Election Campaign

It’s interesting to look at how honest the SNP are.

One of their key election pledges is “anti-austerity” and they also make ludicrous claims about English NHS spending impacting on the Scottish NHS.

The NHS in Scotland is fully devolved and has been heading towards crisis for the last 4 years – the SNP say it needs more money but aside from chump change have not actually funded it.

The Scottish Parliament (controlled by the SNP) already has powers to increase tax by up to 3p via the variable levy but has never done so.

So basically the SNP are “for” additional public spending, complain about current funding (despite Scotland already receiving significantly higher captitated payments for public services than the rest of the uk), have the powers to raise tax but have never used them.

It’s difficult not to conclude therefore that the SNP want higher public spending but only paid for by England as they have the powers to make Scots pay for their own public services but haven’t used them.

just5minutes – Member
…It’s difficult not to conclude therefore that the SNP want higher public spending but only paid for by England as they have the powers to make Scots pay for their own public services but haven’t used them.

eh? Utter bovine exhaust.

What the SNP want is to have control of all revenue in Scotland so we can pay for the services we want ourselves, and incidentally stop subsidising England.

What the SNP want is to have control of all revenue in Scotland so we can pay for the services we want ourselves, and incidentally stop subsidising England.

The SNP (and Labour) are committed to higher public spending. They already have the powers to raise the tax from Scots needed to pay for this spending. So why haven’t they done it?

Claiming that the Scots are “subsidising” England in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary has about as much logic to it as claiming the sun draws power from the moon.

From Channel 4 Fact Check:

Scottish Executive figures for 2009-10 show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words, spending in Scotland was £1,030 – or 10% higher – per head of population than the UK average.
What about revenues? The same source shows Scottish total non-oil tax revenues coming in at £42.7bn in 2009-10, or £8,221 per head, which compares with total public expenditure attributable to Scotland of £59.2bn, or £11,370 per head.
Incidentally, these numbers include not just the so-called “identifiable” public spending that took place in Scotland, on schools, roads and the like, but also more amorphous parts of the budget like defense and debt interest.
On this basis, Scotland ‘got’ £16.5bn more in UK public spending in 2009-10 than it contributed to total UK revenues – or a ‘subsidy’ of around £3,150 per head.

just5minutes – Member
The SNP (and Labour) are committed to higher public spending. They already have the powers to raise the tax from Scots needed to pay for this spending. So why haven’t they done it?

Because they can’t. It’s a catch-22 setup.

Claiming that the Scots are “subsidising” England in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary has about as much logic to it as claiming the sun draws power from the moon.

Read the tax per head produced versus tax per head spent anytime in the last 30 odd years. Or even back in the Imperial days

3 times in the last 15 years

FFA analysis

mefty – Member
3 times in the last 15 years

FFA analysis

Mmm, does that allow for the taxes currently being paid by companies HQed in England but operating in Scotland? Those taxes would then be paid in Scotland.

The assumptions seem to include Scotland continuing the same path as England.

It probably illustrates why it should be full independence rather than FFA so we’re not tied to UK spending habits such as imperial delusions.

Based on Scottish Government figures which use the following methodology

GERS apportions a share of UK corporation tax revenues based on the economic activity undertaken in Scotland and not the location of companies’ headquarters. Public corporations’ and North Sea corporation tax revenues are excluded from the analysis and are apportioned to Scotland separately.

So yes

On this basis, Scotland ‘got’ £16.5bn more in UK public spending in 2009-10 than it contributed to total UK revenues – or a ‘subsidy’ of around £3,150 per head.

Just going to jump on this – yes, there’s a difference. It’s because the UK borrows money, and spends it. Some of that money is spent in Scotland. So it’s not a subsidy at all, it’s our share of UK borrowing that the Westminster government borrows on our behalf.

If you look at percentage of tax revenues vs. percentage of spending, then Scotland contributes 9.5% of revenues and receives 9.3% of funding. In other words Scotland is a net contributor to the UK.

If you look at percentage of tax revenues vs. percentage of spending, then Scotland contributes 9.5% of revenues and receives 9.3% of funding. In other words Scotland is a net contributor to the UK.

Nope – look at your own government’s numbers they are all in here

Imagine a scenario. Every constituency in Scotland votes for a SNP MP. The Tories get an overall majority and get in power. People’s shit will flip]

And the Scots still get to play the victim card because they didn’t get the government they voted for 😆

just5minutes The Scottish government has never used those tax varying powers for 2 reasons. Income tax rises are never popular and importantly as Douglas Fraser tells us it would not work as the cost of collecting the tax would use most of the extra money collected http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26630498

Let’s not get too deflected into an independence discussion, much as I love them 🙂

The real issue seems to be EVEL.

