Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm fed up with the NHS being used as some kind of party political football.

It would be a result if we get through next parliament without it breaking on us. There will have to be cost cutting somewhere down the line. Most people understand this.

Nicola Sturgeon is welcome to come up with cost saving ideas in the NHS - that way there may be more in the general pot to spend on other things.

i agree with you totally the NHS should not be used as a political football, it gets really annoying over time, not sure if Nicola can make a huge difference though down south as our NHS is ran very differently from the rest of the UK, i do honestly believe though that we need to have the NHS taken out of the control of the government ( not privatised ) still in public hands but ran by the medical profession, with more emphasis on developing our own drugs as we pay an absolute fortune for some medications, it may take 20-30 years but we should slowly build up a drug industry that will allow savings for the future which can be spent on the changing health needs of our society

elantan

obviously with some strict contingents in place to ensure the medical professionals dont rip it as well

antrobus

elantan wrote: »

I say bring it on, and so do many many independence supporters, we wouldnt have had independence till 2016 for a start and by then they will have recovered slightly, secondly even getting tax from 1 barrel at $40 is more tax than we currently get from them,....

Yes, but a hypothetical independent Scotland would need to get more than £7 bn a year in oil revenues to make up for the loss of the current £7bn subsidy it receives.

elantan wrote: »

... thirdly the oil was always the cherry on the cake not the cake itself, it gives us 15% of tax revenue ( 5% of UK tax revenue ... which gives you an idea ) Norway's oil gives them 30% of their tax revenue and they seem to get by ...

North Sea oil revenues were £4.7bn in 2013-14 when Brent Crude was a $100 a barrel. That's less than 1% of UK tax revenue, and no where near 5%. It would appear that you have grossly inflated the level of revenue involved.

elantan wrote: »

..We would eventually be able to have an oil fund ... phew imagine that actually finally having a tax fund . ...

You can only have an oil fund, if you don't spend the oil revenues on anything else.

elantan wrote: »

..I also know many many independence supporters are more happy about the effect the low oil price is having on UGE ... many independence supporters are also campaigning against UGE and with oil prices being low the likely hood of UGE stays low...

UGE = unconventional gas extraction ??

Well gas and oil aren't perfect substitutes.

elantan wrote: »

....There are also many many people in Scotland that are happy the price is low as it means less tax revenue going to London,

I'm sure that there are people in Scotland who delight in other's misfortune just as there are in any country. But I'm not that convinced that it's something to boast about.

elantan wrote: »

....What i find interesting is how it's suddenly a problem for Scotland, many expect us to believe that the halving in oil revenues would have harmed Scotland's economy from the current position of receiving none of it?

The halving oil revenues does appear to have harmed Scotland's economy, judging by the number of Scottish politicians calling on Gideon to do something. Besides, the point would be that whilst it isn't an insurmountable problem for a Scotland that is part of the UK, it would have created a great big hole in the finances of a hypothetical independent Scotland.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh don't be daft. You can't expect any party to sit back and do nothing if it directly impacts on funding for services, especially those such as the NHS. It would be complete madness to just sit back and let it happen if voting for/against would make a difference to any direct impacts.

Daft is it now? Charming.

The matter was about the SNP proposing to vote for added expenditure in the NHS and (clearly) vote against any reduction simply because of a potential effect on the funding for the Scottish NHS without any consideration of the merits of what was proposed. Pure cynical mendacity.

This attitude was also highlighted by Generali but ignored again by you in your response under the irrelevant red herring of "privatisation".

The issue is somewhat hypothetical because the matter of non-English MPs being excluded from decision making on English matters is now again raised by Sturgeon's comments. I think that will be done in the not too distant future (i.e. before the Devolution Package is passed into law) and done in a manner which will avoid SNP fantasies about changing it into yet another anti-English whinge source.

.string.

elantan wrote: »

i agree with you totally the NHS should not be used as a political football, it gets really annoying over time, not sure if Nicola can make a huge difference though down south as our NHS is ran very differently from the rest of the UK, i do honestly believe though that we need to have the NHS taken out of the control of the government ( not privatised ) still in public hands but ran by the medical profession, with more emphasis on developing our own drugs as we pay an absolute fortune for some medications, it may take 20-30 years but we should slowly build up a drug industry that will allow savings for the future which can be spent on the changing health needs of our society

It's difficult to know what you mean because if it's not run by the Government it's privatised and if it's in "public hands" the Government will still control it.

If you have the notion that it's just run by the medical people with no Government Control at all - that, I believe is a recipe for uncontrolled cost overrun.

Of course they will want the latest toys, of course they w3ill want the latest drugs regardless of cost, of course they will want more doctors so that the consultants can moonlight with private patients, of course they won't give a rat's a*se about the cost but come crawling to the government each time they overspend.

No checks, no balances. ... and in the end no NHS.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Daft is it now? Charming.

The matter was about the SNP proposing to vote for added expenditure in the NHS and (clearly) vote against any reduction simply because of a potential effect on the funding for the Scottish NHS without any consideration of the merits of what was proposed. Pure cynical mendacity.

This attitude was also highlighted by Generali but ignored again by you in your response under the irrelevant red herring of "privatisation".

The issue is somewhat hypothetical because the matter of non-English MPs being excluded from decision making on English matters is now again raised by Sturgeon's comments. I think that will be done in the not too distant future (i.e. before the Devolution Package is passed into law) and done in a manner which will avoid SNP fantasies about changing it into yet another anti-English whinge source.

I don't think it's a matter 'red herrings'. Any cut in public spending reduces the amount Scotland and Wales get in block grants. Which in turn reduce amounts going to their respective NHS's. Why would any MP vote for or abstain from voting on something that affects their constituents for the worse ? It's also very unlikely that the Tories have implemented the reforms over the last few years in England in order to pour more public money in.

I think the greatest worry is that this is just the 'thin end of the wedge' as far as the English NHS is concerned. And there seem to be so many MP's that have active vested interests in 'smoothing' the way for more private sector involvement. Mabye it would be best to put things on pause for a bit. Farage is already openly talking about insurance schemes. Mabye he's right.. but there has been a lot of change in a very short space of time, and the NHS seems to be struggling a bit with them all. Not least front line staff having to put up with pay freezes.

But anyway, the die has been cast. And the SNP have now said they would be prepared to vote against any proposals that directly impact Scotland's NHS or other public services. And IF Sturgeon holds any significant sway in the next parliament.. then it's more likely, not less that any devolution packages currently proposed will be voted into law. In fact, they are likely to go a bit further. EVEL will disappear. Labour and Lib Dems are also against it. The Tories will have to crack on very quickly with it if it's to be implemented before May. Either that or win power again, which of course is also perfectly feasible.

It looks like Cameron's bluff re TV debates has been called though.

Broadcasters are expected to put forward new proposals for the TV election debates which would include the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens. It comes after David Cameron refused to take part without the Green Party.
The BBC and ITV are expected to offer to stage seven-way debates including the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP, SNP and Plaid.
Sky and Channel 4's plan to host a head-to-head between Mr Cameron and Ed Miliband would remain unchanged.
BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said there was "no sign" anything had been agreed so far, but he understood there were proposals for two debates including the leaders of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the Greens.
The format for the debates has not yet been agreed, he added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30935369

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm sorry, and this is relevant to May 2015 elections how ? Oil taxes and revenues are a reserved matter. Their decline recently is certainly not down the the SNP ( again it's a reserved matter and has been since oil was discovered ). You're not making any sort of sense I'm afraid. This ain't September 14 any more..

The economy is interlinked. A decline in one sector will have spin off effects elsewhere. The headline job losses are just the tip. There'll be correspondingly losses in the supply chain and the local area that will be impacted from a lower spend. Lower spend equates to lower tax revenue for the Scottish Exchequer. Does that make it clearer for you?

dktreesea

.string. wrote: »

Of course I do, with hugs and all the fluffy stuff. Excepting the SNP who plot to destroy my country (GB) and care for nowt except Natland.

