Westminster

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Perhaps because this is spending for England being devolved to the regions of England rather than spending for Britain being devolved to the regions of England.

If you'd like similar in Scotland then talk to your MSP who might help. Perhaps the SNP doesn't want to devolve power below Edinburgh. The people of the Orkneys or Glasgow can't be trusted in their minds.

In principle, I have no problems with this as a concept, but wondering if these figures are excluded from regional spending.

Does this balance the perceived Barnett Formula imbalance?

Where did the funding come from to distribute £6Bn in England and has proportionally the same amount been spent on Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland?

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

In principle, I have no problems with this as a concept, but wondering if these figures are excluded from regional spending.

Does this balance the perceived Barnett Formula imbalance?

Where did the funding come from to distribute £6Bn in England and has proportionally the same amount been spent on Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland?

Dunno mate. What's 'regional spending'?

You have a country call the United Kingdom/Great Britain at the moment and money is (effectively) distributed from London and the South East to the rest of the country ex-SW and Scotland that roughly pay their own way.

You're a bright lad. I'm sure you can research the rest.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Dunno mate. What's 'regional spending'?

You have a country call the United Kingdom/Great Britain at the moment and money is (effectively) distributed from London and the South East to the rest of the country ex-SW and Scotland that roughly pay their own way.

You're a bright lad. I'm sure you can research the rest.

I guess the strange part is that in the article, David Cameron is talking about these

"Growth Deals are a crucial part of our long-term plan to secure Britain's future."

It then goes on to say that the funding is for England only.

It's a bit like George Osbourne citing the HS2 and H3 will create Growth in the North, where the lines are not even effectively reaching the midway point geographically.

My point was rather that I wondered if this spending in England (no issue with that), balanced or not the proportional spending / allowance in the devolved regions.

People have discussed the Barnett Formula, free prescription, free tuition etc in Scotland with disgust, however if this is an example where the spending is balanced or not then it is important for consideration.

What would be great is an open transparent budget showing all income and expenditure to understand better if these are fairly distributed.

robmatic

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

What would be great is an open transparent budget showing all income and expenditure to understand better if these are fairly distributed.

What does 'fairly distributed' mean to you? I would expect this to mean that wealthy regions contribute funds and poorer regions receive funds, although I understand that this socialist idea isn't very popular with some people in Scotland.

IveSeenTheLight

robmatic wrote: »

What does 'fairly distributed' mean to you? I would expect this to mean that wealthy regions contribute funds and poorer regions receive funds, although I understand that this socialist idea isn't very popular with some people in Scotland.

As a devolved government, I'm sure most people in Scotland would appreciate starting with the the prorata distribution of wealth.

Then if the devolved government had full autonomy over that spending then there would not be the issues there currently is.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

So should Westminster declare independence from Westminster?

padington

London should declare independence from the rest of you loafers and free riders, that's for sure.

We'll keep Kent for a good fracking though.

spingoblin

It works both ways - there are areas of southern England that ALWAYS vote tory but quite often have to put up with Labour governments. The central belt in Scotland and northern England votes Labour and sometimes has to put up with Tory or coalition governments. Someone may correct me on this but the SNP got around 44% of the vote in the last scottish election but got a majority of the seats - some PR system that!

.string.

Re the distributon of the money: Government unveils £6bn funding to 'fire up local economies'

Of course that's not the total story: Cameron unveils £500m funding for Glasgow before 'no' campaign rally

... But all this is in the future, essentially after the Referendum results are in.

Also for the future (perhaps) Scotland could be base for spaceport, says UK government

People are getting excited: Scotland's great opportunity

Actually I've yet to be convinced that the latter is a real option rather than a speculative dream. For most launches, the further North you go, the more expensive the launch.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

.string. wrote: »

For most launches, the further North you go, the more expensive the launch.

That is true for equatorial orbits, which of course you are correct in saying most commercial satellites use, but the exceptions are significant.

A number of commercial and government satellites use polar and sun-synchronous orbits, for things such as military reconnaissance, earth-mapping, and weather monitoring. And it's not as rare as you'd think, some of the relatively well-known ones such as the Iridium communication satellites are in polar orbit.

A northern launch site would be useful both for satellites requiring polar orbits and also for sun-synchronous orbits, and of course for space tourism where no orbital trajectory is required.

In other words, if you're going to have a launch site in Europe for space tourism such as Virgin Galactic it makes no difference how far south or north it is, the more important requirements are long runways and ready proximity to sparsely populated open areas or ocean. Which the Scottish sites have.