The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Shakethedisease

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

Only got to find 2k or so from every single Scottish resident age 0-115 then and that is the NHS subsidy shortfall sorted...

The thing is that after Scottish Brexit then having to find 2k from every Scottish resident might actually be regarded as the good old days. That and actually having any staff.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The thing is that after Scottish Brexit then having to find 2k from every Scottish resident might actually be regarded as the good old days. That and actually having any staff.

Just think where you'd be if the SNP hadn't bottled the offer of FFA/FFR.
Barnett would be history, you'd be spending money mostly raised in Scotland and be able to say to the Scottish people that we don't need English handouts anymore and to all intents and purposes we are an independent nation in waiting.
Funny old bunch, Scots Nationalists!

cogito

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Writing cheques is a little bit outdated. But it really should be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell, that Scottish independence is about getting rid of Westminster subsidies. It's Scottish Labour, the Ruth Davidson Party and the Lib Dems that want to sit back on their collective a***s raking in and cashing Westminster cheques. Not the SNP ?

Do you really, really not understand this yet cogito ? Wow.... :eek:

The SNP are in government in Scotland, are they not? If the SNP disagree with the other parties on the issue of Barnett, why do we not hear from them about it? It's perfectly simple. If they said that they would no longer accept Barnett money, they would lose every single seat they hold at local government and Holyrood levels. The obvious implication of independence is that Scotland would lose financial support from the UK BUT what's to stop the SNP saying today that as part of standing on their own feet that they will no longer accept this money from today?

Do you really, really not understand this, shakey? Wow....

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..The Scottish NHS is doing better than the English, Welsh and NI ones....

Really?

Research appears to indicate that NHS England is doing better than the other three devolved NHS administrations. There is certainly no suggestion that NHS Scotland is "doing better".

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/the-four-health-systems-of-the-uk-how-do-they-compare

What is your source for your claim? Or are you just making things up again?:)

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Writing cheques is a little bit outdated. But it really should be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell, that Scottish independence is about getting rid of Westminster subsidies. It's Scottish Labour, the Ruth Davidson Party and the Lib Dems that want to sit back on their collective a***s raking in and cashing Westminster cheques. Not the SNP ?

Do you really, really not understand this yet cogito ? Wow.... :eek:

So why have the SNP not utilised their collective half a brain cell, and set out their explanation as to what tax increases and spending cuts will be applied post independence in order to make up for the loss of this 'Westminster subsidy' (sic)?

Scotland ran a fiscal deficit of £14.8 billion (9.5% GDP) in 2015-16, compared to 4% for the UK as a whole.
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

Where's your plan to fill that £10 billion hole to get it down to something approaching sanity, like say 3%? Scotland can have it's independence if it wants. But don't you think it's about time that the SNP got honest with the Scottish electorate and told them what the price was going to be?

Tromking

antrobus wrote: »

So why have the SNP not utilised their collective half a brain cell, and set out their explanation as to what tax increases and spending cuts will be applied post independence in order to make up for the loss of this 'Westminster subsidy' (sic)?

Scotland ran a fiscal deficit of £14.8 billion (9.5% GDP) in 2015-16, compared to 4% for the UK as a whole.
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

Where's your plan to fill that £10 billion hole to get it down to something approaching sanity, like say 3%? Scotland can have it's independence if it wants. But don't you think it's about time that the SNP got honest with the Scottish electorate and told them what the price was going to be?

Well said.
Unionists would be quaking in their boots if a plan to eradicate the Scottish deficit was announced by the SNP. It's as if they don't like admitting the English subsidy exists or are addicted to the 'free stuff' that poncing off the rUK provides.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Just think where you'd be if the SNP hadn't bottled the offer of FFA/FFR.
Barnett would be history, you'd be spending money mostly raised in Scotland and be able to say to the Scottish people that we don't need English handouts anymore and to all intents and purposes we are an independent nation in waiting.
Funny old bunch, Scots Nationalists!

Peaks and troughs Tromking. T'was always thus with the SNP getting further up and further up the beach each time. Even old fossils like (Lord) George Foulkes can see it and he hates the SNP with a passion.

A former Labour minister has warned independence is "inevitable" unless the UK adopts a federal system of government.

When asked if Holyrood may one day be an independent parliament, Lord Foulkes replied: "There is a danger we could sit back and say 'OK, we have got nationalism under control' and that is a very great danger because I have seen the Nationalist's surge go up and up, down and then up and then down again...

.."Unless we grasp that and do it properly then we will see the Nationalists' resurgence and when that happens next time independence would be inevitable."We have to guard against it and not become complacent as we have done unfortunately in the past."

https://stv.tv/news/politics/1393678-ex-labour-minister-says-independence-may-be-inevitable/

But no one who votes for the SNP or voted for independence wants the Barnett formula to continue.

Shakethedisease

cogito wrote: »

The SNP are in government in Scotland, are they not? If the SNP disagree with the other parties on the issue of Barnett, why do we not hear from them about it? It's perfectly simple. If they said that they would no longer accept Barnett money, they would lose every single seat they hold at local government and Holyrood levels. The obvious implication of independence is that Scotland would lose financial support from the UK BUT what's to stop the SNP saying today that as part of standing on their own feet that they will no longer accept this money from today?

Do you really, really not understand this, shakey? Wow....

As long as Scottish taxes go to the UK Treasury, then Barrnett will continue. It's a simple enough premise and one you should grasp before you do all the mental gymnastics and tying yourself up in knots your doing in post like this one.

Scottish taxes -> UK Treasury = Barrnett.

Scottish taxes -> Holyrood = no Barrnett.

You cannot remove Scotland from the Barrnett formula without removing Scottish taxes from the UK Treasury. Removing all Scottish taxes from the UK treasury means independence. There is no middle ground on this one, just the aspects of devolution Holyrood has control over ( ie as now, or as in FFA or a Federal system ).

The SNP cannot say 'ok lets not accept Barrnett' because that would also mean not sending any Scottish taxes to the UK treasury, which in turn would mean UDI or independence. Neither of which has happened.

It's like talking to a child explaining this to be honest. If you need me to type a bit slower do let me know.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

So why have the SNP not utilised their collective half a brain cell, and set out their explanation as to what tax increases and spending cuts will be applied post independence in order to make up for the loss of this 'Westminster subsidy' (sic)?

Scotland ran a fiscal deficit of £14.8 billion (9.5% GDP) in 2015-16, compared to 4% for the UK as a whole.
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

Where's your plan to fill that £10 billion hole to get it down to something approaching sanity, like say 3%? Scotland can have it's independence if it wants. But don't you think it's about time that the SNP got honest with the Scottish electorate and told them what the price was going to be?

Too much uncertainty at the present time. That 10 billion hole might start looking like a 20 billion one by the time Brexit negotiations are over. 10 billion might seem like a lucky escape from the rUK in a few years time.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Too much uncertainty at the present time. That 10 billion hole might start looking like a 20 billion one by the time Brexit negotiations are over. 10 billion might seem like a lucky escape from the rUK in a few years time.

It might look like £30 billion once the independence negotiations are over. Running your own central bank doesn't come cheap you know.:)

But surely you have some idea of how you are going to fill the hole? You surely don't propose that Scotland should become independent without even the slightest indication of a plan of how the government is going to finance itself? After all, you only need "half a brain cell" to realise that the subsidy will go, so I'm puzzled as to why you haven't used the other half brain cell to at least having some idea as to where the money os going to come from.