AUFC90 Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Health spending in England is increasing and is forecast to continue to increase. It is disingenuous, negative campaigning and the SNP have admitted it. The cuts required post-independence will be much greater than anything that's going to happen under the current arrangements. The IFS will tell you about that. As far as the Barnett formula is concerned that is more scaremongering. Who has said it will change? No one. People without power having opinions is not the same. Personally I don't like it. Money should be spent where it is needed and if that means 10% Scotland 80% England and 5% each for Wales and NI then that's what it means. Similarly should required funds be 7% Scotland 75% England and 9% each Wales and NI. Artificial, arbitrary formulae only increases the risk of some areas of the UK missing out on necessary funding. Oh well you better tell Unison and English/Welsh Labour that then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I don't have time to deal with your first two points other than to say you're talking bollocks. I'm sure someone else will pick it apart. As for the Barnett: "In case anyone is in any doubt about the Barnett formula, the stated aim of Westminster is to reduce public spending so even if Barnett is retained its value to Scotland must fall if Westminster achieves its stated aims on public spending. But, despite noises from BT?NT to the contrary, as you point out Nancy there is real doubt that Barnett will survive and its replacement will certainly not be more favourable to Scotland than Barnett. And there are plenty indications out there that all the Westminster parties want to see Barnett chopped as these quotes posted on Wings Over Scotland in February clearly demonstrate (the “best” one being from Joel Barnett himself after whom the formula is named): David Cameron, Prime Minister – “[The Barnett formula] cannot last forever, the time is approaching” Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat) – “We do want to see Barnett scrapped. We want to see that replaced by what we call a needs based formula.” Margaret Curran (Labour) – “I do believe that we should allocate public funding on the basis of need and it should not be around just a regional or a national demarcation around that.” The House of Commons Justice Select Committee – “The Barnett Formula is overdue for reform and lacks any basis in equity or logic. It creates controversy in all of the constituent parts of the UK. There is controversy in England that the Barnett Formula allows for higher levels of public spending in Scotland from the UK Exchequer and does not deal with different needs in different parts of England. We urge the Government to publish its position as a matter of some urgency and to proceed to devise a new formula which is needs based, takes into account regional disparities in England as well as in Scotland and Wales, is transparent and is sufficiently robust to enable long-term planning.” Local Government Association, England – “Council leaders in England are to campaign for Scotland’s block grant to be cut. Local government chiefs south of the Border say they are envious of the powers and funding given to a devolved Scotland and have revealed they will push for the UK Treasury to scrap the Barnett formula, the system that gives Scotland more per head of UK funds than it does to England and Wales. The All Party Parliamentary Taxation Group – “The APPTG echoes the findings of the House of Lords Committee on the Barnett Formula in recommending that a shift is required towards a ‘needs-based’ formula, whereby a ‘dynamic’ and ‘simple, clear, and comprehensible’ system is used to allocate resources to the devolved regions ‘based on an explicit assessment of their relative needs’, calculated ‘per head of population’.” Ruth Davidson, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party – “Barnett was only supposed to be temporary… I do think that there will be a review of Barnett after 2014. The ground has shifted since devolution.” Lord Lang of Monkton – “On the Barnett surplus, everyone knows that the basis of the present distribution of funds is out of date. We know that that, too, created an imbalance that can be put right. A fair-minded Scotland would agree. We need an up-to-date measurement of relative need in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.” The Calman Commission – “The commission has decided major changes need to be made. Significantly, however, experts believe the change will result in a drop in Scotland’s budget – which could lead to cuts in service”. Lord Joel Barnett, who devised the formula – “It’s quite wrong. It clearly should not be based on per head expenditure but should be based on needs in particular areas. The amount of money going to Scotland on a needs basis by comparison, say with my own North West or the North East, is far higher than it should be, so it should be changed. They'd lose quite a bit in my guess, done on a proper needs basis”." Opinions. Tell me are you not in favour of public spending on the basis of need? Bollocks you say. Typical rudeness. I'll let you explain why the IFS are wrong, but you'll forgive me if I pay no attention to the biased ranting of someone who has clearly lost a grip of reality when it comes to this subject. You will see that my point about health spending here http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_health_care_spending_10.html Oh well you better tell Unison and English/Welsh Labour that then. Has it occurred to you that they may be attempting to mislead the electorate in their pursuit of votes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 but you'll forgive me if I pay no attention to the biased ranting of someone who has clearly lost a grip of reality when it comes to this subject. The irony of the No voter knows no bounds. It really has been a dreadful week for the nawbags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Opinions. Tell me are you not in favour of public spending on the basis of need? Bollocks you say. Typical rudeness. I'll let you explain why the IFS are wrong, but you'll forgive me if I pay no attention to the biased ranting of someone who has clearly lost a grip of reality when it comes to this subject. You will see that my point about health spending here http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_health_care_spending_10.html Has it occurred to you that they may be attempting to mislead the electorate in their pursuit of votes? Or perhaps you are using misleading figures. Care to explain how the health budget is increasing in real-terms? Remember and use the governments own figures for healthcare inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 The irony of the No voter knows no bounds. It really has been a dreadful week for the nawbags. Back to normal for you I see. Post nonsense, have it rubbished then play the man not the ball. It hasn't been a dreadful week for me, it's been a remarkably successful week so far, but thank you for your concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Back to normal for you I see. Post nonsense, have it rubbished then play the man not the ball. It hasn't been a dreadful week for me, it's been a remarkably successful week so far, but thank you for your concern. You singularly failed to address all the comments on the Barnett formula so I singularly failed to correct you. Strichener's done it now so no need. That's right, you put a big brave face on and pretend everything's peachy. Tick tock.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Back to normal for you I see. Post nonsense, have it rubbished then play the man not the ball. It hasn't been a dreadful week for me, it's been a remarkably successful week so far, but thank you for your concern. Interesting read for anyone that thinks the increase in NHS funding will be sufficient. http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/files/nuffield/publication/121203_a_decade_of_austerity_summary_1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 The best example of scaremongering in this campaign is the SNP on the NHS. Totally shameless and they know it and are happy to admit it. They are working on the basis that the public are either fools or not interested enough to check the facts. You haven't even seen the Bitter advert have you? I think it takes scaremongering to an all new low. You should be ashamed of yourself in the way you are happily swallowing that Bitter Together cock. Keep doing it, and enjoy the cumshot of cuts, poverty and inequality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Rider Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 As far as the Barnett formula is concerned that is more scaremongering. Who has said it will change? No one. People without power having opinions is not the same. Personally I don't like it. Money should be spent where it is needed and if that means 10% Scotland 80% England and 5% each for Wales and NI then that's what it means. Similarly should required funds be 7% Scotland 75% England and 9% each Wales and NI. Artificial, arbitrary formulae only increases the risk of some areas of the UK missing out on necessary funding. Why not let Scotland spend its own money on Scotland's priorities. Vote Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Remember when Belgium, Italy and Spain vetoed Montenegor's application to join the EU after they voted for independence in a referendum. Na, me neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Talking to a few mates last night it seems a lot of people are dreading an independent Scotland being in the EU but rUK withdrawing from the EU. The rationale being that rUK could then cap immigration from Scotland. Thoughts on this? "A Few mates" Lost credibility at that point tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Two margarines on the go - now, that's a nightmare scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scothmist Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Wait, I'm a little confused, are you calling me Alex Salmond's wife? I know you are not a little confused. You are the same as Confusedalot .com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scothmist Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Wait, I'm a little confused, are you calling me Alex Salmond's wife? Get your make-up changed and brush your teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 In your jump from crazy post to crazy post do you ever stop to think, "Wait? does this even make sense?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.