The Referendum Thread

[Stuart Dickson]

What about whisky & water, Dear lard arse ? Eton boy's love, Wishaw w@nkers.

Where are you exporting water to? You do know that having a piss in the sea doesn't really constitute exporting the product don't you?

Edited March 25, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Did anyone catch the newsnicht debate between Jim Sillars and Galloway last night?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03zj7w3/Newsnight_Scotland_24_03_2014/

Comedy gold, hypocrisy and lies in almost equal measure from the ranting galloway looking like a cross between an angry leprechaun and the child snatcher from chittychittybangbang.

Sillars on the other hand was calm and cordial whilst getting his points across, effortlessly batting away the pish coming from rula lenska's pussy.

I had forgotten about Jim Sillars, assuming he had retired, certainly not the Fletcher Memorial Home but pipe and slippers time at least. And yet, every time he pops up on the screen or radio he offers a calming reassurance to the ever increasing anger and petulance coming from those he debates with.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Erm, Osbourne hasn't increased the deficit. Far from it.

In 2008 the UK budget deficit stood at 5.1% of GDP

In 2009 Labour increased it to 11.2% of GDP

In 2010 - the year Osbourne became Chancellor it fell to 10.0% of GDP

In 2011 it was 7.9%

In 2012 it was 6.2%

In 2013 it increased slightly to 6.9% of GDP

This year it's to be at 5.9%, and next year we're looking at below pre banking crisis levels of just 4.7% of GDP.

Figures taken from this source

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/government-deficit_gov-dfct-table-en

Osbourne has achieved this whilst not cutting spending on healthcare, education or welfare; whilst increasing benefit payments particularly to pensioners; and whilst also cutting income tax by raising everyone's personal allowance and cutting the top rate of tax from 50% to 45%. Indeed the only area of the UK where there is an increased deficit this year is in Scotland where Alex Salmonds back of a fag packet predictions about Brent Crude Oil Prices have been shown to be woefully over optimistic. If only Salmond had actually listened to those "laureate" advisers he hired when they told him that $113 wasn't realistic.

blah,blah,blah.

You've googled a table and gotten all premature in your excitement

The ONS and OBR figures show that UK gov debt net debt was around £400bn in 2003 and has been rising continuously since. It was over £1000bn in 2011-12 when coalition came to power and is currently around £1300bn and forecast by the ONS/OBS to continue to increase until 2018 at least.

The amount as a % of GDP has also been rising during this time and is expected to flatline around 2015-16 and then start to fall.

BTW, there is a difference between the deficit and the annual budget running a deficit or a surplus

Edited March 25, 2014 by TPAFKATS

[bluto]

FWIW.... I believe Jim Sillars would agree with me about Pretendypence.

Please assume I have also retired.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

FWIW.... I believe Jim Sillars would agree with me about Pretendypence.

Please assume I have also retired.

Ok, but only if you start speaking sensibly

[Guest TPAFKATS]

[Bud Bundy]

Where are you exporting water to? You do know that having a piss in the sea doesn't really constitute exporting the product don't you?

You do know the amount of Pish that you spew on this board, Would power Wishaw, And leave enough Hydro power to keep the rest of the " Buckfast Triangle " lights on ? As for talking Shite,, You Stuart would be an asset to the National Grid !

Edited March 26, 2014 by Bud Bundy

[Stuart Dickson]

blah,blah,blah.

You've googled a table and gotten all premature in your excitement

The ONS and OBR figures show that UK gov debt net debt was around £400bn in 2003 and has been rising continuously since. It was over £1000bn in 2011-12 when coalition came to power and is currently around £1300bn and forecast by the ONS/OBS to continue to increase until 2018 at least.

The amount as a % of GDP has also been rising during this time and is expected to flatline around 2015-16 and then start to fall.

BTW, there is a difference between the deficit and the annual budget running a deficit or a surplus

Oh FFS.

Let me help you out by patronising your stupidity.

See those weeks where you still have some of your wages left at the end of the month - that is you in surplus. Those months when you spend all of your wages and then you dip into your savings (or overdraft) that's you in deficit. If you run from month to month in a deficit you will end up with a debt.

