And another thing!

Couldn't agree more Durhamjen on both your points.

I am sorry that I need to point out yet again that Scotland is not subsidised by the rest of the UK but does in fact contribute more to the exchequer than it gets back. The promised extra hours of free childcare will be met from the block grant under the Barnett Formula - yet another example (cf free prescriptions, free tuition. free car parking at hospitals, removal of bridge tolls) of how a budget, under the able stewardship of John Swinney, can be formulated to provide increased services for those most in need rather than being biased in favour of the already rich.

For those talking about Minority and Mickey Mouse parties, I would also like to point out that the SNP is now the 3rd largest party in the UK with more fully paid up members (85,000 and rising) than either UKIP or the LibDems. I did watch the SNP conference and also read the text of Alex's and Nicola's speeches where both made it plain that there would be no coalition with any other party but they would vote on each issue on the basis of what is best for Scotland. It was in fact Pete Wishart MP, speaking in the referendum debate in the House of Commons who threatened to start voting on England only legislation in retaliation for debates about Scottish affairs being packed out by MPs from England.

Perhaps Parliament should move to Edinburgh and the country run from there. Then we could all have the freebies. Scotland, it seems, would be much better at running the country.

Granny 23

The Barnett Formula is a most contentious point to raise. It is widely known that even Joel Barnett can't believe it is still in place. I could stand corrected but I believe there is no lawful/legal reason why it should carry on.

The Barnett Formula was a pernicious, political ploy used at the time of devolution. If the SNP truly want independence it could start by forgoing the favourable rate Scotland receives and lead the way in getting fair play for all the populas of the UK. Fair play is it's ethos, prove it.

Scotland. £10.152 Per Head
Wales. £9.709. Per Head
England. £8.529. Per Head

It's no wonder the Scottish government can give more to it's people with a favourable £1.623 per head over some of the rest of the UK population is it!

The SNP repeat the point Scotland is a wealthy country and it has performed so well over the rest of the UK on employment, inward investment etc. etc. It's high time in that case Scotland therefore did not receive the Barnett Formula advantage.

The implication by the SNP is to prop up a Labour government, even if it is on a 'Confidence and Supply' method. (a back door form of coalition).

The SNP have relished in the thought of holding the power over the next Westminster government and unashamedly knows it will do so by demanding they get their way over Trident etc. Nothing new in that political line of thought, that's exactly what a coalition government is 'I'll scratch your back, I'll scratch your's'. Is that what the Scottish people wanted during the Independence Referendum? I think they could be disappointed to see the SNP is no different to all the other parties in that respect.

Re Trident. I have had a theory for a long time. I saw Salmond being interviewed and he was basically calling Cameron a shyster and why now has it come out there is more oil on the west coast, it was all a con during the referendum.

I have long thought Trident was a possible Red Herring to gain votes but really the west coast of Scotland needs to be 'cleared out' to put up more and more oil platforms. Scotland would need as much oil as it can get to maintain it's populas and become Norway, Salmonds dream.

I funnily have a sneaking admiration for the SNP. You are lucky to be proud of your country, the English are not allowed to be so.

I think the SNP could raise the game if it called for the Barnett Formula to either be scrapped or it serves 'all' of the UK population by being equal to us all. That would show Westminster up.

I'm finding it a very worrying time at the moment with coalitions, minority parties acting as if they are in power and with no strong oppostion party [imo good government needs strong opposition to keep them in check]. .

It was fairly obvious that there would not be a yes vote on PR. For one thing, there had been little in-depth information or debate on the issue and people were naturally unwilling to vote for something they didn't really understand the implications of. Also, commentators at the time said that the type of PR system put forward was the worst of all worlds.

Nigel Farage was interviewed by Cathy Newman the other day. She played back to him footage of remarks he'd made about the viability of the NHS, and she also challenged him about a comment he'd made that mothers were (justifiably) worth less than men as employees (note that, when discussing employment, men are never described as "fathers"). Everybody is entitled to their opinion, of course, but NF's jolly, friendly chappie mask slipped and he displayed a very different side to his character - actually being quite patronising and insulting to Cathy Newman.

I agree with durhamjen re Labour and the unions. The Labour movement was formed because of the unions, and unions are made up of ordinary, working people. The Conservative party has been bankrolled by big business and the super rich. An investigation carried out by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that an obscure private club is playing a crucial role in funnelling cash from often unidentifiable donors to Conservative party constituencies. The club is registered at the address of a riding school which is run by a former chief executive of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association.

The affiliation that some unions have with the Labour party and their consequent donations to it are out in the open and well known to most people. However, the sources of Conservative party donations are often shrouded in secrecy.

So Labour doesn't take money from wealthy donors then?

Unions are above reproach and everything is in the open is it?

No Labour MP has/does receive funding from lobbyists, is that that true?

If the Conservatives, Lib Dems, Ukip, SNP, Greens, Monster Raving Looney, etc. etc. rely on donations so what? They have to support their parties somehow. They don't have millions handed to them in a spurious funding scheme. I say spurious because it is considered it OK to give block funding in the millions as the money is giving by multipal individuals not a single donor. Didn't Miliband say he was going to bring in 'opt in, not opt out' or something like that to stop workers being forced to pay into a union.

The alternative is the tax payer is made to fund all political parties and NO private funding is permitted, including from the unions. That would go down well wouldn't it.

It just might Pogs. It'd even the playing field out a bit and may encourage people to be more politically active

I often wonder though, whether if the tax payer paid, some problems in society would also improve.
The parties would not be beholden to tobacco companies, the drinks industry, the arms people [I am losing the drift here slightly, but you get my point].

I most definitely would rather the tax payer pay.

I wonder if Farage has changed his mond and views about the NHS since 2012.
In that clip, he came across as naive as regards, there would be lots more money if the NHS was run privately. And also, that he didnt fancy the idea of running such a big organisation.
He sounded like he himself didnt feel up to the job.

But that was then. I wonder what his present feelings are on the matter.

that should be mind
or it could have been mood, but I think I meant mind!

Excellent post POGS but Im afraid that on this forum [because so few contribute with postings on it] you are spitting in the wind.It's hardly worth it really, but I do post a few things mainly because I sometimes don't believe the outrageous and partisan views regularly posted by some.It's either no party is any good [right, so we'll just settle for anarchy shall we?] or Labour is wonderful in every way, particularly so if we can go back to the huge powerful unions who really ran the Labour party their way.It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

I'm with you and POGS, roses, but as you say we are in the minority on this site and are bound to be shouted down.

GN wasn't in existence during the last Labour government, but I expect if it had been the same old hollow excuses would have been trotted out to exonerate them from all blame for the state the UK was in at the end of their reign.

There must be many Conservative and also Lib Dem voters on this site, so now and again it would be good to hear from them and things wouldn't be so one sided, but I expect they take one look at the constant flow of facts and fugures and speeches quoted by those who vote Labour[or Green or anything else] and flee for the hills.

Yes, those endless links...

What I would be really useful though is if instead of arguing about the various parties etc would be to look at a topic say for example the NHS decide on what I would like it to be looking like in 10 years time and the possible ways of achieving it - then look at all the parties and see who might deliver closest to that.

I agree.

A completely separate thread devoted to the future of the NHS and the various parties' policies and approaches to its ongoing problems would be useful, but only if people would actually restrict their NHS postings to that thread, which is doubtful.

And make constructive detailed comments about what they would like the NHS to be, and how they think it could be designed, administered, funded and achieved. No taking the easy way out by just slanging off various parties and ministers for their failures, and harking back to the good old days without detailing how to get back there from where we are now.

Ana Nobody is shouting anybody down - they're just expressing a view that may not accord with your own.

rosesarered I don't understand why presenting facts and figures is a reason for people to "flee for the hills". And exactly which views do you find "outrageous"? As you say, there must be plenty of Conservatives and Lib Dems on this site and they have no-one to blame but themselves if their views are not represented.

Just to add a few more of those terrible facts and figures:

The Labour party, as everybody knows, relies heavily on donations from trades unions. Company donations are 3% and individual donations 7%. Their largest individual donations came from John Mills of JML Online Shopping and Andrew Rosenfeld, a property developer whose financial support has caused some controversy in the Labour party.

The Conservative party gets 62% in individual donations. Their biggest donor was Michael Farmer of RK Capital Management (a hedge fund), then David Rowland, a property developer, followed by May Makhzoumi, the wife of billionaire Fouad Makhzoumi who was at the centre of the Jonathan Aitken arms scandal.

Those that donate a sum of over £1,500 to local parties must reveal their identity. However, the Conservative party is now using a legal loophole which permits anonymous donations of up to £7,5000 to "unincorporated associations". Conservative candidates in the marginal seats have been encouraged to set up such associations, eg as "supper clubs", without the need for "Conservative" or "Tory" in their title - this gives donors anonymity.

It isn't ideal that any party relies on donations and I personally think it would be better if there was limited state funding - but that is unlikely to happen.

Nobody's shouting. We're not able to on a computer. Some of us might have different views, but so what, we are entitled to them.

Joel Barnett died on 1st November.
It's only England that gets less.
https://fullfact.org/article/economy/scotland_cuts_barnett_ifs-36359

A link for those people who can be bothered to read them.

Exactly! We may have differing views. And we do.
Well said Ana and Elegran good posts.
Too many links is boring I'm afraid.

You are at liberty to ignore the links. It can be useful to check them out if you are interested in the subject, and at least the thread doesn't get cluttered by posts containing lots of info from the links instead.

the block grant under the Barnett Formula

Ah yes, the Barnett Formula.
POGS is correct in her description of it.
Quote from the DT:
Even Lord Barnett, the man who devised the controversial formula, said it is not fair on English taxpayers and should be reformed

Sadly, I believe that Lord Barnett died this month, lamenting the fact that his formula was still being used and he could see the formula revoked - if it ever will be. It was meant to be a very temporary measure introduced in 1978 but which has lasted for over 30 years.

Well, of course, the Labour administration in Wales gets more per head than do the English, but what a mess they make of it, wasting money pursuing their pet projects.

what was the thinking behind it in the first place, why the difference between the countries?

Sorry, word omitted: Lord Barnet would 'NOT' see the formula revoked