Now, as I have touched on briefly before, SBC is not really your typical Scottish Local Authority having 12 Conservative, 4 Independent (traditionally Tory minded), 10 Liberal Democrats, 6 SNP and, forgive me, 2 village idiots from the ludicrously titled Borders Party (who, despite their title, are firmly against the Borders Railway as it might result in incomers, housing and tourism!). It is run by a coalition of Conservatives, LibDems and the Independents so is hardly a hotbed of revolutionary thinking. Nonetheless, they, as a Council, are so concerned about the welfare reforms that they instigated the study that came up with the £10m.
The area under SBC control in 2010 had a population of only 112,430 so a £15m cut amounts to the equivalent of £133.42 being removed from the pocket of every man, woman and child in the area. What is most pertinent, however, is that the total £15m cut will be taken from the pockets of those who can least afford it and is, therefore, money which undoubtedly would have been spent locally had it not been earmarked for removal.
I have tried to determine figures which can provide a more detailed breakdown of these cuts and came up with the following which all relate to the Scottish Borders alone:
1. There are currently 1,100 LHA (housing benefit) claimants and 825 of them will lose £504k each year. This is £611 per household involved per annum.
2. The total number of disability living allowance (DLA) claimants will be cut by 1,136 resulting in annual losses of £4,094,678 or £3,604 per claimant affected.
3. Incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance will be removed from an unspecified number saving up to £8,219,264 or the equivalent of £2,204 per current claimant.
4. The switch from Retail Price Index to Consumer Price Index will see 1,915 JSA claimants lose £48; 1,790 in receipt of carer's allowance will lose £47; 2,830 in receipt of attendance allowance will lose £54; 12,300 families currently receiving child tax credits (22,450 children) will lose £83 (£45 per child); 800 people in receipt of the employment support allowance will lose £179; 2,460 in receipt of income support will lose £58; and 3,250 on incapacity benefit will lose £57 each (in addition to the cuts mentioned in point 3 above).
Points 1-4 result in a confirmed cut of just over £9.95m per annum but this could easily rise when the actual figure for item 3 becomes known. Where, then, does the other estimated £5m come from? None of the previously mentioned figures take into account those who will completely drop out of Child Tax Credit or Working Tax Credit eligibility with the new rules coming into force on 5th April. It is suggested that 1800 households in the Scottish Borders area will be disqualified from such benefits through rule changes. Some will only have been on part credits previously but, nonetheless, it is estimated that this will result in a further £5m being lost locally on top of the £10m detailed above.
£15m a year or £45m over three years, all from those who, quite literally, can least afford it.
I feel I can confidently claim that the local economy will suffer exclusively since, by the very nature of the welfare system, those in receipt of benefits are not those with savings, are not those with high incomes and are, most definitely, those that can least afford a cut in their weekly available spending money. This lost money would, therefore, have been spent with the local butcher, baker and candlestick maker.
I firmly believe that the current Westminster coalition Government is acting out of ideology as opposed to economic necessity and it takes great delight in telling us that we all know somebody who is fraudulently claiming benefits. Well, I don't, I'm sorry. Now, I have no way of knowing whether the following statement is true or not but it doesn't strike me as being too far off the mark: "For every 250 welfare benefit claimants, 1 is deliberately claiming too much". Widespread claimant abuse is, though, what seems to be being used to justify the unpleasant pursuit of the poor.
In addition to the cuts detailed above, SBC foresee terrible problems arising in the local housing market as a direct result of new rules being introduced regarding acceptable house size. As an example, Mrs McGlumphie moved into her then Council house with three bedrooms in 1968. She brought up three children in this house, managed to see them go to University and contribute to the economy through gaining employment. The last of her children left home just last year having stayed with her following the death of her husband. Mrs McGlumphie is now a pensioner with little or no savings to speak of. The UK Government are going to tell her that her house is now too big for her to occupy and she must move or face a reduction in her benefit. She can, either, pay the difference or get lost. SBC fear that this will happen to many tenants but are, currently, unable to put a definite figure on it, it seems. It, also, seems that they are fearful of the consequences.
I think that few would argue that the UK deficit and debt is anything other than unsustainable, certainly over the long term, but I would argue that we are chasing the wrong end of society. We are crucifying the least well off whilst, at the same time, proposing to end the 50% income tax rate for those fortunate enough to have earnings in excess of £150,000 a year. It simply cannot be right.
We come, then, to the Right Honourable Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland and Member of Parliament for Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk and who is, sadly and regrettably, my MP.
Mr Moore, on Tuesday 13th March, 2012, voted in favour of the UK Government's Welfare Reform Bill. He did so in the full knowledge that it would cost his constituency great economic difficulties. He did so in the full knowledge that it would penalise those of his constituents who could least afford it and force many into abject despair and poverty. He did so, quite possibly, in the full knowledge that, deep down, he knows it was the wrong thing to do, just as he did when he voted to increase tuition fees in England. He did so whilst, at the same time, telling me that I am stronger as part of his United Kingdom and that Independence is a dreadful and terrible thing.
Well, Michael, I am sorry but in an Independent Scotland there would realistically be only two parties who might hold a controlling position, The Scottish National Party and The Scottish Labour Party. The SNP would never vote through such a draconian bill and, for all their faults, neither would a truly Scottish Labour Party.
You, Michael Moore, have, in my eyes, resigned as my MP and forfeited any possible chance you had of re-election. You and your party, the Liberal Democrats, have ceased to exist, extinguished by your own swords.
Michael Moore you are, without a shadow of a doubt, Today's Reason For Independence. You are, also, a disgrace.
