Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Leanne1812

Tromking wrote: »

Any newly independent country would hope to be aspirational to any and every country, but your more narrow suggestion that it should be aspirational to its "neighbours" (England I suppose?) betrayed a mindset I disagree with. I can handle England coming up short in comparison with any country, I just disagree with the SNP induced idea that Scotland is uniquely predisposed in these islands to think differently.
In answer to your question, it is my perception that Scotland has an ageing population and has struggled in comparison to England to create a ethnically diverse society with the aid of immigration. Couple that with a sometimes febrile and divisive level of political discourse and an undercurrent of sectarianism that just isn't seen in England, then a lot could learned from a more at ease with itself England.

Thanks for your response even though I heartily disagree! Firstly independence & SNP are not one and the same :-) I did hope to see an independent Scotand that was geared towards a more just & equal society, that in turn the rest of the U.K. might aspire to. It wasn't a criticism about England.

You're right that we do have an ageing population but I'm really not getting what you mean about us not creating an ethnically diverse society, frankly, that's nonsense.

What's happening here politically is wonderful, much better than the apathy of old. That's gone now and it is one area I'd say most countries ( politicians excluded ) would welcome.

We've had the sectarian debate, it disgusts me but it's a tiny minority growing ever smaller as these outdated people and their views die out.

Cheers anyway for taking the time to respond.

Thrugelmir

Happygreen wrote: »

I'd prefer a government that doesn't sell banks at a billion £ loss, surely you can see a connection.

I prefer Governments that don't intervene. RBS is a prime example of why Governments should stay well clear of running any business.

scott_lithgows

Rinoa wrote: »

Just as well our forum Nats aren't in it for the money.

Alex Bell, Salmond's former policy chief, wrote in his online blog today:


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmonds-former-policy-chief-6842162

There is no referendum planned so pointless journalism from a newspaper which is basically a comic.

Leanne1812

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You can check Moneyweek's calculations here....

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/



Lots of employers try to use large numbers of low hours staff, for a variety of reasons.

However there is also a large pool of potential employees who demand low hours at work because of tax credits and other benefits.

I have lost track of the number of times managers that work for me have complained that good staff often refuse to work more than part time as they'd "lose some benefits".

The right solution would appear to be more or less what is being proposed by the Tories.

Increase hourly wages and reduce benefits so that the incentive NOT to work is taken away.

I agree & disagree with you.

So you agree that lots of employers like to use low hours staff, what if the staff want more hours? They may get more hours but never get them added to a contract just pretty consistent overtime. This results in stress, wondering will you get enough to bump up your wage and it impacts on holiday pay too. My husband experiences this frequently. To put you in the picture - he was self employed for many years so has the mindset of an employer more than employee. He goes to work, does his job to the best of his ability, does not shirk and as such gets extra workload added as the company know he will rise to the challenge. He still cannot get a full time contract!

I agree that some people may not want to work for fear that it affects their benefits. A colleague of hubby's gets tax credits, worked overtime and when they assessed him they said an overpayment needed to be paid back. As a result he is worse off this year and has even had to go to loan sharks! This is extreme I know and we can all say he should have known and been more responsible and that may be true but I believe tax credits are assessed on last years pay and I suppose people have got wise to what kind of predicament they may be in if they try to up their take home pay.

We have to find a solution, why does this Tory policy not feel like it to me?.....if employers are encouraged in some moral way to help solve this problem maybe that will start to help. A problem is also created if more people get offered full time contracts then surely unemployment will increase?

Leanne1812

Generali wrote: »

The problem is always that when you move from a system of subsidising almost anything to not subsidising that thing there will be winners and losers.

Imagine some sort of system that encouraged people into working 40 hours a week rather than 16 or 25. Let's not get hung up on the specifics of what that system might be.

So what happens? Workers now, instead of wanting to work 16 hours a week want to work 40. So what do they do? Motivated staff that have skills and options (the sort of people employers like) ask their boss if they can work full time. If the boss says No then perhaps they look for a job elsewhere. Staff retention is now a problem.

Employers ultimately offer the hours employees want within reason.

Have to disagree there. My husband would love another shift on his contract. Hard working colleague of 7 years and cannot get one. Does not want to progress through the ranks ( he's been asked numerous times - too much stress previously self employed made him fear for his health) not work shy. So no, not all employers offer the hours.

All these workers now on 40 hour weeks means more unemployment too.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Thanks for your response even though I heartily disagree! Firstly independence & SNP are not one and the same :-) I did hope to see an independent Scotand that was geared towards a more just & equal society, that in turn the rest of the U.K. might aspire to. It wasn't a criticism about England.

You're right that we do have an ageing population but I'm really not getting what you mean about us not creating an ethnically diverse society, frankly, that's nonsense.

What's happening here politically is wonderful, much better than the apathy of old. That's gone now and it is one area I'd say most countries ( politicians excluded ) would welcome.

We've had the sectarian debate, it disgusts me but it's a tiny minority growing ever smaller as these outdated people and their views die out.

Cheers anyway for taking the time to respond.

is a 'just and fairer' society one in which everyone working 24 per week can receive as much as a junior doctor?
is it one with a much higher benefits bill than now?
is it one where people get paid for 40 hours when there is no work?
is it one that keeps the scottish steel industry going
is it one that keeps the ship building going?
is it one with much higher taxes on the rich

what exactly is a 'just and fairer' society?

how does it differ from that of the UK?

.string.

@ Leanne, Hamish - I think the anecdotes point the finger for these problems at bad employment law. I'm not about to suggest a solution, merely give another example where a law, intended to be for the benefit of the working employee, actually works to their detriment.

My daughter, a Beauty Therapist, worked for a while at a Country Club in Spain (she still lives in Spain). The was an employment law there which stated that anyone working at a company for more than 2 months must be offered a a permanent contract. My daughter suffered the same fate as others there, she worked for 2 months and that was the end.

No doubt there are nuances to the application of the law there but I think I have the bottom line correct.

I suppose it spread the work around a bit, but it was bad for the individual.

I guess a common factor may be the imposition of artificial boundaries. Better for employees to have a contract, pro-rata holidays from day 1. For that reason I'm suspicious of sharp breaks in benefits, in taxes and in health treatment entitlement.

I don't know what to suggest for your husband, Leanne, except to spend the time when not working looking vigorously for something else. On the positive side he has accumulated experience and can can offer long term intentions for the right job. Good luck to him

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

is a 'just and fairer' society one in which everyone working 24 per week can receive as much as a junior doctor?
is it one with a much higher benefits bill than now?
is it one where people get paid for 40 hours when there is no work?
is it one that keeps the scottish steel industry going
is it one that keeps the ship building going?
is it one with much higher taxes on the rich

what exactly is a 'just and fairer' society?

how does it differ from that of the UK?

I said I wouldn't engage with you any more Clapton so play nice.

The 1st anti anything and I will ignore. Capisce?

To answer your questions

No

No

What's the solution? Starve them?

If it is viable & in order to keep jobs then Yes.

Is that the industry which has been decimated over many years? Yes, if it is viable and to keep jobs.

Not much higher but possibly higher. Also closing tax loopholes would help.

While some will say we are all richer and there is merit to that we are also more unequal. It's about trying to balance it out a little.

We don't know as we didn't get the opportunity to try it.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I said I wouldn't engage with you any more Clapton so play nice.

The 1st anti anything and I will ignore. Capisce?

To answer your questions

No

No

What's the solution? Starve them?

If it is viable & in order to keep jobs then Yes.

Is that the industry which has been decimated over many years? Yes, if it is viable and to keep jobs.

Not much higher but possibly higher. Also closing tax loopholes would help.

While some will say we are all richer and there is merit to that we are also more unequal. It's about trying to balance it out a little.

We don't know as we didn't get the opportunity to try it.

I still really don't understand what you mean by a more just and fairer society

1. we have an example of a person working 24 hours at £7 per hour for week with 3 kids (full details earlier) will take home about 30,000 per annum of which 20,000 is benefits: grossed up this is about 40k which is about salary of a junior doctor.
I don't understand your answer : are you saying the take home pay of 30k for 24 hours is too low, too high, about right?

2. you say you don't want a higher benefits bill : the bill is rising each year how would you stop that?

3. the alternative to being paid for 40 hours per week whether there is work or not, is less pay (and not none)
but seriously do you think that every person should be guaranteed 40 hours pay is all circumstances?
would that be a new scottish law you would support?
would that be funded by the state (more benefits) or by the companies?
4. well, yes if a company is viable (i.e. makes a profit) then the state wouldn't need to keep it open : but if it is loss making should scotland taxpayers subsidise it?

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

I still really don't understand what you mean by a more just and fairer society

1. we have an example of a person working 24 hours at £7 per hour for week with 3 kids (full details earlier) will take home about 30,000 per annum of which 20,000 is benefits: grossed up this is about 40k which is about salary of a junior doctor.
I don't understand your answer : are you saying the take home pay of 30k for 24 hours is too low, too high, about right?

2. you say you don't want a higher benefits bill : the bill is rising each year how would you stop that?

3. the alternative to being paid for 40 hours per week whether there is work or not, is less pay (and not none)
but seriously do you think that every person should be guaranteed 40 hours pay is all circumstances?
would that be a new scottish law you would support?
would that be funded by the state (more benefits) or by the companies?
4. well, yes if a company is viable (i.e. makes a profit) then the state wouldn't need to keep it open : but if it is loss making should scotland taxpayers subsidise it?

1. I don't make gov policy, it's been decided by a gov economist no doubt that for a family of 5 to sustain themselves this is what they need. Show me a credible alternative for them to sustain themselves if there is no possibility of full time employment.

2. Hopefully by employers paying a living wage and contracts that mean a decent monthly wage. At least enough to pay for the basic essentials in life.

3. I can't see there being enough employment for everyone to be offered 40 hours. So people take part time as its all that's available but they cannot sustain a very basic life without gov assistance. Tell me of your option?

4. Being viable is of course vital but it's not quite that simple is it? What if a workforce of hundreds have little opportunity of alternative employment, do we subsidise their life on benefits or is it better to pump money into helping a business, possibly encouraging diversity in order to survive?