Change for changes sake

[diablo]

I see what you're saying, but the facts are, that Scotland is subsidised by England and as a result, Scotland enjoys some benefits that we don't get in England.

This is all off topic, but my last on the Scot/Eng thing is education. Why is it that a foreign student going to a Scottish Uni has to pay c.£3250 but an English student going to the same Scottish Uni will have to pay $9000? I cannot see how anyone can explain that as being right.

BTW, I love Scotland and have never met a Scot that I didn't like.

.......................

Back on topic - seems we're not alone; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14997843

England doesn't subsidise Scotland.

Scotland enjoys some benefits that England doesn't simply because the budget allocated to Scotland is spent by a devolved Government and it chooses how to spend it. Similarly, you get different services from your local council than I do mine because of different spending priorities. It's even true of services offered by different NHS Trusts.

You seem to be angry because the devolved Government chooses to spend the money how it does, but that is what it was elected to do. If Labour or the Conservatives or the Greens had been elected, then their spending priorities would be different.

One of those devolved choices concerns tuition fees. The Scottish Government has to operate within the law and under EU law students from all other EU member states are entitled to the same free places. Only students outwith the EU would have to pay full tuition fees.

English students are not able to attend for free because they are regarded as citizens of the same member state as Scotland – the UK. But they do not have to pay £9,000 as you state. That would only be the case if the tuition fees were that high in Scotland and they are not. Glasgow University fees for example are below £3,000 for most undergraduate courses for 2011-2012.

I agree that this is a completely ridiculous situation to be in, but one that has nothing to do with Holyrood - Westminster is to blame for allowing this quirk to be enshrined in law in the first place. It alone represents the UK in Europe.

Incidentally, EU students coming to study for free in Scotland are a drain on the public purse north of the border. It's an increasingly untenable situation.

 

[BREWSTERS]

England doesn't subsidise Scotland.

The money that the Scottish Parliament are given to spend is higher than the money raised by Scotland. How is that not being subsidised?

Scotland enjoys some benefits that England doesn't simply because the budget allocated to Scotland is spent by a devolved Government and it chooses how to spend it. Similarly, you get different services from your local council than I do mine because of different spending priorities. It's even true of services offered by different NHS Trusts.

By your own quoted figures, spending per capita in Scotland is far higher than that in England - it isn't just a case of how the money is spent as you claim, but also of more being spent - 20% more. Are you saying your figures are wrong?

You seem to be angry because the devolved Government chooses to spend the money how it does, but that is what it was elected to do. If Labour or the Conservatives or the Greens had been elected, then their spending priorities would be different.

I'm not angry at all Diablo. As for spending, see above.

One of those devolved choices concerns tuition fees. The Scottish Government has to operate within the law and under EU law students from all other EU member states are entitled to the same free places. Only students outwith the EU would have to pay full tuition fees.

English students are not able to attend for free because they are regarded as citizens of the same member state as Scotland – the UK. But they do not have to pay £9,000 as you state. That would only be the case if the tuition fees were that high in Scotland and they are not. Glasgow University fees for example are below £3,000 for most undergraduate courses for 2011-2012.

I agree that this is a completely ridiculous situation to be in, but one that has nothing to do with Holyrood - Westminster is to blame for allowing this quirk to be enshrined in law in the first place. It alone represents the UK in Europe.

Incidentally, EU students coming to study for free in Scotland are a drain on the public purse north of the border. It's an increasingly untenable situation.

It seems that the Scottish Parliament is choosing to interpret the law in this way rather than it being "nothing to do with Holyrood" and is due to be challenged legally.

 

[diablo]

The money that the Scottish Parliament are given to spend is higher than the money raised by Scotland. How is that not being subsidised?

By your own quoted figures, spending per capita in Scotland is far higher than that in England - it isn't just a case of how the money is spent as you claim, but also of more being spent - 20% more. Are you saying your figures are wrong?

It seems that the Scottish Parliament is choosing to interpret the law in this way rather than it being "nothing to do with Holyrood" and is due to be challenged legally.

Only London contribute more than Scotland, per capita, to the Exchequer. The north-east of England contributes least along with Northern Ireland. We live in the UK. There is one Treasury. Spending is devolved. England doesn't subsidise Scotland any more than Scotland subsidises Northern Ireland or Bearsden subsidises Brixton.

You only want to compare Scotland and England without looking at the regional breakdown because it suits your argument to do so. You have one "fact" that you keep repeating like a Daily Mail headline.

Scotland accounts for a third of the UK's land mass. It costs more to deliver the same services here as in more urban areas of the UK. It also is home to the some of the most deprived areas in the UK. Hardly surprising then that more is spent per head of population.

You seem to think that a devolved government with bottomless pockets is giving it laldy, but exactly the same amount of money would be spent in Scotland devolved government or not (and was previously by Westminster). What you don't seem to be able to stomach is how it is being spent.

As we are just going round in circles, I won't be posting again to this thread. Better things to do tbh!

 

[BREWSTERS]

Only London contribute more than Scotland, per capita, to the Exchequer. The north-east of England contributes least along with Northern Ireland. We live in the UK. There is one Treasury. Spending is devolved. England doesn't subsidise Scotland any more than Scotland subsidises Northern Ireland or Bearsden subsidises Brixton.

You only want to compare Scotland and England without looking at the regional breakdown because it suits your argument to do so. You have one "fact" that you keep repeating like a Daily Mail headline.

No, the regional breakdown 'within a country' is irrelevent to the debate as the services / benefits in Newcastle are roughly the same as in Mayfair - whereas they are quite different between Glasgow and Mayfair.

As for 'only London contributes more'...London has more than double the population of Scotland and accounts for nearly 20% of the population of the UK as a whole.

Unless you can display that all the money Scotland gets each year is equal to or less than the amount they contribute to the UK coffers, then you must agree that Scotland is subsidised. And given that, it must also be agreed that because of that subsidy, Scotland is able to enjoy a range of free services that we don't in England.

Scotland accounts for a third of the UK's land mass. It costs more to deliver the same services here as in more urban areas of the UK. It also is home to the some of the most deprived areas in the UK. Hardly surprising then that more is spent per head of population.

You seem to think that a devolved government with bottomless pockets is giving it laldy, but exactly the same amount of money would be spent in Scotland devolved government or not (and was previously by Westminster). What you don't seem to be able to stomach is how it is being spent.

Yes, I'd like to get the same services in England that we're helping to pay for elsewhere.

 

[mat]

My Dad is a retired Firefighter, he worked hard to go up the ranks and still didnt get paid much. Its a shame.

 

[jlm16]

.

 

[BREWSTERS]

As Peter_W stated on page 1, more on the £11bn wasted on the NHS computer system;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15014288

I wonder where exactly this money has gone to? Even if there were 1000 companies involved, which is highly unlikely, then it's £11m to each company. Or £110m to each of 100 companies...and what is there to show for the expenditure?

Anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

 

[edo]

I don't think there was anything wrong with the idea of a national NHS database. In fact I think it's an idea that's long overdue.

The NHS is still in the dark ages when it comes to internal communication. What other big organisation these days would send reports (in this case patient notes) via the post? I can't count the number of times my notes have "been lost" when I've moved surgeries. All totally avoidable with a central database.

The problem it seems was the delivery of the idea. Clearly the NHS wasted a shed load of money on useless consultants, but I also think local health trusts should shoulder some of the blame. I spoke to an NHS manager a couple of months ago and he said the project was doomed to fail because each foundation hospital wanted to use their own bespoke system and a national database couldn't provide that.

My repsonse to the hospitals would be: you work for the NHS so you use our central system. Or put another way: please join us in the 21st century.

Ed