Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Leanne1812

kabayiri wrote: »

Define "end in sight".

2018/2019 is only the point at which government income and expenditure are roughly in balance.

*If* we achieve this by the target date (a big ask) then there will be the small matter of paying off a debt which will be approaching 2,000 BILLION pounds.

Even at a rate of £100 billion pounds over payment per annum, that would be 20 years.

How about "no debt in 2040"? How does that sound?

'End in sight' that's the million dollar question isn't it?....

Can I ask where you get your figures from? It's all pretty much a big 'if' isn't it?

No offence but again it's who we choose to align with. All the parties can promise the earth but there is no guarantee of delivery. I'm not thinking vote SNP get nirvana.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Have a read Clapton, this might clarify alternative.

It's nothing too radical.



DID First Minister Nicola Sturgeon get her sums wrong when she put forward an alternative to Westminster’s austerity agenda ... and does it make any difference if she did?

The Treasury certainly thinks she made a mistake.

It costed measures the Scottish First Minister laid out in a speech in February, in which she argued for a more gradual approach to cutting the UK Government’s deficit and debt.

Sturgeon suggested that, even if departmental spending was increased by 0.5% per year in real terms in the next parliament, debt would still FALL as a percentage of GDP from 2015/16 onwards.

The Treasury costings, on the contrary, suggest debt as a percentage of GDP under the Sturgeon proposal would GROW in the first two years of the parliament and then begin falling in 2018/19 from 82.2% to 81.4% in 2019/20.

It would still appear, though, that Sturgeon is justified in saying that the debt to GDP ratio could fall even if real term departmental spending is increasing, although the speed of this fall is not as rapid as she suggested, and the debt to GDP at the end of the parliament is fractionally higher than at the beginning (81.1%).

The reason for the differences between the Sturgeon and Treasury costings appear to be driven largely by assumptions about how the additional borrowing adds to debt interest repayments.

Ultimately, however, it is difficult to ascertain exactly the extent to which different assumptions made by each ‘side’ are driving the result.

The SNP does not appear to have produced an exposition of their analysis, while the Treasury analysis could certainly be more transparent (an attempt to replicate their figures requires cross-referencing various tables and debt ready reckoners published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the interpretation of which can be ambiguous.

This all poses a number of questions.

First, does it make sense for the Treasury to cost opposition party policy? There would seem to be a stronger case for this role to be undertaken by an independent body. But George Osborne previously ruled out the idea of the OBR performing this role.

Second, how meaningful is it to use the Autumn Statement as the baseline against which the Sturgeon proposals are assessed? As has been pointed out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the fiscal tightening implied by the Autumn Statement is stronger than that proposed by any of the main UK parties, including the Conservatives.

Third, and most importantly, how significant is the difference between the estimated debt/GDP ratio under the Sturgeon plans made by the Treasury (81%) with that suggested by Sturgeon (79%)?

Arguably, this is a fairly minor difference. In both cases, the debt/GDP ratio remains high in the context of the period since the 1970s.

But whether the ratio is 79% or 81% doesn’t undermine the general point that Sturgeon was making.

With growth remaining lacklustre, economic output below potential, and with interest rates at the Zero Lower Bound, there is a strong argument for saying that now is not the right time to pursue rapid austerity.

Instead, use fiscal policy to help stimulate demand, and pursue austerity when interest rates can be reduced to offset the negative effect of austerity on demand.

Both sides could improve the transparency of their policy costings. But Sturgeon’s case for a slower path of deficit reduction is not undermined by splitting hairs on whether debt:GDP might be 79% or 81% in five years time.

David Eiser is a Research Fellow at the Centre on Constitutional Change and the University of Stirling

the debt to gdp ratio doesn't determine how fast the borrowing is increasing:
if gdp increases (as it is) then a constant ratio means more borrowing.

the issue of 'independent ' costing of alternatives policies would indeed be a modest step forward but still won't stop anyone arguing the analysis is wrong if they don't like the result:

The SNP want 0.5% per annum spending increase in real terms?
Is government in Scotland really so efficient that there isn't scope for 0.5% improvement in efficiency and effectiveness?

The net result however you look at it is the the SNP are arguing for more borrowing with no specific end in sight.

It is, of course, true that borrowing costs are low at the moment but that it unlikely to the case indefinitely and they debt interest will come back to bite us.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

She was right it seems...

No, she was clearly wrong.

Lets take a look at what she said....

SNP member Dr Whitford said: “So this hospital, a big hospital in Gateshead, are thinking about unilaterally declaring ‘We don’t treat gullet cancer anymore’. What happens if every hospital in area does that?”

And now lets examine the facts....

The only major hospital in Gateshead, the Queen Elizabeth I, does not offer gullet cancer operations.

Whoooops.

Caught out in a lie on that one. Blatant scaremongering.....

So where are the cancer ops done?

All cancer operations in the North East of England are done at the specialist unit in the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle, which has an outstanding international reputation. “This is the biggest lot of crap I have ever heard,” said Sir Leonard Fenwick, the chief executive of the North East NHS foundation. “It is just codswallop.

“Newcastle has referrals from all over the UK and beyond. We are one of the biggest providers of cancer treatments in Europe.

Ouch....

Still, never mind, maybe she was, as Shakey thought, right after all?

Lets ask her....

Yesterday, breast cancer surgeon Dr Whitford, 55, from Ayrshire, admitted she had no proof of her allegations and hadn’t checked them out before making them

“It is not something I have investigated,” she said..

So just to recap, an SNP member who happens to be a doctor makes up total nonsense and broadcasts it all over the internet, is then caught out in those lies, and goes on to run for parliament for the SNP.

Situation normal then.....

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No, she was clearly wrong.

Lets take a look at what she said....

And now lets examine the facts....

Whoooops.

Caught out in a lie on that one. Blatant scaremongering.....

So where are the cancer ops done?

Ouch....

Still, never mind, maybe she was, as Shakey thought, right after all?

Lets ask her....

So just to recap, an SNP member who happens to be a doctor makes up total nonsense and broadcasts it all over the internet, is then caught out in those lies, and goes on to run for parliament for the SNP.

Situation normal then.....

Give over Hamish. You're nit picking. Labour was all over the Scottish NHS saying it would be safe and protected with a No vote. That Phillipa and the SNP were all lying through their teeth about cuts coming it's way. Phillipa's main point was about the dangers of cuts coming Scotland's NHS's way with a No vote. She held up her hands to making a comment that was unchecked.. but her overall message still stands because..

Well hey ho, look at what Labour are saying now. And it's not playing well. Scotland hasn't suddenly gotten collective amnesia since last Sept. We remember what was said and what the narrative was from Labour back then. They said it would all be safe and in no danger whatsoever from 'consequential cuts' because it's the Scottish government controls it.. Now they're saying actually, it is. :eek:

Hence the poll results at the moment. People don't like being treated like complete idiots when it comes to deciding who to vote for. And I'm not going through all this NHS stuff with you again ( we spent a long time debating this before ). The referendum is over, you won. Get over it at some point will you ?

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Give over Hamish. You're nit picking. Labour was all over the Scottish NHS saying it would be safe and protected with a No vote. That Phillipa and the SNP were all lying through their teeth about cuts coming it's way. Phillipa's main point was about the dangers of cuts coming Scotland's NHS's way with a No vote. She held up her hands to making a comment that was unchecked.. but her overall message still stands because..

Well hey ho, look at what Labour are saying now. And it's not playing well. Scotland hasn't suddenly gotten collective amnesia since last Sept. We remember what was said and what the narrative was from Labour back then. They said it would all be safe and in no danger whatsoever from 'consequential cuts' because it's the Scottish government controls it.. Now they're saying actually, it is. :eek:

Hence the poll results at the moment. People don't like being treated like complete idiots when it comes to deciding who to vote for. And I'm not going through all this NHS stuff with you again ( we spent a long time debating this before ). The referendum is over, you won. Get over it at some point will you ?

Do you have such a generous view of all politicians who lie about a specific issue ? Is it OK for all politicians to just say OK I didn't check the facts?
I think not but it's for you to say.

What about her other more general point: the English NHS would cease to exist in 5 years? Does any rational person believe that rubbish?
She does of course gain a very high financial advantage from the current NHS system.

Shakethedisease

N1AK wrote: »

There's a few things I'd like you to validate a few other statements with an external reference while we're at it so that they can be legitimately be accepted into this thread:

Sources please.

For my personal bio.. no. Nicola is well quoted about her childhood and growing up years. As is the area she grew up in.

But more seriously:

Could I have a source for this?

Sure...Have 5 or 6. These were all in the last week. I can't imagine that the newspapers, many Tory supporting...( we know who is setting the agenda, lets be honest about it)... will be helping foster that 'feel good' feeling between Scotland and England. And am sure there's much worse to come. Also see the Telegraph ( any Scottish political article, and comments ), the Sun with Nicola Sturgeon on wrecking ball a few days ago. And since none of the more hysterical 'SNP are coming' articles appear in Scottish editions..they'd never have the guts.. Who do you think is fostering bad feeling between the two nations ? .. The SNP ?

Oh and directly from the Tories with posters showing Alex Salmond saying 'your worst nightmare' etc etc

This is nutzoid political bluffing. Labour are being abandoned wholesale in Scotland. The Tory scaremongering shows they would destroy the union to stay in power.... This is all too reminiscent of how it was until a few weeks before the referendum.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/11/everything-were-hearing-about-this-election-feels-like-spam-email

Following such a vote, the most plausible outcome would be a Labour minority government led by Ed Miliband, and sustained in power by Nicola Sturgeon and her tartan army.
...If this sounds a nightmare scenario for the English people..
..Nicola Sturgeon would name her price for supporting Labour, which would include a dumper-truck of English taxpayers’ cash

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2982046/The-terrifying-prospect-Scots-ruling-England-real-MAX-HASTINGS-nightmare-scenario-facing-Britain-Election.html

To borrow the most incendiary saying of all: If Scotland rules England, I can foresee the Thames foaming with much blood..

..If, as many fear, the Scottish Nationalists take control of English affairs, that mood will turn to fury. Democracy is at stake...

...A government formed with the support of a party that rejects England and the English – what would English MPs and English people make of that? Why on earth should the English tolerate this? Who’s speaking for English independence?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2984391/ALLAN-MASSIE-borrow-incendiary-saying-Scotland-rules-England-foresee-Thames-foaming-blood.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2015/mar/09/steve-bells-if-

The comments under show how well this went down !

And then there's :-

A general election campaign that is turning into a vile witchhunt...

The Scots have every right to participate in this election and SNP members have every right to be represented in Westminster and participate in government if that is how the dice falls. All MPs in Westminster are supposedly equal.
Indeed, was this not precisely the mission statement of the Better Together campaign in the independence referendum? That Scots would be better off participating in the UK political system than setting up on their own?


Allan Massie's Powellite diatribe is the extreme form of an attitude that has been widespread in the UK tabloid newspapers recently, though Scottish readers aren't often exposed to it because it is edited out of Scottish editions. The Sun, for example, has been running double page spreads about the threat from a "Frankenstein" SNP-Labour coalition...


...But "rivers of blood" is something else. The Scots are being depicted as a kind of "enemy within", an alien force seeking to exert control over England. It is beyond the pale. We scribblers have a responsibility not to turn a general election into a witch hunt.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/a-general-election-campaign-that-is-turning-into-a-vile-witchhunt.120264319


Have fun wading through. Am looking forward to your sources in return.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Do you have such a generous view of all politicians who lie about a specific issue ? Is it OK for all politicians to just say OK I didn't check the facts?
I think not but it's for you to say.

What about her other more general point: the English NHS would cease to exist in 5 years? Does any rational person believe that rubbish?
She does of course gain a very high financial advantage from the current NHS system.

I think the English NHS may well look very different in 5 years time. She's a consultant working within the NHS. As such she probably knows quite a bit more about it than you or I. She said that the NHS wouldn't be safe from cuts if there was a No vote. Better Together said it would. It isn't, says Labour 6 months later.. I'd trust her more than any Labour or Tory politician to say what's what NHS wise, in either England or Scotland.

elantan

Dr P. whitford is a joy to watch, she very often says things she shouldn't and puts her foot in it.... That being said I do not for one second think she ever sets out to confuse or mislead people.

The thing we need to remember about Dr W is she is NOT a politician, she is a consultant that sees the future of something she holds dear going down the swanny, and she is willing to fight for what she believes. She is an amazing woman that wants the best for constituents and will work hard for them, in the mean time she is learning the ropes of being in a snake pit.

A woman I respect deeply and have watched blossom and grow over the last 18 months, I hope she wins her seat

Leanne1812

I've seen her speak too and was impressed.

What we need to remember is as a consultant working in the NHS she is better placed than most to tell us what is really going on.

Yes, she made a mistake but what politician hasn't? Is it going to be held against her forever?

I too hope she wins her seat, she comes across as intelligent & genuine.

elantan

She certainly is one of them

And yes I too would also believe someone on the ground at the coal face ( so to speak)... I too work in the NHS and can see many of things of which she speaks....

Fingers crossed she gets in as I think she would be phenomena, I wish Jeanne Freeman had decided to stand also but when we spoke about it I totally got her point .... Now theres one amazing woman, add Lesley Riddoch to the mix and I would've been delighted