If there was an election tomorrow...

[tris-]

on the subject of taxes and shit like that, can anyone quickly tell me why the petrol prices have risen by 5p in the last 2 weeks or so?

 

[Gumbo]

on the subject of taxes and shit like that, can anyone quickly tell me why the petrol prices have risen by 5p in the last 2 weeks or so?

See the iranian captives thread, it could get far far far far far worse yet...

 

[tris-]

See the iranian captives thread, it could get far far far far far worse yet...

i had a feeling that was something to do with it, though i didnt trust my self enough

 

[Tom]

For example, in the UK, the estimated cost of smoking to the NHS is £7 billion per year, however the estimated amount raised through taxes is around £16 billion per year (taken from Wiki)

So then, 9 billion in taxes is lost. Wonder where they will get that cash from?

Thats the typical socialist argument - "lower taxes and where does the money come from to pay for things?"

It conveniently sidesteps the fact that the money isn't lost. If people have more money, they spend it. If they're spending money, that boosts our economy. If the economy is doing better, then total tax revenues increase.

So you could happily ban cigarettes tomorrow, there'd be a short-term shortfall in tax revenues (16 billion isn't a lot), but it would soon rise again as people spent their fag money on other things.


As for basic healthcare, its quite simple. Ambulances, dentists, GPs, opticians, Nitty Nora, broken bones, transplants, childcare wards, maternity wards - all great. I'm happy to pay for that lot, they're all part of day to day living, sexual advice clinics, mental health clinics and drugs, all of that is great.

What I don't like paying for are cosmetic surgery, stitching up stomachs, liposuction, abortions unless through rape etc, extremely expensive drugs for terminal diseases, alcohol and drug abuse, and the weekend fuckwits having fights and accidents while pissed.

Oh yeah and if you're done for bad driving, and you've cost the NHS a load of money as a result, then expect a bill.

If you want those things paid for, take private medical insurance. If you can't afford that insurance, well I'm sorry but welcome to life. Theres a limit to what the country can afford, and if you're daft enough to smoke 20 Bensons each day then don't expect any sympathy when you're turned away.

 

[Mofo8]

God, scottish whingers can just sod off BORING.

We are trying to.... but some fuckwits insist on voting Labour. Things are looking good for May though. I personally can't wait till the Union is dissolved and we can sod off to whinge in peace.

 

[tris-]

We are trying to.... but some fuckwits insist on voting Labour. Things are looking good for May though. I personally can't wait till the Union is dissolved and we can sod off to whinge in peace.

hey hey steady now, im not a fuckwit

 

[Thadius]

Thats the typical socialist argument - "lower taxes and where does the money come from to pay for things?"

It conveniently sidesteps the fact that the money isn't lost. If people have more money, they spend it. If they're spending money, that boosts our economy. If the economy is doing better, then total tax revenues increase.

So you could happily ban cigarettes tomorrow, there'd be a short-term shortfall in tax revenues (16 billion isn't a lot), but it would soon rise again as people spent their fag money on other things.


As for basic healthcare, its quite simple. Ambulances, dentists, GPs, opticians, Nitty Nora, broken bones, transplants, childcare wards, maternity wards - all great. I'm happy to pay for that lot, they're all part of day to day living, sexual advice clinics, mental health clinics and drugs, all of that is great.

What I don't like paying for are cosmetic surgery, stitching up stomachs, liposuction, abortions unless through rape etc, extremely expensive drugs for terminal diseases, alcohol and drug abuse, and the weekend fuckwits having fights and accidents while pissed.

Oh yeah and if you're done for bad driving, and you've cost the NHS a load of money as a result, then expect a bill.

If you want those things paid for, take private medical insurance. If you can't afford that insurance, well I'm sorry but welcome to life. Theres a limit to what the country can afford, and if you're daft enough to smoke 20 Bensons each day then don't expect any sympathy when you're turned away.

If I have money, I would just buy a home abroad and spend all my cash over there! Why stay in a shitty rain soaked country?

 

[Mofo8]

I'm not really sure where to start with this one. Where did you get your facts from?

You seem to think that if Scotland became independent it would all be split?

Not split as in 50/50, but yes, the new nation of Scotland would be entitled to it's fair share of the estimated £273 billion assets of the UK.

Technically its all run and owned by the MOD which is a governmental department of Westminster and the UK.

See above... Scotland would be entitled to it's share of ALL of the assets of the present UK.

If Scotland left the UK would still exist, England, Wales and Northern Island + overseas territories, plus the MOD actually owns the land, all the hardware and such would still be UK property and wouldn't be something just handed over, in the short term there would probably be a situation like in Cyprus with the UK sovereign base they have there. Also I believe that the Queen would still be the head of state.

When we gain independence the United Kingdom would cease to exist. The United Kingdown of Great Britain and Northern Ireland requires that you have the Great Britain part. The Great Britain part ceases to exist as an entity when one of the two states making it up fucks off. Great Britain consists of Scotland and England. Google or Wiki the Union of Crowns and the Union of Parliaments.

If Scotland did become independent there is the issue with the UK institutions, there would be the NHS, Immigration, Social Security, Police, Home Office, DEFRA, Education etc and all the other departments that would cease to be the responsibility of the UK all these departments would have to be set up and organised. Then the UK would most likely before independence became official move most of its liquid assets back down south over the border, I know i would!

See my first point about Scotland getting it's fair share as a successor state. Also we in Scotland pay our share towards all these civil service jobs which are mainly based in London, and we don't therefore get the full benefit from them at the present. We would benefit from having these jobs based in Scotland.

Additionally Scotland isn't actually a sovereign state, so it has no place in the EU, UN etc, I'd imagine these would be fast tracked but they would still have to be applied for but a temporary situation would no doubt be brokered.

Actually Scotland IS a fucking sovereign state.... one of two which make up Great Britain. Whether or not we have to renegotiate entry into international bodies like the EU and the UN is debatable, but, both Scotland and England as successor states of the UK would be in the exact same boat. Look up Article 34 of the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in relation to Treaties (EU) and see what it has to say on the matter.

From what I've read the SNP is counting on many of these things to be handled by the EU and counting on EU money, but then the EU is rather busy spending a lot of its money on the eastern European block. So it wouldn't be like with Ireland etc where there was a lot more money going around to fund all these things. Don't get me wrong, I frankly don't care! but it would be interesting see how it would play out. I just envision Taxes going up hugely first aimed at commerce who would then flea to other other markets, the Tax rate for North Sea is already at the line where Shell has suspended further investment as its uneconomical. But anyway to enjoy the free education/health and stuff Taxes would have to go up not just to keep the services going but to pay for the governmental infrastructure of a Country. Scotland has only 8.5% of the British population but it accounts for 9.7% of all spending.

I'm tired of this argument. How much is the fucking Olympics going to cost every working man and woman in this country? Who benefits?

If independence for Scotland would benefit England so much, why are Blair and Co so against it?

 

[Mofo8]

hey hey steady now, im not a fuckwit

My apologies. I was referring to Scottish Labour voters. English Labour voters are in a much more difficult position. I can't imagine only having a real choice of Labour or Tories.

 

[Thadius]

If independence for Scotland would benefit England so much, why are Blair and Co so against it?

Because Blair and Brown are Scottish?

 

[Will]

Both with English seats, iirc.

 

[Thadius]

Both with English seats, iirc.

Ah, but with a independant Scotland, they would have to run for Scottish seats only?

 

[Ch3tan]

But half the schools in this country are substandard and falling to pieces whilst the other half grab all the best kids and get all the best teachers. The are bad kids who don't want to learn, but at the same time there are 1000's of bright able kids who aren't given a decent opportunity to elarn because their schools suck, and their teachers couldn't give a damn.

And as for healthcare, what do you both define as "basic" healthcare and how do you propose to fund it if everyone who can afford private healthcare is allowed to opt out of the system?

Schools are bad because the youth of today are not encouraged to learn at home, parents expect schools to teach evertyhing and do not take enough involvement in their childs upbringing.

Bottom line is we have stupid people breeding more stupid people.

 

[Furr]

stuff

Sigh* you've been reading too much SNP propoganda instead of getting the facts, just to be clear, I really don't care if Scotland leave but let me quickly carify, in quotes from this Think thank PDF file you can have a look at.

1. First I said i had no idea how the split would work, of course you'd get a share.

2. In terms of the end of the UK
While it is true that the 1707 Acts of Union were part of the process by which the UK
came into being, it is not the case that a change to their provisions would end the United
Kingdom’s existence. This is due to a fundamental principle of the British constitution,
that parliament is sovereign. One parliament cannot bind its successor; what today’s parliament
does, tomorrow’s parliament may undo.
A number of the provisions of the Acts of Union purport to bind parliament in perpetuity.
However, as with any other statute, the Acts can be amended or repealed at parliament’s
pleasure. Indeed, it took a mere four years for that to happen. The Patronage
(Scotland) Act enacted by the British parliament in 1711 was in clear breach of the union
legislation. There are numerous other examples of legislation being enacted contrary to
the provisions of the Acts of Union, and in no case has any such legislation been held by
any court, English or Scottish, to be invalid for that reason.3 The Acts of Union have no
higher status in UK constitutional law than any other law. If it wishes, parliament can
amend or repeal the Acts of Union just as it can any other act. The Acts may have created
the UK—or at least the Great Britain part of it—but that does not mean that the UK
cannot exist without them.

3.
The 1978 Vienna Convention
The SNP meanwhile argues that an independent Scotland would inherit the treaty obligations
of the UK, including the obligations entered into under membership of the
European Union. It bases this assertion on the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of
States in Respect of Treaties, which was negotiated under the auspices of the UN. The relevant
section of the Convention is Article 34 which deals with the sucession of states in
cases of the separation of parts of a state. This Article says that any treaty covering the
entire territory of the predecessor state, which is in force at the time the new countries are
formed, continues in force in respect of each successor state.
However the Vienna Convention does not immediately appear to be relevant in this
instance. Although it came into force in 1996, neither the UK nor any EU member-state
is party to it. Indeed at present only 16 states are party to it. It follows, therefore, that in
the specific case of an independent Scotland the issue would instead be governed by customary
international law. And in the words of the International Law Commission, which
drafted the Vienna Convention,

Even if the UK and other EU member-states were signatories to the 1978 Vienna
Convention, that would not necessarily mean that Article 34 would apply. The reason is
that Article 4 of the same treaty states that the Convention applies without prejudice to
the membership rules of the international organisation in question. Therefore, since the
EU already has treaty rules in place to determine its membership, it could be argued that
Article 4 of the 1978 Vienna Convention means that EU treaties that applied to the old
UK would not automatically apply to a newly independent Scotland.

4.
The European Union is often, however, not considered to be one international organisation
amongst others but something uniquely different. Given this, are the general conclusions
set out above applicable to the specific circumstances of the EU? Two questions, in
particular, arise. Is the conclusion that an independent Scotland would not automatically
become a member of the EU, but would instead have to apply for membership, borne out
by the terms of the constituent treaties and the practice of the EU? If it is, then under what
conditions would Scotland be admitted?
Membership of the European Union is governed by Article O of the Treaty on European
Union (the Maastricht treaty), which states that:
Any European State may apply to become a member of the Union. It shall address
its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the
Commission and after receiving the assent of the European parliament, which shall
act by an absolute majority of its component members.
The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the treaties on which the
Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement
between the member-states and the applicant state. This shall be submitted
for ratification by all the contracting states in accordance with their respective constitutional
requirements.
The second paragraph is very significant. When a state becomes a member of the United
Nations, the UN Charter does not require amendment. But when a county joins the EU,
the various constituent treaties do need to be changed. This is because those treaties
specifically refer to the member-states of the European Union. Under the Treaty of Rome,
the accession of another state to the EU would necessitate, inter alia, the amendment of
the provisions specifying the number of representatives in the European parliament elected
in each member-state; the number of weighted votes held by each member-state when
the Council is required to act by a qualified majority; the number of members of the
Commission; and the numbers of judges of the Court of Justice, of members of the Court
of Auditors, of members of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions from each member-state.
Amendment of a provision of a treaty cannot take place without the consent of all signatories
to the treaty, unless the treaty itself provides otherwise. So it is clear that the EU’s
constituent treaties themselves do not permit a state to succeed to membership of the
Union.

etc etc

Actually read it yourself, its a pro-European site, so I very much they would really care about the union, and thus be quite neutral in their opinion, its a bit out of date, but then nothing has really changed since it was published and it does have other idea's on what might happen. But maybe it will provide some balance to what you've been reading.

http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/cerwp2.pdf

 

[Mofo8]

SNIP

I've you're going to respond simply by cutting and pasting huge chunks of shit then at least sort out the line breaks..... they make my eyes bleed.

 

[Furr]

*apologies* I'm in a lazy mood :S, hungry and the only food requires cooking time, which in turn goes back to my lazy mood which means im also can;t be bothered to point out the mistakes you've made in reply by having to "prove" to you stuff, which you'll probably just ignore anyway.

And its not "shit" as you put it, actually gives a well rounded sum up, its up to you if you wish to read and understand what its saying, or just ignore it because you don't want to take in the valid points its saying because they don't align with the SNP gunk.

