I have not read all of the above but on initial inspection it seems that poverty has got worse since devolution.ali wrote:In yesterday's Herald there was a preview of a report in to poverty in Scotland to be released later this week which blows holes in your cozy theory that it is simply the workshy and lazy who live in poverty in Scotland. http://www.sundayherald.com/analysis/an ... 44.0.0.php
Question Time
Porty wrote:I have not read all of the above but on initial inspection it seems that poverty has got worse since devolution.ali wrote:In yesterday's Herald there was a preview of a report in to poverty in Scotland to be released later this week which blows holes in your cozy theory that it is simply the workshy and lazy who live in poverty in Scotland. http://www.sundayherald.com/analysis/an ... 44.0.0.php
So is it that there are more lazy scots since devolution?
Or is it all the fault of Holyrood?
And remind me again who has been in power since devolution??
ICM Telegraph pollPorty wrote:I don't believe the 50% figure. What's your source?bearcub wrote: They can't ignore for ever that, although only 30% or so vote SNP, over 50% want Independence.....
Thanks, I can see where you got it from. However, thats an opinion poll, its doesn't say how many were polled (at least as far as I can determine) and the second question is a bit dubious. Do they mean that England should have its own parliament with the same powers as the current Scottish parliament or something other than that? Generally speaking opinion polls are very unreliable. IMHO this is not proof that more than 50% of scots want independence. If you recall it was a baw hair over 50% that wanted devolution.bearcub wrote:ICM Telegraph pollPorty wrote:I don't believe the 50% figure. What's your source?bearcub wrote: They can't ignore for ever that, although only 30% or so vote SNP, over 50% want Independence.....
Porty wrote:................... thats an opinion poll, its doesn't say how many were polled (at least as far as I can determine) ..........................................................bearcub wrote:ICM Telegraph pollPorty wrote: I don't believe the 50% figure. What's your source?
"The United Kingdom should be broken up and Scotland and England set free as independent nations, according to a huge number of voters on both sides of the border."
Extract:bearcub wrote: ICM Telegraph poll
"The ICM poll told a very different story, however, with 60 per cent of English voters complaining that higher levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland were "unjustified", compared to 28 per cent claiming they were justified. Even among Scots, 36 per cent said the system was unfair, with only 51 per cent supporting it."
So the system of higher public spending per head in Scotland is seen as unfair by some. If we gain independence public spending will have to drop quite dramatically, either that or taxation increases. Maybe Ali could explain to us how things like quality of life, education, health and poverty will be improved under such circumstances?
(Alex Salmond may say "we could do a lot with the £75 billion for trident" . Er hang on a minute Alex, that's not our money to spend)
Yeah, i read that bit but it doesn't tell us how many. Even if its 10,000 its hardly worth a sook. Especially ifthe polls were conducted in the border regions, which is the inference.ali wrote:"The United Kingdom should be broken up and Scotland and England set free as independent nations, according to a huge number of voters on both sides of the border."
The ICM article is very far from objective and impartial, Look at the language:
"A clear majority of people in both England and Scotland are in favour of full independence for Scotland, an ICM opinion poll for The Sunday Telegraph has found. Independence is backed by 52 per cent of Scots....................................................The ICM poll told a very different story, however, with 60 per cent of English voters complaining that higher levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland were "unjustified", compared to 28 per cent claiming they were justified. Even among Scots, 36 per cent said the system was unfair, with only 51 per cent supporting it."
So in one part of the article 52% constitutes a "clear majority" and a bit further on we get "only 51% supporting it".
My oh my what a difference 1% makes when the journalist chooses to make it so. Its more like a PPAG leaflet than a proper newspaper article.
"A clear majority of people in both England and Scotland are in favour of full independence for Scotland, an ICM opinion poll for The Sunday Telegraph has found. Independence is backed by 52 per cent of Scots....................................................The ICM poll told a very different story, however, with 60 per cent of English voters complaining that higher levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland were "unjustified", compared to 28 per cent claiming they were justified. Even among Scots, 36 per cent said the system was unfair, with only 51 per cent supporting it."
So in one part of the article 52% constitutes a "clear majority" and a bit further on we get "only 51% supporting it".
My oh my what a difference 1% makes when the journalist chooses to make it so. Its more like a PPAG leaflet than a proper newspaper article.
Here is a summary of the reports findings from the Herald article -
"The report, which examines poverty in Scotland over a five-year period up to the beginning of 2007, cannot be sneered at or dismissed. Among the charities and NGOs which wrote the 182-page report are: The Poverty Alliance, The Child Poverty Action Group, the Scottish Poverty Information Unit and the Scottish Drugs Forum.
The report was also written by a host of academics from The Open University, Glasgow Caledonian University, the University of Paisley and the University of Strathclyde. Experts on health, childcare, economics, community development, education, law and social policy also helped compile the report. The most damning data used came from Holyrood own official statistics.
One-fifth of the Scottish population, 910,000 people, live in poverty;
One in four Scottish children, 240,000 boys and girls, live in poverty.
Back in 1979, only one in eight children lived in poverty;
Of all those experiencing poverty in Scotland, one in five live in Glasgow;
One in 10 of Scotland's rural population is officially poor;
Nearly a quarter of all children living in poverty are in households where an adult is working full-time;
30% of "poverty pay" - wages which leave the employee below the poverty line - come from the public sector: jobs which are paid for by the government;
77,000 children officially recognised as living in poverty don't get a free school meal;
Scotland is poorer in the 21st century than it was in the 1960s."
Personally, I think it is appalling that the Labour Party has presided over an extension of poverty in Scotland and that means that it is time for a change of government in Scotland.
"The report, which examines poverty in Scotland over a five-year period up to the beginning of 2007, cannot be sneered at or dismissed. Among the charities and NGOs which wrote the 182-page report are: The Poverty Alliance, The Child Poverty Action Group, the Scottish Poverty Information Unit and the Scottish Drugs Forum.
The report was also written by a host of academics from The Open University, Glasgow Caledonian University, the University of Paisley and the University of Strathclyde. Experts on health, childcare, economics, community development, education, law and social policy also helped compile the report. The most damning data used came from Holyrood own official statistics.
One-fifth of the Scottish population, 910,000 people, live in poverty;
One in four Scottish children, 240,000 boys and girls, live in poverty.
Back in 1979, only one in eight children lived in poverty;
Of all those experiencing poverty in Scotland, one in five live in Glasgow;
One in 10 of Scotland's rural population is officially poor;
Nearly a quarter of all children living in poverty are in households where an adult is working full-time;
30% of "poverty pay" - wages which leave the employee below the poverty line - come from the public sector: jobs which are paid for by the government;
77,000 children officially recognised as living in poverty don't get a free school meal;
Scotland is poorer in the 21st century than it was in the 1960s."
Personally, I think it is appalling that the Labour Party has presided over an extension of poverty in Scotland and that means that it is time for a change of government in Scotland.
I think you need more detail than that Ali namelly what measurement are they using to determine poverty and how does it compare to whatever was being used in 1979.
The recognised standard is 60% and below Average income, this applies whether average income is £100,000pa or £10,000pa. Because average income is used and its set at 60% then arithmetically there is always going to be around 20%, 1 in 5, below the poverty line.
You appear to seek to make much of the fact that nearly a quarter of children who live in poverty come from a household where at least one adult works. This means that more than 75% do not and at a time when employment is as low as its ever been.
I know its a complex matter but bullit points are just sound-bites in a cloak of apparent authenticity.
From the article:
"The organisations and authors behind the report are intent on putting poverty right at the top of the political agenda for the forthcoming Holyrood elections"
The report is basically a marketing tool for poverty and the many well meaning organisations that try to combat it. . They have their intention and will make the numbers fit accordingly. Nothing wrong with that of course, its all in a good cause but are their claims robust?
The recognised standard is 60% and below Average income, this applies whether average income is £100,000pa or £10,000pa. Because average income is used and its set at 60% then arithmetically there is always going to be around 20%, 1 in 5, below the poverty line.
You appear to seek to make much of the fact that nearly a quarter of children who live in poverty come from a household where at least one adult works. This means that more than 75% do not and at a time when employment is as low as its ever been.
I know its a complex matter but bullit points are just sound-bites in a cloak of apparent authenticity.
There is nothing in that article that proves there has been an extension of poverty, perhaps there will be in the full report? it will also be interesting to see the magnitude of any extension.ali wrote: Personally, I think it is appalling that the Labour Party has presided over an extension of poverty in Scotland and that means that it is time for a change of government in Scotland.
From the article:
"The organisations and authors behind the report are intent on putting poverty right at the top of the political agenda for the forthcoming Holyrood elections"
The report is basically a marketing tool for poverty and the many well meaning organisations that try to combat it. . They have their intention and will make the numbers fit accordingly. Nothing wrong with that of course, its all in a good cause but are their claims robust?
