 |
Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org
Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
azzuri
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 3776
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:00 am Post subject: Scottish Parliament Motion S2M-3719 Carolyn Leckie:......... |
 |
|
Scottish Parliament Motion S2M-3719 Carolyn Leckie:
UNISON Supports More Powers for the Parliament —
That the Parliament notes Devolution - The Next Stage, published by UNISON’s Scottish Committee; WELCOMES its support for more powers for the Parliament in areas such as equal opportunities, energy, council tax benefit, firearms, drugs, immigration and broadcasting, believing that such powers would be used more progressively by the Scottish Parliament than Westminster; CONGRATULATES UNISON on its open-minded and flexible approach to more powers for the people of Scotland and their Parliament; AGREES with the statement that devolution is a "process not an event"; FURTHER BELIEVES that this process will not stop at devolution and that INDEPENDENCE for Scotland is inevitable, and looks forward to that day when the people of Scotland flex their right to self-determination and assume all the powers currently vested in Westminster and the Crown for themselves.
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub
Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
azzuri
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 3776
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Article in the Sunday Times
Holyrood should 'control tax' in order to boost trade Jason Allardyce and Kathleen Nutt
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-1920666,00.html
LEADING economists have called on Westminster to give the Scottish parliament greater financial powers to boost business north of the border. In a letter published today in The Sunday Times, 13 of Scotland’s most influential academics argue that Holyrood should be given control over taxation.
Led by Ronnie MacDonald, a professor of economics at Glasgow University, they state that a lack of financial levers is “damaging to Scotland’s economic prospects”. Jack McConnell, the first minister, has ordered his policy advisers to devise ways to expand the powers of the Scottish parliament after a series of disputes with Whitehall. Calling for greater financial powers, “especially over taxation”, the letter says greater fiscal responsibility is “essential for the prudent management of Scottish government spending and of the Scottish economy”. The economists argue that the existing arrangements mean that there is little incentive for politicians to spend the money prudently or take account of the electorate’s wishes. Fiscal devolution, they claim, would give MSPs the chance to alter financial incentives for companies and individuals. One of the signatories, Professor Wright, told The Sunday Times: “There is a growing consensus among economists that further financial responsibilities for the Scottish executive are required if the parliament is going to be more successful.”
Further pressure for Holyrood to be given greater powers is coming from Unison, Scotland’s biggest trade union, which is calling for MSPs to be given control over a range of new areas, including firearms, energy and broadcasting. In a policy paper to be published early next year, the union also argues for separate Scottish immigration controls, which could make it easier for skilled foreigners to live and work in Scotland.
The economists named in the letter include Neil Kay and Robert Wright, of Strathclyde University; Angela Black, of the University of Aberdeen; Sheila Dow, of Stirling University and Anton Muscatelli, vice principal of strategy and budgeting at Glasgow University. The letter is also signed by Farhad Noorbakhsh, head of the department of economics at Glasgow University; Alex Kemp, Schlumberger professor of petroleum economics at the University of Aberdeen, Paul Hallwood, of the University of Connecticut, and Alistair Dow, professor of Scottish economy at Glasgow Caledonian University.
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub
Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gypsum_Fantastic
On A Journey (500 Miles)
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 28
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Leckie is one of those hypocrites who objects to 'big business' influencing government but doesn't object to trade unions influencing government.
Instead of replacing a seat of tax-raising government in London with a seat of tax-raising government in Edinburgh, why don't they do something really radical? Why don't they go for a federalist structure? Surely the economic needs of Ayrshire are different from the economic needs of Aberdeenshire? How about having elected governors for each of the Scottish regions with tax-raising powers? Or would that not appeal to the bureaucrats who want their own slice of the pie and not actual change? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maol.Chaluim
'Our Scotland' = 2nd Job!
Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 418
Location: Glaschu
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| There's more chance of Scotland winning the World Cup than the UK becoming federal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gypsum_Fantastic
On A Journey (500 Miles)
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 28
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maol.Chaluim wrote: | | There's more chance of Scotland winning the World Cup than the UK becoming federal. |
If not the UK, then how about Scotland? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2538
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:10 pm Post subject: h |
|
|
| Quote: | | Leckie is one of those hypocrites who objects to 'big business' influencing government but doesn't object to trade unions influencing government. |
In what way is that hypocritical. Carolyn Leckie is a socialist who therefore belives in workers control and ownership of the means of production. For her to support business over workers representatives would be hypocritical rather than the reverse. She was a Unison member and activist before being an MSP, being a midwife UNISON is her union.
Trades Unions represnt far more people than parliamentary constituencies and Unison leaders are elected by more people than any MP or MSP, businessmen represent only the interest of themselves and a small group of shareholders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gypsum_Fantastic
On A Journey (500 Miles)
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 28
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:07 am Post subject: Re: h |
|
|
| Rinty wrote: | | In what way is that hypocritical. |
To believe that you have an inalienable right to lobby government which other self-interest groups do not is clearly and utterly hypocritical.
| Rinty wrote: | | Carolyn Leckie is a socialist who therefore belives in workers control and ownership of the means of production. |
She can believe that if she wishes but what she can't believe is that her interests and beliefs trump anyone else's and that whilst it's okay for her organisation to try and influence policy and, indeed, to fund political parties it is somehow corrupt and dirty when other organisations try it.
| Rinty wrote: | | Trades Unions represnt far more people than parliamentary constituencies and Unison leaders |
They are a group with its own interests and agenda the same as any other lobby group. Nor can they claim, any longer, to represent The Workers. The last time I checked only a quarter of the British workforce were trade union members - and that can't all be down to 'evil' trade union legislation.
| Rinty wrote: | | businessmen represent only the interest of themselves and a small group of shareholders. |
Shareholders amongst whom will include workers - have the last 25 years passed you by? Business folk will have an interest in the long-term profitability and viablity of their businesses which will include millions of employees. In fact, businesses will have a greater 'worker' base to represent than UNISON or any other trade union. It is simply head in the sand to believe otherwise.
Of course, it was never suggested that Leckie has no business putting across her point of view or asking UNISON to do so - however, as an ex-trade union member, the undemocratic nature of unions was summed up for me by the regular six-figure donations to the Labour Party upon which I, as a fee-paying member, was never asked. Something to consider the next time trade unionists are up in arms about 'fat cat' donations to the Tories.
It is obviously hypocritical for Leckie to want her interests and her political agenda put forward *at the expense* of everyone else's. As it happens, I'm wary of all 'lobby groups', from business to trade unions, and believe Government should treat them all equally but with due caution. Somehow I don't think Ms Leckie will see it like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2538
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:26 am Post subject: EH |
|
|
| Quote: | | To believe that you have an inalienable right to lobby government which other self-interest groups do not is clearly and utterly hypocritical. |
It would be hypocritical but then trades unions and Carolyn Leckie do not believe this. You are buidling Straw Men!
Businesses lobby collectively as CBI, Small business Federation, Trade organisations such as national institutes and royal colleges. Trades Unions work with other representative groups which lobby parliament sometimes backing their campaigns. I know of no socialist who believes that other self interest groups should not have the right to lobby government.
Leckie, of course, gets the right to lobby government from a small insignificant matter of democratic elections.
| Quote: | | She can believe that if she wishes but what she can't believe is that her interests and beliefs trump anyone else's |
Of course she can. What's wrong with you?
There is nothing wrong with any group or individual believing their interests or beliefs are more important than other groups or individuals, who doesn't do that?
| Quote: | | They are a group with its own interests and agenda the same as any other lobby group. Nor can they claim, any longer, to represent The Workers. The last time I checked only a quarter of the British workforce were trade union members - and that can't all be down to 'evil' trade union legislation. |
OK if you want to be pedantic I'll word it another way.
Trades Unions represent their members, who organise collectively as workers in a particular sector or industry. What the hell is wrong with that?
