The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

Are we saying that the Tories would privatise sections of the Nhs in England to enable them to spend more UK taxpayers money on it. Serious question. This as I understand it, would lead to an increase in monies coming north but seems unlikely.

[eFestivals]

Are we saying that the Tories would privatise sections of the Nhs in England to enable them to spend more UK taxpayers money on it. Serious question. This as I understand it, would lead to an increase in monies coming north but seems unlikely.

I'm saying that the standard objection to 'privatisation' is that it costs more.

If that's true then Scotland can only gain by ENHS getting 'privatised.

If it's not true and it's cheaper to operate when 'privatised', then why would Scotland decide to operate a less efficient service that was unprivatised when that would impact onto the level of healthcare for people in Scotland?

There is no angle to this where Scotland gets a bad deal, unless it decides to run a shit NHS all by itself.

[Comfy Bean]

There is no angle to this where Scotland gets a bad deal, unless it decides to run a shit NHS all by itself.

I wasn`t looking for any angle

Gary had earlier asked " does that mean Scotland can vote on English tax issues as well as Scottish " ?

I was ( attempting ) to give him my views on why ALL MP`s should vote on UK tax issues and cited the NHS as it is the area that gets the most coverage / raises the most concern. Stash seems to have put it better than I did but my view described by your good self as " laughable "( which seemed unnecessary ) is that the NHS is funded by public money and if the UK Govt spend less on healtchcare in England then this will directly impact on the money that heads north over the border.

My view, which I added later and was only my opinion, is that the Tories seem unlikely to be looking to privatise the NHS in England to enable them to invest more UK taxpayers money in it.

[kaosmark2]

taxpayers money

I'm nitpicking here, as I don't think you have the mentality associated, but please don't use the phrase "taxpayers money". It just perpetuates the ridiculous anti-tax ideology that's far too prevalent here. It implies that it's still our money after we've been taxed, which is utterly ridiculous.

[Comfy Bean]

I'm saying that the standard objection to 'privatisation' is that it costs more.

Another objection to the Govt privatising our NHS is that 76 MP`s and 142 Lords have recent past or present links to companies or individuals involved in private healthcare. They were all allowed to vote on the Health and Social care bill. More on this type of stuff here........

http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/over-60-mps-connected-to-companies.html

I remember you laughed all this off when Ricky Ross brought it up on QT and as I said at the time in this thread, it is not a point scoring issues around Scottish indy. It should concern us all.

[gary1979666]

I'm nitpicking here, as I don't think you have the mentality associated, but please don't use the phrase "taxpayers money". It just perpetuates the ridiculous anti-tax ideology that's far too prevalent here. It implies that it's still our money after we've been taxed, which is utterly ridiculous.

When I saw the mention of nitpicking, I was hoping you were going to mention the lack of apostrophe!

[eFestivals]

Another objection to the Govt privatising our NHS is that 76 MP`s and 142 Lords have recent past or present links to companies or individuals involved in private healthcare. They were all allowed to vote on the Health and Social care bill. More on this type of stuff here........

http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/over-60-mps-connected-to-companies.html

I remember you laughed all this off when Ricky Ross brought it up on QT and as I said at the time in this thread, it is not a point scoring issues around Scottish indy. It should concern us all.

Why is the ENHS "privatisation" a bad thing for SNHS, tho comfy?

As your NHS is in your own hands and those votes are only about the ENHS, why do you care?

It's the question that no nat has a sensible answer to, unless you're going to be the first?

[kaosmark2]

When I saw the mention of nitpicking, I was hoping you were going to mention the lack of apostrophe!

I did consider it

[eFestivals]

I wasn`t looking for any angle

Gary had earlier asked " does that mean Scotland can vote on English tax issues as well as Scottish " ?

I was ( attempting ) to give him my views on why ALL MP`s should vote on UK tax issues and cited the NHS as it is the area that gets the most coverage / raises the most concern. Stash seems to have put it better than I did but my view described by your good self as " laughable "( which seemed unnecessary ) is that the NHS is funded by public money and if the UK Govt spend less on healtchcare in England then this will directly impact on the money that heads north over the border.

My view, which I added later and was only my opinion, is that the Tories seem unlikely to be looking to privatise the NHS in England to enable them to invest more UK taxpayers money in it.

What you can't say tho is how any of this is bad for Scotland's NHS, which is 100% independent of the ENHS.

