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

MouseTrap

In fact ISTL, given that the OP was about people in Scotland receiving £1,600 per person more in government spending, your GVA figures (which include government subsidies) could actually serve to prove his point.

zagubov

MouseTrap wrote: »

GVA figures include subsidies, so your figures could actually be used to argue that Scotland is being subsidised more than other regions in the UK.

MouseTrap wrote: »

In fact ISTL, given that the OP was about people in Scotland receiving £1,600 per person more in government spending, your GVA figures (which include government subsidies) could actually serve to prove his point.

Or equally, that the SE and London are more subsidised. What's your specific beef with scotland?;)

Zero_Sum

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.

Not quite The plan was for devolution to be rolled out across the regions. The North East went to the polls & voted against it, after which future referendums in the other regions were dropped.

zagubov

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Not quite The plan was for devolution to be rolled out across the regions. The North East went to the polls & voted against it, after which future referendums in the other regions were dropped.

Except in Greater London where I live. I voted for a "Regional" Assembly and an elected mayor, so devolution in England wasn't a complete dead duck!

chewmylegoff

The issues about free education, care, prescriptions etc are fairly meaningless. Scotland is devolved, it can choose how it allocates its public spending. It's fair to question how much in total it spends (or is given to spend out of the total pot). Perhaps "devomax" whereby Scotland is given control of its own tax revenues would be seen to be fairer and would stop this sort of moaning. "They get more free stuff than us, boo hoo".

Would need to decide how much of a deficit Scotland could run of course as would still have unified borrowing.

And anyway, the Scots do have to live in Scotland so maybe they should get a bit extra to compensate for that horrendous disadvantage.

Zero_Sum

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The issues about free education, care, prescriptions etc are fairly meaningless. Scotland is devolved, it can choose how it allocates its public spending. It's fair to question how much in total it spends (or is given to spend out of the total pot). Perhaps "devomax" whereby Scotland is given control of its own tax revenues would be seen to be fairer and would stop this sort of moaning. "They get more free stuff than us, boo hoo".

Would need to decide how much of a deficit Scotland could run of course as would still have unified borrowing.

And anyway, the Scots do have to live in Scotland so maybe they should get a bit extra to compensate for that horrendous disadvantage.

Don't they have the lowest life expectancy in western Europe or something like that. The Scots are just getting the pensions savings diverted elsewhere.

sss555s

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Would need to decide how much of a deficit Scotland could run of course as would still have unified borrowing.

And anyway, the Scots do have to live in Scotland so maybe they should get a bit extra to compensate for that horrendous disadvantage.

Many love to stay or visit Scotland.
I've stayed in London many times and could point out a many horrendous disadvantages about London.
What were your experiences in Scotland?

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Don't they have the lowest life expectancy in western Europe or something like that. The Scots are just getting the pensions savings diverted elsewhere.

There are some areas that have a low life expectancy but in my area it's... Men 77.9 London 77.1

When debating about things it's best to have at least some knowledge on the subject otherwise you just look like uneducated fools.

It's getting quite embarrassing now

Zero_Sum

sss555s wrote: »

There are some areas that have a low life expectancy but in my area it's... Men 77.9 London 77.1

When debating about things it's best to have at least some knowledge on the subject otherwise you just look like uneducated fools.

It's getting quite embarrassing now

My knowledge was from a BBC article I read
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12898723

sss555s

Zero_Sum wrote: »

My knowledge was from a BBC article I read

I never disputed that fact but did supply the stats for London and my area.

Some parts of Glasgow are really bad and as low as 70 but I don't live in those parts, as I said above.

Quite a few areas of England are 75.

Not really sure what point your making.

Does Scotland need more funding to improve health care?

Zero_Sum

sss555s wrote: »

I never disputed that fact but did supply the stats for London and my area.

Some parts of Glasgow are really bad and as low as 70 but I don't live in those parts, as I said above.

Quite a few areas of England are 75.

Not really sure what point your making.

Does Scotland need more funding to improve health care?

It was a half tongue in cheek comment that, as the average Scot dies younger than their English counter part, so they have lower pension costs. The pension 'savings' could be used to support the free uni education etc.