Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

Froggitt wrote: »

Land masses was the justification for the Barnett Formula. Obviously if Scotland can afford free university/prescriptions etc on top of land masses spending, Barnett is not fit for purpose these days.

Barnett was a labour minister designing a formula just before an election when it was deemed necessary to buy Scottish votes.

Voltaire7

CLAPTON wrote: »

If Scotland had been independent then the failure of RBS and HBOS would of been enormous significance to the people of Scotland.

It certainly 'would of', whatever that means!

CLAPTON

Voltaire7 wrote: »

It certainly 'would of', whatever that means!

so you are too stupid to work it out all by yourself?

matters of substance are more important.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

It sounds a reasonable premise. I'm sure there might be negatives as well as positives with such an approach.

For example, how do you cope with a rapid reduction in income as a result of a sharp reduction in oil prices?

The same way any other country does ? Scotland wouldn't be unique in having to face upturns, downturns and boom and bust.. It does seem however.. that 4 years of sustained 'Scotland doomed' scenarios have left a lot thinking that indeed, Scotland somehow would be unique in that sense.

I do hope someone tables a motion along these lines in the commons though...

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The same way any other country does ? Scotland wouldn't be unique in having to face upturns, downturns and boom and bust.. It does seem however.. that 4 years of sustained 'Scotland doomed' scenarios have left a lot thinking that indeed, Scotland somehow would be unique in that sense.

I do hope someone tables a motion along these lines in the commons though...

Scotland isn't unique in having upturns and downturns
however it is different from many, in its commitment to permanent large borrowing, even in times when GDP is rising and unemployment is falling


Why would any 'progressive ' party call for large subsidies for the rich?
You know that 'free' Uni education favours the richer members of society and only support the policy as a faithful acolyte. It's a transfer of money from the poor to the rich.
Is Scotland so rich that you really can't find anything better to spend the English money on?

90% of English prescriptions are free : only the rich pay

Are large subsidies for the rich an example of an SNP policy of a fairer and less unequal society?

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

The issue about the banks is about the devastation the failures would have caused to Scotland if you had been independent.
The idea that an independent Scotland would have regulated the Scottish banks better than USA, UK, Ireland etc is laughable.

And of course you will remember that Fred was a Scottish hero

And independent Scotland would've been in the same boat as an independent England when the bank's went bust Clapton ie exactly the same as now. Calling them 'scottish banks' just muddies the waters over logos which happen to be on the letterhead.

The 'cuts ' are about living within the government income : that is collecting in taxes, a similar amount to what the government spends.

There is of course no need to cut if you plan to increase taxes to pay for the spending : that doesn't seem to be the SNP plan : it's just to borrow, borrow for ever and ever.
Do the SNP believe there will ever be a time to stop more and more borrowing?

Of course, but they may have very different priorities, aims, targets and policies. For example, they may wish to concentrate investment in the renewables sector more than a Conservative ( all that green crap ) one would. And not everyone agrees with austerity policies, and in fact there are a fair few experts think that they make things much worse. It seems the Scottish electorate agreed more with anti-austerity policies this time round.

As you know, the spending on the English NHS increased more in percentage terms over the last five years than the SNP chose to increase the Scottish NHS spending : not very 'progressive'.
But you can console yourself that the SNP will continue the 'progressive' policy of large subsidises to the rich parents of Uni students and rich graduates at the expense of the Scottish poor.

Westminster spending on the NHS will get progressively less the more privatisation that takes place. Because if it doesn't, then privatisation has failed. Unless of course, it's only being privatised to benefit investors and spending continues going up as it is ?

Anyway I see you haven't taken me up on my offer to bet a bottle of Irish whiskey that Nicola will not agree to FFA unless massive subsidisies are offered.

They're definitely not keen on deals with the Tories that's for sure. And I have doubts there will be anything on offer that doesn't mean the Tories still raking in cash from it. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/election-2015-watch-alex-salmond-5660060

Why do you object to a EU referendum : one rule for the scots and another rule for everyone else?

I don't object to one. And I don't think the UK will vote to leave anyway. rUK is about to get a super big taster of what the run up to the Scottish referendum was like for Scots.. with endless tales of doom, job losses. IFS/ONS reports and businesses threatening to leave the country in droves if the UK votes Yes to leave the EU. It'll be strange watching it all again.

Froggitt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The same way any other country does ? Scotland wouldn't be unique in having to face upturns, downturns and boom and bust.. It does seem however.. that 4 years of sustained 'Scotland doomed' scenarios have left a lot thinking that indeed, Scotland somehow would be unique in that sense.

I do hope someone tables a motion along these lines in the commons though...

Same old spend and tax policies that Gordy Brown trashed the economy with. You haven't yet grasped that the country can't afford many things, this being one of them. If you're going to stump up the money for this out of the Scottish Subsidy.....great. However I suspect its unfunded and therefore will add to the annual deficit and the national debt.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Scotland isn't unique in having upturns and downturns
however it is different from many, in its commitment to permanent large borrowing, even in times when GDP is rising and unemployment is falling


Why would any 'progressive ' party call for large subsidies for the rich?
You know that 'free' Uni education favours the richer members of society and only support the policy as a faithful acolyte. It's a transfer of money from the poor to the rich.
Is Scotland so rich that you really can't find anything better to spend the English money on?

90% of English prescriptions are free : only the rich pay

Are large subsidies for the rich an example of an SNP policy of a fairer and less unequal society?

No the point of the motion would be to halt all the Kevin the Teenager cries of 'it's so unfair, how come the Scots get free prescriptions/tuition fee's etc. You've been one of the worst going on about them ! Well, lets see some parity with the Scots then..

ps it's not a serious proposal.

kabayiri

I'm happy with the free prescriptions idea for everyone.

I'd charge for GP appointments to pay for it.

This charge would be UK wide to avoid any accusation of regional bias

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm happy with the free prescriptions idea for everyone.

I'd charge for GP appointments to pay for it.

This charge would be UK wide to avoid any accusation of regional bias

The NHS is devolved.