Salmond must be honest about an independent Scotland – my thoughts

Salmond’s claims over an independent Scotland is looking fishy.

First let me point out that I’m a unionist, I personally feel the UK works better, than a reduced UK and an independent Scotland would.

However, partisanship is not the way to look at an issue which may have grave consequences for a smaller UK, but more importantly an independent Scotland.

The SNP’s position has changed, originally the SNP argued that an independent Scotland’s destiny lay within the Eurozone, however quite understandably given the crisis of the Eurozone the SNP now argues it believes that Scotland would be better to keep Stirling (it should also be pointed out, that the Stirling is much more popular in Scotland than the Euro, which may go some way to explain the SNP’s decision to do an about turn.).
However Salmond & the SNP’s claim that Scotland is entitled to keep Stirling has been questioned, if an independent Scotland wished to join the EU (which the SNP says they do) Scotland would be treated as an accession state – not a successor state, as the SNP’s own legal advice (which Salmond tried to suppress) has said: “Scotland is only part of the EU by virtue of the UK’s membership. If Scotland were to leave, it would not automatically assume membership of the EU”. I must point out that Salmond’s Scotland would be entitled to try and negotiate an opt-out of the Euro, however Scotland would be a very small country in the EU, and the EU’s increasing appetite is for closer integration (both fiscal and political) – a new, obstinate member wouldn’t be welcomed to the table, let alone tolerated. “EU law would require negotiation of the terms of an independent Scotland’s membership of the EU since the treaties do not provide for an increase in the number of member states other than by treaty amendment.” This process, as everything is with the EU, is long and protracted, it could take several years before Scotland could become a member of the EU, most likely between two and three years. That’s two-three years with no trade agreements etc, and no access to the common market, it would also see the withdrawal of EU funding. Salmond has dismissed the legal advice as “a silly answer for a silly question”.
Moving on to the SNP’s claim that it can keep Sterling. Sterling is controlled by the Bank of England, the UK’s independent central bank, Scotland would only be able to use Sterling if the Bank of England agreed, it is not Scotland’s automatic right. However, more importantly is what Scotland keeping Sterling would mean to Scotland: a foreign nation would have some control over an independent countries monetary policies and facilities. Scottish borrowing and interest rates would be set by the Bank of England, Scotland would have full spending & taxing powers – but this option sounds like “devo-max” rather than actual independence. One thing is for certain, Scotland, with fewer people & a smaller economy than the remaining part of the UK would have much higher interest rates on it’s borrowing than the UK.

TUC & the Union’s creed of greed

The TUC, and its Unions issue constant calls for higher pay & ‘improved working conditions’ for their members, I struggle to see how working conditions or pay can be improved within the public sector.

 

If we look at the facts:

• Public Sector workers are paid on average 7.7% to 8.7% more than their counterparts in the private sector
• Gross median pay in the public sector is £28,802 compared to £25,000 in the private sector
• The bottom 5% of public sector workers are paid £6.91 per hour on average, compared to an average of £5.93 per hour in the private sector
• The average public sector worker earns £14.88 per hour, compared to the typical private sector workers who earns £11.60 per hour
• Average public sector worker works 31 hours & 12 minutes per weeks, compared to the typical private sector worker who puts in 34 hours & 18 minutes per week
• 80% of public sector workers receive more than 25 days annual leave per year, compared to 55% of private sector workers

 Does that sound fair? Does that sound as though public sector workers are being unfairly treated?

 

Lets also look at public sector pensions, compared to private sector pensions:

• There are around 23 million workers in the UK’s private sector, only 10% of these contribute towards their workplace pension To cover all points there are around 6.4million paying into a personal pension, this is the only option for the self employed)
• There are around 6million workers in the UK’s public sector, around 5.3million of them contribute to a workplace pension
• Using a mean average the average public sector worker will receive a pension of £7,800 per year, compared to £7,467 per year for a private sector salary linked pension
• Actual average sees a public sector worker receive a pension of £7,000 per year, and private sector workers receive £3,700 per annum, meaning on average a public sector worker will receive nearly double the pension of a private sector worker
• There are 78,000 currently retired public sector workers receiving a pension in excess of £25,900 per annum

 Further to the above points, just remember the UK has a £1.2TRILLION liability for public sector pensions, or £45,000 per household.

So I ask you to please consider the above points when listening to the TUC & the Unions rant that their members need more pay & better conditions. The pay, pensions & working conditions for the public sector are already much, much better than those of private sector workers.

 

When considering the points it becomes clear the Unions & the TUC are about greed & nothing else, this is very true considering their recent actions when Ed Balls MP was booed and faced with jeers of “rubbish” when telling the TUC that jobs are more important than pay, and that Labour would also be cutting spending.

Liberal Democrats are only fit for student politics

Are the LibDems only fit for student politics? Is a question that often crops up in my mind, and to be blunt it certainly seems that way.

 

If you’re active in your party, you’ll be used to their childish, underhand, and quite often dirty tricks on the campaign trail, such as outright lies, and massaged statistics, and falsified graphs & figures.

 

That aside, surely they must realise they are now a party of Government, and two years ago they should have put their toys away and step up to the challenge.

 

Oh, how I wish this were the case, but it is anything but. First we had, lets be honest, downright lies from the very top of the party about the Conservative Party going back on its promises in the coalition agreement on Lords reform (just so you know, Conservatives didn’t we agreed to set up a committee to look into the issue of Lords reform, this was done) and because Nick Clegg thought we had gone back on our word, he went back on his saying his party would not just abstain from boundary reform but would actively oppose it. Lets be clear: in the coalition agreement Lords Reform was not in return for Boundary Reform, the referendum on the Alternative Vote System was in return for Boundary Reform. Clegg & the Liberal Democrats went back on their word because it suited them, nothing else. (which raises the question, when it comes to the vote & LibDem Ministers vote against it, will they resign after voting against Government, because they’ve breached their duties under collective responsibility?).

 

Now as Clegg limbers up to the Liberal Democrat conference we have the usual dross & trite that Clegg & the party hierarchy trot out to try and appease the Lib Dem grass roots, and try to avoid annihilation at the polls in 2015.

 

First we had the “wealth tax” (remember they agreed to drop the top rate of tax), then there was the “mansion tax”, then in a move that seems purely motivated to get Conservative voters backs up, they suggested increasing Inheritance Tax. These moves are not motivated because they’re backed up by economic credibility, they’re motivated to aggravate Conservatives & try to cheer up the beard, sandal & socks brigade of the LibDems. What’s worse Clegg admits this isn’t something he’s pushing to help the finances of the country, but rather a social measure. How far can you push the top earners? Those on the top rate of tax, already pay a marginal rate of 62% – Clegg wants to tax them more on: shares; assets; homes etc. etc. it’s just madness. Clegg hasn’t even mentioned where all this extra tax would be spent, or what it would be used for, it’s a “tax the rich” policy, just for the sake of it, to annoy Conservatives, & pander to the LibDem grassroots. It’s pure student politics.

 

After 13years of Labour, has Clegg not realised that a policy of tax & spend doesn’t work, and just results in an unholy mess?

A third runway for Heathrow?

A 3^rd Runway at Heathrow? Good? Bad? Evil?

 

I’m sorry but I think it probably isn’t good for those living near Heathrow, but it is the most sensible idea available to us at the moment. My reasons for thinking this are below:

 

The so called ‘Boris Island’ is a good idea, however it would take years to put the wheels into motion, and cost a cash-strapped Government & private sector far too much (estimates are about £50billion). It isn’t just about plonking a huge big airport in the middle of an estuary (never mind environmental implications) there would be huge infrastructure projects to take into account, like roads, and rail links, and most importantly a power supply. The power supply is likely to cost the most, estimates at around £10billion to deliver it. Compared to this a third runway would cost little, and take much less time to install & have up and running.

 

Interestingly the Daily Telegraph’s poll today indicated most people are in favour of a 3^rd runway.

 

Heathrow has better infrastructure, arguably than Gatwick, it is also a much shorter journey from Heathrow to Central London than it is from Gatwick to Central London. This point is something that is of importance to the business world.

 

Upon taking Government the coalition promised it would do “everything within its power” to promote growth. I urge them to make a welcomed U-Turn and approve a 3^rd runway for Heathrow, it can be enacted quickly & would give a much needed (albeit small) boost to the construction industry in the UK.

 

Growth, must come before the petty infighting, squabbling and in-fighting that the LibDems will no doubt try if they don’t get their own way over the 3^rd runway. Please don’t let the tail wag the dog anymore Mr Cameron, the country needs growth & more flight capacity.

 

PS this is an argument that will soon spread to Northern England. Manchester (the UK’s 2nd largest airport in terms of passenger numbers) is also running out of capacity, and it’s running out quickly. Then the argument will be mirrored in Edinburgh over the future of the UK’s 3^rd largest airport.

Labour’s legacy & hypocrisy on social housing

I was listening to BBC R4 today and had my ears assaulted by Hilary Benn, the man with a pure brass neck claimed that the current Government was failing on social housing. This is utter & bare faced hypocrisy. He didn’t once mention how inept social housing was under Labour.

 Who really failed in building social housing?

 

• Between 1979 & 1996 (before Labour came into power) there were 913,690 newly built social homes by Local Authorities or registered Social Landlords.
• Between 1997 & 2008 (when Labour were in power) newly built social homes were 290,750

 Before anyone says, I understand the period between 1979 & 1996 is much larger than the 13 years Labour were in power, but its simple to work out an average.

 Under the last Conservative Government an average of 50,761 homes were built for social tenants. Under Labour, (the “working man’s” party) the average was 24,299.

 When Labour left office, they bequeathed not only a record deficit, record debt, huge unemployment, but also FOUR MILLION waiting on social housing lists.

Global Slowdown

Without wanting to sound too pessimistic I think we’re now entering into a true global slowdown. The evidence is plain for all to see.

 

The UK has been hit hard by this, through the sovereign debt crisis in Europe which has affected us greatly, through to the slowing & anaemic growth in the USA which is barely keeping its head above water.

 

Most concerning is the fact that the so-called “emerging economies” are also suffering a slow down, many had pinned their hopes of a recovery onto the emerging economies of India, Brazil, China etc. However China has posted massively slowed growth, coupled with very weak export data, & slower than expected consumer spending.

 

After this bad news attention soon shifted back to Europe, or the Euro-zone group of nations in particular. Germany, the European work horse posted very weak growth, and there is an expectation that it will return to negative growth before year end, indeed it may already be there. The economic outlook of France also now mirrors that of the UK, France posted 0% growth, whilst the UK posted a revised figure of 0.5% contraction of GDP, which equates to no growth once the extra bank holiday is factored in.

 

Companies throughout Europe which are truly global players are either seeking to make significant cash savings, i.e. not spending as much & keeping hold of their cash, or starting to shed workers (Vestas recently announced another 1,400 staff would be made redundant, after making a quarterly loss, bringing the total amount made redundant to 3,700 this year). Most worryingly is Siemens most recent report, which recorded a 23% decline in new orders, albeit profit is up, and it has a huge order back log to fall back on it’s still a startling figure, given that Siemens is considered to be a bell-weather for both the European economy, and the global economy as a whole.

 

The figures from Siemens should send alarm bells ringing in both the Bundestag & the Bundesbank – Siemens is Germany’s most valuable company, and its third largest employer. Germany has escaped quite lightly for the crisis so far because of its fantastic employment figures, and resulting low social welfare payments. If German companies like Siemens, VW, BMW etc start to shed jobs Germany could find itself in an increasingly tight spot.

 

Where does the above leave the UK? Pretty much stuck in all honesty, our PMI figures are a good indicator that there is confidence within British companies, or companies operating inside the UK, unemployment is falling, then on the other hand public borrowing is increasing, HM Treasury expected a £2.2billion surplus, and ended up borrowing £600million. The ONLY answer for this is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward cuts, to reduce public spending by as much as possible. The private sector has been taking the pain since 2007/08 to the present day, and will take much more if we do enter a global slowdown. It’s also time the public sector were cut back to size, and wasteful spending was cut all together.

The hypocrisy of Labour is breathtaking.

So today has brought us news that the Government seeks to roll out the ‘Global NHS’ scheme introduced by Labour’s Health Secretary Rt Hon Andrew Burnham MP way back in 2007, which they were working with as recently as 2010, several clinics had already been opened. Fast forward two years to the Coalition Government announcing it was to roll this out on a similar basis to the BBC Worldwide programme which earns a considerable amount of money for the BBC, thus reducing the burden on taxpayers in the UK. And this is denounced by Jamie Reed Shadow Health Minister and other Labour types (c/o Mars or Cloud Coo-Coo Land take your pick) stating that it is blatant commercialisation of the NHS.

Scroll up and read again – this is a scheme started by Labour, and now taken up by the current Government, now they’re in opposition Labour oppose it, why? This is a breathtaking scramble to clamber on board the latest passing bandwagon to roll past Westminster.

If NHS Global provides the NHS with extra income, which it can help fund treatments in the UK, for NHS patients, how on Earth can Labour argue against it, especially given they’ve supported it – well more than supported it – came up with the idea…?

It’s blatant opportunism & hypocrisy.

Seems Labour should consult an NHS Global Doctor dealing with memory loss…

Bias at the BBC

A link was brought to my attention by @SamSussex on twitter, apparently showing BBC bias in its flagship current affairs programme Question Time.

The issue has come about after a question from Conservative MP Philip Davies, in his response, soon to be former-Director General of the BBC said this: “The audience mix, in terms of political allegiance, may vary in different places  . . .  but our overall aim is to achieve impartiality across each series through careful audience selection and choice of locations.”.

However, this isn’t how it should be. Question Time is often mostly aired from inner-cities for ‘logistical’ purposes (I don’t quite understand this, it’s like the Royal Mail refusing to deliver to the countryside because it isn’t logisically ideal…) inner-cities usually, more often than not, have a strong inclination towards Labour. Now, if the BBC, which it does, selects its audience members based up on the make up of the location, rather than the country, it would mean inner-city locations would have many more Labour supporters in the audience that LibDem or Conservative, which is quite wrong when the programme is broadcast nationally. I would think it would be much more fair, if the audience were selected out of regional voter make up, or more preferably national voter make up.

Then again, the BBC never seems to like to stick by its rules on impartiality when it goes against their left-wing credentials.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com! This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!