The big freeze
Austerity election, anyone? Customarily, a party manifesto contains a list of promises.
The next batch will feature a range of warnings. Stand by for competitive gloom.
The big new idea at the Conservative conference in Manchester was a pay freeze in the public sector.
Or it would have been new if Labour hadn't announced something comparable the night before.
There are differences. Chancellor Alistair Darling announced a freeze for senior staff with very low rises for others.
It wouldn't affect members of the armed forces or those on multiple-year deals. His shadow, George Osborne, signalled a freeze for all in 2011 - except those earning less than £18,000 and military personnel serving in Afghanistan.
Still, the Tories thought it was a bit sneaky of the UK government to make a significant announcement during their conference.
Trust funds
Might it not have shown more courage, they added, to hand out the tough news during Labour's own gig?
But there was more from Mr Osborne: sharp cuts in Whitehall back office spending, cuts at Westminster, moves to limit child trust funds to the poorest - plus an accelerated rise in the pension age to 66, trailed in advance.
Impact on Scotland? Absolutely. Pensions, tax and pay intentions affect Scotland directly.
The potential cuts in Whitehall spending translate indirectly via Barnett.
Given the level of borrowing and the state of the public finances, whoever wins the 2010 UK election will be obliged to impose restraint or hike taxes or both, not least to placate watchful global markets.
Via Barnett, that filters down to spending restraint in Scotland. The Barnett formula, of course, works both ways.
Scotland gets a fixed percentage of annual increases in comparable Whitehall departmental budgets: those which cover devolved functions.
In exactly the same way, Scotland takes a proportionate share of cuts. Which means that the 2011 Holyrood elections will be fought against a background of shrinking public spending.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~25~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Brian
Alright, let's be having the sacred cows. How do we protect the NHS?
We could stop medicalising every problem and dumping it on the NHS. Drink, no the poor soul's an alcoholic, it's a problem for the NHS. Drugs, ditto. Teenage sex, obesity, old age, anorexia, depression; they are all social problems that we have medicalised so that instead of parenting, exercise and community we have the NHS treating symptoms not causes, as its a nice rug under which to sweep our politicians inadequacies. So of course our politicians are going to "preserve" the NHS, it's their get out of jail card. As for debate, forget it, too difficult.
Complain about this comment
Anyone wishing to see the current state of the 'Salmond Leaders Debate' poll by Newsnet Scotland click the link below.
Click Here
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
It probably won't get much coverage nor acknowledgement in Scotland but David Cameron has effectively ended the Calman Unionist Alliance with his refusal to endorse the suggestion of borrowing powers for Scotland.
Amazingly, the excuse given is the "current economic climate"; A climate that will be with us for many years to come.
Strange that the very reason for Scotland needing such powers is the reason given by Cameron for refusing them.
Anyway, it seems that the 'current climate' is to be the fallback for refusing any sensible and much needed changes to the current constitutional arrangement.
Which means that the 2011 Holyrood elections will be fought against a background of shrinking public spending.
Not if the independence referendum results in independence it doesn't. There is a very good chance that Scotland will actually have more to spend than it otherwise would by remaining tied to the Westminster dead weight.
Complain about this comment
This is obviously going to happen next year, whichever of the unionist Tweedles actually "wins", despite what any of the three of them may say.
All grist to the mill of demands for at least full fiscal autonomy, especially when coupled with the new oil and gas finds and the apparent dumping of Calman by the "official" unionists.
How are the other two Tweedles moving Calman forward, I wonder? Any news, Brian? Pity none of them want to allow borrowing powers to get some "New Deal" infrastructure projects going.
The only important news out of the conference season so far is that all three Tweedles want a referendum PDQ on something [the L-Ds 2 on electoral reform and EU in or out, I understand] yet none of them believe the time is right for the one the Scottish Government wants and will no doubt be waxing lyrical on at its own party conference.
How about a thread on referendumitis, Brian?
Complain about this comment
Pathetic, visionless, standard issue tory policies. They could have been plucked straight out of any tory campaign from Thatcher through to Howard.
In response to the economic calamity we are being told is going to hurt us for years to come - the same tired old 'solutions'; cut public sector spending, make money appear from efficency savings.
The near collapse of the financial sector was a systemic failure of that industry, aided and abbetted by the willingness of sycophantic governments to continually relax regulation and monitoring of that sector.
Now we pick up the tab again, while the tory boys get their instructions from the city - loose regulation, cheap labour for insecure jobs. Then what? The money going to 'trickle down' voodoo style is it?
Time to get out of Dodge!
Roll on the referendum.
Complain about this comment
Question Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy
Cut waste such as defending war crimminals.
Tony Blair police protection team 'costs £2 million and dwarfs Gordon Brown's'
Complain about this comment
Brown's decade of disaster
The Tories are trying to create miracles to reinstate the UK's standing in the World order an impossible stance unless the country has high grade gold seams throughout these islands readily available.
Complain about this comment
Pay freeze or job cut ?
I'd have a job with a pay cut ! Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Oops! BBC executives face deep pay cuts under Tory plans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/06/bbc-executive-pay-george-osborne
Complain about this comment
So tell me this please--are there a lot of jobs going unfilled in Britain because people are refusing to work? Millions of jobs out there just waiting to be filled?
Complain about this comment
# 10 JRMacClure
There are lots of jobs out there but it doesn't mean that they are anywhere near your location, or you are not qualified or to take a low paying job means you lose all your benefits or there are dozens applying for the same job. It is not that easy just saying that there are plenty of jobs out there.
Complain about this comment
JRMacClure:
There has been a culture developing since the 1970's. Generations of families were made unemployed and the cycle has continued, the sole reason the Government (and opposition) has taken notice is because of finances.
You also have to consider our immigration policy while discussing employment within the United Kingdom and our open door policy to every person who seems to have a hard life (Don't we all?) and end up at our door.
Complain about this comment
#11. All those things can be true but I have to say in the US the number of job openings is relatively low. Even well-qualified job applicants have a lot of difficulty finding a job after layoffs so I was frankly a bit skeptical.
But, of course, the situation may be very different there.
I know college-educated executives in my own industry who have had difficulty finding jobs here. That doesn't mean there are no jobs, of course. There are always some, but here the number of job openings is low enough that there is absolutely no chance of finding jobs for everyone--none at all. So moving people into what we would term "unemployment benefits" which are about the equivalent I believe of your "job seeker" wouldn't be very helpful. But the systems are so different it's hard to make a good comparison.
There is the issue of low-paying jobs not making up for losing benefits. That is particularly true and a problem (much more here than there) since those on benefits here receive state HEALTH benefits which many low-paying jobs here do not. Talk about LOW paying! You can only imagine what kind of bind that can put someone into.
Complain about this comment
#12 Comparisons are hard to draw. I *think* our immigration policy is much tighter or so our politicians tell us although Republicans would like them to be tighter still. And we have a substantial "problem" with "illegal immigrants" which I won't bother to burden you with discussing.
I was probably drawing mental comparisons that are invalid because our national situations and our benefit setups are just not very comparable.
Complain about this comment
# 12 Thomas_Porter
I don't like the idea of having to agree with your point on the open door policy, but it is a valid point and does keep the wages down making it nearly impossible for someone at the lower end of the jobs seeking market to get into employment which will enable them to survive while paying their taxes, NI, rent, council tax, TV licence etc. This is something that some of the new immigrants do not have to fork out. I quickly add that I am not talking about the immigrants from the EU which have every right to be here and, like the Poles, are good workers and pay their taxes.
Complain about this comment
What's happened to the 'preview' button?
Complain about this comment
#12 TP
A lot of non EU workers are actively recruited to fill skills gaps (particulalrly in the NHS) as the powers that be have discovered it is cheaper to poach medical staff from third world countries than it is to educate our own
Complain about this comment
5. At 3:30pm on 06 Oct 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
"Pathetic, visionless, standard issue tory policies. They could have been plucked straight out of any tory campaign from Thatcher through to Howard."
Sadly your right, in regards to public spending pay freeze etc..
But there was one change of policy- which directly contradicts the iron lady's own wishes... Osborne proposed re-establishing the link between state pensions and earnings [wasnt it Thatcher who abolished this link?].
This does represent a major change in tory direction in regards to pensions, and a welcome change frankly.
But Osborne also gets my support for wanting to cut the number of MPs by 10% [we already have too many political representatives]- but this MUST be done in conjunction with an actual reduction in the numbers of ministers [junior ministers etc], otherwise we have even more ministers of the executive per head of pop than otherwise.
I do also welcome the retirement age increase, it has to happen sadly. But I'm still young enough to realise that by the time it comes for my own retirement the age will probably have become 80 or something [joke!].
But yes, Osborne did lack a certain vision, a certain reformist zeal in some of the other respects. It was a mixed bag frankly- not all bad, but not all good either. [ah, so this is what it was like to be the rebel...I need to stop towing the party line so often...I'd quite forgotten how enjoyable it was to speak my own mind..]
Complain about this comment
12. At 4:48pm on 06 Oct 2009, Thomas_Porter
You raise some good points there Thomas [as usual].
The problems of unemployment, whether long term, family generational or whatever is down to the fundamental lack of a solid manufacturing sector of our economy. Currently things are unbalanced, overly dependent on the financial sector and the city of London (and Edinburgh).
Solutions? What do you think about this:
Dual approach,
1. we create government subsidy and protective tarrif walls around specific industries such as steel, car manufacturing to benefit UK based manufacturing as opposed to outsourced mass imported stuff.
2. we nationalise [yes, I did say nationalise] the weakest of our remaining industrial assets- definately thinking of semi-nationalised car manufacturing and general heavy industry.
These two approaches ought to lead to a major stimulus in the size, scale and domestic market size of manufacturing. And through the wholesale expansion of these areas of the national economy we can also start to deliver on pledges of "this government seeks full employment"!
I like the sounds of all that to be honest, and it would generate a job, skilled manufacturing job- for all. Where is the downside?
Complain about this comment
#8
Giggle,,giggle..giggle And a pair of JR's cammie knickers! O' la la'
Complain about this comment
Aikenheed:
#17.
I understand. I am against that very policy too. How can we find it acceptable taking skilled workers from 3rd world country's?
It's like taxing the poor within our society or kicking the most vunerable. These countries suffer because we do not plan for the future, i.e. prepare for what we will need.
Complain about this comment
DeanTheTory:
#19.
"Dual approach,
1. we create government subsidy and protective tarrif walls around specific industries such as steel, car manufacturing to benefit UK based manufacturing as opposed to outsourced mass imported stuff."
I disagree. I do not believe the state should be involved in industry (apart from specific areas). I also feel it is protectionist, so would that not be against trade rules?
"2. we nationalise [yes, I did say nationalise] the weakest of our remaining industrial assets- definately thinking of semi-nationalised car manufacturing and general heavy industry."
If UK industry can not compete, should we encourage it? How do others compete, can we not copy them?
"I like the sounds of all that to be honest, and it would generate a job, skilled manufacturing job- for all. Where is the downside?"
It could be worth considering world-wide skills so at least we have an opportunity to work abroad. The world does not start and stop at the borders, so surely we should look for flexibility?
Complain about this comment
Ah, yes! Let the pre-election bidding for which party is going to reduce staff costs in the public sector begin!? How long until they start the bidding on sacking public sector staff?
Complain about this comment
From the previous post: ##254. At 4:49pm on 06 Oct 2009, gedguy2 wrote:
# 251 JRMacClure
I'm confused here. Is there further investigations going on at present or is there not?
Have you seen any indication of investigation? You're closer to "the ground" than I am. Any comments from GB's office that they are looking into the matter? The same from other agencies assuring the public that they're onto it? I haven't seen a THING indicating such. And BBC, except for covering the initial charge and the fine, has been remarkably silent on the entire "affair".
Aren't ANY charges of any kind (and I am SURE there is nothing to charge this woman with) likely to be politically embarrassing?
But OF COURSE if there were any charges that should be brought against anyone (which there aren't because saying so would be Defamation) Gordon Brown would make sure they were immediately brought! And the agencies would be eager to embarrass powerful politicians who still have most of a year left in office! Of course, they would!
Saying otherwise is Defamation, you know. And we know that is only how politics work in the USA, not in the UK.
Complain about this comment
23. dundee_red
Welcome.
Can you suggest a solution?
Complain about this comment
I tuned into Reporting Scotland to get my daily dose of anti SNP bile and vitriol and wasn't disappointed.
Todays guff was that Scottish fishermen are blaming the SNP for Europe's latest days at sea reduction.
They forgot to mention that it was Ted Heath who sold Scotlands fishing industry down the river in the 70's
Then we had Blair who devastated our industry to gain concessions for the south east of England stating that Scottish jobs are 'irrelevent and expendable'.
One thing I'll grant the BBC is their consistency in spouting drivel.
Complain about this comment
Can someone kindly explain this Tory wheeze of raising the retirement age from 65 to 66 for me?
We're told the government will save billions of pounds by not paying state pensions to those about to be aged between 65 and 66. Right, fine, I can understand that bit, but...
Presumably if every 65 year-old currently in work stays in work for another 12 months, that then means that their ultimate replacements way down the food chain will stay out of work waiting for the vacancy, with a consequent cost in job-seekers allowance etc. not to mention their future employability.
Or am I missing something?
Complain about this comment
22. At 6:23pm on 06 Oct 2009, Thomas_Porter wrote:
The problem is Thomas, our factories, manufacturies arent being given a level playing field in order to compete through the implimentation of better competitiveness [productivity etc].
For example, we are asking our manufacturies to compete against de-facto slave labour produced products from abroad. They can and always will easily undercut British produced cars, steel etc- unless we level the playing field through a "moral tarrif" system to level the field of commerce.
It is all good and well arguing for copying the competitive tactics of others, but can we honestly do that if it requires the abolition of the minimum wage- and the introduction of 'copycat' wages (copycat with nations where you get paid less than £2 an hr!).
You see my point, its not about shutting down the hatches, merely about modest economic protectionism to level the playing field for our manufacturing concerns.
Complain about this comment
#26 Then we had Blair who devastated our industry to gain concessions for the south east of England stating that Scottish jobs are 'irrelevent and expendable'.
Nice of him. I wonder if the people who hold those jobs feel the same way.
Complain about this comment
26. U14153624
But the One Show had an item on Scottish Independence which was positive! A BBC Scotland problem, therefore.
Complain about this comment
#26. At 6:49pm on 06 Oct 2009, U14153624 wrote:
I tuned into Reporting Scotland to get my daily dose of anti SNP bile and vitriol and wasn't disappointed.
You know, it's fairly amazing that the goodly number of people who vote SNP do so. It says a lot about the Scots and their ability to think for themselves, because I'm not so sure that it would happen everywhere against the constant input of "anti-SNP bile and vitriol" that is served up.
It would be nice to think that it would happen everywhere but I'm not confident of it.
Complain about this comment
#27. At 6:51pm on 06 Oct 2009, Caledonian54 wrote:
Or am I missing something?
I think what you missed is that you're not supposed to think about the whole thing too hard. Mind, I see no great reason for everyone retiring at 65. On the contrary, I don't think it makes a lot of sense. You'll notice (at least in the US) a lot of self-employed such as attorneys or accountants don't choose to do so. But let's not look too closely into the proposition that there aren't costs to raising the retirement age.
Complain about this comment
19. deanthetory
"These two approaches ought to lead to a major stimulus in the size, scale and domestic market size of manufacturing. And through the wholesale expansion of these areas of the national economy we can also start to deliver on pledges of "this government seeks full employment"!"
This is the 21st century all known available natural minerals that are left in the World are or are in the process of being bought by the vastly expanding Chinese and Indian economies. We cannot compete either in cost or volume. We are part of a very small group of islands, vastly overpopulated trying to carry on as if we still had an Empire to exploit.
Hard line capitalists are going to have to learn that lesson quickly before there are some serious public disturbances throughout the UK as the jobs keep drying up. Imagine 10 million unemployed on the streets within the next few years will be rather daunting.
Complain about this comment
27. Caledonian54
"Or am I missing something?"
No unemployment benefit is less than the state pension.(I think)
Complain about this comment
Caledonian54:
#27.
"Or am I missing something?"
It's because the longer you work after a certain point, the shorter life you shall eventually live. They may be asking you to work for one extra year, but that will cut your life expectancy alot more. Therefore pensions will not be paid for as long per person.
DeanTheTory:
#28.
"For example, we are asking our manufacturies to compete against de-facto slave labour produced products from abroad. They can and always will easily undercut British produced cars, steel etc- unless we level the playing field through a "moral tarrif" system to level the field of commerce."
So, we should ask ourselves do we invest in different industries or invest into industries where we can't compete? How can Germany compete producing cars? You can expect action by the German Government if we were to bend the rules and we would then be fined, so I remain unsure.
"It is all good and well arguing for copying the competitive tactics of others, but can we honestly do that if it requires the abolition of the minimum wage- and the introduction of 'copycat' wages (copycat with nations where you get paid less than £2 an hr!)."
Dean, how can you base your economy on nationalised businesses? You put money in, pay their workers to then eventually receive your money back through taxes. If it is not profitable for a business then why should we become involved? I call that a bad investment.
"You see my point, its not about shutting down the hatches, merely about modest economic protectionism to level the playing field for our manufacturing concerns."
If you look into the European Union. They are protectionist to those outside of the Union. However I am more interested how our neighbours cope before looking at the market at a larger level. If we can't compete with our neighbours then I would not be comfortable investing in those particular industries.
Besides I would not want to be in Government if for example, China decides to flood the European market with our product which would result in massive losses for us before even individuals are forced to be sacked.
Lightbulbs for example was an issue but the European Union eventually allowed China into the market after serveral years (to allow European makers to adapt and become more productive).
A crazy example. If the Government owned Woolworths we would be left with their debts for over 300 million pounds. If you take on a company, you also take on the risks and I would not want those types of losses on my books, which could happen at any moment.
Complain about this comment
JRMacClure:
American and British work culture is different. How many holidays on average does to average American have?
;-)
Complain about this comment
#27 Caledonian54
"Can someone kindly explain this Tory wheeze of raising the retirement age from 65 to 66 for me?"
I suspect that it's just the basic fact that a full OAP is appx. 50% more than a jobseeker's allowance. It doesn't really matter if you pay it to an unemployed 65-year-old, to a school-leaver or a graduate. For 65-year-olds who manage to stay in work, there will also be, on average, a higher income tax take than on the "starter" who could have replaced him or her.
But it isn't just a Tory wheeze, they're simply bringing NuLab's announced plans forward about a decade for men and about five years for women.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
I'm rather hoping that someone can furnish me with the details of exactly when Stephen Purcell became a leading opposition MSP?
I ask only because the BBC seem to be affording this council leader's ridiculous 'anti_Glasgow' diatribe quite a platform. Does the BBC allow all council leaders to hog the headlines with avary and any rant?
I also note that the BBC are asserting that relations between the council and the Scottish Government have been damaged because of the "axe" of GARL. They have apparently been further damaged after Purcell was allegedly told to "grow up" (his own claim).
Strange that the relationship has apparently not been damaged at all by Purcell making his childish and clearly ridiculous 'anti-Glasgow' claims.
Purcell is only the latest Labour careerist who realises that the media provide a willing platform with which to attack the SNP. He is no-where near as good as he thinks he is [having watched him he is unable to think on his feet], sadly confusing the coverage he receives from a compliant media with very real objective criticism.
Complain about this comment
4. Brownedov
How about a thread on referendumitis, Brian?
Referendumitis would mean inflammation of the referendum. The medical condition the Unionist parties suffer from is better termed anorchidoreferendosis - which means a pathological lack of the reproductive organs for a referendum.
Complain about this comment
35. At 7:25pm on 06 Oct 2009, Thomas_Porter
"If it is not profitable for a business then why should we become involved?"
Why indeed- the Post Office, if it cant make a profit why protect it through government sanctioned monpoly? Scottish water industry? Thomas the relentless pursuit of profit doesnt make an economy on its own.
Any trully successful economy requires, fair wages for the working man, asperation towards full employment, large scale government intervention into the economy if neccessary.
It can and has worked. Look at the 1951-1964 Conservative government(s). There was a severe housing shortage across the UK, profit economics failed to solve the problem- jobs were needed too, so Harold MacMillan (then just a normal minister) used nationalised or semi-nationalised construction firms to provide employment to regions where it was most needed, and also meet the quota for afforable new builds. This large-scale (nationalised) economic model led to over 2 million new build social houses within 5 years. I call that a success, especially as it also slayed the dragon of unemployment.
Let is learn from that lesson, and direct our manufacturing industry again- through government direction (nationalisation) we can build new manufacturing factories (which are badly needed to rebalance the economy) but also locate these new build factories in high unemployment areas.
Sometimes Thomas we must look beyond the rigidity of "just for profit" economics. Look at the SNP Futures Trust, I congradulate the spirit of the project (however it has singuarly failed in terms of implimentation).
And tarrif walls are also a weapon in the arsnal of economics. We need to institute them again because it is immoral to allow firms which exploit their labour force from being able to use economies of scale to flood EU markets (and British markets). All the while dragging down the wages of the working man in the UK, WE MUST ACT.
Complain about this comment
I don't know why we have general elections anyway. The country is owned and run by Wall St. bankers and financiers and the Bilderberg group.
Our so called leaders are only puppets who have no power in the direction of our economy or which way our country goes.
We are in hock to the World Bank who incidentally deliberately brought on the recent financial crisis in order to consolidate their hold on world markets and countries.
Complain about this comment
As to today's announcement of a public sector pay freeze, I am now wondering if the Tories really are capable of winning an election, rather than Labour losing it.
The approach is a gamble based on the fact that Labour are low in the polls.
But whoever wins, there will still be cuts across the board.
Complain about this comment
#36. At 7:26pm on 06 Oct 2009, Thomas_Porter wrote:
JRMacClure:
American and British work culture is different. How many holidays on average does to average American have?
;-)
That is almost certainly true that the culture is different which is why I have a hard time with comparisons.
I'm not sure I can tell you an absolute average because there are differences in state employed, blue collar, white collar, etc. Also there is a distinction made between holidays and sick days and vacation days.
A quick search shows that a decade ago the average in the US was about 8 days (combining holiday and sick days) across all types of workers. I think the average is still close to that. Adding in 2 weeks of vacation which is average, you'd be looking at about 22 days of holiday per year.
No, I have no clue whatsoever what is typical over your way. :-)
Complain about this comment
27. Caledonian54
"Or am I missing something?"
It's a different world.
State pensions were never designed to pay for 20 years of economic inactivity based on just over 40 years of work (now a common scenario). A lot of the problem is that people are living longer, so pensions cost a lot more to provide.
There are no doubt different ways of dealing with this, but the basic economics clearly means that people have to make greater contributions through their working life to pay for their retirement.
The problem has been addressed too late. My generation, should have been paying more, but we didn't and are leaving the bills to you guys who are working.
Complain about this comment
40. deanthetory
You do realise that you are advocating withdrawal from the EU?
Complain about this comment
#39 InfrequentAllele
Re referendumitis vs. anorchidoreferendosis
Fair enough. I bow readily to your superior linguistic knowledge and accept what you say, but does anorchidoreferendosis imply the hereditary nature of the condition?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#41. At 7:53pm on 06 Oct 2009, U14153624 wrote:
I don't know why we have general elections anyway. The country is owned and run by Wall St. bankers and financiers and the Bilderberg group.
Our so called leaders are only puppets who have no power in the direction of our economy or which way our country goes.
We are in hock to the World Bank who incidentally deliberately brought on the recent financial crisis in order to consolidate their hold on world markets and countries.
Because it makes us THINK that we aren't in wholly owned fiefdoms.
Complain about this comment
DeanTheTory:
#40.
"Why indeed- the Post Office, if it cant make a profit why protect it through government sanctioned monpoly? Scottish water industry? Thomas the relentless pursuit of profit doesnt make an economy on its own."
I disagree. Profits ensure investment, investment ensures employment and employment ensures this economy stays afloat. Therefore profit is important, or are you prepared to expect losses when they do come?
I also do not believe certain areas of the economy should be outside Government control. Energy, water, post office and railways etc provide a vital service and should not be handed over to those who do seek profit above else.
"Any trully successful economy requires, fair wages for the working man, asperation towards full employment, large scale government intervention into the economy if neccessary."
Your economy would not work. Full employment; why should this never be acheived? The worker would have power over the employer as the worker can not be replaced.
"Let is learn from that lesson, and direct our manufacturing industry again- through government direction (nationalisation) we can build new manufacturing factories (which are badly needed to rebalance the economy) but also locate these new build factories in high unemployment areas."
It must be profitable. I'm concerned about profits, how can I pay a workforce without money? If my product does not sell then I loose money and resources. Houses are different from cars and steel. You will always have a demand for houses at home but can we export our cars and steel?
"Sometimes Thomas we must look beyond the rigidity of "just for profit" economics. Look at the SNP Futures Trust, I congradulate the spirit of the project (however it has singuarly failed in terms of implimentation)."
I can't because the world does not think in that manner. I have to ask, would our cars and steel manage to sell in different countries? If we can't sell then we loose money and who would foot the bill?
"And tarrif walls are also a weapon in the arsnal of economics. We need to institute them again because it is immoral to allow firms which exploit their labour force from being able to use economies of scale to flood EU markets (and British markets). All the while dragging down the wages of the working man in the UK, WE MUST ACT."
I believe it to be immoral to force our standards and expectations onto a different country. Although I believe in fair trade and rights for workers around the world. I also believe that workers are under different circumstances and will develop at different paces. They will demand rights, but should we force it upon them?
If prices were to skyrocket it would effect our willingness to buy the items and perhaps effect the workers we look to protect.
Unless your willing to learn about the circumstances of the people, employers and governments. I would never use sweeping economic powers in a protectionist way.
Complain about this comment
Being as we're back on the general theme of the sainted beeb and it's glencambliness I wonder if anyone else caught BBC Radio Scotland's Scotland Live programme at lunchtime today?
Credit where it's due I must say that when it comes to finding ANY stick to beat the SNP with they're peerless. I tuned in about 12:30 pm and caught Mhairi Stuart ( I think) introducing an item about the visit to Scotland of Mahatma Gandhi's grandson Arun Gandhi.
He chatted away amiably enough and then made the fatal mistake of namechecking the SNP's Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill who he'd spoken to earlier.
I sighed and thought I doubt she'll let that one pass, high profile visitor to Scotland gives mention to separatist grievance monger and all that.
It's worth going over to i-player at 37 minutes in to have a listen to the ensuing conversation where Mhairi gently guides Arun Gandhi towards saying what she wants re Scotland and independence. She nudges him in the right direction by highlighting our apparently " strong historic grievance with England".
I've got to hand it to her, she's good.
Complain about this comment
46. Brownedov
does anorchidoreferendosis imply the hereditary nature of the condition?
Oh, in that case it would have to be
anorchidoreferendism caledoniensis
even though the sound of it is something quite pretentious
if we say it loud enough
we'll break down their defences
anorchidoreferendism caledoniensis
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
Complain about this comment
It's interesting how much less interest there is in this than over at say Nick Robinson's blog where the arguments are fairly hot and heavy. Might have something to do with the Dean (it sometimes seems) being the sole Tory in Scotland. Well him and Christina over on political betting. =)
Complain about this comment
#49. Huh. Interesting. India should have also ignored their "strong historic grievance with England" one supposes. But that apparently wasn't to be brought into the discussion.
Although I rarely hear a Scottish nationalist mention that as the reason (at least as the main one) for their strong desire for independence.
Complain about this comment
50. InfrequentAllele
That gets my vote for the best post on BT ever!
Complain about this comment
51. JRMacClure
Don't forget easterross - another Tory on PB - and quite a shrewd analyst of politics here.
His reckoning is that while Smeaton in Glasgow NE will take votes both from Lab and SNP, he'll take a lot more from Lab.
Complain about this comment
#51 JRMacClure
"It's interesting how much less interest there is in this than over at say Nick Robinson's blog where the arguments are fairly hot and heavy."
Statistically, as Scotland only represents about 9% of the UK population, while NR supposedly posts on UK politics, you'd expect slightly more than 10 times the number of posts on an average NR thread compared to one of Brian's bletherings.
Sadly, it's all using 100% recycled electrons otherwise it would be an extra Scottish renewable advantage.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
This is in England.
Public to monitor CCTV from home
"The site's owners say they want to combine crime prevention with the incentive of winning money."
Warning over Scottish police force redundancies
Complain about this comment
38. At 7:40pm on 06 Oct 2009, U14094468 wrote:
Online Ed Here
I'm rather hoping that someone can furnish me with the details of exactly when Stephen Purcell became a leading opposition MSP?
Good Post Online Ed ; however you didn't use the word glencampbly. This neologism is fast becoming common currency. Thus the explanation of your query is glencampbly reporting giving unwarranted credence to Mr Purcell's groundless claims. I bet you get it now :)
I too had to suffer the painful BBC interview of the Mahatma's grandson. I am indebted to Grassy Knollington for pointing out he thought the reporter was Mhairi Stuart. Can Brian or someone else in the sainted BBC point out if this was the case ?
And can the relevant reporter receive a prize for the glencampbliness of the interview. She must be getting lessons.
Complain about this comment
Don't take on the pensioners, Dave - you'll come off worst.
Complain about this comment
#50
Brilliant!!!
Complain about this comment
#54. At 9:06pm on 06 Oct 2009, oldnat wrote:
51. JRMacClure
Don't forget easterross - another Tory on PB - and quite a shrewd analyst of politics here.
His reckoning is that while Smeaton in Glasgow NE will take votes both from Lab and SNP, he'll take a lot more from Lab.
You're right! That makes three! They'll have enough for TWO whole MPs from Scotland if you lot aren't careful. ;-)
What is your take on Glasgow NE by the way? IF they will someday have a by-election. And if so who will win?
Complain about this comment
Thanks to all anent the question of retirement; I suppose anything can happen in the next ten years but I still can't help think that bringing the unemployment rate down ought to have a higher priority than flogging older workers to death...
Complain about this comment
Comment 49 GK
Yes, I listened to this this afternoon and just knew that when the gentleman mentioned MacAskill and spoke in dignified terms that the interviewer would try something.
I half expected the Megrahi decision to crop up, but with hindsight this was an obvious no go area for the interviewer [Ghandi, compassion - MacAskill's decision would have been supported!!]. The clear 'splice' was made all the more blatant by the interviewers nervous laugh as she mentions "strong historic grievance", for she knew exactly what she was doing.
Mr Ghandi however answered in pretty generic terms and pretty much stated the obvious using the term 'we' as in humanity. He goes on to say that: "We don't want independence ....... Scottish people don't want independence just for the sake of it". He adds that Scottish people need to be told what independence means that there needs to be a discussion - exactly what Unionists do not want to have "at this moment".
He ends by saying that independence for the sake of it isn't something he agrees with and that's fair enough.
The message from Mr Ghandi was quite subtle and no doubt went straight over the head of the interviewer who simply used the interview to use the 'grievance with England' phrase - a Unionist cliche.
Headlines tomorrow:
'Ghandi voices support for independence debate'
No, I don't think so either.
Incidentaly, this same presenter has a strange habit of referring to Glassgow (soft 's') instead of Glazgow (hard 's').
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Comment number 50 demonstrates just why talented posters like InfrequentAllele ought to consider writing the occassional article for publications like .... say .... Newsnet Scotland.
This months edition [due Sun 18th Oct] will feature an article based on a campaign for the Scots language to be given equal status with Gaelic.
Newsnet Scotland will break the 300 barrier for subscribers by the weekend.
Complain about this comment
48. Thomas Porter
"Your economy would not work. Full employment; why should this never be acheived? The worker would have power over the employer as the worker can not be replaced."
It can and did work. Thomas you claim that a nationalised or semi-nationalised industry wouldnt be productive, or competitive or even profitable- your argument rests on the point that profitable manufacturing can't happen under semi-nationalised or subsidied industry. I strongly disagree.
Take a look at the Keynesian multipier effect for example.
If the UK government ups its invests; say; 10 billions into subsidy, protectionism of that ilk and also running semi-nationalised firms- the muiltiplier effect dictates that output will rise, along with a greater financial return for the original investment.
Take a look at this example I found which perhaps better explains it all:
"Keynesian models of economic activity also include a so-called multiplier effect; that is, output increases by a multiple of the original change in spending that caused it. Thus, a ten-billion-dollar increase in government spending could cause total output to rise by fifteen billion dollars (a multiplier of 1.5) or by five billion (a multiplier of 0.5"
So I reject that these industrial manufacturing concerns would be unprofitable just because they are nationalised. This can work and did work- just take a look at 1945-1970!
Complain about this comment
#58. At 9:22pm on 06 Oct 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:
Don't take on the pensioners, Dave - you'll come off worst.
Interesting. I haven't seen that reaction but it doesn't mean it won't happen, especially in Scotland where they're marginal at best anyway.
Complain about this comment
56. cynicalHighlander
"Warning over Scottish police force redundancies"
Standard practice for any public sector service to try to protect their own budget from cuts. What is unusual, however is for a Chief Constable to move into the party political arena.
Ring fencing is a Labour policy. Aren't there are rules about Chief Constables publicly supporting one party's policy over another? Is there a potential disciplinary offence here?
Complain about this comment
60. JRMacClure
The expectation is November 12 for the by-election. I don't have any insider information, but expect a very low turn-out. Imminent GEn out along with low Labour morale. An unusual independent means that one really needs to see the parties private polling to get any idea.
Complain about this comment
Surely 'Call me Dave' can get his 10% cut in MP's by giving Scotland its independence: or am I missing something here?
Couldn't be Dave wants to reduce even further representation from the Celtic fringe to improve his 'street cred' in down town Tunbridgewells?
By the way medically I would suggest the term should be referendumosis suggesting a lack of referenda without the total disqualification of a referendum being potentially present.
That apart, as a Scot I must ask - What have the 'Tories' ever done for us?
Complain about this comment
68. slaintemha
"What have the 'Tories' ever done for us?"
Apart from ....
Mmm .....
Mmm .....
No. Doesn't work as a Life of Brian moment.
Complain about this comment
Ha. I was following up a comment over at political betting and had never heard of Robert Boothby so I had to do a little research. You guys DO have better scandals than we do. I won't put a link to Wikipedia though. That would no doubt be a violation of some rule. Now come on, admit he's pretty snicker-worthy. The closest we can come is one of the Longs. But then Southerners tend to be our "colorful" ones.
Back on topic.
#3.Online Ed Here
It probably won't get much coverage nor acknowledgement in Scotland but David Cameron has effectively ended the Calman Unionist Alliance with his refusal to endorse the suggestion of borrowing powers for Scotland.
Amazingly, the excuse given is the "current economic climate"; A climate that will be with us for many years to come.
Strange that the very reason for Scotland needing such powers is the reason given by Cameron for refusing them.
Anyway, it seems that the 'current climate' is to be the fallback for refusing any sensible and much needed changes to the current constitutional arrangement.
Which means that the 2011 Holyrood elections will be fought against a background of shrinking public spending.
Not if the independence referendum results in independence it doesn't. There is a very good chance that Scotland will actually have more to spend than it otherwise would by remaining tied to the Westminster dead weight
It seems to me that in Scotland this is a subject that should be receiving some attention.
Complain about this comment
#67. I had the impression that no one was taking John Smeaton seriously after that interview he did, but I haven't followed anything past that. Is he likely to really be a factor?
Complain about this comment
68. At 10:06pm on 06 Oct 2009, slaintemha
69. At 10:22pm on 06 Oct 2009, oldnat
"That apart, as a Scot I must ask - What have the 'Tories' ever done for us?"
Apart from MacMillans' social housing revolution for Scotland...
or the £60 millions towncentre regeneration fund..
what have the tories ever done for us?
Complain about this comment
DeanTheTory:
#64.
"It can and did work. Thomas you claim that a nationalised or semi-nationalised industry wouldnt be productive, or competitive or even profitable- your argument rests on the point that profitable manufacturing can't happen under semi-nationalised or subsidied industry. I strongly disagree."
No. I disagree about the state controlling certain parts of the economy because I do not want to see possible losses impact the financies. I also dislike the idea that industry can only be supported by the state either using economic powers or subsidy.
If the business proves profitable, why does the state have to get involved anyway? Besides how easy does Germany find it making cars? I only need assurances that nationalisation is safe for the public. Look at the banks, who actually liked bailing them out? Would the public appreciate bailing out what would be seen as an uncompetative industry?
"If the UK government ups its invests; say; 10 billions into subsidy, protectionism of that ilk and also running semi-nationalised firms- the muiltiplier effect dictates that output will rise, along with a greater financial return for the original investment."
Protectionism is against European rules. You can not protect your own industry.
"So I reject that these industrial manufacturing concerns would be unprofitable just because they are nationalised. This can work and did work- just take a look at 1945-1970!"
Is it suitable to look back to 1945-1970 for economic advice (worlds changed)? The recent recession has also shown that businesses may eventually loose money. Is it suitable for the Government to become involved in business? It puts the Government into a difficult position. Would a Government be willing to sack their employee's? Private businesses can leave (and they do) but the Government stays.
It's personal and certainly difficult. Can business be treated as business or as a resource for funding? Are you willing to accept the risks available? If the Government begins nationalising businesses then where do we stop? If we protect one industry we can't turn our backs on another.
My dad is a director of a manufacturing company which I know makes millions of profit annually, so I do believe that manufacturing can survive in the United Kingdom without nationalisation.
But Dean, can you honestly accept your protectionist ideas will have a negative effect on the most poorest in the world who relies on Western consumers?
Complain about this comment
52. At 8:55pm on 06 Oct 2009, JRMacClure wrote:
#49. Huh. Interesting. India should have also ignored their "strong historic grievance with England" one supposes. But that apparently wasn't to be brought into the discussion.
Although I rarely hear a Scottish nationalist mention that as the reason (at least as the main one) for their strong desire for independence.
Perhaps someone should have asked Ms Gandhi about the caste system in India before making comments over here.
Complain about this comment
65. JRMacClure
"Don't take on the pensioners, Dave - you'll come off worst.
Interesting. I haven't seen that reaction but it doesn't mean it won't happen, especially in Scotland where they're marginal at best anyway."
Its all south of the Watford gap where life expectancy is greater than in Scotland.
The Tories and Sweden
"How did Persson halve national debt? His lesson for the Tories is uncompromising -- voters must be told exactly how debt will be reduced in a detailed election manifesto. Pain shared is pain halved – so no section of society or government should remain immune from spending cuts and the rich should be taxed more (to build confidence and a belief in fairness amongst most taxpayers.)"
Complain about this comment
18. deanthetory
"This does represent a major change in tory direction in regards to pensions, and a welcome change frankly.
It is welcome, and you're right to point it out.
It's no great surpise that the tories have no real vision to deal with this mess - none of the parties do.
It's also a shame that no party seems to have any solution to the pensions problem other than people having to work longer (whether they want to or not). It goes against my instinct that the more advanced we get as a society, the less time we should have to take from our lives to put our noses to the grindstone - instead we move closer to being working for the system cradle to grave. Not good.
I'll not get into any partisan stuff for now, your frank and open post is appreciated, and does highlight bigger problems in UK and Scottish politics.
Complain about this comment
70. JRMacClure
Boothby was my MP, when I were a lad. In those days such things were never spoken about, but my Dad might even have voted for him if he'd known that Boothby was ******* the wife of MacMillan.
Complain about this comment
66. oldnat
"Ring fencing is a Labour policy. Aren't there are rules about Chief Constables publicly supporting one party's policy over another? Is there a potential disciplinary offence here?"
Wouldn't know about that other than Maggie using the police as a political weapon against "King Cole". Their attitude to the public changed after that.
Complain about this comment
72. deanthetory
"or the £60 millions towncentre regeneration fund"
Keep plugging that. What will it do other than put money into wealthy property developers and their hangers ons pockets. The retail sector is collapsing as no one except the better off can afford to buy trinkets.
Complain about this comment
72; Dean - Macmillan's been dead, how long?
He was just a classic Tory patrician and his legacy was sold off by ..... the Thatcherite Tories.
The town centre modernisation gave us the likes of ..... Cumbernauld .. aye thanks for that then, that's a real vote winner.
The Tories bought off their supporters in Scotland's mortgage debts in 1707 to get the Union bill passed and then claimed that Scotland was bankrupt. Well, no it wasn't; Scotland's economy had been growing by 2.5% per annum up to 1707, collapsed by 1709, so in fact the Union bankrupted Scotland. So not much difference there when the Tories and Barnett hove into view...eh?
What's happened to the Tory support for Calman and fiscal responsibility at Holyrood? Surely Tories are all for folk standing on their own two feet, getting ahead on their own, except of course if you are Scotland and will probably do a better job than the bunch of patrician, Etonian Tories heading for Downing Street will manage.
So what have the Tories actually done for Scotland, apart from repetitively bankrupting us over the last 300 years then claiming credit for giving us back what was ours in the first place?
The Conservative Unionist Caledonian Front - Splitters!
Complain about this comment
73. Thomas Porter
"But Dean, can you honestly accept your protectionist ideas will have a negative effect on the most poorest in the world who relies on Western consumers?"
Ah these poorest who get paid slave labour wages thanks to the economic model your defending!
My system of (Keynesian) economic management is designed to protect the integrity of workers wages in the UK. It will end the insentive for big businesses to relocate abroad- and exploit the foreign workers by paying them shocking wages.
It is time Thomas to have a moral and ethical and profitable economic model! You suggest that business cannot be profitable, that returns for investment cannot happen if industry is in reciever of government investments [whether it be subsidy or semi-nationalisation]. But my muliplier effect effectively rebutts that charge. Granted you may not accept it if you, like a certain lady, reject Keynesian economic thought...
"Is it suitable to look back to 1945-1970 for economic advice (worlds changed)?"
We have jumped back into the safe arms of Keynesian economic policies in regards to supporting a financial system on life support. Is my proposed economic model workable? Yes, it was in 1950-1970- and it is being used again by Obama in the USA!
Complain about this comment
64. deanthetory
"So I reject that these industrial manufacturing concerns would be unprofitable just because they are nationalised."
Don't let me get between you and Thomas_Porter, but I agree with you in that I don't believe there is any actual reason why nationalised operations cannot be profitable. I think what has been lacking are mechanisms for isolating that profit and using it efficiently. I'm not convinced that there are a huge number of concerns which ought to be nationalised however.
Complain about this comment
82. At 11:08pm on 06 Oct 2009, mrbfaethedee
"I'm not convinced that there are a huge number of concerns which ought to be nationalised however."
Here is my little list of nationalisations:
1. Rail
2. Water [England & Wales]
3. Energy
4. Car manufacturing [Rover remains, and Vauxhall perhaps?]
More to follow once I do select more targets- but the key point is that its about a mixed market approach, not just the profit-drive that Thomas seems particularly beholden to. [Sorry Thomas, not meant as a dig- stand and be proud!]
Complain about this comment
If George Osborne really believes 'we are all in this together', where are the means of saving/gaining money from the wealthy and from industry.
Complain about this comment
On the whole cuts to Barnett and possible cuts in police support staff, etc.--isn't this exactly what has been predicted?
It will no doubt hurt but I haven't heard anyone say it wasn't what would happen. There are a number of things to ponder about the whole business.
Complain about this comment
15. gedguy2
"I don't like the idea of having to agree with your point on the open door policy, but it is a valid point and does keep the wages down making it nearly impossible for someone at the lower end of the jobs seeking market to get into employment..."
Two words. Minimum wage.
Complain about this comment
86. At 11:37pm on 06 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit
Minimum wage = security and safety for workers. A policy well implimented.
Complain about this comment
DeanTheTory:
#81.
"Ah these poorest who get paid slave labour wages thanks to the economic model your defending!"
Yes. However should we 'attack' a system that has pulled millions of Chinese workers out of poverty in the last decade(for example)? If we believe it's bad now, could you imagine how it was before?
You are encouraging that we use economic powers that will attack and push back these individuals back to a far more difficult life.
"My system of (Keynesian) economic management is designed to protect the integrity of workers wages in the UK. It will end the insentive for big businesses to relocate abroad- and exploit the foreign workers by paying them shocking wages."
But if you encourage protectionism, would you not expect rivals to also protect their industries against British industry? If Britain had an Empire I would be more supportive, but I see protectionism as wrong when all countries rely on an honest system of trading. Free trade will exspose our industries but we will have access to possibly millions more individuals.
"It is time Thomas to have a moral and ethical and profitable economic model! You suggest that business cannot be profitable, that returns for investment cannot happen if industry is in reciever of government investments [whether it be subsidy or semi-nationalisation]. But my muliplier effect effectively rebutts that charge. Granted you may not accept it if you, like a certain lady, reject Keynesian economic thought..."
Investment is risk, am I comfortable accepting a business and the workforce? Government has other commitments to the National Health Service, Education etc How will these be effected if industry was to loose money (Post Office looses money each day, it's possible you may loose money too).
The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. I have to understand that the entire country would become liable if this business turned sour. Is it worth the risk?
"Is it suitable to look back to 1945-1970 for economic advice (worlds changed)?"
"We have jumped back into the safe arms of Keynesian economic policies in regards to supporting a financial system on life support. Is my proposed economic model workable? Yes, it was in 1950-1970- and it is being used again by Obama in the USA!"
I will remind you that the USA is still in recession, unemployment might reach 10 percent by the end of the year and overall USA influence on the world stage has fallen to a point where it may never recover.
Therefore I see little benefit, untill the USA recovers and we can witness the recovery rate ourselves. The financial services also play a huge role in our economy. Could we afford to let them fail? I doubt it. These are massive international businesses and I expect it would have destroyed our reputation abroad if allowed to fail.
Would a car maker have the same effect? No. I will still point out the unpopular support of bailing out the banks. Would the public support taking on businesses full time? How well is our car industry doing for the moment? Are they in profit or losses?
Complain about this comment
#49 Grassy
I had a listen. Really quite pathectic from the BBC.
Freedom
Complain about this comment
19. deanthetory
"1. we create government subsidy and protective tarrif walls around specific industries such as steel, car manufacturing to benefit UK based manufacturing as opposed to outsourced mass imported stuff."
Oh, goody! A trade war! Just what the doctor ordered.
"2. we nationalise [yes, I did say nationalise] the weakest of our remaining industrial assets- definately thinking of semi-nationalised car manufacturing and general heavy industry. "
The UK already has a sizeable car industry. As big as it ever was in terms of production. Considerably bigger in terms of added value. How do you propose to grow this industry when it is struggling to move inventory as it is?
Complain about this comment
#86 Electric
Are you saying we should ditch the minimum wage.
Would that be ubar F antastic or a nightmare for low payed workers?.
Complain about this comment
27. Caledonian54
"Presumably if every 65 year-old currently in work stays in work for another 12 months, that then means that their ultimate replacements way down the food chain will stay out of work waiting for the vacancy, with a consequent cost in job-seekers allowance etc. not to mention their future employability.
Or am I missing something?"
Nope. I'm afraid you are guilty of joined-up thinking.
It is tempting to say that these politicians are idiots incapable of figuring these things out for themselves. But they are not. They know exactly what you know. But saying such things won't get you a standing ovation.
It's dumbed-down populism of the worst kind. And the electorate laps it up.
Complain about this comment
83. deanthetory
"Here is my little list of nationalisations:
1. Rail
2. Water [England & Wales]
3. Energy
4. Car manufacturing [Rover remains, and Vauxhall perhaps?]"
Good things come in threes.
My rule of thumb is that things that are easy to see as fundamental expectations/services to the citizens of a country are the best candidates. Rail is a possible stretch here, but we can't do without it and the private sector have demonstrated that they aren't up to it.
I'm not convinced by car manufacturing (or other similar). Taking it as an exemplar, I don't believe we can compete on standard 20th (and previous) style heavy industry - if we were talking about the manufacture of new types of vehicles which required leading edge design, process, materials, and engineering then we might be able to start seeing a case for it being a worthwhile 'heavy' industry for our country. I think the desire to use the backing of the nation to appropriatly support industry is laudable, but i think it should be kept to things which are more directly fundamental to the wellbeing of the people, the housing you mentioned previously is a good case in point. In fact I think we could do with a national incentive on rebuilding our woeful housing now - but that's another discussion I think.
Complain about this comment
28. deanthetory
"...unless we level the playing field through a "moral tarrif" system to level the field of commerce."
Your grammar, never that great at the best of times, reaches a new nadir with the use of the terms "moral" and "commerce" in the same sentence.
Complain about this comment
88. Thomas_Porter
"The financial services also play a huge role in our economy. Could we afford to let them fail? I doubt it. These are massive international businesses and I expect it would have destroyed our reputation abroad if allowed to fail."
As a poster who always seems certain of their ground Thomas_Porter, could you expand on why you think we couldn't let the failing banks fail, if it is for more than international loss of face.
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit:
#86.
"Two words. Minimum wage."
Isn't the problem being that the in the current benefit system you can gain more instead of working on mininum wage?
I am against an increase of the mininum wage because skilled workers (plumbers, joiners etc) earn between 10 to 15 pounds per hour. Should a person stacking shelves at Asda earn almost the same amount as a skilled trades person? Course not.
Complain about this comment
Short history lesson No.1: Tariff barriers lead to trade wars, trade wars lead to real wars. No one wants tariff barriers for precisely that reason. The development of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is not only to produce world-wide free trade, but to avoid global war.
Short history lesson No.2: Retirement age of 65 was brought into existence by Bismarck. It would be cheap because not too many people lived past 65 in the 1880s. If retirement age had kept pace with the Bismarckian ideal, retirement age would currently be 75. An advance of just one year to 66 years of a policy which has now been in existence for 140 years does not strike me as a very big deal. Moreover, the net saving which is projected at 7 billion a year means that by 2026 when Labour attended to bring the policy in will have reduced the National Debt by £70 billion by introducing it in 2016 in a way that is relatively painless.
Complain about this comment
92. Electric Hermit
"Nope. I'm afraid you are guilty of joined-up thinking.
It is tempting to say that these politicians are idiots incapable of figuring these things out for themselves. But they are not. They know exactly what you know. But saying such things won't get you a standing ovation.
It's dumbed-down populism of the worst kind. And the electorate laps it up."
I think the politicians are terrified. They have no solution for it given the current view of how the world ought to work. As a species, our systems are fundamentally broken.
Some are flawed, some are for a world long gone, some are scams.
They are piling up on one another and politicians around the world either don't see that our horizon is full of imminent systemic failures, or just can't see what could be done.
Complain about this comment
dean and Thomas.
Where are you going to get all this energy from to power all this regeneration?
Where are you going to get all the water that is required to maintain that level of industrial growth. e.g it takes about 2,600 litres of water to make 1 pr of jeans.
Both are in decline in the UK.
Complain about this comment
Ah so many lies on the BBC Jock-land website, congratulations are due once again to the infiltration job done by "Scottish" Labour on what is supposed to be a pillar of impartiality.
Complain about this comment
82. mrbfaethedee
"I'm not convinced that there are a huge number of concerns which ought to be nationalised however."
Land
Banks
Utilities
Public transport
Mail
Complain about this comment
87. deanthetory
"Minimum wage = security and safety for workers."
Hardly. It limits the opportunities for employers to rip off workers. That's about all. It is not a national minimum wage that is required, but a national minimum income.
Complain about this comment
96. Thomas_Porter
"Isn't the problem being that the in the current benefit system you can gain more instead of working on mininum wage?"
Benefits are set at a rate just below subsistence level. If minimum wage is less than benefit, what does that tell you?
Complain about this comment
97. MagisterIlluminatus
"Retirement age of 65 was brought into existence by Bismarck."
Perhaps more relevant that when the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 (note the name) was introduced in the UK, the qualifying age was 70.
However, in general I agree.
Complain about this comment
97. Eek! I'm scared. Magister is almost right. The Germans, in 1881, originally set the retirement age at 70 rather than 65 though. It was actually LOWERED to 65 in 1917 (some years after Bismarck's death).
How it ended up at 65 in Britain I'm not sure.
The US retirement age was set at 65 in 1935. At that time about half the US states had a retirement age of 65 and half of 70. At the time, actuarial tables showed that 65 produced a manageable cost. No one built increases in age into the system simply because no one foresaw the substantial increases in life span.
Frankly, I don't see a problem (just speaking from my own point of view and not about life span in Scotland, etc) in raising the retirement age toward 70. I think it's probably necessary in most countries in order to control costs especially since there doesn't seem to be a health benefit to retirement.
Complain about this comment
103. At 01:00am on 07 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit
"Benefits are set at a rate just below subsistence level. If minimum wage is less than benefit, what does that tell you?"
It says we need to up the minimum wage, it is currently set at too low a level.
Complain about this comment
96. Thomas_Porter
"I am against an increase of the mininum wage because skilled workers (plumbers, joiners etc) earn between 10 to 15 pounds per hour. Should a person stacking shelves at Asda earn almost the same amount as a skilled trades person? Course not."
Nobody is talking about a minimum wage that erodes such differentials. Just a minimum wage that a person can actually live on.
But the level of benefits and the minimum wage is not the main problem. The main problem is lack of security. In order to function as human beings and as citizens people absolutely require a degree of security in their lives. At the bottom of the economy there is no security. With no future there is no future. No way to plan ahead because all ones resources are expended just getting by from one day to the next.
Nobody who has not experienced real poverty can understand what it does to you. It drains you. Leaves you paralysed and without hope. Even people who have experienced such poverty and managed to find a way out often blank out the memory. You will hear them talk about it as a "formative" experience. Hindsight with rose-tinted spectacles.
And it's no good saying that if some people can pull themselves out of poverty surely everyone can. There is a truism that contradicts one of the most pernicious myths of capitalism. What each might have, all cannot. Scrape the surface of those who have escaped poverty and you will find a significant element of good fortune in almost every case.
Give people genuine security and everything else follows. The relationship between the state and the citizen and between the capitalist system and society has for decades been such as to generate increasing levels of insecurity. And we can see what has followed from that.
Complain about this comment
It is transparently obvious that the UK has been living beyond its means for decades. Not only has it squandered the oil wealth, but it has increased the National Debt on a regular basis on top of that.
However, that's what a majority of our fellow Scots voted for, so we're stuck with it.
Cuts in public expenditure are clearly needed, but let's get some costings of how much our share is of the cost of "Imperial Britain". Makes far more sense to cease expenditure on those items which are there to allow posture on the world stage first, and then to see what subsequent economies are required.
You will have noted that the Tories have no intention of making cuts in this area - nor have the LDs or Labour.
Complain about this comment
So what do you think? Is Labour likely to take a bit of a beating between now and May?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2669655/Ex-Army-boss-General-Sir-Richard-Dannatt-in-blast-at-pathetic-ministers.html
Complain about this comment
98. mrbfaethedee
"They are piling up on one another and politicians around the world either don't see that our horizon is full of imminent systemic failures, or just can't see what could be done."
As you may be aware from some of my comments on other topics I am strongly averse to doom-mongering. Yes, we have problems. But if the human race is good at anything it is problem-solving. You don't get to be the dominant life-form of an entire planet just by luck.
The solutions are out there. Or, to be more honest about it, the fixes that will get us through to the next generation and the one after that... and so on. Why are the fixes not applied? Partly, of course, because the way things are actually suits some people. And the people it suits tend to wield a lot of power.
Also I have to say "globalisation". And I don't use that term in the facile sense that many campaigners do. What I mean is that, having barely mastered the complexities of managing things at the level of the nation-state, we have created a hugely more complex global machine. And the growth of this machine has massively outstripped our development of control mechanisms.
It's not that politicians don't want to solve problems. It's not that they lack ideas. It's just that, ahead of everything else, they want to get into power. And once they are in power they join those whose interests are served by maintaining the status quo.
We have to break this cycle at some point. Every politician who gets into office is elected in the hope that they will be the one. Some day, we'll get it right.
Complain about this comment
28. deanthetory
"...unless we level the playing field through a "moral tarrif" system to level the field of commerce."
Yes 'moral/tarrif' is oxymoronish in the context of capitalism but he seems a decent chap behind his tory philosophy. :)
Its a well established proposition that the UK will not be able to afford the cost of our pensions in the near future. Too many people living longer and the baby boomers from the 1940's coming on stream. Politicians (all of the unionists parties) know but are fearful to take action. Frank Field (lab) advised tony blair a few years ago but his recommendations were too drastic for public consumption (loss of votes)and he was batted into the long grass.
Our parents paid in but didn't, in the main, live long enough to beat the actuaries, who are good at bean counting in industries with hard physical working environments (ship building; mining and the like).
We will be the luckier ones if were 50+ to just retiring because our kids will be paying for us. Its a thistle that has to be grasped.
There is just not going to be enough younger ones working and the pyramid is standing on its apex rather than the base. I feel sorry for those who will have to look at private provision now to get comfort in 40 years time.
Its a big problem and one the SNP will have to think hard about when independence comes along.
Complain about this comment
Well, it may well be the pot calling the kettle calling the frying pan black, but I don't expect to see BBC to pick this story up in a hurry.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2671282/BBC-cut-Boris-Johnson-roasting-Jeremy-Paxman-over-wages.html
Haha! Beyond that, no comment.
Complain about this comment
Homecoming - doomed to failure, if I remember the few Unionists on here.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Second-Homecoming-on-cards-as.5709237.jp
"Figures due to be released in the coming weeks are expected to show the ten-month initiative's hopes of attracting 100,000 extra visitors and delivering a £40m boost to the economy have been topped."
Complain about this comment
Oh, I like the idea of 2014 for a second one. That would go over very well on this side of the pond. Great choice.
But WAIT, aren't we boycotting you? How did they end up a success? ;-)
Complain about this comment
111. SPOOLPIN
Welcome.
We agree. It's one of the real problems of the way that we organise politics that long term problems are dealt with in terms of short-term electoral advantage. Even appointing an independent review doesn't seem to work - but perhaps that's because they are always set up by the party in power.
Maybe we need to establish a structure whereby these reviews are set up on a multi-party basis and are charged with coming up not with a recommendation, but a set of options based on a solid body of research.
That way, parties can fight over the peripheral issues (while quietly agreeing on the core data).
Complain about this comment
112. JRMacClure
Danger! Reading the Sun can lead to irreparable brain damage!
Complain about this comment
#113 oldnat
Superb oldnat, you've got £40 million, right lets get this Independence on the road, ok lets buy larkhall and with the short change we can re-paint the railings white.
Complain about this comment
#116. Not a lot worse than -- some other news sources I could name. I wouldn't buy it though. It's against my principles to buy anything sold by Murdoch who is the first assistant to the Prince of Darkness.
Complain about this comment
112. JRMacClure
Who the hell would want to see that pair of numpties squabbling.
Complain about this comment
114. JRMacClure
I'm absolutely sure that exactly none of the person who set up that website visited Scotland this year. 100% success! :-)
Complain about this comment
115. oldnat
"It's one of the real problems of the way that we organise politics that long term problems are dealt with in terms of short-term electoral advantage."
Simple solution to that. Rolling elections. I polling day every year (1st April?) when a percentage of all elected officials are up for re-election. We have continuity and elections cease to attract the media circus they do now. Good chance that it might increase turnout too. Especially if polling was made a paid holiday on condition that you vote.
I'm not personally in favour of that last bit. I think people should vote because it is their civic duty, not because they are being rewarded. But rolling elections along with proportional representation and a couple of other little tweaks would surely transform politics.
Complain about this comment
#120. Very good point.
Complain about this comment
121. Electric Hermit
"rolling elections"
Interesting idea. It might just work in an Independent Scotland as long as there are no significant fault lines between the parties (on most issues other than the constitution, it's actually quite difficult to see that much difference between the biggest 4). However, if there was a new fault line - say centralisation/decentralisation (which I think it might be) - I'd be worried that Government would be paralysed as one party/coalition was in power for a year then changed due to alteration in a handful of seats, then back again the following year.
Since I want a bi-cameral Parliament, I'd be quite happy to have bi-annual/biennial (which is it?) elections for the revising chamber though, as the Americans do.
Complain about this comment
#121 electric
Sometimes you really do let yourself down.
Yearly election! in case you have forgotten! the public dislike election
by almost 2/3 and maybe more.
You see! that's why the pollsters can mock and taunt you on Independence and a referendum.What kind of turn out would such a referendum need?.
Complain about this comment
I don't suppose retirement age will mean much to the large number of Scots who won't live beyond their middle fifties.
Here's a snippet from Ian Bell of the Herald:
"George Osborne will be 66 in the year 2037.
His views on the challenges of retirement are, therefore, speculative. Meanwhile, as one of anywhere between a dozen and 16 shadow cabinet millionaires – they don’t air the vulgar topic – his direct, personal interest in the value of the state pension is, let’s say, limited."
As I've said elsehwere on BWB, The poor will pay again!
Complain about this comment
Methinks the Herald will not be supporting the Tories.
Excellent link, Albamac. Thanks.
The inheritance tax thing will not go over well with some, I suspect. Hasn't been much talk about it. There are always a certain number who hope to end up rich and refuse to see it as against their interest. But the Tory inheritance tax scheme is, if memory serves, even worse than our own Reagan's.
Complain about this comment
Poking around, I came across this which gave me a chuckle:
http://calumcashley.blogspot.com/2009/10/annabel-goldie-wants-more-power-for.html
Complain about this comment
125. albamac
Methinks that Ian Bell will not be supporting the Tories, but that's hardly surprise news. Anyway, thanks for the link as the article very grudgingly accepts George Osborne's analysis of the current economic situation. However, Bell's suggestion that only the poor will pay strikes me as disingenuous. Everyone receives a state pension, so everyone will pay. Whether your family has provided sufficient resources for you to treat the state pension as immaterial to your needs is neither here nor there.
127. JR etc.
So far as I am aware Annabel Goldie is not averse to more powers for the Scottish Parliament. She seems to take the view that you give them enough rope to hang themselves. What is more surprising is that the SNP candidate for Edinburgh North and Leith doesn't appear to know that.
Complain about this comment
#128. What is more surprising is that the SNP candidate for Edinburgh North and Leith doesn't appear to know that.
Oh, I think everyone knows that Annabel Goldie is really touting for the her bosses in London. What you don't seem to be able to do is recognize sarcasm.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
128. MagisterIlluminatus
How do you manage to make squirming look so comfortable - force of habit?
Complain about this comment
A tribute to the Labour party, written some time ago but continuity is maintained, I think.
BIRDS CANNAE FLY WHERE PIGS FILL THE SKY
Ah belanged tae Glesga,
Dear auld Glesga toon,
‘Fore the men it the tap,
wi’ their heids full o’ crap,
tore aw the hooses doon.
They oaf’rt us dreams,
When they pit us in ‘schemes’
An’ telt us that we’d be free
O’ the dirt an’ disease,
the rats, lice an’ fleas
that wur killin’ the likes o’ me.
Aye, they freed us awright
Fae oor common plight
An’ the ties that held us thegither
Fur they scattered us wide,
Weakint oor pride
An’ left us tae watch oor toon wither.
Noo it’s junkies an’ drunks,
An’ ignorant punks
An’ we huv tae pass laws tae curb bigots.
Geez a blaw it yer skunk
An’ a pavement tae bunk
An’ chib men ur poorin’ oot spigots.
They gave us Youth Ops
An’ the Enterprise Shops
Tae paint us a future that’s sunny
But, time efter time,
The managin’ slime
Were busily stealin’ oor money.
Their latest illusion
is social inclusion
While honest folk hunger an’ sicken
An’ the mighty an’ high
Take their slice o’ the pie
Fill’t wi’ fresh fruit that’s ripe fur the pickin’.
Noo, the pride o’ oor youth
Is nothin’ but mooth
They’re no’ buildin’ locos or liners.
They’re turned oot lik clones
tae answer the phones
or shovel oot burgers in diners.
Politicians take pride
when their heids they should hide
in shame it the waste an’ the plunder.
Pigs that cin fly
Held aloft oan a lie
While their betters ur trodden under.
Aye, Glesga’s jist rerr
Fur the folk who get mer
Than the wans it the fit o’ the ladder.
Hauf a century’s passed
Still the people come last
An’ their tale jist gets sicker an’ sadder.
There’s still poverty here
An’ the experts ur clear
That weans ur gaun hungry among us.
Noo, fifty years oan,
Ur we ‘titelt tae moan
Ower the buckets o' bull that they slung us?
Noo they still think they’re right
Wi’ their brains made o’ shite,
They’ll sell us the myth in a mall
But whit good ur shoaps
Tae folk wi’ scant hopes
Who’ve already been sent tae the wall.
It’s money they need,
tae buy daily breid,
No’ Gucci or Harrods, aw naw,
But they’ll no’ beat the greed
That deepens their need
An’ leaves them wi’ sweet hee-haw.
Aw these leaders o’ oors
Ur the basest o’ hoors,
Fur yer vote they will promise an’ pander
But when aw’s said an’ done,
When elections ur won,
They’ll sell ye oot fur a backhander.
So, who pide the price?
No’ the fleas or the lice
Or the parasites in the city.
The rats dressed in suits
still gnaw it the roots
O’ a tree that they’ve stripped withoot pity.
There’s a rank, fishy smell
An’ the still silent bell
Cannae ring oot an audible warnin’.
So we jist staun an’ gape
While the chancers gang-rape
the city that we were born in.
Complain about this comment
How about, as a start, looking nearer home - reduce MP's nice fat salaries, scrap their index linked pensions - they earn enough to pay for their own - and also reduce their "expenses" - no more "freebies" such as "fact-finding missions to luxury hotels in foreign parts, paid for by us.
Scrap Political Parties (once in they could not care a toss for their consituents and only vote according to the whips - so UNDEMOCRATIC) and make ALL MPs subject to 5 years residency in the consituency BEFORE being considered for election - get rid of "jobs for the boys" and "safe seats".
MPs have never "had it so good" - they made the decisions that put us in the position we are currently in - let THEM pay !!!!!!
Complain about this comment
101. Electric Hermit
"Land
Banks
Utilities
Public transport
Mail"
All good candidates, all sit fine with my rule of thumb.
I can barely imagine the resistance to nationalising banks from the vested interests invloved.
Land is also a candidate which would meet huge resistance.
Complain about this comment
133. Coineach
Hear! Hear!
Don't see it happening, Coineach, but where there's life there's hope!
Complain about this comment
# 24 JRMacClure
Have you seen any indication of investigation?
The problem is that once an investigation starts it is normally kept undercover until the person/s are charged and then it hits the public domain. I don't have the luxury of being able to follow all the stories all of the time and it is possible that I have missed whether there is going to be an investigation. Also, what tends to happen, is that if an investigation starts and nothing is found then this information is not released to the public. It just drifts into oblivion.
Complain about this comment
# 41 U14153624
You won't catch me disagreeing with that.
Complain about this comment
Regarding BBC Scotland's reporting, I thought it ironic that a balanced programme went out from London via the One Show, while we had to endure a home grown, poorly constructed piece from Glasgow. Incidentally, did anyone spot the clever sound editing where it switched from the SNP spokesman to very loud bagpipes, thus drowning out his explanantion about the UK Government's involvement in the Scottish fishing industry?
However, having earlier written to my Westminster MP, Mr Ken MacQuarrie has been contacted by the MP and asked to address my concerns.
Complain about this comment
# 50 InfrequentAllele
Excellent.
Complain about this comment
" Suicide target 'will not be met' "
Anyone see anything wrong with this ?
Or is it just me?
Complain about this comment
# 56 cynicalHighlander
In a way this is just a modern version of the nosey parker who used to keep an eye on the street and if anything suspicious happened was more than happy to tell the bobby on the beat. Personally, I have no problem with having more cameras on the street.
Complain about this comment
110. Electric Hermit
"We have to break this cycle at some point. Every politician who gets into office is elected in the hope that they will be the one. Some day, we'll get it right."
I don't consider myself to be a doommonger either.
I don't think that simply hoping for the right leaders to come is a strategy to bank on.
You're right to say we do need to break the cycle, I don't think that there is any way to do it other than demanding systems designed to work, designed against asymetrical gains, designed against gaming & corruption, designed to be sustainable and life enhancing - all in global terms.
Then we can let politicians, captains of industry, etc... get on with it again - once we are confident that the systems we have in place are not broken or in the service of the few.
Complain about this comment
# 69 oldnat
Rofl
Complain about this comment
115. oldnat
"Maybe we need to establish a structure whereby these reviews are set up on a multi-party basis and are charged with coming up not with a recommendation, but a set of options based on a solid body of research."
No maybe about it.
I think the removal of political parties would help.
Complain about this comment
121. Electric Hermit
"Simple solution to that. Rolling elections."
It's an interesting idea, but i think that it is unlikely to increase voting numbers - probably the opposite.
The public need a direct and continous means of pushing into the system - imagine (naively) a system for allowing individuals set new or add their voice to existing public agenda items. When an item gathers sufficient weight, that item is propogated up to the next level - after some number of such promotions winding up at the doorstep of the executive. Removal of political parties would help too i think.
Such a system could enable things from recalls to grassroots agenda setting.
Complain about this comment
# 132 albamac
Wonderful poem and sad.
Complain about this comment
135. albamac
"Don't see it happening, Coineach, but where there's life there's hope!"
If we get independence all our political systems are up in the air - and a strong and persuasive grassroots movement for transforming the way politics is 'done' could stand a good chance.
Complain about this comment
# Diabloandco
Lol
Complain about this comment
# 147 mrbfaethedee
I hope that you are right but I suspect that this won't happen because once a politician gets power they are reluctant to let go of it.
Complain about this comment
149. gedguy2
"once a politician gets power they are reluctant to let go of it."
I think you're right about that tendency.
It's one of the reasons I'd like to get rid of political parties - they'd be forced to stand on their principles and record as individuals to be elected. Political affiliation amogst politicians should be temporary, testably goal-based, and recorded and monitored in the style of members interests.
Nothing will get rid of the desire to wield and preserve power, that's why we need to put in place systems which make things more transparent and hold them in check.
Holding on to our antiquated system of political representation will get us nowhere, and as politics is the people's lever on the world, it is imperative that if we have the opportunity to make it work better for us we take it.
Complain about this comment
It has been obvious for some time that the BBC in London has moved from being broadly pro-Labour to being broadly anti-Labour. This largely coincided with the departure of Blair and the assumption of the premiership by Brown, although the Blair-Bush-WMD-Iraq war farrago probably marked the start of it. In changing like this, the BBC in London is clearly following a general shift in English public opinion.
I think the BBC One Show coverage represents the mainstream English view of Scottish independence - which I would sum up as "if they want to be independent then they should just go ahead, and we wish them well". Contrast that with the typical output from Pacific Quay.
BBC Scotland is noticeably out of synch with this change. This is probably because Scotland had been a one party state for half a century, and you wouldn't get far in the media if you were an opponent of the Labour party - which in recent decades has become increasingly synonymous with being a Scottish nationalist. Labour had all the power, Labour had all the stories, and journalists had to play the game or be frozen out, with their careers at stake.
There has been a large shift in Scottish public opinion (eg the last Holyrood and Euro elections), but the response of BBC Scotland could best be summed up in the word 'denial'. It is kind of understandable how these like-minded souls ended up writing and presenting the state broadcaster's Scotish political coverage. Understandable, but not acceptable.
Complain about this comment
#140 diabloandco- so GGC can't train 10,000 front line staff in 7 years. would it be correct to question why we pay around £158,000 a year in salary's alone to the 16 YES 16 members of the GGC board?
the deprivation hasn't just happened , surely the local councilor's that sit on the board could keep their colleagues up to date!
Sid
Complain about this comment
#138 BC
Do not worry it is all under control!
I complained regarding lack of assiduous questioning of Jim Murphy and got this reply:-
"I understand you feel there's a favouritism shown in interviews towards the Scottish Labour party, with presenters such as Jim Murphy, Kirsty Wark and Catriona Renton failing to hide their support for the party.
Impartiality is the cornerstone of all our news and current affairs output and we ensure that all our correspondents and presenters, including Jim, Kirsty and Catriona, are aware of this commitment so as to guarantee we broadcast fair and balanced programming at all times."
So now you know
Complain about this comment
@ 133/135/147 et al.
Political parties are clearly contrary to the notion of democracy, why in the 21st Century do we still rely on an antiquated, outdated and anachronistic 18thC. methods of delivering a plebiscite?
A newly independent Scotland would have a chance to become the first true democracy by allowing rolling referenda through the internet, mobile phones etc. This is not to be confused with Strictly-X-Factor voting as it would be backed up by security to ensure one person one vote (this is technically feasible).
Politicians would then need to spend their time talking to the public, persuading or dare I say leading, rather than producing meaningless waffle in parliament that is then just voted on along party lines.
Complain about this comment
153. Aikenheed
Top quality - glad it's all out in the open now :)
Maybe they'll just let him host newsnight scotland now!
Complain about this comment
132. At 07:48am on 07 Oct 2009, albamac wrote:
A tribute to the Labour party
Albamac, your talents are wasted here, I think this is probably the best thing I have ever read on BWB
Unfortunately too true.
Complain about this comment
As an aside I would like to see the Newly Independent Scotland have citizen tests for every one wishing to vote, with the testing age at 16. Those passing gaining the franchise and a ‘voting license’, those failing being given additional lessons and allowed to resit when they are ready. This would be a factual based test as to how the Country operates politically amongst other things. This would ensure that at least the person doing the voting had a basic understanding as to how the system works. The license may need to be renewed periodically, after having voting Tory for instance (haha).
Complain about this comment
#133 Coineach - making the guilty pay...
That along with #101 Electric Hermit's nationalisation of;
Land
Banks
Utilities
Public transport
Mail
Then we'd be beginning to have a country we could be proud of instead of the dump westmonster has perpetrated upon us.
It's comin' yet for a' that!
Complain about this comment
Is this a grassroots I see before me?
Complain about this comment
#153 Aikenheed - hope you have printed it off and saved it somewhere. As it will definitely disappear. It's a cracker, maybe this is where Mr Murphy See's himself working next year (he he)
It would be a very good first "real" job for him
Sid
Complain about this comment
Electric Hermit:
Does the mininum wage not also imply that the individual will live the most basic existence?
You are not suppose to 'live' on the mininum wage. You are suppose to survive.
If people can not escape the cycle then that is where benefits should be directed. Education can be an escape route, so should we not focus on keeping opportunites available?
Complain about this comment
# 157 CuttingSarky
As much as I admire your underlying principle I could not agree to any system which disenfranchises a section of the potential voters because it does not come up to someone's standards of who is legally entitled to vote. This is the thin of a totalitarianistic system and I would have none of it. In a democracy even the ignorant have the right to remain ignorant.
Complain about this comment
# 150 mrbfaethedee
I don't think it so much the fault of 'parties' but more the fault of the individuals that make up those parties. The herd instinct is too strong in us. As my father said: 'Never vote for someone who wants to be a politician.'
Complain about this comment
Aikenheed
That certainly explains a few things. Perhaps he can just interview himself then as the soft scripted questions are a bit of a giveaway already.
Its also interesting that the official BBC response is that the presenters are absolutely impartial because, err well they are aware of the rules. Nothing about actually following them though?
And as for impartiality is their 'cornerstone', it must be a particularly insignificant stone tucked deep inside a very remote corner, marked 'regional vassal policy'.
Complain about this comment
# 158 X_Sticks
The problem with nationalisation is that those who run and work within that industry tend to view that position that they hold as a job for life. Technology changes and therefore the time will come when the labour, employed by that nationalised industry, will not be needed to the extent that it has to allow that industry to function.I'm sure most of us will remember the nightmare of the nationalised industries in the UK dictating to the politicians how to run the country. We must never allow that situation to arise again where unelected union leaders can control a democratically elected government. If a system could be worked out where those nationalised industries could function, within the guidelines and laws set down by the EU, without those industries having the power that they once wielded, then I would be happy to support nationalisation.
Complain about this comment
156. X_Sticks
"Albamac, your talents are wasted here, I think this is probably the best thing I have ever read on BWB"
Thanks, X_Sticks.
If someone reads it, it's not wasted and, since you and Gedguy2 (#146) have already expressed appreciation, I'm glad I posted it.
Complain about this comment
#145 mrbfaethedee
"The public need a direct and continous means of pushing into the system - imagine (naively) a system for allowing individuals set new or add their voice to existing public agenda items." &
#154 CuttingSarky
"A newly independent Scotland would have a chance to become the first true democracy by allowing rolling referenda through the internet, mobile phones etc."
Good posts both, but ...
Parties are not evil per se - it's the whipping system and the power of the party leaders over reselection which make MPs and MSPs behave like robots. STV for all elections and allowing any party member to stand for any elected post would soon change that.
Yes, technology could be introduced to make voting in referendums easier but why not establish the principle first, and set the ball rolling by initiating them in the traditional way and, like Switzerland, simply set one Sunday morning per quarter aside for them? It's a system that actually works and the last set on the last Sunday of September were a case in point and very much on topic.
The Swiss are finding the same problems as everyone else in funding their version of the NHS and state pensions, but rather than divide on rigid party lines to determine what to do they simply held a referendum on how to fund them, with an increase in VAT getting the necessary support from the electorate [less than 2%] to be posed as the Yes/No question. The referendum was narrowly won , with 54.5% of the popular vote and 12 cantons for vs. 11 against, just passing the needed hurdle of both popular and cantonal majorities. World Radio Switzerland's Campaign for September VAT hike begins explains some of the issues.
One warning, though, even in a real, developed democracy with an excellent free education system you can't expect everyone to become a political junkie. Only 40.8% of the electorate voted, but at least nobody can deny that they had their opportunity.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
# 161 Thomas_Porter
I tend to agree with most of what you are saying. I think that we should get away from this term 'benefits' as if the state has an absolute right to demand the taxation of everyone and everything. These should be 'rights' not 'benefits'. We have gotten so used to being taxed that we simple accept that the state has a right to take whatever it wants off us whenever it likes. It should be the other way around. The money is ours and the state should come up with a hell of a good reason to take some of that money off us. The state is there for us, not the other way around.
Complain about this comment
# 166 albamac
I'm glad you posted it too, albamac as I have copied and pasted it. I'm just checking up on the legality of copyright at the moment. ;-)
Complain about this comment
# 167 Brownedov
Sounds like a good system to me. Instead of the Cantons we can have something along the lines of the old counties. This would solve the 'central belt problem', often espoused by northighlander with which I agree.
Complain about this comment
162. At 11:31am on 07 Oct 2009, gedguy2 wrote:
# 157 CuttingSarky
As much as I admire your underlying principle I could not agree to any system which disenfranchises a section of the potential voters because it does not come up to someone's standards of who is legally entitled to vote. This is the thin of a totalitarianistic system and I would have none of it. In a democracy even the ignorant have the right to remain ignorant.
There are already standards about who can vote - not everyone is eligible by right (Madness, Criminals and Lords – though I may be repeating myself). Also the standards as I said are not arbitrary or subjective, all the test needs clarify is that the voter understands the system. Only partially relevant, but you wouldn’t let an ignorant and untrained driver on the road?
There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity, all I am asking is that those who are given the right to vote also exercise the responsibility for its use. I would also say that the ignorant may have the ability to remain so but it is not a right and they should not be allowed to dilute the reasoned intentions of others through blindly voting for whom they told by the media etc.
Complain about this comment
#165 gedguy2
I would not suggest for a minute that we returned to the confrontational style of government/nationalised industries politics that we witnessed through the 70s/80s.
I would be looking for a Scottish version of nationalisation where these industries are run and managed for the betterment of all in the country. While there is a place for unions in industry I fully agree that they should not be allowed to dictate government policy.
One thing about nationalised industries is that they can be used in times of resession to stimulate the economy FROM THE GROUND UP. I don't believe in the capitalist "trickle down" philosophy. Judging from where we now are it doesn't work.
In an independent Scotland I would wish a much flatter society without the huge differentials between wealth and poverty. The ever increasing gap between the haves and have nots can only end in civil unrest vs the police state.
Complain about this comment
163. gedguy2
"I don't think it so much the fault of 'parties' but more the fault of the individuals that make up those parties. The herd instinct is too strong in us. As my father said: 'Never vote for someone who wants to be a politician.'"
I disagree gedguy2. Parties allow individuals to be voted in without significant scrutiny because the electorate vote for parties instead. The parties persist over time, and so people can vote through habits, family influence over generations, and by believing that what a party used to stand for is what they still stand for. It's also very easy to vote for what you don't want through fear, rather than casting a positive ballot.
I don't believe that we are naturally as prone to the herd instinct as it may seem. We are encouraged to believe it so, and the affordances of our political systems lend themselves to that belief. We are social community oriented creatures rather than herds - give the people better direct access to what is currently political machinery and the right tools, and I think we could make the transition from behaving like passive herds following flags to proactive ad-hoc groups driving the political and social agendas directly.
The nature of some of the individuals seeking political power may be questionable, but under a system driven by citizens they would be less like to thrive if they even bothered to stand.
I think other systems would fit alongside a citizen driven, party free political base too. We would need to protect long-term efforts from fickle mass effects from the population at large. Research, evidence and goal-based systems from managing our longer term interest in key area like health, education etc... These would possess a well-founded inertia against changes based on transient shifts of opinion not backed by solid evidence of long-term benefit and good fit.
I don't think we can sit here with the same system much longer.
I'll not belabour the topic anymore - we may just have to sit here with our different views on this particular one.
Complain about this comment
165. gedguy2
"If a system could be worked out where those nationalised industries could function, within the guidelines and laws set down by the EU, without those industries having the power that they once wielded, then I would be happy to support nationalisation."
I agree!
I think that the inefficiencies inside nationalised industries were stated vocally and repeatedly but seldom actually dealt with. There is no reason that we could not make sure that ownership aside, the nationalised industries were run with an eye to efficiency and good practice in the same way as good, succesful private businesses.
Complain about this comment
Tucked away inconspicuously on this website's main news page is a link to Public to have say on BBC policy.
Sadly, it's not aimed at standards of political reporting but rather at matters of "taste" such as the Ross & Brand affair, but it does invite everyone to take part here, where you can download the draft guidelines in PDF form. It can surely do no harm and may even do some good for those of us posting here to put in our penn'orth.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
168 - "These should be 'rights' not 'benefits'. "
The problem with this stance, gedguy2, is that there is a hardcore element in our society who already believe this is the case and expect to be paid state benefits regardless of the qualifying conditions and regardless of any obligations they may have to fulfil as a requirement of receiving these state benefits. There are people who do expect to be kept from cradle to grave and do nothing to contribute in return. Equally, we have people who work off the books, receive sufficient funds to keep themselves but also claim benefits because they "have a right to them".
Your stance would legitimise their fraud.
Complain about this comment
167. At 11:51am on 07 Oct 2009, Brownedov wrote:
Parties are not evil per se
True but some people are, and the party system allowed them to create NuLabour from the only electable left wing voice in Britain. We are now left with BlueLabour or Tories.
One warning, though, even in a real, developed democracy with an excellent free education system you can't expect everyone to become a political junkie. Only 40.8% of the electorate voted, but at least nobody can deny that they had their opportunity.
There are only 18 real votes in this session in Holyrood, I send more texts than that in a day as do a lot of younger (current) non-voters. There is a real difference between an interest in politics (voters) and an interest in the political machine (junkies). You have to register to vote now why not print the test on the back?
Complain about this comment
167. Brownedov
"Parties are not evil per se - it's the whipping system and the power of the party leaders over reselection which make MPs and MSPs behave like robots. STV for all elections and allowing any party member to stand for any elected post would soon change that."
Agreed, but they do hold back the free movement of ideas. Every idea has to be weighed and measured against the party's dogma, and the potential for attack by other parties. The free acting behaviour of MP's you describe would be the default in a party free system i think, rather than something the parties ought to aspire to allow.
"Yes, technology could be introduced to make voting in referendums easier but why not establish the principle first, and set the ball rolling by initiating them in the traditional way and, like Switzerland, simply set one Sunday morning per quarter aside for them?"
Testing the principle would certainly be a good step in my view. As regards technology, my primary reason for advocating it is that it is the only real candidate to allow ad hoc attempts to set the agenda from the bottom up at scale.
"One warning, though, even in a real, developed democracy with an excellent free education system you can't expect everyone to become a political junkie. Only 40.8% of the electorate voted, but at least nobody can deny that they had their opportunity."
Very true. But people (not political geeks) generally get told they ought to vote on things they don't really care about.
If a individuals could set the agenda as well as politicians, and if technology was used to direct the items that people may actually be interested in to them, and if the individual could then add their voice/vote to those items, i think a system of rolling referendums based on grassroots initiatives acheiving critical masses of support at community->regional->national levels would be possible (as well as the top down model).
The 'joke' about having a referendum on everything needn't be a joke.
As a consequence I would also expect most politician's jobs to morph into a cross between their current job and something closer to pure civil service where they may spend more of their time enacting the decisions of the people and less time making decisions for the people.
To reiterate though, I'm not averse to smaller steps along the way, I just think independence may be a good oportunity to set our sights high with idealism and see what we can acheive.
Complain about this comment
gedguy2:
#168.
"I tend to agree with most of what you are saying. I think that we should get away from this term 'benefits' as if the state has an absolute right to demand the taxation of everyone and everything. These should be 'rights' not 'benefits'. We have gotten so used to being taxed that we simple accept that the state has a right to take whatever it wants off us whenever it likes. It should be the other way around. The money is ours and the state should come up with a hell of a good reason to take some of that money off us. The state is there for us, not the other way around."
I wouldn't use the words 'rights'. Britain does not have a proper constituation, without one you will always see cases where rights have been abused despite the person being clearly in the wrong.
However I believe a person should be paid based on their contribution to the country. But I would also expect the state should ensure that those making 'simple' contributions to be compensated so they have opportunities to improve their lifes, or start a family without living in poverty by doing so.
To use an earlier example a person stacking shelves at Asda may not be as important as a doctor, but where would we be without the lower classes working?
If a person chooses to spend the rest of their life stacking shelves then the state should ensure that this person can start a family, provide a house for his/her family and recognise that without these people our economy would never work at all.
At the moment our benefits system is based on a persons circumstances and not on their contribution, so you end up rewarding those who should not be and criminalising those who do contribute in someway to the country.
Complain about this comment
#170 gedguy2
"Instead of the Cantons we can have something along the lines of the old counties. This would solve the 'central belt problem', often espoused by northighlander with which I agree."
I'm not so sure that it would be cost-effective to roll back to the old counties. For starters, I'd have thought the existing councils would be about right.
However, the Swiss system has the third level of the "communes" which make up the cantons, and which is desperately needed to fix northighlander's valid complaints about the lack of local control. Swiss communes have the right to choose which canton to join, or to create their own new canton if they wish, as canton Jura did in splitting from canton Bern. They can also split in two, as both Basel and Appenzell did.
Communes themselves can also split and merge. And of course the land mass can also grow, as happened when the Republic of Geneva joined the confederation - an interesting precedent for Brwick, perhaps?
For the technically minded, I should have pointed out that there are, in fact, 26 Swiss cantons but electorally they only add up to 23 as a number of the very small ones only have half an electoral vote.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Re 150
I agree in principle, what you are saying is true. However politicians of all colours crave power, it is the type of people attracted to politics.
Removing parties would just create other types of coalitions, possibly more sinister and less open. There are enough of these types at work already!
What we really need is to ensure that the politicians have a more direct link to the electorate and their wishes. That means to me more local based decision making. The principal of government should be to make decisions at the lowest possible levels.
That way communities would start to solve their own problems and we would start to tackle the apathy that so blights Scotland. We need to review the systems of government and start again with the bottom up approach.
I have to say the introduction of PR appears to have placed more power in the hands of the political parties, this has further weakened links with the electorate.
It also amazes me that there is a basic contradiction in terms between Holyrood and the electorate. Apparently devolution or Independence is good, but as an institution it has consistently avoided looking at local decision making. Apparently more devolution or decentralisation is bad.
Both Labour and the SNP have done absolutely nothing to even look at this issue seriously. I feel this is the connect that is missing with our politicians.
Complain about this comment
# 176 ForteanJo
Indeed, but there are always two sides to a coin. What about those at the top who have never worked a day in their lives but live off the hardwork off their ancestors who have passed down shares for the benefit of their descendents? Those same descendents who will use every trick in the book to avoid paying taxes on their share dividends. Isn't that the same thing?
Complain about this comment
# 172 X_Sticks
I agree.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
153. At 10:21am on 07 Oct 2009, Aikenheed
My goodness, is that not the best Freudian slip ever !!
I see Murphy has been at it [a tit] again insulting Iceland and Ireland. A perfect example of the man's ineptitude and nary a mention of it once again in the Scottish media. This follows on from his claim that the Scottish Government were being treated in exactly the same manner as the previous administration had with regards to the climate change conference - again untrue.
Murphy started his role with much the same insults, resulting in a reprimand from a Norwegian diplomat. He also elicited a similar response from a senior Icelandic politician - that episode say the BBC in Scotland headline it as 'Iceland Criticises Scottish Attacks' - only to be re-worked later from Scottish to UK after complaints.
We then had the infamous claim from Murphy that the Dunfermline BS had acquired US sub prime mortgages - a 100% false claim and one that the assorted 'glencambel' journalists again simply ignored.
If Murphy had been a high profile English MP the press in England would have eaten him up by now - blunder after blunder follows the man, pity no Scottish journalist can be bothered putting him on the spot.
Maybe Brian 'Chisholm' will notice it, he did belatedly notice the extreme language being adopted by Unionist politicians after all.
Complain about this comment
#177 CuttingSarky
"You have to register to vote now why not print the test on the back?"
My original comment was not aimed against the idea of a test, but rather to point out that even with a sophisticated electorate you can't force people to vote when you have so many voting opportunities.
However, I do agree that a very basic test before being allowed to exercise the privilege of voting would not be unreasonable. Why not publish your draft test paper here and let us comment on it?
Out this afternoon but back tonight, I hope.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
# 171 CuttingSarky
This is where you and I differ. I believe that everyone should have the right to vote whatever their circumstances. If Lords, madmen (isn't that the same thing?) and criminals can be taxed then they should have the right to vote for the people who tax them.
Complain about this comment
# 173 mrbfaethedee
I wish that I could agree with you concerning the 'herd' aspect of society, as this is what I would like it to be, but even if you take the term 'society' it is, in itself, a function of the herd instinct.
I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this point. Sorry.
Complain about this comment
# 179 Thomas_Porter
There is quite a lot of what you say there that mirrors my own view of 'society'. I certainly don't believe that 'working' should be the only criteria to establish whether a person is a benefit to society or not. If this were the case, and I'm not too sure if this is what you mean but I will continue anyway, then people like philosophers and artists and the like would be exempt from any help from the state. When I say the state I don't mean the government but the people elected by the people to run things for them. Sorry for not going into too much detail just now as I am really busy and I am hurrying to get several things done at the same time.
Complain about this comment
# 180 Brownedov
Seems fair enough to me so I'll happily bow to your superior knowledge on those points.
Complain about this comment
but as an institution it has consistently avoided looking at local decision making. Apparently more devolution or decentralisation is bad.
Both Labour and the SNP have done absolutely nothing to even look at this issue seriously.
The SNP have, you spoil a decent post through a desire to attack the SNP.
Complain about this comment
Re 190 Greenockboy
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out to me exactly what they have done to decentralise power or look at devolving power from Holyrood.
I try to keep up with things but work long hours so it is possible i miss something from time to time.
I don't hate the SNP, I just see them as little different to Labour.
Complain about this comment
@gedguy2
Why do you believe everyone should automatically have a right to vote? Democracy had to be fought for by previous generations why should we allow it to fall to the ignoratti following sky/gmtv/trisha/etc???
Taxation without representation is a non starter (for me) on this issue as taxes are raised to pay for communal services which presumably are open to everyone irrespective of whether they voted (or even paid) for them - Poll Tax anyone?
@brownedov 185
this may be a poisoned chalice but i will think about it
Complain about this comment
187. gedguy2
"
I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this point. Sorry."
Fair enough gedguy2.
Either way, arriving at a system of government which protects itself and the people from self-interested politicians and other bodies is presumably an aspiration we can share?
Complain about this comment
Re 192
The problem with deciding who can vote is somone has to decide who can vote. If there was ever a position open to abuse that would undermine democracy well......
You are correct democracy was what we fought two world wars over, those who fought are regularly forgotten in this society, but they definitely didn't fight for some political class to decide who was a fit person to vote.
So although it has its faults it must be a universal right.
Complain about this comment
# 192 CuttingSarky
This is what I beleive and I do not expect you to believe in my beliefs. Not only is that your right, which I respect, but it is also mine. We will have to agree to disagree on that point. I'm sure that in the future we may agree on something else.
Complain about this comment
# 193 mrbfaethedee
Either way, arriving at a system of government which protects itself and the people from self-interested politicians and other bodies is presumably an aspiration we can share?
I'll vote for that.
Complain about this comment
# 194 northhighlander
This is the second time that I've agreed with you. ;-)
Complain about this comment
194. northhighlander
"democracy was what we fought two world wars over"
No it wasn't! WWI was a war between empires - little different from any previous imperial war, except in size.
WWII was fought to stop Germany (whether it had been Nazi or not) conquering Europe and becoming the dominant world power. That's why Roosevelt prioritised the defeat of Germany as opposed to Japan who were the ones who actually attacked the US.
Complain about this comment
In response to Brownedov I cribbed the US citizen test and added a couple of my own. The test wouldn’t be this long but the list of questions could be; feel free to add questions or dispute the answers most of which I made up!
What is the Saltire? Flag/Emblem of Scotland.
What Colours are in the Saltire? White and AZURE!!!!!!!
What is a Unitary Authority? Division of local Government.
How many Unitary Authorities are there? 32
Who becomes First Minister if he/she should die? Haven’t a clue
For how long do we elect a Parliament? 4 years
What is the Constitution? The supreme law of the land
Can the Constitution be changed? Yes
Who makes the laws in the Scotland? Parliament (assumes Parliamentary Democracy)
What is the Parliament? The body of elected MSPs NOT the building!
What are the duties of Parliament? To make laws, defend the nation, the welfare of the Scottish People.
What does MSP Stand for? Member of the Scottish Parliament
Who elects MSPs? Citizens who hold Voting Licences.
How many MSPs are there in a Parliament? 129
How many types of MSPs are there, and what are they? 2, Constituency and Regional List
What are the duties of the Supreme Court? To interpret laws
What is the supreme law of Scotland? The Constitution
According to the Constitution, a person must meet certain requirements in order to be eligible to vote. Name one of these requirements. Must be a citizen of Scotland; must be at least 16 years old by the time he/she will vote; etc.
Who selects the Supreme Court justice? Appointed by the First Minister, agreed by the Judiciary, ratified by the Citizenry
What is the head executive of a city government called? Provost.
What is the basic belief of the Declaration of Arbroath? We’d like to govern ourselves please Mr Pope.
What is the national anthem of Scotland? fill in your choice here
Who has the power to declare the war? Parliament, ratified by the Citizenry.
What kind of government does Scotland have? Parliamentary Democracy (Discuss)
Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution? Everyone (citizens and non-citizens) living in Scotland.
What is the most important right granted to Scottish citizens? The right to freedom of speech.
Who is the Commander in Chief of the Scottish military? answers on a postcard please
Complain about this comment
@NorthHighlander 194
Incorrect! we fought 1 world war for democracy the first was a working class massacre with no specific purpopse other than to prolong the British Empire. Democracy should be constantly fought for not just against fascism but also ignorance.
There is no 'choosing' in who passes the test there is a simple pass or fail that can be viewed by everyone is open and fair even if all you do is memorise the answers which are set out in advance.
see list above
Complain about this comment
CuttingSarky:
#200.
I disagree about world war two being fought for democracy.
However a Scottish citizen test should also include questions of history and also questions that force the individual to show their opinion instead of general knowledge.
Complain about this comment
# 199 CuttingSarky
You got me on a few of them. However, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who wouldn't be allowed to vote. ;-)
Complain about this comment
# 200 CuttingSarky
I cannot think of any inter state war that was fought for democracy. All state wars are fought for power. If we declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland then why didn't we declare war on the USSR as well. The answer is because we didn't care about Poland but were looking for an excuse to curtail the global ambitions of Germany.
Complain about this comment
Re 198
If we hadn't stood up to the Nazi's in the second world war, alone for a significant time, our way of life and freedom to choose who governed us would have been removed. So for the vast majority who fought in it that conflict that is what they were fighting for. Our way of life and freedom.
Most probably believed that in the first war.
So we have to have a universal right to vote, because that is what those who didn't survive gave their lives for.
Subsequent analysis by academics may throw a different light on it I agree, but doesn't alter what I said above.
Complain about this comment
Test - some questions can only be answered after independence and WE have decided how WE are governed i.e. who will be in charge of a Sottish Military? also if the commentators here cant answer these questions there are questions to be asked about the education system. Opinion should play no part in the test its not about ideals only ability to make a reasonable decision based on facts. History may play a part but then which version of it?
Fighting for Democracy - theres a sticky argument here about 'just wars' and I do not want to give Bliar-ites a shoe in but despite the manner in which we entered WWII and maybe with an element of hindsight I would still support the war against Fascism and would have fought, whereas they could stick WWI where the sun dont shine...
Complain about this comment
Ah, the past...
So, about this Constitution... ? :)
As a stater for 10, has anyone here read the draft constitution published by the SNP? Thoughts?
Complain about this comment
I see northhighlander has already dropped WWI from the reasons we should always do what we’ve always done.. His argument that a universal franchise is sacrosanct because people died in WWII so we could have it is also nonsense, in WWII 20 million Russians died under communism should they be forced to endure that political system? Even if the argument was about denying people the vote, which it is not!, the test does not remove the right to vote anymore than the driving test denies anyone the right to drive a car, it merely indicates that they have the ability to come to their own decision even if they still want to be brainwashed by the right wing media.
No generation can be held to ransom by the actions or decision of previous ones, we live under very different circumstance from them and we now need to address another set of problems. Why is the turnout in elections so low, why do people feel their vote is often wasted? And finally getting back to the main point an enfranchised citizenry with the education and knowledge to make their own decisions would engage much more with a modern system of rolling referenda if accessible through the internet and mobile technology. Was all I was saying really.
Complain about this comment
We now know that when the Labour-Tory bunch talk about democracy it's a cynical exercise in rhetoric, and apparently, too, the Lib Dems, who I have maintained should really be a good party, if they weren't so illiberal and undemocratic, ahem.
But, then again, they may have a point, perhaps Scotland should just realise that she is undeserving of something like a leader's debate because, after all, this is a UK election. And, similarly, don't we get to vote in our wee MSP-types, and don't they all dress so nice for the big occasion ... who's that in the hat, oh it's George Foulkes, I don't think that's deliberate ... and, after all, we're just a wee part of the UK, and really should just be thankful for what we get.
I remember well the impotent anger during the eighties, and I disagreed heartily and readily with Labour about the future of Scotland, but at least I respected, because I thought so at the time, that they were genuine in their beliefs. But, now, impotent anger has given way to resigned cyniscism in everything the Labour-Tory bunch say, or do, or commit, or think, or express. I really could care less, if I could be bothered at all, which, I think, puts me closer in opinion to the vast majority of people in Scotland, if it were not fo the fact that I maintain a hearty and ready interest in Scottish, European, and world politics.
So, without Salmond in such a debate, any such debate, were it to be broadcast in Scotland, would be entirely meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. It would be just another example of our wee bit of the UK pretending that so long as here and there a Saltire is flown, and a Scotland team plays football, then we're alright jack. But, we're not, and far from it. A country needs democracy. It needs to debate internal policy and external policy, it needs to debate its place in the world, and it needs to watch and judge and elect its representatives and leaders to participate in such a debate. But, no, instead we get the Labour-Tory bunch, debating or not, who cares, it's all nonsense, it's all meaningless. It's up to people in Scotland to bring about the situation in which we get democracy, and remove from memory the years of impotent anger, and now resigned cynicism. It's time now to bring about a hearty and ready democracy.
Complain about this comment
207. CuttingSarky
"And finally getting back to the main point an enfranchised citizenry with the education and knowledge to make their own decisions would engage much more with a modern system of rolling referenda if accessible through the internet and mobile technology. Was all I was saying really."
You're not alone. It makes good sense.
Let's keep saying it from time to time.
Complain about this comment
204. northhighlander
WWI - If you look at the letters home from WWI volunteer soldiers (as opposed to conscripts), they actually reveal a lot about motivation for joining up. They include a lot about the Empire, Johnny Foreigner etc etc. I don't remember seeing anything about fighting for democracy - which would have been odd as Germany was a democracy too (in as much as either country was). I accept, you only said "probably", but the evidence doesn't even support that.
WWII - There is a huge amount of data on personal thoughts during WWII, as they were routinely collected during the Mass Observation Survey. Again, you will find little about "fighting for democracy" - especially from the vast mass of conscripts.
That "If we hadn't stood up to the Nazi's in the second world war, alone for a significant time, our way of life and freedom to choose who governed us would have been removed." would certainly have been a consequence, for a period of time. Quite possibly for most of my lifetime, as we would have been in a similar position as Eastern Europe till the fall of the Iron Curtain. However, that is actually irrelevant as to why most people fought - even those who were motivated to do so as opposed to being conscripted. Many who were motivated to fight Fascism, wanted to introduce Soviet Communism. They certainly weren't fighting for democracy.
Complain about this comment
208. timepassescarmichael
"It's up to people in Scotland to bring about the situation in which we get democracy, and remove from memory the years of impotent anger, and now resigned cynicism. It's time now to bring about a hearty and ready democracy."
Yes! Scotland needs to define its own place in the world, and hold itself up to its own standards. It takes effort.
Down with lazy cynicism!
One day it'll be 'Up wi' the bonnets!'
Complain about this comment
At Moridura, Peter Curran has a very accurate take on last nights Newsnight Scotland piece on minimum alchohol pricing, particularly the libdem spiel about it.
Complain about this comment
#199. Can I suggest a new answer (Yes, I know you were joking) to one of the questions:
What is the basic belief of the Declaration of Arbroath? We’d like to govern ourselves please Mr Pope.
Actually, the basic belief of the Declaration of Arbroath was a very important one and particularly important in this discussion:
THE POWER TO CHOOSE THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT LIES WITH THE PEOPLE. The salient passage is this: Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King...
It set out the extraordinary statement that the rule of the people of Scotland is above the rule of the king or, hence, any other governance.
*ahem* Sorry. End of lecture.
Complain about this comment
Re 210
Simply i don't agree. I have relatives who fought in the war, both my grandfathers did, so did my maternal grandmother and her brothers and sisters. They were quite clear it was to protect their freedom and way of life. Freedom to choose the government was a huge part of what they thought they were fighting for.
I have never argued that what they thought they were fighting for and what they were actually fighting for were completely aligned, I agree this is not the case.
However democracy without doubt was a large part of what they believed they were fighting for.
Complain about this comment
Dear god listen to George D and I Foulkes lying his face on while being interviewed by Eddie Mair - what a pathetic excuse for a politician !
Complain about this comment
Interesting that northhighlander's incorrect assertion about the world wars, is based on assumption. And that his opposition to independence is based on an assumption that Scotland under it will not see any significant change for the better (the clairvoyant "no new ideas from politicians").
Well, I assume I will end the day back in bed - but I still get up.
Complain about this comment
213. JRMacClure
"It set out the extraordinary statement that the rule of the people of Scotland is above the rule of the king or, hence, any other governance."
It was also a helluva good bit of PR by Bruce! However, if that had not been included in the Declaration, it wouldn't have been possible for Buchanan to fully incorporate "sovereignty of the people" into Scottish Constitutional Law. The consistent use of this doctrine throughout the turmoil of the 17th century, and its use to overthrow James VII, embedded it fully.
I'm quite sure that the Labour MPs who signed the 1988 Claim of Right, would much rather not have subscribed to that doctrine, but they really had no choice.
Complain about this comment
210. oldnat
"They certainly weren't fighting for democracy."
Totally agree the politicians peddled the democracy myth just as they have done to justify the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascoes.
Empires and a need for access to natural resources to fuel industrial expansion played a large part.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, go read a few history books and I assure you that you will not find one, not a real one, that proposes that WWI was fought to "save democracy". People were told all kind of reasons for it, almost all of them lies, and some may have believed that. But historically that doesn't even come close to being one of the reasons for WWI. A battle for power, yes. An arms race, yes. Domestic issues, yes. Racial issues (with the slavs), yes. A complex web of alliances, yes. A battle for power, yes. A battle for power, yes. A battle for power, yes.
By the way--you do note who really came out of that with burgeoning power, one supposes. Amazing that.
Complain about this comment
Oh, well, from Bruce's point of view it had other uses and he certainly did not intend on their taking up that invitation. It was a FINE piece of PR (one of the best ever written) and did in fact turn around the battle to secure legitimacy for Bruce's kingship of Scotland.
My very favorite bit of the Declaration was when they told the Pope he would go to hell (or words to that effect) if he kept agreeing with the English.
You know there ARE people who might want to consider that concept. ;-)
Complain about this comment
#218 Cynical, "Empires and a need for access to natural resources to fuel industrial expansion played a large part."
...No, access to natural resources (oil) was the one and only reason! (100%)
Complain about this comment
220. JRMacClure
"My very favorite bit of the Declaration was when they told the Pope he would go to hell (or words to that effect) if he kept agreeing with the English."
Yes! Where it says that god would lay the consequences at the pope's door!
It stopped me in my tracks the first time I read it - i'd been told that the declaration was the Scots asking the pope to recognize them, but i didn't expect a 'but if you don't' clause!!!
Complain about this comment
northhighlander Vs oldnat
I mentioned earlier that I didn’t want to raise the spectre of Bliars ‘just war’ argument but I hope we all can see that WWII fight against Fasism was justified no matter what the reasons people understood they were actually fighting for. I have always argued Afghanistan was a war worth fighting, against the ‘fascism’ of the Taleban, but unfortunately it was sidelined by the bliar/bush goldrush into Iraq. Should we not move on to establishing a democracy that debates the value of war prior to starting them as I believe and Independent Scotland would?
JR
Indeed several of the answers are intended to lighten the load however on a more serious note I was hoping some of the questions if not answers would start a debate I think must happen soon. Unionist arguments (aka old chestnuts) like too wee/too poor/too stupid have finally been found out so they are starting new ones. The one we must face now is that the Union is better for us, currently this is an argument they will win as they have the benefit of the status quo. Without a clear picture of what an independent Scotland would look/feel/smell like - who will run our Army what will our constitution read like who will run the judiciary? - they will always use the ‘pipedream’ card. The onus will always be on those wanting change to provide the lead they must provide the vision to go with the rhetoric or the public will shrug and say they cant see it.
Another feeble attempt at humour for you - when the Berlin wall came tumbling down the east Europeans thought it would be (branded) cola all the way, I know I met some of them. They were chasing a dream (albeit fed to them but), it was people that finally pushed the wall over not rhetoric. Joe Q. MacPublic needs a positive, palpably* concrete vision to chase if Scotland is to finally be free…that concludes the Party Political Broadcast for the Case for Indpendence.
*to borrow from BT
Complain about this comment
By the way, the paying of a tax or the passing of a test has such a horrendous history of abuse in use to prevent the voting of people someone considers 'inferior', I have to suggest re-thinking the concept.
And how do you KNOW someone who can't pass your test is inferior. The dyslexic who can't read well enough to pass it might be a genius in many matters. And since s/he is governed SHOULD (in my strong belief) have a say in that governance. Some would say--mistakenly I believe, but lets ignore that--that Van Gogh was a madman. I believe he should have had the right to vote, nonetheless. In a true democracy, all voices are heard and the less rational voices are outweighed (one hopes) by the rational.
Once you start denying the right to vote to any class of citizens, you have started down one of those slippery slopes people talk about.
Complain about this comment
"go read a few history books..."
I apologize for the way that came out, implying that others hadn't read history books. It was poor phrasing on my part and not what I meant to say.
Complain about this comment
There was no reason for Britain to enter WW1 but pressure from arms manufacturers and bankers swayed the government.
Meanwhile, across the pond, president Woodrow Wilson began talking about the 'New World Order' and took the Federal Reserve Bank out of state control and effectively handed the treasury over to private bankers in Wall St.
Their aim was apparent at the outset, to control the worlds finances and therefore control the world and the German economy and German colonial posessions were a prime target.
After the war the 'allies' demanded absurd reparations from Germany which they knew that Germany was incapable of paying therefore paving the way for the newly formed League of Nations (New World Order) to take complete control of Germany and it's economy.
Ironically, it was Hitler who saved the world from enslavement from the NWO when he told them to sod off and stopped payments.
By this time the banker controlled Federal Reserve had their sights set on complete control of the US economy and grossly inflated the stock market and then engineered it's collapse and with the vast amounts of money the Federal Reserve had amassed it could buy the entire US economy.
Again it was Hitlers re armament that put a stop to this as America realised that it had to industrialise on a massive scale to counter the threat from Germany and Japan.
Woodrow Wilson had the decency before he died to make a televised speech telling of his regret about giving the bankers complete control of the economy and their ambitions of world domination.
Complain about this comment
#223. I agree but I don't think that the SNP (as a spokesman for independence, not that others might not put forth answers) has any motivation to put forth details early. It simply takes attention away from the fight they have to make FIRST, which is to win the fight for a referendum.
Alex Salmond and others are easily savvy enough to agree. There are some outlines in the proposed constitution and hints have been given. But once there is a referendum scheduled to be voted on, then I have absolutely no doubt you will see specifics proposed.
The fact is that a majority of Scots WANT a referendum. They don't have to put forth arguments to win a majority on that as much as the opponents try to deny that simple fact.
You save your ammunition for the fight where I come from.
:-)
Complain about this comment
#223. Should we not move on to establishing a democracy that debates the value of war prior to starting them as I believe and Independent Scotland would?
As someone who lives in a Country with a horrible history of starting wars, let me answer that question with a resounding: YES!
And one of the true arguments for leaving the UK in my opinion is that they show no signs of stopping following us into wars! There is a cartoon I've seen many times but never had the nerve to link to here of Obama in his superman suit striding along with GB as a wee pup doing something rude to his leg, clinging on.
It was intended as a slap at Brown. I see him (to be utterly frank) as NO different than any single PM since WWII. I'm sorry. I know this is insulting to you, but it's how I see it. The special relationship is the UK following along saying 'yes, please' when we say 'go to war'.
At the end of the day, I hope to see Scotland no longer in that position. Not my business, I know. But do you really want to have friends in such a position?
Complain about this comment
Further to 215. from C. Montgomery Burns.
I too listened to Mr foulkes stutter and mumble when asked to stand by his earlier comments. It was hilarious. Mr Burns - As you would say yourself - "Excellent".
Brian - What are BBC Scotlandshire going to do if Mr Mair decides to come back ? Retraining ?
This was one of the most unglencampbelly interviews I have heard on the BBC: Polite, allowed the interviewee time to answer and asked a labour MSP all the difficult questions.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
#178 mrbfaethedee
"The free acting behaviour of MP's you describe would be the default in a party free system i think"
But the trouble is that to keep it that way you would have to be extremely illiberal in banning the right of association and even then they would become secret societies. I do agree that political parties as currently constituted behave badly, but it's surely not unreasonable for like-minded people to campaign together. Rather than banning them, they need to be regulated, but I'd grant that will not be easy so long as the patients run the asylum.
"As regards technology, my primary reason for advocating it is that it is the only real candidate to allow ad hoc attempts to set the agenda from the bottom up at scale."
I'm no Luddite, having written my first assembler and Fortran programs in 1966 and actually designed voting systems in use in UN agencies, but there is an inherent binary option in purely electronic voting systems: you can either give them a full audit trail or you can have secret ballots.
I'm not personally a fan of the latter because the 1872 secrecy provisions are what make the current plurality voting system so undemocratic and discourage tactical voting. Before 1872, anyone wanting to vote tactically simply had to wait until near the end of polling and keep track of the public, running tally.
But I realise that's a personal view, suspecting the concern that a landowner will dispossess a tenant because of the way he votes [the reason given for the change] is somewhat less worrying than the fear that a faceless backroom official will "do a Glenrothes".
In a small electorate - like the IOC Rio votes - it's easy to keep the whole vote secret because you simply record manually on the public register the fact that a delegation got a voting machine and not the ID of it, but that involves a two stage process unsuitable for "home" voting.
Get everyone to accept that secrecy would have to be partially sacrificed and I'm with you.
"i think a system of rolling referendums based on grassroots initiatives acheiving critical masses of support at community->regional->national levels would be possible"
In principle, I agree with you, although I'd like to hear your definition of "rolling" in this context. In Switzerland, there's roughly a 3-month window when physical signatures petitioning for a referendum have to be collected or the process starts again from scratch. That's why the target 2% (maximum depending on scope) of eligible signatures is harder than it might appear.
"The 'joke' about having a referendum on everything needn't be a joke."
The Swiss of all mother tongues have a remarkly well developed sense of humour but they don't see anything funny about their system. In the September referendum, there were only two confederal questions but many cantonal and communal ones. For example, canton Vaud (cap. Lausanne) voted against having a single cantonal polic force to replace existing cantonal and communal ones while Geneva commune (50+% of canton Geneva's population) voted for a public smoking ban for the second time, having had a previous overly prescriptive ban thrown out by the federal court.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
@140
LMAO
Yes I love these targets. One year in Aberdeen there was an aspirationsl target for the number of children killed or seriously hurt in bus accidents. I wouldn't have liked to be a kid in Aberdeen if they looked like falling short of target!
Complain about this comment
In regard to the post GE landscape and the 'respect' that the Tories will pay to the devolved - but elected- government of Scotland the 'not in the present climate' division bell is going to ring very loud and long.Have a look at this for respect shown to local government arrangements when they are set up by a previous administration http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=10829.
Complain about this comment
You do realize that as originally envisioned, democracy was INDEED a "referendum on everything" setup. With current technology, I'm not sure that we couldn't and perhaps shouldn't go back to that in nation-states.
It would mean giving up the "politicians know what's best for us" theory. Shocking I know.
Complain about this comment
223. Don't disagree with your analysis. But in the grim old days, labour had people of substance. People whom the public respected even if you did not share their political views, e.g. Smith, Dewar, to a certain Cook. labour also had the leading trade union leaders. These folk had a gift at promoting the union subtly and not in your face as now.
Whom have labour in Scotland today, Lord Watson, Bungler Brown, Impeach me Henry, Grim Man Gray, Jack the Tup, Dodgy Devine, Field Marshall Joyce, Britney Murphy and Tam the librarian.
The irony is, all are more deserving of doing time than the one who actually has.
I can not think of one respected trade unionist who has public influence in Scotland.
A big chunk of the unionist appeal has gone, trust has been broken over wars, westminster expenses and labour sleaze. Unionists may collaborate across the political spectrum, invent new reasons why Scots should remain in bondage.
In May 2007, the lights did not go out, nor have they gone out since, that has been a huge psychological barrier that has been overcome. Nationalists only need to win a referendum once, we have the momentum and the vision.
Speaking of dreams and fears, who is in the White House?
D McN
Complain about this comment
#181 northhighlander
"I have to say the introduction of PR appears to have placed more power in the hands of the political parties, this has further weakened links with the electorate."
That is undoubtedly true of the list systems imposed by NuLab for regional MSPs and euro MPs. If you think the same of the STV system used for councils - the only really Liberal thing the L-Ds accomplished in 8 years in government - I would have to disagree with you, although I do agree that all the parties have been remiss in not opening up candidacy to any member.
"Both Labour and the SNP have done absolutely nothing to even look at this issue [of "more devolution or decentralisation"] seriously. I feel this is the connect that is missing with our politicians."
We're closer on this one. Even Liberal Party policy ["The basis of Liberal policy on government is that power and service provision is devolved down to the lowest and most local decision making body consistent with the efficient use of resources."] is too weak for me as I want a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach.
Re Labour, whether old or new, I don't believe they have a decentralising bone in their collective rotting carcass, and I can find nothing on the Scottish Labour website to suggest I'm wrong.
For the SNP, I'll agree that their efforts in this area are hardly headline news and their website is not good on establishing what the party line is on any given issue. However, there's some fairly liberal stuff in their 2007 manifesto like:
- "Direct elections to health boards to give local people a say when decisions are made"
- "The SNP’s aim is to give individuals, families and communities more control of their own destiny. We will opt for de-centralist policy solutions that devolve power to local level wherever that is possible and seek ways to devolve power from local authorities to community level."
- "We will review the role of community councils to make them more responsive, dynamic and representative. Devolving greater responsibilities to community councils will be a central consideration of this review."
As an expat with only the BBC and the Scottish dead-tree media to give much information on where they're up to, I have no way of knowing where they're up to.I would suggest that SNP members on these threads might suggest to their party that policies could be rather easier to find on the website and if progress on implementing them (or lack of it due to the minority position) isn't published there then the BBC and the "Scottish" press are unlikely to start blowing their trumpets for them.
FWIW, I note that the odd, very dim, glimmer of liberalism still occasionally shines through on the L-D website with "We'll make it possible for local people to work together to run local services".
I'll leave it to Dean to tell you how decentralising the "official" unionists plan to be.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
226. U14153624
"There was no reason for Britain to enter WW1 but pressure from arms manufacturers and bankers swayed the government."
Wow! Thank god they're not calling the shots anymore! no, wait, umm...
Complain about this comment
#199 CuttingSarky
Thanks for the list, but to have any hope of implementing it, I suggest you'd need to set your sights rather lower and have a strictly factual and rather shorter test with multi-choice questions only, suitable for automated marking. Otherwise, the scope for Dixie-like solutions would be far too great.
It might be reasonable to demand that an elector should be able to read and to be able to write his or her name as well as the numerals 1 to 10, but to ask for an essay on constitutional law is asking for trouble.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#232 bluetoon - Evening , well after what happened at the weekend in Erskine the headline wasn't exactly subtle was it. As I said in my #152 It really makes me wonder just what exactly do the 16 members of GREATER GLASGOW & CLYDE HEALTH BOARD actually do?
they miss this target but are quite happy to plan a reduction of the district nurse cover in renfrewshire by over 60%
they probably couldn't spell priority's .if they keep on going the way they are going some managers might need to get their hands dirty and do some real work!!
Sid
Complain about this comment
Cameron and Osborne are the benefit cheats
"The old Scottish Conservatists were never like this.
Or were they?
Answer please, Annabelle Goldie or Bill Aitken."
Complain about this comment
#233 pro-loco
Thanks for the link - where's Dean we you need him?
Hovever, the link doesn't actually work in your post because if you enter "raw" links rather than "pretty" ones, you have to be very careful about neighbouring punctuation. In this case, the following full-stop got added to the URL. The raw link on a line by itself is safer, viz:
http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=10829
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
It might be reasonable to demand that an elector should be able to read...
Why is it necessary to read to be a good citizen?
Complain about this comment
141. gedguy2
"In a way this is just a modern version of the nosey parker who used to keep an eye on the street and if anything suspicious happened was more than happy to tell the bobby on the beat. Personally, I have no problem with having more cameras on the street."
CCTV catches 0.1% of crimminal behaviour a complete and utter farce in the use of resources. There is a place for some cameras but not on the scale that are in the UK, 1 for every 14 citizens = Big Brother State.
It suits the political elite as it empowers the state to further dismantle communities as people will end up frightened to say hallo to a stranger in the street for fear of being incriminated by association.
Complain about this comment
@JR & Brownedov
This is hardly the place to go into full details of any voting/citizen test but to put the matter to bed tonight at least let me clarify that:-
1. It is not MY test the questions would be worked to assure everybody of fairness impartiality etc.
2. There would be a large pool/list of questions but the test itself would randomly select 20 or so, so as not to be to long.
3. Cant speak for U.S. but here dyslexic children receive a lot of support and can have examinations read out and then typed up by 'scribes'. Blind can have braille.
4. this was only meant as an aside to the main point which still needs clarification:-
I think there is no technical (or moral) barrier to having a full plebiscite on, for example, the SNPs legislative programme online or through mobiles. The point i was trying to make (badly) was that for it to be an effective means of governance the populace would have to be educated and invested in the process. I think the teaching of 'governance' at school leading to a test would make kids, and adults, take more care with their votes and encourage them to use their vote.
5. Finaly there are two misconceived ideas in previous responses to this topic - the first is 'nit-picking' I couldnt hope to publish a full phd paper on voter license here so some have found fault with the detail rather than have a good look at the concept and what POSITIVE advantages there could come form it or at least the open discussion of it. The second is using the past as a guide to the future this always leads to a negative view of any proposal. whilst you must look to the past for leassons those lessons should be used to shape a better future not stop things in is track because someone previously abused a similar idea. the idea is to learn and adapt not shrink away from POSITIVE change. No applogies for shouting the word positive to me this has been the real breakthrough of the SNP administration.
Complain about this comment
#242 JRMacClure
"Why is it necessary to read to be a good citizen?"
It isn't.
I do, however, have some sympathy with CuttingSarky's view that some level of knowledge is an appropriate thing to expect in the electorate, obviously with special arrangements for the visually impaired, etc.
What's your own view of the citizenship tests the USA, Switzerland and now the UK demand before naturalisation?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
242. JRMacClure
"Why is it necessary to read to be a good citizen?"
So they can sign a cheque to pay their tax bill!
That is the problem with society people have to be educated otherwise they are looked down upon its a unionist philosophy. We all must know our place in society!
Complain about this comment
@JR 242
Hmm This was brownedov's post but I would suspect that if you can't read you'd be getting all your information from televised media, despite posts here about impartiality of certain broadcasters I would think that might automatically disbar you from voting - or not. Like I said above if reading was an issue you could take the test orally.
Complain about this comment
Quote: "In exactly the same way, Scotland takes a proportionate share of cuts."
Untrue. Recent cuts in England's Health Service were not implemented in Scotland because the cuts "applied to a different budget".
Rises were translated without reference to particular budgets.
Scotland isn't worth keeping.
Complain about this comment
231. Brownedov
Thanks for the detailed response Brownedov.
"But the trouble is that to keep it that way you would have to be extremely illiberal in banning the right of association and even then they would become secret societies. I do agree that political parties as currently constituted behave badly, but it's surely not unreasonable for like-minded people to campaign together. Rather than banning them, they need to be regulated, but I'd grant that will not be easy so long as the patients run the asylum."
Sorry, my fault, I thought i'd posted about this previously on these threads but it may be on another site. I do think like-minded politicians should be able to research, campaign, and so on together. I think this collaboration should be on per-issue (or well-defined cluster of), where the issue has clear and testable success/termination condition/s acheivable in some sensible timescale, at which point the affiliation is ended. I think that terms and membership of these transient affiliations ought to be recorded in a similar way to the recording of members interests. This gives all the same benefits that party-as-group-of-like-minded-politicians does, while doing away with the unthinking tribalism and reactive partisan nonsense. It also keeps your political representative as an individual with a track record first and foremost, rather than any old person with the correct colour of rosette.
Rest assured my intention is for openess and freedom at both sides of politics, and for as long as we need politicians as proxies will hope for the preservation of the appropriate respect for their position and role.
Given all that, hopefully it can be seen that freedom of association for politicians would be greater in this model than the current arrangements.
"I'm no Luddite, having written my first assembler and Fortran programs in 1966 and actually designed voting systems in use in UN agencies, but there is an inherent binary option in purely electronic voting systems: you can either give them a full audit trail or you can have secret ballots."
Would never have assumed you to be a Luddite Brownedov.
I'm not sure that the current system of 'secret ballots' is secret, but i guess it depends what you mean by secret. As far as I know, all ballot papers are numbered, and the stub of it too - the stub is then associated with your identifier as an elector; meaning the vote cast is traceable to the individual. I think it is currently 'secret' in that you don't have to vote in front of an audience, and the count is done after all voting. I guess the simple fact of the matter is that you can't guarantee either - it's a question of how far you go before you hit diminishing returns. I think with electronic voting - auditing is an absolute must, some secrecy (more like confidentiality) is easy enough (in principle) to deliver.
Electronic voting is a fascinating area, it has many problems but I think there is scope for decent solutions. If you ever fancy discussing it out of interest, i'm game.
"Get everyone to accept that secrecy would have to be partially sacrificed and I'm with you."
I'm ready (as always) to stand corrected, but if by secret you mean untraceable, i think it already has been.
"i think a system of rolling referendums based on grassroots initiatives acheiving critical masses of support at community->regional->national levels would be possible"
In principle, I agree with you, although I'd like to hear your definition of "rolling" in this context."
My fault again, 'rolling' would do i suppose, but I'm envisioning something more like 'as and when'. I'm thinking about a system where you 'push' into the system a request for what you want enacted or amended (or whatever), other people can be notified (perhaps by area of interest, or physical community) if enough of these add their weight to it, the request can be promoted to other notifiable groups, MPs, media, etc... If some threshold of support is passed, it gets (once scrutinised by civil service / parly) promoted to a referendum and a date is set. So basically the referendum would simply occur at some point in time after the issue reached a critical threshold. Popping them into predetermined slots wouldn't hurt it either.
I think that allowing people to set the agenda directly could introduce a powerful new connection between citizens and government. That is my main intent, the technology of the solution is irrelevent other than what it may enable.
I'm glad the Swiss take it seriously, it sounds a good deal better than what we have.
That was all faaaaar to long - sorry!
Complain about this comment
David Maddox: The Numbers Game (22) - the Cameron "tartan" bounce?
"Con 24% Lab 33% Lib Dems 13% SNP 30%
Con 9 (1) Lab 34 (41) Lib Dems 8 (11) SNP 8 (6)
"
() are 2005 no's
Complain about this comment
#244 CuttingSarky
Fair enough, we're not so far apart. On your on-line plebiscite idea, though, what's your opinion on Westmidden's 138 year love affair with the secret ballot?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
I'd suggest that being able to understand English is more important than being able to read it.
On the budget cuts, we are about to have a right ding-dong battle here in South Lanarkshire. Proposed cuts include free water and fruit for P1 & P2 pupils; christmas lunch for pensioners; grass cutting; free entry for u16 and o60 at leisure facilities. Basically anywhere the Labour controlled mob can get their money. However nothing about a pay freeze of senior execs at the council nor the seven million tied up in Iceland.
Added to that, the Council is talking mince about car parking at Hairmyres rail station. The fact that half the spaces disappeared when they sold the land for private flats is not mentioned.
But there is also a bit of a barney going on between the SNP and Labour councillors, via the letters page of the EK News. About time the party leaders had a word with their respective colleagues as they are all looking very silly indeed.
Oh, the Scottish Government got the blame for the cuts of course.
And people wonder about voter apathy?
Seriously, come the next council elections Labour might finally lose their grip on South Lanarkshire, which they only hold thanks to a certain Conservative councillor. Big news if this one goes.
Complain about this comment
248. StephenGash
"Scotland isn't worth keeping."
Its your unionist colleagues that have been stopping us for decades, our will has been denied by yourself and millions of others.
Complain about this comment
Citizenship tests are quite a different proposition from testing citizens to see if they are allowed to vote. A citizenship test is perfectly valid and acceptable when a person wishes to acquire a new citizenship, so for example anyone who wished to be naturalised as a Scottish citizen in a future independent Scotland could be required to take a test in Scottish history and government.
However citizenship acquired by place of birth or inherited from one's parents is a birthright, it cannot be qualified by a test - you're either a Scottish citizen or you're not. It's possible introducing some sort of test along these lines would breach European human rights laws.
Testing people who are already citizens (by virtue of birth, parentage, or whatever) is fundamentally undemocratic. The right to vote must be available to all citizens, not just to those who are "socially approved" - which is what any voting test boils down to in the end. Voting tests have a long and nefarious history as instruments for denying the vote to entire sections of the population. And it's obvious why that is when you think about it - it's the people voted into power who get to decide what the qualifications for voting should be.
Yes indeed, many people are too uninterested, lazy, or even just too dumb, to understand the consequences of their vote, but that's democracy and we just have to live with it. The answer to the problem is better public education and a free and unbiased media, not placing restrictions the right to vote.
Complain about this comment
252. Neil_Small147
"when they sold the land for private flats is not mentioned."
Aaaaaagh!
That's really pissing me off just now. One of the things I like about Dundee is that is has a decent amount of space, plenty of it green. I'm sick seeing it eaten up for pointless road expansions and sales to supermarkets and property dealers. Same at the river too, why are the port company so good at giving up the frontage for identikit property development rather than bending their effort to turning Dundee into a bustling port.
Everyone seems desperate to sell off land for a quick buck, it's very short sighted but i'm sure it'll get worse as the cuts start hurting.
Complain about this comment
248. StephenGash
Stephen, gash.
Complain about this comment
Japanese Binocular Soccer
An example of nuLab government.
Complain about this comment
245. At 8:48pm on 07 Oct 2009, Brownedov wrote:
#242 JRMacClure
"Why is it necessary to read to be a good citizen?"
It isn't.
I do, however, have some sympathy with CuttingSarky's view that some level of knowledge is an appropriate thing to expect in the electorate, obviously with special arrangements for the visually impaired, etc.
What's your own view of the citizenship tests the USA, Switzerland and now the UK demand before naturalisation?
I have no sympathy with forcing someone to prove they are "good enough" to vote, I'm afraid. The history of that is too horrid to resurrect. It has been used time and again to deny the vote to the poor and to minorities who are the only ones who will lack that skill. You know that and I know that. I consider it the ultimate deprivation of liberty to say someone isn't good enough to take part in the basic rights of citizenship.
And for all I know that illiterate ditch-digger may be a better judge of the character of nominees for office than I am which may be a better way of selecting officials for all I know.
A certain percentage of citizens are stupid, uneducated, stubborn, greedy or just plain evil. That's the way it is with something called democracy. Are you going to give a "goodness test" to keep the ill-intentioned from voting? I believe (very, very strongly) that all adult citizens should have the right to vote.
Improving education is obviously helpful to a well-functioning democracy but I am convinced that the democracy should come first and not the education.
Citizenship tests for people who are NOT already citizens are a totally different matter. I have no problem with it. Allowing someone not from your country to become a citizen is, it seems to me, doing them a favor with they have requested and to which you can reasonably put conditions.
Complain about this comment
#249 mrbfaethedee
Re political parties, I agree that what you're suggesting would be great, but as the Kerry man said: If you want to get there, you shouldn't start from here.
You're certainly right that secrecy is not observed in practice - I've seen it myself observing a count - but I simply don't know if it's legal. If it is, then you're right that similar confidentiality could be achieved in an electronic system.
What I do know is that there are no such stubs in elections for the elected officials in UN agencies and that their secret ballots mean just that.
"If some threshold of support is passed, it gets (once scrutinised by civil service / parly) promoted to a referendum and a date is set."
The Swiss system seems good enough to me. As I understand it, the motion demanding a yes/no answer just has to be registered in the appropriate communal, cantonal or confederal office and after a cursorary check [defamation etc] a receipt is obtained giving a provisional place in the appropriate ballot on a quarterly voting Sunday subject to receiving the correct number of signatures of the electorate [about 2% max] by the deadline for announcing the details of voting day so that pro and anti campaigning can begin.
Of course, many are initiated by elected officials, but why should they have any right of advance scrutiny or amendment?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
250. At 9:34pm on 07 Oct 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:
"David Maddox: The Numbers Game (22) - the Cameron "tartan" bounce?
"Con 24% Lab 33% Lib Dems 13% SNP 30%
Con 9 (1) Lab 34 (41) Lib Dems 8 (11) SNP 8 (6)
"
() are 2005 no's"
I'm not going to lie- when I read your link I squealed with delight..it wasnt pretty at all- Cammiesque [another new term for you all, 'when an individual makes an unfortunate noise..']
But seriously it does make some positive reading for me. I personally want anything more than a handful [that is five for those unable to count their fingers- giggles this is aimed at you].
East Renfrew- Richard Cook [I know a Stirlingshire tory who said that "if Cook wins East Ren then I shall eat my hat"..he'd better get the Laurel & Hardie salt out then..]
Stirling- Bob Dalrymple MP [he has now got his own facebook and blogspot up and running thanks to me agreeing to be his election campaign 'webmaster'- this translates as meaning 'sad student with no social life']
The borders- Mundel, Duncan & Lamont [a power threesome it must be said, Peter Duncan is my fav.]
Edinburgh - this wont be all that out of the question given the strong euro performances and the historic Edin tendancy to vote tory.
Argyl & Bute - perhaps I am more right on this than you lot give me credit for? Helensburgh could well form the core bastion of torism in the constituency [more to it then than Yaughts and champagne]
Aberdeenshire- Mark Jones [ab south] would make a glorious MP, met him and he is a lovely, quiet and amicable gent, Alex Johnstone [west ab & kincardine]- long shot but historic record of strong tory resurgencies up here make it a possibility not to be rulled out[1992 for examp.]
----THE SNP LIKELYS------
Ochil & South P [obviously SNP territory after 2010]
Angus [will be held due to Angus alliance rubbish at local council level]
P & NP- mm, Lyburn is getting heckish amounts of resources fired up to him [this is tory target UK no. 30!], could just be an upset [we did manage a 5.4%+ in 2005, so its possible for an above ave. swing to the tories, 2005 saw a 3.3% swing from SNP to tory here]
Argyl & Bute [SNP can easily do this, they are within the 10% margin from the current encombent]
Glas E- could be held, big ask however
Edin East- a real possible, could be the SNP surprise of the night [? thoughts about this anyone?]
Killie & Laudon [come on Nats, kick little Des out!!!!! do it for all anti-labourite Scots!!!!]
Complain about this comment
#258 JRMacClure
Adult citizens; under your criteria votes for minors would make no difference so why the qualifier to citizenship? Are US felons deprived of their citizenship or do (how do) they vote?
Complain about this comment
#250 cynicalHighlander
Unlike us honourable souls who publish similar Scottish "scraps" here, Maddox makes no mention of the tiny Scottish sample sizes and the statistical meaninglessness of the stats. Today's Sky poll included 99 Scots weighted down to 90, for example.
Further, all of the results are weighted on a "whole island" basis of "political identification", which is very different from the weightings YouGov use for Scottish polls. There hasn't been an October one yet, but for September YouGov used:
Party, GB, Scotland
Lab, 32.1%, 36.1%
Con, 26.0%, 11.0%
L-D, 12.0%, 10.0%
Other, 3.0%, 16.0%
None, 24.5%, 24.4%
DK, 2.5%, 2.5%
The numbers aren't just a small unrepresentative sample, they're plain daft.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#260 deanthe Cammiesque! 8-)
I still disagree; HEC makes that 3:36:6:11. Berwick and Ed SW.
Complain about this comment
242. JRMacClure
"Why is it necessary to read to be a good citizen?"
I'm sure you've heard the story from the 1950s in Alabama (I think). There was a reading test there and when a black voter turned up, he was given a Russian Language paper and asked "Can you read that?". The instantaneous answer was "Sure I can. It says there aint no [insert the "N" word] voting here today!"
Complain about this comment
248 StephenGash
"Scotland isn't worth keeping".
------------------------------
Good.
Give us it back then.
Complain about this comment
262. Brownedov
"The numbers aren't just a small unrepresentative sample, they're plain daft."
Oh! you've just spoilt dean's champagne dinner and he has spilt his glass all over auntie's nice blue frock, dear dear.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat,
What do you make of the article over on the beeb news website about investment in education?
Complain about this comment
261. At 10:47pm on 07 Oct 2009, handclapping wrote:
#258 JRMacClure
Adult citizens; under your criteria votes for minors would make no difference so why the qualifier to citizenship? Are US felons deprived of their citizenship or do (how do) they vote?
Yes, I think that at some point you have to disqualify minors. Two-year-old children shouldn't vote. The point of adulthood should be a matter of serious consideration. I think perhaps 16 years is reasonable although I have no great problem with 18 years. I do object to citizens being old enough to die for their country but not to vote in its elections.
Incidentally, I am not putting forward the "American" view. It is my own. I probably disagree with a lot of other Americans although after many years of fighting we have freed the country of poll taxes and voting tests. It took centuries and probably explains my lack of tolerance on the subject. The US hardly has a sterling record on the subject. Remember that in the US originally only male, white property owners could vote.
Whether felons are barred from voting in the US depends on which state they live in. It's legal for states to disenfranchise felons. At least, that's how the Supreme Court has interpreted section two of the 14th Amendment. 48 states prohibit current inmates from voting, 36 prohibit parolees from voting, and only two, being Vermont and Maine, allow inmates to vote. 12 states permanently bar some felons from voting.
Complain about this comment
@ 239
I suppose I could have been more sensitive just could never fathom how any "aspiration" could me anymore than zero kids falling under buses.
Complain about this comment
248. At 9:25pm on 07 Oct 2009, StephenGash wrote:
"Scotland isn't worth keeping."
You are odious, bet you vote English Democrat! or is it BNP? You and yur ignorance make me sick, it is you and your like that make what should be a union of equals increasingly hard to justify!!! I am so mad at that statement- whose oil is it? whos water is it that gets pumped south? who created the bank of england? - a scot eh? who is leading the energy revolution?! SCOTLAND!!!! It is worth keeping- at least thats what most Unionists with a brain understand you silly fool... i am honestly soo mad at you!!
Complain about this comment
#260 "David Maddox: The Numbers Game (22) - the Cameron "tartan" bounce?
Get a real poll first, Dean. That sample is so small I don't think it even qualifies as a wee scrap of a poll. :-)
Complain about this comment
#258 JRMacClure
Democracy is rule by an informed electorate. It broke down very early on as the citizens got fed up with the long explanations of difficult subjects, went home for the lunch prepared by the wife and slaves and didn't bother going back for the afternoon session.
One man (wap- or wo-), one vote is the tyrany of the majority. They can set what the Government must deliver, they can also set how the Government shall raise the taxes to pay for what they want.
So to go back to the NHS; everybody wants the NHS. Even the rich appreciate that, when found bleeding with a broken neck at the side of the road, the NHS is a good thing. But is the 30% of the cost of ambulances used by drunks a good thing? Is the fact that this 30% is "hidden" inside the overall cost of the NHS a good thing? Is it a good thing that the carnage of A&E on a Saturday night is hidden in the cost of the NHS a good thing? When dean's mob bray on about the loss of the freedom to make a profit out of the weakness of your fellow man by selling him alcohol cheaper than water and we can't judge because we don't see the social consequences as they are hidden in the cost of the NHS, is this a good thing? Every party will ring fence the NHS because it is a good thing and every party will sweep their social failures into the NHS by making out that they are "medical" problems. People eating too much and not getting enough exercise is not a medical problem. And the NHS, like Topsy, keeps growing.
Complain about this comment
From that BBC article on education: The study said attainment in Scottish schools had "flatlined" since devolution, despite the high spending.
Can we possibly interpret that as "we told you Scots you were too stupid to educate your own children." I mean--say WHAT?
DEVOLUTION caused Scottish school attainment to "flatline"?
Good lord, that is a stupid article. Pure bs. It certainly does not go into whatever might be a problem with education. Obviously I don't know what is or might be. BUT DEVOLUTION?
Complain about this comment
dean: And now the news from tory story land.... :-)
Complain about this comment
...where the weather is blue skies :-)
Complain about this comment
#192 CuttingSarky & others
I can't go along with "exams" for the right to vote.
There should be tests:
1. Are you a full time resident in Scotland?
2. Are you over 16 or 18? (whichever)
3. Are you on the social register? (ie you pay tax or claim benefits)
If you can answer yes to these this should be sufficient.
If you think anyone shouldn't be able to vote because they are uneducated or watch certain tv shows or read certain newspapers then it is up to the rest of us to work at educating them. I would hope in a free Scotland that we would have Scottish history taught in our schools, and that if done properly this would instil a desire in the young to take part in OUR democracy.
I do think there is mileage in having electronic voting systems that could allow the whole voting population to both decide WHAT issues to raise and which of those to implement. If they can do it for the few in Holyrood we CAN do it for everyone. If this was implemented there might have to be a "test" that voters can understand/operate said system.
Politicians would be there to implement the wishes of the people - not to make the decisions for us.
I would hope that this would cause a move away from party politics to a much more independent type of politician who would be elected for their ability to GET THINGS DONE, not for which party they belong to. These people should be paid well, but we'd expect them to work hard fo us.
Complain about this comment
So does this mean that the BBC has gone back to not only being anti-SNP that it is also now also anti-devolution? The problems in Scottish education are because Scotland has a parliament??!!!
They don't even blame it on one party--just all devolution in general!
Gah! Electric Hermit needs to come along and tell me I'm a conspiracist because I'm about to get hysterical here.
Complain about this comment
259. Brownedov
"Re political parties, I agree that what you're suggesting would be great, but as the Kerry man said: If you want to get there, you shouldn't start from here."
The potential opportunity independence may present aside, we only have here to start from. I'm happy to move towards it gradually if necessary - more citizen driven governance should help ease the movement towards it - but I think it is worth maintaining as a goal.
"You're certainly right that secrecy is not observed in practice - I've seen it myself observing a count - but I simply don't know if it's legal. If it is, then you're right that similar confidentiality could be achieved in an electronic system.
What I do know is that there are no such stubs in elections for the elected officials in UN agencies and that their secret ballots mean just that."
Well if we do them UN style, I certainly accept your binary distinction. If i find out what the actual process is here I'll post it. Of course, we may want to take a fresh look at exactly what we would demand for an electronic referendum/voting setup in terms of auditability and secrecy.
"The Swiss system seems good enough to me."
OK, youre right. The swiss system certainly seems simpler - occam's razor would say better I'm sure - i think the only thing that an electronic system would add is a built in mechanism for promoting your referendum issue, nothing more. Clearly these mechanisms could also exist completely decoupled from the referendum system itself.
"Of course, many are initiated by elected officials, but why should they have any right of advance scrutiny or amendment?"
Simply to get the detail correct, and check for unintended consequences. How does the swiss system deal with poorly formulated, or expressed (or mad) ideas which get the 2% required but which, if passed, would put the country on the hook for something that was unworkable or dangerous?
Complain about this comment
#268 JRMacClure
Thank you. Yes, two year olds shouldn't vote. However I think oldnat is just back from a US state where at 6 you have criminal responsibility or is that AL. If you are old enough to fry for your country, are you old enough to vote? Unfair question in that form but, as with no taxation without representation, surely no application of the laws unless you have power to change them?
Complain about this comment
Labour are introducing free care for the elderly and scrapping NHS car park charges.
The Tories are capping Council Tax and banning the booze.
Now where have we seen all this before.
Newsnight Scotland couldn't wait to tell us all - Scottish Schools bad, English Schools good.
Then up pops Michael Gove at the tory party conf. to tell us all how rubbish English schools are.
I think they just make it all up as they go along.
Complain about this comment
277. JRMacClure
"...come along and tell me I'm a conspiracist because I'm about to get hysterical here."
Your a conspiracist? :P
But seriously- I defy any piece of 'journalism' which tells me that devolution is to blame for stagnating Scottish Schooling standards. It is 8 years of failed Labour-LibDem executives. If the system is now suffering slightly it is entirely due to actions taken 5 years ago- its unfortunate that the shock waves have struck during an SNP administration [guess who Campbell & Co will blame!]
Complain about this comment
267. snowthistle
"What do you make of the article over on the beeb news website about investment in education?"
I got back from seeing all this semi-clad young ladies in "Chicago", and was brought down to earth by that!
Change in education is a slow process - if only because changes in P1 don't show through in attainment results till 10 years later.
What we are currently seeing is the effect of the league table policies adopted by the Tories in the 1980s, and even more so by the target-setting policies introduced by Labour in the 2000 Act.
What isn't realised is how dominant the Inspectorate is and that because they are Civil Servants, they follow the line determined by the Government. So for the last 30 years, we've been following policies of external judgement based on statistical measures of outcomes. Sounds OK, but when HMIe started judging Primaries on the basis of internally assessed National Testing, teachers were pressured into grading pupils as having achieved a grade as soon as they had scraped into that level instead of once they were secure at that level. This removes the incentive for pupils to consolidate learning.
In Secondary, subjects are judged on their pass rate. Consequently instead of encouraging pupils to aim high, teachers are encouraged to present marginal pupils for a safe Intermediate 2 exam, rather than encouraging them to aim high, and go for Higher. Results have flatlined because teachers have been pressured into this by the agents of the state (HMIe).
Has anything changed under the SNP? Yes (though not enough). Critically, HMIe this year have introduced a new inspection process. This is not a result of the Government telling them what to do, but it is a response to what government wants.
Essentially, they have moved to a process of judging a school on the basis of "Does the school know where their weaknesses lie, have they identified the possible causes, and do they have plans to address these problems". Fiona Hyslop was talking about the critical need to improve the interaction between teachers and pupils to improve learning. This is what HMIe are now setting out to monitor and encourage.
Complain about this comment
David Maddox: Don't scare the children
Bendy Wendy soliciting!
Complain about this comment
JRMacClure
re#279 I'm not getting at the US as such. The Scots age of criminal responsibility is 8. But then again the Jesuits said give us a boy till he's 7 and we'll show you the man. If the SNP are not going to change the age, then they need their classes of 18 so they can add Ethics and Citizenship to the Primary curriculum.
Complain about this comment
#281. At 11:54pm on 07 Oct 2009, deanthetory wrote:
277. JRMacClure
"...come along and tell me I'm a conspiracist because I'm about to get hysterical here."
Your a conspiracist? :P
But seriously- I defy any piece of 'journalism' which tells me that devolution is to blame for stagnating Scottish Schooling standards. It is 8 years of failed Labour-LibDem executives. If the system is now suffering slightly it is entirely due to actions taken 5 years ago- its unfortunate that the shock waves have struck during an SNP administration [guess who Campbell & Co will blame!]
Now stop being reasonable... ;-)
I agree that asking the SNP to turn around years of neglect in two years is unreasonable. But I suspect it may well go back before the Labour-LibDem executives to the years before devolution. There were Schools in Scotland that long ago, I suspect and they may have had problems. Problems in education tend to be long term ones that take years to develop and years to solve. I think there we very much agree.
But the article doesn't mention any of those possibilities that I see. Only that devolution caused education to "flatline". Ok, to be fair it doesn't say "caused" but by not mentioning any other factor it certainly implies that. What's more it links devolution and problems in education several times.
I find it almost unbelievable to see the BBC attacking devolution.
Complain about this comment
#284. At 00:06am on 08 Oct 2009, handclapping wrote:
JRMacClure
re#279 I'm not getting at the US as such. The Scots age of criminal responsibility is 8. But then again the Jesuits said give us a boy till he's 7 and we'll show you the man. If the SNP are not going to change the age, then they need their classes of 18 so they can add Ethics and Citizenship to the Primary curriculum.
The laws vary substantially from state to state. A quick check of wikipedia says between 6 years and 12 years. I find 6 to be too low and I'm not sure I want to know how the Jesuits ensure that they can show you the man by 7. Again, I think that's something that can reasonably be debated, but Scotland does have a set of laws to build on. As an independent nation, I imagine you'd want to alter them but that would probably be a project of years duration.
Complain about this comment
Since dean still hasn't learned that the tiny Scottish samples in UK polls are meaningless, here are the Wednesday YouGov tracker data
Weighted sample 90, Other 26%, Lab 41%, Con 19%, LD 15%
Since he missed the sample size in his previous post on Tuesday's tracker, here is the data
Weighted sample 106, Other 34%, Lab 30%, Con 24%, LD 13%
For those of you amazed by the apparent swing, YouGov doesn't poll the same sample of people on successive days.
I do hope dean doesn't try to use evidence this way in his academic work, or he'll be leaving university as a non-grad - and only grads get those valued McDonald's jobs :-)
Complain about this comment
#286 JRMacClure
Thanks again for the response. As you in the US are going through the turmoil of "healthcare" and no Scots seem to want to debate our NHS even though it is the spawn of Satan in some parts of your dear country, do you have a view on whether say obesity is a medical or a social problem? How do you stop people wasting their bodies and then saying 'Ok I'm now ill. Cure me'. That is one of the ways the NHS has changed from being 'my employer has wasted me, please cure me', which is a good thing, to the bloated monster it is now. I'm sorry you're on West Coast time as I'm off to my bed but I hope some other insomniac will keep you company.
Complain about this comment
#288. At 01:30am on 08 Oct 2009, handclapping wrote:
#286 JRMacClure
Thanks again for the response. As you in the US are going through the turmoil of "healthcare" and no Scots seem to want to debate our NHS even though it is the spawn of Satan in some parts of your dear country, do you have a view on whether say obesity is a medical or a social problem? How do you stop people wasting their bodies and then saying 'Ok I'm now ill. Cure me'. That is one of the ways the NHS has changed from being 'my employer has wasted me, please cure me', which is a good thing, to the bloated monster it is now. I'm sorry you're on West Coast time as I'm off to my bed but I hope some other insomniac will keep you company.
When you guys go to bed I tend to actually get my work done. I can't tell you how much my agent appreciated that since it keeps him in beer and skittles (whatever those are).
Don't get me started on US healthcare. That any nation as supposedly advanced would have no way of providing healthcare for its people... Gah! It's shameful.
But the issue of what to do about people who cause their own problems, I don't have an answer. Drinking, smoking and obesity are all issues. I honestly don't have an answer but until we have SOME degree of healthcare besides of the well-employed in this country, I'm not sure I can worry much about it.
I think it's both a medical and a social problem--and I have no solutions or even suggestions. My father (a lifelong smoker) died of lung cancer.
I assure you that I was not among those who attacked the NHS in the course of our debate. Yours is a long way from perfect I'm sure, but YOU HAVE ONE. We can't even say that.
Complain about this comment
I don't know whether the Times are mischief making or not in this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6864820.ece
but the quality of reporting is poor.
"Rates of pay for groups such as nurses and teachers are determined by UK pay review bodies".
I don't know about nurses, but teacher salaries have never been determined furth of Scotland.
(To those of you who were new to "anent", welcome to "furth"!)
Complain about this comment
That looks amazingly like mischief making. What? Anti-Scottish rabble rousing previous to a possible referendum? Which party is The Times supporting now? Isn't it Murdoch owned?
I couldn't figure out if that was pro-Tory or what.
Complain about this comment
#290 oldnat
As you say - but the quality of reporting is poor.
This was especially demonstrated in the last paragraph of the article:
Ms Goldie added: “The Scottish public does not like, nor want, that grudge and grievance politics. He is the First Minister of all of Scotland not just the cheerleading chieftan of a narrow Nationalist rump.”
In Scotland the SNP have 7 MPs in Westmidden….please remind me how many the Tories have.
Complain about this comment
Just noticed this post on Guido’s site.
Lord Falconer at Tory Conference.
It must be a reassurance to the Scottish people that this NuLabour numpty still has their interests at heart….yeah!
Complain about this comment
You have to read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/07/conservative-conference-psyche
Why do people become Tories? Radioactive scorpion bites? DNA spliced with weasels?
Complain about this comment
oldnat
It transpires that the threat to close Benbecula was little more than a NuLabour ‘scare mongering’ tactic used against a section of the Scottish electorate.
MP calls on making full use of range.
Apparently, similar to the SNP, it has not yet reached its full potential.
Complain about this comment
295. At 04:56am on 08 Oct 2009, Roll_On_2010
The labur party, Spud, Gray and the local labur PPC got a mauling in the Stornoway Gazette last week for apparently engineering the story about the closure so that Spud could ride in on his white horse and pretend to save the day.
Sickening stuff from this so called labour trying to make political capital out of peoples livelihoods.
Complain about this comment
#296 U14153624
Hi numbers. What was that rant, on 'Trusting the trust', against me mentioning articles on Al-Megrahi, about?
Complain about this comment
#296. I did a little checking (yes, I'm an obsessive researcher) and didn't find one from last week but I did find this which is related:
http://www.stornowaygazette.co.uk/news/Unanswered-questions-on-MOD39s-Range.5706142.jp
Complain about this comment
By the way, if education in Scotland is so bad what is a nation of 5 million doing with two universities in the top 20 on the University League Table? Just wondering.
Complain about this comment
It must be time to go to bed. I'm sure I messed up that last comment. Scotland has one in the top 20 and three in the top 100.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/datablog/2009/oct/08/top-100-universities-world
Not bad and well above the percentage it should be by population. Wonder why that is? Terrible at education, you Scots. And by the way, their rankings have not gone down.
Complain about this comment
In addition of JRMacClure in #213, I would cite the following for the people "over the pond":
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln
Also listen to JFK's speech about "Secret Societies" on Youtube - he was specifically talking about the Federal Reserve Bank, who caused the 1930s crash and this financial meltdown to increase the power of teh small minority over the vast majority.
Complain about this comment
#296 U14153624
Thanks for the info about the Stornoway Gazzette. The following article does appear to give some insight into the decision to close Benbecula down:
Unanswered questions on MOD's Range decision.
Mr Key stressed that the Commons Defence Select Committee is cross-party, and not party-political.
He said: "Call me a cynical politician, but it is interesting that the MOD did a U-turn in one of Labour's most marginal seats in Scotland.
Using people as political pawns alas is nothing new to NuLabour.
By the way I said at the time of the decision it was a load of tripe.
Complain about this comment
298. At 07:11am on 08 Oct 2009, JRMacClure wrote:
#296. I did a little checking (yes, I'm an obsessive researcher) and didn't find one from last week but I did find this which is related
Hi JRM
The mauling they got was in the letters pages where several people expressed their outrage (sorry Glenn) at the obvious political manipulation of the issue.
Much like the outrage (sorry again Glenn) they showed when labur misled the people about the future of the Harris Tweed industry over the Mick Megrahy affair.
Complain about this comment
#278 mrbfaethedee
"I'm happy to move towards it gradually if necessary - more citizen driven governance should help ease the movement towards it - but I think it is worth maintaining as a goal."
Fair enough. I'm simply trying to be realistic. With professional party politicians in charge, I fear it'll be a slow process.
"i think the only thing that an electronic system would add is a built in mechanism for promoting your referendum issue, nothing more."
There I suggest you're not being ambitious enough. While vote counting is a potentially contentious issue, on-line voter registration should not be so, since the electoral registers are public domain. It would be perfectly easy to set up an e-banking style registration system, which could also be used to allow public sign-up to petitions, etc. With caveats on confidentiality vs secrecy, the same system could offer on-line electronic voting as well. My only concerns are what would be the issues if electronic voting became compulsory.
"How does the swiss system deal with poorly formulated, or expressed (or mad) ideas which get the 2% required but which, if passed, would put the country on the hook for something that was unworkable or dangerous?"
I know it's hard concept for most of us coming from nations ruled by politicians to comprehend but inherently, they trust their masters - the people - who have shown themselves over the years not to be too hotheaded, I think. They're helped, to the best of my knowledge, by not having anything remotely like the Murdoch media domestically.
That they're a relatively small-c conservative lot, who don't jump to fixing things that aren't broken probably helps, but can also delay necessary change - viz how long it took them to accept female voting. OTOH, this decade they've voted to join the UN after a half-century of fearing it would compromise their neutrality, they've joined Schengen and most recently voted "yes" to increasing taxation on themselves.
Of course, it doesn't always work out. The original Geneva commune smoking ban was challenged in the federal courts and ruled constitutionally too draconian, so this time they've vote again and said yes to a modified one which everyone thinks will pass muster.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Thanks, mrbfaethedee in your ressponse #134.
Scottish laws are far more "socially aware" than those in England - a man's home is his castle etc". It would be far more beneficial to the Nation (i.e. Scotland) is these items were in the public domain:
1. LAND: No-one can actually "own" land - when you die or depart these shores, you cannot take it with you. It can only be "held in trust" by you during your lifetime, but still able to be enjoyed by otheres - thus no trespass laws in Scotland.
2.BANKS: Just look at the mess caused by the FED (A PRIVATEY OWNED BANK in the USA) 'nough said?? The ROBBER BARONS with their "Fractional Reserve Banking" - legalised FRAUD !!!!!!!!
3. UTILITIES: fairer prices for ALL. No "fat cats" in power or foreign ownership - a STRATEGIC RESOURCE which should NEVER be allowed to be owned by foreign (possibly agressive) interests.
4. PUBLIC TRANSPORT: Publically owned transport system would ensure EVERYONE has access irrespective of location. No more providing transport for the big profit making areas and nothing for the rest. Good possibility of using the "Environmental" card too. Cheap mobility of labour has ecconomic benefits for the whole country.
5. MAIL: Better mail service - PROFIT is not necessary - just pay its way. Also SECUITY.
Complain about this comment
Re the English dominated parliament at Westmidden, reflect on this:
Sir Walter Scott summed up the attitude of the Scottish "man in the street" at the time in the words of one of his characters: "I ken, when we had a king, and a chancellor, and parliament - men o' our ain, we could aye peeble them wi' stones when they werena gude bairns - But naebody's nails can reach the length o' Lunnon".
Complain about this comment
@ JR, Allele and others defending the universal ‘right’ to vote
Citizens test Vs Voting License
Why do you think people from other countries are not good enough to vote unless they sit a test but people born here (or US) are automatically good enough? I make no claim as to the worthiness of voters as I said they are free to be lead by any media outlet they wish however a basic understanding of how politics works is essential to placing your cross (chad or whatever) in the box that best represents your wishes.
Voting License Vs Status Quo
There only seems to be three arguments in defence of the Current Situation
1) bad things happened in the past – yes they did but that is not why we have one person one vote that was a long hard struggle by previous generations.
2) it’s the best system we got – no it isn’t it is the one handed to us by previous generations.
3) past generations fought for it – yes but I didn’t it was given to me by previous generations.
The main bullet point here is - what have we done to deserve the vote? And therein lies a problem – without a direct link to the right it is taken for granted and undervalued this leads to voter apathy.
More importantly the basis of one person one vote is predicated on the notion that they are voting for themselves after careful consideration of the relevant facts. This is not what happens under the current system, chiefly people still vote for Parties (though this is changing thanks to the lack of choice presented by BluLabour and the sTories) and they vote for these Parties based on articles presented by the media not the facts. If people voted on Facts not Commentary/Editorial why are so many people exercised by the media bias?
And finally to all those who defend the Universal Right to Vote - If you have sat down with a clean sheet of paper and listed all the positive arguments in favour of it and are not just defending something you ‘feel’ is right or because it’s the best we’ve got or that’s what our parents fought for and if after all that you still believe there should be no test then I salute you! You have come to a reasoned decision. However how many of your fellow citizens would carry out the same exercise before using that vote in an Independence referendum?
Complain about this comment
#278 mrbfaethedee
PS to my #304
I should have added that, once a referendum petition has gained enough support for a vote to be scheduled, that doesn't mean that campaigning on both sides is not robust, and the government at whatever level is at much at liberty to campaign for or against it collectively as anyone else.
A case in point is a vote scheduled for the next voting day on the banning of building minarets throughout Switzerland introduced by the right-wing UDF party and fiercely opposed by the confederal, fairly liberal but slightly PC, coalition.
Much of the early action contentrates on poster campaigns, and the UDF are noted for fairly controversial ones. In this campaign, their posters show minarets metamorphosising into missiles and would almost certainly be banned in the UK.
Allowing their display, however, is a local decision and so far Geneva has confirmed it will allow them on freedom of speech grounds while Lausanne has just banned them on racism grounds. Zurich, Luzern and Bern are still making up their minds and should decide by the week-end.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Interesting that Glasgow City Council 'doesn't have the necessary funds to work towards reducing P1-3 class sizes to meet the Scottish Government target of 18' but CAN find the funds to develop and fund a new curriculum to teach sex education to 4 year olds. (BBBC News Scotland Home Page this morning).
When I was 4, I was more interested in catching tadpoles and playing football, and 'sex' were things that 'spuds' were kept in.
Complain about this comment
I am evil, I am bad, I am narrow minded, I am a threat to my very self and my countrymen, I voted SNP.
Complain about this comment
292.
"Ms Goldie added: “The Scottish public does not like, nor want, that grudge and grievance politics. He is the First Minister of all of Scotland not just the cheerleading chieftan of a narrow Nationalist rump.”
I see am an rear end hole too now.
What an idiot. I mean talk of shooting yourself in the foot. Does she have any inclination in the slightest of what she is branding people who actually voted for SNP. You would assume that she does actually know this, therefore it is deliberately calling them stupid and evil and narrow and extreme. "Oh god? you're right you tory ***! you know what? I'm gan tae vote fur you. Aye you'll sort it all out, you'll work me untill my dying day to get you out of this mess that you and your ilk have got us into!"
I think she's got the wrong culprit when accusing salmond of grudge and grievance. He has got every right to be mind you with this kind of?... Well to me it's racism, sorry to be so extreme.
Complain about this comment
Anent the levelling off of classroom attainment - would inclusion have a statistical effect like that? If you include pupils less able to progress at average or good pace then even if the average/good pupils are maintaining the pace and the included pupils are doing better than they would otherwise be doing then STATISTICALLY the effect will be to "dampen down" overall attainment?
Complain about this comment
It appears the starting gun has been fired!
Glasgow North East byelection will be held on 12 November
Complain about this comment
304. Brownedov
"Fair enough. I'm simply trying to be realistic. With professional party politicians in charge, I fear it'll be a slow process."
Yes, I accept that any progress towards party-free politics would probably be slow. The reason for that is clearly like turkeys and christmas :)
As for electronic voting, I agree that it shouldn't be compulsory.
I agree that any such system should offer - registration, referendum submission, referendum sign-up, referendum voting.
Separate, open systems for discussion and presentation would be a very useful adjunct too - allowing ordinary people the right frameworks to allow them to electronically publish and support their cases and debate them with others.
I read the wikipedia article on Swiss voting practices before hitting the sack last night, i hope it's a decent presentation of the reality as it seems a very good system. Certainly the sort of thing I'd back, and it would appear to lend itself to the use of electronic voting systems too.
I know having 'wouldn't it be great' style discussions can get a bit tedious, but I think that these things need to start being aired now, so that when the opportunity comes to implement new systems people are familiar with different ideas.
Complain about this comment
308. Brownedov
"Allowing their display, however, is a local decision and so far Geneva has confirmed it will allow them on freedom of speech grounds while Lausanne has just banned them on racism grounds. Zurich, Luzern and Bern are still making up their minds and should decide by the week-end."
It seems that the local authorities have a good deal of say in how they run themselves, does that extend to noramlly higher level policies like health, education, taxation?
Complain about this comment
310. Phil_Anthropponent
You're not evil - you're Spartacus!
hey - I'm Spartacus!
Complain about this comment
305. Coineach
I agree with your detail of the list. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't wide popular support for that list of nationalisations.
Isn't land ownership tied with ownership by the remnants of the ruling aristocracy? Is that tangled up with the (UK) constitution & monarchy?
"2.BANKS: Just look at the mess caused by the FED (A PRIVATEY OWNED BANK in the USA) 'nough said?? The ROBBER BARONS with their "Fractional Reserve Banking" - legalised FRAUD !!!!!!!!"
Fractional reserve lending is the big scam of the last few hundred years.
Complain about this comment
#305/317
Can you explain how we remove Fractional Reserve Lending without either total state control or a return to the midlle Ages?
Surely it was a recent case of reckless FRB over the past few years following deregulation
Complain about this comment
#260: Deanthetory -
"Bob Dalrymple MP [he has now got his own facebook and blogspot up and running thanks to me agreeing to be his election campaign 'webmaster'"
I see your candidate's still baredfacedly lying on his website, where he claims to have increased the tory's share of the Scottish Parliament vote in Stirling, between 2003 and 2007.
Is this what your campaign's going to be built on then? Lies and deceit. Do you honestly think people aren't going to find the truth behind the Tory smarm?
Complain about this comment
#260: Deanthetory -
"I'm not going to lie."
Not much chance of your candidate making that pledge, is there? At least not with a straight face.
Complain about this comment
#248 Stephen Gash -
I see you're still smarting from the fact that there are more Scottish Nationalists posting on here than there were English Democrats willing to vote for you in Sedgefield.
One day; I hope you'll work out the reason for your unpopularity, both personal and as a party. (Clue: It's got something to do with building yourself up instead of trying to tear everybody else down.)
Complain about this comment
318. Aikenheed
"Can you explain how we remove Fractional Reserve Lending without either total state control or a return to the midlle Ages?"
State control of what - currency and banking? That's pretty much what was proposed, returning banking to state control.
Return to the middle ages? If you mean back to before fractional reserve lending? i guess that's a way to describe it.
What's wrong with full-reserve banking?
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Another blunder by Iain Gray going after the First Minister on council tax.
Labour have no alternative to council tax in Scotland, the SNP have frozen the same tax in Scotland meanwhile Labour councils in London are about to freeze their own council tax.
Gray once again, like many Labour politicians, assumes that newspaper stories - even old ones - are a substitute for real opposition. Wee Glenn 'Outrage' tried much the same tactic when he held aloft a copy of The Sunday Post when interviewing John Swinney, it was pathetic then and it still is.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here,
Oil propaganda report alert !!
'Easy' oil has been extracted apparently, whatever that means. Stand back for the certain headlines from every single news outlet in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
319. At 12:02pm on 08 Oct 2009, Bandages_For_Konjic
Your talking about the % share, the actual numbers of votes recieved for us did go up, just not in % share terms.
Complain about this comment
322 Mr B
I think that full reserve banking means that government loses a lot of influence over the economy because there is no need for a central bank - some might say that's a good thing. Certainly I don't know if Full RB would have supported the levels of growth we've seen globally over the past 20 -30 years. Even the Islamic Sharia banking system doesn't operate fully on that principle. The main problem as I understand it is in the short term money supply is more restricted - although good for inflation - this means that borrowing for long term development becomes more difficult
As far as I know there is no example of as purely Full RB system being used - and it was the growth of industries from the late middle ages and the need for greater flexibility of capital to fund growth which led to the development of what became fractional reserve lending.
Changing the whole system because of the very short sighted Brit and US derestricting policies would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater
Complain about this comment
I might be good looking but I'm not an economist. However, for a long time I blogged on the old Herald site and warned about the looming financial crisis and what the outcome was going to be.
It turned out I was right.
The point is, if I can predict finacial meltdown why didn't the politicians? Or did they know and pretend it isn't happening? Or more likely did they know that this was premeditated and that they were part of the process?
Have you noticed that there is now very little difference between the main Westminster parties?. Yes, there might be a policy here and there that they spin out knowing that they cannot or have no intention of delivering but for direction you couldn't put a cigarette paper between them.
They're both singing from the same hymn sheet taking their orders from the same faceless, unelected, unacountable oligarchs in Wall St.
The election is for jostling to see who gets to lick boots at Bilderberg.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Complain about this comment
316. At 10:51am on 08 Oct 2009, mrbfaethedee.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
#314 mrbfaethedee
For a primer on the Swiss system, I strongly recommend the Switzerland's Direct Democracy website. I haven't read the wikipedia article, but will do so and comment on it if necessary when I have done so.
"I think that these things need to start being aired now, so that when the opportunity comes to implement new systems people are familiar with different ideas."
Agreed, but that opportunity will seemingly be over the dead bodies of at least 2½ of the 3 Tweedles.
#315 mrbfaethedee
"It seems that the local authorities have a good deal of say in how they run themselves, does that extend to noramlly higher level policies like health, education, taxation?"
Cantons are effectively sovereign states who have, for the time being, pooled their sovereignty into the Swiss Confederation to effect economies of scale on border control, customs duties, defence, supreme court, etc. but have also signed up to various guarantees on standards of education, health care, etc. Geneva is formally a republic, but I'm not aware of any canton thinking of going it alone. The cantons set very different taxation policies - both personal and business - to suit their own circumstances, and as the main taxing authority also collect the generally smaller taxes set at confederal and communal level.
Being in the UN healthcare system myself, I'm afraid I can't comment on how healthcare may or may not differ from canton to canton. Education is provided and administered cantonally but with an agreed confederal set of basic standards.
Time to move on to the new thread, I think.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
317. mrbfaethedee
New monetary target
Banks rule the World if they have a loss in there dealings the taxpayer susidises them by printing more money.
Complain about this comment
326. Aikenheed
It only gets rid of the central bank if by central bank you mean, lender of last resort. In full reserve banking, all the currency is primary currency (M0), it's not notional, so it has to be backed by the 'wealth' of the nation - looking at it that way, only the state's banking arm can be in that position - that's what i would see as being the function of a central bank; the sole issuer of currency.
Blind targetting of unceasing growth is part of the problem. Growth of what? Is it always appropriate? What is it measured by? What does it cost? What do we gain by it?
I would argue that the 'growth of industries' in the middle ages which gave birth to fractional reserve banking were in fact the industries of pretty much constant warfare which needed funding, the petty kings and lords who engaged in it needed more and more money to fund their attempts to conquer each other and the banks had come up with a great way of allowing for this expansion of credit to take place. It is the very beginning of the world economies failing to live within their means.
Following the money, the core financial institutions (and the people behind them) are the very top of a system which takes money from the base of the economies and feeds it into them.
What happens when things go well; they get the lion's share.
What happens when things go wrong; we pay to keep them in money.
What good is that? Money is supposed to be a tool, not and end in itself.
Don't get me wrong Aikenheed, I'm not claiming that I know enough about to say that this or that is categorically right or wrong. I do think though, that most people aren't even aware of the range of fundamentally different ways of running economies, and so assume that the best we can do is tweak the current system. There's also the notion that perhaps we oughtn't to have fixed economic models, but rather change them as our countries adopt different priorities.
Complain about this comment
327. U14153624
"They're both singing from the same hymn sheet taking their orders from the same faceless, unelected, unacountable oligarchs in Wall St.
The election is for jostling to see who gets to lick boots at Bilderberg.
Nothing more, nothing less. "
Truth!
Complain about this comment
330. cynicalHighlander
"Banks rule the World if they have a loss in there dealings the taxpayer susidises them by printing more money."
Yes, I thought we were going to shake it off by letting them fail and taking back control. Not to be.
Complain about this comment
329. Brownedov
Thanks for link and comments.
Complain about this comment
If you want to learn more about wholesale FRAUD caused by the banking industry look up "Federal Reserve" on Google videos. Any other company trying anything like that woull find their directors in prison serving VERY long terms.
Complain about this comment
If mrbfaethedee reviewed what happened to the building societies he will see exactly what Fractional Reserve banking does. Remember when a good number of the building societies went "public" and ceased being "mutuals". The main difference is that "mutuals" are only permitted BY LAW to lend a percentage of their receipts whereas the "non-mutuals can lend anything up to 12 1/2 TIMES what they have on deposit. Current laws state thay must have approx 8% reserve (i.e. 100% / 8% = 12 1/2. That brings in BIG profits but also subjects the banks to big losses if people cannot pay. Exactly what happened with the sub-prime mortages. Please note (apart from the Dunfermline Building Society - which I consider was a political ploy) all the failed Building Societies had de-mutualised into banks, I cannot think of any Mutual Building Society failing - except for teh Dunfermline as stated above.
It is what could be described as LEGALISED FRAUD - the banks lending money which simply DOES NOT EXIST.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS