SamCam's stepfather says Sturgeon is acting like Robert Mugabe

1356

Comments

  • Salt TyreSalt Tyre Posts: 55
    Forum Member
    But if anyone in the community wanted the land they could simply buy the land themselves. Land's no different from any other commodity, if you want it you buy it, if you don't want it you don't buy it. Just because someone else owns a lot of something doesn't give the State the right to steal it.

    Does anyone seriously think you going to be able to improve a business by taking it out of the hands of someone who has been running it for the last however many years and then giving it to a bunch of people who have never managed that business before? Would you do that with a hospital?



    Don't agree with a with a word you are saying.

    Read my original exchange with nomad2king.
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Salt Tyre wrote: »
    Don't agree with a with a word you are saying.

    Read my original exchange with nomad2king.

    Maybe you could point us to that exchange :confused:
  • Salt TyreSalt Tyre Posts: 55
    Forum Member
    Maybe you could point us to that exchange :confused:


    Maybe you could point me to that exchange? :confused:.com
  • BrawladBrawlad Posts: 5,711
    Forum Member
    By making them all unemployed.

    Why would they be unemployed?
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Salt Tyre wrote: »
    Maybe you could point me to that exchange? :confused:.com

    My exchange with nomad2king was in posts 41/42/48 of this thread.

    Now can you point me to the ones you claimed to have had him with him in your post number 52?
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    What? As opposed to stirring things up? Where's the fun in that?

    I'm not the one bringing Mugabe's name into it.
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Salt Tyre wrote: »
    Maybe you could point me to that exchange? :confused:.com

    Answered in post 56 almost an hour ago and still waiting to be pointed to your exchange with nomad2king...though I'm starting to detect an odd smell...like socks.
  • D_Mcd4D_Mcd4 Posts: 10,438
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well he would say that, wouldn't he?
  • grassmarketgrassmarket Posts: 33,010
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Brawlad wrote: »
    Why would they be unemployed?

    Because the businesses on which they depend - hunting, shooting, fishing, forestry management, tourism - would be bankrupt.
  • davzerdavzer Posts: 2,501
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Because the businesses on which they depend - hunting, shooting, fishing, forestry management, tourism - would be bankrupt.

    Why would they?

    If the Viscount sold up would they all go out of business?

    Would there be legislation to ensure a change of usage?

    Hunting, shooting and fishing doesn't bring in much for the area of land used.

    Better off buidling golf courses.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    Gormagon wrote: »
    So SamCams stepfather is fair game, but "Miliband father, who loved Britain so much he wanted to change every single aspect" is not?

    Hypocrisy from the left, for a change.

    He's given an interview or statement on mugabe -Ed Miliband's father by definition has given no interviews on contemporary issues?
    Why should his statements on contemporary issues be exempt from scrutiny particularly when he's throwing accusations around at others?
  • grassmarketgrassmarket Posts: 33,010
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    davzer wrote: »
    Hunting, shooting and fishing doesn't bring in much for the area of land used.

    Better off buidling golf courses.

    And if they have highly specialised well-paid skills specifically related to hunting, shooting and fishing but not much cop for golf caddying? Tough luck on them, they have to lose their livelihoods so that a gang of ignorant nationalist bigots can strut and pose at Westminster and Holyrood.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    David Tee wrote: »
    What? As opposed to stirring things up? Where's the fun in that?

    Mmm So reacting to a controversial and inflammatory statement comparing somebody to Mugabe is stirring things up but making the initial controversial and highly inflammatory statement isn't stirring things up?
  • BrawladBrawlad Posts: 5,711
    Forum Member
    Because the businesses on which they depend - hunting, shooting, fishing, forestry management, tourism - would be bankrupt.

    Why would it be bankrupt?
  • grassmarketgrassmarket Posts: 33,010
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Brawlad wrote: »
    Why would it be bankrupt?

    Here's a hint. What happened to Scottish steel making, coal mining, ship building and car manufacturing after they were nationalised?
  • Salt TyreSalt Tyre Posts: 55
    Forum Member
    And if they have highly specialised well-paid skills specifically related to hunting, shooting and fishing but not much cop for golf caddying? Tough luck on them, they have to lose their livelihoods so that a gang of ignorant nationalist bigots can strut and pose at Westminster and Holyrood.



    Those poor toffs. Won't someone think of the children.
  • BrawladBrawlad Posts: 5,711
    Forum Member
    Here's a hint. What happened to Scottish steel making, coal mining, ship building and car manufacturing after they were nationalised?

    Who is talking about nationalising anything. It would be a community led buyout
  • Salt TyreSalt Tyre Posts: 55
    Forum Member
    My exchange with nomad2king was in posts 41/42/48 of this thread.

    Now can you point me to the ones you claimed to have had him with him in your post number 52?

    My exchange with nomad2king was in posts 412/422/482 of this thread.

    Now can you point me to the ones you claimed to have had him with him in your post number 352?
  • Salt TyreSalt Tyre Posts: 55
    Forum Member
    Here's a hint. What happened to Scottish steel making, coal mining, ship building and car manufacturing after they were nationalised?



    Um thatcher destroyed the lot.
  • Black SheepBlack Sheep Posts: 15,219
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Brawlad wrote: »
    it would be a community buy out . It would not be stealing

    The Land reform might not be as easy as was once thought.

    It might end up costing the Scottish Govt millions and theres a good article on it here. Seems like it might even infringe the Landowners Human Rights.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/11616876/SNP-to-target-landowners-property-rights-for-public-good.html
  • grassmarketgrassmarket Posts: 33,010
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Salt Tyre wrote: »
    Those poor toffs. Won't someone think of the children.

    Gamekeepers, groundkeepers, gardeners, ghillies and guides are toffs?
  • grassmarketgrassmarket Posts: 33,010
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Brawlad wrote: »
    Who is talking about nationalising anything. It would be a community led buyout

    Who gets to define "community"? Community in this context would mean "the gang of corrupt chancers who paid for the SNP election campaign"
  • grassmarketgrassmarket Posts: 33,010
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Salt Tyre wrote: »
    Um thatcher destroyed the lot.

    They were bankrupt long before Thatcher turned up. The Clyde built 370 ships in 1913, but only single figures in 1978.
  • paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    The whole plan begs the question - would the state (for when left leaning governments talk of community and society that what they really mean is the state).

    Would the state be better at managing those resources than the current owners. The evidence of history would prove otherwise.

    That is before you get to the people who work on this land - many of whom are not going to be wealthy.
  • BrawladBrawlad Posts: 5,711
    Forum Member
    The Land reform might not be as easy as was once thought.

    It might end up costing the Scottish Govt millions and theres a good article on it here. Seems like it might even infringe the Landowners Human Rights.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/11616876/SNP-to-target-landowners-property-rights-for-public-good.html

    But one landowner argued that 60 per cent of the rural wealth she said was too concentrated was tied up in land that was “cash flow negative year on year on year” and questioned how communities could afford to buy and run it.

    So the land owners are pretty useless then. Time to give someone else a chance?
Sign In or Register to comment.