Printable View
The schools in the three most affluent areas of Aberdeen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
And three schools from the same City in the bottom 50. All from the least affluent areas.
Does that bring us neatly back to the actual topic raised, the attainment gap?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...e-lottery/amp/Quote:
Originally Posted by McD
Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar Outer Hebrides is the 3rd highest attainment level in all of Scotland, they did very well
Perth and Kinross 5th
Shetland 8th
Orkney 9th
Edinburgh 12th
Glasgow 23rd
Aberdeen 26th
Midlothian away down in 29th
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Thank you for sharing that.
I could be misreading it, but Map 1 shows the highest performing catchment areas (in dark green), which appears to be pretty widespread, including areas that I would have thought constituted rural, such as western highlands. Certainly isn’t just central belt and Aberdeen, although are well represented in the high performers. Apologies if I’ve misread that. I’ve tried to attach the image for reference.
I do think that S27 still has a very valid point about how our school children are performing, and the dramatic change compared to the previous curriculum
Attachment 28098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Thanks for sharing :aok:
Looks like the Green's think the SNP Government are a wee bit sneaky.
https://greens.scot/news/snp-hold-sh...n%208%20August.
I'm not even angry at this as it's that hilarious, verging on a plot from a modern day series of Porridge. Scottish Prison Service and Scot Gov ended a scheme to give prisoners encrypted mobiles to phone people as they were easily hacked, causing 8000 security breaches. Obviously not funny is the drug dealing, home fire bombing and witness intimidation it helped facilitate
https://12ft.io/proxy
Humza Yousaf, the Scottish justice secretary, said: “It is important that prisoners and their families are supported while the current prison visit restrictions are in place. Providing a mobile phone for prisoners to contact their families, along with a range of other actions we are taking, will help support the mental health and wellbeing of those in custody.
“We will make sure that the use of mobile phones in prisons is done in a way which is practical and safe — for those in custody, their families, and those in the wider community.
We need massive prison reform which will never happen but I’m not against prisoners having access to phones. I’d move a lot of them onto tags and let home as well. Or at least allowed out during the day to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
We are kidding ourselves on if we think they don’t have phones and drugs in prison already anyway.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Different from they probably have phones to giving them access or should we just give them spice and gear if they want as they will probably have it anyway. Yes less should be in prison, labour appointing Timpson gives me hope. But some should be in prison and some shouldn't have unrestricted access to phones or they will intimidate witnesses and order fire bombings. The fact we accommodated that is appalling. The system now with monitored landlines is the correct systemQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Well meaning from Yousaf as you would expect, a thoroughly decent man. Also a disaster from Yousaf as you would expect. What did he do next? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Oh we're paying attention to what the Scottish Greens say now, are we? I thought they'd been written off as not worthy to be in Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I made no comment, I just copied the link. I love a wee bit of post-divorce argy-bargy. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Just for the record I take an interest in what all Parties say whether I agree with them or not. What can I say, I'm a geek. :greengrin
SNP confirm they will also means test the winter fuel payment. It was totally independent this year and was to be taken out of the Scottish budget
The correct decision imo the triple lock increase will offset it anyway
I feel far more comfortable now this sounds all good. Erm, so what does the "triple lock" bring the pension up to in monetary terms? Pensioners on the basic pension can now chill (no pun intended)? or are they still 38% below the European average? Asking for a really old soon to be cold friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Didn’t realise that was the case re pensions and comparisons with other countries? How depressing? Have they ever recovered from Brown raiding themQuote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
We don't get 38% lower than the European average for a kick off.
Some charts on Facebook might say this but they aren't like for like comparisons, some countries like France and Germany it depends a lot on your working pension. France state pension depends on what job you had and how much you put in their lowest is 3k per yea6 lower than ours but their highest is 8k more. I'd rather our system that the least off is better cared for.
If your comparing us with somewhere like France you'd have to include workplace pensions into our total.
A full fact article on how you can't really compare European pensions
https://fullfact.org/online/uk-franc...on-comparison/
27% of pensioners have £1 million in assets so why should it be universal. 80% own their own home, compared to 50% under 67. 10% of pensioners are in poverty which is terrible
but that's compared to 24% working age and 30% of kids.
At least the triple lock will offset the loss where as Labour not committing to child payment will hurt people much more.
