Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

cells

tberry6686 wrote: »

Doesn't take into account the land masses concerned. Obviously the spend in areas with little population has to be higher per person than in areas of high population density otherwise there would be very little in the way of healthcare, education, infrastructure etc in the less populous areas with the result that cities would just get bigger and large parts of the country would see massive decreases in population giving rise to a never ending circle.

The density costs more argument is true but negligible as most people in Scotland live in urban areas. For example wiki says the metro area of Glasgow
And Edinburgh alone are home to close to 3.7 million people or 70% of the population.

Also the primary cost of distance is not really borne by the state but by individuals in higher transportation costs

michaels

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Defacing statutes in memory of those who lost their lives for this country. Sums up the mentality of those involved. Stoking the fire may simply rebound big time.

Yes, apparently democracy gave the wrong answer....

Shakethedisease

michaels wrote: »

Yes, apparently democracy gave the wrong answer....

But it does put the BBC/Sky news etc into context. When they were reporting a bit of heckling in Scotland last week as 'chaos/near riots' a mere 7 minutes after it happened across all news outlets and the newspapers making it news for nearly two days afterwards. ( see Hamish's posts a few pages back ).

Yet little mention of this one for hours. Where there was actually real chaos and a big police presence.. and it's been played down significantly too in terms of numbers from what I've clicked through on Twitter.

I don't agree with the protestors, nor the graffiti. But I think there are a lot in England just about to wake up the way most of Scotland has... to widespread 'selective reporting' to suit.

Generali

At least a Tory majority saves us from 5 years of moaning that the SNP should have more power at Westminster.

tberry6686

cells wrote: »

The density costs more argument is true but negligible as most people in Scotland live in urban areas. For example wiki says the metro area of Glasgow
And Edinburgh alone are home to close to 3.7 million people or 70% of the population.

Also the primary cost of distance is not really borne by the state but by individuals in higher transportation costs

The density argument is most certainly not negligible. 70% living in an area less than 1/4 of the landmass of Scotland brings with it massive economies of scale for education, healthcare, and pretty much everything else you can think of. Transport costs are a minor part of this and are not borne by individuals otherwise the cost of transporting goods around would be beyond any individual.

example. a primary school in say Glasgow will have around 500 pupils, a primary school in parts of the highlands may have <10. Are you seriously trying to say that the cost of education for the 10 is even remotely close the the cost for the 500. Same goes for health care, road maintenance etc.

This is exactly the same in every country in the world. areas with low population densities need to spend more per head than high density areas for the same outcome.

kabayiri

tberry6686 wrote: »

...
example. a primary school in say Glasgow will have around 500 pupils, a primary school in parts of the highlands may have <10. Are you seriously trying to say that the cost of education for the 10 is even remotely close the the cost for the 500. Same goes for health care, road maintenance etc.

This is exactly the same in every country in the world. areas with low population densities need to spend more per head than high density areas for the same outcome.

Scrap the subsidy then and use the money on capital projects to target these *specific* problems.

A friend is working with a well known comms company. They were looking at exactly this issue - small schools in remote parts of Asia and Africa.

Their solution is to use modern comms, not some hurriedly introduced subsidy.

People moan at the lack of Westminster spending in Scotland. Here is an opportunity to create a layer of capital spending

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

At least a Tory majority saves us from 5 years of moaning that the SNP should have more power at Westminster.

Interestingly, the BBC news this morning mentioned that a significant number of Conservative MPs believe they have been given a clear mandate. They will be pushing for progress on Europe and the issue of Scotland financial reform.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Interestingly, the BBC news this morning mentioned that a significant number of Conservative MPs believe they have been given a clear mandate. They will be pushing for progress on Europe and the issue of Scotland financial reform.

Well they have TBH. The Tories won the most votes and the most seats by quite a convincing distance.

The Tories have 30% more seats than the second biggest party and 17.5% more votes. I think that gives them a very clear mandate to implement their manifesto.

As an aside, it was very heartening to see that the Monster Raving Loony Party scored more seats that the NF and BNP combined.

And that Respect only just beat 'Cannabis is safer than alcohol'.:beer:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/may/07/live-uk-election-results-in-full

CLAPTON

tberry6686 wrote: »

The density argument is most certainly not negligible. 70% living in an area less than 1/4 of the landmass of Scotland brings with it massive economies of scale for education, healthcare, and pretty much everything else you can think of. Transport costs are a minor part of this and are not borne by individuals otherwise the cost of transporting goods around would be beyond any individual.

example. a primary school in say Glasgow will have around 500 pupils, a primary school in parts of the highlands may have <10. Are you seriously trying to say that the cost of education for the 10 is even remotely close the the cost for the 500. Same goes for health care, road maintenance etc.

This is exactly the same in every country in the world. areas with low population densities need to spend more per head than high density areas for the same outcome.

The density argument may well have some merit in scotland, the SW, parts of Wales, the lake district, Yorkshire etc and it is reasonable to have a formula that takes both the number of people and special circumstances into account.
However no-one serious (i.e. non Scots) actually believe that the £3000 per scots family is other than a Labour, Tory, LibDEm (Barnett) bribe.

By all means have a proper formula worked out but not one based on corrupt bribe.

Or of course introduce an honest FFA without additional bribes.

michaels

kabayiri wrote: »

Interestingly, the BBC news this morning mentioned that a significant number of Conservative MPs believe they have been given a clear mandate. They will be pushing for progress on Europe and the issue of Scotland financial reform.

Hmm, need 8bn pa to meet NHS promise, spend 8bn extra pa on Scotland where you will never win more than 3 seats...you do the math as they say.