Scotland wants to veto UK exit from EU if vote goes that way.

[Dave1987]

And, as I've stated numerous times already, many of those very migrants contribute to public services, paid for through the additional tax they generate. Something the press often forgets to mention.

Sectors expand to fit the population - this is basic economics, and not something where "the left get it so wrong".

Sorry but I believe you are wrong, allowing migrants to come to this country and claim state benefits and use the NHS etc puts more cost on the taxpayer than it generates.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm starting to loathe and detest Sturgeon. 'We really want to remain part of the EU regardless of reform but don't want to EU to medal with our attempts to implement minimum pricing on alcohol'. The SNP really does wants its cake and to eat it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Sorry but I believe you are wrong, allowing migrants to come to this country and claim state benefits and use the NHS etc puts more cost on the taxpayer than it generates.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm starting to loathe and detest Sturgeon. 'We really want to remain part of the EU regardless of reform but don't want to EU to medal with our attempts to implement minimum pricing on alcohol'. The SNP really does wants its cake and to eat it.

Well the evidence doesn't stack in your favour. It's your right not to listen, but when people have already explained that the job market, public services and government tax revenue all expand with immigration it's hard to see how you're correct.

This is basic macroeconomics.

 

[me123]

I'm starting to loathe and detest Sturgeon. 'We really want to remain part of the EU regardless of reform but don't want to EU to medal with our attempts to implement minimum pricing on alcohol'. The SNP really does wants its cake and to eat it.

"And the gold for interfering with government policy goes to... The EU!"

On a more serious note, I don't really see what your problem is here. There are plenty of people in England currently trying to alter the arrangement with the EU who will probably support continued membership after a renegotiation. Do/will you "loathe and detest" them equally? For, after all, they want continued membership of the EU but aren't just going to bend over for them.

The SNP do support the EU, but don't necessarily agree with every aspect of it. I think that very few people do agree with every aspect of the EU, or indeed any political body. It's not a contradiction to broadly support the body but to challenge it in an instance where you disagree.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It was tough getting a house because what you wanted always seemed just out of reach and it was difficult getting a deposit together without family support. Does any of that sound familiar to younger forum members?

Nope it doesn't. Because now, in many areas of the country (and I don't just mean small specific areas of a location, I mean large regions) what you want (or even would find "ok") is not just out of reach, it is massively out of reach.

There were two significant differences though: the salary multiplier kept mortgages down which kept asking prices down

And then despite what you said initially, you go on to hit the nail on the head! As you said, before you were talking 2.5 - 3x salary. Now we are talking more like 6-10x salary (and in London even more).
In some areas of the country, things are not that bad. But in large parts of the country it is.

 

[cb a1]

I'm starting to loathe and detest Sturgeon. 'We really want to remain part of the EU regardless of reform but don't want to EU to medal with our attempts to implement minimum pricing on alcohol'. The SNP really does wants its cake and to eat it.

Feel free to loathe Nicola Sturgeon all you want, but all she's doing there is what every politician is elected on our behalf to do.

As a general rule on negotiation, you'll also find that most people's starting position is to want their cake and to eat it. The innate behavioural irrationalities of the human race seem to me to dictate this approach.

 

[AM9]

Nope it doesn't. Because now, in many areas of the country (and I don't just mean small specific areas of a location, I mean large regions) what you want (or even would find "ok") is not just out of reach, it is massively out of reach.

OK, maybe not quite the same but a miss is as good as a mile at the time.

And then despite what you said initially, you go on to hit the nail on the head! As you said, before you were talking 2.5 - 3x salary. Now we are talking more like 6-10x salary (and in London even more).
In some areas of the country, things are not that bad. But in large parts of the country it is.

The main difference was in the alternatives.
The back-stop in the '70s for those that couldn't get a mortgage was a supply of council houses. They weren't easy to get, but a young family in genuine need could usually (maybe with a wait) get a decent roof over their head.
Come the Thatcher Government, they forced local authorities to sell their social housing stock to those who had the money at much reduced prices. Far more damaging, they then prohibited the local authorities from building new stock to replace the sold units. Given the high profile given to this policy, it borders on misuse of power in the same way as gerrymandering.
So we now have a situation where the limited quantity of social housing left forces those who can't afford the prohibitive cost of becoming owner-occupiers into the hands of private landlords, ironically, many of them letting out ex-council houses that were sold at greatly discounted prices.
What's the current administration's policy to solve the housing shortage? - why sell of much of what's left in social housing, probably to future private landlords! Although the housing associations will be allowed to build more dwellings, given the discounts they are being forced to offer, the cash realised will probably only cover low quality properties well away from thier voters.

 

[radamfi]

Sorry but I believe you are wrong, allowing migrants to come to this country and claim state benefits and use the NHS etc puts more cost on the taxpayer than it generates.

Given that the average migrant claims less benefit than the average resident, and obviously uses the NHS a lot less, because they are mostly young adults, then you might as well say that the whole country puts more cost on the taxpayer than it generates! That is clearly nonsense.

Maybe you think the total production in a country is fixed regardless of the population. Maybe you think that the total number of jobs in a country is fixed, regardless of population. By your apparent 'logic', if millions of working people suddenly left the UK, there would suddenly be millions of job vacancies. To be honest, I've even had this discussion with university graduates, so even so called 'intelligent' people can't understand this.

 

[AM9]

When I wrote this: "Let's see what happens on the human rights one over the next 5 years" in post 49, I didn't believe that much would happen for at least a year, but the right wingers are already stirring up the hornet's nest (currently Gove and May) such that Cameron has seen fit to declare that the UK will NOT be withdrawing from the ECHR. It seems that whatever mandate the letter of our election system gives them, that won't stop them tearing themselves apart. So as I said, "Let's see what happens on the human rights one over the next 5 years."
2015 is already looking like the General Election to NOT win.

 

[edwin_m]

Being in work does not automatically make you ineligible for all welfare, and with good reason.

That welfare is also pumped back into the economy, and being attractive to immigrants also encourages them to come here and work/spend their money, and also generates more jobs - currently the fact more are in work proportionally than native Brits suggest they're good for the economy.

Those families don't just spend 0 money - they need services and things too, meaning yet more jobs are created.

While I agree with you that in general immigrants are a positive contribution to the UK, I can't stretch to saying it's a good idea to encourage employers to pay low wages either to British citizens or to immigrants and then top them up with benefits. My point was that people in work ought to be paid a living wage and benefits should be reserved for those in genuine hardship due to unusual circumstances or failing to find a job despite reasonable efforts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would argue, in that scenario, it would be wise to use the money freed up from reducing the in-work benefits bill and the increase in revenue from income tax to fund other areas which could do with a boost. More money for transport? Or perhaps a bit of a boost to the NHS? Or perhaps arrest the decline in the Armed Forces?

Lowering taxes is nice but they're hardly high at the moment anyway.

Maybe so. Being able to either reduce taxes or increase spending on something worthwhile is better than subsiding employers who pay a pittance.

 

[ainsworth74]

Maybe so. Being able to either reduce taxes or increase spending on something worthwhile is better than subsiding employers who pay a pittance.

Agreed

 

[overthewater]

I doubt they will. The opinion polls seem to be consistent. In a recent poll, 57% of Scots said that they would vote to remain in the EU (vs 44% of England and Wales) - although the English would be swayed if Cameron can renegotiate to his advantage. The main political parties in Scotland are pro-EU (SNP & Labour), and I can't imagine that we'll be overly attracted by the claims of the English eurosceptics in the Conservatives and UKIP.

Of course, we have to interpret these with caution as the recent election has shown.

You can add the Scottish Ref election to that list aswell. The Yes Camp managed to increase its share by 15% by the 18 September . You only need to get half of that to switch side to win a no vote.

 

[TheKnightWho]

While I agree with you that in general immigrants are a positive contribution to the UK, I can't stretch to saying it's a good idea to encourage employers to pay low wages either to British citizens or to immigrants and then top them up with benefits. My point was that people in work ought to be paid a living wage and benefits should be reserved for those in genuine hardship due to unusual circumstances or failing to find a job despite reasonable efforts.

Absolutely not - I entirely agree - but my point was that immigrants are not somehow putting a drain on public services without contributing anymore than British people do.

 

[Senex]

Agreed

Agreed by me too.