Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Unfortunately target setting is done by those that don't run hospital departments. Nor for that matter could even run a production line. Words are the easy part. Daily life is far more complicated. Increasingly so with an ageing population. Where demand for services can only grow.

I am sorry, did you miss this part ?

When weekly reporting started in February, only 86.1% of A&E patients were treated within four hours.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I must have missed the post where you showed that spending is rising faster than inflation. Normally I just give up because of the futility of arguing with fanatics.

I must've missed the post where you lay out where you're getting your figures and information on huge NHS cuts from. By all means give up arguing. But 'fanatic' or otherwise, doesn't make what I post any less accurate.

Scottish NHS spending depends on UK spending and what the Scottish government get allocated yearly for the entire Scottish budget. End of. And anyway, it seems there are a lot down south not so keen on the way the Tories are planning on running the English NHS. The below not exactly a rousing celebration of the current Health Secretary. And it's up to 100,000 sigs now on its first day. Sturgeon never managed anything like the above feat throughout her many years as the Scottish Health Minister. Well done Jeremy.

More than 60,000 people have signed a petition calling for Jeremy Hunt to resign or be removed as health secretary over his seven-day NHS comments, less than 24 hours after it was set up.On Sunday, Dr Dan Furmedge, launched a petition on Change.org saying the document should act as "a vote of no confidence in his leadership from the NHS and from the public".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/20/petition-launched-calling-for-jeremy-hunts-resignation_n_7831928.html

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I must've missed the post where you lay out where you're getting your figures and information on huge NHS cuts from. By all means give up arguing. But 'fanatic' or otherwise, doesn't make what I post any less accurate.

Scottish NHS spending depends on UK spending and what the Scottish government get allocated yearly for the entire Scottish budget. End of. And anyway, it seems there are a lot down south not so keen on the way the Tories are planning on running the English NHS. The below not exactly a rousing celebration of the current Health Secretary. And it's up to 100,000 sigs now on its first day. Sturgeon never managed anything like the above feat throughout her many years as the Scottish Health Minister. Well done Jeremy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/20/petition-launched-calling-for-jeremy-hunts-resignation_n_7831928.html

No, the Scottish Government budget in total is dependent on the block grant plus any money they decide to raise using their powers to vary income tax, which can be allocated to health or gimmicks as the Scottish Government see fit.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

No, the Scottish Government budget in total is dependent on the block grant plus any money they decide to raise using their powers to vary income tax, which can be allocated to health or gimmicks as the Scottish Government see fit.

The tax-raising powers they have now, even the Labour party didn't use when in power. It was a zero-sum game ( Barnett reduced accordingly) with no power to vary it across tax bands. Was more expensive to set it up than anything else.
It was put in place, precisely so people like you.. could say what you just did. As are the limited income tax 'powers' that are coming down the line next year. Osborne is going to shriek endlessly about the SNP not using them. But if they do, lop it off Barnett anyway and hope it makes the SNP very unpopular with voters in the process.

Is ingenious stuff. But most of us are wise to it already as well as the shrieking and wailing that's to come from folks like yourself. Well, 50% of Scots voters wise to it anyway. There's little point collecting unpopular taxes, that don't make any difference to budgets and are expensive to implement. Hopefully Swinney will find a way round it all. As it is, it's all very unclear how things will work in practice re the new tax raising powers next year. HMRC and the Scottish Government are already having trouble sorting out addresses and who'll be paying taxes and where.

I'm very surprised that you, as someone who claims to know a bit about economics, can't see these tax raising powers for what they are. A transparent trap designed to have people like you moaning about not using them. And people in Scotland moaning that they are. I guess we'll both just have to wait and see what happens..

Generali

And what about the other part, you know the bit where Scotland gets a block grant that the SNP spend on gimmicks like free parking at hospitals.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I answered that a few pages back re 12 billion, and again above re targets with an scottish gov publication ( as opposed to a ranty article in the Telegraph ).

No, I don't think it's gone down. It seems pre-referendum there was a flurry of headlines reporting a 450m cut from the Scottish NHS, which of course was picked up and ran with extensively. But by October ( after the ref ) the BBC quietly corrected and stated the 450m figure was in fact wrong and the figure would actually go up to above 12bn..for the first time ever apparently in Scottish NHS spending. The Scottish NHS has it's problems like everywhere else in the UK. It's certainly no different in that respect.

Edit, yes just had a quick look. 99% of stories about 'snp nhs spending' refer to a 450m cut, by a 'whistleblower' and a 'leaked dossier' a few days before the referendum. Daily Record/Telegraph/BBC and lots of others picked it up.

ie http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11098624/SNP-Government-planning-half-a-billion-pounds-of-NHS-cutbacks-leaked-dossier-reveals.html

Please note, that I answered your question directly. It's hard to take your posts seriously when they consist of name calling and little of anything much else. Certainly not up to what your usual posting style has been up until now. Mabye a few deep breaths ? I wouldn't worry about me. I fully expect my posts to be trashed as soon as they appear. I don't waste energy getting angry over it.

I remember a time when you were decrying UK financial figures, saying that you did not believe them. Well guess what! You mention a Scottish Government publication, - would that be a publication like the White Paper, paid for out of public funds but in actuality an SNP manifesto full of guesses and misleading half truths? Sorry Shakey I don't believe Scottish Goverment publications at the moment, not that I'm an avid reader, so there may be the odd nugget of truth hidden there somewhere, undetected by the party machine.

The questions were Generali's actually, I was trying to help get an answer, but I see the matter of inflation related adjustments over the years is still hanging there.

But it's good that there is a magnificent new hospital in Scotland, paid for out of public funds. It just shows how well Scotland is doing within the Union. It makes one proud to be British.

[Deleted User]

Generali wrote: »

And what about the other part, you know the bit where Scotland gets a block grant that the SNP spend on gimmicks like free parking at hospitals.

Not having that. As the father of a son who spent more than a year out of 4 years in hospital having nearly died twice, free parking somewhere you would rather not have to visit is not a "gimmick".

A "gimmick" is something like giving wealthy pensioners cash for heating bills.

WR

Generali

Wild_Rover wrote: »

Not having that. As the father of a son who spent more than a year out of 4 years in hospital having nearly died twice, free parking somewhere you would rather not have to visit is not a "gimmick".

A "gimmick" is something like giving wealthy pensioners cash for heating bills.

WR

I had cancer and was happy to pay for parking ($8 per time) and see more money spent on treating children who were very sick indeed.

Free parking is a gimmick. It's not important and it means scare resources are rationed by means other than price.

[Deleted User]

Generali wrote: »

I had cancer and was happy to pay for parking ($8 per time) and see more money spent on treating children who were very sick indeed.

Free parking is a gimmick. It's not important and it means scare resources are rationed by means other than price.

I agree - it is about choice. The choices the present UK government makes are not ones that I support. You do. That's fine. I don't agree that changing distressed parents to visit their kid who is close to the point of death is a good idea while rich pensioners get "help" to run their spa bath in November, but I suppose that's just me.

WR

.string.

Typo

Wild_Rover wrote: »

I agree - it is about choice. The choices the present UK government makes are not ones that I support. You do. That's fine. I don't agree that changing distressed parents to visit their kid who is close to the point of death is a good idea while rich pensioners get "help" to run their spa bath in November, but I suppose that's just me.

I have to admit some sympathy for your view, although you do couch it in extreme examples. For example how about the rich b*stards getting free parking, and how rich does one have to be before not qualifying for a winter fuel allowance - anyone over the minimum wage, or is it just bloated billionaires? Somewhere in between of course, but where? Actually, on reflection, the original idea for the winter fuel allowance was as an exceptional payment for the very poor, not for everyone over 70 (or is it 65 - I forget).

Anyway, the issue here is really the priorities involved and the commitment of a government to keep it's spending focused on necessities in a time of financial stress on the economy. It's understandable, in a way, that a regional government would feel less committed to saving money that a national government, but I do wish that the SNP were not so cynical about it.