Alex Salmond and 'the Scottish Government'..

[alicia_fan_uk]

No it doesn't. (Maybe in your head, perhaps?)

Amongst countless examples I could cite; Aneurin Bevan led the establishment of the NHS in 1948 (a move clearly in keeping with the political persuasion of Labour)...you are, by extension, claiming this was NOT "for the good of the people"!?!?!?!

alicia_fan_uk

[David Johnson]

It is a well known fact that the only reason that Aneurin Bevan and Clem Attlee created the NHS was because both of their grans had dodgy hips and they were looking to save some dosh.

I rest my case.

Cheers
D

[RoddersUK]

You're right there matey.

[Robches]

alicia_fan_uk wrote:


>
> The total Scottish Govt budget is c. ?34bn, against a GDP of c
> ?90bn (which excludes oil and gas revenues). Hardly the "over
> 50%" claimed above. This one of several factual "non-facts" in
> Robches post.

If the Scottish government spends ?34bn in a ?90bn economy, that's already 38%. If you add central government expenditure, local government, quangos and the rest, I'd be surprised if total government expenditure as a percentage of the Scottish economy isn't over 50%, whic is well on the road to a socialist state. Various regions of England are as bad, the north east springs to mind. In my opinion, it's not a recipe for real prosperity.

[alicia_fan_uk]

Robches wrote:
"If the Scottish government spends ?34bn in a ?90bn economy, that's already 38%. If you add central government expenditure, local government, quangos and the rest, I'd be surprised if total government expenditure as a percentage of the Scottish economy isn't over 50%"



If you add in central government, quangos and the rest....you be double counting!!!! You can't just count spending twice in order to hit your 50%+ target!!!!

Further, I do appreciate the point you are trying to make, but I can assure you that Scotland is a long way off being a "socialist state". Remember, that 38% excludes oil revenues (some ?7bn - ?13bn pa, dependent on oil prices).

The good ol' USA - perhaps the most developed and market-driven of all the world's economies - has a public sector-to-GDP figure of nearly 37%!

Better get on the phone and tell Obama that he's just a Stalin wannabe.....

alicia_fan_uk

[Robches]

Not double counting, as there is government expenditure which goes through Holyrood, and other expenditure such as benefits, quangos etc which goes direct. Total government expenditure as a %age of GDP in the UK is very high, 47% iirc, and there is no way Scotland is below that average is there?

As to the USA, Obama had a voting record as the most left wing member of the Senate, and he is probably the most left wing president the USA has ever had. He is debauching the currency and running up ruinous defecits. Let's face it, if he was a left wing, one term senator who happened to be white, he would never have been elected to the White House. I don't like Hillary Clinton, but she is a much more experienced politician than Obama, and would have made a better president. The colour of his skin got him elected.

[alicia_fan_uk]

A massive chunk of the central govt/quango expenditure in Scotland IS direct from the Scottish Govt administered-budget so you can't just add it all in - it would indeed be double counting to do so.

The UK's Select Committee on the Barnett Formula has identified some ?43.7bn as being total Scottish expenditure (including benefits, social security and a glorious catch-all "other" category - ie adding in the types of areas you allude to above). This equates to 48.5% of total expenditure and is between 42.4% - 45% when you include oil revenues (upper and lower limites reflective of variable oil prices).

As regards the US, the figure quoted reflects the economy as passed over from Mr George W Bush and his administration to Obama, the former being one of the most right-wing and free-market supporting administrations of which I am aware, and after two full terms in power. Therefore the comparator percentage is particularly noteworthy and interesting.

I make no comment - nor do I particularly wish to enter any debate in this thread - on whether Obama was only elected "because of the colour of his skin", other than to say I very much disagree.

alicia_fan_uk

[Robches]

alicia_fan_uk wrote:


>
> The UK's Select Committee on the Barnett Formula has identified
> some ?43.7bn as being total Scottish expenditure (including
> benefits, social security and a glorious catch-all "other"
> category - ie adding in the types of areas you allude to
> above). This equates to 48.5% of total expenditure and is
> between 42.4% - 45% when you include oil revenues (upper and
> lower limites reflective of variable oil prices).

So 48.5% of the Scottish economy is taken up in government expenditure? How much does it have to be before you admit Scotland has a problem?

> As regards the US, the figure quoted reflects the economy as
> passed over from Mr George W Bush and his administration to
> Obama, the former being one of the most right-wing and
> free-market supporting administrations of which I am aware, and
> after two full terms in power. Therefore the comparator
> percentage is particularly noteworthy and interesting.

I am not trying to defend GWB's handling of the economy either, though at least he was not a socialist.

>
> I make no comment - nor do I particularly wish to enter any
> debate in this thread - on whether Obama was only elected
> "because of the colour of his skin", other than to say I very
> much disagree.

Why else do you think a one term senator with no particular achievements to his name got elected? Have you already forgotten all the euphoria about the first black president?
>
>

[alicia_fan_uk]

Let's stop moving the goalposts, shall we? I presume you prefer quoting the 48.5% metric rather than the other end of the scale - 42.4% - because it suits your original argument (even though it falls short of your Daily-Mail-style initial claim).

What you (and I'm happy to admit many others) see as "a problem" is what many others call a reasonably sensible balance. Economists have argued over the appropriate balance in national economies for years, and we won't resolve that thorny issue on this thread.

Are trying to suggest Obama/Salmond and others are socialists? Really!?!? My point re %age of public spend v overall GDP was made because you seem to measure socialism solely on this metric (ie per your original post). Does this mean George W was 37% socialist, Obama pretty much the same, and here in the UK we're running around 9-10%age points higher on the socialist scale? I fail to see how any economy where the majority of spending is private/non-public sector can be classed as "socialist". It implies a lack of understanding of socialist ideology to suggest otherwise.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this, but I suppose that's what makes life what it is.

alicia_fan_uk

[fatmick]

I think what many people fail to realise is that physically Scotland is a similar size to England but with around 10% of the population.
Roads need maintained, often in far poorer winter conditions. Costs more per head obviously.
Schools, many remote communities in the Highlands & Islands require schools where clearly the teacher:pupil ratio is low, again at a cost. I was recently working in a village in aberdeenshire where the local primary school had a roll of 37 pupils, with 3 teachers. There are also building costs, heating, lighting etc. So this school will cost a fortune to run.
Many of the "anomalies" seized upon by your average Daily Mail reader are purely a by product of geography and meteorology.