Highland Cuts

[DornochCaley]

Sorry I've taken so long to answer, I forgot about this thread. I will not argue with any of you and your answers because I agree totally that we shouldn't be there. I've always said that in all the past threads about this subject. My point is that while we are sending our troops to these wars (rightly or wrongly) then we should be making sure they have the correct equipment and don't have to fork out there own money to buy it. They signed up to protect queen and country, OUR queen and country.We shouldn't be in this war but while we are I will and we all should support our troops.

The only point I will argue is that we spend NEEDLESS amounts of money on the military. If 1 penny of that money saves a soldier's life then it is money well spent.

The Soldiers do need good gear. But, as had been said, we do not need to spend such large amounts on other things such as Trident.

I do think we spend needless money. Personally, i think the size of our army is bigger than it has to be. We are not an empire anymore and so do not need a large military force. We do need a force of substancial size, but not as big as it is. We change our outlook regarding Foreign policy, and we could save billions of money, let alone hundreds of lives.

As of Dec 2009 the British army consisted of approx 150,000 regular soldiers and 121,820 reserves that gives us a total of 271,820 serving troops available for war. During WW2 we lost 382,700 troops. You do the maths and call for cuts in numbers. I agree that things like trident should be discontinued but whilst other countries have these capabilities we need them. If Iran or some other loony starts shooting missiles at us you will be thankfull for our defence system then.

yeah, i see what you mean. But think about it. Who is the more dangerous... Iran... or the USA? Thats an actual question. Personally, i do not think theres much between the two.

[TheKnowledge]

As of Dec 2009 the British army consisted of approx 150,000 regular soldiers and 121,820 reserves that gives us a total of 271,820 serving troops available for war. During WW2 we lost 382,700 troops. You do the maths and call for cuts in numbers. I agree that things like trident should be discontinued but whilst other countries have these capabilities we need them. If Iran or some other loony starts shooting missiles at us you will be thankfull for our defence system then.

Totally agree. Whilst there's nuclear weapons, long range missiles and massive armies in the world, I would like us to have all this as well. True, that then starts an endless cycle, but it would be irresponsible of our government to leave us behind or unprotected. People always say cut spending on defense but there must be a good reason for successive governments to keep on spending. Why not cut spending by having one government in London? I'm sure the money saved on Holyrood will keep some more public amenities open? Don't need a third parliament in Brussels either.

[TheKnowledge]

yeah, i see what you mean. But think about it. Who is the more dangerous... Iran... or the USA? Thats an actual question. Personally, i do not think theres much between the two.

Iran is dangerous for Israel and the US whilst the US is dangerous for Iran and North Korea, I know which I would prefer to be friends with.

[Oz647]

The only difference between Iran and the USA is that at the moment we get on with USA but not with Iran. If things were to change the good old US of A would be much more dangerous due to size of military and resources it has at it's disposal. So lets keep them onside. Given the choice I would rather have them as friend than foe.

[DornochCaley]

The only difference between Iran and the USA is that at the moment we get on with USA but not with Iran. If things were to change the good old US of A would be much more dangerous due to size of military and resources it has at it's disposal. So lets keep them onside. Given the choice I would rather have them as friend than foe.

I know, but what i am trying to get at, is that many in the media lead us to believe that the USA and ourselves are the ones who are in the right, 9/10. That Iran ect and all idiots that could blow up the world at any minute. But im saying that the argument is the exact same for "our" side. The USA are just as likely if not more so to destroy everyone than Iran.

[Oz647]

The only difference between Iran and the USA is that at the moment we get on with USA but not with Iran. If things were to change the good old US of A would be much more dangerous due to size of military and resources it has at it's disposal. So lets keep them onside. Given the choice I would rather have them as friend than foe.

I know, but what i am trying to get at, is that many in the media lead us to believe that the USA and ourselves are the ones who are in the right, 9/10. That Iran ect and all idiots that could blow up the world at any minute. But im saying that the argument is the exact same for "our" side. The USA are just as likely if not more so to destroy everyone than Iran.

That's not really true in that The USA care about what the world thinks in respect of what they do and how they do and The likes of Iran/Iraq don't give a monkeys if the world condemns them. You don't see many american suicide bombers. Now I know it's not the government carrying out suicide attacks but that is who we are fighting and the way they conduct themselves during a war. Civilised nations use a code of conduct even in war.

[DornochCaley]

The only difference between Iran and the USA is that at the moment we get on with USA but not with Iran. If things were to change the good old US of A would be much more dangerous due to size of military and resources it has at it's disposal. So lets keep them onside. Given the choice I would rather have them as friend than foe.

I know, but what i am trying to get at, is that many in the media lead us to believe that the USA and ourselves are the ones who are in the right, 9/10. That Iran ect and all idiots that could blow up the world at any minute. But im saying that the argument is the exact same for "our" side. The USA are just as likely if not more so to destroy everyone than Iran.

That's not really true in that The USA care about what the world thinks in respect of what they do and how they do and The likes of Iran/Iraq don't give a monkeys if the world condemns them. You don't see many american suicide bombers. Now I know it's not the government carrying out suicide attacks but that is who we are fighting and the way they conduct themselves during a war. Civilised nations use a code of conduct even in war.

Yep, once again i know what you mean. But as you said, its not the Governments that are doing this bombing. I don't believe these bombers are associated with these Governments at all infact. Just activists looking for trouble.

[Oz647]

The only difference between Iran and the USA is that at the moment we get on with USA but not with Iran. If things were to change the good old US of A would be much more dangerous due to size of military and resources it has at it's disposal. So lets keep them onside. Given the choice I would rather have them as friend than foe.

I know, but what i am trying to get at, is that many in the media lead us to believe that the USA and ourselves are the ones who are in the right, 9/10. That Iran ect and all idiots that could blow up the world at any minute. But im saying that the argument is the exact same for "our" side. The USA are just as likely if not more so to destroy everyone than Iran.

That's not really true in that The USA care about what the world thinks in respect of what they do and how they do and The likes of Iran/Iraq don't give a monkeys if the world condemns them. You don't see many american suicide bombers. Now I know it's not the government carrying out suicide attacks but that is who we are fighting and the way they conduct themselves during a war. Civilised nations use a code of conduct even in war.

Yep, once again i know what you mean. But as you said, its not the Governments that are doing this bombing. I don't believe these bombers are associated with these Governments at all infact. Just activists looking for trouble.

But these countries are happy for this sort of conduct in war. What civilised country would behead people, chop someones hands off or stone a person to death? At least with the USA they adhere to a code of conduct.

[DornochCaley]

The only difference between Iran and the USA is that at the moment we get on with USA but not with Iran. If things were to change the good old US of A would be much more dangerous due to size of military and resources it has at it's disposal. So lets keep them onside. Given the choice I would rather have them as friend than foe.

I know, but what i am trying to get at, is that many in the media lead us to believe that the USA and ourselves are the ones who are in the right, 9/10. That Iran ect and all idiots that could blow up the world at any minute. But im saying that the argument is the exact same for "our" side. The USA are just as likely if not more so to destroy everyone than Iran.

That's not really true in that The USA care about what the world thinks in respect of what they do and how they do and The likes of Iran/Iraq don't give a monkeys if the world condemns them. You don't see many american suicide bombers. Now I know it's not the government carrying out suicide attacks but that is who we are fighting and the way they conduct themselves during a war. Civilised nations use a code of conduct even in war.

Yep, once again i know what you mean. But as you said, its not the Governments that are doing this bombing. I don't believe these bombers are associated with these Governments at all infact. Just activists looking for trouble.

But these countries are happy for this sort of conduct in war. What civilised country would behead people, chop someones hands off or stone a person to death? At least with the USA they adhere to a code of conduct.

But then you have to look at another point.. that part of the world just simply are not as developed as the West. It was not all that long ago Britain did similar things, as did america. Well America still use Capital punishment just not as brutal. Countries like that have not been able to develope as the same rate as the west due to the influx of money in the western world.

[Oz647]

Using your own point, yes we all had death penalties at one stage but we have evolved. The USA may still have it but even that is done humanely now. Some countries would just find the rustiest old sword they could. Anyway we digress, the point is don't blame defence for cuts in highland budgets when council knobs are sitting at umpteen xmas dinners and we have all these lovely "artworks" around the city. Even streetscape was over 1000000 over budget.

[IBM]

Much as I might be tempted to take a swipe at politicians, I don't think this is actually anybody's fault, with the possible exception of the likes of Fred Goodwin. Simply we are (hopefully) emerging from a recession and part of that cycle is severe restriction of public finances. For instance Greece is almost broke.

Outwith the Council Tax, the Councils get their money from Holyrood which gets a block grant from Westminster which is having to cut back on everything for the reasons stated above.

One worry is economists. One large group is saying cut NOW, another is saying don't cut for another year. Two questions arise. To what extent are these groups of economists simply singing from the hymnsheet of their chosen political party? And do economists in general actually have a clue about what the hell is happening if they are as divided as that?

Salmond and his mates, of course, take every opportunity to use this as an excuse to pick another fight with Westminster because it is in their political interest to make another attempt to make Westminster look bad.

Basically there is no money about whatever party would be in power wherever and I suppose the public concern has to be that the cuts which Highland Council have to make will in fact be made as painlessly as possible and in areas where the least loss of amenity results to the smallest number of people.

It's not a case of Salmond picking another fight with Westminster, he is fighting for Scotland which is more than any politician of any other party has ever done in my lifetime.

I agree and wish there were more like him!

[Kirishima]

In 2008/09, The Highland Council spent ?877 million on the provision of public services

The economic downturn means a slowdown in housing and other developments which not only leads to a reduction in fee income for the Planning and Development Service but also has an impact on the growth in council tax income.

A report to the Housing and Social Work Committee for the period to 30 June 2009 identified a

projected overspend of ?3.4 million in the social work budget for 2009/10 and advised that action was

being taken to recover the overspend.

The report noted that Highland Council?s asset management performance was below average with 42% of its properties in poor condition and 36% not suitable for current use.

• 3.5% of working age people in Highland claim Job Seekers Allowance, lower than the averages for Scotland and Great Britain (both 4.1%)
  
• 4.8% of working age people in Highland receive Income Support (IS), lower than both the Scotland average of 6.3% and the Great Britain average of 5.5%.
  
• 0.9% of working age people in Highland are long term unemployed compared with 1.6% of people in Scotland overall and the same in Great Britain.
  
• 6.6% of working age people in Highland receive Incapacity Benefit /SevereDisibility Allowance, below the Scotland average of 7.9% but higher than the Great Britain average of 6.2%.
  
• 6.6% of people aged under 65 in Highland receive Disibility Living Allowance, lower than the Scotland average of 7.9% but slightly above the Great Britain average of 6.2%.
  
• 1.0% of people aged over 16 in Highland receive CA, slightly less than the Scotland average of 1.1%.
  
• Despite incomes in Highland being less than the Scotland average the number of people of people of pensionable age in Highland receiving PC is lower, 20.1%, than the Scotland average of 24.% but just higher than the Great Britain average of 19.6%.
  

Basically, people in the Highlands are no malingerers, but housing is a shambles, wages are low, and social work is overspending even though I imagine it needs more not less money. There are economies to be made, for example, in Fort William, a population of 9000, there are 700 or so primary school kids

7-8 primary schools in a 4-mile radius each with a 100 kids or thereabouts...waste...of...money.

[mainstander]

There are economies to be made, for example, in Fort William, a population of 9000, there are 700 or so primary school kids

7-8 primary schools in a 4-mile radius each with a 100 kids or thereabouts...waste...of...money.

But will one of these not be a Gaelic Medium school?

[DornochCaley]

Using your own point, yes we all had death penalties at one stage but we have evolved. The USA may still have it but even that is done humanely now. Some countries would just find the rustiest old sword they could. Anyway we digress, the point is don't blame defence for cuts in highland budgets when council knobs are sitting at umpteen xmas dinners and we have all these lovely "artworks" around the city. Even streetscape was over 1000000 over budget.

Now this is well said. Spending thousands on new offices and roads built to it in Golspie for what? So they can have a nice view when counting how much we owe them? Dirty, theving ********.