I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Is no one querying why Scottish law seems so weak on this?
There is no effective difference between Scots Law and the Law in England and Wales on this matter.
Any actionable fault would lie with the sellers solicitor. Thomson has no responsibility to pay an arbitrary amount for a property. It is up to the buyer and seller to agree a price - which they did. It is then up to the sellers solicitor to advise them if there is a reason why they should not proceed.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
There are certainly a few ruthless Tory exploiters of the rental sector landlords among them:
Lisa Cameron, the MP for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, receives rent from a house in Lanarkshire and five flats in Edinburgh and South Lanarkshire.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, the Ochil and South Perthshire MP, rents out three flats in Glasgow and a house in Kingussie.........
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
How popular is wingsoverscotland.com? Global Rank 52,149 Rank in United Kingdom 1,806
How popular is politicalbetting.com? Global Rank 205,286 Rank in United Kingdom 5,561
Not sure what that tells us. Pb.com gets several thousands views a day, is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines.
Wingsoverscotland may well get tens of thousands of views each day from believers but is ignored by virtually everyone else as an online Daily Mirror for nationalists.
Formed by the sylvan Home Counties, Mr Cameron was going to be another Harold Macmillan — the Tory grandee elegantly steering his country to no particular destination. Instead, he is turning out to be a disruptive prime minister. He will probably leave the state substantially smaller than he found it, and so tarnish the idea of increasing expenditure faster than economic growth as to make any re-expansion electorally untenable for some time. Already far fewer people work for the state or receive transfers from it.
When Cameron came to power the Tories had less than 200 seats and were faced with the best election winning asset in Labour history. Such idle talk as listed in the FT is rubbish. The situation in 2010 was that whilst Labour were ruined, so was the country.
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
How popular is wingsoverscotland.com? Global Rank 52,149 Rank in United Kingdom 1,806
How popular is politicalbetting.com? Global Rank 205,286 Rank in United Kingdom 5,561
Not sure what that tells us. Pb.com gets several thousands views a day, is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines.
Wingsoverscotland may well get tens of thousands of views each day from believers but is ignored by virtually everyone else as an online Daily Mirror for nationalists.
Quality over quantity old chap.
You must be filled with regret that all these people only get one vote each.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Is no one querying why Scottish law seems so weak on this?
There are several questions. We know the solicitor who acted for Thomson acted illegally - what her role, if any, in this is not yet known.
The bigger political issue, is what is the party of "social justice and fairness" (don't bring up free University tuition and how its benefitting the better off - ed.) doing sending MPs to Westminster who have (in some cases substantial) personal property portfolios?
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
Aw, and now it's all the lawyers' fault that the wee little homeowner is being fleeced by Scottish property spiv politicians.
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
How popular is wingsoverscotland.com? Global Rank 52,149 Rank in United Kingdom 1,806
How popular is politicalbetting.com? Global Rank 205,286 Rank in United Kingdom 5,561
Not sure what that tells us. Pb.com gets several thousands views a day, is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines.
Wingsoverscotland may well get tens of thousands of views each day from believers but is ignored by virtually everyone else as an online Daily Mirror for nationalists.
Quality over quantity old chap.
If there's anything more convincing than a PB ToryorkipperdependinghowreactionaryImfeeling telling himself that his favoured echo chamber is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines, I want to know what it is. Old chap.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
Aw, and now it's all the lawyers' fault that the wee little homeowner is being fleeced by Scottish property spiv politicians.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
Aw, and now it's all the lawyers' fault that the wee little homeowner is being fleeced by Scottish property spiv politicians.
It's immoral.
That's actually how the law is structured.
The requirement for a seller to have their own independent solicitor is a safeguard against transactions which are not in the sellers interest. It is not the responsibility of the buyer.
"A BUSINESS run by an MP involved in a row over her property dealings described a rise in families losing their homes as a "great opportunity" and said emotional attachment could stand in the way of "huge profit".
A blog written to promote Michelle Thomson's firm Your Property Shop offered advice to those thinking of entering the sector and included several links to the company's main website."
"Andrew Roberts in the Spectator argues Cameron may be on track to rank around - or ahead of - MacMillan:"
Praise indeed. I look forward to the night of the long knives. Isn't he the one of whom it was said "Greater love has no-man than he would lay down his friends for his life"
(If so he's had perfect training as an advertising account exec )
A BUSINESS run by an MP involved in a row over her property dealings described a rise in families losing their homes as a "great opportunity" and said emotional attachment could stand in the way of "huge profit".
A blog written to promote Michelle Thomson's firm Your Property Shop offered advice to those thinking of entering the sector and included several links to the company's main website.
Sat next to someone who was very involved in the Twickenham campaign for the Tories.
Said that 4-6 weeks out they expected to make good progress but lose the seat.
2 weeks out canvass returns shifted rapidly. The big move was from Undecided to Tory (he noted that there were some wards which had a majority Undecided). He reckoned the SNP issue was the decisive factor
And the SNP issue was one targeted right from the start by the Tories. It probably took a couple of weeks for the likely sweeping success of the SNP to filter down. This issue in turn was probably given a leg up by Cameron's link of EVEL to more devolution for Scotland.
It undoubtedly was Afaiac. I posted on..here about two.women who were chatting about it in a sshopping mall shortly.before election day and how worried they were about the threat from the SNP. Anecdotal I know but.salmond did it for Dave with his nonsense about writing Ed's budget.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
There are certainly a few ruthless Tory exploiters of the rental sector landlords among them:
Lisa Cameron, the MP for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, receives rent from a house in Lanarkshire and five flats in Edinburgh and South Lanarkshire.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, the Ochil and South Perthshire MP, rents out three flats in Glasgow and a house in Kingussie.........
When Gordon Brown casually ruined the pensions industry it made sense for people to move towards buy to let rather than formally save for their pension. Now it is this Tory govt who is levelling the playing field by making it easier to do what you want with pension lump sums and and is revising tax on buy to let profits. It probably ought to recant and increase the tax free pension allowance, not I should add that I would benefit.
You do know that it is perfectly possible to be a member of the ECJ without being a member of the EU (as Switzerland is), and to be a member of the EU without being subject to ECJ rulings (as we were before Labour changed things), don't you?
The key EU reform that Cameron should have focussed IMHO on is the ability to reverse previous EU opt-ins taken by previous UK governments. I.e. A UK Parliament cannot bind its successor by ceding powers for good, and re opt-outs are possible.
If he'd got that, practical threshold limits for free movement, as well as protections for the UK as a non-eurozone member within a reformed single market, then there might be a renegotiation to sell.
I don't think that's possible, though.
In theory a Parliament can always repudiate a Treaty, so they are not bound. But I can't see that a hokey-cokey approach to the EU would be appealing to our partners.
One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour will continue to be one of the main two parties no matter what happens.
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Indeed, they do rarely. But as the Liberals of the 1920s or Scottish Labour this last decade. Parties that lose their purpose to the public lose their place at the top table if an alternative is ready and able to take it from them.
Alternatively, in the absence of any real opposition, the Conservatives stay in office for decades, gradually becoming corrupt and incompetent, as hegemonic political parties tend to.
We see in Japan, for example, that this does not lead to good government. That is why I don't find the self destruction of Labour, as evidenced by the thread header, at all funny.
Neither do I. Osborne is using it to play political chess, as he loves to do, and I think is - consciously or otherwise - tacking the party to the Left.
That's a high-risk strategy for his future leadership ambitions.
if the Conservatives do tack Left, then that vindicates the strategy of Corbyn's supporters.
Absolutely. That's precisely why I didn't cheer on Tories who thought it was amusing to register to vote for him.
Incidentally, I'm befuddled why Osborne can't see this. Politics isn't a game.
That's assuming your assumptions are correct. Many people will not see 12bn of welfare cuts as the Tories moving to the left.
Let's see where that ends up, but the traditional Tory right would certainly not see jacking up the minimum wage to high levels, have concerns about using the language of the Left or flagging intent to follow progressive equality policies and relaxing inmigration restrictions as a positive sign of the direction of travel.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
Aw, and now it's all the lawyers' fault that the wee little homeowner is being fleeced by Scottish property spiv politicians.
You do know that it is perfectly possible to be a member of the ECJ without being a member of the EU (as Switzerland is), and to be a member of the EU without being subject to ECJ rulings (as we were before Labour changed things), don't you?
The key EU reform that Cameron should have focussed IMHO on is the ability to reverse previous EU opt-ins taken by previous UK governments. I.e. A UK Parliament cannot bind its successor by ceding powers for good, and re opt-outs are possible.
If he'd got that, practical threshold limits for free movement, as well as protections for the UK as a non-eurozone member within a reformed single market, then there might be a renegotiation to sell.
I don't think that's possible, though.
In theory a Parliament can always repudiate a Treaty, so they are not bound. But I can't see that a hokey-cokey approach to the EU would be appealing to our partners.
Why should our partners care whether we're in the ECJ rulings, charter of fundamental rights, or the EAW?
People should be allowed to change their minds as circumstances dictate. It would also make the EU more democratic and responsive.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
Collusion and conspiracy? Please do keep up the good work. What a crass fool you are making yourself look.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
I did wonder how Dair was going to row back from this comment
"Having a candidate involved in distress purchase property market doesn't fit in with the SNP. That's the story but it's not being told to the public"
You do understand that an individual matter may involve multiple issues, right?
Thomson's involvement in distress purchase is still reason the SNP should boot her.
Any actionable questions over the price paid is not a matter for Thomson but for the seller's solicitor.
Different issues.
Will she be deported to England - Scotland is the most social justicey nation in the history of social justice - will be difficult to blow smoke up the rear of the population reminding them of this while she is still on the premises.
economic policy had moved too far right, and Corbyn could shift the consensus leftwards.
A win is a win. The Conservatives have an effective majority of 30 or so (given the way Douglas Carswell and unionists will usually vote). Why move onto Labour's territory just to get a bigger majority?
Because George Osborne is enthusiastically partisan and finds it fun.
Because longevity matters as much, if not more, than size of majority.
If you have 10 years or 15 years to bed in welfare reforms they are unlikely to be reversed.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
I presume Tories don't buy houses and sell for a profit then. You can be sure AntieFrank will have pocketed plenty from property as many other Tories have, nothing to beat the whiff of hypocrisy.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Is no one querying why Scottish law seems so weak on this?
You want laws passed so that people are unable to freely sell their assets turnip head.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
Collusion and conspiracy? Please do keep up the good work. What a crass fool you are making yourself look.
It was purely coincidence that 17 out of 17 cases sited involved this Nat woman's firm.
"Roger please try to stay on message in this new age of politics of ours.
It's "Scottish Tory Scum."
Thanks comrade. I've been away and missed have missed the latest communique from the front
What? The commissars are sending you into action without rifles? Anyway, its good to see you are behaving yourself, we would not want to see you in the prisoner battalions.
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.
Do the Lib Dems have any money?
They still owe Police Scotland £800k. What was that for and when?
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Is no one querying why Scottish law seems so weak on this?
You want laws passed so that people are unable to freely sell their assets turnip head.
It is bizarre to see TGOHF, ScottP, flightpath, Carlotta, etc all screaming out in their desire for a socialist utopia where all decisions are overseen by government.
What a bizarre world they seem to want. Bunch of nasty, insular, little Trots.
You do know that it is perfectly possible to be a member of the ECJ without being a member of the EU (as Switzerland is), and to be a member of the EU without being subject to ECJ rulings (as we were before Labour changed things), don't you?
The key EU reform that Cameron should have focussed IMHO on is the ability to reverse previous EU opt-ins taken by previous UK governments. I.e. A UK Parliament cannot bind its successor by ceding powers for good, and re opt-outs are possible.
If he'd got that, practical threshold limits for free movement, as well as protections for the UK as a non-eurozone member within a reformed single market, then there might be a renegotiation to sell.
I don't think that's possible, though.
In theory a Parliament can always repudiate a Treaty, so they are not bound. But I can't see that a hokey-cokey approach to the EU would be appealing to our partners.
Why should our partners care whether we're in the ECJ rulings, charter of fundamental rights, or the EAW?
People should be allowed to change their minds as circumstances dictate. It would also make the EU more democratic and responsive.
I thought your point was on previous EU opt-outs, not the ECJ
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
I think one of the key things learned from the Thomson affair are that most of these Yesser entities like "business for Scotland" and "Lawyers for Yes" are controlled by the SNP heidyins - wonder who handles Stu ?
Whoever it is is much better at journalism than the unionist rags.
One theory to explain Pullinger´s comments goes something like this: since the UK isn´t a one party state, the Labour Party are going to get back into power eventually and so it´s worth having Corbyn as leader even if he loses an election or two en route to eventual victory. The only problem with this analysis is that it assumes Labour will continue to be one of the main two parties no matter what happens.
I agree with that analysis. Indeed, I'd go further. I'd argue that if Labour succumbs to prolonged Corbynitis, whether under him or another far-left leader, they *won't* be the other main party. The electorate will give them this parliament as an indulgence but will expect them to come to their senses after another defeat. If they don't, expect either UKIP or the Lib Dems, possibly bolstered by an SDP2, to start making serious running.
Things can change quickly. They don't often. Snip
Alternatively, in the absence of any real opposition, the Conservatives stay in office for decades, gradually becoming corrupt and incompetent, as hegemonic political parties tend to.
We see in Japan, for example, that this does not lead to good government. That is why I don't find the self destruction of Labour, as evidenced by the thread header, at all funny.
Neither do I. Osborne is using it to play political chess, as he loves to do, and I think is - consciously or otherwise - tacking the party to the Left.
That's a high-risk strategy for his future leadership ambitions.
if the Conservatives do tack Left, then that vindicates the strategy of Corbyn's supporters.
Absolutely. That's precisely why I didn't cheer on Tories who thought it was amusing to register to vote for him.
Incidentally, I'm befuddled why Osborne can't see this. Politics isn't a game.
I had this discussion with a Corbyn supporter on another site. He agreed it was unlikely that Corbyn could win an election, but felt economic policy had moved too far right, and Corbyn could shift the consensus leftwards.
A win is a win. The Conservatives have an effective majority of 30 or so (given the way Douglas Carswell and unionists will usually vote). Why move onto Labour's territory just to get a bigger majority?
Because George Osborne is enthusiastically partisan and finds it fun.
The message is that to members of the Corbyn cult politics is not about striving to gain power but about controlling the party and the Labour movement in general. ... The insularity is staggering.
I fail to understand why Mike has trouble understanding this. This is what the hard left do. We all know of Stalin's purges, Mao's purges, Pohl Pot's purges, etc, etc. This is Labour's purge of the ideologically impure.
The right hard often are religious and so are the hard left except their religion is a secular one. Like all religions it does not tolerate dissent, heresy, apostasy or any belief contrary to its core message.
"Come the revolution, you will be the first against the wall" is practically a standard joke about the hard left and it works because it has some truth at its core.
What I am wondering is what the SDP will call themselves this time round. 1983 here we come....
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
How popular is wingsoverscotland.com? Global Rank 52,149 Rank in United Kingdom 1,806
How popular is politicalbetting.com? Global Rank 205,286 Rank in United Kingdom 5,561
Not sure what that tells us. Pb.com gets several thousands views a day, is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines.
Wingsoverscotland may well get tens of thousands of views each day from believers but is ignored by virtually everyone else as an online Daily Mirror for nationalists.
Quality over quantity old chap.
If there's anything more convincing than a PB ToryorkipperdependinghowreactionaryImfeeling telling himself that his favoured echo chamber is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines, I want to know what it is. Old chap.
Thanks. I always know I've won the argument when you resort to your modus operandi of personal insults that you think you can obscure by 'clever' sarcasm.
But it does beg the question: if you don't like it, why are you here?
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
I did wonder how Dair was going to row back from this comment
"Having a candidate involved in distress purchase property market doesn't fit in with the SNP. That's the story but it's not being told to the public"
You do understand that an individual matter may involve multiple issues, right?
Thomson's involvement in distress purchase is still reason the SNP should boot her.
Any actionable questions over the price paid is not a matter for Thomson but for the seller's solicitor.
Different issues.
It may be different in Scotland, but solicitors don't advise on price in England
My understanding is solicitors have a Duty of Care to advise their client of any unfair or questionable aspects of the transaction. This could include unfair terms in deeds, articles, covenants or the price which has been agreed. IANAL so I'm open to correction of the likes of DavidL has an opinion.
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
How popular is wingsoverscotland.com? Global Rank 52,149 Rank in United Kingdom 1,806
How popular is politicalbetting.com? Global Rank 205,286 Rank in United Kingdom 5,561
Not sure what that tells us. Pb.com gets several thousands views a day, is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines.
Wingsoverscotland may well get tens of thousands of views each day from believers but is ignored by virtually everyone else as an online Daily Mirror for nationalists.
Quality over quantity old chap.
You must be filled with regret that all these people only get one vote each.
He is a turnip of the first order, a pompous halfwit.
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
How popular is wingsoverscotland.com? Global Rank 52,149 Rank in United Kingdom 1,806
How popular is politicalbetting.com? Global Rank 205,286 Rank in United Kingdom 5,561
Not sure what that tells us. Pb.com gets several thousands views a day, is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines.
Wingsoverscotland may well get tens of thousands of views each day from believers but is ignored by virtually everyone else as an online Daily Mirror for nationalists.
Quality over quantity old chap.
You must be filled with regret that all these people only get one vote each.
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.
OGH says "The message is that to members of the Corbyn cult politics is not about striving to gain power but about controlling the party and the Labour movement in general."
On the bright but tarnished side OGH, it might make betting simpler albeit less potentially rewarding.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
Aw, and now it's all the lawyers' fault that the wee little homeowner is being fleeced by Scottish property spiv politicians.
It's immoral.
I know you are really dense Watford. Even a cretin should be able to work out that it is the person selling that is responsible, did they have a gun to their head when they signed up.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Is no one querying why Scottish law seems so weak on this?
You want laws passed so that people are unable to freely sell their assets turnip head.
It is bizarre to see TGOHF, ScottP, flightpath, Carlotta, etc all screaming out in their desire for a socialist utopia where all decisions are overseen by government.
What a bizarre world they seem to want. Bunch of nasty, insular, little Trots.
Two gobshires talking to each other is no guarantee of rational debate. Which side of the road do you drive on? Would you like us all to make our own mind up on a whim? Since when should swindling be facilitated by bizarre house purchase rules?
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
How popular is wingsoverscotland.com? Global Rank 52,149 Rank in United Kingdom 1,806
How popular is politicalbetting.com? Global Rank 205,286 Rank in United Kingdom 5,561
Not sure what that tells us. Pb.com gets several thousands views a day, is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines.
Wingsoverscotland may well get tens of thousands of views each day from believers but is ignored by virtually everyone else as an online Daily Mirror for nationalists.
Quality over quantity old chap.
You must be filled with regret that all these people only get one vote each.
Not really. Why do you say that?
You were pretty clear that you hold a higher value to the "esteemed journalists and senior politicians" which you believe read this site in higher numbers than Wings (without any evidence).
Sadly, for you, Wings is likely to be the third most popular media source in Scotland, behind only the Sun and Record. This gives them a lot of clout and their argument far more weight, regardless of what "quality" you claim of their readership.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
I never buy cheap houses. Just houses cheap...
Charles , waste of time expecting it to know the difference
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
Collusion and conspiracy? Please do keep up the good work. What a crass fool you are making yourself look.
It was purely coincidence that 17 out of 17 cases sited involved this Nat woman's firm.
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.
You do know that it is perfectly possible to be a member of the ECJ without being a member of the EU (as Switzerland is), and to be a member of the EU without being subject to ECJ rulings (as we were before Labour changed things), don't you?
The key EU reform that Cameron should have focussed IMHO on is the ability to reverse previous EU opt-ins taken by previous UK governments. I.e. A UK Parliament cannot bind its successor by ceding powers for good, and re opt-outs are possible.
If he'd got that, practical threshold limits for free movement, as well as protections for the UK as a non-eurozone member within a reformed single market, then there might be a renegotiation to sell.
I don't think that's possible, though.
In theory a Parliament can always repudiate a Treaty, so they are not bound. But I can't see that a hokey-cokey approach to the EU would be appealing to our partners.
Why should our partners care whether we're in the ECJ rulings, charter of fundamental rights, or the EAW?
People should be allowed to change their minds as circumstances dictate. It would also make the EU more democratic and responsive.
I thought your point was on previous EU opt-outs, not the ECJ
I think the EU renegotiation would have to recognise what competenxies were subject to a reversible opt-in, or surrendered opt-outs: that should include justice, foreign policy, rights, policing, criminal law, migration and social law.
I agree that if we remain a member we can't cherry pick the single market. But if that too had safeguards against the eurozone outvoting us, we'd have a deal for the long term IMHO.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Is no one querying why Scottish law seems so weak on this?
You want laws passed so that people are unable to freely sell their assets turnip head.
It is bizarre to see TGOHF, ScottP, flightpath, Carlotta, etc all screaming out in their desire for a socialist utopia where all decisions are overseen by government.
What a bizarre world they seem to want. Bunch of nasty, insular, little Trots.
I had this discussion with a Corbyn supporter on another site. He agreed it was unlikely that Corbyn could win an election, but felt economic policy had moved too far right, and Corbyn could shift the consensus leftwards.
A win is a win. The Conservatives have an effective majority of 30 or so (given the way Douglas Carswell and unionists will usually vote). Why move onto Labour's territory just to get a bigger majority?
Because a small win is easier to overturn. A larger win is more difficult.
Getting more votes, especially when it is in the right places to win more seats, whilst at the same time reducing the role of the state in people's lives, would be a wonderful achievement. It would allow this country and its people to prosper.
Why are people being cynical about him
*setting measures in place that aim to keep his party in power *moving leftwards in some areas because an opportunity arises and where he sees an overlap with his party's own interests.
Why move into Labour territory - because it works and because he thinks its a real opportunity.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Is no one querying why Scottish law seems so weak on this?
You want laws passed so that people are unable to freely sell their assets turnip head.
It is bizarre to see TGOHF, ScottP, flightpath, Carlotta, etc all screaming out in their desire for a socialist utopia where all decisions are overseen by government.
What a bizarre world they seem to want. Bunch of nasty, insular, little Trots.
Two gobshires talking to each other is no guarantee of rational debate. Which side of the road do you drive on? Would you like us all to make our own mind up on a whim? Since when should swindling be facilitated by bizarre house purchase rules?
I'm not aware of any marketplace in "which side of the road to drive on".
Clearly there is a market for the sale of houses. You seem to want a highly controlled, nanny-state run market where agency is removed from both vendor and buyer.
That might work in the socialist paradise you pine for, personally I'd prefer to leave the market to decide how things work.
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
How popular is wingsoverscotland.com? Global Rank 52,149 Rank in United Kingdom 1,806
How popular is politicalbetting.com? Global Rank 205,286 Rank in United Kingdom 5,561
Not sure what that tells us. Pb.com gets several thousands views a day, is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines.
Wingsoverscotland may well get tens of thousands of views each day from believers but is ignored by virtually everyone else as an online Daily Mirror for nationalists.
Quality over quantity old chap.
If there's anything more convincing than a PB ToryorkipperdependinghowreactionaryImfeeling telling himself that his favoured echo chamber is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines, I want to know what it is. Old chap.
Thanks. I always know I've won the argument when you resort to your modus operandi of personal insults that you think you can obscure by 'clever' sarcasm.
But it does beg the question: if you don't like it, why are you here?
Someone who uses the term 'dickstain' probably shouldn't whine about personal insults. As to your question, unlike you I prefer not to have variations of my own views prated back at me, and not everyone on here is a pompous hypocrite.
You do know that it is perfectly possible to be a member of the ECJ without being a member of the EU (as Switzerland is), and to be a member of the EU without being subject to ECJ rulings (as we were before Labour changed things), don't you?
The key EU reform that Cameron should have focussed IMHO on is the ability to reverse previous EU opt-ins taken by previous UK governments. I.e. A UK Parliament cannot bind its successor by ceding powers for good, and re opt-outs are possible.
If he'd got that, practical threshold limits for free movement, as well as protections for the UK as a non-eurozone member within a reformed single market, then there might be a renegotiation to sell.
I don't think that's possible, though.
In theory a Parliament can always repudiate a Treaty, so they are not bound. But I can't see that a hokey-cokey approach to the EU would be appealing to our partners.
The leaks suggest that we might officially get "Associate member" status. If that means anything at all beyond posturing, it means a bunch of opt outs in the political union bits.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
I did wonder how Dair was going to row back from this comment
"Having a candidate involved in distress purchase property market doesn't fit in with the SNP. That's the story but it's not being told to the public"
You do understand that an individual matter may involve multiple issues, right?
Thomson's involvement in distress purchase is still reason the SNP should boot her.
Any actionable questions over the price paid is not a matter for Thomson but for the seller's solicitor.
Different issues.
It may be different in Scotland, but solicitors don't advise on price in England
My understanding is solicitors have a Duty of Care to advise their client of any unfair or questionable aspects of the transaction. This could include unfair terms in deeds, articles, covenants or the price which has been agreed. IANAL so I'm open to correction of the likes of DavidL has an opinion.
My first duty would be to ensure the client understood the terms of the transaction, including any terms which might be worth highlighting by virtue of them being non-standard practice. But it would always be for the client, once properly informed, to take a massive loss if they wanted to.
Other duties could come in if you suspected something which was not merely bad commercial practice but was in fact illegal.
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.
Do the Lib Dems have any money?
They still owe Police Scotland £800k.
What was that for and when?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/police-scotland-brand-tories-lib-4516169 Thank you. So the difference is that in England & Wales the Home Office (for England & Wales) pays such bills but in Scotland the Scottish Govt chooses not to pay these bills although police are a devolved matter. Presumably the SNP is always sent a bill which it always pays for all its Conferences.
It should be patently obvious Mr Gobshite that you are the blind bigoted 'loyalist'. You will be starting a Lost Cause movement next.
