Sunday, 12 February 2012

Jimmy Krankie new leader of Labour In Scotland!



On a light hearted note. Here is a little tit-bit from the latest edition of Private Eye that I thought I would share with you all! I personally find the resemblance quite alarming and that is not just in terms of physical appearance. But least ways it's fame at last for Lamont!




In the interests of fairness last issue they had one of Alex Salmond and the new leader of North Korea, which was equally funny. I'm sure Alex saw the joke.

Saturday, 11 February 2012

THE SUN'LL COME OUT TOMORROW

Despite now having what must be half of the management team of The Sun on bail, Rupert Murdoch, has promised that the paper will continue to publish and will be on the street on Monday.


But, it's early days.


The newspaper's deputy editor along with four colleagues was arrested Saturday for making illegal payments to police, and other officials, who appear to be an Army officer and an MoD civil servant. 



The other journalists arrested were John Kay, former chief reporter who joined the paper in 1974; Nick Parker, chief foreign correspondent; John Edwards, picture editor; and John Sturgis, deputy news editor.

A woman employed by the Ministry of Defence was arrested at her home as was a member of the Armed forces and a serving police officer with Surrey Police was also arrested at his home in Surrey.

A memo to all staff from the chief executive of News International, Tom Monkridge, said that he had had assurances from Mr Murdoch himself that he was committed to continuing to own and to publish the Sun. (As opposed to ditching it as he did with the News of the World.)

When Rebekah Brooks appeared at a Commons committee in 2003, she was asked by Chris Bryant whether her newspaper had been involved in improper activities.

She replied: “We have paid the police for information in the past.”

Andy Coulson, who was sitting next to her, and clearly a more savvy operator than Brooks, which may be why he, and not Brooks, later worked as David Cameron’s director of communications, nearly fell off his chair in an effort to point out that the hay-head sitting next to him meant to say that any payments were made “within the law”.

It appears that he was lying.

Oh well. These things happen. 

A little word of advice to Mr Cameron: When picking staff who are going to be working very closely with you, best to make sure that they are squeaky clean. That's what the Secret Service vetting system was set up to do, so, it should have winkled out Mr Coulson's involvement in this travesty. 

Well I say it it should have, what I properly mean is it would have if you hadn't just taken Coulson's word. as a personal friend, that he was as innocent as the day is long, and bypassed the Secret Service.

A little word of advice to the Secret Service: Don't take Cameron's word for anything on anybody. He is an appalling judge of character, and his friends seem to be truly dodgy people. 

Furthermore he appears to not know his arse from his arm pit.



Friday, 10 February 2012

WHY?


Full list of 32 Scottish Labour MPs who voted for further privatisation of the NHS in England On Monday January 16, 2012. No wonder people ask the "West Lothian question". (Apposite picture Mrs Lamont, wouldn't you say?)

Sarwar, Anas - Deputy Leader of Scottish Labour
Curran, Margaret - Shadow Scottish Secretary
Alexander, Douglas
Bain, William
Banks, Gordon
Begg, Anne
Brown, Russell
Clark, Katy
Clarke, Tom
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Brian H.
Doran, Frank
Doyle, Gemma
Gilmore, Sheila
Greatrex, Tom
Harris, Tom
Jamieson, Cathy
Joyce, Eric
McGovern, Jim
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Iain
Morrice, Graeme
Murphy, Jim
Murray, Ian
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Osborne, Sandra
Robertson, John
Roy, Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Sheridan, Jim

Teller - David Hamilton

Can someone from Scottish Labour please explain


why they saw fit to do this? Who ordered them to?


Was it Miliband, Curren, Lamont? And who IS in 


charge of Labour's Scottish MPs?
Grateful thanks to Dubbieside from bringing this list of Labour, Tories, oh dear, Laries maybe...to my attention.  I wonder if they would dare vote for this kind of private health system in Scotland?
February 08, 2012 8:43 PM
Delete

Thursday, 9 February 2012

FUSS ABOUT NOTHING


Further to the fuss over the First minister’s use of the term, can I just point out that the House of Commons deems Gauleiter an acceptable use of language.

Labour, Tory and Liberal politicians have used it in the Commons and not a Speaker, nor a deputy nor any of their clerks has ever objected. Neither has any member of parliament .
I’m sure that you won’t want to read it all, but these are verifiable cases of the word being used with no fuss. What on earth is all the fuss about ... and why is Ruth Davidson on her high horse? Bigger, better and far more experience Tory MPs have bandied the word about with abandon.
 
Hansard, 31 Oct 1990 - Column 1004 : Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South - Labour ) : [ To Chris Patten as Secretary of State for the Environment] Does the Secretary of State accept that his reputation as the Gauleiter of Marsham street is preserved intact by his statement

 
Hansard, 20 February 1989 - Column 773 : Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North - Labour ) : ... An arrogance is abroad--led, I think, by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)--that makes Scottish Office Tories believe that they can do literally what they like. There is a real touch of the gauleiter about them .
 

Hansard, 18 Feb 1998 : Column 1063 : Mr. [ Paul] Flynn ( Labour ): May I say how pleased are the people of Wales that the Government are committed to improving the deplorable standards of literacy and numeracy in our schools, particularly after the reign of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) as gauleiter of Wales , whose legacy was 645 lost teaching posts? 

 
Hansard, 2 Jun 1997 : Column 122 : Mr. Alastair Goodlad (Eddisbury - Tory ): ... If so, will she confirm that her representations to her ministerial colleagues went unheeded and that, in effect, she lost the battle and has had to bow to the unelected forces--otherwise known as the secret seven, or is it the secret seventy--of the gauleiters who now run the Government and the Labour party ? 

 
Hansard, 1 March 1995, Column 965 : Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North - Labour ): Indeed, it is being done solely by an appointed civil servant answerable only to Ministers and not to anyone to do with London .

Mr. [ Nigel] Spearing ( Labour ): A gauleiter .

Mr. Corbyn : As my hon. Friend says, a gauleiter for this capital city . Those issues must be addressed. 

 
Hansard, 31 October 1990, Column 400 : Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside - Labour ) : Will the Secretary of State spell out a little further the way in which the regional boards which currently operate will be replaced by "respected local figures"? Those respected local figures will have responsibility, as spelled out in the attached document, for the appointment of members of the trusts and health authorities , and will account for themselves only to the new expanded NHS Policy Board. They will be gauleiters on an NHS politburo - -that is what it amounts to. 

Hansard, 8 Jun 2010 : Column 260 : Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) ( Tory ): ... I would not presume to tell them how to strike that balance-but I can think of no place better equipped to run its own affairs without interference from regional commissars in Nottingham and planning gauleiters in Bristol .

 
Hansard, 19 January 1993, Column 332 : Mr. [ Nicholas] Budgen ( Tory ) : I apologise--of course it is a noun. If I were subject to overall supervisory care by some European gauleiter , I should probably have a more normal way of speaking, though it might be less interesting.

 
Hansard, 13 June 1995, Column 702 : Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire - Tory ): ... I sincerely hope that the Government will support the sensible changes rather than bow to the pressure of the Commission which, as the unelected gauleiter of Europe , has neither the interests of motor cyclists nor those of the British motor cycle industry at heart.

 
Hansard, 27 November 1990, Column 793 : Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South - Tory ): ... I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has recently visited that school, will confirm that it is a first-rate school. Three years ago, it was heavily undersubscribed ; now, as a grant-maintained school, it is fully subscribed. The gauleiters of the Opposition say that such schools should not be allowed to continue. 

 
Hansard, 11 June 1991, Column 803 : Mr. [ David] Blunkett ( Labour ): We believe that the people of a locality should be allowed to protect themselves from this or any other Government. In other words, when people vote in local elections, they should have some chance of seeing their votes matter. If not, and if whatever people do the Government of the day believe that they must protect people from themselves, what is the point of holding local elections? Why not appoint gauleiters ?

  

Hansard, 18 January 1989, Column 321 : Mr David Alton ( LibDem ): Although I confirm what the Minister said about the successful role that the task forces can play in the regeneration of an economy, does he accept that there is something in the comments of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) about the lack of accountability of some task forces? Does the Minister recognise that some people perceive the task force as a gauleiter in carpet slippers ? 
 
Hansard, 20 Jan 1994, Column 1070 : Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley) ( Labour ) : ... First, no chairman or non-executive director of an NHS health authority or trust is democratically elected, yet we hear much criticism from Conservative Members about trade unions. Conservative NHS appointments are more akin to the Nazi gauleiter system .
  


Hansard, 18 May 1995, Column 545 : Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington) ( Conservative ): We are to have a commissioner on standards , or ethics officer, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) so neatly put it. He will be a veritable gauleiter with strong powers to make recommendations. It is true that he will report to a sub-committee, but it will be his poodle. 

“Printing money is the last resort of desperate governments when all other policies have failed.” George Osborne, January 2009.

Today, the Bank of England announced that it would be injecting £50 billion into the economy by...er.... printing it... 


Ooooops. 


It seems that, in the words of Mr Osborne himself, we have a desperate government which has run out of resorts.


That is a shame for the rest of us, as the consequences of quantitative easing, as it is euphemistically known, are quite damaging. And they are particularly damaging to two groups to which Osborne's government might be thought to be sympathetic, if only because they want their votes.


They are the hard pressed, hard working, decent British families up and down the country, that so many of their ministers appear to meet every day (how do they manage it?), and older people on fixed incomes, particularly those about to buy their annuities.


The first group are hit by inflation. If you are hard pressed now, and you are likely to get no pay rise, or  a very small one, you must have been welcoming the reduction in inflation from 5.2% to 4.2%. You'll be getting poorer and poorer for sure. You'll still be able to afford less and less, but with falling inflation, it is, as it were, less, less and less. 


However printing money devalues the currency and the inevitable result of that is that things cost more. So inflation will be on its way back up again.


If you're a pensioner (and thus quite likely to vote), your pension will rise at the rate of inflation... or at least the rate of inflation that the government admits to, which as we know is never anywhere near realistic. 


And the poor are usually hit harder by inflation, particularly if it is, as it has been recently, inflation of the absolute necessities of life: food, gas, electricity. Some estimates have put inflation for the poor at between 12% and 20%.


Pensioners who saved a bit for their old age are cruelly hit, because even if they have the money tucked away in long term, high interest accounts, it is unlikely to be returning anything like the rate of inflation that its owners are suffering. In short they too have less and less each year. They may as well go out and splash the lot on having a good time, and turn to the state for help with rent and council tax.


The people coming up to retirement are finding that their saved pension pot will buy them much smaller pensions. Financial services company Hargreaves Lansdown found that a £100,000 pot would have bought an annual pension of around £7,800 in 2008, but just over 3 years later would only purchase a pension of £5,900. With the state pension at around £5,000, that would give a retiree an income of around £11,000 (less tax and council tax). 


With poverty level in the UK set at around £16,000, that shows the kind of future the average Briton will have in old age. 


But back to Osborne, the Soothsayer of Old London Town, I'm inclined to think that if you are in politics, with even a slim hope of power one day, you should be careful what you criticise and how you criticise it.


What do you say to that, Oh Wise Soothsayer of Old London Town?

UNA SERIE DI EVENTI DELL'INSIEME BIZZARRA

So.... yesterday, in England, Harry Redknapp was found not guilty, by an English jury of 8 men and 4 women, of tax evasion.
Yesterday too, Fabio Cappello resigned after a row with the FA following his comments in an Italian tv interview over the FA's sacking, without reference to him (the England Manager), of John Terry as England captain following accusations of racial abuse.

Yesterday too (wasn't it all happening), in what the Mail called "a bizarre twist" (maybe in an effort to divert attention what what is staring us all in the face), Harry Redknapp, who will not now be going to prison, became the bookies' favourite to succeed Sr Cappello. 


A bizarre twist indeed. Isn't co-incidence an amazing thing? 


Interestingly, the BBC, with it's well known attention to detail, originally reported that Redknapp had been found guilty of one of the charges of false accounting.


However, perhaps in an effort to make up for their shortcomings, every BBC news programme since has covered the footballing part of the story as if it were the only thing happening in the world, with opinions from everyone and his dog, including his honourableness the prime minister, who apparently is allowed to express his opinions on sport on the BBC, unlike the first minister who is not. 
I have a couple of theories about this. Perhaps the BBC is aware that as no one believes a single word Cameron says, there is no point in refusing him the right to say whatever he fancies, whenever he fancies it, as it's a bit like the commercial brake on other tv channels: we all go and put the kettle or use the lavatory, leaving Daz,  Kellogs or Cameron to talk to an empty room.


Or, maybe it's just that the BBC knows that he holds the purse strings and regardless of the rubbish he spouts, they have to be nice to him. Whereas Alex Salmond doesn't, and they don't. 


I was also amused to hear that the job of England manager is "the most difficult job in football", which might explain the £6 million a year salary (about which, in the midst of all the fuss about Hester's £1 million salary + £1 million bonus, we have heard very little).


I just wondered why it was the most difficult job in football, more difficult than being the manager of Germany, or Brazil, or Italy, or Scotland... Any ideas?

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

In which Tris has a night off and reprints a fantastic post by Michael Greenwell


Thanks to Dubbieside for altering me to this superb article from Michael Greenwell on the Huffington Post. I've reproduced it here in full. The illustrations are mine. I beg Mr Greenwell's pardon and crave his indulgence.
The United Kingdom, like all states, is an artificial construct. For some its symbol is the bulldog. The strange thing about the bulldog is that it would die out as a breed if left to its own devices. This is because their heads are so big that the vast majority of them have to be born by caesarean section. Therefore, because of its bigheadedness, it relies on a form of artificial selection to continue, and this makes it a great symbol for the UK.
The idea put forward by Harry Mulligan recently, that the Scottish people are being fed "ill-thought-out patriotism", is exactly correct. However, the ill-thought-out patriotism that they are being fed is coming from those who would keep the UK as one state.
The fact that Scottish independence movement continues to exist and strengthen in the face of an overtly hostile media shows that the motives for it are not confined to a narrow patriotism.
The British media is controlled from London and reflects London's views quite accurately. The corollary of this is that there are several mistakes that people make when they look at the upcoming referendum for Scottish Independence. Mulligan's article yesterday made a good few of them. I'd like to go through them here if I may.
The first and most common is to conflate the Scottish Independence movement with the Scottish National Party. This is done for a variety of reasons and the primary one is laziness. The SNP now have a majority in the Scottish Parliament but polls indicate that in the arena of an independent Scotland many people would be likely to vote for other parties. I am a member of no party but an independence supporter and there are many thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, like me. Also, other parties in Scotland support independence, such as the Scottish Green Party.
Secondly, using the term "Tartan Tories" to describe the SNP is an old insult and really has no relevance. Maybe it has passed many people by that the SNP have consistently protected social provisions more than the two main UK parties. For example, in England the Tories (and Labour before them) have been inflicting death by a 1000 cuts on the National Health Service whereas in Scotland the Scottish Parliament has protected it. In England and Wales free university education is gone whilst it has been kept in Scotland. It is the Scottish parliament that is protecting these things and more, and London does not look kindly on it.
Another thing unionists often like to talk of is the Second World War (strangely, they often do it at the same time as criticizing independence supporters of harking back to history). They use WW2 as a rallying point - describing how everyone joined together to defeat the forces of fascism and this is then given as an important reason for keeping the union. Leaving aside the fact that Scots were a 3rd of the UK's dead in that war, and that with a 9th of the population, what would prevent an independent Scotland joining with whichever coalition was fighting such a threat?
Furthermore, if the UK's military ventures are destined to be, to use his phrase, "ill-thought-out" economic imperialist ventures into the middle-east - wouldn't Scotland be better off out of it?
And this is the crux of it. Scottish Independence is the only progressive game in town. It would alleviate the democratic deficit that people all over the (dis)United Kingdom suffer from whereby if England votes Conservative then Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get a government they didn't vote for. It would solve the problem of the West Lothian question (on certain issues Scottish Members of Parliament can vote on English issues but not vice versa) which is a source of annoyance for many in England.
With independence, Scotland could keep its health service, its free education and not get involved in modern imperialist ventures. For me and many others, that short but by no means complete list, is far more important than Britpop, the upcoming Olympics or any historical considerations.
Finally, when Mulligan says "Do we really want to undo this world-beating force in favour of a selfish, scots-centric view of the world" he hoists himself with his own petard. This is "ill-thought-out patriotism" at is finest. It says that we should forget about social provisions and concentrate on being a "world beating force". That's very British-centric isn't it? "WE are going to beat YOU" it says. False assertions such as "Shame on these Nationalists who argue we would be better off alone. Its simply not true and its not the point anyway. Britain is the 'crème de la crème'" speak of the misplaced arrogance of a dying state that lost an empire and is feverishly clutching at straws.

The unionists are trying to blow some life into the dying embers of the UK and unfortunately for them, all that they are producing is hot air.


This link from Cynical Highlander is also worth a read...


http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/20122683427690883.html

Tuesday, 7 February 2012

Il neige en Algérie...

Alors que l'ensemble de l'Europe a été marquée ces derniers jours par un épisode sibérien, le Maghreb a aussi été surpris par de violentes chutes de neiges. L'Algérie, paralysée en partie ce week-end, déneige lentement les zones devenues inaccessibles et constate les conséquences des rares intempéries dans cette région. A Mascara, au nord du pays, la neige a totalement recouvert la ville le 4 février. © menosultra


Whist we in Scotland have been enjoying spring weather, wandering around town in t-shirts and light jackets, in Algeria there have been falls of snow which have paralysed parts of the country, making it inaccessible. The link takes you to a series of photographs of what is a pretty rare occurrence.

Monday, 6 February 2012

NICOLA STURGEON WAS RIGHT TO SCRAP THE PRESCRIPTION CHARGE


There was considerable criticism of the government's policy of scrapping prescription charges last year.

It had been a long term aim of the SNP administration to make prescriptions free, as the Labour/Plaid government had done in Wales, and reductions on the price inherited from the Labour/Liberal administration in 2007 had been made, but there was criticism from some people that the policy handed free medications to people who could easily afford to pay for them, and that, in any case, those who couldn't were already covered by free medication.

Of course that wasn't actually correct, as people on contribution based benefits had to pay full price. Amazingly, that included people who were in receipt of Incapacity Benefit. In some cases that meant multiple prescriptions every few weeks. And of course people on low wages (and there are plenty of them in Scotland) often couldn't afford to get what the doctor ordered, which often led to longer absence from work than would otherwise have been necessary. 
Far from being a gift to the rich, it was actually a lifeline (literally in some cases) for the poor. Not taking prescriptions is a fast track way for some people to land in hospital, an altogether more expensive option.

Now I read on Left Foot Forward that there has been research in England, where prescriptions have risen ever year for the past 15 years, showing that around a third of people with some serious conditions can't always afford to buy all the drugs prescribed for them. Neil Churchill of Asthma UK, which is trying to get the English government to scrap the charges, writes:

"There are 15.4 million people in England with long term medical conditions and with dramatic increases to the cost of food, energy and transport, many are now struggling to afford their prescriptions and putting their health at risk by reducing or rationing their medicines.

"An Asthma UK survey found that 34 per cent of people who pay for their prescriptions sometimes chose not to get some of their medicines because of the cost. Non-compliance with medication is a leading cause of avoidable and costly hospital admissions for asthma.

"Research published by Rethink Mental Illness showed that 38 per cent of people with severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia have had to choose between paying household bills and paying prescription charges. People with long-term conditions are a significant voter population and many feel passionate about prescription charges."

  • The current prescription charge in England is £7.40 per item, although 3 month and annual exemption certificates can be purchased.


Sunday, 5 February 2012

ALBA GU BRÀTH


A survey completed by Panelbase for the Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland found some interesting answers from its participants.  

Cheeringly, of those who were decided about independence, 47% were for, and 53% against. Of the entire sample 21% had not made up their minds, 37% were for and 42% against.

If the referendum were to ask voters to choose between independence, Devo-Max within the UK, or the status quo, the poll interestingly pointed to a small majority in favour of independence.

The survey also offered an insight into how people see life in an an independent Scotland. It found that more than 50% of thought that independence would be good for the nation's health, education, culture and environment, but showed concern about the impact of independence on personal financial situations:

64% thought independence would have a positive effect on Scottish culture. 9% thought a negative effect;

59% said it would be good for Scottish confidence with 19% saying it would be bad;

42% considered independence would be good for the nation's health, and only 17% saying bad;

 47% were positive about its effects on education, compared with 19% who were negative.

50% said it would be positive for the environment, and 15% think bad;

27% said it would cut crime, and 17% think it could increase it;

43% predicted their personal tax would rise under independence, while around 11% believed it would reduce;

50% thought that the retirement pension would go up, and 50% that it would not;

75%  said Scotland would be worse off financially if it adopted the Euro.


The poll, conducted between January 27 and February 1, studied the views of 1000 Scottish adults.

Saturday, 4 February 2012

PLEEEASE TAKE THE MONEY... OH PLEEEEASE

You are really going to love this.


Many people, including some readers of the Republic, have been asking for some years why we give aid to India.


Now I'm a believer in international aid. Without labouring the point, I believe that while we should make sure that our own people are looked after, even  our poorest are comfortable compared to the misery of starvation, pestilence and natural disaster that afflicts some parts of the world.


We constantly make it clear that we don't want and can't afford to accept economic migrants here. So, if we had intelligent and well planned aid programmes, we might be able to help people to make lives for themselves and their families at home, their home. It's not just charitable; it makes sound economic sense too.


So, back to India. I know that there is grinding poverty in India. My brother is not long back from there, having visited the slums on Mumbai. But India is a rich country with economic growth running at over 10%, something like 100 times the UK's. 


India can afford nuclear weapons, and a space programme. Slowly, but surely, India is working to alleviate its poverty. It has, for example, doubled spending on health in the last 8 years. To pull it from third world status will take a long time. It could be done faster if so much of the cake was not taken by the rich. But that is how things are, not just in India, but everywhere, including the UK where the gap between rich and poor is the greatest in the developed world.


While we have been saying that India doesn't need money from this poor little island, so has India. Pranab Mukherjee, India's Finance Minister, last year asked the British to stop sending aid.


And Britain (wait for it) begged India to continue to accept it. 



A leaked memo from Mr Mukherjee shows that he wished to terminate aid from Britain because it was portraying a negative image of the poverty in his country. Although in our terms it was a large amount, it was a trickle in the overall budget of India and it was more damaging than helpful. Furthermore, most of the aid was either being syphoned off by corrupt officials in India, or was inappropriate or unneeded because the the administration in the Department For International Development (DFID) send televisions to schools that don't have electricity, or satellite tracking for buses which already have the system.


DFID, having made a considerable effort to persuade the British public that aid was vital to India, said that it would be embarrassing if the country rejected the aid on the basis that it didn't need the money. Alan Duncan, a junior minister, had told the UK public that hundreds of thousands if not millions would die without our aid. This was clearly a total fabrication.


And now, despite having been told publicly that the money is not wanted, Andrew Mitchell Secretary of State at DFID, seems determined to continue to throw money at the country with a revamped programme which will target the states rather than the Federal Government, at the same time as he is cutting money to some African states desperately in need of it.


Last week the Indian government decided to purchase a French fighter plane, rejecting the British Typhoon in the process.  Mitchell, who according to a Despatches programme keeps his own money in the British Virgin Islands, is livid. Seemingly another reason for the aid was "to sell Typhoon".


Oops Mr Stupid, err Mitchell. International aid isn't supposed to be about selling stuff! You'd have thought that as the SoS you might have grasped that basic fact, and even if your department is as incompetent as the century is long, you might have made an effort to keep it quiet.


I wouldn't put Andrew Mitchell in charge of the office tea fund, never mind a multi billion spending department. What a bloody fool.

Friday, 3 February 2012

WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER WHEN IT COMES TO PAY OFFS...WELL, ALL EXCEPT GOVERNMENT MINISTERS


Ex-energy secretary, Chris Huhne,  is if he wishes to accept it,  entitled under current legislation, to a severance payment of more than £17,000.


Under the terms of  the 1991 Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act, Mr Huhne is allowed three months-worth of his £68,827 annual ministerial pay (or  £17,207).

This is, presumably, like other redundancy payments made to "ordinary, decent, hard-working families up and down the country" to compensate them for being dismissed from their posts through no fault of their own, and to help them to come to terms with life on the generous £67 a week that the government decrees sufficient for said "ordinary, decent, ex-hard-working  people up and down the country" to live on.

Of course, these "ordinary, decent,  ...well, you know how it goes by now" would have to have been working for over 2 years in the post; they would only get (at Huhne's age) 1.5 weeks' money for every full year they had worked there (so 1 week's money or around £2,000), and it wouldn't apply if they had only lost a part of their job, and still had a salary of £66,000 to fall back on... or if they had resigned. So actually he wouldn't get squat.
However, we all know only too well that Secretaries of State and "ordinary, decent, hard-working families up and down the country"  have about as much in common as  'the Big Society' and oh, I dunno, ...a  prime ministerial legacy?

Mr Huhne may not accept the money. But whether or not he does, should not the conditions for ministers more accurately mirror those for all these people that they happily use as examples when they want to make a point, and should they not also reflect the times that we live in. 

After all, although we rarely hear anything of it these days, we are all in this together, aren't we?

Thursday, 2 February 2012

UK GOVERNMENT 'S REFERENDUM QUESTION


DANNY DANNY DANNY, OUT OUT OUT, AS THEY SAY IN INVERNESS, NAIRN, BADENOCH AND STRATHSPEY

What on earth was Danny Alexander thinking about when he agreed that the head of the Student Loan Company could avoid tax?


Indeed who did he think he was agreeing to this arrangement? Dave Santa Hartnell?


And when one member of the Cabinet (Pickles) is horrified that some people for example those running English councils are paid more than the prime minister (well, more excluding the country estate and desirable town residence, with generous expenses available to spend on both of them, of course. Not to mention a wide range of free transport from Queen's Flight to chauffeur driven cars, personal photographers, image consultants and staff for the wife), why is another member of the same Cabinet agreeing to a man who only has a little loan company to run, having a bigger salary than His Prime Sinisterness?


Ed Lester, for that is the bloke involved, managed to get himself a deal from Alexander that meant he could avoid around £40,000 a year by paying tax at 21% instead of up to 50%, and avoiding National Insurance altogether by being paid through his own private company. 


Isn't this a little embarrassing for a government that promised that as well as making life hell on earth for the poor in the UK, they would also be coming down hard on the tax avoiders and evaders?


This deal has now been rescinded and Lester is back in the land of the rest of us, paying tax and NI, but how many others are there getting away with diddling us on a government minister's say so? 


Needless to say, no one knows.


*******


I'm not sure that this can be true, but I just read it on Facebook. If it is, I would have to wonder if Mr McArthur is the full shilling, as my Granny would say:


SCOTTISH PARLIMENT MOTION
Date of Lodging: 02 February 2012
Short Title: Hands off Groundskeeper Willie
S4M-01921 Liam McArthur () (Scottish Liberaldemocrats): 



That the Parliament notes that it has been confirmed that Groundskeeper Willie of The Simpsons fame hails from Kirkwall, Orkney; understands that the revelation is made in an episode entitled The Daughter Also Rises, to be broadcast in America on 12 February 2012, where Willie confides in Bart that his father was a ‘doonie’ and his mother was an ‘uppie’, in reference to the two teams in the world-famous ‘Ba game’; understands how the tension created by this modern day version of Capulets and Montagues tore his family apart but welcomes the fact that the long-running debate over Willie’s heritage is now at an end, and calls on Glasgow City Council to renounce its claim to Orkney’s Groundskeeper Willie as a son of that fair city.

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Would an independent Scotland be financially sound?


every scot SHOULD read this
I've lifted this entire article from Newsnet . I hope they will forgive me. It seemed to good to not be shared. There are nearly 300 comments, many worth reading.
By John Jappy 

As a civil servant in London, and being part of the establishment, I always accepted the general view that an independent Scotland would not be able to survive on its own without financial help from the London Exchequer.

However, when in 1968 I was able to examine the so-called "books" for the first time, I was shocked to find that the position was exactly the opposite and that Scotland contributed much more to the UK economy than its other partners.  This was, of course, before the oil boom.
I realised that the Treasury would wish to keep this a secret, as it might feed nationalistic tendencies north of the border, which at that time were very weak.  I took the decision to keep an eye on the situation to see how long it would take for the true facts to emerge, which I felt would only be a short time.  However, the Treasury and the Establishment did an excellent job, aided and abetted by the media, to keep the myth about Scotland alive.

In fact it took another 30 years before the first chink in their armour started to appear.  This came unexpectedly on 13 January 1997 when, in reply to a series of questions put by SNP Leader in the Commons, Alex Salmond MP to the then Tory government, Treasury Minister William Waldegrave admitted that Scotland had paid a massive £27 billion more to the London Exchequer than it had received since the Tories came to power in 1979.  Statistically this works out at £5,400 for every Scot. 

There were no attempts to refute these figures, which caused much embarrassment to the Tory Government of the day.  However, the facts were quickly covered up by the Unionist controlled media.

Then a year later with a Labour government now in power came a further bombshell.  Following further promptings by the SNP, on 21 August 1998, Mr Salmond received a letter from the House of Commons Library (ref. 98/8/56 EP/rjt) which gave a table showing that based on Scotland's GDP per capita, Scotland would occupy 7th place in the world's wealth league.  The UK was at 17th Place.

When the Labour government came to power it announced a 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax.  From my detailed knowledge of income tax, I felt that this was the worst possible thing that they could do, as extra monies would be needed following on from the Thatcher era, if they were to fulfil even a fraction of their promises to the electorate.  I came to the conclusion, and I still feel that I was right, that this was done by Labour to prove to the voters of Middle England that they could match the Tories in tax cuts. 

Despite the disclosures of 1998, attempts to deceive the Scottish electorate did not end there.  In March 1999 a Labour Party leaflet appeared which said that if the SNP were to forego Gordon Brown's 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax, every family in Scotland would be £250 worse off.  This became the major topic of a TV debate between Alex Salmond and Donald Dewar.  Salmond tried to point out to Dewar that he was using the wrong figures.  Watching the debate, I saw Dewar's eyes roll in his head for a few moments but he carried on regardless.

After the debate it took the Labour Party a whole week to admit that they were wrong.  There was in fact a whole chain of errors which the Labour Party tried to blame on "printing mistakes".  However Labour could not deny the fact that in their calculations the UK average figure, which included the high wage earners in the city of London and the booming economy in the South East corner of England (which if I may say so were the result of the selfish policies of Mrs Margaret Thatcher), the figure used was almost double those of the average Scottish wage which at that time stood at £17,000 per year.

Looking closely at the figures and taking the year 2006 as a benchmark, I found that Scotland had an annual relative surplus of £2,8 billion, which works out at £560 for every man, woman and child.  In contrast the UK had a deficit of £34.8 billion.

In November 2006, the U.N. published its annual "Human Development Index".  For the sixth year running, oil rich Norway topped the list, and won on such factors as generous welfare payments, education, high income and a long life expectancy.  Norway wisely created an "oil fund" in 1995 which in 5 years reached a total of £250 billion, so that Norway sailed through the Credit Crunch. 

Who are the real subsidy junkies?

Any lingering doubt that Scotland more than pays its way, or survives on subsidies, was dispelled by a new report published in October 2007.  Whilst the Daily Mail, which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as a supporter of Scottish nationalism, devoted a whole page to the analysis of the report which was based on tax paid per capita as against spending, Northern Ireland received £4,212 more than it paid in tax, North East England £3,133, Wales £2,990, N.W. England £1732, South West England £978, West Midlands £931, East Midlands £185 and lastly Scotland £38.  Only the South East corner produced a small surplus due to tax paid on the high wages within the city of London at this time (pre-Credit Crunch).

Analysis

It is no longer refuted that Scotland exports more per capita than the rest of the UK.  In 1968 when I first discovered that Scotland was in surplus in relation to the rest of the UK, its exports could be broken down into whisky, meat, timber, fish, and of course tourism which is a huge hidden income.  Those exports are supported by a population of only 5,000,000 as against 45,000,000 for the rest of the UK, quite a substantial advantage.
With the oil boom, Scotland's economy was transformed.  Scottish oil has to date funded the Treasury with £300 billion, which has pushed Scotland up from 7th place in World Wealth rankings, had it been in control of its own resources, to 3rd place.

On 29 May 2008, Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling admitted in a back-handed way, that Scotland's oil revenue had been underwriting the UK's failure to balance its books for decades.  There is still 30 years of oil supply left in the North Sea (some 150 million barrels) valued at 2008 prices at 1 trillion dollars.  This excludes the new fields being brought into production in deeper waters west of Shetland.

Meantime whisky exports, which I listed in 1968 as one of Scotland's top assets, have risen at a phenomenal rate.  For example, whisky exports to China amounted to £1 million in 2000/2001, by 2007 they had risen to £70 million.  They have continued to rise, although I don't have more recent statistics.

On the economies of Independence, Scotland has also 18 times its requirements in North Sea gas, which on current trading is more expensive than oil.  The country exports 24% of its surplus electricity south of the Border, with much of the back-up by Hydro Electric unused.
Even if nuclear is excluded, the future looks bright, the new Glen Doe hydro station on Loch Ness which was opened by Scotland's First Minister last year can produce enough electricity for 240,000 homes.  Further projects down the Loch which have now reached the planning stage will increase this to over 1,000,000 homes.  Wind and wave energy will also contribute significantly in the future.

No doubt as the time draws nearer to the referendum on Scottish Independence, politicians will do their best to distort the figures, but the truth is something that never varies.

Before retiring, John Jappy was a senior civil servant in the Inland Revenue, working for the Accountant & Comptroller General's Branch based at Somerset House in London.  His duties involved liaising closely with Treasury officials to prepare accounts and financial information for UK government ministers.