The Rape Clause

[Hibbyradge]

Possibly because I'm in York, this issue has passed me by, but I have noticed arguments starting to appear on my Twitter feed (the operation of which I don't fully understand).

Would someone explain this issue for me, in as non-partisan terms as possible, please. That probably excludes Ronaldo 😁

[CropleyWasGod]

As it stands, Child Benefit is limited to 2 children.

However, where a woman can show that a further child has been born as a result of her being raped, CB will be awarded.

My question is.... since rape is so difficult to prove in Court, what is the process of adjudicating such a claim?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

As it stands, Child Benefit is limited to 2 children.

However, where a woman can show that a further child has been born as a result of her being raped, CB will be awarded.

My question is.... since rape is so difficult to prove in Court, what is the process of adjudicating such a claim?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

As i understand it, that is the issue.

Women have to fill in some forms and presumably answer some questions that wouldnt be very fun to answer.

I dont think it is the samr burden as criminal proof.

[CropleyWasGod]

As i understand it, that is the issue.

Women have to fill in some forms and presumably answer some questions that wouldnt be very fun to answer.

I dont think it is the samr burden as criminal proof.
But who makes the judgement? That's my concern.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

But who makes the judgement? That's my concern.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Yeah, i think that is the general concern. I dont know, i presume some civil servant or other.

[ronaldo7]

Possibly because I'm in York, this issue has passed me by, but I have noticed arguments starting to appear on my Twitter feed (the operation of which I don't fully understand).

Would someone explain this issue for me, in as non-partisan terms as possible, please. That probably excludes Ronaldo 😁
😃

[CropleyWasGod]

Possibly because I'm in York, this issue has passed me by, but I have noticed arguments starting to appear on my Twitter feed (the operation of which I don't fully understand).

Would someone explain this issue for me, in as non-partisan terms as possible, please. That probably excludes Ronaldo 😁
Just returning to this, and the bit about your being in York.

It's actually a UK policy.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rape-clause-form-tax-credits-coercive-relationship-three-children-child-limit-a7669876.html

[Hibrandenburg]

Just returning to this, and the bit about your being in York.

It's actually a UK policy.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Which is another fine example of why the snp are the only credible opposition to the Tories. There's no where near similar outrage in England compared to Scotland.

[Hibbyradge]

Just returning to this, and the bit about your being in York.

It's actually a UK policy.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I've subsequently realised that and I've no idea how it passed me by.

Why then, are the SNP getting kicked about it on Twitter?

[Onceinawhile]

I've subsequently realised that and I've no idea how it passed me by.

Why then, are the SNP getting kicked about it on Twitter?

I think, though I haven't checked that it's because it is either within the snp's power to circumvent it in Scotland or, people think it is.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think, though I haven't checked that it's because it is either within the snp's power to circumvent it in Scotland or, people think it is.

It's not. The Tory spin is that the Scot gov could create a new benefit to mitigate the effect.

[Moulin Yarns]

It's not. The Tory spin is that the Scot gov could create a new benefit to mitigate the effect.

They could and may well do. But it came into effect on6 April or thereabouts and the Scottish parliament is on recess until next week so nothing has been debated yet.

[ronaldo7]

Nice to see the SNP getting on with the day job, and raising a motion to debate the Rape clause when parliament resumes.

Great to see cross party support on this, apart from the Tories, that is.

https://t.co/b0eHx2NGWD

[northstandhibby]

Nice to see the SNP getting on with the day job, and raising a motion to debate the Rape clause when parliament resumes.

https://t.co/b0eHx2NGWD

Anything other than debating raising education standards and the failing Scottish economy eh? Will Nicola take her sofa into the chamber and do the pose while they're debating the so called rape clause?

:rolleyes:

Dearie me.

glory glory

[Moulin Yarns]

Anything other than debating raising education standards and the failing Scottish economy eh? Will Nicola take her sofa into the chamber and do the pose while they're debating the so called rape clause?

:rolleyes:

Dearie me.

glory glory

Dearie me indeed. A newspaper article about one issue and you think nothing else is on the agenda.

I wonder whether Labour will raise the same issue at Westminster??

[ronaldo7]

Anything other than debating raising education standards and the failing Scottish economy eh? Will Nicola take her sofa into the chamber and do the pose while they're debating the so called rape clause?

:rolleyes:

Dearie me.

glory glory

Already done that, and will continue to do so. You need to keep up.

Dearie me indeed.:rolleyes:

[Hibrandenburg]

Anything other than debating raising education standards and the failing Scottish economy eh? Will Nicola take her sofa into the chamber and do the pose while they're debating the so called rape clause?

:rolleyes:

Dearie me.

glory glory

What an utterly ridiculous post.

[Speedy]

As i understand it, that is the issue.

Women have to fill in some forms and presumably answer some questions that wouldnt be very fun to answer.


Reading some of the comments on the articles on this I get the feeling people are misdirecting their anger.

If you agree with the cap (which in itself is a separate debate) then you have the option to have a 'rape clause' or not.

If you don't then the victim is being further penalised. If you do then unfortunately it's inevitable that would involve some sort of process. Either way it is a horrible situation for the individual and it seems a bit misplaced to be angry at the government for offering financial support to the child.

[CropleyWasGod]

Reading some of the comments on the articles on this I get the feeling people are misdirecting their anger.

If you agree with the cap (which in itself is a separate debate) then you have the option to have a 'rape clause' or not.

If you don't then the victim is being further penalised. If you do then unfortunately it's inevitable that would involve some sort of process. Either way it is a horrible situation for the individual and it seems a bit misplaced to be angry at the government for offering financial support to the child.
That's fair comment.

It does, though, have to be handled incredibly carefully. Given the anecdotal evidence about ATOS and the likes, it has the potential to be a disaster.

That the rape and Women's Support groups are expressing concerns for its mechanics says a lot to me.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Reading some of the comments on the articles on this I get the feeling people are misdirecting their anger.

If you agree with the cap (which in itself is a separate debate) then you have the option to have a 'rape clause' or not.

If you don't then the victim is being further penalised. If you do then unfortunately it's inevitable that would involve some sort of process. Either way it is a horrible situation for the individual and it seems a bit misplaced to be angry at the government for offering financial support to the child.

Yeah i kinda agree, but for opposition parties it makes great politics - it is emotive, and makes for easy and effective headlines.

They should, in hindsight have not had the clause.

[Speedy]

That's fair comment.

It does, though, have to be handled incredibly carefully. Given the anecdotal evidence about ATOS and the likes, it has the potential to be a disaster.

That the rape and Women's Support groups are expressing concerns for its mechanics says a lot to me.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Totally agree with that.

[JeMeSouviens]

They shouldn't have had the clause because they shouldn't have had the cap. The size of a family >2 is not the choice of the kids born into it, why are they being penalised?

[danhibees1875]

They shouldn't have had the clause because they shouldn't have had the cap. The size of a family >2 is not the choice of the kids born into it, why are they being penalised?

I think that's probably where i sit with it. Each and every child should have as fair a start in life as possible.

I think that it should maybe come under home economics a bit at school, as to the cost of having children and how to work out if you're in a position to have children and how many. I don't think it's something i was ever taught - and while it's still an individual's choice (and sometimes not) to have kids, education would help in situations.
But at the end of the day, i don't see how taking a family struggling with 4 children and halving the benefits they receive to give these children a decent upbringing is going to help them.

[ColinNish]

Yeah i kinda agree, but for opposition parties it makes great politics - it is emotive, and makes for easy and effective headlines.

they should, in hindsight have not had the clause.

This is where am i with this.

[ColinNish]

I think that's probably where i sit with it. Each and every child should have as fair a start in life as possible.

I think that it should maybe come under home economics a bit at school, as to the cost of having children and how to work out if you're in a position to have children and how many. I don't think it's something i was ever taught - and while it's still an individual's choice (and sometimes not) to have kids, education would help in situations.
But at the end of the day, i don't see how taking a family struggling with 4 children and halving the benefits they receive to give these children a decent upbringing is going to help them.

If they taught that in Home Economics then nobody would have kids.

[RyeSloan]

They could and may well do. But it came into effect on6 April or thereabouts and the Scottish parliament is on recess until next week so nothing has been debated yet.

Apart from the fact that the move was in the July budget of 2015....along with the proposal for the rape clause. The SNP were one of the first to raise this clause after said budget so they have been aware of it for a very long time.

There is also the fact that this is not a retrospective action...the benefit will not be removed for existing children only those born after April this year so no current children will lose out.

The government also ran an extensive consultation on the proposals for the exemptions to this policy so again interested parties had many months to debate the issue and put forward their concerns.

Not that I'm defending the policy as I've already said I don't think it's a good piece of legislation just saying that there has been more than enough time to either mitigate it or discuss it prior to its introduction.

[CropleyWasGod]

Apart from the fact that the move was in the July budget of 2015....along with the proposal for the rape clause. The SNP were one of the first to raise this clause after said budget so they have been aware of it for a very long time.

There is also the fact that this is not a retrospective action...the benefit will not be removed for existing children only those born after April this year so no current children will lose out.

The government also ran an extensive consultation on the proposals for the exemptions to this policy so again interested parties had many months to debate the issue and put forward their concerns.

Not that I'm defending the policy as I've already said I don't think it's a good piece of legislation just saying that there has been more than enough time to either mitigate it or discuss it prior to its introduction.

This is the bit that gets me.

It is only now that the various women's groups are shouting about it. When I have pushed people on "why now?", the answer is always "it was hidden in the Budget"... as if it was the most recent one. Which is patent nonsense.

[Jack]

They shouldn't have had the clause because they shouldn't have had the cap. The size of a family >2 is not the choice of the kids born into it, why are they being penalised?

Do the [prospective] parents not have a responsibility to live within their means?

I agree its not the kids fault but I can't see how it's the governments responsibility to bankroll this, rape clause aside and even then I'd suggest there's a case for the rapist to contribute via the government/courts.

[JeMeSouviens]

Do the [prospective] parents not have a responsibility to live within their means?

I agree its not the kids fault but I can't see how it's the governments responsibility to bankroll this, rape clause aside and even then I'd suggest there's a case for the rapist to contribute via the government/courts.

Either we want a society that values every child and wants to do our bit collectively to help them become a productive member of that society or we don't.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Do the [prospective] parents not have a responsibility to live within their means?

I agree its not the kids fault but I can't see how it's the governments responsibility to bankroll this, rape clause aside and even then I'd suggest there's a case for the rapist to contribute via the government/courts.

Agree with this.

[Jack]

Agree with this.

Awe sh...

lol

[Speedy]

Either we want a society that values every child and wants to do our bit collectively to help them become a productive member of that society or we don't.

This isnt about penalising children, it's about encouraging people to raise families within their means.

You have to remember there are already kids requiring further support, putting a further strain on the state wont help that.

[JeMeSouviens]

This isnt about penalising children, it's about encouraging people to raise families within their means.

You have to remember there are already kids requiring further support, putting a further strain on the state wont help that.

For the Tories, it's about shrinking the state with a side order of demonising the poor and playing to their gallery who like getting tough on spongers.

I don't know much about the evidence around whether CTCs actually work or not but it can't be too hard to imagine the case where poverty due to the lack of benefits could cause knock on effects further down the line and you end up with >2 kids becoming an unproductive burden on the state into their adulthood rather than contributors to it.

I should add that my own view on this is based on pragmatism. If evidence suggests the benefit helps outcomes for kids then we should be paying it for all kids. If it doesn't work, stop paying it and do something better with the money. The British economy needs productive workers in future. Since British political will seems to be hell bent on stopping them coming from elsewhere, don't we need to be trying to make the best of the human "raw material" we've got?

[ronaldo7]

Apart from the fact that the move was in the July budget of 2015....along with the proposal for the rape clause. The SNP were one of the first to raise this clause after said budget so they have been aware of it for a very long time.

There is also the fact that this is not a retrospective action...the benefit will not be removed for existing children only those born after April this year so no current children will lose out.

The government also ran an extensive consultation on the proposals for the exemptions to this policy so again interested parties had many months to debate the issue and put forward their concerns.

Not that I'm defending the policy as I've already said I don't think it's a good piece of legislation just saying that there has been more than enough time to either mitigate it or discuss it prior to its introduction.

Correct. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/16/tax-credit-clause-becomes-law-without-parliament-vote

Alison Thewliss MP first spotted it after Osborne's budget in 2015, and has been fighting to get it scrapped ever since. The use of statutory instruments to progress this act shows just how much debate the Tories wanted...None.

" A controversial proposal to ask new mothers who have been raped for verification if they wish to claim tax credits for more than two children has become law without any debate or vote in parliament.
The so-called rape clause, which will be applied as part of new restrictions on tax credit entitlement, was added to legislation late on Wednesday as an amendment to an existing act. The plans will come into effect within a month.

Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP who first highlighted the issue of the clause, led a furious response, saying it was an “underhand parliamentary tactic” to introduce the measure without proper scrutiny.
She also described as “frankly astonishing” the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP ) had introduced the scheme apparently without having trained any of the people who will judge whether someone claiming the exemption has been raped.
The regulations, announced in the 2015 budget by the then chancellor, George Osborne, were put into law through a statutory instrument, a form of legislation that allows laws to be amended without parliament’s approval.
The policy coming into force on 6 April restricts tax credit entitlement for new claimants to a maximum of two children, with exceptions for multiple births and for women who could show that their third or subsequent child was conceived as a result of rape.
Those seeking to claim the exemption for rape must be assessed by what the government has described in a consultation as a “professional third party”, which could include health workers, police, social workers or rape charities.
With the regulation about to come into force, however, there is no indication of how a woman who has been raped could begin the process of claiming the tax credit exemption, or whether any of the third parties have been trained.
Advertisement

Thewliss said she had tabled a motion of prayer for annulment, a somewhat arcane version of the early day motion, in which a group of MPs sign a paper calling for a statutory instrument to be scrapped.
Such motions can be used to register displeasure with a government plan, but they rarely overthrow statutory instruments. According to Thewliss, the last time one was annulled in this way was 1979.
“Using such an underhand parliamentary tactic to railroad the rape clause into law is just the final insult this government could possibly dish out,” she said. “Not only did ministers sneak out their shameful consultation response as the eyes of the world were watching Donald Trump’s inauguration, but they’re now trying to put the rape clause on the statute books without a vote or debate, let alone any detailed scrutiny by MPs.


“The government must accept this policy is unworkable as well as immoral. With just days until nurses, doctors and social workers are expected to verify whether women had their third child as the result of rape, it’s clear there’s been no sexual violence training for those working with such vulnerable women.
“This is frankly astonishing, especially when you consider that the government is trying to railroad this through using medieval parliamentary procedures.”
The plan has caused worry among other MPs and women’s charities, with a number calling for it to be dropped. The DWP announced in January that it was to go ahead after the consultation.

This is also a letter sent from Engender, Rape crisis Scotland, and Scottish women's aid. https://www.engender.org.uk/files/letter-to-the-secondary-legislation-scrutiny-committee-march-2017-(2).pdf

[Speedy]

For the Tories, it's about shrinking the state with a side order of demonising the poor and playing to their gallery who like getting tough on spongers.

I don't know much about the evidence around whether CTCs actually work or not but it can't be too hard to imagine the case where poverty due to the lack of benefits could cause knock on effects further down the line and you end up with >2 kids becoming an unproductive burden on the state into their adulthood rather than contributors to it.

I should add that my own view on this is based on pragmatism. If evidence suggests the benefit helps outcomes for kids then we should be paying it for all kids. If it doesn't work, stop paying it and do something better with the money. The British economy needs productive workers in future. Since British political will seems to be hell bent on stopping them coming from elsewhere, don't we need to be trying to make the best of the human "raw material" we've got?

That isn't an unreasonable view but it has to be funded.

What I do know is that removing a financial benefit people will be disincentived from bringing children into the world that they or society can't afford to fund.

[speedy_gonzales]

What I do know is that removing a financial benefit people will be disincentived from bringing children into the world that they or society can't afford to fund.
Do you think it will have that much of an effect? I'm not sure the loss of £20 per child per week will make make that great an impact. For those that need it, there are other benefits/tax credits and for those that procreate without concern for themselves or their children, well, they'll just keep on doing what they do.

I think the group that will really feel the pinch with this legislation is the "working poor", those that are working hard and just getting by, the loss of this money could make them think twice but I'm not sure this is who the government were targeting,,,,more like the Daily Mail fodder you find in benefit porn programmes you find on channel 5.

[Speedy]

Do you think it will have that much of an effect? I'm not sure the loss of £20 per child per week will make make that great an impact. For those that need it, there are other benefits/tax credits and for those that procreate without concern for themselves or their children, well, they'll just keep on doing what they do.

I think the group that will really feel the pinch with this legislation is the "working poor", those that are working hard and just getting by, the loss of this money could make them think twice but I'm not sure this is who the government were targeting,,,,more like the Daily Mail fodder you find in benefit porn programmes you find on channel 5.

It will definitely make a difference to some.

As with all thing politics, it annoys me that politicians are more interested in point scoring than the greater good.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Correct. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/16/tax-credit-clause-becomes-law-without-parliament-vote

Alison Thewliss MP first spotted it after Osborne's budget in 2015, and has been fighting to get it scrapped ever since. The use of statutory instruments to progress this act shows just how much debate the Tories wanted...None.

" A controversial proposal to ask new mothers who have been raped for verification if they wish to claim tax credits for more than two children has become law without any debate or vote in parliament.
The so-called rape clause, which will be applied as part of new restrictions on tax credit entitlement, was added to legislation late on Wednesday as an amendment to an existing act. The plans will come into effect within a month.

Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP who first highlighted the issue of the clause, led a furious response, saying it was an “underhand parliamentary tactic” to introduce the measure without proper scrutiny.
She also described as “frankly astonishing” the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP ) had introduced the scheme apparently without having trained any of the people who will judge whether someone claiming the exemption has been raped.
The regulations, announced in the 2015 budget by the then chancellor, George Osborne, were put into law through a statutory instrument, a form of legislation that allows laws to be amended without parliament’s approval.
The policy coming into force on 6 April restricts tax credit entitlement for new claimants to a maximum of two children, with exceptions for multiple births and for women who could show that their third or subsequent child was conceived as a result of rape.
Those seeking to claim the exemption for rape must be assessed by what the government has described in a consultation as a “professional third party”, which could include health workers, police, social workers or rape charities.
With the regulation about to come into force, however, there is no indication of how a woman who has been raped could begin the process of claiming the tax credit exemption, or whether any of the third parties have been trained.
Advertisement

Thewliss said she had tabled a motion of prayer for annulment, a somewhat arcane version of the early day motion, in which a group of MPs sign a paper calling for a statutory instrument to be scrapped.
Such motions can be used to register displeasure with a government plan, but they rarely overthrow statutory instruments. According to Thewliss, the last time one was annulled in this way was 1979.
“Using such an underhand parliamentary tactic to railroad the rape clause into law is just the final insult this government could possibly dish out,” she said. “Not only did ministers sneak out their shameful consultation response as the eyes of the world were watching Donald Trump’s inauguration, but they’re now trying to put the rape clause on the statute books without a vote or debate, let alone any detailed scrutiny by MPs.


“The government must accept this policy is unworkable as well as immoral. With just days until nurses, doctors and social workers are expected to verify whether women had their third child as the result of rape, it’s clear there’s been no sexual violence training for those working with such vulnerable women.
“This is frankly astonishing, especially when you consider that the government is trying to railroad this through using medieval parliamentary procedures.”
The plan has caused worry among other MPs and women’s charities, with a number calling for it to be dropped. The DWP announced in January that it was to go ahead after the consultation.

This is also a letter sent from Engender, Rape crisis Scotland, and Scottish women's aid. https://www.engender.org.uk/files/letter-to-the-secondary-legislation-scrutiny-committee-march-2017-(2).pdf


So the SNP have had enough time to respond, if they had so wished?

Why do you think they havent?

[JeMeSouviens]

So the SNP have had enough time to respond, if they had so wished?

Why do you think they havent?

FFS, can you read? The SNP have been fighting it for months in the parliament that's implementing it. Don't believe me, here's nationalist puppet, Kezia Dugdale (emphasis mine):



Months have passed since SNP MP Alison Thewliss first stunned us all by uncovering the details of the ‘rape clause’.
As part of plans to restrict tax credits to families of just two children, the UK Government decided to force women to provide evidence of exceptional circumstances, such as rape, to claim the social security payment for a third child.
So now women who have been raped – possibly by their husbands – but who have perhaps not reported it to the police will have to sign a document saying their child is the product of rape.
Alison has led a powerful campaign against the heartless Tory government on this crucial issue, and has secured cross-party support. I have nothing but praise for her tireless campaigning, and she has and will continue to receive the support of Labour MSPs and MPs in the hope of forcing the Tories into a U-turn.

[RyeSloan]

It will definitely make a difference to some.

As with all thing politics, it annoys me that politicians are more interested in point scoring than the greater good.

It will only make a difference to those having third children this month.

Which says a few things...that it's hard to change any benefit without some sort of outcry and that it's a small change that really isn't worth the effort even if you believed in the targeted outcome.

This is not shrinking the state or achieving any serious cost savings nor indeed having much impact on very much it's just a pathetically poor piece of legislation that was dreamed up by Gideon. A man who personified tinkering politics even more than Gordon.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

FFS, can you read? The SNP have been fighting it for months in the parliament that's implementing it. Don't believe me, here's nationalist puppet, Kezia Dugdale (emphasis mine):

I believe you, easy mate.

What i meant was they could have been ready to respond in the scottish parliament, which was what i was asking about.

Which ronaldo yesterday claimed they couldnt habe done, because it was only passed a few days before.

That was the whole point in simar pointing out how long the SNP have known it was coming.

It also makes a mockery ofbhos claim that those nasty Tories steamrollered the legislation through parliament.

[Speedy]

It will only make a difference to those having third children this month.

Which says a few things...that it's hard to change any benefit without some sort of outcry and that it's a small change that really isn't worth the effort even if you believed in the targeted outcome.

This is not shrinking the state or achieving any serious cost savings nor indeed having much impact on very much it's just a pathetically poor piece of legislation that was dreamed up by Gideon. A man who personified tinkering politics even more than Gordon.

We were talking about whether it would put some couples off having another child they can't afford. I think it will.

Absolutely the right decision not to apply it retrospectively.

[JeMeSouviens]

I believe you, easy mate.

What i meant was they could have been ready to respond in the scottish parliament, which was what i was asking about.

Which ronaldo yesterday claimed they couldnt habe done, because it was only passed a few days before.

That was the whole point in simar pointing out how long the SNP have known it was coming.

It also makes a mockery ofbhos claim that those nasty Tories steamrollered the legislation through parliament.

Apols for the exasperation but this is reserved UK stuff being dealt with in the UK parliament. As such, I'm not sure what you're on about?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Apols for the exasperation but this is reserved UK stuff being dealt with in the UK parliament. As such, I'm not sure what you're on about?

No worries.

The discussion was whether the SNP could, or should be taking steps in the scottish parliament to ameliorate it.

Ronaldo said they couldnt, because they haven't had enough time, which SiMar disputed. Hence the point about how long they had been aware of it.

That is why i asked ronaldo the questions above.

[ronaldo7]

So the SNP have had enough time to respond, if they had so wished?

Why do you think they havent?

Aye, she's only raised it 25 times in Parliament, obviously that's not enough for you though.:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

No worries.

The discussion was whether the SNP could, or should be taking steps in the scottish parliament to ameliorate it.

Ronaldo said they couldnt, because they haven't had enough time, which SiMar disputed. Hence the point about how long they had been aware of it.

That is why i asked ronaldo the questions above.

I think you need to take a look at the other thread where my thoughts and reasoning is abundant. You are starting to put words into my mouth here bud.

I've known for as long as the 2015 budget that Alison Thewliss was taking the issue of the rape clause up, and as such, she would be given the time to take it as far as she could, in the Parliament that was implementing it. That process ended with it coming into law on April 6th.

The discussion about whether the SNP will mitigate this draconian law will be up to them, in our Scottish Parliament, however if they do, they'll be taking cash out of their own budget to do it, and it has to come from somewhere. I've asked you where that should come from, and you've not answered.

If you are going to mention me in a post, I'd be obliged if you could get, at least the gist of the argument correct.:aok:

Now if we could get the thread back on track, I'm sure the OP would be obliged. :greengrin

[Jack]

No worries.

The discussion was whether the SNP could, or should be taking steps in the scottish parliament to ameliorate it.

Ronaldo said they couldnt, because they haven't had enough time, which SiMar disputed. Hence the point about how long they had been aware of it.

That is why i asked ronaldo the questions above.

The bottom line is its being introduced by the Westminster Parliament pan UK and it would seem the main opposition has been from the SNP MPs.

What may or may not happen in Holyrood is secondary.

Is this the sort of legislation do you want for the UK?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Aye, she's only raised it 25 times in Parliament, obviously that's not enough for you though.:greengrin

Who raised what?

I was talking about the scottish govt, and scottish parliament

[ronaldo7]

Who raised what?

I was talking about the scottish govt, and scottish parliament

You asked why the SNP hadn't responded.

I told you that, She, Alison Thewliss had raised it in Parliament (uk, just to be clear) 25 Times.

Simples.:wink:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I think you need to take a look at the other thread where my thoughts and reasoning is abundant. You are starting to put words into my mouth here bud.

I've known for as long as the 2015 budget that Alison Thewliss was taking the issue of the rape clause up, and as such, she would be given the time to take it as far as she could, in the Parliament that was implementing it. That process ended with it coming into law on April 6th.

The discussion about whether the SNP will mitigate this draconian law will be up to them, in our Scottish Parliament, however if they do, they'll be taking cash out of their own budget to do it, and it has to come from somewhere. I've asked you where that should come from, and you've not answered.

If you are going to mention me in a post, I'd be obliged if you could get, at least the gist of the argument correct.:aok:

Now if we could get the thread back on track, I'm sure the OP would be obliged. :greengrin

That was the gist of the argument, i dont think ive misrepresented you at all. That is why simar pointed out the previous SNP position, because you had said that the law was only days old, so the SG hasn't had time to respond.

Well of course it would come out of their budget, just like if the UK govt reversed it would impact on their budget. As i said previously, that is why govt is tough, and opposition is easy.

Where should the money come from? I dont know, im not the one bemoaning the policy, you are. But as i say, its about priorities.

This was the whole point of the discussion - someone else (apologies i can't remembet their name) said the SG could ameliorate the policy if they hated it so much. Thats how this whole debate started!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You asked why the SNP hadn't responded.

I told you that, She, Alison Thewliss had raised it in Parliament (uk, just to be clear) 25 Times.

Simples.:wink:

You are a slippery customer!

We were talking about why the SNP run scottish government hadnt responded to the policy.

[ronaldo7]

That was the gist of the argument, i dont think ive misrepresented you at all. That is why simar pointed out the previous SNP position, because you had said that the law was only days old, so the SG hasn't had time to respond.

Well of course it would come out of their budget, just like if the UK govt reversed it would impact on their budget. As i said previously, that is why govt is tough, and opposition is easy.

Where should the money come from? I dont know, im not the one bemoaning the policy, you are. But as i say, its about priorities.

This was the whole point of the discussion - someone else (apologies i can't remembet their name) said the SG could ameliorate the policy if they hated it so much. Thats how this whole debate started!

And that's the nub of the argument.

Can you remember the Gibraltar, Panama, and Trident discussions?

It's all about priorities, you are aligned with the Tory philosophy, and I'm not. Easy.

Now, the OP will be getting rather irate if I know him at all. :greengrin

I'm out.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

And that's the nub of the argument.

Can you remember the Gibraltar, Panama, and Trident discussions?

It's all about priorities, you are aligned with the Tory philosophy, and I'm not. Easy.

Now, the OP will be getting rather irate if I know him at all. :greengrin

I'm out.

So i wasnt putting words in your mouth then? That was quite an uncalled for accusation.

And yet you have still not ventured an opinion on why you dont think the SNP have brought in any measures to stop the clause.

[ronaldo7]

So i wasnt putting words in your mouth then? That was quite an uncalled for accusation.

And yet you have still not ventured an opinion on why you dont think the SNP have brought in any measures to stop the clause.

If you're going to mention me to another poster, about what I was saying/or not, as the case may be. I'd be obliged if you could get the story right. :aok:

25 measures taken by Alison Thewliss SNP MP.

Goodnight..........Broadchurch.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If you're going to mention me to another poster, about what I was saying/or not, as the case may be. I'd be obliged if you could get the story right. :aok:

25 measures taken by Alison Thewliss SNP MP.

Goodnight..........Broadchurch.

I did get it right, so theres no problem then!

[Jack]

So i wasnt putting words in your mouth then? That was quite an uncalled for accusation.

And yet you have still not ventured an opinion on why you dont think the SNP have brought in any measures to stop the clause.

The SNP has been vocal where the legislation was brought in, Westminster. Where it's right and proper it is challenged and the only place this legislation can be changed.

Again. What happens at Holyrood is secondary. Which in itself is a problem.

[Just Alf]

The SNP has been vocal where the legislation was brought in, Westminster. Where it's right and proper it is challenged and the only place this legislation can be changed.

Again. What happens at Holyrood is secondary. Which in itself is a problem.

actually a very good point.... those really against it should now be able to see the one way to get rid! :agree:

[pacoluna]

Rape should never run in tandem with financial decisions it's an absolute disgrace. someone who has been raped may only want to share their horrific story with a certain confidential few or perhaps never tell anyone. It's their choice. Traumatised rape victims should not have to prove or use rape as justification for financial help. It's a deplorable conservative extremely right wing stance to take. It sickens me.

[JeMeSouviens]

That was the gist of the argument, i dont think ive misrepresented you at all. That is why simar pointed out the previous SNP position, because you had said that the law was only days old, so the SG hasn't had time to respond.

Well of course it would come out of their budget, just like if the UK govt reversed it would impact on their budget. As i said previously, that is why govt is tough, and opposition is easy.

Where should the money come from? I dont know, im not the one bemoaning the policy, you are. But as i say, its about priorities.

This was the whole point of the discussion - someone else (apologies i can't remembet their name) said the SG could ameliorate the policy if they hated it so much. Thats how this whole debate started!

Which would mean:

- a benefit per child
- but capped so check for 2
- but exemption applied for rape, 8 page form and interview with untrained non-specialist
- but could be ameliorated in some as yet unspecified way by another government (using a different arm of bureaucracy?)

It's hardly screaming "model of efficiency" at me, don't know about anyone else? :confused:

[easty]

I think in principle, the plan to cap child benefit to two kids is a good idea. If it can encourage some folk to actually do some financial planning, rather than thinking "it's fine I'll just get benefits" then that's all good to me.

The "rape clause" though. It's a difficult one. On one hand, of course you don't want rape victims to be forced to recount something they'd rather not with an admin person, on an application form. On the other hand...is it not fair that someone who has a 3rd child due to being raped can still claim child benefit, despite it being a 3rd child?

I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's all a bit too emotive in my opinion, which is obviously due to the word rape. To quote pacoluna's post "Rape should never run in tandem with financial decisions it's an absolute disgrace"...well aye I get it, but I do think a child benefit cap is a good idea, and I also think that there should be circumstances where it's not enforced, such as when the 3rd child is the consequence of rape.

