Scott Britt lives with his parents, Charles and Camilla, his sister Bronwyn and brother Billy.
Charles and Camilla both work and earn average wages but have a lot of debt from past excesses and from current over-spending. Both spend more on their cars, holidays, food, drink and recreational drugs than they have coming in. Bronwyn and Billy both work but their jobs are insecure and pay only the minimum wage.
Scott, a university graduate, has to give all of his above-average earnings to his parents and gets only an allowance in return. Often his parents moan about his allowance and say he gets more than his share. Secretly, he has worked out that he earns far more than he gets back and is subsidising the rest of the family. When he tells his parent this, they tell him that he has forgotten to add in his share of the family’s debt repayments for items such as the cruise Charles and Camilla went on by themselves and the tuition fees they incurred at university before dropping-out in second-year.
Scott has talked about setting up home himself, but his parents say that he cannot afford to because he is running a deficit, owes them thousands for his share of the family debt and won’t have any furniture or clothes because they all belong to them. Often they call him ‘too poor, too wee, too stupid.’
What can Scott do?
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Call a man with a van
Pack all that belongs to him into the van
And move out
Leaving a note inviting them around for dinner if they wish to discuss the future
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well,if he decides to stay,that will indeed make him too stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh excellent, a sociology quiz!
Well. This is a classic case of psychological abuse (now illegal in Scotland btw). Scott is being emotionally blackmailed into staying and is not allowed any financial independence. The emotional abuse where he is told he is not good enough, is to force him to stay, wearing down any confidence or self esteem he might have had.
He should leave the family home first, as a matter of urgency, because he will not gain enough self esteem or confidence to stand up to the bullying while still there. He could find a new job somewhere else or just move out, though may need assistance in the first place to find a place to stay and set himself up. It is unlikely he will get any of his money back to do so, but should not wait for this to happen – cutting his losses so to speak. This way he can start to heal, gain confidence and get back some self esteem. He may feel able to sue for some of his earnings back after being apart for a while.
This kind of emotional blackmail from close family is very harmful, and usually only complete removal from the environment can break the abuser/victim relationship.
Hmm. I wrote that as purely based on the pretend-family situation. But now I’ve written it, I’ll let it stand for the analogy as well – it throws an interesting view on things for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lefty social worker causes family breakup and coming out of previously normal dad!
LikeLike
Forgot to post these at the weekend. First off, just a report on one of the Supreme Court justices getting sworn in – but is probably of not much interest except to point out that it’s a whole different world:
Strange world of judiciary:
https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/supreme-court-justice-says-any-attempted-erosion-of-judicial-independence-will-be-opposed
“The Supreme Court justice said: “Occasionally following a Scottish appeal, I venture a mild complaint to him about the jargon surrounding Scottish legal procedure.
“Lord Hodge then tends to snap back that there is just as much jargon in the law of England and Wales but that I am used to it – which is absurd of course.”
He added: “The Law School at Edinburgh is justified in its expression of pride in its two great sons. Today, the whole of Scotland will be celebrating – well except, possibly, in Ibrox.”
He concluded: “Look Patrick, as deputy president, you’ll be brilliant, you always are.”
The polite sniping in those last few paragraphs is bit bizarre, I’m guessing that’s what passes for judge bantz.
This link is to a seminar event, I’ve just cut and pasted text from a news item, then the event brite blurb it links to, I’m not even sure who the faculty of Advocates are, but they are looking at practical things regarding Scotland joining the EU – the assumption being that Scotland will become independent. Not discussing whether Scotland should or should not be independent, but discussing what do once we are – I like this type of assumption! Start planning ahead, make it a fait accompli.
Faculty to stage major event on Scotland after Brexit
https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/faculty-to-stage-major-event-on-scotland-after-brexit
A major seminar to put the spotlight on Scotland’s place in Europe following Brexit has been announced by the Faculty of Advocates.
Expert speakers from politics, the law and academia are lined up for the full-day event in Parliament Hall, which aims to inform the public about the realistic prospects for Scotland’s future.
The primary focus will be on whether and, if so, on what terms Scotland could become an independent member of the EU,” said Ronnie Clancy QC, of the event’s organising committee.
“With the possibility of another referendum on Scottish independence, we will explore the rules governing accession to the EU by a newly-independent country, the legal and economic conditions which would apply, and the politics of an accession application. We will also examine the effects of EU membership on the future relationship between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom.”
