General / Off-Topic Scotland suddenly becomes even more expensive.

[Surfinjo]

“This deal will ensure that funding for Scotland cannot be changed without the Scottish Government’s agreement.

“It protects the Barnett Formula and it will allow the powers in the Scotland Bill to be delivered.”

The deal struck last night broke months of deadlock as governments north and south of the border failed to agree how Scotland’s share of public spending should be reduced in exchange for new powers.

The agreement means there will be no cut to the Scottish budget for six years.

After that there will be an independent review but there will be no detriment to Scotland going forward.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sco...0224-_-SunScotNews-_-376561356-_-Imageandlink

So, while we can't afford decent health care, enough police, adequate education for our children, universities, care for the elderly, it seems Scotland can.

And according to none other than George Osborne:

Mr Osborne said: “Today we’ve secured a stronger Scotland in a stronger UK.

“The arrangements we’ve reached with the Scottish Government are fair to Scotland and fair to taxpayers in the rest of the UK.

 

[Lianachan]

What do you mean "expensive"? Are you under the impression that Scotland is funded by generous hand outs from our southern friends?

 

[Lianachan]

So, while we can't afford decent health care, enough police, adequate education for our children, universities, care for the elderly, it seems Scotland can.

Oh, and don't blame us for the injustices or inadequacies of your own government. We just choose to do those things, whereas your lot do not. It's not our fault that your lot do not.

 

[Surfinjo]

What do you mean "expensive"? Are you under the impression that Scotland is funded by generous hand outs from our southern friends?

Nope.

I'm simply pointing out that, with similar government incomes per head of population, the Scots enjoy investment in education, free university tuition, decent care for the elderly and many other benefits.

We on the other hand are being told we much tighten our belts more an more. It's been going on since 1979 yet we are still being told we are spending too much.

Perhaps someone is not telling us the truth. No, that's unthinkable, isn't it? I mean to say, even the Labour Party supports these cuts. Aren't the Labour on our side?

Chancellor George Osborne has warned he may have to make fresh cuts to public spending in next month's budget.
He told BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg that global economic turmoil and slower growth meant "we may need to undertake further reductions".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35672158

 

[Lianachan]

Nope.

I'm simply pointing out that, with similar government incomes per head of population, the Scots enjoy investment in education, free university tuition, decent care for the elderly and many other benefits.

We on the other hand are being told we much tighten our belts more an more. It's been going on since 1979 yet we are still being told we are spending too much.

Perhaps someone is not telling us the truth. No, that's unthinkable, isn't it? I mean to say, even the Labour Party supports these cuts. Aren't the Labour on our side?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35672158

Ah, ok. Sorry if I was a trifle terse. The ignorant myth that Scotland is subsidised by England is one I have encountered too many times!

 

[Arry]

This is just Dave and Ozzy doing the best they can, not to live up to any promises they made to the people of Scotland, for voting to stay in the UK. Timed of course not to up-set the SNP too much before the referendum.

 

[beelbeebub]

Without wishing to kick off an argument, doesn't Scotland have a government spend of around £1k per head higher than the rest of the UK?

I thought that was essentially what the Barnett formula guaranteed, the rationale being it is more expensive to provide gov services in Scotland due to the geographic distribution (and geography itself) of the population.

So the Scots can spend more to do things like free prescriptions and no unit fees, that we can't do because we spend less per head down south.

According to this site (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending) it looks like gov spending fell from around 45%gdp to 35%gdp through the 80's rose back to 45% from 2000-2010 and has fallen to 40ish since then, s not a continual decline, more of a bumpy road. What's interesting is that health has seen a big jump from 4-5% in the mid 80s to 7-8% now, not quite doubling, pension spending however have rocketed from 5% to 8%(ish) since the 80s.

That's why we keep having to tighten our belts, we are spending about the same as we were in the late 70's but we have more pensioners to support who use more health services.

 

[Lianachan]

Spending per head in Scotland is higher, but Scotland still gets back much less than it pays in. There's some analysis of it here.

 

[Surfinjo]

Without wishing to kick off an argument, doesn't Scotland have a government spend of around £1k per head higher than the rest of the UK?

I thought that was essentially what the Barnett formula guaranteed, the rationale being it is more expensive to provide gov services in Scotland due to the geographic distribution (and geography itself) of the population.

So the Scots can spend more to do things like free prescriptions and no unit fees, that we can't do because we spend less per head down south.

According to this site (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending) it looks like gov spending fell from around 45%gdp to 35%gdp through the 80's rose back to 45% from 2000-2010 and has fallen to 40ish since then, s not a continual decline, more of a bumpy road. What's interesting is that health has seen a big jump from 4-5% in the mid 80s to 7-8% now, not quite doubling, pension spending however have rocketed from 5% to 8%(ish) since the 80s.

That's why we keep having to tighten our belts, we are spending about the same as we were in the late 70's but we have more pensioners to support who use more health services.

Appreciate the figures, but the deception is that we are continually told it's all about money.

It's about management.

Education is an investment, not an overhead. An educated workforce is a more productive workforce.

Health is an investment. A healthy workforce is a more productive workforce.

Social welfare, policing, adequate prisons with adequately trained staff because when people feel safe they are more productive.

This is what the Scots government is aiming to achieve and why they are succeeding and we are not.

The figures are frankly suspect since they tend to bundle expensive projects such as the destruction of the ME and subsidies to selected groups, separately.

Westminster makes these decisions. Any claim to be doing so on behalf of everyone is a lie. Westminster makes these decisions for itself.

Westminster spends vastly more, per head of population than the Scots Government.

 

[Jezzah]

None of it I'll make a blind bit of difference if the "uk" votes to leave EU in June. It'll be iScot referendum time all over again and if they have any sense at all north of the border they'll go this time.

 

[Lianachan]

None of it I'll make a blind bit of difference if the "uk" votes to leave EU in June. It'll be iScot referendum time all over again and if they have any sense at all north of the border they'll go this time.

Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that another Scottish referendum would take place, and the British establishment would probably do all it could to prevent it - and then to cheat and lie through it again if it did take place.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

None of it I'll make a blind bit of difference if the "uk" votes to leave EU in June. It'll be iScot referendum time all over again and if they have any sense at all north of the border they'll go this time.

A Scot here, in Scotland.

If there's another iVote - I'm going to vote No - because if there's a Yes vote, the SNP commies will drag Scotland back into the EU.

Now, I've got nothing against Europe, it's the European Union I don't want the UK or Scotland to be joined with. If the government of Scotland were more to my Classical Liberal tastes, then I'd be all for an independent Scotland which was back to its Adam Smith roots - I know that might stick in some folk's craw here, but well, yeah, politics

By all means let us trade with European countries (as we did in the past before the EEC bait-and-switch), but being a member of the EU? Nope. No thank you.

As for the OP, Scotland really does put more into South of the border then we get out of it. Simple fact.


Regards o7

 

[Jezzah]

I strongly suspect genar that you would be in a very small minority if the EU vote goes against dav and ozzy

 

[Lianachan]

I strongly suspect genar that you would be in a very small minority if the EU vote goes against dav and ozzy

I'm a Highlander living in the Highlands, and my preference is for an independent Scotland first and foremost, and preferably within the EU. David Cameron has said he's for staying in Europe - you know, the same way he supports West Ham Aston Villa or somebody.... The EU referendum is one where it would be great to see both sides lose. Boris Johnston or David Cameron - really? The thought of either of them being happy about anything is horrific.

 

[Surfinjo]

................................. then I'd be all for an independent Scotland which was back to its Adam Smith roots - I know that might stick in some folk's craw here, but well, yeah, politics

I'm all for Adam Smith, freeing up business where ever it is feasible.

But even Smith recognised there are limits.

Even Smith recognised that we must change with the times.

Business needs an educated, healthy workforce, an environment with adequate policing and proper social care to deal with offenders and other unsettled individuals. And even Adam Smith would have recognised that the way to source raw materials and markets is through negotiation, not at the barrel of a gun.

Common sense really, the basic services must be first priority in economic management because only when those are working properly can business full prosper. Can entrepreneurs exploit their ideas.

 

[beelbeebub]

The argument about Scotland producing more than it gets is short of besides the point.

In any taxation/benefit system some people will pay more than they receive and some will receive more than they pay. Sometimes these people will be in geographic clusters.

If all the pay more/get less clusters up sticks and leave then the system falls apart.

Then you have the issue that some parts of the newly separate groups will pay less and get more. So do the wealthy parts of the newly separate area split off again?

It is impossible for everyone in a tax/benefit to get more than they pay, except if you're an oil economy and then you're very dependent on oil prices.

Of course the argument that Scotland as an area is more leftish in its politics than the UK as a whole and therefore, if independent, could pursue a more redistributive agenda (higher tax, more benefits) is extremely valid.

However, if you give this argument weight you are implicitly endorsing a redistributive system (I.e. Moving money from the productive areas to the less productive areas) which would make using the argument that Scotland is getting less than it gives hypocritical.

 

[Lianachan]

Of course the argument that Scotland as an area is more leftish in its politics than the UK as a whole and therefore, if independent, could pursue a more redistributive agenda (higher tax, more benefits) is extremely valid.

However, if you give this argument weight you are implicitly endorsing a redistributive system (I.e. Moving money from the productive areas to the less productive areas) which would make using the argument that Scotland is getting less than it gives hypocritical.

Not really, as the fact that Scotland is putting in more than it gets out is mainly used to debunk the myth that independent Scotland is not economically viable - it's not used as a reason for independence in itself.

 

[Surfinjo]

The argument about Scotland producing more than it gets is short of besides the point.

In any taxation/benefit system some people will pay more than they receive and some will receive more than they pay. Sometimes these people will be in geographic clusters.

If all the pay more/get less clusters up sticks and leave then the system falls apart.

Then you have the issue that some parts of the newly separate groups will pay less and get more. So do the wealthy parts of the newly separate area split off again?

It is impossible for everyone in a tax/benefit to get more than they pay, except if you're an oil economy and then you're very dependent on oil prices.

Of course the argument that Scotland as an area is more leftish in its politics than the UK as a whole and therefore, if independent, could pursue a more redistributive agenda (higher tax, more benefits) is extremely valid.

However, if you give this argument weight you are implicitly endorsing a redistributive system (I.e. Moving money from the productive areas to the less productive areas) which would make using the argument that Scotland is getting less than it gives hypocritical.

Strange, if Scotland were substituted for the UK and the UK were substituted for the EU, your little polemic would sound like a not very convincing pro-EU argument.

The Scots are canny enough to recognise that none of us, not England, not any other European country can go it alone.

The Scots have a choice, remain in the UK as a Vassal of Westminster of stick with the EU and have a chance to argue as an equal.

As a bonus, the world can be rid of the UK once and for all. Everybody wins.

 

[beelbeebub]

When the iscot thing was on, I looked into the whole "Scotland can't pay its way" thing.

Basically it was horse poop. Scotland's economy is basically the same as the rest of the UK. That is to say if o wanted to build a (say) boat, the Scottish boat yards would have similar wages, taxes, material costs etc to a boat yard in Devon or Cumbria when compared to one in Italy or Croatia.

Of course, scotland's economy would be much smaller than the remaining UKs and would be more dominated by oil. As a country right at the extent of Europe with (presumably) a separate currency it would be subject to more volatility but that's not a show stopper. Other countries live with it.

The issue with iScot and Brexit is simply one where you have to decide, do we want to head in a direction where we get smaller, UK breaking up, England breaking into smaller areas, the EU breaking up, Germany and Italy returning to smaller regions, France and Spain splitting up and so on. Or do we want to move towards a future where the distinctions between nations become less functionally (note traditions and culture can still exist) important.

Bear in mind the history of warfare between the multitude of european nations, even between the Scots and English and welsh. I would argue that union has helped prevent violence between the nations.

 

[Surfinjo]

I would argue that union has helped prevent violence between the nations.

And I would agree with you. Because the historical evidence says so.

But that is not the case now. Now, the UK exists as a military force. It has no other function.

An independent Scotland would, sensibly, keep the pound as England and Wales should. It makes perfect sense that these close trading partners should use the same currency.

As for Germany and Italy breaking up, I haven't heard that. I know one region of Spain wants to break away. That's fine. More democracy is what we all need.