Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

All things Rugby
dpedin
Posts: 1133
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:51 pm

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by dpedin »

slick wrote:
Biffer29 wrote:
slick wrote:
I'm interested to hear more about why you are not convinced that diversity is not something to be desired? I agree with Haggis in that diversity is a good, positive thing due to it offering new perspectives, languages, ideas and ways of thinking. That's my starting point. How the success of that is measured, I am not sure. When it comes to our immediate small country neighbours, you make a good point about their general lack of diversity. That is not to say that we need be the same on that level though.
Apologies for late reply, work and life took over for a few days.

In answer to your question, I just don't think diversity/multiculturalism in a country actually achieves very much. We seem to have been conditioned by a small group of advocates to think it is a liberal badge of honour to be diverse when it mostly leads to illiberalism, inequality and segregation.

There have been a couple of examples of London. I lived there for the best part of 15 years and, yes, it's a nice idea that you get exposed to different people, but the reality is that there is very little mixing between races, nationalities or cultures on a daily basis. Look at Southall and Harrow area which is predominately Indian, or the East End where you have 99% Bangladeshi kids in schools. This is certainly not a critisism of those people, every culture does the same thing everywhere in the world. People just like being with their own people and no amount of fluffy words can change that.

Bringing the conversation back to Scotland, I'm certainly not against immigration but in my opinion it needs to be managed and low, otherwise you get into the situation where diversity is not just a side effect of an immigration policy but seen as an official good in itself. I don't think that is a good idea.

I am very proud of our record on giving safe haven to refufgees and we should continue with that. My worry is that our government is using our demographics and pushing for a distinct immigration policy to pursue a dream of diversity and multiculturalism which they think is inherently good, I'm not convinced.
The main reason we need immigration is because of demographics. Over the next twenty years we'll have a huge bulge in the number of elderly, and all the associated pension, health and social care costs will increase while the working population decreases. We need more people paying tax.
But then what happens when those new people grow old and need care? More immigration to make up the shortfall again? What about the next generation of these immigrants who don't want to do these care jobs either. The majority of immigrants will pay less tax that those here, so how do we pay for all the new infrastructure costs which will dwarf the tax take.
FFS Slick I can't believe I've just read that! I can't believe you've written that and actually believe it. Perhaps you want to describe your 'solution' to the problem?
User avatar
slick
Posts: 8257
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by slick »

FFS Slick I can't believe I've just read that! I can't believe you've written that and actually believe it. Perhaps you want to describe your 'solution' to the problem?
And here we go.... any debate on the subject shut down with an emotional reaction.
User avatar
dargotronV.1
Posts: 4625
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by dargotronV.1 »

dpedin wrote:Off course we need increase in immigration to sustain our economy and grow the working age population, and of course these workers should bring their families and settle here. They work in poorly paid jobs to sustain our care sector and look after our mums and dads, grannies and grandpas and contribute hugely to our NHS. I have number of friends who work across tourist industry in Embra and they employ immigrants in preference to Scots because they are reliable, hard working and honest, unfortunately many of the Scots they employ are not! Hopefully they will live here, bring their children up here and add to our workforce. They also bring huge cultural and social benefits for us which I warmly welcome. I personally know many immigrants who have come to work here in Scotland, they add real value and their families contribute greatly to society and their children are hard working and studying hard so they too can work and support themselves and their families. This is by far and away the norm of my experience in Scotland. According to all studies I have seen they contribute more to the economy than they take out, you are more likely to have an immigrant treat you in the NHS that to have one standing in front of you in the queue. They pay for their 'benefits' the same way we all do through tax and NI, indeed they make a greater contribution on average than that of 'native' Scots. The current gov immigration policies with their increasingly racist overtones are a disgrace and are not based on facts. I find it sad that some on this thread chose to support them.
Very well said sir.
Lorthern Nights

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Lorthern Nights »

clydecloggie wrote:
Maybe your original comment about 'Indy abroad' types referred to me as well. While it is true that my family and me largely live outside Scotland/UK, I very much do have skin in the game. I have a full-time job in Scotland, own a property there where I stay when I'm over, pay all my taxes in Scotland, and rely on the EHIC scheme if I need health care outside Scotland. I have quite literally got a lot of skin in this game.

There are plenty of people, like me, for whom international borders within Europe became a quaint relic of different times over the last decade or so, which enabled a lifestyle of having one foot in one country and one foot in another country. And that has been incredibly enriching for us all - my children are native speakers of two languages, and have a default world view of not immediately assuming things are as they should be in a certain country just because that's how that country works - I dearly wish I had that when I was growing up.

All of this is being wrecked by people with the exact opposite view: the way Britain does things is best because it's Britain. Horrid little-England exceptionalism, primarily.

So yes, from my comfortable Dutch suburban home I will keep chirping about Scottish independence as the right way forward, and I very much do have skin in that game.
Given as you say you have skin the game, no and this is not shutting down debate, as i mention it just irks me. I suspect if it all goes to hell in a handcart that you would decamp completely to NL to escape the fallout though.

I'm not a Brexiteer either and wish we hadnt voted to leave but equally i work in an area that has not benefitted from EU membership the same as other areas and can understand why Banff and Buchan voted to leave the EU, it's a very local thing.

Like you i have bilingual childen, my wife happens to be "mostly" French, other part English but she very much views herself as French and has brought our kids up speaking both. So I have lived and benefitted from EU membership for a long time. I think the country will be worse off being outside but i also respect the democratic decision to leave even if i dont agree with it. Specifically on the EHIC, health insurance is actually pretty cheap for you and your family so that is a work around.

I would prefer if major constitutional change has a much higher bar to get over, like 65% of the vote or something so there is a clear majority wanting a change, as referendums that are 50%+1 just leave half the population unhappy with the outcome. There is absolutely no way the leading proponents would go for this though. Our country has never been more divided and as has been seen with Brexit even if we voted for Indy this would not have resolved the differences as if you think Brexit is a shitshow, that will be a walk in the park compared to breaking off a 300 year Union with a shared currency and multiple other highly integrated parts of the country and the economy. It will be long and very painful and at the end of it I dont believe there would be much of an upside.
Lorthern Nights

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Lorthern Nights »

slick wrote: But then what happens when those new people grow old and need care? More immigration to make up the shortfall again? What about the next generation of these immigrants who don't want to do these care jobs either. The majority of immigrants will pay less tax that those here, so how do we pay for all the new infrastructure costs which will dwarf the tax take.
It's as much to do with our population also leaving for better opportunities, we need inward migration to backfill the people that leave. The lure of London has been exceptionally strong for many, esepcially young and well educated, as you yourself got drawn.

Now we are older and look to raise our families, it's a great place to do so up here but that does then see us need the state to help with that too from whether its increased use of the NHS that we need when very young, to schools to whatever else.

Immigration is a positive for me, I'm less fussed about the cultural exchange some are talking about as i get plenty of that through travel and family ties. There would be some areas of Scotland that would be pretty dismal if it wasnt for immigration as the young locals have all buggered off.
Biffer29
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:18 pm

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Biffer29 »

slick wrote:
Biffer29 wrote:
slick wrote:
I'm interested to hear more about why you are not convinced that diversity is not something to be desired? I agree with Haggis in that diversity is a good, positive thing due to it offering new perspectives, languages, ideas and ways of thinking. That's my starting point. How the success of that is measured, I am not sure. When it comes to our immediate small country neighbours, you make a good point about their general lack of diversity. That is not to say that we need be the same on that level though.
Apologies for late reply, work and life took over for a few days.

In answer to your question, I just don't think diversity/multiculturalism in a country actually achieves very much. We seem to have been conditioned by a small group of advocates to think it is a liberal badge of honour to be diverse when it mostly leads to illiberalism, inequality and segregation.

There have been a couple of examples of London. I lived there for the best part of 15 years and, yes, it's a nice idea that you get exposed to different people, but the reality is that there is very little mixing between races, nationalities or cultures on a daily basis. Look at Southall and Harrow area which is predominately Indian, or the East End where you have 99% Bangladeshi kids in schools. This is certainly not a critisism of those people, every culture does the same thing everywhere in the world. People just like being with their own people and no amount of fluffy words can change that.

Bringing the conversation back to Scotland, I'm certainly not against immigration but in my opinion it needs to be managed and low, otherwise you get into the situation where diversity is not just a side effect of an immigration policy but seen as an official good in itself. I don't think that is a good idea.

I am very proud of our record on giving safe haven to refufgees and we should continue with that. My worry is that our government is using our demographics and pushing for a distinct immigration policy to pursue a dream of diversity and multiculturalism which they think is inherently good, I'm not convinced.
The main reason we need immigration is because of demographics. Over the next twenty years we'll have a huge bulge in the number of elderly, and all the associated pension, health and social care costs will increase while the working population decreases. We need more people paying tax.
But then what happens when those new people grow old and need care? More immigration to make up the shortfall again? What about the next generation of these immigrants who don't want to do these care jobs either. The majority of immigrants will pay less tax that those here, so how do we pay for all the new infrastructure costs which will dwarf the tax take.
There’s a particular demographic problem at the moment with the bulge of baby boomers. The post war baby boom created an excess in that age group which isn’t replicated in gen x. So it’s not so much of a problem afterwards. Immigrants generally contribute more to the tax base than natives, that’s been proven many times. And they tend to have more children, which redressed some of the demographic imbalance.

These are pretty basic things in the debate about demographics and immigration.
User avatar
slick
Posts: 8257
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by slick »

dpedin wrote:Off course we need increase in immigration to sustain our economy and grow the working age population, and of course these workers should bring their families and settle here. They work in poorly paid jobs to sustain our care sector and look after our mums and dads, grannies and grandpas and contribute hugely to our NHS. I have number of friends who work across tourist industry in Embra and they employ immigrants in preference to Scots because they are reliable, hard working and honest, unfortunately many of the Scots they employ are not! Hopefully they will live here, bring their children up here and add to our workforce. They also bring huge cultural and social benefits for us which I warmly welcome. I personally know many immigrants who have come to work here in Scotland, they add real value and their families contribute greatly to society and their children are hard working and studying hard so they too can work and support themselves and their families. This is by far and away the norm of my experience in Scotland. According to all studies I have seen they contribute more to the economy than they take out, you are more likely to have an immigrant treat you in the NHS that to have one standing in front of you in the queue. They pay for their 'benefits' the same way we all do through tax and NI, indeed they make a greater contribution on average than that of 'native' Scots. The current gov immigration policies with their increasingly racist overtones are a disgrace and are not based on facts. I find it sad that some on this thread chose to support them.
Look, I agree with about 95% of that post and share your experiences. As I've said I am playing Devils Advocate to an extent but I also think the narrative that has been created, deliberately IMO, needs to be challenged.

There are plenty of studies that show very different scenarios to the ones you have seen. For instance a UN population study shows that in order to replace the EU age structure we would need 1.4 billion immigrants by 2050, by which time 2/3rds of Europes population would be decended from recent immigrants, including 60 million for the UK alone. Figures like that make "Off course we need increase in immigration to sustain our economy and grow the working age population" seem a little ill thought out.

On the NHS, we have over 100,000 fully trained nurses in the UK who don't work because the pay and conditions are so crap. Is it then really morally right to import nurses from developing countries, many of whom have been trained at the expense of their own government, to plug our own made gaps and create a healthcare drain on the developing world?

No one here, certainly not me, is denying that many immigrants come here, work hard, contribute and become much valued citizens. But many more come here to fill low paid, shit jobs, usually in industries that are dying or transforming, and then find themselves stuck and in a poverty trap when those jobs go.

I'll be honest, I take offence to your earlier tone, there is more to this than "look at me, I love diversity".
I like haggis
Posts: 5048
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by I like haggis »

slick wrote:
dpedin wrote:Off course we need increase in immigration to sustain our economy and grow the working age population, and of course these workers should bring their families and settle here. They work in poorly paid jobs to sustain our care sector and look after our mums and dads, grannies and grandpas and contribute hugely to our NHS. I have number of friends who work across tourist industry in Embra and they employ immigrants in preference to Scots because they are reliable, hard working and honest, unfortunately many of the Scots they employ are not! Hopefully they will live here, bring their children up here and add to our workforce. They also bring huge cultural and social benefits for us which I warmly welcome. I personally know many immigrants who have come to work here in Scotland, they add real value and their families contribute greatly to society and their children are hard working and studying hard so they too can work and support themselves and their families. This is by far and away the norm of my experience in Scotland. According to all studies I have seen they contribute more to the economy than they take out, you are more likely to have an immigrant treat you in the NHS that to have one standing in front of you in the queue. They pay for their 'benefits' the same way we all do through tax and NI, indeed they make a greater contribution on average than that of 'native' Scots. The current gov immigration policies with their increasingly racist overtones are a disgrace and are not based on facts. I find it sad that some on this thread chose to support them.
Look, I agree with about 95% of that post and share your experiences. As I've said I am playing Devils Advocate to an extent but I also think the narrative that has been created, deliberately IMO, needs to be challenged.

There are plenty of studies that show very different scenarios to the ones you have seen. For instance a UN population study shows that in order to replace the EU age structure we would need 1.4 billion immigrants by 2050, by which time 2/3rds of Europes population would be decended from recent immigrants, including 60 million for the UK alone. Figures like that make "Off course we need increase in immigration to sustain our economy and grow the working age population" seem a little ill thought out.

On the NHS, we have over 100,000 fully trained nurses in the UK who don't work because the pay and conditions are so crap. Is it then really morally right to import nurses from developing countries, many of whom have been trained at the expense of their own government, to plug our own made gaps and create a healthcare drain on the developing world?

No one here, certainly not me, is denying that many immigrants come here, work hard, contribute and become much valued citizens. But many more come here to fill low paid, shit jobs, usually in industries that are dying or transforming, and then find themselves stuck and in a poverty trap when those jobs go.

I'll be honest, I take offence to your earlier tone, there is more to this than "look at me, I love diversity".
Nurses aren't paid well because we vote for political parties that won't pay them more. If we want nurses to be paid better we need to start voting for parties that will pay them more. Not sure where morality comes into it, it's a choice made by the majority.

A lot of low key work is still very important though. We need to move away from skills based on salary bands and to what the country needs to thrive. We need immigration working with education to fill the skills gaps together.
User avatar
OptimisticJock
Posts: 7398
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: FTFT

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by OptimisticJock »

I like haggis wrote:

Nurses aren't paid well because we vote for political parties that won't pay them more. If we want nurses to be paid better we need to start voting for parties that will pay them more.
Who?
dpedin
Posts: 1133
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:51 pm

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by dpedin »

slick wrote:
dpedin wrote:Off course we need increase in immigration to sustain our economy and grow the working age population, and of course these workers should bring their families and settle here. They work in poorly paid jobs to sustain our care sector and look after our mums and dads, grannies and grandpas and contribute hugely to our NHS. I have number of friends who work across tourist industry in Embra and they employ immigrants in preference to Scots because they are reliable, hard working and honest, unfortunately many of the Scots they employ are not! Hopefully they will live here, bring their children up here and add to our workforce. They also bring huge cultural and social benefits for us which I warmly welcome. I personally know many immigrants who have come to work here in Scotland, they add real value and their families contribute greatly to society and their children are hard working and studying hard so they too can work and support themselves and their families. This is by far and away the norm of my experience in Scotland. According to all studies I have seen they contribute more to the economy than they take out, you are more likely to have an immigrant treat you in the NHS that to have one standing in front of you in the queue. They pay for their 'benefits' the same way we all do through tax and NI, indeed they make a greater contribution on average than that of 'native' Scots. The current gov immigration policies with their increasingly racist overtones are a disgrace and are not based on facts. I find it sad that some on this thread chose to support them.
Look, I agree with about 95% of that post and share your experiences. As I've said I am playing Devils Advocate to an extent but I also think the narrative that has been created, deliberately IMO, needs to be challenged.

There are plenty of studies that show very different scenarios to the ones you have seen. For instance a UN population study shows that in order to replace the EU age structure we would need 1.4 billion immigrants by 2050, by which time 2/3rds of Europes population would be decended from recent immigrants, including 60 million for the UK alone. Figures like that make "Off course we need increase in immigration to sustain our economy and grow the working age population" seem a little ill thought out.

On the NHS, we have over 100,000 fully trained nurses in the UK who don't work because the pay and conditions are so crap. Is it then really morally right to import nurses from developing countries, many of whom have been trained at the expense of their own government, to plug our own made gaps and create a healthcare drain on the developing world?

No one here, certainly not me, is denying that many immigrants come here, work hard, contribute and become much valued citizens. But many more come here to fill low paid, shit jobs, usually in industries that are dying or transforming, and then find themselves stuck and in a poverty trap when those jobs go.

I'll be honest, I take offence to your earlier tone, there is more to this than "look at me, I love diversity".
There is so much wrong there its difficult to know where to start! Lets pick an easy one - all the evidence base suggests that immigrants contribute more than they take out of the economy so your comment 'many more come here to fill low paid, shit jobs, usually in industries that are dying or transforming, and then find themselves stuck and in a poverty trap when those jobs go' is just patently wrong. I will let others tackle your other comments such as those about the nursing workforce.

To be honest I find your comments about immigration pretty offensive. You suggest 'we would need 1.4 billion immigrants by 2050, by which time 2/3rds of Europes population would be descended from recent immigrants, including 60 million for the UK alone' as almost that is something to be avoided, as if it is wrong. Is this not how the US managed to grow its population, by bringing in immigrants from Europe and around the world? Is this not how the US ended up with the Tango Twat as President? Which immigrants are you most worried about taking over the UK?
User avatar
OptimisticJock
Posts: 7398
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: FTFT

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by OptimisticJock »

Are there stats for the amount of immigrants working in the NHS up here?
Yer Man
Posts: 21449
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Yer Man »

dpedin wrote:Perhaps you want to describe your 'solution' to the problem?
Carrousel?
User avatar
slick
Posts: 8257
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by slick »

dpedin wrote:
slick wrote:
dpedin wrote:Off course we need increase in immigration to sustain our economy and grow the working age population, and of course these workers should bring their families and settle here. They work in poorly paid jobs to sustain our care sector and look after our mums and dads, grannies and grandpas and contribute hugely to our NHS. I have number of friends who work across tourist industry in Embra and they employ immigrants in preference to Scots because they are reliable, hard working and honest, unfortunately many of the Scots they employ are not! Hopefully they will live here, bring their children up here and add to our workforce. They also bring huge cultural and social benefits for us which I warmly welcome. I personally know many immigrants who have come to work here in Scotland, they add real value and their families contribute greatly to society and their children are hard working and studying hard so they too can work and support themselves and their families. This is by far and away the norm of my experience in Scotland. According to all studies I have seen they contribute more to the economy than they take out, you are more likely to have an immigrant treat you in the NHS that to have one standing in front of you in the queue. They pay for their 'benefits' the same way we all do through tax and NI, indeed they make a greater contribution on average than that of 'native' Scots. The current gov immigration policies with their increasingly racist overtones are a disgrace and are not based on facts. I find it sad that some on this thread chose to support them.
Look, I agree with about 95% of that post and share your experiences. As I've said I am playing Devils Advocate to an extent but I also think the narrative that has been created, deliberately IMO, needs to be challenged.

There are plenty of studies that show very different scenarios to the ones you have seen. For instance a UN population study shows that in order to replace the EU age structure we would need 1.4 billion immigrants by 2050, by which time 2/3rds of Europes population would be decended from recent immigrants, including 60 million for the UK alone. Figures like that make "Off course we need increase in immigration to sustain our economy and grow the working age population" seem a little ill thought out.

On the NHS, we have over 100,000 fully trained nurses in the UK who don't work because the pay and conditions are so crap. Is it then really morally right to import nurses from developing countries, many of whom have been trained at the expense of their own government, to plug our own made gaps and create a healthcare drain on the developing world?

No one here, certainly not me, is denying that many immigrants come here, work hard, contribute and become much valued citizens. But many more come here to fill low paid, shit jobs, usually in industries that are dying or transforming, and then find themselves stuck and in a poverty trap when those jobs go.

I'll be honest, I take offence to your earlier tone, there is more to this than "look at me, I love diversity".
There is so much wrong there its difficult to know where to start! Lets pick an easy one - all the evidence base suggests that immigrants contribute more than they take out of the economy so your comment 'many more come here to fill low paid, shit jobs, usually in industries that are dying or transforming, and then find themselves stuck and in a poverty trap when those jobs go' is just patently wrong. I will let others tackle your other comments such as those about the nursing workforce.

To be honest I find your comments about immigration pretty offensive. You suggest 'we would need 1.4 billion immigrants by 2050, by which time 2/3rds of Europes population would be descended from recent immigrants, including 60 million for the UK alone' as almost that is something to be avoided, as if it is wrong. Is this not how the US managed to grow its population, by bringing in immigrants from Europe and around the world? Is this not how the US ended up with the Tango Twat as President? Which immigrants are you most worried about taking over the UK?
Eh? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary on the economic benefits, you are choosing not to look at it. I have no idea which ones are right or not, but there are plenty that say the opposite, or it's at least marginal. Either way, whats that got to do with immigrants mainly being in low paid jobs? You can't be arguing that point?

What is it that I've said that's offensive to you? It's just a different point of view. The point about the 60 million immigrants is just countering your blase statement that we need to grow the population to look after us as we get old. Have you actually had a think about what 60 million new people in the UK in 30 years time would look like? Nice, easy statement, but what does it actually look like? Bringing the US into a discussion on the benefits of diversity at the moment is so daft I'll let it go.

I've said repeatedly on this thread I want immigration, I see some of the benefits, I enjoy having friends from all over the world, I love being able to meet new cultures and food. It's great. But it's not all as rosy and easy as you seem to be saying and if you can't have a reasonable discussion about it we are f**ked.
dpedin
Posts: 1133
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:51 pm

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by dpedin »

OptimisticJock wrote:Are there stats for the amount of immigrants working in the NHS up here?
Its difficult to tell as we haven't routinely collected that data across the whole workforce. Also social care sector info is different to NHS data, etc. Many use the Colleges info about where folk attained their primary professional qualification but that is not 100% reliable i.e. c50% of undergraduate medical students in Embra are from outside Scotland. Somewhere between 5% and 10% is the rough answer but it varies considerably by profession. In London and SE England it is closer to 25%+
bimboman
Posts: 71271
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by bimboman »

dpedin wrote:
OptimisticJock wrote:Are there stats for the amount of immigrants working in the NHS up here?
Its difficult to tell as we haven't routinely collected that data across the whole workforce. Also social care sector info is different to NHS data, etc. Many use the Colleges info about where folk attained their primary professional qualification but that is not 100% reliable i.e. c50% of undergraduate medical students in Embra are from outside Scotland. Somewhere between 5% and 10% is the rough answer but it varies considerably by profession. In London and SE England it is closer to 25%+

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 2019-08-15
User avatar
OptimisticJock
Posts: 7398
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: FTFT

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by OptimisticJock »

dpedin wrote:
OptimisticJock wrote:Are there stats for the amount of immigrants working in the NHS up here?
Its difficult to tell as we haven't routinely collected that data across the whole workforce. Also social care sector info is different to NHS data, etc. Many use the Colleges info about where folk attained their primary professional qualification but that is not 100% reliable i.e. c50% of undergraduate medical students in Embra are from outside Scotland. Somewhere between 5% and 10% is the rough answer but it varies considerably by profession. In London and SE England it is closer to 25%+
👍🏻
Caley_Red
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:24 am
Location: Sydney (for now)

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Caley_Red »

I like haggis wrote: I don't think you necessarily achieve diversity through quotas and pressure groups. I think if you have an open minded society engaging with everyone it happens pretty naturally pretty quickly.
I think you misunderstand my point here, I am not endorsing quotas, I am strictly against them on both moral and practical grounds. My point was that, diversity breeds these quotas by creating a vast network of 3rd sector pressure groups which lobby and capture government policy leading to eventual degradation of the institutions themselves. These are highly divisive and illiberal, in my view.
I like haggis wrote: On high skilled immigration I think the language is quite insulting. Nurses don't always earn up to 30k - they're high skilled. Carers are paid almost nothing near that but we've seen how important they are. Or we'll see with the struggle to get good farm workers for the harvest and the yield damage unskilled Brits will do how needed they are. You need an immigration system that addresses gaps and then calibrate your education system to prepare to fill them. I work in sales and get paid over the high skilled threshold but I don't have the skills to do more important but worst paid jobs. Scotland needs nurses, teachers, carers, farm labourers more than it needs me regardless of what my salary says comparatively about how skilled I am.
I am not against immigration, I am against the the fiscal drain badly planned migration policies cause. Carers are paid virtually nothing because, agree with it or not, there is not much value placed on the work they do. I have no problem granting temporary visas to people to fill these jobs specifically but they cannot bring family, children and should be required to have private health insurance: otherwise it makes no fiscal sense. If there is a crisis in supply then wages will rise to compensate, there is no need for the taxpayer to underwrite the financial burden of meeting people's health costs, children's education costs, indirect costs such as housing and congestion if they are paying a fraction of those costs in tax. Dealing with shortages in low skilled and badly paid work only to externalise costs to the taxpayer is bad policy and it's also immoral, in my view.

I like haggis wrote: I like what diversity of nationality, religion, thought can bring to cultures and industries. I like seeing guys like WP Nel come across to Scotland and fall in love with the place. My thoughts are that's good if it's allowed to happen naturally and people are integrated not through box ticking but mutual benefits. The GDP and economic numbers will do what they want.
I think the emboldened part is a just a glib dismissal of the core shortcoming of your argument: economic numbers do not 'do what they want', they are guided by policy-making decisions and solid institutions. It remains a fact that the skilled threshold on wages exist to ensure two things, that the job is sufficiently skilled that it is compensated substantially above the median wage and that an individual is net taxpayer to the system. It is a good policy.

Of course carve-outs can exist to allow people- such as nurses- in to fill short term gaps but it is not a reason to abandon the policy altogether.
I like haggis wrote: GDP isn't a good measure: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.econom ... e-with-gdp. The creator says so himself especially for post manufacture financial economies: https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5 ... 3famp=true . Very, very flawed. Toxic debt we're never going pay off was a benefit to GDP pre 2008. Does not work. Is used because it's a catchy simple singular number and easy to politic. Society would be better if we moved away from it.

You just need to look at the US to understand stock markets aren't linked to financial realities anymore either. The stock market is backed by the fed borrowing unlimited funds driven by cheap QE monies and optimism of where the share price might be in a few years IF we get back to normal. The current drivers are good news about a vaccine and lowering infection rates in the US. Worst recession in history and stocks are powering ahead - there's a clear disconnect. Maybe the mass QE and bond buying counts as policy so the stock market doesn't collapse on itself. Maybe it is solid intuition (or more increasingly solid ETF and high frequency trading programming) or maybe it's people realising whatever happens they can't lose as central banks will bail them out so pile in and hope for the best. Stocks have been well overvalued for a long time - there's a lot of very cheap money and nowhere to go with it.

Someone has to pay for the increase in carer costs. I agree totally we don't value that work nearly enough. And if we can't fill the shortfall in workers even with "uncontrolled" immigration we're never filling it without them. If people can't bring their families to look after ours I think that's very sad. But we're already seeing a real crises in care and as people age and live longer it's only getting worse. If immigrants can look after us as we get older they have my full backing. Might not be a "net benefit" on the GDP metrics (which as we know are hugely flawed) but I'll tell you the care my Dad gets from European care workers is very, very beneficial indeed.

Edit because you mention tax. What are the tax costs of people dropping out of full time work to look at increasingly frail parents? Not so simple as raise prices for more work or care isn't not skilled enough. We already have 5.4 million unpaid carers in the UK with 700,000 of those in Scotland. What's the tax cost of that?
I am not talking about GDP which is, in of itself, a dreadful metric to use as a barometer of an individual's wealth; I specifically mention the fiscal impact which isn't some tenuous, tangential measure, it is real tax dollars.

I am not sure you understand my point, there is no problem plugging these gaps with medium term visas which do not confer the rights of citizenship, there will still be an ample supply of such people looking to earn in pounds. Further, there will be alot of people displaced from their job in the coming decades by automation and AI, many of these jobs will be in lower rung clerical work, they should be looking to retrain these people as well.
Caley_Red
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 12:24 am
Location: Sydney (for now)

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Caley_Red »

Biffer29 wrote:
slick wrote:
Biffer29 wrote:
slick wrote:
I'm interested to hear more about why you are not convinced that diversity is not something to be desired? I agree with Haggis in that diversity is a good, positive thing due to it offering new perspectives, languages, ideas and ways of thinking. That's my starting point. How the success of that is measured, I am not sure. When it comes to our immediate small country neighbours, you make a good point about their general lack of diversity. That is not to say that we need be the same on that level though.
Apologies for late reply, work and life took over for a few days.

In answer to your question, I just don't think diversity/multiculturalism in a country actually achieves very much. We seem to have been conditioned by a small group of advocates to think it is a liberal badge of honour to be diverse when it mostly leads to illiberalism, inequality and segregation.

There have been a couple of examples of London. I lived there for the best part of 15 years and, yes, it's a nice idea that you get exposed to different people, but the reality is that there is very little mixing between races, nationalities or cultures on a daily basis. Look at Southall and Harrow area which is predominately Indian, or the East End where you have 99% Bangladeshi kids in schools. This is certainly not a critisism of those people, every culture does the same thing everywhere in the world. People just like being with their own people and no amount of fluffy words can change that.

Bringing the conversation back to Scotland, I'm certainly not against immigration but in my opinion it needs to be managed and low, otherwise you get into the situation where diversity is not just a side effect of an immigration policy but seen as an official good in itself. I don't think that is a good idea.

I am very proud of our record on giving safe haven to refufgees and we should continue with that. My worry is that our government is using our demographics and pushing for a distinct immigration policy to pursue a dream of diversity and multiculturalism which they think is inherently good, I'm not convinced.
The main reason we need immigration is because of demographics. Over the next twenty years we'll have a huge bulge in the number of elderly, and all the associated pension, health and social care costs will increase while the working population decreases. We need more people paying tax.
But then what happens when those new people grow old and need care? More immigration to make up the shortfall again? What about the next generation of these immigrants who don't want to do these care jobs either. The majority of immigrants will pay less tax that those here, so how do we pay for all the new infrastructure costs which will dwarf the tax take.
There’s a particular demographic problem at the moment with the bulge of baby boomers. The post war baby boom created an excess in that age group which isn’t replicated in gen x. So it’s not so much of a problem afterwards. Immigrants generally contribute more to the tax base than natives, that’s been proven many times. And they tend to have more children, which redressed some of the demographic imbalance.

These are pretty basic things in the debate about demographics and immigration.

A very good point and one oft-ignored in my experience.
User avatar
dargotronV.1
Posts: 4625
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by dargotronV.1 »

OptimisticJock wrote:
dargotronV.1 wrote:
OptimisticJock wrote:There will be a lot of revisionism around how people thought we should have locked down earlier. People were dying in their thousands and we were still picking cvnts up pished from house parties. There's no chance the UK would have been able to handle locking down earlier than we did.
I appreciate you're at the sharp end of it so have a unique perspective but I am not sure I agree with your 'no chance' statement. Countries across Europe were doing it while the UK were progressing with the herd immunity soundbites. I remember thinking clearly around 15th March (when my wife came down with it and it hit home) that we should be locking down, but it wasn't for another week.
Your comment about it hitting home kind of proves my point. In reality we should probably have locked down in February or very early March at the latest but theres no chance ( ;) ) people would have stood for it.

The herd immunity strategy, whether through immunisation or other means, is the only way through this. A lot of people are banging on about a 2nd wave happening as if it will only happen if we arent careful. There were will be waves of this year on year until the herd is immune.
Sorry for the tardy reply on this...

It doesn't really prove the point at all? Considering how many people have been infected or touched directly by the virus (percentage wise not a majority, not sure exactly what the number is estimated to be but I think it's a minority? ) your premise doesn't really stack up. My own experience was that people were increasingly anxious in early March and would have if there were leadership shown taken a lock down earlier. International lock downs were being announced every day, at one point I recall it was only Britain left... It might not have been so easy but as revealed yesterday the UK gov had advice to lock down around 10th iirc but chose to ignore it. Ferguson says it would have saved half of the fatalities to date. Another sage member says it would have been difficult to lock down earlier but he wishes we had.
Unfortunately, we'll never know.

And there's still a lot of doubt about herd immunity as a workable thing no? They don't know how many people are immune or are carrying sufficient antibodies to test that particular theory.
User avatar
slick
Posts: 8257
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by slick »

Tourism industry to open on July 15th will be interesting.

Do we know what it covers yet? Hotels, pubs, restaurants, campsites?

Would love to get away for a few days camping with the kids but not sure how they would work toilets and shower blocks.

The last easing seemed a little haphazard but was a small enough step that it didn't seem to matter too much, this will obviously be a lot bigger in scale.
Lorthern Nights

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Lorthern Nights »

slick wrote:Tourism industry to open on July 15th will be interesting.

Do we know what it covers yet? Hotels, pubs, restaurants, campsites?

Would love to get away for a few days camping with the kids but not sure how they would work toilets and shower blocks.

The last easing seemed a little haphazard but was a small enough step that it didn't seem to matter too much, this will obviously be a lot bigger in scale.
Not guaranteed though, will depend if the numbers dont spike in the meantime which they might with the increased movement and will be interesting to see if following the large protests that have been held if this increases transmission.

We are just at the start of the economic implosion imo, the hotel chains announcing big redundancies are just the start of this. OECD reckons the UK will have the biggest slump and data out earlier in the week saying Scotland was as one of the worst regions in GB economically, only beaten by NI.

Sturgeon and her cabinet are ill-equiped to deal with the economic disaster we are facing into IMVHO, they have shown little nouse up until now they have the slightest idea on what the private sector needs and have been able to get away with it because of very benign economic conditions. It is very worrying, firms are now sizing up what they need with the furlough scheme about to be cut back, which is unsustainable long term anyway.

Like you though, would love to get away for a staycation break with the kids, whether that's camping or whatever.
User avatar
slick
Posts: 8257
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by slick »

Lorthern Nights wrote:
slick wrote:Tourism industry to open on July 15th will be interesting.

Do we know what it covers yet? Hotels, pubs, restaurants, campsites?

Would love to get away for a few days camping with the kids but not sure how they would work toilets and shower blocks.

The last easing seemed a little haphazard but was a small enough step that it didn't seem to matter too much, this will obviously be a lot bigger in scale.
Not guaranteed though, will depend if the numbers dont spike in the meantime which they might with the increased movement and will be interesting to see if following the large protests that have been held if this increases transmission.

We are just at the start of the economic implosion imo, the hotel chains announcing big redundancies are just the start of this. OECD reckons the UK will have the biggest slump and data out earlier in the week saying Scotland was as one of the worst regions in GB economically, only beaten by NI.

Sturgeon and her cabinet are ill-equiped to deal with the economic disaster we are facing into IMVHO, they have shown little nouse up until now they have the slightest idea on what the private sector needs and have been able to get away with it because of very benign economic conditions. It is very worrying, firms are now sizing up what they need with the furlough scheme about to be cut back, which is unsustainable long term anyway.

Like you though, would love to get away for a staycation break with the kids, whether that's camping or whatever.
Have to agree on the bolded bit, it's a big worry. I mentioned earlier in this thread about SE/SDI being deliberately moved away from any kind of working relationship with UK Gov departments and being politically aligned with the SNP. That is really going to come and bite us on the arse.
Lorthern Nights

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Lorthern Nights »

slick wrote:
Have to agree on the bolded bit, it's a big worry. I mentioned earlier in this thread about SE/SDI being deliberately moved away from any kind of working relationship with UK Gov departments and being politically aligned with the SNP. That is really going to come and bite us on the arse.
They are choke full of mediocrity as well, as you well know. They are absolutely hopeless in any dealings we have had with them and actively now avoid using them. We are breaking into a new market and there is a tonne of paperwork to navigate through, permits required etc etc, which should be the forte of this lot with their in-market specialists etc but they have been utterly useless, to the point that they came back with "once we have worked out what to do could we show/teach them".
User avatar
slick
Posts: 8257
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by slick »

Lorthern Nights wrote:
slick wrote:
Have to agree on the bolded bit, it's a big worry. I mentioned earlier in this thread about SE/SDI being deliberately moved away from any kind of working relationship with UK Gov departments and being politically aligned with the SNP. That is really going to come and bite us on the arse.
They are choke full of mediocrity as well, as you well know. They are absolutely hopeless in any dealings we have had with them and actively now avoid using them. We are breaking into a new market and there is a tonne of paperwork to navigate through, permits required etc etc, which should be the forte of this lot with their in-market specialists etc but they have been utterly useless, to the point that they came back with "once we have worked out what to do could we show/teach them".
I can put you on to a good guy if you need one.
dpedin
Posts: 1133
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:51 pm

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by dpedin »

There’s a particular demographic problem at the moment with the bulge of baby boomers. The post war baby boom created an excess in that age group which isn’t replicated in gen x. So it’s not so much of a problem afterwards. Immigrants generally contribute more to the tax base than natives, that’s been proven many times. And they tend to have more children, which redressed some of the demographic imbalance.

These are pretty basic things in the debate about demographics and immigration.[/quote]


A very good point and one oft-ignored in my experience.[/quote]

This is the key issue for Scotland. Up to the mid 60's the birth rate was over 2, from then the birth rate has been below 2. Therefore we have relied upon immigration to sustain the workforce. However as the Baby boomers retire this will shift the balance away from those in working age to those who have retired. This is why the UK state pension age has been adjusted up to 67/68. However Baby Boomers will be the last generation to have final salary pension schemes and owned their own homes which have appreciated significantly. Therefore they are retiring from 60 onwards rather than waiting for their state pension to kick in. They are also generally healthier, smoke less and are living longer but are having increasing issues with joint replacements, cataracts, etc and place a heavier demand on the NHS. Also we are getting better at keeping folk alive and cancer is no longer a death sentence and people now live through numerous cancer episodes, all of which places extra demand on the NHS and care sector.

We don't have the working population to sustain the workforce and the economy and meet the growing demand from the Baby Boomers. Yes, the issue will fade away over time but for those Baby Boomers retiring now they will live for another 20-25 years on average so it is not a quick fix. The birth rate in Scotland is the lowest of the 4 UK countries and is still below 2, the number of births has slowly but steadily declined since the 1960s and the signs are that this will continue, lock down notwithstanding! We need immigration to sustain our economy and look after our old folk!
Lorthern Nights

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Lorthern Nights »

slick wrote:
Lorthern Nights wrote:
slick wrote:
Have to agree on the bolded bit, it's a big worry. I mentioned earlier in this thread about SE/SDI being deliberately moved away from any kind of working relationship with UK Gov departments and being politically aligned with the SNP. That is really going to come and bite us on the arse.
They are choke full of mediocrity as well, as you well know. They are absolutely hopeless in any dealings we have had with them and actively now avoid using them. We are breaking into a new market and there is a tonne of paperwork to navigate through, permits required etc etc, which should be the forte of this lot with their in-market specialists etc but they have been utterly useless, to the point that they came back with "once we have worked out what to do could we show/teach them".
I can put you on to a good guy if you need one.
Thank you, my guys reckon they have it sussed for now but could be useful for the future, be good to touch base off here anyway.

Cheers.

It's always the same when setting up a new export market, the first container to go is the nightmare and thereafter once we know the drill it's just a straight forward admin job of getting the boxes ticked. Unless it is whisky or salmon SE/SDI are lost when it comes to food & drink.
User avatar
clydecloggie
Posts: 2141
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by clydecloggie »


This is the key issue for Scotland. Up to the mid 60's the birth rate was over 2, from then the birth rate has been below 2. Therefore we have relied upon immigration to sustain the workforce. However as the Baby boomers retire this will shift the balance away from those in working age to those who have retired. This is why the UK state pension age has been adjusted up to 67/68. However Baby Boomers will be the last generation to have final salary pension schemes and owned their own homes which have appreciated significantly. Therefore they are retiring from 60 onwards rather than waiting for their state pension to kick in. They are also generally healthier, smoke less and are living longer but are having increasing issues with joint replacements, cataracts, etc and place a heavier demand on the NHS. Also we are getting better at keeping folk alive and cancer is no longer a death sentence and people now live through numerous cancer episodes, all of which places extra demand on the NHS and care sector.

We don't have the working population to sustain the workforce and the economy and meet the growing demand from the Baby Boomers. Yes, the issue will fade away over time but for those Baby Boomers retiring now they will live for another 20-25 years on average so it is not a quick fix. The birth rate in Scotland is the lowest of the 4 UK countries and is still below 2, the number of births has slowly but steadily declined since the 1960s and the signs are that this will continue, lock down notwithstanding! We need immigration to sustain our economy and look after our old folk!
Aye, this is the key problem and ironically it's the exact opposite of what your assorted racists and Brexiteers think it is.

Someone who retires at 65 can expect to live another 17-20 years, of which 5-7 in decent health.

Between now and 2040, there will be a large increase in economically inactive white native Scots, who first take a pension and will soon incur massive costs in the health and social care system. Somehow, the rest of Scotland will need to pay for that. And yes, these people have paid for their pension and for their health care all their lives but that money has already been spent. The younger generations will need to provide the necessary funds.

There is no big-enough new generation of white native Scots that can do that. Simple as. Therefore, immigration is the only solution. Unless you want to apply current unsavoury policies to your own granny, that is.

The situation will stabilise between 2040 and 2050, and purely from an age demographic viewpoint, things will be dandy after 2050.
Biffer29
Posts: 1866
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:18 pm

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Biffer29 »

slick wrote:Tourism industry to open on July 15th will be interesting.

Do we know what it covers yet? Hotels, pubs, restaurants, campsites?

Would love to get away for a few days camping with the kids but not sure how they would work toilets and shower blocks.

The last easing seemed a little haphazard but was a small enough step that it didn't seem to matter too much, this will obviously be a lot bigger in scale.
Pubs and restaurants with outdoor spaces could be open next week, they’re listed in phase 2. July 15th seems like the target for phase 3, which allows hotels and such to reopen with social distancing, and indoor, socially distanced opening of pubs and restaurants.

Been sussing out where will be open next week within walking distance of my flat over the last week or so :lol:
Lorthern Nights

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Lorthern Nights »

Biffer29 wrote:
I've found it. The £20billion / £18billion numbers were for Scotland, not the UK.

https://reformscotland.com/wp-content/u ... ntee-1.pdf

By my calculations it'd leave someone on £40k a year £80 or £90 a month worse off after tax. But the other societal effects would be hoped to introduce other savings and potentially address broader wellbeing indicators. For example the reduction in costs of administering the welfare system aren't included in those calculations. Also, if that person had a kid, they'd actually end up better off than before - even with the rise in tax. It actually uses an example of a household with two adults and three kids, one wage earner on £60k, better off under the scheme.
From your link:
Level of the Basic Income
The Citizen’s Income Trust suggests a level of £71.70 per week for adults and £56.80 for children if a Basic Income was to replace most means-tested benefits

The Scottish Green Party has suggested an adult level of £100 per week and £50 for children
For the purposes of this report we have used the levels proposed by the Scottish Green Party which equate to an annual Basic Income of £5,200 per year for adults and £2,600 for children. This is one party’s idea. Others will suggest different levels. Should either the UK or Scottish Government wish to introduce Citizen’s Income Trust, a Basic Income, Reform Scotland recommends that a variety of models are considered.

Costs
UK:
According to the latest population estimates from the ONS, in 2014 19% of the UK’s 64.6m population was in the age range 0-15, 64% were 16-64 and 18% were 65+
This means that 41.34 million people were of working age and would be eligible for the Basic Income. 12.27 million would be eligible for the children’s Basic Income, and the rest would be covered by pension arrangements. Therefore, using the Scottish Green’s proposals, the cost of providing the Basic Income Guarantee would be £247 billion on a UK basis (£215 billion for the working-age component and £32 billion for the child component).
Scotland:
According to the Scottish Government, 17% of Scotland’s 5.33 million population were under 16, with 65% aged between 16 and 64. As a result, the cost of implementing the Basic Income Guarantee in Scotland would be £20.4 billion (£18 billion for the adult component and £2.4billion for the child component)
From todays Times:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scot ... -63sjpjlj5
Working-age Scots could get £11k a year in basic income trial
Greig Cameron
Thursday June 11 2020, 12.01am, The Times

Adults of working age could be paid £213 per week under a trial scheme

An expert panel commissioned by Nicola Sturgeon is recommending that Scots are paid £11,000 a year as part of a £186 million experiment in adopting a universal basic income.

The report compiled by local authorities has insisted that a pilot of the radical scheme is “desirable”, but recognises it needs support from Westminster, the Department for Work and Pensions and HM Revenue & Customs.

The concept is based on offering everyone in Scotland a regular payment regardless of benefits or earnings.

Councils in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Fife and North Ayrshire worked on the research for two years with NHS Health Scotland, now part of Public Health Scotland, and the Improvement Service, which supports local authorities. The Scottish government provided £250,000 for the project.

The researchers believe that their pilot scheme can show improvements in child poverty, unemployment, health and wealth.

The report recommends looking at two levels of basic income, with the higher one based on minimum income standards produced by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a charity.

That would involve paying about £120 a week to those aged under 16, £213 for the working-age population and £195 for pensioners. The ambition would be to see whether payments at that level — £11,000 a year for those of working age — can substantially reduce poverty.

The second and lower level is more closely aligned with existing benefit entitlements. It would offer £84.54 a week to those under 19, £57.90 for 20 to 24-year-olds, £73.10 for people between 25 and pension age and £167.25 for pensioners.

Two communities would be selected for a three-year pilot, with one receiving the higher payment and the other the lower level.

They would then be compared with similar areas of Scotland on a range of measures to test the effects. It is estimated that the pilot would cost about £186 million.

Paul Vaughan, head of communities and neighbourhoods at Fife council, was one of the members of the steering group. He said: “Given the stubborn persistence of unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality in our society, it’s important that we consider innovative solutions.

“We are clear that a pilot of basic income is desirable, and we have described how and what would need to be done for this to happen.

“However, we also recognise that, at this time, it’s not currently feasible to progress to a pilot due to the very complex legislative, technical and delivery challenges associated with the institutional arrangements needed for a pilot.

“If these barriers are to be overcome, sustained support across all levels of government — local, Scottish and UK — for the duration of the pilot and evaluation will be needed.”

Nicola Sturgeon has signalled her support for looking more closely at the potential of a basic income, particularly in light of the economic difficulties caused by coronavirus.

Each of the four councils will debate the findings of the report before handing it over to the Scottish government at the end of the month to decide what happens next.
So they are now proposing setting the income at roughly double what was shown in your paper Biffer, which would mean a cost of £40bn or thereabouts. We are back to it being completely unaffordable at these levels.

Didnt appreciate the paper you were referring to was based on the Greens numbers either and they are not exactly famed for the economic credibility.
User avatar
OptimisticJock
Posts: 7398
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: FTFT

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by OptimisticJock »

dargotronV.1 wrote:
And there's still a lot of doubt about herd immunity as a workable thing no? They don't know how many people are immune or are carrying sufficient antibodies to test that particular theory.
There is yes but the alternative is that it's here to stay and people are reinfected year after year. If that is the case this has all been a massive waste of time and effort as we can't to do this every year (possibly even twice every year).
User avatar
OptimisticJock
Posts: 7398
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: FTFT

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by OptimisticJock »

Biffer29 wrote:
slick wrote:Tourism industry to open on July 15th will be interesting.

Do we know what it covers yet? Hotels, pubs, restaurants, campsites?

Would love to get away for a few days camping with the kids but not sure how they would work toilets and shower blocks.

The last easing seemed a little haphazard but was a small enough step that it didn't seem to matter too much, this will obviously be a lot bigger in scale.
Pubs and restaurants with outdoor spaces could be open next week, they’re listed in phase 2. July 15th seems like the target for phase 3, which allows hotels and such to reopen with social distancing, and indoor, socially distanced opening of pubs and restaurants.

Been sussing out where will be open next week within walking distance of my flat over the last week or so :lol:
I will happily sit in a beer garden in the pissing rain tbh.
User avatar
slick
Posts: 8257
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by slick »

OptimisticJock wrote:
Biffer29 wrote:
slick wrote:Tourism industry to open on July 15th will be interesting.

Do we know what it covers yet? Hotels, pubs, restaurants, campsites?

Would love to get away for a few days camping with the kids but not sure how they would work toilets and shower blocks.

The last easing seemed a little haphazard but was a small enough step that it didn't seem to matter too much, this will obviously be a lot bigger in scale.
Pubs and restaurants with outdoor spaces could be open next week, they’re listed in phase 2. July 15th seems like the target for phase 3, which allows hotels and such to reopen with social distancing, and indoor, socially distanced opening of pubs and restaurants.

Been sussing out where will be open next week within walking distance of my flat over the last week or so :lol:
I will happily sit in a beer garden in the pissing rain tbh.
:lol: Already discussed with the wife!
User avatar
OptimisticJock
Posts: 7398
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: FTFT

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by OptimisticJock »

:lol: :thumbup:
User avatar
Doc Rob
Posts: 5117
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Eryri

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Doc Rob »

Lorthern Nights wrote:
Doc Rob wrote:
You’re not blinded by hatred of the SNP? I think a little more introspection may be in order there.

You tell me I have a chip on my shoulder, but you’re the one trying to deny me my right to an opinion, because you don’t happen to like it. As I said, I don’t get a vote unless I move back home, but I have as much right to an opinion as you do. You don’t have to agree with me, but you do not get to silence me.

I have a problem with non-Scottish MPs, whose party Scotland has never voted for, forcing policies on Scotland that Scotland clearly doesn’t want. You may think that is a democratic decision (perfectly logical, if being British is more important to you than being Scottish). I disagree, because at the end of the day, if England and Scotland want different things, England wins every time (Brexit being the prime recent example). That’s not a union of equals, and it never will be.
Blinded by hatred of the SNP, nope not me. I even voted for them in 2011 as they were the vehicle to keep Labour out who had in my opinion been mismanaging things in Scotland for years, I wanted them out and the SNP deserved a shot to see if they could improve things and they hadn't made a hash of things since 2007 so i was happy to see what else they could deliver, also under Salmond they were centre right which appeals to me.

They've now had their shot and its been 13 years under their management and on a number of key areas they are failing whether that's Education, Health service, the economy or law and order. They are tired, they are the establishment and are fresh out of ideas and we need something new. They are also firmly left of centre and leaning further left by the passing day under Sturgeon which i want no truck with.

I have a problem with the West coast (Greater Glasgow) domination of Scottish politics, they don't represent the NE of Scotland, we are continually short changed at the local level. When Glasgow was Labour we were SNP, now that Glasgow is SNP the NE is Tory. The tories whether you like it or not are the second largest party in Scotland and that is in the face of Brexit and you would be quite happy to ignore all these voters and belittle them, demean them and make them feel less Scottish. Well I'm the one living here, paying my taxes here, part of the community here and contributing to the society here. I don't feel more British than Scottish, I'm perfectly comfortable being both, it is not the case of one or the other as much as you would like it to be.
Well, I suppose I should congratulate you on at least attempting to put together a post without personal attacks. Shame you kind of blew it towards the end there.

OK, I’m going to try to find some common ground here. You think the SNP have become too establishment and look a bit tired. I’m inclined to agree with you, certainly on the first point. However, with apologies to the Greens, they are the only major party in favour of independence, and whatever side you come down on, it is undeniable that support for independence is rising. If you are a Yes supporter, you pretty much have to vote for them, because a vote for any other party would be seized on as a ‘vote against independence’. You can imagine what would be said if someone else got into power.

That isn’t going to happen though, partly because they are boosted by the pro-Indy vote (used to be that support for the SNP was greater than support for Indy, but no longer I think) and partly because there is no effective opposition. You are correct in saying that the Tories are the second largest party in Scotland, but that’s rather like me running a 10k against Mo Farah and demanding a silver medal. The gap between the SNP and the Tories is immense. I also believe that there is a hard ceiling for Tory support in Scotland of about 25%, and they have no chance of ever exceeding that until everyone who remembers Thatcher is dead. (That’s assuming that Boris Johnson isn’t equally detested by then). Labour are a busted flush in Scotland, and their demise dates from the day they were happy to share a platform with the Tories before Indyref 1. The reason for the Tory ‘resurgence’ in Scotland is that they have become the default ‘pro-Union’ option.

There are basically two ways I could see the political landscape in Scotland changing. The first is that Labour could reinvent themselves and become, if not pro-Indy, then at least pro-choice, and commit to a second Indyref. That might lead to their regaining some of their traditional support, though whether it is gone for good is anyone’s guess. Unfortunately for that option, it would entail a complete split from the London party, and they aren’t prepared to tolerate that. Instead they are doubling down on the anti-Indy rhetoric, which will probably result in them sliding still further into obscurity. The other way is independence. The SNP aren’t all on exactly the same page politically, and post-Indy I would expect them to split and for new parties to form.

You also said you were against Brexit. Great - we are fully in agreement there. I think it is the worst idea ever. Thing is, Scotland voted 62% against and are still getting it. Does it not bother you even a little that you will have this repellent idea forced on you by English (and, to be fair, a Welsh) votes? I used to think that there might be a chance of stopping it, but that was wiped out by the Tories winning a massive majority in December, rubber-stamping the Leave vote. The reality is that there is only one way Scotland can escape Brexit now, and that is to leave the UK. The No campaign insisted that the only way to stay in was to stay in the UK - the boot is now fully on the other foot. I am as sure as I have ever been of anything that the EU would allow Scotland back in as soon as they could. Apart from anything else, what better way to give the finger to the Brexiters?

I have to take issue with the assertion that the North-East is Tory, though. It’s demonstrably not true. Even if you leave Dundee (solidly SNP for many years) out of the equation, the SNP now holds 4/6 of the constituencies in the North-East (Aberdeen N, Aberdeen S, Angus and Gordon). The Tories have 2 (Banff and Buchan and West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, the latter with a majority of just 843). If you look at the Scottish Parliament constituency seats it’s even worse - the Tories hold Aberdeenshire West and that’s it. All the others are SNP, all with solid majorities. Look at the regional vote, and the SNP won 137k votes in the North-East to 85k for the Tories. It’s not even close. As for being short-changed at the local level, Aberdeen City Council is run by a coalition of Tories, rebel Labour councillors (thrown out for forming a coalition with the Tories) and Lib Dems, despite the SNP being comfortably the largest party. So that really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny either.

Under any form of democracy, Tory voters in Scotland are not being short-changed in the slightest, so I don’t really know why you are saying I want to ‘ignore all of these voters’. The Tories in London are currently completely ignoring the 48% of the country who voted Remain, which is a considerably higher proportion than voted Tory in Scotland. The truth is that the Tories lost heavily in Scotland, as they always do, and yet their voters are still getting much of what they voted for thanks to their victory in England, which is a hell of a lot more than they have any right to expect. Do I think they should feel less Scottish? Not exactly. But I would like them to consider whether describing yourself as a proud Scot, whilst trying as hard as possible to ensure Scotland continues to be run by the country next door, is not actually a contradictory proposition.
User avatar
Doc Rob
Posts: 5117
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Eryri

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Doc Rob »

Oh, one other thing: an honest question. You seem terrified of the idea that Scotland might vote for Indy by accident and then not be able to reverse the decision afterwards. Can you name one country, anywhere in the world, which has voted to surrender its own independence once gained? Seriously, just one. It’s not actually a trick question - there may be one somewhere, but I don’t know what it is. The closest I can think of might be East Germany, but that was obviously a bit of a special case given they didn’t exactly vote for independence in the first place, and their independence within the Eastern Bloc was questionable.

No country that has gained its independence from the British Empire (I think there are about 55 of them now?) has changed its mind yet. How many Irish people would rejoin the UK, even if it would benefit their economy? None I’ve ever met. It’s almost as if there are reasons for wanting self-determination that are more important than economic success.
dpedin
Posts: 1133
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:51 pm

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by dpedin »

OptimisticJock wrote:
dpedin wrote:
OptimisticJock wrote:Are there stats for the amount of immigrants working in the NHS up here?
Its difficult to tell as we haven't routinely collected that data across the whole workforce. Also social care sector info is different to NHS data, etc. Many use the Colleges info about where folk attained their primary professional qualification but that is not 100% reliable i.e. c50% of undergraduate medical students in Embra are from outside Scotland. Somewhere between 5% and 10% is the rough answer but it varies considerably by profession. In London and SE England it is closer to 25%+
👍🏻
Remember that this is on top of the existing vacancies etc across the NHS in Scotland and the UK. The reason for mentioning this is that any loss of immigrants to the system, albeit small, is compounding an already difficult labour market for many professions in the NHS. In many cases losing a small percentage of the NHS workforce could have pretty catastrophic consequences for services. Whilst folk might suggest that post covid19 there will be lots of poor sods looking for work remember it takes minimum of 3-4 years to grow a nurse, 10+ years for a GP and anything up to 15+ years for many hospital consultants. The consequences of Covid, a no deal brexit and a 'hostile environment' migration policy could have a pretty dramatic impact on the NHS workforce particularly in the SE of England. Its no wonder Scotland wants more control over its own immigration policies.
User avatar
Edinburgh01
Posts: 5801
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by Edinburgh01 »

The Reform Scotland UBI proposals are a thinly disguised 'soak the rich' scheme.

Consolidating benefits get nowhere near the required amount, so 8% is added to all income tax bands, and the upper limit on NI removed. So anyone earning over £50k has an 18% increase in their marginal tax rate.

Conceptually, I have no issues with UBI, and like any universal scheme there will be winners and losers. But according to Reform Scotland's own tables, the break point from gaining to losing under their proposal is under £30k for a single person. Above £50k because of the changes in NI things really start to bite. Someone on £100k with no dependants would be £11k worse off.

They are frankly a bit disingenuous producing tables where every example shows everyone better off. To do this at the £100k level they assume one person working, one not and three children. I do not know many households like that.

Page 40 https://reformscotland.com/wp-content/u ... ntee-1.pdf
KnuckleDragger
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by KnuckleDragger »

Bollocks to this. I already pay more IT than I would in England - if this goes ahead, that's me moving back south.....

Edinburgh01 wrote:The Reform Scotland UBI proposals are a thinly disguised 'soak the rich' scheme.

Consolidating benefits get nowhere near the required amount, so 8% is added to all income tax bands, and the upper limit on NI removed. So anyone earning over £50k has an 18% increase in their marginal tax rate.

Conceptually, I have no issues with UBI, and like any universal scheme there will be winners and losers. But according to Reform Scotland's own tables, the break point from gaining to losing under their proposal is under £30k for a single person. Above £50k because of the changes in NI things really start to bite. Someone on £100k with no dependants would be £11k worse off.

They are frankly a bit disingenuous producing tables where every example shows everyone better off. To do this at the £100k level they assume one person working, one not and three children. I do not know many households like that.

Page 40 https://reformscotland.com/wp-content/u ... ntee-1.pdf
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 14154
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by message #2527204 »

fudge off we're full
KnuckleDragger
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sturgeon, Covid and Scottish political stuff

Post by KnuckleDragger »

With the added bonus that our daughter will start speaking with an English accent again.......
Post Reply