Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 

Donate to our new server appeal.


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
Stevie

A Scottish government funded mortgage.

A Scottish government funded mortgage.

The capitalist brainwashed, the Thatcher was right mob and the usual naysayers will say :

"That's not government business, that's private business".

I say, the Scottish government should build good quality, decent housing and make it available for sale to the occupants at COST price.  

The details are important but not as important as producing people with an investment in society.

The money paid back will then go on to fund another house.

Yes, this will cost money but people need to live in houses and we build council housing anyway (reasonably crap on the whole).
landg

can i as a tax payer get one of these 'at cost' mortages for my own mortgage?
Stevie

Nope.

Just those who are entering the housing market via a government funded home.  

The government is there to provide good quality homes but not finance the mortgage market.

It's a tough life...
landg

will it be means tested this new system?
Stevie

Nope.

If you have to live in a council house then the means justifies the ends.
landg

am i getting this right, and i maybe i'm not reading this properly. current council occupants get a new house built which they can BUY at COST price. a few questions, that is if i've got it right.
i as a taxpayer fund the council occupant's homebuying?
if the property goes into negative equity and then sold who makes the shortfall? me?
where are these new houses being built?
i certainly don't want some of the trashy folk that live in easterhouse getting a new house built for them where i live.

it does'nt seem to be a very good idea.
Stevie

True, the taxpayer will fund some part of it but ultimately a far smaller part than would otherwise be.  The system should be largely self funded after an initial taxpayer investment to get things going.

E.G. You give money to build a house, this house is sold to the tenant at cost price.  The money thus repaid goes to build another house and so on and so forth.

Of course if one doesn't mind one's fellow Scot living in slum housing then that's a different issue.
landg

Stevie wrote:
True, the taxpayer will fund some part of it but ultimately a far smaller part than would otherwise be.  The system should be largely self funded after an initial taxpayer investment to get things going.

E.G. You give money to build a house, this house is sold to the tenant at cost price.  The money thus repaid goes to build another house and so on and so forth.

Of course if one doesn't mind one's fellow Scot living in slum housing then that's a different issue.


negative equity?
i as a taxpayer fund an unfaur system where council tenants get new houses at reduced rates, yet a  young sibgle person or newly married couple looking to move up the property ladder just have to get on with it.AND fund the council tenants new shiny house.good grief. it's like a socialist garden of eden.
make your point about scots living in slum housing to............................
the many,many thousands of scots who turn their homes and schemes in slum houses and ghettos. not me, i'm responsible and take pride in my home estate.your pointing the finger at the wrong demographic.
Stevie

Not pointing my finger at any particular demographic.  Yes a new shiny house rather than the awful grubby looking affairs that litter the place at the moment.

These people will pay for the house but with a O% (or 1%) mortgage and that money paid back is then used only for building new homes.  The housing market is inherently unfair.  

You are responsible, okay, but give the other guy a chance and you might end up with a responsible family.

You create a bigger middle class and you begin to solve some of the social problems that plague us all.
Fidget

Trouble is that people will just stay put - happy where they are,they like their neighbours and whatever. Communities can't be built on a "move on as soon as you can afford something else" basis.
Stevie

I hope they are happy enough in their new homes to stay put, that's the point really.

The mortgage money still goes to make a new home.

Yes, it costs money but a fraction of the money it would cost.

It's an idea that people have talked about before.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
I hope they are happy enough in their new homes to stay put, that's the point really.

The mortgage money still goes to make a new home.

Yes, it costs money but a fraction of the money it would cost.

It's an idea that people have talked about before.


Do you even know what at Cost means?

So if you build a house for say £60k and sell it for £60k, where does the additional profit come from to build more houses?

The housing associations already do this and turn a profit. It's called shared ownership.

If you buy a house off the plans, by the time it's build and you move in you have already made a profit.

Also, the new housing association houses being build were from places like Stuart Milne and other expensive builders. It's just that they get built in crap areas and the same crap people put back into them to carry on the same crap they always did until the houses need bulldozed and re-built.

The only other difference is that the councils have shifted responsibilities to housing associations ran by inexperienced locals who will only have themselves to blame in a few decades time.

So why should tax payers fund houses for people who wreck them time and again? Decent people don't want to stay in crap areas and would strive to move away to somewhere better. You can buy a decent house for less than it costs to rent housing association properties.
landg

Stevie wrote:

It's an idea that people have talked about before.


i know.
thats why it has not happened, it's a stupid idea.
negative eqity?
Ultra

landg wrote:
Stevie wrote:

It's an idea that people have talked about before.


i know.
thats why it has not happened, it's a stupid idea.
negative eqity?


Yes very stupid idea indeed.

The only people who seem to complain about council house sales are those who missed out or can't afford to buy due to their circumstances.

So you have to cut your cloth to suit  Laughing

If an area had a really bad reputation then nobody bought the houses anyways as they were in poor condition.
Stevie

Nobody is suggesting the current method is brilliant.

Simple arithmetic for you :

If the house costs 60K to build, leave it for 4 / 5 years then sell it to the tenant, then that probably liberates 70K (the profit helps with the expenses) to build another house because the mortgage is taken over by a specific government body.

I believe this system works well in some or other country but I don't remember which.

Hope the simple arithmetic makes sense to thy mighty intellect.

If not, we'll have to wait till the great 3rd /4th generation Deep thought is constructed for the decrytion of landg's inscrutable posting to explain it to you.
landg

Ultra wrote:
landg wrote:
Stevie wrote:

It's an idea that people have talked about before.


i know.
thats why it has not happened, it's a stupid idea.
negative eqity?


Yes very stupid idea indeed.

The only people who seem to complain about council house sales are those who missed out or can't afford to buy due to their circumstances.

So you have to cut your cloth to suit  Laughing

If an area had a really bad reputation then nobody bought the houses anyways as they were in poor condition.


which goes back to the original problem.
lots of new cooncil schemes have been built and renovated but the same trash gets put back in to ruin the house and the scheme. which leads to a further point nobody can explain how many in these run down ghett's take pride in their homes, have bought them and actively try to improve the area. nah, lets just focus on the ned element and blame the state. and take taxes of decent folk and build them another new house.
it's like a mad socialist plot from the mind of basil brush when he has been insufflating some class a columbian marching powder.
Stevie

landg wrote:

it's like a mad socialist plot from the mind of basil brush when he has been insufflating some class a columbian marching powder.


I liked the Basil Brush thing but just when one thinks it's going along swimmingly for a change, you introduce a new word to the English language, 'insufflating'.  
landg

Stevie wrote:
landg wrote:

it's like a mad socialist plot from the mind of basil brush when he has been insufflating some class a columbian marching powder.


