SNP are lying b******s as well !

[danhibees1875]

That system only recycles about 50% of all containers where as this system as implemented in other European countries recycles over 90%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is that because recycling, excl glass, is all mixed into 1 bin?

[Ozyhibby]

Is that because recycling, excl glass, is all mixed into 1 bin?

Not sure. I suspect not everyone is as diligent at putting their recycling in the proper bin. I know that people in tenements and flats with shared bins tend to do a lot less recycling. Lots of drinks are also consumed on the move and containers put in waste bins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

Not sure. I suspect not everyone is as diligent at putting their recycling in the proper bin. I know that people in tenements and flats with shared bins tend to do a lot less recycling. Lots of drinks are also consumed on the move and containers put in waste bins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, I've misread.

I thought you were saying that of the things I put in my recycling bin only 50% actually then recycled.

[Stairway 2 7]

I think the intention would be that there wouldn't be any additional travelling though. You'd never go to only do your recycling. It would just be what you did when on your usual travel to the shops.

I guess that relies on a "normal" shopping pattern actually. If you just pick up some shopping after work every night en route home then it's going to be more of an inconvenience.
Good point. I guess most families will just have a bag or whatever in the kitchen where the cans and bottles will go and take them at the end of the month when skint ha

[archie]

That system only recycles about 50% of all containers where as this system as implemented in other European countries recycles over 90%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you got a source for the 90% figures?

[Stairway 2 7]

Daily record political editor

Paul Hutcheon
@paulhutcheon
The First Minister is staging an unplanned press conference this morning. Interesting
whatever it is, it sounds serious

[Pretty Boy]

Its not being flippant, maybe I'm just not clued up on all the proposals or I'm being dense here but I already use the relevant recycling bins for all my rubbish and take bottles round to the bottle bank round the corner from me, once it leaves my required bin then they should be sent to the relevant places for recycling and sorting?

I'm just not sure our recycling and other related infrastructure is up to the task currently.

After the Attenborough documentary that really highlighted the issue of plastic pollution there was a huge market shift towards compostable products (or the utterly meaningless 'biodegradable' branded stuff, everything is biodegradable). I overseen a huge shift in my works stock holding for such and met various people involved in the manufacture and supply. They were quite open about the fact that simply tossing one of these cups in your bin and sending it to landfill meant that the time to degradation wasn't all that much different to a standard take away cup we have used for years. They really require a closed loop system that sees them sent to a commercial composting facility and processed correctly, at the time of those meetings there were 3 in the UK, all were already operating at close to capacity. Alternatively it had to be disposed off with a restaurants food waste but how do you manage that with a take away product? I'm not sure if the infrastructure has improved in the intervening period but it was certainly the case that 3 or 4 years ago a compostable cup was a bit of a box ticking excercise and the chances are it was ending up in landfill with a degradation time of a lot of years.

I think it's one of these areas where there is a line to be tread between changing our behaviours and thought processes around recycling and how wasteful we are and not running before we can walk in terms of available facilities and the volumes they can handle. As soon as stories start breaking about 'recycling' ending up in landfill or being shipped elsewhere the integrity of the schemes will be damaged.

[danhibees1875]

Good point. I guess most families will just have a bag or whatever in the kitchen where the cans and bottles will go and take them at the end of the month when skint ha

A little nest egg for a rainy day. :greengrin

[Mon Dieu4]

I'm just not sure our recycling and other related infrastructure is up to the task currently.

After the Attenborough documentary that really highlighted the issue of plastic pollution there was a huge market shift towards compostable products (or the utterly meaningless 'biodegradable' branded stuff, everything is biodegradable). I overseen a huge shift in my works stock holding for such and met various people involved in the manufacture and supply. They were quite open about the fact that simply tossing one of these cups in your bin and sending it to landfill meant that the time to degradation wasn't all that much different to a standard take away cup we have used for years. They really require a closed loop system that sees them sent to a commercial composting facility and processed correctly, at the time of those meetings there were 3 in the UK, all were already operating at close to capacity. Alternatively it had to be disposed off with a restaurants food waste but how do you manage that with a take away product? I'm not sure if the infrastructure has improved in the intervening period but it was certainly the case that 3 or 4 years ago a compostable cup was a bit of a box ticking excercise and the chances are it was ending up in landfill with a degradation time of a lot of years.

I think it's one of these areas where there is a line to be tread between changing our behaviours and thought processes around recycling and how wasteful we are and not running before we can walk in terms of available facilities and the volumes they can handle. As soon as stories start breaking about 'recycling' ending up in landfill or being shipped elsewhere the integrity of the schemes will be damaged.

Cheers all makes sense more now, I still and probably will always have issues with it, zero problem with doing my bit as long as it's relatively convenient, but in my head it reeks of councils and government's being caught out lacking and as a result we all need to change our habits to compensate

[J-C]

Peter Murrell apparently lent them it, but nobody remembers.

Any need.

[Ozyhibby]

Have you got a source for the 90% figures?

https://www.tomra.com/en/discover/reverse-vending/feature-articles/norway-deposit-return-scheme


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibee]

Nicola Sturgeon is to resign today as Scotland's first minister.

[Ozyhibby]

Nicola Sturgeon is to resign today as Scotland's first minister.

Big news.[emoji102]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

https://www.tomra.com/en/discover/reverse-vending/feature-articles/norway-deposit-return-scheme


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks. Are Norway and Lithuania the only countries running this type of scheme? The reason I ask is that general recycling rates in Europe are much lower. But I appreciate that this is probably wider than drinks containers https://www.statista.com/statistics/1219551/municipal-waste-recycling-eu-by-country/

[Jack]

I take it the councils around the country have all the necessary kit in place (or will have) when this kicks in.

Was there not a mini scandal a few years ago that Edinburgh??? were picking up the recycling and not doing much recycling with it. I'm not even convinced today that proper recycling goes on either at home, wrong stuff in wrong bin, or the council dealing with it properly.

I had a German girlfriend/fiancee in the early 1990s who was really in to recycling. Jings if you think it's difficult now you should have been trying it before it became fashionable 😆

Now cities in Germany have high tech kit that sorts out their recycling and its impressive. I'm quite sure if there was anything similar in Scotland/UK it would be all over the media showing off how blummin clever it is!

[J-C]

Nicola Sturgeon is to resign today as Scotland's first minister.

Just reading about it on BBC web page, says she's had enough, tough gig and must take it's toll, especially over the last 3 years. Even though she's a tough cookie, I'm not surprised.

[Paul1642]

Going.by that list of potential successors Sturgeon should be safe for a while.

How things change in a week.

[overdrive]

I take it the councils around the country have all the necessary kit in place (or will have) when this kicks in.

Was there not a mini scandal a few years ago that Edinburgh??? were picking up the recycling and not doing much recycling with it. I'm not even convinced today that proper recycling goes on either at home, wrong stuff in wrong bin, or the council dealing with it properly.

I had a German girlfriend/fiancee in the early 1990s who was really in to recycling. Jings if you think it's difficult now you should have been trying it before it became fashionable 😆

Now cities in Germany have high tech kit that sorts out their recycling and its impressive. I'm quite sure if there was anything similar in Scotland/UK it would be all over the media showing off how blummin clever it is!

A lot of the issue, particularly with plastic is actually having a market to sell the recycled material. It is all fair and well recycling it but you need then be able to sell it. It has been a few years since I briefly worked on a waste project but the issue at the time was new “clean” plastic from China was much cheaper than recycled plastic. Faced with the two, manufacturers would buy the cheaper product.

[Ozyhibby]

A lot of the issue, particularly with plastic is actually having a market to sell the recycled material. It is all fair and well recycling it but you need then be able to sell it. It has been a few years since I briefly worked on a waste project but the issue at the time was new “clean” plastic from China was much cheaper than recycled plastic. Faced with the two, manufacturers would buy the cheaper product.

Tax the new plastic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

Good point. I guess most families will just have a bag or whatever in the kitchen where the cans and bottles will go and take them at the end of the month when skint ha

I done this a kid with the empty Globe/Solripe/Barrs glass bottles, was known as a "bottle merchant" people actually shouted it when I was clattering along to the shop or ice cream van. I was so not bothered, just wanted money for sweets. :greengrin

I think they need to give this more thought, disabled and older people tend to rely more on home deliveries for food and drink so that needs some consideration, maybe they could offer to collect when delivering and issue an online refund.

Think this policy will work with time, kind of like when Scotland banned smoking indoors and plastic bag charging, there was some resistance to change but eventually people accept it and gradually welcome the benefits.

[danhibees1875]

I done this a kid with the empty Globe/Solripe/Barrs glass bottles, was known as a "bottle merchant" people actually shouted it when I was clattering along to the shop or ice cream van. I was so not bothered, just wanted money for sweets. :greengrin

I think they need to give this more thought, disabled and older people tend to rely more on home deliveries for food and drink so that needs some consideration, maybe they could offer to collect when delivering and issue an online refund.

Think this policy will work with time, kind of like when Scotland banned smoking indoors and plastic bag charging, there was some resistance to change but eventually people accept it and gradually welcome the benefits.

I'm pretty sure that one of the ways you can return your co trainers is to the person delivering your shopping. So the second paragraph shouldn't be an issue.

[Santa Cruz]

I'm pretty sure that one of the ways you can return your co trainers is to the person delivering your shopping. So the second paragraph shouldn't be an issue.

Cheers, never knew this. :aok:

[Hibrandenburg]

House party's will be interesting, bringing your 12 pack of beer and at the end of the night trying to collect your empties to get your £2.40 back. I am guessing people will be too ****** to bother and the host will make a nice little profit.

:faf:

[Hibrandenburg]

With the apparent clampdown on driving due to net zero then are they expecting people to walk or take public transport to the supermarket with all their empties to return them?

My local supermarket is a 10 minute walk, I don't drive, no danger am I holding on to all my empties then once a week walking them back to the supermarket, they are going in the bin as normal

Surely if you managed to get them home when they were full, then you'll manage to get them back when they're empty and your not carrying any shopping?

[Just Alf]

Surely if you managed to get them home when they were full, then you'll manage to get them back when they're empty and your not carrying any shopping?Think I'll buy share in a shopping trolly manufacturer, they tartan things! :agree:

[Hibrandenburg]

I don't mean this to sound flippant, and there are many logistical issues to ponder over with this but presumably you carry those same cans initially for those 10 minutes to your house - when they are filled with liquid and heavier.

I think it would just become habitual that as part of going to the shop you take and return a bag full of empties.

My problem will be that I squish my cans once I'm finished with them (to show off how strong and masculine I am) - which I assume will make bar codes unreadable.

Hopefully the scanning system is a quick and efficient one too - can't see people standing in a queue outside the shops when it's cold/wet for a couple ££. A quick-use bin to the side where the products are scanned by someone else and proceeds go to charity would be a nice addition to the infrastructure.

:agree:

[Mon Dieu4]

Surely if you managed to get them home when they were full, then you'll manage to get them back when they're empty and your not carrying any shopping?

I normally go shopping on the way home from work, I could manage it if I changed my routine but I'm not going to the hassle of holding onto things for a week then taking them back to the shop for the sake of a few quid when I can just put them in the bin, if some local urchins want to collect it and the cash in then they are welcome to it

[grunt]

I normally go shopping on the way home from work, I could manage it if I changed my routine but I'm not going to the hassle of holding onto things for a week then taking them back to the shop for the sake of a few quid when I can just put them in the bin, if some local urchins want to collect it and the cash in then they are welcome to it
That's the spirit!

[Mon Dieu4]

That's the spirit!

Loads of people will be thinking the exact same thing, I'm just the one daft enough to admit it

[Paul1642]

That's the spirit!

There will be people who already recycle these items through the current kerbside collections yet find this system an inconvenience. This new system will encourage some yet discourage some others who already recycle.

[Mon Dieu4]

However he never stated that he does not already recycle these items through the current kerbside collections. This new system will encourage some yet discourage some others who already recycle.

All my current recycling goes in the required bins and glass and old clothes etc into local collection points and charity shops, I'm not anti recycling, I just happen to think that councils and government's should maybe be the ones to put a system in place that does it all since they are collecting it in the first place, sounds like their current method isn't fit for purpose so they are putting the onus and cost on the public

[Ozyhibby]

There will be people who already recycle these items through the current kerbside collections yet find this system an inconvenience. This new system will encourage some yet discourage some others who already recycle.

You don’t think this system can get us to 90%?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grunt]

There will be people who already recycle these items through the current kerbside collections yet find this system an inconvenience. This new system will encourage some yet discourage some others who already recycle.Will the current kerbside collections be discontinued?

[Hibrandenburg]

I normally go shopping on the way home from work, I could manage it if I changed my routine but I'm not going to the hassle of holding onto things for a week then taking them back to the shop for the sake of a few quid when I can just put them in the bin, if some local urchins want to collect it and the cash in then they are welcome to it

There's a whole industry of "urchins" who earn a few bob by collecting empties left by people who couldn't be arsed returning them. If someone else makes a few bob due to someone else's laziness then win win.

[greenginger]

Will the current kerbside collections be discontinued?

lots of things get recycled that you can’t get a refund on. Newspapers, plastic trays etc.

Maybe collections will be less frequent, 3 weekly or monthly.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64644895

Next round of teaching strikes to go ahead as unions reject new offer.

Not a major surprise. It was a thin offer when broken down.

[Stairway 2 7]

Good work by Edinburgh SNP councilor Marco biagi hopefully he can get it through. A council tax increase that rises the higher the band

https://mobile.twitter.com/MarcoGBiagi/status/1627700129946914816

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Not a major surprise.

Considering it's occurring across the whole of the UK, it certainly isn't a surprise at all. The Unions in Scotland won't accept any deal in Scotland until a new deal is settled in England, which will subsequently increase the funding availability in Scotland, leading to a better offer than is currently viable.

[Santa Cruz]

Considering it's occurring across the whole of the UK, it certainly isn't a surprise at all. The Unions in Scotland won't accept any deal in Scotland until a new deal is settled in England, which will subsequently increase the funding availability in Scotland, leading to a better offer than is currently viable.

https://www.eis.org.uk/latest-news/offerrejected

[archie]

Good work by Edinburgh SNP councilor Marco biagi hopefully he can get it through. A council tax increase that rises the higher the band

https://mobile.twitter.com/MarcoGBiagi/status/1627700129946914816
You think this is good? What about people on fixed incomes? It's a tax that isn't related to income except at the margins. I thought the SNP pledged to get rid of 'the hated council tax'. A pledge that was quietly dropped. I wonder why?

[Stairway 2 7]

You think this is good? What about people on fixed incomes? It's a tax that isn't related to income except at the margins. I thought the SNP pledged to get rid of 'the hated council tax'. A pledge that was quietly dropped. I wonder why?

If we are going to have a council tax and the only way councils don't crumble is raising money through them then I'm glad it weighted to those with more wealth. The bigger rises come from those in £1,000,000 house's, yes they might just be asset rich but the odds are they can afford it better than band a and b that are often toiling

[Paul1642]

If we are going to have a council tax and the only way councils don't crumble is raising money through them then I'm glad it weighted to those with more wealth. The bigger rises come from those in £1,000,000 house's, yes they might just be asset rich but the odds are they can afford it better than band a and b that are often toiling

It’s not a bad concept however the main problem with council tax is that it’s already a pretty crap system. It’s been discussed on here before and an example of this is when me and a friend both both property’s in Edinburgh around the same time. Mine was in the grand scheme of things pretty cheap and needed a lot of work yet up in band E due to its value in 1992. His cost around 50k more and was band D.

A person on means tested benefits will see their income rise with inflation yet get a council tax freeze. A young family who doesn’t necessarily earn great wages but went out on limb to get a house for life will have already seen their mortgage rate rise by a lot and could now see their council tax raise by 10%.

That 300k house could easily be owned 85% by the bank on mortgage and the owner is far from rich and by no means has a pile of spare cash to pay for this rise any more than those living in lower bands.

A income tax rise would be the fairer way.

If like me you’re not in bands F G or H it would be Ely to turn a blind eye to that without considering the reality for a lot of those people.

[archie]

If we are going to have a council tax and the only way councils don't crumble is raising money through them then I'm glad it weighted to those with more wealth. The bigger rises come from those in £1,000,000 house's, yes they might just be asset rich but the odds are they can afford it better than band a and b that are often toiling It's ok talking about wealth, but what if their wealth is tied up on their home but they don't have a high income? Like many pensioners.

[Stairway 2 7]

It's ok talking about wealth, but what if their wealth is tied up on their home but they don't have a high income? Like many pensioners.

I agree totally that it's an unfair tax. But no one it scrapping it that I can see. So under these parameters councils have no choice but to raise money or collapse. It's unfair but it's the fairest of the unfair choices I believe

[Ozyhibby]

I agree totally that it's an unfair tax. But no one it scrapping it that I can see. So under these parameters councils have no choice but to raise money or collapse. It's unfair but it's the fairest of the unfair choices I believe

I think both the SNP and Labour would like to scrap in Scotland but it’s difficult without full suite of taxes available to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul1642]

I agree totally that it's an unfair tax. But no one it scrapping it that I can see. So under these parameters councils have no choice but to raise money or collapse. It's unfair but it's the fairest of the unfair choices I believe

Why is it more fair than a 3% raise across the board.

A household in band A pays an extra £37 per year.
A household in band H pays an extra £130 per year.

It’s proportionate.

[Santa Cruz]

I agree totally that it's an unfair tax. But no one it scrapping it that I can see. So under these parameters councils have no choice but to raise money or collapse. It's unfair but it's the fairest of the unfair choices I believe

Croydon Council declared bankrupt raised c.tax by 15%. The residents must be raging paying for their Councillor's incompetence.

https://www.londonworld.com/news/why-a-london-borough-can-raise-council-tax-by-15-4017111

[Stairway 2 7]

Why is it more fair than a 3% raise across the board.

A household in band A pays an extra £37 per year.
A household in band H pays an extra £130 per year.

It’s proportionate.

Because due to the cost of living the lowest in society just can't give any more. There will be people caught out like people in 1 million pound homes with no disposable income, but that will be rarer than people who can barely eat in band A

[James310]

Edinburgh schools on strike for 2 days next week. With all the hoo haa going on I hope those in Government don't take their eye off the ball on this.

[archie]

Because due to the cost of living the lowest in society just can't give any more. There will be people caught out like people in 1 million pound homes with no disposable income, but that will be rarer than people who can barely eat in band A

The reality is that we need a new way to find council services. But ni politicians will grasp it because what ever is proposed will cause uproar.

[Paul1642]

The reality is that we need a new way to find council services. But ni politicians will grasp it because what ever is proposed will cause uproar.

I complete agree that council tax needs to go but I can see the arguments against it. What do you replace it with?

Unlike most taxes it one that can’t be avoided through skilful accounting or simply under declaring income like income tax and Nat ins. Its replacement would need to be similar. It would be interesting to see what other countries do.

Some sort of annual property value tax would be best but how on earth do you calculate the value. A standard property could be worth 20k more than the neighbours of the same floor plan based on state of repair and features and this figure would be much higher in multi million pound properties, the owners of which would no doubt find clever ways to undervalue their homes when it suited them.

[archie]

I complete agree that council tax needs to go but I can see the arguments against it. What do you replace it with?

Unlike most taxes it one that can’t be avoided through skilful accounting or simply under declaring income like income tax and Nat ins. Its replacement would need to be similar. It would be interesting to see what other countries do.

Some sort of annual property value tax would be best but how on earth do you calculate the value. A standard property could be worth 20k more than the neighbours of the same floor plan based on state of repair and features and this figure would be much higher in multi million pound properties, the owners of which would no doubt find clever ways to undervalue their homes when it suited them.
It's hard, which is why politicians shy away from it. I guess a local income tax would take account of ability to pay, but would really hack people off. We could just scrap local taxes altogether and have it collected centrally and redistributed by central government. But that would impact on local democracy. It's very thorny.

[Ozyhibby]

It's hard, which is why politicians shy away from it. I guess a local income tax would take account of ability to pay, but would really hack people off. We could just scrap local taxes altogether and have it collected centrally and redistributed by central government. But that would impact on local democracy. It's very thorny.

I would be dead against that. It’s already ridiculous that about 3/4 of council cash is raised centrally and given out in grants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

Why is it more fair than a 3% raise across the board.

A household in band A pays an extra £37 per year.
A household in band H pays an extra £130 per year.

It’s proportionate.

The proposal is a progressive increase onto an already progressive tax, so it is a bit of a double whammy. It does seem a bit off, but I'm not sure what a fairer (subjective, obviously) alternative is - maybe a flat % increase, but which doesn't impact on bands A and B.

No guarantee that brings enough ££ though, and without knowing how many houses fall into each band its hard to know where that central % would be to achieve what the current proposals are achieving.

[Santa Cruz]

The proposal is a progressive increase onto an already progressive tax, so it is a bit of a double whammy. It does seem a bit off, but I'm not sure what a fairer (subjective, obviously) alternative is - maybe a flat % increase, but which doesn't impact on bands A and B.

No guarantee that brings enough ££ though, and without knowing how many houses fall into each band its hard to know where that central % would be to achieve what the current proposals are achieving.

Dwellings by council tax band.

https://statistics.gov.scot/slice?dataset=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistics.gov.scot%2Fd ata%2Fdwellings-council-tax&http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Flinked-data%2Fcube%23measureType=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistics. gov.scot%2Fdef%2Fmeasure-properties%2Fcount&http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Flinked-data%2Fsdmx%2F2009%2Fdimension%23refPeriod=http%3A %2F%2Freference.data.gov.uk%2Fid%2Fyear%2F2021

[danhibees1875]

Dwellings by council tax band.

https://statistics.gov.scot/slice?dataset=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistics.gov.scot%2Fd ata%2Fdwellings-council-tax&http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Flinked-data%2Fcube%23measureType=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistics. gov.scot%2Fdef%2Fmeasure-properties%2Fcount&http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Flinked-data%2Fsdmx%2F2009%2Fdimension%23refPeriod=http%3A %2F%2Freference.data.gov.uk%2Fid%2Fyear%2F2021

Thanks. :aok:

[archie]

The proposal is a progressive increase onto an already progressive tax, so it is a bit of a double whammy. It does seem a bit off, but I'm not sure what a fairer (subjective, obviously) alternative is - maybe a flat % increase, but which doesn't impact on bands A and B.

No guarantee that brings enough ££ though, and without knowing how many houses fall into each band its hard to know where that central % would be to achieve what the current proposals are achieving.
The thing is, it doesn't raise that much, so I suspect it's more about political messaging.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Because due to the cost of living the lowest in society just can't give any more. There will be people caught out like people in 1 million pound homes with no disposable income, but that will be rarer than people who can barely eat in band A

They should sell their £1,000,000 home then. Nobody that's too broke to pay council tax should own a £1,000,000 home.

[Ozyhibby]

They should sell their £1,000,000 home then. Nobody that's too broke to pay council tax should own a £1,000,000 home.

Agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

They should sell their £1,000,000 home then. Nobody that's too broke to pay council tax should own a £1,000,000 home.

So you are OK with a tax policy that forces people to lose their home?

[Stairway 2 7]

So you are OK with a tax policy that forces people to lose their home?

If they were that low income they would get universal credit anyway no?

[archie]

If they were that low income they would get universal credit anyway no?

Not necessarily. The classic group here are people who have retired. Their pension income is largely fixed, but they wouldn't qualify for benefits. I think the scheme would only work if there was financial support available, but that wouldn't happen. I think it's largely performative anyway.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So you are OK with a tax policy that forces people to lose their home?

Sorry if my heart doesn't bleed for those with a 7 figure sum in their back pocket after selling their home.

[danhibees1875]

Sorry if my heart doesn't bleed for those with a 7 figure sum in their back pocket after selling their home.

