Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Hilarious. Like this was a joke?




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No that wasn't a joke. What's your point? I'm not saying thatcher is a goddess who can do no wrong. I am more of a blue collar conservative anyway. Unlike Corbyn voters I have no blind loyalty to anyone. I call things as they are, not how I want them to be
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    The SNP could change their name to the British National Party maybe?

    I'm sure they'll get a lot of votes.
    This

    As this is what they are with less racism.

    If you love Jimmy cranky so much tell her to join a uk party and then she can be a Scottish prime minister like brown et al


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by neal95)
    It was a joke
    I won't hold my breath waiting for you to be a guest panellist on Mock the Week
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Regardless of the bickering, no, we don't want her and nor would the country.

    And with only 51(?) MPs they fall a long way down the list in parliament.
    I'd be happy to have Stergeon as PM. After all Terressa May was never elected.

    Stergeon could become PM with the support of the millions of normal working class people in Britain who believe in social justice and equality.
    The deal is we would get to keep the country united and not loose Scotland and for the first time in 300 years Scotland would be effectively running the country.

    Under the unelected May and Brexit we are destined to hell. Loss of Scotland, Damien Green as the new IDS running the DWP with a grudge against the poor and disabled.... Plans to de-multiculturalise the UK with deportations......Boris Yeltsin as Foreign secretary set to alienate the UK from the rest of the world.....

    Yes under May the future is very bleak indeed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    I'd be happy to have Stergeon as PM. After all Terressa May was never elected. ... some other bolleaux
    Yawn. Won't listen to the ramblings of people who don't understand our electoral system. May is no more 'unelected' than any PM we've ever had.

    We don't elect PMs in this country. We never have. We elect MPs who then elect their party's leader, with assistance from the party's members. Twas ever thus.

    Anybody who claims a PM is unelected clearly has no idea how the British system works and their comments are therefore irrelevant.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Yawn. Won't listen to the ramblings of people who don't understand our electoral system. May is no more 'unelected' than any PM we've ever had.

    We don't elect PMs in this country. We never have. We elect MPs who then elect their party's leader, with assistance from the party's members. Twas ever thus.

    Anybody who claims a PM is unelected clearly has no idea how the British system works and their comments are therefore irrelevant.
    So much win


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viffer)
    I won't hold my breath waiting for you to be a guest panellist on Mock the Week
    Your a nobody any ways so it's not a big deal
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marshall Taylor)
    It's about democracy and having her as PM wouldn't stand for the UK's strong democratic values.
    We have just had a new PM and government without no election lol
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Yawn. Won't listen to the ramblings of people who don't understand our electoral system. May is no more 'unelected' than any PM we've ever had.

    We don't elect PMs in this country. We never have. We elect MPs who then elect their party's leader, with assistance from the party's members. Twas ever thus.

    Anybody who claims a PM is unelected clearly has no idea how the British system works and their comments are therefore irrelevant.
    Yawn.

    The MPs we elect are based on tribal politics and is heavily influenced on the party they are a part of and the figure head of that party.

    Yeah... most people don't understand how our system works. These same people elect the MPs. They seem kind of relevant.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yawn.

    The MPs we elect are based on tribal politics and is heavily influenced on the party they are a part of and the figure head of that party.

    Yeah... most people don't understand how our system works. These same people elect the MPs. They seem kind of relevant.
    Yes. And? What's your point?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by david9640)
    Can you explain to me how the SNP have caused the deficit in Scotland? The UK Government control the deficit. They set the Scottish budget, and most of the taxes, and if the SNP increase taxes, it increases the budget; so there is literally no way they can deal with the deficit.

    Scotland has the most educated population in Europe.

    And in terms of the NHS, NHS Scotland is performing better than NHS England. A&E waiting times have been better than anywhere else in the UK for I think over a year now, patient satisfaction is higher, have you actually got any evidence for your claim?
    Finland has the most educated people in Europe.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    We have just had a new PM and government without no election lol
    But the Conservative Party were elected in 2015 and they're free to reshuffle their ranks so... here's to democracy!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Yes. And? What's your point?
    People think the system they live under is more democratic than it is. Also they don't vote in the way you think they do. Most people and especially swing voters vote for party leaders and parties as a whole and how they will act on a national level, rather than voting for individual MPs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    People think the system they live under is more democratic than it is. Also they don't vote in the way you think they do. Most people and especially swing voters vote for party leaders and parties as a whole and how they will act on a national level, rather than voting for individual MPs.
    So? That's their own fault for not being more engaged. Nobody's out there telling them that's how their vote works, it's just their own ignorance.

    And there's nothing wrong with voting for parties.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by david9640)
    Oh good god. Like you practically admit, the Scottish deficit is set by Westminster. If the Chancellor tomorrow decided to increase Scotland's budget by £100 trillion, then the Scottish budget would have a deficit of over £100 trillion. A budget deficit is a sign of Westminster miss-management. And as for the oil, Scotland saw hardly any of that money, other oil producing countries have an oil fund right now to fall back on, why don't we have that? Again, Westminster miss-management. You can't blame the SNP for that.
    The SNP have had the ability to cut/raise income tax by 3p ever since they came to government. By 2017 they will have gained further powers over taxation which the SNP are supposedly reluctant to use. They have no desire to cut the deficit. To claim that Scotland saw no oil money is ridiculous – you only have to look at Aberdeen and its surrounding areas. The SNP have no credibility over cutting the deficit if Scotland went independent – proposing further borrowing when the country is already undergoing a spending splurge. Sturgeon should be truthful with the public and say that if it were an independent country – there would have to be mass spending cuts & there would be no entry to the EU. I cannot wait for the SNP to enter the UK government at some point in the future as then they will be made accountable for their absurd economic illiteracy. They would not then be able to use the Westminster blame mentality that is so embedded into their ideology.

    (Original post by david9640)
    You can always pick out some statistic to fit your agenda, but the fact remains, we have the most educated population in Europe, and as for secondary education, record numbers of pupils are leaving to go to positive destinations.
    Again we are talking about the SNP’s record in government – so your claim of Scotland being the most educated population in Europe means little. Are you seriously implying that I am being selective? Find me something positive that the SNP have done that outweighs the obliteration in numeracy/literacy standards in Scottish education.

    (Original post by david9640)
    On the NHS, your post is laughable. You've quoted a study from 2012, and your A&E statistics are out of date. As for life expectancy, you fine well know that the problems the government in Scotland face are different.
    Nowhere near as laughable as your lack of evidence. NHS figures between nations are very hard to find, as many of the reports highlight. The SNP came into power in 2007 – the report uses NHS figures (in the table) across principally the years the SNP have been in power. The onus is on you to provide evidence that A&E figures have been better (consistently for a year, which I have read articles claiming they haven’t in particular months) with the NHS in Scotland than in England – not me. There are many indicators in judging how well the NHS runs across the UK (a&e figures included) but many such as myself will see life expectancy as the most significant indicator, where the average man in Scotland lives 3 years less on average than that in England (and in the North East of England). I accept there are differences in climate, terrain etc but I do not think this justifies 3 years of a man’s life.


    (Original post by david9640)
    Your views are based on a hatred of the SNP. We could be the richest country in the world, with the most educated population, the lowest inequality and highest life expectancy...and you would still try and find something to beat them with.
    A hatred that is justified by their inept ideology. Looking into the future as you seem to be – Scotland will never be the richest country in the world with a deficit more than 3x the accepted Eurozone value and a sheer reluctance to cut spending from the SNP. Education is deteriorating so it will fall (as it has) in international rankings, meaning the quality of the so called educated workforce will decrease. Scotland has the lowest life expectancy in the UK. Inequality is an incredibly varied and subjective concept so your statement is meaningless. This is of course not even mentioning independence.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by david9640)
    And as for the oil, Scotland saw hardly any of that money, other oil producing countries have an oil fund right now to fall back on, why don't we have that? Again, Westminster miss-management.
    The UK saw an enormous amount of money from oil production from British waters.

    An oil fund based on UK oil production wouldn't go that far for a population of over sixty million.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)


    That is false and betrays very little basic understanding of tax law. Residence is not a choice, it's a fact in law: you either live in one place or the other and it is determined by entirely objective criteria. You don't get to choose - bar, of course, actually moving residence.


    In fact residence is something that in the UK is rather weak. It would have been strengthened if we had brought in the National ID system and if Brexit results in differential treatment between UK nations, we may have to bring it in again.

    If you are French or German or Swedish, you are resident where you are registered with the local authorities. The government may seek to prove that this is untrue but effectively you can't do so. If you are on the list in the Mairie in Marseilles no-one will listen to you if you claim to be living in Lyon even if you lay your head on a pillow in Lyon every night.

    That isn't how it works in the UK. You are asked to fill in an official form giving your address and you can give any address. It is for the organisation receiving that form to prove that the information is untrue which may involve surveillance or whatever. The fact that one organisation proves it is untrue doesn't mean that you can;t put exactly the same address down on the next form.

    The DWP fight battles about "living together as husband and wife" every day of the weak. A woman claims benefits as a single person. An anonymous allegation is man that a man is living there. The DWP collect evidence. The man denies he is living there. The man denies he is living there. He is living with his mother, or a mate or he is living nowhere. The taxman may have that address as his home. His car may be insured at that address. He may have entered into credit agreements at that address. However the man produces evidence that his bank statements go to his mother's address and he is still registered with a doctor convenient to his mother's house. His mother claims a single person discount for Council Tax. There is no surveillance evidence. The woman produces evidence from friends etc to say he doesn't live there. A social security tribunal may find there is insufficient evidence to stop the woman's benefit. The DWP may then pass on the data to the mother's local authority who stop her housing benefit discount. She appeals and a tribunal finds there is insufficient evidence to stop the mother's council tax discount. So where does he reside?

    That scenario simply can't happen in France.

    There will be plenty of people who are non-resident so far as HMRC are concerned in the UAE who get medical treatment from the NHS as resident and whose kids attend UK state schools based on their parent's convenient residence in granny's house and plenty of student fee and finance decisions that are inconsistent with what has been stated to the taxman.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    As an English person I'd be happy if there was a chance for Scotland to run the UK. That way we'd remain a united nation but Scotland would have the chance to rule over the whole nation just as England has ruled over Scotland.

    We'd have free university education, free prescriptions a possible return to the EU, more equality and rights.

    I think the SNP should look towards being a party to rule and represent the whole of the UK, even if that means changing their name.

    I love Scotland and they have every right to rule us as we have ruled them for 300 years and we don't want to loose Scotland.
    Well you have just had a Scotsman running the country...one David Cameron...the family came from Scotland to London at the turn of the century..
    What you apologists for Nicola Sturgeon do not understand is...Free Uni Education, Free Prescriptions, Free this and Free that, are funded by taxpayers in other parts of the United Kingdom..Scotland is actually in a worse economic state than Greece..The fantasy idea of Sturgeon that Scotland could be an Independent State in the EU..is just that..fantasy...Merkel does not want another economic basket case, she has enough problems with Greece, Italy, Spain without a bankrupt Scotland as well..Sturgeon has a vicseral hatred of the United Kingdom, and England in particular, which goes back to Culloden, Banockburn, and the execution of William Wallace....She conveniently forgets that 14 years after Culloden, it was Highlanders that led the forces of General Wolfe up the path to the plains in front of Quebec, and won Canada for the British Empire...Which was ruled and governed for the most part by Scotsmen..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by david9640)
    A budget deficit is a sign of Westminster miss-management.
    Giving Scotland more public spending that might be affordable as an independent country is "mis-management"? I thought you lot were all for the best deal for Scotland - it appears you think anything but a recession-level slashing in public spending in Scotland is irresponsible.

    And as for the oil, Scotland saw hardly any of that money
    Every penny that Scotland put in to the Treasury through oil throughout the 1980s has come back to it in higher public spending. To say Scotland never saw any of that money is simply false.

    other oil producing countries have an oil fund right now to fall back on, why don't we have that? Again, Westminster miss-management. You can't blame the SNP for that.
    What benefit would that have been? An oil fund stabilises against volatility where a country is highly dependent on oil revenues. Yes, in Scottish terms, oil revenues once made up over 20% of our revenue base. In UK terms, however, it was 1-2%: the UK isn't affected by North Sea oil volatility.

    You can always pick out some statistic to fit your agenda, but the fact remains, we have the most educated population in Europe, and as for secondary education, record numbers of pupils are leaving to go to positive destinations.

    On the NHS, your post is laughable. You've quoted a study from 2012
    A period where the SNP had been in control of the NHS for half a decade, do you not agree?

    Your views are based on a hatred of the SNP. We could be the richest country in the world, with the most educated population, the lowest inequality and highest life expectancy...and you would still try and find something to beat them with.
    Quite the contrary, your defence of them seems to be based entirely on nationalism: they can do no wrong because they are the party you see as directly Scottish, and for some reason being Scottish is an enormous thing for you rather than an accident of birth.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by david9640)
    So now you're just saying they should do it regardless, even if there are consequences? What a silly argument.
    No, I oppose a 50p tax rate. There are clearly consequences to imposing it, most notably that people will change their residence - not fraudulently, but quite legitimately. That is, I suppose, "tax avoidance" in the broadest sense - but there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it - it is a natural consequence and always will be.

    That is also, incidentally, one of the main arguments for the UK not increasing the upper rate of income tax.

    No, it is you who does not understand how criminal law works.
    I have an LL.B (Hons) in Scots law from an ancient university and a Diploma in Legal Practice. You might want to reassess your view on this.

    I asked you to provide cases to prove what you are asserting. Go ahead. Prove that it is criminal to declare your second home as your primary residence to avoid Income Tax.
    The definition of fraud is long established (if you want me to pluck a solid case out of the air, Adcock v. Archibald is often used to define the offence).

    There are numerous provisions under which false declarations and statements to HMRC can be prosecuted - mainly in the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

    There are clear legal powers to deal with falsely representing your residence and the provisions for who is a Scottish taxpayer is set out clearly in statue. If there is any question over that, HMRC has the right to request the production of documents and information (again, TMA and Finance Act 2008).

    If you're going to argue that HMRC are somehow incompetent in this regard, I remind you that the independent National Audit Office reported that "HMRC has developed a clear and detailed compliance strategy that considers SRIT’s impact on taxpayer behaviour and potential tax avoidance and*evasion"

    To say that evasion of avoidance is a problem is a particular issue in this instance has no basis other than a misunderstanding of the situation and, in your case, a willingness to pretend that there is not clear statutory definition of who is a Scottish taxpayer (which there is: Scotland Act 2012) and that falsely evading that is a criminal offence.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 16, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.