 

[Will]

Sigh* you've been reading too much SNP propoganda instead of getting the facts, just to be clear, I really don't care if Scotland leave but let me quickly carify, in quotes from this Think thank PDF file you can have a look at.

*snip*

Actually read it yourself, its a pro-European site, so I very much they would really care about the union, and thus be quite neutral in their opinion, its a bit out of date, but then nothing has really changed since it was published and it does have other idea's on what might happen. But maybe it will provide some balance to what you've been reading.

http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/cerwp2.pdf

Its a New Labour think tank, so not exactly neutral. As with most politics, the truth probably lies somewhere inbetween.

 

[Tom]

If I have money, I would just buy a home abroad and spend all my cash over there! Why stay in a shitty rain soaked country?

Because everybody loves you.

 

[Thadius]

Because everybody loves you.

That got any relation to Tears the admin?

 

[mank!]

I'd vote Lib Dem, as I have done previously but where I live is a staunchly Conservative area - and David Cameron's constituency - so it wouldn't make much difference. All our local councils seem to want to do is put more traffic lights in town and rearrange road systems which were perfectly fine to begin with.

Tories can fuck off and Labour have had their chance. Frankly I don't think any of the three parties would improve anything whatsoever...I'd prefer they didn't ban smoking though.

The BNP are a perfectly legitimate political party. They're also a bunch of racist and fascist wankers preying on people's ignorance, insecurities and fears by portraying themselves as the British face of Britain - the only difference between them and the NF is that the BNP have better PR. They can spout whatever propaganda they want, only the truly ignorant of openly racist will vote for them.

P.S. I'd gladly see Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland be given independence, what is Britain nowadays? I certainly don't consider myself British regardless of what my passport says.

BNP here, will never get in power but it will show the real parties what the population really thinks.

Which is what? That we're a country full of bigoted narrow-minded racists? Oh wait...

 

[mank!]

Slightly off topic, I dont think I could vote BNP either, but I work with quite a few Asian people, a lot of whom see India as thier first home (or Pakistan, or wherever) and England as something less. That annoys me to be honest, makes me wonder where it all went wrong.
On the other hand ,I know other Asian people who see themsleves as British, you cant judge a book by its cover, regardless of what the BNP tell us

Ask the majority of black people if they're English, I suspect they'd say yes.

The difference is that they're third or fourth generation West Indian/African, whereas a lot of the Asians are either immigrants or first generation born in Britain so aren't as far removed from the home of their parents.

I see Ireland as a 'home' because that's where my family is from but it doesn't make me any less English.

Labour have royally fucked up the immigration policies and there are far too many illegal immigrants but the premise that anyone "forrin" should "fuck off home" is absurd in my eyes - some people seem to think that a Polish immigrant who works hard for a living has less right to be here than some slag from a council estate with 54,656 children and lives on benefits.

 

[mank!]

Triple post, can't be fucked to edit again. I can't do it now anyway.

Education's improved since I left school five years ago, the problem is getting kids to want to learn when they're 13/14/15. Education is a wonderful thing, learning and gaining knowledge is quite possibly the greatest thing that a man can do. The problem is that kids just don't want to be forced to do anything and would rather hang around on street corners looking shifty or stabbing one another. The 'quality' of education that I get at college is superb even though my lecturers run out of money to photocopy stuff for us halfway through each term, which speaks volumes in itself.

Promote education + increase funding for schools, colleges and universities + reduce fees = a more intelligent population and a happier world for us all.

 

[Tom]

Not much good having a more intelligent person serving your French Fries though is it?

Academic qualifications are no good if you don't have a job to go to.

I'm continually amazed by the number of ex media students I work with who

a) Have the world's most limp handshake
b) Can't carry equipment around without running out of breath
c) Can't drive a car

I'd rather have a more productive population than a more intelligent population.

 

[tris-]

i think there needs to be more promotion of degrees that are actually worth while and less promotion of shit ones. like journalism and painting pictures :\

 

[mank!]

Not much good having a more intelligent person serving your French Fries though is it?

Academic qualifications are no good if you don't have a job to go to.

I'm continually amazed by the number of ex media students I work with who

a) Have the world's most limp handshake
b) Can't carry equipment around without running out of breath
c) Can't drive a car

I'd rather have a more productive population than a more intelligent population.

It's okay the immigrants will be working in McDonalds.

More intelligent isn't the best use of words on my part, perhaps better educated population is more suitable. If the general population wasn't so fucking ignorant then society wouldn't be half as bad, and that's half the battle won.

 

[Mofo8]

Not much good having a more intelligent person serving your French Fries though is it?

Academic qualifications are no good if you don't have a job to go to.

I'm continually amazed by the number of ex media students I work with who

a) Have the world's most limp handshake
b) Can't carry equipment around without running out of breath
c) Can't drive a car

I'd rather have a more productive population than a more intelligent population.

While I agree that encouraging everyone to move into higher education is just a scam thought up by the Tories and eagerly embraced by Labour (as a way of reducing the unemployment figures in the short-term)... I can't shake the feeling that you, Tom, are an arse. Having a more educated population can only be a good thing. Kidding them on that they are all going to be pop stars/journalists/lottery winners/footballers girlfriends or boyfriends is not.

To have a properly productive population would require having some kind of fucking industry left in this fucking country... Thatcher made sure that wasn't going to happen.... and Blair and New Labour are no better.

It makes my fucking blood boil to see MOD contracts going overseas to countries as stable as South Africa, while pishing away jobs in the UK and in Scotland in particular.

I work in Greenock on the lower Clyde.... it almost makes me weep... at one point we produced a full quarter of the world's shipping here.

 

[Tom]

It's okay the immigrants will be working in McDonalds.

More intelligent isn't the best use of words on my part, perhaps better educated population is more suitable. If the general population wasn't so fucking ignorant then society wouldn't be half as bad, and that's half the battle won.

Oh no, you were quite right, intelligence is nurtured by education. I'm all for having more educated people, but that education should be prioritised for those who can produce what this country needs - technical skills, scientists, engineers, chemists, bankers, financiers, solicitors - that kind of stuff.

Legions of students spending 6 years at university getting a psychology degree, and then not being ever able to get a job, is a waste of everybody's time and money.

Time was, this country had some of the best minds in the world. I think it still does, but we can't compete with the 3rd world in manufacturing, so we should compete with our intellect - the only use a psychology degree has to a student is on him/herself, when he/she is wondering why they're working in a carpet factory.

 

[Tom]

I can't shake the feeling that you, Tom, are an arse. Having a more educated population can only be a good thing. Kidding them on that they are all going to be pop stars/journalists/lottery winners/footballers girlfriends or boyfriends is not.

Oh I seem to have hit a nerve. Tell me, why are universities left right and centre closing their physics, chemistry and biology departments?

Possibly because it isn't sexy to be working at Siemens, earning £50,000 a year making magnets for MRI scanners? Instead, they'd rather be sat in a smelly one-bedroom flat working in a call centre?

BOLLOCKS. I've been to college and university, I got within weeks of my final exams and ditched it in favour of work experience - because at the end of the day, practical experience is worth far more in life than a qualification. Ask any employer.

 

[Mofo8]

Oh I seem to have hit a nerve. Tell me, why are universities left right and centre closing their physics, chemistry and biology departments?.

The point I was attempting to make was that you are a self confessed Tory, and therefore an arse. The Conservatives were the party in power who introduced student loans, while at the same time forcing Colleges and Universities to become self-sufficient businesses. This in turn lead to shorter, cheapened degree courses, silly courses in all sorts of crap, and a spiralling decline in the quality of further education.

Possibly because it isn't sexy to be working at Siemens, earning £50,000 a year making magnets for MRI scanners? Instead, they'd rather be sat in a smelly one-bedroom flat working in a call centre?

Ha ha... who the fuck would rather work in a call centre? Sadly they seem to have become "Great" Britain's new industry.

BOLLOCKS. I've been to college and university, I got within weeks of my final exams and ditched it in favour of work experience - because at the end of the day, practical experience is worth far more in life than a qualification. Ask any employer.

What a waste of taxpayers money. To tie your last 2 points together, I can't see an engineering company like Siemens give an engineering job to someone who's not proved they can achieve the qualifications for it. Work experience is valuable... junior doctors aren't worth shit until they've actually worked with real patients, but surely you're not saying they could pick up everything they need to know 'on the job'?

I'll say it again.... the Tories started this whole problem, and the neo-Tories under Blair have compounded it. What ARE the main ideological and political differences between these two parties?

 

[gmloki]

I think I would vote Other. Mainstream politics from the bug two appears to be meeting somewhere in the middle with Nu labour trying to emulate old Tory and the tories having the soundbites of nu labour with no substance.

I really feel for how this country is going to be when my Son grows up