:

[easty]

It never seems to register with SNP supporters that the majority of Scots don't want a 2nd independence referendum anytime soon.

I voted to stay in the EU, but I didn't get what I want, just like the majority of Scots.

You could always just vote No. Instead of bleating about it.


Yeah, we are all so disenfranchised and oppressed by those nasty english. We demand a vote evey three years until we get what we want.

FREEDOM!!!!!

Who said that?

Every 3 years...there's been one referendum. :faf:

[Moulin Yarns]

... puts the "conspiracy theory" box away again.

:rolleyes:

sorry CWG, I had wondered about the delay as well, but I assume Perth was chosen to support Pete Wishart.