Scots enjoy £1,600 extra per head than their English counterparts

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

My reasons have nothing to do with who subsidises who, but I will be voting yes.

Makes you wonder why Cameron, Milliband, Clegg and all want us to vote no..

Because we'll have to pick up the pieces?

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because we'll have to pick up the pieces?

Come now. I'm sure England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall will adapt just fine.

I doubt it will be that bad you'll crumble to pieces without us Scots

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Come now. I'm sure England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall will adapt just fine.

I doubt it will be that bad you'll crumble to pieces without us Scots

To be honest, I don't really care about it either way.

What I take objection to, is the SNP wanting to carry on using the BOE, the currency, the army, defence and a huge amount of political and civil manpower, but not giving anything back as Scotland and it's goods, infrastrucure etc will suddenly be "theres", but happy to use the bits of "ours" that suits and happy to hand over bits that are "ours" that suit too....such as the defecit.

Either go independant, or don't. Won't really effect us, unless Scotland expects us to carry on providing such infrastructure.

Rotor

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

See post 3 ;o)

Nice journalism comparing Scotland to it's Neighbours

So is Scotland just another region of the UK?. I thought you lot considered it a country ; so a country to country comparison is perfectly valid, but you've gone for country vs. region comparison as it suits your figures better.

Remember , it was Scottish devolution not 'regional' devolution and your vote soon will be for Scottish independence not regional.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To be honest, I don't really care about it either way.

What I take objection to, is the SNP wanting to carry on using the BOE, the currency, the army, defence and a huge amount of political and civil manpower, but not giving anything back as Scotland and it's goods, infrastrucure etc will suddenly be "theres", but happy to use the bits of "ours" that suits and happy to hand over bits that are "ours" that suit too....such as the defecit.

Either go independant, or don't. Won't really effect us, unless Scotland expects us to carry on providing such infrastructure.

My statement had nothing to do with the SNP. It was why

Makes you wonder why Cameron, Milliband, Clegg and all want us to vote no.

IveSeenTheLight

Rotor wrote: »

So is Scotland just another region of the UK?. I thought you lot considered it a country ; so a country to country comparison is perfectly valid, but you've gone for country vs. region comparison as it suits your figures better.

Remember , it was Scottish devolution not 'regional' devolution and your vote soon will be for Scottish independence not regional.

I do believe Scotland is a country, however in the context of the data available, it pretty much treats Scotland as a region.

It's nothing to do with what suits my figures as a personal choice, it's about what data is available and how they break it up.

I read with interest that the investment for the Olympics was put down as regeneration for the whole of the UK, not just the "region" that benefitted..

Anyway, my original point was that Scotland with it's population of 5.5 Million provided a better GVA than other comparible regions of the UK, only beaten by London and the South East.

When considering how much is awarded to an area, you should also consider how much it contributes.

The reason is probably down to population make up

zagubov

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To be honest, I don't really care about it either way.

What I take objection to, is the SNP wanting to carry on using the BOE, the currency, the army, defence and a huge amount of political and civil manpower, but not giving anything back as Scotland and it's goods, infrastrucure etc will suddenly be "theres", but happy to use the bits of "ours" that suits and happy to hand over bits that are "ours" that suit too....such as the defecit.

Either go independant, or don't. Won't really effect us, unless Scotland expects us to carry on providing such infrastructure.

So you're still pushing a simplistic, go away and make sure you're as separate as North Korea schtick. Nobody beliesthat kind of independence is possible in a modern interconnected world. Scotland's invested in these shared enterprises for decades if not centuries.It's in both people's interets to cooperate on much of this for the foreseeable future.

These are mature democratic countries not petulant teenagers or buitter divorcing adults. Metaphors aren't reality.

Loughton_Monkey

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

My reasons have nothing to do with who subsidises who, but I will be voting yes.

Makes you wonder why Cameron, Milliband, Clegg and all want us to vote no..

Cameron says he doesn't want it because he's pretty sure of a "No" vote and doesn't want to alienate the few up there who have right wing tendencies.

Milliband doesn't want it because it makes the rest of the UK more or less Conservative in perpetuity.

Clegg doesn't want it because..... [who cares?]

Graham_Devon

zagubov wrote: »

So you're still pushing a simplistic, go away and make sure you're as separate as North Korea schtick. Nobody beliesthat kind of independence is possible in a modern interconnected world. Scotland's invested in these shared enterprises for decades if not centuries.It's in both people's interets to cooperate on much of this for the foreseeable future.

These are mature democratic countries not petulant teenagers or buitter divorcing adults. Metaphors aren't reality.

Didn't like my post then?! As I said, I don't care which way Scotland goes.

But may I remind you of the investment we ALL made into North Sea Oil?

Oh.....hang on....that doesn't count does it....Scotland wants to keep that to themselves....but we should share anything else Scotland wants to make use of.

Your post highlights the issues that crop up. Everything south of the Scottish border should be shared (apart from the defecit) as Scotland also invested in it. Everything North of the border is Scotlands.

Rotor

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I do believe Scotland is a country, however in the context of the data available, it pretty much treats Scotland as a region.

It's nothing to do with what suits my figures as a personal choice, it's about what data is available and how they break it up.

I read with interest that the investment for the Olympics was put down as regeneration for the whole of the UK, not just the "region" that benefitted..

Anyway, my original point was that Scotland with it's population of 5.5 Million provided a better GVA than other comparible regions of the UK, only beaten by London and the South East.

When considering how much is awarded to an area, you should also consider how much it contributes.

The reason is probably down to population make up

Mean average is mean average if it's 50 million people or 5 million. Calling Scotland a ' region' simply means you can keep Scottish centres of prosperity ( Edinburgh, Aberdeeen) whilst excluding English ones from the comparisons