Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

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)

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

I've lived and paid CT in both boroughs for many years. They're both outliers and they used to feature in the local press, as examples of extreme high and low charges (well that was the case back in the 80s/90s), to show the benefits of living in a Tory rather than a Labour borough.

From a SW London perspective, not sure they're good exemplars. Lambeth had one of the highest in the country IIRC.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

I've lived and paid CT in both boroughs for many years. They're both outliers and they used to feature in the local press, as examples of extreme high and low charges (well that was the case back in the 80s/90s), to show the benefits of living in a Tory rather than a Labour borough.

From a SW London perspective, not sure they're good exemplars. Lambeth had one of the highest in the country IIRC.

of course you are correct the CT in the Putney proves absolutely nothing about the Barnett formula

and it illustrates that ISTL hasn't a clue what he is talking about; although there is no change there.

Enterprise_1701C

Sapphire wrote: »

For those that argue that the Conservatives alarmed the English in particular by 'stoking up English nationalism' with some kind of anti-SNP/Labour stance, they did not do that in my view.

Nicola Sturgeon's remarkably hostile rhetoric very obviously did that all on its own. I do not think that the majority of the English welcome the sort of sectarianism that Sturgeon and Salmon advocate – particularly in view of how sectarianism is currently operating in countries in the Middle East (for example). I also think that many people in other parts of the UK object to the fact that Scotland receives preferential treatment over the rest of the Kingdom (I think at the expense of British taxpayers), and they were concerned that should the SNP enter into some kind of pact with labour, this problem would be intensified.

Thankfully, common sense prevailed, and hopefully this government will ensure that the whole of the United Kingdom is treated fairly.

Fantastic post :T

Everybody had some negativity in their campaigns though, not least of all the accusation that the NHS will be privatised if the Conservatives got in.

The simple fact is that the people chose the Conservatives as the people they wished to lead them for the next 5 years, regardless of all the petty arguments, regardless that Scotland did not vote for them, regardless of the fact there are people of other parties in parliament as MPs.

Statistics can be made to say anything, but we need to just settle down now and let the Government continue to put everything straight.

Tromking

The irony of those putting forward the idea of Scotland as a country being held back by the Union yet simultaneously desperate to justify and thus hang on to the Barnett subsidy is not lost on some English people it must be said.
A cynic would say that the cash is needed by the SNP to dupe the infantilised Scots electorate into thinking that life after independence under a progressive SNP government would be all sweetness and light.

ruggedtoast

If Scotland gets FFA and ends up obviously worse off, what then? They aren't going to blame the SNP, and the SNP certainly won't blame themselves.

As Scotland is actually a region of the UK, which had voted to stay as such, maybe we can come to a financial agreement which is fair for everyone, rather than some stupid zero sum game designed for political gain which leaves actual people worse off everywhere.

I appreciate that effecting such a strategy is something that is probably completely beyond David Cameron's Conservative party, (and possibly the SNP for all I know) but maybe someone could come up with some ideas of where they could start.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If Scotland gets FFA and ends up obviously worse off, what then? They aren't going to blame the SNP, and the SNP certainly won't blame themselves.

As Scotland is actually a region of the UK, which had voted to stay as such, maybe we can come to a financial agreement which is fair for everyone, rather than some stupid zero sum game designed for political gain which leaves actual people worse off everywhere.

I appreciate that effecting such a strategy is something that is probably completely beyond David Cameron's Conservative party, (and possibly the SNP for all I know) but maybe someone could come up with some ideas of where they could start.

You mean like borrowing even more money ?

Dividing a budget up does tend to be a zero sum gain : if you give more to one party then there is less left for the other unless you have a magic money tree.

Of course one could look at improving efficiency so more is produced for the same money but the SNP have ruled out things like that.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

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.

Generali,

The only people who mention or bring up hate are the so called Unionists.

Cameron, as leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, someone who was (during the referendum) and appears to be reverting to believing in the Union, however in the Election campaign, he was very adept and stoking up English Nationalism and "hatred" towards the Scots.

The SNP are open and honest about their desire to be independent.

The Conservatives seem to sleekitly driving a wedge between our two countries during the election campaign.

No doubt it will return again in 2020

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

I have no idea how the CT in Scotland works or how it is subsidised by Holyrood.

There is no subsidy from Holyrood

CLAPTON wrote: »

You clearly have no idea how London CT is subsidised

Your correct, I didn't know London subsidized Council Tax, but thanks for bringing that to our attention

Tromking

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If Scotland gets FFA and ends up obviously worse off, what then? They aren't going to blame the SNP, and the SNP certainly won't blame themselves.

Well, no one can predict the finely-honed grievance SNP mindset, but seeing as this whole process is being driven by the SNP and 45/50% of the Scots electorate, I don`t see how they can look to anywhere else for someone to blame.

ruggedtoast

Tromking wrote: »

Well, no one can predict the finely-honed grievance SNP mindset, but seeing as this whole process is being driven by the SNP and 45/50% of the Scots electorate, I don`t see how they can look to anywhere else for someone to blame.

They'll blame Westminster,and they'll be right. If FFA will leave British citizens in one part of the UK worse off then they shouldn't have it. It's up to our National government to provide a workable solution, not pandering to political caprice of regional parties.

This would be a great opportunity for Cameron to prove he actually does care about Scots and take the lead away from Sturgeon in looking for a workable solution. He could show that the Tories actually do care about more than one subset of affluent English people in the Home Counties and the government could lead the conversation about Scotland for once, rather than just reacting to what the SNP say.

I'm not holding my breath.