And can you tell me who you are quoting when you put qotation marks around the word evil? This is a word I hear used by the right often but not a word I'm familiar with from Leckie or UNISON. Who called the trade union legislation evil? Or is that just you building more straw men?
| Quote: | | In fact, businesses will have a greater 'worker' base to represent than UNISON or any other trade union. It is simply head in the sand to believe otherwise. |
What business would have more workers than UNISON has members?
| Quote: | | It is obviously hypocritical for Leckie to want her interests and her political agenda put forward *at the expense* of everyone else's. |
Another straw man!
Leckie clearly does not believe that her opinion should be at the expense of other opinions. Her job, as a trade union activist then as an MSP, is to get her position across and make the case for it. Just as Digby Jones would do for his lobby.
Leckie is a member of UNISON, Scotlands largest representative body of public service workers, who published a report on devolution. Leckie as an MSP drew the parliaments attention to the report and asked the other MSPs to support it. I cant see what has got you so angry about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gypsum_Fantastic
On A Journey (500 Miles)
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 28
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:03 am Post subject: Re: EH |
|
|
| Rinty wrote: | | It would be hypocritical but then trades unions and Carolyn Leckie do not believe this. |
Leckie has previous for lamenting the influence of 'big business'.
| Rinty wrote: | | Leckie, of course, gets the right to lobby government from a small insignificant matter of democratic elections. |
Yes, how many of those elections did she win? Was it 2,000 votes she got last time? 4th in a group of 7 candidates, I believe. Yes, very insignificant, now you put it like that.
Bit like her friend, Rosie Kane, lamenting the 'unelected' Queen having being roundly rejected by the good people of Glesga Shettleston herself yet still finding herself in a position way beyond her abilities.
| Rinty wrote: | | There is nothing wrong with any group or individual believing their interests or beliefs are more important than other groups or individuals, who doesn't do that? |
You - deliberately, perhaps - misunderstand the inference.
| Rinty wrote: | | Trades Unions represent their members, who organise collectively as workers in a particular sector or industry. What the hell is wrong with that? |
No-one said there was anything wrong with that. What I did say that Leckie's stance on businesses lobbying government and funding political parties - she objects to it - is entirely different to her stance on trade unions doing likewise. As I said.
| Rinty wrote: | | And can you tell me who you are quoting when you put qotation marks around the word evil? |
It was placed there by myself lest anyone attempt to put the low trade union membership down to this factor.
| Rinty wrote: | | What business would have more workers than UNISON has members? |
Collectively, businesses will be representing the interests of far more members than any trade union.
| Rinty wrote: | | Leckie is a member of UNISON, Scotlands largest representative body of public service workers, who published a report on devolution. Leckie as an MSP drew the parliaments attention to the report and asked the other MSPs to support it. I cant see what has got you so angry about that. |
Did UNISON undertake a ballot of its members to see if they supported its stance on devolution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2538
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:33 pm Post subject: L |
|
|
| Quote: | | Leckie has previous for lamenting the influence of 'big business' |
Of course she has. As a socialist she probably feels that business has too much influence and that business lobby is for the benefit of the few rather than the many.
Others like Digby Jones would lament the influence of trades unions. I still cannot see what is hypocritical about that.
| Quote: | Yes, how many of those elections did she win? Was it 2,000 votes she got last time? 4th in a group of 7 candidates, I believe. Yes, very insignificant, now you put it like that.
Bit like her friend, Rosie Kane, lamenting the 'unelected' Queen having being roundly rejected by the good people of Glesga Shettleston herself yet still finding herself in a position way beyond her abilities. |
I dont know how many, probably a bit more than 2,000 though. I know the SSP list candidate here in the South got more than 2,000 votes in Cumnock alone and she came 7th on the list, so I would imagine that it takes more than that across a region. How many she got is irrelevant really. We have a system that allows people to elect their representatives and under that system the people elected her. We could point to many anomalies in our system including the fact that Labour hold a majority in Westminster despite the vast majority of people either voting against them or abstaining.
