Scottish independence

User avatar
WillPS
Posts: 2557
Joined: Tue 22 Apr, 2008 18.32
Location: Carlton
Contact:

barcode wrote: * what people continue to whitewash is.... in the case of the nhs, Scotland does not get certain drugs which England gets. There are plenty of other cases. Our government is spending the money on what it believes is the best course of action, with the money it gets in the block grant.
This varies from health trust to health trust, or from SHA to SHA (I forget which, it used to be the PCT's job). Each individually prioritises funding for expensive and emerging procedures/drugs and other products (prosthetics, continence provision and other living aids).

I'm pretty sure the decision to scrap the prescription charge in Scotland and Wales lay with Holyrood and the WAG rather than NHS Scotland or NHS Wales.
Image
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6442
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

WillPS wrote:
Gavin Scott wrote:
WillPS wrote:Alexia isn't chatting shit.

It would lead to a mandate for further devloution and allow the Scottish government to maintain it's line of considerable funding from Westminster.
Scotland's contribution to Westminster is greater than the funding we receive.

You did realise that, yes?
I should hope so too! Nottingham's contribution to Westminster will be greater than the funding they receive from Westminster. In fact, I rather hope that every region in the UK contributes more one way or another than they take - that's the point, surely?
If that were true we'd be in SURPLUS. As it is the UK is in DEFICIT.

The 2011-2012 Government Expenditure and Revenue figures show Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population but receive 9.3% of UK public spending to run our services.

However, the pertinent fact is that we generate 9.9% of UK taxes.

We provide a surplus - even when we spend our budget on "shit" like free prescriptions and education.

So if you want to explore the facts properly - taking into account the whole balance sheet - spending, tax revenues and borrowing - in the most recent year that full figures are available, Scotland contributed £4.4 billion more in comparison to the rest of the UK.
User avatar
Sput
Posts: 7547
Joined: Wed 20 Aug, 2003 19.57

Couple of naive questions:

1. Are you not a bit worried about the oil running out? Depending on how you split it (looking at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00415871.pdf) it ranges from about 1% to about 20% of Scottish revenue. In comparison, the total UK figure is more like 1%, presumably because there are more people to tax (rough sput estimate from http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/prt/og-stats.pdf and http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf).

2. Are there any services that Scotland would have to introduce upon getting independence that it doesn't currently have to pay for?
Knight knight
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6442
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Sput wrote:Couple of naive questions:

1. Are you not a bit worried about the oil running out? Depending on how you split it (looking at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00415871.pdf) it ranges from about 1% to about 20% of Scottish revenue. In comparison, the total UK figure is more like 1%, presumably because there are more people to tax (rough sput estimate from http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/prt/og-stats.pdf and http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf).
Its a finite resource of course, but there are as many years of production ahead of us than behind us. Actually Westminster's Oil and Gas Industrial Strategy confirmed this year that, “According to Oil & Gas UK’s Activity Survey, the reality is that the UK will continue to supply oil and gas well beyond 2055.”

The drilling techniques of the 1970s were limited by their simplicity. They bored vertically into large pockets. My dad was the engineer on the large BP Magnus fields which were subsequently considered "not economic" and sold to high-tech Texan companies.

They have developed techniques which are so sophisticated and directional that its analogous to "threading a piece of spaghetti from the top of the Scott Monument in Edinburgh, down to the borough of Leith and through someone's letterbox" - according to their engineers.

There are many small countries who are successful without such rich resources, but the fact is we have them, so should make the most of them.

We're the only oil producing country in the world who don't have a mechanism for accumulating some revenue for the benefit of the nation. For example, Norway set up a “sovereign wealth fund”, and since 1996 they invested proceeds from its oil revenues to a fund so that future generations can benefit. That fund is now worth £450 billion – far more than the Norwegian government’s debt.
2. Are there any services that Scotland would have to introduce upon getting independence that it doesn't currently have to pay for?
Yes, of course.

Some new Scottish departments would be required – a Treasury, a Ministry for Defence, and a Foreign Office. We do, as taxpayers, already contribute our fair share to the funding of these services. Its scare tactics to suggest that the cost of this is astronomical or somehow beyond our reach. I'm not sure anyone could argue that the squanderous sums spent taking us into illegal wars are less expensive than setting up departments for a small country with no illusions of imperialism.

It of course means that there will be an injection of senior positions - with their associated salaries - into the Scottish marketplace instead of being concentrated in London and the South East, which will do the economy no harm at all.

Not all Civil Service departments which administer affairs in Scotland are based in the south. So some organisations will transfer their Scottish based operations to the management of the Scottish Government.

The NHS and Police - the largest of any of these services - are already run from Scotland and would require comparatively little change.

And them we have the DVLA (*facepalm*). A well worn worry thrown as if it were a killer dice-roll in a role playing game.

Well - just maybe - it could be spun into a private company by the current Westminster incumbents, and could process licences in Scotland for a fee.

There's a solution Mr Cameron would doubtless like.
Alexia
Posts: 3001
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

Written before Gavin's reply:

Further to 2, what state costs would be involved in setting up any services needed, and who would foot that bill - public taxes, private tender, or PPP?
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6442
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Alexia wrote:Written before Gavin's reply:

Further to 2, what state costs would be involved in setting up any services needed, and who would foot that bill - public taxes, private tender, or PPP?
The First Report by the Scottish Government’s Fiscal Commission Working Group provided suggestions for the equitable distribution of the UK's public sector debt.

Based on a Scotland’s previous contributions to the UK’s public finances, according to the economists, this would imply that Scotland’s estimated share of UK debt would be worth £40.6 billion.

However, if you calculated it on a population share basis, our liability of UK public sector net debt in 2017-18 would be worth £126 billion.

That equates to about 72% of Scottish GDP - slightly lower than the equivalent UK figure of 77%.

No one is suggesting we don't have a stake in the debt of the UK or that we are trying to avoid repaying it.

The report is here http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00414291.pdf - drafted by two Nobel prize winning international economists.
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6442
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Apologies, I misread the nature of your question.

I don't know how much these costs are yet. I'm sure they will be paid for via direct taxation as you would expect.
barcode
Posts: 1515
Joined: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 19.36

Alexia wrote:Written before Gavin's reply:

Further to 2, what state costs would be involved in setting up any services needed, and who would foot that bill - public taxes, private tender, or PPP?
PPP is out of the question for now, Its unlikely to be coming back. If I have the question correctly we are already paying for PPP out of the current budgets. Current government has already had a bust up with PPP in place in Edinburgh royal.
Alexia
Posts: 3001
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

Gavin Scott wrote:Apologies, I misread the nature of your question.

I don't know how much these costs are yet. I'm sure they will be paid for via direct taxation as you would expect.
So Scotland will have a publicly owned post office, energy utilities and (hopefully) nationalised railway funded by the public purse.
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6442
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Alexia wrote:
Gavin Scott wrote:Apologies, I misread the nature of your question.

I don't know how much these costs are yet. I'm sure they will be paid for via direct taxation as you would expect.
So Scotland will have a publicly owned post office, energy utilities and (hopefully) nationalised railway funded by the public purse.
Post Offices (those which remain after the closure of another 70 in the UK recently) - yes.

I can't envisage private energy companies being nationalised, and they haven't made an announcement about the railways - although in 2012 it was estimated subsidies to the private sector totalled £4 Billion - about 4 times as much as under British Rail.

So it wouldn't be the worst idea in the world.
barcode
Posts: 1515
Joined: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 19.36

As it stand the next contract for Scotrail will still be in private hands, and the SNP I doubt will change it now.
I cant see Scottish water ever getting privatized
Please Respond