I also wish you well.
"But you could try turning down the angry man/vitriol once in a while. It clouds some good and promising points you make."
My post is not angry in any way. When I state you are talking utter nonsense, I am merely giving you my opinion for which I explain my reasoning.
If I was saying "you are talking utter crap, you dozy cunt! then your comment about angry young man vitriol would be well merited and correct..
Secondly, maybe you should look at your own incredibly condescending, "I'm a visiting professor amongst all you argumentative hoi polloi" style of writing occasional posts on here?
For example in your first post in this thread
"Where to start...." Translation - . sigh, it's like a grown-up talking to children but I will do it any way. How kind of me"
"However, it's more nuanced than people may infer from reading the comments above." Translation - this is dreadfully, simplistic guff but I will shed light where all is darkness.
"DJ in particular, you might find many of her policies would help take a Labour-led government back more towards where I suspect you'd like it to be on the political spectrum " Translation - since you clearly have no idea as to what the SNP policies are about, try reading this.
"But you could try turning down the angry man/vitriol once in a while. It clouds some good and promising points you make." Translation - your comments show "promise". I would give a C+, promising but could do better.
People in glasshouses, Alicia?
Sturgeon - abolish house of lords
-
alicia_fan_uk
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Alicia
I'm sorry to hear that's how you are translating my points/style. That's not how I mean them to come across. For example, when I opened with ""Where to start...." it was because I had no idea which specific points to address, nor how to best structure my post in a logical or coherent manner. Or the "show promise" wording: I meant we can't exhaust all aspects of the debate and solve the word in a few quick posts, so it's an acknowledgement of you setting out good baseline points (which you may or may not choose to elaborate on).
And in turn, if I've perceived your previous posts incorrectly then I'll hold my hands up to that.
I'll follow up in the next post with a few comments on your reply of 10.27.
And in turn, if I've perceived your previous posts incorrectly then I'll hold my hands up to that.
I'll follow up in the next post with a few comments on your reply of 10.27.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Alicia
Thank you for your comments. I look forward to any subsequent posts you may make in this thread.
-
alicia_fan_uk
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Alicia
- RBS re-domicile: that's what was going to happening if Scotland voted Yes. There was quite a stooshie about how RBS/HM Treasury announced (leaked?) it in September 2014.
- The original point re tax-varying mechanism: The Uni Prof was just one example.
- re Osborne: I dunno how else inter-dependent governments would plan and forecast (including given the "independently" produced/scrutinised OBR reports). Otherwise it would be second, third, fourth guessing each other and would soak up significant time and resources.
- After the headline-grabbing private spend spike (indeed a trebling in NHS Grampian, which doesn't have its problems to seek), Scotland still spent a relative almost nothing on private healthcare. The NHS Scotland and NHS England ideological differences are significant, have been for years, and continue to diverge further.
- Re Labour/SNP policies: The perhaps frustrating thing overall is that SNP and Labour (independence and a few other things aside) have very similar ideology at their heart. Far from a perfect match, but a lot of similar thinking on how to tackle various issues. There's undoubtedly a deep dislike which seems historical and my little brain can't fully understand. But UK Labour and Scottish/Welsh Labour have drifted apart over the years. Just see the "branch office/Johann Lamont" saga and Jim Murphy?s volte face on many issues now he?s back on the Scottish political scene. UK/English Labour has to be more close to the centre ground to get the votes it needs in the marginals. And that is fair enough, as it's just reflecting the politics of the people.
- Tax avoidance: I believe you can only legitimately challenge someone for inaction if they've had the chance to tackle it.
- The original point re tax-varying mechanism: The Uni Prof was just one example.
- re Osborne: I dunno how else inter-dependent governments would plan and forecast (including given the "independently" produced/scrutinised OBR reports). Otherwise it would be second, third, fourth guessing each other and would soak up significant time and resources.
- After the headline-grabbing private spend spike (indeed a trebling in NHS Grampian, which doesn't have its problems to seek), Scotland still spent a relative almost nothing on private healthcare. The NHS Scotland and NHS England ideological differences are significant, have been for years, and continue to diverge further.
- Re Labour/SNP policies: The perhaps frustrating thing overall is that SNP and Labour (independence and a few other things aside) have very similar ideology at their heart. Far from a perfect match, but a lot of similar thinking on how to tackle various issues. There's undoubtedly a deep dislike which seems historical and my little brain can't fully understand. But UK Labour and Scottish/Welsh Labour have drifted apart over the years. Just see the "branch office/Johann Lamont" saga and Jim Murphy?s volte face on many issues now he?s back on the Scottish political scene. UK/English Labour has to be more close to the centre ground to get the votes it needs in the marginals. And that is fair enough, as it's just reflecting the politics of the people.
- Tax avoidance: I believe you can only legitimately challenge someone for inaction if they've had the chance to tackle it.
-
planeterotica
- Posts: 7093
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sturgeon - abolish house of lords
I well remember Kinnock the Pillock splashing champange all over the place before the election because the polls forecast his victory, only to end up with egg on his face.
Ms Sturgeon is banking on a hung parliament, but there is still plenty of time for the English to vote in force for one of the main parties just to put her fairytale to and end..
I can see a fish meal in the clubs along Pall Mall after the election of Sturgeon & Salmond on a plate
Either way i'm still voting UKIP...
Ms Sturgeon is banking on a hung parliament, but there is still plenty of time for the English to vote in force for one of the main parties just to put her fairytale to and end..
I can see a fish meal in the clubs along Pall Mall after the election of Sturgeon & Salmond on a plate
Either way i'm still voting UKIP...
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Alicia
"RBS re-domicile: that's what was going to happening if Scotland voted Yes. There was quite a stooshie about how RBS/HM Treasury announced (leaked?) it in September 2014".
RBS stated that they had made "contingency plans". This is not the same as stating vote yes for independence and we will definitely relocate. Secondly every time, for example, when Osborne talks about bank taxes, the London based banking sector makes noises about relocating abroad. It is a traditional threat.
Further to counter all of this, the only tax measure that I recall the SNP pushing prior to the independence vote was a reduction in corporation tax of 3p. Hardly the most left wing of measures?
"The original point re tax-varying mechanism: The Uni Prof was just one example."
I know. As I stated such views did not stop the SNP previously campaigning for a variation in the Scottish tax rate for years which they then dropped when they saw it was unpopular. And again, I find it hard to believe that a 3p increase in income tax would be eaten up by admin costs. I suspect the SNP reluctance to be unpopular with an independence vote in the wind, was by a very long way, the key reason why no tax changes were made.
"re Osborne: I dunno how else inter-dependent governments would plan and forecast (including given the "independently" produced/scrutinised OBR reports)."
If you are referring here to Osborne's claim that austerity would finish by the end of this parliament, then surely that would add pressure to the SNP need to increase revenues via tax changes in order to put right all the damage done by eye watering cuts which allowed Osborne to implement his promise?
Re Scottish healthcare, the Grampians is not a one-off
One of Scotland's leading economists, Professor David Bell, told the Guardian that the Scottish government actually spends ?670m less each year on the NHS than its pro rata share of Treasury funding. While Scotland gets total funding from the UK government, which was ?1,343 per person or 15.4% higher than for the UK average in 2011 ? 12, actual spending by the Scottish government on the NHS that year was only 9.9% higher. That is "clearly" less than could have been spent, Bell said.
Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, said in a blog that this pattern of spending was not new. In fact, Scotland's overall health spending had lagged behind that in England. It has grown in real terms by 29% from 2002 to 2010 in Scotland, compared to a 43% increase in England, he claimed. "So it seems that historically, at least, Scottish governments in Holyrood have placed less priority on funding the NHS in Scotland (and more on funding other services) than governments in Westminster have for England," Johnson's blog said.
"But UK Labour and Scottish/Welsh Labour have drifted apart over the years."
This is more true under Blair than I suspect it is under Miliband.
"Tax avoidance: I believe you can only legitimately challenge someone for inaction if they've had the chance to tackle it.
The assumption you are making in this thread that there are only three political parties who have been in a position to do anything about tax avoidance (presumably, Labour, Tories, Lib Dems) is incorrect.
See
RBS stated that they had made "contingency plans". This is not the same as stating vote yes for independence and we will definitely relocate. Secondly every time, for example, when Osborne talks about bank taxes, the London based banking sector makes noises about relocating abroad. It is a traditional threat.
Further to counter all of this, the only tax measure that I recall the SNP pushing prior to the independence vote was a reduction in corporation tax of 3p. Hardly the most left wing of measures?
"The original point re tax-varying mechanism: The Uni Prof was just one example."
I know. As I stated such views did not stop the SNP previously campaigning for a variation in the Scottish tax rate for years which they then dropped when they saw it was unpopular. And again, I find it hard to believe that a 3p increase in income tax would be eaten up by admin costs. I suspect the SNP reluctance to be unpopular with an independence vote in the wind, was by a very long way, the key reason why no tax changes were made.
"re Osborne: I dunno how else inter-dependent governments would plan and forecast (including given the "independently" produced/scrutinised OBR reports)."
If you are referring here to Osborne's claim that austerity would finish by the end of this parliament, then surely that would add pressure to the SNP need to increase revenues via tax changes in order to put right all the damage done by eye watering cuts which allowed Osborne to implement his promise?
Re Scottish healthcare, the Grampians is not a one-off
One of Scotland's leading economists, Professor David Bell, told the Guardian that the Scottish government actually spends ?670m less each year on the NHS than its pro rata share of Treasury funding. While Scotland gets total funding from the UK government, which was ?1,343 per person or 15.4% higher than for the UK average in 2011 ? 12, actual spending by the Scottish government on the NHS that year was only 9.9% higher. That is "clearly" less than could have been spent, Bell said.
Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, said in a blog that this pattern of spending was not new. In fact, Scotland's overall health spending had lagged behind that in England. It has grown in real terms by 29% from 2002 to 2010 in Scotland, compared to a 43% increase in England, he claimed. "So it seems that historically, at least, Scottish governments in Holyrood have placed less priority on funding the NHS in Scotland (and more on funding other services) than governments in Westminster have for England," Johnson's blog said.
"But UK Labour and Scottish/Welsh Labour have drifted apart over the years."
This is more true under Blair than I suspect it is under Miliband.
"Tax avoidance: I believe you can only legitimately challenge someone for inaction if they've had the chance to tackle it.
The assumption you are making in this thread that there are only three political parties who have been in a position to do anything about tax avoidance (presumably, Labour, Tories, Lib Dems) is incorrect.
See
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Forgot to mention
Politicians eh? They are all at this tax avoidance lark!
-
alicia_fan_uk
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Alicia
- RSB re-domicile: you are conflating tax costs and risk (including going concern), without setting out the different contexts in your two scenarios. No one will ever know if RBS would move for sure, but it was almost certain such a paper based exercise would take place. Their risk profile (and related costs) would have shot up otherwise. And even the YES campaign was acknowledging the paper-based nature of the move, rather than trying to fight against it in the terms you set out.
- 3p corp tax: I am not going to defend that policy.
- Tax-varying powers and Osborne: I've nothing further to add to my comments.
- Scottish NHS: Top up via private providers happens regularly in Scottish territorials, absolutely. But not much in the overall scheme of things. Scotland has very demanding treatment times targets. But my overall spend and ideology points are extant.
- Scottish v English NHS funding: Thanks for the stats, very interesting.
- Tax avoidance: Your link is about a body which effectively doesn't exist in function yet. But give it time and let's see how it deals with the limited range of taxes it has under its control.
- 3p corp tax: I am not going to defend that policy.
- Tax-varying powers and Osborne: I've nothing further to add to my comments.
- Scottish NHS: Top up via private providers happens regularly in Scottish territorials, absolutely. But not much in the overall scheme of things. Scotland has very demanding treatment times targets. But my overall spend and ideology points are extant.
- Scottish v English NHS funding: Thanks for the stats, very interesting.
- Tax avoidance: Your link is about a body which effectively doesn't exist in function yet. But give it time and let's see how it deals with the limited range of taxes it has under its control.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Alicia
"Top up via private providers happens regularly in Scottish territorials, absolutely. But not much in the overall scheme of things"
Have you info to back this view up?
"Scotland has very demanding treatment times targets"
The NHS has demanding targets in each of the UK countries - generally missed. Scotland is no different.
"But my overall spend and ideology points are extant."
Your overall spend point is not extant. See figures on comparative spend which I gave. As for ideology, the SNP has loads, but far, far less in terms of implementation.
"Tax avoidance: Your link is about a body which effectively doesn't exist in function yet. But give it time and let's see how it deals with the limited range of taxes it has under its control."
The SNP has had more than enough time to do lots on tax avoidance. They have chosen not to for reasons of their own. The SNP has had a First Minister since 2007. True, some of the time as a minority government but if they had tried to introduce tax avoidance measures I doubt if Labour would have opposed such measures. It would have been disastrous for Labour to do so.
In general, the SNP has had kid glove treatment. They spend the vast majority of their time blaming everything on Westminster and now have the sheer gall to provide advice on how they are going to sort out Westminster.
What should be happening is that there should be much closer perusal of what the SNP have actually done in power and in many cases they would be found wanting.
Have you info to back this view up?
"Scotland has very demanding treatment times targets"
The NHS has demanding targets in each of the UK countries - generally missed. Scotland is no different.
"But my overall spend and ideology points are extant."
Your overall spend point is not extant. See figures on comparative spend which I gave. As for ideology, the SNP has loads, but far, far less in terms of implementation.
"Tax avoidance: Your link is about a body which effectively doesn't exist in function yet. But give it time and let's see how it deals with the limited range of taxes it has under its control."
The SNP has had more than enough time to do lots on tax avoidance. They have chosen not to for reasons of their own. The SNP has had a First Minister since 2007. True, some of the time as a minority government but if they had tried to introduce tax avoidance measures I doubt if Labour would have opposed such measures. It would have been disastrous for Labour to do so.
In general, the SNP has had kid glove treatment. They spend the vast majority of their time blaming everything on Westminster and now have the sheer gall to provide advice on how they are going to sort out Westminster.
What should be happening is that there should be much closer perusal of what the SNP have actually done in power and in many cases they would be found wanting.
-
alicia_fan_uk
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Alicia
Private spend: Health bodies in Scotland assess if any patients are likely to breach waiting times, and either commission additional internal sessions or send these patients to be treated by either NWTCB (still public) or privately. The main private users are NHS Lothian and NHS Grampian (completely disproportionately so: they are 2 of 14 territorials). Each board's published and audited accounts will show you the data by each body. The NHS Scotland budget is nearly ?12 billion pa, and it spent an average of ?65 million on private healthcare over the last 3 years (a fraction of one percent).
Treatment times: Agreed re demanding & missed targets across the UK NHS. However, Scotland has 12 week Treatment Time Guarantee (TTG) - and that's proving a costly fucker enshrined in Scots Law (not just a KPI). I am not aware of the equivalent in England or Wales etc (but am happy to stand corrected). Meeting TTG drives a lot of the current private spend.
My overall spend and ideology points are indeed extant: The "spend" bit was about private spend, not the X spends more in total than Y (I'm not commenting on/challenging your quoted stats) and that Scotland's relatively tiny private spend is driven by ideological opposition to such. The "ideology" is that the Scottish Governent pretty much resents having to spend anything at all on private healthcare. It actively instructs Scottish health bodies only to use private spend to meet short term capacity challenges, and takes them to task over such spend.
Tax avoidance: I am not sure what substantive tax avoidance measures a Scottish Govt (SNP or Lib/Lab to date) could have implemented. The Scottish Govt doesn't control either the legislation which produces the loopholes, nor the body charged with enforcing tax legislation and collecting the money. (Granted, it would have been fucking hilarious to see the fall out of such a substantial power-grab against the Scotland Act).
I get that you are no fan of the SNP, based on evaluation and analysis. That's fine and fair enough. And that "closer perusal" you are looking for; I think this has already started and will get more intense, given the GE2015 polls.
Treatment times: Agreed re demanding & missed targets across the UK NHS. However, Scotland has 12 week Treatment Time Guarantee (TTG) - and that's proving a costly fucker enshrined in Scots Law (not just a KPI). I am not aware of the equivalent in England or Wales etc (but am happy to stand corrected). Meeting TTG drives a lot of the current private spend.
My overall spend and ideology points are indeed extant: The "spend" bit was about private spend, not the X spends more in total than Y (I'm not commenting on/challenging your quoted stats) and that Scotland's relatively tiny private spend is driven by ideological opposition to such. The "ideology" is that the Scottish Governent pretty much resents having to spend anything at all on private healthcare. It actively instructs Scottish health bodies only to use private spend to meet short term capacity challenges, and takes them to task over such spend.
Tax avoidance: I am not sure what substantive tax avoidance measures a Scottish Govt (SNP or Lib/Lab to date) could have implemented. The Scottish Govt doesn't control either the legislation which produces the loopholes, nor the body charged with enforcing tax legislation and collecting the money. (Granted, it would have been fucking hilarious to see the fall out of such a substantial power-grab against the Scotland Act).
I get that you are no fan of the SNP, based on evaluation and analysis. That's fine and fair enough. And that "closer perusal" you are looking for; I think this has already started and will get more intense, given the GE2015 polls.