Now it is factually inaccurate to say that George Osbourne has increased the deficit since becoming Chancellor as you stated in your opening gambit. I've shown the evidence that proves you are wrong. George Osbourne has in fact reduced the deficit year on year with one minor exception and the deficit will next year return to pre Banking Crisis levels. I think the term you may have been looking for is that whilst Osbourne has reduced the deficit year on year, the National Debt has increased. Of course this is the case. If you are spending more than you earn then your debt level increases. The good news for the UK however is that - as Jim Sillars helpfully explained - the creditor we owe a large proportion of this debt too is the UK Treasury.

Now most normal people of very average intellect can follow all of that. Clearly you haven't managed it as yet. Here's hoping I've helped with your understanding.

Now if you take your learning a stage further and you read the experts opinions from the Centre of Public Policy for Regions you will understand that they are stating in the clearest possible terms that Alex Salmonds basis for all of the SNP calculations of earned revenue from Brent Crude are ridiculously over optimistic and completely out of date. They've also warned that this years massive Scottish Government budget deficit will be replicated year on year way beyond the point where the rest of the UK will have returned to surplus - and at a dangerously high percentage level against GDP. Of course the CPPR are not alone in their warnings. The OBR also reported on Scotlands deficit and an over reliance on a high oil price that was unlikely to be attained, and it's emerged that even Alex Salmonds much vaunted "laureate" advisers who he trots out whenever he tries to make out that an Independent Scotland would be viable, warned him that $113 per barrel was hopelessly unrealistic.

Those who believe that we would be financially better off in an Independent Scotland would do well to have a much closer look at the figures. It's absolutely clear that an Independent Scotland would have to massively cut spending on things like pensions and healthcare at unprecedented levels, even in terms of recent so called austerity budgets or revenue raised from taxes would have to increase by around 18% - good luck trying to keep businesses north of the border when that happens....

[Stuart Dickson]

And you can prove this.........

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

Oh and to quote the same the same top economist.

Yep - it states it quite clearly in your GERS report.

[Stuart Dickson]

You do know the amount of Pish that you spew on this board, Would power Wishaw, And leave enough Hydro power to keep the rest of the " Buckfast Triangle " lights on ? As for talking Shite,, You Stuart would be an asset to the National Grid !

So you aren't exporting water then? Are you bottling watered down whisky then? Sorry Bud, it's just I'm really struggling to understand you. Why were you deeming water as a Scottish asset when it's a freely available resource? If you don't believe me have a wee look at a map of the world - see all that blue stuff - well lets just say it doesn't all belong to Scotland

[salmonbuddie]

Am I the only one thinking he's been drinking it straight from the blue bits on his map of the world? Would explain so much.....

Edited March 26, 2014 by salmonbuddie

[Drew]

A good few pages back, I made reference to the imminent publishing of a Mental Welfare Commission investigation report.

For the benefit (no pun intended) of context, reference had been made to the welfare system, and perceived cracks in the UK approach to reforming welfare. Among others, my hope is that there would be an opportunity to reconsider how matters such as this are managed in the event of a YES vote.

Anyway, the report has now been published.

This is a link to the BBC news article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26740651

And here is the MWC site link:

http://www.mwcscot.org.uk/about-us/latest-news/our-latest-investigation-is-now-available/

I think I said when I posted about this previously that the report would amount to a pretty damning indictment of the Westminster welfare reform policies. On reflection, and having now read the report, I think I understated it.

[Stuart Dickson]

A good few pages back, I made reference to the imminent publishing of a Mental Welfare Commission investigation report.

For the benefit (no pun intended) of context, reference had been made to the welfare system, and perceived cracks in the UK approach to reforming welfare. Among others, my hope is that there would be an opportunity to reconsider how matters such as this are managed in the event of a YES vote.

Anyway, the report has now been published.

This is a link to the BBC news article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26740651

And here is the MWC site link:

http://www.mwcscot.org.uk/about-us/latest-news/our-latest-investigation-is-now-available/

I think I said when I posted about this previously that the report would amount to a pretty damning indictment of the Westminster welfare reform policies. On reflection, and having now read the report, I think I understated it.

Drew, I don't find the report particularly shocking or damming of the UK government to be honest. For me the biggest issue here is the lack of support given to the lady.

Now I'm not going to claim to be an expert on depresion but my girlfriend does work in the care sector for a Social Enterprise company that supports Service Users who have a cross range of mental health issues. I know that when any of her people are asked to attend these hearings they are supported by staff from her organisation. I also know from her that the biggest challenge they face comes from local authorities who continue to cut the amount they pay to companies like the one she works for whilst continuing to increase funding to council run organisations. Is it possible that the reason there wasn't support present for this lady is down to cuts in the budget from her local authority and from the Scottish Government who have a devolved responsibility for healthcare?

I personally think that it is correct that any government put in place checks and tests to ensure welfare claims are valid and justified. The ATOS stuff has clearly been flawed but checks have to exist and I'm not sure that GPs can be trusted to honestly assess their own patients. What would you do to check the validity of claims Drew? Or would you have an Independent Scotland just pay out on all claims, taking everyone's word that they are unfit to work?

[RickMcD]

A good few pages back, I made reference to the imminent publishing of a Mental Welfare Commission investigation report.

For the benefit (no pun intended) of context, reference had been made to the welfare system, and perceived cracks in the UK approach to reforming welfare. Among others, my hope is that there would be an opportunity to reconsider how matters such as this are managed in the event of a YES vote.

Anyway, the report has now been published.

This is a link to the BBC news article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26740651

And here is the MWC site link:

http://www.mwcscot.org.uk/about-us/latest-news/our-latest-investigation-is-now-available/

I think I said when I posted about this previously that the report would amount to a pretty damning indictment of the Westminster welfare reform policies. On reflection, and having now read the report, I think I understated it.

Why have you raised this in the Referendum thread, Drew? It's a tragic case but it strikes me that it's a pretty cheap point scoring action on your part to post it presumably suggesting it is another reason to vote Yes. Probably there are lessons to be learned but you have found Westminster guilty. So it was all England's fault? Did Scottish Westminster MP's complain at the time or abstain from any vote?

[bluto]

Why have you raised this in the Referendum thread, Drew? It's a tragic case but it strikes me that it's a pretty cheap point scoring action on your part to post it presumably suggesting it is another reason to vote Yes. Probably there are lessons to be learned but you have found Westminster guilty. So it was all England's fault? Did Scottish Westminster MP's complain at the time or abstain from any vote?

Possibly there are SNP stats somewhere that show no Scots actually voted for the ConDem government.

[Drew]

Why have you raised this in the Referendum thread, Drew? It's a tragic case but it strikes me that it's a pretty cheap point scoring action on your part to post it presumably suggesting it is another reason to vote Yes. Probably there are lessons to be learned but you have found Westminster guilty. So it was all England's fault? Did Scottish Westminster MP's complain at the time or abstain from any vote?

Did you read my post?

I provided ample context Rick. I don't think I am the one who is trying to score cheap points.

I work in mental health, and know people who have taken their own lives (on both a personal and professional basis) and find your charge that I am using a case such as this to score points personally offensive.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Drew

[Drew]

Possibly there are SNP stats somewhere that show no Scots actually voted for the ConDem government.

What part of the following, lifted directly from my earlier post, is difficult to comprehend?;

"Among others, my hope is that there would be an opportunity to reconsider how matters such as this are managed in the event of a YES vote"

[Drew]

Drew, I don't find the report particularly shocking or damming of the UK government to be honest. For me the biggest issue here is the lack of support given to the lady.

Now I'm not going to claim to be an expert on depresion but my girlfriend does work in the care sector for a Social Enterprise company that supports Service Users who have a cross range of mental health issues. I know that when any of her people are asked to attend these hearings they are supported by staff from her organisation. I also know from her that the biggest challenge they face comes from local authorities who continue to cut the amount they pay to companies like the one she works for whilst continuing to increase funding to council run organisations. Is it possible that the reason there wasn't support present for this lady is down to cuts in the budget from her local authority and from the Scottish Government who have a devolved responsibility for healthcare?

I personally think that it is correct that any government put in place checks and tests to ensure welfare claims are valid and justified. The ATOS stuff has clearly been flawed but checks have to exist and I'm not sure that GPs can be trusted to honestly assess their own patients. What would you do to check the validity of claims Drew? Or would you have an Independent Scotland just pay out on all claims, taking everyone's word that they are unfit to work?

Thank you Stuart.

I appreciate that you have taken the opportunity to respond in a measured and reasonable manner to my post.

My main concern, from the report, is that the DWP didn't deem it appropriate or necessary to consult with the woman's consultant psychiatrist and GP (both of whom had been very involved in providing her with support and treatment over a long period), on the grounds that it would appear they had already decided that she was unlikely to qualify for ESA - and this was prior to th Atos assessment. That is a a shocking dereliction of duty of care, for me.

[bluto]

What part of the following, lifted directly from my earlier post, is difficult to comprehend?;

"Among others, my hope is that there would be an opportunity to reconsider how matters such as this are managed in the event of a YES vote"

My rational response to that is: why should your 'hope' prevail?

The Government that we (as a nation) voted in, does calculated things that in a democracy many of us may loathe and despair of. By all means vote YES, but that won't change the fundamental nature of politicians - they are pragmatic, short-termist and often self-seeking.

Simply voting YES won't change that. Sure... it MIGHT.

I shouldn't trample on people's dreams.

So - once again, sorry for challenging your assumptions. My fault, as ever... true debate is simply unwanted in this thread.

[Drew]

My rational response to that is: why should your 'hope' prevail?

The Government that we (as a nation) voted in, does calculated things that in a democracy many of us may loathe and despair of. By all means vote YES, but that won't change the fundamental nature of politicians - they are pragmatic, short-termist and often self-seeking.

Simply voting YES won't change that. Sure... it MIGHT.

I shouldn't trample on people's dreams.

So - once again, sorry for challenging your assumptions. My fault, as ever... true debate is simply unwanted in this thread.

I have no issue whatsoever in you "challenging my assumptions", when this is, in fact, what you do. All too often, it doesn't amount to that, however. I will happily engage in reasonable debate (see the above exchange of posts with SD), but I find the snide jibes tiresome, and don't think they serve the debate.

[Stuart Dickson]

A good few pages back, I made reference to the imminent publishing of a Mental Welfare Commission investigation report.

For the benefit (no pun intended) of context, reference had been made to the welfare system, and perceived cracks in the UK approach to reforming welfare. Among others, my hope is that there would be an opportunity to reconsider how matters such as this are managed in the event of a YES vote.

Anyway, the report has now been published.

This is a link to the BBC news article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26740651

And here is the MWC site link:

http://www.mwcscot.org.uk/about-us/latest-news/our-latest-investigation-is-now-available/

I think I said when I posted about this previously that the report would amount to a pretty damning indictment of the Westminster welfare reform policies. On reflection, and having now read the report, I think I understated it.

Drew, my interpretation of the report is that the DWP only decided she wasn't eligible after the assessment and that the criticism appeared to come from the fact that the DWP didn't seek further medical information.

Not being a benefit claimant I'm obviously not familiar with the process but the DWP response states that the ATOS literature makes it clear that ATOS and the DWP do not have access to medical records. They also respond to all the recommendations of the report the crux of which appears to be that they stand by the actions they took but the welcome the recommendations and will seek to improve.

Maybe it's me being over simplistic but is there a reason why someone who seems to have been so vulnerable was not supported through the process by those who claim to have known the severity of her condition?

[bluto]

What is 'snide' about me pointing out an assumption about sweetness and light after a YES election, may not be universally guaranteed? It is describing a fact of life.

Similarly my comment agreeing with Rick denigrating your 'snide' blame for a shite state of affairs in the mental health industry being laid solely at the feet of a foreign parliament.

From past experience on this thread, I knew some YES person would have an unassailable counter argument to offer that all things would be fine, after a YES vote.

Either that, or they'd go for the "not playing fair' argument.

Which is, ironically, how I see your reaction to both his post - and mine. I'm in a lose-lose, here.

[Seaside Nipper]

I'm enjoying myself and the contributions on here today , despite my team

Win Win indeed !!!

[RickMcD]

Did you read my post?

I provided ample context Rick. I don't think I am the one who is trying to score cheap points.

I work in mental health, and know people who have taken their own lives (on both a personal and professional basis) and find your charge that I am using a case such as this to score points personally offensive.

I'm sorry you feel personally offended but I do not apologise for my post. We've all read the findings, it's tragic but I feel nothing in your initial post or your subsequent posts answers why you posted it in the Referendum thread. There's nothing too tenuous to post if in your mind it might advance the Yes campaign by a millimetre. I expected only righteous indignation from you ,Drew, because that's how you quite often respond.

[Drew]

I expected only righteous indignation from you ,Drew, because that's how you quite often respond.

And I expected inconsequential, dribbling pish in response from you, Rick.

At least we meet each others expectations, eh?