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

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Because you are using out of date data, some of which is confined to one month.
October to November 2015 - really?
:rotfl:
Okay well THAT shows 94.9% of Scots seen within four hours.
Last month (April 2017) 92.5%
Is that an increase or a decrease, ISTL?


And it's not universal across Scotland either, is it?

It is lower and yes I agree a one month consideration is not a great set of stats to go by.
I accept that A&E figures can fluctuate from month to month
It was just a snapshot in time when comparing the discussion point between services in England and Scotland.

The Scottish government has noticed this, are monitoring closely and are working on the key areas of improvement.

Your point while very valid, concentrates only on Scotland.
If you can contribute to the point being discussed on the comparisons between Scotland and England and at this point the NHS

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I've found some info.
In 2014/15 Scotland NHS spend per head was £2,160, down from £2,200 in 12/13
In 2014/15 England NHS spend per head was £2,057, up from £1,985 in 2012/13

Of course, economies of scale will play a significant impact into efficiency opportunities

[IMG][/img]

So Scotland has reduced spending by 1.82%, whilst England has increased spending by 3.63%

Going back to my graph, Scotland is showing as an improving statistic, despite Austerity cuts, whilst England has shown a declining statistic, despite an increase in spending


So please clarify, why do you think that England is performing better than Scotland?

England is spending less per head and achieving near parity with another region which spends more per head. That's more efficient, that's better performance per £.

It's pretty simple to understand.

Anyhow, I don't see how it's relevant to independence to compare? You won't be able to spend what you're spending now if you leave the UK so it's no leap to see the figures worsen in Scotland after independence.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Also this from Fullfact:

https://fullfact.org/health/a-e-waiting-times-pmqs/

Very interesting website, thanks.

Some snapshot points on your link.

In 2015/16 about 1.9 million attendances took more than four hours to be dealt with in all types of A&E departments in England. In 2010/11 around 560,000 waited more than four hours.

There are more attendances at A&E—there were about 21.4 million attendances to all A&Es in England in 2010/11, compared to roughly 22.9 million in 2015/16.

So attendances that took more than 4 hours to be dealt with increased by 1.5m of which 1.34m (70.53%) surpassed the 4 hour target.

In the same time, spend per head increased.

Not a great indicator

In 2015/16 92% of those who went to A&E in England were seen within four hours. 97% were seen within that time in 2010/11.

Another indicator that is not great.

but in order to keep to discussion, we need to consider both countries records on the same stats at the same time

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Very interesting website, thanks.

Some snapshot points on your link.



So attendances that took more than 4 hours to be dealt with increased by 1.5m of which 1.34m (70.53%) surpassed the 4 hour target.

In the same time, spend per head increased.

Not a great indicator



Another indicator that is not great.

but in order to keep to discussion, we need to consider both countries records on the same stats at the same time

I find it odd that you would want to compare the NHS on an independence thread upon a backdrop of falling Scottish GDP?

The Scottish deficit is financed by the union, the increased public spend in Scotland is financed by the union, you hate the union and crow about the higher public spend delivering results in the NHS.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

England is spending less per head and achieving near parity with another region which spends more per head. That's more efficient, that's better performance per £.

It's pretty simple to understand.

Your glossing over the facts and the discussion point.
As I said earlier, there is economies of scale which benefits more dense population areas.

The link was England were doing better than Scotland and on this point, its yet to be shown despite the claims that "achieving near parity on a lower spend per head"

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Anyhow, I don't see how it's relevant to independence to compare? You won't be able to spend what you're spending now if you leave the UK so it's no leap to see the figures worsen in Scotland after independence.

The discussion was back to Shaka_Zulu's post that England was doing better than Scotland, that's the discussion point.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72522561&postcount=9928

Nothing to do with Independence

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Are you categorically saying that if Scotland became independent, "528,707 jobs in Scotland that were supported by exports to other parts of Britain in 2013" would vanish.

The rUK, would cut these immediately.
They'd impact the export of Electricity, Food and Water to the UK for example

Scotland should not face a choice between exporting to the EU or UK. We can do both.

Of course, the stats show that exports are 4 times more to the rUK than to the EU, however the potential is that the EU is eight times greater than the rUK.

So I agree, the current sales shows the current market is with rUK, however the greatest opportunity is with the EU.

In bold is the crux of your problem.

I've tried to explain it many times, I guess it's not being read or I'm posting in mandarin.

A good deal between the UK and the EU = Scottish independence might be viable economically.

A bad deal between the UK and the EU = Scottish independence is not viable economically.

If you're not involved in the EU side of discussions to influence a good deal for the UK then you're stuck with whatever the outcome of negotiations will be. Nicola is doing her best to sabotage them by threatening independence. What a clanger.

The gullible don't see the statistics on jobs, if the EU offers the UK a deal on the proviso we pay a £100bn exit bill, the UK says no and we walk away from talks and use WTO terms, Scotland will also be bound by these WTO tariffs whether Scotland is in the UK or the EU.

That would mean risk to either 500,000 jobs or risk to 120,000 jobs.

Under the umbrella of a good deal - not much will change so this "material change in circumstances" is on very dodgy ground and could be yet another reason to say No to another independence referendum on the basis that the deal we have suits Scotland just fine.

It's really a very simple concept.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I find it odd that you would want to compare the NHS on an independence thread upon a backdrop of falling Scottish GDP?

Come on TT83, we discussed earlier what this thread is about.
It is not solely on Independence albeit it may take up a lot of the discussion points

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72522390&postcount=9914

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The Scottish deficit is financed by the union, the increased public spend in Scotland is financed by the union, you hate the union and crow about the higher public spend delivering results in the NHS.

On the backdrop of low oil prices which Scotland had a surplus for years.

That said, I'm all for and have said many times, I'm for standing on our own two feet and live without subsidies.

I don't hate the union, your being far too strong and I would prefer if you did not infer my views.

I simply think we will be better placed long term for the people in Scotland to be self determined.

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...
Thats very extreme.
We've not seen UK population increase by 10% in one year.
Not even Farage projected as much immigration
...

Extreme or not, it is technically possible.

I daresay there were people predicting we had entered a new age of global financial certainty before the 2008/09 crash. Unpredictable events do happen.

Even under the current freedom of movement, Scotland isn't even attracting anywhere near the number of migrants that East of England is.

You can't claim the current rules constrain things up there.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Come on TT83, we discussed earlier what this thread is about.
It is not solely on Independence albeit it may take up a lot of the discussion points

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72522390&postcount=9914

If England spent the same amount of money on the NHS as Scotland does - would the performance be worse?

If Scotland spent the same amount of money on the NHS as England does - would the performance be the same?

In terms of value for money, efficiency England is clearly delivering a better service. There are pressures at the moment due to the massive increase in population - Scotland hasn't had that problem, but has benefited from the growth in overall GDP in terms of the money you're able to spend, whilst Scottish GDP is falling.