Metropol

Gavin Scott wrote: 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.

No, it wouldn't. How much does the City of Nottingham cost to defend? How much does the City of Dundee cost to defend? How are you going to attempt to attribute those costs?

That's just the first example to fall off the top of my head. Whatever it costs to be in the EU - there's another cost.

5.295m residents in Scotland, out of 63.23m in the UK; I make that 8.374% of the UK's population, so contributing to 9.9% of taxation (accepting the veracity of your figure which I've made no effort to check) is hardly something to shout about. I can't find such a figure (and I would suppose such a figure would be hard to come by and probably made up if so), but I would guess that Greater London would contribute a disproportionate amount to taxation. I don't think we can get in to the realms of only giving each area funding proportional to their tax input otherwise we'll end up with ghettos.

In any case, I was merely agreeing with Alexia's notion that the status quo, with a bit more room for devolution of whatever else it is Salmond would like, is a situation which would give the SNP both more power and would not be the risk that independence would be.

WillPS wrote: In any case, I was merely agreeing with Alexia's notion that the status quo, with a bit more room for devolution of whatever else it is Salmond would like, is a situation which would give the SNP both more power and would not be the risk that independence would be.

No you weren't, you were unequivocally suggesting Scotland are seeking to "maintain their considerable funding from Westminster".

Now you have been faced with the facts you tell me you haven't had a chance to check if its true (in the last three hours) and instead claim you were actually saying something else.

Gavin Scott wrote:

WillPS wrote: In any case, I was merely agreeing with Alexia's notion that the status quo, with a bit more room for devolution of whatever else it is Salmond would like, is a situation which would give the SNP both more power and would not be the risk that independence would be.

No you weren't, you were unequivocally suggesting Scotland are seeking to "maintain their considerable funding from Westminster".

Now you have been faced with the facts you tell me you haven't had a chance to check if its true (in the last three hours) and instead claim you were actually saying something else.

That is what Alexia was alluding to, he's since elaborated somewhat.

I'm not going to check Gavin. It's not important, for my own mind I've sufficiently backed up my point and the fact you're going for the attack on the fact I can't be arsed to attempt to verify a figure you're suggesting is proof to my mind that you have no retort to the actual point(s) I've made.

It's all a load of hot air anyway since it's blatently obvious that Scotland will remain in the Union.

WillPS wrote: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).

Without wishing to steer the thread too far off topic, just thought it was worth a quick clarification of the situation in England.

Prior to April 2013, PCTs were required to fund drugs/treatments/services recommended by NICE for everybody, but had discretion around whether to fund things not recommended (or not assessed) by NICE for everybody. In reality, this variation was fairly limited. There was also a system whereby patients who were exceptional for a sensible reason could ask the PCT to fund something which they would not normally fund for the general population.

As of April 2013, PCTs (and SHAs) were abolished, and the responsibilities of PCTs in the above paragraph (with some small-print exceptions) moved to Clinical Commissioning Groups, made up (largely) of GPs. Which, particularly in the case of exceptional funding requests, means GPs make decisions affecting the funding of treatments for patients who they (potentially) know personally, rather than these decisions being made by a disinterested expert panel.

So another twist, The royal mail sell off should wait until after a vote, I think this topic could get rather messy.

I don't agree with the sell off of the Royal Mail, but to suggest that a bit of it belongs to Scotland so we should block it is complete nonsense. Salmond's just doing what he does best - politics.

Oh, and he's back calling it the London government instead of the UK government. Helps build the resentment against "them" trying to steal things from "us".

scottishtv wrote:I don't agree with the sell off of the Royal Mail, but to suggest that a bit of it belongs to Scotland so we should block it is complete nonsense. Salmond's just doing what he does best - politics.

Oh, and he's back calling it the London government instead of the UK government. Helps build the resentment against "them" trying to steal things from "us".

Have you decided how you will vote?

Gavin Scott wrote:Have you decided how you will vote?

I haven't decided firmly, but I think you'll see from my contributions in this thread that I remain to be convinced about voting yes. I know the Yes campaign is due to start in vigour from this week, so I'll be interested in seeing the full arguments spelt out. I know there are online materials but what is still missing for me is the answer to "what is the benefit to me as an indivdual?".

It's pure greed, and I should know better - I wish I was motived by a desire for a better, fairer society etc - but having studied and worked in politics for a short time, I struggle to buy into the wider visions of political parties or campaigns now. Talk of oil funds, better public services, an end to poverty (Blair promised child poverty would be gone by 2020), and comparisions with other countries still just come across as too vague and anchored in hope, rather than reality - even when some evidence can be provided.

I believe most people will go to the ballot box not thinking "who'll save the Royal Mail?", "who'll keep the NHS public?" or "who'll get rid of Trident?", but ultimately "will I be better off financially?".

At the moment, the posturing on issues (and it comes from both sides) is dull. This whole debate is still really only going on in the Comments pages of the newspapers, on Newsnight Scotland, and in some blogs. I'm interested in how the coming months will pan out, and note that The Scotsman has today put a financial figure on how better off people say they want to be personally per year before they will vote for change. I think this will be how the undecided will be convinced.

PS - I was surprised the figure they came up with was only £500.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03b8qgr

A programme was recorded today, to be broadcast on Wednesday. Clips were shown on BBC news channel but it seems one point is made very clear. We want more information to make a inform decision.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/18 ... ependence/

An interesting read, if the grinding logistics of an emotive issue is your idea of an interesting read.

Latest poll:

25% say they would vote YES (unchanged),
43% no (down one point)
31% say don’t know