Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

SNP emphatic local income tax plan will not be scrapped



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 28 July 2008
THE Scottish Government was yesterday forced to deny reports it is on the verge of abandoning a flagship policy of replacing council tax with a local income tax (LIT).
Reports over the weekend suggested the SNP had decided to ditch the policy because the UK government had said it will not give Scotland £400 million council tax benefit if the change goes through.

Scottish Government insiders were quoted as saying they would not force through a policy that left Scotland short of £400 million.

However, John Swinney, the finance secretary, has insisted that whatever the UK government does, he will table the bill next year and he still hopes to have a centrally-set 3p local income tax in place, instead of the council tax, by 2011.

He also threatened to make the £400 million a general election issue.

The LIT policy has been opposed almost unanimously by a range of groups in Scotland.





The full article contains 164 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 July 2008 11:19 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

AM2,

Scotland,UK 27/07/2008 23:50:37
Council tax benefit is part of the council tax system. They were both established by the 1992 Local Government Finance Act. There’s no separating the two.

The 2004 Lyons report in England had also said that the Government “would no longer have to pay council tax benefit in the case of a full replacement LIT”.

The 2006 Burt report on Scottish local government said that “if in Scotland the council tax were replaced by a local income tax, Council Tax Benefit would cease.”

John Hutton, then Work & Pensions Minister, said in April 2007: “Let us be clear, if there is no council tax in Scotland there will be no council tax benefit.”

So the SNP knew the score long before last May’s election, but argued contrary to the facts, even misrepresenting what the Burt report had actually said in order to set the stage for yet another opportunity to whip up grievances.

That said, the money - while not Scotland’s by right, has become part of the overall arrangement in a de facto sense, and so we need a solution which both benefits Scotland and undermines the SNP’s Machiavellian machinations.

So to my mind the Treasury and DWP should find a way of continuing to pay an equivalent amount - not into the Scottish Executive block grant, which would be not unlike yielding your lunch money to the playground bully, but in some other way which wouldn’t let the SNP off their self-created fiscal hook. Perhaps direct to councils?
2

,

28/07/2008 00:03:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 00:10:11
Well the Natz seem certain they will gain independence in 2010.

Therefore bringing in an LIT in 2011 should not be an issue.

SO I cannot understand what they are worried about.
4

ThomasP,

28/07/2008 00:30:41
Labour continues to hold back Scotland.

The SNP will make further gains.

Could Lbaour make it so easy?
5

The Answer,

Glasgow 28/07/2008 00:50:19
How much CTB does England get ?

Nats will have a problem answering that!
6

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 28/07/2008 02:50:25
#1 AM2

Thanks once again (for the thousandth time) for your summary of how things currently stand.

There is however no reason why this cannot be changed, it is simply a matter of allocating the funds that Scotland receives as CTB to the annual grant.

"The LIT policy has been opposed almost unanimously by a range of groups in Scotland."

This is such a non sentence, almost=not completely, unanimously=everyone and range of groups means a selective list. You could say this about almost anything.

Abortion policy has been opposed almost unanimously by a range of groups in Scotland.

Capital Punishment policy has been opposed almost unanimously by a range of groups in Scotland.

The Labour Parties policies has been opposed almost unanimously by a range of groups in Scotland.

Free Beer has been opposed almost unanimously by a range of groups in Scotland.

Union Jack Underpants have been opposed almost unanimously by a range of groups in Scotland.
7

,

28/07/2008 04:18:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

28/07/2008 04:19:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

John Muir,

Botany Bay 28/07/2008 04:24:19
Ah, yes. I see the token Unionist is manifesting his multiple personalities again. And I also see that few can be bothered to reply to his nonsense. Maybe the Nationalists are still sleeping off their Glasgow East hangover. Oh, well. I guess it's my turn to state the obvious.

Tell us, oh learned one(s), when a political party has EVER ditched a cornerstone policies AFTER winning a by-election by a huge swing? The SNP just got a massive endorsement that it is doing a great job. Which part of that sentence do you not understand?

A few points:

LIT is going to happen.

It will happen inside or outside the Union.

Nothing you can do will prevent it happening.

Get your CV up to date.
10

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 04:47:40
7 Begone yourself.

AM2's posts are greatly valued on here (unlike the boring rants that eminate from your keyboard).
11

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 04:51:12
9 "Which part of that sentence do you not understand?"

It was not even a sentence you illiterate fool. I despair.
12

donald,

glasgow 28/07/2008 05:32:34
Make up yer minds Hootsmon. You are in a bigger disarray then your your Labour Party chums.

What happend to your wishful thinking headlines? "SNP to scrap Local Income Tax"
13

subrosa,

28/07/2008 06:28:52
Let's remember the Sundays started this lie about LIT being abandoned. Seemed strange as there was nothing said by any senior SNP MSP.

So this is how it is going to be. More blatant lies in our newspapers and it'll get worse. I'm going back to bed, nothing to read here.
14

Linda,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 07:24:31
It is new Labour which has adopted Tory policies and supports Trident WMD, Nuclear power, illegal war in Iraq,but opposed abolition of student endowment tuition fees, opposes fairer Local Income Tax supports privatisation of National Health Service, opposes independence for Scotland etc etc

Labour have much more in common with the Tories than any other party in UK politics.
15

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 08:33:11
The British Nationalists got onto the board early, led of course but their all-knowing commander - AM2 (uber Brit Nat).

My knowledge of the political situation in Scotland would be all the poorer were it not for his bringing his insightful understanding to the board. Please continue wise one.
16

frank mcbride,

lusitania 28/07/2008 08:42:46
#AM2.

So, AM2, still peddling the lie!!!

Since 1992, CTB has been part of the SBG, and has been confirmed in every Treasury document, referring to it, until OCT 2007 - strangely, some 5mths AFTER the installation of an SNP Government.

You are making great play of the Lyons and Burt reports but, as you very well know AM2, the were, just that, reports, not legislation nor Acts in Council. As such, they have no bearing on the discussion.

The move to withhold CTB from the SBG is simply NuLabour bile and will be recognised, as such, by the people of Scotland.
This petty action by NuLabour will see it punished very severely at forthcoming Elections.
17

Phil C,

28/07/2008 08:47:17
#1 "Council tax benefit is part of the council tax system. They were both established by the 1992 Local Government Finance Act. There’s no separating the two."

Yes there is. You bring in the 2008 Local Government Finance Act to let Scotland keep it's rightful £400m towards local government finance. Simple. This obstruction to demcracy is just the Labour party being petulant- to it's Glasgow East cost.
18

Phil C,

28/07/2008 08:59:07
With LIT there would be no need for Council Tax Benefit because people would pay according to their income. The poor wouldn't pay, pure and simple. The means of collection are already there and it would be easy to keep a local link.

Of course this goes against the Labour ethos of keeping their supporters dependant on government handouts, or seeming to get something for nothing. Family Credit being another example of Labour's expensive con tricks.
19

ochone,

Sauchie, clack's 28/07/2008 09:12:23
The unionists are so predictable, what's the first thing they do after the SNP's great victory, come up with anothe rlie about tthem ditching LIT.

Well that's the first of many thats been shown for what it is.
20

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 28/07/2008 09:31:24
I'm sure that the Scotsman fell for an SNP sting.

Here's how it goes:

Leak a story to the press that you (the SNP) are about to ditch plans for LIT. Wait for the Unionist papers to gratefully print the story, as usual, without checking its voracity.

Once the story has been printed, re-state, publicly your intention to press on with the introduction of LIT, on the back of the recent Glasgow East victory.

Result? Papers like the Scotsman look foolish and anti-Scottish. The SNP look like they have been mis-represented by the press.

Score Scotsman 0 SNP 1
21

Alasdair,

28/07/2008 09:44:42
Nice to see Rufus T. firefly back again. How I appreciated his daily musings last week.

Here's one:
------------
3 Rufus T. Firefly,21/07/2008 00:01:26
Ladbrokes have Labour 4/11 and SNP at 15/8.

Labour become firmer favourites every day.
-----------

Good stuff, Rufus! Keep it up, eh!
22

Alastair the First,

28/07/2008 09:46:12
There's an easy solution to the refusal of Westminster to hand back our taxes in the form of council tax benefit. Just rename it LIT benefit.

Their objection is based on the fact that if there is no council tax, you allegedly can't have council tax benefit. OK, fair enough, so just re-name it to suit whatever the official name of LIT is to be. Problem solved.

Of course the truth is that Labour just wants to be as awkward as possible, a real toys-out-the-pram, corrupt, crooked, immoral, warmongering, controlfreak, arrogant and pretty stupid party. With a psychologically unbalanced and obviously mentally ill leader.
23

Indypal,

28/07/2008 10:01:51
If the argument adopted by AM2 at post 1 is going to be the official Labour line Alex Salmond's target of 20 Westminster seats could easily be doubled.

Could they be any more stupid?
24

Publius,

London 28/07/2008 10:15:19
Methinks that Swinney doth protest too much. The original story was right. Someone high up in the SNP had finally figured out that LIT at 3p in the £ won't work and briefed some journalists that the party would drop it. This forced a denial from Swinney because his career and credibilty is tied to LIT. We've not heard the end of this story. It will run until LIT is dropped - as it will be.
25

,

28/07/2008 10:21:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

Indypal,

28/07/2008 10:28:03
24 No it won't.
27

Legacy,

28/07/2008 10:30:02
After LIT is introduced in Scotland.
Imagine the Scenario in England.
Literally, all Hell would break loose.
The Liebour Media and '75p' know this only to well.
Don't let's get sidetracked, that's the 'only' reason for the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Unionist Propagandists.
*
Sshhh! Listen carefully, have you noticed a distinct grinding sound recently, coupled usually with distinct moaning.
No visit to the Doctor is necessary, this natural phenomenon (LIT Syndrome) will gradually dissipate in 2 or 3 years.



28

Phil C,

28/07/2008 10:35:04
#24 Publicass

I see you're back in London, where you no doubt feel a bit more at home.
29

Alan B,

28/07/2008 10:44:56
#1 AM2

You post denying scotland the money for council tax rebate is just silly.

I remember you also posting that documentation stating that the council tax rebate was part of the block grant was an error.

Seriously you have to stand back from the issue a moment and stop clouding it with your anti snp prejudices.

The scottish parliament was given the right to change the method of local government finance. That is clearly set out in the scottish act for devolution.

It is therefore barmy to say if the scottish parliament uses this power then they will not get money that currently comes to scotland.

Even if you were to take your that council tax rebate was not part of the block grant it should be. You have not been able to show why we should have the right to change the method of local government finanace but then be punished for using that power.

All you end up doing with your argument is say that labour make an absolute hash of devolution. As such you are actually making an good case for independence as labour are not willing to sort out the mistakes thay have made.
30

Alan B,

28/07/2008 10:50:26
#Publius

LIT will only be dropped if the scottish government is denied the money due to scotland via the council tax rebate. As such it will be labour denying scotland money that is rightfully ours.

It is barmy to give the sp the right to change local government finance and then punish scotland by removing funding if we use that power.

Either the sp should have the power to alter local government finance removed or we should get a percentage of any money flowing to england as part of the barnett formula.

All labour are doing is demonstrating the mess they made of the devolution settlement.

What do u think labour position would be if the tories were to introduce a poll tax mark 11 after the next election. Would scotland have to adopt that to get any rebate that is then forethcoming from that method of local government tax. The whole situation is a huge mess of labours making.

This is political spite by labour.
31

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 10:54:48
#22 Alastair the First

Misleading rhetoric like the "refusal of Westminster to hand back our taxes" might play out well on the doorsteps of Glasgow East, but that doesn't make it true.

In that respect the SNP's opponents have a major challenge, because countering such emotive, grievance-laced language without getting so technical that everyone's eyes glaze over is very difficult indeed.

But in essence, CTB can't just be renamed. Take a look at the legislation:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1992/Ukpga_19920014_en_20.htm#sdiv9
32

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:00:38
#16 frank mcbride

I take exception to your use of the phrase “peddling the lie”. Not everyone agrees with you, but that doesn’t make them morally inferior!

Now, let’s look at this issue in some detail.

The SNP claimed in a March 2008 press release that Council Tax Benefit forms “part of the Scottish Block”.

That was a false claim. It was based on an obvious error in a pre-devolution Treasury funding statement. Council Tax Benefit was erroneously listed in Appendix A of the 1999 version of the document as part of the Scottish block, as had originally been the plan in the run-up to devolution.

Check for yourself. The document is titled “Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy”.

You may access it at the following address:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pbr_csr/documents/pbr_csr07_funding.cfm

The error (well, it wasn’t originally an error in 1997, when the base document was written, but became so when the structure changed) was carried forward for several years without being noticed, until the SNP found it and started trying to use it to deny reality. At that point the document was corrected.

Before very recently, the SNP never claimed that CTB was part of the block grant. Ask yourself why.

Rather than basing your views on SNP press releases, I can only suggest that you read the rest of the statement to satisfy yourself that there has never been an actual monetary component of the block devoted to CTB. The only reference to it was in that appendix list.

The SNP’s attempt to spread the false view that CTB was already in the block in order to give the impression that its cessation if LIT were to be introduced would be tantamount to “theft” of “Scotland’s money” is a classic example of their gradualist opportunism.
33

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:09:55
#29 Alan B

There are two aspects to this.

Firstly, that the SNP wilfully misrepresented the legal situation. They have issued at least two press releases containing outright falsehoods. They should not, in my opinion, be rewarded for that. The equivalent funds shouldn't just become part of the Scottish block.

And secondly that the funds which the Treasury is currently paying to Scottish council tax payers should, to my mind, continue to be paid - not to people eligible for CTB (as there won't be any) but to benefit local services across Scotland. If that requires Westminster legislation (and I think it would) so be it.
34

Alan B,

28/07/2008 11:12:45
#32 AM2

You post seems just abit too desparate. You have posted that labour in their base document for devolution had council tax rebate as part of the block grant.

You then say that this remained the situtation with documents showing this in the year of the creation of the scottish parliament.

Then say it was a mistake. Not really believable. What evidence do you have it as a mistake rather than labour just changing its mind after the event.

Can't really see the lib dems for who this was a key policy agreeing to this.

But you still ignore the real issue. What is the point of granting the scottish parliament the power to alter the method of local government tax and then withhold money from scotland if we use that power. Again all you are doing is pointing out the shambles labour made of devolution and their own petty internal games.

What also would happen if the tories move to a poll tax mark 11 and abolish the council tax down south. Scotland would therefore following your logic have to move to this new poll tax to get any future rebate. The situation is a mess of labours making.


35

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:15:03
#27 Legacy

You said:

"After LIT is introduced in Scotland.
Imagine the Scenario in England.
Literally, all Hell would break loose."

At least you're honest enough to admit that the SNP has contrived "populist" giveaway policies intended not just to make them more popular in Scotland but, in the run-up to their planned constitutional referendum, to cause the types of cross-border tensions which feed separatist sentiment.
36

Alan B,

28/07/2008 11:17:10
#AM2

You take the view that it misrepresent the legal postion however not surprisingly they take the opposite view.

"They should not, in my opinion, be rewarded for that."

I think that remark shows you the problem with your view. It is not about rewarding the snp. It is about what is right for scotland.

I do not understand why you do not think it should not be part of the block grant but be paid for services in scotland. How would that be wesminster managing these services in scotland.

