Almost two-thirds of Scots would vote for independence if they were guaranteed to be just £500 better off a year, a survey has claimed.
Well, as written, that suggests having £500 MORE.
What if we reverse it and talk about staying in the Union guaranteeing a significant amount LESS for every Scottish family.
Two days ago Wings Over Scotland published a story showing how funds will be diverted FROM Scotland, TO England which, although it has often been the case, has never been the mainstream narrative. They covered it from another angle here as well.
Not only this diversion of funds, but another story popped up on the same day in which the Institute of Fiscal Studies predicted that the average family in Britain is likely to be £1,800 a year worse off by 2015.
The average middle-income family in Britain is likely to be nearly £1,800 a year worse-off by 2015, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
Families with two children will see a fall of £34 in their weekly incomes, after adjusting for inflation.
A childless couple is likely to lose £1,248 a year, or £24 a week.
The IFS also said that over the next three years, less well-off families will be hit harder than those with higher incomes.
The cuts in spending power are because incomes are failing to keep pace with inflation, and because of changes to the benefits system.
So this is to happen before Scotland, following a yes vote, becomes Independent. What guarantees do we have that things will get better after that if we don’t vote yes?
Are Labour going to win the next Westminster election and sort it out?
How can Independent Scotland solve this? Well, too many ways to go into them all but for starters you could increase spending power with a higher minimum wage, you could do the same by not destroying the benefit system, you could save a good part of the money to do that by not wasting it Trident and useless, bloody and illegal foreign wars, finally having control of oil revenues would provide money for an oil fund and a huge hike in tax revenue, we could save money on Westminster itself (I’ve seen 50 million as the cost of that place to Scotland). These are just a few and there are many others that have been discussed at length.
As much as they try to make it look like it is, it isn’t actually rocket science or some mad unseen hand of the market that makes things as they are.
The point is that we don’t have to be forced down this path. Unless of course, we stay in the UK.
Fear not however, Boris Johson believes that spending a pound in Croydon is far more valuable for everyone than spending it in Strathclyde, let’s go back to see what that Institute of Fiscal studies report says about that…
The study shows that 28% of adults aged 45 to 64 living in south-east England live in households with wealth greater than £1m. The figure includes the value of property.
By contrast, in north-west England, the proportion of people with such wealth is only 14%.
The differing fortunes of pensioners are also highlighted in the ONS report.
In the North East, 24% of pensioners live in households with wealth of less than £50,000. In the South West it is 9% of pensioners.