Coastguard tugs unavailable for ferry in engine failure.

On Saturday as the UK government was announcing the extension of a lapsed contract for emergency tug and sea towing around Scotland’s coasts, a ferry carrying more than 100 people was left drifting four nautical miles west of Corsewall Point lighthouse after it suffered engine trouble on its way to Northern Ireland.

Corsewall Point is at the northern end of the Rhinns, Mull of Galloway. The ferry was perhaps one hours drift time from the rocks.

The ferry, Stena Navigator was carrying 70 passengers and had 47 crew on board. She was travelling from Stranraer, Dumfries and Galloway, to Belfast when both engines suffered propulsion failures leaving her no option but to issue a distress call.

Clyde Coastguard, presently facing imminent closure said it received a call from the Stena Navigator at 12.50am on Saturday.

The coastguard reported that two tugs not in coastguard service, Norton Cross and Willowgarth operated by the Svitzer company who deal in salvage and sea rescue went to the area with a view to towing the vessel to Belfast. The assistance of the tugs was refused by the captain of the Stena Navigator as the ferry engineers worked on their mechanical systems.

The ferry managed to get one engine running and sailed over on half power, accompanied by the tugs.

Clyde Coastguard reported the vessel as arriving at around 4.30am with all passengers and crew believed to be safe and well.

The hole in Scotland’s emergency services was filled by a private company, specializing in salvage operations operating and responding on that understanding.

For the ferry captain or owners to accept assistance from the tugs under these circumstances without a previously agreed service contract or fee schedule would have left the ferry ownership open to exorbitant charges up to and including loss of ownership of the ferry itself.

These are not the conditions Scotland’s captains should be operating under, forced to watch approaching disaster and juggle the decision almost to the point of no return in the balance between protecting life or property and maintaining the ability to offer an ongoing service.

This time the ferry operator, its passengers and our nation were fortunate.

Changing our pensions – a Westminster con?

Are we the citizens or subjects of the UK getting the unvarnished truths or simply Westminster sound bites designed to lead us in the wrong direction? 

 

Are the Con-Dem’s being honest on pensions?

Within the EU where do our pensioner’s stand?

It was quickly apparent the UK often gains the reputation of worst in the EU for pensions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/nov/13/statepensions.personalfinancenews

Could it simply be because pensions are a profit center for Westminster and little goes back to the masses who contributed? We do seem to contribute largely in line with our EU neighbours.

In 2007 UK retirees saw a paltry 17% of pre retirement earnings from the state pension. In the EU the average was 57%. Even the next lowest paying country was over twice the UK level. It has not changed significantly since and this was not the first year the UK had that shameful pride of place.

As research advanced it became increasingly clear that it does not appear realistic to save for retirement in today’s Westminster controlled Scotland when Downing Street raids both our private and public pensions simultaneously.

There are two main honest premises for requiring retirement age increases, firstly there’s the argument that we’re living longer. This could mean there are more retirees so those paying in can’t cover the expenses required of the system. Then there could be the fact that the system is already bankrupt. Mismanagement or fraud are not honest reasons.

We could also choose to voluntarily extend the retirement age if the healthy and productive years that we can expect before chronic illness or disabilities set in have expanded significantly.

In examining the average lifespan we do indeed discover it has increased dramatically over several centuries.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

In the 14^th century life expectancy on the day of birth was about 35 years, however when taken only for those surviving past age 21 life expectancy was 64 for peasantry and over 70 for aristocracy. 

Today the office of national statistics tells us we have a life expectancy at birth of around 79, that doesn’t change much if adjusted to life expectancy from age 21. The disparity between aristocracy and peasant is still there at almost half a decade, but in today’s world is better described as the difference between the elite and the average individual.

From this we can clearly see that in the 700 years between medieval Britain and the present adult life expectancy has increased by about a decade, unless you live in certain areas of Scotland when you can now expect a shorter lifespan than the average 21 year old Englishman of 1314. Not including those who fought at Bannockburn.

The shocking discovery is the apparent Westminster fudge, yes we are living longer but the vast majority of the increase is due to a reduction in infant and youth mortality. Instead of dying before maturity these youngsters are now surviving in their droves, to pay into the system for decades. 

This indicates the system might not be as insolvent as Westminster would have us believe.

