Showing posts with label UN Security Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN Security Council. Show all posts

Tuesday, 2 February 2016

A PENNY FOR SCOTLAND MARK II

At Munguin's Republic, we're very much for increasing public spending to the point where our services operate efficiently and provide safety and security for all Scots.

We are wary of raising taxes to do this, but agree that sometimes it is the only way to provide the wherewithal, especially in a country where the state assets have already been stripped to the bone and sold off cheap. Anybody ever wonder what Harold Macmillan would have thought of the fact that we are now down to selling off the family's clothes, never mind silver?

Anyway, clearly we'd like to see education better resourced, along with more generous funding for healthcare, social care, policing and law and order in general, roads, transport, decent pensions and benefits, getting rid of the need for food banks, etc..

Saving money on unneeded expenditure is clearly a much better way of providing funds for necessities than taking more money from individuals, so before taxes are raised, every possible way of saving money should be explored.

We'd like to see less waste and less money spent on things we really don't need. From big things costing the earth, to little things that add together to make big sums.

'So what would you save money on, Munguin', we hear you ask, and 'isn't that exactly what Westminster is doing?'  Well, in a way, but Westminster has got it all wrong. It's trying to save money by destroying the very public services that we would raise money for. We would do it differently! Trident might be a good starting place. What on earth is it for? What would happen to us if we didn't have it? 

We reckon it is there to make Britain look like it is still an important world power which we really don't think it is. It's there to guarantee Britain's place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council (itself an outdated body representing the world as it was in 1945, not as it is 71 years later.) It has no place there. Britain can't afford it. it has £1.6 trillion of debt.

Along with that there is a vast amount of money that could be saved in the MoD in general. Planes without ships; ships without planes; 260 captains for 19 ships;  more admirals than ships; equipment that is useless before it's done a day's work; light bulbs in the MoD at £22 a shout, more admin staff than soldiers.... and on and on.

But there is so much else that is wasteful. £7 billion and rising to do up Westminster has got to be near the top of the list, and don't get us started on one über-rich family living in 6 palaces in the London region and one in Edinburgh. 

That's only a couple of departments, and there are many more.

But if taxes must rise, then they must. The trouble is that to make tax rises fair a government have have control of a wide range of them. It's not much of an asset to simply be able to vary income tax, without balancing that with other large yield taxes like duty or VAT. That is the Scottish government's problem, and always has been.

That said, in the early days of Scottish devolution, the SNP proposed "a penny for Scotland". It went down like the Titanic, with Labour being its chief critic. Strange then that they appear to have had the same idea, using powers which the Scottish government does not yet have... and indeed may never have. 

Many questions remain to be answered about Labour's "Penny for Scotland", not least how they would make a rebate to people earning under £20,000, when they have no powers to do so, either under tax or social security powers (yet to be granted to them) and whether their proposal of a £100 rebate paid by local councils (which have no information on which to base their calculations) would itself attract tax, whether at 20% UK rate or 21% Scottish rate, or indeed a reduction in any in-work benefits paid to them. And who would pay for the admin?

There will be a great deal of analysis done over the next few weeks, I'm sure, but at the moment it doesn't sound like its a practical proposal and it already seems to be unravelling.

And Niko, before you say it, yes, I know they are proposing to put up the tax on those earning over £150,000 and I think that that is a very good idea, but people are already saying that they can simply change their taxable addresses to England or Wales to avoid it. Remember when the French put up their top level of tax, didn't Mr Cameron offer an open invitation to rich French folk to go live in London? Won't he just do that with Scots?
**********

If you've got a few bob spare, you might like to consider this crowd funder from our friend and blog roll member, The North British News. Shaun is a seriously nice and funny guy, and his satire is biting.

Tuesday, 1 September 2015

GIDDY AND THE BOMB

It looks like Mr Osborne has already decided that, no matter what conclusion parliament reaches next year about Trident, he's going to spend in excess of £100,000,000,000 on it anyway.

The only alternative to that assumption is that he's wasting £500,000,000 on upgrading Trident's facility at Faslane for nothing.

Some of the tweets I have read have suggested that 6,000 jobs will be created by this investment, but Mr Osborne himself said that there would be around 1,500 extra jobs over the renovation process.

Much was made during the referendum campaign of the number of jobs that were dependent upon the naval base at Faslane. Jackie Baillie went into overdrive and excelled herself with the lies, warning of 11,000 jobs being at risk in the event of Independence.

Figures released by the MOD under the FOI legislation, however, showed  that only 520 civilian jobs at Faslane and Coulport were directly dependent on Trident.

According to the MoD. “There are 520 civilian jobs at HM Naval Base Clyde, including Coulport and Faslane, which directly rely upon the Trident programme.

"Of them, 159 are employed by the MoD and 361 by the MoD’s contractors, Babcock Marine and Locheed Martin.


"Most of the workers – 310 - live in West Dunbartonshire or Argyll and Bute, with the rest living elsewhere in Scotland (103) or at unknown locations (107)."

So in fact, what we were really talking about appears to be 310 people living in the area and 103 living elsewhere in Scotland... that would be 413 (at the time of the figures being produced).

How many of the new jobs will be for residents of West Dunbartonshire or Argyll and Bute, or the rest of Scotland, and how many of them will be bussed in to camp on a Monday morning, and back out on a Friday afternoon?
**********
I am happy that Mr Osborne wants to spend that much money in Scotland. It is an enormous amount of extra spending in our country, given the ever shrinking size of the Scottish government's income. I wonder though if it wouldn't be better spent on areas which are in dire need of investment. 

Labour and Tory alike seem at present to be extremely concerned about the lack of money available for colleges of further eduction. It is, in fact, a concern that I share, although I'd point out that England is having exactly the same problem. A lack of finance means that many 6th form colleges are under severe financial pressure!

We must find money for people who wish to pursue education other than that provided by universities. We need plumbers, bricklayers, hairdressers, electricians, plasterers, roofers, etc, etc... This £500 million could make a huge difference to college budgets.

But wait, Mr Osborne says that without Trident we would be in grave danger. It is our insurance policy. (I hope if there is danger lurking, it is a little more effective than the other insurance policy we all thought we had... National Insurance, but that's by the way).

You see, I'm concerned, having friends in many countries over Europe, Asia, South and North America, that you can only be safe if your country has nuclear weapons. I mean what about my friend Elizabeth who lives in Montevideo, Uruguay, or Dirk in Cologne, Germany, Dani in Gothenburg, Hristina in Bulgaria, or Daniel in Québec?

I wish someone in the mainstream press, maybe even the BBC, would ask Mr Osborne what these people are supposed to do to be safe? Come to live in Scotland?  No, maybe not. He doesn't want swarms of immigrants, does he?

The answer is that they are covered, in the highly unlikely chance that they might be attacked, by the USA. 

Now, of course, we could be accused of niggardliness in wanting the protection of the USA's nuclear weapons, but not wanting to pay for them. And that would be a fair criticism. But does Iceland, or Denmark, Germany or Austria, Finland or Norway currently pay for their protection? After all they are all infinitely richer than we are. 

Spo the question is, why does broke Britain pay out this vast amount? 

OK, we know the answer, or at least part of the answer. It's so that the likes of Cameron and Osborne get to sit at the top table and look down smugly on other more successful countries, safe in the knowledge that, as long as they keep bowing low enough, they have a special relationship with the USA.

I've always wondered if it would be acceptable that those of us who feel we need protection would make a small contribution to the financing of these WMDs. After all America has more than they could ever possibly need. OK, the top seat would have to go, but that will only ever affect a handful of people.

In the meantime, the great threat to all of us appears to be from terrorists, who fly planes into buildings or blow up railways and métros.

How is a nuclear deterrent supposed to sort that problem?

Any ideas, George? 

Anyone?