Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 7

[AstonZagato]

Edinburger said:

///ajd said:

Edinburger said:

AstonZagato said:

Edinburger said:

It's not "funding teslas". It's an economically attractive initiative to encourage people to consider switching to electric vehicles. Some people may consider a Renault Twizzy (from £6,895) but that's not an extreme enough headline for you.

Twizzys are even more frivolous than Teslas. They are mobility scooters from a car manufacturer. The poor weather protection makes them, at best, a third or fourth car.

You sometimes really don't help yourself.

I just chose the first cheap electric car which sprung to mind to make a point. You knew that but the bandwagon was just too much to resist, wasn't it?

But it made your point/argument even less tenable. Can't you see that?

No it didn't. Not at all.

Jeez, this is like the discussion which may have been had by two apes 12 million years ago about whether or not they should jump out of the trees and try to walk upright.

No it isn't.

I'm not a reactionary railing against electric cars. In fact, I am trying to persuade my wife into a Tesla - it would fit her needs perfectly (other than I can't see her ever plugging the thing in). She currently drives a Toyota Landcruiser V8 so is at the other end of the spectrum.

What I am questioning is the need for this measure. Take me as an example. I like electric cars. I can afford an electric car.

Do I need an interest-free loan from the government? No.

Will it make any differenc3 to my decision? No.

Would I take it if it were on offer? Yes.

Does that make it a waste of money for the Scottish Government? Yes

The argument for the Scottish measure might stack up if there was a particular problem with air quality in Scottish cities meaning the marginal benefit might actually have some tangible effect - to drop below key thresholds, etc.. There isn't any extreme air quality problem in Scotland.

So really, when you get down to it, you can see that they are trying to buy a few votes with tax payer subsidies and indulging in gesture politics. It is not "progressive" in any way, shape or form.

But it has bought your votes so it's worked for the SNP.

Edited by AstonZagato on Tuesday 1st September 09:46

[Welshbeef]

Edinburger said:

Welshbeef said:

Edinburger said:

No, I'm not saying that at all.

You said somewhere in the middle - that's Lib Dems.

No - I said somewhere in between.

Ok so somewhere between Tory right and Labour socialist left is Lib den middle ground.

It's not that hard left right or middle you said "in between" which is say is the middle of its not can you clarify where it is.

[Taffer]

Additional good news on The Clyde; 2 more ferries being built for Calmac:

http://www.seatrade-maritime.com/news/europe/scotl...

Typical SNP spin though:

Nicola Sturgeon said:

This contract will see the 150-strong workforce retained and more staff taken on at the shipyard, underlining our commitment to creating the vital jobs needed to boost local economies and help stimulate growth across Scotland

This would be the Scottish Government who awarded several contracts for Calmac ferries to Polish and German yards, nearly driving Fergusons to the wall (and killing merchant shipbuilding on The Clyde) before it was rescued by private investors?*

Seeking to be seen as saviours of an industry they nearly killed (they nearly stopped military shipbuiding on The Clyde too) - bravo.

• Yes, I know that EU rules mean no preference for domestic companies, but many other countries seem to win these types of contracts for their own yards, so why not us?

[Edinburger]

AstonZagato said:

Edinburger said:

///ajd said:

Edinburger said:

AstonZagato said:

Edinburger said:

It's not "funding teslas". It's an economically attractive initiative to encourage people to consider switching to electric vehicles. Some people may consider a Renault Twizzy (from £6,895) but that's not an extreme enough headline for you.

Twizzys are even more frivolous than Teslas. They are mobility scooters from a car manufacturer. The poor weather protection makes them, at best, a third or fourth car.

You sometimes really don't help yourself.

I just chose the first cheap electric car which sprung to mind to make a point. You knew that but the bandwagon was just too much to resist, wasn't it?

But it made your point/argument even less tenable. Can't you see that?

No it didn't. Not at all.

Jeez, this is like the discussion which may have been had by two apes 12 million years ago about whether or not they should jump out of the trees and try to walk upright.

No it isn't.

I'm not a reactionary railing against electric cars. In fact, I am trying to persuade my wife into a Tesla - it would fit her needs perfectly (other than I can't see her ever plugging the thing in). She currently drives a Toyota Landcruiser V8 so is at the other end of the spectrum.

What I am questioning is the need for this measure. Take me as an example. I like electric cars. I can afford an electric car.

Do I need an interest-free loan from the government? No.

Will it make any differenc3 to my decision? No.

Would I take it if it were on offer? Yes.

Does that make it a waste of money for the Scottish Government? Yes

The argument for the Scottish measure might stack up if there was a particular problem with air quality in Scottish cities meaning the marginal benefit might actually have some tangible effect - to drop below key thresholds, etc.. There isn't any extreme air quality problem in Scotland.

So really, when you get down to it, you can see that they are trying to buy a few votes with tax payer subsidies and indulging in gesture politics. It is not "progressive" in any way, shape or form.

But it has bought your votes so it's worked for the SNP.

Edited by AstonZagato on Tuesday 1st September 09:46

The 'need' for electric cars varies among different people in a number of ways. What the SG are doing here is launching an incentive to push along the adoption of EVs. It is low cost for the SG and of significant benefit to consumers i.e. interest fee loan or not having to encash savings to buy outright. Teslas are the higher end of the scale but there are many lower priced EVs as I said earlier.

I'll look forward to your similar comments when a similar scheme is launched in other parts of the UK!

[Edinburger]

Welshbeef said:

Edinburger said:

Welshbeef said:

Edinburger said:

No, I'm not saying that at all.

You said somewhere in the middle - that's Lib Dems.

No - I said somewhere in between.

Ok so somewhere between Tory right and Labour socialist left is Lib den middle ground.

It's not that hard left right or middle you said "in between" which is say is the middle of its not can you clarify where it is.

As you know, many SNP members have varying political persuasions. We've discussed this umpteen times.

[Axionknight]

Edinburger said:

I don't care enough about the Gaelic point to debate it.

Or the hungry people that could have been fed with the money, either?

Edited by Axionknight on Tuesday 1st September 10:25

[Welshbeef]

Edinburger said:

As you know, many SNP members have varying political persuasions. We've discussed this umpteen times.

No what is the party position - it is not everything to all men they have policies and a manifesto

Nice wriggling .

Where is your garage? Skiing others put me off with distance and unreliable snow conditions.

[AstonZagato]

Edinburger said:

AstonZagato said:

Edinburger said:

///ajd said:

Edinburger said:

AstonZagato said:

Edinburger said:

It's not "funding teslas". It's an economically attractive initiative to encourage people to consider switching to electric vehicles. Some people may consider a Renault Twizzy (from £6,895) but that's not an extreme enough headline for you.

Twizzys are even more frivolous than Teslas. They are mobility scooters from a car manufacturer. The poor weather protection makes them, at best, a third or fourth car.

You sometimes really don't help yourself.

I just chose the first cheap electric car which sprung to mind to make a point. You knew that but the bandwagon was just too much to resist, wasn't it?

But it made your point/argument even less tenable. Can't you see that?

No it didn't. Not at all.

Jeez, this is like the discussion which may have been had by two apes 12 million years ago about whether or not they should jump out of the trees and try to walk upright.

No it isn't.

I'm not a reactionary railing against electric cars. In fact, I am trying to persuade my wife into a Tesla - it would fit her needs perfectly (other than I can't see her ever plugging the thing in). She currently drives a Toyota Landcruiser V8 so is at the other end of the spectrum.

What I am questioning is the need for this measure. Take me as an example. I like electric cars. I can afford an electric car.

Do I need an interest-free loan from the government? No.

Will it make any differenc3 to my decision? No.

Would I take it if it were on offer? Yes.

Does that make it a waste of money for the Scottish Government? Yes

The argument for the Scottish measure might stack up if there was a particular problem with air quality in Scottish cities meaning the marginal benefit might actually have some tangible effect - to drop below key thresholds, etc.. There isn't any extreme air quality problem in Scotland.

So really, when you get down to it, you can see that they are trying to buy a few votes with tax payer subsidies and indulging in gesture politics. It is not "progressive" in any way, shape or form.

But it has bought your votes so it's worked for the SNP.

Edited by AstonZagato on Tuesday 1st September 09:46

The 'need' for electric cars varies among different people in a number of ways. What the SG are doing here is launching an incentive to push along the adoption of EVs. It is low cost for the SG and of significant benefit to consumers i.e. interest fee loan or not having to encash savings to buy outright. Teslas are the higher end of the scale but there are many lower priced EVs as I said earlier.

I'll look forward to your similar comments when a similar scheme is launched in other parts of the UK!

It is of largest benefit to those buying the most expensive cars (so the very inverse of the widely adopted use of the word "progressive" - which you yourself styled it). A more progressive measure would be to have a flat subsidy (what the UK govt already do - therefore "bad" in the SNP's eyes) or have a means tested subsidy (ridiculously complex sledgehammer on irrelevant nut).

I would criticise this policy if it were enacted in the rUK for the reasons outlined - it makes no difference to the basic decision - which is based around the personal viability of a limited range car.

[AC43]

Axionknight said:

That's excellent :-)

[r11co]

Edinburger said:

As you know, many SNP members have varying political persuasions. We've discussed this umpteen times.

But the party itself has one goal, writ large in section 2(a) of their constitution (section 1 being the stated name of the party).

I am starting to get what your dilemma is 'burger. From what I can gather you voted No in the indyref, yet I suspect you voted for SNP in the GE. You are one of those people who rejects independence but is now trying to reconcile this with your support of the SNP on the back of their other stated policies or (as I and many others prefer to call it) their 'narrative'.

Be in no doubt though that any policy decision made by the SNP is purely in furtherance of s.2.(a) and as a result the SNP's political record is littered with backtracking, blatant lies and duplicity.

"We will never work with the Tories" said Nicola Sturgeon, at a stroke wiping from history the SNP's confidence and supply agreement with the Conservatives that propped up their first minority Scottish government.

Also, they have gone on record that they will willfully back policies they disagree with or believe to be harmful if it will further the cause of independence - two cases in point being calling for the vote to be granted for criminals serving jail sentences in UK elections (believing it would damage the Tory vote) but refusing to grant them in Scotland, and of course the infamous fox hunting debacle - going back on a pledge not to vote on English only matters and blocking a measure that would have brought English law in line with Scottish law - an act of gross hypocrisy.

Then there's

• the non-existant letter on EU membership
• Salmond's alliance with Rupert Murdoch
• courting the Green movement with a claimed ban on fracking while doing backroom deals with oil explorers
• publicly 'rejecting privatisation' while at the same time handing control of ferry services and NHS contracts to private companies who pay into SNP party coffers

I could go on!

I don't care what the SNP say, their actions speak louder than their words. They are a party of openly deceitful mischief makers and willfull wreckers of order, governance and good society. Anyone voting for them should open their eyes to this or accept they are complicit. The only reason to vote SNP is if you want independence, not to give the other parties a bloody nose, nor in the belief that the SNP's 'other' policies align with your politics because the SNP's policies and principles are transient and subject to change at a moment's notice.

Edited by r11co on Tuesday 1st September 18:49

[Garvin]

Edinburger said:

Garvin said:

Edinburger said:

If we believe that EVs are the way forward and if a government offers financial benefits (interest free loans in this case) to people prepared to move from ICEs to EVs then yes that's progressive.

Do you disagree?

Progressive in politics usually means, in crude terms, soaking the rich to help the poor. This policy, therefore, does not meet this definition of 'progressive' at all. It is almost the opposite in not helping the poor one iota just helping the better off!

Other definitions of 'progressive' in a political sense are more vague but seem to revolve around policies which engender reform for the better. It is not obvious that a move to EVs is 'for the better'. When the electricity generating capacity of a country, as in the UK, is marginal (less than 5% margin IIRC) then it isn't obviously progressive to put more strain on it. Couple that with the cost of additional generating capacity, particularly the 'green' type, then it sort of cuts across the former definition of 'progressive' as the cost of energy might well have to increase for the less well off. Increasing the use of fossil fuel and/or nuclear generation may well be cheaper but then that cuts across other 'environmental' policies.

In short, there is some evidence that this is not progressive under any definition of the word.

That's a very subjective viewpoint.

Look at it from another point of view - less ICEs on the road will give better air quality in areas troubled by air pollution which will help people with respiratory problems. Some cities are even considering banning diesel vehicles.

Isn't encouraging a switch to EVs a good idea?

Subjective'? No, not at all - I have objectively assessed the policy against the accepted definitions, in political terms, of the term 'progressive'.

Good idea? It may well be. However, stop using the word 'progressive' to talk up the SNP performance with political buzz words cum bullst - It's not 'progressive'.

Now I may believe this policy be a good idea based on my 'subjective' view but mainly because I have a few 'bob', am not overly concerned by increasing energy costs', don't give much of a stuff about so called 'green' issues (mainly because under objective scrutiny a lot of them are nowhere near as 'green' as the gullible think they are) and see the use of electric motors providing a useful increase in vehicle performance which feeds my petrolheadedness!

You see, progressive is a defined term in this context; a good idea, on the other hand, is a much more vague notion and is purely subjective depending on the individual's view point!

[r11co]

The lessons have been learned from the Scottish IndyRef...

EU referendum: Watchdog urges changes to question.

[NoNeed]

Garvin said:

Edinburger said:

Garvin said:

Edinburger said:

If we believe that EVs are the way forward and if a government offers financial benefits (interest free loans in this case) to people prepared to move from ICEs to EVs then yes that's progressive.

Do you disagree?

Progressive in politics usually means, in crude terms, soaking the rich to help the poor. This policy, therefore, does not meet this definition of 'progressive' at all. It is almost the opposite in not helping the poor one iota just helping the better off!

Other definitions of 'progressive' in a political sense are more vague but seem to revolve around policies which engender reform for the better. It is not obvious that a move to EVs is 'for the better'. When the electricity generating capacity of a country, as in the UK, is marginal (less than 5% margin IIRC) then it isn't obviously progressive to put more strain on it. Couple that with the cost of additional generating capacity, particularly the 'green' type, then it sort of cuts across the former definition of 'progressive' as the cost of energy might well have to increase for the less well off. Increasing the use of fossil fuel and/or nuclear generation may well be cheaper but then that cuts across other 'environmental' policies.

In short, there is some evidence that this is not progressive under any definition of the word.

That's a very subjective viewpoint.

Look at it from another point of view - less ICEs on the road will give better air quality in areas troubled by air pollution which will help people with respiratory problems. Some cities are even considering banning diesel vehicles.

Isn't encouraging a switch to EVs a good idea?

Subjective'? No, not at all - I have objectively assessed the policy against the accepted definitions, in political terms, of the term 'progressive'.

Good idea? It may well be. However, stop using the word 'progressive' to talk up the SNP performance with political buzz words cum bullst - It's not 'progressive'.

Now I may believe this policy be a good idea based on my 'subjective' view but mainly because I have a few 'bob', am not overly concerned by increasing energy costs', don't give much of a stuff about so called 'green' issues (mainly because under objective scrutiny a lot of them are nowhere near as 'green' as the gullible think they are) and see the use of electric motors providing a useful increase in vehicle performance which feeds my petrolheadedness!

You see, progressive is a defined term in this context; a good idea, on the other hand, is a much more vague notion and is purely subjective depending on the individual's view point!

I have wondered many times what was progressive about the poor in council high rise blocks in Glasgow paying for the well off middle classes to have electric vehicles and solar panels for cheap electricity and have never had an answer off anybody that uses the term.

[Troubleatmill]

SNP goes for standardised testing in Primary Schools.

I expect this to go well.

[r11co]

Ve Haff Vays of Keeping You Qviet.

Read it and weep, 'burger, Strocky et al.

[///ajd]

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

The only reason you would do this - is to try to create a new identity separate from the rest of the UK.


How many of the 1% of Gaelic speakers do not understand a word of English?


I do understand why you want to keep a dying language alive.
And money and resources should be spent to ensure it continues and thrives.

But 30% of BBC Scotland budget - and £26 million on road signs.


I can't help but think, the money would be better spent in classrooms in the highlands ( where Gaelic originates [it was never a lowlander language] )

Do you have some sort of inferiority complex?

Perhaps, you could debate the points being raised?

I don't care enough about the Gaelic point to debate it.

But they've spent 10x more on pointless roadsigns than they are giving to rich people to buy teslas! And you don't care?

[NoNeed]

r11co said:

Ve Haff Vays of Keeping You Qviet.

Read it and weep, 'burger, Strocky et al.

I can't wait to hear the Nazi's explain that one.

[Gecko1978]

NoNeed said:

r11co said:

Ve Haff Vays of Keeping You Qviet.

Read it and weep, 'burger, Strocky et al.

I can't wait to hear the Nazi's explain that one.

OMFG his car was torched. But best bit two of the comments try a bit too hard to suggest it was an accident even though the author states the police have said it's a case of arson. The face painted ones clearly are mental.

[NoNeed]

Gecko1978 said:

NoNeed said:

r11co said:

Ve Haff Vays of Keeping You Qviet.

Read it and weep, 'burger, Strocky et al.

I can't wait to hear the Nazi's explain that one.

OMFG his car was torched. But best bit two of the comments try a bit too hard to suggest it was an accident even though the author states the police have said it's a case of arson. The face painted ones clearly are mental.

I wonder what copper will get the sack

[///ajd]

r11co said:

Ve Haff Vays of Keeping You Qviet.

Read it and weep, 'burger, Strocky et al.

Clear evidence the SNP and its supporters are professional diplomats, ready for the nuances and subtle delicate political interactions on the international stage.

If politicians got ASBOs, the SNP would be Olympic standard.