Fiona Hyslop, Scotland's Nationalist education minister, is planning to spend Taxes raised from England on Scottish school children.
How? Because taxes raised in the UK go in a common pot and are then divided out unevenly in favour of Scotland.
The Scottish parliament can spend their own money on what they like - and if that goes to reduce infant class sizes, or student grants, then fine.
But did they ever hear of the phrase “No taxation without representation”?
Blair Gibbs, of the Taxpayers' Alliance pointed out:
"Sooner or later the Government is going to have to explain why it is OK for SNP ministers in Holyrood to make pledges on public spending with money raised from English taxpayers.
"Voters north of the border are within their rights to want more local control but fairness means not asking someone else to pay for it. English taxpayers once again see the SNP avoiding the logic of their own independence objective. You can't go your own way if you don't pay your own way."
Joel Barnet, who created the formula, is calling for it to be scrapped, as it comes under intense and increasing political scrutiny because the disparity between public spending in Scotland and England is now more than £1,500 per head. This is threatens to create a public backlash in England.
A YouGov opinion poll indicated 70% of English voters now believe Scotland is being "subsidised" by the rest of the UK and things should be balanced. By contrast, 74% of Scots want to keep the money rolling in just as it is. Why would you be surprised?
Defenders of the current system (the 74%?) say cutting Scotland's share of funds from central government could severely damage the country because there public spending forms a much larger part of the economy than in the rest of the UK – well it would form a larger part wouldn’t it, because they can afford it having an extra "subsidy of more than £11 billion a year.
The disparity is funding artificially inflated levels of Scottish public spending, among the highest in Europe.
On top of that there is also the minor matter of Scottish MPs being able to vote in Parliament on purely English matters - that will not impact on their own electorate.
In this respect they are effectively unelected and unaccountable by and to, those they govern - This is not democracy.
Thursday, 21 June 2007
A Critique of a Critique
This Examination of Kevin Carson's Contract Feudalism by Paul Marks is worth a read and makes some telling points.
EC President against UK referendum
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso is now urging the UK not to hold a referendum the constitution /treaty h is trying to push through at this week's EU summit.
Speaking to BBC, he said:
"Sometimes I hear people saying that for Parliament to approve it would be by the back door.
Is that the respect some people show their Parliament, maybe the greatest Parliament in the world? I don't consider Parliament the back door”
We are talking about Tony Blair approving it not Parliament. If it is done without a referendum it is certainly by the ‘back door’, the British have not had to opportunity to express an opinion and the EU has very little impact on what party they voted for as there is not much difference.
And do we really respect Parliament? I suspect most of us could count the politicians in parliament we actually respect on the thumbs of two hands - So that would be no then.
He went on:
"Britain is the country that exported Parliamentary democracy to the world. Do the British people consider Parliament the backdoor?
"Do the British people who killed their king to protect the rights of Parliament consider it the back door? “
Is it the backdoor? Absolutely - and Jose, it was a civil war. It was a Puritan Parliament killed the King. Plenty were fighting for him, just less organised, less well equipped. What has that got to do with it anyway?
He went on to say leaders had to stand up to the sort of "ugly nationalism" that traded on "imaginary threats" such as the idea that the EU was becoming a super state.
Here he is again branding the desire to actually have a say in the matter as ‘ugly nationalism’ this time and urging the political elite to stand up against the democratic process and resist it.
No. The idea of the EU becoming a super state is completely ridiculous, how could we imagine it for a moment?
Speaking to BBC, he said:
"Sometimes I hear people saying that for Parliament to approve it would be by the back door.
Is that the respect some people show their Parliament, maybe the greatest Parliament in the world? I don't consider Parliament the back door”
We are talking about Tony Blair approving it not Parliament. If it is done without a referendum it is certainly by the ‘back door’, the British have not had to opportunity to express an opinion and the EU has very little impact on what party they voted for as there is not much difference.
And do we really respect Parliament? I suspect most of us could count the politicians in parliament we actually respect on the thumbs of two hands - So that would be no then.
He went on:
"Britain is the country that exported Parliamentary democracy to the world. Do the British people consider Parliament the backdoor?
"Do the British people who killed their king to protect the rights of Parliament consider it the back door? “
Is it the backdoor? Absolutely - and Jose, it was a civil war. It was a Puritan Parliament killed the King. Plenty were fighting for him, just less organised, less well equipped. What has that got to do with it anyway?
He went on to say leaders had to stand up to the sort of "ugly nationalism" that traded on "imaginary threats" such as the idea that the EU was becoming a super state.
Here he is again branding the desire to actually have a say in the matter as ‘ugly nationalism’ this time and urging the political elite to stand up against the democratic process and resist it.
No. The idea of the EU becoming a super state is completely ridiculous, how could we imagine it for a moment?
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
EU President 'leans' on Poland and the UK
Barroso is at it again, still trying to strong arm through his (or rather the German Chancellor's), bogus constitution with anti democratic ‘meaningful comments’.
Maybe he would have more luck with one that looked more like this - then again. No, with the EU political elite, probably not.
In Brussels Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, has warned EU members not to block progress towards the EU treaty comprising much of the previously rejected 2005 EU constitution. He warned:
"It is not in the interest of any member state to be in a position that is seen as hardliner,"
“The environment for a deal is clearly there. Please avoid appearing as blocking. This is not intelligent, this is not in your interest.”
“Defend your positions, but don't come with these red lines and vetoes."
by “any member state” he of course means Poland and the UK.
Now why would it be “not in (the UK’s or Poland's) interests” to defend their interests? That really does not make sense.
Maybe he would have more luck with one that looked more like this - then again. No, with the EU political elite, probably not.
In Brussels Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, has warned EU members not to block progress towards the EU treaty comprising much of the previously rejected 2005 EU constitution. He warned:
"It is not in the interest of any member state to be in a position that is seen as hardliner,"
“The environment for a deal is clearly there. Please avoid appearing as blocking. This is not intelligent, this is not in your interest.”
“Defend your positions, but don't come with these red lines and vetoes."
by “any member state” he of course means Poland and the UK.
Now why would it be “not in (the UK’s or Poland's) interests” to defend their interests? That really does not make sense.
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Knighthood for UK author stirs hatred & controversy
The UK author Salman Rushdie has been awarded a knighthood by the Government.
Rushdie has been under threat of death from a fatwa issued in Iran since 1989 when he wrote a book called ’Satanic Verses’. The book would have had very little exposure if it were not for the Moslem threats - and certainly gets far more than I suspect it deserves as a result.
On hearing of the award Pakistan’s Religious Affairs Minister Mohammad Ejaz ul-Haq said:
“If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified,”
Everyone’s a critic - I guess he must be a ‘moderate’
He later tried to weasel it by trying to claim he actually meant the honour meant a risk of suicide attacks because Muslims believed Sir Salman had insulted Islam.
Iranian conservatives criticised Queen Elizabeth on Tuesday over the conferring of the honour, presumably having no real idea how the system works - and that the Queen doesn’t just pick the conferees personally.
Iran’s First Deputy Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar addressing Iran's parliament said to great applause:
"The action by the British Queen in knighting Salman Rushdie, the apostate, is an unwise one.
The British monarch lives under this illusion that Britain is still a 19th Century superpower and that bestowing titles is something still deemed important."
So, if bestowing titles isn’t still deemed important, then why is he bothering to comment? It is obviously is important to him.
I wonder if he ever read the book – Nah! Nor most of the flag burners and assorted rent-a-crowd either.
These Ranters need to understand that the knighthood has very little to do with trying to annoy fanatical religious types. I doubt it even entered into the equation.
It comes from a small insulated little world, as a natural progression of Rushdie being an acclaimed “arty type”, who has been (despite the fatwa) around for a while and not (to mix metaphors) blotted his arty lefty liberal credentials. It was his turn dummies! No conspiracy, no complicated global Zionist Military/Industrial complex, fiendish and cunning plan to diss Islam.
…Just - his - turn. Smell that coffee folks!
Rushdie has been under threat of death from a fatwa issued in Iran since 1989 when he wrote a book called ’Satanic Verses’. The book would have had very little exposure if it were not for the Moslem threats - and certainly gets far more than I suspect it deserves as a result.
On hearing of the award Pakistan’s Religious Affairs Minister Mohammad Ejaz ul-Haq said:
“If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified,”
Everyone’s a critic - I guess he must be a ‘moderate’
He later tried to weasel it by trying to claim he actually meant the honour meant a risk of suicide attacks because Muslims believed Sir Salman had insulted Islam.
Iranian conservatives criticised Queen Elizabeth on Tuesday over the conferring of the honour, presumably having no real idea how the system works - and that the Queen doesn’t just pick the conferees personally.
Iran’s First Deputy Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar addressing Iran's parliament said to great applause:
"The action by the British Queen in knighting Salman Rushdie, the apostate, is an unwise one.
The British monarch lives under this illusion that Britain is still a 19th Century superpower and that bestowing titles is something still deemed important."
So, if bestowing titles isn’t still deemed important, then why is he bothering to comment? It is obviously is important to him.
I wonder if he ever read the book – Nah! Nor most of the flag burners and assorted rent-a-crowd either.
These Ranters need to understand that the knighthood has very little to do with trying to annoy fanatical religious types. I doubt it even entered into the equation.
It comes from a small insulated little world, as a natural progression of Rushdie being an acclaimed “arty type”, who has been (despite the fatwa) around for a while and not (to mix metaphors) blotted his arty lefty liberal credentials. It was his turn dummies! No conspiracy, no complicated global Zionist Military/Industrial complex, fiendish and cunning plan to diss Islam.
…Just - his - turn. Smell that coffee folks!
Report says BBC operates in "left-leaning comfort zone"
It’s official, a report titled ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel’, criticised the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for an innate Left/Liberal bias. Warning that this angered viewers and risked stifling originality.
The BBC's former political editor, Andrew Marr, revealed during a seminar in 2006 that the staffing of BBC ‘almost certainly’ did not accurately reflect the profile of the country in terms of race, or sexual preference and that it predominantly employed younger people.
A survey of viewers found that while the corporation was still generally seen as impartial, the majority of those surveyed outside of South-East England felt they were under-represented and there was a suggestion that it was felt news reports were sometimes censored in the interests of political correctness.
The BBC is funded by the 'Television Licence' a compulsory tax on each household's television ownership in the UK.
The BBC's former political editor, Andrew Marr, revealed during a seminar in 2006 that the staffing of BBC ‘almost certainly’ did not accurately reflect the profile of the country in terms of race, or sexual preference and that it predominantly employed younger people.
A survey of viewers found that while the corporation was still generally seen as impartial, the majority of those surveyed outside of South-East England felt they were under-represented and there was a suggestion that it was felt news reports were sometimes censored in the interests of political correctness.
The BBC is funded by the 'Television Licence' a compulsory tax on each household's television ownership in the UK.
Monday, 18 June 2007
English Smoking ban an excuse to ban cigarette breaks
A report is warning, that many employers, may be planning to use the July 1 smoking ban in England, as an excuse to crack down on workers taking cigarette breaks.
It was warned that such a move could spark disputes and/or result in desperate employees being forced to secretly smoke in the workplace.
The report, by law advisors Consult GEE, surveyed employers - apparently over a 3rd are planning to use July’s ban on smoking in public places as an excuse to ban cigarette breaks.
Stuart Chamberlain of Consult GEE warned:
"Employees will struggle to fight any bans on their smoking breaks because they are not entitled to them. It could be that they try to claim a breach of the Working Time Regulations, which grants staff working for a minimum of six hours a day 20 minutes break. However, it will prove difficult for an employee to succeed in the employment tribunal with such a claim."
The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) felt that banning smoke breaks could be regarded as "excessive".
It would seem draconian for an employer to attempt to stop an employee having a smoke in the breaks they are actually entitled to.
Also one has to wonder what the likely resulting impact on customer relations would be when employees become less relaxed when dealing with any customer – let alone a difficult one.
It was warned that such a move could spark disputes and/or result in desperate employees being forced to secretly smoke in the workplace.
The report, by law advisors Consult GEE, surveyed employers - apparently over a 3rd are planning to use July’s ban on smoking in public places as an excuse to ban cigarette breaks.
Stuart Chamberlain of Consult GEE warned:
"Employees will struggle to fight any bans on their smoking breaks because they are not entitled to them. It could be that they try to claim a breach of the Working Time Regulations, which grants staff working for a minimum of six hours a day 20 minutes break. However, it will prove difficult for an employee to succeed in the employment tribunal with such a claim."
The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) felt that banning smoke breaks could be regarded as "excessive".
It would seem draconian for an employer to attempt to stop an employee having a smoke in the breaks they are actually entitled to.
Also one has to wonder what the likely resulting impact on customer relations would be when employees become less relaxed when dealing with any customer – let alone a difficult one.
Air Travel is Green 'Scapegoat'
The British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA) has presented a report to the UK Government, warning that air transport is ‘being used as a scapegoat’ for anthropomorphic global warming.
They say "half truths and untruths" (very diplomatic - misdirection and lies to the rest of us) are making air passengers feel guilty when they have no need to.
BALPA says air travel accounts for no more than 3% of the world’s human generated carbon dioxide emissions.
Some environmentalists are claiming that this will increase significantly because of a greater number of flights, but BALPA disagree with this estimating a possible rise of up to 6% by 2050. They also pointed out that the latest jets were more carbon efficient than high-speed trains over long distances.
Plane manufacturers like Boeing are working on more fuel efficient airliners all the time it makes good financial sense.
BALPA Chairman Mervyn Granshaw said:
"Our report clearly shows that technological advances now being researched will cut aircraft emissions still further,"
"It would be inappropriate and premature to restrict air transport at this time. “
"The damage that would be done not only to our industry but to tourism and to the economies of developing nations would be enormous." and he pointed out, air travel had become, "an easy target".
Weather you accept the theory of Anthropocentric global warming, or not, it must be clear to even the most ardent infra-green that, on the basis of saving costs alone, it makes good business sense to increase the fuel efficiency of passenger jets as much as possible.
If you are really that concerned about UK carbon emissions, then you need to look first at power stations, over the last 6 years, carbon emissions from coal fired power stations have increased by 6%, to reach 178m tonnes.
There is the effectively zero carbon, nuclear power option available right now. The French are on this route. This idea is even backed by James Lovelock the British environmental scientist who postulated the Gaia Theory. He says:
"There is no alternative but nuclear fission until fusion energy and sensible forms of renewable energy arrive as a truly long-term provider. Nuclear energy is free of emissions and independent of imports from what will be a disturbed world."
With a concerted push it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to be producing most of the UK’s electricity by nuclear power within 15 years.
They say "half truths and untruths" (very diplomatic - misdirection and lies to the rest of us) are making air passengers feel guilty when they have no need to.
BALPA says air travel accounts for no more than 3% of the world’s human generated carbon dioxide emissions.
Some environmentalists are claiming that this will increase significantly because of a greater number of flights, but BALPA disagree with this estimating a possible rise of up to 6% by 2050. They also pointed out that the latest jets were more carbon efficient than high-speed trains over long distances.
Plane manufacturers like Boeing are working on more fuel efficient airliners all the time it makes good financial sense.
BALPA Chairman Mervyn Granshaw said:
"Our report clearly shows that technological advances now being researched will cut aircraft emissions still further,"
"It would be inappropriate and premature to restrict air transport at this time. “
"The damage that would be done not only to our industry but to tourism and to the economies of developing nations would be enormous." and he pointed out, air travel had become, "an easy target".
Weather you accept the theory of Anthropocentric global warming, or not, it must be clear to even the most ardent infra-green that, on the basis of saving costs alone, it makes good business sense to increase the fuel efficiency of passenger jets as much as possible.
If you are really that concerned about UK carbon emissions, then you need to look first at power stations, over the last 6 years, carbon emissions from coal fired power stations have increased by 6%, to reach 178m tonnes.
There is the effectively zero carbon, nuclear power option available right now. The French are on this route. This idea is even backed by James Lovelock the British environmental scientist who postulated the Gaia Theory. He says:
"There is no alternative but nuclear fission until fusion energy and sensible forms of renewable energy arrive as a truly long-term provider. Nuclear energy is free of emissions and independent of imports from what will be a disturbed world."
With a concerted push it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to be producing most of the UK’s electricity by nuclear power within 15 years.
Sunday, 17 June 2007
Tories pressing the self destruct button again?
One could be forgiven for wondering what on earth the Conservative leadership are playing at. Recently they seem to have scored two spectacular own goals, that they never needed to go anywhere near in the first place.
The row over selective education and now the fuss over ‘free’ museum entry.
Is it incompetence, or do they have some deep-seated fear of actual power?
Shadow Culture Secretary, Hugo Swire, baffled Westminster - and many senior Tories over plans he announced, to scrap free admission to many of Britain's most famous museums and art galleries. Forcing the Conservatives into a virtually immediate and embarrassing U-turn.
For those who don’t know the museums are effectively funded by the taxpayer, so it is reasonable that taxpayers should enjoy the benefit without further cost. Since entrance fees were scrapped in 2001 there has been an 83% increase in visitors.
Once chance, twice coincidence - but three times is enemy action…
Now they are busily playing down the idea that Dave the Chameleon might be the ’heir to Blier’ that they had appeared to be promoting, though why they would want to have tarred him with that particular brush in the first place is not clear.
In a joint appearance in Yorkshire this weekend, David Davis and William Hague tried to put paid to the idea that David Cameron was positioning himself as the "heir to Blair" - An idea that had been backed strongly in public recently by Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, apparently also privately by Cameron himself.
It's like watching a three stooges movie!
Why can’t anyone stand on a platform of reducing the size, scope and powers of the state? A platform that reigns back in the health fascists and busy bodies?
The row over selective education and now the fuss over ‘free’ museum entry.
Is it incompetence, or do they have some deep-seated fear of actual power?
Shadow Culture Secretary, Hugo Swire, baffled Westminster - and many senior Tories over plans he announced, to scrap free admission to many of Britain's most famous museums and art galleries. Forcing the Conservatives into a virtually immediate and embarrassing U-turn.
For those who don’t know the museums are effectively funded by the taxpayer, so it is reasonable that taxpayers should enjoy the benefit without further cost. Since entrance fees were scrapped in 2001 there has been an 83% increase in visitors.
Once chance, twice coincidence - but three times is enemy action…
Now they are busily playing down the idea that Dave the Chameleon might be the ’heir to Blier’ that they had appeared to be promoting, though why they would want to have tarred him with that particular brush in the first place is not clear.
In a joint appearance in Yorkshire this weekend, David Davis and William Hague tried to put paid to the idea that David Cameron was positioning himself as the "heir to Blair" - An idea that had been backed strongly in public recently by Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, apparently also privately by Cameron himself.
It's like watching a three stooges movie!
Why can’t anyone stand on a platform of reducing the size, scope and powers of the state? A platform that reigns back in the health fascists and busy bodies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
