Printable View
Not quite that simple. When the UK Government borrows 10's or 100's of billions of pounds for infrastructure projects in England, that get's lumped onto the UK national debt figure in which Scotland is proportioned a share of the debt liability. So it's not as if we're being given free money here. It's more like being forced to take a loan on behalf of the UK Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
And it will be over the next 50 years or so. They won’t have spent £110 billion yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Even more complicated as the figures quoted were "up to" £10 billion rather than anything more specific. Not sure when these consequentials are actually realised either.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
It was over 5 years according to gov website from 2020 and we get 9% of whatever they spend. We got £1.2 billionof it in 2016 but i can't see from 16 to 20. And yes it's a share of debt but we can't moan about getting a share of debt then complain we can't take on our own debt. Uk gov are taking it on anyway and I'm glad they do. One because big infrastructure projects are great for the economy and two we can spend it how we wish, with better management and less swindling.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
https://news.stv.tv/politics/scotlan...ment-proposals
Minimum price to go up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Taking on our own debt isn't the same as having debt taken out on our behalf whether we like it or not. The UK Government may be taking the debt on, but we're very much anchored to it. Even if we were to reject the Barnett Consequential's, send the money back to the UK Treasury and tell them to put it towards reducing the national debt figure instead, they wouldn't. It would just get spent in England and Scotland would still be tied to the share of debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The fact it we voted remain and the polls still say we thinking the same. With that we have a part of uk debt. If it wasn't for barnett we would get nothing for projects in the UK. Thankfully when they do spend we get to spend 9% of that on whatever we want. We had the chance to change that then blew it.
In the meantime we got an extra 10 bil to spend however we wish. Surely any government would say great we can make that money work for us
Would be interesting to see how much of our forced loan goes towards mitigating damaging policies from London every year. You're right though. We well and truly blew it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Despite the cringey spin it didn't decrease deaths, look at northern Ireland without it going down whilst ours went up to a new record. It also didn't decrease drinking in problem drinkers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It'll disproportionately effect the working class who are toiling. £10 for a pack of 6 beers, £7 for a bottle of wine won't affect the toffs. Youth drinking has steadily been decreasing for 20 years I'd bide our time. We drink less than the European average as is. Getting a tackle on drug deaths which are the worst in Europe should be the priority
We did but demographics say we will be independent eventuallyQuote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Great..... just awaiting the powers to actually be able to do that. Or is that better off in Westminster's hands as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The tory/labour duopoly said NO to more referendums. And that's the end of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The vast majority of our drugs deaths are from legal drugs methadone and diazepam in particular. Legalisation won't effect this. Cuts in drug support a bigger factorQuote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
The vast majority of drug deaths come from illegally sourced substances that are heavily cut with other substances. Legalisation and regulation will at the very least, give drug users access to pharmaceutical grade drugs as opposed to badly cut drugs off the black market. This will greatly reduce the number of drug related deaths. It will also be taxable, allowing the Government to raise money for better drug care services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
But Westminster says NO. Drug deaths are a handy beating stick.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2354578.html
Wow, that’s even more expensive than our two late ferries. UK govt puts us in the shade when it comes to wasting money.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
60% involved legitimately given methadone. Benzos are class c and there were no convictions for possession last year. I'm 100% for decriminalisation, but the deaths will only stop with support.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Those deaths may have involved people being given Methadone. But it doesn't mean that the Methadone was the reasoning behind their deaths. Convicting people of possessing Benzodiazepines probably isn't a very good idea. The drug has a high rate of dependency and abruptly stopping the use of them can have significant consequences such as psychosis, seizures and death. It can take a long term user years to taper off them safely and if they're convicted and put into a situation where they can no longer access them, it potentially puts their life at risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Aw get tae ****, really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Likely make no difference, a bottle of buckfast didn’t change price when minimum pricing came in for example because it was already priced above the 50p minimum per unit. Only things this will affect will be things like White Lightning and Frosty Jacks cider probably, which I’d imagine are very very few non-problem drinker adults tipple of choiceQuote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They're looking at all options. Even the possibility of reducing the minimum unit price. STV picked the worst article title they could.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
Or simply reporting the latest update from Police Scotland like the rest of Scotland's media.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
So any news on the dead body they dug up?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
They are not looking to potentially reduce the minimum unit cost. Its a tick box exercise to say they explored all options.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Anyone with any handle on how the current Holyrood government act knows there is a absolutely no chance at all it will be reduced, literally no chance.
Of course it won’t be reduced. It’s too low as it is. It’s def going up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Deep down I think it will be bumped up by the equivalent of inflation since it was first introduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
From what I've read it's been effective (ish) on reducing the numbers of new heavy drinkers... but little effect on existing heavy drinkers/alcoholics, I guess they need a different type of intervention?
We voted "no".Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
If you looked at purely the stats it's hasn't made any difference. Drink deaths are up to record levels, consumption is steady. Youth drinking has actually dropped continuously since 2003, so that will do the work for us. The amount of problem drinkers hasn't changed.
It's a tax that will effect the working class more. I think Scots have been scared to think we are the worst and biggest drinkers. We drink and die less due to drink than the EU average and less than in countries like France, Germany, Portugal and Denmark. £10 for 6 cans is ridiculous
I'd wager most knew I was meaning to remain in UKQuote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
It wasn't an update from Police Scotland, it was down to an interview with Police Scotland chief on BBC Radio 4. He was asked if the tents were necessary and of course he supported his force, what else would you expect? Quite why he was commenting on a live investigation is not something I can answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Yeah, what do those idiots at Public Health Scotland and the BMJ know, eh? Fools, every one of them, and certainly no match for Hibs.net's own S27.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7