To be annoyed the Tory 30 hour free childcare doesn't apply in Scotland!

[RagingJellyBean]

It's just annoying, to be honest.

I don't like the Tories, but if we have to have them the least they could do is throw us a bone up here.

30 hours free childcare when my DD turned 3 would be absolutely fantastic. I could actually afford to live a normal life again, why isn't in Scotland? 15 hours is great, don't get me wrong, but 30 hours would be PERFECT.

HOW ANNOYING!?!?!?!

Another person living in Scotland who would far rather have free uni tuition fees than free babysitting/ childminding.
You can only spend it once. The free 15 hours put our play group out of action when it was introduced when my kids were small because there were assessment (of the children) and admin hoops you had to jump through to get it.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/does-anyone-in-london-actually-know-how-the-barnett-formula-works/

An interesting take on the Barnett formula given the discussion above.

ReallyTired
Maybe Scots choose to enjoy eating an unhealthy diet and spend less time in retirement. The consequence is that they cost less in state pension payments than their fellow citizens in the South of England.

Anybody in the UK who smokes, drinks to excess, eats lots of fatty foods and no fruit or veg will have a lower life expectancy. They will receive less state pension, but cost the nhs and social care budgets far more.

My Scottish grandmother lived to 94 because she made good lifestyle decisions. Her nationality did not reduce her life expectancy. English people who make poor lifestyle decisions also die early.

I'm that people think dentistry in Scotland is expensive!
I've just had my free 6 month check up (go with my dc) needed an x ray it cost me less than £5 ... Scale & polish was £10ish a year ago. I bit on a stone in some bread and dentist thought I might have cracked a tooth at the root - all they could have done was extraction - so was seen for free at dental hospital and any work needed would be free....dp had terrible teeth - had loads of work done at the dental hospital - crowns etc - over the last 10 yrs all free.
DM (over 70) in England was complaining a year or so ago. Went to dentist told she needed one filling and another was looking a bit dodgy but they'd leave it for now. Her one filling cost £45 and 6 months later they decided the other one needed replacing - another £45.....
It is all about how budgets are allocated - and I don't think the SNP have it right.... Snp policies are designed to make you think they are great- headline grabbing but actually the money has to come from somewhere... Something else suffers. So if your child 'needs' a brace for what is deemed cosmetic reasons you have to pay... Someone I know has paid almost £2000 but their dc was very self conscious of their very crooked teeth (I chose not to have a brace for my gap many years ago - I am not believer in perfect all American teeth, think we should be individuals- but I would have paid in those circumstances)... On one hand that's fine ....but on the other... Having crooked teeth could become the equivalent of branding people 'poor' - or rather having poor parents - might as well tattoo their foreheads to stop them rising above their class...
Tuition fees - great but less funding and therefore fewer vocational college places...
SNP introduction of the 15 hrs has been a shambles (note it was called 600 hrs to detract from the fact that 15hrs had been available for years in england) - it isn't actually 15 hrs it is something like 15.78 hrs a week or 3 hrs 9.5mins a day..that makes sense. And as mentioned up thread has caused real problems for primary school nurseries - needing to be open for longer hours than the school (6hr) - minimum 6 hr 20min for two sessions - plus a lunch break for nursery workers - and the funding for extra staff for ratios to allow staggered lunch breaks has not been provided - parents not using full sessions cos if you have a child in school are you really going to drop off at nursery and hang around outside for 30-40 mins for school to start - or pick up from school and wait 30-40 mins for nursery to finish ...and it isnt actually saving a lot of working parents child care payments - as they still to pay full sessions child care for someone to collect/drop off
....they now seem to be trying to sort out more flexibility etc ...but that should have been thought though and organised before the introduction...except that would been too late for the rerendum - and 600 hrs sound great...

ReallyTired it's a real thing, I'm not making it up.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_effect

The deprivation profiles of Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester are almost identical. Despite this, premature deaths in Glasgow are more than 30% higher, with all deaths approximately 15% higher. This 'excess' mortality is seen across virtually the entire population: all ages (except the very young), both males and females, in deprived and non-deprived areas

My point exactly.

People who have similar income in Manchester and Liverpool are eating better diets inspite of having a similar income. Why is it that people in Glasgow are making poor decisions? Is it the Scottish education system failing? The nasty English Tories are not force feeding Glaswegians fags and fried mars bars. In terms of spending far less is spent per head in Manchester and Liverpool than in Glasgow.

I am sceptical that vitamin d deficiency is the cause of poor life expectancy in Glasgow. The North of England had more brown skinned people who are at greater risk of vitamin d deficiency. Countries like Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Norway all have a life expectancy better than Glasgow. I don't think that the latitude of Glasgow explains the ill health of its inhabitants.

ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Life_expectancy_at_birth,1980–2012(years)_YB14.png

It is individual lifestyle decisions that affect life expectancy. In Manchester and Liverpool people are making more intelligent decisions.

The free 15 hours put our play group out of action when it was introduced when my kids were small because there were assessment (of the children) and admin hoops you had to jump through to get it.

That's surprising. I was on the management committee of a playgroup and funded sessions brought in more than those the parents paid for.

To clarify, for example the council paid £8 for a session and the parents paid £6.50.

Nope ReallyTired according to wiki the Glasgow effect is not due to diet but more the prevalence of alcoholism, gang culture and psychopaths all exacerbated by a feeling of powerlessness which arises from being governed from afar.
Not sure if I prefer this to your vilification of the humble deep fried mars bar
(not on the correct IT to create the link but lots about this on Google as at least the Glasgow population is very good at creating subject matter for academics)
Increased NHS spending per head is within Barnett. This is offset by reduced years per person that a Scot benefits from the NHS and reduced years drawing a pension.

Our play group was very cheap about £2.50 a session but had 2 paid supervisors and relied on parents to participate in a rota to keep the fees down.
I was on the committee when the changes came in and none of the parents in the playgroup were willing to do the admin work necessary to apply for government funding and the 2 paid workers didn't want to assess kids and do the admin. I accept with different people it may have been different but the kids ended up going to the school nursery over the road which had previously just taken kids from 4 in the year before starting P1 with playgroups doing 2 1/2 to 4. School attached nurseries in that locality get all the state funded nursery work now. 2 playgroups in the town folded.
This has advantages for people who couldn't afford playgroups or didn't want to/ couldn't do the rotas but a large thriving playgroup disappeared.

Don't forget genetics in the Glasgow v Manchester comparison. Your genes matter a lot more than many people think.

The 'Glasgow effect' has been the subject of various studies which suggest low life expectancy is linked more to rapid de-industrialisation, things like general poverty, housing standards, political disenfranchisement etc. There are places throughout Europe which apparently correlate with this. It's not quite as simple as 'Mars bars and fags'.

Liverpool and Manchester have similar levels of deprivation to Glasgow. I also don't believe that the scots in Glasgow are genetically that much different to scots who have moved to the USA, England or Australia.

As far as the bollox of "being govened from afar". The scots have had the right to vote as much as Liverpudians. Scotland has never been a colony and they have had their own MPs. There have been times in recent past when Labour has held the most seats in Scotland and we have had a labour govenment. In fact we have had several Scottish prime minsters in recent years. (Ie. John Smith, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair)

"Don't forget genetics in the Glasgow v Manchester comparison. Your genes matter a lot more than many people think."

I am more optimistic. I believe that nuture plays a huge role. I feel that believing that Glasgow cannot reach the same standards of heath and edcucation as the rest of the UK is very fatalistic and depressing. It's not even about money, but having effective policies. It is using your money well rather than increasing funding.

Other than voting SNP there is little evidence to suggest that Scots are fundermentally more stupid or have less opportunites than people in the rest of the uk. Maybe the scottish parliment needs to look at what works well in the rest of the uk. (Including Wales and Northern Ireland)

I'm happy to have free tuition fees over 30 free nursery hours.

Much, much happier.

Liverpool and Manchester have similar levels of deprivation to Glasgow. I also don't believe that the scots in Glasgow are genetically that much different to scots who have moved to the USA, England or Australia

How about latitude ?

linky

Multiple sclerosis in the UK
Studies in the UK have suggested that the prevalence rate in England and Wales is perhaps between 100 and 140 per 100,000, about 170 in Northern Ireland and as high as 190 in Scotland. A study of north east Scotland found the level to be 229 in Aberdeen, 295 in Shetland and 402 in Orkney.

This paper says that levels of deprivation in Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow are identical.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20223487

I have no idea of why you want a link to show that Baltic countries and Iceland are not further south than Glasgow. I am not sure how relevant multiple sclerosis is when most scots die of heart disease, strokes and cancer. Ie. The diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices.

ReallyTired could you be any more rude and offensive about the Scots ?

I do think there are some hard questions that need to be made with regard to Scottish lifestyle choices tbh.

This thread was started by someone blaming other people for decisions and policy made in Scotland. I think that says more than people realise.

This is part of the problem I think. Its easy to excuse poor life choices by saying its the fault of people far away rather than looking closer to home for the cultural acceptability of a blame/victim culture.

I do see it as a crossroads where Scottish people can either take responsibility and see things as a opportunity or they can continue to blame genes, Westminster, rude English for their problems.

That's not an England v Scotland thing. Its an observation that emotional, patriotic politics that have dominated in recent years are distracting the public away from those who have power there and the fact they are not properly tackling problems anymore than central government did. Scots need to hold their own parliament accountable now.

Change won't come until the Scottish agenda isn't dominated by this agenda and people actually start looking for solutions and move the focus back to Scotland and practical politics driven by logic and evidence.

Culturally I do think there has to be a change. Not one about lifestyle choices but one about wanting a positive future that Scotland is the master of and wants to led rather than being at the mercy of England and completely blameless. It needs to take the responsibility and run with it.

Sadly I think this thread to me suggests that Scotland has some way to go on that front. Its not about money, its more about attitude ultimately. There are far poorer countries that strive for their success rather than blame circumstance for not achieving more.

RedToothBrush
Your post was brilliant.

I wish people would stop pontificating at length about what "Scotland" and the Scottish people want, lumping everyone in to one homogenous mass. Its very tedious.

oh and also sorry RedToothbrush, apart from that, your post was utterly patronising too.

We do get alot of additionals (I had free uni, free prescriptions and paid less stamp duty on my house) in Scotland that the rest of the UK dont get - so I guess we have to accept we wont get everything...although in their last manifesto, SNP agreed to increase to 30 hours in Scotland by the end of their next term - should they be re-elected (which is highly likely)

Fine. Think that.

I WANT Scotland to do well. What's in it for anyone for it to be poor or not do well? That's what I don't get.

There is a whole page here of excuses and playing the victim, rather than suggestions about what Scotland could do better and how.

Don't call me patronising as it misses the point and falls back onto the idea that you are somehow under attack. You aren't.

Be positive because that's the best form of patriotism. Be defined by what you are not by your relationship to somewhere or someone else. That's not grouping as a homogenous mass. That's asking to celebrate your strengths - individually and collectively - and work on them and to acknowledge weaknesses rather than pretend that nothing can be done to tackle them.

Have to agree with Fanjo
Having kept track of the whole thread I concur that the Op is misguided in her understanding of devolution and also the impact of "30 free hours".
However the majority of Scottish contributors have engaged with the issue of early years education in the Scottish context and within the larger debate surrounding education in Scotland and England.
There have also been numerous posters speaking to the differences in the Scottish NHS.
There have been a number of extraneous ill informed comments mostly from those asserting that Scotland has an unfair advantage.