Tories are lying *******s (warning may contain traces of Tory)

[JeMeSouviens]

It's international fact checking day! And to celebrate, fact checking site the ferret has collated their results from the past year.

https://theferret.scot/ferret-fact-service-fact-checking-numbers/

Scottish Tories:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZyEaCYWsAAwOWW.jpg

By comparison, the SNP (Scot Labour results were broadly similar).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZyEYyXXcAETalH.jpg

They really are a shower of shameless shysters. :rolleyes:

[Lendo]

I’ll be stealing this to win a few arguments with Conservative friends.

[Colr]

Not exactly an extensive survey, is it. More of a straw poll of someone’s social network.

[ronaldo7]

They're at it again.

Detention of people who came here on the Windrush many moons ago.

Absolutely disgusting that May and co have re-written the immigration policy. Remember the vans going round London, with the "go home" logos on them.

I'd imagine the Europeans looking in on this, will have to get any deals, post brexit signed in blood, although the Tories might just like that.

[speedy_gonzales]

Detention of people who came here on the Windrush many moons ago.
Wow, this isn't exactly true now, is it? Story of a 35 year old potentially being deported but this has now been halted until further checks are made. 35 year old, nowhere near the Windrush!


Absolutely disgusting that May and co have re-written the immigration policy.
The Immigration Act 2014,disgusting, really?

Personally I don't think it's a bad thing that we're required to prove our legitimate legal status. Many people I know have had to do it when applying for a job or when they went through the recent disability benefit/universal credit change.
The problem is what they are asking for and from whom. I'm not sure I could provide all the evidence they are after over the length of my life, it gets harder if you have long periods of unemployment or cash in hand work such as one guy being interviewed on LBC. 50+ year old, registered birth in UK but doesn't know if he's legal or not?!?
When you hear of stories (Guardian) that the Home Office deliberately destroyed landing cards/slips back in 2010 I'm not sure you can blame just one party here, something has broken in the system!

[ronaldo7]

Wow, this isn't exactly true now, is it? Story of a 35 year old potentially being deported but this has now been halted until further checks are made. 35 year old, nowhere near the Windrush!


I'm afraid it is true. I saw a couple on the news (it was the BBC though) this morning. The old lady had been detained for a fortnight and was then told she could remain, but would have to apply again in 2024. Her daughter was rather angry.

You might think this is fine and dandy, I don't.

The Immigration Act 2014,disgusting, really?

Personally I don't think it's a bad thing that we're required to prove our legitimate legal status. Many people I know have had to do it when applying for a job or when they went through the recent disability benefit/universal credit change.
The problem is what they are asking for and from whom. I'm not sure I could provide all the evidence they are after over the length of my life, it gets harder if you have long periods of unemployment or cash in hand work such as one guy being interviewed on LBC. 50+ year old, registered birth in UK but doesn't know if he's legal or not?!?
When you hear of stories (Guardian) that the Home Office deliberately destroyed landing cards/slips back in 2010 I'm not sure you can blame just one party here, something has broken in the system!


The way that the Tories have handled this situation just shows their true colours, and how they pandered to the far right in this country. Immigration vans going round estates telling people to go home. These are people who've worked hard and paid taxes for the last 40 odd years.

As I said, disgusting, but that doesn't really cover it.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/15/why-the-children-of-windrush-demand-an-immigration-amnesty

[Bristolhibby]

Wow, this isn't exactly true now, is it? Story of a 35 year old potentially being deported but this has now been halted until further checks are made. 35 year old, nowhere near the Windrush!

Have a read of these stories from 8 normal Britions treated like criminals through no fault of their own. Real people with real disgraceful stories.

One poor guy has been denied Cancer treatment! Shameful.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/15/why-the-children-of-windrush-demand-an-immigration-amnesty

Edit just seen the link above.

J

[RyeSloan]

Have a read of these stories from 8 normal Britions treated like criminals through no fault of their own. Real people with real disgraceful stories.

One poor guy has been denied Cancer treatment! Shameful.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/15/why-the-children-of-windrush-demand-an-immigration-amnesty

Edit just seen the link above.

J

Sheesh what a mess!

I get the fact that these people didn’t have documentation and maybe they should have thought about that before now (and shows how slack our system was previously for such things) but really? Some of these people have been here 50 years and to then summarily dump them in detention centres is simply wrong no matter which way you look at it.

[ronaldo7]

Some more reading for you Speedy. Deliberately destroying documents. If that's what takes your fancy.

The Home Office destroyed thousands of landing card slips recording Windrush immigrants’ arrival dates in the UK, despite staff warnings that the move would make it harder to check the records of older Caribbean-born residents experiencing residency difficulties.
A former Home Office employee said the records, stored in the basement of a government tower block, were a vital resource for case workers when they were asked to find information about someone’s arrival date in the UK from the West Indies – usually when the individual was struggling to resolve immigration status problems.

He said he noticed a change in approach to these cases after the announcement of the “hostile environment” policy by May, then home secretary. In 2009 and 2010, managers gave case workers and members of his team time to look into cases. “Generally speaking, most Home Office staff want to try to do the right thing and be fair, within the rules,” he said.
But from 2013 onwards, he said, staff were “given no leeway to make a judgment call”. The changed atmosphere combined with staff cuts made it a more unpleasant place to work and many experienced staff took redundancy, he said. The people who remained were told: “These are the rules, stick to them.”
He decided to leave at around this time. “I am so angry that people are being treated in a way which is just abhorrent.”

https://t.co/M8z3dG5MBu

[speedy_gonzales]

Some more reading for you Speedy. Deliberately destroying documents. If that's what takes your fancy.

The Home Office destroyed thousands of landing card slips recording Windrush immigrants’ arrival dates in the UK, despite staff warnings that the move would make it harder to check the records of older Caribbean-born residents experiencing residency difficulties.
A former Home Office employee said the records, stored in the basement of a government tower block, were a vital resource for case workers when they were asked to find information about someone’s arrival date in the UK from the West Indies – usually when the individual was struggling to resolve immigration status problems.

https://t.co/M8z3dG5MBu


When you hear of stories (Guardian) that the Home Office deliberately destroyed landing cards/slips back in 2010 I'm not sure you can blame just one party here, something has broken in the system!

Do you actually bother reading what anyone else writes?

[speedy_gonzales]

Have a read of these stories from 8 normal Britions treated like criminals through no fault of their own. Real people with real disgraceful stories.

One poor guy has been denied Cancer treatment! Shameful.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/15/why-the-children-of-windrush-demand-an-immigration-amnesty

Edit just seen the link above.

J
I'd already read that article and others. Whilst there are personal tragic stories I'm not sure how we make it right once and for all. The vast majority of affected people that I've seen/read/heard all seem to fall down in the passport application or lack of having one. I know a couple of guys of Caribbean descent that live/work in London for the railway, same age as me (so early 40's :wink: ) and have NEVER had a passport. They are sweating, Network Rail are happy with their background but they might not always work for NR.
The fact is we opened our arms to these folk to help bolster the workforce and never gave them the correct legal/legitimate status when they landed. Many have become legitimate over the years by applying for passports, marrying, registering births but there's a significant number that haven't and the reality is catching up with them now due to the 2014 Immigration Act.
Like I said in my previous post, I see no harm in firming up immigration policy in regards to employment and access to our social care system, but it has to be fair

[ronaldo7]

Do you actually bother reading what anyone else writes?

And do you still believe the stories are not true?

Jeez.

It was Treeza wot did it.

He said he noticed a change in approach to these cases after the announcement of the “hostile environment” policy by May, then home secretary. In 2009 and 2010, managers gave case workers and members of his team time to look into cases. “Generally speaking, most Home Office staff want to try to do the right thing and be fair, within the rules,” he said.
But from 2013 onwards, he said, staff were “given no leeway to make a judgment call”. The changed atmosphere combined with staff cuts made it a more unpleasant place to work and many experienced staff took redundancy, he said. The people who remained were told: “These are the rules, stick to them.”
He decided to leave at around this time. “I am so angry that people are being treated in a way which is just abhorrent.”

[speedy_gonzales]

And do you still believe the stories are not true?

Jeez.
You sir are hard work. I quote that I read the deliberate destroying of landing cards from the Guardian. That would infer I've read the article. You then come along and quote what I've already read but tell me to read it then have the temerity to ask if I believe it or not,,,,it was ME that mentioned it!

Edited to ask "what stories do I believe are not true?"

[ronaldo7]

You sir are hard work. I quote that I read the deliberate destroying of landing cards from the Guardian. That would infer I've read the article. You then come along and quote what I've already read but tell me to read it then have the temerity to ask if I believe it or not,,,,it was ME that mentioned it!

Edited to ask "what stories do I believe are not true?"

If only you could at least come out and say Treeza got it wrong. It won't help those still in the detention centres though.

It's just not true, is it.:rolleyes:

[speedy_gonzales]

If only you could at least come out and say Treeza got it wrong. It won't help those still in the detention centres though.

It's just not true, is it.:rolleyes:
Treeza got it wrong, right now that's out of the way, how would you have 1st & 2nd gen immigrants prove legal right to be here?
I've already said I reckon I could struggle to provide the paperwork that is/was required with the exception of my passport. Looking for your original thoughts?!?

[ronaldo7]

Treeza got it wrong, right now that's out of the way, how would you have 1st & 2nd gen immigrants prove legal right to be here?
I've already said I reckon I could struggle to provide the paperwork that is/was required with the exception of my passport. Looking for your original thoughts?!?

I wouldn't have destroyed official documents due to lack of space in an official government building for starters. It might have been a clue to who arrived and when.

If only someone hadn't decided to put pressure on those in that office space eh. Treeezaaa

Most folk in the stories, linked, have worked in the country for years, paid taxes, jeez, they even worked in the NHS. They must have been in the tax system.

As one of the victims said, she only got someone behind the glass telling her to get more evidence, when those behind the glass knew, it was the government who destroyed that evidence.

They were royally shafted by the Government led by Treeza, and it was through her actions as Home office minister that the **** hit the fan.

Someone's head should roll for this, but as usual, they'll all file in behind as if nothing has happened.

https://t.co/9jC5G1Hqv6

[speedy_gonzales]

Most folk in the stories, linked, have worked in the country for years, paid taxes, jeez, they even worked in the NHS. They must have been in the tax system.


By all accounts that doesn't mean your legal to work here or meet the requirement to take advantage of our social care system.

35 year old 2nd gen Caribbean immigrant, worked all his days but has never held a passport, can't prove he's British, so how does he?
I genuinely don't know how I could prove it without my passport!!!

[RyeSloan]

By all accounts that doesn't mean your legal to work here or meet the requirement to take advantage of our social care system.

35 year old 2nd gen Caribbean immigrant, worked all his days but has never held a passport, can't prove he's British, so how does he?
I genuinely don't know how I could prove it without my passport!!!

I don’t think it’s a question that they shouldn’t need to formalise their status or indeed that they should have taken some personal responsibility in this matter, it’s the way they have been treated when trying to work through that process.

Anyone who has been in a country for multiple decades, living, working (in some cases for the state for many years) and paying taxes should be treated as if they were a citizen but need assistance in clarifying their status not as an illegal that should be shunted off because their paper work is not in order.

So is it not possible to support the general requirement for people to have to prove their status but condemn the cack handed approach that has been taken on this segment of the population when doing so?

[ronaldo7]

By all accounts that doesn't mean your legal to work here or meet the requirement to take advantage of our social care system.

35 year old 2nd gen Caribbean immigrant, worked all his days but has never held a passport, can't prove he's British, so how does he?
I genuinely don't know how I could prove it without my passport!!!

They've been asked to provide documentary evidence for every single year they've been here. Imagine trying to find that as a two year old landing here over 50 years ago.

The system has treated them abominably, but they were severely hampered by the actions of the home secretary Mrs May, and her team.

Channel 4 news run a piece on it earlier.

https://t.co/VEQa0prGnh

[ronaldo7]

By all accounts that doesn't mean your legal to work here or meet the requirement to take advantage of our social care system.

35 year old 2nd gen Caribbean immigrant, worked all his days but has never held a passport, can't prove he's British, so how does he?
I genuinely don't know how I could prove it without my passport!!!

He'll hopefully have a birth certificate, which would show his parents. Now if only they could be cross referenced with something like landing cards, which would show those parents arriving in the UK.

The government have cocked up big style here, and everyone affected should be recompensed fully.

[speedy_gonzales]

They've been asked to provide documentary evidence for every single year they've been here. Imagine trying to find that as a two year old landing here over 50 years ago.


I can't imagine it, said it before but without my passport how do I prove my citizenship, how would you?
I see where the Home Office has resolved some of the cases they have issued "biometric cards" to the individuals concerned, I've never heard of such a thing but it does sound like a national ID card, something a lot of libertarians are against.

[McD]

I don’t think it’s a question that they shouldn’t need to formalise their status or indeed that they should have taken some personal responsibility in this matter, it’s the way they have been treated when trying to work through that process.

Anyone who has been in a country for multiple decades, living, working (in some cases for the state for many years) and paying taxes should be treated as if they were a citizen but need assistance in clarifying their status not as an illegal that should be shunted off because their paper work is not in order.

So is it not possible to support the general requirement for people to have to prove their status but condemn the cack handed approach that has been taken on this segment of the population when doing so?



In the name of being open, honest and inclusive (I know, I know, it’s the tories), surely it would be far easier to take a position of something like:

if you weren’t born here (therefore all born in Britain are covered for this), but have been here for X number of years (something sensible accounting for very young children arriving with parents), and/or there is proof that you’ve resided here for the majority of your life (such as school records, tax records, national insurance number and contributions, employer history, marriage certificates, children’s birth certificates, or any other sensible measure), we'll grant you citizenship (or whatever word/ status suits) which will see you be treated as any other British citizen would be, and entitled to the freedoms and benefits therein.


At the end of the day, we are talking about people who have contributed to our society for most of if not all of their lives. We were happy to accept them when we needed a boost to the work force, and we shouldn’t be turning our backs on them now. They’ve put as much into our society as anyone else has in that time frame (often being treated as lesser beings for a large proportion of that time), they deserve the same as any other citizen would be given.

[lord bunberry]

In the name of being open, honest and inclusive (I know, I know, it’s the tories), surely it would be far easier to take a position of something like:

if you weren’t born here (therefore all born in Britain are covered for this), but have been here for X number of years (something sensible accounting for very young children arriving with parents), and/or there is proof that you’ve resided here for the majority of your life (such as school records, tax records, national insurance number and contributions, employer history, marriage certificates, children’s birth certificates, or any other sensible measure), we'll grant you citizenship (or whatever word/ status suits) which will see you be treated as any other British citizen would be, and entitled to the freedoms and benefits therein.


At the end of the day, we are talking about people who have contributed to our society for most of if not all of their lives. We were happy to accept them when we needed a boost to the work force, and we shouldn’t be turning our backs on them now. They’ve put as much into our society as anyone else has in that time frame (often being treated as lesser beings for a large proportion of that time), they deserve the same as any other citizen would be given.
That would be the sensible approach, but no doubt the government will come up with something much more complicated to satisfy the right wing elements of the party.

[JeMeSouviens]

In the name of being open, honest and inclusive (I know, I know, it’s the tories), surely it would be far easier to take a position of something like:

if you weren’t born here (therefore all born in Britain are covered for this), but have been here for X number of years (something sensible accounting for very young children arriving with parents), and/or there is proof that you’ve resided here for the majority of your life (such as school records, tax records, national insurance number and contributions, employer history, marriage certificates, children’s birth certificates, or any other sensible measure), we'll grant you citizenship (or whatever word/ status suits) which will see you be treated as any other British citizen would be, and entitled to the freedoms and benefits therein.


At the end of the day, we are talking about people who have contributed to our society for most of if not all of their lives. We were happy to accept them when we needed a boost to the work force, and we shouldn’t be turning our backs on them now. They’ve put as much into our society as anyone else has in that time frame (often being treated as lesser beings for a large proportion of that time), they deserve the same as any other citizen would be given.

Couldn't :agree: more.

[G B Young]

Some more reading for you Speedy. Deliberately destroying documents. If that's what takes your fancy.

The Home Office destroyed thousands of landing card slips recording Windrush immigrants’ arrival dates in the UK, despite staff warnings that the move would make it harder to check the records of older Caribbean-born residents experiencing residency difficulties.
A former Home Office employee said the records, stored in the basement of a government tower block, were a vital resource for case workers when they were asked to find information about someone’s arrival date in the UK from the West Indies – usually when the individual was struggling to resolve immigration status problems.

He said he noticed a change in approach to these cases after the announcement of the “hostile environment” policy by May, then home secretary. In 2009 and 2010, managers gave case workers and members of his team time to look into cases. “Generally speaking, most Home Office staff want to try to do the right thing and be fair, within the rules,” he said.
But from 2013 onwards, he said, staff were “given no leeway to make a judgment call”. The changed atmosphere combined with staff cuts made it a more unpleasant place to work and many experienced staff took redundancy, he said. The people who remained were told: “These are the rules, stick to them.”
He decided to leave at around this time. “I am so angry that people are being treated in a way which is just abhorrent.”

https://t.co/M8z3dG5MBu

May says the decision to shred the documents was taken under Labour:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43806710

[Beefster]

May says the decision to shred the documents was taken under Labour:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43806710

The Home Office has repeatedly shown itself to be unfit for purpose, irrespective of the government of the day. The fact that no-one, including the likes of May, has been able to sort it is where the politicians hold responsibility.

[speedy_gonzales]

According to an ex-Home Office employee on the radio today, these documents (landing cards) wouldn't have proved citizenship anyway as the individual should have reapplied for residency at some point. This seems to contradict the 1971 & 1991 acts/legislation that permitted citizenship to those "Windrushers" that had settled here.
They reckon there was 500000 concerned but the media is reporting less than 100 individuals thretened with deportation etc.
Whilst it's bad enough it's affecting 60/70/80 year olds that contributed to British society, I can't get my head around the fact there's people 10 years younger than me with similar worries!

[CropleyWasGod]

May says the decision to shred the documents was taken under Labour:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43806710And the Home Office say it was taken when the Tories were in power.

No matter who it was.... it's largely irrelevant in the bigger picture.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

According to what I've seen on the news, the decision never reached political circles in any case, so whomever was actually "in charge" government wise is pretty much irrelevant.

That said, when they made the decision to save space/money there technically was not going to be an impact.... Its later changes to legislation and the seemingly inept way any issues have been addressed that caused the issues.

Speaking to one of my mates who's a prison officer down south, he has two ex colleagues caught up in the mess and technically could be deported "back home"

Jeez....


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

May says the decision to shred the documents was taken under Labour:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43806710

You've quoted the BBC. Is this a true story, or has she misled, again?

[Mibbes Aye]

You've quoted the BBC. Is this a true story, or has she misled, again?

There was a piece on 'PM' on Radio 4 this afternoon which featured input from a couple of former senior Home Office civil servants.

The business case for destroying documentation was signed-off under Labour. The operational decision to go ahead happened under the Coalition.

What came across as being overlooked was that the destruction was of a far greater volume of official documents and records, not just the landing cards. This passed the 'common sense' test for me, as there are vast swathes of hard-copy documentation that would have been destroyed over time and when the work was carried out, it would make sense to batch it as large as possible due to the costs.

All the former secretaries of state at the Home Office have denied knowledge or said they have no recollection of signing off on the decision. One of the civil servants on R4 said that at some point an immigration minister (usually Minister of State level) must have had some sign-off. From memory of the programme, Phil Woolas (Lab) and Damian Green (Con) were the MoSes at that time. Neither had made a statement when 'PM' was broadcast but that may have changed by now. I suppose the question is which of them, if not both, had involvement and when.

What was also interesting was some analysis by 'PM''s political editor. He stated that he thought Amber Rudd would and should be safe - she wasn't around at the time of the destruction and didn't feel she was vulnerable about how Government has responded to events. He did make the point however that there would be elements within the Tories who would use this to try and weaken her position, as Rudd is the most senior Conservative who is out-and-out opposed to hard Brexit and a target for the full-on Leavers.

[lord bunberry]

There was a piece on 'PM' on Radio 4 this afternoon which featured input from a couple of former senior Home Office civil servants.

The business case for destroying documentation was signed-off under Labour. The operational decision to go ahead happened under the Coalition.

What came across as being overlooked was that the destruction was of a far greater volume of official documents and records, not just the landing cards. This passed the 'common sense' test for me, as there are vast swathes of hard-copy documentation that would have been destroyed over time and when the work was carried out, it would make sense to batch it as large as possible due to the costs.

All the former secretaries of state at the Home Office have denied knowledge or said they have no recollection of signing off on the decision. One of the civil servants on R4 said that at some point an immigration minister (usually Minister of State level) must have had some sign-off. From memory of the programme, Phil Woolas (Lab) and Damian Green (Con) were the MoSes at that time. Neither had made a statement when 'PM' was broadcast but that may have changed by now. I suppose the question is which of them, if not both, had involvement and when.

What was also interesting was some analysis by 'PM''s political editor. He stated that he thought Amber Rudd would and should be safe - she wasn't around at the time of the destruction and didn't feel she was vulnerable about how Government has responded to events. He did make the point however that there would be elements within the Tories who would use this to try and weaken her position, as Rudd is the most senior Conservative who is out-and-out opposed to hard Brexit and a target for the full-on Leavers.
I always thought that stuff like this was transferred to digital records before being destroyed. I suppose the sheer volume of old records makes this impossible. Either way it’s a shocking state of affairs whoever gave the orders.

[Mibbes Aye]

I always thought that stuff like this was transferred to digital records before being destroyed. I suppose the sheer volume of old records makes this impossible. Either way it’s a shocking state of affairs whoever gave the orders.

I thought the same. I think you’re right though, volume is probably beyond our imagination and it’s a combination of some of it transferring to digital and some civil servant making a case that it doesn’t need to be kept at all and hard copy can therefore be destroyed - and in fairness that’s probably true for some records. The cost of destroying confidential records isn’t cheap so the higher the volume then the cost should be cheaper, in relative terms.

What’s interesting is there was an outline business case, in 2009. That’s a formal document and theoretically it should describe why it was safe to destroy the documents as well as economical. My interpretation is that civil servants would have had to do an OBC whenever a cull of particular records was being mooted.

In which case surely the BBC have already submitted an FOI unless it’s already been rejected - commercial sensitivity would be one likely reason, though it was nearly ten years ago so that might be hard to argue.

[lord bunberry]

I thought the same. I think you’re right though, volume is probably beyond our imagination and it’s a combination of some of it transferring to digital and some civil servant making a case that it doesn’t need to be kept at all and hard copy can therefore be destroyed - and in fairness that’s probably true for some records. The cost of destroying confidential records isn’t cheap so the higher the volume then the cost should be cheaper, in relative terms.

What’s interesting is there was an original business case, in 2009. That’s a formal document and theoretically it should outline why it was safe to destroy the documents as well as economical. My interpretation is that civil servants would have had to do an OBC whenever a cull of particular records was being mooted.

In which case surely the BBC have already submitted an FOI unless it’s already been rejected - commercial sensitivity would be one likely reason, though it was nearly ten years ago so that might be hard to argue.
It shows how little I know about this. I just presumed that everything was just shredded or some similar method of destruction. I had no idea there was a cost involved.

[ronaldo7]

I sat and watched newsnight last night and was quite taken aback at the news from Lord Kerslake. You just never know how low the Tories will stoop.

The former head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake, said that some ministers were "deeply unhappy" about the introduction of the "hostile environment" strategy under then Home Secretary Theresa May.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight, Lord Kerslake, said some saw the policy, which has come under the spotlight during the Windrush row, "as almost reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the way it's working".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43818762/windrush-lord-kerslake-says-policy-reminiscent-of-nazi-germany

[Pretty Boy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43835664

So Alan Johnson confirms Mays account of when the decision to destroy the landing cards was taken is indeed accurate.

[RyeSloan]

I sat and watched newsnight last night and was quite taken aback at the news from Lord Kerslake. You just never know how low the Tories will stoop.

The former head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake, said that some ministers were "deeply unhappy" about the introduction of the "hostile environment" strategy under then Home Secretary Theresa May.
Speaking to BBC Newsnight, Lord Kerslake, said some saw the policy, which has come under the spotlight during the Windrush row, "as almost reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the way it's working".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43818762/windrush-lord-kerslake-says-policy-reminiscent-of-nazi-germany

Ahh the good old Nazi analogy...must be true then.

[G B Young]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43835664

So Alan Johnson confirms Mays account of when the decision to destroy the landing cards was taken is indeed accurate.

As Johnson says, it was clearly a card May had kept up her sleeve for PM's question time where Corbyn must have been confident of deflecting the ongoing pressure on his leadership by giving May a hard time over this. But you can always rely on Corbyn to fluff his lines. He sets the bar so low as an opposition leader that he's contrived to make the 'Maybot' look almost prime ministerial and seen his own ratings slump:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/14/labour-and-tories-level-corbyn-popularity-wanes-poll

[JeMeSouviens]

Ahh the good old Nazi analogy...must be true then.

I saw the Newsnight interview. What he actually said was that other members of the cabinet (who he refused to name) said the "hostile environment" was like something out of Nazi Germany. He also said that the whole thing was driven by the pressure created by Cameron's ill thought out 10s of thousands net migration target.

[RyeSloan]

I saw the Newsnight interview. What he actually said was that other members of the cabinet (who he refused to name) said the "hostile environment" was like something out of Nazi Germany. He also said that the whole thing was driven by the pressure created by Cameron's ill thought out 10s of thousands net migration target.

Which remains an unsubstantiated sound bite...

I have no doubt that Britain has tightened its approach to illegals and I’ve already stated that those that have been here for decades should be treated as citizens first and foremost and therefore any response from the immigration authorities should be much more conciliatory.

But such comparisons are easily said and rarely helpful when in reality I do wonder if people truly understand what an authoritarian fascist state would be like compared to what the U.K. has in place currently.

[JeMeSouviens]

Which remains an unsubstantiated sound bite...

I have no doubt that Britain has tightened its approach to illegals and I’ve already stated that those that have been here for decades should be treated as citizens first and foremost and therefore any response from the immigration authorities should be much more conciliatory.

But such comparisons are easily said and rarely helpful when in reality I do wonder if people truly understand what an authoritarian fascist state would be like compared to what the U.K. has in place currently.

I take your points and agree that Nazi comparisons are unhelpful and not something I would do myself (apart from possibly with the New Rangers :wink:). However, the interesting thing about this (unsubstantiated) allegation is that even other Tory high heid yins made the comparison. If true, that's a pretty damning indictment.

I suspect the Cameron/Osbourne wing of the Tories rather regrets the attempted UKIP triangulation to put so much focus on the non-problem of immigration which, let's face it, was the midwife of Brexit.

[snooky]

Is there not an unwritten rule that the first person that brings the Nazis into an argument loses the argument?

[Haymaker]

Is there not an unwritten rule that the first person that brings the Nazis into an argument loses the argument?

Godwins law IIRC

[snooky]

Godwins law IIRC

Spot on, HM.
Godwin's Law (aka Godwin's Rule).... From Wiki -->

Generalization, corollaries, usage
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress.[7] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.[8]

[Colr]

Spot on, HM.
Godwin's Law (aka Godwin's Rule).... From Wiki -->

Generalization, corollaries, usage
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress.[7] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.[8]

However, the Nazis (and Stalinists for that matter) present a warning from history against which the drift to tyranny can be benchmarked and checked.

[Pretty Boy]

However, the Nazis (and Stalinists for that matter) present a warning from history against which the drift to tyranny can be benchmarked and checked.

I’ve always felt that Godwin’s Law is fundamentally nonsense.

It, intentionally or otherwise, calls for the exclusion of arguably the most significant political and military events of the 20th century from any debate.

[Bristolhibby]

Is there not an unwritten rule that the first person that brings the Nazis into an argument loses the argument?

Unless you are arguing about who perpetrated the Holocaust with a Holocaust denier.

J

[snooky]

Unless you are arguing about who perpetrated the Holocaust with a Holocaust denier.

J

Agreed.

Also, if you don't give a toss about unwritten laws.,

[ronaldo7]

Ahh the good old Nazi analogy...must be true then.

I thought all you right wingers swooned on the word of a Lord.:greengrin

The last couple of weeks have been harrowing viewing re the windrush debacle. Even the coldest of Tories must have been touched, by the extreme policy decisions of their beloved.

I've lost count of the amount of people either deported, in detention, not allowed back into their own country, or affected in some way. I wonder if the Home office will ever let us know.

The guardian and Carol Cadwalladr have done a great job in outing May and co.

[speedy_gonzales]

I've lost count of the amount of people either deported, in detention, not allowed back into their own country, or affected in some way. I wonder if the Home office will ever let us know.
Have you aye, lost count eh?
Over the past few weeks there's been a few different stories of folk deported. Folk not allowed back in and folk detained.
Of those stories there's been a few genuine cases where a British citizen with legitimate right to be here has been held in detention. There's two I can think of and both were quickly released when this all blew up. There's talk of them being compensated, and quite rightly so.
But then there was a story of a guy who couldn't come back from Jamaica for medical treatment, his daughter who is a UK citizen made a very emotional plea, the father however WAS NOT legal. As some right wing press might report, he was an NHS tourist.

I've obviously had my head in the sand though when it comes to all these cases you know of, so many you can't keep count!?!

[ronaldo7]

I thought all you right wingers swooned on the word of a Lord.:greengrin

The last couple of weeks have been harrowing viewing re the windrush debacle. Even the coldest of Tories must have been touched, by the extreme policy decisions of their beloved.

I've lost count of the amount of people either deported, in detention, not allowed back into their own country, or affected in some way. I wonder if the Home office will ever let us know.

The guardian and Carol Cadwalladr have done a great job in outing May and co.


Have you aye, lost count eh?
Over the past few weeks there's been a few different stories of folk deported. Folk not allowed back in and folk detained.
Of those stories there's been a few genuine cases where a British citizen with legitimate right to be here has been held in detention. There's two I can think of and both were quickly released when this all blew up. There's talk of them being compensated, and quite rightly so.
But then there was a story of a guy who couldn't come back from Jamaica for medical treatment, his daughter who is a UK citizen made a very emotional plea, the father however WAS NOT legal. As some right wing press might report, he was an NHS tourist.

I've obviously had my head in the sand though when it comes to all these cases you know of, so many you can't keep count!?!

Seems I was wrong then. Colder than the arctic.

We've not even started on the Indians or Africans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43782241

[speedy_gonzales]

Seems I was wrong then. Colder than the arctic.

We've not even started on the Indians or Africans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43782241

Now now, you said you'd lost count of the amount of folk deported, detained or not allowed back in to their country.
Feel free to back up that sensationalist comment, but then you've got form for pulling the pin, chucking the grenade and walking.
I'm as disgusted as most that a government, ministers & civil servants can screw up to the point whereby legal and legitimate citizens are kicked out of their home or not allowed back in. And that HAS happened, but not to the numbers where you'd lose count if you actually stopped and counted the true genuine cases.
You're political point scoring would do a lot better if you weren't so sensationalist and reflected the facts of the day.

Of course, I may be doing you a disservice and perhaps you can't actually count that high, apologies if that's the case.

[ronaldo7]

Now now, you said you'd lost count of the amount of folk deported, detained or not allowed back in to their country.
Feel free to back up that sensationalist comment, but then you've got form for pulling the pin, chucking the grenade and walking.
I'm as disgusted as most that a government, ministers & civil servants can screw up to the point whereby legal and legitimate citizens are kicked out of their home or not allowed back in. And that HAS happened, but not to the numbers where you'd lose count if you actually stopped and counted the true genuine cases.
You're political point scoring would do a lot better if you weren't so sensationalist and reflected the facts of the day.

Of course, I may be doing you a disservice and perhaps you can't actually count that high, apologies if that's the case.

I have.

The link above is from the BBC, and you can never rely on them to get it right.

You're doing a grand job of protecting the government of the day. I heard Dianne abbot going on about having hundreds of people affected, whilst the BBC say it's thousands. As I said, nobody knows the true number of people affected, not even the Home office, unless of course you work on your abacas which only goes up to 10. Then again, maybe it's only a couple eh.:rolleyes:

[Mibbes Aye]

I have.

The link above is from the BBC, and you can never rely on them to get it right.

You're doing a grand job of protecting the government of the day. I heard Dianne abbot going on about having hundreds of people affected, whilst the BBC say it's thousands. As I said, nobody knows the true number of people affected, not even the Home office, unless of course you work on your abacas which only goes up to 10. Then again, maybe it's only a couple eh.:rolleyes:

Been caught out again R7 :tsk tsk:

You never counted anything, let alone lost count.

Your posts would carry more weight if you didn't resort to sensationalising and lazy links.

Accusing Speedy of 'protecting the government' is just an ad hominem to deflect from his valid point.

[ronaldo7]

Been caught out again R7 :tsk tsk:

You never counted anything, let alone lost count.

Your posts would carry more weight if you didn't resort to sensationalising and lazy links.

Accusing Speedy of 'protecting the government' is just an ad hominem to deflect from his valid point.

Started counting, then lost count. It's easy to follow, even for you MA

Speedy has been doing a grand job for Theresa and co, and still they don't have numbers. What's not to understand?

This was last Thursday and they're still counting. As in, lost count.

Officials have been contacted by more than 230 people over the bureaucratic blunders which resulted in long-term UK residents being wrongly threatened with deportation and denied health care.

More abacuses required.

[speedy_gonzales]

You're doing a grand job of protecting the government of the day.


Is that what I'm doing? I thought I was asking you, YOU, to back up your claim at losing count of all those people being sent home/detained/refused entry.



As I said, nobody knows the true number of people affected,


Did you say that, aye?



,,,,not even the Home office, unless of course you work on your abacas which only goes up to 10. Then again, maybe it's only a couple eh.:rolleyes:

Abacus, oh man, yer killing me. I have read all the links that you and others including myself posted. I have read print, I have read online. At no point did I lose count, you however claim to have done just that.
A figure I read in the London Evening Standard said 5000 "could" be affected. That's 5000 individuals that don't meet the criteria to demonstrate their legal right to be here. There is absolutely no suggestion 5000 people have been deported, detained or refused re-entry. These people will almost certainly get their paperwork expedited now with all the media focus.

I'm calling you out for being sensationalist, I'd even argue you don't care one jot for the individuals that are affected by this. A colleague of mines that potentially IS affected doesn't point score or kick the Tories as much as you do.

Feel free to label me Tory, conservative, whatever you see fit. Call me a Jambo. It really doesn't matter, I know where I lie politically and I know who I vote for. I didn't vote for either of the parties that "govern" me but I'm not bitter about it, in fact I'm quite happy for you to carry on with your deluded view that anyone that challenges you can only be a Tory. It just means that any further meaningful posts by your good self will be lost in the background noise.

[ronaldo7]

Is that what I'm doing? I thought I was asking you, YOU, to back up your claim at losing count of all those people being sent home/detained/refused entry.



Did you say that, aye?



Abacus, oh man, yer killing me. I have read all the links that you and others including myself posted. I have read print, I have read online. At no point did I lose count, you however claim to have done just that.
A figure I read in the London Evening Standard said 5000 "could" be affected. That's 5000 individuals that don't meet the criteria to demonstrate their legal right to be here. There is absolutely no suggestion 5000 people have been deported, detained or refused re-entry. These people will almost certainly get their paperwork expedited now with all the media focus.

I'm calling you out for being sensationalist, I'd even argue you don't care one jot for the individuals that are affected by this. A colleague of mines that potentially IS affected doesn't point score or kick the Tories as much as you do.

