Scotland after the vote

[Rollin]

arp1 said:

simoid said:

arp1 said:

No point in going over old ground as you know it will just be a screaming match ( my dicks bigger than your dick blah blah blah)... It's all up in the air and open to conjecture anyway so don't fret just vote as you will

Sorry I wasn't aware that you have had a discussion with us on the main thread

Anyway, you're half right. It's a shame that so many of the Yes voters like yourself seem to have given up with their campaigning so soon

If there's a yes vote, it's all up in the air. Utter chaos. A Pandora's box of "what if...?" because of the SNP's inability to plan for the real world, such as what currency we'll be using, how much the business of separation will cost and the knock-on effects to UK business in facing major divisional reorganisation.

All that stuff the yes voters don't think about, you know?

I didn't realise there was an etiquette for posting in certain posts and conversations? There is a lot the no voters have not thought about or accepted either mind. You are right in as much itvis a Pandora's box but not everything is rUK's to divvy up since we have 300 years of dues to divvy up, including taking back a swathe of stolen Scottish water!

Ooo! Going back 300 years? Very interesting.

[Walford]

Rollin said:

Ooo! Going back 300 years? Very interesting.

,

[Neonblau]

This thread has become utterly bizarre.

It's as though Division 2 nationalists come in here.

[Walford]

Neonblau said:

This thread has become utterly bizarre.

It's as though Division 2 nationalists come in here.

and people with triumph heralds in a car forum

[pcvdriver]

I see Better Together are claiming more sensationalist erroneous guff at best, or downright lies depending on how charitable one is:

Better Together said:

"Alex Salmond's claims about NHS are nothing but a scare story. Alex Salmond is claiming today that privatisation of the NHS in England could lead to cuts in health spending in Scotland. This is nothing but a scare story.

Health is devolved…...."

This come from people who actually work in the NHS and know how it functions:

A reduction in English spending on the NHS, by employing private means, whereby private investors take public money and make profit on it, leaves Scotland's block grant subject to cut, to equalise expenditure on a percentage basis.
In short, England pay the same amount of money for the NHS but ask people to pay more for it personally. £10 for a Doctor's appointment, £20 for a consultation, a fixed amount up front for operations, paying through the nose for prescriptions.
Because more money is in the private purse, less is in the public and so Scotland gets a percentage cut in it's block grant. This will have the effect that Scotland will require, at some point to adopt the same practice or the NHS will fail because of severe cuts to funding.
Share holders benefiting from public money and a public service. Many jobs cut in the public sector and many more made in the private sector, which are there to make profit for the company.
A growth in insurance companies selling health insurance, sign here and pay for your operation up front if you don't have insurance. Not a scare story, but actual facts taking place in your English and Welsh constituencies.
The only people benefiting this practice will be private companies and private investors. The losers will be those who need the NHS and cannot pay for it.

and a wee clip from youtube too.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esV6pGo8UTI

Edited by pcvdriver on Thursday 17th July 15:36

[Neonblau]

Walford said:

and people with triumph heralds in a car forum

Indeed, complete with its Union Jack sticker! Still no joy with the dash however.

[barryrs]

I can understand why Scots are very concerned about the NHS - http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/17...

[simoid]

pcvdriver said:

This come from people who actually work in the NHS and know how it functions:

A reduction in English spending on the NHS, by employing private means, whereby private investors take public money and make profit on it, leaves Scotland's block grant subject to cut, to equalise expenditure on a percentage basis.
In short, England pay the same amount of money for the NHS but ask people to pay more for it personally. £10 for a Doctor's appointment, £20 for a consultation, a fixed amount up front for operations, paying through the nose for prescriptions.
Because more money is in the private purse, less is in the public and so Scotland gets a percentage cut in it's block grant. This will have the effect that Scotland will require, at some point to adopt the same practice or the NHS will fail because of severe cuts to funding.
Share holders benefiting from public money and a public service. Many jobs cut in the public sector and many more made in the private sector, which are there to make profit for the company.
A growth in insurance companies selling health insurance, sign here and pay for your operation up front if you don't have insurance. Not a scare story, but actual facts taking place in your English and Welsh constituencies.
The only people benefiting this practice will be private companies and private investors. The losers will be those who need the NHS and cannot pay for it.

Why don't we just give the Scottish NHS as much funding as it needs, since the NHS is devolved in Scotland?

Just because England chooses to spend money elsewhere doesn't mean Scotland has to. We have our own Parliament.

[pcvdriver]

doogz said:

pcvdriver said:

doogz said:

What impediment or interference are you referring to?

Any at all from those who aren't voting.......but acting as if they have the right to vote.....

Any at all.

Do you have an example of an interference or impediment?

I'd like to hear a couple.

I was simply making a reference to Simoid's statement about how the people of Northern Ireland would take to people from the rest of the UK deciding what they should and shouldn't do - same rules apply.....

[pcvdriver]

simoid said:

pcvdriver said:

This come from people who actually work in the NHS and know how it functions:

A reduction in English spending on the NHS, by employing private means, whereby private investors take public money and make profit on it, leaves Scotland's block grant subject to cut, to equalise expenditure on a percentage basis.
In short, England pay the same amount of money for the NHS but ask people to pay more for it personally. £10 for a Doctor's appointment, £20 for a consultation, a fixed amount up front for operations, paying through the nose for prescriptions.
Because more money is in the private purse, less is in the public and so Scotland gets a percentage cut in it's block grant. This will have the effect that Scotland will require, at some point to adopt the same practice or the NHS will fail because of severe cuts to funding.
Share holders benefiting from public money and a public service. Many jobs cut in the public sector and many more made in the private sector, which are there to make profit for the company.
A growth in insurance companies selling health insurance, sign here and pay for your operation up front if you don't have insurance. Not a scare story, but actual facts taking place in your English and Welsh constituencies.
The only people benefiting this practice will be private companies and private investors. The losers will be those who need the NHS and cannot pay for it.

Why don't we just give the Scottish NHS as much funding as it needs, since the NHS is devolved in Scotland?

Just because England chooses to spend money elsewhere doesn't mean Scotland has to. We have our own Parliament.

Due to the way NHS is funded across the UK - The Barnett Formulae comes into play - if NHS England gets less money due to cuts - then the amount of money in our block grant is cut - it's quite simple really - if you keep taking money out - eventually there's nothing left to take and the NHS collapses.........

Edited by pcvdriver on Thursday 17th July 16:40

[simoid]

pcvdriver said:

I was simply making a reference to Simoid's statement about how the people of Northern Ireland would take to people from the rest of the UK deciding what they should and shouldn't do - same rules apply.....

Could you please point out where I said that? I believe you may be mistaken.

(Or if you mean that I said "the people of Northern Ireland should DECIDE for themselves" then you're not mistaken. That doesn't mean that the rest of the UK and world are not allowed to voice an opinion, however.)

Edited by simoid on Thursday 17th July 16:37

[Thorodin]

barryrs said:

I can understand why Scots are very concerned about the NHS

And so they ought to be. NHS is essentially a UK asset. If it were not, and available to independent nations, it would be International Health Service. Is it Independence that is sought or Independence Except For The Bits We Can't Afford? Is that a begging bowl I see before me? (apologies to W. Shakespeare)

[simoid]

pcvdriver said:

Due to the way NHS is funded across the UK - The Barnett Formulae comes into play - if NHS England gets less money due to cuts - then the amount of money in our block grant is cut - it's quite simple really - if you keep taking money out - eventually there's nothing left to take and the NHS collapses.

Can you please back up your claim that the Scottish Parliament doesn't control the NHS budget in Scotland?

[pcvdriver]

simoid said:

pcvdriver said:

Due to the way NHS is funded across the UK - The Barnett Formulae comes into play - if NHS England gets less money due to cuts - then the amount of money in our block grant is cut - it's quite simple really - if you keep taking money out - eventually there's nothing left to take and the NHS collapses.

Can you please back up your claim that the Scottish Parliament doesn't control the NHS budget in Scotland?

I didn't say that the Scottish Parliament doesn't control the budget - I am saying that the overall amount we get in our block grant IS affected by the Barnett Formula. If Westminstar chooses not to spend as much on the NHS in England, then due to Barnett, pro rata belt tightening happens in Scotland. If we don't get as much in the block grant from one year to the next due to Westminster cuts, then obviously cuts have to be made elsewhere.


.......it's simple arithmetic - I thought you understood the concept, obviously not though

[barryrs]

pcvdriver said:

Due to the way NHS is funded across the UK - The Barnett Formulae comes into play - if NHS England gets less money due to cuts - then the amount of money in our block grant is cut - it's quite simple really - if you keep taking money out - eventually there's nothing left to take and the NHS collapses.........

Edited by pcvdriver on Thursday 17th July 16:40

If only Scotland had the power to raise additional taxation if it chose to.........

Of course we could just accept that Scotland should be exempt from any cuts to its public services and increase the block grant accordingly.

[pcvdriver]

barryrs said:

If only Scotland had the power to raise additional taxation if it chose to.........

....And where does that tax go? That's right, HM treasury!!! Aye good one Barry.

Westminster would just say "Thanks Scotland" and we'd have no net gain.

[simoid]

pcvdriver said:

simoid said:

pcvdriver said:

Due to the way NHS is funded across the UK - The Barnett Formulae comes into play - if NHS England gets less money due to cuts - then the amount of money in our block grant is cut - it's quite simple really - if you keep taking money out - eventually there's nothing left to take and the NHS collapses.

Can you please back up your claim that the Scottish Parliament doesn't control the NHS budget in Scotland?

I didn't say that the Scottish Parliament doesn't control the budget - I am saying that the overall amount we get in our block grant IS affected by the Barnett Formula. If Westminstar chooses not to spend as much on the NHS in England, then due to Barnett, pro rata belt tightening happens in Scotland. If we don't get as much in the block grant from one year to the next due to Westminster cuts, then obviously cuts have to be made elsewhere.


.......it's simple arithmetic - I thought you understood the concept, obviously not though

So to confirm:

• The NHS budget in England is of no relevance to the NHS budget in Scotland.
• Scotland chooses how much money is spent on the NHS in Scotland.
• In any case, NHS spending is increasing greatly in England and is projected to increase for the foreseeable future:

You are falling for the illogical, baseless nonsense from the yes campaign.

[simoid]

pcvdriver said:

....And where does that tax go? That's right, HM treasury!!! Aye good one Barry.

Westminster would just say "Thanks Scotland" and we'd have no net gain.

Well, in fairness, Westminster has given Scotland around £40,000,000,000 more to spend than its received in taxes for the past 5 years.

That was nice of them.

[pcvdriver]

simoid said:

Well, in fairness, Westminster has given Scotland around £40,000,000,000 more to spend than its received in taxes for the past 5 years.

That was nice of them.

Just how much has Westminster given themselves more to spend that it actually has raised in taxes over the same period?

[barryrs]

pcvdriver said:

barryrs said:

If only Scotland had the power to raise additional taxation if it chose to.........

....And where does that tax go? That's right, HM treasury!!! Aye good one Barry.

Westminster would just say "Thanks Scotland" and we'd have no net gain.

I apologise if im incorrect but I believe the only reason additional taxation raised in Scotland wont stay in Scotland is because YOU were to tight to pay for the HMRC IT systems.

If Scotland had followed through on a Scottish Variable Rate and funded the IT systems required the additional taxation could have been identified and allocated to the Scottish government upon collection.