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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

The Government owns ScotRail don’t they? . The profits that used to go to shareholders etc can now be used to subsidise things like this surely? An increase in travellers should go some way towards funding it as well. If they can’t run the railways better than the private companies then what was the point in taking it back in to public ownership?
It’s not always Westminsters fault. :greengrin

---

Is it running at a profit? Wasn’t it subsidised even when owned privately?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/p...usive-32833468

The abuse aimed at the SNP seems to be disproportionate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Is it running at a profit? Wasn’t it subsidised even when owned privately?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Part of the income for the rail companies does come from subsidies, the rest comes from fares. It enables them to make a profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/p...usive-32833468

The abuse aimed at the SNP seems to be disproportionate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

461 reached the criminal threshold.

As far as I'm aware only 1 seems to have reached the courts.

The papers will be full of the other 460 soon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Part of the income for the rail companies does come from subsidies, the rest comes from fares. It enables them to make a profit.

---

There is no profit then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

There is no profit then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

If the Private companies are being run correctly they make a profit. As a publically owned company Scotrail , rather then making a profit for its shareholders, can instead offer benefits to its passengers, like off peak fares being available at all times. So, no, there would be no profit, that money is being used for the good of us all. Which I kinda like.

Or are you suggesting there was nothing to be gained by taking ScotRail in to public ownership?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

If the Private companies are being run correctly they make a profit. As a publically owned company Scotrail , rather then making a profit for its shareholders, can instead offer benefits to its passengers, like off peak fares being available at all times. So, no, there would be no profit, that money is being used for the good of us all. Which I kinda like.

Or are you suggesting there was nothing to be gained by taking ScotRail in to public ownership?

---

If you have to increase the subsidy to do it then it is a decision that will need to be made.
You are assuming that the profit made by the private company is enough to cover this pricing policy? I have no idea if it does or not? Or is the subsidy of the railway having to cover part of it?
You seem to be saying this is a cost free idea without any evidence?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

If you have to increase the subsidy to do it then it is a decision that will need to be made.
You are assuming that the profit made by the private company is enough to cover this pricing policy? I have no idea if it does or not? Or is the subsidy of the railway having to cover part of it?
You seem to be saying this is a cost free idea without any evidence?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Not at all, nothing like this comes without a cost. I’m saying because we own Scotrail our ability to introduce an extension to off peak fares is increased.
You suggested this could not be made permanent because of Westminster funding. Yet the prescription charge subsidy is permanant as is free university education. They’re not without cost either. So if it is seen as a priority then it can be done. It’s not easy I know, but immediately dismissing it , as you did, would see us achieving nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Not at all, nothing like this comes without a cost. I’m saying because we own Scotrail our ability to introduce an extension to off peak fares is increased.
You suggested this could not be made permanent because of Westminster funding. Yet the prescription charge subsidy is permanant as is free university education. They’re not without cost either. So if it is seen as a priority then it can be done. It’s not easy I know, but immediately dismissing it , as you did, would see us achieving nothing.

---

I wasn’t dismissing it as such. I’m in favour of the policy. I would be moving towards making it cheaper still and paying for it by charging drivers more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Not at all, nothing like this comes without a cost. I’m saying because we own Scotrail our ability to introduce an extension to off peak fares is increased.
You suggested this could not be made permanent because of Westminster funding. Yet the prescription charge subsidy is permanant as is free university education. They’re not without cost either. So if it is seen as a priority then it can be done. It’s not easy I know, but immediately dismissing it , as you did, would see us achieving nothing.

---

I'm going to be pedantic but no government policy is permanent, the next government, likely to be labour led both side of the border, could very well reverse policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I wasn’t dismissing it as such. I’m in favour of the policy. I would be moving towards making it cheaper still and paying for it by charging drivers more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I agree. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

I'm going to be pedantic but no government policy is permanent, the next government, likely to be labour led both side of the border, could very well reverse policy.

---

You are correct, you are being pedantic. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

If the Private companies are being run correctly they make a profit. As a publically owned company Scotrail , rather then making a profit for its shareholders, can instead offer benefits to its passengers, like off peak fares being available at all times. So, no, there would be no profit, that money is being used for the good of us all. Which I kinda like.

Or are you suggesting there was nothing to be gained by taking ScotRail in to public ownership?

---

It's also worth noting the vast array of railcards available now. 16-18 yr olds get 50% off for £30 a year, over 50's get 1/3 off for £15 a yr and 4 trips anywhere in Scotland for £17 return and there's many more. Scotrail is turning into a really good news story.

Couple that with down South and there's one of the lines owned by China which posts profits equal to the subsidies it receives from taxpayers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

You are correct, you are being pedantic. :greengrin

---

:greengrin



Nice to have a bit of humour on this forum occasionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bee

It's also worth noting the vast array of railcards available now. 16-18 yr olds get 50% off for £30 a year, over 50's get 1/3 off for £15 a yr and 4 trips anywhere in Scotland for £17 return and there's many more. Scotrail is turning into a really good news story.

Couple that with down South and there's one of the lines owned by China which posts profits equal to the subsidy's it receives from taxpayers.

---

Which basically equates to their being no actual profit, just a subsidy from the taxpayer going straight into the pockets of businesses and shareholders.


Capitalism, don't you just love it.

:rolleyes:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinio...box=1716015636
Great to see the complete change in direction. Forbes may not be FM but she certainly won.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://x.com/stvnews/status/1791762...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

If only we had a way of reducing this?[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

Which basically equates to their being no actual profit, just a subsidy from the taxpayer going straight into the pockets of businesses and shareholders.


Capitalism, don't you just love it.

:rolleyes:

---

That’s how privatisation of public services works, they take the profit, we take the risk.
Vote Socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

That’s how privatisation of public services works, they take the profit, we take the risk.
Vote Socialist.

---

Or Vote SNP. QED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

That’s how privatisation of public services works, they take the profit, we take the risk.
Vote Socialist.

---

100% agree :thumbsup:

this is what unionists in Scotland strive for :agree: they'll no be happy until Scotland is brought into line with their beloved Westminster masters

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.n...Sw&oe=664EEED4

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...adf9842ada.jpg

In the Times today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

That’s how privatisation of public services works, they take the profit, we take the risk.
Vote Socialist.

---

If you could point me to an actual Socialist party, I would do just that.

:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

If you could point me to an actual Socialist party, I would do just that.

:wink:

---

Here you go. :greengrin

https://scottishsocialistparty.org/

Nicola Sturgeon admits that the trans issue caused her downfall, no sign of an apology though for the damage done to kids taking puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, as highlighted in the Cass review.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...-trans-issues/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

Nicola Sturgeon admits that the trans issue caused her downfall, no sign of an apology though for the damage done to kids taking puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, as highlighted in the Cass review.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...-trans-issues/

---

You need a subscription to read anything more than the headline. Maybe you could cut and paste for us?

Wouldn't any apology be due from the clinicians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

You need a subscription to read anything more than the headline. Maybe you could cut and paste for us?

Wouldn't any apology be due from the clinicians?

---

To be fair to the clinicians a lot of them did speak out about how the services provided at the Tavistock was failing vulnerable children and young people before it was shut down.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/0...the-tavistock/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

Nicola Sturgeon admits that the trans issue caused her downfall, no sign of an apology though for the damage done to kids taking puberty blockers and cross sex hormones, as highlighted in the Cass review.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...-trans-issues/

---

Quite a bizarre take on what she actually said, but a good example of what she was referring to.

Quote:

---

Ms Sturgeon said she had “got to the point where I thought I was part of that problem” because there is no one in Scotland who “doesn’t have an opinion about me whether good or bad – and I’m not sure many people are indifferent”.

“It felt as if every issue people were coming at that issue in terms of how they thought about me – that felt true on the trans issue, it felt true on a number of issues – so I thought, well, if I take myself out of that maybe the politics, the discourse and the debate in Scotland will be a bit more healthy.

“It hasn’t quite worked out that way, but yes that is why I decided to stand down.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 147lothian

To be fair to the clinicians a lot of them did speak out about how the services provided at the Tavistock was failing vulnerable children and young people before it was shut down.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/0...the-tavistock/

---

What does the Tavistock have to do with the SNP? Was the Scottish NHS referring children there?

Please note I haven't been following this story closely - I don't understand a lot of the arguments. But I'm not sure why we're talking about a *Spiked* article about the Tavistock - a London based clinic - on the SNP thread. I could of course be missing the point.

I’m glad Swinney and Forbes are giving this issue a very wide berth now and the SNP is back to dealing with more bread and butter issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk