Euthanasia

Margo MacDonald seeks to open the debate on the subject of euthanasia.

She has made her position quite clear, sadly the manner of her speech betrays someone with, apparently nothing to live for. My view on this is different, in that I cannot accept the principle of assisted suicide, which is nothing of the sort. As soon as someone else is involved it becomes murder, or any variation thereof, as by definition suicide is taking one’s own life.

This brings me to the next premise. Is it acceptable for someone to demand that someone else kills them? I think not, as it violates the principle of the sanctity of life.

For those who argue that a person, who has a right to life, must surely have a right to die, it is not as simple as that. You see, while it may be difficult to argue against the right to die (and for those able bodied, the opportunity always exists) it is only a short step from the right to die to an implied, or even explicit duty to die so as not to be a burden on, family, friends or society at large.

For those who say that safeguards must be put in place, let me point you to various parts of the world where euthanasia is becoming routine. We do not want to go there.

You also need look no further than our country and the abortion act to see how what was proposed as a last resort to be used only in exceptional circumstances has become (without any change in the law) abortion on demand as a means of contraception.

No, we must resist the proposals put forward by Margo MacDonald and espoused by various Liberal Lords MP’s and MSP’s (Joffe, Harris and Purvis come to mind). The answer is to ensure that everyone who needs it receives the highest possible quality of palliative care so that people suffering from terminal illnesses do indeed die with dignity, That is what I am fighting for.

Banks are in business to lend

Edinburgh West Liberal Democrat MP John Barrett called on banks to make more money available to local businesses. Somehow I wonder what planet Mr Barrett is on.

Banks are in business to lend money, that is what they do. If businesses are finding it difficult to borrow money it will be because the businesses cannot make the case that they are a good risk and will be able to repay the loans made.

Surely with all the government money invested in the Banks the public would be rightly enraged if they thought that the Banks were being irresponsible in their lending? After all, is this not how they got into this mess in the first place?

Sale of Edinburgh Airport

John Barrett MP has called for the competition commission to think again over the sale of Edinburgh Airport.

I disagree.

My personal experience of the airport is not good and I have witnessed displays of what can only be described at best as indifference and at worst breathtaking incompetence. The management that seem to care little about the travelling customer which is a symptom of a monopoly operator who knows that the customer has no choice.

The sale of Edinburgh Airport will introduce competition with Glasgow and Aberdeen that will lead to growth and improved services, the staff employed there can look forward with confidence to a bright future.

Charities and social services

There is a myth put around by the Labour party that the Conservatives are against social services and that we will be cutting social provision.

This is of course complete and utter nonsense. One of the main motivators for my political activities is a desire to improve the lot of the entire population.

Where I take issue with the Socialists is that they believe that only the Government can and should provide.

The problem with this philosophy is that it ignores the message of history which shows very clearly that Government is very bad at providing caring services. You only have to look at the enourmous sums of money spent by the Government on Social services and the number of stories of failure that accompany them. Examples being Victoria Climbie and Baby P.

Social care only really works where there is an extra element, that is where people are motivated by love for their fellow man. Where this is there, you will deal with the real problems and not simply seek to plaster over the symptoms to meet targets.

Take Homelessness. People become homeless for many reasons, but ultimately it happens because the person has no one they can turn to. In other words, where family has broken down, there is a greater risk of homelessness.

There are many agencies and charities dealing with homelessness. In Edinburgh where I live there are various. There is of course the social services department of the council. By and large they do a reasonable job, within the restrictions that they have, ie the target driven culture of the Labour Government.

Compare that however with (for example) Bethany Christian Trust. Established 25 years ago and working mainly in Edinburgh seeking to relieve homelessness. What is startling is that they operate on a shoestring (as do most charities) yet they are able to do their work at a 10th of the cost of social services and their success rate is phenomenal. 75% of all referrals to Bethany move on to permanent accommodation and are still there and in employment two years after leaving Bethany.

A 10:1 success rate simply cannot be ignored. Indeed I've brough this to the attention of the senior members of the party. Recently Francis Maude was in Edinburgh, and we took the opportunity to take him along to meet with Bethany and to see some of their work. It's fair to say that Francis was mightily impressed.

Looking to the future, you have to ask, should government not encourage more work of this nature in preference to the tried, tested and failed government provided social services?

Yes, I believe in social provision, I believe that the poor and underprivileged should be helped, it's just that government has a bad track record, and charities, doing it out of love for their fellow man seem to be much better at it. For the sake of the homeless and the taxpayers, let's encourage the likes of Bethany.

Lib Dems and the local income tax

The Council tax, like any tax is not popular, although much of the reason for theis can be laid at the door of the Labour government which over the past 11 years has heaped more and more responsibilities onto local authorities without a corresponding increase in revenue to cope. Given the gearing effect of the tax, the increases have been disproportionate. It has been the ultimate Labour stealth tax.

Alex Salmond’s SNP want to replace this with a so called local income tax, which is not local. Given their lack of a majority in the Scottish parliament the SNP need help. Step forward the Liberal Democrats who seem keen to support the SNP in making Scotland a less attractive place to live not to say more expensive for young couples where both are working. I’m sure that the voters of Edinburgh and elsewhere will remember the Lib Dems support of this flawed idea at the next elections and will vote accordingly.

Far better the solution proposed by the Conservatives which seeks to reform rather than replace the council tax and in so doing will cut bills for everyone.

Government advice on Pets

Cat and dog owners are to be told to provide "entertainment" and "mental stimulation" for their pets under new government advice.
The code of practice also includes advice on diet and providing "somewhere suitable to go to the toilet". (bbc 4/11/08)

At a time of economic crisis when government spending is mushrooming out of all proportion it says something about this government that they employ people to do something as pointless and idiotic as to tell people how to look after their pets.

If ever there was evidence of the opportunity to cut government spending to reduce taxes without having any effect on services then this is it.

Bankers Bonuses

The Lib Dems have criticised banks for apparently putting money aside for bonuses to be paid next year.

As would be expected they huff and puff about how wrong this is, all the time exposing their complete financial and economic illiteracy.

They fail to understand that bonuses in industry are paid as a reward for success. The people so paid have delivered beyond agreed targets , therefore have made a positive contribution to the profits of that company. If a company makes profits, it will pay taxes, and those taxes pay for the workings of Government.

Just where do the Lib Dems think government money comes from?

More on Emissions

The Liberal MP for Edinburgh West praises the Labour Government for including emissions from Aviation and Shipping into the climate change bill. This is all very green and noble, but if implemented will bring this country to its knees. At a time when we are already facing a serious economic downturn, to add additional costs to the whole economy is simply madness.

If implemented, the cost of Aviation will rise. It’s fine for him. As long as he is MP, he claims the cost as part of his legitimate expenses. The rest of us have to pay ourselves, and for him. Add in shipping emissions and our country (which you may have noticed is an Island and depends entirely on shipping for trade) will be hobbled.

Ultimately, the Liberals can afford to make grandiose, pointless gestures because they will never have to deal with the consequences in government. The problem is that somebody else will have to. It’s time we had a bit of common sense.

Liberals and Labour block pension reform

On Monday 27th October the Liberals and Labour joined together in the House of Lords to block an amendment to the Pensions Bill that would have allowed people reaching the age of 75 to defer the purchase of an annuity for their pension.

This amendment was introduced by the Conservatives in light of the current stock market turmoils so that pensioners are not disadvantaged. The Liberals opposed the amendment because the amendment was not theirs and the Labour party simply confirmed that they do not believe that older, prudent people should have a choice of how their funds are invested to provide an income. It’s a classic case of Labour living up to “the man in Whitehall knows best” syndrome.

As a result of this, a small number of people will be forced to buy annuities which will be singificantly below their true worth resulting in reduced income in retirement all because of selfish pique and dogmatic ideology.

Just say no

It's a symptom of the Labour government and the so called nanny state that regulations, targets and restrictions are introduced willy nilly to deal with each and every new crisi that emerges.

Classic amongst these is the question of obesity. Obesity is caused (with a very very few exceptions) by over eating over a period of time.

The cure for obesity therefore is simply, reduce the amount eaten. To achieve this is simple. It requires a bit of self control and a modest amount of excercise.

The Labour Government doesn't see it like this. They look for someone to blame, whether that be the sellers of (so called) junk food, supermarkets or even newsagents who place chocolate oranges close to the checkout.

This is crazy, the solution to a chocolate orange is not to buy one. The solution to junk food is not to buy it (very often). The solution is to educate people that it is their responsibility to look after themselves.

Yet more taxes?

The Liberal MP for Edinburgh West has called for the Government to tax the holiday aspirations of ordinary members of the public in Edinburgh West. He is also calling for an increase in the cost of imports not to mention threatening the jobs of many people in this constituency.

At a time of economic downturn, when people are rightly concerned about their jobs, we do not need additional costs being loaded on to peoples shopping bills. Likewise when money is tight, and holidays are being put under stress, these proposals will simply price out of the market many people who would otherwise go on holiday to the likes of Spain.

By all means encourage more efficient use of resources, but to increase the scope of taxes when we are already too highly taxed is not the answer.

Sharia Law

There have been recent reports in the Scottish press suggesting that Sharia Law is proposed to be adopted or indeed permitted in Scotland.

This is wholly unacceptable and has no place in the legal system of this country. If individuals wish to settle disputes between them privately according to Sharia law, then that is a matter for them, but where there is recourse to the law of the land, then let it be clear that we have our law that has been established over generations according to either Roman law in Scotland or Common Law in England and Wales and these are the systems that operate.

Sharia law operates in a few moslem countries (the majority of Moslem countries do not in fact operate Sharia law) and that is a matter for them. In Scotland and the UK our system works fine, and let it continue. Those who wish to operate under Sharia Law are free to go to those places where that law operates, just don’t expect it to operate here.