At least we now know what the tennis balls are that you two are batting between you.
1. "Iraq"
2. "The Report"
It's tough enough trying to work out which ball is in which court at any given time so is there any chance that you guys can keep it to 2 balls at any one time please?
I'm not sure what the score is right now - there has been a lot of cheap point-scoring and no sign of any umpires as yet.
It's great watching though - whether you side with Angry Ali or "You Cannot Be Serious" Porty or prefer to sit on the sidelines. Or even on the border!
Will there be more players? Will one of our titanic duellists throw in his racket? What flavour is the barley water?
talkporty awaits the conclusion of this thrilling first set ...
1. "Iraq"
2. "The Report"
It's tough enough trying to work out which ball is in which court at any given time so is there any chance that you guys can keep it to 2 balls at any one time please?
I'm not sure what the score is right now - there has been a lot of cheap point-scoring and no sign of any umpires as yet.
It's great watching though - whether you side with Angry Ali or "You Cannot Be Serious" Porty or prefer to sit on the sidelines. Or even on the border!
Will there be more players? Will one of our titanic duellists throw in his racket? What flavour is the barley water?
talkporty awaits the conclusion of this thrilling first set ...
That has an almost Khmer Rouge twang to it.Porty wrote:Great analogy, however unlike real tennis Ali has a game winning trump card. I wonder when he is going to play it?Dadaist wrote:
talkporty awaits the conclusion of this thrilling first set ...
ali wrote: The arguments that support independence are powerful enough in themselves.
New Policy Institute and the Jospeh Rowntree Foundation are the recognised independent authorities on, amongst other things, poverty and social exclusion. Their most recent report on Scotland was published just two months ago. It can be found here:ali wrote:Personally, I think it is appalling that the Labour Party has presided over an extension of poverty in Scotland and that means that it is time for a change of government in Scotland.
http://www.npi.org.uk/
Here is a summary of the key points. They don't all make for positive reading and they are not all improvements but I don't accept that anyone could reasonably argue that there has been an "extension" of poverty in Scotland since 1998/99. And when it comes to Child Poverty; Scotland met the Labour Governments target of a 25% reduction in child poverty by 2005, whereas England failed to do so.
Summary of key points
1. Since 1998/99, the proportion of children in income poverty in Scotland has fallen by around a quarter, in line with the UK Government target for the UK as a whole.
2. Most of the fall in child poverty has been due to reduced poverty risks for both working and workless families, driven by increases in tax credits and in out-of-work benefits for families with children. The movement of parents into work has played a secondary role.
3. Two-fifths of all children in poverty have someone in their family doing paid work. Of these, most live with two parents. Among those in poverty who are in workless families, most live with just one parent.
4. Since the mid-1990s, the poverty rate for pensioners has come down from around 28% to 18%. Pensioners now account for just one-sixth of all people in poverty.
5. In contrast, the poverty rate among working-age adults without dependent children has risen from around 15% in the mid-1990s to 18%, despite a fall in worklessness. Unlike children, the poverty risks for working-age adults in both working and workless households are higher than a decade ago.
6. Relative to earnings, out-of-work benefits for working-age adults without children are now worth 20% less than in 1997.
7. 65% of working-age disabled people are not in paid work, compared with 45% of lone parents and just 15% of those who are neither disabled nor lone parents. Half of those aged 25 to retirement who are not working are disabled.
8. Two-fifths of working-age adults in poverty live in households where someone is in paid work. Two-thirds of low-paid employees are women, as many more women than men work part-time, and part-time work carries a high risk of low pay.
9. Low pay is most prevalent in Dumfries & Galloway, Clackmannanshire and Moray, with more than 30% of all employees paid less than £6.50 per hour. The picture for worklessness is very different: it is most prevalent in West Central Scotland (Glasgow, Inverclyde and West Dunbartonshire).
10. In 2005, 15% of employees earning £6.50 an hour or less belonged to a trade union, compared with 40% of those earning between £6.50 to £15 an hour, and 60% of those earning £15 to £21 an hour.
11. Except for households in the top and bottom tenths in the income distribution, households with below average incomes have enjoyed bigger proportional income increases over the last decade than households with above average incomes. However, in terms of absolute amounts, 70% of the extra money has gone to those with above average incomes, 30% to those in the richest tenth.