I'm not sure how likely this scenario really is that's being played out here, but it's not unreasonable to question it or indeed have some sympathy for a hypothetical scenario where someone did feel they needed to move out of their home because they were getting hit disproportionately harder on increased running costs. Doing so has more than just financial implications.

Someone in Band H is receiving the same services as someone in Band A, but they're paying £4,335 - increased by 20% (£867) to £5,202, while Band A pays £1,238 with no increase.

A flat % increase across all bands would still be progressive in its nature and see those paying more currently having a larger increase into next year.

[Ozyhibby]

If they were that low income they would get universal credit anyway no?

No. Very rare for home owners to get benefits I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

Sorry if my heart doesn't bleed for those with a 7 figure sum in their back pocket after selling their home.
But it's not just band H homes. Band D homes and above pay more. And they wouldn't have the money because they need somewhere to live. Add to that the transaction costs of a move. With tax and fees for a modest Edinburgh home this could easily be £30,000. But anyway you don't care about forcing pensioners out of their home, so no problem.

[Santa Cruz]

No. Very rare for home owners to get benefits I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, there are non-means tested benefits for certain circumstances. The rates are a bit outdated and the PIP componenets have changed from 3 to 2 since the link below was published. Gives you an idea though.

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/rightsnet_benefit_rates_poster_2017-2018.pdf

[TrumpIsAPeado]

But it's not just band H homes. Band D homes and above pay more. And they wouldn't have the money because they need somewhere to live. Add to that the transaction costs of a move. With tax and fees for a modest Edinburgh home this could easily be £30,000. But anyway you don't care about forcing pensioners out of their home, so no problem.

As someone who hasn't been handed everything in life, who hasn't been born into a fountain of wealth and hasn't came out on top in the capitalist rat race, I really couldn't care less about people with lavished 7 figure homes who can't cover the council tax tbh. I really couldn't care less.

[grunt]

They should sell their £1,000,000 home then. Nobody that's too broke to pay council tax should own a £1,000,000 home.


So you are OK with a tax policy that forces people to lose their home?
I think it's a broader issue than just about "losing their home". If these people really are asset rich but cash poor, then it's potentially good fiscal sense to trade down or take out some form of equity release to realise some cash to live on. You can't eat bricks.

[archie]

As someone who hasn't been handed everything in life, who hasn't been born into a fountain of wealth and hasn't came out on top in the capitalist rat race, I really couldn't care less about people with lavished 7 figure homes who can't cover the council tax tbh. I really couldn't care less.That’s very honest. Heartless, but honest. And conveniently ignoring that many of those affected won't be living in million pound homes.

[archie]

I think it's a broader issue than just about "losing their home". If these people really are asset rich but cash poor, then it's potentially good fiscal sense to trade down or take out some form of equity release to realise some cash to live on. You can't eat bricks.

Might be. But many older people see their house as funding future care. This can easily burn through over £1,000 a week.

[Jack]

I think it's a broader issue than just about "losing their home". If these people really are asset rich but cash poor, then it's potentially good fiscal sense to trade down or take out some form of equity release to realise some cash to live on. You can't eat bricks.

Yeah, dead cat argument.

Anyone living in a £1m house on a pension is very likely to have had a very very good job/career and the opportunity to have a very handsome pension to boot!

I wonder if Archie can give an indication of the number of poor folk living in these houses?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

That’s very honest. Heartless, but honest. And conveniently ignoring that many of those affected won't be living in million pound homes.

I'm sure those in their millionaire mansions really care about the rest of us and got there by paying their workers a fair wage. :hilarious

[archie]

Yeah, dead cat argument.

Anyone living in a £1m house on a pension is very likely to have had a very very good job/career and the opportunity to have a very handsome pension to boot!

I wonder if Archie can give an indication of the number of poor folk living in these houses?
Jack - the millionaire thing is a red herring. It starts at band d. I don't know the number of people affected. And nor do the people proposing the policy. On a principle level, it's really bad to have taxes that don't take account of people's ability to pay. It a key argument against consumption taxes as opposed to taxes on income. It's also performative. It doesn't raise much money and gives the appearance of doing something progressive. But as you see here, it brings out a really nasty side.

[One Day Soon]

I'm sure those in their millionaire mansions really care about the rest of us and got there by paying their workers a fair wage. :hilarious


Seriously? Most of these people won't have gotten there by employing anyone and a very significant number of them will not be in anything like million pound homes.

Edinburgh house price inflation over someone's working life will have taken a significant number of the relevant homes into a much higher value bracket than they were ever bought for. There will be a very significant number of elderly people in homes like these who already struggle to pay their bills in the current climate. Cost of living, energy and Council Tax will already have taken chunks out of their monthly budgets. Many of them will be very elderly and probably now single.

One of the things that people working in social care know is that moving someone who is elderly from a familiar surrounding and all of the associated support they have built up and become dependent upon over the years - services, neighbours, family etc is directly threatening to their health and their lifespan. It's one of the reasons why closing care homes is a very bad idea for existing residents.

By all means look for fairer ways to share the cost of council services people depend upon, but blithely dismissing the impact upon those in higher value homes as though they were all one big uniform group is really daft.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Seriously? Most of these people won't have gotten there by employing anyone and a very significant number of them will not be in anything like million pound homes.

Edinburgh house price inflation over someone's working life will have taken a significant number of the relevant homes into a much higher value bracket than they were ever bought for. There will be a very significant number of elderly people in homes like these who already struggle to pay their bills in the current climate. Cost of living, energy and Council Tax will already have taken chunks out of their monthly budgets. Many of them will be very elderly and probably now single.

One of the things that people working in social care know is that moving someone who is elderly from a familiar surrounding and all of the associated support they have built up and become dependent upon over the years - services, neighbours, family etc is directly threatening to their health and their lifespan. It's one of the reasons why closing care homes is a very bad idea for existing residents.

By all means look for fairer ways to share the cost of council services people depend upon, but blithely dismissing the impact upon those in higher value homes as though they were all one big uniform group is really daft.

These people were happy to stay in one place while the value of their homes sky rocketed well ahead of inflation. Why should somebody like me who will never even have a hope in hell of ever owning a home feel bad for anyone tied up in assets worth hundreds of thousands of pounds?

Some people have never had it so good. But want us to feel sorry for them when circumstances change that force them to give up something. I won't be guilt tripped into feeling sorry for them.

[One Day Soon]

These people were happy to stay in one place while the value of their homes sky rocketed well ahead of inflation. Why should somebody like me who will never even have a hope in hell of ever owning a home feel bad for anyone tied up in assets worth hundreds of thousands of pounds?

Some people have never had it so good. But want us to feel sorry for them when circumstances change that force them to give up something. I won't be guilt tripped into feeling sorry for them.


So where do you draw the line? Presumably you think all home owners who see an increase in the equity value of their homes deserve no sympathy, not just the wealthier ones? Is it ok for your home to be bought for £200,000 and appreciate in value over your lifetime to £300,000 or £400,000 or more? And when house price inflation which you have no control over does raise the value of your home in a way that bears no relationship to your actual income, regardless of the bracket you are in, that makes you worthy of no consideration when taxation policy is being set?


What about all those people who were happy to pile huge amounts of their income into pension funds, they were happy to stay in one pension fund place while they sky rocketed in value. They get tax relief for that. Are they bad too?


Some people have never had it so good, but some living in homes worth nowhere near the assumptions you are making haven't. This is not a single group of people who are all the same in terms of wealth and income.

[Ozyhibby]

Jack - the millionaire thing is a red herring. It starts at band d. I don't know the number of people affected. And nor do the people proposing the policy. On a principle level, it's really bad to have taxes that don't take account of people's ability to pay. It a key argument against consumption taxes as opposed to taxes on income. It's also performative. It doesn't raise much money and gives the appearance of doing something progressive. But as you see here, it brings out a really nasty side.

While you are not wrong, it’s also one of the few taxes that are devolved. If a hammer is the only tool in your toolbox then you are going to use it even if it’s to put in a screw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So where do you draw the line? Presumably you think all home owners who see an increase in the equity value of their homes deserve no sympathy, not just the wealthier ones? Is it ok for your home to be bought for £200,000 and appreciate in value over your lifetime to £300,000 or £400,000 or more? And when house price inflation which you have no control over does raise the value of your home in a way that bears no relationship to your actual income, regardless of the bracket you are in, that makes you worthy of no consideration when taxation policy is being set?


What about all those people who were happy to pile huge amounts of their income into pension funds, they were happy to stay in one pension fund place while they sky rocketed in value. They get tax relief for that. Are they bad too?


Some people have never had it so good, but some living in homes worth nowhere near the assumptions you are making haven't. This is not a single group of people who are all the same in terms of wealth and income.

My home will never be bought for £200,000, because i'll never own a home. We're not all that fortunate in life. So again, forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the vastly better off.

[One Day Soon]

While you are not wrong, it’s also one of the few taxes that are devolved. If a hammer is the only tool in your toolbox then you are going to use it even if it’s to put in a screw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Except that because it is devolved the SNP have had fifteen years in government in which they could have reformed it instead into a local income tax as they promised in their first winning manifesto. That it remains as the Council Tax is on them.

[One Day Soon]

My home will never be bought for £200,000, because i'll never own a home. We're not all that fortunate in life. So again, forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the vastly better off.


Ok, I see that this discussion is utterly pointless.

[Ozyhibby]

My home will never be bought for £200,000, because i'll never own a home. We're not all that fortunate in life. So again, forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the vastly better off.

There is a generation coming through now who don’t own their homes and as they get older and start to shape society that will be taken into account. I think tax on property ownership is only going one way when that happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Except that because it is devolved the SNP have had fifteen years in government in which they could have reformed it instead into a local income tax as they promised in their first winning manifesto. That it remains as the Council Tax is on them.

The promise was wrong there, not the failure to change it. At the time there was no powers to bring in a local income tax. I’m not sure if it’s possible now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

There is a generation coming through now who don’t own their homes and as they get older and start to shape society that will be taken into account. I think tax on property ownership is only going one way when that happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's an absolute disgrace that such a situation has been allowed to develop over time. Ownership matters. But it's being stripped away from the younger generations and it doesn't just apply to housing either.

[archie]

While you are not wrong, it’s also one of the few taxes that are devolved. If a hammer is the only tool in your toolbox then you are going to use it even if it’s to put in a screw.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkDo you mean devolved to local authorities?

[archie]

It's an absolute disgrace that such a situation has been allowed to develop over time. Ownership matters. But it's being stripped away from the younger generations and it doesn't just apply to housing either.So your complaint is that you can't get on the housing ladder?

[One Day Soon]

There is a generation coming through now who don’t own their homes and as they get older and start to shape society that will be taken into account. I think tax on property ownership is only going one way when that happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Just build a lot more ****ing homes. We've been stuck in this political dereliction of duty for years now across Scottish national and local government. We can't have Nimbyism run rife just because MPs, MSPs and Councillors don't want anything upsetting to voters anywhere near their patch and at the same time expect to achieve the massive number of additional houses we need to build across all tenures - owner occupied, affordable rented and private rented.

People need homes to buy and rent in vastly greater numbers than are available. They can't get them for two reasons: firstly they aren't available in large enough numbers and secondly they are unaffordable to large chunks of the population. These two factors are directly related, low supply equals much higher purchase and rental costs.

This is a virtuous economic circle if our politicians would just develop some ****ing spines. House building development at scale creates jobs and homes and tax income, they lower market costs for the consumers across all tenures, promote choice, accelerate supply of climate compliant homes and stimulate wider economic activity. But no, lets carry on with the ****ty pretendy politics of big talk and **** all delivery.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So your complaint is that you can't get on the housing ladder?

No, my complaint is that i'm somehow supposed to feel sorry for people who were able to take advantage of a situation that was far easier back in the day, just because circumstances have now changed and they may have to give something up for a change. I won't and never will feel sorry for people who are better off than me. Why would I? It's not as if I have their sympathy either.

[One Day Soon]

The promise was wrong there, not the failure to change it. At the time there was no powers to bring in a local income tax. I’m not sure if it’s possible now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, the power to change local taxation in Scotland has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament from day one back in 1999. Any government with an overall majority, a coalition majority or the support of other parties could have changed it. The unfair, outdated, blunt tool that is the Council Tax should have been replaced a long time ago.

