Caithness Map :: Links to Site Map Paying too much for broadband? Move to PlusNet broadband and save£££s. Free setup now available - terms apply. PlusNet broadband.  
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 121 to 138 of 138

Thread: Full Fiscal Autonomy FFA

  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golach View Post
    all submitted by oddquine are written by a professional troll who is neither a Reverand or a resident Scot
    Ok maybe Im naive, but Im just looking for factual answers, seems that this whole FFA shebang is centred around a she said, he said, I said, they said, we said, I said, no I didna, yes you did, farce etc etc etc..........the truth seems to be out there, but seems very elusive to capture. I did wondered why a reverand would write the way some pieces sounded though.......

  2. #122
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    WingsoverScotland is a well renowned Nationalist Website many things it maybe, impartial it certainly is not.

    You're quite right Rob it is a bit of a he said she said situation there no doubt about that.

    Hence I'd recommend reading the official record from Parliament and the Commitees at least you're then seeing first hand who said what when rather than an interpretation of it by some other interested party.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golach View Post
    all submitted by oddquine are written by a professional troll who is neither a Reverand or a resident Scot
    He gives his opinion, but also the facts on which he bases it, to enable anyone to come to their own conclusion, even if it is different to his..... do you have a problem with that, golach? Because you don't agree with him does not make him a troll.......and anyway how can you troll on your own website? Which part of his site, if you have ever read it, is your problem.....that he gives facts.... or his interpretation of them to produce an opinion......or that he doesn't produce facts or opinions which agree with your facts and interpretation of them?
    Last edited by Oddquine; 16-Jun-15 at 17:29.

  4. #124
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    I'd hardly say that his articles are fact laden Oddquine optionated most definitely but relevant details are on the light side.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    WingsoverScotland is a well renowned Nationalist Website many things it maybe, impartial it certainly is not.

    You're quite right Rob it is a bit of a he said she said situation there no doubt about that.

    Hence I'd recommend reading the official record from Parliament and the Commitees at least you're then seeing first hand who said what when rather than an interpretation of it by some other interested party.
    How does being a nationalist website alter facts, BT? It may well alter the interpretation of facts, but not the facts themselves.

    As just about the only way the average voter will get his/her information is via the media, both printed and TV/Radio, Wings looks at the media and points out its lies, misrepresentations and propaganda tactics on behalf of the establishment..........propaganda tactics which worked in the referendum.....and have been continuing unabated ever since.

    I don't expect anyone, like golach or yourself, who are adamantly pro-union, to the exclusion of genuinely acknowledging and discussing any other point of view, to agree with Wings, or any other nationalist news site/website, but if you don't look at anything with which you don't agree, how are you going to have a discussion which consists of more than you stating your opinion of the SNP, FFA, Scottish government etc and ignoring posts to which you can't give a sneering response.

  6. #126
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oddquine View Post
    How does being a nationalist website alter facts, BT? It may well alter the interpretation of facts, but not the facts themselves. As just about the only way the average voter will get his/her information is via the media, both printed and TV/Radio, Wings looks at the media and points out its lies, misrepresentations and propaganda tactics on behalf of the establishment..........propaganda tactics which worked in the referendum.....and have been continuing unabated ever since. I don't expect anyone, like golach or yourself, who are adamantly pro-union, to the exclusion of genuinely acknowledging and discussing any other point of view, to agree with Wings, or any other nationalist news site/website, but if you don't look at anything with which you don't agree, how are you going to have a discussion which consists of more than you stating your opinion of the SNP, FFA, Scottish government etc and ignoring posts to which you can't give a sneering response.
    You seem to conclude I haven't read the articles, which would be incorrect. I do read multiple sources before forming an opinion I generally prefer to read what the people have actually said themselves as opposed to just reading what has been reported by news outlets.
    I've never claimed to be anything other than a Unionist but that doesn't mean I'm above reading other people's opinions or views.
    The reality is though Wingsoverscotland as a website falls into the more zealous of Nationalist sites the reporting is very light on actual details about issues but very heavy on preaching how they should be interpreted.

    Each of the articles you put forward for reading had limited detailed information on any of the subjects it addressed plain and simple, that may appeal to those who can't be bothered to read in depth and become fully informed or prefer to just use a particular form to semi- plagiarise about the issues currently at play in Scotland but the reality is it doesn't deal in depth with the actual detail.