If nasty England cuts its NHS spending when it has free money to spend, then there'll be a corresponding tax cut - and Scotland can make up the difference with its own taxes. If Scotland is viable as a self-financing entity, there's nothing for Scotland to fear here.

Unless you're going to tell me how...?

[Comfy Bean]

When I saw the mention of nitpicking, I was hoping you were going to mention the lack of apostrophe!

I did consider it

Good points well made lads although perhaps the lack of " an " apostrophe ?

If I had a defence, it would be that I was on my `phone

[Comfy Bean]

Why is the ENHS "privatisation" a bad thing for SNHS, tho comfy?

As your NHS is in your own hands and those votes are only about the ENHS, why do you care?

It's the question that no nat has a sensible answer to, unless you're going to be the first?

The answer to this was in my post that you quoted but didn`t read

" it is not a point scoring issue around Scottish indy. It should concern us all. "

We have had NHS discussions in this thread over a dozen times and each time I have commented on it with the above line or similar. I have made my views / concerns on the direction of travel with privatising the NHS clear and you have made your feelings clear to. If it saves us wasting any time this afternoon, then I agree on your usual fall back position / defence that at the moment, patient care is free at the point of delivery. I posted the link to why I have my concerns earlier.

From your other post, can you please post up any examples of me saying " nasty England "

Edit to add : apologies for the state of the font. No idea what`s happening. The grammar police will have me for this

Edited March 24, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

What you can't say tho is how any of this is bad for Scotland's NHS, which is 100% independent of the ENHS.

If nasty England cuts its NHS spending when it has free money to spend, then there'll be a corresponding tax cut - and Scotland can make up the difference with its own taxes. If Scotland is viable as a self-financing entity, there's nothing for Scotland to fear here.

Unless you're going to tell me how...?

Struggling to follow you here. Scotland voted to remain part of the uk for now. I have outlined why I think the money spent in England is relevant to Scotland and the other parts of the UK. I take it you disagree with my " laughable position " ?

Are you saying that in an imaginery world where Scotland voted to be Independent that the Tories would have privatised the NHS purely so that they could shower those left in rUK with tax cuts ? Is that what you mean by the corresponding tax cuts ?

" Nasty England " Give over.

[eFestivals]

The answer to this was in my post that you quoted but didn`t read

I read it. The problem is it says nothing.

I realise that you claim a bad impact onto the SNHS, but those claims don't stand up to any sensible scruitiny, as nothing that Westimster does towards ENHS can (in the round) cause any bad consequence onto SNHS.

As I've explained, if ENHS is privatised, they'll be a corresponding tax cut (they couldn't get away with it otherwise), and so Scotland could simply put that cut back with a tax increase of their own.

If it makes ENHS more expensive to run, SNHS gets showered with free cash via Barnet.

If it makes ENHS cheaper to run, why would Scottish taxpayers choose to have worse value than they could otherwise get?

No matter what happens to ENHS, none of it is any issue to SNHS if you actually look at what happens.

[Comfy Bean]

" showered with free cash ". Aye that`s exactly what will happen.

[Comfy Bean]

I wasn`t looking for any angle

Gary had earlier asked " does that mean Scotland can vote on English tax issues as well as Scottish " ?

I was ( attempting ) to give him my views on why ALL MP`s should vote on UK tax issues and cited the NHS as it is the area that gets the most coverage / raises the most concern. Stash seems to have put it better than I did but my view described by your good self as " laughable "( which seemed unnecessary ) is that the NHS is funded by public money and if the UK Govt spend less on healtchcare in England then this will directly impact on the money that heads north over the border.

My view, which I added later and was only my opinion, is that the Tories seem unlikely to be looking to privatise the NHS in England to enable them to invest more UK taxpayers money in it.

Ok folks. On the bold bit of my laughable post....where am I going wrong ?

I only ever offered it up as my view in response to Gary`s question. Happy to stand corrected

[eFestivals]

Struggling to follow you here. Scotland voted to remain part of the uk for now. I have outlined why I think the money spent in England is relevant to Scotland and the other parts of the UK. I take it you disagree with my " laughable position " ?

Are you saying that in an imaginery world where Scotland voted to be Independent that the Tories would have privatised the NHS purely so that they could shower those left in rUK with tax cuts ? Is that what you mean by the corresponding tax cuts ?

" Nasty England " Give over.

Scotland's NHS is only in Scotland's hands. Scotland gets sent an equivalent amounts+Barnett for its own NHS. Everything after that is down to Scotland (including the cuts being made to your NHS and not mine).

How Westminster votes for the ENHS sets an amount that gets sent to Scotland, true. But Scotland has since devolution been able to have its own extra taxation, so Scotland is not fully independent on that UK money, it is CHOOSING to be dependent on that UK money.

So, if Scotland doesn't feel that Westminster is sending it enough money for its NHS, Scotland can add its own money for its own extra benefit.

The money that isn't then being spent on the ENHS then either comes back to taxpayers (in Scotland too) so no one has lost, or it gets allocated to something else (which is then an argument about the rights and wrongs of that something else) but where scotland is benefitting from that Something Else as it does from all Westminster spending in one way or another (directly or indirectly) - so no one has lost.

Seriously, if you stop and think about it there is no harm onto Scotland via that Westminster decision - unless you consider Scotland having to do something for itself to be harm to Scotland.

(it's still far from an ideal set-up for devolved funding, tho then again they're all pretty shit at the end of the day. But anyway, I'm not trying to say it's a good system, but I am pointing out that it's system which makes it impossible for England to rob Scotland apart from by using the 'uk infrastructure spending' pot of money just for England.

[eFestivals]

Ok folks. On the bold bit of my laughable post....where am I going wrong ?

By not slowing yourself down and thinking for yourself. Forget the snipper's propaganda you've swallowed, and actually think about it.

If money is removed from ENHS, it's either:-

1. re-allocated elsewhere

or

2. returned to 'the people' / never taken in the first place (tax cuts get made).

The money doesn't just vanish. Yes?

If it's 1, Scotland would benefit from the re-allocation of that money, either via a direct-from-Westminster spend "for the UK", or via the same amount being spent on 'English matters' and so the same amount in Scotland's block grant. Either way with that, Scotland has not lost out on a single penny.

It might lose out on "direct spending on Scotland" but spending on behalf of Scotland is what counts for the whole-UK angle (and England would have lost a same proportional spend on England).

If it's 2, Scotland cancels out that tax cut with its own Scottish tax (something it's had the ability to do for many years (since '97, I think. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

How is SNHS spending ultimately effected by these things? It's not.

Edited March 24, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

" showered with free cash ". Aye that`s exactly what will happen.

It's *EXACTLY* what happens if ENHS spending is increased - Scotland gets that increase plus extra on top.

Free cash, showered onto Scotland. How have you missed that?

Might it be because some snippers have told you what you should be believing?

[eFestivals]

actually, I know exactly how you missed that.

Cos while you got showered with free cash for your SNHS, a certain Alex Salmond robbed that from your SNHS.

Instead, he showered free privileges onto the middle-classes, and everyone in snipperland thinks that's a miracle and that England are making cuts to the SNHS.

[gary1979666]

It's *EXACTLY* what happens if ENHS spending is increased - Scotland gets that increase plus extra on top.

Free cash, showered onto Scotland. How have you missed that?

Might it be because some snippers have told you what you should be believing?

To be fair, it's not showered; it's more like a Scrooge McDuck money pit!

[Comfy Bean]

By not slowing yourself down and thinking for yourself. Forget the snipper's propaganda you've swallowed, and actually think about it.

If money is removed from ENHS, it's either:-

1. re-allocated elsewhere

or

2. returned to 'the people' / never taken in the first place (tax cuts get made).

The money doesn't just vanish. Yes?

If it's 1, Scotland would benefit from the re-allocation of that money, either via a direct-from-Westminster spend "for the UK", or via the same amount being spent on 'English matters' and so the same amount in Scotland's block grant. Either way with that, Scotland has not lost out on a single penny.

It might lose out on "direct spending on Scotland" but spending on behalf of Scotland is what counts for the whole-UK angle (and England would have lost a same proportional spend on England).

If it's 2, Scotland cancels out that tax cut with its own Scottish tax (something it's had the ability to do for many years (since '97, I think. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

How is SNHS spending ultimately effected by these things? It's not.

I appreciate your response mate but............. " tax cuts get made " isn`t really working for me as an answer to the specific question I asked ( the bold bit in the post above ). Tax cuts may or may not be made but we are talking about Scotland in the UK and the Torie Govt`s future plans for privatisation of the NHS in England.

Would cuts to health spending in England ( through privatisation or otherwise ) affect the cash that comes to Scotland ? Yes or No ?

" the NHS is funded by public money and if the UK Govt spend less on healtchcare in England then this will directly impact on the money that heads north over the border." YES / No ????

What if the money being re-allocated elsewhere away from healthcare doesn`t vanish, as you put it, but goes to the Bankers ?

Just a thought.

Edited March 24, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

It's *EXACTLY* what happens if ENHS spending is increased - Scotland gets that increase plus extra on top.

Free cash, showered onto Scotland. How have you missed that?

Might it be because some snippers have told you what you should be believing?

Oh I see...................

So if spending on healthcare in England increases Scotland gets extra in the Grant ( i agree with this bit by the way )........but......if spending on healthcare in England is reduced by the UK Government, Scotland does not see an equivalent cut.

Anyone else have a view on this that doesn`t involve tax cuts that may or may not happen ?

[gary1979666]

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-scotlands-nhs-threat-westminster/18821

Interesting article - was attempting to brush up on the topic.

See the bottom few paragraphs, which answers your question Comfy

FICTION"Labour in England say that the English NHS is being broken up, as the UK Government privatises the health service – which would mean automatic cuts for Scotland’s budget.”

There’s no dispute, as this Yes Scotland material claims, that the coalition has introduced more privatisation to the NHS in England, in the sense that more private providers are getting contracts to deliver services.

But the NHS is still funded by public money. And it is the amount of public money spent on healthcare in England that directly impacts on the Scottish government’s finances through the Barnett formula, not the balance of public and private provision: more privatisation in England won’t automatically lead to budget cuts in Scotland.

A number of experts including Oxford politics professor Iain McLean, an expert in the finances of devolution, agree with us on this.

Nationalists tell us that what they mean is the recent reforms in England COULD lead to the wholesale destruction of the NHS as we know it, leading to more patients being charged for care and, presumably, less public funding in the future.

Others, like Labour frontbenchers like the shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, have made similar predictions. But they remain predictions.

But as things stand now, NHS England can use more private providers, introduce more charges or stand on its head, but there is no pressure on Scotland to follow suit and no reason why health funding to Scotland will be affected."

Edited March 24, 2015 by gary1979666

[Comfy Bean]

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-scotlands-nhs-threat-westminster/18821

Interesting article - was attempting to brush up on the topic.

See the bottom few paragraphs, which answers your question Comfy

FICTION"Labour in England say that the English NHS is being broken up, as the UK Government privatises the health service – which would mean automatic cuts for Scotland’s budget.”

There’s no dispute, as this Yes Scotland material claims, that the coalition has introduced more privatisation to the NHS in England, in the sense that more private providers are getting contracts to deliver services.

But the NHS is still funded by public money. And it is the amount of public money spent on healthcare in England that directly impacts on the Scottish government’s finances through the Barnett formula, not the balance of public and private provision: more privatisation in England won’t automatically lead to budget cuts in Scotland.

A number of experts including Oxford politics professor Iain McLean, an expert in the finances of devolution, agree with us on this.

Nationalists tell us that what they mean is the recent reforms in England COULD lead to the wholesale destruction of the NHS as we know it, leading to more patients being charged for care and, presumably, less public funding in the future.

Others, like Labour frontbenchers like the shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, have made similar predictions. But they remain predictions.

But as things stand now, NHS England can use more private providers, introduce more charges or stand on its head, but there is no pressure on Scotland to follow suit and no reason why health funding to Scotland will be affected."

I`ve highlight the bit that seems relevant to me. I blame you Gary for starting this again

As I said at the outset, this is one of the reasons why Scottish MP`s of whatever party should be voting on UK issues.

[eFestivals]

Would cuts to health spending in England ( through privatisation or otherwise ) affect the cash that comes to Scotland ? Yes or No ?

Yes.

Has Scotland been robbed of any money if spending on the ENHS is cut?

Would cuts to English spending be the financial settlement for whole-UK?

Does Scotland have the ability to top-up their own spending if they wish?

Scotland loses nothing. If the UK spends the money elsewhere, that's Scotland's spending too. If the UK returns the money via tax cuts, they're Scottish tax cuts too.

Scotland loses nothing.

What don't you get?

Do you need mummy to tell you how to spend your fair share of UK money?

If a fair share of UK money isn't enough for Scotland, who should give Scotland extra money? Scotland, or England?

Scotland loses nothing.

What don't you get?