[Alex Trager]

Does anyone know if men who are convicted of a rape are held to pay for the maintenance of the child?

[CropleyWasGod]

Does anyone know if men who are convicted of a rape are held to pay for the maintenance of the child?

I'd doubt it.

A woman would have to make a claim through the CSA, and the man would have to admit paternity.

[Alex Trager]

I'd doubt it.

A woman would have to make a claim through the CSA, and the man would have to admit paternity.

A very interesting area.
If he is found guilty you'd think he'd have no choice.

[CropleyWasGod]

A very interesting area.
If he is found guilty you'd think he'd have no choice.

Not necessarily.

If she's already in a relationship, he can easily deny it. She would have to demand a DNA test, and that means more trauma for her.

And then there's the possibility of more Court appearances.

[Alex Trager]

Not necessarily.

If she's already in a relationship, he can easily deny it. She would have to demand a DNA test, and that means more trauma for her.

And then there's the possibility of more Court appearances.

I would definitely make it the case.

Test both him and the child. If it's a match then it further confirms that he raped her, based on the previous judgement.

I appreciate it doesn't confirm actually confirm that but if you consider that he had already been judged to do so, it would be the last nail in the coffin you'd think.

And he should be made to pay for that child.

To leave her to pay for the child on her own is brutal if you ask me.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I would definitely make it the case.

Test both him and the child. If it's a match then it further confirms that he raped her, based on the previous judgement.

I appreciate it doesn't confirm actually confirm that but if you consider that he had already been judged to do so, it would be the last nail in the coffin you'd think.

And he should be made to pay for that child.

To leave her to pay for the child on her own is brutal if you ask me.

Its an inreresting idea, but i imagine any woman in that circumstance would want nothing to do with her attacker, never mind monthly payments for 18 years.

Does a father in that situation have any paternal rights does anyone know?

[Alex Trager]

Its an inreresting idea, but i imagine any woman in that circumstance would want nothing to do with her attacker, never mind monthly payments for 18 years.

Does a father in that situation have any paternal rights does anyone know?

Yeah of course it would have to be through the govt that the payments are maintained.

[JeMeSouviens]

I would definitely make it the case.

Test both him and the child. If it's a match then it further confirms that he raped her, based on the previous judgement.

I appreciate it doesn't confirm actually confirm that but if you consider that he had already been judged to do so, it would be the last nail in the coffin you'd think.

And he should be made to pay for that child.

To leave her to pay for the child on her own is brutal if you ask me.

I don't think many rape cases are decided on whether there was sex or not, it's the consent or lack of that's normally the issue.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yeah of course it would have to be through the govt that the payments are maintained.

...and that would still be a constant reminder of what happened.

I am guessing, and this only an opinion of course, that most women would rather not have that. That they would be happy to have no payment, if it gave them an opportunity to move on and try to make the best of things without that monthly reminder.

[Alex Trager]

...and that would still be a constant reminder of what happened.

I am guessing, and this only an opinion of course, that most women would rather not have that. That they would be happy to have no payment, if it gave them an opportunity to move on and try to make the best of things without that monthly reminder.

Yeah I suppose mate. Never thought about that

[pacoluna]

...and that would still be a constant reminder of what happened.

I am guessing, and this only an opinion of course, that most women would rather not have that. That they would be happy to have no payment, if it gave them an opportunity to move on and try to make the best of things without that monthly reminder.
and the evil Tories would love that.

[JeMeSouviens]

Good to see Labour, SNP and Greens combine at Holyrood to condemn both the 2 child cap and rape clause. Squirming Tories followed their westminster orders.

[G B Young]

I think in principle, the plan to cap child benefit to two kids is a good idea. If it can encourage some folk to actually do some financial planning, rather than thinking "it's fine I'll just get benefits" then that's all good to me.

The "rape clause" though. It's a difficult one. On one hand, of course you don't want rape victims to be forced to recount something they'd rather not with an admin person, on an application form. On the other hand...is it not fair that someone who has a 3rd child due to being raped can still claim child benefit, despite it being a 3rd child?

I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's all a bit too emotive in my opinion, which is obviously due to the word rape. To quote pacoluna's post "Rape should never run in tandem with financial decisions it's an absolute disgrace"...well aye I get it, but I do think a child benefit cap is a good idea, and I also think that there should be circumstances where it's not enforced, such as when the 3rd child is the consequence of rape.

The political point scoring on this issue is distasteful whatever one's personal opinions are, especially when the fact is the change to the tax credits system were announced two years ago. Brian Wilson makes what I think is fair comment here:

What kind of campaign will it be in Scotland? I’m sure we will hear a lot more words of dubious sincerity about “respect” but if the tone set by the unpleasant campaign to demonise Ruth Davidson over the so-called “rape clause” is the harbinger, then we should not hold our breaths.

It is worth digressing to deplore how cynical this operation has been as it has important lessons for the weeks ahead. Surely nobody maintains that it would have been better not to have an exemption for rape victims from the “two child credits” rule than to create one? In other words, the real political issue is the dodgy piece of social engineering inherent in the legislation – not the exemption from it.

And this is where Ms Davidson has a perfectly reasonable point. This dilution of child credits has been approaching for two years. If the Scottish Government regarded the “two child” rule as obnoxious, it has been within its powers since September to state unambiguously that they would negate it in Scotland, using around £30 million of the £800m additional resources. That would have won widespread support and sent a signal of how devolution allows Scotland to do things differently on welfare. It would also have involved making choices about how money is spent and would have meant there was no “rape clause” in Scotland around which to promote indignation and denigration.

For pointing all this out, Ms Davidson was denounced by the First Minister as “beneath contempt” – maybe she learned her definition of “respect” from a charm school run by Peter Wishart.

Surely it is possible to disagree politically – as I do on the “two- child” rule – without inciting “contempt”; a commodity, some might say, worthy of those who talk piously and do nothing.

Hard questioning of Nationalists who pontificate on issues over which they hold unused powers might be a usesful feature of the campaign.

[steakbake]

The political point scoring on this issue is distasteful whatever one's personal opinions are, especially when the fact is the change to the tax credits system were announced two years ago. Brian Wilson makes what I think is fair comment here:

What kind of campaign will it be in Scotland? I’m sure we will hear a lot more words of dubious sincerity about “respect” but if the tone set by the unpleasant campaign to demonise Ruth Davidson over the so-called “rape clause” is the harbinger, then we should not hold our breaths.

It is worth digressing to deplore how cynical this operation has been as it has important lessons for the weeks ahead. Surely nobody maintains that it would have been better not to have an exemption for rape victims from the “two child credits” rule than to create one? In other words, the real political issue is the dodgy piece of social engineering inherent in the legislation – not the exemption from it.

And this is where Ms Davidson has a perfectly reasonable point. This dilution of child credits has been approaching for two years. If the Scottish Government regarded the “two child” rule as obnoxious, it has been within its powers since September to state unambiguously that they would negate it in Scotland, using around £30 million of the £800m additional resources. That would have won widespread support and sent a signal of how devolution allows Scotland to do things differently on welfare. It would also have involved making choices about how money is spent and would have meant there was no “rape clause” in Scotland around which to promote indignation and denigration.

For pointing all this out, Ms Davidson was denounced by the First Minister as “beneath contempt” – maybe she learned her definition of “respect” from a charm school run by Peter Wishart.

Surely it is possible to disagree politically – as I do on the “two- child” rule – without inciting “contempt”; a commodity, some might say, worthy of those who talk piously and do nothing.

Hard questioning of Nationalists who pontificate on issues over which they hold unused powers might be a usesful feature of the campaign.

Former Labour man Brian Wilson there, with an article parroting the Tory party response to opposition to the rape clause.

[Moulin Yarns]

The political point scoring on this issue is distasteful whatever one's personal opinions are, especially when the fact is the change to the tax credits system were announced two years ago. Brian Wilson makes what I think is fair comment here:

What kind of campaign will it be in Scotland? I’m sure we will hear a lot more words of dubious sincerity about “respect” but if the tone set by the unpleasant campaign to demonise Ruth Davidson over the so-called “rape clause” is the harbinger, then we should not hold our breaths.

It is worth digressing to deplore how cynical this operation has been as it has important lessons for the weeks ahead. Surely nobody maintains that it would have been better not to have an exemption for rape victims from the “two child credits” rule than to create one? In other words, the real political issue is the dodgy piece of social engineering inherent in the legislation – not the exemption from it.

And this is where Ms Davidson has a perfectly reasonable point. This dilution of child credits has been approaching for two years. If the Scottish Government regarded the “two child” rule as obnoxious, it has been within its powers since September to state unambiguously that they would negate it in Scotland, using around £30 million of the £800m additional resources. That would have won widespread support and sent a signal of how devolution allows Scotland to do things differently on welfare. It would also have involved making choices about how money is spent and would have meant there was no “rape clause” in Scotland around which to promote indignation and denigration.

For pointing all this out, Ms Davidson was denounced by the First Minister as “beneath contempt” – maybe she learned her definition of “respect” from a charm school run by Peter Wishart.

Surely it is possible to disagree politically – as I do on the “two- child” rule – without inciting “contempt”; a commodity, some might say, worthy of those who talk piously and do nothing.

Hard questioning of Nationalists who pontificate on issues over which they hold unused powers might be a usesful feature of the campaign.

The Scottish Government can 'mitigate' the clause, but don't have the power to change it. They can decide to fund the third and subsequent child benefit by using money that should be used for other, possibly more worthy causes, such as the NHS, or Education.

It becomes a choice for the Scottish Government, pay for more teachers or nurses, or unnecessarily pay to undo the harm caused by the UK government policy change. IMO

[Just Alf]

The Scottish Government can 'mitigate' the clause, but don't have the power to change it. They can decide to fund the third and subsequent child benefit by using money that should be used for other, possibly more worthy causes, such as the NHS, or Education.

It becomes a choice for the Scottish Government, pay for more teachers or nurses, or unnecessarily pay to undo the harm caused by the UK government policy change. IMO

It's this sort of thing that is exactly why I'd like independence even though I'm unlikely to vote SNP once that was achieved.

[JeMeSouviens]

The Scottish Government can 'mitigate' the clause, but don't have the power to change it. They can decide to fund the third and subsequent child benefit by using money that should be used for other, possibly more worthy causes, such as the NHS, or Education.

