The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

I`ve highlight the bit that seems relevant to me.

Scotland gets a fair share of UK money.

If the amount of money it gets via that fair share isn't enough for what Scotland w2ould like to spend, should all of the UK pay more just because Scotland wants more? Or should just Scotland pay more for Scotland to have more?

What don't you get?

You say you want to be independent, and you say you want full fiscal autonomy, but your mind is blown apart by having to deal with just a tiny bit of self-financing? :lol:

As I say, it's a shit way of doing it, BUT SCOTLAND CANNOT GET ROBBED!! If UK tax rates don't raise enough to justify spending at the rate Scotland wants, Scotland has the powers to raise it's own money for spending on itself. It's the normal thing, of the SNP not wanting to be able to be held responsible for anything. It's much easier to blame England even when it's complete bollocks.

[gary1979666]

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.

It seems a bit like Scotland wanting it's cake and eating it. The article also mentions several years where English NHS spending went up, but Scotland decided that it didn't want that month to be spent on health.

If you think of the block grant like a teenager's pocket money, but one where it's value is linked to its parent's wages. You seem more than happy to take all the extras, but when times are tough and costs are cut, you throw a strop because you want a say in the big decision, but not brave enough to move into your own place. As the analogy goes - get a paper round. (Sorry - that comparison took a bit of a life of it's own).

I would say the ENHS spend is an English decision. If that goes down, the proportion stays the same. The issue is the % - and that seem to be where the vote should come in and be negotiated.

[Comfy Bean]

Yes.

Agreed.

[Comfy Bean]

but when times are tough and costs are cut, you throw a strop because you want a say in the big decision...

Imagine that eh...MP`s.... Labour, Tory etc elected by the Jocks to Westminster in a General election wanting a say in the big decisions ?

[Comfy Bean]

It seems a bit like Scotland wanting it's cake and eating it. The article also mentions several years where English NHS spending went up, but Scotland decided that it didn't want that month to be spent on health.

If you think of the block grant like a teenager's pocket money, but one where it's value is linked to its parent's wages. You seem more than happy to take all the extras, but when times are tough and costs are cut, you throw a strop because you want a say in the big decision, but not brave enough to move into your own place. As the analogy goes - get a paper round. (Sorry - that comparison took a bit of a life of it's own).

I would say the ENHS spend is an English decision. If that goes down, the proportion stays the same. The issue is the % - and that seem to be where the vote should come in and be negotiated.

In bold.....Not sure where you are going with this ?

[eFestivals]

Agreed.

now we have to agree what it actually means in practise, in it's meaningful effect onto Scotland. Have you thought on beyond the simple lines of propaganda that you've been taught to parrot?

And it's effect onto Scotland is...? Nothing at all that's bad.

Scotland's health service gets funded at the same rate (plus extras) as England's. If Scotland wants to spend extra money on its health services it has the freedom to raise that money.

Nothing gets taken from Scotland, apart from Westminster handing Scotland the money. The money does NOT get taken from Scotland.

The irony is absolutely delicious here. Scotland refuses to be independent about its NHS funding, wanting Westminster to do it all for them.

[gary1979666]

In bold.....Not sure where you are going with this ?

As I said it took on it's own life.

Was a ref to the indy referendum, where had Scotland decided to go out on it's own, it would have learned the harsh lessons of life away from it's caring family.

Either Scotland is happy (maybe not the best word) with a % based figure of England spend or it wants to be part of the fold and we all vote on UK spend. At the moment you want to vote on the % and then influence England's spend.

What's you view on income tax rates? Should Scot MPs vote on the English rate given you have the power to change it locally too?

[eFestivals]

Imagine that eh...MP`s.... Labour, Tory etc elected by the Jocks to Westminster in a General election wanting a say in the big decisions ?

All MPs want a say in the big decisions, no matter which party or region they're from.

Not everyone gets that say. Much of that decision is usually around who is the party or parties of govt.

As it happens, it's citizens of Scotland who have had the greatest disproportionate say over things for the last 20+ years, and that hasn't made Scotland happy but they think they'll be happier with the decisions of Scots.

Edited March 24, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

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.

If you go back to where this debate started it was not about whether decisions regarding the NHS in England have an impact on the NHS in Scotland which you have clearly accepted to be true.

Logically then it would be reasonable for Scottish mps to get a vote on such matters.

Therefore EVEL just ain't as simple as it looks.

[eFestivals]

If you go back to where this debate started it was not about whether decisions regarding the NHS in England have an impact on the NHS in Scotland which you have clearly accepted to be true.

Logically then it would be reasonable for Scottish mps to get a vote on such matters.

Only if the impact is meaningful.

If the money is spent elsewhere in the UK, it's a UK expense (which Scotland contributes to) or it's something Scotland still gets the same block grant for.

If the money is 'returned' via a tax cut, it's something Scotland gets a tax cut for.

