IT'S UP TO YOU...

Even the press think it is mad
When on earth are they going to learn?

BLEAK FUTURE IN THE BLEAK UK

What passes for a smile at an ordinary pleb person

According to the Huffington Post, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), remember them, they are a ‘highly respected’ right wing Tory think tank, says that Mr Osborne is less than half way through his planned spending cuts after proposing to extend them up to 2019.

The influential Conservative think-tank, so beloved of Alistair Darling, has said that, despite the improving state of the economy, the chancellor will only have implemented 40% of his planned spending cuts by the end of the current financial year.

They point out that, if Osborne continues to protect the Health, Overseas Investment, and Schools up to 2018-2019, other departments would have to lose over 30% of their budgets.

Extending the fuel duty freeze beyond the next election and up to 2018-2019 would cost a further £4.2 billion.

Even the government’s own forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), predicts that Osborne will have to borrow £96 billion by the end of 2015. This is £59 billion more than he planned in 2010.

 

My future in the House of Lords needs You

The IFS further warn that the level of debt will only return to pre-crisis levels in the mid 2030s.

That kind of debt means that just paying the interest costs us nearly 4% of national income.

Now I’m not suggesting that Scotland can simply walk away from all of this. The current government says that it will accept its share of the debts in return for a fair share of UK assets. I cannot see any other government of Scotland going back on that in the future.

However, when they tell you that the status quo is safer, remember that these cuts are coming, and one excellent way of saving around £5 billion a year would be to remove the Barnett Formula from Scotland. (Of course that the same would have to happen to Wales and Northern Ireland saving even more money, but it is likely that London would escape, given its status as the capital.)

British Embassy in Paris
(next door to USA embassy, so they can keep an eye on us)

So not only would we get cuts that are coming to social security, the much vaunted defence budget (the 4^th greatest in the world), and the ever present British Foreign Office with its hundreds of embassies and thousands of consulates in every corner of the world, without which we are told we would be stranded impoverished and alone in the world (just like Denmark or Finland, the poor souls), we would also have massive cuts to our domestic budgets for health and education, care of the elderly, roads, law and order, and so on.

Ah, but the Conservative might not win the next election, you may say.  True. It is all in the air at the moment.  The current polls show that a Labour victory is possible, although the level of trust in Miliband and Balls is low.  With 15 months to go to the election, there is all to play for. But remember, Labour has promised to be just as ruthless at getting the deficit and the debt down. So don’t expect any huge difference in the two possible futures under the UK.

LIAR

And don’t for a minute think that the Barnett Formula is not doomed. Mr Cameron said he has no plans to change it. He had no plans prior to the last election to raise the unprogressive Value Added Tax, but it went up by 2.5% before Gideon's first budget. Mr Cameron’s word is not worth ****. In any case, Mr Cameron's right wing is strong, and Tory MPs want the formula scrapped.

 

A collection of Unionists on a Junket
Imagine! Despite an SNP government elected
by the people of Scotland, the UK set up a constitutional
convention which refused to discuss independence
as an option. How democratic was that?

The Calman Unionist Commission wanted it scrapped (Labour and Tories) Labour’s Johann Lamont's commission has already said that Barnett should go and money should be allocated to Scotland on a “needs” basis along with collection of Income Tax. The needs being determined, no doubt, by the Westminster government. English local authorities are also pressing for it to be scrapped.

It will go.

If we vote no, look forward to a very impoverished future, while you continue to contribute to the greater good, mainly of the life sucking south east of England and London.

Remember Scotland pours more per head into the economy than it gets out. We lose now, we'll lose a sight more if we vote no.

DID THE LIBERALS JUST WANT MORE DEVOLUTION WHEN THEY HAD NO POWER TO GRANT IT?

The Liberal Democrats seem to me to be a little inconsistent in their requests for a more devolved Scotland, most particularly on the following matters which have been brought to my attention.

I wonder if their minds have been changed for them by their bosses in London, who have had their minds changed for them by THEIR bosses in London...the Tories?

The Crown Estates - In 1998 the LibDems proposed amending the Scotland Bill to devolve the Crown Estates to the Scottish Parliament. Now Michael Moore is saying they will oppose this.

European representation - In 1998 the LibDems proposed amending the Scotland Bill to allow Scottish Executive (now government) Ministers to have the right of statutory representation in the Council of Ministers. Now they are suggesting that they will oppose this.

Corporation Tax - In his submission to the Calman Commission on behalf of the Scottish LibDems the then leader Tavish Scott called for corporation tax to be devolved with "all revenues accruing directly to the Scottish Parliament". Now they are opposing this.

Excise duty - In his submission to the Calman Commission on behalf of the Scottish LibDems the then leader Tavish Scott called for tobacco and alcohol duties, along with fuel duty and vehicle excise duty, to be devolved with "all revenues accruing directly to the Scottish Parliament". Now they are signalling they will oppose this.

Broadcasting - In the LibDems' Steel Commission it was said that there should be much greater accountability to the Scottish Parliament and regular reporting from the BBC with a formal role for the Scottish Parliament in the charter renewal process. No positive response to the Scottish Government's similar proposals have been received.

Borrowing powers - In his submission to the Calman Commission on behalf of the Scottish LibDems the then leader Tavish Scott called for proper borrowing powers for Scotland and said they "should not be a one-way process, imposed by the Treasury and the UK Government on the Scottish Parliament ... [but] by agreement a new framework of rules as to how, when and to what extent, Scottish borrowing powers could be exercised." To date all they have allowed is a fastracking of the limited Scotland Bill proposals. 

No Calman style Borrowing Powers for Scotland- Cameron yes, Calman no!!

Remember the Calman Commission (that's these fine ladies and gentlemen pictured)? That much trumpeted and very expensive exercise in navel gazing by the Unionists? Well it seems that even its fig leaf like suggestions are not going to come about.

What great fun that 14-member junket must have been (no representative from the actual Scottish Government though). I am sure they did not stint themselves in terms of lunches and so on. But now, post Calman Report, how quickly it has been swept under the carpet by all those loud mouthed advocates who so welcomed it as a way of saving the Union and being just to the Scots all at once.

That nasty National Conversation was lambasted by one and all of the Unionists on both sides of the border, while the dance of the blessed Calman got its own version of a ticker tape parade. I think (and I may be wrong) that every Unionist politician of note and quite a few of none at all welcomed it, Gordon Brown, Jim Murphy, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Annabel Goldie, Iain Gray, Wendy Alexander, Tavish Scott, etc, etc.

Do we also remember how David Cameron promised to be fair to the Scots as he wanted to be PM of the entire UK. Fair in so far as not actually talking to them or allowing them to be part of a debate for the totally spurious reason that the leader of the SNP is not standing to become Prime Minister. I would have thought that a party leader’s debate could be just that, and no matter how Annabel and Cameron spin it at their get together in Manchester, Alex is most definitely the “leader” of the SNP.

We have already seen the Labour Party back pedalling like mad on Calman and now it seems that Tories are doing very much the same. Remember DC has already said that the economic meltdown is so severe that he will be unable to consider a re-evaluation of the constitutional settlement until his 2nd term. (I was never quite sure what that meant, but then that’s something that often happens with Cameron pronouncements.)

But he has given us a clue as to what he meant in a recent radio interview in which he claimed that it would be difficult to allow Scotland to borrow money in her own right (despite the fact that much smaller governmental units like, say Dundee City Council, can). That apparently would make it difficult for his Government to reduce the overall UK deficit. So, no borrowing powers for Scotland.

So Scotland will not be able to borrow money against her vast natural resources to fund essential projects needed by her own people. Despite the fact that the last 12 years of Labour and the previous 16 years of the Tories have left Scotland as one of the most deprived and underfunded parts of Europe, never mind just the UK. Doubtless the Tories will want to use Scotland’s wealth to prop up the rest of the UK al la Mrs Thatcher.

What we are promised, however, despite Mr C’s vow that there will be no constitutional changes in his first term is a swingeing reduction in the number of Scottish MPs (well they are all Labour anyway) to sort out the West Lothian question; a radical revaluation of the Barnet Formula (well that is popular in England) despite the fact that it has been around since 1978 and even Mrs Thatcher did not think it was too generous to the Scots, and of course, a huge reduction in Scotland’s block grant.

So no change in the first term then? Well no, what he means is plenty changes that are popular south of the border but none that are popular north of it. That’s a great definition of the word respect David. It really is. Plenty Cameron but not very much Calman.