[Santa Cruz]

There used to be a good home ownership initiative called the Tenant Incentive Scheme. If you rented a social housing property and agreed to end the tenancy agreement the Gov gave you a grant of 10k towards purchasing a home on the open market. They could bring that back indexed link to say 30k roughly equivalent to most first time purchase property deposits. It was a Tory Gov initiative.

[Smartie]

Ok, I see that this discussion is utterly pointless.

Stuck somewhere between the two of you age wise, I find this discussion absolutely fascinating.

I can understand both arguments. I have great sympathy for both the real and hypothetical parties here who are in a crap situation, it's really not good for our society that we've got here and I've got absolutely no idea what we do to fix it that is in any way morally / ethically correct.

[archie]

No, my complaint is that i'm somehow supposed to feel sorry for people who were able to take advantage of a situation that was far easier back in the day, just because circumstances have now changed and they may have to give something up for a change. I won't and never will feel sorry for people who are better off than me. Why would I? It's not as if I have their sympathy either.

It's not about feeling sorry. It's about basic principles. We live in a society where some people have more than others. That's why we have a progressive tax system. I don't support that because I feel sorry for people. I support it because it's right. But that doesn't mean I should support a garbled proposal to increase tax on people with little reference to ability to pay.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It's not about feeling sorry. It's about basic principles. We live in a society where some people have more than others. That's why we have a progressive tax system. I don't support that because I feel sorry for people. I support it because it's right. But that doesn't mean I should support a garbled proposal to increase tax on people with little reference to ability to pay.

That's fair enough. I guess from my perspective, people shouldn't own assets with value in excess to what they're able to cover during economic downturns. But then again, I've never been fortunate enough to be in that position in the first place.

[Santa Cruz]

That's fair enough. I guess from my perspective, people shouldn't own assets with value in excess to what they're able to cover during economic downturns. But then again, I've never been fortunate enough to be in that position in the first place.

It's not just a case of cut your cloth to protect against any unforseen economic downturn though, people's circumstances can change instantly due to health problems, bereavement, divorce or any number of reasons mainly outwith their control.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It's not just a case of cut your cloth to protect against any unforseen economic downturn though, people's circumstances can change instantly due to health problems, bereavement, divorce or any number of reasons mainly outwith their control.

True. But this applies to everyone. Including those not fortunate enough to even own their own homes.

[Smartie]

That's fair enough. I guess from my perspective, people shouldn't own assets with value in excess to what they're able to cover during economic downturns. But then again, I've never been fortunate enough to be in that position in the first place.

It's also worth considering the commodity that is "time".

You've got it on your side. And whilst I know nothing about your personal circumstances, I find it really bleak that we should have people giving up on owning their home, if that's something they want to do.

Those who are older may have material possessions and money but they've made decisions over a lifetime to amass that. Ok, they've got "stuff" but they lack the time to add to it and have different levels of flexibility to adapt.

I've reached a few crossroads in my life and the one thing I've always wished I'd had more of was time. I'd much prefer to be poor, young and angry than to be old, relatively comfortable but threatened, because there'd be time to do something about it.

To be quite honest, I lie somewhere between the two right now.

[Kato]

Wrong thread

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It's also worth considering the commodity that is "time".

You've got it on your side. And whilst I know nothing about your personal circumstances, I find it really bleak that we should have people giving up on owning their home, if that's something they want to do.

Those who are older may have material possessions and money but they've made decisions over a lifetime to amass that. Ok, they've got "stuff" but they lack the time to add to it and have different levels of flexibility to adapt.

I've reached a few crossroads in my life and the one thing I've always wished I'd had more of was time. I'd much prefer to be poor, young and angry than to be old, relatively comfortable but threatened, because there'd be time to do something about it.

To be quite honest, I lie somewhere between the two right now.

I pretty much gave up on the prospect of owning my own home following the 2008 crash. It's only become increasingly more unlikely since then. Although economic factors have played a huge impact, I accept that my own personal circumstances and limitations certainly haven't helped matters either.

The thought of getting old terrifies me. Not because i'm against ageing gracefully, but because I don't see a pension or a home or any real quality of life 30 odd years down the line, assuming I even make it that far.

[Santa Cruz]

True. But this applies to everyone. Including those not fortunate enough to even own their own homes.

I know it's hard but maybe worth bearing in mind there's pros and cons to home ownership. I found it less of a financial responsibility when I rented as a social tenant than I do as a home owner. I sometimes wonder what the point is, most of us will never see any of the money we've paid to buy our homes because we'll always need somewhere to live. I'm not going to patronise you by offering advice on looking at your circumstances differently, I'll just wish you well and hope that you get a turn of fortune in the future.

[Ozyhibby]

Just build a lot more ****ing homes. We've been stuck in this political dereliction of duty for years now across Scottish national and local government. We can't have Nimbyism run rife just because MPs, MSPs and Councillors don't want anything upsetting to voters anywhere near their patch and at the same time expect to achieve the massive number of additional houses we need to build across all tenures - owner occupied, affordable rented and private rented.

People need homes to buy and rent in vastly greater numbers than are available. They can't get them for two reasons: firstly they aren't available in large enough numbers and secondly they are unaffordable to large chunks of the population. These two factors are directly related, low supply equals much higher purchase and rental costs.

This is a virtuous economic circle if our politicians would just develop some ****ing spines. House building development at scale creates jobs and homes and tax income, they lower market costs for the consumers across all tenures, promote choice, accelerate supply of climate compliant homes and stimulate wider economic activity. But no, lets carry on with the ****ty pretendy politics of big talk and **** all delivery.

I agree with that 100%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Stuck somewhere between the two of you age wise, I find this discussion absolutely fascinating.

I can understand both arguments. I have great sympathy for both the real and hypothetical parties here who are in a crap situation, it's really not good for our society that we've got here and I've got absolutely no idea what we do to fix it that is in any way morally / ethically correct.

Build houses. Lots of them. You free up the planning system so that it’s easier and cheaper to get permission. Especially for small scale developments. There should be a presumption in favour. Over the last 30 years we have killed of small scale house builders by making it impossible for them to get land and planning permission. The result is less housing and less diverse housing. It’s stifling the economy. Nowadays the banks only lend for property. And if you want to borrow for small business it has to be backed up by property.
If you want growth in Scotland then that’s a great way to start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

Build houses. Lots of them. You free up the planning system so that it’s easier and cheaper to get permission. Especially for small scale developments. There should be a presumption in favour. Over the last 30 years we have killed of small scale house builders by making it impossible for them to get land and planning permission. The result is less housing and less diverse housing. It’s stifling the economy. Nowadays the banks only lend for property. And if you want to borrow for small business it has to be backed up by property.
If you want growth in Scotland then that’s a great way to start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why isn't it happening (genuine question)?

What's the downside?

[Paul1642]

No, my complaint is that i'm somehow supposed to feel sorry for people who were able to take advantage of a situation that was far easier back in the day, just because circumstances have now changed and they may have to give something up for a change. I won't and never will feel sorry for people who are better off than me. Why would I? It's not as if I have their sympathy either.

You just come across as being extremely bitter at having not managed to own your own home and have some weird illusion that those who do own theirs had it handed to them. Most people worked hard to own theirs and and had nothing handed to them.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Why isn't it happening (genuine question)?

What's the downside?

Because freeing up land in order to build more houses comes with it's own costs. Such as less agriculture, higher levels of congestion and the expense of expanding infrastructure such as roads, drain pipes, telephones lines... etc

I agree that there needs to be greater housing availability and affordability. But it's not as simple as just building more houses. It requires extensive planning and costing that go beyond just the house itself.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You just come across as being extremely bitter at having not managed to own your own home and have some weird illusion that those who do own theirs had it handed to them. Most people worked hard to own theirs and and had nothing handed to them.

Ok boomer :greengrin

I've never owned my own home to have the opportunity of managing it. I must not be working hard enough in my minimum wage jobs. I'm sure if I just work harder my generous employers who aren't looking at the profit margins will happily hike up my wages.

Oh wait, no. It's not the 60s.

[Kato]

Why isn't it happening (genuine question)?

What's the downside?Vested interests. Existing house prices go down.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Because freeing up land in order to build more houses comes with it's own costs. Such as less agriculture, higher levels of congestion and the expense of expanding infrastructure such as roads, drain pipes, telephones lines... etc

I agree that there needs to be greater housing availability and affordability. But it's not as simple as just building more houses. It requires extensive planning and costing that go beyond just the house itself.

The costs can be covered by the value in the new house. It’s the permissions that’s the problem. And the govt needs to be doing a lot of it themselves so that the benefit doesn’t all go to the private sector.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

You just come across as being extremely bitter at having not managed to own your own home and have some weird illusion that those who do own theirs had it handed to them. Most people worked hard to own theirs and and had nothing handed to them.Not picking up bitterness at all. Just bluntness at a system stacked against the youth.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

The other option is do nothing and watch our schools collapse. Band a and b frozen band c,d and e bellow most other rises in Scotland. Yes their will be a tiny proportion of people with huge assets but no wage or pension to absorb the rise. Ho hum the best of a bad choice

[McD]

Ok boomer :greengrin

I've never owned my own home to have the opportunity of managing it. I must not be working hard enough in my minimum wage jobs. I'm sure if I just work harder my generous employers who aren't looking at the profit margins will happily hike up my wages.

Oh wait, no. It's not the 60s.


Not a single person on this thread, has said or implied that anyone needs to simply work harder or get higher wages, but you are lashing out and denigrating anyone who owns their home. There will be a proportion of people who have been born into reasonable wealth, and that has led them to be able to own a home in adulthood.

but the vast majority of people who own their home are working class people who don’t have huge pensions, don’t have tonnes of disposable income, they’re just getting by as best they can. The conditions that you rightly rail against are not controlled or caused by these people. You’re directing your ire at them, who simply lived in the times they were born into. If you once had ambitions of home ownership, that makes you exactly the same as all of them, that’s what they had. It’s rather hypocritical to say you wanted to buy a home, but sod that lot because they were born earlier than you, and to actively want them to be taxed out of their homes is just bitter and spiteful.

[archie]

The other option is do nothing and watch our schools collapse. Band a and b frozen band c,d and e bellow most other rises in Scotland. Yes their will be a tiny proportion of people with huge assets but no wage or pension to absorb the rise. Ho hum the best of a bad choice
Ho hum!

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The costs can be covered by the value in the new house. It’s the permissions that’s the problem. And the govt needs to be doing a lot of it themselves so that the benefit doesn’t all go to the private sector.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But we're not just talking about more housing here, we're talking about affordable housing. When you start tying the additional costs into the mortgage of the house itself, prices can go up significantly, pricing people out. Permission is just one complication of many.

[Smartie]

Not picking up bitterness at all. Just bluntness at a system stacked against the youth.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

And a system stacked against the youth is in nobody's interests.

[Paul1642]

Ok boomer :greengrin

I've never owned my own home to have the opportunity of managing it. I must not be working hard enough in my minimum wage jobs. I'm sure if I just work harder my generous employers who aren't looking at the profit margins will happily hike up my wages.

Oh wait, no. It's not the 60s.

“Ok boomer”

Far from it. Suspect I’m younger than you.

[Kato]

And a system stacked against the youth is in nobody's interests.A system stacked against anyone is in no one's interests.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[danhibees1875]

“Ok boomer”

Far from it. Suspect I’m younger than you.

Not if you were born in 1642 as your name suggests, back when you'd buy a house for the price of a freddo.

[Kato]

Not if you were born in 1642 as your name suggests, back when you'd buy a house for the price of a freddo.A hovel for the price of an otters' nose you mean.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Not a single person on this thread, has said or implied that anyone needs to simply work harder or get higher wages, but you are lashing out and denigrating anyone who owns their home. There will be a proportion of people who have been born into reasonable wealth, and that has led them to be able to own a home in adulthood.

but the vast majority of people who own their home are working class people who don’t have huge pensions, don’t have tonnes of disposable income, they’re just getting by as best they can. The conditions that you rightly rail against are not controlled or caused by these people. You’re directing your ire at them, who simply lived in the times they were born into. If you once had ambitions of home ownership, that makes you exactly the same as all of them, that’s what they had. It’s rather hypocritical to say you wanted to buy a home, but sod that lot because they were born earlier than you, and to actively want them to be taxed out of their homes is just bitter and spiteful.

You're making out that I take issue with anybody who owns a home, which simply isn't the case. I just have no sympathy for people who are relatively high up on the housing ladder who are hard up for cash, while sitting on an asset more valuable than many people can ever dream of having.

They may have no control over the conditions, but they were happy to take advantage of those conditions when it was working in their favour.

[One Day Soon]

You're making out that I take issue with anybody who owns a home, which simply isn't the case. I just have no sympathy for people who are relatively high up on the housing ladder who are hard up for cash, while sitting on an asset more valuable than many people can ever dream of having.

They may have no control over the conditions, but they were happy to take advantage of those conditions when it was working in their favour.

In order to earn your favour now what should these people have done to not take advantage of those conditions when it was working in their favour?

[Stairway 2 7]

Ho hum!

It's easy to criticise without giving a better solution. But if council tax is staying, what would you do as a council if you are facing massive cuts and the only way to get money is council tax increases.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

In order to earn your favour now what should these people have done to not take advantage of those conditions when it was working in their favour?

I don't have a problem with people taking advantage of economic conditions when they're in their favour, just don't expect me to have any sympathy for them when they're not.

[archie]

It's easy to criticise without giving a better solution. But if council tax is staying, what would you do as a council if you are facing massive cuts and the only way to get money is council tax increases.
It just looks like a casual disregard of the issue, hence my response.

[Stairway 2 7]

It just looks like a casual disregard of the issue, hence my response.

But if there is no better ideas put forward then what?

[archie]

But if there is no better ideas put forward then what?

Well firstly, you have to define 'better'. My preference is a local income tax, but that would partly return us to the issues of the poll tax. I just don't see any other system that is genuinely progressive. But it would be hugely controversial, which is why all politicians have dodged it. We haven't even had a revaluation because it's so toxic.

[Stairway 2 7]

Well firstly, you have to define 'better'. My preference is a local income tax, but that would partly return us to the issues of the poll tax. I just don't see any other system that is genuinely progressive. But it would be hugely controversial, which is why all politicians have dodged it. We haven't even had a revaluation because it's so toxic.

Indeed but as a council what would you do now. Council tax isn't being scrapped and your budget is decimated, its inevitable council tax has to rise, but how is the question

[archie]

Indeed but as a council what would you do now. Council tax isn't being scrapped and your budget is decimated, its inevitable council tax has to rise, but how is the question

TBH I think the flat percentage that does generate higher cash increases for higher band tax payers is probably the least bad option

[Hibernian Verse]

Ok boomer :greengrin

I've never owned my own home to have the opportunity of managing it. I must not be working hard enough in my minimum wage jobs. I'm sure if I just work harder my generous employers who aren't looking at the profit margins will happily hike up my wages.

Oh wait, no. It's not the 60s.

I'm slightly younger than you and I had to buy a tiny, depressing flat in Inverkeithing (no slight on any IVK based readers...) just to get on the ladder. It was a 5k deposit on the help to buy scheme which I think is still running.

I'm not aware of your personal circumstances so not sure if 5k is achievable but it can still be done.

[Ozyhibby]

Well firstly, you have to define 'better'. My preference is a local income tax, but that would partly return us to the issues of the poll tax. I just don't see any other system that is genuinely progressive. But it would be hugely controversial, which is why all politicians have dodged it. We haven't even had a revaluation because it's so toxic.

The problem with a local income tax is that you then don’t have any property tax?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[archie]

The problem with a local income tax is that you then don’t have any property tax?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In what way is that a problem?

[Ozyhibby]

Deal with nurses in England in the offing. The Barnett consequentials might help us get a deal with the teachers.[emoji1696]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[McD]

You're making out that I take issue with anybody who owns a home, which simply isn't the case. I just have no sympathy for people who are relatively high up on the housing ladder who are hard up for cash, while sitting on an asset more valuable than many people can ever dream of having.

They may have no control over the conditions, but they were happy to take advantage of those conditions when it was working in their favour.


just calling it as you’re presenting it

what about people who aren’t relatively high up on the housing ladder, working class people with low ish paying jobs who own their home? They don’t own anything more valuable than most can ever dream of having, where do they sit on your scale of no sympathy/tell them to sell up?

[greenginger]

It's easy to criticise without giving a better solution. But if council tax is staying, what would you do as a council if you are facing massive cuts and the only way to get money is council tax increases.

Maybe they shouldn’t have sold that half million quids worth of land to their Jambo pals for £1.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

just calling it as you’re presenting it

what about people who aren’t relatively high up on the housing ladder, working class people with low ish paying jobs who own their home? They don’t own anything more valuable than most can ever dream of having, where do they sit on your scale of no sympathy/tell them to sell up?

I'm not sure why you're taking this personally. It's just how I feel about it. I'm not telling anybody else how they should feel about it. I don't feel sympathy for people who have it better than I do and will still have it better, even if they have to downsize in some way. That's just the way I am.

[Since90+2]

I'm not sure why you're taking this personally. It's just how I feel about it. I'm not telling anybody else how they should feel about it. I don't feel sympathy for people who have it better than I do and will still have it better, even if they have to downsize in some way. That's just the way I am.

I don't come from a wealthy family, I'm probably a typical Edinburgh born laddie who's family were working class, but not on or close to the breadline. We didn't drive fancy cars and couldn't afford to go on holiday every year, but we got by absolutely fine and lived reasonably comfortable.

I saved for years and then bought a home with my ex wife, which now that we are seperated,allowed me to purchase my own flat in Edinburgh.

I don't consider myself well off at all, society is setup for couples to flourish financially except the solo home owner who is very well off.

I've not taken advantage of anything and worked hard to own my, relatively small, flat.

I accept that as a single person it's very hard to get on the ladder in Edinburgh. For a lot of people, getting into a relationship and then splitting the costs of mortgage, bills ect is the most cost effective solution, but of course that doesn't suit everyone.

I've no idea what the solution is, but one thing I'm fairly certain of is that it isn't getting any better for a long time.

[Stairway 2 7]

6th in a row for no. Perhaps Thankfully won't be a question to answer any time soon


British Electoral Politics
@electpoliticsuk
·
Scottish Independence Voting Intention:

NO: 54% (+1)
YES: 46% (-1)

Via
@YouGov
, On 17-20 February,
Changes w/ 23-26 January.

[Skol]

I don't come from a wealthy family, I'm probably a typical Edinburgh born laddie who's family were working class, but not on or close to the breadline. We didn't drive fancy cars and couldn't afford to go on holiday every year, but we got by absolutely fine and lived reasonably comfortable.

I saved for years and then bought a home with my ex wife, which now that we are seperated,allowed me to purchase my own flat in Edinburgh.

I don't consider myself well off at all, society is setup for couples to flourish financially except the solo home owner who is very well off.

I've not taken advantage of anything and worked hard to own my, relatively small, flat.

I accept that as a single person it's very hard to get on the ladder in Edinburgh. For a lot of people, getting into a relationship and then splitting the costs of mortgage, bills ect is the most cost effective solution, but of course that doesn't suit everyone.

I've no idea what the solution is, but one thing I'm fairly certain of is that it isn't getting any better for a long time.

Some very good points made here. I was lucky in that when I was a lad I got a 100% staff mortgage and bought my own place when I had no savings. My future wife had done similar and when we got together this helped us to get a bigger place.

Now I look at my children. One has a flat bought with a partner and they had significant savings to make that possible. One is single and earns/saves good money but will be many years before they have enough money to make a purchase possible. Unless they find a partner and are ready for a commitment.

[McD]

I'm not sure why you're taking this personally. It's just how I feel about it. I'm not telling anybody else how they should feel about it. I don't feel sympathy for people who have it better than I do and will still have it better, even if they have to downsize in some way. That's just the way I am.

that’s fair enough. One could wonder why you appear to be taking it personally, which is what comes across, particularly in your earlier posts on this topic. You’ve said you hoped to buy a home until the financial crash of 2008 made you feel that was unattainable, you now appear to be angry at anyone who has been able to purchase a home.


I don't come from a wealthy family, I'm probably a typical Edinburgh born laddie who's family were working class, but not on or close to the breadline. We didn't drive fancy cars and couldn't afford to go on holiday every year, but we got by absolutely fine and lived reasonably comfortable.

I saved for years and then bought a home with my ex wife, which now that we are seperated,allowed me to purchase my own flat in Edinburgh.

I don't consider myself well off at all, society is setup for couples to flourish financially except the solo home owner who is very well off.

I've not taken advantage of anything and worked hard to own my, relatively small, flat.

I accept that as a single person it's very hard to get on the ladder in Edinburgh. For a lot of people, getting into a relationship and then splitting the costs of mortgage, bills ect is the most cost effective solution, but of course that doesn't suit everyone.

I've no idea what the solution is, but one thing I'm fairly certain of is that it isn't getting any better for a long time.

exactly, and a very similar story for most of the home owners across the city and the country. Not someone who has a property worth millions, or sitting on a huge pension.

[Hibernian Verse]

that’s fair enough. One could wonder why you appear to be taking it personally, which is what comes across, particularly in your earlier posts on this topic. You’ve said you hoped to buy a home until the financial crash of 2008 made you feel that was unattainable, you now appear to be angry at anyone who has been able to purchase a home.


2008 would make the poster around 16/17/18 when the financial crash happened.

[McD]

2008 would make the poster around 16/17/18 when the financial crash happened.


I'm aware. They said they had a dream/hope/desire to own a home but felt that after the financial crash in 2008 that was no longer attainable

[Ozyhibby]

What a mess Yousaf is making of the NHS.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64742924


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

What a mess Yousaf is making of the NHS.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64742924


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's interesting how Labour in Wales get's away with blaming the tories at Westminster for the horrendous performance of the NHS in Wales (worst in the UK), but in Scotland, it's all that Yousaf's fault for overseeing the least worst out of the lot.

I don't think he should be anywhere near the SNP leadership role. But the blame he's taken for the impact of things that were clearly well out of his own hands is beyond ridiculous at times.

[Stairway 2 7]

It's interesting how Labour in Wales get's away with blaming the tories at Westminster for the horrendous performance of the NHS in Wales (worst in the UK), but in Scotland, it's all that Yousaf's fault for overseeing the least worst out of the lot.

I don't think he should be anywhere near the SNP leadership role. But the blame he's taken for the impact of things that were clearly well out of his own hands is beyond ridiculous at times.

Where do the labour admin in Wales get away with it, they are getting slated. The one caveat is they get totally bumped by barnett in wales, Scotland gets thousands of pounds per person per year to spend more than the rest of the UK. It would take some effort to be worse with that extra money.

[The Tubs]

Where do the labour admin in Wales get away with it, they are getting slated. The one caveat is they get totally bumped by barnett in wales, Scotland gets thousands of pounds per person per year to spend more than the rest of the UK. It would take some effort to be worse with that extra money.

I may be using incorrect information, but Barnett seems to be applied equally to Scotland and Wales when discussing health spending:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Scotland gets thousands of pounds per person per year to spend more than the rest of the UK.

That's not quite how it works. But it makes a nice pro-union headline for sure.

I'm not thousands of pounds better off than my class counterparts in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

[Ozyhibby]

So looking round the UK, it looks like the SNP run the best health service. We’ll done Humza.[emoji122]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I may be using incorrect information, but Barnett seems to be applied equally to Scotland and Wales when discussing health spending:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula

It badly needs changed due to old population figures but no one wants to touch it. The last year given there England got 9,296 to spend per head on public services Scotland 11,242 wales 10,656

[Stairway 2 7]

That's not quite how it works. But it makes a nice pro-union headline for sure.

I'm not thousands of pounds better off than my class counterparts in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

It does. I'm pro independence and reluctantly vote snp as a means, probably will even if the public school nitwit gets the job, but I also don't feverishly defend our neolib establishment party at Holyrood

[Zambernardi1875]

Where do the labour admin in Wales get away with it, they are getting slated. The one caveat is they get totally bumped by barnett in wales, Scotland gets thousands of pounds per person per year to spend more than the rest of the UK. It would take some effort to be worse with that extra money.

Why does Scotland get thousands of pounds per person per year to spend more than the rest of the UK?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It does. I'm pro independence and reluctantly vote snp as a means, probably will even if the public school nitwit gets the job, but I also don't feverishly defend our neolib establishment party at Holyrood

Last I checked, my minimum wage was the same as anybodies minimum wage across the UK. My National Insurance is the same. My electricity, gas and food bills certainly aren't any cheaper and the minor variations in things like income tax and council tax ultimately balance themselves out. I don't claim any prescriptions and I'm not a college student.

Unless i'm receiving an envelope in the post each year containing thousands of pounds with "union dividend" printed on it, it evidently doesn't apply to me and the vast majority of people living in Scotland.

[Ozyhibby]

Why does Scotland get thousands of pounds per person per year to spend more than the rest of the UK?

It doesn’t. It gets a few hundred more than Wales and a few hundred less than the north of Ireland.
It get more than England because the population of England has grown massively over the last thirty years and everyone is too afraid to change the calculation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Santa Cruz]

Where do the labour admin in Wales get away with it, they are getting slated. The one caveat is they get totally bumped by barnett in wales, Scotland gets thousands of pounds per person per year to spend more than the rest of the UK. It would take some effort to be worse with that extra money.

Think Wales have the highest % of elderly patients per capita in the UK and they didn't use the private sector as much to clear waiting lists but that might have changed.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-64746726

Ferguson Marine set to cease trading? Hard to believe the ferries fiasco could get any worse.

[The Tubs]

It badly needs changed due to old population figures but no one wants to touch it. The last year given there England got 9,296 to spend per head on public services Scotland 11,242 wales 10,656

So I see. It's discussed further down the page. At high school, they said it was due to population density, which would seem fair, and I bought it. However, there appears to be no mention of that. Those terrible pre-internet times when you had to listen to school teachers.

[Berwickhibby]

So looking round the UK, it looks like the SNP run the best health service. We’ll done Humza.[emoji122]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:faf::faf: the man is making an absolute arse of it…. As much as it pains to say NS wiped the floor with him when she was Health Secretary

[Stairway 2 7]

So I see. It's discussed further down the page. At high school, they said it was due to population density, which would seem fair, and I bought it. However, there appears to be no mention of that. Those terrible pre-internet times when you had to listen to school teachers.

It's due to population changing at different rates from when the calculations were made. No one wants to touch it politically thankfully

[TrumpIsAPeado]

:faf::faf: the man is making an absolute arse of it…. As much as it pains to say NS wiped the floor with him when she was Health Secretary

No, Nicola Sturgeon simply had it easier as health secretary as the UK hadn't yet shot itself in the foot. Hence why NHS services are now an utter disgrace across the whole of the UK.

[The Tubs]

It's due to population changing at different rates from when the calculations were made. No one wants to touch it politically thankfully

So I see. The point I was making refers to the lies that school teachers tell you. Believe it or not, I had never actually read about how it is calculated, though the UK's fiscal arrangements are rarely on my mind.

What is interesting on the Wiki page is the part about withheld spending. Although it lacks citations, due probably to the difficulty in finding accurate data, there is some dubiety in the argument that it really benefits the whole of the UK and so the public expenditure per person may not be so different. If I really cared, I suppose some simple arithmetic would give me an answer.

[Berwickhibby]

No, Nicola Sturgeon simply had it easier as health secretary as the UK hadn't yet shot itself in the foot. Hence why NHS services are now an utter disgrace across the whole of the UK.

Think you will find that Holyrood was in charge of Scotland’s NHS …but let’s blame the UK for the Scottish Government’s incompetence

[grunt]

Think you will find that Holyrood was in charge of Scotland’s NHS …but let’s blame the UK for the Scottish Government’s incompetenceThink you will find that you've missed the point.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Think you will find that Holyrood was in charge of Scotland’s NHS …but let’s blame the UK for the Scottish Government’s incompetence

They may be in charge of the NHS in Scotland. But that doesn't put them in charge of every factor that negatively impacts it. As i'm sure you full well know.

[Stairway 2 7]

Last I checked, my minimum wage was the same as anybodies minimum wage across the UK. My National Insurance is the same. My electricity, gas and food bills certainly aren't any cheaper and the minor variations in things like income tax and council tax ultimately balance themselves out. I don't claim any prescriptions and I'm not a college student.

Unless i'm receiving an envelope in the post each year containing thousands of pounds with "union dividend" printed on it, it evidently doesn't apply to me and the vast majority of people living in Scotland.

Scientific that ha. I don't get free education or childcare so it doesn't count brilliant

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Scientific that ha. I don't get free education or childcare so it doesn't count brilliant

So where do you think my union dividend is coming from then? Where is this stealth money that's making my life any easier than somebody in England, Wales or Northern Ireland?

[Stairway 2 7]

So where do you think my union dividend is coming from then? Where is this stealth money that's making my life any easier than somebody in England, Wales or Northern Ireland?

This is unreal stuff 😆, You think the snp work their budget around you personally. My bairn gets childcare she wouldn't get in England and its brilliant. Props go to the SNP for great choices with the budget to be fair, like the free tuition

[TrumpIsAPeado]

This is unreal stuff 😆, You think the snp work their budget around you personally. My bairn gets childcare she wouldn't get in England and its brilliant. Props go to the SNP for great choices with the budget to be fair, like the free tuition

Kind of destroys the "per person" argument don't you think?

I'm really happy for you, but it doesn't benefit me in any meaningful way.

[marinello59]

So where do you think my union dividend is coming from then? Where is this stealth money that's making my life any easier than somebody in England, Wales or Northern Ireland?

There sounds like you are saying that for you there is no such thing as society. :greengrin

[Stairway 2 7]

Kind of destroys the "per person" argument don't you think?

I'm really happy for you, but it doesn't benefit me in any meaningful way.

Yep you not getting anything knackers the statistical average for Scotland

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Yep you not getting anything knackers the statistical average for Scotland

So why do they say "per person" rather than on average?

The next time somebody tells me I should be grateful for my extra 2k or whatever it is, i'll be expecting it in the post.

[James310]

Kind of destroys the "per person" argument don't you think?

I'm really happy for you, but it doesn't benefit me in any meaningful way.

Your free prescriptions, your free tuition if you want it, free expanded childcare if you use it, free laptops for your kids, free eye tests and so on.

Devolution is working!

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Your free prescriptions, your free tuition if you want it, free expanded childcare if you use it, free laptops for your kids, free eye tests and so on.

Devolution is working!

I don't claim any prescriptions and never had any issues with my sight. I could never afford to drop my work and go to college even with free tuition and I don't have any children.

So perhaps we can finally put to bed the falsified claim that "every person" in Scotland is thousands of pounds better off. Because that's clearly not how things work.

By the way, I'm not complaining about not getting anything out of it. It's the false statement itself that annoys me.

[degenerated]

It badly needs changed due to old population figures but no one wants to touch it. The last year given there England got 9,296 to spend per head on public services Scotland 11,242 wales 10,656It uses the latest mid year population estimate from the ONS as part of the model, in England and Wales these are based on 2021 census data. So, I'm not sure that aged population data is that accurate.

Population share is only one of the measures they use, the other factor is then comparability index of each of areas where governance is devolved. The budget is calculated as a factor of population X comparability %

Wales gets exactly the same comparability % as Scotland, 99.5% of English value.

Where Wales get truly shafted is in transport, they only get 36.6% to our 91.7%, that said more of their transport may not be devolved.





26484

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Where Wales get truly shafted is in transport, they only get 36.6% to our 91.7%, that said more of their transport may not be devolved.

Transport is indeed only partially devolved in Wales, while being fully devolved in Scotland.

[degenerated]

That's because transport is only partially devolved in Wales, while being fully devolved in Scotland.See, my edit that I had forgot to put in. :greengrin

If health is fully devolved then how come the figure is 99.5%, normally wouldn't argue over a half percent but I bet it's quite a chunky number

[TrumpIsAPeado]

See, my edit that I had forgot to put in. :greengrin

If health is fully devolved then how come the figure is 99.5%, normally wouldn't argue over a half percent but I bet it's quite a chunky number

See my edit to your edit. :greengrin

Health Services in Wales are described as being "almost fully devolved". So there must be some minor aspects that are not.

[degenerated]

See my edit to your edit. :greengrin

Health Services in Wales are described as being "almost fully devolved". So there must be some minor aspects that are not.This guide is pretty good

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7386/CBP-7386.pdf

[The Tubs]

Transport is indeed only partially devolved in Wales, while being fully devolved in Scotland.

As I'm now a specialist on the topic, the Welsh say they get 0% of HS2, so it's possible to conclude they're screwed over on that.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

As I'm now a specialist on the topic, the Welsh say they get 0% of HS2, so it's possible to conclude they're screwed over on that.

Yes, but we say that as well. Although it's not strictly true. We have received a share of HS2 spending. However the share that we have received hasn't kept up with the growing costs of the project.

[Stairway 2 7]

As I'm now a specialist on the topic, the Welsh say they get 0% of HS2, so it's possible to conclude they're screwed over on that.

Definitely we get £10 billion to spend on what we want, they get nothing as it's shockingly seen as an England and Wales project, we got a huge amount for crossrail too.

[McD]

Last I checked, my minimum wage was the same as anybodies minimum wage across the UK. My National Insurance is the same. My electricity, gas and food bills certainly aren't any cheaper and the minor variations in things like income tax and council tax ultimately balance themselves out. I don't claim any prescriptions and I'm not a college student.

Unless i'm receiving an envelope in the post each year containing thousands of pounds with "union dividend" printed on it, it evidently doesn't apply to me and the vast majority of people living in Scotland.


none of that is what was said.

Saying you don’t claim prescriptions doesn’t mean anything, you probably will at some point. Presumably you do avail yourself of the nhs on occasion? At least part of the reason the nhs in Scotland is “better” than other uk nations is becuase of the additional funding you claim you don’t see any benefit from

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Definitely we get £10 billion to spend on what we want, they get nothing as it's shockingly seen as an England and Wales project, we got a huge amount for crossrail too.

It's a little more complicated than that. As was mentioned a few posts back, transport isn't fully devolved in Wales and this includes the National Rail Service which is reserved to Westminster, meaning no direct Barnett Consequential's to Wales as a result. Wales has however received increased funding indirectly as a result of the project towards the Department for Transport budget.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

none of that is what was said.

Saying you don’t claim prescriptions doesn’t mean anything, you probably will at some point. Presumably you do avail yourself of the nhs on occasion? At least part of the reason the nhs in Scotland is “better” than other uk nations is becuase of the additional funding you claim you don’t see any benefit from

"Per person" is what was said and continues to be said, despite being misleading at best. Scotland also has more of an ageing population which is due in part to migration towards Scotland by residents across other parts of the UK who choose Scotland as their retirement location, which inevitably puts more pressure on the Scottish NHS, requiring a higher level of funding overall for our population share.

[Stairway 2 7]

"Per person" is what was said and continues to be said, despite being misleading at best. Scotland also has more of an ageing population which is due in part to migration towards Scotland by residents across other parts of the UK who choose Scotland as their retirement location, which inevitably puts more pressure on the Scottish NHS, requiring a higher level of funding overall for our population share.

The Czech Republic drinks the most beer per person in Europe, but wait my mate Pavel from Prague doesn't even drink so that can't be right.

I commend you for continuing to back one of the daftest shouts on hibs.net

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The Czech Republic drinks the most beer per person in Europe, but wait my mate Pavel from Prague doesn't even drink so that can't be right.

I commend you for continuing to back one of the daftest shouts on hibs.net

I'm not really sure how that in anyway ties into the point i've been making. Do the Czech's get free/subsidized beer or something? Is your mate Pavel out of pocket as a result of his beer free lifestyle?

[Bridge hibs]

The Czech Republic drinks the most beer per person in Europe, but wait my mate Pavel from Prague doesn't even drink so that can't be right.

I commend you for continuing to back one of the daftest shouts on hibs.netPavel from Prague, I thought it was funny 🤣

[McD]

"Per person" is what was said and continues to be said, despite being misleading at best. Scotland also has more of an ageing population which is due in part to migration towards Scotland by residents across other parts of the UK who choose Scotland as their retirement location, which inevitably puts more pressure on the Scottish NHS, requiring a higher level of funding overall for our population share.


per person is a variant of saying ‘on average’, it’s not misleading at all, you’re poking holes by saying you aren’t 2k better off, as if that’s a fair measure. As your life progresses, you will probably need more and more nhs care, when that care surpasses 2k a year do you think you should be billed for it? Of course not, as society collectively bears that cost, in terms of national insurance and in the current climate in Scotland, Barnett. 2k more per person is spent by the Scottish government, whether each of us gets a personal gain from that isn’t the point, it’s there and spent. I highly doubt I get advantage of every possible thing that the 2k per person buys, then again it’s unlikely there’s a great deal of people who do. We all get benefits in different ways, through council funds from scotgov, nhs treatments, to other more targeted methods such as tuition or childcare. Some of those will change over each of our lives as our lives change, but we all get some benefits from it over the piece.

There’s nothing in Barnett about the average age of the population, so saying that we require a greater level of funding sounds like a Tory/better together soundbite, which from what I’ve seen you posting, is the opposite of your political position (apologies if I’ve misunderstood your position).

[TrumpIsAPeado]

per person is a variant of saying ‘on average’, it’s not misleading at all, you’re poking holes by saying you aren’t 2k better off, as if that’s a fair measure. As your life progresses, you will probably need more and more nhs care, when that care surpasses 2k a year do you think you should be billed for it? Of course not, as society collectively bears that cost, in terms of national insurance and in the current climate in Scotland, Barnett. 2k more per person is spent by the Scottish government, whether each of us gets a personal gain from that isn’t the point, it’s there and spent. I highly doubt I get advantage of every possible thing that the 2k per person buys, then again it’s unlikely there’s a great deal of people who do. We all get benefits in different ways, through council funds from scotgov, nhs treatments, to other more targeted methods such as tuition or childcare. Some of those will change over each of our lives as our lives change, but we all get some benefits from it over the piece.

There’s nothing in Barnett about the average age of the population, so saying that we require a greater level of funding sounds like a Tory/better together soundbite, which from what I’ve seen you posting, is the opposite of your political position (apologies if I’ve misunderstood your position).

As my life progresses, there's no guarantee that things will be the same as they are now. There may not even be an NHS by then, or even a pension. I can only go by how things are right now and how they relate to my own person circumstances. Claiming that each person in Scotland is 2K better off is misleading. I'm not 2K better off right now and there's no guarantee that I will be in the future either.

But like I said, i'm not complaining that I don't benefit from it. It's the statement itself that's the problem. It simply isn't accurate.


There’s nothing in Barnett about the average age of the population, so saying that we require a greater level of funding sounds like a Tory/better together soundbite, which from what I’ve seen you posting, is the opposite of your political position (apologies if I’ve misunderstood your position).

I know there isn't. But it doesn't make the point any less relevant.

[James310]

https://twitter.com/ITVBorderRB/status/1628452991878529025?t=7RqSN_yyLOfO69KCFky_cw&s=19

"Humza Yousaf accepts there is no 'sustained majority' for independence.

SNP leadership candidate says 'anybody that comes to this campaign' suggesting 'we can get independence tomorrow' is 'not being honest'"

Humza admitting the Nicola Sturgeon years were a failure.

Of course we heard for years Scotland was a prisoner in the Union, being held hostage was the phrase used a number of times but it was all fiction as there was never ever a sustained majority for Independence.

I wonder how he will measure this sustained majority though?

[Zambernardi1875]

https://twitter.com/ITVBorderRB/status/1628452991878529025?t=7RqSN_yyLOfO69KCFky_cw&s=19

"Humza Yousaf accepts there is no 'sustained majority' for independence.

SNP leadership candidate says 'anybody that comes to this campaign' suggesting 'we can get independence tomorrow' is 'not being honest'"

Humza admitting the Nicola Sturgeon years were a failure.

Of course we heard for years Scotland was a prisoner in the Union, being held hostage was the phrase used a number of times but it was all fiction as there was never ever a sustained majority for Independence.

I wonder how he will measure this sustained majority though?

As I said yesterday humza is the top snp mps choice to continue the gravy train and why Kate is getting battered in the media and by certain people in the party.

[JimBHibees]

https://twitter.com/ITVBorderRB/status/1628452991878529025?t=7RqSN_yyLOfO69KCFky_cw&s=19

"Humza Yousaf accepts there is no 'sustained majority' for independence.

SNP leadership candidate says 'anybody that comes to this campaign' suggesting 'we can get independence tomorrow' is 'not being honest'"

Humza admitting the Nicola Sturgeon years were a failure.

Of course we heard for years Scotland was a prisoner in the Union, being held hostage was the phrase used a number of times but it was all fiction as there was never ever a sustained majority for Independence.

I wonder how he will measure this sustained majority though?

More spin than your average washing machine

[WeeRussell]

More spin than your average washing machine

More desperate slavering at this stage in my opinion, but agree with the sentiment.

[WeeRussell]

https://twitter.com/ITVBorderRB/status/1628452991878529025?t=7RqSN_yyLOfO69KCFky_cw&s=19


Humza admitting the Nicola Sturgeon years were a failure.

I wonder how he will measure this sustained majority though?

I almost admire the fact you don’t get bored of making up ridiculous stuff to fuel your unhealthy obsession.

Probably through the polls that are allowed by you.

[Berwickhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64744051

Natalie McGarry fails in her appeal… so it’s official she is a thief

[James310]

More desperate slavering at this stage in my opinion, but agree with the sentiment.

How is it slavering?

Humza is saying there is no sustained majority for Independence? That's his words, not mine. Are you saying he is wrong? I reckon you aren't so you probably think he is right yes?

So if he is right and you agree with him that there is no sustained majority for Independence you need to look at why that is the case? Who has been responsible for driving support for Independence the last 8 years? Well it's been the soon to be ex leader of the SNP, so has she been a success in delivering any kind of progress towards Independence? No she hasn't so in that respect she has been a failure.

Indy supporters are going to have to start facing reality. Reality is hitting you hard at the moment with the absolute binfire of a leadership contest that's going on.

[James310]

I almost admire the fact you don’t get bored of making up ridiculous stuff to fuel your unhealthy obsession.

Probably through the polls that are allowed by you.

What's made up?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64744051

Natalie McGarry fails in her appeal… so it’s official she is a thief

I wonder how much of that £25,000 found it's way into the pocket of her Conservative Councillor husband David Meikle.

[Berwickhibby]

I wonder how much of that £25,000 found it's way into the pocket of her Conservative Councillor husband David Meikle.

🤷*♂️ no idea but if he is also a thief he needs jailed. But nothing like a wee bit deflection :greengrin

[TrumpIsAPeado]

��*♂️ no idea but if he is also a thief he needs jailed. But nothing like a wee bit deflection :greengrin

Boris Johnson stole from the public when he handed PPE contracts to his friends rather than more capable businesses. He stole from the public again when tax payers money was used to throw lockdown parties at Downing Street and who knows where else.

Why isn't he in Jail?

[AgentDaleCooper]

As I said yesterday humza is the top snp mps choice to continue the gravy train and why Kate is getting battered in the media and by certain people in the party.

do you not think it could also have something to do with not wanting to normalise and legitimise bigotry? :dunno:

[Berwickhibby]

Boris Johnson stole from the public when he handed PPE contracts to his friends rather than more capable businesses. He stole from the public again when tax payers money was used to throw lockdown parties at Downing Street and who knows where else.

Why isn't he in Jail?

The enquiry into the PPE contracts is still in going …plus it was Hancock not Bozo 🤡 who handed those out. As for parties at Downing Street, they were dealt with by fixed penalty notice and if you recall the emails said bring your own bottle. But let’s do anything to deflect that McGarry stole from funds she was responsible for.

[Zambernardi1875]

Boris Johnson stole from the public when he handed PPE contracts to his friends rather than more capable businesses. He stole from the public again when tax payers money was used to throw lockdown parties at Downing Street and who knows where else.

Why isn't he in Jail?

thats different. :wink: says not a jot about the billions stolen by tories and westminster but gets a wee semi over 25k cause its the snp.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

The enquiry into the PPE contracts is still in going …plus it was Hancock not Bozo �� who handed those out. As for parties at Downing Street, they were dealt with by fixed penalty notice and if you recall the emails said bring your own bottle. But let’s do anything to deflect that McGarry stole from funds she was responsible for.

As Mayor, he raided the public purse to purchase illegal water cannons with the intention of using them on the public...

He then raided the public purse again to have them melted down as scrap.

He then continued on as if nothing happened. As did the MET along with Keir Starmer as Directer of Public Prosecutions.

I suppose that enquiry is still on going as well.

[Berwickhibby]

As Mayor, he raided the public purse to purchase illegal water cannons with the intention of using them on the public...

He then raided the public purse again to have them melted down as scrap.

He then continued on as if nothing happened. As did the MET along with Keir Starmer as Directer of Public Prosecutions.

I suppose that enquiry is still on going as well.

Water cannons are not illegal, and they were certainly a public order tool back when Bozo 🤡 ordered them whilst Mayor of London. Teresa May as Home Secretary in 2015 decided that they should not be used in the UK .

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Water cannons are not illegal, and they were certainly a public order tool back when Bozo 🤡 ordered them whilst Mayor of London. Teresa May as Home Secretary in 2015 decided that they should not be used in the UK .

Perhaps not. But the German vehicles themselves couldn't be used on UK roads. Leaving the tax payer over £300,000 out of pocket. Not that i'm not glad that they weren't used. But the MET sat back and did nothing, as did Keir Starmer.

[Berwickhibby]

Perhaps not. But the German vehicles themselves couldn't be used on UK roads. Leaving the tax payer over £300,000 out of pocket. Not that i'm not glad that they weren't used. But the MET sat back and did nothing, as did Keir Starmer.

Why would the Met or Sir Keir Starmer do something about the Mayor of London lawfully purchasing something which was agreed by the GLC.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Why would the Met or Sir Keir Starmer do something about the Mayor of London lawfully purchasing something which was agreed by the GLC.

I presume you mean the GLA? The GLC was dissolved in 86. The GLA was under Conservative control at the time. They allowed the purchase, despite the vehicles not even being usable on UK roads. So if anything, they should have been under investigation for the misuse of public funds as well.

[Jack]

Were water cannon ever licensed, by the Home Secretary, for use in the UK?

[Berwickhibby]

Were water cannon ever licensed, by the Home Secretary, for use in the UK?

They were available and used for training but I do not think they were ever deployed.

[McD]

As my life progresses, there's no guarantee that things will be the same as they are now. There may not even be an NHS by then, or even a pension. I can only go by how things are right now and how they relate to my own person circumstances. Claiming that each person in Scotland is 2K better off is misleading. I'm not 2K better off right now and there's no guarantee that I will be in the future either.

But like I said, i'm not complaining that I don't benefit from it. It's the statement itself that's the problem. It simply isn't accurate.



I know there isn't. But it doesn't make the point any less relevant.


in regards the future, yeah that’s fair, I’m not a lot older than you and I think the world we live in will look quite differently by the time I and you get to that stage of life.

I also take your point as characterised re. 2k (not being wide), I think the wording could be clearer. To say Scotland is 2k per person better off is probably a better way of describing it.

[Kato]

The enquiry into the PPE contracts is still in going …plus it was Hancock not Bozo [emoji1782] who handed those out. As for parties at Downing Street, they were dealt with by fixed penalty notice and if you recall the emails said bring your own bottle. But let’s do anything to deflect that McGarry stole from funds she was responsible for.

How is it deflecting to point out that one theif has been caught but many are still on the loose?

Hope she and all of her ilk get jail time.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Berwickhibby]

How is it deflecting to point out that one theif has been caught but many are still on the loose?

Hope she and all of her ilk get jail time.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Agreed :aok:

[Stairway 2 7]

in regards the future, yeah that’s fair, I’m not a lot older than you and I think the world we live in will look quite differently by the time I and you get to that stage of life.

I also take your point as characterised re. 2k (not being wide), I think the wording could be clearer. To say Scotland is 2k per person better off is probably a better way of describing it.

That's what was said Scotland is 2k per person better off. No one said each person is 2k better off as that's just stupid. Some will be more some less it's pretty simple stuff to be fair and it's epic it's had this many posts

[Ozyhibby]

That's what was said Scotland is 2k per person better off. No one said each person is 2k better off as that's just stupid. Some will be more some less it's pretty simple stuff to be fair and it's epic it's had this many posts

Next 4 years my eldest will bugger off to uni so he’ll be £9k a year better off. Plus his free bus pass. Plus a load of other things.
An unemployed single mum of two kids will be £2k better off in cash terms living in Scotland rather than England. That’s before all the other things she will benefit from.
Scottish govt does very well at providing public services. Where it lacks a bit is in having an economic plan for growth. I know most of that is reserved but there are still things that can be done. It’s the reason I wanted Forbes to run because I think she understands this. Hopefully she can turn things around but miles to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Next 4 years my eldest will bugger off to uni so he’ll be £9k a year better off. Plus his free bus pass. Plus a load of other things.
An unemployed single mum of two kids will be £2k better off in cash terms living in Scotland rather than England. That’s before all the other things she will benefit from.
Scottish govt does very well at providing public services. Where it lacks a bit is in having an economic plan for growth. I know most of that is reserved but there are still things that can be done. It’s the reason I wanted Forbes to run because I think she understands this. Hopefully she can turn things around but miles to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep as I said the snp have chose to do things the tories wouldn't dream of with the money, like tuition, free nursery hours, more ivf opportunity, bus passes ect ect.

We would go further independent and I agree that has to come from growth. We have huge potential for growth too with an appetite for immigration, eu membership and on the road to a renewable energy society.

[WeeRussell]

What's made up?

I get annoyed at myself responding to trolls so much but this will be my last to you on this matter.

As you well know, if you’d put that he had said “failed to achieve a sustained majority for independence” I could just about take you seriously.

But as you also know, in her time as first minister of Scotland it wasn’t her job to just get a sustained majority for independence.

Goodnight.

[Ozyhibby]

I get annoyed at myself responding to trolls so much but this will be my last to you on this matter.

As you well know, if you’d put that he had said “failed to achieve a sustained majority for independence” I could just about take you seriously.

But as you also know, in her time as first minister of Scotland it wasn’t her job to just get a sustained majority for independence.

Goodnight.

Putting trolls on ignore makes for a much more enjoyable experience on the board.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

Putting trolls on ignore makes for a much more enjoyable experience on the board.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know, I know. I’ve managed for so long without though!

[James310]

I get annoyed at myself responding to trolls so much but this will be my last to you on this matter.

As you well know, if you’d put that he had said “failed to achieve a sustained majority for independence” I could just about take you seriously.

But as you also know, in her time as first minister of Scotland it wasn’t her job to just get a sustained majority for independence.

Goodnight.

Really? I thought it was Nicola Sturgeons as leader of the SNP job to increase support for Independence. If it's not her job who's is it?

The last week has been a real eye opener I am betting. Wait until the TV debates start.

[James310]

Putting trolls on ignore makes for a much more enjoyable experience on the board.[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yet you seem to reply to my posts but just not directly. 🤣

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Really? I thought it was Nicola Sturgeons as leader of the SNP job to increase support for Independence. If it's not her job who's is it?

The last week has been a real eye opener I am betting. Wait until the TV debates start.

I thought her job was to "get on with the day job"?

[James310]

Next 4 years my eldest will bugger off to uni so he’ll be £9k a year better off. Plus his free bus pass. Plus a load of other things.
An unemployed single mum of two kids will be £2k better off in cash terms living in Scotland rather than England. That’s before all the other things she will benefit from.
Scottish govt does very well at providing public services. Where it lacks a bit is in having an economic plan for growth. I know most of that is reserved but there are still things that can be done. It’s the reason I wanted Forbes to run because I think she understands this. Hopefully she can turn things around but miles to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a great advert for devolution and allowing Scotland to make different choices. So many benefits you list.

The Sustainable Growth Commission plan was produced, the clue is in the name. It was dropped without much fanfare though.

[James310]

I thought her job was to "get on with the day job"?

And to surely increase support for Indy? Would you say it's not Rishi Sunak job to increase support for the Tories?

Are we now questioning if it's the job of the leader of the SNP to increase support for Independence? Really?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

And to surely increase support for Indy? Would you say it's not Rishi Sunak job to increase support for the Tories?

Are we now questioning if it's the job of the leader of the SNP to increase support for Independence? Really?

It was her job to increase support for the SNP and I don't think anybody in their right mind would talk down her electoral success in that regard.

[James310]

It was her job to increase support for the SNP and I don't think anybody in their right mind would talk down her electoral success in that regard.

Well actually.... support for the SNP measured as vote share % has been about the same and if measured against 2015 it's been down ever since.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Well actually.... support for the SNP measured as vote share % has been about the same and if measured against 2015 it's been down ever since.

I'd say she done pretty well to keep it this high for so long. You may think you can criticise her over multiple things, but this isn't one of them. Best to move on.

[James310]

I'd say she done pretty well to keep it this high for so long. You may think you can criticise her over multiple things, but this isn't one of them. Best to move on.

She kept on winning elections that is true. And the opposition in Scotland has been truly awful and still is apart from a few who just cut the mustard.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

She kept on winning elections that is true. And the opposition in Scotland has been truly awful and still is apart from a few who just cut the mustard.

Not sure who they even are tbh.

[Santa Cruz]

Good work by Edinburgh SNP councilor Marco biagi hopefully he can get it through. A council tax increase that rises the higher the band

https://mobile.twitter.com/MarcoGBiagi/status/1627700129946914816

Edinburgh Council Tax to increase 5%. The Labour manifesto pledge to build 25,000 council house over 10 years has been reduced to 200.

[Kato]

build 25,000 council house over 10 years .

Who were they trying kid with that one?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

Edinburgh Council Tax to increase 5%. The Labour manifesto pledge to build 25,000 council house over 10 years has been reduced to 200.

That's a ****ing disgrace. A relatively modest 2,500 houses a year for a decade and its been reduced to 20 a year? Are you sure that's right? It would take a very special cocktail of toxic morons to have engineered that. Oh wait, the ****ing Greens are involved..

[Santa Cruz]

That's a ****ing disgrace. A relatively modest 2,500 houses a year for a decade and its been reduced to 20 a year? Are you sure that's right? It would take a very special cocktail of toxic morons to have engineered that. Oh wait, the ****ing Greens are involved..


https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/council/edinburgh-council-elections-labour-publishes-manifesto-pledging-25000-council-homes-over-decade-and-bringing-services-back-in-house-3622541

[One Day Soon]

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/council/edinburgh-council-elections-labour-publishes-manifesto-pledging-25000-council-homes-over-decade-and-bringing-services-back-in-house-3622541

It wasn't the 25,000 homes I was doubting, that's a decent if modest target over a decade. It was the reduction to 200. There must have been some serious deliberate political vandalism taking place across parties who profess to be left of centre for that to have been the outcome.

[Stairway 2 7]

Vote green get tory, brutal

[Santa Cruz]

It wasn't the 25,000 homes I was doubting, that's a decent if modest target over a decade. It was the reduction to 200. There must have been some serious deliberate political vandalism taking place across parties who profess to be left of centre for that to have been the outcome.

Can't remember where I read it, it was something to do with making tough decisions to protect the education services from cuts. Can you have a gander just in case I got that figure wrong, I'm happy to admit I have done that before.

Edit - Found it, thankfully. An extract from a long article in the Herald. You're correct, it was tactical voting by the Greens that led to budget proposals by the Lib Dems being voted through. So, I probably misled posters with my wording suggesting it was Labour who dropped the pledge. Apologies for that.



Included in the budget is a Labour proposal to effectively end building council homes despite pledging to construct 25,000 over a ten-year period in the party’s manifesto.
The budget allows for just 200 more homes to be built by the council over 10 years.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Vote green get tory, brutal

Vote anybody, get tory. The UK in a nutshell.

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/teaching-union-defers-strike-action-after-members-show-support-for-new-deal

It’s a start.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/teaching-union-defers-strike-action-after-members-show-support-for-new-deal

It’s a start.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought you said unless England paid their teachers more the strikes would continue, looks like the SG can negotiate after all.

[J-C]

I thought you said unless England paid their teachers more the strikes would continue, looks like the SG can negotiate after all.


The SG unlike Westminster have continued to negotiate with the teachers and the NHS staff, it's what responsible governments do.

[James310]

The SG unlike Westminster have continued to negotiate with the teachers and the NHS staff, it's what responsible governments do.

But the line was there was no more money and that money would only become available if England paid their teachers more. Obviously not the case.

[J-C]

But the line was there was no more money and that money would only become available if England paid their teachers more. Obviously not the case.


There's always money to find, it sometimes just means other people somewhere may lose out, there's no bottomless pot of money and it's sometimes about deferring increases. So they give 5% now with a promise of a further 3% to be added to next year, obviously these figures are just my way of explaining and nothing like what they are getting.

[marinello59]

The SG unlike Westminster have continued to negotiate with the teachers and the NHS staff, it's what responsible governments do.

They forced the workers in to strike action whilst the money was there all along. That’s not what responsible employers do.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

They forced the workers in to strike action whilst the money was there all along. That’s not what responsible employers do.

The money wasn't there all along. It will be getting pulling from somewhere else in the immediate term. The SNP are likely anticipating an increase in the block grant not too long from now.

[marinello59]

The money wasn't there all along. It will be getting pulling from somewhere else in the immediate term. The SNP are likely anticipating an increase in the block grant not too long from now.

So if it’s being pulled from somewhere else the money is there. :greengrin

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So if it’s being pulled from somewhere else the money is there. :greengrin

It's there, but not where it once was. The joys of running a volatile economy on a fixed budget.

[He's here!]

Sturgeon sure left a mess behind her when it came to her more recent 'crusading' gender reform and environmental policies. Re the bottle deposit scheme, what happened to that old-fashioned thing called due diligence?

I note Forbes has pledged to scrap the scheme, along with the gender reform bill.


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/681F/production/_128755662_sos-page-001.jpg

[He's here!]

https://i0.wp.com/wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/fraudcops.jpg?ssl=1
https://i0.wp.com/wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/fraudcops2.jpg?resize=460%2C308&ssl=1

[archie]

It's there, but not where it once was. The joys of running a volatile economy on a fixed budget.

Scotland doesn't have a fixed budget.

[Smartie]

https://i0.wp.com/wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/fraudcops.jpg?ssl=1
https://i0.wp.com/wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/fraudcops2.jpg?resize=460%2C308&ssl=1

Mind that time there was a smoking gun during the Salmond fiasco?

I've long since given up on "no smoke without fire".

[TrumpIsAPeado]

"Fraud cops"

They're already setting up their next narrative if the investigation turns up empty handed.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Scotland doesn't have a fixed budget.

Ok, a largely fixed budget if you want to be pedantic.

[archie]

Ok, a largely fixed budget if you want to be pedantic.

It's not being pedantic to call out things that aren't true.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It's not being pedantic to call out things that aren't true.

You're tinkering around the edges of what is true. Clearly it's enough of a fixed budget to require annual under spends each and every year, which has been the case since the devolution of parliament in 1997. If you want to go down the devolved taxation route, that's fine. But we both know the impact this has on the overall spending budget is fractional.