For every year that we work, a younger person is deprived of a job.

People who live and work in London are being priced out of their own city. Something must be done to give London back to londoners.

Prior to and since the referendum on Scottish independence there have been repeated allegations that the SNP Scottish Government deliberately and recklessly overestimated the oil revenues an independent Scottish state would collect whilst simultaneity playing down the importance of these monies to public finances.These allegations have become so persistent, wide-ranging and detailed that they are now undermining the credibility of the SNP Scottish Government. It is in the interest of both sides of this debate that the Scottish Government (Mr John Swinney) commissions a fully independent review of the basis for the oil revenue estimates it used to support its case for Scottish independence and publish considered analysis of how a independent Scottish state could have managed any oil revenue shortfall .

Large profitable companies get away with paying less than ordinary people, in parliament you will hear the politicians arguing about the top rate 50 p for personal tax. Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g USA Principles Applie to the UK MPs hardly ever talk about corporation tax mostly because of vested interests in large companies, and old beliefs in capitalist market being able to take care of everything. The figures below tell you the facts vote now: Personal Income Tax Tax rate Taxable income above your Personal Allowance Basic rate 20% £0 to £31,865 Most people start paying basic rate tax on income over £10,000 Higher rate 40% £31,866 to £150,000 Most people start paying higher rate tax on income over £41,865 Additional rate 45% Over £150,000 Vs Corporation Tax 21% April 2014 The government would be able to spend the 50% tax money on public services such as the NHS, Schools, and Legal Aid, Police, Fire Brigade and other public sectors !

The UK public purse loses tax that can be used to fund much needed public services 25% is too low for the new tax rules. Organisations that have little or no investment in the UK and earn large sums for example: Google made £3.3 billion they paid tax of £20.4 million small compared to if they were taxed 50 % through the new scheme: The public purse would have gained £1.65 billion that could have went to the NHS, Schools, Fire Services, Legal Aid. The consultation closes on the 4th February 2015. Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d5FZU64Bnw&x-yt-ts=1422503916&x-yt-cl=85027636

After Abu Dhabi's leading royal Sheikh Mansour committed to investing in the UK, at the opening of a new £150m football academy by Manchester City Football Club, the Chancellor wanted to do the same. This is important to campaign against because there are currently almost 1,000,000 people in the UK who are having to resort to food banks to survive whilst the Government splashes £50 million on something that isn't a priority.

Parliament is currently considering spending at least two billion pounds on renovating the Houses of Parliament. The building is increasingly unsafe to use, with falling masonry, asbestos, fire hazards and many other dangers. Spending this amount of money to keep an out of date system hobbling on would be indefensible. This is the ideal opportunity to change not only the home of Parliament, but the way it works. The Government say they want to make the North of England an economic powerhouse: now is the opportunity to make a move in that direction. A new purpose built campus would be a start. A modern debating chamber - such as we have in Scotland, with a design to make it less confrontational - would be a start. Apart from the chamber, offices, committee rooms etc,. the campus should also include flatted apartments for MPs who have to travel. These would be furnished to a comfortable, but not luxurious, standard and would be free to use, so there would be less opportunity for the suspicion of fiddled expenses. This could be extended to including an on-campus dining system where a number of restaurants would be available. MPs would be given a daily allowance when staying on campus to attend committee meetings or plenary debates. These could be paid for by a customised debit card system. This would allow them to budget by dining in their apartments at times, or going out at others. The cost of security would be less, with all MPs under one roof whilst they were at "Northminster". The accommodation area of the campus would be secure and private for the safety and convenience of MPs and their staff: the debating chamber would be open to the public, as well as being visible on televsion as now. One big advantage for all of us, including MPs and their constituents, would be that the new system would be designed for video-conferencing and electronic communications generally. This would reduce the inconvenience and cost of MPs having to travel as frequently as they do now. Of course, there would be a need for occasional plenary sessions, but these could perhaps be reduced to one week in four or something similar. There would still be a need for a presence in London, for the meeting and greeting of foreign dignitaries etc., so Number Ten could continue to function as the Prime Minister's residence. There might also be a need for similar official residences for one or two senior figures in the Government, but apart from that MPs would live in their constituencies - at least we'd hope so - and use a mixture of new technology and visits to "Northminster" to carry out their duties. There are, of course, already plans afoot for a high speed rail link: this would enable MPs from the south of England to travel efficiently from their constituencies, as required, and would mean MPs from Midland, North of England or Scottish constituencies had shorter distances to travel. I firmly believe that this would a) help the general population to see they were getting value and relevance from their MPs, b) bring an outdated and much-lampooned mediaeval system of government into the twenty-first century and c) bring economic benefits to an area which apparently feels left behind in modern Britain.

The Chancellor has pledged to extract "every drop" of oil from the North Sea. If all countries in the world do this, we will head for runaway climate change of well over two degrees. Oil resources are tempting. But leadership at home and abroad means all countries - particularly rich ones that have built their economies on a century of fossil fuel use - have to start making big choices. The Chancellor has announced "radical" and "significant' cuts to the tax rate for North Sea oil and gas companies. But the rate of tax wasn't high enough in the first place: fossil fuels cause climate change and air pollution, yet companies don't pay anywhere near the full costs of the damage these cause. The Chancellor should increase, not decrease, taxes on oil and gas, alongside throwing all of his financial and economic levers at building a world-leading secure, sustainable and clean energy system as a matter of urgency.

The multinationals and the elites et al are determined that this deal be done in secret and away from the spotlight - and we all know why. Bringing things into the open and under the full glare of publicity makes them justify why it is such a good deal as they claim (we all know it isn't) and it is the one thing that will kill this thing for good. That is why doing something like this is the one thing they hate and fear more than anything else - and why it is the best tactic. a few hundred signatures to start should do it, then more if possible. PLEASE make this a major 38 degrees sponsored campaign - not just one from me - co-opt/steal this idea and use it! publicity like this will kill TTIP for good - ALL parts of it.

In many countries including the USA and Spain British pensioners enjoy annual increments to their pensions just as their counterparts in the UK. But if you are unlucky enough to live in a number of countries including Australia, Canada or Indonesia, your pension is frozen for life. A recent example in the press highlighted the plight of two sisters. They both retired in 1982 on the then full pension of GBP 28.50 a week. One now lives in the UK and enjoys a fully indexed pension of GBP 113.10 per week. The other sister went to Canada and receives the same GBP 28.50 a week that she received in 1982. There are many war veterans living overseas who are similarly suffering. They paid their contributions in full during their working lives and they fought for their country. But who is getting the benefits they earned now? Many politicians have promised their support in the past but when it comes to the crunch the victims of this injustice are out of sight and out of mind. The pensioners are not asking for charity; they are simply asking to be treated fairly and given the pensions that they paid for. Had they paid the contributions to a commercial institution and been similarly treated that company would no doubt be in serious trouble. But the government is above the law and continues to be more concerned about winning votes than righting a wrong that has been perpetuated by successive governments. The wicked irony is that the cost of rectifying the wrong would be a fraction of the billions they are now collecting in fines from the crimes committed by banks. Another irony is that the people who are suffering constitute no burden to the state while they are living overseas. But should they be forced through sheer poverty to return to the UK not only would their pensions be restored in full but they would have access to all the state benefits and could become a much greater burden on the government. It all defies logic but unless the public recognizes the unfairness and shouts loudly enough for MP's to hear, the 550,000 pensioners will gradually grow weaker and fade away. Does anybody care?

We have a bewildering number of train tickets available, which can sometimes mean that for a long journey it is cheaper to buy 2 single fare tickets rather than one single fare ticket. Also, a return ticket can be cheaper than a single. It can even be cheaper to buy a ticket from one train company's ticket machine than from another train company's machine. Travelling to London Victoria can be cheaper than travelling to Clapham Junction (a shorter distance for me). Looking at a ticket machine screen can make your head spin, when all you want to do is get from A to B and be charged for the distance travelled. Legislation is needed to impose logic and fairness.

The current direction of welfare spending and procedures is not in-line with the will of the Scottish people and the direction in which we want to take. With 100,000 disabled persons standing to lose their lifeline in coming months it is imperative that the Scottish Parliament is able to make decisions on their welfare made based on the needs of the people of Scotland.