Those confirmed to contribute to the debate on Friday, 20 March, are Professor Catherine Barnard, professor of European Union and labour law at Trinity College, Cambridge, Dame Mariot Leslie of Chatham House, Dr Kirsty Hughes, director of the Scottish Centre on European Relations, Professor Andrew Scott, professor of European Union studies at Edinburgh University, Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive and chief economist of the European Policy Centre in Brussels, and Professor John McLaren, honorary professor of public policy at Glasgow University.
The award-winning journalist, Allan Little, will chair a panel discussion with politicians. Those confirmed to take part are: Joanna Cherry QC, MP, Ross Greer, MSP, Richard Leonard MSP, and Willie Rennie MSP.
“We have specifically set aside a block of invitations which will go to senior pupils from Scottish schools. We want to stimulate well-informed debate amongst youngsters whose future prosperity may depend on the result of any independence referendum,” added Mr Clancy.
SCOTLAND IN EUROPE POST-BREXIT
About this Event
The Faculty of Advocates will host an important one day seminar in Parliament Hall on Friday 20th March 2020 discussing Scotland’s future in Europe. The primary focus will be on whether and if so on what terms Scotland could become an Independent Member of the EU.
There will be three sessions each containing contributions from distinguished experts followed by a moderated discussion with questions to the speakers and contributions from the floor.
The speakers include:
Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union and Labour Law at Trinity College Cambridge,
Dame Mariot Leslie, Chatham House,
Dr Kirsty Hughes, Director of the Scottish Centre on European Relations,
Professor Andrew Scott, Professor of European Union Studies at Edinburgh University,
The event will close with a fourth session comprising a panel discussion with invited representatives from the Scottish political parties. This will be chaired by the highly respected journalist Allan Little.
The object of the exercise is to inform the public about the realistic prospects for Scotland’s future.
The topics to be discussed will include:
The Rules:
• The criteria for EU membership.
• Input from EU institutions/member states to application process.
• Individual issues such as currency, budget deficit.
• Membership of the Council of Europe.
• Timescale.
Conditions in a Tailor-Made Accession:
• Which conditions are likely to be particularly significant?
• How much guidance can be provided by previous or current applications?
• How would the specific conditions be influenced by post-independence arrangements between Scotland and UK?
• Could Scotland remain in the EU without leaving the UK?
• Timescale.
The Politics:
• Who would be calling the shots in the EU institutions and the member states? Are there likely supporters or opponents?
• The experience of other previous applicants.
• The relevance of other current applications: would Scotland be in a queue?
• What difference do our history of membership and our 2016 referendum result make?
• Timescale.
Registration will be from 9.30am with Tea & Coffee. Light lunch will be provided, and the event will be followed by a networking drinks reception. Full programme to follow.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You forgot to mention how Scotts “parents” (are they really his? They don’t sound or look like Scott!) rented out part of his room to house WMDs their Uncle Sam had, and had “lent” to the Britt family.
Uncle sam also wanted to turn Scotts entire room into a massive Low Frequency Aerial, to communicate with his world-wide submarine fleet, with the Britts enthusiastic approval, but people in the street didn’t want the noise, dirt and flashing lights day and night.
Anonymous tax haven users can also buy up huge chunks of Scott’s room for nefarious purposes.
Heathrow airport also want part of Scotts room to grow trees to off-set their carbon emissions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Scott’s situation is much worse than it first appears, good additions gavin, it shows it is even more imperative Scott gets out.
LikeLike
Scott also had some fixtures and fitting installed by the house builder—a Mr Jahovah, but Mr&Mrs Britt claimed anything he had was theirs, as oil, gas, fish etc could not be owned, possessed or the bounty thereof enjoyed, by a minor.
And, because he was a “minor”, the legal system unique to his House, also did not apply, only the legal system of the Britt House, who lived downstairs, set a precedent which could be used.
There are lots and lots of Britts, and only one Scott so his voice is muted, but he has cousins in the next street who think this is parental-abuse, and would put him up if they had the chance.
An Uncle Boris wants to put a lock on Scotts room door, even though bad things can happen to a locked-in child.
Uncle Boris is first named on the Will, if anything “bad” were to happen to Scott.
LikeLiked by 2 people