Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't mind Scotland having a different division of spend; roads vs education etc.

The key issue with me is the near £15bn per annum subsidy being shown towards Scotland, and whilst this exists there will always be the suspicion from other UK voters that the arrangement is being used to pay for things which know we can not afford down here.

Perhaps rather than reduce the £15bn subsidy we should increase general taxation and spend an additional £15bn on rUK. Then the voters down here can decide on improved roads / free prescriptions etc. It would put an end to any allegations of unfairness.

Yes, they are two different issue

Clearly it's very unfair on the English regions that the Scottish region gets so much more per head and this ought to be put right although I have no confidence it will be.

However, the strange idea that giving large handouts for Uni education, to the richest in society is somewhat odd:

Strangely the SNP voters have swallowed the line that giving this money to the rich somehow helps the poor.
Mind you, no more daft than Ed wanting to cut the English fees from 9k to 6k, but it goes down well with the unthinking young and in line with the views of his new friend Nicola.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

It would put an end to any allegations of unfairness.

It would be interesting to see how much is spent on ROUK that is not captured in budgets.

By that I mean special projects i.e. Where is the funds for HS1 & 2 allocated from?

Is it possible that this already balances out the spending?

I don;t know, just floating a passing thought.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how much is spent on ROUK that is not captured in budgets.

By that I mean special projects i.e. Where is the funds for HS1 & 2 allocated from?

Is it possible that this already balances out the spending?

I don;t know, just floating a passing thought.

Everything goes through the budgets.

But not everything that goes through is subject to the so-called Barnett formula and included in the calculation of the block grant. Is that the real question?

I know that there is a distinction between spending for the benefit of the UK and spending for the benefit of England. Only the latter is subject to Barnett, i.e. the devolved administrations get their slice of it. There was a long argument over the money spent on the Olympics; the (at the time) Labour government said it was UK spend; the Scots et al, asserted the contrary and demanded something like £300m. They argued about it for a few years, set up some committees, but no agreement was reached. I think the Coalition offered them £30m to !!!!!!, and they settled on that.

I think HS2 is included in Barnett, and 'consequentials' (as they call them) have (?) and will be paid to the devolved administrations.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how much is spent on ROUK that is not captured in budgets.

By that I mean special projects i.e. Where is the funds for HS1 & 2 allocated from?

Is it possible that this already balances out the spending?

I don;t know, just floating a passing thought.

It's that just lovely

you don't really know, but you BELIEVE and will ALWAYS believe that Scotland is not unfairly subsidised: amazing that you never speculate the other way around.
Facts just don't come into it : it's a matter of faith.

elantan

I remember reading somewhere that when u take the rent allowance paid out for London they become the biggest subsidised people, found it strange and sad that we have come to the whole I want what u have but there you go

Leanne1812

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I referred to a specific incident that actually happened which is about as far away from hysterics as you can get (although there was plenty of spin from Salmond). You are presumably able to use the internet as you made it here - although Generali has googled it for you... In addition to talking about changing HS2, Salmond also said in the Marr interview that he would be able to push through progressive spending increases.

Just to be clear are you arguing that the SNP are positioning themselves as a party that will have no influence over a labour government or a party that will be unable to prevent the Tories from getting into power? So when Sturgeon keeps saying you must vote SNP to make Scotland's voice heard at Westminster what do you think she means? What about when she keeps going on about a majority of "anti Tory" MPs. Do you think she is trying to persuade people that they should vote for the SNP because it will have no power or influence?

It's how you worded your initial statement. That Salmond will dictate terms to Labour. There's no way the SNP will dictate, everyone seems to be distancing themselves and saying there will be no deal/coalition/pact-nothing so how does that's square with them dictating? If there are any deals to be done it will be through negotiation. Parties working together as a minority lab gov ( if this is how it plays out) will need support.

Of course the more snp mp's in Westminster the better. I'd expect them to have some influence but not running the UK!

elantan

According to the exit polls were in for an interesting night

Generali

elantan wrote: »

According to the exit polls were in for an interesting night

I wonder if it'll be the Scottish Sun or the regular Sun Wot Won It!?

elantan

I reckon it will have been the people that would have won it

Generali