But the SNP and probably many Scots are full of the idea of screwing as much as they can out of the new Devolution arrangements, that it is on the cusp of becoming (and certainly for the Home Rule extreme) something that affects not just the Scots but also the rest of us. In that case I do think there should be a Referendum of all the UK to decide if we as a nation will go along with the devolution proposal.

GB isn't a country; it's a collection of different countries.


Is it not the case that the Scots vote on propsals affecting just England (or England and Wales, if changes in the law, as opposed to spending allocations are involved) because of the huge population difference? So any changes affecting England could potentially cost 10 times as much as a similar change could cost affecting Scotland?


Say it was the education budget, and England decided it wanted to spend as much per head on educating its children as Scotland spend on educating theirs. In any event, there are enough MPs in England to band together and vote the required funding allocation through Westminster, even if all the other member countries of GB voted against the proposal, on the basis there would then be less of the cake to share amoung the other nations. So allowing the other countries a vote would be of no effect if English MPs did the right thing and banded together to get an NHS and education at least as well funded as the rest of GB.


But they won't. Party lines will rule. And as usual England (well, outside of London at least) will miss out. Here's a prediction. The A9 will have it's dual carriage built all the way to Inverness long before the A1 is dualled from Newcastle up to the border.

jaylee3

Fishface Sturgeon! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::T

I cannae stand the woman! :mad: And yes, she is having a laugh with the things she's coming out with!

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The economy is interlinked. A decline in one sector will have spin off effects elsewhere. The headline job losses are just the tip. There'll be correspondingly losses in the supply chain and the local area that will be impacted from a lower spend. Lower spend equates to lower tax revenue for the Scottish Exchequer. Does that make it clearer for you?

Not really. There is no Scottish Exchequer. Only a UK one. It's the UK one that is responsible for tax take and revenues from oil and has been since it's discovery. It's also where most Scottish taxes go at the present time. The Labour party is also following your line in trashing the SNP. But it's not washing particularly well.

As an illustration of why the Labour party in Scotland might be wandering in the wilderness for many years to come, last week was a classic. The new party machine seems to have decided that the SNP government is vulnerable on collapsing global oil prices. This strategy is underpinned by a narrative that says: “If Scotland had voted for independence we’d have been up thon creek of ordure without a propellant.” Perhaps, but it’s a risky strategy and one that has quite palpably not been thought through properly.


The gross mismanagement of Scotland’s North Sea oil bounty by successive UK governments has left this country more vulnerable in the face of collapsing oil prices than it otherwise ought to have been. If there was ever an argument for gaining Holyrood control over North Sea oil revenues then this was it....


....Even a cursory glance at how Norway managed its oil resources shows how incompetent and morally bankrupt was the Westminster government’s North Sea oil management. Both discovered oil in the same difficult marine environment and both are subject to the same effects of oil prices declining at the same periods.
Therefore, if the argument used by opponents of independence is to be believed, then the economy of Norway, with a population size similar to Scotland’s, should suffer more than the UK’s following a slump. Let’s face it – they don’t have Westminster’s “broad shoulders” or “deep pockets” to protect them. Crucially, though, they also don’t have the greed, stupidity and venality of Westminster.
Each time the price of oil has fallen in the last 30 years, Norway emerged not only not only richer the year after the trough but became richer still than the UK. Between 2008 and 2009, the oil price fell by nearly 50% per barrel to an average of nearly $60 a barrel. Yet the following year Norway’s wealth had increased yet again.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/18/labour-squanders-scotland-oil-revenues

And anyway. The referendum is over. Oil prices will be the UK's problem/bonus for a while yet. It certainly doesn't seem to be gaining much in the way of traction in losing the SNP votes at the present time. That might change of course. But I think we're intelligent enough to realise that a vote in May, isn't for Yes or No this time. Oil prices might be good at trashing or undermining and independence argument... we did talk about them endlessly here before the ref... but I think folks are probably far more interested in other things just now.