400million Scottish government underspend

[Tubbs]

I'm not in favour of the CT freeze but free school meals for all ? Of course. You should be too.

In isolation perhaps a good idea and in an ideal world yes; but when budgets, teachers, materials, learning support, school hours, school staff and school meals are all being cut (or being considered for cuts) I think we need to a be a bit more focussed on priorities which will give the best educational outcomes.

[AUFC90]

In isolation perhaps a good idea and in an ideal world yes; but when budgets, teachers, materials, learning support, school hours, school staff and school meals are all being cut I think we need to a be a bit more focussed on priorities which will give the best educational outcomes.

It seems you are in disagreement with children's charities, the church, unions and various other bodies. Each to their own I guess.

[strichener]

In isolation perhaps a good idea and in an ideal world yes; but when budgets, teachers, materials, learning support, school hours, school staff and school meals are all being cut (or being considered for cuts) I think we need to a be a bit more focussed on priorities which will give the best educational outcomes.

If we take all your priorities and the things that you would like to do, we would probably need tax rates above 100%.

[Tubbs]

It seems you are in disagreement with children's charities, the church, unions and various other bodies. Each to their own I guess.

You can perhaps direct me to the evidence that those groups were supportive the policy at the same time as endorsing the cuts elsewhere in education.

Roll out a flagship policy whilst the foundations of basic education provision are being cut - tories in disguise.

[Tubbs]

If we take all your priorities and the things that you would like to do, we would probably need tax rates above 100%.

Well maybe try and maintain the fundamentals first rather than the bells and whistles ? Or maybe not when the bells come with a nice wee money hand out to those that don't need it.

I note you don't disagree that the cuts mentioned are taking place.

[AUFC90]

You can perhaps direct me to the evidence that those groups were supportive the policy at the same time as endorsing the cuts elsewhere in education.

Roll out a flagship policy whilst the foundations of basic education provision are being cut - tories in disguise.

They all support it and have been calling on the SG to implement it for months.

Ah , so you'll be voting Labour then ?

Murphy supports it as well.

[AUFC90]

Well maybe try and maintain the fundamentals first rather than the bells and whistles ? Or maybe not when the bells come with a nice wee money hand out to those that don't need it.

I note you don't disagree that the cuts mentioned are taking place.

Cuts are taking place all over the UK. Our block grant has decreased 7% in real terms.

[Tubbs]

They all support it and have been calling on the SG to implement it for months.

Ah , so you'll be voting Labour then ?

Murphy supports it as well.

That's not what I asked and you know it.

Murphy's views are now your point of reference when being asked to defend things, interesting.

[Tubbs]

Cuts are taking place all over the UK. Our block grant has decreased 7% in real terms.

And still the SNP can't spend all the money, and are prioritising vote catching money giveaways rather than the basics of school education.

[AUFC90]

That's not what I asked and you know it.

Murphy's views are now your point of reference when being asked to defend things, interesting.

Defend what ?

It's common knowledge that children's charities and anti poverty charities have been asking for it for months. You're on the wrong side of the fence with this one.

[AUFC90]

Child poverty campaigners have today welcomed an announcement by the First Minister that all children in P1 to P3 will receive a free healthy school lunch. Reacting to the announcement John Dickie, head of the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) in Scotland, said:

“A universal approach to healthy free school lunches provides a huge boost to children and parents at a time when they are under increasing pressure from tax credit and benefit cuts, soaring food and energy prices and stagnating wages. Current means-testing means too many of our worst off children are not receiving a free school meal and parents too often struggle to meet the extra costs of lunches as they move back into work or increase their hours when their children start school. What’s more a universal approach ensures that all our children, whatever their home circumstances, gain the health and education benefits of a healthy lunch in the middle of the school day.”

The announcement follows calls from children’s charities, anti-poverty campaigners, the Church of Scotland and unions representing teachers, caterers and working parents for the First Minister to confirm that all children in primary 1 to 3 will be entitled to a healthy free school lunch from next year.

In a letter to Alex Salmond last month the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) in Scotland, Children in Scotland, Children 1st, the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), STUC and UNISON told the First Minister that there was growing expectation that the Scottish Government “must now grasp the current opportunity to deliver on its long standing free school lunch ambitions and commitments”. They said prioritising investment in a free healthy school lunch for pupils in P1 to P3 would provide a “well evidenced, direct and immediate boost to the wellbeing of children and families across Scotland.”

The signatories, who also included Shelter Scotland, One Parent Families Scotland and the Poverty Alliance, say that “a universal approach in the early years has been demonstrated to have a positive impact on the take up of healthy school lunches, on children’s readiness to learn and attainment, and on supporting family budgets and home life”.

[AUFC90]

It seems that Tubbs is on the same side as Ian Gray whilst everyone else welcomes it. Oops.

[Tubbs]

Defend what ?

It's common knowledge that children's charities and anti poverty charities have been asking for it for months. You're on the wrong side of the fence with this one.

I am happy to be on the side defending the basics of school education whilst you are on the side of even more breaks for the rich. But again if you can highlight where these organisations support this policy and the school cuts that would be helpful.

The poorest got meals for free anyway and the rich will save what £300 - £400 per year, per child. That will help the poverty and achievement gap.

[AUFC90]

I am happy to be on the side defending the basics of school education whilst you are on the side of even more breaks for the rich. But again if you can highlight where these organisations support this policy and the school cuts that would be helpful.

The poorest got meals for free anyway and the rich will save what £300 - £400 per year, per child. That will help the poverty and achievement gap.

The only side you are on is whatever side the SNP aren't. Free school meals benefits the poor kids as well because a lot more of them actually take up their free meal entitlement.

Free school meals is something me and my left leaning persuasions are totally happy about

[Reynard]

http://justpaste.it/itbe

What does the SNP's near half a billion underspend mean? • When the SNP say Child Poverty in Scotland is a priority – Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion they could have spent on it last year and didn’t – why? • When the SNP say they care about rural communities - Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion they could have invested in rural communities last year and they didn’t – why? • When the SNP say the NHS is a priority - Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion they could have invested in nurses and the NHS last year and they didn’t – why? • When the SNP blame Westminster for Foodbanks and say they need more economic control to eradicate them - Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion they could have used to alleviate demand on food-banks last year and they didn’t – why? • When the SNP say they want to hold Westminster (read; the English ) feet to the fire because Scotland needs more money- - Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion from the Union they could have spent in Scotland last year and they didn’t – why? It’s self evidently illogical for the SNP to claim that “Westminster Austerity is hurting Scots and we need more money” when they are held back half a billion pounds from suffering Scots. It’s manipulation of the poorest in society. Was it prudence? Well The “put it away for a rainy day” option won’t wash well with schools, surgeries and services struggling for investment from the Scottish Parliament. Yes, Some level of underspend is desirable but normally it’s well under 1% This underspend is out by hundreds of millions of pounds that Scots could have benefited from last year. As for demanding borrowing powers – any voter will see it would be daft to take out the expense and burden of a loan when you are not spending all your wages! It doesn’t make sense to say “we need the power to borrow money to make investment” when they are not spending the money they have. Was it planned, controlled and transparent? well it’s out by about £150 million pounds compared to the previous figure John Swinney gave to parliament! Of course he does have a track record of getting predictions wildly wrong *coughs* #secondoilboom The SNP said that we needed independence to fund more teachers, more nurses, more infrastructure… we know now half a billion pounds was available that they chose not to spend on teachers, nurses and infrastructure. So it’s fairly simple really – is this underspend the result of deliberate lies for political ends? Or is this underspend genuine financial incompetence and inefficiency? Neither option appeals. It puts me in mind of the Italian saying – they are like the Old woman with the parma ham under one arm – crying because she has no bread.

[Colkitto]

http://justpaste.it/itbe

What does the SNP's near half a billion underspend mean? • When the SNP say Child Poverty in Scotland is a priority – Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion they could have spent on it last year and didn’t – why? • When the SNP say they care about rural communities - Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion they could have invested in rural communities last year and they didn’t – why? • When the SNP say the NHS is a priority - Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion they could have invested in nurses and the NHS last year and they didn’t – why? • When the SNP blame Westminster for Foodbanks and say they need more economic control to eradicate them - Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion they could have used to alleviate demand on food-banks last year and they didn’t – why? • When the SNP say they want to hold Westminster (read; the English ) feet to the fire because Scotland needs more money- - Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion from the Union they could have spent in Scotland last year and they didn’t – why? It’s self evidently illogical for the SNP to claim that “Westminster Austerity is hurting Scots and we need more money” when they are held back half a billion pounds from suffering Scots. It’s manipulation of the poorest in society. Was it prudence? Well The “put it away for a rainy day” option won’t wash well with schools, surgeries and services struggling for investment from the Scottish Parliament. Yes, Some level of underspend is desirable but normally it’s well under 1% This underspend is out by hundreds of millions of pounds that Scots could have benefited from last year. As for demanding borrowing powers – any voter will see it would be daft to take out the expense and burden of a loan when you are not spending all your wages! It doesn’t make sense to say “we need the power to borrow money to make investment” when they are not spending the money they have. Was it planned, controlled and transparent? well it’s out by about £150 million pounds compared to the previous figure John Swinney gave to parliament! Of course he does have a track record of getting predictions wildly wrong *coughs* #secondoilboom The SNP said that we needed independence to fund more teachers, more nurses, more infrastructure… we know now half a billion pounds was available that they chose not to spend on teachers, nurses and infrastructure. So it’s fairly simple really – is this underspend the result of deliberate lies for political ends? Or is this underspend genuine financial incompetence and inefficiency? Neither option appeals. It puts me in mind of the Italian saying – they are like the Old woman with the parma ham under one arm – crying because she has no bread.

Sheer hypocrisy and opportunism from our resident Unionists. You can't bleat about sending back underspent money to Westminster when you voted No for Scotland to raise all it's own taxes.

Raising our own taxes is the solution - GET IT!?

[AUFC90]

http://justpaste.it/itbe

What does the SNP's near half a billion underspend mean? • When the SNP say Child Poverty in Scotland is a priority – Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion they could have spent on it last year and didn’t – why? • When the SNP say they care about rural communities - Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion they could have invested in rural communities last year and they didn’t – why? • When the SNP say the NHS is a priority - Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion they could have invested in nurses and the NHS last year and they didn’t – why? • When the SNP blame Westminster for Foodbanks and say they need more economic control to eradicate them - Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion they could have used to alleviate demand on food-banks last year and they didn’t – why? • When the SNP say they want to hold Westminster (read; the English ) feet to the fire because Scotland needs more money- - Voters now know it is a lie. They had half a billion from the Union they could have spent in Scotland last year and they didn’t – why? It’s self evidently illogical for the SNP to claim that “Westminster Austerity is hurting Scots and we need more money” when they are held back half a billion pounds from suffering Scots. It’s manipulation of the poorest in society. Was it prudence? Well The “put it away for a rainy day” option won’t wash well with schools, surgeries and services struggling for investment from the Scottish Parliament. Yes, Some level of underspend is desirable but normally it’s well under 1% This underspend is out by hundreds of millions of pounds that Scots could have benefited from last year. As for demanding borrowing powers – any voter will see it would be daft to take out the expense and burden of a loan when you are not spending all your wages! It doesn’t make sense to say “we need the power to borrow money to make investment” when they are not spending the money they have. Was it planned, controlled and transparent? well it’s out by about £150 million pounds compared to the previous figure John Swinney gave to parliament! Of course he does have a track record of getting predictions wildly wrong *coughs* #secondoilboom The SNP said that we needed independence to fund more teachers, more nurses, more infrastructure… we know now half a billion pounds was available that they chose not to spend on teachers, nurses and infrastructure. So it’s fairly simple really – is this underspend the result of deliberate lies for political ends? Or is this underspend genuine financial incompetence and inefficiency? Neither option appeals. It puts me in mind of the Italian saying – they are like the Old woman with the parma ham under one arm – crying because she has no bread.

Oh well that's that signed and sealed then no more borrowing and continuing block grant cuts because we pyoor deserve it.

It will be spent this year anyway and it's the first time ,since the SNP came into power, that it has exceeded 350 mill which clearly implies that the last Scottish Government had much bigger underspends EVERY year.

[Reynard]

Sheer hypocrisy and opportunism from our resident Unionists. You can't bleat about sending back underspent money to Westminster when you voted No for Scotland to raise all it's own taxes.

Raising our own taxes is the solution - GET IT!?

[Reynard]

Oh well that's that signed and sealed then no more borrowing and continuing block grant cuts because we pyoor deserve it.

It will be spent this year anyway and it's the first time ,since the SNP came into power, that it has exceeded 350 mill which clearly implies that the last Scottish Government had much bigger underspends EVERY year.

half a billion underspend while you fucking wanks whined like bitches about austerity?

Thats money that was there to be spent by the Scottish government but they've chosen NOT to.

What a crowd of fucking arseholes in the clown collective right enough.

[AUFC90]

half a billion underspend while you fucking wanks whined like bitches about austerity?

Thats money that was there to be spent by the Scottish government but they've chosen NOT to.

What a crowd of fucking arseholes in the clown collective right enough.

Underspends happen every year you complete and utter cretin