More retirees, yes, but there are many millions more active payees than a century ago.

For Scotland in 2011 the issue certainly doesn’t appear to be one of living longer.  Our average life span is significantly lower than England and creates a relatively light burden on the NI system. 

With the proposed changes the average time in retirement will only be at about ten chronically ill or disabled years.

In England they can anticipate almost half as much again.

We’re also propagandized into expecting the female retirement age to increase. Government data indicates it may be better to reduce the male retirement age.

In the UK there are presently around 10 million retirees. 

We know the approximate number of retirees against the theoretical number of payees, which is the UK’s 62 million population minus the young, old and unemployed; nominally 36.5 million.

Simple sums mean in 2011 there are 3.6 NI contributions going in for every 1 pension being paid out.

Government data shows the average state pension in Scotland is under £7,000 pounds, including all benefits and extras. It is higher elsewhere.

Understanding what a contribution level is takes a bit more research, basically BOS puts the average wage in Scotland at over £29K, that was a 2009 data release so these tax and income numbers are conservative.

This makes annual NI contributions about £2,850 for the employee, employer’s kick in about the same again http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm

That’s £5,500 a year for each individual supporting the system.

NI doesn’t just pay pensions; the four classes of contributions cover jobseeker’s allowance at a little under £500 from an average yearly contribution, incapacity benefit approaching £350, contributory employment and support allowance rounds up at £150, bereavement benefits approach £100 and maternity allowance is slightly over £100. 

That’s a total of £1,200 from the contributions.

The NHS isn’t mentioned as an encumbrance in current documentation at Whitehall.

Conservatively the average contribution has £4,300 a year for pension payments. We will reduce that to £4,000 to allow for administration. 

This means we have £4,000 times 3.6 available each year for pensions, or about £14,400. Oddly that’s a number which might just get us close to the EU average. 

It’s not far from a 100% increase for our pensioners.

These numbers mean we should be able to give our pensioners almost twice as much, keep the payments the same and drastically reduce the retirement age, or reduce our NI payments.

In a full employment economy the numbers are even better than this.

In Scotland alone where we have slightly less than 1 million pensioners, that is about a £6 billion per year overpay to the UK Treasury. It’s not counted against Scotland’s revenues either.

UK wide it’s not unreasonable to believe Westminster is raking in a profit substantially in excess of the combined block grants of all the Celtic nations. 

David Cameron’s folk still argue and legislate for an increase in the pension age; it should be going in the other direction.

The only logical reason to enforce an increase in the pension age is if the UK is bankrupt and has to raise money from any hidden tax it can enforce.

Each year pension payouts are deferred, how much money does it retain for the Treasury?  

UK wide the pension payments potentially average up to£8,000 a year per individual, although most research still has it somewhat under that. 

Today, with 10 million pensioners deprived of payment, that’s £80 billion a year of treasury savings. All money kept from the poorest and most disenfranchised in our society. 

The proposed retirement age increases can net Westminster over £250 billion a year, cumulatively.

Examining the increases to the pension age, now set for 68 and possibly beyond the question still has to be asked “is the average individual physically capable of working that long?”

The answer lies with the UK government’s office of national statistics, they publish a PDF of life expectancy (LE) against healthy life expectancy (HLE), it’s below and the data is quite surprising.

Males                LE           HLE <95%            Females                    LE           HLE <95%

England              78.0         62.89                      England                    82.1         64.79                   

Wales                 77.1         60.07                      Wales                       81.4         60.18                   

N. Ireland          76.7         59.74                       N. Ireland                81.3         61.77                   

Scotland            75.3          58.26                       Scotland                  80.1          61.63      

The Con-Dem coalition’s own data from national statistics clearly puts the average healthy working limit on Scots, before chronic illness or disability sets in, at 59.94 years.

With a new retirement age set for 68 that means Cameron’s administration is going to require the average Scot to work the best part of a decade beyond what his own statistics say they are physically capable of achieving.

Taxing the citizens at a higher rate because they might live longer years from now is not how the system is designed to work. Today’s contributions pay today’s pensions. Anything else is somewhat like taxing a person this year on the pay raise that might come next year or the years after that. It’s just wrong on so many levels.

