Glasgow Tops Uk Workless Homes Survey

[salmonbuddie]

He's been there already in this thread.....

[salmonbuddie]

Latest jobless figures

 

Scotland - unemployment has risen by 10,000

UK - unemployment has fallen by 24,000 and Jobseekers Allowance claimants have fallen to it's lowest point since 2009. 

 

Could Oaksoft and Salmonbuddie's credibility be any lower? 

Will they apologise for being utter fannies? Will Oaksoft admit his "tea is oot" 

Can the Natsi's ever be trusted again? 

 

Better together - and you know it! 

You need to learn to read, the Scottish rate is below the UK rate. Fail. Again.

[oaksoft]

Latest jobless figures

Scotland - unemployment has risen by 10,000

UK - unemployment has fallen by 24,000 and Jobseekers Allowance claimants have fallen to it's lowest point since 2009.

Could Oaksoft and Salmonbuddie's credibility be any lower?

Will they apologise for being utter fannies? Will Oaksoft admit his "tea is oot"

Can the Natsi's ever be trusted again?

Better together - and you know it!

Actually in all honesty I absolutely would like to apologise for being a fanny.

I've been a fanny by repeatedly responding to Dickson, not knowing better and prolonging a thread which should have ended on page 1.

Will the congregation forgive me?

[oaksoft]

You need to learn to read, the Scottish rate is below the UK rate. Fail. Again.

Ouch!

Dickson can't tell whether 7.4% or 7.7% unemployment is the lower number. Priceless.

[smcc]

"The number of unemployed people increased by 10,000 in Scotland, according to official figures.

At the same time, employment levels increased by 6,000 over the three months taking the total to just over 2.5 million - the highest level in almost five years."

Did you read this, Stuart?

[saint in exile]

"The number of unemployed people increased by 10,000 in Scotland, according to official figures.

At the same time, employment levels increased by 6,000 over the three months taking the total to just over 2.5 million - the highest level in almost five years."

Did you read this, Stuart?

He only reads the bits that support his argument. Typical Tory apologist.

[Stuart Dickson]

Welfare is not a devolved matter

Glasgow is still under labour f**kwittery

The latest figures continued to show the Scottish unemployment rate is falling quicker than the UK rate

Your rants are getting more desperate and easier to shoot holes in than fish in a barrel

Again - here is Tony Soprano's post which started this off. He claimed Scottish employment rate was falling quicker than the UK rate. For the hard of thinking Natsis Oaksoft and Salmonbuddie - it isn't clearly. The rate of unemployment in Scotland is rising while the rate of unemployment around the rest of the UK is falling at rates not seem since before the Scottish Banking Crash.....

Now - Oaksoft your tea is oot.

[FTOF]

"Overall, 15,200 fewer people are claiming unemployment benefit compared to one year ago."

An intelligent person would look at the trend over a sustained period of time.

An ignorant dullard however...........................

[saintnextlifetime]

Actually in all honesty I absolutely would like to apologise for being a fanny.

I've been a fanny by repeatedly responding to Dickson, not knowing better and prolonging a thread which should have ended on page 1.

Will the congregation forgive me?

Only , if you put him on ignore , ya fanny. .

[Stuart Dickson]

"Overall, 15,200 fewer people are claiming unemployment benefit compared to one year ago."

An intelligent person would look at the trend over a sustained period of time.

An ignorant dullard however...........................

Why would that figure be of any value at all? All it means is that those people have either gone onto some sort of DLA or become students - all at the taxpayers expense. Natsi spin can't be trusted at all. The rest of the UK is booming - SNP run Scotland is still in the shitter

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Again - here is Tony Soprano's post which started this off. He claimed Scottish employment rate was falling quicker than the UK rate. For the hard of thinking Natsis Oaksoft and Salmonbuddie - it isn't clearly. The rate of unemployment in Scotland is rising while the rate of unemployment around the rest of the UK is falling at rates not seem since before the Scottish Banking Crash.....

Now - Oaksoft your tea is oot.

So what you are saying is that we, in Scotland, are worse off being in a united kingdom whose economic policy is dominated by the South East of England.

[Stuart Dickson]

So what you are saying is that we, in Scotland, are worse off being in a united kingdom whose economic policy is dominated by the South East of England.

