Tavish's tactical tax tester
Isn't that just an intriguing tactical move by Tavish Scott over tax? The Scottish Liberal Democrat leader wants to match his colleagues' enthusiasm for tax cutting with a distinctive initiative in Scotland.
He wants to cut the Tartan Tax by 2p in the pound. Oh, come on, of course you remember the Tartan Tax.
Question Two in the referendum? Dominated debate in Scotland for years? The power to vary the standard rate of tax, up or down, by a maximum of 3%? Never used? Yes, that one.
Anyway, Mr Scott wants to cut income tax in Scotland in an effort to redress concern among the citizenry about the general state of the economy.
Incidentally, when I say "enthusiasm" among his colleagues, I am referring to the party leadership. There may be a more mixed response from the membership, as perhaps will be evidenced in Monday's discussions at the Bournemouth conference.
But back to Mr Scott. This is a new venture from a new leader. But it is my understanding that the LibDems have considered this option previously. I believe that Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott looked at offering a cut in the Tartan Tax in the 2007 Holyrood general election.
They dropped the plan, I understand, after it was tested on the electorate via focus groups. Folk, it seemed, didn't truly trust the offer. They simply weren't in a mood to believe politicians over tax. It wasn't a runner - or, more accurately, it wouldn't bring in enough votes to justify the tough questions which would ensue over public spending.
So why now? Three reasons.
Firstly, it is a classic "hit the ground running" initiative by a new leader. As fourth party at Holyrood, the LibDems know they need to make an impact. This does.
Secondly, Mr Scott genuinely believes in smaller government and energising the economy through reducing the burden of taxation. For his pains, he was called "Tavish the Tory" yesterday.
I expect he might prefer to plead guilty to Gladstonian Liberal.
Thirdly, this is of course as much, if not more, about strategy rather than policy. Mr Scott is challenging other Holyrood leaders to match his offer - in the expectation that they will not.
Duly thwarted, he will go to the electorate with a sad story of obduracy and obstruction among his rivals.
This is becoming a familiar pattern at Holyrood. If only, a leader will intone sonorously, my opponents would see sense. If only they would tear up their manifesto and adopt mine.
I suppose it is a factor of minority party politics - up with which we must put.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~15~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Tavish Scott would do better to back the SNP in their plans for LIT instead of insisting that Local Authorities set the rates - if he wants to set the LIT at 1p in the £1 rather than 3p I'm all for it.
Indeed why not go the whole hog and just abolish Council tax and pick up all Council tax monies from National taxation.
This would be a major vote winner and would set the Lib Dems up as a possible alternative to the SNP in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Honestly, you turn your back for a week and all of a sudden the LibDems have policies! Just what several of us called for a while back - keep it up Tavish!
A low tax, small government, properly federal UK might just improve the LibDems fortunes. At least it would be a distinctive offering for us all to agree or disagree with!
Will be interesting to see what the LibDem conference makes of it. How will Alan Beith and Michael Moore (the MP I mean!) feel when/if hordes of Berwickers decamp to tax exile status in Coldstream, Eyemouth, Duns and Chirnside?
Complain about this comment
Sheneval: "Indeed why not go the whole hog and just abolish Council tax and pick up all Council tax monies from National taxation."
That is exactly what the SNP are proposing already.
Also, as I understand it their plans include raising the higher rate of income tax, which isn't within the remit of the Scottish Parliament.
Complain about this comment
"I suppose it is a factor of minority party politics - up with which we must put."
I know brian but its really really boring.
still at least we have a much more exciting system of democracy whereby you always are wondering whos going to vote for something and whos going to vote against.
beats westminsters we are doing it this way and no other any day.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
'Comments are pre-moderated' and yet obvious spam gets through. Why bother?
Complain about this comment
When Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister, someone asked what worried him most. Famously, he replied "events, dear boy, events."
With the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch taken over by Bank of America, the deepening financial crisis may yet affect the strategies of every party.
Government of National Unity (Lab, Con, LD) at Westminster anybody?
Cameron as PM, Cable as Chancellor. Non-contested elections between these 3 at Westminster, so the New Labour clones get to keep their seats as long as they troop through the lobbies to support a right wing Government (so no change there then).
Complain about this comment
#7 Given how rocky things are ATM, I suspect Cameron would like if Brown hangs on for another 18 months so the economic turmoil will have eased! If he's ousted the pressure for a GE will be irresistible, would you really be wanting to come into power in the midst of financial chaos?
Complain about this comment
No.3
Er. not quite - the SNP propose a Scottish LIT whereas National taxation would be as it implies 'Nationwide' and mean all the money rather than just 80pc, as at present, would come from British Central Government, therefor no need for LIT at all, thus removing the need for one of the SNPs main policies and possibly their only really popular policy, outwith independence.
As someone who has voted for the SNP purely on this question, I would far rather it was a National policy rather than just a Scottish one.
If the Lib Dems are truly supporting tax cuts nationwide and want votes then I am suggesting that is the road to go down.
If they won't support SNP policy as it stands because of the question of local accountability, then they can't realistically do so. That doesn't stop me making the suggestion though - they might change their mind.
Local Accountability is, as I suspect we all know, a load of nonsense - people almost always vote for a Party and very rarely for an individual who is foisted upon us by the Party in any case.
If we accepted this we could do away with the first past the post system completely and have people elected purely on their share of the vote thus reducing the number of MSPs on the gravy train to a far more reasonable number.
Complain about this comment
#1
Having one level of taxation probably would be better, as it would make local Government answerable to someone. It might help prevent the same sort of situation we've seen in Aberdeen.
But never trust a politician who says they will reduce taxes.
Complain about this comment
"Tavish-the-Tory" - how apt!
Complain about this comment
'Tavish the Tory'? Naw. Lavish Tavish he should be. Lavish in his thoughts of the middle to large salary receivers. Not so lavish with the pensioners though Tavish. Don't pensioners matter? A reduction of 2p wouldn't buy a lunch once a month Tavish.
This is just headline grabbing rubbish as the leader of Scottish labour in Parliament has been foremost in the headlines for the past 24 hours.
You've just lost quite a few votes from the 'Still Alive at 65' lot Tavish.
Complain about this comment
Scott's proposal to reduce income tax might make some sense within total fiscal autonomy, if it was combined with a complete re-analysis and redistribution of the tax burden.
However, tinkering only with one measure which would reduce the block grant by (at least) the Exchequer's lost revenues is meaningless as a political proposal unless it is accompanied by the details of which areas of public spending would be cut to balance the budget.
Complain about this comment
Tavish Scott like all his predecessors is a muppet who will say anything, knowing full well he will never be called upon to deliver. He follows the mould of Steel, Owen, Thorpe, Ashdown, Kennedy, Campbell Stephen and Clegg in being full of rhetoric and no substance. None of the aforementioned achieved anything except leadership of irrelevance and pompousity.
Complain about this comment
I'd much rather see a cut in business tax rather than a cut in income tax. We need to foster growth in our economy as we are playing catch up with England. A drop in business tax would encourage business growth in Scotland over the UK.
A cut in Income tax would either cut vital and important services or expenditure such as schools and roads or just annoy the freeloaders in this country who would face picking up less dole and incapacity money each month so wouldn't be able to buy as much buckie as they used to.
Complain about this comment
This is practical only in a federal structure not an asymmetrically devolved one. Obviously, it would have to be taken up by another party too first!
Can you imagine the headlines incidentally if we did drop income tax in Scotland by 2p?! Even if it did substantially reduce the block grant ... the level for misunderstanding and portraying Scots (once again wrongly as 'scroungers' would be huge)!
I am not sure Tavish has thought this through. Although he probably did formulate this policy on the basis it would never be carried out, even if they were the minor party in a coalition!
Complain about this comment
I think this is a tactical disaster. Announcing this on a weekend where if anyone is talking about anything politicall it's the internal assault on Brown.
From now on at FMQs if Tavish asks for anything and extra funding for a project etc, Salmond will just slap him down with 'well that's all well and good, but you are the man who wanted to take £800 million from the Scottish Budget with your proposals, Lie down before you hurt yourself Tavish'
Complain about this comment
15. Reducing income tax and increasing disposable income, can have the side-effect of nudging up inflation. Also, the money may be spent on imports so increasing the trade deficit.
I agree that cutting business taxation, releasing money to struggling local businesses instead, is more likely to reduce any recessionary pressures.
That Salmond has not taken the opportunity to reduce the tartan tax (which would certainly irritate a chunk of the UK so helping his pursuit for support for independence) and preferring to spend-spend-spend instead, strongly suggests that he is slightly more left-wing than right!
Do not expect any serious tax cuts/cuts in revenues from the SNP despite all their claims to the contrary.
Complain about this comment
Hi guys!
I would like to point out my comments at # 68 and #69 are once again available for viewing on Brians previous blog of "Fine words, noble sentiments" They were unjustly refered to the moderators in hope that they would be ignored!
The first of which is some what related to future taxation policy and it leading to cuts to services not seen see since Thatcher.
However now that the SNP have moved to the right of the Tories, never mind New Labour, that is no suprise!
Who is telling all the finance staff at the councils they are for the high jump! Who is now responsible for collecting water rates! What is the leveler between the sizes of different councils economies! The average wage of some are a lot less than others, same with age demographics! Why is it okay for the rich to avoid the tax by recieving dividends and other investment income! What about them dodgy landlords, who charge high rents for substandard accomodation! What services are going to be cut, a reduced tax take can not mean we get the same services!
x
Complain about this comment
At 4:46pm on 15 Sep 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
"...Salmond... ...is slightly more left-wing than right!"
At 5:17pm on 15 Sep 2008, SKaufman wrote:
"...the SNP have moved to the right of the Tories, never mind New Labour,"
Ah, glad that's cleared that one up then.
Complain about this comment
It is good to see Tavish saying something and maybe even developing a policy or two. However how predictable that he does so without being clear about how it will be paid for.
If he was a serious Politician he would have told us who will have services or resources withdrawn from them to pay for this?
It really is a basic question. But then I suppose if the FM doesn't have to tell us where he is paying for everything from then why should Tavish bother?
Re LIT this is a total centralisation of local government, in fact the term local would no longer be applicable. Amazing how the SNP want independance for everyone apart from Councils.
Complain about this comment
Two people can have different opinions on a party, i never said where in the political spectrum the Tories are! Are we not all slightly left of center now!
I believe people may also have issues surrounding left, Right and Liberal, Authoritarian! It seems sometimes the SNP aren't sure where they stand all these! Tax cuts, against detaining terrorists, rising the age we can buy alcohol, cuts to services (indirectly maybe, but still at their feet) Wanting to reduce what crimes you can get sent to prison for! Wanting subsidies, it's like the lib dems of the 90's, watch for the splinters from constantly hopping over the fence!
x
Complain about this comment
Did the Lib Dems once propose increasing income tax by 1p to pay for education?
Why do they bother? Their only hope of power is snuggling up to whoever is in charge.
The by-election could be interesting. Tavish needs a good result. Maybe his little suggestion of a tax cut will gain a few votes.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Samll:
Having one level of taxation would mean simply that Holyrood would control all governement finance.
Then the local council are really answerable only to the government of the day. They will have no powers to develop local solutions, as they will have no powers to raise revenue.
Simply this is a massive contradiction from the SNP. The system in operation at Holyrood is unacceptable to the SNP on every level conceivable, but they want to replicate this system for local government!
How can this be so! Freedom and independance stops at the Holyrood front door?
Complain about this comment
Dare I ask, has Tavish thought this one through? Sounds good, but where do you make up for services lost, as they must be?
Smacks a bit too much to me of the famous line on a map, drawn with NO reference to the previous groundwork and of which those responsible for delivering the Aberdeen ByPass were unaware until about 45mins before it was made public!
Was this really in consultation with the group or something dreamt up to make some sort of noise - any noise, because too much attention was on 'Doon Sooth Labour' and the Gray boy?
Complain about this comment
Regardless of whether a tax cut would be a good thing or not, Scott's announcement has to be seen as part of their UK stance. Clegg would not want Scotland to be off-message.
The big risk for the Lib-Dems in the UK is the risk of losing seats to the Tories in the South of England. How will this play in the Lib-Dem areas of Scotland?
Complain about this comment
I'm interested in the politicking that goes on around the idea of tax and cuts thereto.
For example, Stirling Council was controlled by a Labour/Liberal coalition at the time the Council Tax budget was set. Surprisingly, they cut the tax rate by 2 per cent. Then the SNP gaineed control, helped by An errant labour figure and the Tories. They were happy to keep the 2 percent tax cut.
However, now there have been some belt tightening/cuts/refocussing of financial priorities in the council. The Labour Party and the liberals are blaming the SNP for cuts.
Of course, the fact that LabourLibs set the cuts budget seems to be periferal to their ability to criticise those very cuts.
I don't trust politicians but having had a very close association with many of the top people in the Labour party over the last 25 years, I particularlyt don not trust Labour politicians!
Complain about this comment
24 northhighlander
Like you, I'm concerned about the centralist nature of the SNP proposal on LIT - it's one benefit over locally set rates (as per the Lib-Dems) is that the collection costs are smaller.
I'd prefer to move to a less centralist system. In a country like Scotland with such varied geographies, it seems silly to have a single form of Local Government imposed on every area.
Where Central Government use LAs to provide centrally determined services, they should fund the services totally (and pay an agency fee to the LA).
Where the services are provided at LA level, the LA should raise all the money (including the collection costs) from a range of permitted taxes.
Complain about this comment
re my #26
Is it just a strange coincidence that Kirsty Williams, the Welsh Lib-Dem leader, is reported on Betsan's blog as being ready to go into coalition with the Tories there?
If anyone doubted that the Lib-Dems are a UK party with a UK agenda (which they spin appropriately via Scott and Williams), they seem to be intent on removing those doubts.
When Clegg starts arguing for Federalism it might mean something, but whatever Scott says on his own might fairly be treated with derision.
Complain about this comment
Tavish's first sally as leader is a policy of economic incoherence not unlike the Tories' nonsense of last week and it appears from reading many comments on this blog most people are already aware of that.
The SNP is dong well partly because the three major paties in opposition are producing policy statements that insult the intelligence of the electorate.
Complain about this comment
Close association with the very top people in the Labour Party for the last 25 years, that's quite interesting! Is that the Uk level or the Scottish level, is that the Politicians or the officials?!! Anyhow to keep close enough to actually know about them over 25 years is very impressive!! I really am astonished that you have moved from the old left of the party to the new center of the political agenda, and paint them with the same brush! I'm not sure which part would be the most upset at being associated with the other!
Is it okay if i say this, i would like to be refered to the adjuticator again!
I remember attending an hustings at the last elections were the SNP candidates promised that if they got elected they would raise the council tax by 5%, because they believed that mor money should be but into services and centers for the youth! Would you believe it was a youth hustings! Strange that when the 2 SNP candidates got elected they were solidly behind the freeze on council tax, even though it meant cuts to the services they promised to increase! Isn't it amazing how student debt has disapeared, the increases in funding for our further/higher education! How I love to see these 1000 extra police walking the streets! How wonderfly insighted the SNP into our future energy needs! The SNP promise the world, deliver a rotten egg!
Something's started to stink about the SNP, nothing hurts more than a broken promise! I guess that is why i will never again back the SNP, even though i never agreed with independence, i thought maybe the party would at least deliver something! Instead we have had nothing but excuses and rhetoric! It's not my fault guv!
I believe i have mentioned to Irnbru before, leadership comes with great reponsibility, it's there to be used when the hard choices need to be made, not for when the camera is rolling!
x
Complain about this comment
#27
How wonderfully your information is Spun! Was that budget that was agreed by the SNP, i think so!
Then if the next bit of information i have recieved of a projected deficit of £1.88M at the date the administration changed, how come once the SNP had their little coup, the deficit magicall increased! The story of the council sounds all a little to familar to their national masters! Not my fault guv, honest, it was the monster under the bed!
Complain about this comment
Re Old NAt 28
I don't necesserily agree that collection costs will be less. we haven't seen the detail of LIT, never underestimate the politicans ability to create beaurocracy!
Not only should local taxation raising be a local issue, but this must be a fundamental principle of local government.
Oneof the questions I have never seen answered on the LIT is how the SNP will deal with the fact that the tax take from an area is no longer spent in that area, a national rate will mean some areas will be subidising others. Is it fair that someone from an area with few services pays for services in a better provided area?
Is it fair someone from an efficient local council (should such a beast exist) subidises incompetent areas?
The only equitable solution is to further centralise local government and ensure that there is a standard service provision.
So many questions so few answers, I could be forgiven for thinking this has not been thought through at all.
Complain about this comment
#22 SKaufman
I once spoke to an snp councillor, who was advocating his left of centre politics,
I asked him what the left part of his politics were,
He, replied, that he supported the fire-brigade strike action and had visted the picket line, to show his support.
I then asked him, what was his centre part of politics,
He, Replied, that he would sit down with COSLA and agree that the fire-brigade should accept the offer.
The snp.....all thing.....to all people....
Complain about this comment
"A senior minister is ready to quit over concerns about Gordon Brown's leadership, the BBC has learned. He said he did not believe Mr Brown was the man to "lead us to victory" and he could not continue to lie about it."
I had to read that twice just to make sure I was reading it correctly: "...he could not continue to lie about it."
A Labour politician openly admitting lying to the public about his opinion of the quality of the leadership of the UK.
Of course, I already know politians lie to the public. My point is since when did it become okay for a politican to just blithely admit lying to the public - apparently without any trace of awareness that it is an immoral act?
Is that the level we've now reached?
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Is this not just another publicity stunt by a party in opposition, and free to tell fairy stories, to look good in the eyes of the electorate.
Are we really that stupid. Think I'd rather go and have a word with the Brahan Seer to find out what the real future for Scotland is.
On another serious subject. The matter of the demise of the Lehman Bank which is sending shock waves across the pond to compliment the other tsunamis which have eminated from there over the last few months. Can Bang Bang Broon explai these various comments he has made.
Complain about this comment
#20 Richard_the_Rogue
On the subject of where the SNP is located in the political spectrum, let's be clear about this without mincing words or attempting to hide the grim truth from the voting public, who should be told. Here is the low-down from a high-up informed source, who cannot be named on account of the fact that he would deny everything.
Dutifully concerned British Unionists have discovered that there is a plot afoot by a left-of-centre right-wing party in cahoots with the ayatollahs to undermine western civilization and stop you crossing the Border to see your granny in Newcastle while preparing a campaign of racist intimidation against all and sundry among those elements of our population not entitled to wear tartan while building up to cutting off Scotland's subsidy to England by separating Scotland from the rest of the world by making it a member of the European Union in its own right and maybe even invading Poland for good measure with a pincer movement of local councillors all armed to the teeth with Kalashnikovs.
If I have missed anything out, someone will be along any minute now to put that right. Maybe SKaufman, who, I notice in para 1 of #31, spells 'centre' the US way: 'center'. Dammit, the CIA are on to us!
Complain about this comment
#32 SKaufman
I am afraid I don't see how promises can be said to be broken after only one complete year of a four-year term of a minority government whose budget is set by another government controlled by its principal political opponents. That is hardly reasonable. But then reason is not your forte, is it? Don't let the facts get in your way either, whatever you do.
Something is beginning to stink about SKaufman, I fear. Where is the "center" of your activities? Are you even on this side of the Atlantic? We should be told.
Complain about this comment
31
Odd how support for the SNP continues to grow.
Is it because the people can see they are trying to do the right thing in many areas no matter how difficult that might be while the opposition is insulting the electorate with policy statements that are frankly laughable?
What I find particulary encouraging is the fact that the great Scottish public have rumbled the dishonest anti SNP rubbish spouted daily by the Record, the Sun , the Mail and the Scotsman.
They have cried wolf too often and their political pronouncements are now ignored.
The Scotsman, which used to be a respected and resonable newspaper, in particular is turning itself into a laughing stock
Complain about this comment
Looks like the 2p tax cut dream has meant cuts to bbc blog moderators in fairyland. One and a half hours is a bit excessive waiting for mods decision
Complain about this comment
#31 SKaufman
Just out of interest - which party do you think has kept its promises during, lets say, the last 30 years?
Complain about this comment
The Times is reporting
The Beeb might have moderated this post by then!
Currently over 2 hours 10 minutes. If the BEEB doesn't have enough moderators, why does it add extra blogs like Andrew Neil's?
Complain about this comment
Well done Tavish Scott with his tax cutting agenda. At last we have a leader that has identified policies which will directly assist families facing real problems at a time of increasing financial pressures.
The SNP have promised much but have done so many u turns they must be spinning. So much for the bonfire of the quangos. It seems that the SNP are creating more quangos each week. Furthermore, their much vaunted Futures Trust is hardly different from PPP or PFI and all they have achieved at best is a huge delay in much needed new school building and at worst no new buildings.
As far as the Tories and Labour are concerned they are seen to be polcy free and in a downward spiral.
Complain about this comment
#31.
To be fair to the SNP (shock, horror), they were never going to deliver everything. No party has ever delivered on their manifesto.
Oppostion is easy - although Labour up in Scotland can't even do that. And the Lib Dems are no more effective either.
Complain about this comment
#43 angusscot
"At last we have a leader that has identified policies which will directly assist families facing real problems at a time of increasing financial pressures."
For such an ardent Lib-Dem as yourself, I'm surprised to see you so critical of Nicol Stephen and Jim Wallace.
Perhaps you'd like to outline which "families facing real problems" will benefit from the proposed tax cut, and which "families facing real problems" will have those problems intensified due to public spending cuts.
I would benefit btw. I'd just like to know who has to lose so that I can gain.
Complain about this comment
Re 38
there are a number of direct pledges already broken. there are anumber of pledges given without an explanation of how they are to be paid for.
Reduced class sizes is now a council problem
Funding for further education, dropped from 130m to 30m.
A teacher for every nursery class, dropped
Help for first time home buyers dropped
New entrant Farmer scheme dropped
Funds for social housing now centralised and all spent in central belt
Student debt remains
Cuts in funding for drug rehabilitation, this is probably the worst one as everyone can see the need to tackle this issue.
There are many others that could be added but perhaps the worst thing of all is the lack of transparency. There are a host of cuts in spending in local government and the NHS filtering through. No telling us up front where the cuts are, you will only find out later.
this is a fair pile of broken promises for the first 18 months. I agree all governments break promises but this is at the top end of the scale.
Fiona Hyslop in 2005 " Replacing student loans with grants is a priority for the SNP as it would actually save the taxpayer money"
Well that was a load of Guff wasn't it!
Complain about this comment
Ooops, sorry! I'm a child of Thatchers education system! I can assure you I am British, haveing served in HRM Armed forces (although this could make me from a common wealth)!
I believe i have apologised before my bad spelling, grammer and punctuation! I prefer not to read over what i have written, simply because i don't have time to correct all my english errors!
I have never said any goverment, there is a difference between what one truely hopes to deliver and what one can! Setting off with the best of indentions is to be applauded! However coming up with a purely populist manifesto is in no ones interest! It is the SNP who took the eclectorate with contemp and believed us all fools!
I believe i have mentioned broken promises, not deferred, policies before! I do believe #46 covers a good selection of these broken promises!
In regards to budgets set elsewhere, can i take it that you are then against the LIT?! In actually facts the Block grant was increased above inflation, an increase in real terms! The SNP would have know this before the election, let them not shame you by telling you different!
#39, soon enough the people will see! I'm afraid the SNP are running out populist ideas they canpromise only to take away! People will dispise the SNP all the for more for leading them along the pipers tune for far to long!
Are the SNP still for votes at 16, they don't see them responsible enough to buy drink until they are 21! But responsible enough to vote in Government, do you think this is maybe a targetted policy, they would have to over look because of lack of support (what a great excuse, i wonder if the SNP have ever thought of using that one!
Complain about this comment
How rude of me before, i forgot to leave with a kiss!
Have a nice day, while i no doubt will not!
I miss you all already :-(
x
Complain about this comment
Politics is still, as it always has been, the art of the possible. Opposition is the art of idle dreaming.
Northhighlander (passim) I completely agree that a 'local' income tax which is set nationally is a contradiction in terms. But income tax is collected through PAYE, and the mechanisms of that are controlled by HMRC, which is controlled by the Westminster treasury. Under the Scotland act they are committed to allow the Scottish Executive to collect 3p more (or less) in the pound from Scottish tax payers, so they can't get out of doing that. But they can - and, I understand, do - refuse to collect different amounts from taxpayers in different parts of Scotland.
So it's possible for the SNP (or the Liberal Democrats) to raise a tax of 3p in the pound across Scotland, and it's not possible to raise a locally set tax - at least not through PAYE. The Liberal Democrats, if elected to Government, could of course set up a new parallel beurocracy which duplicates the functions if the Inland Revenue in order to collect a locally set local income tax, but the cost of that would be enormous.
3p in the pound, set nationally, is possible under the devolution settlement; locally set local income tax is not. So which do you prefer? A tax based on people's ability to pay, or a tax on the speculative value of housing?
If you really want a locally set local income tax - as I do - then vote for independence and we can have it.
Complain about this comment
#46 northhighlander
How about giving us some checkable sources that prove any of the things on your list have actually been "dropped"?
Complain about this comment
39. Have you also noticed that people have also not fallen for Salmond's laughable attempts to stir up resentment of the Union?
Polls are continuing to show that support for independence has not grown at all since the SNP took office. The latest YouGov poll is almost identical to the survey they took in Apr 2007 (and also those from ICM and TNS around the same period).
It seems the Scottish people are not as gullible and easily-led as certain other people that spring to mind.
Complain about this comment
Further to my #35 above quoting the BBc website story "Minister 'set to quit' over Brown"
Last night at 10pm:
"A senior minister is ready to quit over concerns about Gordon Brown's leadership, the BBC has learned. He said he did not believe Mr Brown was the man to "lead us to victory" and he could not continue to lie about it."
Same story today at 10am:
"A senior minister is ready to quit over concerns about Gordon Brown's leadership, the BBC has learned. The minister of state said he could not continue to say Mr Brown was the man to lead the party to victory when he did not believe that was the case. "
There's a prize for the first person here who can tell us the difference!
How very embarrassing for all of them.
Complain about this comment
50. How about you providing a list of the "137 manifesto pledges" that Salmond claims the SNP have fulfilled already?
We can then all gauge the "massive", "historic" and "revolutionary" impact they will have on our society (a little homage to the SNP's love of fantabulous superlatives for you).
I assume emails have been sent out from Party Central listing them all, a copy/paste will suffice.
Complain about this comment
SKaufman
You may have missed my question during last night's 2 hour plus moderation delay, but you criticised the current Scottish Government for not fulfilling its promises.
I'll repeat my question to you -
"Just out of interest - which party do you think has kept its promises during, lets say, the last 30 years?"
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I see that Nick Rpbinson is suggesting that David Cairns could be the Minister of State that intends to resign because he can no longer lie for Brown.
If it's true, it might also be that Gordon said nasty things about his mishandling of Glasgow East, and he's in a cream puff.
Complain about this comment
Just been reading up on some of Salmond's quotes. I was talking about a love of fantabulous superlatives and here's a wonderful example!:
"We promised a political earthquake - and delivered something off the Richter scale, officially defined as an 'epic'. It is thought that an earthquake of this magnitude was caused by a meteor which struck the Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs! The political earthquake in Glasgow East may well signal the demise of Labour's dinosaurs in Scotland."
I wonder if he was drunk when he said this?!
Complain about this comment
My # 52 proves the BBC's lack of political impartiality.
The story was changed to hide the Labour politician's original statement that he was lying. This is the very essence of political bias.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure about SKaufman and what he/she actually believes but to be polite, I'll take up a couple of points.
My association with Labour party leadership people has been primarily in Scotland and primarily with politicians. Although I have worked with a small number of UK Labour politicians at a senior level.
My location on the left is probably up for dispute. For example, in previous posts I have decalred how I was a bit of an evangelist for PPP (until I realised what a complete con it was - a bit slow on the old uptake).
In terms of Stirling Council. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was saying that although every party represented on the council actually supported a cuts budget, the fact that the ones who proposed it then attacked those implementing it show a bit of disingenuity (is that a word?) at least.
The Labour Party are led by individuals (whom I personally have a long term knowledge of) who are interested predominantly in their careers, not much else. I don't necessarily believe that any other party is that much different. But as I said in a previous post, the SNP leadership have never shot, bombed and terrorised anyone that I know of and there's absolutely everything to gain from Scottish control over Scotland.
And Mr/Ms Kaufman - it's nice to be nice x.
Complain about this comment
Reposting my #55 which has been blocked for some unknown reason.
#53 Reluctant-Expat
I have a quicker solution: you tell us where we can find Salmond making such a claim.
If you don't that will tell us everything about the legitimacy of your posts.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-expat still spitting his dummy out whilst Labour have completely lost the plot, he must be completely delusional!
At least the current Lib Dems proposal has some merit, unlike our Arch-unionist friend!
Complain about this comment
60. Have you ever tried looking for yourself?
Not just on this subject but on any claim made by another arch-nat or otherwise?
That you are one of the most notorious for making unsubstantiated claims, makes this demand a little rich.
Anyway, 5th paragraph: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4222271.ece
I look forward to your response. If any.
Complain about this comment
#60
I googled "137 manifesto pledges" Salmond
and I did indeed find one reference to this.
This claim was made on 28 July 2008 on Brian Taylor's blog by someone called Reluctant-Expat.
I think that tells us everything!
Complain about this comment
#53
One may ask what the sum total of Labour's contribution to the governing of Scotland has been in this term - other than, of course, their hugely farcical entertainment value - and now the election of a puppet "leader" who believes that a past spent in anonymous oblivion is the best preparation for a future role as national (or in his case "regional") statesman.
Of course the Scottish people are not so daft as to be taken in by a party that, after generations as the political establishment, have not a clue which way to turn, let alone the ability to form a Parliamentary Opposition group - and are now in serious meltdown.
In truth, Labour were quite happy to run Scotland on a perpetual "parish council" or subsistence basis, never raising the aspirational bar too high, and maintaining the impression of Scotland having "home rule" while all real control was maintained by London.
Having originally punted the lie that devolution would kill our aspirations for full independence, Labour now wish us to believe that another shuffling of the deck chairs on their doomed ship will buy them the credibility to derail the first real Scottish Government in modern times, stuff the constitutional genie back in its unionist bottle, and thereby protect their own party interests north and south of the Border.
Honestly - ye couldnae make it up!
Complain about this comment
63. Wow, you nats are useless at using the internet! It does actually answer a few questions I had about your inceasingly shrill claims though.
64. Feel free to read #51 and respond.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for the 137 fulfilled pledges claimed by Salmond.
As quick as you can. Copy/paste from an SNP email or a link to the site that lists them, either way.
Complain about this comment
#62 Expat
It's interesting to see how the wording changes from "committments" (Salmond) to "manifesto committments" (Times) to "manifesto pledges" (you). No wonder I couldn't find the quotation you used - you made it up!Re my #63
Thanks for the reference, which relates to the "Wendy's lost voice FMQs"
I checked back to the Official Report of the Chamber that day.
The wording of Salmond's answer is
Decontextualising and distorting what someone says is a common political cheap trick.
The 137? No idea what they were, but they will include a lot of very minor commitments made while in office as well as major manifesto intentions.
They will exist, as it would be easy for the opposition to check. That this wasn't followed up by opposition MSPs suggests that they understood the reality of politics better than you.
Complain about this comment
Regarding the SNP's plan for a local income tax I will repeat what I wrote on a previous thread re this -
"1. Second home owners will pay no tax on those homes. People will be aware the consternation that second home owners were only paying 90% of council tax on these homes. What will happen when they pay no tax at all. What will happen to the small rural communities whose children cannot afford to buy in the area when they see persons from outside Scotland snapping up these properties in the knowledge there is no council tax to pay.
2. Those very rich people (non domicile status is the term I believe) who own very large proerties but do not pay income tax, but currently have to pay council tax. Will people really be happy about that.
3. Those people who live in Scotland but work in England. They will not pay any tax in Scotland. This group is likely to increase with this incentive saving them around ?1000 per year.
4. Conversely those living in England and working in Scotland will pay twice, is this fair?
To dismiss these as anamolies that can be worked out is incredible to me. The SNP has not addressed dealing with these anamolies, they have even failed to recognise they exist. Talk about thinking up a plan on the back of a fag packet. If the proposals specifically addressed these points I would at least think the SNP considered the issues.
The only way to sort out these anamolies would be to keep the dual process of council tax and LIT running. This would be incredibly expensive and in addition would need a small army of snoopers to work out which were second homes, whether people worked in England or Scotland etc.
The lost revenue is not a small amount of money, as a previous post of mine pointed out it is ?100 million just for second home owners. When you factor in non domiciles and Scottish rwesidents who work in England you could easily double that. That figure is likely to grow as people take advantage of this unfair tax system on the hard working people of Scotland."
At the time some SNP posters pointed out that these issues would be dealt with and explained in due course. It was pointed out they had been working on these proposals for many months already. Has there been clarification of how they will deal with these ' loop holes'.
I wait in anticipation
Complain about this comment
66. Seriously, that's your response?!
If you google '137 manifesto pledges Salmond' again, the report is the third link. Not sure how you missed that but there you go.
Now, he claims to have undertaken and delivered 137 commitments. He then, as you say, lists his "magnificent seven" (there's that use of fantabulous superlatives again) which includes;
a) removing those £1 bridge tolls and
b) cutting the prices of the 8% of prescriptions that aren't already free.
That he lists these all-but-non-events in his top 7 says a great deal about the remaining 130, don't you think?
Saying that, he actually claimed to have abolished prescription charges...which of course he hasn't, so this is not a delivered commitment.
So it's now only a 'magnificent six' and only 136 in total.
Complain about this comment
67. This is the elephant in the room that the nats refuse to acknowledge.
Only those paying income tax will pay LIT/NIT and therefore their share towards council services.
So not the unemployed. Not the non-working students. Not those part-timers earning below the IT threshold. Not those claiming 'disability' allowance. Not the wealthy. Not the company owners. Not the directors. Not the second home owners....
The SNP also intends to end all council fiscal autonomy at a time when they demand full fiscal autonomy for themselves.
All local accountability gone. Any simple measure of monitoring council performance gone.
On top of this, there is the mother of all black holes in the numbers which means 100s' of millions will have to be diverted from other services to balance the councils' books.
Yet the SNP repeatedly declare that this is a "fairer tax"!
Complain about this comment
So I assume that when Tavish and his crew come back from their seaside jolly, the first order of business will be getting the 2p tax cut on the agenda for a full debate in Our Pretendy Wee Parliament and seeing just how much the democratically elected representatives of the Scottish People agree with him.
Thought Not.
The Liberals are always in the position of being able to play Fantasy Policies. Even when they were part of the government, they were always able to say "Up here on the moral high ground, we couldn't get the support of our coalition partners for this, aren't we nice and them nasty so vote for us and by the way we aren't about to give up the Ministerial Mondeos on a point of policy as we feel that we can best influence the government by being a part of it"
And so on.
The reality of the situation is that the Liberals will never form a government in their own right. Even a minority administration. They can promise a tax cut to 2p in the pound, they can promise to fly Nessie on a Scottish manned mission to Mars because they know full well
THEY
WILL
NEVER
HAVE
TO
DELIVER
If Tavish wants to drag the Liberals into the reality of a devolved settlement with a minority administration now that he doesn't have to sharpen the knife any more, then he can work towards the LIT and full fiscal autonomy. Contribute to the wellbeing of your electorate and stop the soundbites and grandstanding.
Incidentally, whilst the blood pressure is up, can the BBC for once and for all STOP calling Ian Grey the Scottish Labour Leader. He isn't. He leads The Labour Group of Members of the Scottish Parliament. And Nothing More. By design, or by intention, or they just forget to mention, "Scottish" Labour as an entity doesn't exist and what there is is still led from the bunker in London. Stop perpetuating the myth that he can do much more than blow his nose without a chit signed by that well-known comedy double act, Brown and Browne....
Complain about this comment
#65
Perhaps you could exercise your first-class internet skills to post a link to Iain Gray's classic 'spluttering' performance in defence of Bendy Wendy on Newsnight - you know, the one that was aired again on last night's Reporting Scotland?
I'm sure even some of your arch-unionists would appreciate a good laugh!!
;-)
Complain about this comment
In The Times June 27, 2008 Magnus Linklater reporterd Salmond responding to a question from Annabel Goldie at First Minister?s Questions on June 26, 2008:
?Ms Goldie, for the Tories accused him of broken promises, called him ?more brazen than brash?, and then took him through a litany of undelivered SNP pledges. Feigning surprise, Mr Salmond claimed that the SNP government had delivered 137 manifesto commitments.?
I?ve listened to FMQs for June 26 and here is the exact exchange verbatim:
Annabel Goldie: ?will he (Salmond) demonstrate continuing humility by indicating to the chamber on this anniversary which other parts of his manifesto are not worth the paper their written on??
Alex Salmond: ?Well, we have been totalling up the number of commitments we?ve undertaken and delivered over the last year?137! I don?t have time to go through every single one of them!?
You challenged me in your #53 to provide ?a list of the "137 manifesto pledges" that Salmond claims the SNP have fulfilled already.?
Now, where in what Salmond ACTUALLY SAID does he claim that the SNP had fulfilled ?137 manifesto pledges??
Salmond actually said ?commitments? not ?manifesto pledges.? He did not even say ?manifesto commitments? as Linlater reported in his article.
The article you?ve quoted, in which Linklater reports Salmond ?claimed that the SNP government had delivered 137 manifesto commitments? is clearly and demonstrably in error. And you are making the mistake of taking Linklater?s article for fact, when it is actually in error.
Claiming ?137 commitments? and ?137 manifesto commitments? is not the same thing.
So, I?m serious. I really want you to tell me where Salmond said ?137 manifesto pledges??
A copy/paste will suffice.
I look forward to your response. If any.
You haven't got the guts to admit you've either deliberately distorted the facts or got them humiliatingly wrong.
Complain about this comment
re :- Reluctant-Expat.
you are the master of mis-information.
even when proved wrong, you then go of on a tangent with more mis-information.
are you by any chance a redundant labour spin docter.
Complain about this comment
Maybe someone could write to the SNP and ask for the list that Salmond used to reach this "137" (or 136 as we know know it is).
Can anyone oblige?
Complain about this comment
#67.
"At the time some SNP posters pointed out that these issues would be dealt with and explained in due course. It was pointed out they had been working on these proposals for many months already."
It has only been recently that the Lib Dems were willing to negociate. Then of course the Nationalists need more support, from the Greens. If the Nationalists won another seat then Margo MacDonald may be encouraged to vote for the LIT instead. Depending on who is going to vote for LIT we will never know how the exact details of the Bill till last minute.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter, for someone supposedly in the Army, you seem to spend a lot of time on the net!
Complain about this comment
#67 jordanbasset
Not an SNP member myself, and not convinced of abolishing all forms of property tax.
However, your point #1 re second homes is answered in the Government's consultation document. The suggestion is that second homes and long-term empty properties would be subject to a property tax collected by councils through the Non-Domestic Rates system.
The non-doms mentioned in your #2 would also be taxed through this system.
#3 and 4 The tax would be based on residency, so those resident in Scotland would pay LIT regardless of where in the UK they worked. Those with residence in England would pay Council Tax on their residence there instead of LIT, even if they worked in Scotland.
I'm sure there will be anomalies that have to be ironed out, and tax avoidance measures to be determined, but the issues you rise don't seem to be among them.
Complain about this comment
# 74 Reluctant_Expat
It's really very sad that Unionists like you come on here making claims that you cannot provide proof for.
When you're challenged to provide even a simple quote to justify what you're claiming you come up with a second-hand quote which you have stupidly swallowed whole, without checking the facts.
Then, then the facts are checked and put in front of your face, you simply can't bring yourself to admit you got it wrong, never mind issue an apology to those who have simply asked you to back up your posts with a little proof.
Complain about this comment
#69
"So not the unemployed. Not the non-working students. Not those part-timers earning below the IT threshold. Not those claiming 'disability' allowance. Not the wealthy. Not the company owners. Not the directors. Not the second home owners...."
Unemployed can't afford council tax. In fact, depending of circumstances they do not pay council tax under the current system.
Non-working students, again if they are not working how can they pay council tax?
Part time worker, ah those workers that are struggling because of recent rises in the price of energy and food? Are they not the same people in most need of help right now?
The wealthy? I would not rush into anything untill I know the facts. One fact you missed out is that the final details of the Bill will be determined by who supports the Bill, the Greens or Margo MacDonald who has already against LIT because she feels the rich will escape the tax (something the SNP will have to re-assure her won't happen).
Complain about this comment
Re post 75 are you really saying they have no detail re their flag ship local income tax policy. That they need to be able to change it depending on who supports them.
Surely if they provide a costed policy proposal with answers to the questions (loop holes) such proposals have brought up, they are more likely to get support?
Complain about this comment
List the 137...sorry, 136.
Not hard. Very simple indeed, in fact.
Email the SNP for a list if there is no fantabulous publicity online.
I am most eager to see which commitments the SNP have delivered that aren't as utterly magnificent as removing the £1 tolls.
No point adopting the usual huff and bluster to avoid the task. Just list them.
Complain about this comment
I?m very much struck following these threads by how much the arguments expressed here represent two quite different battles. On the one hand there is an often nasty fight between supporters of the Labour Party and the SNP; why?
The short answer I fear is that for far too long Labour has gotten away with murder. Not only have they been the institutionalised party of government in Scotland since God was a wee boy in short trousers, but they have been so used to knocking the Tories (easy targets if ever there were) and ignoring the LibDems as an irrelevance that they really don?t know what to do with an SNP which is not only proving itself a credible alternative to the entrenched Labour hegemony, but actually doing a pretty popular job of running the country.
The biggest indictment of the Labour party in Scotland was the election of their new leader, whose priorities were (in order) first to launch a highly personal attack on Wee Eck, and then set up a commission to work out some policies which the voters might warm to. In other words having been jolted out of its complacency the Labour party has no idea what to do. All it knows is that it hates the Nats for driving them out of power, but has no programme to offer us beyond not being Nationalists.
That of course brings us on the other battle being waged in the name of the Union. I am not a member of the SNP but I support independence because I believe in small government. I do not agree with everything the SNP stands for and I look forward with interest to see how certain rabbits will be pulled out of the hat, but there is no doubt that they offer a vision of hope and a programme for a better Scotland.
All we get from the Unionists by contrast are dire warnings of apocalyptic doom gloom and despondency; the politics of fear rather than hope, without any suggestion of how Scotland stands to prosper as part of the United Kingdom rather than as a state in its own right. Like it or not we are part of the European Community and it makes far more sense to have direct access to the EU as a sovereign nation rather than as clients of Westminster watching an English fisheries minister sell Scots fishermen down the river.
Increasingly I get the sneaking suspicion that what the Unionists truly fear is that one day they will wake up to find that England shares a land boundary with another EU state and that boundary will be as open as those between France, Germany and the other states, so that no longer can the continent be cut off by fog in the Channel.
Complain about this comment
#76
Afternoon, reluctant-expat.........If you hit the arch-nats for another six...they might well all cave in......
laugh....laugh
Complain about this comment
#81 Reluctant-Expat
Oh, and I'm still waiting for the quote where Salmond claimed: "137 fulfilled manifesto pledges".
As quick as you can. Copy/paste from an Unionist email or a link to the site that lists them, either way.
Complain about this comment
#76.
I would explain myself but I don't have to.
;-)
Complain about this comment
BBC News is reporting that David Cairns will resign his post this afternoon.
Not a loss to Scotland since his only function was to attack the SNP (at public expense).