I liked the Basil Brush thing but just when one thinks it's going along swimmingly for a change, you introduce a new word to the English language, 'insufflating'.  
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insufflating

sometimes it really is worth making that extra special effort. just for you.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Nobody is suggesting the current method is brilliant.

Simple arithmetic for you :

If the house costs 60K to build, leave it for 4 / 5 years then sell it to the tenant, then that probably liberates 70K (the profit helps with the expenses) to build another house because the mortgage is taken over by a specific government body.

I believe this system works well in some or other country but I don't remember which.

Hope the simple arithmetic makes sense to thy mighty intellect.

If not, we'll have to wait till the great 3rd /4th generation Deep thought is constructed for the decrytion of landg's inscrutable posting to explain it to you.


I am quite happy with the current method. I bought a new build in a far better area and pay far less than I did in rent in a scummy area. You can also rent far better properties for less money too.

So if you sell the house for 70k then thats not cost price is it?

Even still, you can't build a decent house and buy up land for 10k can you?

So the tax payer has to pay a substantial sum of millions to buy up land and build houses and gets nothing in return? Who pays for the administration costs of such a scheme?

Also, what about the cost of money and inflation over the 4 or 5 years?

Do you not think that the cost of building the house, land, and materials would increase too over that time period?

The reason you can't remember what countries is it probably doesn't exist.

The housing associations in Scotland are usually ran as not for profit and any profits generated are used to upgrade the existing housing stock or build new housing.

The other schemes are a mixture of social rented houses and owner occupiers. You also have shared ownership schemes which allow the tenent to purchase a share in the house and increase the share towards full ownership while paying rent for the un-owned portion.

What you are suggesting simply would not work under any stretch of the imagination on so many levels. The existing arrangement works well for the majority of people.
Stevie

Insufflate is a verb.   Jolly good, did you use it correctly or did it just seem to be an inspirational idea at the time.

Everything, you say is currently true, the tax payer forks out for it at the moment, what I'm saying is, fork out much less.
Ultra

landg wrote:


which goes back to the original problem.
lots of new cooncil schemes have been built and renovated but the same trash gets put back in to ruin the house and the scheme. which leads to a further point nobody can explain how many in these run down ghett's take pride in their homes, have bought them and actively try to improve the area. nah, lets just focus on the ned element and blame the state. and take taxes of decent folk and build them another new house.
it's like a mad socialist plot from the mind of basil brush when he has been insufflating some class a columbian marching powder.


I seen it for years. It was only when I bought a council house in a scummy area that I realised how much money I would save compared to paying the council rent for the same property. The extra cash saved was used to renovate and decorated it. However, there is only so much of the scum you can close out when you shut the door and need to move on.

I saw houses being renovated and millions spent on roofs, cladding and the rest only for them to be wrecked within 10 years and demolished.

Then Stuart Milne detached and Semi Detached built to house these people using housing associations. Back and front doors and everything done like TV points in each room and board lofts. You are talking on the open market £140k houses.

Now nobody is going to tell me they would even recover the cost of building the houses over the life time of the dole scroungers staying in them.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Insufflate is a verb.   Jolly good, did you use it correctly or did it just seem to be an inspirational idea at the time.

Everything, you say is currently true, the tax payer forks out for it at the moment, what I'm saying is, fork out much less.


Do you own a house or even live in a council house?
landg

Stevie wrote:
Insufflate is a verb.   Jolly good, did you use it correctly or did it just seem to be an inspirational idea at the time.

.


sometimes i make the effort.
Stevie

Ultra wrote:
Stevie wrote:
Insufflate is a verb.   Jolly good, did you use it correctly or did it just seem to be an inspirational idea at the time.

Everything, you say is currently true, the tax payer forks out for it at the moment, what I'm saying is, fork out much less.


Do you own a house or even live in a council house?


An odd and irrelevant question borne of silent desperation to always be right methinks.
Stevie

landg wrote:
Stevie wrote:
Insufflate is a verb.   Jolly good, did you use it correctly or did it just seem to be an inspirational idea at the time.

.


sometimes i make the effort.


Well, I'm glad to have learned a new verb.

Just how did you come across it?
Ultra

Ultra wrote:
Stevie wrote:
Insufflate is a verb.   Jolly good, did you use it correctly or did it just seem to be an inspirational idea at the time.

Everything, you say is currently true, the tax payer forks out for it at the moment, what I'm saying is, fork out much less.


Do you own a house or even live in a council house?


It's quite relevent actually.

You are commenting on council houses and mortgages. I would like to know what experience you have of these. Why would that not be relevent?

The only people I have heard who claim to not be able to afford a house in a better area or complain about the poor house they are in are people on the dole who want everything handed to them on a plate.

I have also witnessed with my own eyes what goes on in schemes when it comes to housing. History will just repeat itself and the housing stock will be worthless in a few decades time. This time it would be the councils responsibility as they sold them off to the housing association companies.

You might want to post up some evidence for Dave on the mortgage scheme you talk about?
Fidget

Ultra wrote:


The only people I have heard who claim to not be able to afford a house in a better area or complain about the poor house they are in are people on the dole who want everything handed to them on a plate.


There is a huge amount of first time buyers working full time but who simply can't afford to get on the property ladder. They can't get council housing either because they're "not a priority".  So they are either sharing private rented accommodation or are still with their parents.
Ultra

Fidget wrote:
Ultra wrote:


The only people I have heard who claim to not be able to afford a house in a better area or complain about the poor house they are in are people on the dole who want everything handed to them on a plate.


There is a huge amount of first time buyers working full time but who simply can't afford to get on the property ladder. They can't get council housing either because they're "not a priority".  So they are either sharing private rented accommodation or are still with their parents.


Why? Because they want £150k flat in central Glasgow or the west end because it's close to their job and night life?

Or should they look to buy a £70k flat in an outlying area with decent transport links for a few years until they are on better salaries and a better financial footing to move somewhere else.

What you pay for shared private accommodation these days could quite easily fund a £100k mortgage. Around £350 per month. Most folk pay far more than that for a pokey wee bed sit. Developers are looking to pay your deposit and legal fees as they still have flats to sell.

Are the types you talk about not paid a bill in their life and moved addresses to avoid debt collectors thinking they could walk away and now are a bad credit risk?

If you want to own a house then it's all about sacrifice. Too many people just expect things handed to them on a plate and don't want to adapt or expect the tax payer to pay for their poor life choices.
Fidget

'the propety ladder' is dubbed that for a reason.
landg

Fidget wrote:
Ultra wrote:


The only people I have heard who claim to not be able to afford a house in a better area or complain about the poor house they are in are people on the dole who want everything handed to them on a plate.


There is a huge amount of first time buyers working full time but who simply can't afford to get on the property ladder. They can't get council housing either because they're "not a priority".  So they are either sharing private rented accommodation or are still with their parents.



you can buy a 1 bedroomed flat in the small towns outside glasgow for as little as 20,000 quid.
as pointed out the property ladder is called such for a reason. i've been there, done it, bought the shithole, lived in it and moved on.
Fidget

No you cannot! I hail from a small town on the outskirts of Glasgow and you cannot buy anything anywhere near £20k. £55k and you might have a starter home, but that is where it begins. And it's probably more now since the last time I was there, so £65k is probably more like the going rate now.  £20k indeed. What a laugh!
landg

Fidget wrote:
No you cannot! I hail from a small town on the outskirts of Glasgow and you cannot buy anything anywhere near £20k. £55k and you might have a starter home, but that is where it begins. And it's probably more now since the last time I was there, so £65k is probably more like the going rate now.  £20k indeed. What a laugh!



ok, you know nothing about the property market. you can also buy 1/4 shares of property in glasgow to allow you to get onto the ladder.

http://www.propertyfinder.com/cgi...597&snf=rbs&tm=1257101726


http://www.propertyfinder.com/cgi...597&snf=rbs&tm=1257101726

http://www.propertyfinder.com/cgi...597&snf=rbs&tm=1257101726
Ultra

Fidget wrote:
No you cannot! I hail from a small town on the outskirts of Glasgow and you cannot buy anything anywhere near £20k. £55k and you might have a starter home, but that is where it begins. And it's probably more now since the last time I was there, so £65k is probably more like the going rate now.  £20k indeed. What a laugh!


There are plenty of houses and flats going for not alot either at auction or in areas in Easterhouse or other less popular areas in Glasgow for less than £50k. Even more if you look at towns outside Glasgow.

Sure they may not be in the best of areas and may need some work done to them but people still want to buy them once they are redecorated and upgraded.

How much would a 50k mortgage be? £250 per month at most? Another £400 for legal fees.

How much would you pay to rent a starter home private rented? Between £300 and £400? How much for a council house? A bit more?

The only laugh is people who complain about not being able to get on the property ladder through no fault but their own.

Even better the BOE rate is 0.5% and mortgages not much higher. So it really is a good time to buy and pick up a bargain.
landg

Ultra wrote:
Fidget wrote:
No you cannot! I hail from a small town on the outskirts of Glasgow and you cannot buy anything anywhere near £20k. £55k and you might have a starter home, but that is where it begins. And it's probably more now since the last time I was there, so £65k is probably more like the going rate now.  £20k indeed. What a laugh!


There are plenty of houses and flats going for not alot either at auction or in areas in Easterhouse or other less popular areas in Glasgow for less than £50k. Even more if you look at towns outside Glasgow.

Sure they may not be in the best of areas and may need some work done to them but people still want to buy them once they are redecorated and upgraded.

How much would a 50k mortgage be? £250 per month at most? Another £400 for legal fees.

How much would you pay to rent a starter home private rented? Between £300 and £400? How much for a council house? A bit more?

The only laugh is people who complain about not being able to get on the property ladder through no fault but their own.

Even better the BOE rate is 0.5% and mortgages not much higher. So it really is a good time to buy and pick up a bargain.



aye, if you were able to drive from small scottish towns like newmilns and darvel (or similar) into glasgow (or similar) you can get a 1 bedroomed flat for 20,000.
as you say, they want the shiny new, apartment/showhouse straight away.
Fidget

you pair are astounding.
azzuri

Ultra wrote:

Even better the BOE rate is 0.5% and mortgages not much higher. So it really is a good time to buy and pick up a bargain.


The housing market is currently in a classic 'bull-trap' phase. Unless we get hyperinflation, I expect anyone who trades up atm to regret that decision in a few years time.

"When the last bear turns bull" and all that.

In my humble opinion of course..
Ultra

azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:

Even better the BOE rate is 0.5% and mortgages not much higher. So it really is a good time to buy and pick up a bargain.


The housing market is currently in a classic 'bull-trap' phase. Unless we get hyperinflation, I expect anyone who trades up atm to regret that decision in a few years time.

"When the last bear turns bull" and all that.

In my humble opinion of course..


Azzuri, it all depends on why you buy a house in the first place.

To make a profit or to live in as a home?

I bought this house for fixed price and it is still worth far more than I paid for it 2 years ago.

My next house will be my last one hopefully. So in 20 years time when the mortgage is paid off I have something substantial and worth money to leave to my family.

It's the chance you take when you buy a house whether the rates remain the same or the house prices rise or fall. Generally speaking houses in the same area rise and fall at the same rate. But least I ain't paying rent each month for something which will never be mine and could be repossessed if the landlord doesn't pay his mortgage.

So if you are looking to trade up, the prices have come down and have started to rise again. More places are going on the market and more mortgages are becoming available.

Houses are long term investments too. So what happens in a few years doesn't really matter to rates and prices doesn't really matter unless I am looking to sell.

Things like negative equity only becomes an issue when you are looking to sell. Just because your house price has fallen doesn't mean you will be paying more each month to your mortgage.
landg

Fidget wrote:
you pair are astounding.


thank you, it feels nice to prove someone wrong.
landg

oh my. bit steep at 30,000 just 30 mins from glasgow

http://www.propertywindow.com/pro...ood/propertydetails.aspx?id=14671
landg

woopwoop.

http://www.propertywindow.com/pro...false&New=false&Address=%
Stevie

This thread is not about getting on the 'property ladder'; it's about providing decent homes for families to live in at a low cost to them and to the state.

If people wish to sell their home (and that would be far more difficult than you seem to imagine) then they do join the property ladder.  

The point is to provide people with good quality, attractive housing that they eventually pay for if they so choose and that recovered money is invested in a new home for another family.
Fidget

landg wrote:
Fidget wrote:
you pair are astounding.


thank you, it feels nice to prove someone wrong.


landg wrote:
oh my. bit steep at 30,000 just 30 mins from glasgow

http://www.propertywindow.com/pro...ood/propertydetails.aspx?id=14671


landg wrote:
woopwoop.

http://www.propertywindow.com/pro...false&New=false&Address=%



You're ignoring the fact that they need a fair amount of work done on them by the sounds of it. That all costs £££££ These are aimed at people wanting to buy places, do them up, and sell them on.. not live in them.
Fidget

Stevie wrote:
This thread is not about getting on the 'property ladder'; it's about providing decent homes for families to live in at a low cost to them and to the state.

If people wish to sell their home (and that would be far more difficult than you seem to imagine) then they do join the property ladder.  

The point is to provide people with good quality, attractive housing that they eventually pay for if they so choose and that recovered money is invested in a new home for another family.


Of course it's about getting on the property ladder and moving on and up.  Where are you going to get all the land from to keep building houses for people to just stay in forever?

The only way you're going to be able to do that is build upwards in the form of high rise flats.
Stevie

Fidget wrote:
Stevie wrote:
This thread is not about getting on the 'property ladder'; it's about providing decent homes for families to live in at a low cost to them and to the state.

If people wish to sell their home (and that would be far more difficult than you seem to imagine) then they do join the property ladder.  

The point is to provide people with good quality, attractive housing that they eventually pay for if they so choose and that recovered money is invested in a new home for another family.


Of course it's about getting on the property ladder and moving on and up.  Where are you going to get all the land from to keep building houses for people to just stay in forever?

The only way you're going to be able to do that is build upwards in the form of high rise flats.


Spoken like someone who is against building council housing.

Nothing positive to say.

I'm not arguing, I'm stating.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
This thread is not about getting on the 'property ladder'; it's about providing decent homes for families to live in at a low cost to them and to the state.

If people wish to sell their home (and that would be far more difficult than you seem to imagine) then they do join the property ladder.  

The point is to provide people with good quality, attractive housing that they eventually pay for if they so choose and that recovered money is invested in a new home for another family.


What you mean like shared ownership housing association housing we have at the moment and the rent to mortgage schemes which councils used to run to allow people to buy their council houses?

Another thing you don't seem to know. If you wanted to buy your council house and could not get a mortgage from a main stream lender due to poor credit, defective build of the house, or the mortgage being under most lenders limit, the council had to provide you with the funding to buy your house at a decent rate. Not difficult to get on the property ladder if you wanted to.

As for it being difficult to sell a house, most people do it to progress up the property ladder or move to a better area. They have done for years and years.

Why should the tax payer pay to build new social housing continually for the tenants to wreck them and require the housing to be replaced time and again well before the houses useful life?

Someone has to fund land purchase and build of new housing. It's doubful that social housing provides any sort of ROI to allow more new houses to be build.

Just think if the tenants did not wreck the houses and looked after them there would be plenty of decent housing. Just a shame that most tenants aren't decent.

It's peoples life choices which decide whether they prefer council housing or buying their own home. Nobody elses.
Fidget

Stevie wrote:
Fidget wrote:
Stevie wrote:
This thread is not about getting on the 'property ladder'; it's about providing decent homes for families to live in at a low cost to them and to the state.

If people wish to sell their home (and that would be far more difficult than you seem to imagine) then they do join the property ladder.  

The point is to provide people with good quality, attractive housing that they eventually pay for if they so choose and that recovered money is invested in a new home for another family.


Of course it's about getting on the property ladder and moving on and up.  Where are you going to get all the land from to keep building houses for people to just stay in forever?

The only way you're going to be able to do that is build upwards in the form of high rise flats.


Spoken like someone who is against building council housing.

Nothing positive to say.

I'm not arguing, I'm stating.


You haven't answered my question.  Where is all this land coming from to simply just keep building and building more and more houses?
Alasdair

Fidget wrote:
You haven't answered my question.  Where is all this land coming from to simply just keep building and building more and more houses?


Without wishing to become embroiled and merely as an observation.  If you've ever driven down (or up) the M74 you'll not a good number of private housing development from Lesmahagow northwards.

It's not my preference to build on green belt areas but it does seem to be particularly prevalent, also the expansion of existing settlement turning hamlet into villages and villages into towns.  The development outside rigside also seems to have found enough land to build Scotland's first new town in ages.
Fidget

But you can't just keep on building and building and building, can you?
Alasdair

Fidget wrote:
But you can't just keep on building and building and building, can you?


I'd certainly hope not!  Alas, it seems at times that the planning authorities (and certain politicians) would disagree ... haven't you heard?  Building is the answer to all our economic and social woes!
Fidget

I have heard.. and in the form of this:

Stevie wrote:
A Scottish government funded mortgage.



oooo
landg

Fidget wrote:
landg wrote:
Fidget wrote:
you pair are astounding.


thank you, it feels nice to prove someone wrong.


landg wrote:
oh my. bit steep at 30,000 just 30 mins from glasgow

http://www.propertywindow.com/pro...ood/propertydetails.aspx?id=14671


landg wrote:
woopwoop.

http://www.propertywindow.com/pro...false&New=false&Address=%



You're ignoring the fact that they need a fair amount of work done on them by the sounds of it. That all costs £££££ These are aimed at people wanting to buy places, do them up, and sell them on.. not live in them.


so, it is about being able to just walk into that dream property and not have to lift a finger.
you start in a shithole, do some work, sell on. buy slightly less of a shithole, do some work, move on.and so on and so on.

how do i know this?
i did it. put the work in cashed in.
this is a brilliant time for first time buyres.
Stevie

Try returning to the thread subject and try awfully hard to avoid using your one 'joke' if you can, or develop a second joke.
landg

Stevie wrote:
Society as a whole is not about your pseudo Thatcherite leanings .



moving up the property ladder and bettering yourself is pseudo thatherite leanings?
deary f***ing me.
before we know it it'll be my fault some folks live in squalor.
Fidget

landg wrote:


so, it is about being able to just walk into that dream property and not have to lift a finger.
you start in a shithole, do some work, sell on. buy slightly less of a shithole, do some work, move on.and so on and so on.

how do i know this?
i did it. put the work in cashed in.
this is a brilliant time for first time buyres.


Nope, for most it's not about walking into a dream property, but walking into an affordable one and that doesn't work if people can afford the price of the house.. but not the funds to do it up, which is something lenders consider when giving out loans on cheap properties in a poor state of repair.
landg

Fidget wrote:
landg wrote:


so, it is about being able to just walk into that dream property and not have to lift a finger.
you start in a shithole, do some work, sell on. buy slightly less of a shithole, do some work, move on.and so on and so on.

how do i know this?
i did it. put the work in cashed in.
this is a brilliant time for first time buyres.


Nope, for most it's not about walking into a dream property, but walking into an affordable one and that doesn't work if people can afford the price of the house.. but not the funds to do it up, which is something lenders consider when giving out loans on cheap properties in a poor state of repair.


your talking yourself out of getting on the ladder. get into one of these shared ownerships then.
do something to get on the ladder, best thing you'll ever do.
do not fall into the trap feeling you can;t afford it and have to rent or live in some horrible council scheme.
Stevie

Would the Thatcherite moles stay on the subject of the thread or go off and start a thread about property values elsewhere?
Fidget

Thatcherite mole yourself really - it was her idea to sell off council property at a hefty discount, thereby affordable, to the tenant.  Thatcher's vision was a nation of homeowners, and you're not really suggesting anything otherwise with your scheme.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Would the Thatcherite moles stay on the subject of the thread or go off and start a thread about property values elsewhere?


Why? Is it because you have been shown up by how little you know on the subject?

Do you actually live in a council house in Scotland or any house for that matter in Scotalnd? One wonders....
Stevie

Ultra wrote:
Why? Is it because you have been shown up by how little you know on the subject?.


Prove it.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Why? Is it because you have been shown up by how little you know on the subject?.


Prove it.


Is that a new tactic of saying prove it?

I see. When you can't answer points raised to you or come up with a valid contribution it's deflect attention time.

I have proved that I know far more than you about what finance was available to buy council housing or 'Scottish Government mortgage' as you put it and what the alternative are like shared ownership. They have been in existence for years. So it's not some new SNP scheme.

The whole social housing topic doesn't quite sit well with the SNP as they want to stop people buying their council house and restrict funding to do so. So in effect your 'Scottish Goverment Mortgage' would be consigned to the dust bin.

A bit like the SNP election pledge to provide funding for first time buyers. Another epic fail.  Laughing
Fidget

landg wrote:
Fidget wrote:
landg wrote:


so, it is about being able to just walk into that dream property and not have to lift a finger.
you start in a shithole, do some work, sell on. buy slightly less of a shithole, do some work, move on.and so on and so on.

how do i know this?
i did it. put the work in cashed in.
this is a brilliant time for first time buyres.


Nope, for most it's not about walking into a dream property, but walking into an affordable one and that doesn't work if people can afford the price of the house.. but not the funds to do it up, which is something lenders consider when giving out loans on cheap properties in a poor state of repair.


your talking yourself out of getting on the ladder. get into one of these shared ownerships then.
do something to get on the ladder, best thing you'll ever do.
do not fall into the trap feeling you can;t afford it and have to rent or live in some horrible council scheme.


It's not me I'm talking about, and seeing that these £20k in bad repair gaffs aren't exactly 10 a penny, even if you had to get one of those first before moving onwards and upwards there'd be an almighty queue for them and that would then mean that they'd be commanding a lot more than their £20k in bad repair current status.
Stevie

I never for one second said it was SNP policy.

I think this is a good idea for any country, that's all.

Oh yes, the packet of smarties for knowing more than anybody goes to... who cares.

Your knowledge has little to do with this proposition.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
I never for one second said it was SNP policy.

I think this is a good idea for any country, that's all.

Oh yes, the packet of smarties for knowing more than anybody goes to... who cares.

Your knowledge has little to do with this proposition.


What that I knew that there is such a thing as a Council Mortgage?

And the SNP Government want to remove your right to buy your council house.

I also know that there is a restriction in place on purchasing new build housing association properties under right to buy too...

So you are right. It's another SNP idea which already exists. So nothing really new or original from the SNPee.
Stevie

Ultra wrote:
Stevie wrote:
I never for one second said it was SNP policy.

I think this is a good idea for any country, that's all.

Oh yes, the packet of smarties for knowing more than anybody goes to... who cares.

Your knowledge has little to do with this proposition.


What that I knew that there is such a thing as a Council Mortgage?

And the SNP Government want to remove your right to buy your council house.

I also know that there is a restriction in place on purchasing new build housing association properties under right to buy too...

So you are right. It's another SNP idea which already exists. So nothing really new or original from the SNPee.
I never said it was SNP policy.

I do think it's a good idea that should be applied to Scotland.

'SNPee'... we're winning if this is your best shot.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Stevie wrote:
I never for one second said it was SNP policy.

I think this is a good idea for any country, that's all.

Oh yes, the packet of smarties for knowing more than anybody goes to... who cares.

Your knowledge has little to do with this proposition.


What that I knew that there is such a thing as a Council Mortgage?

And the SNP Government want to remove your right to buy your council house.

I also know that there is a restriction in place on purchasing new build housing association properties under right to buy too...

So you are right. It's another SNP idea which already exists. So nothing really new or original from the SNPee.
I never said it was SNP policy.

I do think it's a good idea that should be applied to Scotland.

'SNPee'... we're winning if this is your best shot.


It is applied to Scotland or was. Which is my point.

Also, you haven't answered my question on whether you live in a council house or even live in Scotland?
Stevie

Such a scheme as I'm proposing has not to my knowledge ever been applied to Scotland.

As far as your superior knowledge... if it makes you happy to think so then be happy.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Such a scheme as I'm proposing has not to my knowledge ever been applied to Scotland.

As far as your superior knowledge... if it makes you happy to think so then be happy.


What scheme? You haven't proposed anything and couldn't remember what country had such a scheme.

How do you know it hasn't been tried in Scotland? Do you live in Scotland?
Stevie

Read the beginning posts if you wish to see what was proposed.

Don't be silly, of course it hasn't been tried in Scotland.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Read the beginning posts if you wish to see what was proposed.

Don't be silly, of course it hasn't been tried in Scotland.


Have you never heard of Right To Buy or read anything I have contributed to the thread if you think what you are proposing has not been tried in Scotland?

Tenants had the opportunity to buy council houses at cost or below cost price and the council were obligated to provide you with a mortgage to do so too.

The money generated was supposed to be used to build or upgrade social housing. But the tenants kept wrecking the housing stock and the councils sold it off to housing associations and the debt was written off. Those housing associations now what more tax payers money to build more social housing. And the cycle continues....

You are obviously extremely silly if you don't understand the points being made and I doubt you know much about social housing if you haven't heard of RTB or shared ownership schemes.
Stevie

It's not 'Right to buy' which was a Thatcherite after thought and a way of getting councils to stop investing in social housing.

The money was 'supposed to be'... well, it wasn't was it?
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
It's not 'Right to buy' which was a Thatcherite after thought and a way of getting councils to stop investing in social housing.

The money was 'supposed to be'... well, it wasn't was it?


Such a scheme still existed didn't it?  Laughing

The councils transferred the housing stock off to housing associations as that way they got the considerable debt written off accumulated trying to maintain and build more housing for tenants to wreck.

So where is all this land coming from to build social housing and where is the capital coming from to build the housing in your utopia?
Stevie

Scotland has plenty of land.

Silly argument.
Fidget

hmm.. so how come the inhabitants all stay in concentrated pockets of it?
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Scotland has plenty of land.

Silly argument.


I asked who would pay for the housing and land. So not so silly is it?

Scotland may well have loads of spare land but is this spare land able to cope with new housing and have the infrasturcture, transport, water, drainage, and electricity close by? Most of it doesn't which is why it hasn't already been build on and most new build estates are built close by existing commuter routes into Glasgow, Edinburgh, and other big towns.

Most people don't want to live in the middle of nowhere either.
Stevie

Ultra wrote:

Scotland may well have loads of spare land but is this spare land able to cope with new housing and have the infrasturcture, transport, water, drainage, and electricity close by?


Ah, you wish to believe that we can't build new houses anywhere new because it's not easy.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Ultra wrote:

Scotland may well have loads of spare land but is this spare land able to cope with new housing and have the infrasturcture, transport, water, drainage, and electricity close by?


Ah, you wish to believe that we can't build new houses anywhere new because it's not easy.


So who pays for the land, capital, and infrastructure to build houses in far flung places in Scotland not near existing transport links or infrastructure?

Are you going to answer the question or just continue to ignore it?

Could it be that it's just not cost effective to build housing in far flung places not connected up to infrastructure?
Stevie

Who said anything about far flung places?

You don't like the idea, so be it and so what?

It's not aimed at you.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Who said anything about far flung places?

You don't like the idea, so be it and so what?

It's not aimed at you.


So what indeed.

You cannot answer any of the questions because you live in France bringing up your family in a different country from Scotland.

So really you have no idea what happens when it comes to social housing or even what schemes are in place to help people get on the property ladder.

I laugh at nationalists like you. Talking up Scotalnd and demanding referendums when you don't live here and it's highly unlikely you will ever return.

So pretty much a waste of time discussing any things Scotland with someone who gains their knowledge on what they read in the press or forums.
Stevie

I laugh at Brits like you... so what?
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
I laugh at Brits like you... so what?


Would the real slim Stevie please stand up?  Laughing
Stevie

Now you're just waffling on and on, speak when you have something to say.
azzuri

Ultra wrote:
azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:

Even better the BOE rate is 0.5% and mortgages not much higher. So it really is a good time to buy and pick up a bargain.


The housing market is currently in a classic 'bull-trap' phase. Unless we get hyperinflation, I expect anyone who trades up atm to regret that decision in a few years time.

"When the last bear turns bull" and all that.

In my humble opinion of course..


Azzuri, it all depends on why you buy a house in the first place.

To make a profit or to live in as a home?

I bought this house for fixed price and it is still worth far more than I paid for it 2 years ago.

My next house will be my last one hopefully. So in 20 years time when the mortgage is paid off I have something substantial and worth money to leave to my family.

It's the chance you take when you buy a house whether the rates remain the same or the house prices rise or fall. Generally speaking houses in the same area rise and fall at the same rate. But least I ain't paying rent each month for something which will never be mine and could be repossessed if the landlord doesn't pay his mortgage.

So if you are looking to trade up, the prices have come down and have started to rise again. More places are going on the market and more mortgages are becoming available.

Houses are long term investments too. So what happens in a few years doesn't really matter to rates and prices doesn't really matter unless I am looking to sell.

Things like negative equity only becomes an issue when you are looking to sell. Just because your house price has fallen doesn't mean you will be paying more each month to your mortgage.


With all due respect, this is nonsense. Of course, if you buy a house and want to stay in it forever then the price is irrelevant. But that's not true for the economy as a whole.

If you do not own a home; you obviously would like home prices to be low, just as you want iPOD prices to be low, petrol prices to be low, milk, cheese and egg prices to be low and flight prices to be low.

Buyers never want prices high for obvious reasons, yet everything the government has done is intended to do one and only one thing: attempt to prop up a popped asset bubble that their policies created in the first place.

Economics; however, cannot be fooled, and the bubble will burst, one way or another. The whole UK banking system is currently insolvent, as we've seen with yet another £31billion handout, whilst the banks are still promising bonuses. The next boom in the banking system will happen most probably next year, forcing the government to lend more to the banks, with foreign investors losing faith in UK gilts thus pushing bond prices higher, and REAL interest rates higher too. Despite the base rate being only 0.5%, I can get a fixed 5 year bond @ 4.95%, a 4.45% spread. This shows that interest rates are now being set by banks individually and the BOE may as well be pissing into the wind when they try and manipulate rates.

Lets take a look at the history to see what is going to happen, shall we?!;

http://financialgetaway.com/interest_only_in_your_best_interest.htm

Sound familiar to anyone?! Watch US Citibank and RBS next year, I expect them to detonate at some point in 2010.

One of the main reasons this whole crisis has occurred and has still largely to unfold is due to the lack of prudent lending. One of the definitions of "prudent lending" is not to lend beyond the current value of a given asset, with any such "excess amount" requiring a pound-for-pound reserve of the bank's own capital. Whether the loan/mortgage is being paid or not is completely irrelevant, it still has a huge effect on the economy and asset prices; here's why:

With residential and commercial property, if the lender has loaned beyond the asset value you're doomed, because it is not possible to have a reasonable expectation that the borrower will continue to perform, even if they are currently doing so!

Why?

Primarily because demanded rents cannot be maintained.

Take two pieces of commercial property across the street from one another.  Both started with a "value" of £1 million.  Both now have a "present value" of £500,000.  Both are identical - in the same location, on opposite sides of the same road, both have the same square footage and amenities.

One of the owners is bankrupted, and the property sold - for £500,000.  That buyer personally finances the £500,000 purchase.

The second is "worked out" instead of demanding that the borrower either be bankrupted or make up the other £500,000 (which he doesn't have), and the bank rolls the loan at a negative equity position of £500,000.

What happens?

Tenants start to go out of business.  As space opens in the £500,000 property, those in the £1m property see the open space.  So do potential new tenants.

Is the rent in the £500,000 property going to be higher or lower than the rent in the £1m property?

How many of the £1m property spaces will be rented one, two, three or five years from now, compared to the £500,000 property?

What is going to happen to that £1m loan? Well, the bank themselves need to swallow the loss and keep the spare capital on reserve in case said property goes under, which means they can't lend it out and release the money into the economy!

We're only at the start of the largest unwinding of a property asset bubble in the UK's history. Don't; for god's sake, buy a house and expect it to be worth the same or more in 5 years time! Unless of course you expect hyperinflation, in which case we're all screwed anyway, last one out please turn off the lights.
landg

azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:

Even better the BOE rate is 0.5% and mortgages not much higher. So it really is a good time to buy and pick up a bargain.


The housing market is currently in a classic 'bull-trap' phase. Unless we get hyperinflation, I expect anyone who trades up atm to regret that decision in a few years time.

"When the last bear turns bull" and all that.

In my humble opinion of course..


Azzuri, it all depends on why you buy a house in the first place.

To make a profit or to live in as a home?

I bought this house for fixed price and it is still worth far more than I paid for it 2 years ago.

My next house will be my last one hopefully. So in 20 years time when the mortgage is paid off I have something substantial and worth money to leave to my family.

It's the chance you take when you buy a house whether the rates remain the same or the house prices rise or fall. Generally speaking houses in the same area rise and fall at the same rate. But least I ain't paying rent each month for something which will never be mine and could be repossessed if the landlord doesn't pay his mortgage.

So if you are looking to trade up, the prices have come down and have started to rise again. More places are going on the market and more mortgages are becoming available.

Houses are long term investments too. So what happens in a few years doesn't really matter to rates and prices doesn't really matter unless I am looking to sell.

Things like negative equity only becomes an issue when you are looking to sell. Just because your house price has fallen doesn't mean you will be paying more each month to your mortgage.


With all due respect, this is nonsense. Of course, if you buy a house and want to stay in it forever then the price is irrelevant. But that's not true for the economy as a whole.

If you do not own a home; you obviously would like home prices to be low, just as you want iPOD prices to be low, petrol prices to be low, milk, cheese and egg prices to be low and flight prices to be low.

Buyers never want prices high for obvious reasons, yet everything the government has done is intended to do one and only one thing: attempt to prop up a popped asset bubble that their policies created in the first place.

Economics; however, cannot be fooled, and the bubble will burst, one way or another. The whole UK banking system is currently insolvent, as we've seen with yet another £31billion handout, whilst the banks are still promising bonuses. The next boom in the banking system will happen most probably next year, forcing the government to lend more to the banks, with foreign investors losing faith in UK gilts thus pushing bond prices higher, and REAL interest rates higher too. Despite the base rate being only 0.5%, I can get a fixed 5 year bond @ 4.95%, a 4.45% spread. This shows that interest rates are now being set by banks individually and the BOE may as well be pissing into the wind when they try and manipulate rates.

Lets take a look at the history to see what is going to happen, shall we?!;

http://financialgetaway.com/interest_only_in_your_best_interest.htm

Sound familiar to anyone?! Watch US Citibank and RBS next year, I expect them to detonate at some point in 2010.

One of the main reasons this whole crisis has occurred and has still largely to unfold is due to the lack of prudent lending. One of the definitions of "prudent lending" is not to lend beyond the current value of a given asset, with any such "excess amount" requiring a pound-for-pound reserve of the bank's own capital. Whether the loan/mortgage is being paid or not is completely irrelevant, it still has a huge effect on the economy and asset prices; here's why:

With residential and commercial property, if the lender has loaned beyond the asset value you're doomed, because it is not possible to have a reasonable expectation that the borrower will continue to perform, even if they are currently doing so!

Why?

Primarily because demanded rents cannot be maintained.

Take two pieces of commercial property across the street from one another.  Both started with a "value" of £1 million.  Both now have a "present value" of £500,000.  Both are identical - in the same location, on opposite sides of the same road, both have the same square footage and amenities.

One of the owners is bankrupted, and the property sold - for £500,000.  That buyer personally finances the £500,000 purchase.

The second is "worked out" instead of demanding that the borrower either be bankrupted or make up the other £500,000 (which he doesn't have), and the bank rolls the loan at a negative equity position of £500,000.

What happens?

Tenants start to go out of business.  As space opens in the £500,000 property, those in the £1m property see the open space.  So do potential new tenants.

Is the rent in the £500,000 property going to be higher or lower than the rent in the £1m property?

How many of the £1m property spaces will be rented one, two, three or five years from now, compared to the £500,000 property?

What is going to happen to that £1m loan? Well, the bank themselves need to swallow the loss and keep the spare capital on reserve in case said property goes under, which means they can't lend it out and release the money into the economy!

We're only at the start of the largest unwinding of a property asset bubble in the UK's history. Don't; for god's sake, buy a house and expect it to be worth the same or more in 5 years time! Unless of course you expect hyperinflation, in which case we're all screwed anyway, last one out please turn off the lights.


property always has been and a;ways will be a fantastic long term investment.
Holebender

Could I ask fellow posters not to quote a long post in its entirety, only to add a one-liner at the end? Why not just quote the part you are responding to, or even don't quote anything but just make your reply?
landg

Holebender wrote:
ly?


speaks for itself. Wink
Holebender

Very amusing. You're still an idiot.
landg

Holebender wrote:
ot.


AYE! Razz
Ultra

azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:
azzuri wrote:
Ultra wrote:

Even better the BOE rate is 0.5% and mortgages not much higher. So it really is a good time to buy and pick up a bargain.


The housing market is currently in a classic 'bull-trap' phase. Unless we get hyperinflation, I expect anyone who trades up atm to regret that decision in a few years time.

"When the last bear turns bull" and all that.

In my humble opinion of course..


Azzuri, it all depends on why you buy a house in the first place.

To make a profit or to live in as a home?

I bought this house for fixed price and it is still worth far more than I paid for it 2 years ago.

My next house will be my last one hopefully. So in 20 years time when the mortgage is paid off I have something substantial and worth money to leave to my family.

It's the chance you take when you buy a house whether the rates remain the same or the house prices rise or fall. Generally speaking houses in the same area rise and fall at the same rate. But least I ain't paying rent each month for something which will never be mine and could be repossessed if the landlord doesn't pay his mortgage.

So if you are looking to trade up, the prices have come down and have started to rise again. More places are going on the market and more mortgages are becoming available.

Houses are long term investments too. So what happens in a few years doesn't really matter to rates and prices doesn't really matter unless I am looking to sell.

Things like negative equity only becomes an issue when you are looking to sell. Just because your house price has fallen doesn't mean you will be paying more each month to your mortgage.


With all due respect, this is nonsense. Of course, if you buy a house and want to stay in it forever then the price is irrelevant. But that's not true for the economy as a whole.

If you do not own a home; you obviously would like home prices to be low, just as you want iPOD prices to be low, petrol prices to be low, milk, cheese and egg prices to be low and flight prices to be low.

Buyers never want prices high for obvious reasons, yet everything the government has done is intended to do one and only one thing: attempt to prop up a popped asset bubble that their policies created in the first place.

Economics; however, cannot be fooled, and the bubble will burst, one way or another. The whole UK banking system is currently insolvent, as we've seen with yet another £31billion handout, whilst the banks are still promising bonuses. The next boom in the banking system will happen most probably next year, forcing the government to lend more to the banks, with foreign investors losing faith in UK gilts thus pushing bond prices higher, and REAL interest rates higher too. Despite the base rate being only 0.5%, I can get a fixed 5 year bond @ 4.95%, a 4.45% spread. This shows that interest rates are now being set by banks individually and the BOE may as well be pissing into the wind when they try and manipulate rates.

Lets take a look at the history to see what is going to happen, shall we?!;

http://financialgetaway.com/interest_only_in_your_best_interest.htm

Sound familiar to anyone?! Watch US Citibank and RBS next year, I expect them to detonate at some point in 2010.

One of the main reasons this whole crisis has occurred and has still largely to unfold is due to the lack of prudent lending. One of the definitions of "prudent lending" is not to lend beyond the current value of a given asset, with any such "excess amount" requiring a pound-for-pound reserve of the bank's own capital. Whether the loan/mortgage is being paid or not is completely irrelevant, it still has a huge effect on the economy and asset prices; here's why:

With residential and commercial property, if the lender has loaned beyond the asset value you're doomed, because it is not possible to have a reasonable expectation that the borrower will continue to perform, even if they are currently doing so!

Why?

Primarily because demanded rents cannot be maintained.

Take two pieces of commercial property across the street from one another.  Both started with a "value" of £1 million.  Both now have a "present value" of £500,000.  Both are identical - in the same location, on opposite sides of the same road, both have the same square footage and amenities.

One of the owners is bankrupted, and the property sold - for £500,000.  That buyer personally finances the £500,000 purchase.

The second is "worked out" instead of demanding that the borrower either be bankrupted or make up the other £500,000 (which he doesn't have), and the bank rolls the loan at a negative equity position of £500,000.

What happens?

Tenants start to go out of business.  As space opens in the £500,000 property, those in the £1m property see the open space.  So do potential new tenants.

Is the rent in the £500,000 property going to be higher or lower than the rent in the £1m property?

How many of the £1m property spaces will be rented one, two, three or five years from now, compared to the £500,000 property?

What is going to happen to that £1m loan? Well, the bank themselves need to swallow the loss and keep the spare capital on reserve in case said property goes under, which means they can't lend it out and release the money into the economy!

We're only at the start of the largest unwinding of a property asset bubble in the UK's history. Don't; for god's sake, buy a house and expect it to be worth the same or more in 5 years time! Unless of course you expect hyperinflation, in which case we're all screwed anyway, last one out please turn off the lights.


Buyers may not want high prices. But buyers have to pay what the going rate is for a property set by market forces. Simple economics which cannot be described as nonsense as you claim.

Just because you do not like paying the going rate for a property does not mean someone else won't be willing to pay the going rate for a property.

There is a restricted supply for decent housing and not alot being built at the moment.

I see today prices rises for property in Scotland of between 6% and 15%.

No idea why you have brought up renting commercial property as we are talking about home ownership and the various schemes available on how to get on the property ladder.

So what you have put up about the whole economy and commercial property is just another smoke screen to deflect attention away from what is being discussed and an attempt to pour scorn on comments you can't dispute.
Stevie

All this is quite irrelevant to the construction of good quality social housing.
landg

Stevie wrote:
All this is quite irrelevant to the construction of good quality social housing.


you mean like when (off the top of my head) people move up the property ladder, buy a more expensive home and pay.......................................................... stamp duty which raises millions in tax every year and goes toward....................................................
social housing.
how long have you been out of the country?
or is it because your just  a big uncharismatic zimmer?
Stevie

So, let's cut to the chase : you're against social housing.
landg

Stevie wrote:
So, let's cut to the chase : you're against social housing.


nope.
i'm against the stupid idea at the start of the thread.
Stevie

So, you have a better idea.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
So, you have a better idea.


Stevie, why don't you ask the French instead of posting up topics on Scottish Mortgages and Scottish Education when you don't have much of a clue about either.

You still haven't answered the questions on how capital would be generated to pay for land and building no social housing.

Also, how you would pay to build more social housing when you are selling off your existing housing stock at cost price.

I await your response. Start with those 2 questions first.
Stevie

Ultra wrote:
Stevie wrote:
So, you have a better idea.


Stevie, why don't you ask the French instead of posting up topics on Scottish Mortgages and Scottish Education when you don't have much of a clue about either.

You still haven't answered the questions on how capital would be generated to pay for land and building no social housing.

Also, how you would pay to build more social housing when you are selling off your existing housing stock at cost price.

I await your response. Start with those 2 questions first.


Read the initial posts thread for the answers.  You are here as in other threads just saying the first thing that occurs to you for effect.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Ultra wrote:
Stevie wrote:
So, you have a better idea.


Stevie, why don't you ask the French instead of posting up topics on Scottish Mortgages and Scottish Education when you don't have much of a clue about either.

You still haven't answered the questions on how capital would be generated to pay for land and building no social housing.

Also, how you would pay to build more social housing when you are selling off your existing housing stock at cost price.

I await your response. Start with those 2 questions first.


Read the initial posts thread for the answers.  You are here as in other threads just saying the first thing that occurs to you for effect.


No Stevie. You haven't answered the majority of question put to you as you have no idea about the provision of social housing in Scotland, what provisions are in place with regards to shared ownership schemes, and what mortgages were available from local authorities.

Again, you haven't even attempted to answer the 2 questions I have just put to you.

The reason you post up topic after topic is for effect. Even though you are a Scottish nationalist who doesn't live here and it's highly unlikely you would ever return from France. Scotland isn't good enough for you to settle here so why bother commenting on things you know nothing about?
Stevie

Ultra wrote:
The reason you post up topic after topic is for effect. Even though you are a Scottish nationalist who doesn't live here and it's highly unlikely you would ever return from France. Scotland isn't good enough for you to settle here so why bother commenting on things you know nothing about?


Bollocks.

Of course, this is what your beedy little Brit Nat fingers have been dying to type for days now.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
Ultra wrote:
The reason you post up topic after topic is for effect. Even though you are a Scottish nationalist who doesn't live here and it's highly unlikely you would ever return from France. Scotland isn't good enough for you to settle here so why bother commenting on things you know nothing about?


Bollocks.

Of course, this is what your beedy little Brit Nat fingers have been dying to type for days now.


Why don't you just answer the questions instead of using offensive terms like Brits and Brit Nats to describe people you disagree with?
Stevie

If you find the term Brit Nat offensive then prove you're not a Brit Nat.

Actually, I rarely use Brits (don't remember using Brits in fact).  

However a Brit is an abbreviation for Briton.  I take it you don't disagree.

What you don't like is that you think you're not a nationalist and you're above such things but you're a nationalist, it's just you are nationalistic about Britain and the nation you view it as being.

Brit Nat is therefore a description, nothing more, not intended to be offensive and you just don't happen to like it.

But it's time you lot woke up to you're choices as being exactly what they are; Brit Nat choices.
Ultra

Stevie wrote:
If you find the term Brit Nat offensive then prove you're not a Brit Nat.

Actually, I rarely use Brits (don't remember using Brits in fact).  

However a Brit is an abbreviation for Briton.  I take it you don't disagree.

What you don't like is that you think you're not a nationalist and you're above such things but you're a nationalist, it's just you are nationalistic about Britain and the nation you view it as being.

Brit Nat is therefore a description, nothing more, not intended to be offensive and you just don't happen to like it.

But it's time you lot woke up to you're choices as being exactly what they are; Brit Nat choices.


Brits was a term coined by the Catholic Irish to describe the British Army based in Northern Ireland. The only time I have heard this term being used is by Irish Republicans. I don't really have anything to prove to you.

As for the rest. More deflection to avoid answering the questions put to you.

I would rather improve things in Scotland rather than listen to parochial nationalists who dredge up the failings in Scotland or look at Scotland through highland misty eyes from abroad.

Comes back to the same thing. You talk about other people being Broit Nats but you cannot bring yourself to live in Scotland or bring up your family here. How come?

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics