Jump to content

Hard to explain how this is scaremongering.


Loondave1

Recommended Posts

Oh aye Alex had to keep a few secrets because of not being independent. Maybe he could just have told us and we could have made our own mind up on the cause.Noticeably no one is saying its not true just a bit of "economical with the truth" till Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh aye Alex had to keep a few secrets because of not being independent. Maybe he could just have told us and we could have made our own mind up on the cause.Noticeably no one is saying its not true just a bit of "economical with the truth" till Friday.

^^^ seething as his thread didn't pan out as expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it true or not ?? Im "seething" with a cup of tea and a biscuit at the moment.That "seethe" with the pointy up things is a bit passé is it not by now.A bit monkey see monkey do.

It's true that what you posted is more reason for voting Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah bourbon now my favourite.So what I posted is not factually inaccurate just interpreted differently by either point of view.Fair enough.

No. The funding gap exists is true. That exists.

Unfortunately for those trying to use this as an excuse to stay in union are then setting out on an epic fail.

What some of the other posters are perhaps trying to point out to the pea brain OP is that any funding gap is not the fault of the Scottish government.

The Scottish NHS is entirely funded through the block grant given back to Scotland by Westminster as a result of the Barnett consequential.

As a result of successive cuts to this block grant in recent years due to Westminster austerity, the Scottish government is being forced to make cuts to essential public services including the NHS. ????

These cuts to the Scots block grant are particularly galling because as everone should know, tax revenue from Scotland far exceeds what is received back by way of block grant.

It is in fact a massive own goal by Westminster.

Now if we had a free and independent media in this country this would be reported as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, if the Herald and BBC have both been shown this leaked document that shows a funding gap, why have neither of them published the document?

The BBC website has a picture of the document, but strangely enough absolutely none of it relates to figures. Surely if there is such a smoking gun it's entirely right they publish it.

BBC: "we have a document that proves a funding gap"

The Public: "can we see it?"

BBC: "no, we will only show you a snippet of the document"

The Public: "but that bit you are showing doesn't list any figures"

BBC: "ah, yes, but that's in the part we didn't show you"

The Public: "Wouldn't it be best just to show the bits that support your claims?"

BBC: "no, you will just have to trust us. After all, we are completely unbias in this debate"

Yeah, that seems utterly fair comment. Got to love anonymous whistleblowers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we should be told that straight up and make our own conclusions.Why not publicise this massive "own goal" if thats what it is ?

The "story", as far I can tell, is that, because of extant financial pressures, the Scottish Government are looking to make savings. Someone has jumped on this to make a political point and you want the Scottish Government to do what exactly, make pre-emptive denials that a story which makes no sense (which is that this situation was somehow caused by Scotland becoming independent) makes no sense.

Just read the fucking headline and then apply your own critical thought you lazy cunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...