Nice try. You've been caught lying so like a typical Natsi you try desperately to turn it all around again so that it's big bad Englands fault. Lets have a look at that claim though.

From the Scottish Governments own website - prior to devolution in May 99 Scotland's unemployment rate stood at 5.5%, indeed by April 2000 it was 5.0%. Today, after 13 years of home rule Scottish unemployment stands at 7.5%. Another interesting statistic shows that if you use employment rates - as the SNP appear to like doing - then when Alex Salmond took office as first minister taking over from Jack McConnell Scotlands employment rate stood at 74.9%. Today Alex Salmond gets all moist when it gets to 72.1%. Presumably a decline in employment rates of 2.8% during his time in office is supposed to be seen as some kind of success?

I could also make reference to the high proportion of public sector jobs in Scotland - as a percentage of working population it's far, far higher than any other country in the UK and most of those jobs depend entirely on UK government policy but I won't go there yet. Instead I'll keep that back for when you make your next silly post.

[salmonbuddie]

Interesting reading, that article. Areas of England you would say are closest to Scotland in terms of culture, economy base, etc, have much higher unemployment rates than Scotland. Wonder what could be causing that difference?

I see StuD's using Sid's old "Natsi" slur, too, a sure sign he considers the argument lost and has to resort to name calling. Again.

[FTOF]

 

Why would that figure be of any value at all? All it means is that those people have either gone onto some sort of DLA or become students - all at the taxpayers expense. Natsi spin can't be trusted at all. The rest of the UK is booming - SNP run Scotland is still in the shitter

If you don't know the answer to your question, then you're more intellectually challenged than your previous posts suggest.

[salmonbuddie]

....you're more intellectually challenged than your previous posts suggest.

Is that even possible?

[smcc]

Nice try. You've been caught lying so like a typical Natsi you try desperately to turn it all around again so that it's big bad Englands fault. Lets have a look at that claim though.

From the Scottish Governments own website - prior to devolution in May 99 Scotland's unemployment rate stood at 5.5%, indeed by April 2000 it was 5.0%. Today, after 13 years of home rule Scottish unemployment stands at 7.5%. Another interesting statistic shows that if you use employment rates - as the SNP appear to like doing - then when Alex Salmond took office as first minister taking over from Jack McConnell Scotlands employment rate stood at 74.9%. Today Alex Salmond gets all moist when it gets to 72.1%. Presumably a decline in employment rates of 2.8% during his time in office is supposed to be seen as some kind of success?

I could also make reference to the high proportion of public sector jobs in Scotland - as a percentage of working population it's far, far higher than any other country in the UK and most of those jobs depend entirely on UK government policy but I won't go there yet. Instead I'll keep that back for when you make your next silly post.

Interestingly, the UK government's figures show that unemployment in England was 5.8% in April-June 1999, rising to 7.8% in April-June 2013. The Scottish figures on the same website show 7.1% unemployment in April-June 1999, rising marginally to 7.8% in April-June 2013. These figures can hardly be used to support your argument. It might help if you removed your blinkers!

[oaksoft]

Again - here is Tony Soprano's post which started this off. He claimed Scottish employment rate was falling quicker than the UK rate. For the hard of thinking Natsis Oaksoft and Salmonbuddie - it isn't clearly. The rate of unemployment in Scotland is rising while the rate of unemployment around the rest of the UK is falling at rates not seem since before the Scottish Banking Crash.....

Now - Oaksoft your tea is oot.

Tony Soprano was quoting his correct view on 6th September.

Your articles are dated 11th September.

You call it lying. I call it being unable to predict the future.

As others have said, the rate is less important than the underlying absolutel values of unemployment.

In ALL cases listed above Scotland is performing better than the UK as a whole and that includes the 13 year period comparisons with the rest of the UK.

If you want to compare two things you have to compare them like for like. Comparing Scotlands record over 13 years is only valid if you compare it with the UK for the same period because that's the only way to rule out spurious one off effects like the global recession.

Comparing Scotland in 2013 to Scotland in 1999 is just bloody stupid and is statistically meaningless.

Do you actually have ANY meaningful stats on anything which show that the UK is performing better than Scotland?

Edited September 12, 2013 by oaksoft

[stlucifer]

There's no requirement to raise taxation. All of what I have proposed is in the current taxation system. We are simply copying the process of allowing citizens to chose how they spend their personal allowance for their childs education - rather than forcing them to accept a place in a local inefficient and poorly run state school.

And the safety net would exist under the carrot and stick principle. To be regarded as a UK resident UK citizen you would have to comply with certain terms and conditions - one of which being that you be "a citizen". To do that you would have to be law abiding and you would have to ensure that any children that you have be adequately provided for. Failure to do that would see the parent lose their dividend, while the childs dividend payment would then be managed on their behalf either by another close relative, or by someone who could take guardianship on behalf of the child - ie a Foster Parent.

See what I think you might not be grasping is that each individual would be entitled to the payment which using current figures would come out at a minimum of £6.300 per annum. This assumes that the total population of the UK would be entitled to receive a UK Resident UK Citizen Dividend payment. However in reality the figure is likely to be higher. This is because someone who loses entitlement would then have their funds re-assimilated back into the pot which would then be used to increase the payments made to those who remain entitled. You could lose your entitlement by failing to adequately provide for your child, or it could be a sanction used by a court to punish someone who has broken the law. Certainly someone who is in jail would lose their entitlement to their payment either for life, or for a period deemed adequate enough by a judge to cover the cost of their time in the penal system.

If you want to take the idea further then rather than pay the dividend in cash, perhaps it could be paid out - as is the case in Sweden - in vouchers. Those vouchers would be used to purchase private education for your children, private healthcare insurance for your children, and you could lock down the remain amount of money so that it can only be spent on UK manufactured products or services - there by giving our industry a huge boost increasing the number of jobs available - particularly in the manufacturing sector - and with the removal of any incentive for people to stay out of work we could hopefully move to a situation again of full employment.

There are so many flaws in this "Utopia" I don't know where to start.

Who provides the "safety net" and what makes this different from state, means tested benefit?

Which Nazi makes the decision as what is deemed adequate provision for a child?

I would suggest iit would be open to as much, if not more, abuse of power.

In your idea of Utopia why is there a need for mistrust and the introduction of vouchers.

What you suggest will lead to an even bigger underclass and, probably, more crime as people who feel disenfrachised believe it is the ONLY avenue they have left to actually survive.

This will, in turn, put more pressure on the policing authorities who will demand more finance to protect the public , leading to unavoidable tax rises or reductions in allowances which, in turn, will lead to poorer eduucation/healthcare which will in turn, lead to more people not having the basic skills/health to actually get a decent job which, in turn, will lead to third world type jobs with third world pay which, in turn, will lead to less revenue for the government to redistribute which, in turn,............

OR

I could just say,

"If you can spout unadulterated P!SH, then, in turn, so can we all!"

[Isabella Duke]

There are so many flaws in this "Utopia" I don't know where to start.

Who provides the "safety net" and what makes this different from state, means tested benefit?

Which Nazi makes the decision as what is deemed adequate provision for a child?

I would suggest iit would be open to as much, if not more, abuse of power.

In your idea of Utopia why is there a need for mistrust and the introduction of vouchers.

What you suggest will lead to an even bigger underclass and, probably, more crime as people who feel disenfrachised believe it is the ONLY avenue they have left to actually survive.

This will, in turn, put more pressure on the policing authorities who will demand more finance to protect the public , leading to unavoidable tax rises or reductions in allowances which, in turn, will lead to poorer eduucation/healthcare which will in turn, lead to more people not having the basic skills/health to actually get a decent job which, in turn, will lead to third world type jobs with third world pay which, in turn, will lead to less revenue for the government to redistribute which, in turn,............

OR

I could just say,

"If you can spout unadulterated P!SH, then, in turn, so can we all!"

As Stuart pointed out, Sweden uses the system of vouchers for education.

Sweden has one of the lowest Gini coefficients of all developed countries (0.25),making Sweden one of the world's most equal countries in terms of income...

[Stuart Dickson]

There are so many flaws in this "Utopia" I don't know where to start.

Who provides the "safety net" and what makes this different from state, means tested benefit?

Which Nazi makes the decision as what is deemed adequate provision for a child?

I would suggest iit would be open to as much, if not more, abuse of power.

In your idea of Utopia why is there a need for mistrust and the introduction of vouchers.

What you suggest will lead to an even bigger underclass and, probably, more crime as people who feel disenfrachised believe it is the ONLY avenue they have left to actually survive.

This will, in turn, put more pressure on the policing authorities who will demand more finance to protect the public , leading to unavoidable tax rises or reductions in allowances which, in turn, will lead to poorer eduucation/healthcare which will in turn, lead to more people not having the basic skills/health to actually get a decent job which, in turn, will lead to third world type jobs with third world pay which, in turn, will lead to less revenue for the government to redistribute which, in turn,............

OR

I could just say,

"If you can spout unadulterated P!SH, then, in turn, so can we all!"

No-one provides a safety net. Why would they need to? Each individual would be getting at least £6,500 per annum as their dividend, so long as they remained UK resident and fulfilled their role as UK citizens.

Adequate provision for a child.= providing them with an education. You would be handling their £6,500 per annum on their behalf, its only reasonable to expect that you spend it on them.

And finally - bollocks. The average family of four would be guaranteed a minimum income of £25,000 before they even start work. There would also be no incentive to stay out of work. If you chose to work 10 hours per week to top up your income and you deemed that sufficient for your needs you could do it. If you wanted more you can work more. Far from it creating an underclass, it removes dependency on the state, and it removes the barriers that people claim prevent them from accepting work. I reckon it would also create full employment as every household would have far more disposable income and there would be far less government waste.

[oaksoft]

As Stuart pointed out, Sweden uses the system of vouchers for education.

Sweden has one of the lowest Gini coefficients of all developed countries (0.25),making Sweden one of the world's most equal countries in terms of income...

What makes you think these two things are linked in any causal way?

Edited September 12, 2013 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

No-one provides a safety net. Why would they need to? Each individual would be getting at least £6,500 per annum as their dividend, so long as they remained UK resident and fulfilled their role as UK citizens.

Adequate provision for a child.= providing them with an education. You would be handling their £6,500 per annum on their behalf, its only reasonable to expect that you spend it on them.

And finally - bollocks. The average family of four would be guaranteed a minimum income of £25,000 before they even start work. There would also be no incentive to stay out of work.

So you don't consider £25,000 to be a disincentive to work?

But you DO consider £70 a week dole money to be a disincentive to work?

Anyone else confused?

And BTW your comment on why should a safety net be needed?

I can just see the Daily Mail headlines:

Schooolchildren Eat Rats to Survive After Parents Spend their Money on Drugs

or perhaps:

5 Million Children Starve to Death After Parents Use their Allowance to Top Up 40p Per Hour Manufacturing Jobs

The most frightening aspect of our democracy is that people like Dickson can actually get elected and become Prime Minister.

There's no barrier to entry.

Mind you we have several politicians who believe in UFO's and Homeopathy so idiocy isn't limited to Lanarkshire.

[stlucifer]

No-one provides a safety net. Why would they need to? Each individual would be getting at least £6,500 per annum as their dividend, so long as they remained UK resident and fulfilled their role as UK citizens.

Adequate provision for a child.= providing them with an education. You would be handling their £6,500 per annum on their behalf, its only reasonable to expect that you spend it on them.

And finally - bollocks. The average family of four would be guaranteed a minimum income of £25,000 before they even start work. There would also be no incentive to stay out of work. If you chose to work 10 hours per week to top up your income and you deemed that sufficient for your needs you could do it. If you wanted more you can work more. Far from it creating an underclass, it removes dependency on the state, and it removes the barriers that people claim prevent them from accepting work. I reckon it would also create full employment as every household would have far more disposable income and there would be far less government waste.

And the safety net would exist under the carrot and stick principle. AND I QUOTE!

AND.

If everyone decided to work 10 hours per week where would the revenue come from to pay circa £6 bloody grand per person?

Edited to add.

Sorry Not Utopia at all.

Fantasia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited September 12, 2013 by stlucifer

[oaksoft]

And the safety net would exist under the carrot and stick principle. AND I QUOTE!

AND.

If everyone decided to work 10 hours per week where would the revenue come from to pay circa £6 bloody grand per person?

I think it's fair to say that if £25,000 landed on my doorstep I'd retire tomorrow and so would probably 20 million others.

I wonder where the following years money would come from?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I think it's fair to say that if £25,000 landed on my doorstep I'd retire tomorrow and so would probably 20 million others.

I wonder where the following years money would come from?

...and he thinks the country would go bust with independence!