So if EVEL, then SVSL is ok, and each side refrains from voting on the others issues?

It should keep even the English extreme right happy – right up to the point where the Scottish MPs vote for independence…

Nope – look at your own government’s numbers they are all in here

Interesting blog, but written by a very strong No supporter, so perhaps not entirely unbiased 😉

This is another interesting overall view:

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0044/00446179.pdf#page=7

Oh thank you.

Come off it ernie, I’m agreeing with you & you know that – playing the wounded soldier doesn’t wash.

As for patronising? It’s not nice is it??

just5minutes The Scottish government has never used those tax varying powers for 2 reasons. Income tax rises are never popular

This is precisely the point – the Scots are “anti austerity” so long as someone else is paying the extra tax.

You can be as patronising as you want mrlebowski, it doesn’t bother me – on the contrary it amuses me. I particularly like it when THM starts falling back on the patronising tactic, when that happens I know that he’s feeling under pressure and that he’s losing his grip on the argument.

So anyway you agree with me? God I hate that. It always makes me feel uncomfortable.

I love how if Scots want an end to the Union they are progressive forward looking citizens & if English people want an end to the Union they are xenophobic inwards looking bigots.

I have not said any of these things and very little , if anything, of what you said addressed the specific points I raised.
I wonder why you ignored them and played the victim card 😕

It’s interesting to look at how honest the SNP are.

Is it more or less honest than the links and claims you make then leave without defending?

It’s difficult not to conclude therefore that the SNP want higher public spending but only paid for by England

Its easy for me to avoid thinking idiotic tory mantras.

IIRC the UK is more than just england. even Farage avoids that trap

ernie_lynch – Member
You can be as patronising as you want mrlebowski, it doesn’t bother me – on the contrary it amuses me. I particularly like it when THM starts falling back on the patronising tactic, when that happens I know that he’s feeling under pressure and that he’s losing his grip on the argument

Oi, leave me out of your patronising ping pong – amusingly ironic though it is 😉

Back on the theme of Scottish spending – simply look at what happens in practice rather than the tosh that comes out of SNP mouths – try those important things like health and secondary education, or student grants (and note what Edinburgh Uni says about whether more poorer people go to Uni or not as a result), or look at the centralisation of power that occurs under their rule or, heaven forbid, Stop and Search policies. About as LW as Farrage’s old gran!

Still the ends justify the means. Be careful what your vote for.

With the a few days ago, the election stands out for being tight and very sweaty.

Anybody already voted then? My postal vote went yesterday. I just hope he’s grateful enough to buy me a pint…..

😀

No, the local red council lost my postal ballot papers … I suspect something fishy there to be honest.

I should receive the ballot papers again on Tuesday and if I still don’t get them then I am going to the council to see them in person. Yes, I will.

😡

Not cutting & pasting because I’m on my phone.
Junky, Scotland is not independent so is still subject to the UK govt & that means MP’s from all the UK.
The difference between England & Scotland is that Scotland has devolved powers & that means Scottish MP’s have the potential to vote on things that do not affect their constituencies, English MP’s cannot do that in the Scottish Parliament. That is the problem, nothing more or less. It doesn’t matter who Scottish constituencies send to Westminster, the fact they will be SNP doesn’t matter to me – it is the idea they may vote a measure through that does not affect their constituents & therefore be unanswerable to those affected that I find disturbing. Can you not see why that is wrong in principle?
It is that, plus the unpleasantness off the indyref that makes me want the dissolution of the Union as I can see no other alternative.

muddydwarf – Member
…It doesn’t matter who Scottish constituencies send to Westminster, the fact they will be SNP doesn’t matter to me – it is the idea they may vote a measure through that does not affect their constituents & therefore be unanswerable to those affected that I find disturbing. Can you not see why that is wrong in principle?…

Of course it’s wrong in principle. Welcome to what Scots have been complaining about for over 100 years.

But that’s exactly how the Labour and Tory party have been using and would use the votes of their Scottish MPs. If Labour were to get their usual bulk vote from Scotland that would be happening again.

Ironically it is the SNP MPs who do not vote on English only issues, and will continue to hold to that principle.

That’s despite what the overseas billionaire press owners and their tame puppets in the main parties are telling you.

And any time the English MPs agree on an issue they can outvote the Scottish MPs anyway, so your problem really lies with the English parties and how they co-operate or otherwise.

According to the Guardian’s latest projection of polls, the Tories are projected to win 276 seats, Labour 267, the SNP 55, the Lib Dems 27, the DUP nine, Ukip three and the Greens are set to retain their one seat.

So a vote for the SNP is a vote for the Tories.

If the Scots want their vote to count in Parliament, the only logical vote is for Labour.

I’ll be helping the Greens retain their seat 😀

I believe spending on the NHS in Scotland has gone down under the SNP.

Ironically it is the SNP MPs who do not vote on English only issues, and will continue to hold to that principle.

Not anymore they are not, because they argue there is no such thing.

mefty – Member
‘Ironically it is the SNP MPs who do not vote on English only issues, and will continue to hold to that principle.’
Not anymore they are not, because they argue there is no such thing.

Care to support that with a quote from Nicola Sturgeon?

So if we wake up with a Conservative government next week, we know who to thank eh!

yep

That’s despite what the overseas billionaire press owners and their tame puppets in the main parties are telling you.

Murdoch’s Scottish Sun supports the SNP

Murdoch’s Scottish Sun supports the SNP

No, Murdoch wants Miliband to loose as many seats as possible

mefty – Member
yep

That affects health funding in Scotland so of course we’ll vote on it.

Try another.

And no one here is fooled by Murdoch. He’s just having a go at Milliband for standing up to him. Murdoch doesn’t give a stuff for the SNP.

It’s one of the things Milliband could do something about if he was in govt with the backing of the SNP.

Precisely my point, they argue every English decision has an indirect effect on Scotland so they are entitled to vote – clear change in policy

And no one here is fooled by Murdoch. He’s just having a go at Milliband for standing up to him. Murdoch doesn’t give a stuff for the SNP.

Murdoch spent more time with Salmond than any other UK politician.

mefty – Member
Precisely my point, they argue every English decision has an indirect effect on Scotland so they are entitled to vote – clear change in policy

It’s a very direct connection. Try again.

Murdoch did indeed spend some time with Salmond before the referendum. He could have come out for us then but didn’t. I don’t know why, but I suspect that Salmond was not prepared to give him what he wanted.

It is plain simple business good sense for Murdoch to support the SNP now. When your sales have been plummeting and over half the population refuse to buy your product, then it makes sense to try to support them rather than continue to attack and slur them.

There are quite a few businesses still being boycotted because of their interference in the referendum.

futon river crossing – Member
I believe spending on the NHS in Scotland has gone down under the SNP.

And then check education spending….all those things that the LW is suppose to treasure. No, really.

Folk need to have their eyes open (and their ears closed to the BS) when they go to vote.

Rhetoric and reality are uncomfortable in this election. No wonder it’s getting so, so sweaty.

It’s a very direct connection. Try again.

Nope – no line by line link between English and Scottish expenditure everything goes through the block grant – however, if she believes what she is saying the policy to not vote on English only matters is absolutely worthless as following her logic there is no such thing.

And then check education spending….all those things that the LW is suppose to treasure. No, really.

When the money in your pot is reduced, then you have no option but to spend less on NHS and education.

Except England managed to do exactly that – they increased NHS spending despite the money in the pot reducing even more!

2. Between 2009-10 and 2015-16 spending on the NHS in England will, on currently announced plans, have risen by about 4% in real terms despite an overall fall of 13% in English departmental spending.
3. Over the same period the vagaries of the Barnett formula mean that Scotland will have had to cut overall public service spending by less – by about 8% rather than 13%. But the Scottish government has chosen to protect the NHS in Scotland slightly less than it has been protected in England. Spending on the NHS in Scotland has fallen by 1%.

Sauce – IFS

Spending per head of population on health in Scotland is still around 10% more than it is in England though.

Rupert Murdoch isn’t the only super rich individual which the SNP has sought to have have a cosy relationship with, the other obvious one is well known homophobe Brian Souter.

On the NHS yes the SNP sees it as an area where it can cut back its financial commitments :

NHS in Scotland ‘faces £400m funding gap’

“The status quo and preservation of existing models of care are no longer an option given the pressing challenges we face.”

“There is a complete gap between policy announcements about care in the community and more money for primary care, and the announcements and commitments which continually increase the cost of acute care.”

And then check education spending….all those things that the LW is suppose to treasure. No, really.

You mean stuff like this ?

Scottish student borrowing soars by 69% to record levels

Scottish students are being forced to take out record levels of debt after the Scottish government cut the grants they could claim by 40%.

The heaviest burden is being carried by the poorest students after ministers cut overall spending on grants for living costs from £89.4m to £53m last year, and introduced far less generous funding bands which penalised low income applications.

The average loans taken out by students from the lowest income families averaged out at £5,610 a year, compared to £4,340 for students from better off homes, said Lucy Blackburn Hunter, a former civil servant who specialises in higher education policy.

And then there are local services :

Scottish councils pile up record debt

The Guardian has established that Scottish councils owe more than twice as much per head than English and Welsh local authorities, equal to debts of £6,166 per household, compared with £3,100 per home in England and £2,825 per household in Wales.

The overall debts have surged in the past eight years after councils borrowed more heavily than before to help offset continuing cuts in revenue and capital funding from the Scottish government, often with heavy encouragement from civil servants.

Then there is the much trumpeted SNP commitment to the Living Wage in the public sector, but unlike Labour the SNP has made no commitment to contract compliance. So that in case of civil servants which are generally paid sufficiently not to be affected it will have no bearing, while cleaners, whose work in generally contracted out, will not receive it.

Then there is austerity. The SNP talks a fine talk with regards to austerity but according to the independent and non-political Institute for Fiscal Studies :

The SNP’s fiscal numbers imply the same reduction in borrowing over the next parliament as Labour, although the reduction in borrowing under their plans would be slower. While their plans imply a slower pace of austerity than those of the other three parties, they imply a longer period of austerity.

Their proposed tax giveaways appear to be offset by their tax takeaways, while they would increase the generosity of the social security system. As a result, even though they propose increasing total spending in real terms each year, departmental spending would need to be broadly frozen between 2014–15 and 2019–20, and departmental spending outside of the NHS and aid could be facing a cut of 4.3%. The SNP’s manifesto states that “We reject the current trajectory of spending, proposed by the UK government and the limited alternative proposed by the Labour Party”. There is a considerable disconnect between this rhetoric and their stated plans for total spending, which imply a lower level of spending by 2019–20 than Labour’s plans.

IFS Press Release

And :

SNP fails to account for billions in welfare and pensions pledge, says IFS

On the nationalisation while Labour is pisspoor only offering :

Public to control more of rail network, promises Labour

The SNP won’t even match that preferring to hand Scottish franchises to private monopolies.

I fully agree with THM assertion that the SNP is not left-wing beyond its rhetoric. And I also fully accept Labour’s claim that the SNP’s figures don’t add up and would in fact lead to even greater cuts than they are proposing.

Someone earlier on the thread asked me to provide evidence that the SNP on many issues was more right-wing than Labour, at the time I quite frankly couldn’t be arsed to tap out a long thread but the stuff above is enough to be getting on with.

The SNP is not a left-wing party. It is a populist nationalist party which has identified the hostility towards the Tories which has built up over more than three decades, and the growing disillusionment with Labour since its dramatic lurch to the right.

And having done so has very successfully seduced many traditional Labour voters, including a fair few on here who lack class identity, with their left-wing rhetoric.

Having said that I personally feel that Labour getting wiped out in Scotland by the SNP will be the most exciting recent development in British politics.

IMO Labour has reached a point where it is beyond redemption, it can’t be saved, it’s finished. But if by some miracle it was to abandon its right-wing neoliberal agenda and once again become the party of ordinary working people this could only happen as the result of electoral failure. There is zero chance that it will change if it wins elections.

The right-wing which now fully controls the party have created the conditions in which their grip is self-perpetuating. Electoral defeat is only means by which their power and influence can stand any chance of being wrestled from them.

How much better that this defeat should be at the hands of those who espouse left-wing rhetoric than a right-wing party of loonies fruitcakes and closet racists such as UKIP.

Britain desperately needs a party which represents the interests of ordinary working people and which has a direct connection with them, like it once had. This won’t happen as long as Labour are seen as the solution. Today’s Labour Party, Thatcher’s proudest achievement, is the problem, not the solution.

I’m looking forward to next Friday morning and the new confidence I hope it will bring to the rest of the UK 🙂

ernie
Why do you think the right wing controls the Labour Party?
It’s a democratic organisation after all isn’t it?

It’s a democratic organisation after all isn’t it?

😆

EDIT : You were joking?