Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Thrugelmir

Leanne1812 wrote: »

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.

There's the conundrum. The answer has to come from within. Unsustainable welfare systems aren't the answer. How did people used to get by? Wasn't that many years ago. Now it's seen as a right.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Has Mr Bell jumped ship or is he reading in a bit of healthy introspection? His remarks link to what I think.

I can respect a bit someone who votes for independence if they, having considered the consequences, decide it's worth it, but where I have a problem is where misrepresentation of the economics is used to sway those sitting on the fence and who become convinced, due to that misrepresentation, to opt for a land of milk and honey that will not exist. Likewise for false arguments about Westminster being anti-Virus, and all Tories being devils, and all Labour not being socialist any more.

I wrote "a bit" because I don't think the true consequences of splitting Scotland from the rest of the UK are truly appreciated and a cyclic popularity of the Indy cause may please today's enthusiasts but have devastating consequences on the young. 15 or possibly 20% drop in income plus a fall in GDP affects not just those who are nicely set up but the next generations, of which a greater proportion will be out of work or, as is likely, "brain drain" to foreign parts. I know this well from personal experience and can tell you that having grandkids abroad is not nice, not nice at all. Families can drift apart while politicians in Edinburgh tell those in Glasgow what to do (Or politicians in Brussels).

Has the rUK bit things to envy? Well of course, it's the greater diversity and vitality than scotland. That is not about any group being better than any other but simply population. Even things like national broadcasting which is enjoyed in Scotland I'm site, as it is here. Scotland can make good programmes, but with a smaller budget, the variety goes down, unless you import it, or pirate the satellite transmissions (that's actually on topic I suppose!). Same with technology and Scirence and the Arts. Oh Scots will laugh a lot at Scottish Commedians, but laugh a lot more with the greater number in rUK.

The SNP aren't 'radical' enough for Mr Bell. That's why he's an 'ex' advisor. Still, it's saying something when the likes of the Daily Record and other media outlets jump on a solitary blog article and print it as headline news these days. Desperate stuff. I think he's more 'Green' orientated these days. And very Pro land reform from a quick Google.

I'd never heard of him till today.

17/09/13

Alex Bell, who quit as head of Alex Salmond's policy unit in July after two years working on his independence strategy, said the first minister was failing to present a radical, daring vision for Scotland and so was facing defeat in next year's referendum.....
Bell warned that Salmond's white paper on independence, touted as his prospectus for independence and due to be published in November, fell into the trap of singing "the old songs" for short-term tactical reasons rather than offering voters bold, radical reforms.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/17/alex-salmond-aide-alex-bell-scottish

Two year's later those 'bold radical reforms' of his are suddenly... 'oh just do nothing' ?

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

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.

I don't think I phrased myself well. The point isn't so much that one person can work whatever hours they want. The point is that if lots of people want to go full time then more work will become available for full-timers.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

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?

Thanks for the points

I'm just trying to understand what the YOU mean by a fairer, more just society
I genuinely want to understand what you mean and what an independent scotland would do and how this is different from the UK as a whole.

elantan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP aren't 'radical' enough for Mr Bell. That's why he's an 'ex' advisor. Still, it's saying something when the likes of the Daily Record and other media outlets jump on a solitary blog article and print it as headline news these days. Desperate stuff. I think he's more 'Green' orientated these days. And very Pro land reform from a quick Google.

I'd never heard of him till today.

17/09/13http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/17/alex-salmond-aide-alex-bell-scottish

Two year's later those 'bold radical reforms' of his are suddenly... 'oh just do nothing' ?

DR reported a blog post as news ? Sounds like it's gonna try going kicking and screaming to its death ... but it will still end

Happygreen

Generali wrote: »

I don't think I phrased myself well. The point isn't so much that one person can work whatever hours they want. The point is that if lots of people want to go full time then more work will become available for full-timers.

In an ideal world maybe work will become available as if by magic just because people want it to? In reality it doesn't matter whatsoever what people want, you either work the zero hour contract where you have no chance of topping up with a second job if you can find one because you are held in a stranglehold or you lose it all.

Generali

Happygreen wrote: »

In an ideal world maybe work will become available as if by magic just because people want it to? In reality it doesn't matter whatsoever what people want, you either work the zero hour contract where you have no chance of topping up with a second job if you can find one because you are held in a stranglehold or you lose it all.

Ah yes, back to the wacky world of the interwebs where people are either existing on zero hours contracts and handouts from the food bank or part of the 1% who manage to vote in the Tory Government despite being, errrmm, 1% of the population.

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

I don't think I phrased myself well. The point isn't so much that one person can work whatever hours they want. The point is that if lots of people want to go full time then more work will become available for full-timers.

There's not a single extra hour available in the whole of the UK.

By some massive co-incidence the maximum hours people can get, despite wanting more, seems to be exactly the same as the minimum they need to claim in-work benefits. What are the chances of that happening?

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

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?

It's about right. Loafing around at school, leaving with few qualifications and later developing the skills to pour coffee should be rewarded.

I'd prefer benefits be withdrawn at the same time as the minimum wage is increased though. In the socialist utopia I'm working on the family in the example would see their benefits tapered to zero when the minimum wage increases to £32/ hour.

Rinoa

elantan wrote: »

DR reported a blog post as news ? Sounds like it's gonna try going kicking and screaming to its death ... but it will still end

Not just the Daily Record, the BBC also reported it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34837167