    The other issue is it doesn't explain why the SNP keeps putting forward such poorly drafted legislation, that issue is purely down to them and no one else.
    It's ok to pass the buck and lay the blame at everyone else's door but the country already has examples of poorly drafted legislation being rammed through by the SNP with little due diligence being applied and now coming back to bite them.

    No doubt it will be hard for SNP voters to accept that this is purely the fault of those drafting the legislation and that their party is in part it's own worst enemy.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    governess
    Posts
    5,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    It would appear nothing really changed much ado about nothing really !.
    It's not nothing. The Scottish Parliament is not permanent. This was an opportunity to ensure that it was, that it could only be dissolved with the approval of the Scottish Government or through a referendum where the people of Scotland vote for it to be dissolved. That might have been an acceptable way to look at I when the parliament was first mooted but it's not acceptable now for Westminster to have the ULTIMATE veto in the post referendum period.

    Whenwe have returned so many SNP MPs on a manifesto calling for more powers it shows that WM doesn't care one iota about Scotland.People say that "what's the fuss? It would never happen" but the fact that they have voted to maintain the possibility of sitting it down is a big message. What it says is "We own you, we control you and we can take that away whenever we want and don't you forget it". That we exist on a "grace and favour" basis and we should therefore do what we are told, shut up and remember our place.

  8. #128
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squidge View Post
    It's not nothing. The Scottish Parliament is not permanent. This was an opportunity to ensure that it was, that it could only be dissolved with the approval of the Scottish Government or through a referendum where the people of Scotland vote for it to be dissolved. That might have been an acceptable way to look at I when the parliament was first mooted but it's not acceptable now for Westminster to have the ULTIMATE veto in the post referendum period. Whenwe have returned so many SNP MPs on a manifesto calling for more powers it shows that WM doesn't care one iota about Scotland.People say that "what's the fuss? It would never happen" but the fact that they have voted to maintain the possibility of sitting it down is a big message. What it says is "We own you, we control you and we can take that away whenever we want and don't you forget it". That we exist on a "grace and favour" basis and we should therefore do what we are told, shut up and remember our place.
    That is very much your interpretation, in reality all your doing is nit picking through legislation to find anything which could positively be used to stoke the air of grievance all the while steadfastly refusing to actually state what the intention is to do with all the new powers.
    No piece of legislation is perfect it's all written in a language that is alien to most of us.

    It's funny how this was never an issue before FFA was mooted which to be fair was NOT part of the VOW and never was.

    Now you're making much ado about a part no doubt you where completely unaware of beforehand and in reality makes no difference.

    It still requires a referendum and the will of the Scottish Govt to disband holyrood it's not a decision Westminster can just make and apply. FFA is not going to happen so it's very much sounding like on to the next perceived grievance.

  9. #129
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Let's us put a purely hypothetical situation to Squidge.
    Let's say that after years of fiscal mismanagement and grievance the SNP no longer are the political force they are currently.
    Tired by the relentless airing of perceived grievances and division created by their politiking another party comes to the fore in Scottish Politics with a manifesto pledge to end Holyrood and return to being purely run from Westminster ( unlikely I concede ).

    Are you suggesting that the people of Scotland should have their democratic right to hold a referendum removed so they are permanently forced to keep Holyrood.

    You claim to want a free and fair society where the people have choices to make their own decisions, part of being in a democracy is the ability for people to vote on issues they feel strongly about. Whilst I concede the above situation is highly unlikely in the world we live in who is to say it may not occur.
    Therefor you propose to remove the one article in a piece of legislation that would allow the people to make their feelings heard.
    Last edited by BetterTogether; 17-Jun-15 at 10:04.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    governess
    Posts
    5,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    Let's us put a purely hypothetical situation to Squidge.
    Let's say that after years of fiscal mismanagement and grievance the SNP no longer are the political force they are currently.
    Tired by the relentless airing of perceived grievances and division created by their politiking another party comes to the fore in Scottish Politics with a manifesto pledge to end Holyrood and return to being purely run from Westminster ( unlikely I concede ).

    Are you suggesting that the people of Scotland should have their democratic right to hold a referendum removed so they are permanently forced to keep Holyrood.

    You claim to want a free and fair society where the people have choices to make their own decisions, part of being in a democracy is the ability for people to vote on issues they feel strongly about. Whilst I concede the above situation is highly unlikely in the world we live in who is to say it may not occur.
    Therefor you propose to remove the one article in a piece of legislation that would allow the people to make their feelings heard.
    You misunderstand Better Together. I think you might have got this completely the wrong way round.

    The current arrangements are that Westminster can abolish the Scottish Parliament at their will with no consultation with either the Scottish Government or the Scottish People. Currently it does NOT require a referendum to abolish the Scottish Parliament

    This is the amendment put forward by the SNP



    “(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution.

    (1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if—

    (a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and

    (b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it.”—(Angus Robertson.)

    This amendment is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can only be abolished with the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people after a referendum.

    Question put, That the amendment be made.


    The SNP amendment was to ensure, enshrine in law the permanence of the Scottish Parliament unless the People (who are sovereign) say they want rid of it through a referendum of the people of Scotland where they vote to abolish it.

    This was an amendement to do exactly what you suggest in your hypothetical example above - allow the people of Scotland to to make their feelings heard before a decision to remove or indeed keep their parliament is made.

    This amendement was voted down. Which means that the thing that you are so cross with me about - the people of Scotland having their democratic right to hold a referendum on the abolition of the Scottish Parliament - is NOT allowed under current legislation and will remain the case with the Scotland Bill.

    Far from being unaware of this issue or it never being discussed it was raised again and again during Indyref whish is why it actually formed the first line of the ridiculous "vow" - which said "the Scottish Parliament is permanent"

    So to summarise cos I know it is confusing.

    Westminster can abolish the Scottish Parliament without the will of the people whenever they want.
    SNP put forward an amendment to change that to ensure that it cannot be abolished without a referendum and permission from the Scottish Parliament
    Westminster voted against that amendment
    Westminster can abolish the Scottish Parliament without the will of the people whenever they want.
    Last edited by squidge; 17-Jun-15 at 10:57.

  11. #131
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Ok I've just done a bit of reading up on this and stand corrected the amendment was voted down. I don't claim to be a constitutional expert but as I read it the situation stands thus.
    The legislation that is proposed makes the Scottish Parliament as permanent as is necessary.
    As I understand it from a constitutional basis nothing in law is ever permanent as it could bind the hands of future parliaments and that would be unconstitutional .

    So it stands that the Scottish Government is as permanent within the law as is required without binding any future Parliaments from acting as may be necessary depending on future circumstances.

    The problem for both of us is we aren't constitutional experts and therefor do not fully appreciate the fullest extent that these changes may make.
    There is a secondary problem that the SNP seem to be gaining a track record for putting forward poorly drafted legislation which then creates problems down the line.
    The changes made to Police Scotland would be a point in case, they ignored warnings about the implications on VAT so now Police Scotland and the Fire Service are subject to VAT which was not the case previously and could of been avoided,we have also seen the lack of accountability which is now seen. We saw the proposed changes to corroboration quickly shelved when they ran into major problems.
    Then we have the current proposed legislation of a guardian for every child in Scotland mired in controversy and legal challenges. Rushed through amendments and legislation are frequently voted down because they are poorly written and create more problems than they solve.

    Just for arguments sake has there actually been an attempt to dissolve the Scottish Government or are there any proposed plans to do so. Has the issue been raised by anyone except the SNP creating an issue where non existed before, I'm sure if we read in depth any law or piece of legislation there may well be issues in some of the wording does that mean we stop the normal day to day running and important business of Governement to conflate issues that in reality are likely to never occur but serve to just create grievance where non had previously existed.
    It seems that Holyrood and the Scottish Governmemt have existed for some time now without this ever having become an issue, but all of a sudden it's jumped front and centre in the minds of the SNP.

    I for one am much more interested in what the SNP intend to do with the new powers they are getting and how they intend to improve Scotland for all of us rather than constant harping on about minor constitutional issues.

    I want to know how they intend to improve falling literacy in Scotland.
    How they intend to improve NHS Scotland.
    What they are going to do to help the Disabled
    How they intend to create more jobs.

    The fiddling with the constitution can wait, let's see them actually do they job they are paid to do and run the country.
    Last edited by BetterTogether; 17-Jun-15 at 11:17.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    governess
    Posts
    5,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    Ok I've just done a bit of reading up on this and stand corrected the amendment was voted down. I don't claim to be a constitutional expert but as I read it the situation stands thus. The legislation that is proposed makes the Scottish Parliament as permanent as is necessary. As I understand it from a constitutional basis nothing in law is ever permanent as it could bind the hands of future parliaments and that would be unconstitutional . So it stands that the Scottish Government is as permanent within the law as is required without binding any future Parliaments from acting as may be necessary depending on future circumstances.
    The Scottish Parliament is as permanent as Westminster choose it to be. Which is actually not permanent. The amendment does not bind the hands of any future Government to keeping the Scottish Parliament - it just commits them to holding a referendum in order to abolish it. are you now saying that when you thought the SNP voted down an amendment to refuse a referndum if the future of the Scottish parliament was in doubt that was BAD but when they proposed an amendement to ensure there was a referendum if the Scottish Parliament was ever in doubt that was BAD too.

    The rest of your post would take me all day to respond to. But suffice to say a legal challenge does not necessarily mean that legislation is poorly written - simply that some people fundamentally disagree with it and - unlike the labour party it seems - are prepared to stand up for that disagreement.Thats not a bad thing BT its a recognised part of our democratic and judicial process and im glad that it is.

    Edit - you edited your post to add stuff after i had begun to reply and now coffee break is over sigh
    Last edited by squidge; 17-Jun-15 at 11:33.

  13. #133

    Default

    I agree on the below although would disagree over the term " minor constitutional issues" / a balance has to be struck in terms of the amount of time actually governing and the fight/s over constitutional issues.


    I for one am much more interested in what the SNP intend to do with the new powers they are getting and how they intend to improve Scotland for all of us rather than constant harping on about minor constitutional issues.

    I want to know how they intend to improve falling literacy in Scotland. Yes they have had the powers and this has happend on their watch...so whats happening / going to happen
    How they intend to improve NHS Scotland. : again poor performance happened on their watch, again whats happening / going to happen
    What they are going to do to help the Disabled ; didnt know this was a problem, can you enlighten ??
    How they intend to create more jobs. governments cannot create jobs as you well know, the issue is how they intend using existing powers and new powers to help create an economic climate condusive to growth and business start up, how do they intend creating a high growth / high value / low tax economy

    I would add to the list....tighter controls on the "strathclyding" of the police force...armed cops in rural area ?? scottish governments role in tackling the market failures in renewable energy, wave / tidal exploration, R and D and commercialisation ( actually enable the creation of the Saudi Arabia of Renewables )

    The fiddling with the constitution can wait, let's see them actually do the job they are paid to do and run the country : In my view they can do both......... but have to get the balance right. The ordinary man and women in the street are not in the least interested in constitutional stuff nor the compexities of FFA ......sooner or later people will begin to ask questions on SNP poor performance in the commanding heights of : the economy / education / NHS / law and order...all open to attack.

  14. #134
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Just for clarification Rob I call it a minor constitutional issue as it's been there since the formation of the Scottish Government and appears to have created no significant problems thus far and non for the foreseeable future. I'd suggest it's an issue which has been conflated to be an issue to further pursue the politics of grievance.

    Let's be quite honest it is hardly an issue which so far has created a constitutional crisis within Scotland so it must be considered minor as opposed to major.

  15. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    Just for clarification Rob I call it a minor constitutional issue as it's been there since the formation of the Scottish Government and appears to have created no significant problems thus far and non for the foreseeable future. I'd suggest it's an issue which has been conflated to be an issue to further pursue the politics of grievance.

    Let's be quite honest it is hardly an issue which so far has created a constitutional crisis within Scotland so it must be considered minor as opposed to major.
    Ok Im not disagreeing its just that what you / I would call minor...is seen as major by others !!! As per previous posts....even accepting that it is "major" the scottish governmen stillt have to get the balance right and get on with the job of actually running the country as perhaps 0.001 % of the population actually cares a jot on constitutional issues eh !!

  16. #136
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    I can agree with your take on it.

  17. #137

    Default

    and you will agree that the economy seems on the rise ( oil aside ! ) who is responsible ? jobs created wages up.....but the cry will go up...nothing being done about cuts and poverty....

  18. #138
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Oooh it is those whose name we dare not mention no doubt !

    I can't see the other lot have really done enough to take credit for what is a nationwide upturn in pretty much every area of the Nation.

    A question to ask is whether voting Conservative makes an area more prosperous or whether being a prosperous area makes you vote Conservative.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •