SNP hooligans shout down Eddie Izzard
Scroll to see replies
Original post by jammy4041
We'll pretend that Labour didn't privatize the London Underground
We'll pretend that Labour didn't privatize the London Underground
Err, actually it didn't. You've got your facts wrong there, boychik. London Underground is a state-owned/run organisation and always has been. What else have you got wrong? Labour also took the East Coast mainline back into public ownership.
On the other hand, the SNP privatised ScotRail on behalf of its billionaire donor and railway magnate Brian Souter
introduced privatization to the NHS
Actually, it was the Tories that introduced privatisation in the NHS. Why do SNP supporters always get this stuff wrong? It's almost like they pass around this misinformation in a giant echo chamber circle jerk
Or that, Labour wants to spend money on maintaining and/or replacing Trident.
That's not a left-right issue; renewing Trident is the sensible thing to do. It's also astounding hypocrisy for the SNP to claim to be representing Old Labour values and then call for unilateral disarmament, given Clement Attlee created the British nuclear deterrent and every
For the record, I've seen reports that the SNP have plans for a budget that cuts £6B. Labour have plans for a budget that cuts £1B.
So you admit that Sturgeon is basically a lying hypocrite then, to accuse Labour of supporting austerity when the SNP supports larger cuts?
Original post by SausageMan
This may help you find an answer to your query.
This may help you find an answer to your query.
Sorry, did you mean to say "Yes, you are right; the Scottish government has the rights in reversion of the licence, and could have taken control and ownership of the railway under s30 of the Railways Act 1993, but chose not to"?
It's a bit sad that you're such a blind partisan that you will defend the SNP privatising ScotRail, and then claim to support nationalised rail
[h="4"][F130Duty of Authority in absence of franchise.[/h]
(1)
The Authority shall provide, or secure the provision of, services for the carriage of passengers by railway where—(a)
a direction not to seek to secure the provision of the services under a franchise agreement has been given to the Authority under section 26A or 26B above (and not revoked); or(b)
a franchise agreement in respect of the services is terminated or otherwise comes to an end but no further franchise agreement has been entered into in respect of the services (otherwise than because of such a direction).(2)
The duty in subsection (1) above in relation to any services ceases if the services begin (or again begin) to be provided under a franchise agreement.(3)
Subsection (1) above does not—(a)
require the Authority to provide or secure the provision of services if and to the extent that, in its opinion, adequate alternative railway passenger services are available;(b)
preclude it from giving notice under subsection (5) of section 38 below in relation to any of the services, in which case its duty under this section to secure the provision of the services to which the notice relates will (subject to subsections (5) and (6) of that section) terminate on the day specified in the notice in pursuance of paragraph (b) of that subsection; or(c)
preclude it from ceasing to provide or secure the provision of any of the services in any case falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) of that section.](edited 8 years ago)
Under European competition laws the franchise had to be put out to tender. Scotland does not have the devolved powers to turn a private company over to the State, that is reserved to Westminster. When the east coast mainline franchisee walked away the UK government was forced to step in, THEN, Holyrood got control of the line in Scotland. The UK then put it back out to tender. Scotland as the devolved authority had to run the tendering process.
You need to revisite the basic devolved and reserved powers that the two government work from.
You need to revisite the basic devolved and reserved powers that the two government work from.
Original post by MatthewParis
Err, actually it didn't. You've got your facts wrong there, boychik. London Underground is a state-owned/run organisation and always has been. What else have you got wrong? Labour also took the East Coast mainline back into public ownership.
On the other hand, the SNP privatised ScotRail on behalf of its billionaire donor and railway magnate Brian Souter
Explain to me, since you keep referencing a 1993 act that has been superseded, and which pre-dated Devolution -- and thus falls under the jurisdiction of Rail Track, and the central British government, not the Scottish government, how the Scottish government have any authority to award/nationalize rail franchises? They don't. From my understanding "the authority" is the British government, not a devolved government. Furthermore, if the ability to award rail franchises/nationalize rail franchises, is something that has to be proposed, then clearly, it isn't something that the devolved parliament can do.
Labour only took East Coast rail back into public ownership, for the duration of the Franchise, and only then as a last resort. I remember that they still tried their hardest to get a private buyer. =/= Not the same as nationalizing the railway.
Furthermore, Labour's proposal to have public franchises compete against private franchises isn't nationalizing the railways either. Labour sat back as rail franchise after rail franchise was re-privatized, and did NOTHING to renationalize the railways, when it had the opportunity to.
The London Underground is privatized. A public-private partnership...is privatization! Hello, McFly!!
Actually, it was the Tories that introduced privatisation in the NHS. Why do SNP supporters always get this stuff wrong? It's almost like they pass around this misinformation in a giant echo chamber circle jerk
Labour still brought in private competition into the NHS. I don't know...or necessarily care...which party did it first, it's just that New Labour's track record on the NHS isn't as good as it wants to make out. There's a bunch of rank hypocrisy from the Labour party here, especially when it screams that the Tories sold off the NHS.
From the New Statesman:
Top Blairite Alan Milburn warns Labour against an NHS "comfort zone".
As Labour centres its election campaign on the NHS, its record on the subject is coming under increasing scrutiny.
Not only are the pressures on the Labour-run Welsh NHS casting doubts upon the party's trustworthiness on health, now its Blairite past is persistently coming back to haunt it.
Alan Milburn, the former Labour MP and Health Secretary under Tony Blair, has called on Ed Miliband to break out of his "comfort zone" on the health service, and to start embracing difficult reforms.
Speaking on the BBC's The World At One, Milburn said:
There is a risk that Labour's position on the National Health Service becomes almost an emblem for Labour showing an unwillingness to lean into a difficult reform agenda.
Look, reforms are not easy, but the Labour party is not a conservative party. It should be about moving things forward, not preserving them in aspic.
I think the biggest risk for Labour on health, and indeed more generally, is that we could look like we're sticking to our comfort zone but aren't prepared to strike out into territory that, in the end, the public know any party of government will have to strike out into, which is to make some difficult changes and difficult choices.
Milburn was the minister who, controversially at the time, introduced NHS foundation trusts, and was behind negotiating PFI deals on hospitals. He serves as one of many reminders that not so long ago, during the New Labour years, the Labour party was driving through dramatic reforms in the NHS and did not shy away from private money in doing so.
Now the party's main attack line – usually delivered with verve via the media machine and self-styled high priest of the English religion that is the NHS, Andy Burnham – is to accuse the Tories of selling it off. But the more they focus on such a negative defence of the health service, the easier it is for their detractors to point out that the market's introduction into the health service flourished during the New Labour years.
Burnham has been forced to acknowledge this many times. Even well before the election campaign was underway, he was having to defend his tenure as Health Secretary. He has admitted in the past that the last Labour government “let the market in too far” into the NHS, although insisted when I interviewed him last year, “that’s not me doing an emotional argument of the left. There is real evidence to say why it’s the wrong answer to 21st-century health challenges . . . the evidence says market systems cost more.
From:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/labour-cant-escape-its-blairite-past-nhs-so-it-should-stop-crying-privatisation
That's not a left-right issue; renewing Trident is the sensible thing to do. It's also astounding hypocrisy for the SNP to claim to be representing Old Labour values and then call for unilateral disarmament, given Clement Attlee created the British nuclear deterrent and every
Trident is a Scottish issue. Because the risks in keeping Trident are Scotland's alone. The SNP has tapped into this. It's not a surprise. If it's renewed, the SNP want to ensure that its replacement isn't housed in Scotland. The SNP would not budge on this point, and why should they?
And yet, you've completely missed the point that the Labour party is treading out a Westminster line, as well as a Whitehall line...a message that is London-centric. Why has Labour's support collapsed? Well, just like 2011, and 2014, the Labour party in Scotland is a puppet of the English Parties. What you have to say, is exhibit A as to why support has collapsed.
Base the submarines that hold the Trident missiles, on say the Mersey, the Tyne, the Plym, etc. where the nuclear risks are transferred from Scotland to England, and well, I'll bet a pretty penny that the Westminster politicians will be singing a different tune. And if they're not, well, place it on the Thames, just outside the Houses of Parliament.
So you admit that Sturgeon is basically a lying hypocrite then, to accuse Labour of supporting austerity when the SNP supports larger cuts?
It's just sensible to be up front and honest with the electorate. £6B is a drop in the ocean compared to what the Tories would do. There is no feasible way Labour can do everything it wants to do and only afford to have a cut of £1B. Labour is either not doing its sums correctly or is outright lying to its electorate. Especially when Miliband wants to act like he's fiscally responsible.
On the other hand, the SNP privatised ScotRail on behalf of its billionaire donor and railway magnate Brian Souter
Explain to me, since you keep referencing a 1993 act that has been superseded, and which pre-dated Devolution -- and thus falls under the jurisdiction of Rail Track, and the central British government, not the Scottish government, how the Scottish government have any authority to award/nationalize rail franchises? They don't. From my understanding "the authority" is the British government, not a devolved government. Furthermore, if the ability to award rail franchises/nationalize rail franchises, is something that has to be proposed, then clearly, it isn't something that the devolved parliament can do.
Labour only took East Coast rail back into public ownership, for the duration of the Franchise, and only then as a last resort. I remember that they still tried their hardest to get a private buyer. =/= Not the same as nationalizing the railway.
Furthermore, Labour's proposal to have public franchises compete against private franchises isn't nationalizing the railways either. Labour sat back as rail franchise after rail franchise was re-privatized, and did NOTHING to renationalize the railways, when it had the opportunity to.
The London Underground is privatized. A public-private partnership...is privatization! Hello, McFly!!
Worker's Liberty
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2014/03/05/how-new-labour-privatised-tube
“New Labour” privatised services that the Conservatives had thus far left untouched: the Royal Mint, National Air Traffic Service, Belfast Port and more.
The Conservatives had not yet privatised London Underground, even when they sold the rest of the railways. Maybe privatising the Tube would have been too complex, too unsafe, more controversial; maybe there were more marginal constituencies and more opponents in London; maybe the private sector itself was not interested.
No such obstacles would deter “new Labour” from its particular brand of privatisation, the PPP. New Labour was repackaging Conservative policies rather than departing from them. Tony Blair’s 1995 description of British Rail privatisation — “a hotchpotch of private companies linked together by a gigantic paper-chase of contracts – overseen, of course, by a clutch of quangos” – became an accurate summary of his own government’s policy for London Underground.
Many within Labour’s own ranks opposed the Tube PPP. Branches and conferences passed resolutions, MPs and councillors spoke out. But the Party leadership did not listen. The unpicking of Labour Party democracy over the previous two decades had left Labour’s members unable to make their leaders do what the Party wanted.
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2014/03/05/how-new-labour-privatised-tube
“New Labour” privatised services that the Conservatives had thus far left untouched: the Royal Mint, National Air Traffic Service, Belfast Port and more.
The Conservatives had not yet privatised London Underground, even when they sold the rest of the railways. Maybe privatising the Tube would have been too complex, too unsafe, more controversial; maybe there were more marginal constituencies and more opponents in London; maybe the private sector itself was not interested.
No such obstacles would deter “new Labour” from its particular brand of privatisation, the PPP. New Labour was repackaging Conservative policies rather than departing from them. Tony Blair’s 1995 description of British Rail privatisation — “a hotchpotch of private companies linked together by a gigantic paper-chase of contracts – overseen, of course, by a clutch of quangos” – became an accurate summary of his own government’s policy for London Underground.
Many within Labour’s own ranks opposed the Tube PPP. Branches and conferences passed resolutions, MPs and councillors spoke out. But the Party leadership did not listen. The unpicking of Labour Party democracy over the previous two decades had left Labour’s members unable to make their leaders do what the Party wanted.
Actually, it was the Tories that introduced privatisation in the NHS. Why do SNP supporters always get this stuff wrong? It's almost like they pass around this misinformation in a giant echo chamber circle jerk
Labour still brought in private competition into the NHS. I don't know...or necessarily care...which party did it first, it's just that New Labour's track record on the NHS isn't as good as it wants to make out. There's a bunch of rank hypocrisy from the Labour party here, especially when it screams that the Tories sold off the NHS.
From the New Statesman:
Top Blairite Alan Milburn warns Labour against an NHS "comfort zone".
As Labour centres its election campaign on the NHS, its record on the subject is coming under increasing scrutiny.
Not only are the pressures on the Labour-run Welsh NHS casting doubts upon the party's trustworthiness on health, now its Blairite past is persistently coming back to haunt it.
Alan Milburn, the former Labour MP and Health Secretary under Tony Blair, has called on Ed Miliband to break out of his "comfort zone" on the health service, and to start embracing difficult reforms.
Speaking on the BBC's The World At One, Milburn said:
There is a risk that Labour's position on the National Health Service becomes almost an emblem for Labour showing an unwillingness to lean into a difficult reform agenda.
Look, reforms are not easy, but the Labour party is not a conservative party. It should be about moving things forward, not preserving them in aspic.
I think the biggest risk for Labour on health, and indeed more generally, is that we could look like we're sticking to our comfort zone but aren't prepared to strike out into territory that, in the end, the public know any party of government will have to strike out into, which is to make some difficult changes and difficult choices.
Milburn was the minister who, controversially at the time, introduced NHS foundation trusts, and was behind negotiating PFI deals on hospitals. He serves as one of many reminders that not so long ago, during the New Labour years, the Labour party was driving through dramatic reforms in the NHS and did not shy away from private money in doing so.
Now the party's main attack line – usually delivered with verve via the media machine and self-styled high priest of the English religion that is the NHS, Andy Burnham – is to accuse the Tories of selling it off. But the more they focus on such a negative defence of the health service, the easier it is for their detractors to point out that the market's introduction into the health service flourished during the New Labour years.
Burnham has been forced to acknowledge this many times. Even well before the election campaign was underway, he was having to defend his tenure as Health Secretary. He has admitted in the past that the last Labour government “let the market in too far” into the NHS, although insisted when I interviewed him last year, “that’s not me doing an emotional argument of the left. There is real evidence to say why it’s the wrong answer to 21st-century health challenges . . . the evidence says market systems cost more.
From:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/labour-cant-escape-its-blairite-past-nhs-so-it-should-stop-crying-privatisation
Open Democracy
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/kailash-chand/moment-of-honesty-is-required-new-labour-began-dismantling-of-our-nhs
Labour must pledge that it believes hospitals and community health services should be publicly owned, publicly run and publicly accountable, writes Kailash Chand OBE.
It is universally accepted that the creation of the National Health Service is the single greatest achievement of the Labour party. The neglect of the NHS was a principal contributor to the downfall of the last Conservative Government and it was a major issue that helped New Labour mobilise mass political support for a landslide general election victory in 1997. Labour’s election manifesto in that year warned that only Labour could “save the NHS”. And they did, a decade of New Labour in government did result in the largest ever sustained increase in healthcare spending in the history of the NHS. Significant improvements were made in the quality of care, with “huge progress” in the reduction of waiting times with more and better services.
However, in 1999 ‘New Labour’ marked the start of a transition of the NHS from a public sector provider to include the private sector under the disguise of choice and competition. New Labour’s reforms of the NHS proved to be highly unpopular both within and outside the mainstream Labour Party.
Why did New Labour take this controversial and unpopular route to the delivery of public services? After four successive general election defeats, Labour’s social democratic model of Keynesian demand management economics, progressive taxation, extending welfare spending and redistribution was no longer seen as a practicable solution. New Labour essentially raised the white flag and inverted the principle of social democracy: society was no longer to be the master of the market, but its servant. Labour was to offer a more humane version of Thatcherism in that the state would be actively used to help people survive as individuals in the global economy. Nevertheless, economic interests would always call all the shots. Professor Anthony King described Tony Blair’s administration as the “first ever Labour government to be openly, even ostentatiously pro-business”.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/kailash-chand/moment-of-honesty-is-required-new-labour-began-dismantling-of-our-nhs
Labour must pledge that it believes hospitals and community health services should be publicly owned, publicly run and publicly accountable, writes Kailash Chand OBE.
It is universally accepted that the creation of the National Health Service is the single greatest achievement of the Labour party. The neglect of the NHS was a principal contributor to the downfall of the last Conservative Government and it was a major issue that helped New Labour mobilise mass political support for a landslide general election victory in 1997. Labour’s election manifesto in that year warned that only Labour could “save the NHS”. And they did, a decade of New Labour in government did result in the largest ever sustained increase in healthcare spending in the history of the NHS. Significant improvements were made in the quality of care, with “huge progress” in the reduction of waiting times with more and better services.
However, in 1999 ‘New Labour’ marked the start of a transition of the NHS from a public sector provider to include the private sector under the disguise of choice and competition. New Labour’s reforms of the NHS proved to be highly unpopular both within and outside the mainstream Labour Party.
Why did New Labour take this controversial and unpopular route to the delivery of public services? After four successive general election defeats, Labour’s social democratic model of Keynesian demand management economics, progressive taxation, extending welfare spending and redistribution was no longer seen as a practicable solution. New Labour essentially raised the white flag and inverted the principle of social democracy: society was no longer to be the master of the market, but its servant. Labour was to offer a more humane version of Thatcherism in that the state would be actively used to help people survive as individuals in the global economy. Nevertheless, economic interests would always call all the shots. Professor Anthony King described Tony Blair’s administration as the “first ever Labour government to be openly, even ostentatiously pro-business”.
That's not a left-right issue; renewing Trident is the sensible thing to do. It's also astounding hypocrisy for the SNP to claim to be representing Old Labour values and then call for unilateral disarmament, given Clement Attlee created the British nuclear deterrent and every
Trident is a Scottish issue. Because the risks in keeping Trident are Scotland's alone. The SNP has tapped into this. It's not a surprise. If it's renewed, the SNP want to ensure that its replacement isn't housed in Scotland. The SNP would not budge on this point, and why should they?
And yet, you've completely missed the point that the Labour party is treading out a Westminster line, as well as a Whitehall line...a message that is London-centric. Why has Labour's support collapsed? Well, just like 2011, and 2014, the Labour party in Scotland is a puppet of the English Parties. What you have to say, is exhibit A as to why support has collapsed.
Base the submarines that hold the Trident missiles, on say the Mersey, the Tyne, the Plym, etc. where the nuclear risks are transferred from Scotland to England, and well, I'll bet a pretty penny that the Westminster politicians will be singing a different tune. And if they're not, well, place it on the Thames, just outside the Houses of Parliament.
So you admit that Sturgeon is basically a lying hypocrite then, to accuse Labour of supporting austerity when the SNP supports larger cuts?
It's just sensible to be up front and honest with the electorate. £6B is a drop in the ocean compared to what the Tories would do. There is no feasible way Labour can do everything it wants to do and only afford to have a cut of £1B. Labour is either not doing its sums correctly or is outright lying to its electorate. Especially when Miliband wants to act like he's fiscally responsible.
"]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/12/ed-miliband-manchester-manifesto-labour-party-fiscal-responsibility
Speaking at the launch of the Labour general election manifesto in Manchester on Monday, Miliband will say: “The very start of our manifesto is different to previous elections. It does not do what most manifestos do. It isn’t a shopping list of spending policies. “It does something different: its very first page sets out a vow to protect our nation’s finances; a clear commitment that every policy in this manifesto is paid for without a single penny of extra borrowing.”
The Labour leadership hopes that placing the elimination of the budget deficit at the centre of its manifesto will wrong-foot George Osborne, who had hoped to portray the party as fiscally irresponsible
Speaking at the launch of the Labour general election manifesto in Manchester on Monday, Miliband will say: “The very start of our manifesto is different to previous elections. It does not do what most manifestos do. It isn’t a shopping list of spending policies. “It does something different: its very first page sets out a vow to protect our nation’s finances; a clear commitment that every policy in this manifesto is paid for without a single penny of extra borrowing.”
The Labour leadership hopes that placing the elimination of the budget deficit at the centre of its manifesto will wrong-foot George Osborne, who had hoped to portray the party as fiscally irresponsible
Replies in bold.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by jammy4041
Explain to me, since you keep referencing a 1993 act that has been superseded, and which pre-dated Devolution -- and thus falls under the jurisdiction of Rail Track, and the central British government, not the Scottish government, how the Scottish government have any authority to award/nationalize rail franchises?
Thanks for confirming that your knowledge on this subject is almost completely non-existent. The Railways Act 1993 hasn't been superseded. and in fact it specifically refers to the Scottish government as the "relevant designating authority" for Scottish rail franchises
The fact you didn't know this, that you didn't know that the Scottish government was the body that had awarded the Abellio franchise, that there was actually a big controversy over this last year, would suggest you are completely ill-equipped to even be arguing about devolution and legal issues. By the way, RailTrack hasn't existed for about 10 years now
Rail franchising in Great Britain was created by the Railways Act 1993. Franchising is the mechanism by which Scottish Ministers secure rail passenger services.
This allows a private operator to provide rail services on the Scottish rail network on behalf of the Scottish Government.
This allows a private operator to provide rail services on the Scottish rail network on behalf of the Scottish Government.
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/rail/scotrail-franchise/scotrail-franchise
Responding to the Scottish Government's decision to award the ScotRail franchise to Abellio, David Sidebottom, Passenger Focus director, said:
“We welcome the ambitious plans for the new ScotRail franchise. We look forward to working with Abellio to help them deliver the passenger benefits promised.
“We welcome the ambitious plans for the new ScotRail franchise. We look forward to working with Abellio to help them deliver the passenger benefits promised.
http://www.transportfocus.org.uk/news/articles/scottish-governments-decision-to-award-the-scotrail-franchise-to-abellio-passenger-focus-response
Like most SNP supporters I encounter, you don't seem to view complete ignorance of a subject as a bar to being quite opinionated about it.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by jammy4041
However, in 1999 ‘New Labour’ marked the start of a transition of the NHS from a public sector provider to include the private sector under the disguise of choice and competition.
Under what policy? What act of parliament? What regulation?
Given your ignorance of the provisions of the Railways Act 1993, I'd really like to hear you offer the specifics.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by jammy4041
Replies in bold.
Are you denying the Scottish government awarded the Abellio franchise?
This should be good
Original post by jammy4041
The London Underground is privatized. A public-private partnership...is privatization!
Just like you thought RailTrack still existed and that the Scottish government wasn't responsible for rail franchises?London Underground is not privatised, again you are confused. London Underground is a wholly owned subsidiary of TfL which is an executive agency of the GLA. London Underground (LUL) is not a public-private partnership.
The very limited PPP elements that did exist, Metronet and Tubelines, no longer exist and have been folded back into London Underground.
So you're wrong again, Boychik =) Wow, you've been wrong about pretty much everything you've said. Don't you ever think "Maybe I should read up on this before I offer an opinion, so I don't embarrass myself by being repeatedly wrong"?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by B-FJL3
I don't really understand what you mean by the "risk" here, the "risks in keeping Trident", the "nuclear risks", etc...
The only thing I could draw from that is that you might be afraid of the warheads blowing up, or of some other nuclear accident occurring?
Please do explain.
Also, I really cannot see how Trident is a purely Scottish issue. It is a question affecting the defence policy of the entirety of Great Britain. Where the weapons are based does nothing to change that.
I could appreciate that there are local concerns, involving the Faslane/Coulport/Glasgow/Firth of Clyde area, but that still does not make it a "Scottish issue", just as placing it on the Tyne/Mersey/Thames would not make it an "English issue".
The only thing I could draw from that is that you might be afraid of the warheads blowing up, or of some other nuclear accident occurring?
Please do explain.
Also, I really cannot see how Trident is a purely Scottish issue. It is a question affecting the defence policy of the entirety of Great Britain. Where the weapons are based does nothing to change that.
I could appreciate that there are local concerns, involving the Faslane/Coulport/Glasgow/Firth of Clyde area, but that still does not make it a "Scottish issue", just as placing it on the Tyne/Mersey/Thames would not make it an "English issue".
The handling of the nuclear material, the upkeep of the nuclear submarines, and the fact that nuclear missiles are being kept on a submarines based 25 miles away from the biggest city in Scotland. Hm, what if there were to be a collision of the submarines, or mishandling of the nuclear warheads? Would that not be a Scottish issue? Could you not see why the SNP would be opposed to Trident?
Could you not see how, moving Trident to the Tyne/Mersey/Thames etc. would have the effect of making English parties a bit more nervous, to such the extent, where they would actually have to reconsider their position on whether they should maintain and replace the Trident system?
Labour may consider it the right thing for the UK, but they are so far detached from the risks. It's easy for them, as a westminster-centric party to say that.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by jammy4041
The handling of the nuclear material, the upkeep of the nuclear submarines, and the fact that nuclear missiles are being kept on a submarines based 25 miles away from the biggest city in Scotland. Hm, what if there were to be a collision of the submarines, or mishandling of the nuclear warheads? Would that not be a Scottish issue? Could you not see why the SNP would be opposed to Trident?
It's an position driven by emotion rather than logic.
The Scottish government is happy to have nuclear power, despite the fact that there have been many nuclear accidents in power plants that have caused significant environmental damage and injury.
There has never been an accidental explosion of a nuclear weapon. The idea that one of the warheads could be detonated by a submarine collision suggests (like on the issue of railways) a rather profound lack of understanding of how these devices work.
Could you not see how, moving Trident to the Tyne/Mersey/Thames etc. would have the effect of making English parties a bit more nervous, to such the extent, where they would actually have to reconsider their position on whether they should maintain and replace the Trident system?
The reason we have Trident submarines in Scotland is that is the most advantageous place to have them; it is closest to their patrol areas. I genuinely would not care if the submarines were parked on the Thames 200 yards from where I live, if that was militarily desirable. The idea that we are happy to continue Trident because we think it's the Scots who are at risk is part of the paranoid ScotNat mindset that has poisoned that country's politics
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by MatthewParis
It's an position driven by emotion rather than logic.
The Scottish government is happy to have nuclear power, despite the fact that there have been many nuclear accidents in power plants that have caused significant environmental damage and injury.
There has never been an accidental explosion of a nuclear weapon. The idea that one of the warheads could be detonated by a submarine collision suggests (like on the issue of railways) a rather profound lack of understanding of how these devices work.
The reason we have Trident submarines in Scotland is that is the most advantageous place to have them; it is closest to their patrol areas. I genuinely would not care if the submarines were parked on the Thames 200 yards from where I live, if that was militarily desirable. The idea that we are happy to continue Trident because we think it's the Scots who are at risk is part of the paranoid ScotNat mindset that has poisoned that country's politics
The Scottish government is happy to have nuclear power, despite the fact that there have been many nuclear accidents in power plants that have caused significant environmental damage and injury.
There has never been an accidental explosion of a nuclear weapon. The idea that one of the warheads could be detonated by a submarine collision suggests (like on the issue of railways) a rather profound lack of understanding of how these devices work.
The reason we have Trident submarines in Scotland is that is the most advantageous place to have them; it is closest to their patrol areas. I genuinely would not care if the submarines were parked on the Thames 200 yards from where I live, if that was militarily desirable. The idea that we are happy to continue Trident because we think it's the Scots who are at risk is part of the paranoid ScotNat mindset that has poisoned that country's politics
Emotion does have a place in politics. Logic has a bigger place, sure, but it's not necessarily about pleasing Scottish interests, as it is about respecting their side of the debate. The SNP want a 'non-nuclear' future for Scotland, already has, in place a strategy about bringing that about. "No-new nuclear" is the SNP policy.
There have been accidents with nuclear submarines.
A position which puts it at odds with Labour, and the British government. If the SNP is to continue its non-nuclear future, Trident is a non-negotiable aspect. It cannot be housed in Scotland.
Imagine, the "party of the working class" running roughshod over the views of a nation which is predominately working class...imagine that...
Original post by MatthewParis
Thanks for confirming that your knowledge on this subject is almost completely non-existent. The Railways Act 1993 hasn't been superseded. and in fact it specifically refers to the Scottish government as the "relevant designating authority" for Scottish rail franchises
The fact you didn't know this, that you didn't know that the Scottish government was the body that had awarded the Abellio franchise, that there was actually a big controversy over this last year, would suggest you are completely ill-equipped to even be arguing about devolution and legal issues. By the way, RailTrack hasn't existed for about 10 years now
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/rail/scotrail-franchise/scotrail-franchise
http://www.transportfocus.org.uk/news/articles/scottish-governments-decision-to-award-the-scotrail-franchise-to-abellio-passenger-focus-response
Like most SNP supporters I encounter, you don't seem to view complete ignorance of a subject as a bar to being quite opinionated about it.
The fact you didn't know this, that you didn't know that the Scottish government was the body that had awarded the Abellio franchise, that there was actually a big controversy over this last year, would suggest you are completely ill-equipped to even be arguing about devolution and legal issues. By the way, RailTrack hasn't existed for about 10 years now
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/rail/scotrail-franchise/scotrail-franchise
http://www.transportfocus.org.uk/news/articles/scottish-governments-decision-to-award-the-scotrail-franchise-to-abellio-passenger-focus-response
Like most SNP supporters I encounter, you don't seem to view complete ignorance of a subject as a bar to being quite opinionated about it.
The 1993 Act has been superseded, in 2000 and in 2005. While the 1993 Act suggests that "the franchising authority" can, in Scotland be the Scottish Ministers, the 1993 Act pertains to the privatization of the railways. It does not provide the British government, much less the Scottish government, the authority to take the railways back into public ownership. Remind me, what was Labour's record on that? 13 and a bit years in power, and what did it do? It may have taken East Coast, reluctantly, into public ownership, but how many franchises were awarded into the private sphere?
With regard to the 1993 Act, I don't quite know how we got on to the specifics of rail franchising -- it would not be my chosen topic on Mastermind, for sure, but the Scottish government had to offer the franchise up for sale, because of its limited power which the Westminster government gave to
Here's section 25, which emphasizes that the Railways can not be brought into public ownership. They had to offer the franchise. With First groups tur-ib-le track record, could they really have been trusted to work the railways? I wouldn't hold my breath.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/section/25?view=extent
For the record, I'm not an SNP supporter. I'm not well-versed in Scottish issues. I would have supported Labour, but I can't trust them, or their record, and the rhetoric has turned me away. A party that would actually nationalize the railways is the Green Party, but they would have to undo a lot of red-tape to do so. Hating on the fellow left-wing parties is a self-defeating exercise, and resorting to fear and intimidation is not a left wing policy...Labour are better than that. Or so I hoped.
Original post by jammy4041
The 1993 Act has been superseded, in 2000 and in 2005.
Thank you for confirming you are unlearned and unlettered in the law. You seem determined to further embarrass yourself.
The 1993 act was amended in 2000 and 2005 to include certain extra provisions; the original act is still in force. Are you denying that?
And are you denying that the Scottish government awarded the Abellio licence for Scotrail under the provisions of the 1993 act?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by jammy4041
Here's section 25, which emphasizes that the Railways can not be brought into public ownership.
Here's section 25, which emphasizes that the Railways can not be brought into public ownership.
So before you were saying the act is completely superseded and irrelevant, now you are saying it is relevant? The construction you assert is, as expected for someone with no legal education or skills, poorly thought-through and riddled with basic errors.
s25 of the Act says that a public body shall not be a franchisee. That is, you couldn't allow say TfL to bid for one of these contracts.
But it is entirely within the power of the relevant authority (which you presumably now accept is the Scottish government, or are you still denying that?) to not issue a licence, as per s26ZA(1)(b), where
it receives a tender but considers that the services would be provided more economically and efficiently if they were provided otherwise than under a franchise agreement entered into in response to the tender.
In such a situation, the relevant authority may
decide not to seek to secure the provision of the services under a franchise agreement.
I'll try to take this slowly so you don't get confused. You understand what has just occurred in this hypothetical scenario? Abellio tenders, the Scottish governments determines that "the service would be provided more economically and efficiently" through a different method and therefore decides "not to seek to secure the provision of the services under a franchise agreement".
So no franchise licence has been issued by the Scottish government. At this point, the Scottish government's rights in reversion come into play and its duty under s30 of the act is invoked; under s30, the Scottish government has the duty to provide that service itself where the franchise agreement
comes to an end but no further franchise agreement has been entered into in respect of the services
This is what the Labour government did in 2009 in respect of the East Coast Main Line, and Directly Operated Railways (a Department of Transport wholly-owned subsidiary) operated the railway until this year. The powers the Labour Secretary of State invoked in respect of rail services in England are the same powers, in the same capacity, that the relevant Scottish government minister has the power to invoke, as you can see from s23(3)(a)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/section/23
I'm really sorry, but you lose boychik. You are really way out of your league here. It's like a dustman trying to argue with a medical student about anatomy.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by jammy4041
I'm not well-versed in Scottish issues.
I'm not well-versed in Scottish issues.
Clearly. Though your lack of understanding or knowledge doesn't seem to stop you from offering strong opinions on matters of fact
Hating on the fellow left-wing parties is a self-defeating exercise
So pointing out their hypocrisies and policy flaws is "hating" on them? You're saying they're beyond criticism?
It's also quite funny that you think it's absolutely okay for left-wingers to criticise Labour, but if Labour criticises back they are evil fearmongers.
Personally, I am a socialist and I admire and respect Ed Miliband; a man who took on Murdoch, took on the banks and the hedge funds, and took on the energy companies. I'm delighted he's taking the following policies to the next election;
*abolish the House of Lords
*Increase the top rate of income tax
*Increase corporation tax and reverse the hedge fund tax cut
*Cap on rent increases and new rights for tenants
*Break up the largest banks by market share cap
*Create a government bank to compete with the City of London
*Repeal the bedroom tax
*Repeal the Health and Social Care Act
*Bring our railways back into public ownership
*Repeal the anti-trade union laws and tribunal fees
*Tax on millionaire properties
I also think it's immoral to vote Green if that means letting in the Tories, given Labour has the most left-wing policy slate in decades and an actual change to put it into practice.
Who cares ?
Every 5 years he puts on his dress, makeup, and wig, and prances the streets blathering about equality and fairness and complaining sick freaks like himself suffer a difficult life.
It gives his pathetic life a bit of attention I assume.
Every 5 years he puts on his dress, makeup, and wig, and prances the streets blathering about equality and fairness and complaining sick freaks like himself suffer a difficult life.
It gives his pathetic life a bit of attention I assume.
Original post by democracyforum
Who cares ?
So you are against free speech and in favour of people being harassed, assaulted and shouted down in the streets?
A bit ironic given your username. Perhaps it should be changed to Speech-I-Agree-WithForum
Original post by MatthewParis
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/may/04/election-2015-live-result-knife-edge-ken-clarke-warns-chaos-second-vote#block-55474beee4b00e152192602c
Not entirely surprising, I've heard plenty of reports from Scotland of people saying they're afraid to express unionist views in public because SNP supporters become abusive
It is, though, rather odd that they would be screaming "Red Tories out", given that the SNP;
*Plans harsher "austerity" than the Labour Party (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/snps-anti-austerity-rhetoric-does-not-reflect-its-plans-says-ifs)
*The SNP privatised ScotRail and handed it over to foreign corporations
*Slashed the FE budget by 140,000 places
*Deliberately underspent the Scottish justice budget by £100 million at a time when courts were closing for lack of money
*Plans to lower corporation tax and thus hand over hundreds of millions to the largest corporations
The idea that the SNP is some kind of pure, aethereal progressive party is a fantasy and the Scottish body politic has been poisoned by the aggression and sanctimony of many SNP supporters
Not entirely surprising, I've heard plenty of reports from Scotland of people saying they're afraid to express unionist views in public because SNP supporters become abusive
It is, though, rather odd that they would be screaming "Red Tories out", given that the SNP;
*Plans harsher "austerity" than the Labour Party (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/snps-anti-austerity-rhetoric-does-not-reflect-its-plans-says-ifs)
*The SNP privatised ScotRail and handed it over to foreign corporations
*Slashed the FE budget by 140,000 places
*Deliberately underspent the Scottish justice budget by £100 million at a time when courts were closing for lack of money
*Plans to lower corporation tax and thus hand over hundreds of millions to the largest corporations
The idea that the SNP is some kind of pure, aethereal progressive party is a fantasy and the Scottish body politic has been poisoned by the aggression and sanctimony of many SNP supporters
yes this is very sad. the SNP are using the cuddly Nicola as a mask to hide their true face.
Attempt two.
If Virgin Airways was funded through general taxation, had it's policy dictated by the UK Secretary of State for Transport and any UK citizen could fly without paying a single penny when they booked their ticket. Would you say 'the government has introduced privatisation in Virgin Airways'?
Original post by RK
I'm increasingly worried by the angry and often violent approach a number of pro-SNP and pro-independence people are taking in Scotland. It's needs to be stopped now, The SNP need to very strongly and publicly call them out on it and say it's not acceptable and not what they represent.
If the do not, then this bad feeling will grow and the violence will grow. But I can't see the SNP doing it as they would likely lose support.
If the do not, then this bad feeling will grow and the violence will grow. But I can't see the SNP doing it as they would likely lose support.
Original post by Reformed2010
Attempt two.
If Virgin Airways was funded through general taxation, had it's policy dictated by the UK Secretary of State for Transport and any UK citizen could fly without paying a single penny when they booked their ticket. Would you say 'the government has introduced privatisation in Virgin Airways'?
If Virgin Airways was funded through general taxation, had it's policy dictated by the UK Secretary of State for Transport and any UK citizen could fly without paying a single penny when they booked their ticket. Would you say 'the government has introduced privatisation in Virgin Airways'?
Was that for Jammy rather than RK?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Can a camp man be straight?
- Salford 2024
- Whats your favourite song that tells a story?
- Greens leave Scottish Government as SNP end Bute House Agreement
- Blood brothers
- tenancy takeover John Lester and Eddie Colman (Salford Uni)
- Economics edexcel paper 3 25 marker
- University of Salford 1st year Mature Student Accommodation Sept 2024
- Medify mocks vs actual ucat
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- England's Euro 2024 Kits Revealed
- goldies poll friends (2 votes)
- Salford Uni Accommodation
- BTEC IT LEVEL 3 Information Technology ICT HELP!!!
- John Lester/Eddie Colman
- Rental take over - Salford
- An old man threatened me and my sister in the street
- Medicine ucat
- Ucat
- I shouted at myself walking on the way home and a car stopped
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
