The Great War 1914-18

At the beginning of 1914 Westminster politicians decided that England, (sorry, the nation) would need to assert it’s stature as the leading power in the world and put the expansionist Germans in their place.

Aging Westminster politicians, reminiscent of defeating Russia in the Crimea orchestrated propaganda calling upon the youth of Britain to volunteer, the slogan and poster, “Your Country needs You” was one of the primary teasers.

So Britain went to war in 1914, (Westminster warmongers had stolen the Hearts & minds of the Country). An army of 500,000 comprised of regular & reservists were speedily mobilized and deployed to the continent.

It became evident early on that British forces were heavily outnumbered & outgunned by the Germans so the, “War Department” went into propaganda overdrive. Soon a further 250,000 young volunteers had signed up and provided with basic training were pushed into the, most horrific conflict the World had, (still has) ever witnessed. By the end of the war British & Commonwealth countries deployed about 5,500.000 Army, Navy & Air-forces personnel.

In a brutal war, fought on an unparalleled scale, casualties were horrendous. Acting on instructions, issued by London based leaders, British Generals, based many miles away from the scenes of battle, “ordered implementation of their ill considered strategic plans” regardless of the suffering imposed on their own troops in frontline trenches.

In time the, “fog of war” with it’s , “accompanying, death, injury, noise and fruitless suicidal attacks on well defended German positions” shattered the nerves of a number, (about 450) of the more inexperienced British & Commonwealth soldiers. Approximately 350 of the total number were British. They were courts marshaled, (often being denied any defence of their actions) for cowardice. Found, “guilty” and were publicly executed at the, “break of dawn” the day after sentencing.

It is fact that Commonwealth forces charged and convicted of similar offenses were simply taken away from the frontline, for hospitalization, assessment and remedial care. None were shot.

Recently delivered, speeches and subsequent performances, (to compliant audiences) by George Robertson and his erstwhile buddy John Smith should give cause for concern since both these aging politicians are well experienced in the planning and execution of policies resulting in a disastrous abuse & misuse of British forces, (Baltics, Iraq and Afghanistan) and reactivation of the so called Labour party, “enforcers” in support of the, “better together” people would be of concern, but only if anyone heeded their rhetoric.

MP’s To Get Pay Rise

The, “Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority” (Ipsa) given responsibility for Westminster pay and perks in the wake of the expenses scandal is pressing ahead with plans to, (after the 2015 general election) boost salaries by £7,600 to £74,000, but a fifth of the total number of MP’s are still lobbying for the salary to be increased to £95,000.

Former Commons speaker Baroness Boothroyd appearing on BBC Radio 4’s, “The Westminster Hour” commented, “The taxpaying public aren’t going to like it, but I think they’re just going to have to take it on the chin”.

Naval Forces Overstretched – The First Sea Lord Speaks Out

Naval Forces Overstretched – The First Sea Lord Speaks Out

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir George Zambellas, (recently parachuted in) replacing, (the publicly humiliated Sir Mark Stanhope) has been trotted out, (on the orders of David Cameron & the Westminster Mafia) to publicly add negative comment that Scots independence would leave the Royal Navy less efficient and weaken defence.

But the measure is of course a nonsense. We need to be mindful of the views of vastly experienced and therefore more credible military figures speaking out against the future size and shape of British forces, to be implemented regardless of the outcome of the referendum:

America’s former Defence Secretary, (Robert Gates) recently warned that naval cuts, (forming part of a significant reduction in the size of British armed forces) would mean the UK would no longer be a full military partner to the United States. He went on to say that, for the first time since the First World War Britain does not have an operational aircraft carrier and the carrier being built, (due to be introduced into service in 2020) will not be fully operational for some time after since it will not be capable of launching any of the aircraft presently in service. A new carrier launched airplane is being developed by the USA but it will not be operational for some time. He concluded: ‘With substantial reductions in defence spending in Great Britain, what we’re finding is that it won’t have full spectrum capabilities and the ability to be a full partner as they have been in the past.

His concerns echoed those of senior military staff in the UK. General Sir Nicholas Houghton, “Chief of the Defence Staff” told the Royal United Services Institute military think-tank that the Royal Navy was ‘perilously close’ to its ‘critical mass’ in terms of manpower.

Cameron humiliates First Sea Lord over Libya, in Commons;

Britain’s chief naval officer, “First Sea Lord Sir Mark Stanhope” has been left humiliated after David Cameron said he had summoned him to Downing Street to challenge his claims that the fleet could not continue the Libya campaign indefinitely without affecting other naval operations. The meeting was the culmination of a turbulent 24 hours for Stanhope, who infuriated No 10 by talking about the strains on the navy, which is heavily involved in the Afghanistan mission as well as in Libya. In a briefing on Monday, Stanhope said ministers would have to “make challenging decisions” once the Libya campaign ended. “Beyond that we might have to request the government make some challenging decisions about priorities,” he said. “a ship might need to be diverted away from British home waters”, “It’s not simply about giving up standing commitments. We will have to re-balance.” His remarks provoked the displeasure of Downing Street but serving and former officers provided public support, saying Stanhope was only stating the obvious, especially now the navy has axed ships and thousands of personnel as part of the government’s strategic defence and security review (SDSR).

Secretary of Defence Statement;

“The Ministry of Defence has issued an order to stop officers briefing the press to try to prevent the government being embarrassed further, but a Whitehall insider said: “The first sea lord is a senior official and he deserves to be treated with respect. He shouldn’t be dragged into politics in this way.” The truth has many faces eh!!

Barney (Rubble) Crockett – Labour Leader – Aberdeen City Council – I do It My Way – If You Don’t Like It Tough – Live With It

 

Barney

 

 

Aberdeen City Council leader Barney Crockett

There is a perspective that Aberdeen should forward plan to cope with a declining oil industry but that isn’t what we face immediately or I feel in the medium term. Not only do we have short-term growth, in the medium term, there are major opportunities in the oil and gas and energy industries and that is going to continue and it is how we best manage this and magnify it to the benefit of everyone in Aberdeen. I think Aberdeen is an exceptionally attractive place for people to live.

 

bigpic

 

 

Responding to accusations that the Labour led Aberdeen Council,(led by himself) had ridden rough shod over a democratic process, (the outcome of a properly conducted local referendum, which had voted in favour of the proposal) in rejecting plans for a redevelopment of the city centre gardens, about 40% of which would have been financed by a very generous £50 million gift from a local businessman he said:

“I think wise city governance shouldn’t take forward things which are based on a bitterly divided population. It is the responsibility of Councillors to find ways of knitting people together and certainly in Aberdeen’s case, knitting together a very dynamic business community with the wider social sphere”.

He further  summarized:

“Aberdeen Council business is restricted to local policy issues and these are not subject to referenda. I think, and always have believed, that referendums should be kept for constitutional issues.”

Comment: Was his decree made known to the Aberdeen citizens that voted in the referendum? Is this his policy?

 

 

ABERDEEN1-utg-vvv

 

 

 

 

Contrast the foregoing with a follow up a few weeks later.

Aberdeen City Council has been accused of “promoting a No vote” in September’s independence referendum by endorsing Scotland’s membership of the UK in a letter circulated to council tax payers.

In a message outlining the council’s budget plans, leader Barney Crockett wrote: “The Council’s position is clear, as we agreed at our meeting in December last year we recognize that Aberdeen is stronger now and will be stronger in the future – economically, politically and socially – as a partner within the United Kingdom.”

The opposition demanded to know who authorized the approach and that the Chief Executive needed to intervene to ensure that the misuse of council financial resources should cease.

They further added, “The simple truth is that this was a grotesque misuse of council resources by the council leader, attempting to influence the voting behavior of the citizens of Aberdeen and inappropriately using local authority money to pay for it.”

 

 

aabCouncil-hearing-660x496

 

 

Summary.

The outcome of a local referendum was set aside, (to the detriment of the citizens of Aberdeen) by a Labour/Tory coalition, Led by Mr Barney Crockett acting on his belief and guidance that they were not bound by the results. In any event the business of the Council being restricted by statute to the formulation and implementation of local policy decisions. Outcome, an unhappy electorate.

Also noteworthy is the narrow minded view of Barney Crockett who, in his letter to Aberdeen householders said, “Aberdeen is stronger now and will be stronger in the future – as a partner within the United Kingdom.” No matter Aberdeen’s safety, (from the impact of the policies of Westminster politicians) is guaranteed by oil and energy.

