What is the point of labour ?

[MazzyStar]

9 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

8 years of trying to soften the worst excesses of austerity would be my take.

 

Not doing a very good job of it then. 

[Boo Khaki]

7 minutes ago, MazzyStar said:

Not doing a very good job of it then. 

Depends who you ask.

Reasonably affluent middle-class family in good health, with a bit of disposable income, probably would say it's made no difference to them

Umpteen disabled folk I work with who live in poverty anyway, but have had years of bedroom tax offset, fee prescriptions, free public transport, and have been shielded from the ridiculous 'fit to work' routines that folk south of the border still have to go through would probably give you a different story.

[MazzyStar]

11 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Depends who you ask.

Reasonably affluent middle-class family in good health, with a bit of disposable income, probably would say it's made no difference to them

Umpteen disabled folk I work with who live in poverty anyway, but have had years of bedroom tax offset, fee prescriptions, free public transport, and have been shielded from the ridiculous 'fit to work' routines that folk south of the border still have to go through would probably give you a different story.

Spending cuts to public services, years of neoliberalism and giving Kate Forbes control of the economy would suggest softening the excesses of austerity isn’t much of a priority of the SNPs anymore.

The SNP has taken some measures to combat austerity in the past, but it really is a low bar to be better than whatever government is in Westminster. 

 

[Granny Danger]

5 minutes ago, MazzyStar said:

Spending cuts to public services, years of neoliberalism and giving Kate Forbes control of the economy would suggest softening the excesses of austerity isn’t much of a priority of the SNPs anymore.

The SNP has taken some measures to combat austerity in the past, but it really is a low bar to be better than whatever government is in Westminster. 

 

Aye, it’s amazing how difficult it is to do things when your not in control of revenue raising.

If only there was a solution to that limitation.

 

[sophia]

3 hours ago, KirkieRR said:

The A9 upgrade is a daft idea. What's the point of LEZ zones if we're increasing road capacity? Here, the usual SNP incompetence has at leasted helped a little in achieving environmental targets, albeit not much.

Lift your gaze from Kirkintilloch and raise your appreciation in matters of long term strategy.

Try not to ape the ill thinking of the rump of red that cared cares not a jot for my area of Scotland.

The dualing of the A9 is about road safety in the context of a scenario where the vehicles using it will be powered by renewable energy.

Unlike your thought process on this matter, It's not really about capacity.

If you are inferring that public transport is the predominant answer in the thinly populated areas of northern Scotland I'd suggest to you that you may want to trial that by considering the practicality of getting from an evening Scotland game to Dingwall, Durness or Dores.

[MazzyStar]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Aye, it’s amazing how difficult it is to do things when your not in control of revenue raising.

If only there was a solution to that limitation.

 

Things are even more difficult when you put fiscal conservatives like Fergus Ewing and Kate Forbes in charge of the finances as the SNP did. 

[alta-pete]

1 hour ago, MazzyStar said:

Spending cuts to public services, years of neoliberalism and giving Kate Forbes control of the economy would suggest softening the excesses of austerity isn’t much of a priority of the SNPs anymore.

The SNP has taken some measures to combat austerity in the past, but it really is a low bar to be better than whatever government is in Westminster. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Aye, it’s amazing how difficult it is to do things when your not in control of revenue raising.

If only there was a solution to that limitation.

 

 

9 minutes ago, MazzyStar said:

Things are even more difficult when you put fiscal conservatives like Fergus Ewing and Kate Forbes in charge of the finances as the SNP did. 

Ok, I’ll bite.

Near enough every year it is reported that ScotGov underspend their budget. (Fiscal prudence, not SNPbaad, please note). I had a wild idea that they were building up some sort of war chest but it turns out that’s not possible. Any underspend up to (I think) £700m is allowed to be carried forward but anything beyond that just goes back to Westminster. A classic use-it-or-lose-it. Trouble is, the current incumbents prefer to lose it rather than spend it and then, when things are underfunded they, entirely predictably, blame WM. 

[sophia]

3 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

 

 

Ok, I’ll bite.

Near enough every year it is reported that ScotGov underspend their budget. (Fiscal prudence, not SNPbaad, please note). I had a wild idea that they were building up some sort of war chest but it turns out that’s not possible. Any underspend up to (I think) £700m is allowed to be carried forward but anything beyond that just goes back to Westminster. A classic use-it-or-lose-it. Trouble is, the current incumbents prefer to lose it rather than spend it and then, when things are underfunded they, entirely predictably, blame WM. 

They aren't allowed to overspend and when confronted by shenanigans from the outset, they must do their best to balance the books.

When WM are disingenuous it is coherent to blame WM.

Also "war chest"!

Anyone that has experience of being presented with time defined revenue and capital budgets knows how difficult it is to match intentions to deliveries.

Or more simply, what's the point of having someone managing you if they have little in the way of practical knowledge of what is good for you.

[Boo Khaki]

1 hour ago, sophia said:

Or more simply, what's the point of having someone managing you if they have little in the way of practical knowledge of what is good for you.

Is this some sort of veiled dig at Dundee FC?

Spoiler

because it wouldnae be that far off the mark to be fair to you.

 

[alta-pete]

2 hours ago, sophia said:

They aren't allowed to overspend and when confronted by shenanigans from the outset, they must do their best to balance the books.

When WM are disingenuous it is coherent to blame WM.

Also "war chest"!

Anyone that has experience of being presented with time defined revenue and capital budgets knows how difficult it is to match intentions to deliveries.

Or more simply, what's the point of having someone managing you if they have little in the way of practical knowledge of what is good for you.

‘Mon. SG underspend by £2bn (therefore the £1.3bn unspent goes back to WM) but it’s somehow WM’s fault for not allowing SG to budget for spending more? 

Like I said, fiscal prudence is good. Blaming the shortfall in spend on WM is just kiddy-on boogeyman stuff. The money’s there, it’s always been there, use it. 

[sophia]

2 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

‘Mon. SG underspend by £2bn (therefore the £1.3bn unspent goes back to WM) but it’s somehow WM’s fault for not allowing SG to budget for spending more? 

Like I said, fiscal prudence is good. Blaming the shortfall in spend on WM is just kiddy-on boogeyman stuff. The money’s there, it’s always been there, use it. 

Do you really think that it wouldn't be spent for our common good if it was that simple?

Clue, unlike your proposition, honestly held or not. it isn't that simple.

 

[StellarHibee]

4 hours ago, alta-pete said:

 

 

Ok, I’ll bite.

Near enough every year it is reported that ScotGov underspend their budget. (Fiscal prudence, not SNPbaad, please note). I had a wild idea that they were building up some sort of war chest but it turns out that’s not possible. Any underspend up to (I think) £700m is allowed to be carried forward but anything beyond that just goes back to Westminster. A classic use-it-or-lose-it. Trouble is, the current incumbents prefer to lose it rather than spend it and then, when things are underfunded they, entirely predictably, blame WM. 

The volatility of the Scottish economy has been through the roof since brexit and the pandemic. The SNP did a far better job keeping the underspend to a minimum before all of this. Because they can't overspend the budget, they need to create headroom for unforeseen circumstances and volatile spikes in the economy. Because these spikes have gotten greater, they've been forced to leave a larger headroom. Resulting in an increase in the underspend each year. As infuriating as it is, it really can't be helped.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

8 hours ago, alta-pete said:

‘Mon. SG underspend by £2bn (therefore the £1.3bn unspent goes back to WM) but it’s somehow WM’s fault for not allowing SG to budget for spending more? 

Like I said, fiscal prudence is good. Blaming the shortfall in spend on WM is just kiddy-on boogeyman stuff. The money’s there, it’s always been there, use it. 

Not sure where you got that from?

From the Scottish Budget 2021 to 2022: final outturn report:

"10. The total underspend of £2,087 million does not represent a loss of spending power to the Scottish Government.

11. Significant underspends relate to ring-fenced, non-cash budgets or Annually Managed Expenditure:

a. £569 million relates to ring-fenced non-cash budgets, of which the majority of the underspend is in relation to the Student Loan Valuation model and is a direct reflection of the late movement in the Resource Accounting and Budgeting Charge (RAB) and Stock charges relating to Student Loans. The Resource Accounting and Budgeting (RAB) charge is the estimated cost to Government of borrowing to support the student finance system. This is a non-cash movement, representing an adjustment to the impairment of student loans based on economist expectations of likely repayments.

b. £314 million relates to Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) budgets which are ring-fenced budgets set by HM Treasury. Any under/overspends shown against UK-funded Annually Managed Expenditure cannot be deposited in the Scotland Reserve and have no subsequent impact on the Scottish Budget. These budgets are not available for general public services. 

12. £699 million is carried forward in the Scotland Reserve, the majority of which had been anticipated and therefore included in our 2022-23 funding position.

13. £559 million are adjustments to funding actioned post completion of the Spring Budget Revision and therefore not reflected in the Scottish Budget."

[TheScarf]

George Faulkes is a pish stained old fud and he should be in a nursing home so someone can change his drawers every time he has an accident.  It's just a pity we won't leave the Union before he dies to see his bollocks looking pus when we do.

[TheScarf]

14 hours ago, Suspect Device said:

 

Surely the two aren't linked. The LEZ are primarily for air quality rather than emissions (and to encourage public transport in towns)

The A9 dualling is more about road safety, surely? Also, the transport options are shit for travel outside the central belt.

It's 100% about safety and reducing the amount of deaths on the road.  There's no where near enough traffic for the A9 to be dualed north of Perth, according to a civil engineer relative who worked on roads/bypasses all his life.

[vikingTON]

Increasing capacity on roads increases the volume of traffic as yet more people lollop up the A9 with campervans and other shite. 

If the issue was really safety then installing average speed cameras and reducing speeds at key junctions would resolve as many of the accidents and reduce the severity of the fraction that take place, at an absolute fraction of the cost. 

[TheScarf]

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

Increasing capacity on roads increases the volume of traffic as yet more people lollop up the A9 with campervans and other shite. 

If the issue was really safety then installing average speed cameras and reducing speeds at key junctions would resolve as many of the accidents and reduce the severity of the fraction that take place, at an absolute fraction of the cost. 

There's long, straight stretches of single carriageway on the A9 that are perfectly safe for overtaking, I've always said why can't they just install more overtaking lanes at key parts of the road where they know the traffic can build up due to lorries, around the Blair Atholl, Killiecrankie, and Pitlochry areas in my experience.

[sophia]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

Increasing capacity on roads increases the volume of traffic as yet more people lollop up the A9 with campervans and other shite. 

If the issue was really safety then installing average speed cameras and reducing speeds at key junctions would resolve as many of the accidents and reduce the severity of the fraction that take place, at an absolute fraction of the cost. 

When do you think they will install the average speed cameras you suggest and do you think they'll prevent foreign drivers sometimes turning the wrong way out of junctions or indeed the young yahoo going for the hero overtake?

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

There's long, straight stretches of single carriageway on the A9 that are perfectly safe for overtaking, I've always said why can't they just install more overtaking lanes at key parts of the road where they know the traffic can build up due to lorries, around the Blair Atholl, Killiecrankie, and Pitlochry areas in my experience.

There was a traffic cop on the news after one of the recent accidents who claimed that many of them were caused by tourists or tired drivers getting confused by the switches between dual and single lanes and mistaking a single lane section for a dualled one.

[welshbairn]

22 minutes ago, virginton said:

If the issue was really safety then installing average speed cameras and reducing speeds at key junctions would resolve as many of the accidents and reduce the severity of the fraction that take place, at an absolute fraction of the cost. 

You have a point about junctions but average speed cameras were installed in 2014 and made a big improvement.