The years of discontent, 2022/23

[SweeperDee]

What would you like the Scottish Government to do about those two things? Indeed, the latter isn't happening and the reverse is actually true - it's increasing to 25%. 
Unless they can find more money from somewhere, whether that be depriorirising other spending or using its tax raising powers, the SG is not really in a great position here to end the dispute. 

WM can up funding for their NHS, giving SG more room for funding via Barnett Consequentials. They won’t do that, but that’s because we know where their priorities lie.

[Todd_is_God]

6 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

WM can up funding for their NHS, giving SG more room for funding via Barnett Consequentials. They won’t do that, but that’s because we know where their priorities lie.

Whilst this is true, it's a nonsense point. It's also not really relevant. It's not a problem that would go away with independence either. If public sector workers en masse start demanding large pay increases (as has been the case recently) in an Independent Scotland then the same issue of what gets cut to free up the money / how much are taxes increased to cover them will exist.

I'm not sure the SG can be accused of the same sort of old pals act dodgy contracts stuff that can be used against the WM government either, meaning it really would be redundancies, service cuts, or tax increases.

People are free to ask for whatever they want, but when they do so knowing there really is no more money available, I think it's fair to ask them (in good faith) just how and where the cuts should be made to fulfil their wishes.

[mathematics]

There’s always money available. 

[Michael W]

22 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

WM can up funding for their NHS, giving SG more room for funding via Barnett Consequentials. They won’t do that, but that’s because we know where their priorities lie.

This doesn't answer the question I asked you.  

The problem the SG has is also much deeper than teaching. They have nurses amongst others that are also going to go on strike, with nurses asking for a 17.6% payrise. There is no chance they are going to get near that, so a strike or indeed a series of strikes is inevitable. The Barnett consequentials of more money for the NHS in England would simply be eaten up by whatever pay award was given to nurses, if indeed an acceptable offer can be found. 

These issues are of course not uniquely Scottish: Westminster will also shortly be dealing with striking teachers amongst other professions, so any rises might come off the back of that if agreements can be reached. In the meantime, inflation is running at 10%, the country's finances are knackered after money being thrown around about during covid to cover numerous problems and providing support over energy bills (estimates of the cost of this vary, but £100bn is banded about a lot), and Liz Truss' idiocy sending borrowing costs soaring. Any Government department getting less than a 10% rise is facing a real terms cut and somehow within that money for pay rises also needs to be found. There is no chance of pleasing even half of the people here, let alone everyone. I hope as many people as possible get a pay rise they are somewhat happy with, but I fear a lot of people are going to be disappointed. I certainly don't blame anyone asking for a payrise given the backdrop we face. 

Westminster does have the ability to borrow money, which the SG doesn't. However a large amount of (uncosted) borrowing is already being undertaken for the energy bill support, hence Hunt's scalling back the support duration. Any borrowing to pay for budget increases/pay rises has to be properly costed. 

 

[SweeperDee]

Funnily enough, I will be going on strike, and everyone that I work with knew the media would absolutely roast the NHS (and the public sector at large) for resorting to it. Do people really not sense the increasing feeling of tension and anger amongst the public? There’s always money for absolute shite that benefits no-one except the well-off, but when one of (if not) the largest employer in Scotland (The NHS) is crying out for help, you get rationalising pish that’s being trotted out here. It would be hilarious if there wasn’t a lot at stake here.

[Todd_is_God]

8 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

Do people really not sense the increasing feeling of tension and anger amongst the public? There’s always money for absolute shite that benefits no-except the well-off

That's bollocks though, isn't it? The main contributers to both the well being dry and sky high inflation are/were:

-Test & Trace

-Furlough Scheme

-Energy Support Scheme

-War in Ukraine

All of the above were / are overwhelmingly supported (to the point many wanted more to be spent) by the very same people now demanding at least inflation matching pay rises.

[SweeperDee]

That's bollocks though, isn't it? The main contributers to both the well being dry and sky high inflation are/were:
-Test & Trace
-Furlough Scheme
-Energy Support Scheme
-War in Ukraine
All of the above were / are overwhelmingly supported (to the point many wanted more to be spent) by the very same people now demanding at least inflation matching pay rises.

Certain folk didn’t make money off of any of those, no sir-ee. All perfectly costed and valid. Pull the other one.

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

Certain folk didn’t make money off of any of those, no sir-ee. All perfectly costed and valid. Pull the other one.

I didn't claim no-one made money off of them. What I did do was easily swat aside your nonsense point that 

16 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

There’s always money for absolute shite that benefits no-one except the well-off

when in reality a huge number of people benefited from Furlough and the Energy Support Scheme, and many more will perceive to have benefitted from Test & Trace.

[SweeperDee]

when in reality a huge number of people benefited from Furlough and the Energy Support Scheme, and many more will perceive to have benefitted from Test & Trace.

You genuinely believe that the party that has been in power for 12 years in WM has not wasted money, and has actually been benevolent in their spending plans?

Righty.

[Todd_is_God]

Just now, SweeperDee said:

You genuinely believe that the party that has been in power for 12 years in WM has not wasted money, and has actually been benevolent in their spending plans?

Righty.

Where did I say that? You don't need to justify your reasons for striking to me, but if you are going to try and go down that road then at least do so by responding to the points actually being made rather than simply venting generic grievances.

[SweeperDee]

Where did I say that? You don't need to justify your reasons for striking to me, but if you are going to try and go down that road then at least do so by responding to the points actually being made rather than simply venting generic grievances.

You just listed “examples” (some of which are sheer necessity btw, and don’t go far enough) of how the Tories have spent money wisely and will benefit the public at large (jury is out until winter is passed). That’s been the past 2 and a bit years; what about the other 10 years?

[RH33]

1 hour ago, SweeperDee said:

WM can up funding for their NHS, giving SG more room for funding via Barnett Consequentials. They won’t do that, but that’s because we know where their priorities lie.

Just to be clear I have no issues with nurses striking. EiS just always bumps gums.

[TxRover]

3 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Exactly.

Inflation will drop off fairly quickly whilst a 10% pay rise immediately increases your base and stays forever.

That’s why  the unions are so militant at the moment. It is their job, after all.

What? So, your argument is that after you lose 10% of your spending power to inflation, because inflation the next year is only about 3%, you’ll be OK? You really should stick to stuff you understand. Let’s try this:

You earn £30,000 in year one, which gives you a spending power of £30,000. Next year inflation is 10%, and you got a 2% raise. You now make £30,600, which has a spending power of £27,818. Next year inflation is down to 4% (hurrah, like you suggested) and you get a 7% raise. You now make £32,742 which has a corrected spending power of £28,621. Yep, unless you get raises at or above the inflation rate, you lose ground…and not getting a match one year handicaps you for years.

[Shadow Play]

9 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

That's bollocks though, isn't it? The main contributers to both the well being dry and sky high inflation are/were:

-Test & Trace

-Furlough Scheme

-Energy Support Scheme

-War in Ukraine

All of the above were / are overwhelmingly supported (to the point many wanted more to be spent) by the very same people now demanding at least inflation matching pay rises.

Don’t forget quantative easing.  Ideal to prevent / delay a recession, or even worse a depression, however it also released a huge wave of money looking for (often new) asset classes, as well as feeding itself into the real economy.  Essentially it was a way to keep the party going for a little bit longer.  As you’ve alluded to, eventually the music has to stop.  
 

 

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, SweeperDee said:

Funnily enough, I will be going on strike, and everyone that I work with knew the media would absolutely roast the NHS (and the public sector at large) for resorting to it. Do people really not sense the increasing feeling of tension and anger amongst the public? There’s always money for absolute shite that benefits no-one except the well-off, but when one of (if not) the largest employer in Scotland (The NHS) is crying out for help, you get rationalising pish that’s being trotted out here. It would be hilarious if there wasn’t a lot at stake here.

The fact that the NHS is Scotland's largest employer underlines the flaw in your argument. There simply is not a magic source of money to protect every single public sector worker from ever suffering the consequences of price inflation. The nurses keep switching from claiming that its a strike about safety to one about pay every other interview which is not a clever look either. 

A hike in energy bills simply does not justify giving a £45k per year senior teacher (for example) a permanent bump to nearly £50k. And the money is not there to do that anyway. 

[Deanburn Dave]

Public sector wages have consistently been below inflation for 20+ years.  When inflation was low public sector workers would grumble but grudgingly accept it due to job security.    

With high inflation and the plan to cut/freeze spending for 5 years job security will disappear so add that to more work for less money and  there is a feeling that enough is enough.

STRIKE !!!!

[Todd_is_God]

6 minutes ago, Deanburn Dave said:

With high inflation and the plan to cut/freeze spending for 5 years job security will disappear so add that to more work for less money and  there is a feeling that enough is enough.

STRIKE !!!!

Definitely can't see any potential negative outcomes for mid-long term job security if these strikes are successful in getting demands met...

[TxRover]

9 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You are misrepresenting the arithmetic.

The point is that your bills will be less than your income. Certainly at that sort of salary.

The absolute value of a 10% increase in your bills will be significantly less than a 10% increase in payrise.

Of course, if a person is going to spunk all of their £30k wages on stuff then that's on them. This is about cost-of-living, not cost-of-luxuries.

That's the point.

 

No, the point is a slow and insidious reduction in purchasing power accumulates over time. As for your suggestion that £30,000 is too high to have income concerns, you’re deluding yourself. The average salary in Scotland for 2022 is around £31,700, the median pay is roughly £26,500. If you don’t think some of those people are having some difficulty paying bills, you aren’t paying attention.

You posit that disposable income over needs cushions the effect of inflation, but that becomes a standard of living issue, and ends up reducing income to many businesses and, in the end, government too. It’s all very well to talk about spunking excess income, but that’s how you attend a match.

[TxRover]

3 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Actually, it's more to do with the fact that a 10% rise in your outgoings is a smaller amount than a 10% increase in your pay.

Example:

£3k take home pay and £2k outgoings.

10% increase in outgoings is £200.

10% payrise is £300.

In act only an increase of 6.7% is needed to take care of the increase in outgoings.

The problem is that as someone above has alluded to, people are spunking every penny and racking up debt and expecting the government to step in and protect them. That is simple not sustainable or reasonable. In fact it's rank entitlement.

It's also fascinating to see that not one of those screaming for a huge pay rise has had the decency to suggest what public services should be cut to pay their rises.  That tells us everything we need to know about their true socialist credentials.

Crap. In that scenario, you still have an effective reduction in standard of living. You can rail about spunking money, but maintenance of standard of living is key to economic development. If everyone suddenly has 5% less to “spunk” on fitba, pies, replica kits and such, there is an erosion of support for businesses related.

[TxRover]

11 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

So what? That's life I'm afraid. Endless growth is unsustainable. You've got a hell of a shock coming when you retire and your income halves overnight. What do you want the Scottish Government to do about that?

And how should they pay for it?

Already happened, and perhaps about to happen again…no shock, just appraisal.