Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6
Discussion
arp1 said:
We will have to deal with it like anything else, from the pocket money given to us by westminister... Somehow we will have to pay for it...
Ps, if you earn more, don't you generally pay more in tax?
You not left yetPs, if you earn more, don't you generally pay more in tax?
As your flag offends you
Edited by McWigglebum4th on Saturday 25th October 17:49
arp1 said:
We will have to deal with it like anything else, from the pocket money given to us by westminister... Somehow we will have to pay for it...
Ps, if you earn more, don't you generally pay more in tax?
So unless the SNP raise taxes they would have to remove free Uni fees - its the same ball park figurePs, if you earn more, don't you generally pay more in tax?
Or reduce spend on NHS
Or remove winter fuel allowance
Actually SNP wants to reverse the spare bedroom allowance reduction (bedroom tax) so what else will they cut or raise taxes to pay for these additional items?
Hmmm interesting
///ajd said:
Good to see you've forgotten about 'The Barnett Formula' already burger.
It cannot survive in UK politics after what was said during the neverendum, no matter what was muttered during the 'vow'.
Course it can. It cannot survive in UK politics after what was said during the neverendum, no matter what was muttered during the 'vow'.
8% of the UK population and 30% of the UK's land mass.
Do the maths.
Welshbeef said:
So unless the SNP raise taxes they would have to remove free Uni fees - its the same ball park figure
Or reduce spend on NHS
Or remove winter fuel allowance
Actually SNP wants to reverse the spare bedroom allowance reduction (bedroom tax) so what else will they cut or raise taxes to pay for these additional items?
Hmmm interesting
True. And true of all governments. Or reduce spend on NHS
Or remove winter fuel allowance
Actually SNP wants to reverse the spare bedroom allowance reduction (bedroom tax) so what else will they cut or raise taxes to pay for these additional items?
Hmmm interesting
arp1 said:
Be'jaizus, you really are looking to kick our government when they have been the most decent one we have had so far! I, like yourself, am not in government to make said decisions so all you armchair economists just chew the fat and We'l see what happens...
Not sure who/what that's aimed at?Edinburger said:
///ajd said:
Good to see you've forgotten about 'The Barnett Formula' already burger.
It cannot survive in UK politics after what was said during the neverendum, no matter what was muttered during the 'vow'.
Course it can. It cannot survive in UK politics after what was said during the neverendum, no matter what was muttered during the 'vow'.
8% of the UK population and 30% of the UK's land mass.
Do the maths.
Scotland cannot have its cake and eat it. Either it wants the benefits of financial support and the controls and conditions that come with it or it doesn't.
Funk said:
Which will only work if all the taxes raised and financial decisions taken are administered at a NATIONAL level.
Scotland cannot have its cake and eat it. Either it wants the benefits of financial support and the controls and conditions that come with it or it doesn't.
Which flies in the face of the views of many commentators. Scotland cannot have its cake and eat it. Either it wants the benefits of financial support and the controls and conditions that come with it or it doesn't.
Tell me: why should some taxes be devolved and others managed centrally?
When I'm on my laptop I'll post an interesting analysis of the different views of each party. Difficult to see how they'll reach consensus.
Edinburger said:
///ajd said:
Good to see you've forgotten about 'The Barnett Formula' already burger.
It cannot survive in UK politics after what was said during the neverendum, no matter what was muttered during the 'vow'.
Course it can. It cannot survive in UK politics after what was said during the neverendum, no matter what was muttered during the 'vow'.
8% of the UK population and 30% of the UK's land mass.
Do the maths.
30% of land mass is not a justification for free university spending.
It just suggests the SG are spending the extra money allocated on luxuries, not on essentials.
Enough!
Bye bye TBF. Rest in peace.
///ajd said:
There is no link between free university for millionaires and having lots of mountains.
30% of land mass is not a justification for free university spending.
It just suggests the SG are spending the extra money allocated on luxuries, not on essentials.
Enough!
Bye bye TBF. Rest in peace.
I, and others, have repeatedly explained the "free university" thing. 30% of land mass is not a justification for free university spending.
It just suggests the SG are spending the extra money allocated on luxuries, not on essentials.
Enough!
Bye bye TBF. Rest in peace.
You either don't understand it or don't want to understand it.
Can't help you in that case.
Free university education is a great thing if you want to go to univerity, if you don't wish to pay for someone else's kids to go to university it is not such a good thing.
Free basic education to secondary level should be free - IMO - university level education should be at least in part self funded, whether that be up front or by loans which will be paid back later I wouldn't mind.
Free basic education to secondary level should be free - IMO - university level education should be at least in part self funded, whether that be up front or by loans which will be paid back later I wouldn't mind.
Edinburger said:
///ajd said:
There is no link between free university for millionaires and having lots of mountains.
30% of land mass is not a justification for free university spending.
It just suggests the SG are spending the extra money allocated on luxuries, not on essentials.
Enough!
Bye bye TBF. Rest in peace.
I, and others, have repeatedly explained the "free university" thing. 30% of land mass is not a justification for free university spending.
It just suggests the SG are spending the extra money allocated on luxuries, not on essentials.
Enough!
Bye bye TBF. Rest in peace.
You either don't understand it or don't want to understand it.
Can't help you in that case.
You cannot escape that fact.
Identifiable spending on higher education is much higher per person in Scotland than in the UK as a whole: £265 compared with £187 in 2011–12
What does landmass have to do with that?
///ajd said:
Edinburger said:
///ajd said:
There is no link between free university for millionaires and having lots of mountains.
30% of land mass is not a justification for free university spending.
It just suggests the SG are spending the extra money allocated on luxuries, not on essentials.
Enough!
Bye bye TBF. Rest in peace.
I, and others, have repeatedly explained the "free university" thing. 30% of land mass is not a justification for free university spending.
It just suggests the SG are spending the extra money allocated on luxuries, not on essentials.
Enough!
Bye bye TBF. Rest in peace.
You either don't understand it or don't want to understand it.
Can't help you in that case.
You cannot escape that fact.
Identifiable spending on higher education is much higher per person in Scotland than in the UK as a whole: £265 compared with £187 in 2011–12
What does landmass have to do with that?
This is an abridged version of something previously posted:
The reason that English students have to pay is simply down to economics and also the devolution arrangements which do not let Scotland raise its own finances. So, there is a fixed budget passed down from UK, which has to be allocated to the devolved priorities of the Scottish government of the day, currently the SNP.
Education is a devolved policy, and is therefore funded out of the budget (the block grant).
University education costs money - someone has to pay. The SNP stood on a manifesto of free education to students. As a result it has made a policy decision to spend money on that provision, and not on others. In contrast, the UK elected govt has made policy choices which involve charging students for education, and therefore freeing up money to spend on other things. Fair enough - voters can choose which they prefer.
However, you now have one part of the UK charging up to £9k per head, and another providing it free. (In my opinion, education should be free, but that's not the point).
If you are an English resident, you would have the choice of paying fees in England, or else going to any Scottish university and saving potentially £30-40k in fees alone. Anyone can see that potentially 10.000s + of students may decide to do that.
In that case,because of the current financial arrangements, the Scottish budget (income) would be raised by exactly £0 in order or cover these extra costs of providing free education for these scholarly migrants, Potentially a big financial black hole whereby cuts would have to be made to other areas of the elected Scottish government's areas of reponsibility.
It can't even raise taxes or borrow in order to provide for these extra students. Nor can it offer incentives for them to stay and work after university to recover their fees, not would the Scottish government receive income from any student loans being repaid in future.
So, those who are outraged are asking for the Scottish Govt to cut its services in other areas in order to provide free education for students from England who would be fleeing economic policies of an elected UK government which won't provide any compensation in return, even though education and financing of such is a devolved policy.
The next question is then why only English students. The answer is firstly technical in that it is not legal to charge other EU students. Non-EU students do have to pay fees, as there is no law to stop this. And, secondly it's down to simple geography and numbers of students who might cross the border for free schooling - potentially crippling for Scottish education system. Even without the geographical proximity, there is the fact that there is not such a need for other EU students to chase free education as they do not have to pay nearly the same fees as English students...
Education is a classic example of the different priorities of the two political systems and also the straitjacket that current fiscal arrangements put on the Scottish governments policy choices. This is the sort of thing that causes bad feeling - not anti English sentiment, but systemic problems which force bad compromises which are the simplistically labelled 'racism' to ironically suit an agenda of stereotyping the SNP and/or Yes voters,
Maybe you should ask the SNP Minister for Education, who is English, if he's anti-English....
Corpulent Tosser said:
Free university education is a great thing if you want to go to univerity, if you don't wish to pay for someone else's kids to go to university it is not such a good thing.
Free basic education to secondary level should be free - IMO - university level education should be at least in part self funded, whether that be up front or by loans which will be paid back later I wouldn't mind.
You do realise that the so-called "free university" in Scotland is part self-funded?Free basic education to secondary level should be free - IMO - university level education should be at least in part self funded, whether that be up front or by loans which will be paid back later I wouldn't mind.
Edinburger said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
Free university education is a great thing if you want to go to univerity, if you don't wish to pay for someone else's kids to go to university it is not such a good thing.
Free basic education to secondary level should be free - IMO - university level education should be at least in part self funded, whether that be up front or by loans which will be paid back later I wouldn't mind.
You do realise that the so-called "free university" in Scotland is part self-funded?Free basic education to secondary level should be free - IMO - university level education should be at least in part self funded, whether that be up front or by loans which will be paid back later I wouldn't mind.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff