The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

ahhh, the problem is tho that once you get into specifics, that starts to lose yes some support.

Because while I don't doubt there's many like you who would rather see greater social justice, there's also plenty who don't wish to be the ones who might pay for that greater social justice - and keeping "their own" resources for them and theirs is going to trump giving that to others.

And this is precisely why no greater social justice has been delivered by 17 years of the SG - because opinion where it really counts is in just about the same place as it is for the rest of the UK.

It might sound a bit odd to say it, but Salmond's best chance would have been to try and keep politics out of the indy debate, to keep it 100% focused on the idea of only "Scotland to decide what Scotland does".

You know that your claim of 17 years & nothing about social justice doesn't stand up. free personal care for the elderly, free prescriptions, free eye tests, no tuition fees - undoing the bedroom tax.

would I have like more? of course

Are some of them "blunt instuments?" of course

And for the umpteenth time, what Salmond does in the debate is only part of the story. There is much of the debate in which Salmond & the SNP are peripheral.

[eFestivals]

You know that your claim of 17 years & nothing about social justice doesn't stand up. free personal care for the elderly, free prescriptions, free eye tests, no tuition fees - undoing the bedroom tax.

I see your attention to detail wasn't what it should be - my use of the word "extra".

They're all merely not downgrading these things when Westminster has done, isn't it? It's certainly that with uni fees and bedroom tax.

And of course that's being done with the extra £2k per-person per-year that's available to be spent on people in Scotland as allocated to Scotland by the UK - which if nothing else gets to show that the formula is over-paying Scotland. Yes, Scotland needs extra because of it's geography, but when there's spare to have more beneficial policies than the rest of the country, it's getting too much.

(and don't forget with any comment back that that extra is at the expense of extra hardship for others within the UK).

And for the umpteenth time, what Salmond does in the debate is only part of the story. There is much of the debate in which Salmond & the SNP are peripheral.

there might be other voices, but we all know where any first iScotland general election is going.

That's a relevant part of anyone's consideration.

Edited June 12, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

I hope I'm wrong and that the turn out is 90%+ I really do.

I just cant see it.

I know you live in scotland, but you cant possibly hope you know every scot in scotland so it is a bit odd when you speak on behalf of the whole nation. You have a romantic vision of your fellow scots that just does not seem to be a reality. I wish all scots were like you, then you really would have a great nation and I'd move there myself. Sadly though, I just do not believe they are all like you. Far from it.

I recognise comfortablynumbs frustration. When you want something so bad but people just arent interested, well it's a killer.

I wish everyone would be a vegetarian, but the apathy and hostility you face when you try and convince people...I guess it's comparable to what you yessers have to put up with

I would be happy if turnout is over 80% ...I think 90 % would be truly remarkable.

Apologies, if I sounds as if I am speaking on behalf of Scotland.

I'm not.

I'm giving my opinions mixed with my impressions. I have lived in a number of different & diverse parts of Scotland over the years so I guess I think I know it better than most.

& of course the residents of Scotland are as diverse & varied as anywhere, so any generalisations are no more than that.

[zahidf]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/bombshell-daily-record-poll-shows-3678091

Interesting poll.

Though a 6 point lead for NO isn't really wafer thin. But it seems the more the SNP can persuade the Scottish electroate that there will be a Tory Govt next year, the better they will do...

[LJS]

I see your attention to detail wasn't what it should be - my use of the word "extra".

They're all merely not downgrading these things when Westminster has done, isn't it? It's certainly that with uni fees and bedroom tax.

And of course that's being done with the extra £2k per-person per-year that's available to be spent on people in Scotland as allocated to Scotland by the UK - which if nothing else gets to show that the formula is over-paying Scotland. Yes, Scotland needs extra because of it's geography, but when there's spare to have more beneficial policies than the rest of the country, it's getting too much.

(and don't forget with any comment back that that extra is at the expense of extra hardship for others within the UK).

there might be other voices, but we all know where any first iScotland general election is going.

That's a relevant part of anyone's consideration.

As I said, they've done some stuff...not nothing...where the money came from is irrelevant to the point you were making.

As for the first election after Indy. Probably a coalition or a minority government, I'd imagine. SNP largest party but needing to seek some sort of consensus.

However, other results are perfectly possible.

[kaosmark2]

I think Comfy is frustrated because he struggles to understand why anyone would vote no.

Because the campaign for independence is founded on even more lies and hypocrisy than successive Westminster governments?

Because lots of the powerful (notably Murdoch) are employing a divide and conquer ideology?

Because we shouldn't be focusing on our differences, particularly ones based around nationality?

Because it's selfish to go "We want a better time in Scotland, and fuck the rest of the UK, they can deal with those Westminster twats we don't like"?

Because the idea that every Scot will be financially healthier in independence is flawed?

Because this isn't actually a referendum for genuine independence (ie. monarchy), but a twisted form of devo max where there isn't actually control over the most important issues?

[eFestivals]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/bombshell-daily-record-poll-shows-3678091

Interesting poll.

Though a 6 point lead for NO isn't really wafer thin. But it seems the more the SNP can persuade the Scottish electroate that there will be a Tory Govt next year, the better they will do...

which only goes to show how unsophisticated the Scottish electorate are in regard to the indyref.

[eFestivals]

As I said, they've done some stuff...not nothing...

meaningful stuff?

Free Eye tests, and prescriptions, worth about £10 a year per person. And free home care for the elderly, worth about £50 per year per person .... which totals up to a massive 0.01% of SG expenditure - they're really excelling themselves.

And don't forget, the SG has a massive 50% extra per-person to spend on its population for all of the same things as are spent on average for all of the UK population.

(I've done the calculations there several times, and have trouble believing that extra 50% - but I can't get it to come out any other way. Feel free to prove my hunch right rather than wrong if you're better at maths than me).

where the money came from is irrelevant to the point you were making.

Not really.

There's a UK wide deal that we all pay in by the same rules, and then the UK govt allocates the money by perceived need.

When the need is clearly being over-estimated for Scotland (because it's able to do much more than the rest of the country - but not because of anything done better by the SG, but purely because the UK system works to its advantage), the claims of the SG being better is another Scottish myth.

[LJS]

meaningful stuff?Free Eye tests, and prescriptions, worth about £10 a year per person. And free home care for the elderly, worth about £50 per year per person .... which totals up to a massive 0.01% of SG expenditure - they're really excelling themselves. :lol:And don't forget, the SG has a massive 50% extra per-person to spend on its population for all of the same things as are spent on average for all of the UK population.(I've done the calculations there several times, and have trouble believing that extra 50% - but I can't get it to come out any other way. Feel free to prove my hunch right rather than wrong if you're better at maths than me).Not really.There's a UK wide deal that we all pay in by the same rules, and then the UK govt allocates the money by perceived need.When the need is clearly being over-estimated for Scotland (because it's able to do much more than the rest of the country - but not because of anything done better by the SG, but purely because the UK system works to its advantage), the claims of the SG being better is another Scottish myth.

According to Wikipedia, these are the figures for per capita expenditure in 2006/7

England £7,121

Scotland £8,623

Wales £8,739

Northern Ireland £9,385

Looks like about 20% more roughly

[eFestivals]

According to Wikipedia, these are the figures for per capita expenditure in 2006/7

England £7,121

Scotland £8,623

Wales £8,739

Northern Ireland £9,385

Looks like about 20% more roughly

thanks. I know my calc for the extra wasn't fully accurate as I used ballpark figures, but mine came out at around £6k for Scotland - and with my presumption of the difference being £2k (rather than the £1500 you're saying) that made it around 50% difference.

But even 20% extra is massive - it's much more than I'd thought the percentage difference was until I did that (bad) calculation. For no particular reason I was thinking it would be around 5%.

With that 20% extra in mind, is there's really much to be proud of that 0.01% (of its total budget) that the SG has found for those very very minor better things?

[LJS]

thanks. I know my calc for the extra wasn't fully accurate as I used ballpark figures, but mine came out at around £6k for Scotland - and with my presumption of the difference being £2k (rather than the £1500 you're saying) that made it around 50% difference.But even 20% extra is massive - it's much more than I'd thought the percentage difference was until I did that (bad) calculation. For no particular reason I was thinking it would be around 5%.With that 20% extra in mind, is there's really much to be proud of that 0.01% (of its total budget) that the SG has found for those very very minor better things?

Is your 0.01% as accurate as you 50%?

[LJS]

From the BBC:

The cost of providing free personal care to elderly people in their homes has increased by 162% in the last decade.

Figures show that services such as washing and dressing cost £349m in 2012-13, up from £133m in 2003-04.

[eFestivals]

Is your 0.01% as accurate as you 50%?

Perhaps.

I did take the trouble to google for some numbers for the free home care, and the total budget (don't have them to hand now) and that was around 80% of the total I used for that calc, tho I did take a guess at total costs of prescriptions and eye tests - but based on the UK prescriptions price and the cost of paid-for eye tests, and a presumption of how regularly on average they're taken up (above the extent of the freebies that are still available in some cases elsewhere in the UK).

I'd be surprised if it's even 50% out, but feel free to take it as being out by the same (tho in the opposite direction) as the other calc was - which puts it up to 0.25% of the total SG budget. Still no great shakes.

And it's no great shakes because...? The people of Scotland don't wish to pay more taxes for increased social justice.

And that's the part no one ever mentions when they go on about how iScotland will have significantly-increased social justice, and why I believe that people like yourself will be mugging yourself voting yes in the belief that richer people will vote themselves increased poverty.

[eFestivals]

From the BBC:

The cost of providing free personal care to elderly people in their homes has increased by 162% in the last decade.

Figures show that services such as washing and dressing cost £349m in 2012-13, up from £133m in 2003-04.

I used a figure of £250 million, which i know was a little old (I forget which year it referenced now, but the SG budget figure I used was from the same year), and I'd seen stuff about how much it had risen since introduced... which probably gets to mean that it would never have been introduced if the increases over time had been realised back then.

Don't forget that Scotland has a bigger deficit than the UK as a whole - so immediately post-indy the first priorities will be finding the money to cover the big shortfall, and then to bring it under control - and not a spending spree that can't be afforded.

[LJS]

Ok, let's be really conservative here & say £250million is 0.25% of Scotland's expenditure. That makes total expenditure £100 billion.

You may wish to check your sums.

[brandycoke]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/bombshell-daily-record-poll-shows-3678091

Interesting poll.

Though a 6 point lead for NO isn't really wafer thin. But it seems the more the SNP can persuade the Scottish electroate that there will be a Tory Govt next year, the better they will do...

Daily Record

I'd take nothing at all from that.

[LJS]

Daily Record

I'd take nothing at all from that.

Not sure I get your point.

The pro-union daily record commissions a poll which shows one of the narrowest gaps between yes & no to date.

And the copy of the record I saw had no mention of it on the front page.

I'd take quite a lot from that.

It is still only one poll though.

[eFestivals]

< post deleted ... /me goes back to his sums for a moment.....>

[eFestivals]

Ok, let's be really conservative here & say £250million is 0.25% of Scotland's expenditure. That makes total expenditure £100 billion.

You may wish to check your sums.

Doh .... it always helps to see it down on paper.

My apologies.

The extra 'social justice' spends introduced by the SG accounts for about 1% of the total SG budget, or around £50 per-person of the £1500 extra that the SG gets.

Still no great shakes - because not a jot of it is at the *extra* expense of the people of Scotland compared to what they were paying previously.

Attitudes tend to change when for that thing to happen people first have to dip their hands in their pockets - which will be the case in iScotland for at least a decade post-indy.

[LJS]

Doh .... it always helps to see it down on paper. ;)My apologies.The extra 'social justice' spends introduced by the SG accounts for about 1% of the total SG budget, or around £50 per-person of the £1500 extra that the SG gets.Still no great shakes - because not a jot of it is at the *extra* expense of the people of Scotland compared to what they were paying previously.Attitudes tend to change when for that thing to happen people first have to dip their hands in their pockets - which will be the case in iScotland for at least a decade post-indy.

I still don't think your sums add up. But as this is not a maths class, I'll leave that.

So at the end of all that we are agreed on 2 things....

1. the devolved Scottish government has done something to address inequality.

2: it could have done more.

we clearly agree that there are problems aplenty needing addressed.

I sense that you are a wee bit jealous that you don't have the opportunity we have in Scotland to at least dream of another way than the Westminster two party merry go round.

just remember, this is not ethnic nationalism so you are welcome to come north & join us.

remember to bring your fleece & your brolly though!

[eFestivals]

I still don't think your sums add up. But as this is not a maths class, I'll leave that.

My apols if they're still wrong, but I'm not sure it is. If elderly care was £250m and total budget was £25Bn, that would equal exactly 1% of the budget.

1. the devolved Scottish government has done something to address inequality.

at a minimal level, and at zero political cost because it's cost the people of Scotland nothing extra to have.

2: it could have done more.

'could' in the hypothetical sense, yeah.

But not in reality - because that would require the people of Scotland to vote themselves a tax increase, which they won't do.

we clearly agree that there are problems aplenty needing addressed.

yep - and that'll remain the case even if iScotland performs to the best (but not insane) predictions.

I sense that you are a wee bit jealous that you don't have the opportunity we have in Scotland to at least dream of another way than the Westminster two party merry go round.

As I've pointed out, everyone else co0uld do the bedroom republic thing too anytime they fancied it.

But we don't because we're democrats. Fancy that.

just remember, this is not ethnic nationalism so you are welcome to come north & join us.

as long as my misses isn't going to be called sassie like JK and much worse for me. So I know I'd be heading back south within a week.

Thanks anyway. Perhaps have a word with your countrymen?

[LJS]

My apols if they're still wrong, but I'm not sure it is. If elderly care was £250m and total budget was £25Bn, that would equal exactly 1% of the budget.at a minimal level, and at zero political cost because it's cost the people of Scotland nothing extra to have.'could' in the hypothetical sense, yeah.But not in reality - because that would require the people of Scotland to vote themselves a tax increase, which they won't do.yep - and that'll remain the case even if iScotland performs to the best (but not insane) predictions.As I've pointed out, everyone else co0uld do the bedroom republic thing too anytime they fancied it.But we don't because we're democrats. Fancy that.as long as my misses isn't going to be called sassie like JK and much worse for me. So I know I'd be heading back south within a week. ;)Thanks anyway. Perhaps have a word with your countrymen?

There was a wee old English woman on the Janet street porter programme the other night who had retired to the north east of Scotland. She said she had been warned that she would experience hostility ...she said she had never experienced any. This experience is echoed by many including some I have quoted on here before.

I can't emphasise enough how much this is not anti English.

Of course at this stage I need to say that, in common with every other nation in the world, we have nutters & a small proportion of them are anti English. But they are not the story.

[brandycoke]

Not sure I get your point.

The pro-union daily record commissions a poll which shows one of the narrowest gaps between yes & no to date.

And the copy of the record I saw had no mention of it on the front page.

I'd take quite a lot from that.

It is still only one poll though.

Not sure i get your point either.

If you're that familiar with Scotland ,then you'll be well aware that no one takes the Record too seriously.

[eFestivals]

There was a wee old English woman on the Janet street porter programme the other night who had retired to the north east of Scotland. She said she had been warned that she would experience hostility ...she said she had never experienced any. This experience is echoed by many including some I have quoted on here before.

I can't emphasise enough how much this is not anti English.

I'm sure there's lots of lovely people in Scotland and places where such things don't happen .... but that's been only one of of my trips north of the border, while the some of the other (I think) 5 had me ducking punches.

And while I don't doubt that Scots don't get away ...erm ... Scot-free ( ) of everything vaguely similar south of the border, I have never in my life in England seen anyone go straight for violence on the basis of just an accent.

Of course at this stage I need to say that, in common with every other nation in the world, we have nutters & a small proportion of them are anti English. But they are not the story.

Sadly for Scotland they're very much a part of the story. They are the result of 30+ years of Salmond's nationalist guff.

[eFestivals]

Anyway, that's not really anything of what I wanted to raise here - but perhaps worth bearing in mind when you extend that welcome, that some don't get to feel welcome.