Hopefully we can get fiscal autonomy and stop all this nonsense.
37

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:19:39
#35 Hawkeye

You said: "this is another example of how the union is a farce and is unworkable".

I see. So the basic pattern is this:

1. SNP creates a Holyrod/Westminster spat.
2. SNP claims that it shows that the union isn't working.
3. SNP holds out independence as a "solution" to their self-created "problem".
38

Alan B,

28/07/2008 11:20:58
#AM2

One interesing thing about your post.
"but to benefit local services across Scotland"

Firstly that is an admission labour are wrong.

Not sure how that is workable and flexible enough. Take my point about the tories changing the method of local government finance in england.

You solution is just a sticking plaster when what we need is a solution. Either scotland should just get a share of english spending ie barnett. Or and much better we sort out the fiscal issues hopefully with fiscal autonomy.
39

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:22:35
#37 Alan B

Let me be blunter. I'll avoid using the word "lied".

The SNP *falsely claimed* that it was already part of the block grant.

The SNP *falsely claimed* that CTB would continue in the event of a LIT.

Please spare me your "what is right for scotland" rhetoric. It is not right that we should have an administration in Holyrood that, time and again, puts its own strategic obsession above finding constructive solutions.
40

Alan B,

28/07/2008 11:23:19
#AM2

One last things. Just want to ask you this question again as it is not something you have addressed.

What is the point of labour creating a scottish parliament granting that parliament power to alter local government tax and then withholding the money if that parliament chooses to use that power.

While you typically blame the snp for this, this is labours mess.
41

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:25:31
#39 Alan B

CTB is currently paid to individual council tax payers who apply for it. So it supports the funding of council services.

The Scottish Executive is a conduit for those funds - nothing more.

Why do you imagine
42

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:25:43
Scrub "Why do you imagine".
43

Alan B,

28/07/2008 11:26:00
#AM2

"Please spare me your "what is right for scotland" rhetoric. "

Excuse me that is what is important to me. I could not care less about the political parties but do care about how scotland is governed.

Labours position is simple ridiculous.
44

Miss H,

28/07/2008 11:26:18
Way hay!!!

I said I would not waste time commenting on the Scotsman site again but I just had to congratulate AM2 on completely reversing his position on LIT.

He now comes close to admitting that CTB is part of the Scottish block grant and suggests in post 1 that the £400 million could be paid directly to councils.

Fantastic progress there.

That after all is what the SNP was suggesting anyway!!!!!

CTB is paid direct to councils now and the SNP want LIT benefit to be paid direct to councils too.

So we are all agreed.
45

Alan B,

28/07/2008 11:27:12
#43 AM2

Do not understand your post.
46

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:30:58
#42 Hawkeye

Your notion that the SNP has some kind of specific mandate, when only 17% of the electorate even voted for them, to pursue independence is devoid of any kind of logic.

Now, I agree that the devolved government has no *legal* obligation to consider the effect of its policies elsewhere in the UK.

However, your comment about "policies that suit us and suit our desire for independence" makes my point for me.

These types of policies are fuelling the types of cross-border and cross-community tensions which, I fear, may not always be contained to online discussion forums.
47

Alan B,

28/07/2008 11:31:02
#AM2

You are still avoiding the main issue.

Labour granted the scottish parliament the right to alter local government tax. Their position is to remove that money from scotland if the parliament use that power.

That is barmy.

Even you agree that is wrong (although i am confused about you solution and its merits). Seems more like a way for preventing the sp using it to help finance lit which is just wrong.
48

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:34:08
#46 Miss H

Erm, I haven't reversed my position at all. You evidently haven't been paying attention.

CTB is NOT part of the block grant. Never has been.

Where has the SNP suggested that these funds be paid to councils?

Or is this more of your "inside information"?
49

Miss H,

28/07/2008 11:35:43
51

Council Tax Benefit

45. Council Tax Benefit provides help with paying council tax for people on low incomes. Council Tax Benefit, as with all benefits, is controlled by the UK Government. It is administered by councils, but paid for by the Department for Work and Pensions ( DWP), which gives the money straight to councils.

46. The latest figures (May 2007) from DWP indicate that 533,300 households in Scotland were receiving Council Tax Benefit (either full or partial). Under existing arrangements, over £1.1 billion will be due to be paid in the next three years by DWP to Scottish Councils. We will negotiate with the UK Government as to the future of this Council Tax Benefit money on three grounds.

47. The first is that, according to the current Statement of Funding Policy for the devolved administrations (published by HM Treasury in October 2007), Council Tax Benefit is listed as a component of the Scottish Block, post devolution.

48. The second is as regards a mechanism to reimburse the Scottish Government with an amount equal to the saving in reduced Council Tax Benefit which is described in the Statement of Funding Policy. The UK Government has not operated this mechanism fully for some years and funding was suspended after settlement of the 2003-04 claims. As a result, a significant level of funding, worth several hundred million pounds in total, that would have been due to the Scottish Government from the UK Government has never been paid. The Scottish Government will seek to reverse this decision by the UK Government.

49. The third is as regards a matter of principle. We believe that Scotland should continue to receive from the UK Government the level of funding currently paid as Council Tax Benefit once the council tax is abolished. The Scottish Government is clear that moving from a council tax to a Local Income Tax will not place any greater burden on the UK Exchequer and that, as a result, the UK Government should continue to make ava
50

Miss H,

28/07/2008 11:36:02
the UK Government should continue to make available an equivalent sum to Scotland after the abolition of council tax. Council Tax Benefit is paid to Scottish councils to provide financial support for the delivery of local services. The introduction of a local income tax does not change that requirement and that is why Scottish councils should continue to receive this flow of revenue under a new system.
51

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:39:49
#49 Alan B

You seem not to understand what the SNP has done here.

Burt said CTB would stop if CT stopped. The SNP issued a press release saying the opposite.

The SNP is privy to the accounts which make plain the exact status of the CTB. They know it's not part of the Scottish block. Yet they contrived to find one error in one document, authored in 1997, to falsely claim that it was.

This is gutter politics; tantamount to bullying. The SNP overpromised in order to get elected, and now - surprise! surprise! - can't afford to follow through.

Are you seriously expecting the Treasury to bail them out? Not a chance. The money will - I hope - continue to benefit Scotland, but it should go to provide local services, not to fill the SNP's self-created financial black hole.
52

Publius,

London 28/07/2008 11:40:42
30 Alan B

Good morning Alan
Your argument is plausible but not convincing. LIT does not add up with or without the council tax rebate. (And, as is well know to you, there a host of other problems too.) That Labour won't provide an equivalent of the rebate provides the SNP with an excuse for dropping LIT but not the reason.
Note that it is Swinney who denied yesterday's story. No-one else high up in the SNP has denied it. Nor have any of the usually well-informed SNP posters to this board. Ergo the story must have been true.
53

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:45:19
#52 Miss H

Well, that's only a consultation document and I'm not going to start deconstructing it as many of the issues have been covered above. But if indeed the SNP is now proposing that it goes to councils, then we may have a solution. Is that the first time on this forum that we've ever managed to agree on a practical outcome? ;-)
54

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:47:50
#56 Hawkeye

So much for consensus. That may be one of the most warped arguments I've ever read here.

So is anyone actively opposing racism in fact accentuating it, because they're drawing attention to it? What a bizarre train of thought.
55

Miss H,

28/07/2008 11:49:58
54 Utter nonsense. The document in question has been published 4 or 5 times since that date.

The people who drew up the consultation on LIT whichb refers to the status of CTB are civil servants - not SNP staff.

If you are accusing civil servants of deliberately publishing lies that is a very serious accusation and you had better be ready to back it up.
56

Miss H,

28/07/2008 11:51:36
57 The SNP always suggested it go to councils. Where else would it go for goodness sake? It is part of the funding of local authority services so it goes to local authorities.
57

Alan B,

28/07/2008 11:52:47
#AM2

You are still avoiding the question i am asking. You seem to want to avoid admitting labour made a mess of the whole thing. Either it is part of the block grant and labour are wrong. Or it is not and labour made a mess of the devolution settlement as it makes no sense to devolve the method of local government tax and then withhold money from scotland if the sp uses that power.

Let me try another angle.

The situation is:

Should the money from the council tax rebate come to scotland if the sp uses the power in the scotland act to change the method of local government tax.

my view: yes
AM2 view: yes
labour view: no

As such we both agree that the money should still come to scotland. Only labour are wanting to withhold that money.

The question then if u take the view we both share that the money should still come to scotland is how should that money come.

I really do not understand what you are proposing. You say it would still fund local services but since the sp funds most of local government then it would make sense to pay it to the sp. Are you prosposing the westminster directly pays scottish councils. i also pointed out above an obvious flaw with regarding future changes in english local government tax.

It make sense if the money is still to come to scotland that the democratically elected parliament can choose how to spend money in scotland. That is after all what devolution is for.

The thing that lets your whole argument down it you are determining a constitutional arrangement based on how to punish a one point in time administration in the scottish parliament for what you perceive to be wrongdoing. That is no way to make a constitutional arrangment workable.
58

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:54:22
#59 Miss H

Sorry, but the "utter nonsense" is all yours. And I'm not "accusing" civil servants of "publishing lies". Please stop beating straw men.

Appendix A was based on this 1997 document:
http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/press/1997/p157_97.html

It was carried forward for several years. That was an error, nothing more.

Tell you what: please link me to actual accounts showing the monetary component of the Scottish block which you think constitutes CTB. If you can do that, I'll willingly yield the point.
59

,

28/07/2008 11:55:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
60

Miss H,

28/07/2008 11:55:50
61 At present CTB is paid direct to councils, the SNP propose that LIT benefit is paid in exactly the same way so it would go direct to councils. The money is part of local government funding so whether the DWP pays it or the SP pays it, it goes to councils. It doesn't really matter who pays it as long as councils get it.
61

Alan B,

28/07/2008 11:55:53
#Publius

As you know i am not actually pro LIT. Just believe in the right of the scottish parliament to use the powers at it disposal without having funding removed as a way of punishment for using these powers.

Do not agree with you. If your argument was correct then labour could give the money to the sp and let the snp drop it as unaffordable causing them an electrol headache.
62

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:56:13
#61 Alan B

We would appear to be talking past each other here. Let's slow down.

FACT: CTB will not be paid if CT is replaced. That would be legally impossible.

Do you accept that point?
63

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 11:58:00
#63 Oscar/Alberto/Alex X

Not your concern. But did you profusely apologise to me for attempting to expose my name, address, phone number etc on this forum?
64

,

28/07/2008 12:01:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 12:05:46
#68 Alberto/MxX/deleteduser/OscarMacApfel

Who I am is none of your concern. Your attempt to reveal my personal details, after - as you know - I had been threatened with physical violence, cybercrime etc by a few of the more extreme elements here - was irresponsible, to say the least.
66

Miss H,

28/07/2008 12:07:16
62 Actually AM2 you accused the SNP of telling lies about the status of CTB. So when the same statement is made in a document written by civil servants suddenly it is not a lie? Are they just incompetent?

I love the sweeping way you decide that the allocation of CTB was an error. And we accept that on your say-so alone do we?

What's the point of arguing this one.

The consensus position seems to be that the money should continue to be paid and that it should be paid directly to councils to deliver services.

Fine. So let's persuade the UK Government of that.
67

,

28/07/2008 12:08:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
68

Alan B,

28/07/2008 12:09:35
#66 AM2

Yes seems about right.

Care to answer my question though. I ahve tried afew times now.

You are wanting to look at it from a very technical and trying to find a legal means of stopping the sp getting the money.

I am trying to look at this from a high level. What should happen? How should devolution work?

The high level questions are
How do u finance the scottish parliament. If it is barnett as currently how do make sure that the money scotland should get ie currently does, will remain if it implements a different policy to london.

So far we have seen money withdrawn as part of the free personal care issue and that was with labour in scotland. That was totally wrong.

Now we are seeing labour trying to withhold money both you and me agree should be forethcoming to scotland.

We have also seen labour paying additional money for prisons in england and then not giving scotland the money that should be forethcoming to the sp.


I am starting to think you really are a labour man. It seems to me if you were a unionist supporter with no party allegiances you should be more angry with labour for their actions.

I will let Miss H and you argue about wether the council tax rebate is part of the block grant legally. But i notice she is happy with your solution to pay the money to the councils.

My point is the stand back and say that no matter whether it technically is part of the block grant or not. It would be bonkers to give scotland the power to change the method of tax and then remove funding for using that power.

It is the last sentence you really have to address.
69

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 12:11:15
#70 Miss H

Are you aware of the fact that in April 2006, the SNP issued a press release which quoted a section of the Burt report which said this?

“we would not expect eligibility for Council Tax Benefit to be affected by the proposed changes”

That quote was taken from a chapter of the report which was about a simple adjustment to council tax terms "local property tax" – using a fixed percentage of the value of the house instead of banding.

Yet the SNP used that quote to try and claim that CTB would continue to be paid if they introduced a LIT.

The relevant section of the report (the chapter about LIT) had actually said: “if in Scotland the council tax were replaced by a local income tax, Council Tax Benefit would cease”.

Judge for yourself. Do you think that was an "error" or a "lie"?
70

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 12:46:06
#73 Hawkeye

You referred to “two incompatible nations are being forced to live in each other's faces when they really don't want to”.

Actually, I don't think they are “incompatible”, and I certainly wouldn’t characterise being around people from the other constituent nations of the UK and sharing a country with them as being “forced to live in each other's faces”. What a repugnant notion.

But if you want to contrive an argument that my appreciation of the inherently multi-ethnic and multi-cultural basis of the composition of the United Kingdom as the union of its constituent countries means that it is I - not you - who has a vested interest in whipping up separatist tensions, then go right ahead.
71

,

28/07/2008 12:47:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
72

,

28/07/2008 12:48:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
73

,

28/07/2008 12:49:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
74

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 12:50:19
#72 Alan B

One step at a time. Let's come back to your question later.

You said: "Yes seems about right" that CTB would cease. So you're agreeing with the Burt and Lyons reports, John Hutton and James Purnell. You're acknowledging the point that if monies continued to be paid, they wouldn't be CTB but some equivalent amount.

Given that we agree on that basis point, why do you think the SNP has been so underhand about this?
75

,

28/07/2008 12:50:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
76

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 13:28:41
#71 Alberto/Norbert Dentressangle/Geoff Careless

It's none of your business if I gave Scotsman.com my own name, a mate's name or a completely fictitious name. The fact is that you somehow discovered that name, Googled it to find an address and other details, and then posted those to the forum.

That was irresponsible, implicitly threatening and very possibly illegal.
77

Publius,

London 28/07/2008 13:32:20
#65 Alan B

Good Afternoon Alan
Labour is not clever enough to pull a stunt like that. Even if they tried they'd fall flat on their faces.
More importantly, what Labour thinks doesn't matter any more. The Tories will be in office from 2010 and it will be up to them do deal with taxation issues. Personally, I think the SNP will have backtracked on LIT before then, so the Tories won't have to worry about it.
78

,

28/07/2008 13:37:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
79

,

28/07/2008 13:39:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
80

Publius,

London 28/07/2008 13:41:14
#73 Hawkeye
You write 'Scotland and England are clearly in the stage of dissolving their union'.
I wouldn't be so sure. The SNP still have to win parliamentary approval for a referendum and then win the referendum. These are both big hurdles.
Also sentiment for union may be deeper than you think. Intermarriage between English and Scots is greater than intermarriage between French and English-speaking Canadians and far greater than between Flemings and Walloons in Belgium. There are sizeable numbers of Scots in England and English in Scotland. Also there are a huge number of people who work for cross-border organisations in both the private and public sectors. When (or if) independence becomes a real prospect they will start to think about their jobs and pensions.
81

GM,

28/07/2008 13:43:58
AM2


*please* stop referring to the Burt report as if it has any more weight than the advisory report that it is.

Its not law,
Its not in any way shape or form enshrined in statute.


It was a review document of local government finance, full of ideas, recommendations and comment. Nothing more, nothing less.

You choose parts of it and hold them up as some sort of absolute authority which is ridiculous.

FFS the people who requested the review threw out *all* of its main conclusions!!!
82

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 13:56:46
#87 GM

I am well aware that Burt isn't law. I'm not making any such pretence. That's why I provided a link to the relevant Act. Here is is again:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1992/Ukpga_19920014_en_20.htm#sdiv9
83

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 14:02:09
I wish this sun would go away. It is like watching the Return of the Living Dead walking down Renfield Street.

Confirmation indeed that we are the fattest people in Europe. Salmond is setting a bad example.
84

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 14:03:17
I wish this sun would go away. It is like watching the Return of the Living Dead walking down Renfield Street.

Confirmation indeed that we are the fattest people in Europe. Salmond is setting a bad example.
85

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 14:09:58
I wonder if Nicola Sturgeon goes outdoors in this weather. Her terrible palour suggests she only ever goes out after dark. Maybe its a good thing.
86

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 28/07/2008 14:17:11
#32 AM2

From what you say, it appears that the CTB was originally part of the block grant (not in error as you say) and when the SNP develop their policy on LIT, the UK Government moved the goalposts in order to frustrate them.

Not very clever!
87

Scottish 'N British,

28/07/2008 14:19:46

WTF

Go away on business for a couple of days and return to find out Mr Nice Guy has been voted in by the punters of Glasgow East.

Whatever happened to 'Best Candidate'?

It's the Separatist equivalent of the Donkey/Red Rossette, but in this case turkeys voting for Christmas.

And they think they've had it bad under Scottish Labour.

Waiting in anticipation to hear from Cllr Mason on how he's going to 'turn round' Glesca' East.


88

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 14:23:22
#92 connaughtboy

Not so. CTB has never been part of the Scottish block.

It was the original intention, around 1997, to include it within the block, and it's a memo (157/97) from around that time on which the SNP based its false claim. I provided a link in #62 above.

The Treasury error, which the SNP later (much later) exploited, was in reproducing parts of that document in an Appendix of a document which was republished annually up to 2007, without clarifying that it wasn't actually current.
89

Scottish 'N British,

28/07/2008 14:23:34
90

The Tubby vision of Salmond has been superceded by the new, slimline pic on the front of the Nats Con.

It's Time

Ffor the Tubby Police to move in.

Suggest they co-ordinate with their colleagues in the Broken Promises Division.
90

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 14:26:04
#89 #95

What does Salmond's waistline have to do with this? Shoo! You're giving unionists a bad name. They'll think we have senses of humour. ;-)
91

brownlie,

28/07/2008 14:34:45
90/91 Rufus

How school-boyish and original to post insults to two members of the SNP from the cowardly safety of the anonymity afforded by the internet.

Predictably, your unionist chums at 95 and 96 applaud your witty repartee.
92

Scottish 'N British,

28/07/2008 14:38:22
96

Salmond made tackling obesity in Scotland a key manifesto commitment.

Yet another broken promiase.
93

Scottish 'N British,

28/07/2008 14:39:48
97

In all seriousness, I'm more interested in what changes Salmond aims to bring forward to help the 'failed' punters of Glasgow East.
94

,

28/07/2008 14:41:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
95

Scottish 'N British,

28/07/2008 14:50:10
100

Ask him what happened to his promise to scrap student debt and £2,000 for first time buyers.

Perhaps the money for yer wee shindig could have gone towards propping up Salmond's SFT.
96

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 14:57:24
#97 brownlie

Yes, they're insults. And no, I wasn't approving. Quite the opposite.

Neither do I approve of people who agree with me that Scotland’s interests are best served within the United Kingdom being referred to as “enemies of Scotland”, “traitors within the gate” and only “claiming to be Scottish”.

But those insults are on the SNP’s website, nonetheless.

Which of these do you think carries more potential for societal schism - an insult based on someone's weight/pallor, or an insult based one group of Scots someone being thought of as the “enemy”, “traitors” and “less Scottish” than another group?
97

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 15:04:33
#100 Oscar/Alberto

Tell me: was this by personal invitation of the First Minister?

Does he know you think of non-nationalists as "our internal anglicisers"?

Does he know that you placed a family at possible risk of harassment by publishing to the internet what you thought was my name, address, phone number, email address etc?

Does he know that you linked to "shock site" showing a picture of a charred corpse afrom the first Gulf War, and tagged it “USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA”?

Does he know that you commented on the Times forum in response to a story about the SNP’s changes to university funding which placed English students at a relative disadvantage in Scotland, compared to Scottish students, and said: “Splendid news I do so enjoy lighting my cigars with English twenty pound notes. Please keep sending them to us poor North Britain's”, signing it "Oscar MacApfel, Gravytrainopolis, Bonny Scotland" - and that you later said that it "amused me to goad hysterical ranting from little Englander's on the Times site"?

Does he know that you said: “here in the South of Scotland we say "We border on the barely acceptable."”?

I'm guessing he doesn't. Perhaps he should keep better company.
98

Scottish 'N British,

28/07/2008 15:20:32
103

Sticks and stones.

Calling Salmond names will pale in comparison to the flak he'll be getting when he fails to deliver on his promises.

BTW, I would never have believed for one moment that the insults you list are on any offical party's website.

Sums it all up.

99

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 15:25:27
#104 Scottish 'N British

Sticks and stones are significant when they indicate the manner in which one person thinks about another. Words like "internal anglicisers", "traitor", "enemy" etc are to my mind as dangerous as words like "n*****".
100

,

28/07/2008 15:27:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
101

Scottish 'N British,

28/07/2008 15:32:34
105

It's a bit like the BNP - another ideology - remarks such as this aren't shared in the everyday working environment - I certainly can't recollect anything in all my decades of being on this planet.

Funny the SNP tends to play this down whilst this is on their website.

102

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 15:39:32
#106 Alberto

I'll be as brief as possible, and then I want to take advantage of the weather.

The term "internal anglicisers", used of unionists, is dangerous. It will chime with those anti-English elements with whom I feel certain you would not wish to be seen to identify.

As Alex X, you posted the details which you thought were mine, as you have previously admitted in your "Alberto Y Lost Trios Paranoias" guise as through the other channel.

I don't care who took the photo. Your use of it was revolting.

I don't think I need to say anything more re. "delightful Little Englanders" etc. Your words speak for themselves.

That's as may be, but for the record I wouldn't characterise England as "barely acceptable".

I feel sure that the First Minister has never heard of me and would give you a blank stare. As for Labour leader, that's entirely up to them.
103

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 15:41:58
#107 Scottish 'N British

Yes, I was totally unaware of such outright hostility towards unionists. Like you, I've never encountered it in my everyday life. Rather depressing to know it even exists, that some of our fellow countrymen view us such.

Anyway, on that downbeat note, I'm off to cheer up. Bye.
104

Senga Jean,

28/07/2008 15:44:50
I just love the way that the SNP sustains Scottish culture yet keeps a welcome for all the world's peoples and ideas. This international outlook torments the tabloids but thinking people are grateful for some balance in an increasingly illiberal world. Long may the SNP encourage those of a narrow outlook to open their eyes to the hopes and possibilities of a free and independent Scotland.
105

,

28/07/2008 15:49:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
106

kimba,

28/07/2008 15:57:10
Not only will this be "scrapped" but word has it salmond is to go back on his council tax freeze!
107

Allan(handofgod137),

28/07/2008 16:29:27
So the nuggets are still stuck on their mantra of tax success and ambition. The problem we should be addressing is the number of people who contribute nothing, but are still allowed to vote.
108

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 16:30:47
112 kimba

Evidence you troll. Evidence. Thought not.
109

kimba,

28/07/2008 17:01:05
114. Check out your very own scotsman!
110

,

28/07/2008 17:02:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
111

Miss H,

28/07/2008 17:13:11
106 I thought it was Paul Henderson Scott who coined the phrase internal anglicisers but stand corrected.

I look forward to AM2 denouncing Paul Scott now as a dangerous hardline nationalist.
112

Miss H,

28/07/2008 17:15:43
116 Kimba you are without doubt the stupidest person who ever posts on this site. Why do you bother? You understand less than a tenth of what people are talking about and your contributions add nothing. Go away and play somewhere else.
113

kimba,

28/07/2008 17:15:56
Ah,miss H, you do know salmond is sterile fool.
114

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 17:18:48
Kimba, Salmond is big. Very big.

So much so, if now has his own post code.
115

Miss H,

28/07/2008 17:19:48
119 And here was I wanting to have his babies.

How old are you?
116

kimba,

28/07/2008 17:21:33
120. LOL. it's all the rich food!
117

kimba,

28/07/2008 17:22:26
121. As old as my feet and a little older than my teeth!
118

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 17:25:16
Salmond is so fat , the last time he went on holiday and sunbathed on the beach, Greenpeace tried to re-float him.
119

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 17:28:00
Salmond went for a swim and everybody shouted "Free W1lly.
120

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 17:28:33
115 kimba

Ah, the objective jottings of a unionist mouthpiece. Just the place to get my information. If the SNP drops (not postpones) the LIT I will come on here and personally apologise to you and your fellow troll AM2.

119 kimba

What age are you? 12, 13? Run along now wee man, best not be late for bed. At least AM2 has half a brain (literally). You my friend have an education that barely extends beyond the first couple of years of primary school.
121

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 17:32:31
Any signs of the average life expectancy increasing down Glasgow East way?

Mason has had 4 days. I bet has ears are ringing. Him being a "yes" man and all that.
122

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 17:35:27
#119 Kimba, if that is true, would it make any difference?
123

,

28/07/2008 17:42:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
124

Miss H,

28/07/2008 17:54:37
129 Ooh you are going to get banned for that one.
125

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 18:04:42
#129 . . .Really Alberto?

You are an even bigger sicko than I thought.
126

,

28/07/2008 18:10:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
127

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 18:15:18
#130 yes that could result in a ban if it gets reported.

I hope no one does report it though. I want everybody to read it and see what a sick and twisted individual Alberto is.
128

,

28/07/2008 18:20:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
129

,

28/07/2008 18:21:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
130

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 18:29:24
#134 Weirdo
131

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 18:32:50
Alberto the weirdo looks like he has copped a ban for some disgusting and depraved sick postings.
132

brownlie,

28/07/2008 18:43:59
102 AM2

Yes, they are insults but you don't approve. Why, then, post a jocular(no offense intended)remark and a "smiley face" in reference to the unacceptable insults.

To me an insult is an insult and designed to demean the subject of the insult. For instance, going up to some-one in the pub and calling them "fat and oily" would probably get as violent a response as calling some-one a little Englander or whatever!

If you have ever read any of my posts in the past you will know that I publicly disapprove of insults - whether from nationalists or unionists as - self-evidence of weak points of view.

133

GM,

28/07/2008 18:52:29
Ah AM2,

is there *any* chance you are going to get off your latest hobbyhorse of attempting to smear nationalism as a dangerous obsession.

It really is tiresome in the extreme.

No-one with any sense believes your inferences that there is a sweeping tide of bigotry and racism in scotland, fueled by the SNP. Its laughable but you *keep banging on about it*...

What is the point?

Do you think that there are no fringe extremist elements in *any* political colour? It comes with the territory and you know it, but you home in on the SNP and its supporters tirelessly.

For goodness sake, how about tomorrow you attempt to debate the stories you post comments to, ignoring any idiotic abuse?

Please try it for once.
134

GM,

28/07/2008 18:53:29
Oh I meant to add that *yet again* AM2 retires from a thread and the 'big red marker pen' comes out!
135

,

28/07/2008 19:02:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
136

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 28/07/2008 19:26:24
May I make a suggestion to all my fellow Nats who post on here, it's time to ignore team AM2 for good.

Bearing in mind that the majority of people who read these posts, unlike the rest of us who contribute, dont bother to do so, it is they we should be making points to. it is obviuus that the AM2 crowd are just going to go over the same old stuff which has been answered time and again, so concentrate your attentions on those who merely read comments, they are the ones which are important.

The AM2's of this world, like the union, have had their day and having nothing left to add to Scotlands story, it's time to move on.
137

,

28/07/2008 19:29:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
138

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 19:35:41
#143 Meth. Thats a bit rich. You are one of the biggest posters of garbage on here and well you know it. The definition of "Forum" in your dictionary obviously says "chatroom".

The highlight of your day is getting post number 100. Closely followed by post 200.

And so it continues.
139

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 19:40:30
Meths, now that is laughable.

Since when did you ever stick to the topic?
140

,

28/07/2008 19:40:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
141

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 19:42:27
Meths, 148, but who was that mystery poster?
142

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 19:44:11
#137 brownlie

Your strenuous efforts to discredit me reveal an intense commitment to your “cause” and an in-depth knowledge of its stock tactics. Well done!

The “smiley” wasn’t an approving smile, but a wink ;-) and related only to the sentence about a sense of humour.

But in this case, I didn’t see much humour, if any. Comments about people’s weight or pallor (or wide mouth or eye twitch, for example) tend to be unfunny. I didn’t approve, and I said so.

I find it peculiar that you try to make something of the fact that I didn’t go into overbearing schoolmarm mode over Rufus’s and SnB’s posts, but yet you say absolutely nothing about the SNP’s website containing much more seriously insulting comments about people like me being “traitors” and “enemies of Scotland”.

Why not? Don’t you think a little perspective might be in order?
143

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 19:44:58
#150. Wrong again. i did not try to get you banned. I did not report any of your posts.

I was disappointed they were removed.
144

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 19:47:43
#139 GM

Who said anything about "fringe extremists"?

I was referring to www.snp.org.
145

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 19:51:26
#142 ochone

A social psychiatrist would have a field day with your post.

I'll say nothing more. I wouldn't want to exacerbate matters.
146

,

28/07/2008 19:53:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
147

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 19:57:11
The vile, brutal, vicious abuse that was directed to Wendy Alexander on this forum was an absolute disgrace. All of it went unchallenged.

If one dares say Alex Salmond is fat (which lets face it he is, very), well thats it. Hanging is too good for you.
148

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 19:57:46
#142 ochone

Actually, what the heck. Remember your “blog”? The one where you spent hour after hour writing 8,000 words of fictional drivel about me?

http://ochones.blogspot.com/

At the time you explained your motive, saying: “Do you know I think my litttle tales of AM2 family life may be getting to him, maybe he will crack.”

Not a very friendly thing to attempt, I thought. Anyway, I’m sorry it backfired.
149

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 20:01:04
#157 Rufus T. Firefly

Two wrongs, and all that...?

Did you see the treatment meted out to Margaret Curran as she left Tollcross Leisure Centre after last week's count?

http://tinyurl.com/5w3c7f

Do you think the other parties should behave in the same manner? I hope not.
150

,

28/07/2008 20:03:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
151

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 20:21:08
AM2. Yes you are correct. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Having said that, its worth noting the reactions to fully understand the extent of the hypocracy.
152

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 20:22:28
#159 AM2

The Labour Party do behave like that. I've seen it with my own eyes and it was a lot worse than that 'meted' out to Curran. Rufus proves my point to an extent.
153

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 20:24:00
#161 Rufus T. Firefly

That's true. But it's what I've come to expect from members of a movement which seems to regard itself not as simply representative of one possible train of thought among many, but as absolutely the only legitimate option.
154

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 20:24:49
#162 tartan army 2222

If they do, it's despicable. Got a link of some type to prove it?
155

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 20:26:40
#163 AM2

Independence is not the only legitimate option. It is the only right and proper option of those available.
156

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 20:30:30
#164 AM2

Yeah I videotape the Labour Party every time I stand at a voting station. You don't have to believe me when I say that I've been physically threatened, have heard of others being beaten up in pubs, threatened to come down from putting up posters or the ladder would be kicked away etc etc etc. That my friend is the Labour Party in Scotland
157

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 20:33:34
#165 tartan army 2222

And the others are "wrong" / "improper", and those who think so likewise. Sure.

Anyway, thanks for reinforcing my point for me.
158

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 20:36:04
167 AM2

I don't disagree with your point, so I have no qualms in reinforcing it. Likewise most Brit Nats think that the union is the only right and proper option - it works both ways.
159

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 20:37:44
#166 tartan army

Any credibility which your claims might have had went out the window when you tried to attribute the alleged actions of individuals to the Labour Party as a whole.

You will note that I have not (and would not) attribute the distasteful scenes in the YouTube video to the SNP in any corporate sense.

Get me some evidence and we'll talk again.
160

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 20:41:24
#168 tartan army

1. I'm no "Brit Nat". Nationalism in all its forms repels me.
2. The union is not the "only right and proper option".

I can't speak for every unionist, but given that obviously I have a keen preference for remaining within Britain (to the point that one of your compatriots once branded me "public enemy no.2") the fact that I don't fit your perceived stereotype should perhaps prompt you to think again.
161

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 20:43:05
Let me quote you:

*****
Do you think the other parties should behave in the same manner?
*****

Tell me, given that phrase, that you're not trying to imply that the party as a whole was responsible.

162

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 20:44:13
#172 tartan army

I was not, and I apologise for my overly compressed language. I should have referred to party activists, not parties.
163

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 20:50:34
174 AM2

Whereas I believe there is no directive from above in the Labour Party to intimidate members of other parties. However, coming from the background of the miners' strike it is inbuilt amongst many Labourites to meet opposition with intimidation.
164

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 20:52:25
#176 tartan army

Well, that's your take. As I said, evidence would help.
165

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 20:53:23
#175 Methalions

Not a name I would give a child. Whatcha think about council tax benefit?
166

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 20:55:00
177 AM2

I'm sure the Standards Commission have many stories to tell.
167

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 20:55:30
edit:

replace 'sure' with 'know'
168

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 20:56:53
#179 tartan army

Fine. Get them over here. ;-)

Anyway, this has became a bit too chatroom-like. I'll leave you with Meths. Bye.
169

AM2,

Scotland,UK 28/07/2008 20:58:02
Eeek! Gruesome grammar malfunction. Has become.
170

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 21:07:37
AM2

You asked for evidence sir. I'm sure you'll attempt to shoot this down in flames as being an individual case - but it is the sum of the parts and this is but one example.

http://www.standardscommissionscotland.org.uk/decisions/la_el_162_cio_report.html
171

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 21:13:33
And another one:

http://www.standardscommissionscotland.org.uk/04_11_05pr.html
172

brownlie,

28/07/2008 21:15:02
152 AM2

Once again, can I ask you to read posts properly before flying off the handle.

I do not make strenuous efforts to discredit you and, again, if you carefully read posts you will find that I actually stood up for you on more than one occasion when you were being stalked by the nasty little sweetie man.

I have never insulted you, or anyone else on this site, although I pretty much disagree with most, but not all, that you write.

As for the comments on the SNP site I have not read it and if it offends you I would suggest that you do not read it either. I am not sure why you assume that I would read it but I do wish you would think before you post.

I don't know what you mean by my "cause" and as far as my sense of perspective is concerned if you carefully read my last paragraph at 138 perhaps you can come back and tell me what is wrong with that perspective?
173

tartan army 2222,

28/07/2008 21:46:30
And the trend continues:

AM2 argues a point
It is refuted
AM2 asks for evidence to prove he is wrong
Evidence is given
AM2 disappears

Funny that
174

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 28/07/2008 21:58:35
#159 AM2

Margaret Curran was so rude to John Mason during the debates that she actually deserved the "treatment" she got from SNP supporters and the electorate of Glasgow East.

What goes around comes around! She should learn this.
175

frank mcbride,

lusitania 28/07/2008 22:19:19
#AM2.

You are stillpeddling the lie, although, in your own peculiar way, you have again managed to divert this discussion.

CTB IS an integral constituent of the SBG.

You have agreed this, but conveniently suggest that it was an UN-NOTICED error, for 10 (TEN) years!!!!

Was this an "unintenional" inclusion, in official Treasury documents???

AM2, even you cannot be such a dissembler, or can you?
176

ochone,

Sauchie, clack's 28/07/2008 22:52:48
Meanwhile back at the ranch, I love the bit where it says the Scottish government were FORCED deny etc etc.

It smacks of yet more unionist desperation!
177

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 22:52:59
Hey Ochone, just read your blog.

http://ochones.blogspot.com/

You are one helluva weirdo.

Whats all this fictional nonsense about AM2?

You should be locked up and kept away from sharp objects.

What a weirdo.
178

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 22:54:55
159 AM2 this link does not work?

http://tinyurl.com/5w3c7f
179

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 28/07/2008 23:05:50
Instead of the half-baked drivel fron unionists on this page might I suggest the following,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article4407171.ece

It's a link to an article on independence in the Times by Simon Jenkins and whilst I don't agree with all he says, it is at least a grown up contribution to the debate on Scotlands future.
180

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 28/07/2008 23:16:38
Rufus T. firefly, You are as usual way behind the times, check the date of those blogs.

They actually started on the Scotsmans site and proved so popular that I was getting requests for more from as far away as parts of America, where folk were saving them and then forwarding them on to others.

But the novilty wore of for me after a while so I killed most of the characters off.

That AM2 and Co had outlived their usefullness but at least they did provide some laughs for those who delight in seeing balloons being puctured.

It would seem though that another thing that many unionists lack is a fine sense of the ridiculous, which is surprising when you consider their contributions and leads me to believe that they never actually read most of the stuff they post!

181

Rufus T. Firefly,

28/07/2008 23:17:59
Ochone you are a weirdo.

What the heck is that blog about?

How much time do you spend writing that drivel?

You make Kenny Richey look normal.
182

Iainbroch,

Moray 29/07/2008 01:54:37
The Unionist Cyber Pimps have something all in common! If the SNP proposes anything - even if it is fair, sensible and reasonable they will automatically object to it.

At the mention of certain key words such as SNP/Scotland/Independence etc they will go rabidly pavlovian! They will start foaming at the mouth and attack the nearest lampost. Uttering gibberish, scaremongering or just start outright telling of fibs!

They become totally irrational. If they were furry quadropeds they would be taken to a vet to be put out of thier misery.

If the SNP were to ditch independence the Unionist Cyber Pimps would probably start making a case for it on the grounds that anything the SNP proposes must be oppossed.

The rabid hostility to any form of taxation that is based on ability to pay obviously illustrates the need to start training more Vets?
183

AM2,

Scotland,UK 29/07/2008 10:24:45
#188 #189 tartan army 2222

Not quite the same thing - the first smacking of workplace bullying and the second, well, Terry Kelly - say no more. I had in mind incidents more like that reported by Meths in #181. As for your "funny that" in #191, oh come on - stop posturing. I don't live online!
184

AM2,

Scotland,UK 29/07/2008 10:25:46
#196 Rufus

Does for me, but try this instead: http://youtube.com/watch?v=9jEUGbRDhfc
185

AM2,

Scotland,UK 29/07/2008 10:30:00
#193 frank mcbride

In post #32, I told you that I took exception to your use of the phrase “peddling the lie”, explaining that not everyone agrees with you, but that doesn’t mean they’re lying.

Your response? To repeat the phrase. Thanks. That’s conducive to open debate.

Your next tactic is to misrepresent me, to claim that I have “agreed” with you that CTB is part of the Scottish block. No I have not, as even a basic understanding of the arguments and counterarguments put in this thread would reveal. I suggest you read it.
186

AM2,

Scotland,UK 29/07/2008 10:33:25
#200 Iainbroch

Re: "The rabid hostility to any form of taxation that is based on ability to pay..."

You're very close to implying vindictive motives. Again, it seems that you are unable to appreciate that other people have honestly-held views which don't coincide with yours.

Burt said that LIT might be "less 'fair'". I agree.
187

AM2,

Scotland,UK 29/07/2008 10:35:58
#190 brownlie

Flying off the handle? Not my style.

I note that you have not repeated your spurious allegation. Thank you, at least, for that.

Now, you said: "As for the comments on the SNP site I have not read it and if it offends you I would suggest that you do not read it either."

Are you serious? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil - is that it?

Why say that and then take exception to Rufus's and SnB's remarks?

Let's have some consistency here, please!

188

AM2,

Scotland,UK 29/07/2008 10:37:47
#192 connaughtboy

I can't agree. Nobody, from any party, "deserves" such treatment.
189

brownlie,

29/07/2008 11:55:42
205 AM2

With respect, I really am beginning to think that you pick little snippets out of posts and ignore the general point being made.

To go back to the posts by Rufus you say you disapprove but is a "wink" a sign of disapproval?

Not looking at the SNP site is not a case of "see no evil etc.". I do not visit the Labour/Tory/Lib.dem/BNP sites either as I prefer to judge on actions rather than biased political sites.

I made it quite clear in my original post that I do not approve of, or indulge in, personal insults irrespective of whether it comes from SNP supporters or any of the other parties mentioned above.

If you had cared to read my posts in the past I have been critical of nationalist insulting messages as well as those of unionist parties.

I believe that insulting remarks demean the poster and has a derogatory effect on any stated points of view.

I would suggest that there are posters on here who are deliberately provocative in the hope of attracting abuse.

Other posters then feel free to generalise and quote this abuse as typical of that other party.

Does that clearly illustrate my perspective?


190

AM2,

Scotland,UK 29/07/2008 13:27:55
#207 brownlie

No, it does not illustrate your perspective. Not in the least.

I explained the wink. My expression of disapproval was entirely separate to it.

Now, your claim that you are capable of being "critical of nationalist insulting messages" seems to me to be undermined by your comment about the insulting and divisive phrases which are used on the SNP's website.

Rather than acknowledge their nature, you said to me: "if it offends you I would suggest that you do not read it".

So you are not, in fact, criticising those "nationalist insulting messages" - which, if I may remind you, suggest that Scottish unionists are "traitors", "enemies of Scotland", are only "claiming to be Scottish".

Rather, you are suggesting that I avert my gaze.

I have criticised, unequivocally, the tasteless remarks about Alex Salmond's waistline, etc. Are you now prepared to criticise the much more seriously divisive terms used on the SNP's website, or was your claim to be capable of such criticism without foundation?
191

brownlie,

29/07/2008 14:56:30
208 AM2

Your original reference to the insulting posts was "They'll think we have senses(sic) of humour" followed by a wink which is hardly disapproval. It suggests, rather, that you may have been having a little chuckle to yourself - which you may now regret.

As far as the postings on the SNP site were concerned did you expect me to be critical of things that I have not seen?

I stand by what I said about nationalist as well as unionist insults and if, as you claim, these remarks are there then I do condemn them and would express my surprise that they have not been removed.

I certainly do not believe that they are typical of SNP supporters anymore than I think the poster Kimba's remarks regarding troops on the streets of Scotland are typical of unionist supporters.

I have been quite open about working for the Labour Party and do not feel that that makes me a traitor, an enemy of Scotland or that it negates in any way my claim to be Scottish.

Perhaps you can join me therefore in condemning posters who deliberately post provocative statements in order to invite abuse which can then be classed as typical of a particular political stance.

Could you also join me in condemning posters who seize on one person's viewpoint and categorise it as typical of a political stance.

As far as reading something offensive to me personally is concerned I would not, for example, read a book which clearly praised the BNP as I would find that offensive and I'm sure you would share that sentiment.
192

AM2,

Scotland,UK 29/07/2008 15:36:25
#209 Brownlie

No, my direct reference was:

"What does Salmond's waistline have to do with this? Shoo! You're giving unionists a bad name."

I then followed that up with a slightly veiled reference to rather bizarre criticism which has been made here of unionists, that we lack senses (sic) of humour.

Now, remarks about "traitors" and "enemies" to which I referred are indeed on the SNP's website. The celebrated Winnie Ewing, then SNP President, said them at an SNP Bannockburn rally in 2003, and they were considered significant enough to be included within what appears to be an SNP press release.

http://www.snp.org/node/11859

So while I am pleased to note that you condemn her offensive viewpoint comment, I would have to say that unless you consider Winnie Ewing to represent some kind of extreme fringe within nationalism, your calls for me to join you in condemning the representation of such views as mainstream seem somewhat moot.
193

AM2,

Scotland,UK 29/07/2008 15:37:44
Typo: "offensive viewpoint comment" = "offensive viewpoint" (and comment).
194

brownlie,

29/07/2008 17:05:55
210 AM2

It would be interesting in what context that Winnie Ewing said and does that mean that it is current mainstream SNP thinking?

David Cameron in April 2007 said "It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be a successful independent country". Do you consider that the Leader of the Conservative Party represents some extreme fringe within current Conservatism?

It is noticeable and significant that you refuse to join me in condemning posters who deliberately post provocative statements in order to invite abuse which can then be classed as typical of a particular political stance.

It is noticeable and significant that you refuse to join me in condemning posters who seize on one person's viewpoint and categorise it as typical of a political stance.

Given that, with your typical thoroughness, you will have checked my previous posts when I defended you against your nemesis do you now accept that I was not "strenuously trying to discredit you"?
195

AM2,

Scotland,UK 29/07/2008 21:42:32
#212 brownlie

Apologies for not being around to reply earlier.

Your claim not to be engaged in a strenuous attempt to discredit me isn’t borne out by your unfortunate attempt to characterise my “somewhat moot” comment as “refusals”.

To be clear, deliberating posting provocative statements in order to “invite abuse” would be akin to trolling. That to my mind, might include statements like “unionists are enemies of Scotland” or “the SNP are Natzis” – and obviously I would condemn such repugnant statements.

Similarly, representing one individual’s view as being widely held, without being in a position to provide other people’s comments as corroborating evidence, would also be irresponsible – and could also be seen as trolling. There may be exceptions – for example if it was a senior politician’s view – but in general I would condemn that too.

As for David Cameron’s statement, I would agree 100%, and I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any unionist politicians who didn’t likewise agree. I’m not sure why you seem to regard it as unrepresentative.
196

AM2,

Scotland,UK 30/07/2008 12:49:59
Brownlie

FYI I'm going to close this thread in my browser now. If you reply again I won't see it unless you flag it up to me in another thread.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.