It becomes a choice for the Scottish Government, pay for more teachers or nurses, or unnecessarily pay to undo the harm caused by the UK government policy change. IMO

:agree:

Tax credits are reserved. It's ridiculous to suggest that under the current devolution settlement the ScotGov should be using its budget (for devolved matters) to mitigate the effect of UK policy on reserved matters.

[G B Young]

The Scottish Government can 'mitigate' the clause, but don't have the power to change it. They can decide to fund the third and subsequent child benefit by using money that should be used for other, possibly more worthy causes, such as the NHS, or Education.

It becomes a choice for the Scottish Government, pay for more teachers or nurses, or unnecessarily pay to undo the harm caused by the UK government policy change. IMO

IIRC the additional £800 million of budget resources referred to by Brian Wilson is funding that the Scottish Government did not expect to have. If mitigating the clause would, as he estimates, cost approximately £30m then perhaps here is an opportunity for Nicola Sturgeon to do more than criticise and prove she is genuinely motivated to help. As far as I'm aware the SNP have yet to commit to how they plan to spend the additional funding.

Nobody is denying this is a delicate issue but Sturgeon's present stance smacks of political posturing over a change to the tax credit system which was actually announced in 2015 and, it would seem, aroused little in the way of public controversy at the time.

[Moulin Yarns]

IIRC the additional £800 million of budget resources referred to by Brian Wilson is funding that the Scottish Government did not expect to have. If mitigating the clause would, as he estimates, cost approximately £30m then perhaps here is an opportunity for Nicola Sturgeon to do more than criticise and prove she is genuinely motivated to help. As far as I'm aware the SNP have yet to commit to how they plan to spend the additional funding.

Nobody is denying this is a delicate issue but Sturgeon's present stance smacks of political posturing over a change to the tax credit system which was actually announced in 2015 and, it would seem, aroused little in the way of public controversy at the time.


Maybe, just maybe, the Scottish Government will use some of the additional funds to replace those that have been used to 'Mitigate' the bedroom tax and unfair benefit cuts by the UK Government over the last 7 to 12 years???

Except, here is the rub, it isn't able to, because it is capital funding, which has to be used for capital projects, infrastructure, house building, etc, and is over a 5 year period so is actually 160million per year.

[RyeSloan]

IIRC the additional £800 million of budget resources referred to by Brian Wilson is funding that the Scottish Government did not expect to have. If mitigating the clause would, as he estimates, cost approximately £30m then perhaps here is an opportunity for Nicola Sturgeon to do more than criticise and prove she is genuinely motivated to help. As far as I'm aware the SNP have yet to commit to how they plan to spend the additional funding.

Nobody is denying this is a delicate issue but Sturgeon's present stance smacks of political posturing over a change to the tax credit system which was actually announced in 2015 and, it would seem, aroused little in the way of public controversy at the time.

Is child benefit caught under tax credit rules? And as I have pointed out previously Scotland has specific devolved powers to top up child benefit if it sees fit as well as introducing new benefits.

And if the £30m is accurate out of the £800m then that is the cost over 5 years so £6m a year to mitigate the policy out of a budget of £33bn a year. So 0.02% of the overall budget?

If the above holds true then it's clear to me that it would have been rather straight forward to mitigate rather than pontificate...in fact it would have been rather easy to do both.

[Moulin Yarns]

The Extra £800m

“Most significantly for Scotland is the £800 million of extra capital funding. This is as a result of the Chancellor’s decision to invest in infrastructure, but it is for the Scottish Government to step up now. If it is used properly by the Scottish Government, this will make a real difference to productivity, jobs and growth in Scotland.

the Chancellor set out how he would provide the Scottish Government with more than £800 million through to 2020/21, giving it the means to invest significantly in infrastructure. This investment shows that through economic strength and certainty, the UK is the vital union for Scotland.

None of it can be used to 'mitigate the UK Government policies

[Bristolhibby]

I wonder if we could collectively have an "I'm Spartacus" type situation.

Every woman regardless in solidarity should claim, spam the system and make it pointless.

J

[pacoluna]

The way the Tories are trying to spin the rape-clause as a political tool used by anyone who has a shred of decency is absolutely deplorable.:fuming:

[Just Alf]

Maybe, just maybe, the Scottish Government will use some of the additional funds to replace those that have been used to 'Mitigate' the bedroom tax and unfair benefit cuts by the UK Government over the last 7 to 12 years???

Except, here is the rub, it isn't able to, because it is capital funding, which has to be used for capital projects, infrastructure, house building, etc, and is over a 5 year period so is actually 160million per year.

I'm sure I read £5 million has been set aside for Edinurgh councils road improvement program this year.

[Speedy]

The political point scoring on this issue is distasteful whatever one's personal opinions are, especially when the fact is the change to the tax credits system were announced two years ago. Brian Wilson makes what I think is fair comment here:

[B][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000]What kind of campaign will it be in Scotland? I’m sure we will hear a lot more words of dubious sincerity about “respect” but if the tone set by the unpleasant campaign to demonise Ruth Davidson over the so-called “rape clause” is the harbinger, then we should not hold our breaths.

It is worth digressing to deplore how cynical this operation has been as it has important lessons for the weeks ahead. Surely nobody maintains that it would have been better not to have an exemption for rape victims from the “two child credits” rule than to create one? In other words, the real political issue is the dodgy piece of social engineering inherent in the legislation – not the exemption from it.


If he'd have stopped there it would be a great point and would show up SNP for cheap point scoring.

Unfortunately he's carried on for a bit of point scoring of his own. And even then he's talking about funds which can't be used for those purposes.

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm sure I read £5 million has been set aside for Edinurgh councils road improvement program this year.

Indeed it has, by City of Edinburgh Council.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/5m-to-be-invested-to-repair-roads-across-capital-1-4394473

[ronaldo7]

The political point scoring on this issue is distasteful whatever one's personal opinions are, especially when the fact is the change to the tax credits system were announced two years ago. Brian Wilson makes what I think is fair comment here:

What kind of campaign will it be in Scotland? I’m sure we will hear a lot more words of dubious sincerity about “respect” but if the tone set by the unpleasant campaign to demonise Ruth Davidson over the so-called “rape clause” is the harbinger, then we should not hold our breaths.

It is worth digressing to deplore how cynical this operation has been as it has important lessons for the weeks ahead. Surely nobody maintains that it would have been better not to have an exemption for rape victims from the “two child credits” rule than to create one? In other words, the real political issue is the dodgy piece of social engineering inherent in the legislation – not the exemption from it.

And this is where Ms Davidson has a perfectly reasonable point. This dilution of child credits has been approaching for two years. If the Scottish Government regarded the “two child” rule as obnoxious, it has been within its powers since September to state unambiguously that they would negate it in Scotland, using around £30 million of the £800m additional resources. That would have won widespread support and sent a signal of how devolution allows Scotland to do things differently on welfare. It would also have involved making choices about how money is spent and would have meant there was no “rape clause” in Scotland around which to promote indignation and denigration.

For pointing all this out, Ms Davidson was denounced by the First Minister as “beneath contempt” – maybe she learned her definition of “respect” from a charm school run by Peter Wishart.

Surely it is possible to disagree politically – as I do on the “two- child” rule – without inciting “contempt”; a commodity, some might say, worthy of those who talk piously and do nothing.

Hard questioning of Nationalists who pontificate on issues over which they hold unused powers might be a usesful feature of the campaign.

It just shows how much you swallow from the MSM, when you say it's fair comment. Maybe if both you and him had done some investigations into the funding he alludes to, you'd be taken more seriously.

All the while, the Scottish Parliament pocket money will be reduced by £2.9 Billion in real terms since the Tories came to power.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It just shows how much you swallow from the MSM, when you say it's fair comment. Maybe if both you and him had done some investigations into the funding he alludes to, you'd be taken more seriously.

All the while, the Scottish Parliament pocket money will be reduced by £2.9 Billion in real terms since the Tories came to power.


But i see the deficit is down to lowest levels since 2008.

Jenny Gilruth refused to answer Gordon Brewrs question this afyernoon on why the scottish govt arent doing something about it.

[Just Alf]

But i see the deficit is down to lowest levels since 2008.

Jenny Gilruth refused to answer Gordon Brewrs question this afyernoon on why the scottish govt arent doing something about it.
Did you spot my pm? :-)



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[pacoluna]

But i see the deficit is down to lowest levels since 2008.

Jenny Gilruth refused to answer Gordon Brewrs question this afyernoon on why the scottish govt arent doing something about it.

What's the point in Scottish Tories if their answer to everything is mitigation. They will be wanting the snp to pay for and replace adapted vehicles next lost through Tories disability cuts.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What's the point in Scottish Tories if their answer to everything is mitigation. They will be wanting the snp to pay for and replace adapted vehicles next lost through Tories disability cuts.

Because the scottish tories dont run the UK govt.

Surely the whole point of devolution is to allow us to mitigate, amend, enact and repeal as the scottish parliament decides.

The tories dont want the SNP to do anything, it is them who are crying outrage. Surely this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that we have a devolved parliament for? If not, then what is it for?

The tories are pointing out that it is in the gift of the scottish govt to stop this 'outrage'.

Or do the SNP not want to mitigate it, do they want it to remain in place ao that they can shout 'rape clause' at anyone they deem to be 'tory' and use it to nurture grievance?

[Moulin Yarns]

Because the scottish tories dont run the UK govt.

Surely the whole point of devolution is to allow us to mitigate, amend, enact and repeal as the scottish parliament decides.

The tories dont want the SNP to do anything, it is them who are crying outrage. Surely this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that we have a devolved parliament for? If not, then what is it for?

The tories are pointing out that it is in the gift of the scottish govt to stop this 'outrage'.

Or do the SNP not want to mitigate it, do they want it to remain in place ao that they can shout 'rape clause' at anyone they deem to be 'tory' and use it to nurture grievance?


You do understand that the Scottish Government can't do any of that where the law is made in Westminster by the UK Government, leaving Mitigate as the only option, which costs the Scottish Government (Ergo, Tax payer)

[ronaldo7]

Because the scottish tories dont run the UK govt.

Surely the whole point of devolution is to allow us to mitigate, amend, enact and repeal as the scottish parliament decides.

The tories dont want the SNP to do anything, it is them who are crying outrage. Surely this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that we have a devolved parliament for? If not, then what is it for?

The tories are pointing out that it is in the gift of the scottish govt to stop this 'outrage'.

Or do the SNP not want to mitigate it, do they want it to remain in place ao that they can shout 'rape clause' at anyone they deem to be 'tory' and use it to nurture grievance?

This is exactly what the Tories want the public to think, and you've been hooked.

We'd rather that the Policy wasn't law in the first place, that's why the SNP have been the most vociferous in the Parliament in which the law was enacted.

We've already set our budget for the year on the minimal welfare budget that we have. Maybe we'll have to take money out of the Education, Health budget to pay for it. Which do you choose?

Do you think this policy is good, and if not, why are you not fighting it?

This is the Union dividend in action.

Here you go mate, this is what we're having to do at the moment regarding the Tories. https://t.co/kUOA5acQVL

[Hibrandenburg]

Because the scottish tories dont run the UK govt.

Surely the whole point of devolution is to allow us to mitigate, amend, enact and repeal as the scottish parliament decides.

The tories dont want the SNP to do anything, it is them who are crying outrage. Surely this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that we have a devolved parliament for? If not, then what is it for?

The tories are pointing out that it is in the gift of the scottish govt to stop this 'outrage'.

Or do the SNP not want to mitigate it, do they want it to remain in place ao that they can shout 'rape clause' at anyone they deem to be 'tory' and use it to nurture grievance?


This shows a complete lack of understanding as to how the devolved financial system in Scotland works. It's difficult to take your views seriously when you obviously don't understand the basics.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You do understand that the Scottish Government can't do any of that where the law is made in Westminster by the UK Government, leaving Mitigate as the only option, which costs the Scottish Government (Ergo, Tax payer)

No, not where power is reserved. But you accept they could mmitigate this, via existing powers?

Of course it would cost money, every benefit does. Thats why governing is more difficult than opposition, because you actually have to pay for things.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This shows a complete lack of understanding as to how the devolved financial system in Scotland works. It's difficult to take your views seriously when you obviously don't understand the basics.

Really, do i not understand the basics. Ok then.

Good answer by the way

[Just Alf]

Because the scottish tories dont run the UK govt.

Surely the whole point of devolution is to allow us to mitigate, amend, enact and repeal as the scottish parliament decides.

The tories dont want the SNP to do anything, it is them who are crying outrage. Surely this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that we have a devolved parliament for? If not, then what is it for?

The tories are pointing out that it is in the gift of the scottish govt to stop this 'outrage'.

Or do the SNP not want to mitigate it, do they want it to remain in place ao that they can shout 'rape clause' at anyone they deem to be 'tory' and use it to nurture grievance?


Ah! At last... I see you've finally decided independence is the way forward after all

:devil:


Ps. Did you get my PM?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Ah! At last... I see you've finally decided independence is the way forward after all

:devil:


Ps. Did you get my PM?

Im not anti indy in principle, i just dont agree that we should all rush there, regardless of consequences, on the SNP's agenda.

I did, thanks mate!

[Just Alf]

Im not anti indy in principle, i just dont agree that we should all rush there, regardless of consequences, on the SNP's agenda.

I did, thanks mate!

:aok:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This is exactly what the Tories want the public to think, and you've been hooked.

We'd rather that the Policy wasn't law in the first place, that's why the SNP have been the most vociferous in the Parliament in which the law was enacted.

We've already set our budget for the year on the minimal welfare budget that we have. Maybe we'll have to take money out of the Education, Health budget to pay for it. Which do you choose?

Do you think this policy is good, and if not, why are you not fighting it?

This is the Union dividend in action.

Here you go mate, this is what we're having to do at the moment regarding the Tories. https://t.co/kUOA5acQVL

Yeah but wishing back time isnt going to work. The policy is here.

The SG have reserves and can make changes - they could also state they will include it in next years budget.

Im not the one crying outrage here, you are, its up to you to say what other area of policy you deem to be less of a priority. Thats what being a government entails. There is no infinite pot of money, and no govt can do all of the things it would like to do.

If the changes were scrapped at a UK level,the money wouls have to come from somewhere also.

What do you think would happen in an indy Scotland, do you think we wouldnt have to make tough and unpopular spending decisions?

Also i love how if someone disagrees with your point, you accuae them of being taken in by propaganda when you are the most dogmatic, and obviously partisan person on here.

It may well be a crap policy and i accept that people are angry about it. But the point is, if the real concern here was the victim, then the scot govt can help them. If they dont, then they are using 'rape' amd its emotive nature to score political points.

[RyeSloan]

This shows a complete lack of understanding as to how the devolved financial system in Scotland works. It's difficult to take your views seriously when you obviously don't understand the basics.

So explain to me then why the Scottish government could not have used their own powers to do the following:

Top up child benefit to mitigate the change

Create a new Scottish benefit to replace the lost UK benefit

Committed 0.02% of their budget to fund the change

Raised or varied the numerous taxes they are responsible for to cover the rather limited cost of doing the above.


That not to say that they should need to do so as I think it's a daft policy but when there is a divergence in views on benefit and spending the powers exist in Scotland to exercise our own will on that.

Why then despite knowing about this change for the best part of two years and opposing it at Westminster have the SG decided that they would rather shout 'rape clause' than actually do any of the above?

As I said I agree with their opposition to the policy, I certainly don't agree with how they have used it for political and emotive purposes then sat on their hands. Reeks of duplicity.

[JeMeSouviens]

So explain to me then why the Scottish government could not have used their own powers to do the following:

Top up child benefit to mitigate the change

Create a new Scottish benefit to replace the lost UK benefit

Committed 0.02% of their budget to fund the change

Raised or varied the numerous taxes they are responsible for to cover the rather limited cost of doing the above.


That not to say that they should need to do so as I think it's a daft policy but when there is a divergence in views on benefit and spending the powers exist in Scotland to exercise our own will on that.

Why then despite knowing about this change for the best part of two years and opposing it at Westminster have the SG decided that they would rather shout 'rape clause' than actually do any of the above?

As I said I agree with their opposition to the policy, I certainly don't agree with how they have used it for political and emotive purposes then sat on their hands. Reeks of duplicity.

None of the above changes the fact that this is a reserved matter. It is neither desirable nor efficient to have 2 arms of government implementing and mitigating the same thing and for the Tories to claim that this is how the current devolution settlement is supposed to work is disingenuous to say the least.

Arguably the Scottish government should butt out of Westminster's ambit (and moreso for the Labour party which actively stopped this being devolved in the Smith setup) but that's a different argument.

Politically, the SNP should absolutely be pointing out that this is the sort of thing we could do differently in Scotland if we had the entirety of tax and spend under our own control.

[Hibrandenburg]

So explain to me then why the Scottish government could not have used their own powers to do the following:

Top up child benefit to mitigate the change

Create a new Scottish benefit to replace the lost UK benefit

Committed 0.02% of their budget to fund the change

Raised or varied the numerous taxes they are responsible for to cover the rather limited cost of doing the above.


That not to say that they should need to do so as I think it's a daft policy but when there is a divergence in views on benefit and spending the powers exist in Scotland to exercise our own will on that.

Why then despite knowing about this change for the best part of two years and opposing it at Westminster have the SG decided that they would rather shout 'rape clause' than actually do any of the above?

As I said I agree with their opposition to the policy, I certainly don't agree with how they have used it for political and emotive purposes then sat on their hands. Reeks of duplicity.

Put simply and in a manner that I hope you'll understand.

It's a bit like you giving your 10 year old £10 pocket money but supplying him with the basics like food, clothing and accommodation. Now you decide that you're not going to pay for his shoes anymore and he needs to decide whether to go without shoes or buy them from his pocket money. You then pocket the money saved for yourself.

[Hibrandenburg]

None of the above changes the fact that this is a reserved matter. It is neither desirable nor efficient to have 2 arms of government implementing and mitigating the same thing and for the Tories to claim that this is how the current devolution settlement is supposed to work is disingenuous to say the least.

Arguably the Scottish government should butt out of Westminster's ambit (and moreso for the Labour party which actively stopped this being devolved in the Smith setup) but that's a different argument.

Politically, the SNP should absolutely be pointing out that this is the sort of thing we could do differently in Scotland if we had the entirety of tax and spend under our own control.

:agree:

[RyeSloan]

Put simply and in a manner that I hope you'll understand.

It's a bit like you giving your 10 year old £10 pocket money but supplying him with the basics like food, clothing and accommodation. Now you decide that you're not going to pay for his shoes anymore and he needs to decide whether to go without shoes or buy them from his pocket money. You then pocket the money saved for yourself.

None of that rather odd example answers any of my questions.

[RyeSloan]

None of the above changes the fact that this is a reserved matter. It is neither desirable nor efficient to have 2 arms of government implementing and mitigating the same thing and for the Tories to claim that this is how the current devolution settlement is supposed to work is disingenuous to say the least.

Arguably the Scottish government should butt out of Westminster's ambit (and moreso for the Labour party which actively stopped this being devolved in the Smith setup) but that's a different argument.

Politically, the SNP should absolutely be pointing out that this is the sort of thing we could do differently in Scotland if we had the entirety of tax and spend under our own control.

To a degree I agree 🤣

But is that not exactly what devolved government is all about, especially one that has its own powers to top up the reserved benefit, create its own benefits and raise its own taxes?

Indeed the SG were quick enough to move to mitigate the bedroom tax so why in this case were they unwilling to take their own actions especially when the money involved is significantly less?

[Hibrandenburg]

None of that rather odd example answers any of my questions.

I'll answer with a question. Why should they have to mitigate for policies that no one in Scotland wants not to mention can't defend itself against? Why should the Scottish government constantly have to use its pocket money constantly firefighting fires ignited by Westminster? Why isn't the money saved by the removal of child benefits returned to the Scottish budget to let them mitigate the loss to families?

You can spin it anyway you like but until Scotland has full fiscal control it will never be able to adopt policies that benefit Scotland and instead will have to improvise and adapt on policies designed to satisfy the electorate in England. There's only one thing that will change that.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I'll answer with a question. Why should they have to mitigate for policies that no one in Scotland wants not to mention can't defend itself against? Why should the Scottish government constantly have to use its pocket money constantly firefighting fires ignited by Westminster? Why isn't the money saved by the removal of child benefits returned to the Scottish budget to let them mitigate the loss to families?

You can spin it anyway you like but until Scotland has full fiscal control it will never be able to adopt policies that benefit Scotland and instead will have to improvise and adapt on policies designed to satisfy the electorate in England. There's only one thing that will change that.

Because that is the constitutional set up we scots voted for.

[allmodcons]

Because that is the constitutional set up we scots voted for.

You seriously think that Scots voted for a Parliament with a fixed budget to mitigate the obscene right wing policies of a Tory Government?

What of rape victims in rUK are the SNP at Westminster not allowed to speak for them?

[RyeSloan]

I'll answer with a question. Why should they have to mitigate for policies that no one in Scotland wants not to mention can't defend itself against? Why should the Scottish government constantly have to use its pocket money constantly firefighting fires ignited by Westminster? Why isn't the money saved by the removal of child benefits returned to the Scottish budget to let them mitigate the loss to families?

You can spin it anyway you like but until Scotland has full fiscal control it will never be able to adopt policies that benefit Scotland and instead will have to improvise and adapt on policies designed to satisfy the electorate in England. There's only one thing that will change that.

Never answer a question with a question...it means you still haven't answered the question.

Anyway I'll answer your since you can't seem to answer mine. You know the cut in benefit is being made as part of a wider effort to close the UK deficit...therefore there is no spare money to return to Scotland.

Therefore the choice is clear. Scotland accepts that part of the UK budget is reduced in line with the overall aim of only spending what is raised in taxation or Scotland takes specific steps to either top up that benefit or create a replacement benefit. This of course can be paid for by raising additional taxation to pay for it or by finding areas of the budget to reallocate (as they did for the bedroom tax)

The SG decided not to take any of these steps when it is clearly in their power to do so already with the significant fiscal control they already have.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You seriously think that Scots voted for a Parliament with a fixed budget to mitigate the obscene right wing policies of a Tory Government?

What of rape victims in rUK are the SNP at Westminster not allowed to speak for them?

Yes they did - they voted for a devolved government to operate within the UK. What do you think we voted for?

I dont understand your second question.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

None of the above changes the fact that this is a reserved matter. It is neither desirable nor efficient to have 2 arms of government implementing and mitigating the same thing and for the Tories to claim that this is how the current devolution settlement is supposed to work is disingenuous to say the least.

Arguably the Scottish government should butt out of Westminster's ambit (and moreso for the Labour party which actively stopped this being devolved in the Smith setup) but that's a different argument.

Politically, the SNP should absolutely be pointing out that this is the sort of thing we could do differently in Scotland if we had the entirety of tax and spend under our own control.

So you are advocating using these rape victims to make political points, rather than help them?

[allmodcons]

Yes they did - they voted for a devolved government to operate within the UK. What do you think we voted for?

I dont understand your second question.

Are you just playing at being stupid?

I clearly stated that the Scottish Parliament was not set up to mitigate obscene Tory Policies. If that's what you voted for then more fool you.

With regard to my second point? Do think it's right that rape victims outside of Scotland are being subjected this policy?

It's a totally crass policy and trying to blame the SNP Government for not doing something about it is just a huge deflection by the Conservative Party at Holyrood.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Are you just playing at being stupid?

I clearly stated that the Scottish Parliament was not set up to mitigate obscene Tory Policies. If that's what you voted for then more fool you.

With regard to my second point? Do think it's right that rape victims outside of Scotland are being subjected this policy?

It's a totally crass policy and trying to blame the SNP Government for not doing something about it is just a huge deflection by the Conservative Party at Holyrood.

No i really am just stupid, obviously, because not agreeing with you is clearly stupid.

So, as i am stupid, perhaps you can explain me what devolution is for?

No, i dont agree with the policy, but it is here.

[JeMeSouviens]

So you are advocating using these rape victims to make political points, rather than help them?

I am conflicted and I understand the intention of your use of "rape victims" to point up the emotive aspect of focusing on that particular part of the issue.

What we're really talking about is the 2 child cap in general though. As I've already stated that I think it's a short-termist, unfair and counterproductive policy designed to play to the Daily Mail style demonisation of benefit claimants, ie. the poor, in general.

So yes, I would like to see these people helped. But, as always there are unintended consequences:

The unionists have been absolutely gagging for Scot gov to be suckered into raising taxes. The principal tax they control is on income and only earned income at that, ie. obviously the most unpopular tax to raise. Afaics the plan is: pressure the SG to raise income tax, hope there is an unpopularity dividend for the SNP and with any luck the restoration of a pro-Union majority at Holyrood, hope independence dies as an issue and then the end-game, remove Barnett funding (which tbh, looked at with a degree of objectivity *is* unfair on Wales and the English regions). With a suitably declining economy, Scotland is hamstrung, forever dependent on UK handouts.

So, the long term goal for me of building a country with generous and fair welfare provision is further away than ever and the short term sticking plaster ends up being an enabler of semi-perpetual Tory rule.

The policy should be opposed where the competence for that policy lies.

[beensaidbefore]

Forgive me for jumping into this rather polarised debate. I have a question which may have been answered elsewhere...What sort of figures are we talking about? Does anyone know?

By figures I mean, women who have fallen pregnant and become mothers for a 3rd time?

Cant imagine there will be too many.

[JeMeSouviens]

No i really am just stupid, obviously, because not agreeing with you is clearly stupid.

So, as i am stupid, perhaps you can explain me what devolution is for?

No, i dont agree with the policy, but it is here.

If you believe that devolution is for coming up with local schemes to counter the effects of reserved policy applied at the UK level, you really *are* stupid.

(I don't think you are btw, I think you're pushing the Tory spin.)

[JeMeSouviens]

Forgive me for jumping into this rather polarised debate. I have a question which may have been answered elsewhere...What sort of figures are we talking about? Does anyone know?

By figures I mean, women who have fallen pregnant and become mothers for a 3rd time?

Cant imagine there will be too many.

According to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2015-live-emergency-uk-benefits-to-be-cut-for-families-with-more-than-two-children-10376015.html the 2 child cap is supposed to save £1.35Bn pa by 2021. So I guess £120M pa would be a Scotland ballpark.

If you mean figures for fallen pregnant due to being raped, I've no idea. But I don't see how you can mitigate for that aspect of the policy in isolation.

[allmodcons]

No i really am just stupid, obviously, because not agreeing with you is clearly stupid.

So, as i am stupid, perhaps you can explain me what devolution is for?

No, i dont agree with the policy, but it is here.

For once, just answer the question.

Do you think the Scottish Parliament was set up to mitigate repugnant Conservative policies.

Yes or No and I'll get back to work.

[Moulin Yarns]

I would like to know what happens in the scenario.

A woman is raped and has a child, she qualifies for child benefit and doesn't need to fill in the form. She is raped a second time and has another child, again she doesn't need to fill in the form. she then gets married, and has a child with her husband. Child 3 doesn't qualify for child benefit as it was not the result of rape, can she retrospectively fill in the claim form for the first two children as she was raped, or is there a time bar?

Anyone know the answer as all we hear is the 3rd child is conceived as a result of rape, not any of the others.

[JeMeSouviens]

To a degree I agree 🤣

But is that not exactly what devolved government is all about, especially one that has its own powers to top up the reserved benefit, create its own benefits and raise its own taxes?

Indeed the SG were quick enough to move to mitigate the bedroom tax so why in this case were they unwilling to take their own actions especially when the money involved is significantly less?

1. Yay! :greengrin

2. To a degree, I agree. :wink: But constructing tax and spend policies is I would argue more likely to be done in a balanced (and importantly, accountable) way if different bodies at different levels aren't trying to counter each other.

3 .Bedroom tax mitigation costs £35M pa. If the Indy article I quoted above is accurate, this would cost 4-5x more.

[RyeSloan]

1. Yay! :greengrin

2. To a degree, I agree. :wink: But constructing tax and spend policies is I would argue more likely to be done in a balanced (and importantly, accountable) way if different bodies at different levels aren't trying to counter each other.

3 .Bedroom tax mitigation costs £35M pa. If the Indy article I quoted above is accurate, this would cost 4-5x more.


I took the cost from the £30m over 5 years quoted previously :dunno:

As it is I think I've made all the points I'm gonna make on this thread (as ultimately I don't agree with the bloody policy anyway) but quite enjoyed seeing the counter arguments from those that bother to actually answer the questions posed from both sides :greengrin :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

I took the cost from the £30m over 5 years quoted previously :dunno:

As it is I think I've made all the points I'm gonna make on this thread (as ultimately I don't agree with the bloody policy anyway) but quite enjoyed seeing the counter arguments from those that bother to actually answer the questions posed from both sides :greengrin :wink:

I think Brian Wilson (probably deliberately) compared the £800M over 5 years the SG got for infra spending with £30M over 1 year to mitigate this. But the cost ramps up year on year because the policy only applies to new claimants (I think).

I just keep on making the same points in an endless boring loop. :na na: Vote Yes and I promise to shut up. :wink:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

For once, just answer the question.

Do you think the Scottish Parliament was set up to mitigate repugnant Conservative policies.

Yes or No and I'll get back to work.

Perhaps you will answer my question?

It was set up to allow scotland to take a different path on any policy area within its competence.

Whther a policy is tory and/or repugnant is a value judgement for the scottish parliament. It obbiously thinks this policy is, so it can do something abput it.

Bit im stupid so im still waiting on you telling me what devolution was actually for?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I am conflicted and I understand the intention of your use of "rape victims" to point up the emotive aspect of focusing on that particular part of the issue.

What we're really talking about is the 2 child cap in general though. As I've already stated that I think it's a short-termist, unfair and counterproductive policy designed to play to the Daily Mail style demonisation of benefit claimants, ie. the poor, in general.

So yes, I would like to see these people helped. But, as always there are unintended consequences:

The unionists have been absolutely gagging for Scot gov to be suckered into raising taxes. The principal tax they control is on income and only earned income at that, ie. obviously the most unpopular tax to raise. Afaics the plan is: pressure the SG to raise income tax, hope there is an unpopularity dividend for the SNP and with any luck the restoration of a pro-Union majority at Holyrood, hope independence dies as an issue and then the end-game, remove Barnett funding (which tbh, looked at with a degree of objectivity *is* unfair on Wales and the English regions). With a suitably declining economy, Scotland is hamstrung, forever dependent on UK handouts.

So, the long term goal for me of building a country with generous and fair welfare provision is further away than ever and the short term sticking plaster ends up being an enabler of semi-perpetual Tory rule.

The policy should be opposed where the competence for that policy lies.

Ok, but if that is the case then surely the anti 2 child cap lobby using 'rape' is even more cynical and exploitative?

Im not spinning a tory line, im just stating what seems to me to really obvious, if there is a policy a government abhors so much.

By all means they should make political capital out of an issue they feel strongly about, but they should be taking the appropriate steps to ameliorate it.

As for the 2 child cap, i actually dont think it is the real issue, because i would guess most of the public would agree with it amd think it is sensible.

Hence its opponents need to use 'rape' as the hook on which to hang their opposition.

[allmodcons]

Perhaps you will answer my question?

It was set up to allow scotland to take a different path on any policy area within its competence.

Whther a policy is tory and/or repugnant is a value judgement for the scottish parliament. It obbiously thinks this policy is, so it can do something abput it.

Bit im stupid so im still waiting on you telling me what devolution was actually for?

Thanks for the Yes/No response!

There is a huge difference between taking a different path on policy and spending money mitigating repugnant welfare decisions made by a hard right Westminster Government. I know what devolution entails and say, again, that the Scottish Government should not be expected to take money from a fixed budget to mitigate crass decisions made at Westminster. Give the SG control over welfare and they'll stand or fall on the political choices they make.

You won't admit it, but it's just pure deflection by the Scottish Conservatives. They don't dare question their beloved leader at Westminster and, instead., look to blame the SNP for not finding the money. Why can't they just admit it's an ill conceived policy?

Tell me this, who will be the first to moan about lack of investment in education, health and infrastructure if the SG is continually being asked to mitigate bad welfare decisions made at Westminster?

[JeMeSouviens]

Ok, but if that is the case then surely the anti 2 child cap lobby using 'rape' is even more cynical and exploitative?

Im not spinning a tory line, im just stating what seems to me to really obvious, if there is a policy a government abhors so much.

By all means they should make political capital out of an issue they feel strongly about, but they should be taking the appropriate steps to ameliorate it.

As for the 2 child cap, i actually dont think it is the real issue, because i would guess most of the public would agree with it amd think it is sensible.

Hence its opponents need to use 'rape' as the hook on which to hang their opposition.

I think it's absolutely justified to draw attention to the rape clause as:

- the fact that the Tories thought women having to revisit that kind of trauma via form filling and interviews with an untrained official/benefits assessor tells you a lot about their attitude to benefits claimants in general
- it highlights the arbitrary nature of the 2 child cap in general. It's ok to pick on and harm the potential of some kids but not others based on the circumstances of their conception.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Thanks for the Yes/No response!

There is a huge difference between taking a different path on policy and spending money mitigating repugnant welfare decisions made by a hard right Westminster Government. I know what devolution entails and say, again, that the Scottish Government should not be expected to take money from a fixed budget to mitigate crass decisions made at Westminster. Give the SG control over welfare and they'll stand or fall on the political choices they make.

You won't admit it, but it's just pure deflection by the Scottish Conservatives. They don't dare question their beloved leader at Westminster and, instead., look to blame the SNP for not finding the money. Why can't they just admit it's an ill conceived policy?

Tell me this, who will be the first to moan about lack of investment in education, health and infrastructure if the SG is continually being asked to mitigate bad welfare decisions made at Westminster?

How am i supposed to answer a loaded question like that yes or no. Lets give it a try.

Do the scottish power have the power amd resources to stop it affecting a single scot? Yes or no?

[ronaldo7]

IIRC the additional £800 million of budget resources referred to by Brian Wilson is funding that the Scottish Government did not expect to have. If mitigating the clause would, as he estimates, cost approximately £30m then perhaps here is an opportunity for Nicola Sturgeon to do more than criticise and prove she is genuinely motivated to help. As far as I'm aware the SNP have yet to commit to how they plan to spend the additional funding.

Nobody is denying this is a delicate issue but Sturgeon's present stance smacks of political posturing over a change to the tax credit system which was actually announced in 2015 and, it would seem, aroused little in the way of public controversy at the time.


Is child benefit caught under tax credit rules? And as I have pointed out previously Scotland has specific devolved powers to top up child benefit if it sees fit as well as introducing new benefits.

And if the £30m is accurate out of the £800m then that is the cost over 5 years so £6m a year to mitigate the policy out of a budget of £33bn a year. So 0.02% of the overall budget?

If the above holds true then it's clear to me that it would have been rather straight forward to mitigate rather than pontificate...in fact it would have been rather easy to do both.


So explain to me then why the Scottish government could not have used their own powers to do the following:

Top up child benefit to mitigate the change

Create a new Scottish benefit to replace the lost UK benefit

Committed 0.02% of their budget to fund the change

Raised or varied the numerous taxes they are responsible for to cover the rather limited cost of doing the above.


That not to say that they should need to do so as I think it's a daft policy but when there is a divergence in views on benefit and spending the powers exist in Scotland to exercise our own will on that.

Why then despite knowing about this change for the best part of two years and opposing it at Westminster have the SG decided that they would rather shout 'rape clause' than actually do any of the above?

As I said I agree with their opposition to the policy, I certainly don't agree with how they have used it for political and emotive purposes then sat on their hands. Reeks of duplicity.

It looks like you guys have taken Brian Wilson's figures as fact, without checking. Simar, you are normally spot on with your figures, so why would you continue to use those figures when Golden Fleece has put you right on them?

[Speedy]

I think it's absolutely justified to draw attention to the rape clause as:

- the fact that the Tories thought women having to revisit that kind of trauma via form filling and interviews with an untrained official/benefits assessor tells you a lot about their attitude to benefits claimants in general
- it highlights the arbitrary nature of the 2 child cap in general. It's ok to pick on and harm the potential of some kids but not others based on the circumstances of their conception.

Or it encourages responsible family planning in order to help kids 1 & 2.

[ColinNish]

I would like to know what happens in the scenario.

A woman is raped and has a child, she qualifies for child benefit and doesn't need to fill in the form. She is raped a second time and has another child, again she doesn't need to fill in the form. she then gets married, and has a child with her husband. Child 3 doesn't qualify for child benefit as it was not the result of rape, can she retrospectively fill in the claim form for the first two children as she was raped, or is there a time bar?

Anyone know the answer as all we hear is the 3rd child is conceived as a result of rape, not any of the others.

That's a very good question and one i would like to hear an answer to.

[Just Alf]

Could it be as simple as submitting a police crime reference? I'd prefer to think she wasn't as unlucky as you portray and it was twins, so with the reference submitted then child 3 would technically be considered their 1st.

I think




Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

The Scottish Government have banned private firms from doing benefit assessments. Doing things differently to the Tories, AGAIN.

https://t.co/DHrbfr1nLE

[allmodcons]

How am i supposed to answer a loaded question like that yes or no. Lets give it a try.

Do the scottish power have the power amd resources to stop it affecting a single scot? Yes or no?

Yes.

Will they? Perhaps.

Should they? No, not know.

Why? Because this is an issue affecting women right across the UK. It should be stopped at Westminster which is why the SNP at Westminster are campaigning for the UK Government to reconsider their position. Why can't any of the more 'caring' Tories at Holyrood support the SNP position at Westminster by pressurising their UK counterparts? Is it, perhaps, because they too find the policy acceptable?

[allmodcons]

If only I could express my views like this.

https://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/the-rape-clause-shows-tories-are-still-the-nasty-party/

[ronaldo7]

If only I could express my views like this.

https://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/the-rape-clause-shows-tories-are-still-the-nasty-party/

Great link, and he ticks all the boxes. Tory will always be a four letter word.:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

If only I could express my views like this.

https://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/the-rape-clause-shows-tories-are-still-the-nasty-party/

There's a great video floating around of the Scottish Green's Ross Greer getting stuck in about Ruth Davidson a few days ago. Unfortunately I can only find a Facebook link.

[RyeSloan]

It looks like you guys have taken Brian Wilson's figures as fact, without checking. Simar, you are normally spot on with your figures, so why would you continue to use those figures when Golden Fleece has put you right on them?

I did add an IF for that very reason and never suggested I did have the exact amounts as ultimately the point still stands re actions that could have been taken.

Tis a lesson in listening to anything that auld blowhard has to say though I give ya that.

Anyway as I said I don't support the bloomin' cap anyway so I'm oot. [emoji108]

[ronaldo7]

Whilst to Tories in Westminster are introducing the Rape clause, and Ruth's party do as they're told, the Scottish Government introduce welfare benefits which actually benefit the people.

That's the choices we make. All this with only 15% of the Welfare budget.

https://t.co/8rjj9Oorh4

18456

[ronaldo7]

I did add an IF for that very reason and never suggested I did have the exact amounts as ultimately the point still stands re actions that could have been taken.

Tis a lesson in listening to anything that auld blowhard has to say though I give ya that.

Anyway as I said I don't support the bloomin' cap anyway so I'm oot. [emoji108]

Aye, suppose if the SNP don't like Anthrax, they can just get rid of it.:wink:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Yes.

Will they? Perhaps.

Should they? No, not know.

Why? Because this is an issue affecting women right across the UK. It should be stopped at Westminster which is why the SNP at Westminster are campaigning for the UK Government to reconsider their position. Why can't any of the more 'caring' Tories at Holyrood support the SNP position at Westminster by pressurising their UK counterparts? Is it, perhaps, because they too find the policy acceptable?

Ok fair enough. I kinda think that ship has sailed, but go for it. Amd yes, i agree the scotrish tories do that - i donr know why they arent, i suspect its mostly to do with party discipline around elections.

Its why im not involved in any party, too many moral compromises demanded.

[Moulin Yarns]

Aye, suppose if the SNP don't like Anthrax, they can just get rid of it.:wink:

All depend on your taste.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGHsxMqpL0c&list=PLmc73kRHbCVbQP6cESRTUnvNAs-8OkCVA

[ronaldo7]

Ruth Davidson/Harrison is a Liar.

https://t.co/6XSPddLlHy

With third party groups not having been trained or saying they will not get involved. This is the form the woman has to fill in.

https://t.co/iTdwP8ViF2

[Mantis Toboggan]

But who makes the judgement? That's my concern.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I don't get this either.
Also don't understand why this is such an area of focus for the govt. Are there really a load of women claiming to have borne children from rape in order to get benefits? If not then why such a specific 'clampdown'?
Seems a distraction from more pervasive issues resulting from lack of public infrastructure investment.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't get this either.
Also don't understand why this is such an area of focus for the govt. Are there really a load of women claiming to have borne children from rape in order to get benefits? If not then why such a specific 'clampdown'?
Seems a distraction from more pervasive issues resulting from lack of public infrastructure investment.
It's not a clampdown, though. It's an exemption from the 2-child limit for tax credits.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Mantis Toboggan]

It's not a clampdown, though. It's an exemption from the 2-child limit for tax credits.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Ok. I have misunderstood​, apologies.
So this is a new exception?
If so this whole shebang makes even less sense and looks even more like a distraction

[CropleyWasGod]

Ok. I have misunderstood​, apologies.
So this is a new exception?
If so this whole shebang makes even less sense and looks even more like a distraction
It's not a "new exception ". The cap on Child Tax Credit was introduced last month, and is limited to 2 children. The exception for women who have been raped was part of that legislation.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk