Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I can see that

London gets 24 times as much spent on infrastructure per resident than north-east England

And the central belt of Scotland likely gets 24 times as much spent on infrastructure as the North of Scotland.

#CentralBeltBias

Scotland's 3rd largest city Aberdeen doesn't even have a dual carriageway connecting it with the capital of the highlands, Inverness... Nor for that matter does Inverness and Perth.

The Dualling of the A9 and A96 have been on hold since the Scottish Executive was brought in and dozens of people die each year as a result.

But Edinburgh now has trams, Glasgow got another motorway, the Holyrood parliament boondoggle got built, and the SNP govt cared so much about the North they underspent on £444m of infrastructure spending last year, so I guess we should just shut up and take it.

Generali

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.

Lady Thatcher wanted to destroy Corporatism (not the same thing as big companies) and went some way to succeeding.

The biggest shame about Mr Cameron is that he has been unable to continue her work. Hopefully in his second term he will.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And the central belt of Scotland likely gets 24 times as much spent on infrastructure as the North of Scotland.

#CentralBeltBias

Scotland's 3rd largest city Aberdeen doesn't even have a dual carriageway connecting it with the capital of the highlands, Inverness... Nor for that matter does Inverness and Perth.

The Dualling of the A9 and A96 have been on hold since the Scottish Executive was brought in and dozens of people die each year as a result.

But Edinburgh now has trams, Glasgow got another motorway, the Holyrood parliament boondoggle got built, and the SNP govt cared so much about the North they underspent on £444m of infrastructure spending last year, so I guess we should just shut up and take it.

Maybe as being one of the nations that made up the nation of Scotland, Norse could have a referendum to become part of the English nation instead.

I would expect Norse would get a fair share of oil revenues.

zagubov

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And the central belt of Scotland likely gets 24 times as much spent on infrastructure as the North of Scotland.

#CentralBeltBias

Scotland's 3rd largest city Aberdeen doesn't even have a dual carriageway connecting it with the capital of the highlands, Inverness... Nor for that matter does Inverness and Perth.

The Dualling of the A9 and A96 have been on hold since the Scottish Executive was brought in and dozens of people die each year as a result.

But Edinburgh now has trams, Glasgow got another motorway, the Holyrood parliament boondoggle got built, and the SNP govt cared so much about the North they underspent on £444m of infrastructure spending last year, so I guess we should just shut up and take it.

Im afraid under Labour Holyrood rule (and the usual two parties in Westminster), Scotland didn't join any two of its cities together by motorway. Even Glasgow and Edinburgh's supposedly linking motorway, the M8, had a gap. There's no motorway even to Dundee from Edinburgh, never mind Aberdeen or Inverness.

As regards the underspend, heaven forbid Holyrood should try to live within its means.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

Im afraid under Labour Holyrood rule (and the usual two parties in Westminster), Scotland didn't join any two of its cities together by motorway. Even Glasgow and Edinburgh's supposedly linking motorway, the M8, had a gap. There's no motorway even to Dundee from Edinburgh, never mind Aberdeen or Inverness.

As regards the underspend, heaven forbid Holyrood should try to live within its means.

It would seem that Scotland suffers from the same disease as England : maintains spending on benefits and cuts infrastructure.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure the point that's being made here. Is it basically an anti English rant or a serious point of interest?

One would expect to spend infrastructure money where it is most needed and where the return on the investment is greatest.

The growth in population in the NE over the last 15 years was about 0.1 million but London has grown by 2-3 million.

Not a rant, just an observation that the moeny is spent promoting and expanding London as opposed to other areas of the UK.

Have you ever stopped to consider why London population has increased more than other parts of the country?
Is it because people see that London is the place to be with all the development going on?

Maybe if the policy was to promote other areas of the country ahead of London, then we would see a more diverse country.

I have heard a lot about expanding Heathrow or Gatwick (lets not forget Boris Island) to achieve more capacity, but I also hear that Manchester ALREADY has additional capacity of 32 Million.

What would seem a natural choice is being overlooked by the politicians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/choose-manchester-to-improve-uks-airport-capacity-8368796.html

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...
I have heard a lot about expanding Heathrow or Gatwick (lets not forget Boris Island) to achieve more capacity, but I also hear that Manchester ALREADY has additional capacity of 32 Million.
...

That 32 million additional capacity is already factored in I understand.

It will not take away the need for expansion of Heathrow.

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And the central belt of Scotland likely gets 24 times as much spent on infrastructure as the North of Scotland.

Soundbite or fact.
Link please

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

so I guess we should just shut up and take it.

No we don't.

I'm sure you are aware that the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route is underway now.
As is the Tipperty to Balmedie Dual carriageway link, expected to be completed by Spring 2017.

But in your clamour to blame SNP, you seem to have overlooked non SNP councils who blocked previously approved plans i.e. Barney Crocket (Labour) and his ilk blocking things like the Union Terrace gardens revamp which was being helped with funding to the tune of £50 million by Sir Ian Wood.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Not a rant, just an observation that the moeny is spent promoting and expanding London as opposed to other areas of the UK.

Have you ever stopped to consider why London population has increased more than other parts of the country?
Is it because people see that London is the place to be with all the development going on?

Maybe if the policy was to promote other areas of the country ahead of London, then we would see a more diverse country.

I have heard a lot about expanding Heathrow or Gatwick (lets not forget Boris Island) to achieve more capacity, but I also hear that Manchester ALREADY has additional capacity of 32 Million.

What would seem a natural choice is being overlooked by the politicians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/choose-manchester-to-improve-uks-airport-capacity-8368796.html

You may be right that the UK government spends a lot of money encouraging immigration into London.

One wonders why foreigners don't choose to use Manchester or Glascow airports as there seem spare capacity there.

Given the increase in houses prices in London and the gross overcrowding on their transport system, one may speculate that building and infrastructure is behind the curve rather than in front.

Personally I would prefer the government to be moved north; maybe Midlands or Manchester/ Sheffield/ Leeds area to encourage an alternative centre to London.

London is however a world ranking city and is a major wealth provider and I would want to keep it so.

One may ponder why the net migration to Scotland is relatively low.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

That 32 million additional capacity is already factored in I understand.

It will not take away the need for expansion of Heathrow.

Maybe needs a deeper looking into.

The representative on 5-Live the other days implied that they had not factored in or considered Manchester's current available capacity