SNP Green power share

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210819/ece929c2178ae260ac6be89b0c11d494.jpg

Deal announced tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210819/ece929c2178ae260ac6be89b0c11d494.jpg

Deal announced tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has to be put to, and agreed by, scottish greens members.

[Hibrandenburg]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210819/ece929c2178ae260ac6be89b0c11d494.jpg

Deal announced tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great news, now I hope they actually influence some positive policy, if they fluff this chance it could put the pro environmental movement back years.

[pollution]

I wonder if the Greens will put an end to the Sheriffhall flyover after all they have said about it ?

Can't see them succeeding on this, somehow.

[Stairway 2 7]

I wonder if the Greens will put an end to the Sheriffhall flyover after all they have said about it ?

Can't see them succeeding on this, somehow.

Hope no it's a nightmare

[Glory Lurker]

I also hope the A9 dualling and the dualling of the Inverness-Aberdeen road isn't affected. We're transitioning to electric vehicles and connectivity is vital for the economy.

[Ryan91]

I wonder if the Greens will put an end to the Sheriffhall flyover after all they have said about it ?

Can't see them succeeding on this, somehow.

I've never understood their opposition to it, they say it would increase traffic levels, but by the time it's complete the majority of vehicles may well be electric or at least hybrid. Also cars travelling at speed are more efficient than cars sitting in a queue with their engines idling and therefore pollute less.

[Jones28]

I've never understood their opposition to it, they say it would increase traffic levels, but by the time it's complete the majority of vehicles may well be electric or at least hybrid. Also cars travelling at speed are more efficient than cars sitting in a queue with their engines idling and therefore pollute less.

Same here, as the Green Party their first priority has got to be fewer vehicles on the road, but surely the next best option is to make existing roadways more efficient than they are now.

[Ozyhibby]

Same here, as the Green Party their first priority has got to be fewer vehicles on the road, but surely the next best option is to make existing roadways more efficient than they are now.

There will be a large fundamentalist group within the party that opposes all roads no matter what. It’s lucky they weren’t around when the Romans arrived.
They will need to learn to compromise though in govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HiBremian]

There will be a large fundamentalist group within the party that opposes all roads no matter what. It’s lucky they weren’t around when the Romans arrived.
They will need to learn to compromise though in govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As one of those said members I’ve just received a draft of the agreement. It looks like all existing road projects will go ahead as planned, though it may be that the A96 will only be partly duelled, with the aim of meanwhile re-allocating more future funding to rail, bus and active travel. Seems a sensible compromise (sorry if I don’t fit the stereotype Green member).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

As one of those said members I’ve just received a draft of the agreement. It looks like all existing road projects will go ahead as planned, though it may be that the A96 will only be partly duelled, with the aim of meanwhile re-allocating more future funding to rail, bus and active travel. Seems a sensible compromise (sorry if I don’t fit the stereotype Green member).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Scottish greens twitter outlines what it will mean.

Longish thread


The deal would deliver:

🚂 £5bn for railways

🚲 10% of the transport budget, £320m a year, for cycling and walking

👷 A move away from road building

🚐 A Community Bus Fund https://t.co/Mxsv0vxcRe

[He's here!]

Sturgeon and Harvie at the helm? What an appalling prospect.

[Moulin Yarns]

Sturgeon and Harvie at the helm? What an appalling prospect.

Where does it say Sir Patrick of Harvie has been given a senior government position?? Or is this your normal anti left wing outburst?

[Callum_62]

Sturgeon and Harvie at the helm? What an appalling prospect.Atleast it's no Corbyn!

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Sturgeon and Harvie at the helm? What an appalling prospect.

As long as one of them plot a course away from "Global Britain" and the right wing nut jobs, that'll do for me. :aok:

[Bangkok Hibby]

Sturgeon and Harvie at the helm? What an appalling prospect.

Makes perfect sense to me

[Moulin Yarns]

Sturgeon and Harvie at the helm? What an appalling prospect.

:tub4:

:fishin:

:troll:

:saltireflag

[Callum_62]

What is anti family?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Since90+2]

What is anti family?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

It is on add thing to say.

[CropleyWasGod]

What is anti family?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

A dog-whistle for all homophobes, transphobes and other nonmainstreamphobes?

Edit... it seems I'm not the first to say that. :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Sturgeon and Harvie at the helm? What an appalling prospect.

As is often the case you post your hate of the Scottish Green Party then run away. Well, I would like to open a dialogue, and find out your opinions on the proposals behind the cooperation deal between the SNP Government and the Scottish Green Party rather than your views of the personalities.

Here are bullet points of the deal.

The deal would deliver:

£5bn for railways
10% of the transport budget, £320m a year, for cycling and walking
A move away from road building
A Community Bus Fund



Doubling of onshore wind capacity
Thousands of jobs in the supply chain
Support expansion of marine renewables
Rent controls
New protections from eviction
A right for tenants to decorate and keep pets
At least one new National Park
A natural environment bill
18,000 hectares of new woodland each year
New Human rights legislation
More action to tackle gender-based violence in schools
GRA reforms delivered
A ban on LGBTQ ‘conversion therapy’
A referendum on Scotland’s future
Full EU membership
A distinctive Green case for independence
New international hubs in Copenhagen and Warsaw
Increased outreach in South America, Africa and Asia
International development strategies which promote human rights, climate justice & LGBTQ equality
The deal would make public funding of businesses conditional on:

Paying the Living wage
Giving a voice to workers,including through trade unions
No tax avoidance

At least £1.8 billion to make homes and other buildings warmer & more energy efficient
Thousands of new jobs in construction
Public buildings decarbonised



Now, I have no doubt that you will not agree with all of that, but seriously, there has to be something that you agree with, so, instead of the "I hate Patrick Harvie" post that you usually post, how about a mature dialogue?

[degenerated]

As is often the case you post your hate of the Scottish Green Party then run away. Well, I would like to open a dialogue, and find out your opinions on the proposals behind the cooperation deal between the SNP Government and the Scottish Green Party rather than your views of the personalities.

Here are bullet points of the deal.

The deal would deliver:

£5bn for railways
10% of the transport budget, £320m a year, for cycling and walking
A move away from road building
A Community Bus Fund



Doubling of onshore wind capacity
Thousands of jobs in the supply chain
Support expansion of marine renewables
Rent controls
New protections from eviction
A right for tenants to decorate and keep pets
At least one new National Park
A natural environment bill
18,000 hectares of new woodland each year
New Human rights legislation
More action to tackle gender-based violence in schools
GRA reforms delivered
A ban on LGBTQ ‘conversion therapy’
A referendum on Scotland’s future
Full EU membership
A distinctive Green case for independence
New international hubs in Copenhagen and Warsaw
Increased outreach in South America, Africa and Asia
International development strategies which promote human rights, climate justice & LGBTQ equality
The deal would make public funding of businesses conditional on:

Paying the Living wage
Giving a voice to workers,including through trade unions
No tax avoidance

At least £1.8 billion to make homes and other buildings warmer & more energy efficient
Thousands of new jobs in construction
Public buildings decarbonised



Now, I have no doubt that you will not agree with all of that, but seriously, there has to be something that you agree with, so, instead of the "I hate Patrick Harvie" post that you usually post, how about a mature dialogue?Some good stuff in there but decorating pets is a bit off if you ask me. :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

As is often the case you post your hate of the Scottish Green Party then run away. Well, I would like to open a dialogue, and find out your opinions on the proposals behind the cooperation deal between the SNP Government and the Scottish Green Party rather than your views of the personalities.

Here are bullet points of the deal.

The deal would deliver:

£5bn for railways
10% of the transport budget, £320m a year, for cycling and walking
A move away from road building
A Community Bus Fund



Doubling of onshore wind capacity
Thousands of jobs in the supply chain
Support expansion of marine renewables
Rent controls
New protections from eviction
A right for tenants to decorate and keep pets
At least one new National Park
A natural environment bill
18,000 hectares of new woodland each year
New Human rights legislation
More action to tackle gender-based violence in schools
GRA reforms delivered
A ban on LGBTQ ‘conversion therapy’
A referendum on Scotland’s future
Full EU membership
A distinctive Green case for independence
New international hubs in Copenhagen and Warsaw
Increased outreach in South America, Africa and Asia
International development strategies which promote human rights, climate justice & LGBTQ equality
The deal would make public funding of businesses conditional on:

Paying the Living wage
Giving a voice to workers,including through trade unions
No tax avoidance

At least £1.8 billion to make homes and other buildings warmer & more energy efficient
Thousands of new jobs in construction
Public buildings decarbonised



Now, I have no doubt that you will not agree with all of that, but seriously, there has to be something that you agree with, so, instead of the "I hate Patrick Harvie" post that you usually post, how about a mature dialogue?

I can give a meaningful criticism. The rent controls policy will be a disaster for young people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Some good stuff in there but decorating pets is a bit off if you ask me. :greengrin

:greengrin

[Crunchie]

Sturgeon and Harvie at the helm? What an appalling prospect.
I couldn't agree more and nothing more than a gimmick to get another referendum. The greens will be ditched after/if it happens.

[Moulin Yarns]

I couldn't agree more and nothing more than a gimmick to get another referendum. The greens will be ditched after/if it happens.

So you disagree with everythin' proposed in the deal????

[Moulin Yarns]

I see they already have their work cut out on affordable public transport

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-58279271

[CloudSquall]

The unionist tears of rage over this are all I need to be fully behind this deal.

God help their blood pressure when Harvie stands up as a government minister at FMQs, it will push many over the edge.

[CropleyWasGod]

I can give a meaningful criticism. The rent controls policy will be a disaster for young people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In what way?

[CropleyWasGod]

I couldn't agree more and nothing more than a gimmick to get another referendum. The greens will be ditched after/if it happens.

And if the alliance achieves even half of its aspirations, we'll be in a better place.

What's not to like?

[Moulin Yarns]

And if the alliance achieves even half of its aspirations, we'll be in a better place.

What's not to like?

Because the union does not like to see progressive cooperation in politics, all they have is phrases like coalition of chaos!!

I'm biased, of course, but I really want to see even half of the proposals come to fruition. If only to stick the finger up to a few people on here. 😁

[Jack]

Because the union does not like to see progressive cooperation in politics, all they have is phrases like coalition of chaos!!

I'm biased, of course, but I really want to see even half of the proposals come to fruition. If only to stick the finger up to a few people on here. 😁

Stick it up anyway, they only read their own posts.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Be interesting to see what happens when we come to a bi-election and if they go soft on each other. Not that I am the biggest fan of the SNP but this to me looks like grown up progressive politics.

[Ozyhibby]

Be interesting to see what happens when we come to a bi-election and if they go soft on each other. Not that I am the biggest fan of the SNP but this to me looks like grown up progressive politics.

I assume they will go softer on each other. Maybe not to the level that Labour, Lib Dem’s and the Tories did in certain constituencies in the recent election but softer all the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

In what way?

If price fixing was a good idea, why not do it for all products in the economy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

If price fixing was a good idea, why not do it for all products in the economy?


Price of a few basics is already fixed/subsidised though, isn't it? Bread? Milk? Access to healthcare? Education? Any particular reason why a roof over your head shouldn't be?

[Ozyhibby]

Price of a few basics is already fixed/subsidised though, isn't it? Bread? Milk? Access to healthcare? Education? Any particular reason why a roof over your head shouldn't be?

Are bread and milk prices fixed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Are bread and milk prices fixed?


The bread subsidy, at least, may be slightly out of date. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1956-11-26/debates/74e272aa-7e0c-4fed-81c2-3c17a3f5d949/Bread(PriceControl)

[CropleyWasGod]

If price fixing was a good idea, why not do it for all products in the economy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How does it adversely affect young people, though?

[weecounty hibby]

The unionist seethe is as pathetic as it is predictable. The Scottish parliament was designed for this type of thing happening. Cooperation between parties is a way of life in many democracies but of course we know that unionist parties really don't care about democracy in Scotland. And with no sense of irony they forget about advocating tactical voting

[Ozyhibby]

How does it adversely affect young people, though?

Ah sorry. It’s an unintended consequence that young people and people new to living in cities are harmed by this. Once a rent becomes capped, people tend not to move house because the current rent is so good. Why would they? Some Landlords will leave the market and sell up which might seem like a good thing but it will reduce the supply of rented accommodation.
Private developers will stop building properties for rent which also reduces the amount of properties becoming available. Buy to let landlords buying properties off plan are what give banks the comfort to lend to developers to build many developments.
When they are gone, house building levels will fall.
As landlords start to sell up, older people may move from rented sector to owner occupiers which is great for them but that isn’t an option for everyone. Young people struggle to meet the requirement for mortgages (large deposits, stable employment etc). With a much reduced rental market as landlords sell up and those in rent controlled properties not moving on then properties for young people(or people new to a city) to rent will become very rare indeed. The market will jam up big time.
There are better ways to bring down rents. The govt should start a massive house building program itself and become landlords. They can the set the rents themselves and make landlords compete with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Green Man]

I’ve been happy with the concessions the Greens have won in the last couple of budgets, and this is a great chance to build on the good work that has already been done in cooperation with the SNP. I know there are a lot of SGP members who will scrutinise the agreement, and they won’t all be in favour, which is a good thing as it shows the party is populated by people who won’t just let the SNP have whatever they want. I hope that the agreement gets voted through as in my opinion it’s a good thing for both the SGP and for Scotland.

[CropleyWasGod]

Ah sorry. It’s an unintended consequence that young people and people new to living in cities are harmed by this. Once a rent becomes capped, people tend not to move house because the current rent is so good. Why would they? Some Landlords will leave the market and sell up which might seem like a good thing but it will reduce the supply of rented accommodation.
Private developers will stop building properties for rent which also reduces the amount of properties becoming available. Buy to let landlords buying properties off plan are what give banks the comfort to lend to developers to build many developments.
When they are gone, house building levels will fall.
As landlords start to sell up, older people may move from rented sector to owner occupiers which is great for them but that isn’t an option for everyone. Young people struggle to meet the requirement for mortgages (large deposits, stable employment etc). With a much reduced rental market as landlords sell up and those in rent controlled properties not moving on then properties for young people(or people new to a city) to rent will become very rare indeed. The market will jam up big time.
There are better ways to bring down rents. The govt should start a massive house building program itself and become landlords. They can the set the rents themselves and make landlords compete with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheers. A lot to think about there.

I might be back 😆

[Hibrandenburg]

The unionist seethe is as pathetic as it is predictable. The Scottish parliament was designed for this type of thing happening. Cooperation between parties is a way of life in many democracies but of course we know that unionist parties really don't care about democracy in Scotland. And with no sense of irony they forget about advocating tactical voting

There seething is pathetic, they come out with pathetic empty criticism without specifying why and when asked the answer is "because". We've already seen it on this thread.

[neil7908]

Ah sorry. It’s an unintended consequence that young people and people new to living in cities are harmed by this. Once a rent becomes capped, people tend not to move house because the current rent is so good. Why would they? Some Landlords will leave the market and sell up which might seem like a good thing but it will reduce the supply of rented accommodation.
Private developers will stop building properties for rent which also reduces the amount of properties becoming available. Buy to let landlords buying properties off plan are what give banks the comfort to lend to developers to build many developments.
When they are gone, house building levels will fall.
As landlords start to sell up, older people may move from rented sector to owner occupiers which is great for them but that isn’t an option for everyone. Young people struggle to meet the requirement for mortgages (large deposits, stable employment etc). With a much reduced rental market as landlords sell up and those in rent controlled properties not moving on then properties for young people(or people new to a city) to rent will become very rare indeed. The market will jam up big time.
There are better ways to bring down rents. The govt should start a massive house building program itself and become landlords. They can the set the rents themselves and make landlords compete with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FWIW I agree with your last paragraph but it'll never happen. Far too expensive and it's not popular being a landlord - no Government is going to put themselves in a position of having to get the brunt for repairs not being done, evictions etc. It would also take years and years to build enough stock to make a difference.

With the above a pipe dream, rent controls are a practical solution that would help young people here and now. It seems to be well regarded in Germany.

[He's here!]

As is often the case you post your hate of the Scottish Green Party then run away. Well, I would like to open a dialogue, and find out your opinions on the proposals behind the cooperation deal between the SNP Government and the Scottish Green Party rather than your views of the personalities.

Here are bullet points of the deal.

The deal would deliver:

£5bn for railways
10% of the transport budget, £320m a year, for cycling and walking
A move away from road building
A Community Bus Fund



Doubling of onshore wind capacity
Thousands of jobs in the supply chain
Support expansion of marine renewables
Rent controls
New protections from eviction
A right for tenants to decorate and keep pets
At least one new National Park
A natural environment bill
18,000 hectares of new woodland each year
New Human rights legislation
More action to tackle gender-based violence in schools
GRA reforms delivered
A ban on LGBTQ ‘conversion therapy’
A referendum on Scotland’s future
Full EU membership
A distinctive Green case for independence
New international hubs in Copenhagen and Warsaw
Increased outreach in South America, Africa and Asia
International development strategies which promote human rights, climate justice & LGBTQ equality
The deal would make public funding of businesses conditional on:

Paying the Living wage
Giving a voice to workers,including through trade unions
No tax avoidance

At least £1.8 billion to make homes and other buildings warmer & more energy efficient
Thousands of new jobs in construction
Public buildings decarbonised



Now, I have no doubt that you will not agree with all of that, but seriously, there has to be something that you agree with, so, instead of the "I hate Patrick Harvie" post that you usually post, how about a mature dialogue?

Bit harsh. More to do with putting the demands of a job and Friday evening family commitments (kids' chauffeur service back in action now that clubs etc are back up and running!) ahead of hanging around on hibs.net to make sure I reply promptly to those who take exception to my views :wink:

I'm sure many of these proposals look just dandy on paper but they're largely green virtue signalling from the SNP, window dressing to try (and fail) to mask the fact the sole rationale behind this coalition is to ensure a majority for a referendum which seems to be getting kicked ever further down the road ('within five years' basically means the carrot will be endlessly dangled to ensure that should it not come to pass within that time frame there will still be enough believers to vote the SNP back into government next time round. They seem increasingly comfortable with enjoying power without responsibility). Other than giving their public persona a bit of green washing I don't really see the need for the coalition. The Greens have always been the SNP's willing stooges, with every environmentally damaging cut to council budgets accomplished thanks to their votes.

You're right about Harvie though. I loathe the guy. I had the misfortune to meet him at a charity fundraising dinner some years back and he came across as an especially odious sort, with a king-sized ego. Sure, you could apply that description to many politicians but I find him particularly repellent, in particular his party's absurd and dangerous gender policy (in short, anyone who says they're a woman literally is one). With a bit of luck both he and his sidekick Slater (before yesterday I'd only ever seen her speak on Question Time so wasn't sure if she really was as irritating as she came across on that occasion. Turns out she really is.) will get wheeled out more often as part of the coalition deal and turn off hefty swathes of the electorate.

[He's here!]

I can give a meaningful criticism. The rent controls policy will be a disaster for young people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sarwar was quick to point this out yesterday. Thought he spoke well in denouncing the months spent "rubber-stamping this deal with the SNP's branch office".

[Ozyhibby]

FWIW I agree with your last paragraph but it'll never happen. Far too expensive and it's not popular being a landlord - no Government is going to put themselves in a position of having to get the brunt for repairs not being done, evictions etc. It would also take years and years to build enough stock to make a difference.

With the above a pipe dream, rent controls are a practical solution that would help young people here and now. It seems to be well regarded in Germany.

It doesn’t help young people though. It hurts them most of all. It chokes of supply of new flats. Buy to let will die off altogether. It supplies most young people with their first flats.
And it’s not going well in Germany. In fact I’m pretty sure it was recently ruled illegal by their highest court. And Berlin’s 18 month experiment was already showing signs of stress when it was ruled illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

On rent controls, I agree that the problem is very real and needs a solution. I just think that rent controls are the worst solution and will make the problem worse.
The real solution is to massively increase supply. The govt need to free up planning in cities and start building themselves. That is how you bring down prices sustainably. Price fixing always results in shortages.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Sarwar was quick to point this out yesterday. Thought he spoke well in denouncing the months spent "rubber-stamping this deal with the SNP's branch office".

Sarwar used the phrase 'branch office'? :confused: That not like Raab's PR picture of him using a telephone reminding everyone of when he failed to use a telephone?

[ronaldo7]

The reaction to the cooperation deal has been expected. The coalition of colonialists are perpetually in anger mode these days. Let's get on with making the case, and winning Indyref2.

[weecounty hibby]

Sarwar was quick to point this out yesterday. Thought he spoke well in denouncing the months spent "rubber-stamping this deal with the SNP's branch office".

Again said without any hint of irony from the ultimate branch office manager. If he and his party stopped playing games in Holyrood with their policy of everything the SNP did was bad and try to work with the gov then they may not be losing seats and vote %.

[ronaldo7]

Sarwar was quick to point this out yesterday. Thought he spoke well in denouncing the months spent "rubber-stamping this deal with the SNP's branch office".

Ah, Anas, who supports Pakistan's independence day, but works against Scottish independence.

Gotcha. 😂

[He's here!]

Stuart Campbell seems to have come out of the retirement for the occasion:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-last-ten-seconds-of-life/#more-130598

I thought it was funny :wink:

[Ozyhibby]

Stuart Campbell seems to have come out of the retirement for the occasion:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-last-ten-seconds-of-life/#more-130598

I thought it was funny :wink:

Don’t think I’ll bother clicking the unionists favourite blogger.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Sarwar was quick to point this out yesterday. Thought he spoke well in denouncing the months spent "rubber-stamping this deal with the SNP's branch office".

Pot calling the kettle black. Scottish Labour, the original branch office (copyright johann lamont)

[Since90+2]

If NS thinks this will force Boris' hand to authorise a referendum she is wrong. Boris won't budge on that, he doesn't care what people north of Berwick think. His party don't get any seats here anyway so it makes no odds to him whatsoever if he's hated by the Scottish electorate.

If anything setting himself as the enemy of NS and the SNP will help gain him traction in parts of England where he needs votes at the next election.

A Scottish referendum is no closer to happening than it was before the Holyrood election.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm sure many of these proposals look just dandy on paper but they're largely green virtue signalling from the SNP, window dressing to try (and fail) to mask the fact the sole rationale behind this coalition is to ensure a majority for a referendum which seems to be getting kicked ever further down the road ('within five years' basically means the carrot will be endlessly dangled to ensure that should it not come to pass within that time frame there will still be enough believers to vote the SNP back into government next time round. They seem increasingly comfortable with enjoying power without responsibility). Other than giving their public persona a bit of green washing I don't really see the need for the coalition. The Greens have always been the SNP's willing stooges, with every environmentally damaging cut to council budgets accomplished thanks to their votes.

You're right about Harvie though. I loathe the guy. I had the misfortune to meet him at a charity fundraising dinner some years back and he came across as an especially odious sort, with a king-sized ego. Sure, you could apply that description to many politicians but I find him particularly repellent, in particular his party's absurd and dangerous gender policy (in short, anyone who says they're a woman literally is one). With a bit of luck both he and his sidekick Slater (before yesterday I'd only ever seen her speak on Question Time so wasn't sure if she really was as irritating as she came across on that occasion. Turns out she really is.) will get wheeled out more often as part of the coalition deal and turn off hefty swathes of the electorate.

AS you have not bothered to actually comment on ANY of the proposals I have highlighted a few things that you did bother to write.

Green virtue signalling is not really true. A lot of the proposals already exist both in the SNP and Green party policies.

Coalition to ensure a majority for a referendum. Well, that exists already after the results of the Election in May, there was no need for a coalition. And this is NOT a coalition. Unlike the LibDem/Tory coalition and the Labour/LibDem coalitions where there had to be a bit of compromise(on the part of the LibDems in the main) there are still areas where the Greens and SNP disagree and will vot differently in Parliament.

The Greens have extracted a lot of good things out of the SNP in return for budget support. And I have no idea what you mean by 'environmentally damaging cut to council budgets'

You really need to educate yourself more on the parties you choose to disparage.

[He's here!]

More often than not I don't agree with Kevin McKenna in the Herald, but he's spot on about the Greens today:

Nothing radical about tawdry SNP/Green carve-up

Abridged extract from PressReader. A longer version of this article can be accessed by subscribers at www.heraldscotland.com

THE usual government glove-puppets in media and politics (https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/) have scarce been able to contain their excitement at the prospect of the Scottish Greens’ supply-and-roll-over deal with the SNP.
In the course of the next few days, we’ll be told that it’s ‘radical’. This, though, is a new, highly-elasticated Scottish version of what is normally understood by ‘radical’. This is sleepy radicalism travelling slowly and quietly on a path of least resistance to what ails our neediest communities.

Let's set aside for a few moments that a party which has never won a single seat in six Scottish elections over 21 years - nor even come close - has now managed to secure a couple of ministerial posts.
One of their co-leaders, Lorna Slater, couldn't even win enough support in her own party originally to gain a list seat in May's Holyrood elections. She picked up only 36 votes but was elevated to second on the regional list for Lothian. But only after Andy Wightman, one of Scotland's most respected politicians and an authentic environmentalist, was forced out for expressing reasonable concern about the Greens' sinister views on women's sex-based rights. There can only be one big personality in the party, you understand.

For many women in the SNP this tawdry arrangement with the Scottish Greens is a declaration of cold intent. Much of the misogyny that's been directed at them for standing up for women's protected characteristics in the debate over transgender rights has come via the sewer that runs beneath the Scottish Greens. This was recently evident following a column written by the journalist Ruth Wishart in the The National.

Ms Wishart - like Mr Wightman - had chosen her words and position carefully on the clear and present danger of the proposed Gender Recognition Act to women's rights. Simply for expressing this view she was accused of being a transphobe in a co-ordinated and frenzied social media attack led by Patrick Harvie, the man who rules the Scottish Greens as his personal fiefdom. It was bitter, juvenile stuff targeting a women who was exposing social inequality and discrimination against minorities back when Mr Harvie was saving up for his first bicycle repair kit.

All those women in the SNP waiting for their two-year-old complaints about threatened violence to be investigated by the party leadership will have to wait a lot longer. Their cause won't be advanced by this deal with the Greens, some of whose members have been venting their rage against women for years on social media.

Presumably, one of the SNP's main reasons for concluding this deal is to safeguard any future vote on holding a second independence referendum. Wake me up, though, if there's any sign of such a referendum before the next Scottish election. Like the SNP, the Greens have adopted a supine approach to holding one: aske for a Section 30; receive an inevitable knock-back; go away quietly; get Ian Blackford to screech about Brexit at Westminster and pledge to ask again for a Section 30 "when the Covid is over".
Thus the pandemic is imbued with a degree of elasticity similar to that which defines the SNP and the Greens' concept of radical. But then the art of being supine gets you into government and, as the SNP knows, lets you stay there for a generation.
This new deal merely codifies the the arrangement that's been in place for the last five years. In this period the Greens, in supporting the SNP, have nodded through the cuts which have seen our poorest communities most adversely affected. Yet the SNP have refused to mitigate these with the considerable devolved powers they possess.
Even the Greens' signature environmentalism is a gaseous and ethereal concept. Like the SNP, they have a sweetly naive belief that the big energy cartels can be made to transition into renewables if you give them enough sweeties. Nowhere are there truly radical demands that any moves towards transition occur without job cuts and pay reductions. Of course, the only way to guarantee this is to support state ownership of all the means of energy production rather than parcelling it up in a cut-price auction for the cartels and global multi-nationals. When you play that game with capitalism there can be only one winner, as the Scottish Government's lamentable betrayal of the Bi-Fab workers at Burntisland showed.
Showy gestures like opposing licences in the Cambo oil field might sound good over the hand-dived scallops in Glasgow's fanciest restaurants but it will barely register in saving the planet from a full-blown climate crisis. Only a commitment to dismantling the power structures that permit the world's biggest corporations to produce most of the planet's carbon emissions will do that.
But then this fluidity in the Scottish Greens' concept of environmentalism is of a piece with the elasticity of their radicalism.
Welcome to Scotland, the most flexible, wee, make-believe country in the world.

[Moulin Yarns]

More often than not I don't agree with Kevin McKenna in the Herald, but he's spot on about the Greens today:

Nothing radical about tawdry SNP/Green carve-up

Abridged extract from PressReader. A longer version of this article can be accessed by subscribers at www.heraldscotland.com (http://www.heraldscotland.com)

THE usual government glove-puppets in media and politics (https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/) have scarce been able to contain their excitement at the prospect of the Scottish Greens’ supply-and-roll-over deal with the SNP.
In the course of the next few days, we’ll be told that it’s ‘radical’. This, though, is a new, highly-elasticated Scottish version of what is normally understood by ‘radical’. This is sleepy radicalism travelling slowly and quietly on a path of least resistance to what ails our neediest communities.

Let's set aside for a few moments that a party which has never won a single seat in six Scottish elections over 21 years - nor even come close - has now managed to secure a couple of ministerial posts.
One of their co-leaders, Lorna Slater, couldn't even win enough support in her own party originally to gain a list seat in May's Holyrood elections. She picked up only 36 votes but was elevated to second on the regional list for Lothian. But only after Andy Wightman, one of Scotland's most respected politicians and an authentic environmentalist, was forced out for expressing reasonable concern about the Greens' sinister views on women's sex-based rights. There can only be one big personality in the party, you understand.

For many women in the SNP this tawdry arrangement with the Scottish Greens is a declaration of cold intent. Much of the misogyny that's been directed at them for standing up for women's protected characteristics in the debate over transgender rights has come via the sewer that runs beneath the Scottish Greens. This was recently evident following a column written by the journalist Ruth Wishart in the The National.

Ms Wishart - like Mr Wightman - had chosen her words and position carefully on the clear and present danger of the proposed Gender Recognition Act to women's rights. Simply for expressing this view she was accused of being a transphobe in a co-ordinated and frenzied social media attack led by Patrick Harvie, the man who rules the Scottish Greens as his personal fiefdom. It was bitter, juvenile stuff targeting a women who was exposing social inequality and discrimination against minorities back when Mr Harvie was saving up for his first bicycle repair kit.

All those women in the SNP waiting for their two-year-old complaints about threatened violence to be investigated by the party leadership will have to wait a lot longer. Their cause won't be advanced by this deal with the Greens, some of whose members have been venting their rage against women for years on social media.

Presumably, one of the SNP's main reasons for concluding this deal is to safeguard any future vote on holding a second independence referendum. Wake me up, though, if there's any sign of such a referendum before the next Scottish election. Like the SNP, the Greens have adopted a supine approach to holding one: aske for a Section 30; receive an inevitable knock-back; go away quietly; get Ian Blackford to screech about Brexit at Westminster and pledge to ask again for a Section 30 "when the Covid is over".
Thus the pandemic is imbued with a degree of elasticity similar to that which defines the SNP and the Greens' concept of radical. But then the art of being supine gets you into government and, as the SNP knows, lets you stay there for a generation.
This new deal merely codifies the the arrangement that's been in place for the last five years. In this period the Greens, in supporting the SNP, have nodded through the cuts which have seen our poorest communities most adversely affected. Yet the SNP have refused to mitigate these with the considerable devolved powers they possess.
Even the Greens' signature environmentalism is a gaseous and ethereal concept. Like the SNP, they have a sweetly naive belief that the big energy cartels can be made to transition into renewables if you give them enough sweeties. Nowhere are there truly radical demands that any moves towards transition occur without job cuts and pay reductions. Of course, the only way to guarantee this is to support state ownership of all the means of energy production rather than parcelling it up in a cut-price auction for the cartels and global multi-nationals. When you play that game with capitalism there can be only one winner, as the Scottish Government's lamentable betrayal of the Bi-Fab workers at Burntisland showed.
Showy gestures like opposing licences in the Cambo oil field might sound good over the hand-dived scallops in Glasgow's fanciest restaurants but it will barely register in saving the planet from a full-blown climate crisis. Only a commitment to dismantling the power structures that permit the world's biggest corporations to produce most of the planet's carbon emissions will do that.
But then this fluidity in the Scottish Greens' concept of environmentalism is of a piece with the elasticity of their radicalism.
Welcome to Scotland, the most flexible, wee, make-believe country in the world.





Very good, so you actually don't have any thoughts yourself, you just rabbit other people!!!

[Just Alf]

All deleted... some trolls are just not worth it

[Moulin Yarns]

All deleted... some trolls are just not worth it

Errmmm, sorry. 😔

[Just Alf]

:greengrin

[He's here!]

Very good, so you actually don't have any thoughts yourself, you just rabbit other people!!!

You sure have a lot of gripes about my posting habits, whether it's not responding quickly enough to your questions, my apparent lack of education about Green policies or pasting an opinion piece from a media outlet (common practice by many on this forum surely?).

McKenna's opinions in that piece chime almost word for word with my own views on the Greens. He just expresses them more eloquently so I thought I'd share them.

What are your thoughts on what he has to say?

[He's here!]

AS you have not bothered to actually comment on ANY of the proposals I have highlighted a few things that you did bother to write.

Green virtue signalling is not really true. A lot of the proposals already exist both in the SNP and Green party policies.

Coalition to ensure a majority for a referendum. Well, that exists already after the results of the Election in May, there was no need for a coalition. And this is NOT a coalition. Unlike the LibDem/Tory coalition and the Labour/LibDem coalitions where there had to be a bit of compromise(on the part of the LibDems in the main) there are still areas where the Greens and SNP disagree and will vot differently in Parliament.

The Greens have extracted a lot of good things out of the SNP in return for budget support. And I have no idea what you mean by 'environmentally damaging cut to council budgets'

You really need to educate yourself more on the parties you choose to disparage.

Environmental factors incorporate significantly more than finding ways to be greener and can have enormous implications for the development (or lack of it) in communities - or more particularly for a child's upbringing/family circumstances. As Sarwar pointed out last week these can range from physical and educational to health, social and emotional. It's not hard to imagine what continued cost cutting to local services will have on these environmental factors. For example, in the longer version of Kevin McKenna's Herald piece yesterday he cites the impact on his own neighbourhood of the closure of the children's ward at the Royal Alexandria in Paisley and the impending/threatened closure of community hubs and libraries.

[Moulin Yarns]

What are your thoughts on what he has to say?

I'll answer yours if you answer mine 😉

[Moulin Yarns]

It's not hard to imagine what continued cost cutting to local services will have on these environmental factors.




Thankfully there is information available to help make up your own mind 😉


https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2021/2/5/f3669358-b9b8-4f1e-b9d6-08d428cbacfc

https://www.gov.scot/news/gbp-11-6-billion-for-local-councils/#:~:text=Details%20of%20how%20%C2%A311.6,2021%2D22 %20have%20been%20published.&text=In%20total%2C%20councils%20will%20receive,gov ernment%20services%20in%202021%2D22.

https://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/report/local-government-in-scotland-financial-overview-201920

[He's here!]

I'll answer yours if you answer mine ��

What was the question again? :wink:

If you mean what do I think of the proposals put forward along with the launch the SNP/Green deal then I'm afraid I don't have time to spend my Sunday evening analysing them one by one. What I'd say is that no reasonable person would take exception to the majority of them, but there are clearly issues (in particular those relating to LGBTQ) that will continue to cause rancour. However, I stick by my assertion that rolling out a list of such proposals at this stage was designed to do little more than try and sugarcoat the fact that this is all about trying to secure another independence referendum. That, of course, remains a line that at least half the electorate will currently refuse to cross and as such this deal is one that I could never get behind.

[lapsedhibee]

Electing green people puts others in hospital.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/22/council-accused-of-taking-rewilding-too-far-as-weeds-take-root-in-brighton

[degenerated]

Electing green people puts others in hospital.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/22/council-accused-of-taking-rewilding-too-far-as-weeds-take-root-in-brightonIt's cool, Labour might come to the rescue. Along with the Tories in North Lanarkshire they have overturned a ban on using glyphosate weedkiller. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210822/ece8e636159b3d7eddfee2a60f3e8ec9.jpg

[Ozyhibby]

It's cool, Labour might come to the rescue. Along with the Tories in North Lanarkshire they have overturned a ban on using glyphosate weedkiller. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210822/ece8e636159b3d7eddfee2a60f3e8ec9.jpg

Who banned the weed killer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

Who banned the weed killer?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkFrom what I can gather it was the SNP and independent councillors in north Lanarkshire. But the minority labour group along with Tories now have the numbers to turn it around.

They seem quite chuffed with their support of dangerous chemicals.

[Moulin Yarns]

It's cool, Labour might come to the rescue. Along with the Tories in North Lanarkshire they have overturned a ban on using glyphosate weedkiller. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210822/ece8e636159b3d7eddfee2a60f3e8ec9.jpg

What the actual ****!!!!!!

[Moulin Yarns]

Who banned the weed killer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right! Let's be clear, glyphosate is a banned herbicide in a lot of countries, and the EU by 2022 due to the concerns of cancer

[degenerated]

Right! Let's be clear, glyphosate is a banned herbicide in a lot of countries, and the EU by 2022 due to the concerns of cancerNot according to Scottish Labour, who's council spokesman said...

"“In doing so, the council took into account the draft risk assessment prepared by international scientists for the European Union which concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, genotoxic or toxic to reproduction.""

[Suburban Hibby]

Makes perfect sense to me

Always is when you don’t live here

[cabbageandribs1875]

back in yer box p@shybreeks

Aamer Anwar��✊��#BlackLivesMatter on Twitter: "Her name is @lornaslater co-leader of the @scottishgreens & how’s your unelected seat in that waste of money, called the House of Lords coming along your Lordship?" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/AamerAnwar/status/1429051927845916678?s=19&fbclid=IwAR02YbJ04XudXB1QFCMyFl-h6r8fpoK1bTvo9rR5emoAPmN3fNu14OPwN88)

[Bangkok Hibby]

Always is when you don’t live here

Dont be daft. You can have a view on politics in any country, from any country in the world. For your information I've been a political party activist, a trade union shop steward, fought for workers rights, paid income tax for 50 years. That alone allows me an opinion.

[Hibrandenburg]

Dont be daft. You can have a view on politics in any country, from any country in the world. For your information I've been a political party activist, a trade union shop steward, fought for workers rights, paid income tax for 50 years. That alone allows me an opinion.

I'm surprised you even dignified that statement with an answer. It was just screaming for attention.

[James310]

Mandy Rhodes assessment of Patrick Harvie.

https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,confused-times-the-pandemic-shouldve-brought-us-together-instead-debate-has-become-more-polarised

[Bangkok Hibby]

I'm surprised you even dignified that statement with an answer. It was just screaming for attention.

you're right of course. Just irked me a bit.

[ronaldo7]

Mandy Rhodes assessment of Patrick Harvie.

https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,confused-times-the-pandemic-shouldve-brought-us-together-instead-debate-has-become-more-polarised

Not much on the deal itself then. :rolleyes:

[ronaldo7]

Nice to see the part in the agreement where we're opening Scottish Government offices in Copenhagen, and Warsaw to promote our interests in the Nordic and central European regions.:saltireflag

[CropleyWasGod]

Mandy Rhodes assessment of Patrick Harvie.

https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,confused-times-the-pandemic-shouldve-brought-us-together-instead-debate-has-become-more-polarised

She doesn't like Patrick Harvie. Who knew?
And, tbf, who cares? 😁

[CloudSquall]

Mandy Rhodes assessment of Patrick Harvie.

https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,confused-times-the-pandemic-shouldve-brought-us-together-instead-debate-has-become-more-polarised

Yet another "PATRICK HARVIE WANTS PEADOS IN WOMAN'S BATHROOMS!!!!" seethe piece poorly dressed up as intelectual debate.

[degenerated]

She doesn't like Patrick Harvie. Who knew?
And, tbf, who cares? [emoji16]I wonder what he thinks of her? I'll take a guess - **** all.

She's the journalistic equivalent of the house wine in a suburban Indian restaurant :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Mandy Rhodes assessment of Patrick Harvie.

https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,confused-times-the-pandemic-shouldve-brought-us-together-instead-debate-has-become-more-polarised

Has anyone seen Mandy Rhodes and He's Here! in the same room???? 🤔

[Crunchie]

Dont be daft. You can have a view on politics in any country, from any country in the world. For your information I've been a political party activist, a trade union shop steward, fought for workers rights, paid income tax for 50 years. That alone allows me an opinion.
Ditto, I've only paid income tax for 42 years but I'd like to think I'm allowed one too :aok:

[Moulin Yarns]

Not according to Scottish Labour, who's council spokesman said...

"“In doing so, the council took into account the draft risk assessment prepared by international scientists for the European Union which concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, genotoxic or toxic to reproduction.""

https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news/19484384.bayer-retreats-garden-glyphosate/

[He's here!]

Has anyone seen Mandy Rhodes and He's Here! in the same room???? 🤔

:greengrin

Harvie's not specifically mentioned in this piece, but I do feel it's unduly hasty to insist that the issue in question is prioritised in the first year of the Scottish parliament. It reflects the sort of difficulties the SNP will face in getting too cosy with the Greens. No need for the rush job over such a divisive issue:

Nicola Sturgeon faces anger over proposed gender legislation (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nicola-sturgeon-faces-anger-over-proposed-gender-legislation/ar-AANG7Cm?ocid=msedgntp)

[McSwanky]

:greengrin

Harvie's not specifically mentioned in this piece, but I do feel it's unduly hasty to insist that the issue in question is prioritised in the first year of the Scottish parliament. It reflects the sort of difficulties the SNP will face in getting too cosy with the Greens. No need for the rush job over such a divisive issue:

Nicola Sturgeon faces anger over proposed gender legislation (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nicola-sturgeon-faces-anger-over-proposed-gender-legislation/ar-AANG7Cm?ocid=msedgntp)

This is an interesting one - a divisive issue it is, and a divisive issue it will remain. I find it hard to believe that by sitting on it for another 5 years, new information will arise that will suddenly make everyone sit up say, "yes, that was the compromise all along. Of course!!"

So in what way is legislation being 'rushed through' here? The way I see it, the Government are taking a position as is their right - and will attempt to push the bill through via the accepted process.

[Ozyhibby]

This is an interesting one - a divisive issue it is, and a divisive issue it will remain. I find it hard to believe that by sitting on it for another 5 years, new information will arise that will suddenly make everyone sit up say, "yes, that was the compromise all along. Of course!!"

So in what way is legislation being 'rushed through' here? The way I see it, the Government are taking a position as is their right - and will attempt to push the bill through via the accepted process.

And it’s also an issue the vast majority of the public do not give a monkeys about. Get it over and done with and move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

And it’s also an issue the vast majority of the public do not give a monkeys about. Get it over and done with and move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure that's the case. There were over 17,000 responses to the Consultation on it. The SG have actually put out to contract the analysis of the responses as there were so many.

[Ozyhibby]

Not sure that's the case. There were over 17,000 responses.to the Consultation on it. The SG have actually put out to contract the analysis of the responses as there were so many.

0.003% of the population cared enough to respond?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

https://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/pupils-force-council-to-reconsider-unisex-only-toilets-at-school?top

Unrelated, does anybody know a man who wants to be recognised as a woman or vice versa? I can only think of one who has not taken steps for gender realignment and that's eddie izzard!!

I rest my case.

[Since90+2]

0.003% of the population cared enough to respond?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would probably be better comparison if that figure was compared to others that have went out to consultation. Very very few will be bother to respond to a consultation, that doesn't necessarily mean they have no interest in it.

Do we know what sort of numbers these consultations normally get? That should provide a better indicator.

[James310]

0.003% of the population cared enough to respond?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, if you want to look at it that way.

[Since90+2]

I see the SG are now looking at banning large retail stores from opening on New Years Day. I'm not sure why they feel the need to legislate for that, surely it should be down to the individual business to make that choice and not dictated to them by the SNP and Greens.

[Moulin Yarns]

I see the SG are now looking at banning large retail stores from opening on New Years Day. I'm not sure why they feel the need to legislate for that, surely it should be down to the individual business to make that choice and not dictated to them by the SNP and Greens.

And imagine that you work for one of them and force you to work on a public holiday??

[Since90+2]

And imagine that you work for one of them and force you to work on a public holiday??

Why only large retailers then? What about staff who work for large pub chains, restaurants, hotels ect? They are told to just get on with it and work yet retail staff don't?

What gives the SG the right to decide who has to work and who doesn't?

[CropleyWasGod]

It would probably be better comparison if that figure was compared to others that have went out to consultation. Very very few will be bother to respond to a consultation, that doesn't necessarily mean they have no interest in it.

Do we know what sort of numbers these consultations normally get? That should provide a better indicator.

A couple of random examples:-

Less than 1,000 responded to Margo Macdonald's Assisted Dying consultation.

Just slightly more than that responded to Equally Safe, regarding the SG's proposals on the sex industry.

So 17,000 is a massive number in that light.

[Since90+2]

A couple of random examples:-

Less than 1,000 responded to Margo Macdonald's Assisted Dying consultation.

Just slightly more than that responded to Equally Safe, regarding the SG's proposals on the sex industry.

So 17,000 is a massive number in that light.

Thanks.

So definitely something that quite a few people give a monkeys about then.

That's the problem with looking at things like this and saying "well only 0.0003% responded" that means nobody cares. It's clearly a pretty big issue if it's getting 17x times a larger response than assisted dying.

[James310]

0.003% of the population cared enough to respond?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There were 178 responses to the Consultation on Climate Change Net Zero Engagement Strategy.

17,000 is I would guess the most ever responses to a SG Consultation.

[CropleyWasGod]

https://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/pupils-force-council-to-reconsider-unisex-only-toilets-at-school?top

Unrelated, does anybody know a man who wants to be recognised as a woman or vice versa? I can only think of one who has not taken steps for gender realignment and that's eddie izzard!!

I rest my case.

Yep, in the past tense.

[Ozyhibby]

Thanks.

So definitely something that quite a few people give a monkeys about then.

That's the problem with looking at things like this and saying "well only 0.0003% responded" that means nobody cares. It's clearly a pretty big issue if it's getting 17x times a larger response than assisted dying.

It depends. When the numbers are so small it is easy for committed groups to mobilise what looks like a strong response.
I really do not think that this is a big issue that people care that much about. In the pub I hear people chat about climate change, vaccines, Indy or not, etc etc. Any number of issues come up but I’ve never heard this mentioned once.
It is probably a big deal to a very small number of people capable of making a lot of noise but have they managed to get the public to care? Have they even managed to get the public to understand their position?
IMHO, it’s a tiny issue affecting a tiny amount of people who are evenly split on the way forward anyway. Politically, the quicker this is done the quicker it’s forgotten about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Since90+2]

It depends. When the numbers are so small it is easy for committed groups to mobilise what looks like a strong response.
I really do not think that this is a big issue that people care that much about. In the pub I hear people chat about climate change, vaccines, Indy or not, etc etc. Any number of issues come up but I’ve never heard this mentioned once.
It is probably a big deal to a very small number of people capable of making a lot of noise but have they managed to get the public to care? Have they even managed to get the public to understand their position?
IMHO, it’s a tiny issue affecting a tiny amount of people who are evenly split on the way forward anyway. Politically, the quicker this is done the quicker it’s forgotten about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sorry but the vast discrepancy in responses compared to previous consultations don't back up your theory at all, quite the opposite.

If it has received the largest ever amount of responses to a public consultation by the SG then that says more about the size of public feeling towards it more than what you might or might not hear whilst sitting in the pub.

[Ozyhibby]

I'm sorry but the vast discrepancy in responses compared to previous consultations don't back up your theory at all, quite the opposite.

If it has received the largest ever amount of responses to a public consultation by the SG then that says more about the size of public feeling towards it more than what you might or might not hear whilst sitting in the pub.

You really think this is an issue that shifts votes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

It depends. When the numbers are so small it is easy for committed groups to mobilise what looks like a strong response.
I really do not think that this is a big issue that people care that much about. In the pub I hear people chat about climate change, vaccines, Indy or not, etc etc. Any number of issues come up but I’ve never heard this mentioned once.
It is probably a big deal to a very small number of people capable of making a lot of noise but have they managed to get the public to care? Have they even managed to get the public to understand their position?
IMHO, it’s a tiny issue affecting a tiny amount of people who are evenly split on the way forward anyway. Politically, the quicker this is done the quicker it’s forgotten about.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkFrom what I can see those most vocal about it seem to be Alba party members. I can't say I even heard it being discussed outwith social media or the odd article in the news.

[Since90+2]

You really think this is an issue that shifts votes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only time will tell on that if it's pushed through.

It's certainly a large enough issue to have garnered the most responses ever to a public consultation, so it's not something that should be easily dismissed either. What is the point in these consultations otherwise?

[CropleyWasGod]

Only time will tell on that if it's pushed through.

It's certainly a large enough issue to have garnered the most responses ever to a public consultation, so it's not something that should be easily dismissed either. What is the point in these consultations otherwise?

.. and probably the second most as well. The previous one had almost 16,000 responses.

Anecdotally, I know a few who have switched their political allegiances over it. People from either side of the argument.

[JeMeSouviens]

.. and probably the second most as well. The previous one had almost 16,000 responses.

Anecdotally, I know a few who have switched their political allegiances over it. People from either side of the argument.

It’s about the only thing in Scottish politics that doesn’t split on yes/no lines. I don’t think it actually provides much opportunity for opposition parties though because Lab and Lib would be just as split. The Tories I assume will be bitterly opposed to a (traditionally defined) man.

I agree with Ozy, get on with the legislation and see how it pans out. I think it will prove to be much ado about nothing, personally.

[Moulin Yarns]

I see another big hitting (former politician) is attacking the agreement.



https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-green-deal-looks-like-student-politics-claims-salmond

[One Day Soon]

You really think this is an issue that shifts votes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Broader public awareness of all that's involved here isn't particularly high yet, but it will be.

The Tories will want to fight the next election on the basis of a new or continued culture war since Brexit will not provide the same agency for them. This is a perfect fit for that. The loudest proponents and opponents in this debate want to politicise it anyway and it is already a binary choice as to which side you are on.

All parties have conflicting internal voices on this to some degree but those in government will be most closely associated with either the kudos or opprobrium that comes from proposing and passing any legislation.

I registered my 15 year old son for vaccination last week. Throughout the call we mentioned his (very obviously male) name and I referred to him as my son. Towards the end of the questions I was asked, such as postcode etc, I was finally asked 'What gender is your son?'. If you think this isn't going to become visible to the public and a matter of some debate I think you are misreading it.

[Moulin Yarns]

Broader public awareness of all that's involved here isn't particularly high yet, but it will be.

The Tories will want to fight the next election on the basis of a new or continued culture war since Brexit will not provide the same agency for them. This is a perfect fit for that. The loudest proponents and opponents in this debate want to politicise it anyway and it is already a binary choice as to which side you are on.

All parties have conflicting internal voices on this to some degree but those in government will be most closely associated with either the kudos or opprobrium that comes from proposing and passing any legislation.

I registered my 15 year old son for vaccination last week. Throughout the call we mentioned his (very obviously male) name and I referred to him as my son. Towards the end of the questions I was asked, such as postcode etc, I was finally asked 'What gender is your son?'. If you think this isn't going to become visible to the public and a matter of some debate I think you are misreading it.

You don't think that the person on the phone wasn't just going through the questions in order and they had to ask gender?

[Sergio sledge]

https://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/pupils-force-council-to-reconsider-unisex-only-toilets-at-school?top

Unrelated, does anybody know a man who wants to be recognised as a woman or vice versa? I can only think of one who has not taken steps for gender realignment and that's eddie izzard!!

I rest my case.The issue at that particular school is the fact they completely did away with male and female toilets for solely unisex toilets. As far as I'm aware it is pretty standard for schools to have unisex toilet facilities up here but also have separate male and female toilets for those who need them.

I can understand why younger girls in particular felt intimidated or embarrassed about using the toilets when there's 16/17 year olds hanging around outside the cubicle. To be honest I'd probably have been a bit intimidated in first year as a boy if I'd had to go into toilets where the 6th years were, we had toilets segregated by age as well as sex.

They've come up with an eminently sensible solution (which probably should have been there all along) to offer male, female and unisex toilets so that people can choose.

On your other question, I know of one person up here who is biologically male but dresses and identifies as a woman but hasn't had surgery. No clue why that is though, there's maybe other reasons stopping them other than just not wanting it.

[He's here!]

Broader public awareness of all that's involved here isn't particularly high yet, but it will be.

The Tories will want to fight the next election on the basis of a new or continued culture war since Brexit will not provide the same agency for them. This is a perfect fit for that. The loudest proponents and opponents in this debate want to politicise it anyway and it is already a binary choice as to which side you are on.

All parties have conflicting internal voices on this to some degree but those in government will be most closely associated with either the kudos or opprobrium that comes from proposing and passing any legislation.

I registered my 15 year old son for vaccination last week. Throughout the call we mentioned his (very obviously male) name and I referred to him as my son. Towards the end of the questions I was asked, such as postcode etc, I was finally asked 'What gender is your son?'. If you think this isn't going to become visible to the public and a matter of some debate I think you are misreading it.

Good post, and a good example of the sort of increased visibility you mention. I'm coming across this sort of thing a lot more now and I agree it will certainly become a more high profile and polarising issue.

[He's here!]

A couple of random examples:-

Less than 1,000 responded to Margo Macdonald's Assisted Dying consultation.

Just slightly more than that responded to Equally Safe, regarding the SG's proposals on the sex industry.

So 17,000 is a massive number in that light.

It's way above average when it comes to SG public consultations and would, I suggest, confirm strong feelings on this issue.

I actually responded to a public consultation a wee while back (re the forthcoming legislation about smoke alarms which will compel even those with wired-in alarms to replace them with government approved ones) and the total number of respondents was circa 200. I had a look at some of the other consultations and was surprised by how low the responses are in general. As you say, the paltry number responding to Margo Macdonald's consultation was really surprising for such a potentially huge issue.

[Ozyhibby]

I think there is an element of wishful thinking here. You may be right though, this just might finally be what brings NS down.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

And what if the majority of responses are for the legislation and/or suggests it doesn't go far enough?

[Since90+2]

And what if the majority of responses are for the legislation and/or suggests it doesn't go far enough?

Then that should be considered and used to influence the eventual policy. Similarly, if the majority of responses felt they went too far then again that should be used to decide policy.

That is the point in these things after all.

[Moulin Yarns]

(re the forthcoming legislation about smoke alarms which will compel even those with wired-in alarms to replace them with government approved ones)





Off topic but another myth put about to bash the Scottish Government with.

https://nwscotland.neighbourhoodalert.co.uk/images/site_images/79974_Fire_Alarm_Scams_Infographic__2_.jpg


The fire safety legislation only requires a smoke alarm in the circulation space on each floor of a home plus the main living space and a heat alarm in the kitchen. All must be wired to the mains and be interlinked.

I had all of the above apart from the living room and it's very simple to replace existing alarms, and you even get to choose what manufacturers and suppliers you want. There are NO GOVERNMENT APPROVED ALARMS as it clearly states in the graphics above.

[He's here!]

It’s about the only thing in Scottish politics that doesn’t split on yes/no lines. I don’t think it actually provides much opportunity for opposition parties though because Lab and Lib would be just as split. The Tories I assume will be bitterly opposed to a (traditionally defined) man.

I agree with Ozy, get on with the legislation and see how it pans out. I think it will prove to be much ado about nothing, personally.

As you say, it's an issue which may not lend itself politically to a straightforward yes/no split given the way the trans debate has ended up entangling gay/lesbian/bisexual people, not to mention the feminist movement. That sort of diversity is hard to compartmentalise along party political lines.

In saying that, with Harvie and Slater now officially being let loose in government, their determination to keep this issue front and centre by demonising anyone who dares to quibble (even light-heartedly) with phrases such as 'people who are pregnant' we might (hopefully) see them make life awkward for the SG.

[Moulin Yarns]

As you say, it's an issue which may not lend itself politically to a straightforward yes/no split given the way the trans debate has ended up entangling gay/lesbian/bisexual people, not to mention the feminist movement. That sort of diversity is hard to compartmentalise along party political lines.

In saying that, with Harvie and Slater now officially being let loose in government, their determination to keep this issue front and centre by demonising anyone who dares to quibble (even light-heartedly) with phrases such as 'people who are pregnant' we might (hopefully) see them make life awkward for the SG.




https://youtu.be/XBZUz4C6kqk (http://https://youtu.be/XBZUz4C6kqk)


������

[Moulin Yarns]

As you say, it's an issue which may not lend itself politically to a straightforward yes/no split given the way the trans debate has ended up entangling gay/lesbian/bisexual people, not to mention the feminist movement. That sort of diversity is hard to compartmentalise along party political lines.

In saying that, with Harvie and Slater now officially being let loose in government, their determination to keep this issue front and centre by demonising anyone who dares to quibble (even light-heartedly) with phrases such as 'people who are pregnant' we might (hopefully) see them make life awkward for the SG.

I wonder why you have not been as vociferous about this????



https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9079/

Over 100,000 responses!!

��

[Moulin Yarns]

Is there any way to find out if someone has put you on ignore? Asking for a friend 🤔😉

[Hibrandenburg]

Does anyone know if there's any way to tell if you've been put on ignore by another member?

[Glory Lurker]

Who said that?

[Peevemor]

How do you know if somebody has you on ignore?

[CropleyWasGod]

How do you know if somebody has you on ignore?

I have you on ignore. Does that help?

[Moulin Yarns]

Ha haha, very funny 🙄

It's only because I have asked a few questions but when he's here, He's Here! doesn't appear to notice. 🤔😉

[degenerated]

It's way above average when it comes to SG public consultations and would, I suggest, confirm strong feelings on this issue.

I actually responded to a public consultation a wee while back (re the forthcoming legislation about smoke alarms which will compel even those with wired-in alarms to replace them with government approved ones) and the total number of respondents was circa 200. I had a look at some of the other consultations and was surprised by how low the responses are in general. As you say, the paltry number responding to Margo Macdonald's consultation was really surprising for such a potentially huge issue.The number of responses will have more to do with unionists favourite blogger and bath baghwan, Stuart Campbell. You can bet your bottom dollar the majority are the Talibam's in the Alba Party and their supporters.

[degenerated]

Off topic but another myth put about to bash the Scottish Government with.

https://nwscotland.neighbourhoodalert.co.uk/images/site_images/79974_Fire_Alarm_Scams_Infographic__2_.jpg


The fire safety legislation only requires a smoke alarm in the circulation space on each floor of a home plus the main living space and a heat alarm in the kitchen. All must be wired to the mains and be interlinked.

I had all of the above apart from the living room and it's very simple to replace existing alarms, and you even get to choose what manufacturers and suppliers you want. There are NO GOVERNMENT APPROVED ALARMS as it clearly states in the graphics above.They don't have to be mains wired, tamper proof lifetime battery devices meet the standard too.

[He's here!]

Ha haha, very funny 🙄

It's only because I have asked a few questions but when he's here, He's Here! doesn't appear to notice. 🤔😉

Morning, no I don't have anyone on 'ignore'. I just don't tend to be on here on a Friday night - or indeed for sustained periods of time - so I often simply don't see your latest questions for a while. The consultation paper you've posted looks like a hefty piece of documentation so apologies if I don't presently have time to sift through it. Care to provide a summary of the key points?

More generally, I think our political opinions simply differ so widely that it might be easier just to accept and respect those differences rather than getting involved in an endless trading of views where a meeting of minds is probably unlikely.

[Just Alf]

They don't have to be mains wired, tamper proof lifetime battery devices meet the standard too.Thanks for that!

I'd taken a wee note to check it as that was my understanding as well and I thought I'd maybe misread it at some point.

[HiBremian]

Ha haha, very funny 🙄

It's only because I have asked a few questions but when he's here, He's Here! doesn't appear to notice. 🤔😉
Probably because he is there, he's every ****ing where too :cb

[HiBremian]

Green members now voting on the deal.....

[Ozyhibby]

Green members now voting on the deal.....

I half hope they vote against. There are a few things in the deal that have the potential to make the govt unpopular and that can harm the independence cause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HiBremian]

I half hope they vote against. There are a few things in the deal that have the potential to make the govt unpopular and that can harm the independence cause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's been a cracking debate. A few concerns in there that have been voiced loudly. Particularly council funding, which will be watched closely when the annual budget vote comes up in parliament. But it's looking like a massive majority in favour.

[Moulin Yarns]

Care to provide a summary of the key points?



It's the UK government consultation on the the revisions to the GRA for England, which has over 100,000 responses, and basically is the exact same thing that you are wittering on about your friends in the Scottish Greens about!!

[Moulin Yarns]

They don't have to be mains wired, tamper proof lifetime battery devices meet the standard too.

Aye, but the main thing is that they have to be interlinked and there are no government approved alarms that I was referring to in reply to the claim that you could only fit alarms approved by the government.

[Mr Grieves]

Green members now voting on the deal.....

Provisional results -

88.6% for, 10.3% against

https://twitter.com/guy_ingerson/status/1431579348310634499?s=19

[Moulin Yarns]

Provisional results -

88.6% for, 10.3% against

https://twitter.com/guy_ingerson/status/1431579348310634499?s=19

https://news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-green-members-vote-to-back-powersharing-deal-with-snp

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210828/62b5e628afb8896f07b3035448041564.jpg

So much for all the disunity in the SNP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210828/62b5e628afb8896f07b3035448041564.jpg

So much for all the disunity in the SNP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The membership probably see the best leadership anywhere in the UK. 👍 👊

[Moulin Yarns]

The membership probably see the best leadership anywhere in the UK. 👍 👊

Aye, Harvie and Slater are better than anything elsewhere in the UK, just ask He's here! :wink:

[He's here!]

It's the UK government consultation on the the revisions to the GRA for England, which has over 100,000 responses, and basically is the exact same thing that you are wittering on about your friends in the Scottish Greens about!!

Not sure if we're at cross purposes here, but with regard to the high number of responses to the Scottish consultation I was agreeing that the issue in question clearly DOES have the potential to spark wider debate (and with the Greens now wielding some real power that debate is only likely to become more heated). By that token I'm not surprised the Westminster consultation also attracted such a large number of responses, but IIRC it concluded that the current legislation was adequate - hence the issue is significantly less likely to become a political football than it is in Scotland where controversial amendments to the legislation are to be waved through asap by the new coalition (sorry, 'co-operation agreement').

Apologies if I've misunderstood your post.

[He's here!]

I half hope they vote against. There are a few things in the deal that have the potential to make the govt unpopular and that can harm the independence cause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fingers crossed...

[He's here!]

Off topic but another myth put about to bash the Scottish Government with.

https://nwscotland.neighbourhoodalert.co.uk/images/site_images/79974_Fire_Alarm_Scams_Infographic__2_.jpg


The fire safety legislation only requires a smoke alarm in the circulation space on each floor of a home plus the main living space and a heat alarm in the kitchen. All must be wired to the mains and be interlinked.

I had all of the above apart from the living room and it's very simple to replace existing alarms, and you even get to choose what manufacturers and suppliers you want. There are NO GOVERNMENT APPROVED ALARMS as it clearly states in the graphics above.

I stand corrected. My recollection was that they had to meet a government standard. Nevertheless, it does appear you're required to upgrade to alarms with tamper-proof batteries or have the alarm wired-in by an electrician.

My gripe at the time I responded to the consultation was more about the rationale behind having the legislation apply equally to all types of property. While I obviously agree wholeheartedly that we should do all we can to avoid a repeat of Grenfell, I just felt that those living in, say, a bungalow, are in a very different situation to residents of an apartment block where potentially hundreds of people will face limited means of exit.

Whatever, this is all a drop in the ocean compared to the likely carnage that awaits when the requirements for all homes being built, sold or improved to reach a specified standard of energy efficiency kick in.

[Jack]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210828/62b5e628afb8896f07b3035448041564.jpg

So much for all the disunity in the SNP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting and disappointing that independence is 3rd and last on the list. And they will have considered very carefully on that order.

[Crunchie]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210828/62b5e628afb8896f07b3035448041564.jpg

So much for all the disunity in the SNP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When the general public and indeed the idle voting SNP voter gets to see how radical the Scottish Greens are things will change.
It's no surprise at all the robotic SNP membership fall on every word their leader tells them

[weecounty hibby]

When the general public and indeed the idle voting SNP voter gets to see how radical the Scottish Greens are things will change.
It's no surprise at all the robotic SNP membership fall on every word their leader tells them

Robotic SNP voters? I take it you read the proposal? I did and then voted in a way that I believe will benefit Scotland. You are the eejit that is telling everyone that Brexit will be fine in a decade or so and that there are no food shortages. Once again I will say it, you can't be taken seriously on any topic

And at least there is detail behind this. The leavers in the UK voted for Brexit without knowing a single detail about what it meant. But you know taking back control etc.

[Crunchie]

Robotic SNP voters? I take it you read the proposal? I did and then voted in a way that I believe will benefit Scotland. You are the eejit that is telling everyone that Brexit will be fine in a decade or so and that there are no food shortages. Once again I will say it, you can't be taken seriously on any topic

And at least there is detail behind this. The leavers in the UK voted for Brexit without knowing a single detail about what it meant. But you know taking back control etc.
No need for the name calling wee man, and I'd class you in the bracket of robotic follow the leader SNP voter based solely on your posts. I don't think I've ever seen you disagree with the party line to the extent your name calling extends to SNP MP's and former MP's and anyone else that dares question Frau Sturgeon.

[weecounty hibby]

Deleted post. Just no worth it! 🤯

[Crunchie]

Check back. I have been critical on education number of times but once again you just make **** up. Just like the overflowing shelves in your own personal supermarket. Wee man? Don't think we've ever met so not sure how you'd know if I was 6'+ or 5' nothing. And seriously, eejit is a compliment to you based on your posting history. I thought about putting you on ignore but actually I think it's cute the BS you post so I probably wont.
I'm not making anything up, unlike your statement about overflowing shelves, I never said that at all, I've just not encountered the mass shortages the anti Brexit mob have.
Once again you call me an eejit? classy of you wee man and just goes to show what a tolerant society we can expect from a Scottish govt if you don't agree with them.

[weecounty hibby]

I'm not making anything up, unlike your statement about overflowing shelves, I never said that at all, I've just not encountered the mass shortages the anti Brexit mob have.
Once again you call me an eejit? classy of you wee man and just goes to show what a tolerant society we can expect from a Scottish govt if you don't agree with them.
How would you describe someone who will not accept what CEOs of supermarkets, trade bodies McDonald's, Nandos, Greggs etc etc and almost everyone else is saying regarding shortages of food? As I say, not worth it anymore. And as to tolerant and inclusive, remind me again about the main driver for Brexit. Yo have followed the most right wing xenophobic insular government, as well as folk like Farage and you still support them. How very inclusive of you

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm not making anything up, unlike your statement about overflowing shelves, I never said that at all, I've just not encountered the mass shortages the anti Brexit mob have.
Once again you call me an eejit? classy of you wee man and just goes to show what a tolerant society we can expect from a Scottish govt if you don't agree with them.

So you complain about being called an eejit, but you don't have any issues with referring to the first minister as "Frau Sturgeon"!!!!

[Crunchie]

How would you describe someone who will not accept what CEOs of supermarkets, trade bodies McDonald's, Nandos, Greggs etc etc and almost everyone else is saying regarding shortages of food? As I say, not worth it anymore. And as to tolerant and inclusive, remind me again about the main driver for Brexit. Yo have followed the most right wing xenophobic insular government, as well as folk like Farage and you still support them. How very inclusive of you
I follow my gut instinct in what i believe to be right, I don't follow someone for the sake of following them, only a fool dotes on any one persons word, the greatest leaders in the world past and present have all made blunders and talked pish in their time.
I followed the SNP but didn't believe in all their policies, I did similar with Labour and now the Conservative Party.
You can brand us all as right wing and xenophobic till the cows come home but it doesn't actually make it true and if anything you lot, who I now affectionately call the loony left are the ones trying to dumb down free speech and the right to an opinion.

[Crunchie]

So you complain about being called an eejit, but you don't have any issues with referring to the first minister as "Frau Sturgeon"!!!!
That's pretty tame to what Boris and some other centre right politicians are called on here is it not? I have to love your outrage though.
The Donald Trump name calling took a bit of beating, I admired your outrage then too.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58387017

Stick it to 'em Greta....

[weecounty hibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58387017

Stick it to 'em Greta....

Did you read the article or just the headline? You could just as easily have dropped this in the BBC bias thread

[cabbageandribs1875]

Did you read the article or just the headline? You could just as easily have dropped this in the BBC bias thread

i already did earlier, then deleted it

tories will lap up any headline from the tory-controlled BBC now as long as it's baaaaaaad SNP or Baaaaaad Scotland

[Peevemor]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58387017

Stick it to 'em Greta....Who do you think she's sticking it to?

[Jack]

Has Scotland ever claimed to be a world leader in climate change?

I think I can recall saying we have ambitious targets and are doing well but world leader???

[weecounty hibby]

i already did earlier, then deleted it

tories will lap up any headline from the tory-controlled BBC now as long as it's baaaaaaad SNP or Baaaaaad Scotland
I can't believe that folk so dislike their own country that they get all excited about a made up headline about something that no one actually said as long as it shows up their country as doing badly.

[Kato]

It will become more apparent as parties try to make capital from the climate crisis. Call out people trying to do something but maybe not getting far as failing while doing nothing themselves other claiming how pretty a Union Jack looks.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Bangkok Hibby]

I can't believe that folk so dislike their own country that they get all excited about a made up headline about something that no one actually said as long as it shows up their country as doing badly.

I know a few people like that. They're all huns!

[cabbageandribs1875]

The SNP-Green deal has passed 69-56, no abstentions.
History has been made today.


stick it to 'em

[Kato]

The SNP-Green deal has passed 69-56, no abstentions.
History has been made today.


stick it to 'em

56 MSPs ignoring Climate Change measures. Don't they believe the science?

[Ozyhibby]

Has Scotland ever claimed to be a world leader in climate change?

I think I can recall saying we have ambitious targets and are doing well but world leader???

Don’t know if we are the world leader but we are doing ok so far in that almost all our electricity is now coming from renewables. We still have a long way to go though. And it will involve tough choices. So far we have picked the low hanging fruit in terms of things to be done but eventually we are going to have to make some real uncomfortable decisions. Oil and Gas extraction is going to be one of those very difficult decisions. If we are going to keep to our commitments we made at Paris then we are going to have to stop extraction soon. We are going to have to move on from gas boilers very soon and our transport is going to have to be all renewables very soon as well. It’s not going to be easy but it can be done and we’ll be glad once we have done it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

Don’t know if we are the world leader but we are doing ok so far in that almost all our electricity is now coming from renewables. We still have a long way to go though. And it will involve tough choices. So far we have picked the low hanging fruit in terms of things to be done but eventually we are going to have to make some real uncomfortable decisions. Oil and Gas extraction is going to be one of those very difficult decisions. If we are going to keep to our commitments we made at Paris then we are going to have to stop extraction soon. We are going to have to move on from gas boilers very soon and our transport is going to have to be all renewables very soon as well. It’s not going to be easy but it can be done and we’ll be glad once we have done it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Our share of global CO2 emissions is tiny. 1% if you're talking about the UK and therefore likely around 0.001% if you're talking about Scotland.

We will inevitably end up trying to fix: the economy, our public services, social care and climate change all at the same time. I don't know how that is all going to be paid for when we already have massive debt following the pandemic but taxation looks the number one suspect at this point. Plus legislation and policy which forces households to pick up the bill in non-taxation ways too - such as limiting petrol and diesel engine vehicles, requiring compliant boilers and perhaps allowing domestic energy costs to rise.

Without decent growth this could get quite ugly.

[lapsedhibee]

Our share of global CO2 emissions is tiny. 1% if you're talking about the UK and therefore likely around 0.001% if you're talking about Scotland.
Show your working please. :hmmm:

[McD]

Don’t know if we are the world leader but we are doing ok so far in that almost all our electricity is now coming from renewables. We still have a long way to go though. And it will involve tough choices. So far we have picked the low hanging fruit in terms of things to be done but eventually we are going to have to make some real uncomfortable decisions. Oil and Gas extraction is going to be one of those very difficult decisions. If we are going to keep to our commitments we made at Paris then we are going to have to stop extraction soon. We are going to have to move on from gas boilers very soon and our transport is going to have to be all renewables very soon as well. It’s not going to be easy but it can be done and we’ll be glad once we have done it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


what are the alternatives for gas boilers?

apologies for the thread diversion everyone

[Ozyhibby]

what are the alternatives for gas boilers?

apologies for the thread diversion everyone

Either Hydrogen or go full electric. Both have big drawbacks but doing nothing is becoming less of an option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McD]

Either Hydrogen or go full electric. Both have big drawbacks but doing nothing is becoming less of an option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:aok:

[ronaldo7]

what are the alternatives for gas boilers?

apologies for the thread diversion everyone

https://www.evergreenenergy.co.uk/sustainable-home/top-4-alternatives-gas-boilers/#:~:text=Top%204%20alternatives%20to%20gas%20boile rs%201%20Heat,panels.%20...%204%20Biomass%20boiler s%20and%20stoves.%20

https://www.boilerguide.co.uk/articles/alternatives-to-gas-boilers

[McD]

https://www.evergreenenergy.co.uk/sustainable-home/top-4-alternatives-gas-boilers/#:~:text=Top%204%20alternatives%20to%20gas%20boile rs%201%20Heat,panels.%20...%204%20Biomass%20boiler s%20and%20stoves.%20

https://www.boilerguide.co.uk/articles/alternatives-to-gas-boilers


thanks :aok:

[Ozyhibby]

For those interested in the gender debate from further up the thread.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19554727.majority-groups-support-plans-gender-self-id-scotland/?ref=twtrec


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

For those interested in the gender debate from further up the thread.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19554727.majority-groups-support-plans-gender-self-id-scotland/?ref=twtrec


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The headline is a bit naff, no?

It says the "majority of groups", yet goes on to say that only 215 of the 17k responses were from groups.

[Callyballybe]

Ah sorry. It’s an unintended consequence that young people and people new to living in cities are harmed by this. Once a rent becomes capped, people tend not to move house because the current rent is so good. Why would they? Some Landlords will leave the market and sell up which might seem like a good thing but it will reduce the supply of rented accommodation.
Private developers will stop building properties for rent which also reduces the amount of properties becoming available. Buy to let landlords buying properties off plan are what give banks the comfort to lend to developers to build many developments.
When they are gone, house building levels will fall.
As landlords start to sell up, older people may move from rented sector to owner occupiers which is great for them but that isn’t an option for everyone. Young people struggle to meet the requirement for mortgages (large deposits, stable employment etc). With a much reduced rental market as landlords sell up and those in rent controlled properties not moving on then properties for young people(or people new to a city) to rent will become very rare indeed. The market will jam up big time.
There are better ways to bring down rents. The govt should start a massive house building program itself and become landlords. They can the set the rents themselves and make landlords compete with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for posting this Ozy. I've always been interested in this topic, and the above was very helpful.

A couple of questions though;

Firstly if enough buy to let property holders sell up, wouldn't this also increase the supply of properties for sale? Assuming that there aren't other buy to letters who would take it off their hands of course. Which would then (potentially) make it easier for younger people to buy instead of rent in the first place? I understand they might not all have the deposit to begin with, but if there is a steady increase in supply wouldn't this bring down the price and requirements for mortgages needed, potentially making it easier for some to purchase? (Doesn't solve the problem fully I know)

Interesting point regarding the buy to let industry giving the banks more comfort in lending to developments in the first place.

If the rent controls are set at such a point whereby most buy to let holders could still pay the mortgage on the rented property (at the very least) are they likely to sell up? I don't imagine that the rent controls would be so radical as to push a significant amount of them out (speculating here of course.)

If people are happy with their controlled rent and therefore quite understandably don't move, giving them piece of mind and a bit more security would of course be an advantage. I get that this makes the rental market inelastic and the new entries into said market are the ones that lose out here, but if rents keep increasing as they are, are people not going to be pushed out further from the city anyway?

I actually fully agree with the idea of the government going on a significant building program and have them compete with the private landlords, hopefully bringing down market rents to a more affordable position. It certainly chimes with my left leaning credentials so to speak. I suppose the issue here is - and it's the same issue I hear in defense of privatization in general - is that is the government competent enough to go on a building program and make it profitable for the tax payer, whilst still offering affordable rents?

My heart says yes....

[Ozyhibby]

Thanks for posting this Ozy. I've always been interested in this topic, and the above was very helpful.

A couple of questions though;

Firstly if enough buy to let property holders sell up, wouldn't this also increase the supply of properties for sale? Assuming that there aren't other buy to letters who would take it off their hands of course. Which would then (potentially) make it easier for younger people to buy instead of rent in the first place? I understand they might not all have the deposit to begin with, but if there is a steady increase in supply wouldn't this bring down the price and requirements for mortgages needed, potentially making it easier for some to purchase? (Doesn't solve the problem fully I know)

Interesting point regarding the buy to let industry giving the banks more comfort in lending to developments in the first place.

If the rent controls are set at such a point whereby most buy to let holders could still pay the mortgage on the rented property (at the very least) are they likely to sell up? I don't imagine that the rent controls would be so radical as to push a significant amount of them out (speculating here of course.)

If people are happy with their controlled rent and therefore quite understandably don't move, giving them piece of mind and a bit more security would of course be an advantage. I get that this makes the rental market inelastic and the new entries into said market are the ones that lose out here, but if rents keep increasing as they are, are people not going to be pushed out further from the city anyway?

I actually fully agree with the idea of the government going on a significant building program and have them compete with the private landlords, hopefully bringing down market rents to a more affordable position. It certainly chimes with my left leaning credentials so to speak. I suppose the issue here is - and it's the same issue I hear in defense of privatization in general - is that is the government competent enough to go on a building program and make it profitable for the tax payer, whilst still offering affordable rents?

My heart says yes....

Most young people can afford to buy the house they live in just now if the rules on lending were like they were pre 2008. The way it is just now is keeping young people out the market. It’s not just the affordability factors but also the type of employment most young people have is not as secure as lenders want these days. The deposit is the biggest factor though. Most young people just can’t save up £20k while having to pay rent and live life. The average age of most first time buyers is mid 30’s now.
Instead of trying to rig the rental market, why not allow young people a 100% mortgage for first time buyers? Let them force landlords out the market themselves.

On the last paragraph, the govt could and should get involved in building houses. We have a housing shortage, nobody disagrees with that. Govt can borrow at almost 0% just now and rental property yields 6%+. It’s mental that they are not doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk