Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 18:39:34 GMT -1
So, here we are, three weeks on. Some are triumphant, some are hurting. In the spirit of discussion, howsabout we keep talking about the politics that affect the Scottish people, in the knowledge that such a huge percentage are more engaged with politics than at any time in the past. I'll kick off with a few observations: Two weeks after the narrow NO vote, the Tory government of Westmonster announced further benefit cuts while promising a tax cut for middle/high earners in the near future. Ian Duncan Smith was pictured punching the air at the Tory conference on this announcement. At the Labour Party conference the week before, Ed Miliband announced, if they are elected in 2015, a rise in the minimum wage, come 2020, to £8 per hour, from the current £6.80. And agreed to the Tory benefit cap. To add injury to insult, it seems clear that there are serious moves afoot in Westmonster, across all three main parties, to endorse a cut in the Barnett formula. (for those no longer living in Scotland, this is the block grant we receive from London in exchange for taxes paid by our companies and individuals, Scotland has for the past 30 odd years paid in more than we get back). And just to pile it on a little bit more: the Tories plan to remove certain benefits for older people and means-test others. Removing the current £200 grant towards winter heating costs being to the fore. Such a policy is going to lead to serious hardship for older people in Scotland. So, back to Barnett. I wonder what people expect the Holyrood goverment to do in the event of this being cut? How will it be possible to keep funding our NHS? What is the implication for free tuition fees for Scottish and EU students? And free prescriptions for people who are ill? Will it mean a withdrawal of free bus travel for 65+? What are the implications for capital projects: building schools and hospitals and roads? And all the while we continue to pay trillions towards Trident and HS2 when the 45% (at least) would rather their taxes were ringfenced in much more socially responsible, humane ways? Questions, questions. Answers on a postcard....or here, if you're up for it.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Oct 6, 2014 18:56:41 GMT -1
Well as I said to one of my pensioner rellies, who voted No on the back of doing absolutely no research whatsoever
What you gonnae do when yer much used free public transport pass goes?
What you gonnae do when yer free prescriptions go?
What you gonnae do when yer daughter has to start paying for her degree?
What you gonnae do when yer pensions are plundered again?
I might as well have said it to the dug, they were clueless about all the austerity stuff too
Jesus wept.......
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Oct 6, 2014 19:40:32 GMT -1
Firstly 400,000 is scarcely a narrow win . Its a 20% majority over Yes vote thats 1 in 5 . You have some ground to make up. They arent all stupid.
Secondly
Are there generally cuts to welfare etc throughout the UK?
Are they equitable? Pulling all areas into line?
You say you pay in more money than you get back. Does this include oil revenue?
Assuming "yes" do you consider oil found off Scotland to be Scottish oil and that you should have first dibs on it?
Why? it was discovered long after the Union.
Do individuals in UK have "mineral rights"?
There is no such things as free tertiary fees or chemists subscriptions or anything else paid by the government they are paid for by the tax payer, you lot.
PS whats wrong with a means test? Why should someone that can well afford it get a fuel allowance?
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Oct 6, 2014 20:27:52 GMT -1
Firstly 400,000 is scarcely a narrow win . Its a 20% majority over Yes vote thats 1 in 5 . You have some ground to make up. They arent all stupid. Secondly Are there generally cuts to welfare etc throughout the UK? Are they equitable? Pulling all areas into line? You say you pay in more money than you get back. Does this include oil revenue? Assuming "yes" do you consider oil found off Scotland to be Scottish oil and that you should have first dibs on it? Why? it was discovered long after the Union. Do individuals in UK have "mineral rights"? There is no such things as free tertiary fees or chemists subscriptions or anything else paid by the government they are paid for by the tax payer, you lot. PS whats wrong with a means test? Why should someone that can well afford it get a fuel allowance? Means testing in the UK is a very expensive bureaucratic exercise Free prescriptions for example, it cost more to means test users than was collected in in charges, as 90% of users( during charging era) were free anyways. For some on say, @£16000, which was approx the old cut off limit for having to pay for prescriptions, having to pay a total of £32 for four items every time is a huge dent on their meagre income. As wee nota is a pharmacist he has seen plenty of folk , who when presenting a prescription to be filled ask him what is the most important thing on it as they couldn't afford to take all four items. This leads to repeat doctors visits as they don't bet better and in cases people getting more seriously ill and needing expensive serious medical treatment. This is what happens in England nowadays, out of the four UK countries, its only England who doesn't have free prescriptions. Similarly free examinations are also the case in Scotland for dentist and eye care, again unlike England which charges for these, all charging has done is that the amount of cases of serious eye issues and dental issues have increased. These are primary care providers who, especially in the case of opticians, spot very serious illnesses like diabetes, glaucoma and many forms of brain tumour - these are the types in England that are on the increase - which ultimately cost more downstream. Of course they aren't free, taxation pays for it, as it does many worthwhile things. The whole ethos of the NHS is that it is free at the point f need, that is sacrosanct. What would you define as someone well enough off to afford not to have the winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions, free public transport? Remember that in the UK indirect taxation of things is very high, highest in Europe This means that the people on low incomes, whither working or not, spend more of their money on just surviving weekly than all other income groups. Also in the UK the biggest amount of people in recept of welfare benefits are in fact working, rolo pointed out somewhere that this is due to piss poor wages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 20:47:47 GMT -1
Firstly 400,000 is scarcely a narrow win . Its a 20% majority over Yes vote thats 1 in 5 . You have some ground to make up. They arent all stupid. Secondly Are there generally cuts to welfare etc throughout the UK? Are they equitable? Pulling all areas into line? You say you pay in more money than you get back. Does this include oil revenue? Assuming "yes" do you consider oil found off Scotland to be Scottish oil and that you should have first dibs on it? Why? it was discovered long after the Union. Do individuals in UK have "mineral rights"? There is no such things as free tertiary fees or chemists subscriptions or anything else paid by the government they are paid for by the tax payer, you lot. PS whats wrong with a means test? Why should someone that can well afford it get a fuel allowance? 55% versus 45% is a narrow win, Oz. It means that almost half the Scottish population's views will not be represented. Had the margin been 70/30 or more, that would have been a wee tad more definitive. Your second point: yes, benefit cuts will be general throughout the UK but I'm not convinced they are equitable. We absolutely NEED to disabuse ourselves of the notion that people receiving benefits are cheats/scroungers etc. A tiny minority may be, yes. However the majority of benefit recipients are WORKING people on low wages. Do some research if it comes up your hump. Essentially, everyone who pays taxes is subsidising parasitic employers who are paying piss poor wages and who rely, with state compliance, on the fact that low-paid workers are topped up through a variety of benefits: from housing benefit, to income support, tax credits etc. Re Scotland's contribution to the national pot; again, do your research. I'd suggest the GERS report for starters. There are figures available for with and without oil revenues, btw. Your penultimate point: There is no such things as free tertiary fees or chemists subscriptions or anything else paid by the government they are paid for by the tax payer, you lot.
I'm kinda reeling in disbelief that you've felt the need to point that out You clearly have really NO IDEA how our devolved Holyrood government works and the choices that we make about how our taxes are spent. And finally, your last point, Oz: PS whats wrong with a means test? Why should someone that can well afford it get a fuel allowance?[/b] What's wrong with means testing is obvious to anyone with an IQ in double figures. The cost of setting up and administering means-testing costs way more than the money saved by clawing back universal benefits such as uni fees and prescriptions. Yes, there are people who can afford to pay for prescriptions, heating, tuition fees. However in Scotland we believe in rewarding those who have contributed all their lives. Should those fortunate wealthy pensioners wish to donate their benefits back they're perfectly free to do so. In my view, freeing them up from such expenditure merely means that some have more disposable income to spend and reinvest in our economy. The difference between the 45 and the 55 is simple. The former believe in the redistribution of wealth more fairly and are happy to contribute to that. The latter would prefer to keep the status quo re the vast inequalities in our society. That whole 'If I can better myself, why can't you?" mentality. Except that so many middle class NO voters 'bettered themselves' through free education but like so many of their ilk now, want to pull the ladder up behind them and preserve their own personal little class war. Oh yes. That's how it is. Frankly, but call me ridiculous as I'm sure you will, I don't believe any society is going to be a decent place to live where we have people toiling to exist, never mind live. I think Scotland is better than that. Unfortunately I'm only one of 45% that puts their money where their mouth is. So far....
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Oct 6, 2014 22:26:01 GMT -1
Gees I was asking because I didnt know and was interested in your views.
20% majority is narrow !!!!! most pollies would sell their first born for that majority
I cant be bothered doing research into a foreign country which to me is only academic interest, its easier to ask you.
gees talk about the "fish supper" factor..
Rolo rote
So Australia has an average IQ thats not in double figures yet we manage to have a higher standard of living than you we must be just lucky! Here pensions and all welfare payments are means tested it means that the more well off support the needy Thats the way it should be. The more well off pay more tax their whole working life which once again helps support the needy.
It also keeps taxes down not giving the more well off handouts.
your system looks like gimme gimme.
We believe the better off should support the needy Of course we are not a socialist country
Now what about oil revenues ??
Rolo rote
None whatsoever, Why would I? its as foreign to me as Namibia (well not quite) thats why I ask to try and understand I note you only answered on welfare and other government hand outs what about the rest of my questions?
If you keep coming up with your above answers just forget I asked. Its not worth the aggro.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 23:11:43 GMT -1
Rolo rote So Australia has an average IQ thats not in double figures yet we manage to have a higher standard of living than you we must be just lucky! Here pensions and all welfare payments are means tested it means that the more well off support the needy Thats the way it should be. The more well off pay more tax their whole working life which once again helps support the needy. It also keeps taxes down not giving the more well off handouts. your system looks like gimme gimme. We believe the better off should support the needy Of course we are not a socialist country Now what about oil revenues ?? Rolo rote None whatsoever, Why would I? its as foreign to me as Namibia (well not quite) thats why I ask to try and understand I note you only answered on welfare and other government hand outs what about the rest of my questions? If you keep coming up with your above answers just forget I asked. Its not worth the aggro. "The more well off pay more tax their whole working life which once again helps support the needy." Not the case here, Oz. That's just one teeny part of our problem here. What we have here is huge multinationals paying TERRIBLE wages to satisfy the greed of shareholders and those who'd profit from the obscene err...profits. While the rest of us see am ever-rising welfare bill that's out of all proportion, merely to shore up those TERRIBLE wages so that working people can afford to exist. It's one mental strategy, but it works for Westmonster governments who rely on the wealthy for their party funding. They don't want to piss off their donors, do they? There's no point in comparing our two countries. Last time I looked Australians don't tend to die of the cold, for want of a couple of hundred quid. Are you OK about only those with money being able to send their kids to further education? Is it OK to ask people who're not well to pay for their GP visits and treatment? What is the average house price in Australia versus the average wage? You have 19 million souls to keep. UKE has upwards of 55 million. About 1% of us earns more than 100K. Average wage is £26K. How much debt is Australia in per capita? Are Australians also being ripped by profiteers who get away with paying NO TAX AT ALL?
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Oct 7, 2014 0:51:23 GMT -1
You cant compare Australia with Scotland we have 22 million people in a country larger than Western Europe with a completely different fiscal outlook
Even if you take NSW 6.5 million or Queensland 4.6 million which roughly equates to Scotland's population the areas throw it out. NSW is 10 times the size and Qld 22 the size of Scotland. However average cost of house in Sydney is $635,000 and in Brisbane $435,000 Some country areas and some suburbs can vary tremendously from these averages.. (for ease of counting take £1 = $2) Average wage about $50 to $60K
I asked my questions because it is so alien to me and I want to know why. NO criticism it just so different
Such a fuss was made of Scottish oil which to my mind was really UK oil. Was it just a ploy to get more $$$ or impress the hoi poloi or do you really feel it is yours though it is in the sea? If so why?
As an eg a couple both school teachers went to the Pilburra in WA to earn big bucks She was a primary school teacher now driving a big dump truck getting in excess of $200,000 hubby is still a school teacher on about $90,000 BUT he gets a house with the job which is worth mega bucks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 18:30:49 GMT -1
You cant compare Australia with Scotland we have 22 million people in a country larger than Western Europe with a completely different fiscal outlook Even if you take NSW 6.5 million or Queensland 4.6 million which roughly equates to Scotland's population the areas throw it out. NSW is 10 times the size and Qld 22 the size of Scotland. However average cost of house in Sydney is $635,000 and in Brisbane $435,000 Some country areas and some suburbs can vary tremendously from these averages.. (for ease of counting take £1 = $2) Average wage about $50 to $60K I asked my questions because it is so alien to me and I want to know why. NO criticism it just so different Such a fuss was made of Scottish oil which to my mind was really UK oil. Was it just a ploy to get more $$$ or impress the hoi poloi or do you really feel it is yours though it is in the sea? If so why? As an eg a couple both school teachers went to the Pilburra in WA to earn big bucks She was a primary school teacher now driving a big dump truck getting in excess of $200,000 hubby is still a school teacher on about $90,000 BUT he gets a house with the job which is worth mega bucks. Ah, where to START (head in hands, wearily...) Let's agree from the first, shall we, and as acknowledged by all three Westminster parties: Scotland could succeed as an independent country. OK, so to quote you: Such a fuss was made of Scottish oil which to my mind was really UK oil. Was it just a ploy to get more $$$ or impress the hoi poloi or do you really feel it is yours though it is in the sea? If so why?Oil revenues, this past 40 years---a tiny percentage of which were in non-Scottish waters--- have been squandered to pay for 1) Westminster's running deficits over those years and 2) to pay for capital projects that are of no benefit at all to the people of Scotland. We were constantly lectured to, throughout the indy campaign, that the oil was running out. What a whopping LIE! The FACT is, Oz, that oil recovered off the Scottish coast continues to shore up the value of the pound sterling---and when the threat of it being removed from the equation with Indy was raised, Westmonster panicked. Leaving aside such fiscal arguments, it seems to me that being away for so long, you miss the entire point of how things are here--- for which we all make allowances We're generous that way... You're fortunate to live in the nearest thing to a classless society that I've experienced. I doubt ANYONE in Australia would put up with, for a millisecond, being ruled by those who've conveniently forgotten they're public servants. Unfortunately, things are different from here.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Oct 8, 2014 19:23:46 GMT -1
I was asking to learn why feelings were so strong
but its just not worth it
Forget I asked
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 19:50:22 GMT -1
I've said over and over why feelings are so strong, Oz. As have many here, both pro and anti Indy. Haughty flouncing on your part just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid! We know you care...
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Oct 8, 2014 19:57:37 GMT -1
P.S Maybe its something o be with being so far away. A friend of mine moved to Canada almost 30 years now. She now views the UK through rosé coloured spectacles despite not being able to emigrate quick enough from this dump, as she used to call it.
She complained about not getting a vote in referendum too, which I find quite strange, due to the fact that she didnae live here and has no intention of moving back either. She takes it as some kind of slight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 21:53:26 GMT -1
P.S Maybe its something o be with being so far away. A friend of mine moved to Canada almost 30 years now. She now views the UK through rosé coloured spectacles despite not being able to emigrate quick enough from this dump, as she used to call it. She complained about not getting a vote in referendum too, which I find quite strange, due to the fact that she didnae live here and has no intention of moving back either. She takes it as some kind of slight. Yeah, I think there's many ex-pats who are a bit put out they didn't get to vote. I think the Scottish Gov called it right, though, that only those who live, contribute and pay taxes here got to vote. Like yourself, Nota, I know a fair few who'd look back on the country they left as *a dump*. I guess it would be churlish to point out that they were educated, free of charge: their health taken good care of, free of charge, by virtue of the taxes paid by all our grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles. Yet such emigres paid nothing back in return, preferring to head off, at a young age, to somewhere 'better'. Then have the nerve to lecture us on how UKE is 'better together'. Ah, the irony.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Oct 9, 2014 19:34:56 GMT -1
Rolo rote not many here most have moved on but there are a few. The ones I know are like me interested but unaffected Most left UK for a "Better Life" and generally have achieved it so they tend to look back to UK with the opposite of rose coloured spectacles. . It is churlish to mention it. You offered them all that "free" without strings now you whinge about people taking up your offer you cant have cake and eat it .... in my case the reversal is true, except I paid for it, until sanity returned, I paid UK NHI and UK taxes and got nothing out of it but that is life. BTW my health stamp in UK cost more than my health insurance here for an inferior scheme to the one in Qld. Now I am going back to personal experience and I hope things have changed markedly for the better since then. But why blame them if UK cannot utilise their expertise for one reason or another they have to move to somewhere that appreciates them . Dont blame them they are symptoms not the cause. From a world perspective as seen by oversea commentators it is better to have a strong and united UK than be fragmented. I am awaiting with interest the 2015 elections (that is the date of general election?) to see what happens
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2014 17:29:26 GMT -1
. It is churlish to mention it. You offered them all that "free" without strings now you whinge about people taking up your offer you cant have cake and eat it .... in my case the reversal is true, except I paid for it, until sanity returned, I paid UK NHI and UK taxes and got nothing out of it but that is life. BTW my health stamp in UK cost more than my health insurance here for an inferior scheme to the one in Qld. Now I am going back to personal experience and I hope things have changed markedly for the better since then. But why blame them if UK cannot utilise their expertise for one reason or another they have to move to somewhere that appreciates them . Dont blame them they are symptoms not the cause. From a world perspective as seen by oversea commentators it is better to have a strong and united UK than be fragmented. I am awaiting with interest the 2015 elections (that is the date of general election?) to see what happens Who's whingeing, Oz, merely pointing out a different view to your own! Your UKE taxes and NI went towards your upkeep here---unless of course you never drew down any services or visited a doctor, dentist or hospital. I can think of many reasons why our NI costs more here than your private health insurance in Qld. Not too difficult to figure out, really, is it? Re trained people heading off at the first possible opporchancity, I met with a GP friend the other night who, alongside many in the NHS, is seriously concerned about so many young doctors heading to 'better' places once they qualify. She runs a Highlands and Islands practice and finds it nigh on impossible to recruit a GP or even a locum. At £600,000 to train a doctor, is it too much to expect even a few years' service to the country that educated them for free? I don't believe so. Perhaps others disagree? Re May 2015, now things are getting very interesting indeed. Current forecasts for the UKE as a whole put the Tories on 30%, UKIP on 15% (and they just got their first MP last night in a by-election in SE England), Labour on 35% and Libdems well, even more nowhere than usual--and not enough to form a majority coalition with Labour. In Scotland there was a forecast published only this morning. It forecasts Labour losing half their current seats to the SNP, the Tories gaining a couple (giving them 3 in total!) and LibDems, again, nowhere. We don't have a UKIP presence in Scotland, thank eff.
|
|