Jump to content

400million Scottish government underspend


Reynard
 Share

Recommended Posts

Surely this is an issue with how the UK system works and indicates how we quite clearly aren't "Better Together".

How can Scotland ever grow the economy if it can't.

A) Raise money?

B) Hold onto money that isn't spent?

But I thought it could and has done that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Mr S is misleading us then when he says its available to Scotland. Talking of doing better is this under spend still a deliberate fund? Or bad management by councils?

Yes. He was wheeled out yesterday to unzip and give the clown collective something to suck on.

I wonder what the underspend is for referendum year. I bet its horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could just be a man about it and accept you made a monumental f**k up with this thread.

Just confirm your current position re councils and their involvement in this fund that the SG saved deliberately; then it was the councils who didn't spend it; then it didn't really exist at all, then it existed again but couldn't be touched, then it could be used and the SG had done a great job to get access to it and then we can get it at but it will be clawed back.

A wonderful effort Confi - Classic stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we all have a bit more moaning about austerity and then applaud the SG as they hand back nearly half a billion unspent budget to Osborne. :lol:

The clown collective have excelled themselves this time.

Did they "hand half a billion" to Osborne?

You've said before that you like a Yes or No response, so that will happily suffice from yourself too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Swinney is going to announce a change in the LBTT rates before they even come in. Now that the gap between poor and rich is the absolute priority for the FM and that EVERYTHING her government does will be focused on this can we expect the poor/poorest to get something from this. Or just another break for the rich - taking a step back from initial levy on the rich.?

If they were interested they could take from the rich and generate some income for the poorest, rather than giving the money generated to the 'not so rich'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Swinney is going to announce a change in the LBTT rates before they even come in. Now that the gap between poor and rich is the absolute priority for the FM and that EVERYTHING her government does will be focused on this can we expect the poor/poorest to get something from this. Or just another break for the rich - taking a step back from initial levy on the rich.?

If they were interested they could take from the rich and generate some income for the poorest, rather than giving the money generated to the 'not so rich'.

Hopefully but since none of us can see into to future, we'll just have to wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Swinney is going to announce a change in the LBTT rates before they even come in. Now that the gap between poor and rich is the absolute priority for the FM and that EVERYTHING her government does will be focused on this can we expect the poor/poorest to get something from this. Or just another break for the rich - taking a step back from initial levy on the rich.?

If they were interested they could take from the rich and generate some income for the poorest, rather than giving the money generated to the 'not so rich'.

You want to slaughter them BEFORE they make a decision?

Away and get a life FFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do any of you happy clappers understand the meaning of conversation and discussion. This is going to happen so it is worth discussing; I have made some speculative points and highlighted them with question marks to aid the hard of thinking.

That said, I can understand your reluctance to even think about the potential to again have to justify a give away for the rich, but practice makes perfect! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do any of you happy clappers understand the meaning of conversation and discussion. This is going to happen so it is worth discussing; I have made some speculative points and highlighted them with question marks to aid the hard of thinking.

That said, I can understand your reluctance to even think about the potential to again have to justify a give away for the rich, but practice makes perfect! :P

Do you understand the difference between saying something and having something to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A forthcoming announcement on tax rates has no relevance to a politics related discussion thread, is that your point?

I think the real point is that some folk are scared to express their own thoughts as they know that no matter what Swinney does, and who benefits from any changes, they will come out and support it 100%.

Edited by Tubbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He apparently has circa £64milion 'more' then he expected from the settlement from devolving Stamp Duty - if he gives that to the poor I will support it; if he doesn't then I won't.

He has just been on Radio Scotland and stated that he will stick to his 'principles' :blink: that the tax will be revenue neutral. Therefore, over £60m will be used to decrease the tax take he outlined with much fanfare only in October.

The SG had £64m basically as a 'bonus' after they had set everything out. And what are they doing with it at this time of them prioritising the poor above everything else? They are giving it to people who can buy a house priced over £130k :lol::lol: :lol: And to think some of the 'yesers' were trying to sell iScotland as some kind of equality project.

They are not giving it to support the poorest, to protect school budgets, to target the poorest children and families etc no they are sticking to their principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not giving it to support the poorest, to protect school budgets, to target the poorest children and families etc no they are sticking to their principles.

It's what you would expect of a centre right party, with a right winger like Swinney in the Finance role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's what you would expect of a centre right party, with a right winger like Swinney in the Finance role.

Nonsense, all those new party members told us the SNP was about a fairer Scotland, a Scotland with a more left wing view than the UK. A Scotland committed to narrowing the gap between the haves and the have nots. A Scotland where all reasonable funds would be directed towards the poor, where only the evil Westminster was holding them back from the redistribution of some wealth.

£64m back to the hard pressed folk living on the bread line and only able to afford housing at £130k and over - how do these poor people manage in these austere times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If he gives that to the poor".

Such a typical Labourish thing to say. They love to bash on about "social justice" and "giving to the poor". But never put forward a sustainable, workable plan.

Still. As long as it attracts the simple minded such as yourself, they'll continue to pedal the "Social Justice" shite, without ever really having a grasp of what that really means.

So you are saying that the SG has absolutely no ideas or policies to put into action regarding their alleged number 1 priority :lol: . They get circa £64 million they were not expecting and have no idea what to do with it other than resort to their 'principles' and give it to folk that don't need it, and that's my fault

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying that the SG has absolutely no ideas or policies to put into action regarding their alleged number 1 priority :lol: . They get circa £64 million they were not expecting and have no idea what to do with it other than resort to their 'principles' and give it to folk that don't need it, and that's my fault

You are getting rather tedious now.

If the SG had decided to allocate this money to anything other than making it income neutral then you would have been posting

No princinples! What happened to making this income neutral? SG once again going back on their word. blah blah blah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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