Complain about this comment
#81 Reluctant-Expat
This proves that even when you people are proved 100% wrong you just ignore that and continue on spreading your lies and misinformation. It is totally pathetic.
What you don't seem to realise is it's this insistence on trying to deny reality that will lead to your parties being annihilated at the next election.
So, go on twisting the facts and ignoring the truth even when it's in front of your face.
You are digging your own political graves.
Complain about this comment
In The Times June 27, 2008 Magnus Linklater reporterd Salmond responding to a question from Annabel Goldie at First Minister's Questions on June 26, 2008:
"Ms Goldie, for the Tories accused him of broken promises, called him "more brazen than brash", and then took him through a litany of undelivered SNP pledges. Feigning surprise, Mr Salmond claimed that the SNP government had delivered 137 manifesto commitments."
I've listened to FMQs for June 26 and here is the exact exchange verbatim:
Annabel Goldie: "will he (Salmond) demonstrate continuing humility by indicating to the chamber on this anniversary which other parts of his manifesto are not worth the paper their written on?"
Alex Salmond: "Well, we have been totalling up the number of COMMITMENTS we've undertaken and delivered over the last year...137! I don't have time to go through every single one of them!"
You challenged me in your #53 to provide "a list of the '137 manifesto pledges' that Salmond claims the SNP have fulfilled already."
Now, where in what Salmond ACTUALLY SAID does he claim that the SNP had fulfilled "137 manifesto pledges"?
Salmond actually said "commitments" not "manifesto pledges." He did not even say "manifesto commitments" as Linklater reported in his article.
The article you've quoted, in which Linklater reports Salmond "claimed that the SNP government had delivered 137 manifesto commitments" is clearly and demonstrably in error. And you are making the mistake of taking Linklater's article for fact, when it is actually in error.
Claiming "137 commitments" and "137 manifesto commitments" is not the same thing.
So, I'm serious. I really want you to tell me where Salmond said "137 manifesto pledges"?
A copy/paste will suffice.
I look forward to your response. If any.
You haven't got the guts to admit you've either deliberately distorted the facts or got them humiliatingly wrong.
Complain about this comment
83. Three posts from nats in the moderation queue. What is the bet it's just more huff and bluster?
The funniest part of it for me, is that many of these arch-nats are pro-independence solely based on some youthful Braveheart-inspired passion.
Obviously that is not enough to convince the odd one or two 'undecideds' that drift across these sites each month, so they scramble around the internet trying to find any fault with the 'Union'...and then exaggerate it into something shrill and ridiculous.
Do you remember all that anger from both Salmond and the nats about the Lewis Chessmen? For crying out loud, this was a chess-set made in Norway and shipwrecked off Lewis on its way to Ireland! The Lewis Museum itself was happy for them to stay in the British Museum!
Anyway, let's see what's been posted now.
Complain about this comment
#86 oldnat
It's only four hours since BBC News reported this story:
Number 10: Minister has not quit
"Downing Street sources have told the BBC that minister David Cairns has not informed them he intends to resign."
Of course the latest story (saying that Cairns is going to resign) occupies the same page on this website as the old one. The original story has disappeared as if it never existed.
It must be hard for the Ministry of Truth to keep up with the pace the lies are being told these days!
The BBC are cursing the day the Internet was invented.
The proles can still access earlier versions of their stories no matter how quickly they try to get rid of them to cover their embarassment.
Here's hoping they've got the lastest version of this story correct!
Complain about this comment
#82 Caledonian
Good post. It's sometimes difficult to disentangle the two strands that you identify.
What's odd about the Unionist strand is that many posters confuse "SNP" with "Nationalism", but few offer any positive vision of the benefits that being represented in the Westminster Parliament offers Scotland.
Cairns has now resigned.
Complain about this comment
And huff and bluster it was! LOL! (Damn. Should have placed some money on it.)
Oooh, bigfussaboutnothing is "serious"!
Still waiting for the 136 delivered commitments, arch-nats.
Complain about this comment
#89 Reluctant_Expat
In The Times June 27, 2008 Magnus Linklater reported Salmond responding to a question from Annabel Goldie at First Minister's Questions on June 26, 2008:
"Ms Goldie, for the Tories accused him of broken promises, called him "more brazen than brash", and then took him through a litany of undelivered SNP pledges. Feigning surprise, Mr Salmond claimed that the SNP government had delivered 137 manifesto commitments."
I've listened to FMQs for June 26 and here is the exact exchange verbatim:
Annabel Goldie: "will he (Salmond) demonstrate continuing humility by indicating to the chamber on this anniversary which other parts of his manifesto are not worth the paper their written on?"
Alex Salmond: "Well, we have been totalling up the number of COMMITMENTS we've undertaken and delivered over the last year...137! I don't have time to go through every single one of them!"
You challenged me in your #53 to provide "a list of the '137 manifesto pledges' that Salmond claims the SNP have fulfilled already."
Now, where in what Salmond ACTUALLY SAID does he claim that the SNP had fulfilled "137 manifesto pledges"?
Salmond actually said "commitments" not "manifesto pledges." He did not even say "manifesto commitments" as Linklater reported in his article.
The article you've quoted, in which Linklater reports Salmond "claimed that the SNP government had delivered 137 manifesto commitments" is clearly and demonstrably in error. And you are making the mistake of taking Linklater's article for fact, when it is actually in error.
Claiming "137 commitments" and "137 manifesto commitments" is not the same thing.
So, I'm serious. I really want you to tell me where Salmond said "137 manifesto pledges"?
A copy/paste will suffice.
I look forward to your response. If any.
You haven't got the guts to admit you've either deliberately distorted the facts or got them humiliatingly wrong.
Complain about this comment
#92 Reluctant_Expat
I think it's better being an "Arch-Nat" than, like some here, an arch-prat!
Either you come up with Salmond saying "137 manifesto pledges" or you are the laughing stock of this board.
I'm still waiting.
Complain about this comment
#89
Indeed! pawns in a little pool...
laugh....laugh
Complain about this comment
#91 oldnat
Another pillar falls in the edifice of lies and corruption.
I look forward to the day very soon when it collapses on them entirely.
Complain about this comment
# 92 Reluctant-Expat
As I said three hours ago, you had nothing to back up your claim.
And what you provided was a pathetic second-hand quote that turned out to be wrong.
It beggars belief how people like you can go on pretending they're right even when reality has proved otherwise.
Complain about this comment
#92 Reluctant_Expat
Come on, we want to hear why you don't know the difference between commitments that ARE in a manifesto and commitments that ARE NOT in a manifesto!
There weren't 137 commitments in the whole SNP manifesto so Salmond couldn't possibly have been talking about "137 manifesto pledges".
I knew that the moment I saw your claim that he did. But then I base what I say on checkable, verifiable facts, not blind prejudice and ignorance.
Complain about this comment
# 91 oldnat
"There have been rumours that other, more junior ministers are also considering resigning in the coming days."
You have your finger on the pulse, oldnat.
Who do you think the others are?
Complain about this comment
Bigfussaboutnothing, if I can just get a word in;
So, who do you think these 136 'commitments' were made to?
Parliament? Salmond's mummy? Souter?
Are you...is he....frothing at the mouth? Is he okay?
Complain about this comment
98. "Commitments that are not in the manifesto"?
The SNP make secret promises?
No-one will notice when they are broken that way, I suppose.
Complain about this comment
"3p in the pound, set nationally, is possible under the devolution settlement"
Wrong.
The SNP propose to also raise the higher rate of income tax by 3p. This is not possible under the devolution settlement.
I'm surprised so many people don't realise this basic fact of the SNP's plan to abolish local taxation.
Complain about this comment
Someone pointed up the fact that people who own more than one home wont pay 6p on their income tax, with the argument that this was somehow unfair.
Of course, people can only be in one place at once, meaning they don't consume double the services through dint of owning two properties. Since owning two properties tends to cost a bit, they are highly likely to pay much more income tax than people with one property.
Is charging people according to their ability to pay fairer than charging them according to what house(s) they own? A lot of people seem to think so.
If we dont want to charge based on income, should we instead adjust council tax according to size of house, and size and number of cars owned by a household? What about TVs, computers etc? This might allow us to better match what people pay to their income.
At the other extreme, we could charge everyone a flat rate.
Another thought... should people with more than one house pay income tax twice? The army is protecting twice as much property...
Complain about this comment
Just received an email alert that oil has dropped below $90 a barrel.
Also latest figures show oil production is down 11% year-on-year, the 9th consecutive annual fall.
Salmond still claims we should rely on oil for our economic future.
And the nats still believe him. Obviously.
Complain about this comment
# 100 Reluctant-Expat
Sorry, the moment I see that someone's just spouting nonsense with nothing to back it up I lost interest in them (i.e. you). I've moved on to the next blog.
Complain about this comment
102. That statement, as it stands, is quite correct.
That the SNP want to increase everyone's tax is a separate matter.
Complain about this comment
Another point: At the moment local government is already funded 80% via non-council-taxes.
Let's make the probably hugely inaccurate estimate that this comes to 10p on income tax.
Does this mean that for funding to be fair, people with two homes should pay 13p more income tax than others?
I don't mean to defend the SNP plan as flawless (I'd pay more, so I'm not sure I am a huge fan), but most criticisms I've heard so far are rather flawed in their own right, and really don't merit being accompanied by a pointed finger and triumphant cry of "ahahh!".
Anyway, get back to quibbling about the manifesto commitments of a government that doesn't even command a majority in parliament.
Complain about this comment
SNP Manifesto
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/scotland_99/manifestos/snp.htm
Complain about this comment
103. The second homes problem is partly that the owners do not pay for the council services they use when they do stay in the second house.
Complain about this comment
"Salmond still claims we should rely on oil for our economic future."
I believe relying on the largesse of the English electorate, were the price of oil to fall such that Scotland stopped subsidising the UK... wouldn't be the shrewdest of plans.
Complain about this comment
105. I can see that you have...er, "moved on" by posts 99, 98, 97, 96, 94, 93, 90, 88, 87.....
Complain about this comment
#106.
Somebody incorrectly implied that the SNP's LIT plan was +3p on the basic rate, and therefore is covered by the Scottish parliaments existing powers.
This was untrue and needed correcting.
The SNP's plan relies on increasing the higher rate as well, which they aren't authorised to do.
You replied: "That statement, as it stands, is quite correct.
That the SNP want to increase everyone's tax is a separate matter."
If you're referring to my correction in the first sentence then thanks for acknowledging its correctness.
Your second sentence however, is a non sequitur.
I look forward to the clarification, when we've been through another two mod sweeps.
Complain about this comment
Ah... I can see how my original comment was unclear.
Here's a restatement:
Somebody In This Comment Thread: "The SNP's LIT plan is allowed under the Scottish Parliaments 3p tax varying powers".
Me: "Nope. The existing powers don't cover the higher rate, but the LIT plan does. Therefore hhe Scottish Parliament doesn't have the powers required to implement the LIT plan."
HTH
Complain about this comment
109: This isn't rocket science. I'll try and explain again.
When in house 1, they use services to house 1/council 1
When in house 2, they use services to house 2/council 2
(over all they will use more services but not twice as much).
BUT:
When owning two houses they better have a high income.
When having a high income they pay more income tax anyway.
People with children and the same income use much more services but get charged the same amount. (Ahah! you say, charge people with children more. Except I bet you dont say that - a bit inconsistent there)
Old people with less income might use more services but pay less. (Ahah! etc)
In these examples, you will see various people paying the amount related to their ability to pay rather than the services they use...
You are selectively pouncing on some instances of using more services, and not others, when the system is geared towards ability to pay, not service usage.
HTH
Complain about this comment
Hi Irn_bru, how fast the discussion moves on during the say!
I am a Mr and my politics is somewhat center!!!
Anyway i believe i have mentioned to you in a previous post about hard choices! The one that someone tried to get deleted, still not apologised for it either! I do know of a current health secretary who thinks we shouldn't have a public enquiry, even though parliament says we should! This could lead to more deaths, because lessons are being delayed!
I know lots of politicians and officials, some very well! I think we should at least assume they all have what they think the best intentions at heart. Just sometimes what they think best turns out wrong in the end, at least they are putting them selves out there to be judged! It's kind of like the football comentator, if they could do any better they would be a manager not a commentator! I don't like generalising, never a good think! Like i wouldn't say all SNP are Xenophobic, even the people seemed very excited about me maybe coming from accross the pond! Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and to change it at that! An enlightened thinker will no folly in changing directection, and only a fool would blame him for doing so!
I do like the word "disingenuity" and so will keep it in mind for future use!
I'm quite partial to a drop of the girders too!
#Big hullabaloo, i do believe you are playing with words! AS intention would have least have been to lead people to think he was on about pledges! Commitments fullfilled, Pledges fullfilled, i think to most they sound the same thing! Anyhow, i believe the original posters comment should still stand, can you name the 137, whatever it was, commitments that have been achieved! If you can't, then i would expect you to agree that once again the wee man has mislead parliament, lets have no dodgy dossier comeback either, all to easy! I know KM is no accountant, but to get the increase in police numbers wrong! We want a net figure, not a gross one!
Anyway, Tea time!
x
Complain about this comment
re :- Reluctant-Expat.
i now realise that my ? to you that maybe your are a redundent labour spin doctor was wrong and should have been :- are you a redundant failed labour spin doctor.
-------------------------------------------------
your finger is way off the pulse, as i have just received an email alert that the price of oil has now gone up to $170 a barrel.
but then again i sent it to myself same as you.
come back and post with facts that you can prove, in other words " put up or shut up ".
your mis-information is getting very boring.
Complain about this comment
108. Great first pledge!
(Or should that be 'commitment'?)
Complain about this comment
110. And there's confirmation that you don't actually have all the facts at hand.
Scotland received nearly £3bn in subsidy from the UK last year.
Even Salmond does not deny that.
I'm surprised so many people don't know this basic fact.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, for claification! I'm wondering what the 137 commitments that have been achieved are! I hope that is clear, don't care if they were in the manifesto so much at this moment!
I think fish for tea!
x
Complain about this comment
Re post 103, confuzatron, you have certainly confused me. The point with second homes is that those who pay no tax in Scotland, such as the English, welsh or any other nationality, who owns a second home in Scotland will pay zero, nada, nothing in tax. Not 3%, not 6%, nothing, do you understand - is that fair?
Where as the hard working family of 4 next door will pay four times, with income tax on each of their salaries. This tax benefit for the rich will certainly fuel a holiday home boom in Scotland and cause more problems for those long term residents in picturesque parts of the nation, who cannot afford to buy - is that fair?
Complain about this comment
#118.
Scotland did not receive a subsidy from the UK.
The UK spends more then she earns and borrows money from other countries and large international banks. (currently in debt by hundreds of billions and rising)
Therefore the UK cannot subsidise Scotland because technically the UK overspends and is borrowing money from those who have it.
The UK is a sinking ship. It's time Scotland pulls out before we are taken down to.
Complain about this comment
#120 jordanbasset
Checked back to this thread, and found you peddling the same old lie.
Go check the Government Consultation
Second homes will face a property tax via the Non=Domestic Rates system.
Complain about this comment
#115 SKaufman
I'm not saying the SNP has delivered on 137 commitments. I've asked where's the proof that Salmond has claimed "137 manifesto pledges delivered?" It turns out there was no proof.
I'm not here to justifying how many commitments the SNP has made or not made. I haven't claimed they've delivered any commitments. So why should I bother trying to respond to your pathetic attempt to divert attention from the fact I've just demolished another false Unionist smear against the SNP?
You can try to twist it any way you like but if someone comes on here claiming Salmond said: "137 manifesto pledges have been delivered" and there aren't 137 pledges in the whole SNP manifesto, then you don't have to be Einstein to work out the source he's quoted hasn't got their facts right.
This proved to be exactly the case. But since he hasn't got the guts to admit he's wrong hes now started whining "name the 137 commitments" like a huffy child. Now that his original claim has been demolished and he's failed to admit it, I'm no longer interested in anything he says. If you're taking up the argument on his behalf that applies to you as well.
Complain about this comment
Stop creating such a hullabaloo over a simple question! If you're not here to justify it, why are you going on about it!
I never said he said manifesto pledges, i said he made the comment that he had achieved 137 commitments! I was hoping you could maybe show me a link! We both know he wanted to people to assume he was on about pledges, we just both know he wasn't!
We also both know that journalists very rarely get thinks 100% right, they might get a name right if your lucky! I'm sure you would jump to quote it if you thought you could gain points from it! So don't have such a go, you know you would if you could!
There must be these commitments, he said he's achieved them, i'm just honestly curious!
x
Complain about this comment
Re post 122, I quote the response from Unison, the union whose members will be most effected and most in the know about plans re L.I.T. and plans re second homes -
"They (SNP) also plan to use a form of council tax on second homes. There is no plan to collect these in a cost effective manner. Much more detail is needed on how the new system would work."
One of the problems is that non domestic tax does not apply to domestic houses, they are specifically exluded. The existing legislation would need to be completely re-written. The definition of what is a second home, may sound easy but would be very complex and bound to lead to legal
challenges.
For example you could define it by saying if the house was empty they would be liable. However for how long, most second homes are lived in, if only for short periods once a month. Conversley, some one visits a sick relative for 3 months, leaving their house empty, would they have to pay this non domestic tax.
You could say it applies on any house where the owner/tenat does not pay income tax in Scotland. What about the unemployed, single parent, they would be caught under this definition
What we know you cannot do, under Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome, is put in place any legislation which discriminates against other E.U. Nationals compared to your own nationals
But let us say the SNP do come up with a form of words which miraculously overcomes all these issues. They then need to employ an army of snoopers to discover who these rules apply to. Then retain those staff currenly involved in council tax collection to collect this new domestic tax. Very expensive and not all all cost effective,
I tend to agree with Unison on this
Complain about this comment
#124 SKaufman
I didn't bring it up, you did in your #115, so you're the one going on about it.
Either you can't read or you're wilfully ignoring what I said in my #123.
I haven't made any claims about SNP commitments, pledges or anything else.
If you want to know what the "!37 commitments delivered" are why don't you phone up Salmond and ask him?
I don't have access to the information and haven;'t claimed I do.
I'm not "jumping" on anything to gain points.
All I did was ask politely for some proof of another poster's claim - and it turned out there wasn't any.
Just because it was embarrassing for him is no reason to start up with the abusive posts.
Complain about this comment
Re post 126, Big hullabaloo, can understand perfectly why you should not have to explain what the 137 commitments Alex Salmond has said he has delivered. You cannot know everything. So please this is not directed at you, so don't be offended.
Does any one on this forum know what the 137 commitments were Alex Salomond says he delivered on, any one at all. I am sure with the number of SNP supporters on this site some one must know, or know some one who knows.
I tell you what lets make it easy, start with a round 100. If no one can give any info on this then we appear to be left with a number of reasons-
1. Alex lied, a politician lie I cannot belive that
2. He has deliverd 137 commitments but does not want to show off by actually telling us what they are - possible
3. He exagerated a little. Perhaps commitments included things such as I will come to work by 9am every day, will harrang the West Minster Parliament at all times, will go on and on about North sea oil. There we have 3 commitments delivered without too much thinking about it .
If some one here does know the real 137 commitments he has delivered we wait with baited breath.
Complain about this comment
Bighullabaloo! The way you slayed Reluctant-expat was brilliant. Keep up the good work.
Freedom
Complain about this comment
#127 jordanbasset
Allow me to help you believe that a politician can lie.
Read my #52 where you will see proof that a Labour politican was quoted by the BBC as saying he "could not continue to lie."
If you are going to suggest Salmond may not have been truthful about his claim of "137 commitments" then the burden of proof is on YOU to come up with that proof that he wasn't telling the truth. It's not up to SNP supporters to supply you with ammunition.
Just because no one can be bothered to list 100 commitments (give me a break) doesn't prove anything other than that you're not as clever s you seem to think you are.
Complain about this comment
#127 jordanbasset
p.s. During that same FMQs session Salmond said of the list of 137 delivered commitments: "if Annabel Goldie wants to make an appointment then perhaps we can discuss it in more detail."
If she actually took up his invitation to discuss them in more detail I don't remember her claiming Salmond had "lied to the House".
Do you think for one moment if she was in a position to show Salmond up as a liar she wouldn't do so? It rather looks to me as if she was a bit slow on the uptake (kind of sums up the whole Unionist lot, eh?).
Complain about this comment
I know bighullabaloo i should wait for the comment above to appear, but frankly i don't have the time!
Please don't get all upset on me, it really was a genuine question? You shouldn't have to explain for Salmond, he rarely does himself! So please don't let it ruin your sleep!
It's a very interesting point, i could ask him myself! Do you know how hard it is to get a word in with him though!
Okay, lets look at what little facts we have.
1. The question was asked in the context of what manifesto commitments the FM planned on dropping such as the first time buyers grant! This is about 7 minutes into FM Questions, by AG!
2. AS says the SNP have undertaken and completed 137 commitments!
3. AS then went onto describe 7 Manifesto commitments they believe they have obtained! Manifesto commitments at this point fact! He lists them quite clearly.
I'm afraid i can understand the confusion that has lead from this, indeed confusion that he wouldn't be too upset with people thinking!
The benefits of the concordat, i'm not to sure about! Even more so the changes to the running of community councils!
So are we all agreed that AS should be asked to explain all these commitments, and maybe we could all lobby together to get these published!
#hadrianswall, slaying!!!
I'm intrested by your choice of name as well, thinking of changing my to Northumberland, or maybe the Antoninewall! What about the Briton, or the Angle, both tribes occupied inbetween the hadrian's and Antonine's wall! Would you be a North Pict, or a South Pict! You may have been one of that small tribe of Scots! I am assuming you mean after 834 with the first king of Alba, the precurser to what we now know as Scotland! Anyway i guess your name is your choice, i just hope your not being ignorant about my historic homeland as a Briton!
x
Complain about this comment
#hadrianswall
I would like to apologise to you for my previous comment! I must admit it was a moment of frustation at your glee of another member of this debate "slapping down" another! There should be noble winners to a debate as well as a noble loser, not that i would say the debate has been or could be concluded without knowing AS's mind!
Once again i apologise for my attack on your choice of name!
#hullabaloo, I am a Unionist. I do take offence some what as to be generalised with all the other Unionist groups however! There is not a need for a "them and Us", or for generalising that one group must be this and another that. I do apologise for my indiscretions, but i do try my best not to generalise all seperatists with the same brush!
Kind regards all, and sweet dreams
x
Complain about this comment
#131 SKaufman
Not sure how to explain it any differently so that the message might finally get through to you:
A poster said Salmond claimed the SNP had "delivered 137 MANIFESTO PLEDGES." (#53)
Since there weren't 137 pledges in the whole SNP manifesto I knew Salmond could not possibly have made such a claim.
I asked for proof of the claim (#60) only to be given a link to a Times article which reported Salmond as saying the SNP had "delivered 137 MANIFESTO commitments" (#62). This was followed by a cocky remark saying "looking forward to a response, if any."
There was a detailed and factual response (#93) which PROVED that Salmond did not claim the SNP had "delivered 137 MANIFESTO PLEDGES." He did refer to "137 commitments" but at no point did he say these were all MANIFESTO pledges. He couldn't possibly have meant manifesto commitments, because I'm sure Salmond knew there weren't 137 manifesto pledges in the whole SNP manifesto document.
What commitments he was talking about I have no idea and it's not up to me to list them for Unionists trying to prove Salmond was making it all up.
The poster's original claim was either a deliberate attempt to manipulate the facts or an accidental error, but either way it is still factually incorrect.
I've disproven (with clear evidence and factual proof) that Salmond did not claim 137 delivered manifesto pledges. I have seen nothing - no evidence or factual proof - that Salmond wasn't being truthful about having delivered "137 commitments."
I've pointed out Salmond offered to discuss the 137 commitments in greater detail with Annabel Goldie, but apparently she failed to take up this invitation.
The only people who think "Salmond should be asked to explain the 137 commitments" is you and your chums who appear intent on ignoring the facts of the matter.
I'm not trying to score points, although apparently, if I was trying to score points some people would rate me as having "slayed" this poster when it came down to disproving their false claim.
Whilst that's fine by me, it's not the reason I did it.
I did it because it is a gross disservice to ALL OF US to make false claims, refuse to acknowledge claims as being false once exposed or, having been exposed, to then try to turn the whole matter into a new claim that Salmond wasn't telling the truth about the "137 commitments."
I just think if people want to change minds and successfully argue a case then the starting point for that has to be an honest examination of their own motives. If they want to accuse they should base those accusations on facts. If they want to convince then give people a reason for believing what they say apart from the fact that they say it.
Complain about this comment
Minor correction to my #133
I've proven (with clear evidence and factual proof) that Salmond did not claim 137 delivered manifesto pledges. I have seen nothing - no evidence or factual proof - that Salmond wasn't being truthful about having delivered "137 commitments."
Complain about this comment
Re post 129, Hullabaloo it is not possible to prove a negative re the 137commitments. By this I mean if I say I have run the 100 metres sprint in 9 seconds and should be awarded the world record it is impossible for some one to prove I did not. But then it is not up to them, but to me to prove I did run it in that time.
So with Alex saying he has delivered 137 committment, I cannot prove he has not. What should I do start listing all the things he has not achieved! Equally if Gordon Brown said he was the son of God and could walk on water I cannot prove he was not. In both cases I would be wanting then to prove that what they said was right.
Re the 13 commitments why not publish them on the SNP web site, simple enough if they are true. Would have thought he would want to publish such achievements far and wide.
Re Gordon Brown perhaps a demonstration of changing water to wine in front of T.V. cameras would be sufficient.
I wait in anticipation of evidence for either possibility
Complain about this comment
#135 jordanbasset
Due to your pedantic and patronising tone, I have only a vague idea of what you're talking about, but my common sense is telling me that what you're saying doesn't make much sense.
A claim was made that Salmond said: "137 manifesto pledges". I proved he didn't say "137 manifesto pledges" (i.e. I proved a "negative" = Salmond didn't say something he had been accused of saying). In a fit of frustration a new accusation was quickly substituted that Salmond had not fulfilled the "137 commitments" he did actually mention.
For some inexplicable reason I'm now expected to "prove" these 137 achievements were fulfilled! I hate to point this out (for the third time) but I never claimed 137 commitments were fulfilled. I don't need to prove anything!
If you want to prove 137 commitments weren't fulfilled go and find out what they were, disprove just one, and you have proven that Salmond made a false claim (your real motive) because, for example, only 136 commitments weren't fulfilled. What's the problem?
Salmond "published the achievements far and wide" when he referred to them in the Scottish parliament at FMQs. He offered to go into more detail with Annabel Goldie if she wanted to. Do you really think Salmond would have made that offer if the "commitments" didn't exist? I'm afraid he's a far shrewder operator than you give him credit for.
The "137 commitments" he spoke of were definitely not ALL "manifesto pledges". I can PROVE that's true because there weren't 137 pledges in the whole SNP manifesto. I worked that fact out using a useful little process I heartily recommend to you called: COMMON SENSE.
I'd say - as my eminently sensible co-poster "oldnat" pointed out in #66 above - that the 137 commitments probably "include a lot of very minor commitments made while in office as well as major manifesto intentions. They will exist, as it would be easy for the opposition to check. That this wasn't followed up by opposition MSPs suggests that they understood the reality of politics better than you."
I couldn't put it any better myself!
Now why don't you just get over the fact that a Unionist made a claim, I proved it was wrong, live with the fact, and stop badgering me to prove the SNP has fulfilled "137 commitments"? If you can't prove"137 commitments" have not been fulfilled then that's your problem, not mine!
I find it very tiresome that you excuse yourself so readily from the responsibility to prove or disprove claims ("What should I do start listing all the things he has not achieved?") but think nothing of demanding a list of "a round 100" of Salmond's claimed "137 commitments"(#127) . Give me a break! The idea that not providing such a list proves anything at all is truly pitiful.
And one final point: you don't wait with "baited" breath, not unless you've got a worm and a fish hook in your mouth. The word is "bated" and it means "drawn in or held because of anticipation or suspense". Glad to be of service!
Complain about this comment
Re post 136, hullabaloo, thank you for the spelling lesson we can always learn something.
Re your points, as my earlier post pointed out it was open to every one to reply, in fact I specifically said in post 127 the question was not directed at you. Perhaps I should have repeated myself.
Re cannot prove a negative, don't wish to be pedantic but you have not proved Alex did not say the comments re 137 manifesto pledges, because you can't. You have shown the person originally making that claim has no evidence to support it in those terms. Agree it is unlikely he did say 137 manifesto pledges and much more likely he used the words 137 commitments, but you cannot proof for certain he did not at some time in his life make the 137 manifesto pledges claim. The fact there are not that many manifesto pledges in the manifesto does not mean he did not say that there was. Do you see what I mean by saying you cannot prove a negative.
Looking at the bigger picure I cannot see much difference between a manifest pledge and a commitment. If you are saying there is, I will be sure to ignore the commitments Alex gives in future as not worth the paper they are not written on.
Please feel free to correct my spelling, I intend to say no more on the subject but you really ought to calm down a little, life's too short - best wishes
Complain about this comment
136. Just so you know, 'acting arrogant' never, ever covers up stupidity as your post demonstrates perfectly.
The nats were asked to chase down these "137 delivered commitments" but all that has been delivered is ridiculous claims of misquoting.
Now, you are clearly unwilling to challenge the SNP to make good on this claim, as always. Clear evidence, as if it were needed, of your naivity and gullibility.
Salmond claimed that removing £1 bridge tolls is one of the "magnificent seven" of the SNP's achievements so far. I would dearly love to know what the other 130 could be that are so insignificant that they cannot even top this extremely minor achievement!
As for you, bBigfussaboutnothing, you have made yourself a laughing stock and it has been a pleasure watching you do so.
Complain about this comment
#137 jordanbasset
#138 Reluctant-Expat
The total inability of you pair to accept being proved wrong has now become utterly, utterly tedious. For my last word on this matter I refer you to hadrianswall (#128) who put it better than I ever could:
"Bighullabaloo! The way you slayed Reluctant-expat was brilliant. Keep up the good work."
Off now to do something infinitely more meaningful than argue with sad cases who can't cope with their own embarrassingly silly mistakes.
Complain about this comment
# 137 jordanbasset
"you cannot proof for certain he did not at some time in his life make the 137 manifesto pledges claim."
The "proof" offered by Reluctant-Expat that Salmond made a statemetn about "137 fulfilled manifesto pledges" was for a specific time and a specific place: June 26 FMQs in Edinburgh.
On that day Salmond did NOT refer to "137 manifesto pledges" or "137 manifesto commitments". He only referred to "commitments"...137 of them. he didn't say all 137 commitments were in the SNP manifesto.
So I HAVE proved that he didn't say those words at the time it was claimed he did. This is not the same as saying he has NEVER made such a statement, but it is undeniable proof that he did not make THAT STATEMENT on THAT DAY.
There is a clear difference between "manifesto commitments" and commitments". The former are IN THE MANIFESTO and the latter are NOT IN THE MANIFESTO.
I really can't see the point of explaining this to you over and over again if you do not have the mental capicity to understand it.
Complain about this comment
Re post 140, could you explain it one more time, being stupid and unable to spell still not getting it, try not to shout this time:-)
9 i
Complain about this comment
# 141 jordanbasset
I can only conclude that you are incapable of understanding a simple idea.
The SNP had commitments in their manifesto. Then they were elected to government. They set to work to achieve commitments in the manifesto.
Meanwhile, life did not come to standstill. New commitments - which were NOT in the original manifesto - were undoubtedly made, and fuliflled, during the SNP's first year in office (the period Salmond was referring to in his statement).
So some commitments can be in a manifesto and fulfilled. other commitments can arise during a term of office and be fulfilled without being in the original manifesto.
If you cannot grasp these simple ideas I seriously begin to worry about the standard of education in this country that's producing people who think you can wait with "baited" breath.
It almost beggars belief. Roll on independence when we can set about the task of just ignoring pig-headed people who can't accept they're wrong even when the proof is in front of their face.
Complain about this comment
#141 p.s. Just because some politically correct jobsworth says using capital letters on the internet is "shouting" doesn't mean that someone is shouting or even trying to give the impression that they're shouting.
It can mean that the words are being emphasised to make their meaning especially clear for someone who clearly is not very quick on the uptake.
I just don't accept mindless rules about punctuation just because some would-be blog policeman tells me it's proper "etiquette". I have a brain in my head that lets me decide what to do and why I do it. You should try it sometime.
Complain about this comment
Re post 142, can you explain it to me again, using simple words. Also re -
"I seriously begin to worry about the standard of education in this country that's producing people who think you can wait with "baited" breath."
I appreciate spelling is important to you, for future reference fulfilled is spelled fulfilled not 'fuliflled'. In addition it is normal to start a sentence with a capital letter re your -
".other commitments can"
No need to thank me, we all make mistakes, just as well we have people like you to point them out to others.
Promise my last post on this - best wishes
Complain about this comment
Promise this really is the last post from me on this subject, thanks for not shouting last time, it is good you can demonstrate the ability to learn.
Complain about this comment
#hullabaloo
It does seem as though you are geting bullied! I think if you took it a little less personally you mind not suffer a stroke!
I think you should respect that the debate may have started from a misquite, not a deliberate one by expat! It does seem to have developed some what as to the commitments!
If i asked you how many things you had broken, and you told me you had 137 things you haven't broken in your basket, would it be illogical for someone to assume we were on about the same item! Or should we assume that AS didn't answer the question he was asked, a remarkable skill not answering a question and leaving everyone to assume you had!
I was talking to an SNP friend about this today, how sad i know! He kind of remembers being there and just thought along the same lines as a lot of other people it seems! We must be lazy thinkers, i think that is the term! I have often questioned his judgement though so didn't give it to much weight! I tried to get it clarified by AS, but sadly he seemed to have more pressing matters! Anyway i've left him with it and will let you all know as soon as i get an answer!
I think we are trying to proof that God exists here, it's all about faith!
Just thinking as well, i wonder what the profile of the contributors on here is! As a spit in gender, age and socio-economic! Can a silent majority ever be against something! My head is full of statistics and ratios today, sorry, i think the long week last week is going to turn into a long month!
x
Complain about this comment
#144 jordanbassett
Here is another lesson for you: there is a difference between a spelling error and a typing error.
The first occurs out of sheer pig-ignorance, whilst the second occurs from sheer physical exhaustion caused by having to constantly repeat a single simple fact to try to get it into the head of an imbecile.
Complain about this comment
#146 SKaufman
I didn't bother to read your # 146 past the first sentence. I could see it was just more of the same "all mouth and no trousers" bluster.
As to being "bullied" there are many here who see hadrianswall's #128 as the reality: "Bighullabaloo! The way you slayed Reluctant-Expat was brilliant. Keep up the good work."
And handclapping's reply to Reluctant-Expat (#19) on the latest blog: "After the mis-information you posted on a previous blog, I am mis-trustful of your claims" shows that my efforts were not in vain. Every deliberately twisted fact he posts is now being checked and disbelieved.
So, if this is being "bullied" then that's great! Personally I see all the signs that the real bullies have been well and truly bullied - by me. And that feels good!
Complain about this comment
#bighullabaloo
I was trying to find an end to the argument, and how did you know i split my trousers today!
I was actually trying to say i have got in touch with AS and his people, and they will get back to me when they have checked it out further!
Bullying is never good, and i don't care to much about spelling or typos, i have more than enought o care!
I have taken it upon myself to get these facts for you, as i feel if you was to attack my leader i would stick up for them if i could! It is our duty to fight our corners and dispell fake stories, where possible!
Where are we wanting me to post the list if i get it in good time, on this blog or the latest one?!
x
Complain about this comment
#149 SKaufman
If you ever did obtain such a list (I'm not stupid enough to believe it for a moment) and posted it here you would be proving that all the unionists on here who said it didn't exist were wrong, so I don't quite get why you are trying to sound as if you're doing anything that would bother me?
I at no point cliamed there was a list, or that "137 commitments" had been fulfilled. Only that Salmond never claimed "137 manifesto commitments" on June 26 and was undeniably proved, thus embarrassing those who planted the "fake story" in the first place.
You sounded happy enough when claiming I was being "bullied" but again, when the evidence is provided that I'm in fact doing the "bullying" you've suddenly decided bullying is something you can't condone.
By trying to fight the battle of someone who has made a total fool of themselves you are yourself now taking on the same qualities - but unlike them there appears to be no end to your capacity for it.
Complain about this comment
#bighullabaloo
Have you never heard of written answers! That's how things work in politics, you should be able to obtain a copy yourself, all you need is a willing MSP to guarantee an answer!
I don't remember seeming to be happy about anyone ganging up on you, maybe once again my english is at fault. I also don't see why it should bother you either way! I just like to see things through to an end, don't really like not having an unsolved mystery!
I know you didn't claim 137 commitments, i just thought it might be quite good to find out! I wish you would realise that i am being sincere, just because people don't agree on policy, doesn't mean we can't be civil!
I thought maybe we could have left it, but i don't like people thinking i'm trying to be smart!
We all have connections, just some have more and better than others! I'm not saying mine are the best, but they're pretty good!!
Complain about this comment
#151 SKaufman
"I don't remember seeming to be happy about anyone ganging up on you"
Read the first sentence of your #146: "It does seem as though you are geting bullied!"
It could be that you are not aware of the impression you're giving due to your bizarre habit of ending every single sentence you write with an exclamation mark.
For people who value clear communication exclamation marks are reserved to signify surprise, delight, anger or some other strong feeling.
A writer indicates this strong feeling by finishing a sentence with an exclamation mark. This mark clearly differentiates the sentence from other routine, unremarkable statements.
If you don't want people to read such sentiments into what you write then try ending your sentences with full stops like everyone else.
Insisting on ending every single sentence with an exclamation mark only serves to obscure the meaning of what you write.
Complain about this comment
I do accept that i over use thee exclamation mark! I always thought it showed suprise or consternation, or other strong feelinngs! Maybe to end an are you being serious sentence.
I do appreciate your help with my english, you should never reject a lesson that will help you to develop.
I just wish you would as put as much thought into the policies you choose to follow as you do your english!!! (sorry couldn't help, i am cheeky)
x
Complain about this comment
#153 SKaufman
It would have been nice if you had accepted my sincere advice on your over-use of the exclamation mark with good grace.
That you could not also resist showing disrespect for me with the insulting put-down about the "policies I choose to follow" is sad, but it says so much more about you than you will ever know.
Complain about this comment
#Bighullabaloo
I have heard the sad news that you have now left out Utopian world!
I'm sure if you knew me you would have understood the tongue in cheek humour. As other commentators have mentioned, sometimes you take things so seriously it's just not funny!
I had a good time at the SNP BBQ tonight, were you there? It's scary in the carpark after dark with all these Unionists about conspiring!
x
Complain about this comment
#155 SKaufman
Well, I don't know you - you're anonymous person on a blog - so I havn't misunderstood anything.
On the contrary - you have misjudged how your ignorant and ill-mannered comments come across to the people you so thoughtlessly and tiresomely direct them to.
I'm afraid the "you take things too seriously" excuse is the sure sign that one is dealing with a truly ignorant individual. I have no doubt whatsover that is true in your case.
Complain about this comment
#bighullalloo
I thought you was leaving us, it's nice to see a nat keep their word.
I think you'll find because you don't know me, we are assuming i guess, that you have most likely misunderstood me. If you did know me and then you may misunderstand, but because you never got the point in the first place you could never have misunderstood it i guess.
I guess you're less of a baloo and more of a baffoon!
I do hope you once again don't hold true to your word and leave these shores for a sunny climate, we do all love a zoo and you are beyond all doubt the main attraction. :-)
x
Complain about this comment
#157 SKaufman
I don't believe for a moment that you really want me to stick around. You don't like me exposing in every word you write the ignorance that you yourself are incapable of seeing.
I've noticed the final pathetic parry for people like you is to resort to the sort of nonsensical wordplay we see in the second paragraph of your post. This appears to be the desperate last resort of those who find themselves comprehensively out-argued and bankrupt of all logical response.
And no amount of flattery is going to entice me to waste time arguing with ignoramuses like you as I have experienced what a truly futil e exercise it is to argue with blind prejudice.
I wrote my PENULTIMATE post containing political argument the other day. You would have understood that if you'd taken the time to read it properly but - typically - you did not.
My ULTIMATE post containing political argument will take place after the Glenrothes by election - exactly as I have promised. Watch out for it. One of your co-Unionists will yet again be the laughing stock of the board.
Complain about this comment
#bighullabaloo
What a nat you really are?
I seem to have mised me losing a political arguement as i can't remember every debating policy with you to any such extent. It seems you only care about declaring how you have won.
As usual you are all bluster and no pants. Shame i expected more from you for some reason.
I really will miss you on here, but i have a feeling we may actually know each other!
As usual you are a self proclaimed winner, but, has no one ever told you, if you have to convince yourself, you really must have lost!
The SNP Policy on LIT is ill thought and is surely the Tartan Tax!
x
Complain about this comment
#159 SKaufman
You seem to have a very limited ability to read and understand what people write.
You can carry on hurling insults for as long as you wish. It achieves nothing and impresses no one, least of all me.
You have taken every single one of the steps that I've seen people take as they progress towards defeat.
The next step for you is your limited vocabulary failing so that you start repeating the same insults you've used in previous posts. There is already evidence of this in your last post.
The next step is for you to look up your dictionary and find new words to insult people with. These words are invariably used clumsily as the innate ignorance of the user continues to shine through, like rotting wood under a coat of white paint.
Sad.
Complain about this comment
I think you must have different meanings for different words and phrases to a lot of people.
I'm afraid i'm not an English Language snob, i'll leave that to you! If the only way you know if trying to defeat someone is by critising their intelligence it really does say something about your good self. Thankfully i know my intelligence is beyond doubt, all though my english my be rubbish! I'm not employed for my grammatical accuracy, you want to see my hand writing.
I think it's been mentioned before how easy it is to get you going. Does retirement hurt that much, have you tried taking up golf, or maybe writing a new dictionary!
It seems we may be both very stubborn people, admirable traits.
So the drift of this is, i don't especially care about my english errors, my intelligence is beyond doubt (I'm sure there are a lot of profs and lecturers out there at various institutes to back this up). You must have far to much time to pick up all my errors.
I see you don't disagree that the SNPs ideas for LIT are the same as Thatcher's Poll tax!
x
Complain about this comment
#161 SKaufman
As I said, you are a truly sad individual.
And every additional word you write is showing that to be true.
Complain about this comment
#161 Skaufman
p.s. I have already stopped reading your posts. I just want to see how much of a laughing stock you can make yourself look by having to get the last word like a five-year-old child. Every time you do it I am rolling about on the floor laughing. DO you have any idea how ridiculous you have made yourself look? Of all the numpties I've had the misfortune of running into on this blog I think you must get the prize for being the biggest.
Complain about this comment
# 161
Goodbye to you and good riddance!
You're one of the saddest people I've every run into.
Complain about this comment
Goodbye darling :-(
You are all compliments.
It must be official though, you think that Local Income Tax is awful! Implied is a legal acceptance in Scotland, since you have not declared otherwise i will take it as so!
You rally couldn't let it go. It seems reading back that you always accuse others of not being able to let it go. Well guess what, you're right in this occasion.
For someone who has stopped reading, why do you keep checking to see if i have replied. You scared of not having the last word. You seem to have lost the arguments, now you have thrown your teddy out of the pram. If you don't want to play anymore, why don't you just stop replying. I've never said i wanted to give it up, it gets to you doesn't it. You know it does, i get right under your skin, i don't make you laugh. I make you pulse fasten, it's like a drug for you isn't it.
Bye bye big bear.
Look forward to your reply, no point in fighting it :-)
x
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS