Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Clapton,
Try thinking fairly for a moment

I pay far more council tax in Aberdeen or Aberdeenshire than my sister in law in Putney.

Why? because I understand that economies of scale mean it is more efficient in an area where demographically there is a denser population.

Thus I pay more to get a similar service from my council i.e. refuse collection etc

Therefore, the Barnett Formula was derived to help support the rural communities.

So in comparison, Yorkshire (I know you love those people ) is supporting 11.9km2, whilst Scotland is supporting an area mass of 78.4km2.

Is it not therefore fair and incumbant on the government to ensure that the electorate in the most rural of area receives the same service that others receives regardless of the location and if it costs more or less to support that part of the United Kingdom?

Remember, we are "better together"

you know that is false.

you have simply made it up like most of SNP propaganda

You know nothing about Putney and why council tax is cheap there.

let me be quite clear : you know you are being deliberately untruthful
but no change there from an SNP acolyte

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

You know nothing about Putney and why council tax is cheap there.

I can assure you I do as we discussed this recently

CLAPTON wrote: »

let me be quite clear : you know you are being deliberately untruthful
but no change there from an SNP acolyte

Your not clear and you are not debating my point, only spreading false accusations to deter from the fact you are not debating why the Barnett formula was introduced and reflects the devolved costs.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I can assure you I do as we discussed this recently



Your not clear and you are not debating my point, only spreading false accusations to deter from the fact you are not debating why the Barnett formula was introduced and reflects the devolved costs.

I am saying the Barnett formula was NOT determined by the density of population is Scotland.

It may well be that the density of population SHOULD be a minor factor in determining NEED, but the corrupt Barnett formula for Scotland was NOT so determined.

You have precisely NO information to support your case as it's UNTRUE.

BY all means quote the relevant passage in the Barnett formula to illustrate your point.

And as far as Putney is concerned you are a ignorant fool and know nothing about how and why support grants are distributed in London.
You clearly know nothing about Thatcher favourite borough.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

I am saying the Barnett formula was NOT determined by the density of population is Scotland.

Then you are ill informed, but no surprise there.

Why was it created?
The Barnett Formula was designed as a temporary measure but has lasted for 30 years.
Lord Barnett, then the Labour chief secretary to the Treasury, drew up a system for the division of public spending in 1978 partly to settle rows with other Cabinet ministers about spending allocations, and partly to allow for Scotland's larger physical area, lower average incomes and its particularly acute needs in health care and housing.

CLAPTON wrote: »

And as far as Putney is concerned you are a ignorant fool and know nothing about how and why support grants are distributed in London.
You clearly know nothing about Thatcher favourite borough.

Stick to the points made Clapton.
My S-I-L lived in Glendarvon Street, Putney and for the life of me can't recall how we got onto it, but we were discussing council tax bills.
Comparatively, Putney was far cheaper.

Even a quick google search confirms this, but then again, you were not very good at sticking to facts are you.

Putney
[/IMG]

Aberdeen


Aberdeenshire


Please, please, please continue to show yourself up.

Incidentally, why was Thatcher brought into this discussion?
Let the woman rest

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

And as far as Putney is concerned [!!!!!!!!]you are a ignorant fool [/bollock] and know nothing about how and why support grants are distributed in London.

Just going back to this.

Are you suggesting that the good people of Putney are subsidized for their council tax?

How is that fair to the good hard working people of Yorkshire?

elantan

Prudent wrote: »

I know three Scottish people that didn't vote. Two were Tory voters and had to dash away for a couple of days to look after ill relative, the other was too ill herself to vote and wasn't sure which way to vote. The only thing she knew for definite was that it wouldn't have been a vote for the SNP. This statement doesn't make either of us right about which way the vote would have swung if these people had voted. Unless they turned actually voted it is pure speculation.

I agree ,,, but I am not Hamish and trying to make a stupid point about 35%

elantan

pondskater wrote: »

I am surprised that someone who is apparently very interested in politics and very pro snp would fail to use their vote and that so many other people that you know who ALL support snp didn't vote either. I would be very interested in knowing the thinking behind such a decision or were you all busy that day?

everyone had their own reasons ... I certainly wasnt busy that day and stood outside the polling station chatting to friends for a while ( not campaigning as I didnt think that was the right thing for me to do) I am interested in politics not all my friends were ..

My reason for not voting was because I didnt ( and dont) trust the system, nothing to do with apathy before anyone suggests it is

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Then you are ill informed, but no surprise there.





Stick to the points made Clapton.
My S-I-L lived in Glendarvon Street, Putney and for the life of me can't recall how we got onto it, but we were discussing council tax bills.
Comparatively, Putney was far cheaper.

Even a quick google search confirms this, but then again, you were not very good at sticking to facts are you.

Putney
[/IMG]

Aberdeen


Aberdeenshire


Please, please, please continue to show yourself up.

Incidentally, why was Thatcher brought into this discussion?
Let the woman rest

the Barnett formula was NOT designed because of the the density : even your quote doesn't support that.

How the formula works[edit]
The formula consists of a baseline plus increases to central Government funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland based on increases in public spending in England in comparable programmes, applied in proportion to current populations:[2][6]

Extra funding
in Scotland, Wales
or Northern Ireland = Extra funding
in England × Population proportion
compared to England × The extent to which the relevant English
departmental programme is comparable with the
services carried out by the devolved administration
For example, in 2000, the Scottish and Welsh populations were taken to be 10.34% and 5.93% (respectively) of England's population. For programmes in the Department of Health, the comparability factor for Scotland and Wales was 99.7%. Therefore, if £1 billion was to be added to planned health expenditure in England, then the extra amount added to the Scottish block, compared to the year before, would be £1bn x 10.34% x 99.7% = £103 million, and the amount added to the Welsh block would be £1bn x 5.93% x 99.7% = £59.1 million.[2]

The original calculation was based on incorrect population estimates, and no attempt has been made to adjust for these errors.[7]

The formula applies only to expenditure on issues which the devolved administrations (as opposed to UK central government) are responsible for. Its principle is that any increase or reduction in expenditure in England will automatically lead to a proportionate increase or reduction in resources for the devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Analogous arrangements apply to categories of expense which are only controlled by some of the devolved governments. The formula is not applied to all public expenditure, but is the default option if no other decisions are made. Expenditure is allocated en bloc, not by service, allowing each devolved administration to allocate these funds as it believes appropriate.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Then you are ill informed, but no surprise there.





Stick to the points made Clapton.
My S-I-L lived in Glendarvon Street, Putney and for the life of me can't recall how we got onto it, but we were discussing council tax bills.
Comparatively, Putney was far cheaper.

Even a quick google search confirms this, but then again, you were not very good at sticking to facts are you.

Putney
[/IMG]

Aberdeen


Aberdeenshire


Please, please, please continue to show yourself up.

Incidentally, why was Thatcher brought into this discussion?
Let the woman rest

I have no idea how the CT in Scotland works or how it is subsidised by Holyrood.
So I wouldnot wish to compare Scottish CT with London as I know only one side.
You clearly have no idea how London CT is subsidised but obviously such ignorance doesn't stop you making up a story if it seems to suit an absurd pro-SNP idea.

If density was a major factor then one conclude that most parts of London would have similar CT

so I show the CT for Lambeth (just down the road from Putney) for comparison with Putney (and you of course can compare with Scotland if you like)

d Market value of your home on 1 April 1991 Council tax 2015-16
A Up to £40,000 £825.80
B £40,001 to £52,000 £963.43
C £52,001 to £68,000 £1,101.06
D £68,001 to £88,000 £1,238.70
E £88,001 to £120,000 £1,513.97
F £120,001 to £160,000 £1,789.23
G £160,001 to £320,000 £2,064.50
H £320,001 and over £2,477.40

you will see there is no correlation between density of population and CT

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Lets be clear, Labour lost both in Scotland and in England.

You are also correct in that Cameron stoked up an English Nationalism in order to succeed in this election.

I absolutely abhor negative campaigning and this we would have a much more progressive country and forward thinking if we moved on from this.

Unfortunately, as verified by this election, fear and scaremongering wins over the electorate

That's the problem with Nationalism and my fear all along. The SNP has sent the country down a road of hate and fear that it's very difficult to get off again.