12. The lower a person’s qualifications, the higher their risks of being out of, but wanting, work or being in work but low paid. For example, those with no qualifications are twice as likely to be lacking but wanting paid work as people on average and, if working, two-and-a-half times as likely to be low paid.
13. Whilst the average tariff score in S4 Standard Grades has continued to improve over the last decade, the average score for the bottom fifth has remained unchanged since 1999.
14. The proportion of 19-year-olds failing to reach SVQ2 or equivalent is the same as a decade ago (25%).
15. Most 16-year-olds who reach SVQ2 or equivalent go on to gain further qualifications. Most 18-year-olds who do not reach that level do not attain it later in life.
16. Although down by a sixth over the last decade, rates of premature death in Scotland remain around a third higher than in England and Wales. Premature death in West Central Scotland is almost twice as common as in England and Wales.
17. Children born to parents from manual backgrounds are twice as likely to die in their first year as those born to parents from non-manual backgrounds.
18. The proportion of low-income households without central heating has halved over the last decade and is now similar to that for households on average incomes.
19. The proportion of low-income households without a bank account is a third of what it was a decade ago.
20. After rising for a decade, the number of single-person households accepted as homeless has now stabilised.
21. People on low incomes are twice as likely to feel unsafe walking alone in their area at night as those on above average incomes.
22. A third of low-income households lack home contents insurance compared with virtually no households on above-average incomes.
-
aileenandfearghal
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 29 Oct 2006, 15:13
- Location: Leith
- Contact:
We haven't heard you arguing for anything much around here lately. You've gone from radical socialist youth DJ to organising silly polls.Dadaist wrote:Wot no tiebreak?
Fair enough. You won't hear me arguing for independence, so I guess we can all go home now.
It used to be so different.
You used ta be somebody round here!!!
I just haven't got the time or the energy for what was inevitably going to turn in to a ping pong match which neither of us would concede. We shook hands and agreed to let it go. History will be the judge.Porty wrote:Ali and I had it out on the High Street this morning. It wasn't at dawn. We agreed to disagree, which is not really surprising considering that's where its always been. Time to move on unless there are any other takers?
Happy to disappoint you.ali wrote:We haven't heard you arguing for anything much around here lately. You've gone from radical socialist youth DJ to organising silly polls.Dadaist wrote:Wot no tiebreak?
Fair enough. You won't hear me arguing for independence, so I guess we can all go home now.
It used to be so different.
You used ta be somebody round here!!!
That's a good point.bearcub wrote:Disagreeing with what you were arguing never used to stop you.Dadaist wrote:You won't hear me arguing for independence,
Right then Porty, it's bagpipes at dawn. Salt in ma porridge.
Hoots mon, I can feel a stirring in my McScottish blood.
Here's an argument for independence which is so powerful enough in itself it doesn't need me to toss its caber but, by Jock Tamson, I will anyway :
Wait up, this one is going to be in bold :
In an independent Scottish republic, Mary McPoppins will appear in every household with toddlers at teatime and tidy away the toys
Argue your way out of that!
I Raise My Glass To Grandma
Here's a quote from a government employee who witnessed a recent
interaction between an elderly woman and an antiwar protester in a
train station in Sydney
There were protesters on the train platform handing out pamphlets
on the evils of Australia. I politely declined to take one.
An elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and a
young (20ish) female protester offered her a pamphlet, which she
politely declined.
The young protester put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a
gesture of friendship and in a very soft voice said, "Lady, don't
you care about the children of Iraq?"
The old woman looked up at her and said, "Honey, my father died in
France during World War I, I lost my husband in Korea, and a son
in Vietnam. All three died so you could have the right to stand
here and bad mouth our country. If you touch me again. I'll stick
this umbrella up your a ss and open it."
Here's a quote from a government employee who witnessed a recent
interaction between an elderly woman and an antiwar protester in a
train station in Sydney
There were protesters on the train platform handing out pamphlets
on the evils of Australia. I politely declined to take one.
An elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and a
young (20ish) female protester offered her a pamphlet, which she
politely declined.
The young protester put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a
gesture of friendship and in a very soft voice said, "Lady, don't
you care about the children of Iraq?"
The old woman looked up at her and said, "Honey, my father died in
France during World War I, I lost my husband in Korea, and a son
in Vietnam. All three died so you could have the right to stand
here and bad mouth our country. If you touch me again. I'll stick
this umbrella up your a ss and open it."