Printable View
What we knew, Scotland's water outflows are criminally under checked. Only 8% checked in Scotland compared to almost 100 in England
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...e_iOSApp_Other
Sewage in Scotland’s rivers and beaches far more widespread than realised
Thousands of undisclosed sewage overflow incidents mean Scotland needs tougher regulations, says watchdog
I dismissed this as a non-story at the time but initially lying his way out of it is yet another example of the utter contempt some of our politicians have for us.
https://news.sky.com/story/scottish-...eting-13209932
They keep promoting the likes of Gray to senior positions, people who can't be trusted. Matheson was another of course. They just don't seem to realise the consequences of doing stuff like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Still, ferries eh?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXm69AGX...pg&name=medium
Can't both be badly managed and run by incompetent people and governments?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Good thing is HS2 is an English project so we just get the Barnett allocation to spend on what we want, I hope hs2 spirals furtherQuote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
Surely not, as, given the early statements and actions of the Starmer government, this would impact the overall budget spend on other areas?
Sent from my SM-S901B using Tapatalk
I suppose my issue is that it's a question of scale, and relative media coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
AbsolutelyQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I doubt anyone down south knows about the ferries as its a Scottish issue, but they will all know about HS2 disaster. Vice versa here as HS2 has nothing to do with Scotland bar be get the cash for our portion, although I'd say everyone in Scotland knows about the HS2 farce.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
You're going to have to explain what benefits Scotland gets from HS2? Not including Barnett consequential, please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Eh how can you say not including barnett consequential 😆Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
We get our proportion to spend on whatever we want. How can you get a more direct benefit than hard currency
I'm pretty clear. What benefit would HS2 bring to Scotland, say in passenger service or freight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I'm pretty clear it's nothing to do with us likewise the new Barcelona to Madrid line. We get the direct proportion given to us, if we wanted increased rail facilities we could use the billions we got from it on thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
You could just as easily describe the process as, England use funds raised in Scotland to build an England only infrastructure project that will benefit England only for years to come and then pay it back to Scotland interest free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Has there been any examples of Scotland borrowing money from the rest of the UK for projects in Scotland and then paying it back interest free?
You 100% couldn't say that. It's increased spending and Scotland gets a disproportionately high amount back through Barnett.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
We also voted for devolution and then voted to remain in the UK. 10 years later and yesterday's yougov poll was 44% yes 56% no. The people clearly want this arrangement unfortunately.
We got a higher proportion than population size of the moneys spent on Hs2 so far. We could high speed the Edinburgh Glasgow line or spend it on health or education, that's devolution
How much higher disproportionately? In comparison to whomQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I have some significant questions / doubts about that YouGuv survey. Some of the questions were heavily biased against independence IMO. Still, it makes interesting - if depressing - reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articl...ce-10-years-on
No it's pretty much the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
We can only spend when England spend and if we don't spend then we have to hand it back. We can't make ambitious infrastructure plans or any other for that matter, as a country we live hand to mouth. Can we dip into the pot if we want to, can we create increased spending?
We can only spend what the uk government spends our percentage on devolved things we literally chose this in a vote, you or me can disagree with this but Scotland chose it. We can do ambitious infrastructure plans if we want hs2 cost over 100 bil, we got almost 10% of this to spend as we wish. The A9 duelling is estimated to cost over £4 billionQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
The way the press has worked both issues I reckon the £450 million cost of the ferries has been used against the SNP way more than the £100 billion cost of HS2 has been used against the Tories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Don't the Scottish Government tell us how by increasing taxes for the better paid it increases spending on the NHS and other public services?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
https://www.gov.scot/news/tax-changes-to-support-scotlands-vital-public-services/
"The Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates that the tax decisions made in Scotland since income tax powers were devolved could raise around £1 billion more in 2023-24 compared to the income tax policy decisions made by the UK Government"
The Queensferry Crossing was a hefty bit of Infrastructure and cost £1.3BN (delivered on time and under budget if I remember)
I agree borrowing powers are extremely limited though, but the SNP announced some type of bond that was supposed to raise funds but it disappeared somewhere along the line.
https://www.gov.scot/news/government-bonds-to-issue-in-first-for-scotland/
"The Scottish Government will take steps to issue its first ever bond to finance key infrastructure in Scotland, the First Minister has announced."
Another pretty scathing opinion piece from Robin McAlpine. This guy aint holding back lately for better or worse who knows?
https://robinmcalpine.org/the-snp-mu...d-of-sturgeon/
He has a hatred for all things SNP and will always write and say negativity re them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
I suppose the question J-C is, is it warranted?
Some possibly but just the usual **** stirring anti independence journalism we've come to expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
Isn't he a supporter of Independence?Quote:
Originally Posted by J-C
Bizarre way of showing it then.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
He was a director of Common Weal and a researcher for Labour MP George Robertson, he was asked to resign after criticism of Sturgeon.
Yes very much so and saying he's anti independence for the above article shows the unhealthy hold Sturgeon and her husband had with the independence movement as a whole. Independence shouldn't be about one party or person. The cost is if Murrell gets found guilty of paying fake businesses it could look bad for independence, when it actually has nothing to do with the movementQuote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
Is it? If someone was critical of the Tories or Donald Trump and wrote an article saying just that would you question their motives? He is an Indy supporter but clearly not a fan of the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon.Quote:
Originally Posted by J-C
I mean even being asked to resign because you were critical of a leader is a bit bizarre isn't it? You can't criticise the leader or if you do you lose your job....
He has some decent points and called it right about how appointing John Swinney was a mistake and would lead to a significant loss of seats.