Westminster is a government living beyond its means on the shoulders of its people, the same people who David Cameron says should pay off their debts, while he’s encouraging us to spend more in a contracting economy, in which we have less disposable income. Eton apparently doesn’t do sums either, or perhaps Cameron just didn’t listen. 

The above data shows, as the Scottish charities themselves are saying, it is time and past time that the welfare systems were fully devolved. This would allow Scotland to set a retirement age, policy or formula more in line with the physical limits of her people, rather than sending the billions south as yet another Union subsidy.

Demanding more of the citizens of Scotland than your own data clearly states they are physically capable of giving is not respect Mr. Cameron, it is exploitation.

.

Can David Cameron be trusted?

David Cameron has now thrown down the gauntlet to Alex Salmond, stating he should "get on and put the question".  Mr Cameron was referring to holding an early referendum on independence.

While at the Conservative party conference in Manchester, Mr Cameron stated Mr Salmond was trying to create an "unstable" relationship between Scotland and the UK.  The fact that it took Scotland to make up “the United Kingdoms” appears to have escaped David’s recollection, perhaps they don’t teach real history at Eton.

The Prime Minister’s calls were made following the First Minister’s plan to hold a referendum towards the end of the present five-year Holyrood parliamentary term after a "proper debate, consideration and a white paper".  This would certainly appear a reasonable approach to the subject of the independence referendum.

The Scots electorate have been treated to decades of anti-independence rhetoric from what was the only credible opposition, Labour.  However Scots have yet to get an in-depth balanced airing of the pro-independence arguments.  These are a requirement of proper debate, educated voting and therefore are a foundation of democracy.

With support for independence already nudging ahead, the result of a Scots enlightenment though proper debate over independence has the potential to be startling.

Mr Cameron went on record with the BBC, referring to the First Minister: "If he's going to endlessly sort of militate and make things unstable in terms of Scotland's relationship with the United Kingdom then I think better to get on and put the question, find the answer and then I hope get on with building a strong United Kingdom."

Mr. Cameron’s cognitive abilities appear lacking here, it’s Westminster policy that’s holding Scotland’s green energy levy.  It’s Westminster policy that has Scots producers penalized for generating energy.  It’s an odd world where standing up for your rights is “picking a fight”.

A spokesman for the First Minister quite rightly said the question of when to hold the referendum was "clearly a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Government".

Additionally Mr. Salmond’s representative noted: "That is the platform the SNP stood on in May, and which the people of Scotland gave us a resounding mandate to deliver.”

The First Minister’s spokesperson added that the immediate focus at Holyrood was to get an effective Scotland Bill giving real economic levers to Scotland in order for Holyrood to prevent Westminster policy from derailing a pending Scottish recovery.

Against this backdrop David Cameron appears to be a man who blows with the tides, certainly not a trustworthy man with respect to referendums.

On Friday, December 18th 2009 David Cameron was reported in Tory Home under the headline “Cameron rejects early referendum on Scottish independence”.  Mr Cameron did say the referendum would be at a time of Alex Salmond’s choosing, but at that time the SNP were trailing in the polls by around fifteen points.

Now Mr Cameron not only wants to dictate the tune he appears be accusing the SNP of playing a melody he doesn’t like.

Mr Cameron isn’t above changing his position on referendums.  Call it the Nick Clegg strategy, saying one thing to get elected then doing the opposite once in office.  We need only look to Mr Cameron's position on the EU when he called for, literally demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as they were having in Ireland.  He even tabled a Bill to that effect in Westminster, as reported by the BBC on June 2nd 2009.

The Telegraph reported this week that he had reneged on that promise.  Mr Cameron will not now permit democracy to be used in this dis-United Kingdom on such a matter of overwhelming constitutional importance.  The article followed a press conference in which he claimed a “referendum is no longer possible.”

Mr Cameron, democracy is always possible.  A referendum is democracy in action.  All that would be required is notification to the EU that the government of the UK was holding such a referendum pursuant to its election pledges.  David Cameron should attempt to earn some credibility, he should keep his word.

In this reversal David Cameron appears to have forgotten his own words of May this year: “A progressive reform agenda demands that we redistribute power from the EU to Britain and from judges to the people.  We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.”   It is always possible to hold a referendum, even if it’s only “advisory”.

The inference is clear, the UK Prime Minister is certainly not a man of his word, he is not to be trusted.

