Weekend: The regional escalator
We’re just beginning to see how the future of the UK will look under austerity. The full horror of the cuts may not be due to bite until later in 2013, but already we can see where and how they’re likely to affect the UK population. Among the most controversial of these measures (so far) are the proposed regional levels for pay and welfare.
The regional pay proposals would see public workers paid less the further from the south-east of England they work (although devolved services in Scotland would be spared this), while the regional welfare payments would see a person on benefits paid less if they live in a poor area of the UK.
At present, government jobs are split into pay bands, with those on a certain band in one occupation earning roughly the equivalent of another public sector worker on the same band in another occupation. There’s room for manoeuvre within the bands, but not much. These banding brackets are agreed through national pay negotiations by unions, ensuring that staff are treated fairly and consistently regardless of where they work. However, the creation of regional pay proposals puts an end to that idea.
No longer would national negotiations provide the agreements on wages and conditions, as it would be up to local negotiations, and even then the waters are muddied further as it’s not clear whether the wage rates will be based on the going rate at the employment address or the employee’s home address (which could quite conceivably be in different regions), giving rise to some strange outcomes.
For instance, if the employment address is used then an employee living in an affluent area and working in a deprived one may see their wages fall significantly, thereby inflicting a disproportionate reduction relative to their cost of living. Alternatively, if home address is used then the employee from the affluent area may be paid more than a colleague doing the exact same job but from a poorer area. In today’s commuter society it could make for some strange permutations.
It’s easy to see the benefits the Tories plan to reap from this plan, as with no national unity the unions would be severely weakened in any negotiations, strengthening the Governments hand to force through conditions that suit them. Without national action, strikes will not have the same effect, the power of the unions will be reduced and the terms of employment for many employees will be up for grabs. With the limited resources of the unions being needed to analyse and respond to multiple negotiations it doesn’t take a leap of faith to accept that this will have a detrimental effect on workers due to lack of resources.
In this proposed system public sector workers would be expected to work for the equivalent of private sector wages in their region. This would bring about a situation where public sector workers such as civil servants would be paid more for living in the expensive south-east of England, while civil servants in the Western Isles would be paid significantly less for undertaking the same job.
This already happens to a degree with the London weighting allowance, a minimum £3,000 payment on top of wages for public sector workers living and working in London to cover higher costs. If we just look at civil servants, not including other English public sector employees in health, education, policing, the MOD or other front line services) there are 464,000 civil servants in the UK as of Q1 2012 (a significant reduction since Labour’s time in power), of which 16.4% are in London (76,096).
The London weighting allowance of at least £3,000 a head (it can be considerably more) makes London civil servants cost the taxpayer a minimum of £228 million on top of their normal salaries just for being situated in London, effectively draining the public purse of that money each year without providing any additional services for it, while also pumping an extra quarter of a billion pounds into the London economy.
It’s strange that no-one ever thought of removing these back-office jobs from London so that the money can be saved, as there’s no need for them to be located in the capital – the services provided are not public-facing and can be undertaken anywhere. But rather than dispersing the London-centric civil service to elsewhere, we have the coalition attempting to reduce the wages of those outside the M25 to cover the increased costs of wages within it.
Similarly, on welfare the result of the Tory changes mean that as with pay rates, individuals in regions with a lower cost of living (mainly due to being poorer) will be expected to accept less than those claimants in identical situations but living in more affluent areas. This seems counter-intuitive, as the people in more affluent areas will already have access to better facilities, transportation links and job opportunities, but are still being given more support regardless.
In either situation, we can see that the biggest losers are those outside the protected zone of south-east England. If we stick with the Western Isles as our comparison, the government’s reasoning is that the cost of living is lower in the Western Isles than SE England, therefore pay rates and benefits should also be lower so that the neither side is financially better off after paying their bills and living expenses. The argument goes that wages and benefits in the rich South East need to be higher as goods and services are more expensive with the result being that both sets of people are comparatively equally well-off.
Of course, this argument has a few holes in it. For instance, the cost of fuel, insurance, food, clothes, a car, phone connections and broadband are roughly equivalent regardless of which country of the UK you live in, with the main differences being between rural and urban dwellers, not regions. These basic costs will, along with a mortgage or rent and local transportation, make up the bulk of the cost of living.
Inhabitants of rural areas tend to have higher distances to travel, may not be connected to energy grids and may have no access to (lower-priced) supermarkets for food, clothes or fuel, leading to a cost of living disproportionately higher than general indicators of local wage rates and property values would indicate. But other than being an unfair and discriminatory way to allocate resources, the regional pay and welfare proposals also have another more subtle side effect – the regional escalator.
By reducing the wages and welfare of regions outside of SE England the UK government creates a situation whereby the best, most talented and qualified public sector workers will be drawn to the more affluent south-east in search of higher wages. In addition to this, welfare claimants who are living in impoverished areas may well decide to up sticks and move to the more affluent areas, because if you’re going to be poor you may as well be poor somewhere nice. The result is a pull towards the wealthiest regions to the detriment of the rest, especially rural communities.
The pay proposal will see poorer regions’ best talent drained away over time, ensuring that wealthy areas get the best public servants (nurses, doctors, police, managers, administrators etc) while disadvantaged areas are lumbered with what’s left. Productivity in wealthy areas increases with better people, but reduces elsewhere as talent is lost. Of course there will be exceptional individuals to whom public service is a calling not just a job and who choose to remain in the reduced wage areas, but they are few and far between.
This movement of people and capital exacerbates what was already a vicious cycle – as you attract the best people and the higher wages that go with them to an area, along with the economic migrants on welfare, you force up the cost of living due to reduced housing supply and higher demand, and you also attract more business to the area which when combined with the additional wealth creates inflationary pressures in the local economy.
As a result you’ll see the introduction of higher salaries and benefits in the affluent area based on spiralling cost of living, while at the same time the reduction in demand in poorer areas will have deflationary effects. Less demand means less wages and benefits to the poorer area, while the affluent area is given even higher wages and benefits that in turn attract more people that push up house prices and rents – and so on, and so on. This is the escalator, a policy that if followed to its logical conclusion will only accelerate the concentration of the nation’s wealth into an ever more expensive bubble in the south-east.
So why do the Tories like this idea? It’s simple really. The regions that will benefit the most from higher wages and benefits are within the Tory heartlands of the south east. They’ll also benefit from attracting the best people, ensuring that it’s their regions which get the best care and services available. Further to this the inflationary pressures of the escalator mean that rental rates will be maintained at artificially high levels and homeowners will see increasing property values, giving them greater “wealth” based on the same voodoo economics as the last property boom.
In effect this creates another credit bubble, and acts like a private pension pot that allows those in the south-east to buy houses in one of the devalued regions off the back of their higher wages and the higher returns from their south-east property. The evidence can be seen in today’s extraordinary revelation that mortgages are now cheaper than renting in most of the country – but, crucially, are less and less available to those who aren’t already rich enough to pay crippling deposits.
Those advocating the regional pay and welfare proposals do so from a keen sense of self-interest, aimed (for political and financial benefit) at increasing and entrenching the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
The solution is not to reduce wages in the remote areas, starving their economy of cash and ruining their industry. The solution is to maintain universal levels across the UK while de-centralising as far as is possible from London and the South East where 24.83% of all public sector and 26.7% of Civil Service jobs are based. A first step would be to scrap the London weighting allowance and give civil servants motivation to be based outside the M25 (and the costs that accompany it).
There would clearly still be a large number of public-facing jobs that would have to remain within the M25 zone to service its population, but enough administration and management work could be shifted to reduce costs significantly. If this is then coupled with the Scottish Government’s approach of shared services and back-office rationalisation then the cuts to front-line services could be mitigated to a great extent.
Such a strategy would reduce costs, maintain services and ensure fairness across the UK. Is it likely to happen? Certainly not while the Tories are in power, as their goal is not merely the reduction of state spending but so far as is possible the removal of the state completely. The Tories have no motivation to make government more efficient while being just as effective at delivering front line services – just an ideological motivation to make government smaller until it cannot do the functions previously undertaken, ensuring that privatisation becomes a viable or even necessary alternative.
Scotland has an opportunity to escape this state Ponzi scheme, which was Tory in origin but enthusiastically embraced by 13 years of Labour governments in their pursuit of “Middle England” voters. We may inherit this grossly unfair regional apartheid, but alone among the people of the UK we are not bound to endure it beyond 2014.
This is the best post that’s ever appeared on Wings (and others have been very good too!)
There’s a whole economic model contained in the above (and I plan to formalise it!)
This is frightening. Let’s just GTF out this shit deal. We (Scotland) can do better than this.
Remember all the outrage in the Tory/Metropolitan/Unionist press about the temerity of the Scottish Government not to impose Tuition fees on Scottish domiciled students studying at Scottish Universities, but to charge those outwith Scotland?
Remember how this was a racist policy? Remember those threatened trial court cases (wonder what happened to them BTW). Well according to those arguments, this is exactly the same case, but in reverse. Public servants in London are by and large English, and public servants in the Western Isles are by and large Scottish, this pay policy is discriminatory, and therefore racist!
Lets try this in the comment sections of the Mail and Torygraph, and see where we get eh?
Why are these stalwarts of the party for the working people in Scotland not up in arms and protesting against this policy, you know the one “the labour party” scottish branch….oops sorry forgot! they are now part of anti-scotland tory/libdem/labour coalition which is aligned to these rip-off policies. Their silence tells you all.
I genuinely fear for Scotland if we vote No.
The threat of independence has kept the worst of the neo-lib Lab/Tory policies at bay.
If that threat is a damp squib, then we will suffer the consequences.
Labour has already accepted the principle of regional variations:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2012/01/boom-labour-concedes-principle-of-regionalised-state-pay-and-benefits.html
“London and the South East where 24.83% of all public sector and 26.7% of Civil Service jobs are based”
What proportion of the UK population is in the London, Southeast, and East Anglia regions?
I ask merely for information.
Sorry for the O/T: But I cannot figure out where this guy got the money from “BBC News UK”: The royal couple were staying at the French chateau of the Queen’s nephew, Lord Linley, in Provence when the photos were taken. ???? did this guy work for this?
This could be an open goal for the Yes campaign. Remember those studies that showed folk would vote yes if they were £500 a year better off? Well currently there are 46,000 civil servants in Scotland, 16,000 working for the Scottish Government, 30,000 for UK departments. Just target those 30,000 (and thats 30,000 families) and stress that their pay would be restored in the event of Scottish Independence. Parity across all Scottish public servants. A difficult message for the public servants unions to argue against.
sm753? You seem incapable of using Google, or I suspect understanding the concept of comparing like with like.
So lets try and help. London and the SE regions have 26.7% of the UK population. So these parts of the UK have exactly the same percentage of population as they have off Civil servant jobs.
East Anglia is not a region, its part of the East region.
And the point you are trying to make?
I merely ask for information.
sm753: Maybe u can answer my query?
Tearlach, sm 753 reminds me of the kid at school who never did their homework but relied on copying every other kid’s homework instead. I can understand it if there is a genuine question but most of his “questions” can be easily answered as you suggest, by using Google.
I am not the most knowledgeable person on most things but even I know how to use Google, and I don’t waste mine or everyone else’s time by asking questions that can be easily answered by Google.
This is simply the continuation of the Thatcherite dream to privatise democracy. The end result is the creation of a corporatocracy without democratic accountability. In other words a FACIST state.
It’s an interesting article, but the population of Britain has been moving towards London and the south-east for decades, essentially because that’s where the jobs and power are based.
There’s already plenty of motivation for people to be based outside the M25, since the further you get from London the lower the cost of living, which primarily means housing costs. The BBC have recently move thousands of staff to Salford, but I agree the government could do more to distribute back-office jobs throughout the country. It’s not just the public sector that pays London weighting, it’s common in the private sector too.
And as to your final sentence “regional apartheid”? Really? Do you think the tories are planning to stop marriages between people from different regions?
How about ‘death aparthied’?
It’s already happening.
First ever post, though a regular visitor. On principle I’m completely against regional pay and benefits and perhaps I’ve missed the news about regional national insurance and income tax levels (sarcasm mode off). However for the YES campaign this could be a godsend. Better together is a meaningless slogan at the best of times, but it becomes indefensible with regional benefits and pay. Which is why I suspect they will delay doing anything other than talking about it until after the referendum. But the news has to get out there, so that people realise how united their UK REALLY is.
And as to your final sentence “regional apartheid”? Really? Do you think the tories are planning to stop marriages between people from different regions?
I wouldn’t put it past them Willie. In fact I’m surprised they haven’t actually brought in a “Breathing Tax!” A tax where anyone taking more than the prescribed number of breathes per minute is taxed on the extra breaths at £1 per extra breath. They’ve taxed just about everything else.
Why do you never contribute anything positive to the debate ‘sm’?
You are obviously a unionist, so why do you repeatedly post on independence blogs?
You never bring anything constructive to the debate, only the same old tired arguments.
You are either a unionist MP releasing his tension, or a strange man in a cupboard that types with a box of tissues close at hand.
Possibly both.
London and the South East; a kind of giant leech, sucking the blood and the life out of the rest of Britain. I really can’t put it more directly than that. Anyone familiar with the scenario of ‘The Hunger Games’ might recognise the notion of an all-powerful city state, demanding tribute from the adjoining regions. I don’t find that scenario remotely implausible for this island in the not too distant future. I hope Scotland’s people do the right thing and reject subservience to this increasingly unaccountable elite in their parasitical enclave.
“London and the South East where 24.83% of all public sector and 26.7% of Civil Service jobs are based”
What percentage of the population is that? About 21%. So an over-representation of roughly between 10% and 25%, ignoring the fact that it’s a densely-populated area which ought to produce efficiencies and economies of scale.
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/how-to-win-independence-with-one-picture/
If the u.k government decides to go down the road of regional pay and welfare payments ! will this not lead to years of court cases and litigation as the people who are poorer due to it will claim they are being discriminated against .
In Scotland it took more than 20 years for cosla and the public service unions to sort out the single status agreements and the councils have had to pay out millions of compensation due to equal pay claims and are still paying them .
Surely a person working for north lanarkshire is due the same pay as someone doing the same job for another council .
Or to put it another way, someone with a disability in north lanarkshire should get the same money as someone with the same disability in say cumbria .
Thanks for this excellent and thought-provoking article. As you point out, regional pay is a damaging path to go down, but action really does need to be taken to deal with the inequalities across the UK as a result of the current setup. You are right, the civil servie needs to be disperesed so that balance out a bit more.
Another aspect of the whole subsidy argument is defence. According to my basic calculations (using United Kingdom Defence Statistics 2011 and the regional populations), the South East has a significantly greater number of service defence jobs per capita than Scotland.
Scotland: Service jobs = 12,080 Population = 5,222,000 Service jobs/100 people = 0.23
SE Eng. : Service jobs = 42,500 Population = 8,635,000 Service jobs/100 people = 0.49
Now this may not look too striking in the way I have expressed it, and this obviously doesn’t consider the salaries involved, but the fact that there are twice as many service people per head in SE Eng than Scotland shows that there is potential for dispersal. Or of course, savings if we become independent.
THey did try “dispersal” before, like in the early 80s,, but the top brass always resisted and it was only inconsequential stuff that got shifted
In a related vein, try this:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829
It’s long, and it will make your eyes bleed with rage way before the end, but stick with it if you can.
Rollingstine article; Michael Gekko springs to mind, as does Rangers (both versions, old and new). Charles Green, Whyte and even Murray.
Barbarian chancers all
Does anyone now doubt that Cameron is betting the Home Farm on a YES vote
@James McLaren
Does anyone now doubt that Cameron is betting the Home Farm on a YES vote
Well folks know my thoughts on this matter….
The problem the union is faced with all comes back to the West Lothian Question. With devo as is, this already presents a headache for Westminster; Scots block a Tory majority in 2010, then give themselves stuff like free prescriptions, higher education, preservation of the NHS etc never mind sticking two fingers up at blighty with an independence referendum. The WLQ was not an issue really when we had a Lab-led coalition in Holyrood and a Lab majority in London; Holyrood just needed to tow the Westminster line. Now we have a Tory-led coalition vs SNP majority; unsustainable.
Clearly, we have widespread, strong majority support for some sort of devo max / FFA (up to 70% support) in Scotland. However, that just can’t happen within the current devo set-up. Imagine Scotland fiscally autonomous yet Scots blocking another majority in the rUK and unionist ones voting on English domestic matters once again. There’d be outrage in the shires. People say this can be sorted out by not allowing Scots MPs to vote on bills that don’t affect Scotland. However, there is far too much crossover what with Barnett consequentials etc. Nope, the only practical solution is to remove Scots MPs entirely from Westminster (Welsh and N. Irish too potentially down the line). However, if Scotland is still ‘devoed’, this would mean we need some sort of UK federal parliament to cover the areas not devoed; which means changing the entire UK electoral/governmental system to create a new federal parliament, probably with PR etc. This would mean giving everyone in the UK a referendum on the new constitution too; not something I see happening any time soon.
Nope, for Scotland the situation is independence/sovereignty with the only way to save face for London is agreeing to some sort of new currency/fiscal pact ‘United Kingdom’ (lizze and all that) Union with bilateral defence agreements etc.
If Dave can retreat over this golden bridge and at the same time get the boundary changes through, the Tories could pull off a majority in 2015. Everyone happy. Bar the labour party of course.
scottish_skier
You really should not wind up the labour party this way .
They will be having apoplexy at the thought off no more brown envelopes coming their way or the fact that they will not be able to join the ermine gravy train after 2014 .
@scottish_skier says
Agreed.
Then the Labour Party will continue its transition to Tory Light. It would need to, to have any hope of gaining enough seats in the SE of England, which it would need to take power in Westminster.
Red Pill or Blue Pill?
Milliband, Balls et al secretly want that as well, I think.
“Nope, for Scotland the situation is independence/sovereignty with the only way to save face for London is agreeing to some sort of new currency/fiscal pact ‘United Kingdom’”
All together now: “Don’t stop believin’, hold on to that feelin'”
“London and the SE regions have 26.7% of the UK population. So these parts of the UK have exactly the same percentage of population as they have off Civil servant jobs. ”
I was perfectly aware of that. I simply wanted one of you lot to have to confirm it.
“East Anglia is not a region, its part of the East region. ”
I knew that too. It’s just that most people would consider most of that region (Cambridge, Peterborough, Ipswich, King’s Lynn and so on) as part the “southeast”. And if you do that, then the population of the “southeast” is about 20 million – one third of the UK total. Which kind of punctures most of the “unfair” argument, doesn’t it?
Just checked out your “blog” sm753, oh dear! Who hasnt been taking their lithium?
” we as a party [Conservative] have to be seen to be fighting to keep the Union together, even if we don’t agree with it, because, at the end of it all, if the Scots say ‘we’re out of here’ and they want to go independent, we can turn around and say it’s not what we wanted, it’s not what we campaigned for, you can’t have this, you can’t have that, and you can get on with it.”
Peter Cruddas
Former Conservative party co-treasurer
This was gold dust and should be key to the pro-independence campaign; shout it from the rooftops etc. It’s not though. Almost as if both the Scottish and UK Governments wanted it forgotten….
“Scotland: Service jobs = 12,080 Population = 5,222,000 Service jobs/100 people = 0.23
SE Eng. : Service jobs = 42,500 Population = 8,635,000 Service jobs/100 people = 0.49 ”
And of course, if you repeat that some for the larger “southeast”, then you get 66,730 service jobs against a population of 22,655,800. 0.29 per 100. Not so different from Scotland. See what I mean?
0.29 compared to 0.23 = 26% more service jobs per capita in the ‘bigger’ SE. Jeez that’s huge if it’s true.
sm753-666 Well thats numbers for you, you can make them do what you want to get the results you want. And semantics too, we can have “southeast” or southeast.
I seem to recall that there were two levels of ‘London Weighting’. both of which were based on where the jobs were, not where you lived. The higher was based on having to commute to Central London and the lower was based on working elsewhere in London. The key words in that sentence are London, not the ‘South East Region’. If you were employed in, say, Cambridge, you were not entitled to the London weighting. My, very, out-of-date recollections seem to be confirmed by this:
http://www.itjobsinlondon.com/articles/Salaries-Is-London-Weighting-Justified
Whilst I do not think her conclusions are in any way accurate, she does provide some of the facts.
I was beginning to wonder what Scott Minto had been up to. This article justifies his absence. Thought provoking.
@s_s
“Jeez that’s huge if it’s true.”
It’s certainly true, but I have no idea why you find it “huge”.
The point of defence spending is to buy an effective defence, not be some sort of regionally-equalised job creation scheme.
Over history, most of the threats to the UK have been from the south-east, and the direction our forces have needed to deploy in has also been south and east.
The 20th century focus on the north and west is something of an aberration, seen in the long run.
sm753,
So, your brilliant analysis of strategic threats to the UK is based on a pre-twentieth century model of how or where a threat might come from? That is, just, stunning.
I hope the plans to protect us from the Austro-Hungarian Empire are kept up to date…..
Sm 753
‘The 20th century focus on the north and west is something of an aberration, seen in the long run.’
At one third (and continuing, so far) of the history of the UK it’s a very large ‘aberration’.
Douglas.
Remember, Great Britain is still living in the 19th century, what with its lack of democracy, focus on class system/lords and ladies, pomp and circumstance, privilege over progress etc. I sometimes get the impression there are still those who believe it has an empire and is a world power rather just an ‘almost shruck back to starting point’, financially bust empirical remnant on the periphery of Europe. I had this impression again just now.
The moment Britain wakes up from this hangover will be the moment it starts to rebuild itself as a modern, progressive country. Until then, it can only continue downhill, surviving on a diet of nostalgia, bread and circuses.
@sm753
Your ignorance about defence and security matters has already been well documented both here and on your own blog.
The greatest direct security threat to an independent Scotland in future is likely to come from Russia or some successor state, and will require the ability to adequately police, protect and ultimately defend our air space and offshore resources from interference or attack from that quarter.
This presupposes adequate air and naval resources to deter an aggressor, probably including submarines, aerial patrol and early warning resources, and combat aircraft able to engage enemy aircraft, surface ships and submarines. None of this is rocket science, and could well be the subject of co-operation within NATO, or if outside with neighbours like Norway, Denmark, Ireland and Iceland, as well as perhaps Sweden, Finland and the Baltic States.
There is little likelihood or requirement for us to expect a land invasion across the Tweed.
Other security threats are more diffuse or long term; the Chinese are unlikely to have a blue water navy capable of reaching here for some time, but could pose a threat in terms of the geo=political position if they start muscling in elsewhere in the world in an attempt to protect natural resource availability for their economy.
There would be little point Scottish forces looking to the SE; even if there was a Russian or continental threat, it can safely be left to the Germans, French and English to deal with, whilst we deal with clear and present dangers closer to home.
Good to see that your geo-political compass is about as outdated as your Scottish political compass. You really are going to be kinda lost when independence happens arentcha? Perhaps you’ll be one of those Scots loyalists who leaves to live in England much like the American loyalists who left the USA in the 1780’s?
Don’t let the door hit you in the arse on your way South will you? 😉
Er, the point is that the historic threat axis explains the distribution of existing infrastructure. More barracks, dockyards and airfields in the south-east. Cheaper to use existing facilities. See?
And since the end of the Cold War, in which direction have our forces had to head off towards the mostly hot and sandy places where they’ve been needed? No prizes available.
It is a unionist alternative universe.
It alludes to threats that are not there. It is affeared that some European power will arise as a dictatorship again, or worse a monarch with aspirations to the Throne. It is an imaginary ‘Game of Kings’ played out as a substitute for reality.
It is the equivalent or running your entire life worrying about being struck by a meteorite, taking immense precautions against this very real but diminishingly small threat to your very existence. You spend all of your not inconsiderable resources on a threat that isn’t there and congratulate yourself on your deathbed that, thank god, the meteorite did not strike you….
…..as the pneumonia that a shortage of heat brought on by your blighted existence brings you to an end.
I detest people in power who claim that the absence of their most irrational fears justifies their every assault on our civil liberties and economic welfare. It is a (UK) national cringe that fails to bring these idiots to account.
Avoidance or reaction to legitimate threats is what a government should be about. Not this ahistorical nonsense.
@ Galen10
“Your ignorance about defence and security matters has already been well documented”
You’ve just documented your own total ignorance in this post.
“The greatest direct security threat to an independent Scotland in future is likely to come from Russia or some successor state”
There isn’t going to be an “independent” Scotland, so your line of so-called “reasoning” is invalid from the off.
But if you identify Russia as the threat, then clearly an “independent” Scotland would be totally unable to defend its sea trade and assets except as part of a binding alliance. Oh, and since Russia is a nuclear weapons state, in the end deterring it requires nuclear weapons, either directly or as part of an alliance.
What an interesting conclusion this leads to. Did you mean to do that?
“I knew that too. It’s just that most people would consider most of that region (Cambridge, Peterborough, Ipswich, King’s Lynn and so on) as part the “southeast””
Been hearing a lot of this sort of guff in the last week or so from Unionists – bereft of facts, reduced to groundless assertions about what “most people” think. The map I linked you to is already a very generous interpretation of what people generally mean by “the south-east” – what they actually mean is London and the places south and east of it, ie Kent, Surrey and Sussex, but just to be super-fair I chucked in the whole of Essex too.
Having you try to drag in Suffolk and Norfolk in as well is just embarrassing to watch. King’s Lynn is north of Wolverhampton, and nobody claims Wolverhampton as part of the “south-west”. Easy on the gin at lunchtime, there’s a good fellow.
@sm753
We have bases we can already use, which will provide a better forward defence strategy than we currently enjoy! What we don’t have, (or the UK have run down) can be built pretty easily given the savings that can be made from the amount we already pay (vis a vis a more reasonable amount when you exclude the need to pay for WMD’s and toadying favour with the Americans in hot places).
The naval bases we already have can be developed; air bases we already have. Our land forces don’t need to be huge, but can be used for peace keeping and humanitarian roles, so they should be mobile, flexible and easily air transportable. Other small nations can do it, and so can we… probably a good deal better than the current shower and their laughable strategic defence reviews, dreadful treatment and conditions for service personnel, and total inability to get control of defence procurement.
Defence is in fact one area where it is relatively easy to to demonstrate an independence dividend, simply because the current shower couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery as has been consistently demonstrated over decades in defence and security policy.
@dc
“It alludes to threats that are not there. It is affeared that some European power will arise as a dictatorship again”
Er, no it doesn’t. I am simply noting that the reason why defence infrastructure is concentrated in the south-east is because that is, historically, where the threat axis has been. Napoleon. Wilhelm II. Hitler. Heard of them?
And nowadays, although there’s little direct threat to the UK, our forces still find themselves tending to have to move off in a south-easterly direction. So there would be less than zero point in relocating said forces away from the south-east, would there?
Unless of course you regard the defence budget as some sort of regional job creation scheme.
I don’t.
And nowadays, although there’s little direct threat to the UK, our forces still find themselves tending to have to move off in a south-easterly direction. So there would be less than zero point in relocating said forces away from the south-east, would there?
Eh?
What like in troop trains and BEF?
Are you aware of the diverse stationing of the US land, naval and ground forces?
You are just a Troll.
Of course, in my comment above I’m just making an assertion too, so let’s see if we can apply some sort of rational process. Here’s a rough map:
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/englandregions.jpg
It’s very crudely divided according to the geographical extremities of England, into north-west, north, north-east, west, centre, east, south-west, south and south-east.
The shape of the country means that the map contains almost none of England in the “north-west” region and none at all in the “west” sector, which is all Wales. So really, the dividing lines should for a truer picture be further to the right and further down.
But even at this most generous, purely geographical, set of divisions, the “south-east” is London, Surrey, Sussex, Kent and Essex. The reality, especially in the context of population distribution, is that Essex has no proper business being included.
In short, then, for anyone who’d forgotten what the argument was about in the first place, the south-east DOES have a very significantly disproportionate share of the jobs in question.
@rsc
“The map I linked you to is already a very generous interpretation of what people generally mean by “the south-east” – what they actually mean is London and the places south and east of it, ie Kent, Surrey and Sussex”
Guff.
You seriously think Reading and Slough aren’t in the southeast? Oxford? WINDSOR? Even when the official definition of “South East Region” includes them?
And if that region includes Bucks and MK, how can Beds, Herts, Cambs and Essex not also be “southeast”? And if those are, why not Norfolk and Suffolk? (Not that they make all that much difference to the stats, do they?)
“There isn’t going to be an “independent” Scotland”
Of course not, it’s not as if things have been going in this direction for the past 60 odd years or something. If Scotland was seriously considering independence, it would most likely have pushed first for increasing home rule – e.g. say through a devolved parliament – vote for this at least once (maybe twice if the UK overruled the result first time), then, when it got said parliament went down the next step and elected independence supporting parties in majority. These would then put forward a referendum bill, leading to an independence referendum.
Thankfully, it’s 1960 and the prospect of Scottish independence is decades away at minimum. Empire is starting to fall apart quickly now though, as Harold noted in his winds of change speech the other day. I wonder what long term effects that might have on the union, given it was formed for empire building.
“I am simply noting that the reason why defence infrastructure is concentrated in the south-east is because that is, historically, where the threat axis has been. Napoleon. Wilhelm II. Hitler.”
While I invariably disagree with your conclusions, you normally at least construct a rational argument. That, however, is just about the stupidest thing you’ve ever said. For the last 50 years, the only direction any military threat to the UK might ever plausibly have come from is the north-east.
@sm753
There is NO particular reason for the over concentration of defence infrastructure in the SE NOW, nor has there been for a long time, other than the fact that the SE sucks resources up to the detriment of the regions.
There is no reason why air-transportable forces couldn’t be based, with their infrastructure, more or less anywhere in the UK. There are also good arguments against having an over concentration of forces, bases and infrastructure in one region, particularly one as crowded and grotesquely hard to get around as the SE of England.
The major naval threats to the UK suggest a current force structure and infrastructure based in the SW and West to protect shipping coming in across the atlantic and from the Biscay area to the Channel, and in the North to protect our seas from Russian incursions (not at all like the recent destroyer having to be sent from Portsmouth to the Moray Firth to chase the Russians anchored there away), and the NW to protect supplies coming into the Clyde and Liverpool.
Defence infrastructure and spending, and the hordes of public service jobs which support it, are no different to other areas; they are over concentrated in the South East, because that’s where the powers that be WANT them concentrated… much closer to the troughs and the ermine gravy train after all.
We aren’t in the days of Napoleon, Wilhelm II or Hitler, we aren’t likely to be rushing another BEF to Picardy anytime soon, or having to fight them on the beaches of Kent and Sussex. We are however likely to need to tackle aerial and naval threats to our security, and potentially send air mobile brigades almost anywhere… whether peace keeping, humanitarian missions, or in support of some (hopefully less futile) strategic mission further afield. NONE of that presupposes a concentration of infrastructure or resources in the SE, nor has it for decades.
I took too long to edit my previous post so here goes agaain?
I see that sm753 has responded. He has this to say:
Er, the point is that the historic threat axis explains the distribution of existing infrastructure. More barracks, dockyards and airfields in the south-east. Cheaper to use existing facilities. See?
And since the end of the Cold War, in which direction have our forces had to head off towards the mostly hot and sandy places where they’ve been needed? No prizes available.
On his first point, not really. It is to pretend that the threat would come from Western Europe that explains the policy. If the war gamers in London had been even vaguely concerned about the Soviet threat all our military infrastructure would have moved to the East Coast. Which would not have been difficult strategically but would have left the Navy in particular without comfortable billets in Portsmouth and Plymouth.
On his second point, it rather belies the idea that it is a Ministry of Defence. If we take his ‘logic’ a step further we should have vastly increased the resources deployed at Gibraltar, Cyprus and Diego Garcia. Oops! Well, obviously not Diego Garcia these days what with it being a US base after we ‘relocated’ the natives and gave it to them. Perhaps we could ask for landing rights in between the rendition flights?
Of course, that would have been a ‘drain on the public purse’, unacceptable to the people who – returning to topic – do rather nicely out of having the military based close to hand.
“Guff.”
See map. And no, of course Reading isn’t in the “south-east”. It’s almost precisely equidistant between the west and east coasts. Oxford? OXFORD? Oxford is barely 40 miles east of the Welsh border, you lunatic. It’s nearer Gloucester than it is London. It’s twice as far from the east coast as it is from the west coast. It’s not in the “south-east” of England and Wales, never mind just England.
rsc
“For the last 50 years, the only direction any military threat to the UK might ever plausibly have come from is the north-east.”
Check a map.
I think you’ll find that GSFG (Group of Soviet Forces Germany) lay somewhat to the south of east.
@rsc
“And no, of course Reading isn’t in the “south-east”. It’s almost precisely equidistant between the west and east coasts. Oxford?”
Er, I think you’ll find that both Berkshire and Oxfordshire are within the NUTS1 region “Southeast England”. My point is that even that region does not include what most people would recognise as being the “southeast of the UK”, which would include also the NUTS1 region “East of England”.
Go look it up, there’s a good chap. Bye.
“I think you’ll find that GSFG (Group of Soviet Forces Germany) lay somewhat to the south of east.”
You do know the Berlin Wall came down almost quarter of a century ago, right? Germany was re-unified in 1990. But if you’re seriously suggesting a European land war, Britain would have been ashes long before any Soviet trooper got as far as Belgium, never mind Dover. Seriously, stop digging this hole before they send men in white coats for you.
“Er, I think you’ll find that both Berkshire and Oxfordshire are within the NUTS1 region “Southeast England”.”
There’s a reason they call it NUTS1. Clue: it’s not in the “1” part.
But make your mind up. You were claiming Cambridge, Ipswich and King’s Lynn for the “south-east” mere minutes ago. Which is it?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/English_regions_2009.svg
None of them are in your precious “NUTS” region, nor is any of Essex. What you’re classing as “south-east” encompasses as far north as Coventry and as far west as Bournemouth, and if you can find me one sane human being in the entire UK who would consider either of those places to be in the “south-east”, I will buy you a packet of chocolate Hob-Nobs.
Bournemouth! Jesus! What an absolute howling basket case you’re making of yourself here, old boy.
Rev Stu,
You miss the entire point of sm753s’ analysis.
It is absolutely incumbent on our military leadership to fight the battles of the past.
Indeed I was shocked, I tell you, that he even mentioned GSFG. I would have thought that a deep historical specialist such as his good self would have been completely unconcerned by this johnny-come-lately force. Deploying BAOR was an obvious error.
Our concerns should be about the Imperial Russian threat to the British Monarchy! God Save the Queen!
After all, has he not already told us that history stopped in 1900?
I believe he did.
“The 20th century focus on the north and west is something of an aberration, seen in the long run.”
It is this kind of counter intuitive thinking that makes sm753 an opponent from amongst the highest calibre of unionist commentators.
ICM poll for the Telegraph, January 2012.
Voters in England asked if they approve or dissaprove of Scottish independence:
Approve = 43%
Dissaprove = 32%
I suspect that 43% is mainly made up of Tory/UKIP voters. These will have been making their feelings known increasingly to their local Tory MPs, who in turn will be pushing Dave and Gideon on the matter. After all, they want to win in 2015, not another 2010 re-run with the jocks messing it all up again.
In fact, according to a rough-and-ready calculation with Paint Shop and Wiki, sm753’s definition of the “south-east” (which encompasses the entire NUTS region and London and Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk) is approximately 40% of the entire land-mass of England, and somewhere in the region of 65% of the population…
😀
I’m impressed with sm 753’s idea that all Britain’s defence forces are gravitating to the S.E. of England. Perhaps that explains why we had the R.N. destroyer sailing from Portsmouth, under sm’s rules I guess Portsmouth is in the S.E. of England, up to the Moray Firth to chase away those pesky Russians. Oops I forgot they ended up chasing ghosts as the Russians had long gone BEFORE the destroyer reached the Moray Firth. Of course our reconnaissance aircraft were always around to keep a “distant” check on the Russians. Oops, I forgot those lovely men in grey suits in London had scrapped the Nimrods leaving Britain without ANY reconnaissance capability.
Now let me see we have two options here.
1) stay with the union where we have NO reconnaissance capability and have NO surface fleet cover for Scotland’s coast line for between one and two days.
2) become Independent and have the ability to acquire our own reconnaissance aircraft and have surface ships with HOURS of reaching our coast line.
And nowadays, although there’s little direct threat to the UK, our forces still find themselves tending to have to move off in a south-easterly direction.
That’ll be the ILLEGAL wars and threats of wars in the Middle East then would it?
As we all are well aware of Obama and Cameron are itching at the bit to get into Syria, and don’t forget neither is none too happy about the Iranian situation either. I guess the time is coming where we WILL see another Middle East war, it’s just a question of whether it is Syria or Iran. Perhaps THIS is the reason we are now being leaked the idea that British troops may be home from Afghanistan earlier than previously forecast, not because it’s the right thiung to do but because Cameron needs them to be trained up ready for ANOTHER war!
Personally I think the Russian fleet fiasco coupled with the TOTAL lack of reconnaissance aircraft has turned Britain into a laughing stock!
@rsg
“But if you’re seriously suggesting a European land war”
No I wasn’t. YOU claimed that “for the last 50 years, the threat to the UK has been from the northeast.”
Demonstrably – and so demonstrated – false.
@rsc
“None of them are in your precious “NUTS” region, nor is any of Essex.”
Er, if you’d read what I posted, I am saying that the NUTS1 “Southeast England” region clearly does not encompass anything like what constitutes the economic and social reality of the actual Southeast of the UK.
And lest it be forgotten, it was YOUR original poster – Mr Minto – who adopted the NUTS1 definition of “Southeast England”. Did you realise that?
@a1320
“That’ll be the ILLEGAL wars and threats of wars in the Middle East then would it?”
I am not aware of any “illegal” wars in which the UK has partaken.
Perhaps you could correct me, e.g. with a UNSC resolution saying otherwise?
You have proven nothing in relation to a threat to the UK that justifies the status quo of SE exceptionalism. Which is the point of this OP. I.e. pork belly politics with a hint of roast beef.
Now, please, go away and come back when you can show any evidence whatsoever that you know what you are talking about. At the moment your next post appears likely to be about to claim Berwick upon Tweed as part of the South East of England and the Visigoths as a credible threat to the UK.
Going by the Gaelic road signs in my current vicinity I’m guessing that I’m also in sm753’s definition of South East of England.
To say that most forces are in the South East of England as most of the current military threats come from the South East suggests that you need to up your medication and buy yourself a globe. Those 2D maps seem to be affecting your thinking. But then, going by your previous posts, you seem to enjoy being an idiot.
I’m going to take my goats over the bridge now.
I liked Murdo Fraser’s comment the other night on BBD about Scotland being perfectly viable as an independent country. Factor in his bid to start a new independent Scottish Tory party, the fact that he was not ostracised for this at all, and the way Ruth was parachuted in by Dave/Gideon to lead the Tories in Scotland to new lows intentionally, suggests Murdo’s in the loop and has had the nod that he’ll be the one primed to lead a new centre-right party in an independent Scotland.
That new party should do ok; unlikely to ever get a majority or lead a coalition, but 25% of the vote is achievable if they were not too right-wing. Could work with the centre (e.g. what the SNP becomes post independence) on occasion. Certainly going to poll a lot better English National Party/Westminster Tories are doing now in Scotland.
The current UK goverment coalition is polling less than 20% of the Scottish vote. I believe that’s a new record.
@dc
“You have proven nothing in relation to a threat to the UK that justifies the status quo of SE exceptionalism.”
Er, what I have shown is that when you consider the wider “south east of the UK”, there is in fact little “exceptionalism” in terms of the location of military posts…
@sm753
“it was YOUR original poster – Mr Minto – who adopted the NUTS1 definition of “Southeast England”. Did you realise that?”
Hello there sm753, just to clear up a few things I thought I’d post.
1) The £228Million minimum cost of the London Weighting allowance is based on the 16.4% of Civil Servants that are in London alone. This was highlighting the EXISTING set-up that is already discriminatory.
This is money we spend and see NO return from it as it essentially just props up the london economy.
2) The inpact of the Regional Escalator will be most positive in London and the South East of England of which I used the numbers as used in the Civil Services OWN statistics to define each area.
3) London is a city and not a country. I am NOT saying that all Civil Service and Back office jobs should be moved to Scotland (it wouldnt happen), what I am saying is that Engalnd gets its fair share of these jobs but they should be based OUTSIDE of London to remove this wasteful London Weighting allowance that offers no benefit to the public.
I am sure that the North and North West in particular could really do with some jobs. These would in turn help to support the economy and reduce costs for the taxpayer while helping to reduce the burden on London infrastructure and housing.
In fact moving all non public facing jobs out of not just London but the South East would help to bolster the economy elsewhere and act as a great alternative to this regional discrimination that is currently proposed.
@ch
“To say that most forces are in the South East of England as most of the current military threats come from the South East”
…and this, of course, is the classic Nat “argument”: to claim that the opposition has said something which they clearly did not say. (Just like “too wee, too poor, too etc”; sorry, who actually ever said this?)
I have stated and demonstrated that over the long term threats to the UK have come from the southeast, thus infrastructure over several centuries has been developed there. It’s cheaper to use existing facilities rather than new ones, plus of course the places our forces have needed to go to have been in a southeast direction anyway. QED.
But hey, you just carry on believin’ and holdin’ on to that feelin’…
@s_s
“Factor in his bid to start a new independent Scottish Tory party, the fact that he was not ostracised for this at all, and the way Ruth was parachuted in by Dave/Gideon to lead the Tories in Scotland to new lows intentionally, suggests Murdo’s in the loop”
Don’t stop believin’
If I was a unionist, I’d be nervous that we’d got to the stage of a referendum on independence. As a supporter of independence, I’m well chuffed. 3 bites at the cherry in succession and as many as the electorate wish after that. No need to drag it out though.
Great song that. 1980’s I believe? Aye, good times for the Tories then. All changed now though. Completely and utterly defeated in Scotland; not even a marginal force now. Libs too. Labour now tearing themselves apart.
Aye, so far it has all happened largely as the Tories predicted ahead of the 1997 referendum. They were right on the mark – I’ll give them that.
Oops sorry sm I forgot there are absolutely NO calls being made throughout the world for Tony Blair and George Bush to be put on trial for WAR CRIMES. Now why on earth would there be calls being made for these two individuals to be put on trial for war crimes, it wouldn’t be because of their participation in ILLEGAL wars would it? Now as far as I’m aware the only war that is being classed as ILLEGAL throughout the world is the SECOND Iraq war of 2003. You’ll surely remember this war sm, even though you seem to unable to accept the illegality of it. This is the war that Britain was within 45 minutes of being attacked by Iraq. A claim later proved to have NEVER even been close to occurring, more over this claim was felt to be utter garbage at the time Blair made it. Then we had the WMD’s that Blair “claimed” were abundant in Iraq, despite the U.N. atomic search team IN Iraq being able to find NOTHING! So based on TWO utterly false and feeble claims we went to war in Iraq. If I remember right even the U.N. didn’t sanction the invasion.
I must just be imagining this. Well I guess if I’m imagining it then so is Desmond Tutu, one of the most respected individuals in the world. If we’re all wrong then these articles are written by a bunch of idiots then.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/msps-back-war-crime-move-on-blair.1347016258
http://www.scotsman.com/news/jim-sillars-scots-can-call-blair-to-book-1-2508271
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19454562
Is this the REAL reason the the Bitter together crowd don’t want an Independent Scotland?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=446715652046505&set=a.441088302609240.117414.440378819346855&type=1&theater
To think this eyes wide open type of statement is coming from a TORY of all people.
Sorry, I thought it was you who said ‘And since the end of the Cold War, in which direction have our forces had to head off towards the mostly hot and sandy places where they have been needed.’ You’ve asserted numerous times that the threat to the UK is from the (ever expanding) South East – forgetting of course the ‘aberration’ that is over one third of the history of the union. You might not have said this ‘clearly’ but that is definitely what you are saying. You might not be able to follow the thread of your own argument but others can.
‘It’s cheaper to use existing facilities’ – such a shame that so many bases in Scotland were closed down before they got the chance to participate in this great imperial adventure.
‘plus of course the places our forces have needed to go to have been in a southeast direction anyway’ – I think you’ll find that these places are South East of Scotland too.
Cò an gobhar sin còmhla riut a chunniac mi an-raoir? Innit. Fuck! I am in the South East of England.
@a1320
“Now as far as I’m aware the only war that is being classed as ILLEGAL throughout the world is the SECOND Iraq war of 2003.”
Being “classed as illegal” by whom?
AFAIK, the only bodies which can “class” a war as “illegal” are the UNSC and UNGA.
They have not done that. Have they? Correct me if I’m wrong.
“I have stated and demonstrated that over the long term threats to the UK have come from the southeast”
Half right. But what’s your cutoff point in irrelevant ancient history? For as long as any of us have been alive the (notional) threat to the UK has come from the Soviet Union/Russia, and if you genuinely believe they’d come through Calais in a land invasion you’re madder than you’ve been making yourself seem in this thread so far, which is no mean feat.
So can you clear up for us once and for all what YOU actually think is the “south-east”, and what its population is? (With sources, of course.) Is it Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex, or is it Surrey, Sussex, Kent, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire and Oxfordshire? Or is it some partial combination, or it is both of those, or is it both of those AND Greater London? The goalposts are shifting so fast I can’t keep track.
‘Illegal’ or not, still helped feck the New Labour party in Scotland. I guess it just confirmed the electorate’s general feelings; aye, labour are the new tories, but with better PR.
And so just one parliamentary term in, Scottish Labour were back to core vote. Enter stage right SNP 2007.
For sale – military compass. In excellent working condition. Points South East only.
I regard myself as an upbeat sort of guy – bottle is always half full – that sort of thing. Hence I was putting off reading Scott’s article as I knew the bottle would soon empty, unfortunately I was proved correct. My new world of a reinvigorated, sporty union where us Brits showed Johnny foreigner how it’s done, has been replaced by the grubby and obscene reality of a union of regions scrapping over pay and welfare differentials dependent on postcode. If Scott Minto’s analysis is correct and I have no reason to doubt otherwise; we in Scotland are gubbed unless we vote YES. Tearlach is on the money, this is a spectacular own goal by the Unionists (deliberate or otherwise). The YES campaign must enlighten the people of Scotland as to what a No vote will mean i.e. POVERTY!
With regard to sm753, I make no comment, other than to say the individual is entitled to his opinion, but we, who would see our land a nation once again, will take no lessons from those who would rebrand our country as North Britain.
Nice to know that you are happy to discount the VAST majority of the peoples of the world over semantics sm. Just because the UNSC or UNGA don’t have the guts to outwardly call the war illegal does not make it legal.
Oh and let’s not forget that the UNSC would NEVER agree to the war being called illegal. Why? Well it wouldn’t happen to be because TWO of the members of the UNSC are Britain and the U.S.A. and the leader we are talking about come from…. oh look Britain and U.S.A.
As the Scotsman article points out:
In this debate, it is worth considering where the law stands. In the case of R v Jones, which came before the House of Lords in 2006, Lord Bingham stated “customary international law has recognised a crime of aggression”, but the “crime of aggression is not a crime in the domestic law of England and Wales”.
“So, how do we stop this Scot from going, as they say, Scot free from the gravest crime in law, aggressive war? Use our separate legal jurisdiction to import the definition of aggression into Scots law that’s how – either through an amendment to the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001, or by a short bill and making it retrospective to 2000. Then our Lord Advocate can be asked to indict Blair.”
I think I’d agree with the peoples of the world and in particular the fact that we now appear to be moving ever closer to achieving the final goal that is to impart into Scots law the necessary amendment(s) that WILL see Blair indicted in a SCOTTISH court.
There certainly is a grass roots movement to have Blair and Bush impeached for war crimes. Never say never, but I think it is extremely unlikely that that will ever come to pass. The only way we as Scots can ensure that we are not dragged into ‘iffy’ wars is to vote YES. We also, rather obviously, need to subsequently elect politicians that are not Washington’s poodles. The evidence of the post ’45 period seems to be of slavish obedience to the Washington line, Harold Wilson’s refusal to get involved in Vietnam being an honourable exception.
I don’t know if sm753 is old enough to recall just how shocked the whole world was at 9/11. I have never been required – in terms of social pressure – to stand for a minutes silence over tragic deaths abroad – as opposed to annual rememberances – either before or since. That is how shocked the whole world was. The consequences of that groupthink are still reverberating around the world.
We were conned then – is it really a definition of ‘hot pursuit’ if Osama Bin Laden is killed in 2011 when the chase began in 2001? And he was killed in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The irony of that is not lost on me.
sm 753
“I have stated and demonstrated that over the long term threats to the UK have come from the southeast”
100% right on that one – although you have failed to demonstrate your statement – the Southeast has been the problem for those living and working in the rest of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Surprised that you provide such a good argument for the WMD’s to be re-sighted off the coast of the Thames estuary pending an attack by those shifty foreigners across the channel. Those Dutch might launch a dawn raid any time now.
Why does such an area need to suck the lifeblood out of all other areas of the UK? Why is it that the politicians in this part of the world hold so much power over the rest of us? There is much resentment from across the UK at the policies being proposed by the coalition and the Labour opposition.
Blue pill or Red pill?
In Scotland we have another option.
As regards regional pay, this is something that is already in place for people who work in the private sector. Why all the rage now its being applied to Civil Servants? Do they not already get London weighting allowance anyway.
Guys in my company who work in Basingstoke doing the exact same job as guys in Glasgow get paid more. This is how its always been and I’ve been working between London and Scotland for over 20 years.
I think the link to Regional welfare payments seems to be added in there to make the pay issue seem all the worse. Welfare is supposed to be a minimal living allowance. I can’t see scope for cuts, so are they saying they will increase some….. There are already areas that are weighted to local conditions e.g housing allowance.
The whole regionalisation concept should be welcomed by open arms by the Scottish Government, its as huge own goal by London in the independance campaign.
I’ve just read this again and I just don’t agree with the author at all in that just by removing London weighting we’ll somehow get a magic carpet of job migration. I’m all for a little London bashing but the ideas put forward as a solution are just not practical.
Firstly, moving employees more that 30 or 40 miles from their place of employment breaks their contract and thus makes them redundant, if they choose not to move they would need to be bought off. This is a cost to the taxpayer.
Secondly, new offices and infrastructure would be required to house all these migrated workers/jobs. A cost to the taxpayer.
Thirdly, all these new employees would need trained. A cost to the taxpayer.
I’m sure plenty of these London folks in Civil Servant’s jobs have normal lives. Including family ties and spouses and probably kids in local schools. The undertone of this article says that its OK to uproot Londoners as people to the regions, simply because they currently get paid a bit more and could be paid less. However it seems to abhorrent to ask people from remote areas to move to London to get paid more. Why the difference ? They are still people.
If you want a worked example of how difficult this type of move is, especially within a public enterprise. You just need to look at the soap opera that the BBC move to Salford Keys has become.
By all means we should be looking at moving jobs for economic reasons but it needs to be done intelligently.
Latest British Social Attitudes survey looking like an interesting read.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/5852-72-of-scots-reject-the-status-quo
72% want greatly increased powers at min for the Scottish parliament (e.g. Devo Max / FFA) with just 21% supporting the status quo. That’s the highest / lowest resepectively I’ve seen these.
Particularly interesting is the 43% who want Scotland to have all the powers of an independent state.
A couple of choice quotes from the author, Prof Curtice:
There is no doubt the Union between Scotland and the rest of the UK is closer to being dissolved than at any time in its 300-year history. Its future looks set to rest in the hands of the Scottish public, who will make their opinion known via a referendum within the next couple of years….there is evidence of growing discontent with the asymmetries of the current devolution settlement, a discontent that may now be beginning to be accompanied by some erosion of previous support for the Union. Some of England’s discontent, such as that over finance, might in fact be addressed via more devolution for Scotland. But other areas of concern, such as the West Lothian question, would be likely to become more pressing. Ensuring that both Scotland and England continue to remain happy with the Union could well require an ability and willingness to find some constitutionally imaginative solutions.”
Agreed Prof on the last point. I’m sure the Scottish and UK governments concur also.
”
James McLaren says:
September 16, 2012 at 10:18 am
Rollingstine article; Michael Gekko springs to mind, as does Rangers (both versions, old and new). Charles Green, Whyte and even Murray.
Barbarian chancers all”
<clap> <clap> <clap> , Now that was quite a stretch there to get a boot into Rangers from that article about Romney, really you need to watch your hamstring when going that far out of the normal zone…Plus I think you meant Gordon Gekko….
@ Kenny Campbell
Thanks for your feedback.
“Firstly, moving employees more that 30 or 40 miles from their place of employment breaks their contract and thus makes them redundant, if they choose not to move they would need to be bought off. This is a cost to the taxpayer.”
True, but a one off cost that can be offset by future savings and given the nature of commuting into London, many would retain their jobs in the new location.
“Secondly, new offices and infrastructure would be required to house all these migrated workers/jobs. A cost to the taxpayer.”
Again true, but in exchange for this there would be prime real estate available to be sold in London where average prices would be higher, offsetting costs. Rationalisation could see office sharing and the pooling of back office resources to provide a better deal for the public purse, while buildings can be leased as required on long term contracts in exactly the same manner as many private sector companies thereby removing the need for up front capital expenditure.
“Thirdly, all these new employees would need trained. A cost to the taxpayer.”
Also true, but if the cost of training is less in the long run than the cost of maintaining a system that rewards those situated in London around a quarter of a billion pounds a year for no extra productivity, then it will be value for money to the public.
Of course this doesnt take into account the knock on effect of moving these public sector jobs to areas that have lower employment in that these can provide cash into the local economy that would stimulate far beyond the direct employees of the government ie. hairdressers, cafe’s etc… Lower unemployment and benefit payments result also.
London is not an area that needs this extra stimulation to help their economy so it does seem fair that they support other regions in England especially when it can help to remove some of the pressure for cuts to frontline services.
Scott,
If you move an office more than say 100 miles you’d be very lucky to retain more than 20% of the staff, probably a lot less for Londoners given the amount of alternative employment in the city. Their spouses would likely already be employed there and so they’d take the cash lump sum and move to another job. Job migration only usually happens when there is a complete loss of local employment opportunity. e.g Scots in Corby. This just would not happen in London.
What about the questions around why its OK for Private companies to pay regional salaries but not public ones ? Why is it acceptable in private firms but not in the public domain? Why is it OK to move Londoners to the regions to pay them less but not OK to pay non Londoners less ? I think there are a couple of double standard being applied. Public employees should think themselves lucky that they are only at risk of regional pressure on pay, I as an employee in the private domain have to live in an increasingly globalized labour market……
As I said, I think we agree that there is too much London centralization but I doubt that the London weighting could be an effective driver for mass job migration. What is actually needed is a complete shift of power…Independence for Scotland could actually be a driver for that for all of the UK as the breakup would actually force some institutions to move or to recreate themselves.
If we vote Yes then its important that the Scottish government doesn’t fall into the same trap as London in that Edinburgh becomes the centre of the Universe.
Selling London real estate I do like the sound of and hadn’t thought of that.
“YOU claimed that “for the last 50 years, the threat to the UK has been from the northeast.” Demonstrably – and so demonstrated – false.”
Sorry, I must have missed a post – when did you “demonstrate” that, exactly? How many times in the last 50 years has the UK been attacked from the south-east?
@Kenny Campbell
I dont think the Scottish government will fall into the same trap of over centralisation as Westminster and London.
They may centralise the management and administration functions of public services from an efficiency viewpoint but I doubt they would then make the mistake of geographically centralising those services together.
I have no problem with a single police service being run from Glasgow, Taxes from Dundee, Armed forces from Edinburgh etc… etc…
I agree wholeheartedly that Scottish independence will be a catalyst for change and reinvention of the systems of government down south (how could it be otherwise?!? The public will demand accountability for the demise of the UK).
Re that Hitler chappie
The first Air attack over GB in WWII took place over
The Firth of Forth
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/20thand21stcenturies/worldwarii/airattack/index.asp
The majority of overflights in the Cold War, weren’t over the South East, but places a weeeeeeee bit to the North
Kenny Campbell,
You raise some interesting issues. It used to be the model that labour rates for, say, manual workers were governed by the travel to work area. In other words that for a fair chunk of the employed they would change industries, change trades even but they would rarely, if ever, be employed much outwith a 20mile radius of their home. For the professional classes, job movement was a prerequisite for promotion and they were willing to up sticks in the pusuit of a career. Whilst that model is obsolescent, for Private Sector firms employing skilled or semi-skilled workers it is still true that the employer has to compete against the local rate for the job if they want retention. Given the comaparatively overheated job market in the SE, wages will chase skilled workers.
Despite all the changes with immigration and outsourcing quite a lot of industries and services are place specific, e.g. if you want to run a plumbing business in Slough you have to compete with the going rate of other plumbing businesses in Slough. You rarely, if ever, have to concern yourself with what is being paid to plumbers in Glasgow, say. Retail, wholesale, and more or less any business that is public facing will find themselves with a dillemma. If they do not meet the market rate then they will lose staff, repeatedly.
The call centre industry, and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs of course run a coach and horses through that old fashioned model.
I used to be up to speed on the market rates for different jobs by UK region. The little of it I remember was that you could get a bigger pay packet for virtually any job if you worked in the SE than in any other area of the country.
All of these are sweeping statements and it is fairly easy to point out exceptions, but it is, as far as I know, still true. And it does not account for industries that are, near as dammit, solely London based. Like the square mile. Nor does it account for the tendency for all FTSE companies to have their head offices in London. Or most of the fashion industry, the fourth estate, etc, etc…..