 |
| The monument dedicated to Icelandic independence in Reykjavik. They said farewell to Denmark in 1944 and went their own way. It now has one of the highest standards of living in the world. What are we waiting for? |
My friend, Anya, sent this photograph from Reykjavik where she is spending a few days. The caption is hers, but I wholeheartedly endorse it.
And, from the YES SCOTLAND campaign comes this message following George's latest statement on the economy.
Today George Osborne's spending review statement laid out in
the starkest terms the bleak future that awaits Scotland for so long as
Westminster remains in control of Scotland’s future.
Yet more cuts are penciled in for 2015/16. That means less money for public services.
And citizens throughout the country will suffer as a result.
Yet more cuts are penciled in for 2015/16. That means less money for public services.
And citizens throughout the country will suffer as a result.
Research by the Resolution Foundation shows that cuts
will be even steeper in subsequent years if Mr Osborne is to meet his targets.
The No campaign cannot offer a positive alternative -
because Labour Party at Westminster has already signed up to these further
cuts. A Yes vote is now the only way we can choose an alternative to this
further dose of austerity. Scotland is a wealthy country by international
standards, and taxpayers in Scotland have contributed more per head in taxes
over the past 30 years than the rest of the UK. Our public finances are healthier than those of the
UK. We can afford a better way.
A majority in Scotland believe Westminster austerity is the
wrong approach for families, the economy and our public services.
Scotland returned only one Conservative MP out of 59. This
Conservative driven agenda is not of our choosing. It's more urgent than ever
that we put Scotland's future in Scotland's hands.
We can choose a better way.
The illustrations in the YES Scotland message are mine.
I can cut welfare benefits faster than them is the next election manifestos for the three Tory party's in Westminster. They certainly are all in it together, cretins.
ReplyDeleteYes CH. That seems to be the latest craze, presumably because Nigel wants it. After all he's managed to collect enough money to manage without benefit, even if he gets the boot, which he won't.
DeleteThe cuts will be deeper than forecast when we leave and take what assets we have left with us
ReplyDeleteHeaven knows what they will do when we go, but unless we want to go down with the sinking ship, go we must.
DeleteI wonder how long it will be before people take to the streets.
Surely the British aren't so gutless they will let this cretin do what he wants to them and just take it. Just because the pathetic opposition has folded its useless tent and joined the Tories as a party of the rich.
In cancelling fuel payments for pensioners who have gone to live overseas he has taken the universality out of the payments. They are no longer something you have paid for all your life and therefore are entitled to. It will be easy now to stop it for people who have say, more that £8,000 a year, or £10,000 in the bank. Then, you would have to ask, if people who have more than £25,000 really ought to get a pension at all. Then of course it becomes something only the poor get, and benefits for the poor are poor benefits. If the rich have no interest in them, the dwindle.
The next logical step is if you have more than £50,000 in the bank why should you get free medical care? Then if pensioners have rich children, why shouldn't they take care of them?
They have started to dismantle the welfare state and Labour is sitting back nodding and clapping its hands. In the meantime the bankers remain untouched.
Just as an aside, I'm wondering what Osborne thinks is a hot country. After all if you live on the Costa Del Sol it's quite warm in winter; if you live in Santander it's quite chilly; if you live in Madrid, it's Baltic!!! (well not literally, but it is very cold).
Canada can be very hot in the summer... and very cold in the winter.
California and New Mexico still warm in winter, but Oregon and Wyoming are bitter.
I wonder if the idiot has thought of that.
Ah but they've thought about the temp. in different places I think it is based on a fictional Jan. temp. I cannot remember exactly what it is but say 5degrees if you live in a region where the temp is above you lose out but even in the same country if the temp is lower you will still qualify
DeleteI wonder how much it will cost to means test this benefit for which people have been paying all their working lives.
DeleteJust because they go to live near their kids in Australia or in Malta or somewhere where the weather will be a little less unkind to their rheumatism, that miserable bastard wants to take the money away from them.
Can't help hoping that someday he falls on hard times and needs a hand up... although it's probably a forlorn home. Silver Spoon boy will never want for anything. Rot him.
And Scottish pensioners will receive a higher WFA because it's colder in Scotland than it is in the SE of England.
ReplyDeleteI don't think so........
Seanair... hello and I think this is your first visit here (or at least your first comment...) so Welcome!
DeleteI was just thinking that earlier this year when we wee all still sitting in the cold with central heating on reading about how lovely the weather in Britain was. Britain enjoys summer... said headlines, when what they meant was that the south of England was enjoying summer.
The rest of us were still in winter.
But still our poor get the same.
They have floated the idea that people farther away from London should get less in the way of benefit because prices are lower...
Of course no one in the government or civil service has ever been to the north of Scotland where the prices are much higher... nor, of course, endured a nine month long winter.
More than ever we need to get the hell out of this Londoncentric union with its constant tory government.
Seanair
DeleteNo as far as I understood it this would only apply to people living abroad Sorry I did not make this clear
There's no way our pensioners will get more... ever.
DeleteIndeed I'd not be surprised if they regionalised pensions too and gave the people in London more, because "everything costs more in London".
Why not? They already do it with many jobs. London allowance. When I worked for Jobcentre, they actually didn't pay extra money in London, but for the same money you worked fewer hours! Never got to the bottom of that idea. Time is more precious in London?
Watched Newsnicht tonight for the first time in a while and found Brewer talking to the ONE, the ONLY, Mundell the Blundell, THE only Tory M.P. in Scotland. I would dearly love to say that it was a very informative interview but hey we're talking about Mundell here!
ReplyDeleteI'm still trying to figure out which particular universe Mundell was beamed in from to take part in this "informative" interview. Despite ALL the indications that Scotland is in line for a CUT to it's pocket money from Westminster, according to Mundell we will actually be in line for an INCREASE! How on earth did he figure THAT out! The man is a complete WAZZACK and utterly insane bumbling MORON! Fortunately for my T.V. my ire was kept under control, sort of, only the usual verbal abuse found itself winging its way towards the T.V. :-)
Next up was Brewer "interviewing" John Swinney. I use the word "interview" in the in the extreme edge of meaning for this word. The "interview" was more like the "Brewer interruption show!" As I endured this segment of Newsnicht yet again the T.V. suffered another, almost, non stop tirade of abuse from my tender wee self! :-)
So far I had endured around 15 minutes of Newsnicht but then all things have to come to and end and right on cue my exit was signalled, "stairheid rammy" herself appeared on the screen. Before she uttered a word the remote was grabbed and channel was changed.....PHEW! T.V. has been saved from a trashing once again!
Note to self "STOP watching Newsnicht!" :-)
Did Brewer not at least try to rubbish Muddle's argument, Arbroath, as in... if the rest of the UK is taking a huge drop in spending, who would Mr Osborne give Scotland more money?
DeleteI certainly can't watch that woman "Stairheid". She is beyond a joke. Why did Miliband pick her for shadow SoS? There just has to be someone else that wouldn't be so stupid, surely.
Do you get rubber tvs?
In fairness to Brewer he did TRY and point out to the Blundell that as the rest of UK was taking a big hit on expenditure then so was Scotland as indicated by the book put out by the TREASURY which also pointed out in black and whiter the CUT Scotland was going to get in 2015/2016. Funnily enough the Blundell obviously had NOT received his copy of the same book. I'm always amazed, no not really just kidding here, at how Mundell can keep talking on and on and on spouting s***e when everyone knows what the TRUTH actually is! I guess he just likes to hear his own voice, cause no one else does that's for sure!
DeleteAs far as "stairheid" is concerned just seeing her picture is enough to send me scurrying for the sick bucket and that is even before she opens her mouth! Like you I have no idea why Milliband picked her for the job, mind you I'm having a hard job trying to think of a replacement.
I suppose Milliband could have picked Eric Joyce oh wait a minute he can't Joyce aint a Labour member any more is he?
Maybe he could have picked Alistair Darling, oh wait a minute he's too busy telling us why we're too poor too wee and too stupid and in case we're better together!
If all else fails he could have picked Gordon Brown couldn't he? Oh no he couldn't HE was too busy roaming the world telling everyone how he saved the world and in any representing his constituents is NOT in his job description!
As far as my T.V. goes I really do wish someone would invent a rubber T.V. until such times I'm just reduced to shouting loads of abuse at it and ensuring NOTHING is withing easy reach that I can throw at it! :-)
Tris, thanks, but not my first visit it the site which I think is one of the best.
ReplyDeleteFairforfochen, I had my tongue firmly in my cheek....
Seanair... Thank you very much; first visit or no, compliments are always most welcome!!
Deletein principle I'm for universal benefits but what we have is a mixture of universal benefits and means tested with protection based on age. And that has resulted in appalling anomolies. ConDemLabs have protected pensioner and up until recently child benefits. This means the burden of any cuts falls on working age people.
ReplyDeleteAlso anyone over the qualifying age gets a winter fuel payment on application, regardless of wealth. People on JSA get no fuel payments ever despite the fact that a single childless person will receive HALF the benefit of the poorest pensioner.
DLA for working age is being replaced by PIP with a budget cut of 20% and tougher qualifying rules but according to the government PIP is fairer. So fair that they aren't introducing it under 16s or over 60s.
I want univeral benefits, I want tax evasion cracked down on and tax avoidance loopholes closed. I don't want working age adults with and without disabilities bearing the brunt of the cuts because pensioners are more likely to vote and cutting from children is poor PR.
Rant over!!
Good rant, PP :).
DeleteI've always seen an argument for means testing. Why should Mrs Thatcher get a winter fuel payment or free prescription or bus pass being the perfect argument for testing.
I think the reason that pensioners have thus far been protected from cuts is, as you say, because they vote, but also because people tend to like pensioners; most of us have or had a granny!
And pensioners have never been demonised the way that the unemployed or single mothers have been. They were never on Peter Lily's "little list".
Of course, until recently, pensioners tended to be people who had fought in the war, and that was another reason for going gently on them. 'If it hadn't been for their sacrifices we would all be speaking German.' I used to warn about that caveat; when we get to the stage that there are few, if any, world war 2 fighters alive, it will be their excuse to hit pensioners.
Now, of course, that has come to pass. To have fought in 1945, you would have to be over 85 and not that many are!
Of course there were a bunch of pensioners in the 80s who were paid off early with very generous pensions, many of whom took off for Spain or Greece, but the ones before and the ones since are often existing on pretty poor pensions.
But the reason that pensioners should all get their benefits, whether they need them or not, is that they paid for them. Cilla Black and Mrs Thatcher paid tax. That tax provides them with a pension and the add ons. The add ons wouldn't be necessary if the pension was livable on.
It's fair to say that the British pension system is the worst in Europe. Continental pensioners are far better provide for. Even pensioners from Jersey and Guernsey have around £80 a week more...although their winter fuel payments are a bit less. And fuel must be a nightmare for people who are stuck in the house the majority of the time in this cold damp country. The obscene profits allowed by the British government, compared with the control that many other countries operate over electricity and gas companies mean that many people die of the cold in Britain.
At least the unemployed can get out and about to keep warm, or gather in friends houses and share the cost of staying alive. Pensioners are very often alone.
Means testing, on the other hand, costs a lot of money and of course people cheat. Then there's the situation where people are on the borderline between getting help and not getting help, and their pension goes up by £1.20 a week... and they lose the bus pass or the fuel allowance or whatever.
My feeling is that if anything has to be cut back, it should be the massive pay rises that are being taken by executives; the tax evasion by big companies; the massive bonuses being paid to publicly owned banks' employees; the indecent amount that is charged for electricity and gas; the expenses of government and royalty, and "keeping up appearances" on the international stage. not to mention mass killing means.
And if pensioners are going to be deprived of their add ons, the pension needs to be brought in line with other European countries' payments.
Some people who fought the Germans and Italians etc in the second world war must ask at times, looking at THEIR pensions, if it wouldn't have been a better idea to be on the losing side!
"A majority in Scotland believe Westminster austerity is the wrong approach for families, the economy and our public services."
ReplyDeleteWhile my own anecdotal experience would incline me to agree, have you got any substantive proof of this? Opinion polls or something I can have a little gander at?
:)
Dean, sorry, I perhaps should have made it clearer. It was Blair Jenkins who wrote that, not I.
DeleteI'm guessing he's smart enough to not make a statement like that without some sort of back up.
For my money, my anecdotal evidence shows the same as yours.
The fact is that austerity isn't working. 5 years after the crash we are in more debt despite ever growing austerity for ordinary people...
I noted with disbelief this morning that the Queen's private income has risen by a huge amount over the last year. So at least not everyone is having austerity pushed down their necks... :)
(I'm not having a go. It's the rents on her huge portfolio of properties. Including Regent Street. I'm imagining that she's not getting housing benefit money for these properties, so she is profiting at the expense of the rich... Dog eat dog.)
Tris
ReplyDeleteI suppose we should be thankful that Westminster is allowing Scotland to borrow money from Westminster (ourselves) at a higher rate of interest than the high street. Are we really that stupid.
Bruce
Can you tell me more about that Bruce... I didn't know that was happening?
DeleteHi Tris, just wondering if you've received your reply from BBC about QT yet?
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't perhaps this will help you get ready for it. Here's the response I've just received. Needless to say I was unable to keep my mouth, or should that be my fingers, quiet ANOTHER complaint has been been fired off to the BBC. Due to the length of my response it took THREE runs through their complaints page to fit my complaint in! :-)
"Thanks for taking the time to contact the BBC about Question Time, broadcast on 13 June 2013. We forwarded your concerns to the Executive Editor who passed on the following response:
Question Time is a current affairs programme that covers a range of subjects and debates issues in a UK context. It chooses panellists carefully across the series. We regularly invite politicians and non-politicians from one part of the UK to appear on the programme in other parts of the UK. This programme was no different – it was not an independence special discussing exclusively issues related to the independence referendum. It dealt with a range of topical issues in the news. We aim to offer the audience across the UK as well as in the room, as wide a range of voices and opinions on the issues being discussed as possible.
The only difference in this edition was in the makeup of the audience. 16 and 17 year olds have been given the vote for the first time in next year's independence referendum and we wanted to look at what sort of things were of interest to and influenced this age group, to acknowledge why these people were being given the vote.
The composition of the audience reflected both those for and against independence, and contained a number of people who were undecided. It was also broadly representative of voting patterns across the party political spectrum.
Nigel Farage represents a party with growing UK support and their recent electoral gains since the 2010 general election makes them of interest to our audience.
Thanks again for contacting us.
Kind Regards
BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints"
Load of crap. It wasn't a programme about the referendum, but it was exclusive to 16 and 17 year olds who will vote in the referendum...Scottish kids. Nigel farage is of interest to Scottish kids but the Green party is not? George is of interest to Scottish kids but Tommy Sheridan is not?
DeleteNot good enough.
Thanks for the advance warning. I can compose a reply.
Not that they care. As long as they are doing what the government in London tells them they will continue to have the right to tax us for watching or not watching their programmes. What we think matters not at all.
I'm thinking that the people in control of replying to complaints at the BBC are all fully paid up members of "save the union at all costs" brigade!
DeleteYep...certainly seems that way.
DeleteWay to build up bad feeling BBC.
Sooooo... much the same response to me Arbroath.
DeleteThanks for taking the time to contact the BBC about Question Time, broadcast on 13 June 2013. We forwarded your concerns to the Executive Editor who passed on the following response:
Question Time is a current affairs programme that covers a range of subjects and debates issues in a UK context. It chooses panellists carefully across the series. We regularly invite politicians and non-politicians from one part of the UK to appear on the programme in other parts of the UK. This programme was no different – it was not an independence special discussing exclusively issues related to the independence referendum. It dealt with a range of topical issues in the news. We aim to offer the audience across the UK as well as in the room, as wide a range of voices and opinions on the issues being discussed as possible.
The only difference in this edition was in the makeup of the audience. 16 and 17 year olds have been given the vote for the first time in next year's independence referendum and we wanted to look at what sort of things were of interest to and influenced this age group, to acknowledge why these people were being given the vote.
The composition of the audience reflected both those for and against independence, and contained a number of people who were undecided. It was also broadly representative of voting patterns across the party political spectrum.
The Green Party has been on the programme twice since March, and we have offered the Scottish Greens a seat on the panel the next time we come to Scotland in the next series.
Nigel Farage represents a party with growing UK support and their recent electoral gains since the 2010 general election makes them of interest to our audience.
Thanks again for contacting us.
Kind Regards
BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.
I have replied to their pitiful response tris pointing out just one or two little "errors" in their thought processes. You can probably guess their little "errors!" Things like having only 16 an 17 year olds yet the programme was NOT a Scottish Independence "special" or questioning their "claim" that Farage was leader of a party with growing UK support. I pointed out that UKIP support in Wales and Scotland was NOT growing and if they questioned this statement I suggested they check the latest by election poll result in Aberdeen Donside, you'll remember that place Tris as the place Farage believed was a suburb of Edinburgh! I also questioned their inclusion of Galloway as he has NO growing support anywhere and the exclusion of the LibDems and Scottish Greens. Oh I did point out to them that the Scottish Greens were NOT the same party as the Greens they love to lump the Scottish Greens in with!
DeleteAs with their last reply I do not hold out much hope for a reply that changes much from their last response!
I'll do the same, Arbroath, but, like you, I hold out no hope of anything fruitful.
DeleteThey have their agenda to retain the status quo so their programming and the tone of their presenters will work towards that goal, and nothing, certainly not a few insolent Scots, will deflect them from it.