Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing? - Mk II

I was referring to extra "freebies" and "perks" that Midlander mentioned, not the Barnett Formula.

But, do you think that spending per head should be equal across all four "nations"?



Makes sense, given that the potential for renewables is much higher here than down south. If I'm going to have to subsidise renewables, I'd want it them to be installed in the most efficient locations.

Actually, the freebies that wee get in Scotland aren't actually the same as freebies. Higher university fees are free because money earmarked for elsewhere has been spent funding it. Spending on vocational courses that benefit more working class backgrounds have been cut. NHS Scotland hasn't seen additional spending in line with NHS England as the money is being spent elsewhere.

Do I agree with the barnet formulae? Yes and no. Certain areas require additional spending. Scotland for example is largely empty and therefore increased spending on infrastructure is required.

What I don't like however is complaints that certain regions are loosing out to others.

The SE has some if the lowest spending on it, yet generates some if the highest returns.

The argument isn't about how much money is spent, but what's its spent on.

Yes. I think that money should be spent on the basis of need, not whatever seems "fair" to nationalists of whatever home nation, and I'm getting concerned that further devolution will only lead to us becoming poorer relative to the rest of the UK as budgets will be evened up.

Never mind, it could have been worse. You could have been trying to balance the books with spending based on unrealistically high projections for oil & gas prices and production at a time when prices have hit the floor and production is low.

Although it's anyone's guess how long the current low price will last for.

Yes. I think that money should be spent on the basis of need, not whatever seems "fair" to nationalists of whatever home nation, and I'm getting concerned that further devolution will only lead to us becoming poorer relative to the rest of the UK as budgets will be evened up.

Actually, the freebies that wee get in Scotland aren't actually the same as freebies. Higher university fees are free because money earmarked for elsewhere has been spent funding it. Spending on vocational courses that benefit more working class backgrounds have been cut. NHS Scotland hasn't seen additional spending in line with NHS England as the money is being spent elsewhere.

Do I agree with the barnet formulae? Yes and no. Certain areas require additional spending. Scotland for example is largely empty and therefore increased spending on infrastructure is required.

What I don't like however is complaints that certain regions are loosing out to others.

The SE has some if the lowest spending on it, yet generates some if the highest returns.

The argument isn't about how much money is spent, but what's its spent on.

Yes. I think that money should be spent on the basis of need, not whatever seems "fair" to nationalists of whatever home nation, and I'm getting concerned that further devolution will only lead to us becoming poorer relative to the rest of the UK as budgets will be evened up.

It is overriding their governance of the country which is what should actually be their main priority.

Really now-from what I can see most of the money is spent on the highly urbanised central belt with the rest of Scotland left on scraps.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quite. Not a good platform for nation building. I'm sure the price will rise in due course but revenue will undoubtedly fall through the floor eventually when either (a) the resources are used up or (b) alternatives become viable and nobody wants oil and gas any more.

Ultimately though, it isn't - and no-one's really under any illusions that it is. However it's not for us to hector on that point: it's for the electorate to vote them out if they're dissatisfied.

It's a sad indictment on the three main parties that we cannot get rid of the SNP from power. Indeed, if anything, Labour is slipping and the pro-union vote will decline in the next few years.

MatureStudent there mentions moon-howlers - that's what we unionists have become. Howling about the SNP and how unfair it all is does not provide any of the three pro-UK parties with a decent policy platform or give them the appearance of a competent government-in-waiting.

We're obsessing about the constitutional problem, but there's a deeper political problem here. That's why Labour transparently talking about how Scottish they are, and supporting more devolution etc, has never boosted their vote - it's fundamentally wrong to assume that's the problem. The problem is poor quality politicians, a lack of vision and serious policies that people buy into. The SNP is soaring ahead despite being led by people who are, charitably, a bit unhinged: we need to up our respective games.

interesting times , final nail in the coffin for labour, nationalists pointed out plans to frack Scotland , unionists denied it ,one of which has now proven to be truthful. nationalists must be rubbing their hands together in glee , fracking will take place in Grangemouth in 2 years with North Lanarkshire to follow . Not good news for unionists.

The tide is turning in favour for SNP in almighty numbers , Labour may well hang on to the odd seat but they have undoubtedly made themselves look extremely untrustworthy by stepping down one at a time in the weeks which followed. key figures who played a key role in obtaining a swing to No in the last weeks of the campaign.
A clever strategy to gain No voters one which has proven to be extremely costly resulting in labour eating their words and beginning to look extremely stupid indeed. Jim Murphy seals an unstoppable SNP slaughter of labour at the polls.

looks like goodie2shoe nationalists will get what they want sooner than later, sealed by
Glasgow the biggest city may have lead the way for the rest of Scotland to follow as they seem to follow this city who is looked up to with much more respect than the capital

The SNP's White Paper based spending off of the 113$/b oil price. That was September. The oil price is now down to 75$/b. It's nearly December. Less than 3 months and the oil price we were supposed to base our new, independent economy off of is way below sustainable levels (especially considering how socialist Scottish politics is compared to England or NI).

The SNP's White Paper based spending off of the 113$/b oil price. That was September. The oil price is now down to 75$/b. It's nearly December. Less than 3 months and the oil price we were supposed to base our new, independent economy off of is way below sustainable levels (especially considering how socialist Scottish politics is compared to England or NI).

And yet its 15 months until the point at which thats particularly relavent.

I thought the Yes position was Scotland is pretty rich even if you exclude oil revenue?

I'm pretty sure the white paper was Nov '13 too.