Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Froggitt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Which just exacerbates the problem.

Why should the people of Putney get a subsidy that almost halves the council tax of those in Aberdeen?

Council tax is based on property value, yet a home in Band H in Putney (£1409), may be vastly higher in value, yet pay almost half the equivalent band H in Aberdeen (£2460).

I think I'll go and have a look at the water and waste rates for Putney which also appear to be lower although hard to confirm as they are calculated on an RV rate.

Remember Putney/Wandsworth is an aberration. I have no clue why their Council Tax is half the amount of the rest of the South East.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

Not true. Thatcher's Government removed the subsidies to loss making, nationalised manufacturing firms. This was a continuation of the policies introduced by the previous Labour Government, including monetarism.

The Northern regions have had vast amounts of money thrown at them and remained (comparatively) moribund.

IMHO the solution to the problems of Northern England, Wales and NI are Docklands-style policies in limited areas, especially in the very poorest areas.

The Docklands faced most of the same problems as Liverpool. Docklands is now rich but Liverpool isn't. The failure isn't one of policy it's failing to recognise just how successful it was and could be for other places.

Oh come on Gen, she wanted to destroy the trade unions. Which she did admirably. Not least of all by ensuring they had as few members as possible.

I do agree with you about about the libertarianism, and I guess, Docklands too. Centrism doesn't work in the UK. I can't see any way that the regions outside of the SE can recover unless they are allowed to take some responsibility for their own destinies. I would like to see variable tax rates, as in America.

Places like Savannah and Columbus in Georgia, really exemplify what a motivated local government can do to spur growth if they actually have local control.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Oh come on Gen, she wanted to destroy the trade unions. Which she did admirably.

Yes she did.

She also wanted to destroy professional bodies which she did in equal measure.

Lady Thatcher wanted to get rid of groups that banded together to the disadvantage of the rest of us be they dentists, accountants or miners.

Thrugelmir

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Oh come on Gen, she wanted to destroy the trade unions. Which she did admirably. Not least of all by ensuring they had as few members as possible.

Trade Unions were their own worst enemy. In many respects they've become outdated anyway as employment law, health and safety law etc etc have evolved over the past decades.

The RMT's action yesterday is a timely reminder of what life used to be like.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Which just exacerbates the problem.

Why should the people of Putney get a subsidy that almost halves the council tax of those in Aberdeen?

Council tax is based on property value, yet a home in Band H in Putney (£1409), may be vastly higher in value, yet pay almost half the equivalent band H in Aberdeen (£2460).ethough hard to confirm as they are calculated on an RV rate.

you are unbelievably stupid and ignorant even about the situation in Scotland


1. CT in Scotland is subsidised by Holyrood:
the subsidy comes from the unfair Barnett formula block grant.
It is entirely up to SNP government how they chose to distribute it in Scotland

2. In England the subsidies to councils is part of the'English' block grant and NOT in addition to it, just as it is in Scotland.


3. Putney is very unusual in it's low CT and is no way typical of London.
So taking Lambeth (check with your sister that this is not a rural idyll but an disadvantaged urban area), the Band H CT is £2,447 compared to Aberdeenshire of £2282 (your figure)

Using your lunatic logic that would 'prove' that rural Aberdeenshire is cheaper to service than urban Lambeth thus proving that Scotland has an unfair advantage and doesn't 'need' so much money.

I of course, draw no such conclusion as your view is total nonsense.

4. As to why Aberdeen pays more than Putney, it due to the waste and squander of the Scottish government.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

you are unbelievably stupid and ignorant

Using your lunatic logic

Your losing the plot Clapton.

I've never seen a fisherman biting his on bait before

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Trade Unions were their own worst enemy.

Many many years ago as an apprentice, the company I worked for had a union which went into dispute.

I didn't understand what they had to complain about (10% increase up front with no increase for 2 years), but glad that as an apprentice, I was exempt from striking.

They may have had a value in the past, but I see no real value nowadays.

That said, I heard on the radio that some Railway union was balloting for strike and it is a usual ploy to exert pressure on reaching a deal if they show a mandate for strike from it's representation.

MumOf2

Voltaire7 wrote: »

Unfortunately for you they do speak for Scotland as that is what the people of Scotland voted for.

Maybe just stick to being a mum, deary

No, the 'people of Scotland' voted for SNP, Labour, Conservatives, etc. A portion voted for SNP. That does NOT mean SNP-ers own the saltire, the cultures and the values of Scotland. Scotland does not belong to the nationalists.


We left last year, thank goodness. Your pompous, deprecating, patronising tone is so typical of what we encountered that in the end we had no choice if we were to avoid being pushed into a minority corner of victimisation and abuse. And omg we're free here


And every time another person or couple or family leaves in exasperation of the nationalist takeover of Scotland means there will be fewer votes for maintaining the union, so in the end the SNP will get what they want. In the meantime, I just hope the Tories have the courage to give them FFA and scrap the Barnett formula then we can stop this ridiculous financial support of a socialist ideal that can't possibly support itself.

MumOf2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Which just exacerbates the problem.

Why should the people of Putney get a subsidy that almost halves the council tax of those in Aberdeen?

Council tax is based on property value, yet a home in Band H in Putney (£1409), may be vastly higher in value, yet pay almost half the equivalent band H in Aberdeen (£2460).

I think I'll go and have a look at the water and waste rates for Putney which also appear to be lower although hard to confirm as they are calculated on an RV rate.

People in England have to pay for their water (including standing charges) themselves direct to their water supply company. It is not included in Council Tax. We will be paying nearly £400 pa for standing charge and water actually used.

IveSeenTheLight

MumOf2 wrote: »

People in England have to pay for their water (including standing charges) themselves direct to their water supply company. It is not included in Council Tax. We will be paying nearly £400 pa for standing charge and water actually used.

I kept Water and sewarage out of my Council task costs and compared directly.



I too am paying £834.66 for water and waste