Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8

[anonymous-user]

Evercross said:

I have said it before but it bears repeating - the SNP's brand of politics is the most dishonest and corrosive because Nationalist supporters wilfully turn blind eyes to SNP hypocrisy because of the mantra 'the wrong things for the right reasons', giving license to Sturgeon and her ilk to act in the most dishonest, damaging, corrupt and undemocratic of ways, and for that each and every one should be ashamed of themselves.

I had a colleague at work hit me with exactly the same nonsense that 'burger spouted to me recently in here - that once independence was achieved it would not be the SNP ruling Scotland so they should not be judged so harshly because the goal of independence was more important.

'burger - I include you (and your absent pal Strocky, the Bandit and the other PH SNP acolytes) in the above statement. To paraphrase a Nationalist campaign slogan - 'do you understand why anything but the SNP yet?'

[simoid]

I don’t think she can decide:

Article said:

“It is for the people to decide – they shouldn’t have that imposed on them. “I have spoken to a lot of people who are voting SNP in this election who, if there is a referendum as of now, wouldn’t be guaranteed to vote Yes, and some who might never vote yes.

“But they are voting yes in this election because they don’t want a Boris Johnson government and they don’t want the mess of Brexit.”

[Mr Tidy]

Right, so are they really voting for the mess that Scottish Independence will get them then?

There are less than 5 million voters in Scotland, but over 60 Million in the UK - so how much influence should they have anyway (mind you minority groups seem to get excessive influence as a matter of course these days).

[Evercross]

ABZ RS6 said:

Evercross said:

Hence...

Her election campaign was never about independence or Brexit..

You must be having a laugh.

It’s all she has fukin bleated on about for weeks (and the months/years before the election campaign).

But the polls on indy haven't budged an inch in 6 years.

Nope - Nicola was focussed on keeping her job by keeping the prospect of an indyref just over the hill which is why she flip-flops on the justification and prevaricates over the exact timetable for having one. At one point it was about the EU and then suddenly it wasn't, and she knows full well that her proposal of two referenda within the space of 12 months is practically impossible under Electoral Commission rules.

This general election campaign where she has been a one-woman band for the SNP (despite Blackford being the rightful Nationalist spokesperson for the Westminster debates and Kirsty Blackman, Mhairi Black etc. all being available for duty seeing as they had nothing else to be doing) was all about promoting brand Sturgeon - fending off the envious eyes of Joanna Cherry who has been circling the leadership job and has been very conspicuous by her absence in the campaign despite her recent media/Supreme Court 'successes'.

Nippy gave the game away yesterday and proved what has really been playing on her mind with her 'five more years' pitch.

Edited by Evercross on Monday 9th December 10:27

[Big Robbo]

Edinburger said:

Mrs Sturgeon articulating her points and policies well on The Andrew Marr Show right now. ??

You related to the troll?

[malks222]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50711768

so it’s now not just about brexit, it’s that scotland has been unfairly treated for the last 3 years and because of that, we should push for independence again.

I’m glad they are starting to publicly say why they actually mean- we just want independence, at any cost, freedom!!!!

[simoid]

Big Robbo said:

Edinburger said:

Mrs Sturgeon articulating her points and policies well on The Andrew Marr Show right now. ??

You related to the troll?

Probably married her.

[Edinburger]

s2kjock said:

Edinburger said:

So why do private schools qualify for charitable status?

From a technical perspective they pass "the charity test" in Scotland in so far as they (a) carry out activities in line with one of the approved charitable purposes (education in this instance), and (b) they provide public benefit.

Test (b) is the tricky one obviously.

Ways they meet (b) are principally by providing means tested bursaries and providing use of their facilities to community and other groups.

The Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) has reviewed every single independent school in Scotland and indeed prioritised them given their risk under this test, and subject to a few who were directed to tweak a few things, they all "passed" - this was a while back now.

Unless the SG decide to amend the 2005 Charities Act definitions or use influence in some other way to persuade OSCR to interpret the law differently, they won't "lose charitable status".

The business rates issue was quite a specific targeted approach to a specific relief - interestingly IIRC the report leading to it also recommended that the relief be removed from local government "arms length organisations" (ALEOS) that they had hived off various sports and other activities into to benefit from tax reliefs under charitable status.

The loss of rates relief is likely just reduce bursary provision to cover the cost ....... which may lead in turn to more problems passing test (b).

These schools are suffering from big hikes in pension contributions just now (most are members of public sector related teaching schemes) so any impact on the bottom line is unhelpful.

Although many parents are sufficiently well off that they can weather large increases in fees, there are a significant amount for whom affordability is very marginal - if these pupils are lost then it impacts on the financial viability of the sector ie there are simply not enough megabucks parents around to support a reduced sector.

The big killer for the sector with loss of charitable status is potential for capital gains tax to be charged on their assets as they de-register as charities.

Having to charge VAT on fees, as muted by Labour, is another frightener for the sector.

Thank you for providing a sensible answer to my question.

There are an awful lot of fantastic charities in this country and a lot of tremendous causes, but I just don't see how private schools meet those two requirements.

It is stretching things to say they are "carrying out activities in line with one of the approved charitable purposes (education in this instance)" when they are (mainly) profitable businesses. You said yourself "providing public benefit" is tricky too. I've been at football events in private school grounds but there's really not a lot of things they do which provide public benefit.

I'm sorry this proposed change impacts posters here, but I don't have much sympathy for it.

Before you all start shooting me down, please don't think I have no involvement with the private school sector. I just think this is a sensible change.

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

What are you getting your knickers in a twist about? Why am I being slandered again? I was working. I can't sit on PH 24/7 hitting the refresh button. Some of us have jobs! I'm kidding.

I've sped-read the last few pages and you seem to be annoyed at the proposal whereby private schools will be taxed full business rates after the change in charitable status? Is that right?

If so, and if you're desperate for my view, my thoughts are mixed. Firstly, I've never ever understood why private schools (and some other bodies) qualify for charitable status. Secondly, this proposed change will impact both the private and the state sector significantly.

I believe Edinburgh has the highest proportion of private school pupils in Scotland so this change will impact the good people of Edinburgh at both private and state schools, especially if there is an exodus of private school pupils.

I think a lot of parents of private school pupils will be able to stomach the increase in fees. If you're so close to the bone that you're saying this increase will result in your child being moved to a state school then I think that's down to deeply questionable financial planning and priorities on your part.

There will be a big impact on the state sector too. Regardless on where you sit on the political spectrum, its very difficult to justify private schools having charitable status tax relief. So I see this as a correction rather than anything else.

This change is no secret - it was raised three years ago. And it will land in other parts of the UK soon too, What I do regret is that fewer families will be able to choose private education and the sector will become more elite.


So there's my initial thoughts. Not sure whether I should be flattered or concerned that a few of you were eagerly awaiting my thoughts!

Thanks for admitting your inability to understand the issue.

Thanks for providing a quality answer.

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

So why do private schools qualify for charitable status?

I'm heading off to a meeting so won't be around to reply for a while. Just thought I'd add that before my integrity is being questioned.

Because they do lots of charitable things, presumably. Teach promising kids for free who can’t afford the fees, etc

Jeez.

[Edinburger]

DocJock said:

They also reduce the load (and necessary spending) on the state school system, despite their parents paying for a state education through their taxes.

I have no idea of the sums involved (and no inclination to go Googling) but it would not surprise me if the tax breaks go nowhere near covering the cost if all those private school pupils had to have their education funded by the state.

That's true. But it's all transparent in that parents choose to pay school fees knowing a proportion of their taxation goes towards state schools.

[Edinburger]

Evercross said:

Edinburger said:

I've never ever understood why private schools (and some other bodies) qualify for charitable status.

That's the trouble with speed-reading. The answer was given (and linked to) in the last couple of pages of this thread, and have since been spelled out to you again.

What I think you mean is that you haven't bothered to avail yourself to the reasons why private schools qualify for charitable status and settled on the same biased and ignorant opinion that the decision to remove their tax relief is intended to appeal to.

Your latest reply really is an irony. You frequently come in here criticising the level of discussion in the thread and the related issues when by you own admission you don't take the time to appraise yourself of them fully, then present your view through Nationalist blinkers.

Then you wonder why you are called out for it!?

You are right - no one has the time to be dealing with this 24-7, but don't profess on it either unless you are prepared to back yourself up. FTSE and employment figures come to mind......!

Edited by Evercross on Friday 6th December 14:43

Play the ball, not the man.

Up to your old tricks, eh?

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

So why do private schools qualify for charitable status?

I'm heading off to a meeting so won't be around to reply for a while. Just thought I'd add that before my integrity is being questioned.

Because they do lots of charitable things, presumably. Teach promising kids for free who can’t afford the fees, etc

Jeez.

So you’ve said you don’t understand it, some posters have explained why they meet the charitable requirement, including their own personal insight, the charity body themselves says (many?) private schools meet the requirements charities, but it’s still not good enough for you.

Jeez indeed!

[Edinburger]

csd19 said:

Edinburger said:

I've never ever understood why private schools (and some other bodies) qualify for charitable status.

I believe Edinburgh has the highest proportion of private school pupils in Scotland

Couple of snips there but to assist with understanding the first one maybe you should do a bit of research into the history of Edinburgh's private schools.

Take a look at George Heriot's School, and I'm only mentioning this one as I am familiar with it. This was first opened as a charitable school (hospital as it was first known) from the assets left by George Heriot (goldsmith to King James VI and associated royalty) upon his death. The money was left to the City of Edinburgh to provide for the education of the city's orphans and although over the years since it was first opened in the 1600s it began to charge fees, it never forgot the original message of helping orphaned children.

As a former pupil (secondary only) I'm slightly biased but I remember some of my classmates being Foundationers - they had received a full education from Primary entry right through secondary. There were also a few kids on bursaries who hadn't been there from primary 1 but had started as 1st Years - this is the sort of invaluable support and charitable work the school has always strived to provide. These children were extremely bright but their family situation unfortunately couldn't afford the fees without some degree of assistance.

As for your point of

"If you're so close to the bone that you're saying this increase will result in your child being moved to a state school then I think that's down to deeply questionable financial planning and priorities on your part"

please try not to be so ignorant in future, not every set of parents with children in private education are both on 6 fig salaries. You just don't realise that people send their children to private education because they are the priority and you have no idea of the sacrifices people do make.

One notable point of attending GHS was the wide mix of backgrounds - it wasn't all snobby kids being dropped off in Rolls-Royces in the morning. Yes, the father of one of my classmates was a multi-millionaire, but his son was so down to earth he didn't have a need to mention it or play on it. The kids came from all sorts of families - bank tellers, mechanics, machinists, doctors, civil servants, lawyers, admin personnel... the only commonality was the desire to give their children a decent education.

I don't have, and won't have, any children, but I do make regular contributions to the school in the hope that they will make a difference to a child who is like my classmates were. The old motto of "impendo" (I distribute cheerfully, or chearfullie to spell it as per the historic school crest) obviously rings true with me.

That's an interesting history - thanks. I wasn't at Heriots so I didn't know all of that.

On the second point, I didn't mean to appear ignorant. I have several friends who choose to have their children privately educated and some of them enormous sacrifices to do so. So much, that they sacrifice holidays, cars and other luxuries which is commendable but when they can't afford to send their kids on excursions or they are taking on more debt to cover school fees then it is often down to dubious choices. I say this as a chartered financial planner too.

[Evercross]

Edinburger said:

Evercross said:

Edinburger said:

I've never ever understood why private schools (and some other bodies) qualify for charitable status.

That's the trouble with speed-reading. The answer was given (and linked to) in the last couple of pages of this thread, and have since been spelled out to you again.

What I think you mean is that you haven't bothered to avail yourself to the reasons why private schools qualify for charitable status and settled on the same biased and ignorant opinion that the decision to remove their tax relief is intended to appeal to.

Your latest reply really is an irony. You frequently come in here criticising the level of discussion in the thread and the related issues when by you own admission you don't take the time to appraise yourself of them fully, then present your view through Nationalist blinkers.

Then you wonder why you are called out for it!?

You are right - no one has the time to be dealing with this 24-7, but don't profess on it either unless you are prepared to back yourself up. FTSE and employment figures come to mind......!

Play the ball, not the man.

Inappropriate idiom.

Try 'the man is st at the game and the rest of the players are telling him to get up to speed or get off the park because they are tired of his deflection and blaming of others for his inadequacies'.

Edited by Evercross on Monday 9th December 15:54

[Edinburger]

jshell said:

csd19 said:

please try not to be so ignorant in future, not every set of parents with children in private education are both on 6 fig salaries. You just don't realise that people send their children to private education because they are the priority and you have no idea of the sacrifices people do make.

Many, many parents do exactly this. No flash car, endless gadgets and foreign holidays. The kids are the absolute priority!

Agreed.

[Edinburger]

Evercross said:

NRS said:

What is the uncertainty range, and if you take the most positive side for Scotland does it look any better?

Even factoring in the best case it doesn't turn a deficit into 'Scotland contributes more than it takes'. Far from it, but Nats discredit the figures totally because this is the lie they tell and want believed.

As for the actual income tax take - HMRC audit, which is unequivocal as it is based on only one set of figures ie. those paying income tax in Scotland, stated that Scotland brought in less in income tax thanks to Derek MacKay's decision not to raise thresholds in line with rUK than if he'd kept Scottish rates in line. The figures don't give any reasons why this happened, but when MacKay was given a lesson on the Laffer Curve at a Holyrood Finance Committee meeting he said he'd never heard of it.....

Edited by Evercross on Sunday 8th December 09:27

I think people discredit the figures because they're just not true. The exact figures of income tax take and expenditure do not exist.

[simoid]

Since you’re here, Mr Burger, would you mind awfully telling us where you found your made-up figures to back up your claims that:

UK employment rate is falling;
The FTSE250 index is lower than before the EU Referendum?

I’m sure you’re very busy and need to go and make up some statistics and figures elsewhere.

[Edinburger]

Evercross said:

Edinburger said:

Be interested to hear people’s views on Mrs Sturgeon’s points? As always, she puts herself across very, very well...

As a party acolyte you are programmed to say that. She does not put her points across 'very, very well', what she does do is repeat the same phrases in the same order in reaction to the same stimulus and you nod your head in agreement because you have been conditioned by her repetitiveness - all you and others who think that is 'a good performance' are experiencing is psychological conditioning.

Try analysing what she is saying rather than how she is saying it and you will appreciate that it stands up to no scrutiny. Nicola is the biggest purveyor of lies and false prospectus in this whole campaign - even objectively worse than Boris Johnson and the Conservatives. The SNP's is the only manifesto that is not costed, and their main policy of independence in Europe is predicated on lies.

There's a view - now digest it!

Well, you're entitled to your view. Whether or not you agree with or believe what she says, I think she has came across as they most open, genuine and likeable party leader so far. That's just my view.

[Edinburger]

Welshbeef said:

Edinburger said:

Be interested to hear people’s views on Mrs Sturgeon’s points? As always, she puts herself across very, very well whether or not you agree with her. Wasn’t Andrew Marr’s finest interview.

csd19 (and others) - I’ll reply to your perfectly valid points on the last pages shortly. Need to head out to kids football just now and I have a busy day ahead, but I will get back to you shortly.

Hi I’ve watched it this morning.

If you view it as very very good she simply repeats her message - as such by default you must think Boris is also very very good as he has the exact same style stick to the massage or move back to it within any answer/question.

Boris doesn't have the same style at all. She articulates her thoughts well and he doesn't.