Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5

[Wombat3]

simoid said:

A.J.M said:

Salmond was on the tv this morning repeating the lie about how only a yes vote can secure the future of the NHS.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a devolved Scottish NHS a Scottish Government issue already and therefore it's future is secure unless the Scottish Government makes an arse of it..

I'm sure there is a saying about repeating a lie often enough..

I think his point is that spending in England is being squeezed, so by remaining in the UK we are tying ourselves to that squeezage.

So it's, er, vote yes to have higher public spending than the rest of the UK (but no higher taxes, lower borrowing, an oil fund, etc).

What can possibly go wrong?

The reality is that under the desperate "austerity" measures introduced by this government public spending has hardly been cut if at all - it just hasn't been allowed to grow. Any suggestion otherwise is hysterical party political bks

Besides that, spending on the NHS is one area that has actually increased. More money is going into the NHS than ever before - unfortunately its just struggling to keep up with the idiots who insist on living on a diet of deep fried mars bars.

(did anyone ever tell Salmond he really ought to skip breakfast & go for a walk instead? You never know, it might clear the fog out of his brain.)

[malks222]

How do the yes supporters feel about the UK Government giving their largest loan guarantee to the ineos site in grangemouth? Without this backing ineos would not be building the ethane tank in grangemouth, which would mean the closure of the site.

Would an iScotland government have the resources/finances in place to underwrite something of this scale?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-centra...

[Silverbullet767]

malks222 said:

How do the yes supporters feel about the UK Government giving their largest loan guarantee to the ineos site in grangemouth? Without this backing ineos would not be building the ethane tank in grangemouth, which would mean the closure of the site.

Would an iScotland government have the resources/finances in place to underwrite something of this scale?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-centra...

Of course it would, we have unlimited money don't ya know. And if anyone says otherwise, they're a filthy tory bum licker.

[Risky Shift]

Wombat3 said:

The reality is that under the desperate "austerity" measures introduced by this government public spending has hardly been cut if at all - it just hasn't been allowed to grow. Any suggestion otherwise is hysterical party political bks

Besides that, spending on the NHS is one area that has actually increased. More money is going into the NHS than ever before - unfortunately its just struggling to keep up with the idiots who insist on living on a diet of deep fried mars bars.

(did anyone ever tell Salmond he really ought to skip breakfast & go for a walk instead? You never know, it might clear the fog out of his brain.)

I was employed in the NHS until the middle of last year - budgets were being cut across the Health Board I worked in by 10% each year for the previous 3 years. As you would apprecaite, the effect on morale was wonderful.

[Wombat3]

Risky Shift said:

Wombat3 said:

The reality is that under the desperate "austerity" measures introduced by this government public spending has hardly been cut if at all - it just hasn't been allowed to grow. Any suggestion otherwise is hysterical party political bks

Besides that, spending on the NHS is one area that has actually increased. More money is going into the NHS than ever before - unfortunately its just struggling to keep up with the idiots who insist on living on a diet of deep fried mars bars.

(did anyone ever tell Salmond he really ought to skip breakfast & go for a walk instead? You never know, it might clear the fog out of his brain.)

I was employed in the NHS until the middle of last year - budgets were being cut across the Health Board I worked in by 10% each year for the previous 3 years. As you would apprecaite, the effect on morale was wonderful.

Are you saying that when the government says the total amount of money being poured into the NHS is increasing that they are lying?

ETA:

Factoids (from the NHS confederation)

"NHS net expenditure (resource plus capital, minus depreciation) has increased from £57.049 billion in 2002/03 to £105.254bn in 2012/13. Planned expenditure for 2013/14 is £109.956bn.

The money spent per capita on NHS services in England has risen from £1,287 in 2003/04 to £1,979 in 2010/11. "

Somewhat ahead of inflation I would suggest.

Edited by Wombat3 on Thursday 17th July 15:11

[Alfa numeric]

Wombat3 said:

Risky Shift said:

I was employed in the NHS until the middle of last year - budgets were being cut across the Health Board I worked in by 10% each year for the previous 3 years. As you would apprecaite, the effect on morale was wonderful.

Are you saying that when the government says the total amount of money being poured into the NHS is increasing that they are lying?

My OH works in the NHS and her experience is the same. She works in a lab that's being closed down to try to reduce the trust's budget by something like 10%pa. I don't how those figures you quoted are arrived at but they're not what you see on the ground.

Not that this has anything to do with Scottish Independence!

[DanL]

Wombat3 said:

Factoids (from the NHS confederation)

Not saying you're right or wrong, but in the spirit of PH pedantry you might want to Google the definition of factoid.

"an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact."

[Gaspode]

I suspect that the reason that NHS budgets are increasing whilst individual departments are suffering year on year real terms cuts is not unrelated to the massive interest payments that the trusts have to make to pay for the PFI contracts they've been stitched up with, together with the hugely increasing legal costs they have to bear due to compensation claims.

[Wombat3]

DanL said:

Wombat3 said:

Factoids (from the NHS confederation)

Not saying you're right or wrong, but in the spirit of PH pedantry you might want to Google the definition of factoid.

"an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact."

Noted!

[simoid]

DanL said:

Wombat3 said:

Factoids (from the NHS confederation)

Not saying you're right or wrong, but in the spirit of PH pedantry you might want to Google the definition of factoid.

"an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact."

I always think/thought of factoids as "little snippets of information" and wasn't aware there was any negative connotation therein.

I may need to revise usage

[Wombat3]

Gaspode said:

I suspect that the reason that NHS budgets are increasing whilst individual departments are suffering year on year real terms cuts is not unrelated to the massive interest payments that the trusts have to make to pay for the PFI contracts they've been stitched up with, together with the hugely increasing legal costs they have to bear due to compensation claims.

You may well be right & one G Brown esq should be lynched for his misuse/abuse of PFI (Just to keep it on topic he's Scottish BTW )

The fact is though that we are spending over £100Bn a year on the NHS & more than ever before. Regardless of where its going, that's what we're spending. Just sick to death of people automatically whingeing about "Austerity" instead of actually asking the question "where's the money going then and are we getting good value for it?"

Maybe some budgets in the NHS are being cut to balance the books or because other things are deemed more important, but the total amount of money the government (i.e. we, the taxpayers) are throwing at it has never been greater.

...and still we overspend by over £100BN a year across the board.

There is no magic money tree in the garden at Downing Street (or down Fat Alex's glen either!! - just to stay on topic y'understand!)

[mybrainhurts]

simoid said:

Aye, come on Fluff. Play the ball - back up your points with evidence and explanations

No, you don't understand. Nicola Sturgeon says that's not necessary, it's just common sense...

Here's her website, look...

http://www.nicolasturgeon.org/

Oh, wait...



Ooops...

[fluffnik]

Borghetto said:

I've corrected that for you.

You are indeed an unpleasant and libellous sort...

[fluffnik]

Moonhawk said:

Yep - if they were voted out of the UK, despite getting what they desire - they would be denied sticking one on the Sassenachs.

I don't care what brings an end to the Union, just that it ends, which is a win for all.

[McWigglebum4th]

fluffnik said:

I don't care what brings an end to the Union, just that it ends, which is a win for all.

How many dead is a price worth paying to end the union?

[Sway]

I see nothing libellous - stupid and mentally challenged are both relative terms, not absolute.

Anyways, back to the really simple question that you seem to keep forgetting to answer (and it should be so quick and straightforward considering your unequivocal statements on the matter)...

Where is, or has been, profit in the UK's 'occupation' of Scotland for the last 300 odd years?

I'll accept even a sliver of a notion that the Darian Scheme has been 'repaid'. (Actually, I'll accept an explanation of why the Darian Scheme is irrelevant, and profit has been made without its consideration as a loss, if that helps. After all, I'm a dumb Englander...)

[simoid]

McWigglebum4th said:

fluffnik said:

I don't care what brings an end to the Union, just that it ends, which is a win for all.

How many dead is a price worth paying to end the union?

Indeed.

What a peculiar concept - paying any price to have symbolic independence.

[Wombat3]

fluffnik said:

Moonhawk said:

Yep - if they were voted out of the UK, despite getting what they desire - they would be denied sticking one on the Sassenachs.

I don't care what brings an end to the Union, just that it ends, which is a win for all.

Most of us really don't want to see an end to the Union which, were it to happen, would be a win for a very small number of small minded , inward looking, selfish (and frankly a bit thick) face painting , flag-waving fools.

[andyxs]

https://www.facebook.com/#!/NicolaSturgeonSNP
Ask Nicola anything!

[Funk]

andyxs said:

https://www.facebook.com/#!/NicolaSturgeonSNP
Ask Nicola anything!

Light on actual answers I see. Just the same regurgitated lies and propaganda...