The rest of Scotland however is getting weaker and  will continue to suffer the ravages of increasingly right wing governments, based in the city/state of London who have no interest in the affairs of Scotland, except taxation income.

Comment:

Barney Crockett epitomizes everything that is wrong with both the Labour and Tory Party’s in Aberdeen.  The public votes but the Con/Lab council decides. It is their way or the  highway.  What a sad city led by a bunch of self serving opportunists.

 

 

 

 

Scottish-Referendum43Scottish-referendum46Scottish-Referendum42

Scotland’s Old Age Pensioners – Driven to Poverty – Sacrificed on the Alter of Bankers Greed and an Uncaring Government

 

 

 

 

 

Mortality Rates & Pensions

Up to the early 1950’s, Scottish mortality rates were broadly comparable with the rest of the UK. But from that time, (attributed to increased levels of deprivation) life expectancy, in Scotland has hardly increased over a period of 60+ years. In England, (over the same period) rates steadily increased year on year and there is now a very significant gap in life expectancy between England & Scotland.

 

 

 

 

England Home Counties & London

Male pensioners, (approximately 1 million) of affluent areas of London & the South East of England enjoy a life expectancy of approximately 80 years. Female life expectancy,(similar in total)is approximately 84 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scotland

In Scotland, male life expectancy is approximately 72 years. Female life expectancy is approximately 78 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scottish Pensioners Ripped Off – Subsidising Pensioners in the South of England

Allow individual pension contribution payments, (through taxation) approximately £60,000, (assume 40 years @ £1500 per annum) are the same for all taxpayers.

Maximum pension payments to male Scots. £6k x 7 years = £42K

Maximum pension payments to male English. £6K x years = £90K

Maximum pension payments to female Scots. £4k x 13 years = £52K

Maximum pension payments to male English. £6K x 19 years = £76K

Summary.

Scottish pensioners are heavily subsidizing pension payments of English pensioners. In his article the, “Artful Dodger”, (Gordon Brown) proves once more that, “liars can figure but, “figures don’t lie”. Ignore the negative hype of the, “No” campaigners we should not be subsidizing pension payments for the rest of the UK. Vote, “Yes” to independence.

 

 

 

 

 

Worrying Statistics

The Office of National Statistics provides, age expectancy for 2010-2012, the years most favourable to England;

London & SE England: Males 80y Females 84y.

Glasgow & West of Scotland; Males 73y Females 78y.

Babies born in Glasgow & West of Scotland that reach age 65y; Males 73% Females 79%, (attrition rates much higher than those enjoyed by males and females in London & S/East England)

27% of males and 22% of females in Glasgow & West of Scotland will contribute to a pension all of their working lives and get NOTHING in return by way of pension, (Nice saving Mr Osborne). Scotland is poorly served by the United Kingdom. We would be much better off running our own affairs.

So as to be fair, I selected one, (similar in population density) conurbation in each country, namely,”Glasgow & West of Scotland & London & S/East England”.

Statistics extracted reflect an accurate snapshot of age expectancy in both countries.

Scotland is much worse off in the UK. Our people are dying much earlier than those in England and life expectancy for 25%+ of our children indicates they may not survive beyond age 65y. 

A damming indictment of the so called fair and equal distribution of resources in the UK. Time we were out of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pensions have been severely eroded from the time Gordon Brown changed the rules and tied old age pensions increases to the rate of inflation.

Brown, armed with his insider  knowledge well knew that all was not well with the UK economy and the adverse effects of his change would be to hit pensioners very hard. Indeed the old age pension was increased, in the first year by a miserable 14pence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Banking Crisis – Old Age Pensioners – driven to poverty meeting the heavy cost of the Bankers bail out

The financial crisis has had and will continue to have a negative impact on pensions and pensioner poverty will continue to increase. This due to the Westminster governments, (Labour then Tory) fiscal policies.

The Uk taxpayer (including pensioners) owe the world bankers nearly £1.8trillion.  Interest payments are horrendous and it is doubtful the prime sum  of loans will ever be repaid.

David Cameron, George Osborne and the rest of the Tory Party introduced the phrase “austerity, we are all in it together” to the nation.  Many of the electorate in England and Wales believed the mantra and returned the Party to office in 2015,  for another 5 years.

But bankers in the UK who plunged the nation into financial crisis have escaped unpunished. Indeed there are many former bankers and associated politicians appointed to high office as peers of the realm who now sit in judgement over the many millions of citizens they ripped off.

Bankers who remained in the “bailed out by the taxpayer banking system”  have been and are continuing to attract bonus payment measured in the hundreds of £million simply for doing their job. The rich have got much richer and old age pensioners and many other member of society are increasingly dependent on charity (faced with a lack of support from an uncaring welfare state) to remain alive.

Apart from severe cuts in welfare the major weapon deployed by the government was and still is maintaining interest rates at or near zero. The policy, has in effect reduced the value of pensions by around 30% in the past 10 years resulting in ever increasing numbers of pensioners needing welfare assistance which cannot be guaranteed. Other changes in the pipeline will result in many more cases of pension poverty.

 

 

 

 

Barnett Formula To Be Abandoned After Brexit – Little Englander Politicians in Scotland Ecstatic At the News

 

 

 

_74873615_ref_barnett

 

 

A Majority of Westminster and Scottish Unionist Politicians of all Party’s are Opposed to maintaining the Barnett Formula much beyond the completion of the Brexit process

An English political (Tory) insider recently let slip, “We are fed up financially subsidising the lazy Scot’s pampered welfare state philosophy. The time to act is after we persuade them their future is with the present setup.”

Plans are being put in place, (for implementation early in the next parliament, (2021-26) replacing, “Barnett” introducing an, “equality” formula, based on each individual within the UK being allocated an equal annual financial allocation. There will be, “few” riders allowing for social factors.

Estimates are that the North East & North West of England and South Wales will benefit but Scotland stands to lose between £8-12 billion.

The forecast reductions are exclusive of £4 billion austerity cuts already scheduled for implementation (2017-20)

The changes will require the Scottish government to drastically rethink strategy, regarding Welfare Benefits, Health Care and Care in the Community.

In addition financial support to local councils and other as yet undefined areas e.g. Charities, in Scotland will  be greatly reduced.

Be alert to Westminster and Scottish Unionist politicians announcing handouts and gifts in the  next 2 years.

The full might of the Westminster controlled BBC and other media will be released on Scots in the form of an extended charm offensive in the Brexit process.

 

mundellbarnett

 

 

 

Barnett Formula in Action

Assume the UK annual national financial pot is:  £50,000

Assume contributions to the National pot, taxation, vat etc: England £30,500, Scotland £15,000, Wales £2500, Ireland £2000.

Westminster “top slices” government running costs, parliament, defence,etc; £20,000.

Add interest payment pertaining to National debt. £10,000.

Total centralized operating costs £30,000.

Residue of £20,000 is, “Barnett Shared” between the Countries that make up the UK.

England £15,000, Scotland £3000, Wales £1000, Northern Ireland £1000.

 

all_adds_up-1

 

 

Summary

Scots contribute 30% to the annual total income of the U.K. for a return of 15% plus the safety umbrella of the UK parliament”.

The State controlled media in the UK will be delivering the message that Scots are not meeting their obligations to Westminster and English taxpayers are subsidising lazy Scots (Ruth Davidson’s own words).

Do not fall for this many times stated untruth. Have the courage to vote Yes in any future Independence Referendum .

 

 

_77349827_77349823

Boys Toys for the Big Boys

Boys Toys for the Big Boys

Retention and replacement of Trident beyond 2015 will cost the UK a few billion pounds. Westminster politicians are agreed it will only be retained and replaced if it remains in Scotland since finding suitable facilities in other parts of the UK is impossible as all possible locations are located in heavily populated areas where storing nuclear warheads is dangerous

Tony Blair, (remember Teflon Tony) in his recent autobiography, explained why he proposed a renewal of Trident. He acknowledged that “the expense is huge, and the utility in a post-cold war world is less in terms of deterrence, and non-existent in terms of military use”. In any event, it is “frankly inconceivable we would use our nuclear deterrent” without the United States using theirs. “In the final analysis,” he wrote, “I thought giving it up too big a downgrading of our status as a nation”.

Asked for his views, former chief of defence staff, Field Marshal Lord Carver was recently quoted, saying, “Trident. What the bloody hell is it for?”

So it looks like the real answer to this question is Blair’s confession that scrapping our nukes would be the “downgrading of our status as a nation”.

Spending a fortune on an expensive, “boys toy” so that Westminster politicians can, “big it” on the world stage is unacceptable to the Scottish
electorate, as expressed to Westminster through their elected representatives. A “yes” vote in the referendum will require Westminster to address the matter. It might be they will relocate Trident utilising the newly developed, “deep port” facilities near London.

A reminder, hopefully timely for any Labour Party supporter one as yet undecided on their voting intentions in the referendum. The Labour Party, (including the Scottish Branch) under the control of Mr Miliband are committed to a pursuit of the, “Coalition Government’s” austerity policies, if they form a government in 2015. It is time the Scottish Labour Party and Trades Unions listened to and acted upon the wishes of those who support them and support the, “Yes” campaign. With Labour on board Scotland would be assured of independence and the probability of forming the next government in Scotland.

Monetary Union Red Herring

I have kept my counsel until now but, in light of uncertainty maliciously created by Mr Darling, at the time of the debate last week, now is an opportune time to provide explanatory information completely debunking Flipper Darling and his erstwhile fellows. In the spitit of Clause 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement, lets put this matter to rest until after the referendum is complete

AGREEMENT between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland

Clause 30 – Co-operation

The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed, through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others, to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Recently, misleading presumptions about what international law requires and seeming indifference to the necessity of negotiations following a possible pro-independence vote in Scotland on 18 September have framed the referendum debate. Politicians can always craft arguments around faulty presumptions and then make a dire outcome sound eminently plausible. But the fate of Scotland cannot be so easily disposed of by George Osborne.

The Chancellor’s 13 February speech in Edinburgh, in which he rejected any currency union between Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom (rUK) in the event that Scotland’s voters approve independence, was partly based on the presumption that the rUK would be the “continuator” state of the existing United Kingdom. This means that the United Kingdom would continue as essentially the country it currently is (shorn of Scottish territory), oblivious to any equitable claims by Scotland and dictating that Scotland start from scratch, or with a “clean slate”, to establish a resurrected independent nation.

The alternative to the antiquated continuator argument would be to view both Scotland and the rUK as two co-equal successor states (even though the rUK is obviously the larger of the two) whose fates are tied to an amicably negotiated transition from one nation to two nations following a “yes” vote on the referendum. International law recognises that possibility of a negotiated outcome, one that can be easily embraced by both Holyrood and Westminster if their mutual intent is to facilitate a smooth transition, rather than one seeking to sabotage it.

By laying down the gauntlet of rejecting any currency union with Scotland even before any referendum vote has taken place, and promising to “punish” the Scottish people if they vote for independence, Osborne overlooked an inconvenient truth. His entire argument rests on the presumption that no workable currency union is plausibly negotiable between Scotland and the rUK in the aftermath of a vote for independence. He simply assumes nothing can or would be negotiated in terms of the character or functioning of a currency union that would work to the benefit of both the rUK and Scotland.

Yet there will be negotiations following a pro-independence vote. Otherwise, the rUK would have far too much to lose on other fronts that also require negotiations, talks London will be keen to take up but which the Scottish government, if it follows Osborne’s punitive example, could refuse to negotiate about at all. Scotland need not negotiate sharing the UK debt and could simply let Westminster shoulder the entire estimated UK debt of £1.6trn in 2016/17. That is certainly the logic of the rUK being a continuator state. Nothing in international law requires Scotland to pay one sterling pound of UK debt if the rUK is deemed the continuator state. Nonetheless, the Scottish government has already offered to accept the liability of an estimated £100-£130bn as an independent Scotland’s share of the overall UK debt, but only as the end point of post-referendum negotiations.

Dire warnings that Scotland’s credibility in the markets would somehow nosedive if this transfer of debt were to happen overlook two simple facts. First, the UK Treasury already has agreed to cover all UK gilts in the event of independence, a point Osborne made in his speech. So there is no default on the horizon to panic investors. Second, Scotland would start afresh as a debt-free nation with the apparent agreement, indeed blessing, of the rUK. Perhaps Westminster really has decided to absorb completely the UK debt and thus not negotiate, but rUK taxpayers may wonder about the wisdom of such folly, particularly by a Conservative government. Creditors and investors might view the Scottish position – one of willing to pay, in good faith, its fair share of the UK debt but reluctantly avoiding that financial burden if London insists on being a continuator state and rejecting negotiations – as a sign of financial strength and political acume, rather than weakness or naivety in Edinburgh.

If Osborne’s pre-emptive rejection of a currency union stands, Scotland could sit back in the aftermath of a pro-independence vote and watch the rUK potentially lose a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, impose extremely onerous conditions on removal of the entire British nuclear submarine fleet from Faslane by Independence Day, force the rUK into a much more difficult relationship with the European Union that may accelerate British withdrawal, and, perhaps most importantly, refuse to negotiate a reasonable division of UK assets in a manner that would hurt the rUK more than Scotland.

None of this silly face-off has to happen. The logical outcome of a pro-independence vote is negotiations to facilitate a smooth transition with the goal of advancing the best interests of the citizens of each nation. Indeed that is exactly what was indicated in Clause 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement signed in October 2012 and which is internationally admired as a model of consensual deal-making.

Instead, Osborne launched a pre-emptive strike to kill post-referendum negotiations. He may think he is a realist playing hard politics to bring Scotland to heel, but these are tactics the Scottish government could also successfully employ but smartly has rejected – at least for now.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/flaw-osbornes-pre-emptive-strike-against-currency-union

Child Poverty is Still Rife Despite Promises

Child Poverty is Still Rife Despite Promises

The Labour Promise

In 1999, Prime Minister Tony Blair made a commitment to halve child poverty by 2010, and eliminate child poverty by 2020. After many years of being a neglected issue, child poverty was back on the political agenda. During the first decade of the millennium, Labour governments implemented a host of policies designed to tackle child poverty. From increases in existing benefits to new child-targeted assistance, investments in early years intervention to programmes to help lone parents into work, a wide range of actions increased incomes and provided tailored services to help families living in poverty.

The Conservative Manifesto 2010 Contained the promise;

In 2007, David Cameron committed his party to addressing child poverty, stating, “Ending child poverty is central to improving child well-being”. As a result of this cross-party consensus, the, “Child Poverty Act” was passed in 2010, committing both current and future governments to take action to eliminate child poverty.

“We will improve standards for all pupils and close the attainment gap between the richest and poorest. We will enhance the prestige and quality of the teaching profession, and give heads and teachers tough new powers of discipline. We will restore rigour to the curriculum and exam system and give every parent access to a good school. improving our school system is the most important thing we can do to make opportunity more equal and address our declining social mobility. but Britain is slipping down the world league tables in reading, maths and science, and violence in the classroom is a serious problem. We are falling behind other countries, and there is a growing gap between the richest and the poorest. We can’t go on like this, for the sake of the next generations.”

Poverty inquiry finds growing inequality in schools

The School-wear Association, the body representing independent retailers which claims to clothe three-quarters of Britain’s schoolchildren, suggests it costs about £80 to kit out a state secondary school pupil with one new uniform set.

A typical response;

“I don’t know which schools they have looked at but £80 didn’t even cover half of what my daughters high school specified, and it wasn’t in a wealthy area.
The blazer alone cost £39, I cant remember the cost of the rest. The blouse, and black trousers/skirt were the only items that could be generic, everything else had to be from named suppliers, including school sweatshirt, PE sweatshirt, PE T-shirt, PE tracksuit bottoms, tie, PE kit bag, even the PE socks had to be from the named supplier. Add school shoes, PE pumps, trainers for outside PE, two aprons (also specified supplier) for cookery and textiles. Contrast with when I was at school you could buy nearly ALL as generics, and even buy sew on logos for the blazers in some cases. Children may also be ashamed of not having everything they need, or bullied because of it, which will have a knock on effect on their confidence – and their education.

Families are turning to loan sharks and high credit lenders to ensure their children have suitable uniform and shoes and do not stand out as poor

Having just paid £350 for mandatory uniform and £200 for a bus pass, I can understand this. How does a low income family, struggling to pay rent, bills and food manage the cost? For an unemployed parent, it’s just not possible.

http://www.cpag.org.uk/ending-child-poverty-by-2020
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/feb/17/childrensservices.uknews
http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/conservative-party-manifesto-2010-general-election/conservative-manifesto-2010-change-society-raise-standards-in-schools
http://www.childrenscommission.org.uk/

Scotland’s Membership of the EU is Guaranteed

Scotland’s Membership of the EU is Guaranteed

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/9668-indy-scotland-cannot-be-thrown-out-of-eu-says-leading-international-authority