Funkstain wrote:

TBF Sturgeon, I don't think, would ever rely on such a "defence". She needs to explain the earlier meeting, she needs to explain or deny the leaks convincingly, and that's about it. She's already acknowledged the new policy was crap and needed changing. She doesn't, in my view, need to seriously challenge the "conspiracy" crap - it's a nice story Alex, but you're a cunt, and having legal troubles and abandoned political friends due to your cuntery doesn't amount to a conspiracy, it just means everyone hates you. And she doesn't need to massively defend going against the legal advice and continuing the case. That shit happens all the time, it's law, maybe this counsel said "give it up" but that may have felt like a betrayal of the victims. So: explain the meeting and the leak convincingly and I think she's OK. Otherwise, she's on very thin ice I reckon.

This is pretty much where I am with it Funk. 

I think there are allegations that need answering, but a lot of the stuff floating around is like Alex Salmonds revenge hatchet job attempt or something. The primary issues are what happened with this meeting on the 28th/29th and who was the person who leaked. 

Should she resign off the back of this if the inquiry concludes she broke the ministerial code, probably. Will she? If it were me, I'd just say I'll go when everyone else who has broken the ministerial code has gone. Will Sturgeon leaving make the indy ref issue go away and get the conservatives control of the scottish parliament? Almost certainly not, if anything this appears to be strengthening anti-union sentiment as far as I can see.

Conservatism is inherently reactionary, the clue is in the name, it is seeking to conserve socially traditional ideas, it is not a progressive ideology, so as society moves forward, they seek to reject modernity as it frequently calls for changes in society pertaining to social and economic egalitarianism. They have no good reason for this, other than the need to protect the status quo for the people at the top.

Working from home attitudes pre and post pandemic are an example of this. Pre pandemic, the idea of people having flexibility to work from home was baulked at and it was suggested people would not work, productivity would go in the bin and business would collapse. Here we are, nearly a year into lockdown and those businesses where home working has been feasible for staff, are still here (notwithstanding damage out of people's control caused by the pandemic, not the home working).

Current gov is just too corrupt and compromised to be ideologically anything. Money and power is the ideology.

The SNP are a conservative party, ideologically. But they’re the antithesis of the current Conservative Party. I’d even go so far as to say they’re progressive in their conservatism, as much as that sounds like a non sequitur. They’re a conservative ideology presented by progressive individuals. Which is an interesting proposition.

Edit: In response to @monkey

I don't think it's as clear as that. 

For instance the ERG has been an active anti EU component within the conservative party since concerns were raised about our growing integration into the EU following the Maastrict Treaty in 1992.

Their sole aim is to promote anti-EU sentiment through right of centre opposition to the EU and they have worked alongside UKIP and the Brexit Party. 

The foreword in their original euroscepticism pamphlet they put out back then had it's foreward written by then PM, John Major. 

The tory party act in a variety of pretty unscrupulous ways to get what they want, but the end result of their activities is that the people at the top stay on top. Brexit will damage many, but it will not damage those who are already in the upper echilons of society, and it will return law making powers to the UK which make it easier to pass or not participate in laws which encourage or promote proper equality and a proper level of supprt for the general public.

It's like there are two parts to the tory party. There is the public face of the party, which tells the public they are going to help them by being encomically responsible with the budget, and by controlling immigration, and by making them better off by cutting taxes and getting rid of the "waste" in public services. And then there is the net result of that policy, which is that the tax burden paid by those at the top stays as low as possible, that there are fewer laws dictating how those at the top can generate additional wealth and that the general population are kept in line through the facade of a party that weild authority responsibly.

mistercrayon wrote:

How can she be trusted if she’s proven to be untrustworthy?!?

Because punishment should reflect the severity of a crime. And justice shouldn’t be blind to context.

If there’s been a rulebreaking, or bending, or wilfully misinterpreting, then there needs to be a look at how serious that was, what the repercussions were, and how to prevent it happening again. Not just a pitchfork-led witch-hunt. Because the latter approach shifts all focus on to the person and away from the actual crime – leaving the door wide open for others to come along and do the same or worse.

Just watch - those shouting loudest for punishment would be the same people committing worse acts themselves. Priti Patel, Matt Hancock, Boris Johnson, The Mail, The Telegraph, etc …

I suppose I am a capitalist leaning utilitarian, slightly protectionist advocate of state protection for individuals as part of a hobbesian contract. Education and equality of opportunity are paramount.

I think in this increasingly complex day and age, where all answers are one Google away, the easy route is to align oneself to one group or ideology. Whatever the group thinks is correct, and anyone else be damned. In realty I think on an x axis scaling from fascism to comunism, at its extremes, commonly accepted precepts of political ideology a most problem akin to overlapping bell curves, but even then, I think to subscribe to one in particular to the exlcusion of all others is somewhat of an unexamined decision, and we all know what Socrates said about that.

Hey at least they're going to do the socdem version of capitalism while they're doing it.

Or yeah, what Rouj said. Dammit.

I want to grab the people (including actual elected members of Parliament) livetweeting it like a game of football and throw them into the sea. There's a fucking pandemic happening lads, and this came about because women were not listened to, or felt they wouldn't be. I could not give less of a fuck about those two falling out and who said what, when, where, why and to whom. Or whatever gotcha you've just realised. Just please stfu and get on with your fucking jobs. Fucking fuck me gif to the moon.

Sadly it has escalated into a "get wee Krankie out before May" and try to scupper the indy ref movement for another generation attempt, hence all the people on twitter. It sucks that it's having to be done against the backdrop of the pandemic, and that at the root of this are people who felt that they were in an environment where they had no choice but to tolerate the behaviour of a senior official (regardless of if he did or didn't do it) but people heckling from the peanut gallery aside, it is an important issue for the future of Scotland that is riding on the outcome of this inquiry and the unionists and independence crowds are gonna go at it regardless.

So that couple of percent on Corp Tax turns out to be 6% in 2 years. Fuck the freelancers eh.

To be fair it remains at 19% until the company earns £50k profit. That should shield the vast majority of small business.

It is a decent caveat I think.
When people have called for Corp Tax rises I think most will have had bigger business in mind.

If you're a one-person LTD making £250K PA in profits, then you can afford an extra 6% in tax