Pretty much all of the 20% of pensioners who don't own a home or have dependents or private pension will still get the payment. The state pension is going from £11,502.40 to 12,150 next year, take away housing costs from that and you'll be close to the equivalent of full time on the living wage. Although the average mean UK pensioners Income is £18,200
Ahh, I'm probably being dramatic Jim, once these kickass new interconnects are installed pensioners up here will benefit from all this new clean green plentiful supply of green energy, you know, the ones that will supply up to 7.5m homes south of Cumbria. You live south of Cumbria right?Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
The UK pension is ****, that's a fact. You can Google to your hearts content, spraf all the percentages you like but the UK pension is far far below the minimum wage. In an energy rich country we're going to have pensioners keeping the heating off because they can't afford it, you comfortable with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Why take away housing costs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Are we paying attention to SNP members ?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyn63rq8n2o
My wife was talking to a friend, a widow whose husband was a safety officer on oil rigs, she was complaining that her state pension will take her into the 40% tax bracket. Now there's a problem many would like!Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
Because almost all who don't own there home will be getting the allowance still. 80% of pensioners own there home. The average pensioners in the uk takes home £18k per year and 80% don't have housing costs. The pension is going up £700 this year so the loss will be mitigated at least. Scot gov has a budget and they need to choose what to spend the available money on. As I say 10% of pensioners in poverty is terrible, but when 25% of working age are in poverty and 30% of kids I'd prefer the money there. A quarter of pensioners being millionaires says its ludicrous that it isn't means tested, SNP are spot on imoQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Standard life take on the state pension
Is the State Pension likely to be enough?
Probably not. Even with the rise*coming in April,*a full new State Pension would be just over £11,500 a year. Keep in mind that the*Retirement Living Standards*suggest a single person would need £12,800 a year to cover just a ‘minimum’ retirement lifestyle.
The reality is there’s a significant gap between what you get from the State Pension and*what you may actually need or want in retirement. The State Pension alone will only cover a very basic lifestyle and, because it only starts in your late 60s, won’t help to support you if you want to retire earlier. So it should only be a part of your overall retirement plan. Also bear in mind that it is subject to tax.
Which consumers magazine says for 2025-26
How much could the state pension be worth next year?
Let’s presume the state pension increase is 5.7% (it may end up being more or less, depending on wage growth for May to July).*
Currently, the full level of the new single-tier state pension is £221.20 a week or £11,502.40 a year. *
If it were to rise by 5.7%, it would be worth £233.80 a week (rounded to the nearest 5p) or £12,157.60 a year, which is a rise of over £655.
Currently, the basic state pension is £169.50 a week in 2024-25 (£8,814 a year). This would increase to £179.15 a week (rounded to the nearest 5p) or £9,315.80 per year – a rise of £501.
£700 increase??
Frankly? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
That article is just BBC Lockhart scraping in rubbish bins, trawling social media for people who are upset with Robertson. In today's angry antisocial media world it's rare to find unanimous praise on anyone's actions, very easy to find angry voices.
Personally I'd rather our Government does speak to other diplomats, even evil Israeli ones. If we want to make progress on world peace we need to be talking to each other.
£655 if your feeling pedantic to anyone on the full pension, regardless the rises next year will cover the loss of the fuel benefit. The best thing the tories did was make auto enrollment into a work pension though. Britain is an aging population so the pension money will be increasingly difficult to find.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
The difference is almost a month pension, I dare anyone to say that they would be happy with only 11 months pay!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I'm also going to believe finance company and consumer organisations that the pension isn't enough to do more than just get by.
Not forgetting older pensioner will only get £501 increase, so the majority.
So what you're saying, if I'm understanding you correctly, is that pensioners who made sacrifices to pay for their homes are being penalised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
And surely the pension increase is there to cover the cost of living increase and in no way mitigates the loss of this allowance. What you're saying is like asking everyone who gets a wage increase this year to stump up another £300 for their heating.
It's not a month 655 is 45 difference of 700. It's going up by 655 for the full pension next year £12.150. The mean average a pensioner gets is now 18,148 that will go up with the increaseQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
They are not getting penalised they just shouldn't get this benefit. They don't have housing costs. They can also sell the asset it's a hording of wealth when 30% of kids are in poverty and the average age someone lives with their parents is nearing 30.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Why should 27% of pensioners who have over £1million in assets get an extra benefit.
It has been reported on by multiple sources, I don’t think your default shoot the messenger position works on this one. Dismissing the likes of Kevin Stewart , Ivan McKee, Elena Whitman and Emma Roddick as angry social media voices doesn’t really hold water either.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
You may agree with the SNP Government’s decision to discuss areas of mutual interest with Israel whilst they continue their assault on Gaza. But would you agree that to do so whilst so many are asking for sanctions against Israel suggests this move has to be seen, at best, as tone deaf?
