A Forum cabinet - just for fun

[Thomas]

Lets face it, your problems are convincing the majority of Scots the SNP and from Sturgeons viewpoint the EU is a better bet than the Union. The Labour party are not even in the running.

in or out the eu , anythng is better than your union. We are already polling in the mid 50 per centish , and rising every day sheep.

As soon a s bojo took charge , and started waffling the sweaties wouldnt be allowed to leave , indy support went though the roof.

Pretty much textbook brit nat stuff on how to lose an empire.

[Sheepy]

Being as the chances of that are nil I guess your worries are over,

Hopefully sheep , especially with another london centric champagne socialist in charge who doesnt have a clue whats north of the watford gap , i remain optimistic.

Lets face it, your problems are convincing the majority of Scots the SNP and from Sturgeons viewpoint the EU is a better bet than the Union. The Labour party are not even in the running.

[Thomas]

Being as the chances of that are nil I guess your worries are over,

Hopefully sheep , especially with another london centric champagne socialist in charge who doesnt have a clue whats north of the watford gap , i remain optimistic.

[Sheepy]

abolition of tuition fees,

1997, Labour: "We have no plans to introduce tuition fees".
(introduced tuition fees)

The facts about the history of tuition fees in Scotland are stark and unarguable:

– in 1997 when Labour came to power, higher education was free.

– the Labour government then introduced fees of £1000 a year across the UK, which meant a four-year degree in Scotland suddenly cost £4000.

– in 2000, the Labour-led Scottish Executive replaced said fees with a "graduate endowment", meaning that Scottish students paid £2000 retrospectively towards the cost of their education – half of what it had cost them under Labour's fees system in 1999, but still £2000 more than the £0 they'd been paying in 1997.

In the space of three years, then, while claiming to have "abolished" tuition fees, Labour had in fact increased the cost of a degree in Scotland from zero to £2000. Those are the cold, hard, unyielding truths.

Yet astonishingly, 15 years later, the party's education spokesman in Scotland is still trying to dance on the head of a semantic pin and insist that Labour abolished fees. The assumption, flying in the face of more than a decade of accumulated electoral evidence, appears to be that Scottish voters – including those who had to pay the "endowment" – are simple-minded idiots who can be fooled by a bit of wordplay

I actually agree that this kind of spin is both deplorable and counter-productive. Taking the Scots for idiots is bound to backfire.

Sadly though a certain wing of my party - which I oppose - has long been addicted to spin.

Though you will now no doubt attack me for trying to disassociate myself from it, rather than respecting a point of agreement as Major Sinic would. See the difference?

not at all steve , i respect what you are saying.


...but as i keep saying , all the wings of your party go hand in hand , so while i dont bear you any ill will on a personal level , you are of course politically my enemy.

I have absolutely no wish for any faction of labour to rule scotland and keep us part of your union as mere voting fodder to prop up the english left.

Being as the chances of that are nil I guess your worries are over,

[Thomas]

abolition of tuition fees,

1997, Labour: "We have no plans to introduce tuition fees".
(introduced tuition fees)

The facts about the history of tuition fees in Scotland are stark and unarguable:

– in 1997 when Labour came to power, higher education was free.

– the Labour government then introduced fees of £1000 a year across the UK, which meant a four-year degree in Scotland suddenly cost £4000.

– in 2000, the Labour-led Scottish Executive replaced said fees with a "graduate endowment", meaning that Scottish students paid £2000 retrospectively towards the cost of their education – half of what it had cost them under Labour's fees system in 1999, but still £2000 more than the £0 they'd been paying in 1997.

In the space of three years, then, while claiming to have "abolished" tuition fees, Labour had in fact increased the cost of a degree in Scotland from zero to £2000. Those are the cold, hard, unyielding truths.

Yet astonishingly, 15 years later, the party's education spokesman in Scotland is still trying to dance on the head of a semantic pin and insist that Labour abolished fees. The assumption, flying in the face of more than a decade of accumulated electoral evidence, appears to be that Scottish voters – including those who had to pay the "endowment" – are simple-minded idiots who can be fooled by a bit of wordplay

I actually agree that this kind of spin is both deplorable and counter-productive. Taking the Scots for idiots is bound to backfire.

Sadly though a certain wing of my party - which I oppose - has long been addicted to spin.

Though you will now no doubt attack me for trying to disassociate myself from it, rather than respecting a point of agreement as Major Sinic would. See the difference?

not at all steve , i respect what you are saying.


...but as i keep saying , all the wings of your party go hand in hand , so while i dont bear you any ill will on a personal level , you are of course politically my enemy.

I have absolutely no wish for any faction of labour to rule scotland and keep us part of your union as mere voting fodder to prop up the english left.

[srb7677]

I like Major Sinic.

So do I

A thoroughly decent Tory.

[Borg Refinery]

I like Major Sinic.

[Borg Refinery]

I don't really want to share my sob story, or want any sympathy but suffice to say, my life has genuinely been pretty rough.

Same here dyno.

Politicians wont provide the utopia you are looking for.

Perhaps we expect too much from central government. We elect them and then expect them to provide a perfect world using our money. Perhaps that's where it all goes really wrong.

I think so toots.

There seems to be a distinct lack of personal responsibility in this world today.

The government arent there to hold peoples hands through every aspect of life , good and bad.

I agree. I've learnt plenty the hard way.

Regardless, you and Toots while very likeable, are sounding like the local Tory club here. 😝

I know Toots can't help it.. I can imagine her bellowing in a Thatcheresque manner, trying to assert her authority.

[srb7677]

abolition of tuition fees,

1997, Labour: "We have no plans to introduce tuition fees".
(introduced tuition fees)

The facts about the history of tuition fees in Scotland are stark and unarguable:

– in 1997 when Labour came to power, higher education was free.

– the Labour government then introduced fees of £1000 a year across the UK, which meant a four-year degree in Scotland suddenly cost £4000.

– in 2000, the Labour-led Scottish Executive replaced said fees with a "graduate endowment", meaning that Scottish students paid £2000 retrospectively towards the cost of their education – half of what it had cost them under Labour's fees system in 1999, but still £2000 more than the £0 they'd been paying in 1997.

In the space of three years, then, while claiming to have "abolished" tuition fees, Labour had in fact increased the cost of a degree in Scotland from zero to £2000. Those are the cold, hard, unyielding truths.

Yet astonishingly, 15 years later, the party's education spokesman in Scotland is still trying to dance on the head of a semantic pin and insist that Labour abolished fees. The assumption, flying in the face of more than a decade of accumulated electoral evidence, appears to be that Scottish voters – including those who had to pay the "endowment" – are simple-minded idiots who can be fooled by a bit of wordplay

I actually agree that this kind of spin is both deplorable and counter-productive. Taking the Scots for idiots is bound to backfire.

Sadly though a certain wing of my party - which I oppose - has long been addicted to spin.

Though you will now no doubt attack me for trying to disassociate myself from it, rather than respecting a point of agreement as Major Sinic would. See the difference?

[srb7677]

I have not moved anywhere. I have always supported a moderate leftist agenda. And there is indeed nothing extreme about it.

.

You are far more hard left than i remember . I said to cromwell on here only yeasterday what has happened to you.......where has the polite guy who used to sit and patiently discuss with tory major sinic conservative party policy gone?

You are delusional steve.

There is nothing moderate left about the momentum cult that took over the labour party there for a while.

I am not momentum as I have already told you countless times. And I can discuss things politely with Major Sinic or others like him because they are reasonable give and take debaters. You too can be as you were when I first reappeared, but then you went into full on combat mode. It is difficult to debate politely with someone whose only aim is not to find common ground,  but to rip you to shreds. Major Sinic you see had respect for my views and for where I was coming from even where he strongly disagreed, and I reciprocated that. You seem only to manifest contempt for everything I stand for and do not approach debate open-heartedly as Major Sinic did. It is a pity he appears to be absent these days. We'd show you what I mean.

I have not moved any further to the left than I ever was, the policies I champion being moderate left leaning policies. Policies of a kind I have always championed.

[Thomas]

I don't really want to share my sob story, or want any sympathy but suffice to say, my life has genuinely been pretty rough.

Same here dyno.

Politicians wont provide the utopia you are looking for.

Perhaps we expect too much from central government. We elect them and then expect them to provide a perfect world using our money. Perhaps that's where it all goes really wrong.

I think so toots.

There seems to be a distinct lack of personal responsibility in this world today.

The government arent there to hold peoples hands through every aspect of life , good and bad.

[T00ts]

I don't really want to share my sob story, or want any sympathy but suffice to say, my life has genuinely been pretty rough.

Same here dyno.

Politicians wont provide the utopia you are looking for.

Perhaps we expect too much from central government. We elect them and then expect them to provide a perfect world using our money. Perhaps that's where it all goes really wrong.

[Thomas]

I don't really want to share my sob story, or want any sympathy but suffice to say, my life has genuinely been pretty rough.

Same here dyno.

Politicians wont provide the utopia you are looking for.

[Borg Refinery]

I do stand by the fact i think you are an idealogical romantic that needs a dose of reality.

What makes you think I haven't had a dose of reality?

I don't really want to share my sob story, or want any sympathy but suffice to say, my life has genuinely been pretty rough.

[Thomas]

But consider this - you are  Scottish Nationalist - you believe strongly in your country's right to self determination, you identify strongly with your country, its history and heritage, its culture and its values. You don't have any hang ups about it. We are not all that different in this respect, yet if I were to describe myself as an "English Nationalist", can you imagine the howls of anguish from the left?

Talking about how the moderate labour left talk about people deppity , i dont know if you remember thes polite remarks by moderate labour politicians......?

A senior Scottish Labour MP sparked fury among Nationalists after he suggested they should be "bayoneted".

http://archive.vn/6fhJY