10 May 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeunfortunately poverty, depression and poor education often go together.
Yip. These folk are so poor they can't afford a healthy lifestyle. Oddly enough, though, they can afford illegal drugs, cigarettes and excessive quantities of alcohol, all of which tend to be more costly than a healthy lifestyle. The "poverty" argument does not add up; admittedly poverty is a bad thing, but lifestyle is essentially a choice and eve ...[text shortened]... e can afford to live healthily, at least more easily than living in a self-destroying manner.
10 May 06
Originally posted by RedmikeOK - I've found the article in the Scotsman.
Can you give a link to the Scotsman article - I think I recognise it, but I want to be sure.
Yes, we have Blair's tories running the council in Glasgow.
We sometimes get these sorts of stories, mostly when there is an increase in support for independence, or just for fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament.
They really are a very simplistic, statistically naive way of looking at things.
The analysis has 2 sides - the spending side and the income side.
On the spending side, this analysis ignores the money spent on London-centred projects (Olympic bid, Millenium dome, canary wharf etc), which are deemed to be in the interests of the whole UK.
It ignores civil service and MoD spending, which is skewed towards the south east of England.
Scotland has a slice of its spending allocated to these sorts of projects, yet carries the full burden of Scotland-only spending (so we're really subsidising England).
It is also very weak on the income side. The idea is that Scots take more from the government than we contribute in tax.
However, the measurement of how much Scots pay in tax is extremely dodgy. It is done on the basis of the employer's returns. So, a resident of Scotland who works for a company registered in England won't have their tax payments registered as being from Scotland (I know this works in reverse, but not nearly to the same extent).
It also ignores revenue from oil and gas, as well as income from whisky duty.
These stats are, I reckon, pretty meaningless. They have been carefully selected to suit a particular (unionist) agenda.
However, in any event, you would expect public spending to be higher in Scotland anyway. We have more widespread rural communities (it costs more to get school dinners to princeoforange then it does to someone in Croydon), and we have poorer health and more poverty.
10 May 06
3 edits
Originally posted by NargagunaTo begin with, I wasn't responding to your point, but to a series of broader points about health and class which have arisen since the thread progressed. Secondly, you've yet to establish a clear link between benefits and the health of the population in Glasgow, except insofar as you want to reinforce Redmike's correlation between povery and health: no doubt you have some concrete research that demonstrates how curtailing it leads to a dramatic rise in general health, as opposed to futile generalizations?
The newspaper reports quoted were not referring to 'most workihg-class people' but specifically to East Glasgow which has both the worst health record, and the highest welfare benefits level, in the UK.
Your contribution to this 'debate' merely confuses the issue with an irrelevancy.
By the way, paca-macs went out of fashion over 50 years ago so you must be a pretty ancient would-be cool yobbo.
Oh, and Varg - to use a phrase some of the BNP casuals here will recognize, some of my best friends are middle class people.
10 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeA government report (according to The Scotsman) stated that the subsidy paid to Scotland by the rest of the UK (that means England) in the year 2002/3 was £7.7 billion. This is currently estimated at nearer £10 billion.
OK - I've found the article in the Scotsman.
We sometimes get these sorts of stories, mostly when there is an increase in support for independence, or just for fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament.
They really are a very simplistic, statistically naive way of looking at things.
The analysis has 2 sides - the spending side and the income side. nceoforange then it does to someone in Croydon), and we have poorer health and more poverty.
How would your great SSP cope with the shortfall if it were to achieve complete independence for Scotland as you say you want?
10 May 06
Originally posted by NargagunaI've just explained how dubious those statistics are.
A government report (according to The Scotsman) stated that the subsidy paid to Scotland by the rest of the UK (that means England) in the year 2002/3 was £7.7 billion. This is currently estimated at nearer £10 billion.
How would your great SSP cope with the shortfall if it were to achieve complete independence for Scotland as you say you want?
I don't accept that a such a shortfall even exists, but if we were independent, a number of things would change which would make Scotland even better off.
If we were independent, we wouldn't be paying a slice of the spending on the London civil service (not just numbers of employees, but their London weighting). We wouldn't be funding the London olympics, or any infrastructure improvements for London and the South East (Channel Tunnel etc), we wouldn't be paying for Blair and Bush's wars and we certainly wouldn't be paying for Trident.
If we were independent, we would have the income tax income from every worker in Scotland, not just those who happen to work for a Scottish company. We would have all the corporation tax on Scottish companies. We would have the income from North Sea oil and gas, and from the duty on whisky.
And all this is based on current economic policies - ie without adopting any radical change.
10 May 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI wish I could find your hopes credible but I fear you would soon be shaking the begging bowl over the border.
I've just explained how dubious those statistics are.
I don't accept that a such a shortfall even exists, but if we were independent, a number of things would change which would make Scotland even better off.
If we were independent, we wouldn't be paying a slice of the spending on the London civil service (not just numbers of employees, but their Lond ...[text shortened]... all this is based on current economic policies - ie without adopting any radical change.
However the scenario is purely imaginary since your compatriots are far too canny not to realise on which side their bread is buttered ever to elect your mob.
10 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NargagunaOK - so you're not prepared to actually discuss the stats you cite then?
I wish I could find your hopes credible but I fear you would soon be shaking the begging bowl over the border.
However the scenario is purely imaginary since your compatriots are far too canny not to realise on which side their bread is buttered ever to elect your mob.
Scots don't have to elect my 'mob' to get independence - they just need enough pro-independence MSPs, from any of the 3 parties which support, or any of the current independents who also do. Then we have a referendum.
And which bit isn't credible? Would we not get all our tax income? Would we still have to pay for the Olympics in London?
Oh, and lets not forget the 'civil' list - we'd save a few quid there.
10 May 06
Originally posted by invigorateI'd imagine it would be a simple question like "Are you in favour of Scotland seeking independence from the United Kingdom", but the details would need to be sorted out.
If there was a referendum what would the question be?
What would the outcome be?
I'd hope the outcome would be a vote in favour, and then we would proceed to start negotiations with London.
10 May 06
Originally posted by RedmikeIf Scotland should ever gain independance, I'll move back up there.
I'd imagine it would be a simple question like "Are you in favour of Scotland seeking independence from the United Kingdom", but the details would need to be sorted out.
I'd hope the outcome would be a vote in favour, and then we would proceed to start negotiations with London.
Or if global warming does the trick and the shores of Loch Lomond sprout palm trees.