Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

the_flying_pig wrote: »

i think it's really unhealthy to waste seats in parliament on a single issue party like the SNP that's far more concerned with increasing Scotland's share of the pie than the actual size of the pie.

imagine what a farce the political system would be if a yorkshire party swept the boards in yorkshire, a london party did similar in London, etc.

Careful - you'll get elantan all excited with the prospect of endless popcorn binges!

robmatic

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Yes you did thanks. As I said I will read it but I am not convinced it will give me the detail I would like. I think as Shake's post points out it will be nigh on impossible to get clear cut figures of how much is Scotland's revenues and how much is lumped into to the UK pot. Can you see what I mean?

The detail is fairly irrelevant, as whatever the answer is, it will be wrong for you.

I find the implications of this argument really fascinating. Apparently the people of Scotland are much more left-wing than those meanies in England, but are simultaneously deeply troubled by the idea of a wealthy part of the country paying more in tax than it receives in spending.

Socialism without redistribution. Sounds brilliant.

Leanne1812

robmatic wrote: »

The detail is fairly irrelevant, as whatever the answer is, it will be wrong for you.

I find the implications of this argument really fascinating. Apparently the people of Scotland are much more left-wing than those meanies in England, but are simultaneously deeply troubled by the idea of a wealthy part of the country paying more in tax than it receives in spending.

Socialism without redistribution. Sounds brilliant.

The detail is highly relevant when it relates to dismissing the subsidy junkie myth. That's my only aim in raising this subject.

Leanne1812

Generali wrote: »

Have you even made any sort of effort to read or understand the figures? It's increasingly obvious that you don't like the numbers because you don't like what they're telling you. These figures are created by one of the best statistical organisations in the world.

As to my last sentence, it discusses the difficulties inherent in creating these sorts of figures. Statisticians discuss stuff like that out of professionalism, not to obfuscate. If you don't understand it, get educated! (Or ask me what it means).

I'd ask you to explain shake's post about the whisky revenues being credited to the UK treasury. It appears Scotland's revenues are not really Scotland's. I will read over the link you posted as I am interested but if some of our revenues aren't being attributed to Scotland how will it help me see we are subsidised? If anyone can prove this isn't happening this would help.

As I'm not a statistician I don't understand what it means. If you can explain to a lay person I'd be grateful.

.string.

The story so far, not to mention the £:

o The Scottish Wealthy should pay more tax
oo As above but Scotland should not pay as much as England

o Scottish Wealth is a result of its membership of the UK
oo Scottish Wealth is due to the fact that Scots are a super race

o Figures show that Scots do have proportionally more funding than other parts of the UK
oo Scots need more funding from the UK

o Official data shows that Scots have proportionally more funding than England
oo Don't confuse me with figures invented by the English; Scots do not receive enough funding from the UK

o If Scotland separates from the UK they will not have enough income to cover their welfare systems
oo If Scotland leaves the UK Scottish income will always go up

o Scotland will find it difficult outside both the UK and the EU trading blocks
oo Joining the EU is automatic, they will subsidise us for ever. ps we don't like the English

o But Scotland voted to stay in the Union
oo So what?

Zzzzzzzzzzz

robmatic

Leanne1812 wrote: »

The detail is highly relevant when it relates to dismissing the subsidy junkie myth. That's my only aim in raising this subject.

It doesn't really matter either way. There's always going to be some sort of fiscal transfer between different areas of the country.

Shakethedisease

Leanne1812 wrote: »

It's easier to give up than try to supply me with a transparent document listing Scotland's revenues & expenditure that has no creative accounting perhaps

Here's the last man that made a concentrated attempt at unravelling the figures/subsidy junkie myth in 2006/2007 ( note before the SNP was in power in Holyrood ) Leanne. Obviously he's from a pro-independence persuasion. ( ie instantly dismissable by most who post here ). Is interesting nonetheless to those who might want a wee wade through.

http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/obfuscation.htm

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Here's the last man that made a concentrated attempt at unravelling the figures/subsidy junkie myth in 2006/2007 ( note before the SNP was in power in Holyrood ) Leanne. Obviously he's from a pro-independence persuasion. ( ie instantly dismissable by most who post here ). Is interesting nonetheless to those who might want a wee wade through.

http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/obfuscation.htm

good to see he starts by quoting Hilter's view of how to lie
and you very objectively use the phrase 'figures/subsidy junkie myth'


all helps to bring light where there is darkness

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

good to see he starts by quoting Hilter's view of how to lie
and you very objectively use the phrase 'figures/subsidy junkie myth'


all helps to bring light where there is darkness

Must be all those years that pro-independence peeps have had to put up with being called 'separatists' of a 'Blood and Soil' movement, who are brainwashed fools and racist yobs blindy following a leader compared to Mussolini, Mugabe, Milosevic, Kim Jong-Il, Ghengis Khan and Hitler himself I suppose.

Mabye the author was giving some love back.

I'm not going into the subsidy myth thing with you again. You always just end things by calling me a brainwashed, racist yob who blindly follows a leader likened to Mussolini....

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Why don't you just use the Scottish Government's own figures?

Because they rely on the Treasury's.

In fact I have a great deal of sympathy for the GERS compilers, if they had half the frustration I endured in ferreting out the Treasury statistics that I experienced, then they must have been tearing their hair out. The essential data was there all right but was buried under many menus and sub, sub, sub menus. It took me over four hours in one instance to find what I was looking for.