UKIP and (some) Tories prepared to lose £2bn a year from UK economy

Today's report on the net contribution of EU migrants makes for chilling reading, if you think that the Eurosceptics will have their way.

Some of the facts:

• Between 2001 and 2011, European arrivals contributed £20bn and those from outside Europe £5bn
• Since 2004 the arrivals from the 10 new EU member states added £4.96bn more in taxes in the years to 2011 than they took out in public services

Yeah it is another set of evidence that some Tories and certainly UKIP are failing to recognise exists. Indeed it comes to a £2bn net contribution to the UK economy (simply through taxation) that they are prepared to throw away. This does not account for the jobs that these people actually contribute to our well being and all the goods and services they purchase with their income outside of the taxes they pay.

The fact that those newer nations, some of which David Cameron was even wary to allow the full freedom of movement that all EU citizens (including us in the UK) are allowed to enjoy, are also net contributors to our economy. They are not spongers in fact quite the opposite, they are young, fit and healthy and willing to work, if the work is not there they move elsewhere to find more. The opposite is true of most UK emigrants to the rest of the EU. They are largely older, take up more of the public services in the warmer nations they reside in and contribute little through taxation.

Correcting the Covener of the PCI General Board

I read in today's Newsletter that both the Catholic and Presbyterian Church have formed an unusual alliance to oppose equal marriage, whether a civil marriage or a religious grouping that wishes to do so, in joining the attack on the Scottish Parliament.

I do have one issue with Dr Donald Watts the Convener of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland's General Board. The Newsletter says that when he wrote to the Westminster Government in March that:

"Dr Watts said he was writing on behalf of the most representative body of the church, the general board"

Sadly for Dr Watts this is not the case. The PCI's own website describes the General Board as:

The General Board is the most widely representative body under the Assembly, with over 160 members. This includes Assembly Conveners and Presbytery Clerks. This Board deals with both routine and exceptional matters that fall between meetings of the General Assembly; and may issue public statements on behalf of the Church. It may also deal with matters that concern two or more Boards, or matters that do not fall within the boundaries of a particular Board's work. It can call ministers to work as chaplains in hospitals, prisons and the Armed Forces and assesses the suitability of all appointments outside the Church's jurisdiction to which a minister may be called by some other Board. 

In 2012 the General Assembly had over 1,200 delegates  representing every congregation both clergy and session. This is the most widely representative body in the PCI. But the issue by being dealt with by the General Board was therefore not raised in the more public forum of the General Assembly where they would have been some descent possible to the course that the church decided to take.

Hung Parliament Won't of Itself Affect UK Financial Position

You've heard the Tory scare stories:

• A hung parliament will lead to us calling in the IMF
• A hung parliament will lead to the UK losing its triple A credit rating
• A hung parliament will lead to financial insecurity
• A hung parliament leads to Armageddon

Not necessarily so. There are 16 countries with a triple A rating and as the Independent points out 10 of those had coalition governments. Indeed many of the governments that took the toughest action.

Indeed Arnaud Mares, lead UK analyst for Moody's ratings agency, said:

"A hung parliament does not in itself have direct implications for Moody's UK rating. The three main parties broadly agree on the desirability of fiscal consolidation on a scale that, if implemented strictly over the course of the next parliament, would be consistent with the Government maintaining its Moody's AAA rating."

So in the words of David Cameron on Thursday night in the debate "let's end the scaremongering".

Fact Checking Nick Griffin's Claim

Much as I liked to see Jeff squirm at the fact that a casting vote may lie with a BNP member for Glasgow in the next Scottish Parliament I thought he really should have done fact checking before taking the word of Nick Griffin for granted.

Jeff refers to this article in the Times so lets look at the facts.

Griffin said:

"We [BNP] were 4.4 per cent in Glasgow North East in the European elections."

Fact:

Minor niggle, I know, but the BNP's 545 out of 12705 votes in Glasgow North East is actually only 4.29%. That is one very poor round up a whole tenth of a percent higher than they could claim (i.e 4.3%).

Griffin then said:

"In Glasgow there is a [Holyrood] seat to be taken with probably about 6.5 per cent of the vote and we believe that is a do-able thing."

Fact:

OK 6.5% was the vote for Patrick Harvie who was in that 7th place last time out. However the Green vote was up to 9.98% given them the biggest protest vote away from the Westminster parties on the night. 7.11% was the position on the night in June of the lowest ranked party who gained a seat in Holyrood on the list.

Fact:

The BNP were only the 7th ranked party across Glasgow on the night behind the five Holyrood parties and UKIP, hardly a good place to lift the 7th top up seat.

Fact:

Across Glasgow as a whole they only polled 3.25% which was not even their highest council area return on the night in Scotland. I had the unenviable position of witnessing that on the night in Falkirk; even there it was only 3.77%.

I'll not even bother fact checking Jeff's claim of 54 seats for the SNP. That would be fun to do, but needs a little more work. Maybe later.