Feel free to label me Tory, conservative, whatever you see fit. Call me a Jambo. It really doesn't matter, I know where I lie politically and I know who I vote for. I didn't vote for either of the parties that "govern" me but I'm not bitter about it, in fact I'm quite happy for you to carry on with your deluded view that anyone that challenges you can only be a Tory. It just means that any further meaningful posts by your good self will be lost in the background noise.


Hey, you don't have to be a Tory to protect the Tory government, the Labour boys are good at doing that.

In other news, I don't have the numbers, you don't have the numbers, and the Home office don't have the numbers, that's why nobody knows how many people have been affected.

The bit in bold...You seem to think it's all going to be tickety boo for those affected, now that the media have got a hold of it. It's a pity that Theresa and co didn't bother their buckie to get it sorted some time ago, but she was too busy putting the policies in place which then affected the many, not the few.

I'll leave you to go through your posts and get back to me when you've decided whether it's been, 2, 10, 100's or 1,000's affected.

This one has a way to go yet, and I for one, won't apologise for having a go at the Tories, thanks. That's the same Tories who caused the problems in the first place.

[Mibbes Aye]

Hey, you don't have to be a Tory to protect the Tory government, the Labour boys are good at doing that.

In other news, I don't have the numbers, you don't have the numbers, and the Home office don't have the numbers, that's why nobody knows how many people have been affected.

The bit in bold...You seem to think it's all going to be tickety boo for those affected, now that the media have got a hold of it. It's a pity that Theresa and co didn't bother their buckie to get it sorted some time ago, but she was too busy putting the policies in place which then affected the many, not the few.

I'll leave you to go through your posts and get back to me when you've decided whether it's been, 2, 10, 100's or 1,000's affected.

This one has a way to go yet, and I for one, won't apologise for having a go at the Tories, thanks. That's the same Tories who caused the problems in the first place.

I thought you said you had started count. Can you not remember what number you got to?

Is this a general affliction for Nationalists? It maybe explains why the NHS waiting time targets keep getting missed? :greengrin

[speedy_gonzales]

Hey, you don't have to be a Tory to protect the Tory government, the Labour boys are good at doing that.


In other news, I don't have the numbers


Is that how you lost count?



you don't have the numbers,


Correct, and I never claimed I did but I did manage to keep a tally of all those that I did read about.



The bit in bold...You seem to think it's all going to be tickety boo for those affected, now that the media have got a hold of it.


I'd go even further and suggest to prevent a further PR disaster the Home Office will be very lenient on the processing of those individuals concerned.



This one has a way to go yet, and I for one, won't apologise for having a go at the Tories, thanks. That's the same Tories who caused the problems in the first place.

But surely it wasn't just the Tories, who was in political power when these "Commonwealth" citizens were invited over.
What about the permanent ministers, civil servants. They are not all signed up party political members.
This is an institutional cock up. If Home Secretaries fall, then that will be considered a win by some but won't make one iota of difference to those who want to remain in a country they call home.

[Mibbes Aye]

Is that how you lost count?




Correct, and I never claimed I did but I did manage to keep a tally of all those that I did read about.



I'd go even further and suggest to prevent a further PR disaster the Home Office will be very lenient on the processing of those individuals concerned.



But surely it wasn't just the Tories, who was in political power when these "Commonwealth" citizens were invited over.
What about the permanent ministers, civil servants. They are not all signed up party political members.
This is an institutional cock up. If Home Secretaries fall, then that will be considered a win by some but won't make one iota of difference to those who want to remain in a country they call home.

:agree:

This situation has developed over Conservative, Labour and Coalition administrations. While politicians set the tone, civil servants would and should have been able to recommend policy to avoid this. At the same time, immigration is such a complex issue that sane advice by civil servants won't necessarily overcome political imperatives. And if we want to look where to blame for that we only need examine ourselves as a society.

My take is this is messy. Home Office policy and immigration policy especially, tends to be complex, often short-termist and often populist in order to meet a perceived need of reaction, regardless of the colour of rosette the Home Secretary wears. Point-scoring is ultimately pointless but easy to do.

[Hibrandenburg]

:agree:

This situation has developed over Conservative, Labour and Coalition administrations. While politicians set the tone, civil servants would and should have been able to recommend policy to avoid this. At the same time, immigration is such a complex issue that sane advice by civil servants won't necessarily overcome political imperatives. And if we want to look where to blame for that we only need examine ourselves as a society.

My take is this is messy. Home Office policy and immigration policy especially, tends to be complex, often short-termist and often populist in order to meet a perceived need of reaction, regardless of the colour of rosette the Home Secretary wears. Point-scoring is ultimately pointless but easy to do.

I suppose that would explain why you Labour guys are circling your wagons together with the Tories on this. Nobody knows how many have been effected and I'm sure measures will have been taken to ensure nobody will.

This is the fault of the Westminster government at all levels and involving the big 2 parties. Is this why you're attacking the man and ignoring the ball?

[ronaldo7]

I thought you said you had started count. Can you not remember what number you got to?

Is this a general affliction for Nationalists? It maybe explains why the NHS waiting time targets keep getting missed? :greengrin

Poor post, even by you're standards.

I lost count, because the numbers keep changing, and it's not only one or two people affected.

I could understand it, if it were only one or two people, but we've got families broken up and people detained or deported, and you seem to think it's funny.

[ronaldo7]

Is that how you lost count?




Correct, and I never claimed I did but I did manage to keep a tally of all those that I did read about.

I'm sure the home office will be round shortly to get an update from you.

I'd go even further and suggest to prevent a further PR disaster the Home Office will be very lenient on the processing of those individuals concerned.



But surely it wasn't just the Tories, who was in political power when these "Commonwealth" citizens were invited over.
What about the permanent ministers, civil servants. They are not all signed up party political members.
This is an institutional cock up. If Home Secretaries fall, then that will be considered a win by some but won't make one iota of difference to those who want to remain in a country they call home.

Earlier in the thread, you seemed to be quite happy with the changes made to the immigration policy by the Tories. Changes which affected all those families. I'm sure your "friend", will be delighted.

I'm out for another week, make sure and keep a tally now. 👌😩

[speedy_gonzales]

Earlier in the thread, you seemed to be quite happy with the changes made to the immigration policy by the Tories.
Did I?
What I actually said was "I see no harm in firming up immigration policy in regards to employment and access to our social care system, but it has to be fair",,,,FAIR!
That's a wee bit different to saying I'm happy and miles away from me being ecstatic about the current bureaucratic mess we have on our hands.

[ronaldo7]

Did I?
What I actually said was "I see no harm in firming up immigration policy in regards to employment and access to our social care system, but it has to be fair",,,,FAIR!
That's a wee bit different to saying I'm happy and miles away from me being ecstatic about the current bureaucratic mess we have on our hands.

Hey, I suppose, one man's, disgusting, is another's tickety boo.

Just not sure yet pal would enjoy the go home vans though.

Enjoy your day. 🌞

[Beefster]

Did I?
What I actually said was "I see no harm in firming up immigration policy in regards to employment and access to our social care system, but it has to be fair",,,,FAIR!
That's a wee bit different to saying I'm happy and miles away from me being ecstatic about the current bureaucratic mess we have on our hands.

It's the rules on here. Question an outlandish statement that can't be defended and, before you know it, it's been turned back on you in an attempt to distract from the original issue. Either that or you get into an argument on the [hidden] meaning behind a word ("well yes, I used the word 'never' but what I actually meant was 'less than once a fortnight'. I thought that was obvious").

[Moulin Yarns]

Could you three get a room please.

[speedy_gonzales]

It's the rules on here. Question an outlandish statement that can't be defended and, before you know it, it's been turned back on you in an attempt to distract from the original issue. Either that or you get into an argument on the [hidden] meaning behind a word ("well yes, I used the word 'never' but what I actually meant was 'less than once a fortnight'. I thought that was obvious").
Ha ha, yes, pedantry seems to be more prolific here than political ideals.

[speedy_gonzales]

Could you three get a room please.

I'll assume I'm one of the trolling triumvirate?
Don't worry, I'll bow out from this convo as (I'd hazard a guess that R7 feels the same) it's starting to feel like I'm smacking my head against an incredibly dense brick wall.

Peace brothers!

[Moulin Yarns]

I'll assume I'm one of the trolling triumvirate?
Don't worry, I'll bow out from this convo as (I'd hazard a guess that R7 feels the same) it's starting to feel like I'm smacking my head against an incredibly dense brick wall.

Peace brothers!

I wasn't calling it trolling but the love-in was getting a bit embarrassing. :-)

[Hibrandenburg]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/theresa-may-branded-hypocrite-after-old-footage-of-pm-demanding-labour-ministers-resignation-emerges_uk_5ad8a401e4b0e4d0715defe8/

Oh the hypocrisy.

[johnbc70]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/theresa-may-branded-hypocrite-after-old-footage-of-pm-demanding-labour-ministers-resignation-emerges_uk_5ad8a401e4b0e4d0715defe8/

Oh the hypocrisy.

I am sure nearly every single MP is guilty of some kind of hypocrisy at some point in their careers. At this point was she not in the opposition, so therefore was doing her job and holding the government of the day to account. Just exactly what is happening today, it's what you expect the opposition to do and so they should.

If we raked through all statements MPs said over the last 20 years I am sure there are many more cases.

[Hibrandenburg]

I am sure nearly every single MP is guilty of some kind of hypocrisy at some point in their careers. At this point was she not in the opposition, so therefore was doing her job and holding the government of the day to account. Just exactly what is happening today, it's what you expect the opposition to do and so they should.

If we raked through all statements MPs said over the last 20 years I am sure there are many more cases.

I was expecting a response like that. Every time the Tories get caught spaffing hypocritical horse manure the inevitable response is but but but all politicians are corrupt but but but Jeremy Corbyn IRA but but but everyone's at it.

[johnbc70]

I was expecting a response like that. Every time the Tories get caught spaffing hypocritical horse manure the inevitable response is but but but all politicians are corrupt but but but Jeremy Corbyn IRA but but but everyone's at it.

I hope you live your life by these high standards you expect from others. As you pointed out it's all parties, but they are doing their job, if they get it wrong then and it's serious like the rest of us they will get sacked.

Politics is riddled with hypocrisy, it's how it works.

We would have no politicians left if they all resigned every time they made a mistake or someone dug something up from 15 years ago they said that is different to what they say today.

Lucky we live on a democracy though, if people don't like it then they get voted out.

[snooky]

I was expecting a response like that. Every time the Tories get caught spaffing hypocritical horse manure the inevitable response is but but but all politicians are corrupt but but but Jeremy Corbyn IRA but but but everyone's at it.

:agree: ... and their meaning being, that makes it okay.

Clyde/banana boat :rolleyes:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I hope you live your life by these high standards you expect from others. As you pointed out it's all parties, but they are doing their job, if they get it wrong then and it's serious like the rest of us they will get sacked.

Politics is riddled with hypocrisy, it's how it works.

We would have no politicians left if they all resigned every time they made a mistake or someone dug something up from 15 years ago they said that is different to what they say today.

Lucky we live on a democracy though, if people don't like it then they get voted out.

To be fair, i think you are both kinda right. Politics is riddled with it, but to Hibrandenburg's point, it is an unsatisfactory response, and it isnt really good enough to hide behind whataboutery.

Its absolutely not confined to the tories though- it probably seems it because the political make-up of this board sees thebtories get called-out more often.

[Hibrandenburg]

I hope you live your life by these high standards you expect from others. As you pointed out it's all parties, but they are doing their job, if they get it wrong then and it's serious like the rest of us they will get sacked.

Politics is riddled with hypocrisy, it's how it works.

We would have no politicians left if they all resigned every time they made a mistake or someone dug something up from 15 years ago they said that is different to what they say today.

Lucky we live on a democracy though, if people don't like it then they get voted out.

I try my very best to live within the standards I expect from myself and others. If I was to demand someone should resign for whatever reason than it stands to reason I'd resign if I was guilty of the same mistake.

Saying everyone is at it isn't really gonna change things is it? All that does is make it acceptable when it's not.

[Hibrandenburg]

To be fair, i think you are both kinda right. Politics is riddled with it, but to Hibrandenburg's point, it is an unsatisfactory response, and it isnt really good enough to hide behind whataboutery.

Its absolutely not confined to the tories though- it probably seems it because the political make-up of this board sees thebtories get called-out more often.


:agree: That's about the long and the short of it, but it still can't be used as an excuse to accept lies and incompetence.

[ronaldo7]

:agree: That's about the long and the short of it, but it still can't be used as an excuse to accept lies and incompetence.

Both of which, Amber Rudd has shown in the last few days. The Tories will line up behind her for a few more days as long as May is off the hook.

[McD]

It's the rules on here. Question an outlandish statement that can't be defended and, before you know it, it's been turned back on you in an attempt to distract from the original issue. Either that or you get into an argument on the [hidden] meaning behind a word ("well yes, I used the word 'never' but what I actually meant was 'less than once a fortnight'. I thought that was obvious").


:agree:

Its the pattern on most threads on the Holy Ground.

that, and for certain posters, using any little thing to criticise certain political parties, but shrugging off any criticism of their party with smug smileys and whataboutery.

Debate seems to happen less and less, sadly

[ronaldo7]

Putting aside the pedantry on this thread on whether it's Windrush, Windrush generation, or Windrush cohort, this debacle of the Tory Government has to stop. More and more stories are coming out of the woodwork (this covers all wood):wink: and this latest one is rather disgusting.

When will Theresa and co take responsibility for their actions/lack of actions.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/revealed-despite-theresa-mays-apologies-home-office-charter-secret-removal-flight-to-jamaica-with-these-grandmothers/28/04/

“I am very concerned about Yvonne Williams’ situation. She has no family left in Jamaica and her grandchildren and mother are in the UK (after her mother arrived as part of the ‘Windrush Generation’). The way she is being treated suggests the government really doesn’t ‘get it’ when it comes to the treatment of Windrush generation people and their families.”

[Pretty Boy]

I'm convinced Rudd is only still in a job to take the fall further down the line. Something bigger is going to come out and her resignation then will be used to placate those calling for May to go.

This should almost he enough to bring the government down but the incompetent oppostion seem to be sleeping yet again.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

:agree: That's about the long and the short of it, but it still can't be used as an excuse to accept lies and incompetence.

Totally.

They say people get the politicians they deserve - maybe we all need to think about what kind of people we want representing us, and not just go for the same old same old.

[ronaldo7]

One down, more to go. :greengrin

Rudd resigns.

[grunt]

Liars, every one of them.


https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/990938009687216128 (https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/990938009687216128)

[snooky]

Come on Fluffy, let's see those broad shoulders of support we were all promised. :ill:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-44316580

[IGRIGI]

Come on Fluffy, let's see those broad shoulders of support we were all promised. :ill:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-44316580

"Sharing and pooling resources" is the go to phrase for situations like this.

[Mr Grieves]

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/columnists/16262597.Ruth_Davidson_is_a_shameless_charlatan_wh o_really_believes_in_nothing/

This is a pretty decent summation of Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Tories. Her attempt at relaunching them as a centrist party may work though, especially with the help of her admirers in the commentariat

[RyeSloan]

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/columnists/16262597.Ruth_Davidson_is_a_shameless_charlatan_wh o_really_believes_in_nothing/

This is a pretty decent summation of Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Tories. Her attempt at relaunching them as a centrist party may work though, especially with the help of her admirers in the commentariat

Bloodless ghouls? The article is so full of petty and rather childish descriptions of ‘Tories’ that it’s almost impossible to take any of the rest of it seriously.

I’m sure there is plenty of examination the National could do on Ruth and the Scottish Conservatives policies but it should really try and do so without littering it’s articles with tawdry insults and name calling...they never know it might help the reader to think that the article was at least half based on an objective view.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Bloodless ghouls? The article is so full of petty and rather childish descriptions of ‘Tories’ that it’s almost impossible to take any of the rest of it seriously.

I’m sure there is plenty of examination the National could do on Ruth and the Scottish Conservatives policies but it should really try and do so without littering it’s articles with tawdry insults and name calling...they never know it might help the reader to think that the article was at least half based on an objective view.

I was told fairly recently by someone who used to work for the SNP that they, and many others within the party, see the National as extreme, and representing the loony wing of the pro-Indy movement too much.

It's almost as if it has become a mirror image of the very pro-union rags these people railed against, like the Mail.

It's a shame, because a serious, pro-indy daily would have been no bad thing.

[IGRIGI]

Davidson does need brought down a peg or 12, the "What am I like?!?!" act that the Scottish media laps up is badly needing a take down.

Hopefully when she starts the next career move down south she'll get found out, the cuddly act won't get her over with the South of England lot.

[Mibbes Aye]

I was told fairly recently by someone who used to work for the SNP that they, and many others within the party, see the National as extreme, and representing the loony wing of the pro-Indy movement too much.

It's almost as if it has become a mirror image of the very pro-union rags these people railed against, like the Mail.

It's a shame, because a serious, pro-indy daily would have been no bad thing.

:agree:

The pro-indy movement is crying out for someone or something that can make an intellectual argument for its case rather than emotive, inward-looking tirades based on false and contrived differentiation.

[snooky]

:agree:

The pro-indy movement is crying out for someone or something that can make an intellectual argument for its case rather than emotive, inward-looking tirades based on false and contrived differentiation.

TBH, I think all parties are lacking a leader with charisma and (perceived) honesty & integrity.
The first party to find such a person is on a home run.

[Mibbes Aye]

TBH, I think all parties are lacking a leader with charisma and (perceived) honesty & integrity.
The first party to find such a person is on a home run.

Yeah, I think there are two arguments here.

One is about making a plausible case for policy - I don't think anyone is doing that, at the moment. It's a massive failure.

Second is the charisma point you've highlighted. I can't conceive the circumstances in which I would vote Conservative, but Davidson stands miles higher than any of the other Scottish party leaders and probably the UK leaders.

