Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

zagubov wrote: »

As regards the underspend, heaven forbid Holyrood should try to live within its means.

It was 444 £million! That is total fiscal mismanagement, and political cynical hypocrisy for a party moaning incessantly about being short-changed by wicked Westminster.

Whether this is true or not true, time will tell, but I suspect that the SNP are simply earmarking that money to further their party separatist aims, nothing to do with honest fiscal management. For example it will pay for such things as another White Paper, you know the SNP manifesto paid for out of public funds.

I challenged Shakey on this some pages back, all she could do was figuratively stick out her doing a and claim it was disputed.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Now, I'm sure you realise there is a difference between migration and nett migration.

I can assure you that migrants are choosing to move to Scotland, although I have not found yet a regional breakdown of the figures

my true and accurate statement was that I would prefer that the 500,000 per year immigrants would go to Scotland.

What has that got to do with the difference between immigration and net immigration?

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

Took me 5 seconds to find it.:)
http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files/statistics/high-level-summary/j11198/j1119806.htm

Yeah I found that, I even posted the graph, but it's Nett Migration, not a breakdown of actual migration to Scotland as I was looking for

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

my true and accurate statement was that I would prefer that the 500,000 per year immigrants would go to Scotland.

Yet it would appear that proportionally they do

CLAPTON wrote: »

What has that got to do with the difference between immigration and net immigration?

I recall discussing migration and net migration for the UK and was just interested to know the breakdown to Scotland similarly

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Yet it would appear that proportionally they do



I recall discussing migration and net migration for the UK and was just interested to know the breakdown to Scotland similarly

a useful UK government site


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums/compendium-of-uk-statistics/population-and-migration/find-out-more/index.html#1

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Yet it would appear that proportionally they do

I don't understand what you mean

it would appear that London with a population of less that 10 million attracts about 27% of the immigrants
whilst Scotland with a population of more than 5 million attracts about 7%

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

It was 444 £billion! That is total fiscal mismanagement, and political cynical hypocrisy for a party moaning incessantly about being short-changed by wicked Westminster.

Whether this is true or not true, time will tell, but I suspect that the SNP are simply earmarking that money to further their party separatist aims, nothing to do with honest fiscal management. For example it will pay for such things as another White Paper, you know the SNP manifesto paid for out of public funds.

I challenged Shakey on this some pages back, all she could do was figuratively stick out her doing a and claim it was disputed.

I think you've gone a little OTT over the 'billions'..

The £444 million underspend against the annual accounts-based budget, !reported in the Final Outturn Report and in the media last week, also reflects variances in Annual Managed Expenditure programmes and other technical non-cash accounting budgets – for example depreciation and impairments.
So such underspends therefore do not reflect a missed opportunity to spendmore on public services – much as Mr Wilson and his Labour !colleagues try to claim otherwise. The reality is that the fiscal underspend the Scottish Government has available from 2013-14 to invest in public services is only 0.5 per cent of our budget, or £145 million.

Far from keeping it a secret, I announced it to Parliament in June, and confirmed that it would be carried into the next year – and that every penny would be allocated to support people in !Scotland.
On top of that, some £31 million of financial transactions was also brought forward to support vital investment in housing and regeneration. This is funding restricted by Treasury rules and can only be used for the provision of loans or equity investment beyond the public sector and has to be repaid to HM Treasury in !future years.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/145m-is-the-true-underspend-1-3660011


The 'underspend' was a bit of tabloid/Labour 'spin'. And when Labour were in power in Holyrood...

In contrast, Brian Wilson’s comments (Perspective, 10 January) betray the same problems understanding !public spending that must have bedevilled the Labour Party when they managed Scotland’s finances.
Mr Wilson’s colleagues managed to forget to spend £700 million in one year and left more than £1 billion in a Treasury bank account which could have supported our economy and public services.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think you've gone a little OTT over the 'billions'..

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/145m-is-the-true-underspend-1-3660011


The 'underspend' was a bit of tabloid/Labour 'spin'. And when Labour were in power in Holyrood...

so the SNP are following in the wise steps of the former administration

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think you've gone a little OTT over the 'billions'..

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/145m-is-the-true-underspend-1-3660011


The 'underspend' was a bit of tabloid/Labour 'spin'. And when Labour were in power in Holyrood...

The first but I believe and have changed my post.
But don't believe everything you read in the Scotsman.


Somewhere between 150 and 450 £million. Good enough for Goverment work I suppose.


I thought this would bring you out of hiding!!!

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

a useful UK government site


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums/compendium-of-uk-statistics/population-and-migration/find-out-more/index.html#1

It's ok, but three years old in data.