General
Monday, 25 June 2012 23:11
44 Comments
By Bob Duncan 
Prime Minister David Cameron has undermined the new “better together” No campaign on the very day of its launch, by proposing lower benefits for Scots than those in other parts of the Union.
In a major lurch to the right, designed to pander to disgruntled Tory backbenchers, the Prime Minister outlined his plans for severe reform of the welfare system.
In a speech in Kent, Mr Cameron said he wanted to debate ideas for welfare reform before the Conservatives produced their manifesto for the next general election.
One of the proposals was that levels of benefits would change to reflect the general cost of living in different “regions” of the UK. This would lead to claimants in Scotland receiving less money than those in, for example, Southern or Eastern England. This proposal was dropped from the final text of his speech, but Downing Street insisted it was still among ideas to be discussed.
He also announced measures that could see council house tenants evicted unless they were deemed to be earning an acceptable wage, a measure which would have a much more widespread effect in Scotland than in other parts of the UK.
In addition, David Cameron’s proposals include scrapping housing benefit for the under 25s and removing or restricting some benefits to out-of-work families with large numbers of children.
The PM said he hoped the Lib Dems might agree with some of these ideas so they could be brought in before the next election, which is due in 2015.
"Regional" rates of benefits, which would see people in more affluent regions getting higher payments than in poorer regions, would be likely to prove controversial, particularly in Scotland.
No 10 stressed, an hour before Mr Cameron's speech, that no final decision had been taken but the PM wanted to look at whether "it makes sense if you set all benefits at the national level or whether there should be some local or regional element".
Under the present constitutional arrangement, the Westminster Government has complete control over welfare and benefits in all parts of the UK, leaving the Scottish Government unable to protect vulnerable people from the impact of the proposed changes. This is despite such measures having little popular support in Scotland.
The Prime Minister's intervention comes as an IPSOS Mori poll shows 67% of people want the Scottish Government to take control of welfare and benefits.
A separate YouGov poll for the SNP suggested only 20 per cent of people in Scotland believe it is better to be part of the UK when there is a Tory government in Westminster.
Cameron's speech was in stark contrast to the message put forward at the launch of the revamped Labour/Tory 'Better Together' No campaign.
The campaign is headed by Labour Chancellor, Alasdair Darling, who was at pains to persuade voters that Scotland would be better under a Tory Government in London, than under Edinburgh control.
Speaking this morning to the BBC, Mr Darling said:
"We have influence now, being part of the United Kingdom. I don't want to throw that influence away.
"My argument is not that you couldn't go it alone as Scotland on its own, I'm not arguing that at all. I just think it is better for us to be together in the United Kingdom because we can achieve far more influence and have more clout."
However, the announcements of benefit cuts which are particularly disadvantageous to Scots, on the very day of the No campaign launch, would seem to suggest that this influence and clout is minimal at best. The differential application of VAT relief for emergency services on both sides of the border would seem to reinforce this view.
The launch event for the No campaign featured a number of “ordinary Scots” who gave set-piece interviews to ex Scottish Tory leader, Annabel Goldie.
Responding to Mr Cameron's speech, SNP Work and Pensions spokesperson Dr Eilidh Whiteford said:
“David Cameron’s proposals cement the Tories position as the nasty party of UK politics, and yet today the Labour Party tell us they think it is best for Scotland for the Tories to be in charge of our welfare state.
"Thousands of Scots who now face the uncertainty of UK welfare cuts will be wondering what on earth Labour are doing entering an alliance with the Tories. The big question is whether we will now see regional rates for the state pension, with 1 million Scottish pensioners losing out because we are part of the UK. Can the No campaign guarantee that the Tories won't cut Scottish pensions?
“No wonder polls this weekend show 67% of people want the Scottish Government to take control of welfare and benefits – and not leave this crucial issue to London.
“It is incredible, and acutely embarrassing for Labour, that the prime minister has set out his welfare cuts on the day the anti-independence Labour-Tory pact was launched. Given these latest Tory plans, it is no surprise that only 20% of Scots think that we are better as part of the UK when there is a Tory government at Westminster."
Comments
#
2012-06-26 07:28
Just heard the Tories little helper Willie Bain claim that benefits paid out in Scotland are three times North Sea Oil revenues. Another myth to be countered.
#
2012-06-26 10:11
If there is any truth in that, then he must be choosing his accounting dates very carefully, and must only be comparing the tax collected on extraction. See here: publications.parliament.uk/.../... for a fuller picture on the revenues from Scottish oil.
.
.
#
2012-06-26 16:56
Now that's what I call sticking it to them xyz !!!!
I wonder if Mr Bain has ever even heard of the McCrone Report.
I wonder if Mr Bain has ever even heard of the McCrone Report.
#
2012-06-26 07:44
Are we a region or a nation?
We will resolve that in 2014
As for Willie Bain
We will resolve that in 2014
We will resolve that in 2014
As for Willie Bain
We will resolve that in 2014
#
2012-06-26 07:54
Will the Union kill the Unionists stone dead without any push from the SNP ?. In one way that would be sad as it would remove the pressure on the SNPP to articulate and develop its for the moment, undeveloped policies.
The SNP should lay out precisely down to the finest of details just how they would propose to run the country as an independent state. That way they can counter any and all arguements. Of course their plan would have to be hypothetical as we are still 2 years away from a referendum.
Doing so would silence any of these daily swipes at the SNP that leave them fumbling. Not good and not comforting for the supporters of independence hence they are looking elsewhere for leadership on these issues. The SNP need readically to up their game to see off this better together mob !.
The SNP should lay out precisely down to the finest of details just how they would propose to run the country as an independent state. That way they can counter any and all arguements. Of course their plan would have to be hypothetical as we are still 2 years away from a referendum.
Doing so would silence any of these daily swipes at the SNP that leave them fumbling. Not good and not comforting for the supporters of independence hence they are looking elsewhere for leadership on these issues. The SNP need readically to up their game to see off this better together mob !.
#
2012-06-26 13:01
I agree but I suspect that the SNP are letting the Union mob fully launch their campaign before doing anything. At the moment it looks like the No launch was pathetic. No substance to it at all.
I am also of the opinion that the SNP has no intention of rushing into this. At present we have very hostile political/news programs that are dominated by Unionist monkeys and controlled presenters. They are not coming across as professional, educated and reasonable adults. The SNP stepping back from this is just letting people see that in full light. Also letting people see that the SNP are NOT part of it. I don't see any reason why the SNP should be interrupting the current frantic circus. Let them keep digging holes and don't do anything to distract them from it. Especially since David Cameron is brining in the JCB's.
Perhaps once we have a little more balance/calm in the media we will see more fleshing out of the SNP plans. But, again, I suspect we wont hear much until the full force of the "Union Dividend" has hit us. Welfare, armed forces, pensions and public sector are still awaiting the worst. Money that could pay for teachers being spent on Trident. Free NHS and Education now becoming a thing of the past. £25M strike fund and, perhaps the most potent of all, Labour don't seem to care. In fact they are setting up alliances with the offending parties.
There are also events like BBC demo's and the Independence Rally/March coming up. There will likely be some very key people there speaking and putting across their views and lending their support. It will be a very positive, family/community like gathering. It will be hard to avoid coverage of this.
I am also of the opinion that the SNP has no intention of rushing into this. At present we have very hostile political/news programs that are dominated by Unionist monkeys and controlled presenters. They are not coming across as professional, educated and reasonable adults. The SNP stepping back from this is just letting people see that in full light. Also letting people see that the SNP are NOT part of it. I don't see any reason why the SNP should be interrupting the current frantic circus. Let them keep digging holes and don't do anything to distract them from it. Especially since David Cameron is brining in the JCB's.
Perhaps once we have a little more balance/calm in the media we will see more fleshing out of the SNP plans. But, again, I suspect we wont hear much until the full force of the "Union Dividend" has hit us. Welfare, armed forces, pensions and public sector are still awaiting the worst. Money that could pay for teachers being spent on Trident. Free NHS and Education now becoming a thing of the past. £25M strike fund and, perhaps the most potent of all, Labour don't seem to care. In fact they are setting up alliances with the offending parties.
There are also events like BBC demo's and the Independence Rally/March coming up. There will likely be some very key people there speaking and putting across their views and lending their support. It will be a very positive, family/community like gathering. It will be hard to avoid coverage of this.
#
2012-06-26 13:33
No they shouldn't Upstake, because it is NOT an SNP Independent Scotland. This is above party politics. After a positive referendum, the SDA might field candidates that win the trust of the Scottish people and become the first government. Maybe a newly formed, genuine Scottish Labour party will arise, maybe the Conservatives will find favour among enough voters, who knows?
The referendum is about WHO decides, not what is being decided. The what comes later
The referendum is about WHO decides, not what is being decided. The what comes later
#
2012-06-26 07:56
Intersting choice coming up in 2012 reading this article.
Independence or status quo minus. I just wonder how the Scots will vote.
Independence or status quo minus. I just wonder how the Scots will vote.
#
2012-06-26 08:04
BBC still looking for Tories and Lib Dems to make up the balanced 3 against 1 audience for independence debate on Friday
bbc.co.uk/.../...
bbc.co.uk/.../...
#
2012-06-26 08:35
When I told them I was a Tory (not true BTW) I was invited to first debate which was ok due to Lesley Riddoch being there.When I confessed to SNP for second debate I was rejected and as it happens the debate was a one way Unionist attack on the SNP! As far as I am concerned now they can get stuffed
#
2012-06-26 08:35
Definitely a nation clootie.
Soooooo tactics from the no camp. Interesting that not one member of the no campaign (I refuse to call it better together) has any decision or policy making power whatsoever either north or south of the border. So what lends any weight to any statement of intent or policy they may come up with? Most people may think that the reason Ruthie, Johann and Willie aren't representing the no campaign in Scotland is the fact that they couldn't handle the 'proverbial in a brewery', but a slightly more sinister bent on the theme is that they could also not be held to account for any rash promises. Equally, who is footing the bill for their campaign? Think about that and put it to one side for a while.
The fact is that those people fronting the YES campaign CAN speak for their parties and deliver on promises publicly made both collectively and separately. Does this campaign mean so little to the anti independence movement that they are not willing to back up their rhetoric? Do the people of Scotland not deserve the party movers and shakers, the decision makers?
Apparently not.
Next - substance. Thinly veiled and spun threat does not a positive campaign make. We'll somehow cease to have friends, family, trade and do business because why...............? We'll buck the trend of the rest of Europe and close our borders and not allow free travel? I'm sorry folks, kiss goodbye to family and loved ones at the border, we're erecting the heather curtain. From now on there will be no travel, phone communication, post or transit of oxygen allowed in either direction.
Utter, utter nonsense!!
We are:- Still no further forward on future powers conceded, still no further forward on the Westminster plans to hold a referendum on Europe, still no further forward on the future defence footprint of Scotland within the UK, still no further forward on plans to re-industrialise Scotland, still no further forward on any plans to attract inward investment equally across the UK without the SE playing favourites, still no further forward on Westminster plans to meet mutually agreed emissions targets (or indeed policy on any Green issue), still no further forward on Westminster plans to aid/not aid in any stability measures on our nearest European trading partners. In fact, let's face it we have no, plans, policy, vision, aspiration or even imagination at all coming from those who believe we are cough, hack, spit, better together. They're not the only one's who'd like important questions answered.
Whether we agree collectively or not on how the SG plans to deliver their policies, at least they have policies, are seen to act on them and always, but always with the betterment of the Scottish electorate in mind. As for their spurious claims of being supported by millions, I'd like to have a word with the Electoral Commission about that. It appears the no campaign have the results in already.
Soooooo tactics from the no camp. Interesting that not one member of the no campaign (I refuse to call it better together) has any decision or policy making power whatsoever either north or south of the border. So what lends any weight to any statement of intent or policy they may come up with? Most people may think that the reason Ruthie, Johann and Willie aren't representing the no campaign in Scotland is the fact that they couldn't handle the 'proverbial in a brewery', but a slightly more sinister bent on the theme is that they could also not be held to account for any rash promises. Equally, who is footing the bill for their campaign? Think about that and put it to one side for a while.
The fact is that those people fronting the YES campaign CAN speak for their parties and deliver on promises publicly made both collectively and separately. Does this campaign mean so little to the anti independence movement that they are not willing to back up their rhetoric? Do the people of Scotland not deserve the party movers and shakers, the decision makers?
Apparently not.
Next - substance. Thinly veiled and spun threat does not a positive campaign make. We'll somehow cease to have friends, family, trade and do business because why...............? We'll buck the trend of the rest of Europe and close our borders and not allow free travel? I'm sorry folks, kiss goodbye to family and loved ones at the border, we're erecting the heather curtain. From now on there will be no travel, phone communication, post or transit of oxygen allowed in either direction.
Utter, utter nonsense!!
We are:- Still no further forward on future powers conceded, still no further forward on the Westminster plans to hold a referendum on Europe, still no further forward on the future defence footprint of Scotland within the UK, still no further forward on plans to re-industrialise Scotland, still no further forward on any plans to attract inward investment equally across the UK without the SE playing favourites, still no further forward on Westminster plans to meet mutually agreed emissions targets (or indeed policy on any Green issue), still no further forward on Westminster plans to aid/not aid in any stability measures on our nearest European trading partners. In fact, let's face it we have no, plans, policy, vision, aspiration or even imagination at all coming from those who believe we are cough, hack, spit, better together. They're not the only one's who'd like important questions answered.
Whether we agree collectively or not on how the SG plans to deliver their policies, at least they have policies, are seen to act on them and always, but always with the betterment of the Scottish electorate in mind. As for their spurious claims of being supported by millions, I'd like to have a word with the Electoral Commission about that. It appears the no campaign have the results in already.
#
2012-06-26 09:02
Who is financing the NO Campaign?
It is essential that the finances of both the YES and NO campaigns are rigorously audited and the accounts published regularly - no waiting until after the referendum.
It is essential that the finances of both the YES and NO campaigns are rigorously audited and the accounts published regularly - no waiting until after the referendum.
#
2012-06-26 09:31
Darling said that NO campaign would publish list of donors and be within rules, however that does not prevent them from accepting the bulk of their donations from outside Scotland to finance a Scottish referendum.
I can guarantee that if Scotland votes NO Alistair Darling will get a knighthood from a grateful Troy government.
I can guarantee that if Scotland votes NO Alistair Darling will get a knighthood from a grateful Troy government.
#
2012-06-26 09:48
Quoting From The Suburbs:
A peerage is more likely than a knighthood. He's unlikely to get his peerage any other way thanks to the banking crisis.
Darling said that NO campaign would publish list of donors and be within rules, however that does not prevent them from accepting the bulk of their donations from outside Scotland to finance a Scottish referendum.
I can guarantee that if Scotland votes NO Alistair Darling will get a knighthood from a grateful Troy government.
A peerage is more likely than a knighthood. He's unlikely to get his peerage any other way thanks to the banking crisis.
#
2012-06-26 09:39
Call me Dave does not really care about Scotland. If Scotland goes its own way, the Tories will keep Labour out of power for generations in Westminster and side line the Lib-Dems. However Labour NEEDS Scotland to have power down south and so they will do anything to survive.
As I commented earlier today the Unionists invented PFI and now an English NHS Trust is going bust trying to keep up the criminal payments to the fat cats! Tory/Labour/Lib-Dems - Blair, Brown, Darling & Co (all the Unionists, left & right) were behind PFI so you can't trust them with the tea bag money, let alone Scotland's future.
Another thing the Unionists are never challenged on is promising more powers for Scotland after the Referendum, but I thought Calman now the Scotland Act was their solution to head off the SNP?
The Unionists have cooked the books, conned Scotland in the past and now it's scare mongering and more jam tomorrow.
As I commented earlier today the Unionists invented PFI and now an English NHS Trust is going bust trying to keep up the criminal payments to the fat cats! Tory/Labour/Lib-Dems - Blair, Brown, Darling & Co (all the Unionists, left & right) were behind PFI so you can't trust them with the tea bag money, let alone Scotland's future.
Another thing the Unionists are never challenged on is promising more powers for Scotland after the Referendum, but I thought Calman now the Scotland Act was their solution to head off the SNP?
The Unionists have cooked the books, conned Scotland in the past and now it's scare mongering and more jam tomorrow.
#
2012-06-26 10:05
"Speaking this morning to the BBC, Mr Darling said:
"We have influence now, being part of the United Kingdom. I don't want to throw that influence away.
"My argument is not that you couldn't go it alone as Scotland on its own, I'm not arguing that at all. I just think it is better for us to be together in the United Kingdom because we can achieve far more influence and have more clout.""
So, Mr Darling, we have influence. Influence over what, exactly?
Over illegal foreign wars perpetrated by a lying Labour Prime Minister? Influence over the global banking crisis? Influence over the Euro crisis? Influence over the unwanted WMD based in Scotland. Influence over the unfair Defence spending in Scotland? Influence over the unfair spending in the BBC? Influence over the wealth of Scotland stolen by westminster? Influence over the unelected house of "lords"?
Unfortunately I don't actually see much influence over anything very much in your wonderful union.
You are right that Scotland can go it alone, and would do much better on its own. You and your ilk think it is better for us to be together because you have a vested interest in a cosy retirement in the house of lords, where as an unelected "lord" you can continue to influence things to the benefit of westminster and the detriment of Scotland. Is this the sort of influence you are talking about? I think so.
The desire for independence for Scotland comes from wanting to have influence over Scotland's own affairs without you or your ilk forever doing Scotland down.
"We have influence now, being part of the United Kingdom. I don't want to throw that influence away.
"My argument is not that you couldn't go it alone as Scotland on its own, I'm not arguing that at all. I just think it is better for us to be together in the United Kingdom because we can achieve far more influence and have more clout.""
So, Mr Darling, we have influence. Influence over what, exactly?
Over illegal foreign wars perpetrated by a lying Labour Prime Minister? Influence over the global banking crisis? Influence over the Euro crisis? Influence over the unwanted WMD based in Scotland. Influence over the unfair Defence spending in Scotland? Influence over the unfair spending in the BBC? Influence over the wealth of Scotland stolen by westminster? Influence over the unelected house of "lords"?
Unfortunately I don't actually see much influence over anything very much in your wonderful union.
You are right that Scotland can go it alone, and would do much better on its own. You and your ilk think it is better for us to be together because you have a vested interest in a cosy retirement in the house of lords, where as an unelected "lord" you can continue to influence things to the benefit of westminster and the detriment of Scotland. Is this the sort of influence you are talking about? I think so.
The desire for independence for Scotland comes from wanting to have influence over Scotland's own affairs without you or your ilk forever doing Scotland down.
#
2012-06-26 10:53
Quote:
Nor should we forget our lack of influence over Scottish airports being used for rendition flights.
Over illegal foreign wars perpetrated by a lying Labour Prime Minister? Influence over the global banking crisis? Influence over the Euro crisis? Influence over the unwanted WMD based in Scotland. Influence over the unfair Defence spending in Scotland? Influence over the unfair spending in the BBC? Influence over the wealth of Scotland stolen by westminster? Influence over the unelected house of "lords"?
Nor should we forget our lack of influence over Scottish airports being used for rendition flights.
#
2012-06-26 12:35
Oops - posted this on the wrong thread - moved it to the right one now!
Too many threads - not enough brains..!
Too many threads - not enough brains..!
#
2012-06-26 10:16
Whether Blue, Red or even Yellow we are dealing with a permanent Tory government of whatever hue at Westminster.
Scotland seeks to follow a path to true social democracy. The only way that can be achieved is thru independence.
No more Tory benefit cuts. No more Labour PFI scams. No more Lib Dem tution fees. Scots have had enough of this rank nonsense that seeks to divide society into haves and have-nots.
We're a' Jock Tamson's Bairns.
Scotland seeks to follow a path to true social democracy. The only way that can be achieved is thru independence.
No more Tory benefit cuts. No more Labour PFI scams. No more Lib Dem tution fees. Scots have had enough of this rank nonsense that seeks to divide society into haves and have-nots.
We're a' Jock Tamson's Bairns.
#
2012-06-26 10:23
This differential benefits thing is just another subsidy to the already oversubsidised English South East and London. Scotland pays for that in hard cash since we balance our books. North England pays for it by more borrowing from the capital markets which in effect means a further subsidy to London which comes back to bite Scotland a second time.
#
2012-06-26 20:47
And remember this is on top of the regional pay proposals for Civil Servants. The Tories are really starting to show their true colours now, and the Libdems are doing NOTHING about it. Roll on 2014.
#
2012-06-26 10:24
I await a strongly worded denouncement of these proposals from Johann Lamont and Alasdair Darling.
I'm sure that Keir Hardie must be spinning so hard in his grave we could get by without any wind turbines.
I'm sure that Keir Hardie must be spinning so hard in his grave we could get by without any wind turbines.
#
2012-06-26 11:35
@Lowperdowg
I would doubt that you will hear any of the sort. Our Darling BBC Scotland last night said that Scottish Labour had given a cautious welcome to these proposals, and by that I mean the Cameron Welfare Proposals. Now I do wonder what many that voted for Labour against Tory Government in 2010 will be saying today.
I would doubt that you will hear any of the sort. Our Darling BBC Scotland last night said that Scottish Labour had given a cautious welcome to these proposals, and by that I mean the Cameron Welfare Proposals. Now I do wonder what many that voted for Labour against Tory Government in 2010 will be saying today.
#
2012-06-26 11:55
Cameron is on a roll over these proposed welfare cuts. Apparently his advisors tell him the polls are saying there is public support for it.
It's all grist to the mill. Look forward to hearing AS's response at FMQs this week. I think the proverbial blood could be on the floor.
It's all grist to the mill. Look forward to hearing AS's response at FMQs this week. I think the proverbial blood could be on the floor.
#
2012-06-26 13:58
J Wil-"Look forward to hearing AS's response at FMQs this week. I think the proverbial blood could be on the floor."
Indeed,but I think we'll wait a long time before the pro-union, financed by same union, BBC will report it on main TV news e.g. Reporting Scotland.
Indeed,but I think we'll wait a long time before the pro-union, financed by same union, BBC will report it on main TV news e.g. Reporting Scotland.
#
2012-06-26 11:00
Cameron is certainly pandering to his back benchers with no thought for Scotland or even the northern regions of England Wales or Northern Ireland, he seems hell bent on keeping his backbenchers happy to keep himself in a job. It may even be that he is setting out his stall if the Lib Dems pull out of the coalition early. Another thing for Scots as part of a UK should worry about is that given time the eurozone will sort itself out and there are green shoots that this is happening, when it does the eurozone leaders i.e. the Germans, French, Italians etc may come looking for revenge on Cameron as his rhetoric has been to wind them all up and not get involved in a solution. The more Scotland distances itself from Cameron and forms good relationships independent of the UK the better
#
2012-06-26 11:34
I wonder if Cameron announced these welfare changed on purpose? Maybe he does want Scotland to leave the union.
#
2012-06-27 03:01
maybe you are right - think of the benefits he would get : he would be forced to negotiate/withdraw from eu saving the bother of eu ref; he'd be rid of 40 mps and the lothian q: reduced civil service, welfare exp, nhs costs; have an excuse not to renew trident or pay for its decommissioning /removal; could pass on all decommissioning costs of oil to scotland; appease those who continually argue that westminster subsidises scotland..... the list goes on and he could take his bow for allowing scotland its independence. maybe that's why he's been silent lately about the no campaign!
#
2012-06-26 11:53
“No wonder polls this weekend show 67% of people want the Scottish Government to take control of welfare and benefits – and not leave this crucial issue to London."
That will certainly pose a problem for the YES campaign. What exactly is the “Welfare and Benefits” spend in Scotland
That will certainly pose a problem for the YES campaign. What exactly is the “Welfare and Benefits” spend in Scotland
#
2012-06-26 12:07
Quoting Wee-Scamp:
No need to wonder,Wee-Scamp. Just listen to the now disgraced Tory, Peter Cruddas, who,in a sting by the Sunday Times says the Tories are "not bothered" by the calls for Scottish Independence.
I wonder if Cameron announced these welfare changed on purpose? Maybe he does want Scotland to leave the union.
No need to wonder,Wee-Scamp. Just listen to the now disgraced Tory, Peter Cruddas, who,in a sting by the Sunday Times says the Tories are "not bothered" by the calls for Scottish Independence.
#
2012-06-26 12:21
A.Darling."My argument is not that you couldn't go it alone as Scotland on its own, I'm not arguing that at all. I just think it is better for us to be together in the United Kingdom because we can achieve far more influence and have more clout."
Point one from this Darling piece IS he acknowledges we can go it alone,as did the PM earlier in the year.
Point two is his use of the pronoun "You". Is he not also one of the people in Scotland,or does he see us differently from himself? "You" is a David Cameron usage.
Point three.We are outnumbered in this union by approximately 11-1,and the needs and aspirations of the majority will always take precedence over the needs of the junior 'Partner'.I use that word advisedly!
Vote YES in 2014 for ALL the PEOPLE in Scotland.
Mr Darling and Co haven't persuaded me otherwise.
Point one from this Darling piece IS he acknowledges we can go it alone,as did the PM earlier in the year.
Point two is his use of the pronoun "You". Is he not also one of the people in Scotland,or does he see us differently from himself? "You" is a David Cameron usage.
Point three.We are outnumbered in this union by approximately 11-1,and the needs and aspirations of the majority will always take precedence over the needs of the junior 'Partner'.I use that word advisedly!
Vote YES in 2014 for ALL the PEOPLE in Scotland.
Mr Darling and Co haven't persuaded me otherwise.
#
2012-06-26 14:15
"A.Darling."My argument is not that you couldn't go it alone as Scotland on its own, I'm not arguing that at all. I just think it is better for us to be together in the United Kingdom because we can achieve far more influence and have more clout."
Verbiage from a failed chancellor. I suggest that the 'we' he refers to means Rump UK or even Ingland.
For so long Darling and his ilk have been getting away with casting down Scotland's abilities. Now they can't afford to say, face to face with the Scottish people, that Scotland is incapable of running its own affairs.
However, if there is a 'no' vote in the referendum they will revert to type and start telling us again of our incapacity, that all these additional powers they might be promising now will not materialise.
Verbiage from a failed chancellor. I suggest that the 'we' he refers to means Rump UK or even Ingland.
For so long Darling and his ilk have been getting away with casting down Scotland's abilities. Now they can't afford to say, face to face with the Scottish people, that Scotland is incapable of running its own affairs.
However, if there is a 'no' vote in the referendum they will revert to type and start telling us again of our incapacity, that all these additional powers they might be promising now will not materialise.
#
2012-06-26 14:16
Is not this a wonderful idea from Mr Cameron?
What will the pension rise to in the Highlands and Islands after allowing for the higher cost of living up here?
What will the pension rise to in the Highlands and Islands after allowing for the higher cost of living up here?
#
2012-06-26 15:11
Yougov poll on this. Scottish sample very small so high potential error, but here we go:
Withdrawing housing benefit from the great majority of welfare claimants under the age of 25?
UK
Strongly support: 22%
Tend to support: 31%
TOTAL SUPPORT: 53%
Tend to oppose: 19%
Oppose strongly: 18%
TOTAL OPPOSE: 37%
DK = 10%
Scotland:
Strongly Support: 10%
Tend to support: 26%
TOTAL SUPPORT: 36%
Tend to oppose: 21%
Oppose strongly: 34%
TOTAL OPPOSE: 55%
DK = 9%
Reducing welfare benefits for families with three or more children?
UK
Strongly support: 27%
Tend to support: 32%
TOTAL SUPPORT: 59%
Tend to oppose: 16%
Oppose strongly: 14%
TOTAL OPPOSE: 30%
DK = 11%
Scotland:
Strongly Support: 14%
Tend to support: 40%
TOTAL SUPPORT: 54%
Tend to oppose: 13%
Oppose strongly: 14%
TOTAL OPPOSE: 27%
DK = 19%
Would suggest Scotland has opposite views to England and Wales on Q1.
For Q2, less support in Scotland again, but not quite as drastic as opposition to Q1. Much higher levels of people unsure on Q2 in Scotland. This is not surprising to me if this is the case; the Scottish electorate likely sees Q1 as picking out a general section of the population for penalisation. Q2 does potentially have some sense to it, although implications need careful consideration.
The response of the total UK electorate is probably why Dave thinks he’s on to something. The response of the Scottish electorate – if Yougov are anywhere close – suggests they are unlikely to see such policy in a positive light.
Withdrawing housing benefit from the great majority of welfare claimants under the age of 25?
UK
Strongly support: 22%
Tend to support: 31%
TOTAL SUPPORT: 53%
Tend to oppose: 19%
Oppose strongly: 18%
TOTAL OPPOSE: 37%
DK = 10%
Scotland:
Strongly Support: 10%
Tend to support: 26%
TOTAL SUPPORT: 36%
Tend to oppose: 21%
Oppose strongly: 34%
TOTAL OPPOSE: 55%
DK = 9%
Reducing welfare benefits for families with three or more children?
UK
Strongly support: 27%
Tend to support: 32%
TOTAL SUPPORT: 59%
Tend to oppose: 16%
Oppose strongly: 14%
TOTAL OPPOSE: 30%
DK = 11%
Scotland:
Strongly Support: 14%
Tend to support: 40%
TOTAL SUPPORT: 54%
Tend to oppose: 13%
Oppose strongly: 14%
TOTAL OPPOSE: 27%
DK = 19%
Would suggest Scotland has opposite views to England and Wales on Q1.
For Q2, less support in Scotland again, but not quite as drastic as opposition to Q1. Much higher levels of people unsure on Q2 in Scotland. This is not surprising to me if this is the case; the Scottish electorate likely sees Q1 as picking out a general section of the population for penalisation. Q2 does potentially have some sense to it, although implications need careful consideration.
The response of the total UK electorate is probably why Dave thinks he’s on to something. The response of the Scottish electorate – if Yougov are anywhere close – suggests they are unlikely to see such policy in a positive light.
#
2012-06-26 15:44
I actually dont understand why people support under 25s having no housing benefits whatsoever. It is a number just pulled out of midair. What then becomes of people with no family to fall back on? Become homeless? resort to crime? And then what if they have children? What if the under 25 is a carer? exceptions to the rule?
I have no problem myself supporting a basic living for everyone in this country but that just stinks of squeezing the poorest. It is short sighted imho
I have no problem myself supporting a basic living for everyone in this country but that just stinks of squeezing the poorest. It is short sighted imho
#
2012-06-26 16:10
As I noted, the error in the Scotland figures is very high (possibly up to 13%). The main point for me was that they do suggest that while Dave thinks he's got support for this in the rUK, he does not in Scotland (taking into account previous polls on such matters). I wonder what he'll come up with next to help the independence cause.
To be honest though, if Dave came out in full support of independence, there'd be a surge in support for the union in Scotland ;-)
To be honest though, if Dave came out in full support of independence, there'd be a surge in support for the union in Scotland ;-)
#
2012-06-26 16:38
The 'support' voters seem to have an attitude that, 'they are all at it except me', which, if they looked at their particular circumstances more carefully, might be persuaded to take a different view.
What would happen to them if they lose their job and their house is reposessed?
There has to be a safety net which gives the people who are doing better an increased sense of security, which if I may add, they do not have in other countries. America, for example, has a safety net with very large mesh size.
What would happen to them if they lose their job and their house is reposessed?
There has to be a safety net which gives the people who are doing better an increased sense of security, which if I may add, they do not have in other countries. America, for example, has a safety net with very large mesh size.
#
2012-06-26 16:36
Why should Scottish poor, the unemployed, the disadvantaged, the sick vote NO if the British government are proposing cuts to benefits as part of austerity measures?
That group constitutes a signficant part of the Scottish electorate and their support becomes vital in this campaign on Scotland's future. Say "NO" to austerity by voting YES to Scottish independence.
That group constitutes a signficant part of the Scottish electorate and their support becomes vital in this campaign on Scotland's future. Say "NO" to austerity by voting YES to Scottish independence.
#
2012-06-26 16:53
O/T but it would appear that there has been a U-turn on the proposed increase in Fuel Duty due to take effect in August.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/.../...
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/.../...
#
2012-06-26 22:25
Quoting Legerwood:
However "National" BBC TV could not bring itself to mention that SNP was prominent in the campaign
O/T but it would appear that there has been a U-turn on the proposed increase in Fuel Duty due to take effect in August.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/.../...
However "National" BBC TV could not bring itself to mention that SNP was prominent in the campaign
#
2012-06-26 16:54
The choice is:
Do you wish to retain the social democratic tradition of Scotland that has been enshrined in law since the 1570's - free access to education, support for the poorest in soceity, access to basic health care and a roof over folks heads or do you want a Scotland where the richest 1% take the lot and to hell with the rest?
The question I would like Darling to answer is: How can he protect the Scottish NHS when New Labour are complicit in the break down of the English NHS and Scottish NHS funding is predicated on the English NHS spend?
The reality is Scotland's NHS has remained funded in spite of the union benefit not because of it. The reason being the Scottish Government has decided to spend more of its pocket money on the NHS in Scotland including giving NHS Trusts extra funding to cover the PFI bills Darling and New Labour foisted on them.
Would any journalist in the Scottish MSM ask Darkling this vital question that show the man's hypocrasy on this issue .....
Do you wish to retain the social democratic tradition of Scotland that has been enshrined in law since the 1570's - free access to education, support for the poorest in soceity, access to basic health care and a roof over folks heads or do you want a Scotland where the richest 1% take the lot and to hell with the rest?
The question I would like Darling to answer is: How can he protect the Scottish NHS when New Labour are complicit in the break down of the English NHS and Scottish NHS funding is predicated on the English NHS spend?
The reality is Scotland's NHS has remained funded in spite of the union benefit not because of it. The reason being the Scottish Government has decided to spend more of its pocket money on the NHS in Scotland including giving NHS Trusts extra funding to cover the PFI bills Darling and New Labour foisted on them.
Would any journalist in the Scottish MSM ask Darkling this vital question that show the man's hypocrasy on this issue .....
#
2012-06-26 21:30
One of the basic principles of the Unionist Calman Commission was that benefits should be the same across the UK
Scotland also forms what we have called a social Union with the rest of the UK. This is not so obvious an idea as the economic Union, but it too has significant implications for how devolution should develop. There are many social ties that bind the UK together:
family, professional and cultural. But there are also some common expectations about social welfare. Social security payments are available and are paid on the same basis to people across the country, according to their needs. This principle of fairness should not be undermined.
Even the Scots Tories on the commission didn't envisage Cameron undercutting their argument for the Union.
Scotland also forms what we have called a social Union with the rest of the UK. This is not so obvious an idea as the economic Union, but it too has significant implications for how devolution should develop. There are many social ties that bind the UK together:
family, professional and cultural. But there are also some common expectations about social welfare. Social security payments are available and are paid on the same basis to people across the country, according to their needs. This principle of fairness should not be undermined.
Even the Scots Tories on the commission didn't envisage Cameron undercutting their argument for the Union.
#
2012-06-26 21:50
David Cameron chose the same day and time to announce what a future Conservative Government would do to the Benefits System. Scotland only sends one conservative MP.. If Scotland was independent there will be 56 non-conservative MPs less for David Cameron to worry about..
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- WWI commemorations in Scotland
There are some statistics and comments h... - WWI commemorations in Scotland
Wholly agree. For the last (almost) 100... - Westminster targets Scottish c...
We simply must - MUST - gain full contro... - Scottish Conservatives 'doing ...
'that these merely needed to be presente... - Danny Alexander's 'appalling h...
He won't need this after the referendum ... - UK Treasury in choppy waters
The Scotsman also in choppy waters as th... - UK Treasury in choppy waters
We all know that the main reason that th... - Danny Alexander's 'appalling h...
Daily Telegraph 23rd Dec 2006 "The ONS s... - UK Treasury in choppy waters
A very good article but it does miss one... - Danny Alexander's 'appalling h...
I hear that Mr.Alexander will claim that... - UK Treasury in choppy waters
I see the buisnesses for independence ha... - Danny Alexander's 'appalling h...
Slow down the Scottish economy, bring it... - Labour MSP Ken Macintosh left ...
Aye, the First Minister was cut off by t... - Labour MSP Ken Macintosh left ...
Hook, line and sinker, Mr Salmond! More ... - UK Treasury in choppy waters
Sir George Mathewson trashed the Treasur... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
In the terms of FOI practice the BBC has... - Labour MSP Ken Macintosh left ...
.... and of course the other side to the... - Labour MSP Ken Macintosh left ...
I understand that Johann Lamont a.k.a. G... - Labour MSP Ken Macintosh left ...
The BBC in Scotland ARE the Labour party... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
I'm not sure this is right. It seems ver...