Wednesday, 21 November 2012

An Important Reason To Vote Yes


click to enlarge


Courtesy of the superb BBC Scotlandshire


15 comments:

pa_broon74 said...

This image leaves me amused yet horrified.

An interesting but worrying juxtaposition.

It goes without saying, voting no is not an option, although I don't think anybody really understands how Barnett works, my grasp is tenuous but I understand it to the extent that I know, if they cut budgets in England there is a pro rata cut for Scotland too, even if it's not a policy supported here, which this isn't.

Not to mention all the so-called UK-wide budget expenditure that isn't really UK wide...

subrosa said...

I thought it important enough to post pa_broon as many of us forget that all taxpayers pay for the NHS.

It's a while since I read about the Barnett formula but you've as much of a grip of it as me. At least we know cuts affect us as does extra spending (with which they're most careful to shunt off to councils etc if possible).

JRB said...

I fear the advert shown borders more on propaganda and scaremongering than on actual fact.

Funding in Scotland is based on the Barnett Formula which calculates an overall total payment due to Scotland.
Any cut to the NHS in England or in any area of public expenditure will indeed have an effect on the Barnett Formula and the calculation of the overall total payment due to Scotland.

However, the NHS in Scotland is a wholly devolved entity.
The money spent on the NHS in Scotland is entirely funded by and at the will of the Scottish Parliament.

There is no direct correlation between what is, or is not, spent on the NHS in England and what the Scottish Parliament chooses to spend on the NHS in Scotland.

So for your advert to state that a cut in England will result in a £2billion or 154% cut in Scotland is utter tosh!

I am still of a mind to vote Yes – but such unworthy scaremongering propaganda does nothing to secure my vote.

subrosa said...

I think many folk in England know that the Scottish NHS is independent of the English NHS JRB, but is the image so very wrong?

You agree cuts from English budgets affect our share, but I wasn't aware both England and Scotland ringfenced expenditure.

If that is the case then I see your point, otherwise if, as I thought, all cuts 'go into the pot', then the image isn't far wrong.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

William said...

I agree with JRB.

The Scottish Executive can spend more on the NHS if it wants. It simply has to spend less money on something else. That's a budget for you.

Brian said...

Rosie,
I understood the £20 billion efficiency savings in the English NHS are being made to reallocate those resources to frontline services. So JRB is right.
Actually, few people in England know about the very different histories of the English and Scottish NHSs. All we know is that we have to pay for prescriptions that are free everywhere else.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

There's no 'tosh' in the headline.

Any direct 'saving' in fiscal expenditure in England is reflected proportionately under the Barnett formula and a £20 billion 'saving' would reflect as a £1.8bn lessening on the Scottish block grant.

Equally, while the claimed 'saving' on welfare reforms will not reflect on the block grant due to welfare not being devolved, the costs associated with the application of these reforms will create peripheral costs to Scotland having to be met from a decreasing grant.

In essence, Westminster is intent on increasing the privatisation of the NHS and the 'front line servicing' is a euphemism for privatisation which along with some creative accounting will lead to the situation where Holyrood is told -you do as you want - but if you don't do as we do, then any saving we claim will proportionately come off the block grant.

So to my mind the 'tosh' is in the coercion.

Joe Public said...

I'm always amused that people complain about budget cuts, and often in the same breath, that they pay too much tax.

Hands up all the Scots (or English or Welsh) who want to pay more Tax.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is just a neutral observation.



Brian said...

@Joe Public,
We want, for example, Margaret Hodge and her family trusts to pay more tax. And those companies with Milo Minderbinder as their CFO who pay "royalties" to subsidiaries in low tax countries. If tax can be avoided by the wealthy, it is not fair.
To quote Adam Smith:

"The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State."

subrosa said...

That's true William. I see you're still calling our government an executive. Keep it going. :)

subrosa said...

Front line services Brian? Ahem, that's not what my English friends believe or acknowledge.

subrosa said...

Agree with every word Crinkly.

subrosa said...

Joe, I've always considered that my taxes were a necessary evil - with the exception of green taxes and the fact that my pension is taxed twice.

Brian said...

Rosie,
I didn't say I belived it either ;). I only trust Getting On for the truth about the NHS.

subrosa said...

Ha ha, super link Brian.:)

Related Posts with Thumbnails