As for Rosie Kane, in what way is she in a position beyond her abilities? It disturbs me that so much of the criticism of Rosie revolves around her perceived abilities and intelligence. When working class women get into parliament and get a lot of attention for the causes they fight for it really pisses people off. Rosie was elected by the people of Glasgow and is very popular.
| Quote: | | You - deliberately, perhaps - misunderstand the inference. |
then attempt to explain it to me clearer. You seem to think that Carolyn Leckie is a hypocrite for thinking that workers should have more of an influence than businesses. Do you think the same of Digby Jones?
| Quote: | | No-one said there was anything wrong with that. What I did say that Leckie's stance on businesses lobbying government and funding political parties - she objects to it - is entirely different to her stance on trade unions doing likewise. As I said. |
When it comes to UNISON then she campaigns for an end to their contributions to Labour. She also objects to business buying influence with governments. Trade Unions are free to organise a fund for political campaigns, and free to decide whether this is used for campaigns organised by themselves or donated to parties who support the same aims. Businesses are free to do the same. Leckie is well documented in Trades unions circles for her opposition to the way UNISON use the political fund to back Labour.
| Quote: | | Collectively, businesses will be representing the interests of far more members than any trade union. |
Yes and collectively trades unions will represent more people than an individual business, you are not comparing like with like. Business has far more influence on government policy than trades unions, even under Labour. These days it doesnt matter what a union thinks or votes, Labour will ignore it. The last 4 or 5 Labour conferences are good evidence of this.
| Quote: | | Did UNISON undertake a ballot of its members to see if they supported its stance on devolution? |
I don't know I am not a member but I wouldn't have thought it necessary to have a ballot on publishing the results of a report. Do the CBI hold ballots among its members before Digby Jones speaks out against civil servants retiring at 60? I doubt it. Of course that would be interesting, a vote by people whose pensions allow them to retire earlier than 60 voting to stop poorere people doing the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maol.Chaluim
'Our Scotland' = 2nd Job!
Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 418
Location: Glaschu
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gypsum_Fantastic wrote: | | Maol.Chaluim wrote: | | There's more chance of Scotland winning the World Cup than the UK becoming federal. |
If not the UK, then how about Scotland? |
There's no chance of that without independence... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gypsum_Fantastic
On A Journey (500 Miles)
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 28
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:32 am Post subject: Re: L |
|
|
| Rinty wrote: | | Others like Digby Jones would lament the influence of trades unions. |
I've never heard Digby Jones lament about this.
| Rinty wrote: | | I dont know how many, probably a bit more than 2,000 though. |
2736, to be precise. A whopping 8% of the votes.
| Rinty wrote: | | How many she got is irrelevant really. |
Well, it is relevant if we're going to trumpet their representation of Da People. The reality is she was rejected at the ballot box.
| Rinty wrote: | | As for Rosie Kane, in what way is she in a position beyond her abilities? |
Her position of power and influence being way in excess of the actual abilities she has - that way. Nor is it anything to with being working class or a wimmin - unless you believe being a working class wimmin is an excuse for being stupid. Which I don't.
| Rinty wrote: | | Rosie was elected by the people of Glasgow and is very popular. |
Hardly. She has never won an election.
| Rinty wrote: | | I don't know I am not a member but I wouldn't have thought it necessary to have a ballot on publishing the results of a report. Do the CBI hold ballots among its members before Digby Jones speaks out against civil servants retiring at 60? I doubt it. Of course that would be interesting, a vote by people whose pensions allow them to retire earlier than 60 voting to stop poorere people doing the same. |
It is hardly a valid comparison. The political benefits of devolution, and greater powers therof, are precisely debatable and should be subject to debate before a public position is adopted. The anomaly of private sector workers working until they drop dead whilst public sector workers continue to retire early - which is what Digby Jones was referring to, as you well know - is so absurdly unfair and unjust that I'm surprised anyone other than a bloated public sector worker could object.
Indeed, we have a classic example there of 'big business' influencing government, eh? Governments make a deal with trade unions to preserve the 'right' of public sector workers to carry on as they were with regards to pensions whilst the private sector workers who actually pay the taxes for everyone else are told to go and get stuffed and work harder, and longer. Still, I bet Carolyn Leckie was pleased with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2538
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:25 am Post subject: r |
|
|
| Quote: | | I've never heard Digby Jones lament about this. |
How about when he said that the Govt had "surrendered cravenly to its union paymasters". Here's a link to a video of it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4476922.stm#
| Quote: | | 2736, to be precise. A whopping 8% of the votes. |
Incorrect. That is the result of a constituency election that she didnt win. She was elected as a regional MSP a the top of the SSP list. She was elected by 19,000 people. That's more than the Greens, Lib Dems and Pensioners got in the region and only 5,000 less than the tories.
| Quote: | | Well, it is relevant if we're going to trumpet their representation of Da People. The reality is she was rejected at the ballot box. |
No the reality is she was elected to serve the region of Central Scotland. If getting elected is being rejected at the ballot box then Labour must be raging at the massive rejections they keep getting!
| Quote: | | Her position of power and influence being way in excess of the actual abilities she has - that way. Nor is it anything to with being working class or a wimmin - unless you believe being a working class wimmin is an excuse for being stupid. Which I don't. |
I don't either. What I dont know is why you think Rosie Kane is stupid?
| Quote: | | Hardly. She has never won an election. |
Ah here we go again. Rosie was number two on the SSP list for the Glasgow region. The people of Glasgow endorsed the SSP list to the tune of 31,000 votes, double the votes for the lists of Lib Dems, Tories and Greens and only 3,000 behind the SNP. The people of Glasgow clearly elected 2 SSP MSPs, one of them was Rosie Kane. If being elected isn't winning then.......
| Quote: | It is hardly a valid comparison. The political benefits of devolution, and greater powers therof, are precisely debatable and should be subject to debate before a public position is adopted. The anomaly of private sector workers working until they drop dead whilst public sector workers continue to retire early - which is what Digby Jones was referring to, as you well know - is so absurdly unfair and unjust that I'm surprised anyone other than a bloated public sector worker could object.
Indeed, we have a classic example there of 'big business' influencing government, eh? Governments make a deal with trade unions to preserve the 'right' of public sector workers to carry on as they were with regards to pensions whilst the private sector workers who actually pay the taxes for everyone else are told to go and get stuffed and work harder, and longer. Still, I bet Carolyn Leckie was pleased with that. |
You are right they should be subject to debate. And during that debate lobby groups with vested interests will put over a biased point of view to win or spin their argument. Jones and Leckie will do the same. I do not object to Jones doing it and prefer to point out the holes in his argument rather than calling him "stupid" or "hypocrite". You think that somehow Jones is doing his job while Leckie is being hypocritical.
I'm no bloated public service worker, given the wage of most of them I wouldnt imagine many of them are bloated.
You are misinformed about the governments so called "deal" with the unions. The agreement was to not to "preserve" the retiring at 60 rule as you suggest but in fact the opposite.
From now on only existing public servants will qualify for early retirement, all new public servants will have to work until 65. The existing ones, of course, only qualify if they work as a public servant for the whole 40 years (just like the private sector loyalty and long service are rewarded). As public sector staff turnovers are high it is expected that by as early as 2014 70% of public sector workers will be working until 65, by 2020 it will be over 90%.
That is the deal the PCS negotiated with government.
Digby Jones paints it as undue influence of the trades unions over Labour. Leckie objects to the same deal and opposed both UNISON and Labour on the issue as she wanted the status quo to remain, she would see it as Labour capitulating to business and the private sector. They may have different reasons for objecting to this deal and they will both be interested only in the argument from their perspective.
I still do not see where the hypocrisy comes in though? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