You are assuming every pensioner has other income to make it to the average. I have workplace pension but was contracted out of SERPS so don't get the full state pension. I think a lot of people are the same. The £18,148 is a red herring when the discussion is about state pension. Any pensioner who retired before 2016 doesn't get £12,150.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
What do you mean by "they don't have housing costs "? And what is your source that 27% of pensioners have over £1 million in assets??Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Because they've worked for it, planned for it and probably not went to Benidorm every year to save money to buy their property. Why should those who had the foresight to plan for old age be asked to foot the bill for those who don't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
They are penalised. They used to get £300 now they don't. That's penalised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
They've had very high housing costs when paying off their mortgage. They still have housing costs as pensioners.
Your argument that they should just sell up is up there with your top 3 most nonsense posts. And selling their family home isn't going to get kids out of poverty.
It's not a red herring it's a fact. You could argue where the limit should be but a millionaire getting a benefit is bizarre to justify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Your also not adding pensions benefits to your totals, most under £11,300 get it unless savings or second pension. That's worth on average £3,900 a year.
It's a couple of hundred pound per year, there pension is going up above inflation this year and above what they are losing so their planning will be fineQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
And you know what they're all planning how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
They won't need to sell up it's £200 the pension is going up by a greater ammunition, much higher than wages are risi. It's a benefit given to all regardless of wealth SNP are spot on. Money is tough for governments and a flat benefit is ridiculousQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
How do you know what they are planning you just gave 12 million people a life story. Why don't we give 200 to every 47 year old regardless of wealth or income, because that would be a badly targeted benefitQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
https://theferret.scot/27-per-cent-pensioners-millionaires-mostly-true/Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Claim 27 per cent of pensioners are millionaires is Mostly True
Does asking for sanctions mean that diplomatic ties are severed?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
2 pensioners in a 1 million pound house!! That's a problem for a start. As the ferret acknowledged. Meaning less than 27% are millionaires.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Glad we agree with that. 😁
Now, about no housing costs??
So 500k in assets each, boomers are unreal. You reckon many of the 27% with a £1 mil house don't have a decent pension to accrue that. Regardless if toiling downsize to a £400,000 massive house or flat and live like a lord.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
The ons shows the percentage of home owners, it's actually higher for lowest income pensioners
https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Almost-90-of-lowest-earning-pensioners-own-property-ONS.php
Almost 90 per cent of UK pensioners with the lowest income levels own their own homes, according to new government statistics.
Seeing how you aren't answering the question about housing costs I'll give you some facts to ponder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Not every pensioner owns a house, so there is rent to pay
Then there is council tax and utility bills to pay.
Every house needs maintenance, my lump sum from my workplace pension went to reslating the roof. All on less than the average salary.
If you rent a home you are entitled to benefits credit which on average is 3,900. If you get less than 11,300 your also entitled to pension credit. 90% of lowest income pensioners own their home. There will be some on the margins that are unfortunate like all benefits. Giving Sir Ian Wood 200 extra isn't a sensible benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Going round in circles though. If you don't agree email your nearest SNP MSP perhaps
Let me get this right, you’ve admitted there are costs over and above mortgage payments in houses?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
But you keep saying the average pension income is over £18k so the pensioners wouldn't get benefit!!
There is costs over and above for all people that's obvious and doesn't really need said no? I said the mean average.. those under 11,300 get pension credit or those with caring responsibilities, disabilities and those that don't own their home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I personally think it should be means tested, there is an argument for an increased cut off. Rich pensioners shouldn't get that benefit, I think Scot Gov is spot on even if it won't be popular
The pension millionaires link says that "much of the wealth comes from house and pension value" so the million pound figure includes pension pots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Yeah so they don't need extra benefits if a big pension potQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
In which case they are"Asset rich, cash poor" where a person owns valuable assets (e.g., property), but they don't have much immediate cash or liquid funds available.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Also, most will share a house with a spouse, so they are in effect half millionaires.
It would be consistent with your argument here, would it not, to also argue that the state pension should be means tested?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
🤣🤣🤣Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
To be honest, I don't need the winter allowance but let's face it, who would turn down £300 before Christmas?
I think 12k is a different discussion from 200. There is a range of benefits we give out to those in need and everyone needs justified. We aren't fully mitigating to two child benefit cap, for us to do that and not means test the winter fuel allowance. My parents have a bought house, and both have work pensions, they don't need this benefit just because they are old.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
I hadn't noticed something you said here at the time but I've kinda already responded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Rich pensioners?
I've already mentioned I get less state pension, ( £10,205) so I'm less of a burden on the state, but, by your reckoning I'm a rich pensioner. I reckon my assets, split between my wife and I, is around £500k, but most of that is locked up in property and non liquid assets. So, I have a small state pension, my wife's is a bit higher, but just because I am, theoretical, worth £250k I shouldn't get the winter fuel allowance, even though my electricity bill last year was about £5k and I own my house, jointly with my wife??
You want to penalise me for contributing to my workplace pension (taxed) and also deny me a benefit, even though I am less of a burden on the state? You are something else!!!!
Oh, hang on, you said we should sell our homes?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I've lived here for 35 years, but naw, just throw that away so I have some cash!!
I didn't say you are rich i said some pensioners are, i didn't know your circumstances. So you've both got a state pension. You've said you have a private pension, i don't know if your wife does, you've a bought home and a business with an income. I definitely don't think you should get that benefit when we can't afford to fully fund the two child benefit cap to people with no house or job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I'd like us all to get money but we have to set a budget and prioritise those most in need. It's a bit like saying why am I getting penalised for working hard and getting a high wage and then scot gov raised the top band of income tax. I don't buy it. If you've worked hard and now have a good life and don't have to pay a mortgage or rent enjoy it.
I didn't say you did that would be ludicrous as you don't need to. I was talking about people with 1 million in assets and I was joking as do you think any of them will sell up because they aren't getting £200. If you've managed to own £1 million in assets you've most probably got a private pension to top up the state pension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
The first choice, and I know it is selfish, is the young person bus pass. From what I've heard there has been problems associated with it. Again, maybe some criteria for it's us,maybe time limits, I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Prescription? A voluntary payment of £10? As an older person I now have 3 repeat prescriptions, an annual payment of £100?
Both would go some way to releasing funds.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
But it weakens the hand of those who are in favour of sanctions in an attempt to reign in Israel when others are discussing areas of mutual interest.
You do realise, or probably not, that pension pots are huge! It's what people need to live off for around 30 years!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Even a modest pension pot will be in the region of £350ķ. A lump sum the holder will never see in a single payment or have access to. It will be a payment of maybe £800 a month depending on who crashes the economy.
Yip, let’s go after the young again.[emoji849]Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
800 per month so 9,600 a year on top of 10 to 12k per year state pension, no dependents to pay for and no rent or mortgage( as they will still receive the payment), your arguing for them to get a benefit when the 2 child cap can't be fully funded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
The government choose to pay or not to pay all sorts of things. Its not a simple choice of not paying this because they can't or can pay for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The 2 child cap is a red herring. It's not being removed for political reasons, most of the electorate agree with the cap,rather than financial pressures, they don't have the money.
Of coy that is what a budget is. Scot gov get the amount they have and choose what they want prioritising most in need. They have decided not to fund this and I agree with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
In this poll the majority agree 47% agree with stopping it 38% are against, as you can expect the younger groups agree more.
Surprising to me is 61% of Labour agree with it 42% tories 39% reform, whilst 25% Labour oppose 55% tories 52% reform.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/07/30/65187/1
Reintroducing the prescription charge would be a nightmare.
When it was done away with only 9% of those getting a prescription actually paid for it.
The administration behind collecting this was huge. It wasn't just the collecting money that was the issue but the huge amount of fraud that went on that had to be tackled. The net gain was marginal.
Politically it was a nightmare. Single issue pressure groups were continually campaigning for this drug or that to be exempt from the charge while a panel of very expensive experts would meet regularly to review exemptions.
And probably most important are the health benefits. Many people now are taking preventive medicines meaning they'll be healthier for longer and end of life care, very expensive for the NHS, is shorter. The people this benefits the most are the people least likely to pay as they don't see the immediate health benefits. There would also those people who would, for many reasons, like putting food on their kids plate, wouldn't use general prescriptions.
Prescription charges are not a good idea or the way forward to improve the NHS or the health of the nation.
Edit. One on the first things the SNP did was doing away with the charge and it could easily be argued up there with the most important changes they made to make Scotland a better place to be,
Maybe Robertson was telling Israel to ceasefire? That would be entirely in line with SNP pronouncements to date. The SNP have been far more vocal and for far longer than the other parties on the issue of Gaza.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
We know that he discussed areas where Scotland could co-operate with Israel and the plight of the Israeli prisoners. (No mention of Palestinian prisoners in the press release)
Yes, the SNP have been vocal with senior figures calling for sanctions. All looks a bit hypocritical now doesn’t it? No wonder so many party members are livid.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/...medium=twitter
Lammy visits Israel to push for Gaza ceasefire
You will need to expand on your argument here. What has this got to do with the SNP's actions? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Really? Old age catching up with you?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Robertson has been getting grief for meeting an Israeli diplomat. And yet here's Lammy going to Israel to speak to the Israeli Government.