Not everyone will agree with that but it doesn't need everyone to agree with it. If she keeps ploughing a furrow of Iain Macleod one-nation Toryism while making it contemporary, then she will hoover up votes.

There was a time when the Tories would struggle to be more favourable than the NF or BNP in Scotland. She's changed that.

[Glory Lurker]

Not everyone will agree with that but it doesn't need everyone to agree with it. If she keeps ploughing a furrow of Iain Macleod one-nation Toryism while making it contemporary, then she will hoover up votes.

There was a time when the Tories would struggle to be more favourable than the NF or BNP in Scotland. She's changed that.

Thankfully there is little evidence that she is hoovering up any more votes than she did last year, indeed there’s a suggestion in polling over the last few months that she’s lost some of that.

Your second paragraph there is a bit extreme.

[snooky]

Come on Fluffy, let's see those broad shoulders of support we were all promised. :ill:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-44316580


And to follow up my original post above....
https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-whiff-of-something-fishy/#more-103843

Try fluffing this one off, Mundell.

[Mibbes Aye]

Thankfully there is little evidence that she is hoovering up any more votes than she did last year, indeed there’s a suggestion in polling over the last few months that she’s lost some of that.

Your second paragraph there is a bit extreme.

I'm not sure how old you are but there was a period through the late-eighties to the early and mid-nineties where the Tories declined massively in support in Scotland culminating in them having no seats after the 1997 election.

At that time you could understand that there were people who would back extremist and racist groups like NF or the BNP, there will always be people like that. But understanding why people would vote Conservative was near on impossible. It was a failing administration that had inflicted policies that had no traction whatsoever and encouraged civil protest.

Tories were toxic for a long, long time. Davidson, and in fairness Goldie, have brought them back into the game. It's foolish not to pretend that isn't so.

I was going to leave it there but as a further gambit - this isn't a partisan point - I suspect the Scottish electorate is innately 'conservative', note the small 'c'.

Who has the most appeal?

[Glory Lurker]

Sadly very much old enough to remember the 80s, Mibbes Aye :boo hoo:

Even in 97 the Tory vote iirc was in the low 20s (in fact not much less than Davidson’s “triumphant” high water mark). There is no comparison to BNP and NF.

[Mibbes Aye]

Sadly very much old enough to remember the 80s, Mibbes Aye :boo hoo:

Even in 97 the Tory vote iirc was in the low 20s (in fact not much less than Davidson’s “triumphant” high water mark). There is no comparison to BNP and NF.

That's not really answering my point.

The Tories were absolutely toxic for a long, long time in Scotland. Whatever your view of Davidson, she has made them a serious player in the political process.

[Glory Lurker]

That's not really answering my point.

The Tories were absolutely toxic for a long, long time in Scotland. Whatever your view of Davidson, she has made them a serious player in the political process.

You suggested that the Tories were down there with BNP and NF in acceptability with the Scottish electorate. You and me both know that’s not remotely right.

Obviously I can’t argue that the Tories have made constituency gains under Davidson. Still less MPs than 1987 with only a few percent more of the vote compared with the 1997 wipeout. Serious player? As much as the leader of an opposition party with no chance of government whatsoever could be, I suppose.

[snooky]

I'm not sure how old you are but there was a period through the late-eighties to the early and mid-nineties where the Tories declined massively in support in Scotland culminating in them having no seats after the 1997 election.

At that time you could understand that there were people who would back extremist and racist groups like NF or the BNP, there will always be people like that. But understanding why people would vote Conservative was near on impossible. It was a failing administration that had inflicted policies that had no traction whatsoever and encouraged civil protest.

Tories were toxic for a long, long time. Davidson, and in fairness Goldie, have brought them back into the game. It's foolish not to pretend that isn't so.

I was going to leave it there but as a further gambit - this isn't a partisan point - I suspect the Scottish electorate is innately 'conservative', note the small 'c'.

Who has the most appeal?
Never been a Tory fan however, I have a lot of respect for Annabel Goldie.

[Mr Grieves]

Bloodless ghouls? The article is so full of petty and rather childish descriptions of ‘Tories’ that it’s almost impossible to take any of the rest of it seriously.

I’m sure there is plenty of examination the National could do on Ruth and the Scottish Conservatives policies but it should really try and do so without littering it’s articles with tawdry insults and name calling...they never know it might help the reader to think that the article was at least half based on an objective view.

Any opinion on Ruth Davidson then?

[IGRIGI]

A serious player 😂😂😂

[Mr Grieves]

I was told fairly recently by someone who used to work for the SNP that they, and many others within the party, see the National as extreme, and representing the loony wing of the pro-Indy movement too much.

It's almost as if it has become a mirror image of the very pro-union rags these people railed against, like the Mail.

It's a shame, because a serious, pro-indy daily would have been no bad thing.

"These people"?

[Mr Grieves]

I was told fairly recently by someone who used to work for the SNP that they, and many others within the party, see the National as extreme, and representing the loony wing of the pro-Indy movement too much.

It's almost as if it has become a mirror image of the very pro-union rags these people railed against, like the Mail.

It's a shame, because a serious, pro-indy daily would have been no bad thing.

"These people"?

[johnbc70]

"These people"?

The loony lefties?

[RyeSloan]

Any opinion on Ruth Davidson then?

Aye, a bit of a blaw bag that’s reasonably good at campaigning, has her party under control and has fashioned a half decent reputation in political circles as well as knowing how to resonate with a good chunk of the electorate.

As for her policies, they seem a bit of a hotch potch, some I’m mildly supportive of, others not so but then I struggle with all main parties policies so that’s probably my feelings to most of them (apart from Corbyn and McDonald where I’m probably pretty far removed from their main direction of travel)

What I can do though is look at a parties policies and at least try to make an objective assessment of them without immediately resorting to name calling and desperately trying to paint any member of the party as ‘loonies’ or ‘dinosaurs’ or ‘ghouls’

[Mr Grieves]

Aye, a bit of a blaw bag that’s reasonably good at campaigning, has her party under control and has fashioned a half decent reputation in political circles as well as knowing how to resonate with a good chunk of the electorate.

As for her policies, they seem a bit of a hotch potch, some I’m mildly supportive of, others not so but then I struggle with all main parties policies so that’s probably my feelings to most of them (apart from Corbyn and McDonald where I’m probably pretty far removed from their main direction of travel)

What I can do though is look at a parties policies and at least try to make an objective assessment of them without immediately resorting to name calling and desperately trying to paint any member of the party as ‘loonies’ or ‘dinosaurs’ or ‘ghouls’

Fair play. I don't think the article was over the top with regards to name calling, but I'm not particularly objective when it comes to Ruth Davidson.

[RyeSloan]

Fair play. I don't think the article was over the top with regards to name calling, but I'm not particularly objective when it comes to Ruth Davidson.

Ha ha fair enough...the article was probably written for you then! It even calls her a ‘shameless charlatan’ in the headline so starts off by calling her names right at the start, it then continues to be rather derogatory to her and the members of her party throughout.

As I said such articles are not gonna be taken with any weight by people not already on board with such things, which while probably right up your street, doesn’t to me at least, do much to further the conversation or indeed persuade me that the side calling the other one names is any more likely to be trusted or believed than the target of the article.

[Stranraer]

My Dad buys The National and there was a letter in it the last week that said the newspaper was bumming up to the extreme indy supporters. I know a few Scottish nationalists who still buy The Herald, even though it's a Unionist paper.

[heretoday]

Any opinion on Ruth Davidson then?

She's taking a lot on herself. When she gets down to Westminster (which she will have to do) she'll get blown out of the water by the mysterious types around there.

[JeMeSouviens]

Any opinion on Ruth Davidson then?

Good at the media/pr bit, as you’d expect from a former news tv person. Has capitalised on the single issue anti-indy platform to make the tories somewhat relevant.

I’m far from convinced there’s any substance to her beyond that though. Her policy positions have flip flopped all over the place. Starting from the “line in the sand” that got washed over in minutes.

[snooky]

On the subject of Ruth Davidson.
I see there's a new book out where it is claiming she was "****ing furious" regarding the No campaigners release of "The Vow".
This screams of the wee boy that shouts "It wisny me, honest. A big boy did it an ran away."
What a pathetic attempt to wriggle her out of the biggest lie of the whole Indy1 campaign - and there are a load of whoppers to choose from.

[Colr]

She's taking a lot on herself. When she gets down to Westminster (which she will have to do) she'll get blown out of the water by the mysterious types around there.

Neither of the people who look vaguely promising as future leaders are MPs. One is Ruth Davidson the other David Milliband.

We’re stuck with the current crop of disconnected dotards for a while.

(i was trying to come up with an alternative LibDem but couldn’t!)

[heretoday]

Neither of the people who look vaguely promising as future leaders are MPs. One is Ruth Davidson the other David Milliband.

We’re stuck with the current crop of disconnected dotards for a while.

(i was trying to come up with an alternative LibDem but couldn’t!)

I dunno. Willie Rennie's a decent sort. :clown:

[Bristolhibby]

And to follow up my original post above....
https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-whiff-of-something-fishy/#more-103843

Try fluffing this one off, Mundell.

That’s scandalous. First that it happened, and second that the exact opposite of blame is being apportioned.

However, what do you expect.

Wake up Peeps!

J

[JeMeSouviens]

Ha ha fair enough...the article was probably written for you then! It even calls her a ‘shameless charlatan’ in the headline so starts off by calling her names right at the start, it then continues to be rather derogatory to her and the members of her party throughout.

As I said such articles are not gonna be taken with any weight by people not already on board with such things, which while probably right up your street, doesn’t to me at least, do much to further the conversation or indeed persuade me that the side calling the other one names is any more likely to be trusted or believed than the target of the article.

Here's one from Mandy Rhodes, the editor of "Holyrood" magazine (which aiui, is a fairly neutral source?)

http://www.holyrood.com/articles/comment/ruth-davidson%E2%80%99s-greatest-skill-distancing-herself-her-own-party

Essentially makes much the same points without the vitriol.

[One Day Soon]

Here's one from Mandy Rhodes, the editor of "Holyrood" magazine (which aiui, is a fairly neutral source?)

http://www.holyrood.com/articles/comment/ruth-davidson%E2%80%99s-greatest-skill-distancing-herself-her-own-party

Essentially makes much the same points without the vitriol.


Mandy Rhodes is very far from being regarded as neutral by most non SNP people.

[JeMeSouviens]

Mandy Rhodes is very far from being regarded as neutral by most non SNP people.

Ah ok, I (genuinely) didn't know that. Maybe just a more polite version of the same article then. It rings pretty true to me but I'm not exactly neutral when it comes to Tories, even opportunistically centrist ones. :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

Tory blocks new bill to counter growing perv problem. :rolleyes:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-44496427

[Just Alf]

Hmmm have I got this right

On Wednesday the government effectively talks out the debate on the repatriation of powers from EU to UK/Scotland and in the process manage to 100% stop ANY Scottish politician of whatever party having a say... because that's how Parliamentary rules work.

On Thursday, Westminster decides to break a long standing parliamentary rule because adhering to the rule would mean Scottish politicians would get their say.

And on Friday one Tory can single handedly stop a bill (upskirting law) because that's how Parliamentary rules work.

Does anyone else think Westminster might be broken?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Hmmm have I got this right

On Wednesday the government effectively talks out the debate on the repatriation of powers from EU to UK/Scotland and in the process manage to 100% stop ANY Scottish politician of whatever party having a say... because that's how Parliamentary rules work.

On Thursday, Westminster decides to break a long standing parliamentary rule because adhering to the rule would mean Scottish politicians would get their say.

And on Friday one Tory can single handedly stop a bill (upskirting law) because that's how Parliamentary rules work.

Does anyone else think Westminster might be broken?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

There is a 3 hour debate on the very subject on Monday...

[ronaldo7]

There is a 3 hour debate on the very subject on Monday...

Do they get to vote on it though?

[RyeSloan]

Do they get to vote on it though?

Does every debate / discussion need to end with a vote?

Anyway it seems to me that instead of 15mins tacked on the end of a larger bill, there is a 3 hour session in parliament to discuss the Sewell convention and by extension the devolved matters in the EU withdrawal bill.

The SNP wanted parliamentary time to debate their primary issue and now they have it, doesn’t sound that broken to me (ignoring the staged walkouts, the unlikeable Bercow and much outrage of course 🤪)

[ronaldo7]

Does every debate / discussion need to end with a vote?

Anyway it seems to me that instead of 15mins tacked on the end of a larger bill, there is a 3 hour session in parliament to discuss the Sewell convention and by extension the devolved matters in the EU withdrawal bill.

The SNP wanted parliamentary time to debate their primary issue and now they have it, doesn’t sound that broken to me (ignoring the staged walkouts, the unlikeable Bercow and much outrage of course 🤪)

They wanted parliamentary time to discuss and vote on the amendments last week. That's the whole point.

They've had to force an emergency debate on Monday because of the lack of time on the original bill.

All this, after they'd been told the bill would be amended on clause 11 in the commons, and the Tories didn't bother.

It's a stitch up. Good and proper, and Mundell should have considered his position. He's not batting for Scotland, that's for sure.

[Mibbes Aye]

They wanted parliamentary time to discuss and vote on the amendments last week. That's the whole point.

They've had to force an emergency debate on Monday because of the lack of time on the original bill.

All this, after they'd been told the bill would be amended on clause 11 in the commons, and the Tories didn't bother.

It's a stitch up. Good and proper, and Mundell should have considered his position. He's not batting for Scotland, that's for sure.

You would have had your emergency debate by now, the Speaker would have granted it but instead Blackford went for a manufactured stunt with the walk-out.

Incidentally, how many SNP-tabled questions to the PM were missed as a consequence of the stunt - was it five? Chris Law, Pete Wishart et al?

They're selling their constituents short by doing that aren't they? Or is a tawdry headline better than getting answers for their constituents?

Grievo-max indeed.

[marinello59]

They wanted parliamentary time to discuss and vote on the amendments last week. That's the whole point.

They've had to force an emergency debate on Monday because of the lack of time on the original bill.

All this, after they'd been told the bill would be amended on clause 11 in the commons, and the Tories didn't bother.

It's a stitch up. Good and proper, and Mundell should have considered his position. He's not batting for Scotland, that's for sure.

Westminster just isn’t fit for purpose. All the queing for votes etc wastes an enormous amount of time. That’s a large part of the problem. Holyrood on the other hand......

[RyeSloan]

They wanted parliamentary time to discuss and vote on the amendments last week. That's the whole point.

They've had to force an emergency debate on Monday because of the lack of time on the original bill.

All this, after they'd been told the bill would be amended on clause 11 in the commons, and the Tories didn't bother.

It's a stitch up. Good and proper, and Mundell should have considered his position. He's not batting for Scotland, that's for sure.

It wasn’t amended because the SNP made it clear they still wouldn’t support the clause even in its amended format which proposed that powers would be passed by default and those that were ‘frozen’ would face parliamentary oversight every 3 months on progress of finalising the U.K. wide frameworks. They then withdrew it as they knew it still wouldn’t gain the support of those against the first drafting.

The SNP position is rather typical. They want absolutely everything devolved immediately and will not countenance any compromise. So even when the other side does come to the table and offer a compromise they can still walk away claiming they still aren’t being listened to and that it’s all a power grabbing disgrace. Noting of course that they have offered no concession to try and break the deadlock themselves.

Generally I think that most situations like this (rather unprecedented and not exactly at the forefront of any legislation on power sharing when it’s was drafted) would probably entail some kind of compromise (like clarification of the relatively small number of areas effected and changing of the wording of the bill to clarify the primacy of the Scottish government).

But no...all or nothing or it’s tub thumping anti Westminster rhetoric all the way. No doubt It’s an effective route to take for their base vote but it’s also a rather nauseating approach to politics that is highly unlikely to bring about constructive and effective resolution to the matters at hand.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Hmmm have I got this right

On Wednesday the government effectively talks out the debate on the repatriation of powers from EU to UK/Scotland and in the process manage to 100% stop ANY Scottish politician of whatever party having a say... because that's how Parliamentary rules work.

On Thursday, Westminster decides to break a long standing parliamentary rule because adhering to the rule would mean Scottish politicians would get their say.

And on Friday one Tory can single handedly stop a bill (upskirting law) because that's how Parliamentary rules work.

Does anyone else think Westminster might be broken?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

He's delayed it, he hasn't necessarily blocked it.

Bit I do take your point more generally, reform is overdue.

[One Day Soon]

You would have had your emergency debate by now, the Speaker would have granted it but instead Blackford went for a manufactured stunt with the walk-out.

Incidentally, how many SNP-tabled questions to the PM were missed as a consequence of the stunt - was it five? Chris Law, Pete Wishart et al?

They're selling their constituents short by doing that aren't they? Or is a tawdry headline better than getting answers for their constituents?

Grievo-max indeed.


It's third rate amateur dramatics dressed up as politics from a party so obsessed with its independence agenda that it would happily impoverish our people to achieve it, regardless of the consequences. The entire 'power grab' proposition is a ludicrous invention to stoke grievance. Laughable.

[johnbc70]

It's third rate amateur dramatics dressed up as politics from a party so obsessed with its independence agenda that it would happily impoverish our people to achieve it, regardless of the consequences. The entire 'power grab' proposition is a ludicrous invention to stoke grievance. Laughable.

It stokes the fires of the oppressive nature of the English that sadly the SNP rely on for a number of votes.

[snooky]

It stokes the fires of the oppressive nature of the English that sadly the SNP rely on for a number of votes.

I'm quite sure any issues the SNP have are not with the "English" but with the government in Westminster - which includes Fluffy the Scot, btw.

[ronaldo7]

You would have had your emergency debate by now, the Speaker would have granted it but instead Blackford went for a manufactured stunt with the walk-out.

Incidentally, how many SNP-tabled questions to the PM were missed as a consequence of the stunt - was it five? Chris Law, Pete Wishart et al?

They're selling their constituents short by doing that aren't they? Or is a tawdry headline better than getting answers for their constituents?

Grievo-max indeed.

Had the speaker followed the rules, they would have had a vote on Wednesday to allow the house to sit in private. He didn't bother.

Your faux outrage is showing up your true colours here, and they certainly aren't red.

What isn't reserved is devolved, agriculture, fishing, the environment to name but three.

What was wrong with the UK parliament actually adhering to the rules, and "allowing" the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to shape the frameworks as they wish for Scotland? Why do they need control?

Are we to have fracking forced on us, as was done in England, are we to introduce GM crops?

Devolution was designed to allow, Scotland to make choices it seen fit for our country, not to have to wait 7 years whilst Westminster decided for us.

You seem to be out of step with your party on this, maybe you should go blue, and be done with it.

[ronaldo7]

It's third rate amateur dramatics dressed up as politics from a party so obsessed with its independence agenda that it would happily impoverish our people to achieve it, regardless of the consequences. The entire 'power grab' proposition is a ludicrous invention to stoke grievance. Laughable.

Our people. 😂😂😂

[ronaldo7]

It wasn’t amended because the SNP made it clear they still wouldn’t support the clause even in its amended format which proposed that powers would be passed by default and those that were ‘frozen’ would face parliamentary oversight every 3 months on progress of finalising the U.K. wide frameworks. They then withdrew it as they knew it still wouldn’t gain the support of those against the first drafting.

The SNP position is rather typical. They want absolutely everything devolved immediately and will not countenance any compromise. So even when the other side does come to the table and offer a compromise they can still walk away claiming they still aren’t being listened to and that it’s all a power grabbing disgrace. Noting of course that they have offered no concession to try and break the deadlock themselves.

Generally I think that most situations like this (rather unprecedented and not exactly at the forefront of any legislation on power sharing when it’s was drafted) would probably entail some kind of compromise (like clarification of the relatively small number of areas effected and changing of the wording of the bill to clarify the primacy of the Scottish government).

But no...all or nothing or it’s tub thumping anti Westminster rhetoric all the way. No doubt It’s an effective route to take for their base vote but it’s also a rather nauseating approach to politics that is highly unlikely to bring about constructive and effective resolution to the matters at hand.

The SNP position is to adhere to the devolution settlement. Why should we have to wait 1 minute, never mind 7 years to access the powers in agriculture, fishing, and the environment.

[ronaldo7]

It stokes the fires of the oppressive nature of the English that sadly the SNP rely on for a number of votes.

It's seems to be only you who are stoking the flames, with your anti English rhetoric. Try telling that to, Mike Russell, our English born SNP minister.

[ronaldo7]

Westminster just isn’t fit for purpose. All the queing for votes etc wastes an enormous amount of time. That’s a large part of the problem. Holyrood on the other hand......

It's going to get worse, as we use the Parnell approach to all government business.

We'll play within the rules, of course, anything else just wouldn't be cricket. 😊

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The SNP position is to adhere to the devolution settlement. Why should we have to wait 1 minute, never mind 7 years to access the powers in agriculture, fishing, and the environment.

I totally see the point of the SNP, but you really do see politics through the eyes of a child - you are reductive and unreasonable.

I am not defending the actions of the UK govt, but it is not an unreasonable position to say lets get this massive thing out of the way, and then we can look at the effects, implications era- particularly given the complexity of current business of Brexit, and given the fact that working through these things is rarely as simply as saying 'why should we wait one minute.

Because in an adult world, run by human beings who are fallible and have a work capacity, dealing with a complex issue, it's usually not as simple as all that. The Brexit side (rightly) get slated for reducing complex problems to simple sound bites, but that is exactly what you are doing.

And let us not pretend that there isn't a malign motivation on the SNP side - they are loving this, they deliberately seek out conflict with the UK govt, and they haven't exactly been an honest partner in the Brexit process, seeking a constructive and mutually beneficial way forward.

Our current govt are being ***** in many different ways, but it's also hard to negotiate with someone who has no interest in those negotiations working well.

[Hibrandenburg]

I totally see the point of the SNP, but you really do see politics through the eyes of a child - you are reductive and unreasonable.

I am not defending the actions of the UK govt, but it is not an unreasonable position to say lets get this massive thing out of the way, and then we can look at the effects, implications era- particularly given the complexity of current business of Brexit, and given the fact that working through these things is rarely as simply as saying 'why should we wait one minute.

Because in an adult world, run by human beings who are fallible and have a work capacity, dealing with a complex issue, it's usually not as simple as all that. The Brexit side (rightly) get slated for reducing complex problems to simple sound bites, but that is exactly what you are doing.

And let us not pretend that there isn't a malign motivation on the SNP side - they are loving this, they deliberately seek out conflict with the UK govt, and they haven't exactly been an honest partner in the Brexit process, seeking a constructive and mutually beneficial way forward.

Our current govt are being ***** in many different ways, but it's also hard to negotiate with someone who has no interest in those negotiations working well.

Isn't that what all political parties in the UK do, Labour in opposition seek out conflict with the Tory government and vice versa to score political points and win voters?

The fact is that the Scottish government has the right to execute certain powers on behalf of the people that elected them. Those rights are now being unilaterally suspended by the UK government for 7 years (going on past form and broken promises it might never happen) and god knows what they will do with them. Whether you like it or not they have a genuine gripe and are fighting their corner as they see fit and so they should otherwise they wouldn't be doing the job they were elected to do.

[johnbc70]

It's seems to be only you who are stoking the flames, with your anti English rhetoric. Try telling that to, Mike Russell, our English born SNP minister.

That's like saying I am not racist as I have a black friend.

There is a large element of SNP support drawn from people who seem to have an issue with England and the English, you can't deny that?

[RyeSloan]

The SNP position is to adhere to the devolution settlement. Why should we have to wait 1 minute, never mind 7 years to access the powers in agriculture, fishing, and the environment.

See the Brexit thread for my response on that.

In summary life is not black and white, these powers did not exist at U.K. level to be devolved so weren’t at the time and are speciality areas of EU incompetence with industries currently that rely on huge subsidies. Ergo the U.K. government has identified these areas as requiring a U.K. wide framework rather than the post Brexit world being an immediate fracturing of solutions and responses from the different powers that be.

[johnbc70]

Isn't that what all political parties in the UK do, Labour in opposition seek out conflict with the Tory government and vice versa to score political points and win voters?

The fact is that the Scottish government has the right to execute certain powers on behalf of the people that elected them. Those rights are now being unilaterally suspended by the UK government for 7 years (going on past form and broken promises it might never happen) and god knows what they will do with them. Whether you like it or not they have a genuine gripe and are fighting their corner as they see fit and so they should otherwise they wouldn't be doing the job they were elected to do.

Fighting their corner by walking out the fight en masse. How you fight if you aren't in the ring?

[ronaldo7]

That's like saying I am not racist as I have a black friend.

There is a large element of SNP support drawn from people who seem to have an issue with England and the English, you can't deny that?

You'll have evidence of this "large" element. You constantly try to link an anti English element with the SNP, and I'm sorry, but I've just not seen it. Alternatively, I've seen plenty English members of the Snp who are treated equally to others in the party, which is the norm.

We have English members all throughout the party and they're welcomed with open arms. Long may that continue.

[snooky]

Fighting their corner by walking out the fight en masse. How you fight if you aren't in the ring?

Should you continue to participate in a game when you find out the dice is loaded?

Nevertheless, it was enlightening to see the Speaker being so jovial as he mishandled the triviality of democracy.

[ronaldo7]

I totally see the point of the SNP, but you really do see politics through the eyes of a child - you are reductive and unreasonable.

I am not defending the actions of the UK govt, but it is not an unreasonable position to say lets get this massive thing out of the way, and then we can look at the effects, implications era- particularly given the complexity of current business of Brexit, and given the fact that working through these things is rarely as simply as saying 'why should we wait one minute.

Because in an adult world, run by human beings who are fallible and have a work capacity, dealing with a complex issue, it's usually not as simple as all that. The Brexit side (rightly) get slated for reducing complex problems to simple sound bites, but that is exactly what you are doing.

And let us not pretend that there isn't a malign motivation on the SNP side - they are loving this, they deliberately seek out conflict with the UK govt, and they haven't exactly been an honest partner in the Brexit process, seeking a constructive and mutually beneficial way forward.

Our current govt are being ***** in many different ways, but it's also hard to negotiate with someone who has no interest in those negotiations working well.

All I'm asking, is that the devolved powers, remain devolved, and the Scottish Parliament which refused consent to the bill is respected. Simple really.

I fully understand the reason why people wish UK frameworks, but do the UK gov have all the answers, do we not have people in Scotland who are capable of looking after our requirements.

If the UK gov continue on the path of continually refusing to listen to others, what are we to do?

This has been created by the Tories, for the Tories, and it's time, people took them to task.

[johnbc70]

You'll have evidence of this "large" element. You constantly try to link an anti English element with the SNP, and I'm sorry, but I've just not seen it. Alternatively, I've seen plenty English members of the Snp who are treated equally to others in the party, which is the norm.

We have English members all throughout the party and they're welcomed with open arms. Long may that continue.

Really....

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/settler-watch-extremist-links-tartan-9834853

So how did this person pass the 'vetting process'?

I am by no means saying this is rife in the SNP, but to deny there is an element of an anti english agenda shows you must not meet many SNP supporters, fair enough if it's something you have not seen but that does not means it's doesn't exist.

[ronaldo7]

Really....

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/settler-watch-extremist-links-tartan-9834853

So how did this person pass the 'vetting process'?

I am by no means saying this is rife in the SNP, but to deny there is an element of an anti english agenda shows you must not meet many SNP supporters, fair enough if it's something you have not seen but that does not means it's doesn't exist.

You said it was a "large element", it's not.

I'm sure you'd agree all parties have their extremists given the amount off stories in the news these days.

[johnbc70]

You said it was a "large element", it's not.

I'm sure you'd agree all parties have their extremists given the amount off stories in the news these days.
They all do I agree, but I do believe the SNP has the largest element of those across the main UK parties.

So just how did she pass the vetting process I wonder, what do you think?

[ronaldo7]

They all do I agree, but I do believe the SNP has the largest element of those across the main UK parties.

So just how did she pass the vetting process I wonder, what do you think?

I've no idea how anyone passes the vetting procedure, just like the Tory councillors, the labour MP's, or the UKIP lot.

You can think what you like about who you think has the most dickheads in their parties, maybe that comes with reading the same papers each day. 😊

[Mibbes Aye]

Had the speaker followed the rules, they would have had a vote on Wednesday to allow the house to sit in private. He didn't bother.

Your faux outrage is showing up your true colours here, and they certainly aren't red.

What isn't reserved is devolved, agriculture, fishing, the environment to name but three.

What was wrong with the UK parliament actually adhering to the rules, and "allowing" the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to shape the frameworks as they wish for Scotland? Why do they need control?

Are we to have fracking forced on us, as was done in England, are we to introduce GM crops?

Devolution was designed to allow, Scotland to make choices it seen fit for our country, not to have to wait 7 years whilst Westminster decided for us.

You seem to be out of step with your party on this, maybe you should go blue, and be done with it.

So no answers to the point that you could have had your debate by now and by pulling this stunt, a number of SNPs let down their constituents?

Instead you start to suggest I’m a Tory. I’ve already been called a nationalist this week, I’m not sure which is worse :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

So no answers to the point that you could have had your debate by now and by pulling this stunt, a number of SNPs let down their constituents?

Instead you start to suggest I’m a Tory. I’ve already been called a nationalist this week, I’m not sure which is worse :greengrin

We asked for emergency legislation at pmqs, and she blanked it.

Having a debate is completely different to discussing and voting on legislation.

I'm sure you knew that.

You want to give it out but don't seem to be able to take it mate.

Lighten up, Nat 😉

[marinello59]

We'll play within the rules, of course, anything else just wouldn't be cricket. 😊

:confused:

[Just Alf]

're the title of this thread... seems they even lie to their own people!

Agree an amendment to the Brexit bill to get it voted through, but after spending 2 days agreeing the wording the Government changes it before their own pro-eu members get home!

And we want to trust them to hand back powers they've grabbed in 7 years time?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

Our people. 😂😂😂


What do you find so funny about making our people poorer?

[ronaldo7]

What do you find so funny about making our people poorer?

From your original post in which you assert that Scotland would become impoverished if independent, I find that rather laughable to be honest.

I only have to look across the North Sea, to see what can be done with a country with less resources than us.

Onwards and upwards.

Any idea how many new members we've got?

How did labour live go? I heard they were selling Jeremy Corbyn scarfs for £15. I suppose they've got to get the money back somehow

💲💲💲💲💲

[Mibbes Aye]

We asked for emergency legislation at pmqs, and she blanked it.

Having a debate is completely different to discussing and voting on legislation.

I'm sure you knew that.

You want to give it out but don't seem to be able to take it mate.

Lighten up, Nat ��

Oh dear. Some factual inaccuracy there.

Blackford didn't ask for emergency legislation, he asked for an immediate vote to hold a private sitting to have a debate.

We were in the middle of PMQs which is only meant to last thirty minutes. He was asked to wait until PMQs ended, which seems perfectly reasonable, but then this wasn't about being reasonable, it was about pulling a publicity stunt.

And five SNP MPs let down their constituents by storming out in the huff when they were meant to be asking questions on their constituents' behalfs.

EDIT - we are maybe at cross-purposes, I'm talking about the heckling which got him expelled, you are talking about before that. Sorry for any confusion.

[Mibbes Aye]

From your original post in which you assert that Scotland would become impoverished if independent, I find that rather laughable to be honest.

I only have to look across the North Sea, to see what can be done with a country with less resources than us.

Onwards and upwards.

Any idea how many new members we've got?

How did labour live go? I heard they were selling Jeremy Corbyn scarfs for £15. I suppose they've got to get the money back somehow

💲💲💲💲💲

See my edit

[ronaldo7]

Oh dear. Some factual inaccuracy there.

Blackford didn't ask for emergency legislation, he asked for an immediate vote to hold a private sitting to have a debate.

We were in the middle of PMQs which is only meant to last thirty minutes. He was asked to wait until PMQs ended, which seems perfectly reasonable, but then this wasn't about being reasonable, it was about pulling a publicity stunt.

And five SNP MPs let down their constituents by storming out in the huff when they were meant to be asking questions on their constituents' behalfs.

EDIT - we are maybe at cross-purposes, I'm talking about the heckling which got him expelled, you are talking about before that. Sorry for any confusion.

Thanks.

As I said earlier, I watched the debate on the EU withdrawal bill, and the comment by, Bercow telling them to make the case in other ways. Following day, blackford asks may for emergency legislation in his first question, he then proceeds to ask for the house to sit in private... All hell let's loose.

I know you don't like looking at this site, but it has full video evidence of what is described.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/today-in-parliament/

[Mibbes Aye]

Thanks.

As I said earlier, I watched the debate on the EU withdrawal bill, and the comment by, Bercow telling them to make the case in other ways. Following day, blackford asks may for emergency legislation in his first question, he then proceeds to ask for the house to sit in private... All hell let's loose.

I know you don't like looking at this site, but it has full video evidence of what is described.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/today-in-parliament/

Yeah, thanks - I caught it elsewhere, but watched it again. Bercow is supposed to have staff there to guide him on the finer points of parliamentary procedure. Between them, they didn't cover themselves in glory.

[One Day Soon]

From your original post in which you assert that Scotland would become impoverished if independent, I find that rather laughable to be honest.

I only have to look across the North Sea, to see what can be done with a country with less resources than us.

Onwards and upwards.

Any idea how many new members we've got?

How did labour live go? I heard they were selling Jeremy Corbyn scarfs for £15. I suppose they've got to get the money back somehow

💲💲💲💲💲


That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that? :greengrin

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.

[Hibernia&Alba]

They opposed the abolition of child labour laws; opposed votes for women; opposed the creation of the NHS; opposed the creation of the welfare state; opposed free university education for all; opposed a national minimum wage; opposed working families tax credits; opposed health and safety legislation; opposed legislation to prevent discrimination by sex or race;

The list is endless throughout their history. They will then adopt popular measures and try to destroy them by stealth. I really don't understand how anyone with a sense of justice could give them their vote. To me it's basic human decency.

[Colr]

They opposed the abolition of child labour laws; opposed votes for women; opposed the creation of the NHS; opposed the creation of the welfare state; opposed free university education for all; opposed a national minimum wage; opposed working families tax credits; opposed health and safety legislation; opposed legislation to prevent discrimination by sex or race;

The list is endless throughout their history. They will then adopt popular measures and try to destroy them by stealth. I really don't understand how anyone with a sense of justice could give them their vote. To me it's basic human decency.

It’s in their nature. They are there to preserve the position of the elite and they believe that life is a zero sum game. For them to win somebody must lose.

They are wrong and they are a cancer on the economy.

[johnbc70]

Are the powers that Nicola Sturgeon is demanding from Teresa May the exact same powers she will hand to the EU?

[Moulin Yarns]

Are the powers that Nicola Sturgeon is demanding from Teresa May the exact same powers she will hand to the EU?

No.

[johnbc70]

No.

OK, just a little confused by the SNP themselves who say some of the powers like control of the seas which are exercised by the EU and by EU laws are being 'grabbed'? So if Scotland became Independent and joined the EU we would retain control?

[Mr Grieves]

Let's get back on topic...

The prime minister has blatantly lied about extra funding for the NHS coming from a "brexit dividend". There ain't any extra money to be saved from brexit as pointed out by the IFS and some of her own backbenchers.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/17/theresa-may-nhs-funding-budget-rise-brexit

It's cynical populist bull****

[Moulin Yarns]

OK, just a little confused by the SNP themselves who say some of the powers like control of the seas which are exercised by the EU and by EU laws are being 'grabbed'? So if Scotland became Independent and joined the EU we would retain control?

Almost all legislation in the rUK and Scotland now originate in the EU. In my employment in Ecology the original law was the Wildlife and countryside Act 1981 which was universal across the UK. this was then strengthened by the EU as a result of the Bonn Convention and Bern Convention and were brought into law in Scotland through new legislation, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. This gave stronger wildlife protection in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.

Under the repatriation of devolved powers wildlife protection will be reduced to the UK level for at least 7 years.

This may not seem important to you, but the laws will not be handed back to the EU as they are Scottish laws, based on EU, and in some cases Worldwide agreements.

as you raise fisheries, this is controlled through the Aquaculture and fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013. Legislation that pertains only to Scotland as opposed to the Fisheries Act 1981 which is rUK legislation.

[johnbc70]

Almost all legislation in the rUK and Scotland now originate in the EU. In my employment in Ecology the original law was the Wildlife and countryside Act 1981 which was universal across the UK. this was then strengthened by the EU as a result of the Bonn Convention and Bern Convention and were brought into law in Scotland through new legislation, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. This gave stronger wildlife protection in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.

Under the repatriation of devolved powers wildlife protection will be reduced to the UK level for at least 7 years.

This may not seem important to you, but the laws will not be handed back to the EU as they are Scottish laws, based on EU, and in some cases Worldwide agreements.

as you raise fisheries, this is controlled through the Aquaculture and fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013. Legislation that pertains only to Scotland as opposed to the Fisheries Act 1981 which is rUK legislation.


Got to say its confusing when even the SNP website tells me:

"Some devolved powers like support for farmers or control of our seas, are exercised at an EU level and are subject to EU law.

The UK government has introduced a Bill that makes a grab for these powers, returning them directly to Westminster."

It's probably complex but what you say contradicts this?

But if none of the powers would be handed straight back to the EU then I can understand more why this is a big deal for them.

[JeMeSouviens]

Got to say its confusing when even the SNP website tells me:

"Some devolved powers like support for farmers or control of our seas, are exercised at an EU level and are subject to EU law.

The UK government has introduced a Bill that makes a grab for these powers, returning them directly to Westminster."

It's probably complex but what you say contradicts this?

But if none of the powers would be handed straight back to the EU then I can understand more why this is a big deal for them.

It's not complex in the slightest.

Firstly, understand how devolution works under the various Scotland acts: if a power is not explicitly reserved to Westminster under the act, it's devolved.

Some elements of Ag & fish, etc. that have been co-ordinated at an EU level will no longer be post-Brexit. As devolved powers, they naturally fall back to Holyrood (and Westminster for England). Both the Scottish & UK governments agree that in some cases, consistent UK frameworks will make more sense than divergent local policies. Scotgov would like these frameworks to be negotiated and agreed. UKgov wants to impose them on its own terms.

To pick a simple but well known example, Scotland might wish to agree to keep the EU style ban on chlorinated chicken whereas the UK would happily give it up as a concession in a US trade deal.

Unless you are politically infomed solely through Tory leaflets, I struggle to see why this is hard to understand?

[Moulin Yarns]

It's not complex in the slightest.

Firstly, understand how devolution works under the various Scotland acts: if a power is not explicitly reserved to Westminster under the act, it's devolved.

Some elements of Ag & fish, etc. that have been co-ordinated at an EU level will no longer be post-Brexit. As devolved powers, they naturally fall back to Holyrood (and Westminster for England). Both the Scottish & UK governments agree that in some cases, consistent UK frameworks will make more sense than divergent local policies. Scotgov would like these frameworks to be negotiated and agreed. UKgov wants to impose them on its own terms.

To pick a simple but well known example, Scotland might wish to agree to keep the EU style ban on chlorinated chicken whereas the UK would happily give it up as a concession in a US trade deal.

Unless you are politically infomed solely through Tory leaflets, I struggle to see why this is hard to understand?


Likewise Fracking. Banned in Scotland but promoted in England.

[johnbc70]

It's not complex in the slightest.

Firstly, understand how devolution works under the various Scotland acts: if a power is not explicitly reserved to Westminster under the act, it's devolved.

Some elements of Ag & fish, etc. that have been co-ordinated at an EU level will no longer be post-Brexit. As devolved powers, they naturally fall back to Holyrood (and Westminster for England). Both the Scottish & UK governments agree that in some cases, consistent UK frameworks will make more sense than divergent local policies. Scotgov would like these frameworks to be negotiated and agreed. UKgov wants to impose them on its own terms.

To pick a simple but well known example, Scotland might wish to agree to keep the EU style ban on chlorinated chicken whereas the UK would happily give it up as a concession in a US trade deal.

Unless you are politically infomed solely through Tory leaflets, I struggle to see why this is hard to understand?

Yes it's obviously very clear and simple, wonder what all the fuss is about. You should give David Davis a call, sure he could use your help to make him and all the civil servants involved get this all sorted sooner.

[G B Young]

're the title of this thread... seems they even lie to their own people!

Agree an amendment to the Brexit bill to get it voted through, but after spending 2 days agreeing the wording the Government changes it before their own pro-eu members get home!

And we want to trust them to hand back powers they've grabbed in 7 years time?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

There's no 'power grab'. It just suits the SNP independence agenda to keep churning out that phrase, as well as throwing in a few rabble-rousing phrases like 'Scotland will not be silenced' in the hope they can finally gain some traction from Brexit when it comes to fuelling demand for a second independence referendum. Anyone who takes the time to read what's actually at the heart of the 'controversy' will see that it could all have been amicably resolved months ago had the Scottish Government shared the Welsh Government's common sense approach.

[Colr]

're the title of this thread... seems they even lie to their own people!

Agree an amendment to the Brexit bill to get it voted through, but after spending 2 days agreeing the wording the Government changes it before their own pro-eu members get home!

And we want to trust them to hand back powers they've grabbed in 7 years time?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Lying - and lying big - is covered on page 1 of the authoritarian’s playbook.

[WeeRussell]

That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that? :greengrin

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.

Why do you keep referring to the extra 5,000 members and playing it down? Surely growing membership to a party has to be a positive for them,

To keep bringing it up and dismissing it makes it almost seem like you’re worried about something?

[Hibrandenburg]

Why do you keep referring to the extra 5,000 members and playing it down? Surely growing membership to a party has to be a positive for them,

To keep bringing it up and dismissing it makes it almost seem like you’re worried about something?

The growing paying membership is only the tip of the iceberg, if 7000+ people have decided to dip into their pockets and pay to support the SNP because of recent events, how many more have just simply decided to vote for them? The times they are a changing.

[JeMeSouviens]

The growing paying membership is only the tip of the iceberg, if 7000+ people have decided to dip into their pockets and pay to support the SNP because of recent events, how many more have just simply decided to vote for them? The times they are a changing.

Hmmm, I'd wait for a poll or 2 before saying that. They might just be a polarising rather than a changing.

[G B Young]

The 'power grab' myth is well explained here (along with a decent summation of why the SNP irritate the hell out of so many folk due to their seemingly endless inability to comprehend why the entire Scottish electorate doesn't think like them):

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/the-myth-of-the-snps-brexit-power-grab/

[JeMeSouviens]

The 'power grab' myth is well explained here (along with a decent summation of why the SNP irritate the hell out of so many folk due to their seemingly endless inability to comprehend why the entire Scottish electorate doesn't think like them):

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/the-myth-of-the-snps-brexit-power-grab/

It doesn't explain it at all, it just recycles Tory propaganda (unsurprisingly since Daisley is a Tory).

The "powers handed back to Brussels"* line is a complete red herring unless/until there's a 2nd indyref and we win. In the meantime, the powers are not going to be with the EU, they can only be exercised by Holyrood or Westminster and, as I've said so many times now it's making my keyboard upset, both sides agree that UK frameworks in some areas make sense, the issue is whether they are agreed or imposed.


* and even then, they would be exercised by agreement among EU member states, not by imposition from "Brussels".

[ronaldo7]

It doesn't explain it at all, it just recycles Tory propaganda (unsurprisingly since Daisley is a Tory).

The "powers handed back to Brussels"* line is a complete red herring unless/until there's a 2nd indyref and we win. In the meantime, the powers are not going to be with the EU, they can only be exercised by Holyrood or Westminster and, as I've said so many times now it's making my keyboard upset, both sides agree that UK frameworks in some areas make sense, the issue is whether they are agreed or imposed.


* and even then, they would be exercised by agreement among EU member states, not by imposition from "Brussels".

Since the Welsh government gave away their powers to Westminster, they've gone from 24 to 26.

I wonder when it'll stop. 🚫

[RyeSloan]

Lord Sewel himself has came out and supported the U.K. government approach on this, clearly stating that the return of powers under Brexit was not a consideration or foreseen when the wording was written. He then goes on to state that that this would be considered an extraordinary event that the ‘not normally’ phrase would apply to and that in this circumstance he sees it perfectly reasonable for the U.K. to retain some of the powers.

So we now have one side arguing that the Sewel convention is being ‘torn up’ when Sewel himself is saying that’s simply not the case.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that? :greengrin

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.

Not true actually. The GC recommendation is to increase public spending by 0.5% below the growth rate. The IFS commentary on this assumed a growth rate of 1.5% and therefore an annual increase of 1%. Obv other growth rates are possible in either direction.

As I see it the likely choices are a decade of something like or not much better than austerity followed by at least some hope of improvement or a decade of something like or not much better than austerity followed by near certain ongoing decline.

[JeMeSouviens]

Lord Sewel himself has came out and supported the U.K. government approach on this, clearly stating that the return of powers under Brexit was not a consideration or foreseen when the wording was written. He then goes on to state that that this would be considered an extraordinary event that the ‘not normally’ phrase would apply to and that in this circumstance he sees it perfectly reasonable for the U.K. to retain some of the powers.

So we now have one side arguing that the Sewel convention is being ‘torn up’ when Sewel himself is saying that’s simply not the case.

Amazing! A Labour Unionist supports the Unionist position. Who'd have thought that?

What is genuinely surprising, I think, is that several Scots Labour and Lib MPs backed the SNP last night at Westminster and Labs and Libs backed the SNP at Holyrood. Given that it obviously plays to the SNP's strategic political objective, then just maybe their support tells you there is something to the issue after all?

[RyeSloan]

Amazing! A Labour Unionist supports the Unionist position. Who'd have thought that?

What is genuinely surprising, I think, is that several Scots Labour and Lib MPs backed the SNP last night at Westminster and Labs and Libs backed the SNP at Holyrood. Given that it obviously plays to the SNP's strategic political objective, then just maybe their support tells you there is something to the issue after all?

Wow so maybe we should just ignore his convention completely then as it was written by a Unionist in the first place?

Considering it was his drafting that is being used as the justification of the ‘power grab’ position then to just ignore his clarification of what was written and why and how it should be interpreted in this circumstance simply because he is a ‘Labour Unionist’ kind of sums it up really.

[JeMeSouviens]

Wow so maybe we should just ignore his convention completely then as it was written by a Unionist in the first place?

Considering it was his drafting that is being used as the justification of the ‘power grab’ position then to just ignore his clarification of what was written and why and how it should be interpreted in this circumstance simply because he is a ‘Labour Unionist’ kind of sums it up really.

I don't think anyone is under any illusion about where power rests in the UK. Even if Sewel's "convention" gave Scot gov a cast iron legal case, Westminster could legislate to remove it no problem. In fact, the Scotland Acts, the existence of Holyrood etc. can all be repealed any time they like. As I'm sure you know.

Whether it would be right and/or politically acceptable is another matter. Ultimately the electorate get to decide that.

[RyeSloan]

I don't think anyone is under any illusion about where power rests in the UK. Even if Sewel's "convention" gave Scot gov a cast iron legal case, Westminster could legislate to remove it no problem. In fact, the Scotland Acts, the existence of Holyrood etc. can all be repealed any time they like. As I'm sure you know.

Whether it would be right and/or politically acceptable is another matter. Ultimately the electorate get to decide that.

Quality R7 stylee deflection there JMS! [emoji12]

[JeMeSouviens]

Quality R7 stylee deflection there JMS! [emoji12]

Hey! My deflection style's all my own, thanks very much. :na na:

[JeMeSouviens]

Wow so maybe we should just ignore his convention completely then as it was written by a Unionist in the first place?

Considering it was his drafting that is being used as the justification of the ‘power grab’ position then to just ignore his clarification of what was written and why and how it should be interpreted in this circumstance simply because he is a ‘Labour Unionist’ kind of sums it up really.

Actually it wasn't written anyway, it was spoken by Sewel during the debates on the original 1998 Scotland Act.

https://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/the-sewel-convention/

Following the recommendation of the Smith Commission in 2016, it was written in to the 2016 Scotland Act but (as decided by the Supreme Court in the Gina Miller Brexit case) in such a way that it can effectively be ignored.

So my deflection was in fact, on top of your obfuscation. :wink:

[RyeSloan]

Actually it wasn't written anyway, it was spoken by Sewel during the debates on the original 1998 Scotland Act.

https://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/the-sewel-convention/

Following the recommendation of the Smith Commission in 2016, it was written in to the 2016 Scotland Act but (as decided by the Supreme Court in the Gina Miller Brexit case) in such a way that it can effectively be ignored.

So my deflection was in fact, on top of your obfuscation. :wink:

Ha ha I could take umbrage at your accusation of obfuscation but as it’s a word I particularly like I’ll let ya off [emoji23] [emoji1303]

[ronaldo7]

That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that? :greengrin

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.

Oh dear, the thread title it's very apt for this post. That's twice in a week, you've been found out. Firstly with the order paper, and now your growth Commission misrepresentation.

The 5,000 odd is approaching 10k now. I'm sure you'll be delighted.

You might find it on your Twitter feed. 🎯

I'll just put it down to your over exuberance

[G B Young]

It doesn't explain it at all, it just recycles Tory propaganda (unsurprisingly since Daisley is a Tory).

The "powers handed back to Brussels"* line is a complete red herring unless/until there's a 2nd indyref and we win. In the meantime, the powers are not going to be with the EU, they can only be exercised by Holyrood or Westminster and, as I've said so many times now it's making my keyboard upset, both sides agree that UK frameworks in some areas make sense, the issue is whether they are agreed or imposed.


* and even then, they would be exercised by agreement among EU member states, not by imposition from "Brussels".

Is it really propaganda? To me it's simply the way the UK Government has interpreted an admittedly tricky issue (one of countless others they find themselves mired in as they attempt to find a safe passage through the Brexit swamp). It's no more propaganda than the way the SNP have seized on the issue and shaped it to promote their latest bid for another referendum.

This is what does my head in about politics, especially in more recent times and an age of what is apparently termed identity politics. There's little in the way of debate, simply a culture of insult based around whichever tribe you are aligned to.

[snooky]

Is it really propaganda? To me it's simply the way the UK Government has interpreted an admittedly tricky issue (one of countless others they find themselves mired in as they attempt to find a safe passage through the Brexit swamp). It's no more propaganda than the way the SNP have seized on the issue and shaped it to promote their latest bid for another referendum.

This is what does my head in about politics, especially in more recent times and an age of what is apparently termed identity politics. There's little in the way of debate, simply a culture of insult based around whichever tribe you are aligned to.

:agree: Time to wipe the slate and begin again. I would agree to that. Get shot of the lot and put in people with some integrity and honesty.
Aye, dream on, snooky. :coffee:

[JeMeSouviens]

Is it really propaganda? To me it's simply the way the UK Government has interpreted an admittedly tricky issue (one of countless others they find themselves mired in as they attempt to find a safe passage through the Brexit swamp). It's no more propaganda than the way the SNP have seized on the issue and shaped it to promote their latest bid for another referendum.

This is what does my head in about politics, especially in more recent times and an age of what is apparently termed identity politics. There's little in the way of debate, simply a culture of insult based around whichever tribe you are aligned to.

All sides spin furiously, that's a given. However. if you scroll back to the OP of this thread, independent fact checking says the SNP & Lab at least broadly base their utterances on the truth whereas the Tories are happy to flat out lie.

[One Day Soon]

Oh dear, the thread title it's very apt for this post. That's twice in a week, you've been found out. Firstly with the order paper, and now your growth Commission misrepresentation.

The 5,000 odd is approaching 10k now. I'm sure you'll be delighted.

You might find it on your Twitter feed. 🎯

I'll just put it down to your over exuberance


'order paper'?

[One Day Soon]

That's odd because the bit you quoted was 'our people' not 'impoverish'. Maybe you were trying to imply something else about our people. Who knows?

You should probably read the Growth Commission report which straight up admits the structural deficit is real, meaning independence puts us in the position of cutting public services or raising taxes dramatically - or both - just to stand still. It deals with Scotland's position because we're not Norway. This isn't No propaganda, its a report written by the SNP's own former parliamentary finance spokesman.

I was highly entertained by the former SNP members on twitter sharing the emails they had received from SNP HQ immediately after the stunt, asking them to rejoin the Party. Including those who, under GDPR, almost certainly should not have been on any list or be receiving any emails. It was an amazing coincidence that the spontaneous walk out by the SNP was accompanied by a well co-ordinated request to lapsed and resigned members to rejoin. What are the odds on that? :greengrin

You appear to be confusing me with someone who supports the current version of Labour or indeed Corbyn. That would be hilariously inaccurate. And as I've posted previously he has something like 500,000 members and it's doing him **** all good - good luck with the 'extra' 5000 odd.


Not true actually. The GC recommendation is to increase public spending by 0.5% below the growth rate. The IFS commentary on this assumed a growth rate of 1.5% and therefore an annual increase of 1%. Obv other growth rates are possible in either direction.

As I see it the likely choices are a decade of something like or not much better than austerity followed by at least some hope of improvement or a decade of something like or not much better than austerity followed by near certain ongoing decline.



Where are you getting this from JMS because I cannot see anywhere where the IFS is endorsing that the GC's assumed growth rate is correct?


What I can see is a large structural deficit that requires to be closed and the only way of doing that is to cut spending and raise taxes - unless Scottish growth is transformed out of all recognition.


There are several problems with what Andrew Wilson has announced in the GC.


Firstly, increasing public spending by 0.5% in the wider context is exactly the same as the austerity we have been enduring - for another ten years. A ten year period incidentally in which UK public spending is set to rise by 0.7% - so we would have lower increases in public spending than the rest of the UK for ten years just to get back to where we are now.


Secondly, his assumption of 1.5% growth is just wrong. During the last ten years Scotland has had an annual average growth rate of 0.8%. Even the Scottish Fiscal Commission (which is directly accountable to the Scottish Parliament) is only expecting 0.9% by 2023. So if his plan is to take ten years to reduce the deficit to a manageable 3% of GDP by increasing public spending by a rate lower than the rate of growth in the Scottish economy we are completely stuffed if that growth rate is way lower than he is assuming. And that brings us back to spending cuts or tax rises - or both - as the only way to fill the gap.


But even beyond these figures the Growth Commission also assumes that the size of the deficit to be closed starts at a certain level if you stop some current spending altogether on the basis that you don't need it after leaving the UK. What the IFS describes as "some assumed but unspecified efficiency savings". There's plenty of that in the GC and its's mostly heroic assumptions in small amounts which collectively add up to quite a bit of the structural deficit being wished away - BEFORE you even begin to look at how you then bridge the remaining gap.


The IFS in fact says:


"An annual budget deficit of 5.9% of GDP would simply not be sustainable on an ongoing basis. One can debate the timing of the reduction – perhaps delaying a couple of years, or going a little slower. One could choose to make some of the adjustment by increasing taxes rather than just holding down spending. But such a large deficit would need to be tackled to avoid ballooning debt and interest payments and a loss of confidence and credibility, which would be particularly damaging to a newly independent small country.


In fact, a case could be made for going further and/or faster. A deficit of almost 2.6% of GDP might be sustainable for a large country with good growth and a long track record of borrowing on international markets. For a new and relatively small country it may not. The Commission rightly highlights how smaller countries typically run smaller deficits or even surpluses: seven of the twelve small developed countries cited in the Commission’s report ran budget surpluses in 2016. Completely eliminating Scotland’s forecast deficit over 10 years would require real-terms cuts to spending of around 0.2% a year. Or it would take around 8 more years of holding down spending growth to 0.5% a year, on top of the 10 years envisioned by the Commission. In other words, even further austerity."
and


"The main reason economists expect an economic hit from leaving the EU is the bigger trade barriers that will exist, especially if the UK is outside the EU’s single market and customs union. But if Scotland left the UK and rejoined the EU that could instead mean additional trade barriers between Scotland and the rest of the UK, with which Scotland currently trades four times as much with as with the EU. The Commission’s figures make no allowance for any negative economic impact from such barriers. They could quite easily outweigh the gains from rejoining the EU."

[JeMeSouviens]

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13072


To reduce the 5.9% deficit, the Commission proposes that total public expenditure (excluding debt interest) should increase by 1% less per year than GDP for the first decade of independence. With assumed real GDP growth of 1.5% a year, that means holding down real growth in spending on public services and benefits to 0.5% a year.

Note "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending.

You are right, however, that if there is no growth in the economy, then spending cannot be increased by (growth - 1%).

I'm certainly not underestimating the difficulty and I'd accept that Scotland's fiscal position might well be worse over the first decade, especially if they stick to the imo sensible plan to keep oil revenue separate.

However, the alternative is hitching yourself to Brexit Britain and hoping they don't recalculate Barnett. Good luck with that.

[One Day Soon]

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13072



Note "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending.

You are right, however, that if there is no growth in the economy, then spending cannot be increased by (growth - 1%).

I'm certainly not underestimating the difficulty and I'd accept that Scotland's fiscal position might well be worse over the first decade, especially if they stick to the imo sensible plan to keep oil revenue separate.

However, the alternative is hitching yourself to Brexit Britain and hoping they don't recalculate Barnett. Good luck with that.


That doesn't show the IFS commentary assuming a Scottish growth rate of 1.5%, it shows the IFS commentary quoting the Growth Commission's own assumption of a growth rate of 1.5%.

Saying that "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending is just fine as long as you are comfortable with the levels of spending which has been described as austerity in past years.

As the IFS point out in the quote I used, the implications of dealing with Brexit Britain by adopting UKexit Scotland - with all the implications that has of taking us out of our biggest trade market (the UK) - is pretty ropey to say the least.

The Barnett Formula has endured for 40 years and I don't see why we would assume that it or a successor won't continue to deliver for us.

[JeMeSouviens]

That doesn't show the IFS commentary assuming a Scottish growth rate of 1.5%, it shows the IFS commentary quoting the Growth Commission's own assumption of a growth rate of 1.5%.

Saying that "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending is just fine as long as you are comfortable with the levels of spending which has been described as austerity in past years.

As the IFS point out in the quote I used, the implications of dealing with Brexit Britain by adopting UKexit Scotland - with all the implications that has of taking us out of our biggest trade market (the UK) - is pretty ropey to say the least.

The Barnett Formula has endured for 40 years and I don't see why we would assume that it or a successor won't continue to deliver for us.

Not true:

"the UK government did reduce total public spending by an average of 0.2% a year in real-terms between 2009–10 and 2016–17"

"Between 2016–17 and 2022–23, total public spending excluding debt interest payments is forecast to grow by an average of 0.7% a year in real-terms. "

I have to be comfortable with more or less of a continuation of the anaemic public spending growth forecast for the UK. I'm not comfortable with that but willing to accept it as the price for some hope for our future. I see nothing but long term decline for the UK. Brexit is Suez without the guns.

[RyeSloan]

That doesn't show the IFS commentary assuming a Scottish growth rate of 1.5%, it shows the IFS commentary quoting the Growth Commission's own assumption of a growth rate of 1.5%.

Saying that "holding down real growth in spending" is not cutting spending is just fine as long as you are comfortable with the levels of spending which has been described as austerity in past years.

As the IFS point out in the quote I used, the implications of dealing with Brexit Britain by adopting UKexit Scotland - with all the implications that has of taking us out of our biggest trade market (the UK) - is pretty ropey to say the least.

The Barnett Formula has endured for 40 years and I don't see why we would assume that it or a successor won't continue to deliver for us.

The main problem here is the SNP have battered the U.K. government about ‘austerity’ for the last decade and now their flagship paper on post Indy Scotland proposes the same ‘austerity’ and with a genuine risk of real austerity being required.

It’s not a message that will sell and promises of grand visions on how a Scottish Government would magically come up with growth policies already ring hollow considering the inept performance of such growth policies that have been trumpeted and failed already in the last 10 years.

So we shall see what ends up being the SNP policy on this come Autumn once they have had a chance to chew over this conundrum but I fail to see how they can get around the rather painful truth...even the happy path of an Indy Scotland would have a very difficult adjustment period that could last a decade or more and would be fraught with risk, the unhappy path would hardly bear thinking about.

To a lot of people Indy has never felt worth it in terms of the above and the GC really just underlined that they were right to think so. Its difficult so see how that assessment can change anytime soon.

Brexit may be a factor in that happening but as regular readers will know I’m far from convinced that Brexit will have any lasting long term negative economic impact anyway so for me I’m not seeing that as a catalyst for Indy no matter how much Nicola would like it to be.

[JeMeSouviens]

On Barnett. I may be in a minority of one and may be plain wrong but my firm belief is that it will be scrapped as soon as (if) the threat of Scottish independence has receded to a level the UK establishment is comfortable with.

As an illustration ...

David Cameron 2010:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cameron-delivers-pledge-barnett-formula-1924151

David Cameron 2014:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/david-cameron-barnett-formula-reform-is-not-on-my-horizon-9872879.html


And apart from anything else, if you are of the Mibbes Aye position that Scotland is not and should not be a country in its own right then, given the inevitable zero sum of spending across the UK, why are you not campaigning for something that is directly disadvantaging British citizens in some parts of the UK to the benefit of others to be scrapped?

I would rather Scotland stood on its own feet.

[Mibbes Aye]

On Barnett. I may be in a minority of one and may be plain wrong but my firm belief is that it will be scrapped as soon as (if) the threat of Scottish independence has receded to a level the UK establishment is comfortable with.

As an illustration ...

David Cameron 2010:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cameron-delivers-pledge-barnett-formula-1924151

David Cameron 2014:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/david-cameron-barnett-formula-reform-is-not-on-my-horizon-9872879.html


And apart from anything else, if you are of the Mibbes Aye position that Scotland is not and should not be a country in its own right then, given the inevitable zero sum of spending across the UK, why are you not campaigning for something that is directly disadvantaging British citizens in some parts of the UK to the benefit of others to be scrapped?

I would rather Scotland stood on its own feet.

A minor quibble first. I think my position is that I think nationalism is regressive and don't believe we should welcome it any more than we already have to put up with.

The point you make about spending is, I think, a different argument because it applies at any scale.

If you take health spending in Scotland (...'ahem, a devolved matter, m'lud'), NHS Lothian will vehemently argue and have done publicly for years, that they receive an unfair allocation of resource which other parts of the country disproportionately benefit from.

Go down a level. People in Caithness will argue vehemently that they receive an unfair allocation of resource and that other parts of NHS Highland, Inverness especially are treated more favourably.

Or you can go in the other direction. The EU budget has net gainers and net losers in terms of resource. Always has had.

Whichever level of resource allocation you want to go to, you will find differences that usually aggrieve someone. The differences may be for political or economic reasons, they may be pragmatic or dogmatic and they're often complicated and complex. That's just the nature of how government, at whatever level, allocates resource.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

On Barnett. I may be in a minority of one and may be plain wrong but my firm belief is that it will be scrapped as soon as (if) the threat of Scottish independence has receded to a level the UK establishment is comfortable with.

As an illustration ...

David Cameron 2010:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cameron-delivers-pledge-barnett-formula-1924151

David Cameron 2014:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/david-cameron-barnett-formula-reform-is-not-on-my-horizon-9872879.html


And apart from anything else, if you are of the Mibbes Aye position that Scotland is not and should not be a country in its own right then, given the inevitable zero sum of spending across the UK, why are you not campaigning for something that is directly disadvantaging British citizens in some parts of the UK to the benefit of others to be scrapped?

I would rather Scotland stood on its own feet.

Fwiw, I've enjoyed the discussion between the three of you above.

It really does get to the nub of the argument for me, which when shorn of ideology and romantic nationalism (either Scottish or British) really does come down to what will each option cost, and what are the risks.

Unfortunately at the moment the benefit of doubt from that question leads most people to opt for the UK- better the devil you know, if you like.

However if Brexit is a disaster, that could tilt the balance, but I think it would have to be pretty bad to get a majority effectively willing to throw their wealth and their children's futures into what is, ultimately a big gamble.

[JeMeSouviens]

A minor quibble first. I think my position is that I think nationalism is regressive and don't believe we should welcome it any more than we already have to put up with.


On the quibble, one of the reasons I don't like being part of the UK is the strong strain of imperialistic, exceptionalist British nationalism that runs through it. In Scotland as well as rUK btw, where it manifests itself through the various incarnations of Rangers. This is particularly sair to bear because one of its strongest redoubts is the ****** Tories that habitually make up the UK government! While I concede that a similar strain of exceptionalism runs through Scottish nationalism, I think it is less and less prevalent as the years go by to the point it's no longer the mainstream view in the indy movement and that an independent Scotland would hasten its demise because we'd be forced to sort out own house out rather than blaming the absentee toffs down the road.



The point you make about spending is, I think, a different argument because it applies at any scale.

If you take health spending in Scotland (...'ahem, a devolved matter, m'lud'), NHS Lothian will vehemently argue and have done publicly for years, that they receive an unfair allocation of resource which other parts of the country disproportionately benefit from.

Go down a level. People in Caithness will argue vehemently that they receive an unfair allocation of resource and that other parts of NHS Highland, Inverness especially are treated more favourably.

Or you can go in the other direction. The EU budget has net gainers and net losers in terms of resource. Always has had.

Whichever level of resource allocation you want to go to, you will find differences that usually aggrieve someone. The differences may be for political or economic reasons, they may be pragmatic or dogmatic and they're often complicated and complex. That's just the nature of how government, at whatever level, allocates resource.

Back to Barnett. Your argument seems to be that 453 wrongs might make a right? I'm not buying that in this case because:

1. We know exactly how Barnett works, it is a simple formula, nothing complex.
2. We know exactly how inequitable it now is (because of 1) and how it has become so. The arguments of those aggrieved by it are unanswerable.

[JeMeSouviens]

Fwiw, I've enjoyed the discussion between the three of you above.

It really does get to the nub of the argument for me, which when shorn of ideology and romantic nationalism (either Scottish or British) really does come down to what will each option cost, and what are the risks.

Unfortunately at the moment the benefit of doubt from that question leads most people to opt for the UK- better the devil you know, if you like.

However if Brexit is a disaster, that could tilt the balance, but I think it would have to be pretty bad to get a majority effectively willing to throw their wealth and their children's futures into what is, ultimately a big gamble.

The problem with the devil you know is that when you vote it might be a devil in the EU but choose to leave it shortly afterwards. It might be a devil who is happy to disproportionately fund your public spending but reassess things down the line ...

I guess the long term good thing about Brexit is that the strategic advantage of being in the EU while rUK is out is likely to be on the table for a long time. Unlike oil, for instance, which would still be of benefit if we were quick, but has largely passed us by.

I think you are probably right that we will reject the gamble but I also think we'll regret it down the line. To be honest, as I've said before, I'd happily give up Indy in the short term for Brexit to fail and the whole UK to remain.

[Mibbes Aye]

Your argument seems to be that 453 wrongs might make a right? I'm not buying that in this case

I'm saying no such thing but I also am not sure if you understand the complexity of what's involved in public finance.

To go back to the example of health finance in Scotland, there is a formula, commonly referred to as NRAC, which seeks to allocate monies to the various health boards around the country.

It is complicated and incredibly detailed and is calculated by very talented statisticians, using reams of data about population, demographics, relative health profiles (e.g. Shettleston is unhealthier than Morningside for a number of reasons, but affluent areas where people live into older age for longer also brings pressures e.g. people who are in reasonable physical health but living with dementia for longer) and broader issues, like how resourcing health services in Edinburgh looks and costs differently than it does in Argyll and Bute, because of the rurality and remoteness involved.

All this, to come up with a funding formula that is fair, equitable and meets the needs of those it applies to. And despite it being a carefully-planned industry in its own right, it will never be perfect because it is an attempt to systemise something that is complex and chaotic (in the pure sense) by nature.

You are hypothesizing about Barnett being changed. The point I'm making is that it doesn't matter if it is or it isn't - the complexity of public sector finances, most especially around health, is that it is almost always going to be a game of 'Whack-a-mole'.

That's not accepting wrongs make a right, that's acknowledging that we have to work in an adaptive manner, where priorities shift and resources follow in sadly a rather reactive fashion.

[RyeSloan]

. To be honest, as I've said before, I'd happily give up Indy in the short term for Brexit to fail and the whole UK to remain.

Im not sure I get that? You would happily not see Indy as long as Brexit brings economic misery and the U.K. remains intact? Is that so you can come on here and repeatedly tell me ‘“I told you so” as I can’t see any other benefit to anyone for such a stance? [emoji2]

[JeMeSouviens]

Im not sure I get that? You would happily not see Indy as long as Brexit brings economic misery and the U.K. remains intact? Is that so you can come on here and repeatedly tell me ‘“I told you so” as I can’t see any other benefit to anyone for such a stance? [emoji2]

No, fail as in the UK remains in the EU.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm saying no such thing but I also am not sure if you understand the complexity of what's involved in public finance.

To go back to the example of health finance in Scotland, there is a formula, commonly referred to as NRAC, which seeks to allocate monies to the various health boards around the country.

It is complicated and incredibly detailed and is calculated by very talented statisticians, using reams of data about population, demographics, relative health profiles (e.g. Shettleston is unhealthier than Morningside for a number of reasons, but affluent areas where people live into older age for longer also brings pressures e.g. people who are in reasonable physical health but living with dementia for longer) and broader issues, like how resourcing health services in Edinburgh looks and costs differently than it does in Argyll and Bute, because of the rurality and remoteness involved.

All this, to come up with a funding formula that is fair, equitable and meets the needs of those it applies to. And despite it being a carefully-planned industry in its own right, it will never be perfect because it is an attempt to systemise something that is complex and chaotic (in the pure sense) by nature.

You are hypothesizing about Barnett being changed. The point I'm making is that it doesn't matter if it is or it isn't - the complexity of public sector finances, most especially around health, is that it is almost always going to be a game of 'Whack-a-mole'.

That's not accepting wrongs make a right, that's acknowledging that we have to work in an adaptive manner, where priorities shift and resources follow in sadly a rather reactive fashion.

What I know about such things you could write on the back of a stamp in marker pen. :greengrin

But, however difficult it may be to allocate fairly, I know that starting from multiplying using relative population sizes that are 40 years out of date is a no brainer to change.

[Mibbes Aye]

What I know about such things you could write on the back of a stamp in marker pen. :greengrin

But, however difficult it may be to allocate fairly, I know that starting from multiplying using relative population sizes that are 40 years out of date is a no brainer to change.

Yeah, it’s a wee bit like the council tax in that regard. I think the scale of the task in pressing the reset button is beyond the capacity of government, UK or Scottish, at the moment.

Which means we end up in a situation similar to that quote attributed to Churchill about democracy.

[RyeSloan]

No, fail as in the UK remains in the EU.

Ha ha that makes a bit more sense now [emoji23]

[RyeSloan]

Yeah, it’s a wee bit like the council tax in that regard. I think the scale of the task in pressing the reset button is beyond the capacity of government, UK or Scottish, at the moment.

Which means we end up in a situation similar to that quote attributed to Churchill about democracy.

Surely there is plenty of data out there that can be mined to give a reasonably accurate picture without that much effort?

Is that not what the Office for National Statistics is there to do?

I know about as much as JMS on this specific topic but is the suggestion that the basic assumptions under pinning healthcare spending allocation are 40 years old?

[Mibbes Aye]

Surely there is plenty of data out there that can be mined to give a reasonably accurate picture without that much effort?

Is that not what the Office for National Statistics is there to do?

I know about as much as JMS on this specific topic but is the suggestion that the basic assumptions under pinning healthcare spending allocation are 40 years old?

No, my fault for wording my posts badly I suspect!

Regarding your last sentence, there is a huge wealth of data on healthcare, it spans weekly performance data in individual hospitals to national data gathered in 24-month cycles and everything in between. To an extent, it's probably too much data - you can count just about everything in healthcare but bridging that gap between those different forms of data and turning it into meaningful and purposeful allocations of resource is a Herculean task.

With regard to your first sentence, the point I was trying to make was that if you tried to introduce a new form of council tax, rates or local income tax, it would be a mammoth exercise that would require huge resourcing across central and local government. Likewise any piece of work to change or restructure how healthcare is resourced.

There has been an erosion in capacity within central and local government over the last eight years due to 'austerity' or whatever we choose to call it. Brexit has taken up a massive amount of what was left, with civil servants removed from their substantive posts to work on the sheer volume of detail involved in leaving the EU. The actual practicalities of trying to reset Barnett, at least in my opinion, would be a huge ask of an already depleted workforce and were it to be done properly, I don't think there's the adequate resource to do it properly while there is so much flux in the system.

The ONS and the likes of the General Register Office are important in providing projections, but the planning and implementation work still needs to be done by people (and the ONS and GRO are only making projections, based on pre-existing evidence and reason-based assumptions)

[RyeSloan]

Thanks MA, interesting stuff [emoji1303]

[Future17]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/conservatives-branded-cruel-after-forcing-seriously-ill-mps-to-leave-sickbeds-to-vote-on-brexit-amendment/ar-AAyV3Et?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout

[Hibrandenburg]

SNP and Labour voters are knocking lumps out of each other whilst the Tory mask slips again. What an odious bunch of racists they are.

http://thenational.scot/thejouker/16603631.watch-video-of-tory-mp-saying-we-let-the-scots-vote-on-brexit-goes-viral/

[Mr Grieves]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45693143

:hilarious

[Hibernia&Alba]

SNP and Labour voters are knocking lumps out of each other whilst the Tory mask slips again. What an odious bunch of racists they are.

http://thenational.scot/thejouker/16603631.watch-video-of-tory-mp-saying-we-let-the-scots-vote-on-brexit-goes-viral/



Ah Jenkin, the epitome of the home counties Tory






https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V3bG7lebRwZB_4PdBmnp6wHaFj&w=156&h=110&c=8&rs=1&qlt=90&dpr=1.15&pid=3.1&rm=2
(https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=JAMES+HUNT+PICS&id=8448CA5DA370935F7E4362B9C0B127B94EDE7BE0&FORM=IQFRBA)

[IGRIGI]

SNP and Labour voters are knocking lumps out of each other whilst the Tory mask slips again. What an odious bunch of racists they are.

http://thenational.scot/thejouker/16603631.watch-video-of-tory-mp-saying-we-let-the-scots-vote-on-brexit-goes-viral/

This is the sort of thing Ruth Davidson should be tackled on instead of the round the clock "Oor Ruth, what's she like?!?" North Korean esque levels of adulation the media bestows on her.

[Hibrandenburg]

Just listening to the Tory conference speeches it's incredible that they've still not understood that article 50 is designed to facilitate the departure of a nation from the EU and not what the relationship will be after that departure. Article 50 is only intended as a process for exit negotiations and the UK need to get on with the job at hand instead of what should happen afterwards.

[matty_f]

Just listening to the Tory conference speeches it's incredible that they've still not understood that article 50 is designed to facilitate the departure of a nation from the EU and not what the relationship will be after that departure. Article 50 is only intended as a process for exit negotiations and the UK need to get on with the job at hand instead of what should happen afterwards.

They haven't got a clue, it's incredible that they're responsible for delivering Brexit.

They make it up as they go, soft/hard Brexit, no deal better than a bad deal, hard/soft border in Ireland...

Where was all this when the referendum was coming up?!

[GlesgaeHibby]

They haven't got a clue, it's incredible that they're responsible for delivering Brexit.

They make it up as they go, soft/hard Brexit, no deal better than a bad deal, hard/soft border in Ireland...

Where was all this when the referendum was coming up?!

The leave camp were all over the place with mixed messages. A lot of them said 'of course we're going to remain in the single market'. Bunch of lying gits.

[Just Alf]

The leave camp were all over the place with mixed messages. A lot of them said 'of course we're going to remain in the single market'. Bunch of lying gits.Agreed, hence the reason we need a 2nd referendum to say whether what's been agreed is acceptable to us all or that they need to go back to the drawing board.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

Agreed, hence the reason we need a 2nd referendum to say whether what's been agreed is acceptable to us all or that they need to go back to the drawing board.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

We need to stop calling it a “Second referendum” its the First referendum on the Deal (or not) that the Government have managed to achieve (or not).

The referendum on Leaving the European Union was an advisory referendum that set the course for Government Policy. We must now decide whether we are content with what they have achieved.

J

[Just Alf]

We need to stop calling it a “Second Reffrendum” its the First reffrendum on the Deal (or not) that the Government have managed to achieve (or not).

The reffrendum on Leaving the European Union was an advisory reffrendum that set the course for Government Policy. We must now decide weather we are content with what they have achieved.

JVery good point and I agree with you 100%



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm not a great fan of open letters, they have something Jomboesque about them, but this one's a corker.

Dear Mr. Hunt,
Greetings from Lithuania, Britain’s loyal partner in NATO.

Greetings also from myself, Mark Adam Harold, a British immigrant democratically elected to the City Council of the beautiful capital city Vilnius, a city which, thanks to EU freedom of movement and to those who fought to free Lithuania from the Soviet Union, I have been proud and able to call my home since 2005.

I was elected in 2015 on a platform of tolerance, openness, transparency and liberal democratic values. These values, until sometime during 2016, I held to be British. I was, in part, elected by Lithuanians who hoped that a Brit would have a deep and historic understanding of those values, making him the ideal antidote to lingering socialist ideals and the persistently oppressive, top-down approach of Eastern European governance. I hope you can agree, that bearing in mind the enormously hard work she did to free the East, the previous female leader of your party would be overjoyed to see me sitting here carrying the torch, a torch that was once your party’s logo.

When I was sworn in as a representative of the people of Vilnius, I became, as far as I am aware, the only non-citizen in Lithuanian history to pledge allegiance to the Lithuanian Constitution. With my hand on that Constitution, I promised the people of Vilnius that I would defend their interests, their rights and their freedoms with every breath I take. Of this fact, as you might be able to understand, I am extremely proud. This duty and solemn responsibility I take extremely seriously.

It is in accordance with my oath that I write to you today.

This morning I read with shock, disgust and embarassment that you, a high-ranking British parliamentarian and a potential pretender to the office of Prime Minister, in a Conservative Party Conference speech, compared the EU to the Soviet Union.

Your comparison was not only infantile, it is also irresponsible for a person in your position to push such buttons in the context of the Kremlin’s continued propaganda war to divide Europe, a war in which far too many British politicians have become enthusiastic footsoldiers, useful idiots and collaborators.

This is a war which Mr. Putin finances lavishly, finances which undoubtedly influenced the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, finances which successfully ensured the result Russia so dearly wanted. This is the result which you now cherish and pervert, presenting it in your latest speech as the desire of “52% of the British people”, while clearly much less than 50% had in mind the kind of chaotic, amateurish, economically damaging exit that you and your colleagues have succeeded in arranging.

Your hysterical and hallucinogenic speech will be applauded in the corridors of the Russian secret services whose disinformation campaign tactics you are mimicking so closely that it makes me wonder whether or not you are receiving their payment via a Maltese bank.

You campaigned for Remain but have since decided, presumably for Machiavellian career-progression reasons, to reverse your position and give speeches that pander to the most europhobic and vile sectors of your party, along with knowingly rousing the rabble of deranged and discredited organisations such as UKIP, the EDL and Moscow First.

The latter organisation does not exist, although in the current degenerate political atmosphere to which you, Mr. Hunt, are contributing, it would not surprise me to learn that such an organisation already operates and organises rallies without your condemnation.

More importantly, and I cannot stress this enough, your speech spat in the faces of millions of dead people’s surviving relatives, people who experienced and resisted and suffered under actual soviet terror, people who were actually imprisoned in the actual Soviet Union, people who fought for and prayed for the kind of freedom you take for granted and now recklessly abuse.

Ordinary words cannot fully express my fellow Vilnians’ feelings about you, but swearwords can. Unfortunately, due to the restrictions of the oversight of the Vilnius City Council Ethics Commission, I am unable to use such words freely in official communications. Suffice it to say, Mr. Hunt, that one of the words I would like to deploy rhymes with your name.

Sincerely,

Mark Adam Harold
City Councillor (Independent)
Vilnius, Lithuania, European Union

[GlesgaeHibby]

We need to stop calling it a “Second referendum” its the First referendum on the Deal (or not) that the Government have managed to achieve (or not).

The referendum on Leaving the European Union was an advisory referendum that set the course for Government Policy. We must now decide whether we are content with what they have achieved.

J

Spot on, and a good way to put it.

If there had been a white paper before the vote and the government were delivering as per the white paper then we wouldn't need a vote on the deal. Given the pre-vote mess and range of options/opinions on future relationship with EU that were presented by Leave we absolutely have a right to vote on the terms (which will almost certainly be a no-deal Brexit now).

[Fife-Hibee]

May has played a blinder here. Make an absolute fool of herself at the party conference so that becomes the main focus, taking everybodies attention away from the parties policies. No mention of the policies in the newspapers, TV or other media platforms. Just a single nonsensical moment that doesn't matter whatsoever.

[marinello59]

May has played a blinder here. Make an absolute fool of herself at the party conference so that becomes the main focus, taking everybodies attention away from the parties policies. No mention of the policies in the newspapers, TV or other media platforms. Just a single nonsensical moment that doesn't matter whatsoever.

You see what you want to see. There has been plenty of commentary on the actual content.

[Fife-Hibee]

You see what you want to see. There has been plenty of commentary on the actual content.

Really? Because i've read the party manifesto and very little that i'm hearing from the media reflects what i've read. It's just one pointless distraction after another.

[PeeJay]

May has played a blinder here. Make an absolute fool of herself at the party conference so that becomes the main focus, taking everybodies attention away from the parties policies. No mention of the policies in the newspapers, TV or other media platforms. Just a single nonsensical moment that doesn't matter whatsoever.


Sitting here in Berlin, it took me all of 20 seconds to find Guardian articles doing just what you claim is no-where to be found ...

[marinello59]

Really? Because i've read the party manifesto and very little that i'm hearing from the media reflects what i've read. It's just one pointless distraction after another.

Looks like you are easily distracted then. :greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Really? Because i've read the party manifesto and very little that i'm hearing from the media reflects what i've read. It's just one pointless distraction after another.

Is that another straw man argument from you?! 😉

[heretoday]

May has played a blinder here. Make an absolute fool of herself at the party conference so that becomes the main focus, taking everybodies attention away from the parties policies. No mention of the policies in the newspapers, TV or other media platforms. Just a single nonsensical moment that doesn't matter whatsoever.

It would have been absolutely great if she'd slipped on her backside while bopping across the floor.

She'd probably have had to resign or something.

[CropleyWasGod]

It would have been absolutely great if she'd slipped on her backside while bopping across the floor.

She'd probably have had to resign or something.In other news, the judging panel from Strictly will be presenting their own Brexit plan on Saturday.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

I hate myself for this, but her crap dancing is actually making me warm to her.

Sorry.

[Radium]

In other news, the judging panel from Strictly will be presenting their own Brexit plan on Saturday.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181004/a6d97a00355d040fef766d5a71d80965.png



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181004/a6d97a00355d040fef766d5a71d80965.png



Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkPlagiarist.

I would have had no idea who he was. Does he play for Liege? [emoji3]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

I see the Tory *******s have underpaid people on certain benefits to the tune of nearly £1 billion.

[johnbc70]

I see the Tory *******s have underpaid people on certain benefits to the tune of nearly £1 billion.

The errors made in calculations were inexcusable.

Has the SNP though not had the ability to take over the welfare payment system in Scotland since 2017? If so why have they not done this? Why did I read recently that the SNP have actually asked to Tories to keep administering it for even longer?

[ronaldo7]

The errors made in calculations were inexcusable.

Has the SNP though not had the ability to take over the welfare payment system in Scotland since 2017? If so why have they not done this? Why did I read recently that the SNP have actually asked to Tories to keep administering it for even longer?

Is that it, the errors were inexcusable?

It's only those disabled, and on the bread line, so let's move along and find out what the SNP are doing about it.

Fyi, carers in Scotland received £221 uplift to their allowance last month, with another payment coming along in December.

Maybe we should take a bit of time to get the system we want rather than duplicate the failures from England.

Fairness, dignity, and respect in Scotland. What's not to like.

[johnbc70]

Is that it, the errors were inexcusable?

It's only those disabled, and on the bread line, so let's move along and find out what the SNP are doing about it.

Fyi, carers in Scotland received £221 uplift to their allowance last month, with another payment coming along in December.

Maybe we should take a bit of time to get the system we want rather than duplicate the failures from England.

Fairness, dignity, and respect in Scotland. What's not to like.

I think the DWP deserve the criticism and rightly so, they are a Tory government department. But at the same time the SNP have had the ability to take over the welfare payment system in Scotland but have failed to so do, they have even asked the Tories to keep administering it for them on their behalf. That also deserves some criticism as well does it not? If they had the chance to take it out the hands of their tories in 2017 then they should have. They could have implemented their fairness, dignity and respect much sooner and as you say that's a good thing.

So both the Tories and SNP could have done better on this episode.

[One Day Soon]

I think the DWP deserve the criticism and rightly so, they are a Tory government department. But at the same time the SNP have had the ability to take over the welfare payment system in Scotland but have failed to so do, they have even asked the Tories to keep administering it for them on their behalf. That also deserves some criticism as well does it not? If they had the chance to take it out the hands of their tories in 2017 then they should have. They could have implemented their fairness, dignity and respect much sooner and as you say that's a good thing.

So both the Tories and SNP could have done better on this episode.

That will never do.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think the DWP deserve the criticism and rightly so, they are a Tory government department. But at the same time the SNP have had the ability to take over the welfare payment system in Scotland but have failed to so do, they have even asked the Tories to keep administering it for them on their behalf. That also deserves some criticism as well does it not? If they had the chance to take it out the hands of their tories in 2017 then they should have. They could have implemented their fairness, dignity and respect much sooner and as you say that's a good thing.

So both the Tories and SNP could have done better on this episode.

But more the SNP surely, John? :wink::faf:

[ronaldo7]

I think the DWP deserve the criticism and rightly so, they are a Tory government department. But at the same time the SNP have had the ability to take over the welfare payment system in Scotland but have failed to so do, they have even asked the Tories to keep administering it for them on their behalf. That also deserves some criticism as well does it not? If they had the chance to take it out the hands of their tories in 2017 then they should have. They could have implemented their fairness, dignity and respect much sooner and as you say that's a good thing.

So both the Tories and SNP could have done better on this episode.

So you want us to take over the running of a failed system, rather than taking time to get it right.

Theirs a jolly good chap.

[johnbc70]

But more the SNP surely, John? :wink::faf:

Well no, but I think it's reasonable if we are to call out a failed process it's also fair to call out the Scottish Government had the ability to take over this process and completely overhaul it but has failed to do so, and has asked the failing department on this case to keep administering the payments even longer.

[johnbc70]

So you want us to take over the running of a failed system, rather than taking time to get it right.

Theirs a jolly good chap.

No, why did the SNP not implement their own welfare payment system in 2017 when they could have?

You know you can criticise the SNP, I don't think Nicola reads Hibs.net.

[JeMeSouviens]

Well no, but I think it's reasonable if we are to call out a failed process it's also fair to call out the Scottish Government had the ability to take over this process and completely overhaul it but has failed to do so, and has asked the failing department on this case to keep administering the payments even longer.

Presumably they weren't ready. Which may be a major failing on their part (I don't know) but I'd much rather they prepare properly and take over with a fully functioning system than take over with something half-arsed that leaves recipients suffering in the meantime.

[One Day Soon]

No, why did the SNP not implement their own welfare payment system in 2017 when they could have?

You know you can criticise the SNP, I don't think Nicola reads Hibs.net.

They don't do things in a hurry - like taking over Prestwick Airport - they take their time and get it right, like payments to farmers. :rolleyes:

[ronaldo7]

No, why did the SNP not implement their own welfare payment system in 2017 when they could have?

You know you can criticise the SNP, I don't think Nicola reads Hibs.net.

It's simple really, the system is so ****ed, it'll take a while to get it right.

Carers payments made. Check

Best start grants to be paid in December(6 months earlier than planned). Check

Changes to your failed universal credit system in place. Check.

We are only getting 15% of welfare powers, and we'll do it correctly from the start, rather than follow your failed system.

If only the Tories had listened to us when we said the universal credit roll out was underfunded and failing.

They didn't care, didn't listen, and decided to roll it out and cut it further.

This is your parties policies in action, and all you want to do is shout SNP baaaad.

[ronaldo7]

They don't do things in a hurry - like taking over Prestwick Airport - they take their time and get it right, like payments to farmers. :rolleyes:

We can't pay the farmers, due to the money having gone to English farmers instead. 😩

Another Tory hijack.

[johnbc70]

Presumably they weren't ready. Which may be a major failing on their part (I don't know) but I'd much rather they prepare properly and take over with a fully functioning system than take over with something half-arsed that leaves recipients suffering in the meantime.

Your right, it has been a major failing on their part as they have had reasonable time to implement their own welfare system but were not ready.