Then we in Scotland had the pleasure of Mr Cameron’s statements of November 2008, where he was called for honesty in the state of the Union.  He was quoted then as saying; "I believe we should be honest about the problems our Union faces.  It's not just that the SNP are running Scotland; it goes deeper than that.  There is no doubt that the number of people who see themselves as British – ahead of Scottish, Welsh or English – is in decline."

Cameron followed this up with: "It is in fact about identity.  You see it all over Europe, all over the world.  People are seeking a clear identity; often a more localised identity.  Just look at the rise of Cornish nationalists.  I think we shouldn't fight that."  He then continued about “Britishness”.

Now he promises to fight for Westminster’s undemocratic dictatorship over Scotland with every fibre of his being.

There is little honesty in this Union.  We Scots find it almost impossible to discover accurately how much revenue we generate, and even his Scots commander in chief Ms Goldie is telling him and middle England that Scots pay in more than they get out.  England would be poorer without us.

This brings us back to the referendum.  The prime reason to call it early is to hope to avoid proper debate.  This is because as even the independent Unionist championing sites such as “One Dynamic Nation” demonstrate, under open debate the argument for continuation of this Union simply falls apart.  If it did not the site moderators would have posted every comment that wasn’t abusive or profane.  They would have encouraged healthy debate.

The secondary reason for a quick un-debated referendum is the hope for a quick Unionist win, a win on a two part referendum that would promote the status quo.  Under such circumstances expect Scotland to quickly feel the full impact of “Austerity”, there would be no shield.  Claims of “lost mandate” would be levelled against the SNP.

A few words to scratch the surface of the character of the UK Prime Minister.  And this is the individual who will tell us we should follow him in a continuing Union?

David Cameron: would you buy a used car from this man?

FFA or DevMax: The non-starter for ten.

Full Fiscal Autonomy (FFA) or DevoMax is worth mentioning as it's becoming increasingly newsworthy and is the preferred halfway house of conservative Scotland.  We even have one candidate for the Labour leadership in Scotland proposing it with the argument it will strengthen the UK, while taking the position he himself isn't a Unionist.

I'll meet my maker still trying to get my head around that.

FFA is the oddball third probable question in the upcoming referendum.  The question that nobody really wants to be on the referendum, but one that looks set to be there anyway.

It'll be there as a third option because conservative Scotland needs it today, and probably still will when its polling time.  Arguably the only reason conservative Scotland needs that third option is due to obfuscation by Westminster and the Unionist media.

If the mainstream media played an honest neutral course sites like Newsnet wouldn't need to exist, and that third option would quietly fade away with these independent sites.

With the media giving plain honest data we'd have simple easy choices and life would be uncomplicated.  Unfortunately we live in a world where the media and Westminster are mutually supporting pillars of the Union establishment. And that Union establishment needs Scotland's resources to maintain its credit rating.

Therefore FFA will most likely be a referendum option, although it is neither the legislative status quo nor reclamation of full sovereignty.  It has the advantage that FFA is arguably much closer to independence than where we presently are, almost full sovereignty but without the declaration.

But everything about FFA declares it's a non-starter.  It might just take conservative Scotland a little while to catch up to that idea.  By that time we might be saddled with it.

Salmond knows it's a non-starter, but he realizes it may be a requirement of conservative Scotland.  A similar case can be made for the first eight years of Holyrood when we suffered through two ineffectual Labour Lib-Dem administrations.  It's easily argued those first administrations in Holyrood were a result of conservative Scotland and their media friends as well.

Cameron knows FFA is a non starter, he demonstrably doesn't want it on the ballot.

The issue with conservative Scotland and the FFA alternative is that conservative Scotland doesn't yet understand this is the one option that it is not up to conservative Scotland alone to choose.

If it was just up to conservative Scotland FFA might well work. The problem is that Westminster has to agree to the FFA option as well, or it's dead in the water.  For those of us old enough to remember Bamber Gascoigne and University Challenge, his catchphrase was, "Here's your starter for ten." Here are ten reasons FFA is a non-starter.

• The biggest issue is the most basic, Westminster.  It sees itself as the sovereign body in the UK.  It will not permit itself to be dictated to by 'subordinate bodies' like the Scottish Parliament.

• FFA would require an English Parliament to be set up beside a Westminster one.  Westminster would then become a more federal type of arrangement.

• In a federal set up there will be huge pressure for House of Lords to disappear.  The House of Lords will fight against this.

• Fiscal policy would have to be agreed jointly.  The English and Scots Parliaments, as well as possibly the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, would have equal input.  The Bank of England, originally set up to fund England's wars, is most unlikely to acquiesce to sharing fiscal policy between multiple administrations.

• Fiscally independent nations would have to agree on any mutual expenditure or encumbrance.  This would have to operate jointly through Westminster.  Westminster would therefore be required to have equal representation of Scots and English or other members or the system just doesn't work.

• Westminster could well decide to fight another war, legal or otherwise, yet Holyrood would effectively have a veto power on funding it.  The English or other parliament would also have this option.  It is unlikely Westminster will cede this power voluntarily.

• Westminster would have to verify all aspects of any future policy that come within its scope and remit with Holyrood, an English parliament or other relevant body as any decisions undertaken would impact all nations equally.  It is unlikely Westminster or the Whitehall establishment will permit this.

• Foreign aid and foreign relations would be a mutually agreed policy.  This would extend through all armed services and security services which would remain under Westminster control.  Anticipate MI5 and MI6 etc being less than enamored at the prospect of being circumvented.  They might well find themselves unemployed.

• Immigration will create considerable issues as Scotland and England have different needs and at the present they are somewhat mutually exclusive.

• The EU and the Euro are very likely to be required referendum issues, forced there by any one of the constituent nations.  Westminster has served notice on many occasions that these areas are reserved to Westminster and it will not give up that power easily if at all.

Food for thought on FFA, remembering that these are just some of the possible example non-starters for ten and that the list is open to expansion in so very many ways.

The deeper one burrows the greater the divergence between each potential constituent nation.  Just count the UK ministers and permanent secretaries, that number would drop to perhaps the PM, and three others with national representatives from the relevant nations.

There are three M's that Westminster will certainly lose under any FFA type of settlement with Scotland.  Westminster will no longer have unrestricted and unfettered access to Scotland's minerals, manpower and money.

It is feasible that a system could be made to work without an independent autonomous English parliament, but that in its most basic form would have us precisely where we are at present excluding some minor tinkering ability with our own finances.  Where would such a system leave N. Ireland and Wales?

If conservative Scotland forces through FFA expect Westminster to balk, stall, obfuscate and prevaricate.  It will not acquiesce.

Westminster really can't baulk at a clean break, there are far too many precedents in constitutional history and Westminster is a signatory to almost all major international conventions.  Westminster can theoretically stop Wales gaining autonomy because it gained that territory through ancient right of conquest.  N. Ireland is anomaly I will not deal with here, but Scotland is a fully sovereign nation bound only by the conventions of a three century old treaty.

Ultimately it will be Scotland's choice, but prepare for it to be a far more difficult choice than it should be due to a combination of conservative Scotland, Westminster and the Unionist media.

Ending the Union of 1707 will be like any other dissolution.  It can be quick and merciful, over and past with minimum discomfort, or it can be slow and lingering, painful and more completely disruptive than any sane individual desires or wishes for.  Westminster's almost certain reaction to FFA will ensure the excess of pain.

The cancer in the Union, growing for over three centuries has now become systemic and will soon be fatal, there is no panacea.  Ultimately the Union is dead, all that remains is to observe how much damage the Scots are willing to permit the last spasms of a yet twitching Westminster to inflict.

Coastguard: Response time and local knowledge.

Westminster is about to close the comment period on the “coastguard reorganisation”, a “reorganisation” that will see Scotland lose the facilities on the Forth and Clyde estuaries should it go ahead as planned.

At the present every indication is it will go ahead.  Reconsideration would be appropriate, but appears unlikely.  Westminster is using the “reorganisation” basically as an asset sell off to raise cash, Whitehall needs the cash as it’s effectively bankrupt. 

A few months ago the frontrunner for the new government contract was Soteria, an international consortium, although that contract was recently put “on hold”.

This may lead to an interesting situation where William, heir to the throne, would be in RAF service but subcontracted to Soteria for all his search and rescue duties. Soteria stands to make money from his services that are already paid for by either the civil list or RAF.

We’ll call that another Westminster first, just for the royals this time. Like many other RAF pilots William will effectively be earning his pay in the private sector, however “Wills” doesn’t seem to keen on the idea himself. The crown prince has publically argued against the proposed search and rescue services alterations.

The coast guard is effectively the ambulance service of the ocean.

The present suggestion from some bean counter in Whitehall is to have Coastguard stations at part time Stornaway and full time Belfast, cover the West Coast with Aberdeen the only remaining East Coast facility in Scotland.

Would we accept one ambulance depot covering the entire east coast, and rely on ambulances from another country for our west coast?

That’s what’s about to be rubber stamped in spite of the fact that the Scottish Government has expressed strong desires on more than one occasion to assume responsibility for the entire service in Scotland.

If the responsibility is devolved, the assets can’t be sold.

The privatisation of the coastguard search and rescue services is effectively PPI or PFI by another name. The country gets to pay much more for substantially less, precisely 33% less in this case as the search and rescue fleet is to be reduced by one third.

Westminster tells us they can’t afford the new helicopters, reducing the count from its present thirty six Sea-Kings to twenty four Sikorsky’s that will be under private ownership and public contract. Private ownership needs to make a profit.

Newsflash for Westminster, cancel the junk hardware you don’t need and spend the money on life saving services we do need. If the rubbish can’t be cancelled then budget better and phase in the equipment. Alternatively the aircraft carriers you can’t afford and were just going to put helicopters on, station those helicopters with search and rescue.

Station closures; there are two main issues, response time and local knowledge.

The extra time required for a rescue helicopter may only be some ten minutes, a little less in some cases if a vessel gets into difficulty in just the right area.

Speaking from personal experience in captaining a 60 foot trawler; the pure unpredictability of the ocean says clearly it’s not an easy life, experience tells me that difficulty rarely ever happens in “just the right area” at “precisely the right time”.

In winter the survival time in the seas around Scotland is measured in minutes. Those extra minutes taken for a heli-lift from Stornaway or Belfast might just be minutes that ocean travelers don’t have.

Then we have to consider the time taken for coastguard vessels to reach a stricken ship. If a Cal-Mac ferry was foundering ten miles off Ardnamurchan point, or we had a repeat of the Piper Alpha disaster, we should severely question the ability of the token force remaining to be able to handle either type of incident.

With the added loss of capacity through the attrition of the RAF bases which could previously assist the coastguard the result is that the waterborne rescue capacities for an island nation, already woefully understaffed become almost laughable.

Then there’s that “local knowledge” bit.

The issue appears to be that Westminster doesn’t seem to realise it’s not discussing changes to the AA or RAC. Watercraft don’t travel on clearly delineated highways. Skippers use charts.

The problem with not being “on the hard” is that liquid flows. It doesn’t flow evenly. It ebbs, eddies and the wind makes its own impact. Vessels rarely get into trouble on flat calm seas when there’s no wind, though a skipper I know did just that. He caught an old driftnet in his running gear around midnight, it almost cost him his vessel.

A vessel captain may have taken a course reading two hours ago, and report where he thought he’d be as trouble hit. In reality he might be five or ten miles from where he believed. Local knowledge instinctively knows the tidal level, incoming or outgoing, and the impact that will have when combined with wind and sea current.

This means there’s a good chance they’ll look in approximately the right place. If there are two available responding centers they can perform faster sweeps.

It also means there’s a good chance they’ll be able to perform their job safely and not simply add to the casualty list.

A ship in difficulty at Corryvreckan is a good example, local knowledge might say there is no risk half an hour each side of slack tide. Four times a day, in one hour increments anyone can sail across the whirlpool – outside of those four one hour increments it’s increasingly fatal.

The issue with a loss of local knowledge is simple, the tide isn’t slack at the same time each day. It changes by almost an hour daily. The tide in Aberdeen isn’t slack at the same time as the tide at Ardnamurchan.

In stress situations human error happens easily and compounds quickly.

Radio contact and sat-phones are for the movies, most trawlers or smaller working ships together with sailing pleasure craft that aren’t millionaire’s playthings only have one reliable “friend” – it’s called an EPIRB - Emergency Position Radio Indicator Beacon – it deploys when you’re going down. 

What’s next from Westminster – dial 999 and get a call center in India?