Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why does the SNP feel they can treat English Taxes as some sort of piggy bank? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by duckswearhats)
    The 'Tartan Tories' label was based on the fact that they were left wing, like labour, so people were voting for SNP instead of Labour. Labour lost seats and this apparently paved the way for a Tory majority, when in reality the Tories would have won even if no-one had voted SNP. It was by sticking to their and Scotland's morals, as well as English fear and stereotyping, that they were given this nickname, meaning you have once again proved yourself wrong.

    And, as far as I'm aware Alex Salmond has not been ejected from the party as he is now an SNP MP at Westminster.

    Check your facts before you start spouting nonsense. You're just embarrassing yourself.
    Oh dear. They voted to remove the Labour government and helped Thatcher get in, and around the same time voted to scrap the British Oil Corporation before complaining about it 3 decades on. Look further back into their past and you find some of them praising the European fascists because they were threatening British imperialism. Some went as far as suggesting collaboration with the Nazis in some kind of Vichy state if they successfully invaded.

    On Salmond's ejection, again oh dear. He and several others in the '79 group' were booted from the party in the '80s for being too socialist/left wing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "The notion that Scottish public services are subsidised by English taxpayers has become so commonplace in UK politics that not even David Dimbleby, the supposedly neutral presenter of BBC Question Time, thinks twice about repeating it. During an exchange on a recent show with Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson about her decision to vote as a Scottish MP to impose tuition fees on English students, Dimbleby said, "You voted for England to have fees, whereas Scotland, as we know, with the amount of money that comes from England, doesn't need to have them." 

    This view is based on the discrepancy between levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland and England. According to the Treasury's latest Public Expenditure Statistics, Scots gets an average of £10,212 spent on them every year by the UK government, compared with around £8,588 -- £1,624 less -- for people in England.In line with narrative of the Scottish welfare subsidy, the extra cash allows Scotland to provide its students with free higher education, its elderly with free personal care and concessionary travel, and its sick with free prescription medication, while their English equivalents are forced to go without. 

    This so-called "Union dividend" is also used by many London-based journalists and politicians -- many of whom would describe themselves as social democrats -- who argue that current levels of public expenditure in Scotland would be unsustainable were it to break away and become an independent country. 

    Yet, if the London commentariat took the time to examine the figures a little more closely, they would discover what a large number people north of the border already know: not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation. 

    Let's tackle the subsidy charge first. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services. 

    Second, there's the claim that Scotland's "bloated" welfare state could not be sustained outside the Union. This is nonsense. Including its per capita share of revenues from North Sea oil and gas production, Scotland's public expenditure probably does not exceed the OECD average and is almost certainly lower than that of the Scandinavian social democracies. The fact that the Treasury cynically refuses to class those revenues as part of Scotland's overall annual economic output inflates the level of public sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP relative to that of the private sector. 

    Finally, one of the most common -- and least well-considered -- claims made by supporters of the Union is that the 2008 global financial meltdown shattered the economic case for independence. How, they argue, would the economy of tiny, independent Scotland have been able to cope with the burden of debt needed to rescue its financial sector from collapse? It wouldn't, of course, but according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland would only have had to take on a proportion of the total cost of the bail-out based on the subsidiaries and business operations of HBOS and RBS in Scotland. This would probably amount to no more than 5 per cent. 

    For the sake of argument, nationalists might also wish to note that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was, at 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would, at around $1.8bn per year in line with Nordic average, be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf. 

    But why should Unionists let the economic facts ruin the image they have built up of Scotland as a nation of selfish, indulged welfare "mendicants"? The subsidy myth is too politically useful to be simply abandoned. Of course, if they ever do come to terms with the reality that Scotland could survive on its own - and even prosper - it will probably be too late anyway." http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/th...8-union-public
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Oh dear. They voted to remove the Labour government and helped Thatcher get in, and around the same time voted to scrap the British Oil Corporation before complaining about it 3 decades on. Look further back into their past and you find some of them praising the European fascists because they were threatening British imperialism. Some went as far as suggesting collaboration with the Nazis in some kind of Vichy state if they successfully invaded.

    On Salmond's ejection, again oh dear. He and several others in the '79 group' were booted from the party in the '80s for being too socialist/left wing.
    Well, Labour wouldn't be able to have a majority even with the SNP seats as the Conservatives already had a majority.

    The SNP have always supported the views of the Scottish people, who, like Alex Salmond, have become more socialist over the years which benefits Scots through free education and prescription.

    Parties are allowed to change their stance in 40 years as situations change in the EU, which at the time was fairly new and untested, and their nationalist views, which have become more clear and refined.

    Every party will have skeletons in their closets, but the modern SNP, who you seem throughly opposed to in an altogether unmoving way, have now become a lot more reliable in keeping their pledges and now are one of the most honest parties, in my opinion, in Westminster.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Oh dear. They voted to remove the Labour government and helped Thatcher get in, and around the same time voted to scrap the British Oil Corporation before complaining about it 3 decades on. Look further back into their past and you find some of them praising the European fascists because they were threatening British imperialism. Some went as far as suggesting collaboration with the Nazis in some kind of Vichy state if they successfully invaded.

    On Salmond's ejection, again oh dear. He and several others in the '79 group' were booted from the party in the '80s for being too socialist/left wing.
    Also, this has little to do with your original point. Your view of Scots as scroungers is wholly biased and unjustified by any stretch as has been shown previously.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by duckswearhats)
    Also, this has little to do with your original point. Your view of Scots as scroungers is wholly biased and unjustified by any stretch as has been shown previously.
    I never said that whatsoever.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by duckswearhats)
    Well, Labour wouldn't be able to have a majority even with the SNP seats as the Conservatives already had a majority.

    The SNP have always supported the views of the Scottish people, who, like Alex Salmond, have become more socialist over the years which benefits Scots through free education and prescription.

    Parties are allowed to change their stance in 40 years as situations change in the EU, which at the time was fairly new and untested, and their nationalist views, which have become more clear and refined.

    Every party will have skeletons in their closets, but the modern SNP, who you seem throughly opposed to in an altogether unmoving way, have now become a lot more reliable in keeping their pledges and now are one of the most honest parties, in my opinion, in Westminster.
    Of course I am thoroughly opposed to a party whose prime objective is to break up the UK by creating wedges between people on the same island. The same party indulges in hypocrisy and sometimes outright lies in pursuit of this objective and as long as I live in Scotland I will vote against it.

    However you are conveniently missing the point. The SNP has *not* always acted in the Scottish interest and independence is not in its interest either. The post above which bangs on about percentage contributions rather than absolute amounts is an example of how they have misled Scots on financial support from Westminster. Fact is all 4 parts of the UK run at a loss. Northern Ireland the biggest, then Wales, then Scotland, then England. The other fact is that the Scottish 'deficit' is at present covered by the centralised pot and enables the Scots to get high levels of public expenditure at a lower effective cost.

    Yet people like you and Nicola Sturgeon think it's a stitch up.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Of course I am thoroughly opposed to a party whose prime objective is to break up the UK by creating wedges between people on the same island. The same party indulges in hypocrisy and sometimes outright lies in pursuit of this objective and as long as I live in Scotland I will vote against it.However you are conveniently missing the point. The SNP has *not* always acted in the Scottish interest and independence is not in its interest either. The post above which bangs on about percentage contributions rather than absolute amounts is an example of how they have misled Scots on financial support from Westminster. Fact is all 4 parts of the UK run at a loss. Northern Ireland the biggest, then Wales, then Scotland, then England. The other fact is that the Scottish 'deficit' is at present covered by the centralised pot and enables the Scots to get high levels of public expenditure at a lower effective cost.Yet people like you and Nicola Sturgeon think it's a stitch up.Posted from TSR Mobile
    i would say that I think you're misunderstanding my point of view on this. I didn't say the SNP keep all their promises. I just said they're a hell of a lot more reliable than the rest of the parties who give up their basic morals and policies when it suits them, whereas they are more likely to acknowledge injustice. That's one of the reasons they've done so well this year, they are able to provide a platform at Westminster with a mainly Scottish interest and can speak up unwaveringly about the problems that the smaller nations face, which none of the other parties even seem to acknowledge.

    The truth is that the minorities in the Parliament (Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) have their interest constantly overlooked. This is understandable, as they are a lower percentage of the UK population, but even in matters specifically relating to the smaller nations, it is somehow always swung to be about Engand in some way. A prime example of this was David Cameron's speech after Scotland chose to stay in the UK. This was an issue primarily concerning Scotland, but what he talked about the majority of his speech was not his relief that Scotland remained in the UK, or even ways to strengthen the bonds between the home nations: instead he spent most of his speech talking about English devolution. It's the same in most matters in the UK which are not about England. They are always inexplicably still about England.

    The thing about Scottish interest is, just like UK interest, it varies from person to person and region to region. It is impossible to cater for all of Scotland at once, but at least the SNP try, unlike several of the larger parties. Labour, for example, used to cater to the more left wing Scotland, but when they realised they could never win a majority with Scotland alone they quickly changed tack and moved more to the right, so the SNP took over a lot of the left wing vote in Scotland. The Conservatives have never cared about anyone is Scotland except the wealthy and, during Thatcher's time, used it as a testing ground for unfair policies as they knew the Scots didn't have enough seats to vote them out. Many people in Scotland, as I'm sure you know, view the Tories as elitist because of things like this and they are widely unpopular.

    As for your points about the referendum, I find your view of it not being in Scottish interest is a little out: I'd say at least 45% of the country,would disagree with you, a fact you seem to have conveniently forgotten (I assume you're coming from a standpoint of 'the no side won so clearly no-one wanted it', when the result was fairly close). We had every right to a democratic referendum and it's something people voted SNP in the Holyrood elections for, so that's why they did it: it was what they believed people wanted. And yes, the SNP did hope for a Yes vote, but have pledged to not hold another referendum until the situation has changed enough in Scotland for it to be viable (such as the results of the EU referendum for the UK as a whole substancially differing to those of Scotland). They have accepted that the Scottish people have democratically chosen to remain within the UK and have pledged to fight for Scotland where it wants to be, within the UK. And, as far as I'm aware, they did not lie in the run up to the referendum. Unless you count hypothetical conjecture as lying, which which case both sides of the debate were equally guilty. As well, the yes campaign did a lot less fearmongering than the No campaign, such as claiming that Scotland's place in the EU was more stable as part of the UK, which seems to be less and less true with the government proposing an EU referendum wherein if the majority of England votes to leave the EU, and the majority of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland vote to remain in the EU, it is likely that these nations will essentially have to leave against their will.

    And as for a wedge in the UK, I feel your point (and, in fact, the title of this thread) about Scotland using England (not the UK as you are now arguing) as a piggy bank shows how parties in Westminster are also creating negative stereotypes and misinforming people in order to treat Scotland negatively in the UK. As well as this, the Conservatives being re-elected has caused protest throughout England, another wedge between the well off and the not so well off. The whole Tory approach to politics, which is widely critised as being elitist, creates further divides between the richest and the poorest, as people who can't afford homes are taxed for extra bedrooms while the richest receive tax breaks. Does reinstating fox hunting benefit the normal British person? Nope, it only helps people who afford to fox hunt, which is certainly not the majority of us. So, it's not in the general interest of the UK as very few will benefit from it, yet you demand that the SNP must act in the interest of the majority of all Scots at all times (It's impossible and I did not claim that they could, I just claimed that they did so more than any other party and did not change their main ideals when it was easier for them to do so). And they claim to represent normal, working people. Who seems more hypocritical now?

    I'm not saying the SNP has no flaws, they do and I am completely willing admit that, I'm just saying that it is completely unjustified to blame every problem in the UK on them and demonise them. The fact is the whole UK runs on a loss, as you pointed out, and the fact that England has the least loss is due to the majority of the wealth being held in the South of England, as well as the other nations having to provide equal services to their cities as they have to to their large rural areas, a problem the generally densely populated England has to deal with less. It is unfair to stereotype a specific nation as stealing from another just because their government is willing to provide more services out of THEIR OWN TAX MONEY, when in reality the situation is much more complicated and varied than that simple and biased viewpoint suggests.

    i know none of this will change your mind as you seem very set in your opinions. I'm not saying you're wrong, as I can't be sure, but I'm offering another perspective from a different, but still biased viewpoint. Neither of us can accept our views as the truth as both will have inaccuracies, but I'm just trying to defend mine based on what you're saying. I'd also appreciate it if you wouldn't speculate on whether or not I think it's a 'stitch up' since you don't know my full opinions on this matter. I'm not saying Scots give more than they take, I'm just trying to explain that although you seem to view it as completely black and white, it's not that certain. There are definite grey areas based on georgraphical uncertainties that could partially explain why Scots do recieve more than they give and it's not a case of extra tax money money being spent on Scots through 'freebies' as you put it, but rather deficit through differing conditions in employment opportunities and population spread and a whole host of other variables. And putting it down to 'freebies' insults the complexity of the situation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by duckswearhats)
    i would say that I think you're misunderstanding my point of view on this. I didn't say the SNP keep all their promises. I just said they're a hell of a lot more reliable than the rest of the parties who give up their basic morals and policies when it suits them, whereas they are more likely to acknowledge injustice. That's one of the reasons they've done so well this year, they are able to provide a platform at Westminster with a mainly Scottish interest and can speak up unwaveringly about the problems that the smaller nations face, which none of the other parties even seem to acknowledge.

    The truth is that the minorities in the Parliament (Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) have their interest constantly overlooked. This is understandable, as they are a lower percentage of the UK population, but even in matters specifically relating to the smaller nations, it is somehow always swung to be about Engand in some way. A prime example of this was David Cameron's speech after Scotland chose to stay in the UK. This was an issue primarily concerning Scotland, but what he talked about the majority of his speech was not his relief that Scotland remained in the UK, or even ways to strengthen the bonds between the home nations: instead he spent most of his speech talking about English devolution. It's the same in most matters in the UK which are not about England. They are always inexplicably still about England.

    The thing about Scottish interest is, just like UK interest, it varies from person to person and region to region. It is impossible to cater for all of Scotland at once, but at least the SNP try, unlike several of the larger parties. Labour, for example, used to cater to the more left wing Scotland, but when they realised they could never win a majority with Scotland alone they quickly changed tack and moved more to the right, so the SNP took over a lot of the left wing vote in Scotland. The Conservatives have never cared about anyone is Scotland except the wealthy and, during Thatcher's time, used it as a testing ground for unfair policies as they knew the Scots didn't have enough seats to vote them out. Many people in Scotland, as I'm sure you know, view the Tories as elitist because of things like this and they are widely unpopular.

    As for your points about the referendum, I find your view of it not being in Scottish interest is a little out: I'd say at least 45% of the country,would disagree with you, a fact you seem to have conveniently forgotten (I assume you're coming from a standpoint of 'the no side won so clearly no-one wanted it', when the result was fairly close). We had every right to a democratic referendum and it's something people voted SNP in the Holyrood elections for, so that's why they did it: it was what they believed people wanted. And yes, the SNP did hope for a Yes vote, but have pledged to not hold another referendum until the situation has changed enough in Scotland for it to be viable (such as the results of the EU referendum for the UK as a whole substancially differing to those of Scotland). They have accepted that the Scottish people have democratically chosen to remain within the UK and have pledged to fight for Scotland where it wants to be, within the UK. And, as far as I'm aware, they did not lie in the run up to the referendum. Unless you count hypothetical conjecture as lying, which which case both sides of the debate were equally guilty. As well, the yes campaign did a lot less fearmongering than the No campaign, such as claiming that Scotland's place in the EU was more stable as part of the UK, which seems to be less and less true with the government proposing an EU referendum wherein if the majority of England votes to leave the EU, and the majority of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland vote to remain in the EU, it is likely that these nations will essentially have to leave against their will.

    And as for a wedge in the UK, I feel your point (and, in fact, the title of this thread) about Scotland using England (not the UK as you are now arguing) as a piggy bank shows how parties in Westminster are also creating negative stereotypes and misinforming people in order to treat Scotland negatively in the UK. As well as this, the Conservatives being re-elected has caused protest throughout England, another wedge between the well off and the not so well off. The whole Tory approach to politics, which is widely critised as being elitist, creates further divides between the richest and the poorest, as people who can't afford homes are taxed for extra bedrooms while the richest receive tax breaks. Does reinstating fox hunting benefit the normal British person? Nope, it only helps people who afford to fox hunt, which is certainly not the majority of us. So, it's not in the general interest of the UK as very few will benefit from it, yet you demand that the SNP must act in the interest of the majority of all Scots at all times (It's impossible and I did not claim that they could, I just claimed that they did so more than any other party and did not change their main ideals when it was easier for them to do so). And they claim to represent normal, working people. Who seems more hypocritical now?

    I'm not saying the SNP has no flaws, they do and I am completely willing admit that, I'm just saying that it is completely unjustified to blame every problem in the UK on them and demonise them. The fact is the whole UK runs on a loss, as you pointed out, and the fact that England has the least loss is due to the majority of the wealth being held in the South of England, as well as the other nations having to provide equal services to their cities as they have to to their large rural areas, a problem the generally densely populated England has to deal with less. It is unfair to stereotype a specific nation as stealing from another just because their government is willing to provide more services out of THEIR OWN TAX MONEY, when in reality the situation is much more complicated and varied than that simple and biased viewpoint suggests.

    i know none of this will change your mind as you seem very set in your opinions. I'm not saying you're wrong, as I can't be sure, but I'm offering another perspective from a different, but still biased viewpoint. Neither of us can accept our views as the truth as both will have inaccuracies, but I'm just trying to defend mine based on what you're saying. I'd also appreciate it if you wouldn't speculate on whether or not I think it's a 'stitch up' since you don't know my full opinions on this matter. I'm not saying Scots give more than they take, I'm just trying to explain that although you seem to view it as completely black and white, it's not that certain. There are definite grey areas based on georgraphical uncertainties that could partially explain why Scots do recieve more than they give and it's not a case of extra tax money money being spent on Scots through 'freebies' as you put it, but rather deficit through differing conditions in employment opportunities and population spread and a whole host of other variables. And putting it down to 'freebies' insults the complexity of the situation.
    1. I think you will find that the Coalition parties were actually fairly consistent in carrying out what they had specified in their manifestos. The Lib Dems, slaughtered last week for going into coalition, stuck to 75% of their manifesto despite being in a Tory cabinet. The Tories, like them or not, did follow through on what they intended and if you don't like cuts, blame Labour for blowing the funds. Syriza in Greece got elected on an 'anti austerity' pledge and guess what, they're finding it very hard to stick to.

    You have been readily taken in by SNP jargon of 'speaking up for Scotland' as though it wasn't represented already. Labour granted devolution to Scotland, the Tories installed the Barnett formula and Labour frequently used its Scottish MPs to vote through its proposals. So I think it's a little insulting to assume that the unionist parties don't care about Scotland. My concern is that the SNP will spend more time trying to destabilise the government rather than representing their constituents. My newly elected SNP MP lives in Edinburgh, will he be bothering to journey up to his constituency?

    2. The Scottish referendum resulted in yet more powers being given to Scotland which were not approved on by anyone else. People in England see Scotland being given more money, more devolution and still complaining that it isn't enough. At a time of great constitutional upheaval I think Cameron's comments were right-you don't seem to have a problem with constitutional imbalances when they benefit Scotland.

    I also dispute you saying that the SNP tries to do best for the whole of Scotland-it does what is best for the central belt and ignores everywhere else. Undercutting the North East, which is Scotland's money maker, and diverting the funding to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Centralising the police, so law enforcement in the remote Highlands uses the same equipment as those in inner city Glasgow. It is so so hypocritical to slate WM for centralisation in the SE when it is doing the same. The SNP helped Thatcher get in, direct your complaints to them. When oil prices fell, the Tories granted tax cuts to the oil companies to encourage them to keep doing business here-that is clearly aimed at the Scottish economy. The SNP chose to cut NHS spending and take away college places despite the Tories spending more on the NHS in England. I could go on, but SNP rhetoric and policy is littered with hypocrisy and inconsistencies.

    3. People who vote SNP do not all want independence and so just because it is in the manifesto that did not mean that they all supported it. We had 3 years of people using nationalist rhetoric to put down their opponents, and a distinct rise in anti English sentiment. Anti Scottish sentiment increased back home, and in Wales there were increased complaints about Scotland getting a better deal. All this referendum did was make Scotland divided by identity politics, 'pro Scottish' and 'anti Scottish'. It has created division based on nationality when the UK is not divided by nationality but by class. The collapse of oil has shown that to go independent would be an unmitigated financial disaster for Scotland.

    On fearmongering, was the Yes side not spreading horror stories about more Tory government? Were they not telling us how many children would enter poverty if we voted No? Anti Scottish sentiment has risen as a direct result of the Yes rhetoric. People in England wonder what they have done to deserve their characterisation as greedy right wing Tory voters and have become fed up of it. As for me, I am not a Tory voter, never have been, but if I was, my vote for them would not be condoning every aspect of their manifesto. I do not believe for a second that the SNP don't have independence on their agenda and they were dishonest to state as much for the election. This 56 MP result will be used as support for another referendum when it didn't reflect the share of the vote.

    4. The SNP shows bias to the densely populated central belt with regards to spending, so your argument doesn't hold on spending disparities within the UK. Just as England is boosted by London, Scotland is boosted by oil-so it is tit for tat there. Indeed England has its fair share of sparsely populated areas, the SW, East Anglia and East Midlands come to mind. The SW is prone to floods as you might be aware of. Great disparity exists within England and there is no blanket stereotype you can apply to it just as one cannot be applied to anywhere else. I have never held the SNP as responsible for all the ills in society, what an absurd statement.

    5. Scotland is awarded more money for the stated reason of its sparse population. My argument to you is that money within Scotland is not spent according to that need, and that the existence of Barnett is a living contradiction of the view that WM doesn't care about Scotland. Most English and Welsh voters think the opposite. Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru often complains that Scotland is given preferential treatment to Wales, and she is right.

    The base of my opposition is that the SNP want to break the UK and I don't. It goes further when I see them exploiting anti English sentiment and stereotypes of the English electorate, and using hypocritical arguments about centralisation and spending cuts. But because they wave saltires, people believe them over Lib/Lab/Con politicians. And that is what they all are, careerist politicians-the only difference is the accent.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    It is money that goes towards freebies enjoyed in Scotland that are not elsewhere, and are then used by the Scottish government to put itself on a pedestal. Posted from TSR Mobile
    Is there a website with a list of these things to quickly check?
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply
Updated: May 14, 2015
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.

Poll
How are you feeling about your A-level results?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

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