Lammy is a Labour minister isn't he? So this is just a case of whataboutery. And not even very good whataboutery. I'm not seeing the bit where the main purpose of Lammy's visit is to work on areas of mutual co-operation such as culture and technology. Looks like he is part of a high level delegation pushing for a ceasefire. He is doing it in plain sight as well, not having a sneaky meeting and keeping it secret for 4 days. Maybe post this on the future of the Labour Party thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Why do you think so many senior and respected SNP figures are up in arms about what Robertson did?
No it's not. I dont see any difference between Robertson meeting with Israelis and Lammy meeting them.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Was it kept secret? Didn't know that. So what?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I think this is the right thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Are they? Or is that what you read in the press? Has Swinney spoken out against it?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
The national secretary of the SNP speaks. This is more than a few Internet murmurings, there is an anger from many around the SNP. To be fair many pro SNP voices were critical of Labour and the Tories having meetings with Israel so they are being consistent.
Lorna Finn
@LornaFinn
Disappointment doesn't begin to cover how I feel about a Minister and backbench MSP from my party meeting Israel's Depute Ambassador. In the midst of a genocide it is unconscionable and lends legitimacy to the action's of Netenyahu's government
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The baffling thing for me is just what Robertson though this meeting was going to achieve. The SNP were the most surefooted of Parties for over a decade, this is yet another mis-step.
Yup, he should of told her to bolt at the very outset instead of trying to be the Scottish Kofi Annan. He should be sacked and quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
We're not going to get anywhere if we don't talk to them.
A number of SNP big players now coming out against MPs, MSPs and former MSPs showing their distaste.
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,e...-leaked-letter
That’ll be John Mason’s career finished after what he posted on Twitter earlier.
https://x.com/johnmasonmsp/status/18...aY_rH0m4EYSRhg
Seems to be some level of disquiet, I'll admit. I seem to have got this one very wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
That’s a statement and a half wowQuote:
Originally Posted by SteveHFC
Wow, I despair, I really do. I read something written about John Mason the other day and how he's defending himself around also talking to the Ambassador using Ireland as an analogy and the old "you always have to keep talking" quip but this is on a different scale. What a muppet.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Robin McAlpine nails it again for me. https://robinmcalpine.org/driving-th...o-the-airport/
John Mason MSP has the whip removed. Don't think it'll deflect from Robertson or Swinney backing him
That was the easy one to deal with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Robertson is a real problem for Swinney, he can't sack him as he sanctioned the meeting.
Bit of a cryptic message from Joanna Cherry today.
"Angus Robertson will not resign or be sacked. He holds a very protected position within the SNP. Those of an inquiring disposition should ask why this should be so"
Protected by who and from what? What is she suggesting here?
Mad that he's not been booted or then again maybe not, as it's being said that Swinney green lit itQuote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
Went to see Mhairi Black at the fringe today. Westminster sounds a hoot and there are some long established snp mps who are too comfortable at Westminster.
Get along if you can get a ticket.
Would not give the parasite my moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Nobody asked you to, the audience loved it though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
No accounting for taste. 😉
The hate she got from Ian Murray and Paul sweeney might have opened your eyes to the labour party view on mental health as well!!!!
You already have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Not through choice ….unfortunatelyQuote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Damn that democratic system. Not to worry, not long now ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
....looking on the good side violet eLizabeth Trussbot will probably lose her pension, looking on the bad she'll probably be back as Home Office Furher.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Mad that she's not been booted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Whether they are lying or not what use are the SNP now given global geopolitics have completely overtaken events? They are a voice against the fash I suppose but who listens or takes them seriously?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Parasite ? Would suggest one of the least guilty of that in the Westminster gravy trainQuote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Undoubtedly. The show she does at the fringe opens one's eyes to the Commons.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Also, if she is a parasite, she's not, why stand down at the election.
Yep completely unfair and unnecessary abuseQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Described as the laziest MP in parliament https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...rs-laziest-mp/Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
By the spectatorQuote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Facts are facts on the actual hours spent on debate and attendanceQuote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Swinney did green light it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Which makes the decision by some members to call for Robertson to be suspended whilst an investigation takes place yet another act of self sabotage by the SNP. If Robertson goes then Swinney has to go as well. It's amazing how quickly the SNP have gone from one of the most disciplined parties we have ever seen to an utter shambles in such a short time. And this latest act of self harm is over yet another issue that has nothing to do with Independence, lessons are not being learned.
The article doesn't mention actual hours spent on debate or attendance, at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk