Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

The Barnett Formula may have been in existence since the 1970s, but it replaced the Goschen Formula which started back in the 1880s. Yes, Scotland has been in a privileged position for that long - more money, more MPs per capita, and so on.

Second, they are most certainly NOT comfortably in profit. The Tax Payers Alliance has published an analysis only last week - and it shows that in these times of record high oil prices Scotland has only paid its own way for 5 out of the last 23 years. (That's as far back as accurate figures go). That means that in 18 out of the last 23 years they have been subsidised by the English Tax Payer. And of course for the 100+ years before there was North Sea Oil as well.

And needless to say, it's very easy to spend your money providing better services when you are getting 22% more than the average, (and England gets 4% LESS than the average). In fact, the difficulty Scotland has had is with spending all this largesse. Believe it or not, they were failing to spend all their block grant and so a special exception was made for Scotland (surprise!) that allowed them to roll it over into future financial years.

Devildog

You are quoting the TPA analysis as fact, when it is largely based upon the supposition, estimation and guesswork of one study (which appears now to contradict itself compared to findings last year) using a "notional" oil revenue split, yet there is no explanation of what the basis of that calculation is.

In other words, its hardly something that would stand up to any real scrutiny as to its accuracy.

PeteBrant

Ugh. The tax payer alliance. A collection of self serving, selfish, "I'm all right jack" tossers.

I doubt the accuracy and impartiality of thier Scotland review. But lets just say for one moment it is accurate.

Scotland is part of the UK and the UK has a central pot of money. Yes Scotland has choices in how it spends that money. But so do we all.

The problem I have is this: Is the tax payers alliance going to do the same investigation into, say, the North East of England? Because I bet that show a negative balance sheet too.

http://tpa.typepad.com/home/files/un...tt_formula.pdf

Reading the report, the TPA seems to positively encourage local tax revenue staying local Indeed, in the .pdf, they moan about central tax spend vs local). In other words, if you happen to live in an affluent area, with high levels of tax, then you will enjoy first class public services.

If you live in a poorer area, presumably, it's touch luck, and you should adjust your public services according to what the local council can afford.

I cannot think of a more odious and unfair system.

The tax payer alliance, it seems, are , what are commonly referred to as "cvnts"

r32

Dont forget all the good work they've done on pensions.

GC8

"Blair's Babes"







Fail.

Luan Pra bang

Revise the list I think

boxst

Of course before there was:



Steve

PeteBrant

I don;t know where that figure comes from but it is spin at its absolute finest. We do not have a 26.6% unemploymnent rate. One can only assume that figure includes school children and those people retired.

I disagree, I think that minimum wage means that people are guaranteed a fair days pay for a fair days pay. And did not result in the massive bankruptcys and redundancies that the CBI predicted.


Well, taken literally yes, (although the very fact that they thought you could be "taught" to be gay shows just what imbeciles we were dealing with).

Unfortunately the law was worded such that it could be construed as to make any potrayal of Gay life as annything other than abnormal could face prosecution.

Any sane person could see that this was clearly nonsense, hence it was repealed.

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

Didn't labour invoke the parliament act to pass sodomy of 16 year old boys? Mr Brant?

Luan Pra bang

Spin from the office for National statistics ? Employment rates and unemployment rates do not have to add up to 100% as a significant percentage of people of working age do not claim benefit, work for cash or are claiming a benefit that classes them as not eligable for employment which removes them from the unemployment figures. Try to keep up Pete.

PeteBrant

You should write for the Mail


Yes, they equalised the ages of consent. Through the parliament act, because the Lords kept blocking it. I don't particualrly agree with the use of the parliament act, but in this instance they were right to do so.

I presume you feel there is some logical explanation whereby people of 16 can decide to be heterosexual and get married and **** girls silly, but you cannot make that decision if you are gay, then?

PeteBrant

Actually, the Government are pushing people onto Jobseekers allowance as it means they can cut benefit if people don't play ball. Rather than push people on other benefits, they actively do the opposite to what you are suggesting. Indeed, single parents recently wwre forced to go onto jobseekers once thier child was 12, and this age will be reduced to 7 next year.


The unemployment rate in this country is around 5.3%. It is not 26.6% by any meaningful measure.


I think I'll just ignore the petty comments if its all the same to you.

Luan Pra bang

How about any law which allows older men to sodomise immature 16 year old boys who may still be confused by their sexuality is not a good thing.

With regard to employment figures according to the governments own figures only 74.7 percent of people of working age are employed. That is a fact.

PeteBrant

Why is it you feel only homosexual boys that will be confused about thier sexuality and therefore not allowed to enagage in a sexual act?

Why is it you feel only homosexual boys are at risk from older men, and not 16 year old girls?

Let's raise the age for everyone to 18, that do you?




The Employment rate is as you say, 74.4%. That includes everyone from 16 to 65. (Labour changed the way the Tories used to exlude lots of people from this figure)

That does not mean that there are 26.6% out of work and looking. Obviously lots of people will be in full time education, or Housewifes etc.

The Unemployment rate is 5.5%

National Statistics Online

Hope this clears it up for you.

Luan Pra bang

Becuase any normal community makes an older man with a 16 year old girlfriend feel ostracised and under pressure. The gay community is largely hidden and seperate from the majority and there for less susceptable to social pressure. Also people are often careful about calling Homo's on dodgy behaviour as it is seen as un Pc. Combine the general unnatural nature of Homosexuality, the physical harm caused by sodomy an I cannot understand how anyone could allow 16 year olds to legally have gay sex.






I was not aware I needed anything cleared up ?

PeteBrant

Couple of problems with your logic there.

(i)If there an old man with a 16 year old girl, he is no more likely to advertise it than an old man with a 16 year old boy. You point about a community ostrcising someone (presumably we are talkign about some religious cult community set in the 1800's?) depends on them knowing.

(ii)The Gay community is not hidden nor seperate. You have probably spoken and serve dmany a Gay person a pint. You have probably even touched their hands.

You make it sound like older men praying on young boys is rife. It isn't.
You also make the classic mistake of assuming that Gay relationship=sodomy. It doesn't.

As for Homosexual behaviour being "unnatural", I suggest, to a gay person, it is entirely natural.

As far "calling on Homo's for dodgy beahviour", what is that supposed to mean? That and old man with a young boy is wrong, but an old man with a young girl is ok?

And that's the crux of the matter. It's all about equality.

There is not a single argument that you can present, short of saying homosexuality is inherently wrong (in which case, you lose), that can justify a difference between the age of consent for heterosexual and gay people.

That's why parliament voted it through, and eventually used the parliament act.


Good job that I did it then, you might have missed out.

Devildog

Pete, you are on fire today

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

I'm just wondering when our two residents pedants are going to realise that 74.4 + 26.6 = 101


(Oh and Pete unnatural in this case is defined as "not in accordance with or determined by nature" )

PeteBrant

Who said anything about unnatural?

The point at which a person is defined as being old enough to partake of sexual activity is 16. What I am asking, is why is it felt in some quarters that heterosexual people are better able to make decisions about this than homosexual?

Whether the act itself is unnatural or not is irrelevant. If someone views homosexual behaviour as "unnatural", then its not suddenly going to become "natural" to them when a practicing homosexual hits 21, is it.

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Pete - I was specifically commenting upon your statement:

"As for Homosexual behaviour being "unnatural", I suggest, to a gay person, it is entirely natural."

It is in fact an unnatural act. I am not saying it is right or wrong: merely unnatural.

I happen to agree with your stance that if people wish to experiment and are consenting and capable of a mature decision then they should be allowed to. I am a libertarian and believe in an individuals right to choose to make their own decisions and (possible) mistakes as long as it does not adversely affect others.

I happen to think a 16 year old of ANY sexual persuasion is a walking gland and incapable of making a balanced decision when it comes to sexual desires

PeteBrant

So your answer to my question "who said anything about unnatural" the answer is, you did, you tosser

Sorry, I completely missed that bit


I think thats a very difficult subject, and not one easily answered. I know where you are coming from, but I think slightly different rules apply to humans.
Agreed (obviously)
Well quite possibly true, and I think posibly the reason why the age of consent has never been raised is that it is virtually impossible to do so once you have set the limit.

I mean if they were to say "right, the age of consent is now 18", then what are co-habiting, or married couples under that age supposed to do?

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

I think I need to do the lottery tonight.

In one page; I've proven Pete wrong twice.

lozgti

Darn.My threads gone all ghey

(no one post that Hoff pic thankyou)

Gordo

Pete - are you part of the new labour spin machine???

national debt was £633 billion at the end of August (it went up by £12 billion in August alone).

BUT - these are the government's figures. Real national debt, when you take into account public finance debts, pension liabilities, network rail etc is said by the Centre for Policy Studies to be nearer to 3x this.

Where on earth did you get your £40 billion from??

cster

I've trawled throught his thread, and I notice the first thing on the "good" list of post # 2 is increased public spending, but nobody seems to have really picked up on this.
I work in the NHS and continually see large sums of money wasted. If other sectors of the public services are as incompetantly run, then I would have thought that maybe less public spending would be a good idea.
Why is it we are happy to have the government run a one size fits all health system and education system for us when probably we could afford something better if we were less taxed.
Even Maggie T (god bless) didn't attack these two holy cows and nobody seems to question it.
It seems to me that people don't value things they get for nothing, but our health and education are important and leaving it to the state to provide is maybe not too clever.
As for the social welfare system, well doesn't that seem to incentivise some odd and perhaps antisocial behaviours.
Just my opinion of course.