How has Scotland lost out?

It hasn't lost out.

Unless you can show how Scotland has lost out, there's nothing to complain about.

[eFestivals]

Therefore EVEL just ain't as simple as it looks.

It's certainly not simple when one side say they want financial independence but refuse to take on even the smallest part due to an irrational fear that they might somehow lose out.

The fact that Scotland can't lose out actually makes the current set-up the easy set-up. It's only when someone - snippers - are looking to change it but only in their favour it gets particularly difficult.

I agree that a federation is the logical outcome of where we are, but Scotland would never accept the consequences of that onto Scotland. If you think indy is the obvious get-out to that problem you've not properly recognised the problem.

[LJS]

Only if the impact is meaningful.

If the money is spent elsewhere in the UK, it's a UK expense (which Scotland contributes to) or it's something Scotland still gets the same block grant for.

If the money is 'returned' via a tax cut, it's something Scotland gets a tax cut for.

How has Scotland lost out?

It hasn't lost out.

Unless you can show how Scotland has lost out, there's nothing to complain about.

Who's complaining?

I'm merely pointing out the fact (in my opinion) that no one appears to have thought through how EVEL would work in practice.

And of course Scotland could lose out of spending on the NHS was cut in England, if that money was then spent on an area such as defence which is reserved to Westminster.

I'm not suggesting that is likely only demonstrating that the level of public spending in England has an impact on the money Scotland gets.

[eFestivals]

Who's complaining?

Scots are, by demanding they have a vote on something which has no meaningful impact onto Scotland.

As I say, the irony of the Scottish Govt running away from being responsible for it's own NHS and instead wanting to shift the responsibility onto Westminster is delicious.

And of course Scotland could lose out of spending on the NHS was cut in England, if that money was then spent on an area such as defence which is reserved to Westminster.

Scotland does NOT lose out if it's instead spent on defence. All of the UK pays for what the UK spends on defence.

That tho would be a UK decision on how to spend UK money on specifically defence. No one has suggested Scottish MPs shouldn't vote on defence matters.

the level of public spending in England has an impact on the money Scotland gets.

no more or less than the amount of money to be raised in Scotland via it's own Smith-devolved income taxes impacts onto what England can spend. Does that means England should set Scottish income taxes?

Which comes first, the tax or the spending?

An amount of money is raised in taxes; that money (plus borrowed money) is spent on services and serving debt;.

or

An amount of money is spent on services & debt. That money (plus borrowed money) needs to be raised in taxes.

Whichever it is, Scotland gets MORE THAN its fair share of the spending-from-taxing cake, if taxation & spending is high, or if taxation and spending is low.

If the fair share Scotland gets isn't enough for Scotland's wants, nothing is stopping Scotland from raising their own extra money. Except a bunch of cowards in the SNP, and their non-thinking fact-free supporters.

Edited March 24, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Scots are, by demanding they have a vote on something which has no meaningful impact onto Scotland.

As I say, the irony of the Scottish Govt running away from being responsible for it's own NHS and instead wanting to shift the responsibility onto Westminster is delicious.

Scotland does NOT lose out if it's instead spent on defence. All of the UK pays for what the UK spends on defence.

That tho would be a UK decision on how to spend UK money on specifically defence. No one has suggested Scottish MPs shouldn't vote on defence matters.

no more or less than the amount of money to be raised in Scotland via it's own Smith-devolved income taxes impacts onto what England can spend. Does that means England should set Scottish income taxes?

Which comes first, the tax or the spending?

An amount of money is raised in taxes; that money (plus borrowed money) is spent on services and serving debt;.

or

An amount of money is spent on services & debt. That money (plus borrowed money) needs to be raised in taxes.

Whichever it is, Scotland gets MORE THAN its fair share of the spending-from-taxing cake, if taxation & spending is high, or if taxation and spending is low.

If the fair share Scotland gets isn't enough for Scotland's wants, nothing is stopping Scotland from raising their own extra money. Except a bunch of cowards in the SNP, and their non-thinking fact-free supporters.

some day you'll address the issue. At no stage in this debate have i said Scotland doesn't get enough money. I along with other on here have simply been trying to have a chat about the virtues & practicality of EVEL.

your contribution?

"Except a bunch of cowards in the SNP, and their non-thinking fact-free supporters"

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

"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. "

You constantly move the goalposts in any discussion onto mindless blanket insults of the SNP & Alec Salmond. Its really tiresome sometimes.

[eFestivals]

If you actually addressed issues, I wouldn't feel the need to try and provoke a response.

Feel free to call me out on it, but don't use it as an excuse to avoid the point being discussed - which is the meaninglessness of English spends ng decisions onto how much Scotland chooses to spend (unless Scotland wants to spend less rather than more)

[Comfy Bean]

some day you'll address the issue. At no stage in this debate have i said Scotland doesn't get enough money. I along with other on here have simply been trying to have a chat about the virtues & practicality of EVEL.

your contribution?

"Except a bunch of cowards in the SNP, and their non-thinking fact-free supporters"

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

"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. "

You constantly move the goalposts in any discussion onto mindless blanket insults of the SNP & Alec Salmond. Its really tiresome sometimes.

Hope you are well mate. On my phone so can't link but salmond has given an interview to the new statesmen. He gives a great response to the question of immigration which is in contrast to labours nhs leaflet. Looks like he has played his ace on vote SNP get Tory :-)

Neil and jimbo will need to try and come up with a new line....

[LJS]

Hope you are well mate. On my phone so can't link but salmond has given an interview to the new statesmen. He gives a great response to the question of immigration which is in contrast to labours nhs leaflet. Looks like he has played his ace on vote SNP get Tory :-)

Neil and jimbo will need to try and come up with a new line....

I'm good comfy:)

It looks like the Tory SNP are doing a good job of pushing Jim & SLAB to the left.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jim-murphy-pledges-use-175-5392583

[Comfy Bean]

Jim murphy confirmed for Qt from Bolton on Thursday night. He will claim that Scottish voters risk voting in dave by " accident ". he is hoping that we in Scotland won't take offence!

I think that Scottish voters are switched on enough to have worked out how it works. For me " accident " is a bit insulting but good chance Jim will run with it. Salmonds latest move reduces the impact of Jims vote SNP get Tory in my opinion. will be interesting to see if labour can come up with anything else.

[LJS]

Jim murphy confirmed for Qt from Bolton on Thursday night. He will claim that Scottish voters risk voting in dave by " accident ". he is hoping that we in Scotland won't take offence!

I think that Scottish voters are switched on enough to have worked out how it works. For me " accident " is a bit insulting but good chance Jim will run with it. Salmonds latest move reduces the impact of Jims vote SNP get Tory in my opinion. will be interesting to see if labour can come up with anything else.

Whether or not there is any truth in the "vote Snp get Tory" line or not is increasingly irrelevant, it seems to me. By making it the central plank of their campaign SLAB appear to be desperate & devoid of anything positive to say. They are insulting the intelligence of voters & that is just plain stupid.

Good article in the New Statesman ...http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/alex-salmond-i-would-bring-down-any-tory-minority-government

Thanks for the tip comfy.

[eFestivals]

Hope you are well mate. On my phone so can't link but salmond has given an interview to push the tory election strategy.

corrected for you.

It's clearly passing you by, but that campaigning angle does work for the tories, whilst Salmond is not attracting a single vote to an alternative to the tories.

Looks like he has played his ace on vote SNP get Tory :-)

he does that each time he opens his mouth, as the rise in tory support shows.

Neil and jimbo will need to try and come up with a new line....

I just stick to the facts matey.

You know, those things you can never understand or reference.

[eFestivals]

I'm good comfy:)

It looks like the Tory SNP are doing a good job of pushing Jim & SLAB to the left.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jim-murphy-pledges-use-175-5392583

Looks like you've shown your political ignorance again.

Nothing of any of this is new. It's been the Labour position* for 5 years but seems to have passed you by. Why is that?

(position, not necessarily explicitly stated policy. Explicitly stated policies tend to only get made before elections)

[eFestivals]

I think that Scottish voters are switched on enough to have worked out how it works.

that requires the attachment to reality those 45% constantly show they don't have.

[eFestivals]

Whether or not there is any truth in the "vote Snp get Tory" line or not is increasingly irrelevant, it seems to me. By making it the central plank of their campaign SLAB appear to be desperate & devoid of anything positive to say. They are insulting the intelligence of voters & that is just plain stupid.

How intelligent do you think voters are who cannot accept the facts shown within GERS?

Good article in the New Statesman

for the tories, yes it is.

Salmond is winning the tories plenty of votes. Celebrate that as a good thing only if you're a tory.

[eFestivals]

Meanwhile, endless squirrels to move the convo on from yet another fact snippers can't face up to, preferring instead the myth that they know they can't make stand up which is why they always run away.

Funding levels for English services have no impact onto how much funding Scotland can give its Scottish services. If the 'block grant' is too low for Scotland's wants Scotland can raise the extra itself.

Vote for indy, where those indepenentalists are shit scared of just the tiniest bit of independence, and who insist that Scottish funding is always set for them by the nasty English.

[LJS]

Neil has amusingly(in his opinion) taken to referring to me & comfy &the SNP as snippers.

We clearly need a similar word for those defending the union. As they are For the UK they shall henceforth be known as Fukers.

Morning Neil,you old Fuker, I trust you are well today.I note you & your fellow Labour Fukers are continuing to blame the SNP for all the Labour Party's woes, ignoring the fact that they should be massacring a Government with such an appaling record.

That's all us snippers' fault of course.