Well you can concede the argument by resorting to petty insults if you want.
Meanwhile, I'll relax, confident in the knowledge that the truth of the need for Scottish Independence is getting a much wider airing than the Loyalist lies trying to pollute the debate. The problem is that your lies get exposed, your support is on a one way trajectory and Independence is the only outcome.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
Aw, and now it's all the lawyers' fault that the wee little homeowner is being fleeced by Scottish property spiv politicians.
It's immoral.
I know you are really dense Watford. Even a cretin should be able to work out that it is the person selling that is responsible, did they have a gun to their head when they signed up.
Even a cretin should be able to work out that it is the person selling that is responsible, did they have a gun to their head when they signed up.
"Having a candidate involved in distress purchase property market doesn't fit in with the SNP. That's the story but it's not being told to the public"
Ummm...
That is not what the frothers on here, yourself included are on about. She is now out of the SNP. Whilst not great as long as it is in the law then her purchasing property that sellers are willing to sell at a low price is just everyday business. It happens with every type of business. Do you never purchase anything at a sale price in case you are robbing the owner , you insist you pay list price for a car , etc etc etc . Hypocrisy by the dim frothers on here , guaranteed to all be rapacious gits who would take cash off their grandmothers, is breathtaking.
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
How popular is wingsoverscotland.com? Global Rank 52,149 Rank in United Kingdom 1,806
How popular is politicalbetting.com? Global Rank 205,286 Rank in United Kingdom 5,561
Not sure what that tells us. Pb.com gets several thousands views a day, is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines.
Wingsoverscotland may well get tens of thousands of views each day from believers but is ignored by virtually everyone else as an online Daily Mirror for nationalists.
Quality over quantity old chap.
You must be filled with regret that all these people only get one vote each.
Not really. Why do you say that?
You were pretty clear that you hold a higher value to the "esteemed journalists and senior politicians" which you believe read this site in higher numbers than Wings (without any evidence).
Sadly, for you, Wings is likely to be the third most popular media source in Scotland, behind only the Sun and Record. This gives them a lot of clout and their argument far more weight, regardless of what "quality" you claim of their readership.
They all get one vote.
No, I just think this is a higher quality site. You get excellent insight debates here right across the political spectrum that matches the best on the Internet. The betting tips and analysis is so well thought through and considered that it is broadly requoted amongst the press, opinion pollsters and bookmakers. Cameron has admitted he reads it too - although I suspect not regularly - and party campaign HQs regularly do.
Is it a minority taste for the general public? Absolutely, which is why other blogs get many more views - but that doesn't mean they are more influential.
In a controversial move, the Home Secretary will this morning say that the “net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero”.
“The evidence – from the OECD, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and many academics – shows that while there are benefits of selective and controlled immigration, at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero. So there is no case, in the national interest, for immigration of the scale we have experienced over the last decade.”
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
I did wonder how Dair was going to row back from this comment
"Having a candidate involved in distress purchase property market doesn't fit in with the SNP. That's the story but it's not being told to the public"
You do understand that an individual matter may involve multiple issues, right?
Thomson's involvement in distress purchase is still reason the SNP should boot her.
Any actionable questions over the price paid is not a matter for Thomson but for the seller's solicitor.
Different issues.
It may be different in Scotland, but solicitors don't advise on price in England
My understanding is solicitors have a Duty of Care to advise their client of any unfair or questionable aspects of the transaction. This could include unfair terms in deeds, articles, covenants or the price which has been agreed. IANAL so I'm open to correction of the likes of DavidL has an opinion.
My first duty would be to ensure the client understood the terms of the transaction, including any terms which might be worth highlighting by virtue of them being non-standard practice. But it would always be for the client, once properly informed, to take a massive loss if they wanted to.
Other duties could come in if you suspected something which was not merely bad commercial practice but was in fact illegal.
Exactly , they wanted cash quick and were happy to sign up for a low price, just standard business. I have never heard of anybody coming back and saying to someone , look I made a profit on that property you sold me and would like to give it all to you as I paid too little for it. There will always be a Tory with cash around when someone is forced to sell low as they need cash quick , such is life and both win in the transaction. Hence the old saying "money goes to money".
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.
Do the Lib Dems have any money?
They still owe Police Scotland £800k.
What was that for and when?
Policing costs for LibDem conferences The funny thing was that the Lib Dems went for a Scottish conference two years in a row (I believe) to shore up their Scottish vote and retained no mainland Scottish seats. If they had picked other places it might have actually saved a seat or two. It also drove down attendance numbers because of the distance and costs involved for most of their activists. This year it was back to the south coat - a wise move.
In a controversial move, the Home Secretary will this morning say that the “net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero”.
“The evidence – from the OECD, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and many academics – shows that while there are benefits of selective and controlled immigration, at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero. So there is no case, in the national interest, for immigration of the scale we have experienced over the last decade.”
If the net economic effect of all immigration is close to zero, it stands to reason that skilled immigration must be a positive and unskilled immigration must be a negative. Especially when some groups only have a quarter of their working age population in work.
I see today's SNP line to take is to defend Michelle Thomson. A couple of days ago she had been consigned to the outer darkness.
Presumably she knows something inconvenient.
It looks like there may be several others in the 55 and beyond who have benefitted from property transactions. The line overnight has been "It's not immoral to buy cheap houses"
Well there's cheap, and there's 'so cheap, the seller is clearly being ripped off, as someone takes advantage of them, subsequently generating a huge profit in a back to back property deal'.
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
Aw, and now it's all the lawyers' fault that the wee little homeowner is being fleeced by Scottish property spiv politicians.
It's immoral.
I know you are really dense Watford. Even a cretin should be able to work out that it is the person selling that is responsible, did they have a gun to their head when they signed up.
Nah - they were just dying of cancer.
LOL, you have a link and story of timelines of sale to death???
The Left has a death wish Mike They have nothing serious to say on any major issue facing Britain and they know it. All they can do is to spit and hurl abuse at others who have won the argument. It is the attitude of the football fan who has just seen his beaten team concede a sixth goal. As Dan Hodges has written today they are heading for oblivion. Adonis will be the first of many who will drift away from a cult that is now more interested in street protest than preparing for power
Which is a matter for the vendors solicitor not for the buyer.
I did wonder how Dair was going to row back from this comment
"Having a candidate involved in distress purchase property market doesn't fit in with the SNP. That's the story but it's not being told to the public"
You do understand that an individual matter may involve multiple issues, right?
Thomson's involvement in distress purchase is still reason the SNP should boot her.
Any actionable questions over the price paid is not a matter for Thomson but for the seller's solicitor.
Different issues.
It may be different in Scotland, but solicitors don't advise on price in England
My understanding is solicitors have a Duty of Care to advise their client of any unfair or questionable aspects of the transaction. This could include unfair terms in deeds, articles, covenants or the price which has been agreed. IANAL so I'm open to correction of the likes of DavidL has an opinion.
My first duty would be to ensure the client understood the terms of the transaction, including any terms which might be worth highlighting by virtue of them being non-standard practice. But it would always be for the client, once properly informed, to take a massive loss if they wanted to.
Other duties could come in if you suspected something which was not merely bad commercial practice but was in fact illegal.
Exactly , they wanted cash quick and were happy to sign up for a low price, just standard business. I have never heard of anybody coming back and saying to someone , look I made a profit on that property you sold me and would like to give it all to you as I paid too little for it. There will always be a Tory with cash around when someone is forced to sell low as they need cash quick , such is life and both win in the transaction. Hence the old saying "money goes to money".
In Scotland, 'There will always be an SNP politician with cash around and a bent lawyer, when a cancer sufferer is forced to sell too low as they need cash quick'.
No, I just think this is a higher quality site. You get excellent insight debates here right across the political spectrum that matches the best on the Internet. The betting tips and analysis is so well thought through and considered that it is broadly requoted amongst the press, opinion pollsters and bookmakers. Cameron has admitted he reads it too - although I suspect not regularly - and party campaign HQs regularly do.
Is it a minority taste for the general public? Absolutely, which is why other blogs get many more views - but that doesn't mean they are more influential.
There are certainly good debates and discussions on occasion.
But it is also chock full of partisan nonsense as is well demonstrated by ScottP in this thread, with his deliberate misquoting and refusal to openly understand that a single matter might involve more than one specific issue.
I'd also add, from what you say you see this site (and Wings) as sources where their influence with the media matters.
That is old hat. This IS the media nowadays and the breadth of audience is what matters, not the narrow view of which MSM heavyweights might be influenced.
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.
Thank you. So the difference is that in England & Wales the Home Office (for England & Wales) pays such bills but in Scotland the Scottish Govt chooses not to pay these bills although police are a devolved matter. Presumably the SNP is always sent a bill which it always pays for all its Conferences.
Only ever seen complaints about the Libdems, Police have never ever mentioned any other party.
PS: When was the Home Office changed to be just England and Wales
Must be all the plastic Jocks, bigots, SNPouters and MI5 that are artificially inflating his rankings.
Alexa.
Not sure what that tells us. Pb.com gets several thousands views a day, is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines.
Wingsoverscotland may well get tens of thousands of views each day from believers but is ignored by virtually everyone else as an online Daily Mirror for nationalists.
Quality over quantity old chap.
If there's anything more convincing than a PB ToryorkipperdependinghowreactionaryImfeeling telling himself that his favoured echo chamber is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines, I want to know what it is. Old chap.
Thanks. I always know I've won the argument when you resort to your modus operandi of personal insults that you think you can obscure by 'clever' sarcasm.
But it does beg the question: if you don't like it, why are you here?
Someone who uses the term 'dickstain' probably shouldn't whine about personal insults. As to your question, unlike you I prefer not to have variations of my own views prated back at me, and not everyone on here is a pompous hypocrite.
And that's exactly how you operate: you seek to provoke a personal response, which you can then condemn to paint yourself as a victim and dismiss your opponent, and you never forgot to requote - keeping it in your pocket - for whenever you're on the back foot.
In the case of that particular example you said, "oh dear, I think I hear a 'dickstain' coming on' in reply to a perfectly reasonable point I made and then I responded 'no, I've got a long way to go to reach your level'. I've also used that (once) to respond to Malcolmg's reflexive abuse. I can let my frustration boil over on occassion, and I shouldn't.
Did I rise to the bait? Absolutely, and I shouldn't have done so; I let myself down and gave you an excuse. But that doesn't abrogate any of the dirty tactics you use above, does lose me respect for you and does make it far less likely for your posts to be received and read objectively in future.
Been catching up with US Democrat news. Looks like Biden is close to declaring. Maybe even this coming weekend if news reports are to be believed. I think he's going to run. I have bet accordingly.
The Lib Dems are the worst offenders for this today. We've just had a LibDem conference that told us how proud they were of their role in the coalition.
The electorate clearly does not agree. They shouted at them "NO!". 8 MPs and their biggest GE catastrophe. This is the biggest reality check possible.
But what do the Lib Dems do? Nothing. They continue to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are. Beyond insular. They are a Koreshian death cult.
They're regrouping and reorganising, as will become clearer when 2020 approaches. It's obviously very early for predictions, but I suspect a lot of yellow/blue marginals may swing yellow again.
There are unpopular policies, for one thing (the junior doctor thing is a good example of something damaging to the John Lewis vote, though it's likely to have been forgotten by then), but more importantly the quality of some of the new MPs is low.
Additionally - in while in red/yellow marginals, the LDs were being punished for their coalition role, the loss of the seats to the SNP was part of a broader movement, and the losses to Tories were more about 'stop Ed'.
The days of 40-60 seats are long gone now for the Libs, but 15-20 is a reasonable target (for 2025; any increase on 8 will be good in 2020).
12 -15 seats would be a reasonable target. The Lib Dems were absolutely swept away in the South West.
Thank you. So the difference is that in England & Wales the Home Office (for England & Wales) pays such bills but in Scotland the Scottish Govt chooses not to pay these bills although police are a devolved matter. Presumably the SNP is always sent a bill which it always pays for all its Conferences.
Only ever seen complaints about the Libdems, Police have never ever mentioned any other party.
PS: When was the Home Office changed to be just England and Wales
Q: When was the Home Office changed to be just England and Wales A: When funding police attendance at such events. Scotland had this money and responsibility devolved according to the article.
No, I just think this is a higher quality site. You get excellent insight debates here right across the political spectrum that matches the best on the Internet. The betting tips and analysis is so well thought through and considered that it is broadly requoted amongst the press, opinion pollsters and bookmakers. Cameron has admitted he reads it too - although I suspect not regularly - and party campaign HQs regularly do.
Is it a minority taste for the general public? Absolutely, which is why other blogs get many more views - but that doesn't mean they are more influential.
There are certainly good debates and discussions on occasion.
But it is also chock full of partisan nonsense as is well demonstrated by ScottP in this thread, with his deliberate misquoting and refusal to openly understand that a single matter might involve more than one specific issue.
I'd also add, from what you say you see this site (and Wings) as sources where their influence with the media matters.
That is old hat. This IS the media nowadays and the breadth of audience is what matters, not the narrow view of which MSM heavyweights might be influenced.
I don't deny that Wings is a representative voice of the nationalist activist base - and that is absolutely worthy of reporting. I do query how objective and balanced it is in its reporting, which makes me sceptical of any links posted on here to it. By contrast, I think pb.com is commendably objective in its analysis - and it has to be, because it is a betting site. You yourself have posted one or two valuable tips on here that I have profited from, and it's positive that we both agree on the value of the site in its debates and discussions.
It thus commands broader influence as a reference source. I am not trying to make an elitist point.
And that's exactly how you operate: you seek to provoke a personal response, which you can then condemn to paint yourself as a victim and dismiss your opponent, and you never forgot to requote - keeping it in your pocket - for whenever you're on the back foot.
In the case of that particular example you said, "oh dear, I think I hear a 'dickstain' coming on' in reply to a perfectly reasonable point I made and then I responded 'no, I've got a long way to go to reach your level'. I've also used that (once) to respond to Malcolmg's reflexive abuse. I can let my frustration boil over on occassion, and I shouldn't.
Did I rise to the bait? Absolutely, and I shouldn't have done so; I let myself down and gave you an excuse. But that doesn't abrogate any of the dirty tactics you use above, does lose me respect for you and does make it far less likely for your posts to be received and read objectively in future.
Your level of respect for me is something you really shouldn't worry about.
UKIP's challenge in becoming a major party is that at least 40% of the British electorate are firmly centre left.
So are most of UKIPs recent economic policies.
That's not what the voting record of UKIP's MP suggests.
The Lib Dems were a major party for a number of years with a mainly right-wing vote, despite having left-wing voting records.
One big example of the gap was on Europe. For years circa 40%+ of the LD voters were eurosceptic yet they were the most europhile party. Their voters barely registered this fact until we had the Clegg vs Farage debates when Clegg went out of his way to set out how much he loved the EC. At the EC elections the LD vote plummeted and left them with just 1 MEP. The LD activists thought it a good idea.....
And that's exactly how you operate: you seek to provoke a personal response, which you can then condemn to paint yourself as a victim and dismiss your opponent, and you never forgot to requote - keeping it in your pocket - for whenever you're on the back foot.
In the case of that particular example you said, "oh dear, I think I hear a 'dickstain' coming on' in reply to a perfectly reasonable point I made and then I responded 'no, I've got a long way to go to reach your level'. I've also used that (once) to respond to Malcolmg's reflexive abuse. I can let my frustration boil over on occassion, and I shouldn't.
Did I rise to the bait? Absolutely, and I shouldn't have done so; I let myself down and gave you an excuse. But that doesn't abrogate any of the dirty tactics you use above, does lose me respect for you and does make it far less likely for your posts to be received and read objectively in future.
Your level of respect for me is something you really shouldn't worry about.
You do know that it is perfectly possible to be a member of the ECJ without being a member of the EU (as Switzerland is), and to be a member of the EU without being subject to ECJ rulings (as we were before Labour changed things), don't you?
The key EU reform that Cameron should have focussed IMHO on is the ability to reverse previous EU opt-ins taken by previous UK governments. I.e. A UK Parliament cannot bind its successor by ceding powers for good, and re opt-outs are possible.
If he'd got that, practical threshold limits for free movement, as well as protections for the UK as a non-eurozone member within a reformed single market, then there might be a renegotiation to sell.
I don't think that's possible, though.
In theory a Parliament can always repudiate a Treaty, so they are not bound. But I can't see that a hokey-cokey approach to the EU would be appealing to our partners.
Why should our partners care whether we're in the ECJ rulings, charter of fundamental rights, or the EAW?
People should be allowed to change their minds as circumstances dictate. It would also make the EU more democratic and responsive.
I thought your point was on previous EU opt-outs, not the ECJ
I think the EU renegotiation would have to recognise what competenxies were subject to a reversible opt-in, or surrendered opt-outs: that should include justice, foreign policy, rights, policing, criminal law, migration and social law.
I agree that if we remain a member we can't cherry pick the single market. But if that too had safeguards against the eurozone outvoting us, we'd have a deal for the long term IMHO.
Otherwise I think it is inevitable we will leave.
And that proposal is directly counter to the concept of ever closer union, so I don't think it would fly. Now that might be a good reason for you to vote OUT, but it's a little harsh to set Cameron a target that is unachievable and then lambast him when he fails to deliver.
Comments
Any actionable fault would lie with the sellers solicitor. Thomson has no responsibility to pay an arbitrary amount for a property. It is up to the buyer and seller to agree a price - which they did. It is then up to the sellers solicitor to advise them if there is a reason why they should not proceed.
Lisa Cameron, the MP for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, receives rent from a house in Lanarkshire and five flats in Edinburgh and South Lanarkshire.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, the Ochil and South Perthshire MP, rents out three flats in Glasgow and a house in Kingussie.........
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13798627.Sixteen_of_the_SNP_s_55_MPs_have_financial_interests_in_property/
Wingsoverscotland may well get tens of thousands of views each day from believers but is ignored by virtually everyone else as an online Daily Mirror for nationalists.
Quality over quantity old chap.
The bigger political issue, is what is the party of "social justice and fairness" (don't bring up free University tuition and how its benefitting the better off - ed.) doing sending MPs to Westminster who have (in some cases substantial) personal property portfolios?
We're different from the rest! They cried.
Yeh...right......
It's immoral.
"Having a candidate involved in distress purchase property market doesn't fit in with the SNP. That's the story but it's not being told to the public"
and the line that I saw overnight "they all had solicitors" has duly been parrotted
No mention of the fact that some of these solicitors have been struck off for misconduct
"If your bent solicitor ripped you off in a back to back transaction with someone who just happens to be prominent in the SNP, BAD LUCK SUCKERS!!!!"
PB ToryorkipperdependinghowreactionaryImfeeling telling himself that his favoured echo chamber is read by leading journalists, senior politicians (including our PM) and is highly influential in shaping narrative across party lines, I want to know what it is. Old chap.
The requirement for a seller to have their own independent solicitor is a safeguard against transactions which are not in the sellers interest. It is not the responsibility of the buyer.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13805312.MP_Thomson_s_business_described_raise_in_families_losing_homes_as__quot_great_opportunity_quot_/
"A BUSINESS run by an MP involved in a row over her property dealings described a rise in families losing their homes as a "great opportunity" and said emotional attachment could stand in the way of "huge profit".
A blog written to promote Michelle Thomson's firm Your Property Shop offered advice to those thinking of entering the sector and included several links to the company's main website."
"Andrew Roberts in the Spectator argues Cameron may be on track to rank around - or ahead of - MacMillan:"
Praise indeed. I look forward to the night of the long knives. Isn't he the one of whom it was said "Greater love has no-man than he would lay down his friends for his life"
(If so he's had perfect training as an advertising account exec )
"Having a candidate involved in distress purchase property market doesn't fit in with the SNP. That's the story but it's not being told to the public"Sorry, that was yesterday's line.
Buying distressed property is SNP social Justice in action.
Now it is this Tory govt who is levelling the playing field by making it easier to do what you want with pension lump sums and and is revising tax on buy to let profits. It probably ought to recant and increase the tax free pension allowance, not I should add that I would benefit.
In theory a Parliament can always repudiate a Treaty, so they are not bound. But I can't see that a hokey-cokey approach to the EU would be appealing to our partners.
Thomson's involvement in distress purchase is still reason the SNP should boot her.
Any actionable questions over the price paid is not a matter for Thomson but for the seller's solicitor.
Different issues.
They sat upon the fence so long,
That everything fell out
And false and true,
And right and wrong
Were scrambled into doubt
Lowest PMI in 2 1/2 years. PMI below equivalent PMI in the Eurozone countries.
People should be allowed to change their minds as circumstances dictate. It would also make the EU more democratic and responsive.
Please do keep up the good work. What a crass fool you are making yourself look.
If you have 10 years or 15 years to bed in welfare reforms they are unlikely to be reversed.
That won't be the case with 5 years
labourhame.com 5,829,640
chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk 5,575,519
Anyway, its good to see you are behaving yourself, we would not want to see you in the prisoner battalions.
What was that for and when?
What a bizarre world they seem to want. Bunch of nasty, insular, little Trots.
The right hard often are religious and so are the hard left except their religion is a secular one. Like all religions it does not tolerate dissent, heresy, apostasy or any belief contrary to its core message.
"Come the revolution, you will be the first against the wall" is practically a standard joke about the hard left and it works because it has some truth at its core.
What I am wondering is what the SDP will call themselves this time round. 1983 here we come....
But it does beg the question: if you don't like it, why are you here?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/police-scotland-brand-tories-lib-4516169
"The message is that to members of the Corbyn cult politics is not about striving to gain power but about controlling the party and the Labour movement in general."
On the bright but tarnished side OGH, it might make betting simpler albeit less potentially rewarding.
Which side of the road do you drive on? Would you like us all to make our own mind up on a whim?
Since when should swindling be facilitated by bizarre house purchase rules?
Sadly, for you, Wings is likely to be the third most popular media source in Scotland, behind only the Sun and Record. This gives them a lot of clout and their argument far more weight, regardless of what "quality" you claim of their readership.
They all get one vote.
Ummm...
Policing costs for LibDem conferences
I agree that if we remain a member we can't cherry pick the single market. But if that too had safeguards against the eurozone outvoting us, we'd have a deal for the long term IMHO.
Otherwise I think it is inevitable we will leave.
*setting measures in place that aim to keep his party in power
*moving leftwards in some areas because an opportunity arises and where he sees an overlap with his party's own interests.
Why move into Labour territory - because it works and because he thinks its a real opportunity.
Clearly there is a market for the sale of houses. You seem to want a highly controlled, nanny-state run market where agency is removed from both vendor and buyer.
That might work in the socialist paradise you pine for, personally I'd prefer to leave the market to decide how things work.
As to your question, unlike you I prefer not to have variations of my own views prated back at me, and not everyone on here is a pompous hypocrite.
Other duties could come in if you suspected something which was not merely bad commercial practice but was in fact illegal.
Thank you. So the difference is that in England & Wales the Home Office (for England & Wales) pays such bills but in Scotland the Scottish Govt chooses not to pay these bills although police are a devolved matter. Presumably the SNP is always sent a bill which it always pays for all its Conferences.
Meanwhile, I'll relax, confident in the knowledge that the truth of the need for Scottish Independence is getting a much wider airing than the Loyalist lies trying to pollute the debate. The problem is that your lies get exposed, your support is on a one way trajectory and Independence is the only outcome.
Tick tock.
Do you never purchase anything at a sale price in case you are robbing the owner , you insist you pay list price for a car , etc etc etc .
Hypocrisy by the dim frothers on here , guaranteed to all be rapacious gits who would take cash off their grandmothers, is breathtaking.
Is it a minority taste for the general public? Absolutely, which is why other blogs get many more views - but that doesn't mean they are more influential.
When Watford says it is immoral, you call him a cretin. When Dair says it, you claim misinterpretation.
We know you are just a Zoomer shill. No need to prove it. Again.
There will always be a Tory with cash around when someone is forced to sell low as they need cash quick , such is life and both win in the transaction. Hence the old saying "money goes to money".
The funny thing was that the Lib Dems went for a Scottish conference two years in a row (I believe) to shore up their Scottish vote and retained no mainland Scottish seats. If they had picked other places it might have actually saved a seat or two. It also drove down attendance numbers because of the distance and costs involved for most of their activists. This year it was back to the south coat - a wise move.
In Scotland "dying of cancer" means you have another 3 years, right?
Answers on a mortgage application form...
So we already have different classes of prisoners, some with, some without voting rights.
The ECR's problem is?
But it is also chock full of partisan nonsense as is well demonstrated by ScottP in this thread, with his deliberate misquoting and refusal to openly understand that a single matter might involve more than one specific issue.
I'd also add, from what you say you see this site (and Wings) as sources where their influence with the media matters.
That is old hat. This IS the media nowadays and the breadth of audience is what matters, not the narrow view of which MSM heavyweights might be influenced.
Only ever seen complaints about the Libdems, Police have never ever mentioned any other party.
PS: When was the Home Office changed to be just England and Wales
In the case of that particular example you said, "oh dear, I think I hear a 'dickstain' coming on' in reply to a perfectly reasonable point I made and then I responded 'no, I've got a long way to go to reach your level'. I've also used that (once) to respond to Malcolmg's reflexive abuse. I can let my frustration boil over on occassion, and I shouldn't.
Did I rise to the bait? Absolutely, and I shouldn't have done so; I let myself down and gave you an excuse. But that doesn't abrogate any of the dirty tactics you use above, does lose me respect for you and does make it far less likely for your posts to be received and read objectively in future.
"Having a candidate involved in distress purchase property market doesn't fit in with the SNP. That's the story but it's not being told to the public"
PS: When was the Home Office changed to be just England and Wales
Q: When was the Home Office changed to be just England and Wales
A: When funding police attendance at such events. Scotland had this money and responsibility devolved according to the article.
It thus commands broader influence as a reference source. I am not trying to make an elitist point.