Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You keep harping on about the Barnett Formula, however this is a prime example of how the people of Scotland are contributing 8.5% towards this, but not seeing the benefit from it.

It would be interesting to see how all this balances out in who is subsidising who and by how much.

Your "hatred" towards Scottish people for the Barnett Formula (but no grievance towards Northern Irish people who receive a higher percentage) is clearly apparent and may be unjustified.

8.5% of my tax is more than the £1,500 benefit Holyrood gets as a result of the Barnett Formula.

How many more "UK" infrastructures are benefiting a percentage of the population and nothing for the Scottish people?

Nevermind though Clapton, as long as it does not get in the way of spouting your "hatred" towards the Scottish people

The fact as HAMISH, who presumably doesn't hate Scottish people, points out is that Scotland has an additional £8bn spent on it proportionally than the rest of the UK. That's in addition to the £8.7bn deficit that Scotland runs in line with the rest of the UK.

I'm not sure it matters on whether that goes on schools, hospitals, roads or Nicola Sturgeon's lingerie budget. The fact is that this fiscal 'unfairness' that the SNP are trying to spin is a lie and have admitted as such.

Yes, Northern Ireland, and quite probably the Welsh for all I know, do even better and the fact is that most English people don't really give a damn about Barnett. What does annoy the English, or at least this Englishman, is that the Scots are somehow hard done by because they don't get ever more and more from a finite pot according to this increasingly ridiculous line spun by the SNP.

When I've been to places like Whitechapel and Stepney and seen the poverty there, that the SNP want to suck even more money from those places to pay for free parking is a disgrace.

IveSeenTheLight

Tromking wrote: »

Indeed.
I don`t see why anyone outside of Carmichael`s constituency should be asking for to him to stand down, and those voters who do live in Orkney/Shetland have the opportunity in 2020 to get rid.
Its called democracy people!

I recall writing to Alex Salmond and the Scottish Executive asking Kenny MacAskill (SNP) to step down after ruling that Abdel Al Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds.

I was incensed by this decision and despite being an SNP supporter and not living in Mr MacAskills constituency, believed that as a member of the public, I had a right to express my views.

I was so incensed that I chose not to vote for the SNP in the 2010 elections.

His actions as Secretary of State, means that he should have been accountable to the whole of the Scottish electorate, that's democracy.

Having an unscrupulous election campaign and narrowly holding your seat, but losing you cabinet position, should not mean that you are exempt for your actions as a cabinet minister at the time.

[edit]
On reflection, I think he had a grievance for NS after she politically out maneuvered him in the television campaigns, highlighting how out of touch he was as a Secretary of State for Scotland
[/edit]

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Scotland has an additional £8bn spent on it proportionally than the rest of the UK. That's in addition to the £8.7bn deficit that Scotland runs in line with the rest of the UK.

Hmmmmm.
Interesting manipulation of the data.
This is not meaning that Scotland spends £16.7bn more than the rest of the UK.

My point was this. If Scotland gains advantage as a result of the Barnett Formula and other regions gain benefit from Infrastructure spending (which clearly does not benefit Scotland), then how balanced are these.

Is proportionally more spent on ROUK regions than Scotland gains through the Barnett Formula?

Without admitting knowing the figures, I'm presenting an argument that potentially, these effectively cancel each other out.

The ROUK decides to spends it's benefits on the likes of HS2.
Scotland decides to spend it's benefits on University tuition and free prescriptions.

Is it possible that both sides should accept how each other spends their allocation?

Wouldn't it be great to see exactly where proportionally the revenue is generated and where the expenditure is cited?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

He used it as a simple example string. You know what they are don't you ? It's something you use to illustrate a wider point.

You know you are right! - that must have been why I wrote

.string. wrote:

.... Using the HS2 as an example, hIs reply was that they would ....

Well done Shakey!

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Do you know how she is going to fix this or is this just another of your sweeping predictions. Similar to ' and it's not doing them any good' comment above. And you know this because of what exactly? Did you or someone at WOS run another opinion poll or survey at the end of the week?

Yes, she's wrote about it today in the Record. I daresay you'll do a downer on it. But she is listening. My 'not doing them any good' comment was explained. Labour and the other parties are going to have to come up with some policies of their own. Simply repeating 'the SNP are bad because.....' to infinity, without offering a good alternative to the electorate isn't gaining them much in the way of increased support. As evidenced in 2007, 2011 and 2015. How many more elections do they want to lose ? You can surely see my point ? Being blinded by viseral hatred of the SNP is holding the other parties back, because they never talk about anything else. ( Oh and I don't visit Wings much ).

Nicola Sturgeon tells Record readers she wants Scottish education to be among best in the world: 'I have a sacred responsibility to make sure every young person gets the same chance to succeed'

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-tells-record-readers-5757414

As for slating poor Kezia, if we must descend to this level, then someone should tell Sturgeon she has a 'nodding dog toy' head when making points during speeches. Not forgetting her give away body language when struggling to answer questions in personal interviews, when the questions veer off her well rehearsed personal script or spin.

But then nobody's perfect IMO . Lol.

Yes you're right there. Nobody's perfect. :A

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Do you have an actual point to this post. Dodge what argument ? That's one thing I've never been guilty of on threads like these.

Do you think Carmichael should resign string ? I asked you posts back. And you didn't answer. .....

Well I'll give you credit for being up for an argument but not for responding to the arguments put forward in others' posts. You do too much ducking and weaving for that.

Regarding me answering you question, well it has already been answered even before you started pretending it hadn't.

I posted my opinion on this some time ago – see here

In that I gave my opinion, qualified by an uncertainty as to whether he deliberately leaked something he knew to be untrue at the time – see here, which includes your response where you posted “He stated himself that he knew the memo contents weren't accurate.” , and which included his letter of apology to Sturgeon.

Later I observed, contrary to what was being claimed by some posts including yours, that he did not admit in that letter to knowing it was false prior to releasing it.

This appears to be confirmed here, where it also stated that the report of the conversation was thought to be accurate.

So my opinion is clear enough for those that care to read what I write.

Since you clearly don't – then Yes I think he would have deserved sacking from the job he held when he allowed the leak but No I don’t think he should resign his seat as MP.

Since you seem to think that lying is cause for resigning a seat, then why do you dodge the matter of McGarry giving, by her own admission, a false oath of allegiance?

Or do you still want to go on dancing around a straight answer?

And when does malicious spin become a seat resigning issue? Has Salmond crossed that line by his self-demeaning slur against Mundell? He has no proof apparently, only spiteful innuendo.

Froggitt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You keep harping on about the Barnett Formula, however this is a prime example of how the people of Scotland are contributing 8.5% towards this, but not seeing the benefit from it.

It would be interesting to see how all this balances out in who is subsidising who and by how much.

Your "hatred" towards Scottish people for the Barnett Formula (but no grievance towards Northern Irish people who receive a higher percentage) is clearly apparent and may be unjustified.

8.5% of my tax is more than the £1,500 benefit Holyrood gets as a result of the Barnett Formula.

What about the tax that I and the rest of the South East pay? We get no extra Barnett slosh.

Froggitt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

How many more "UK" infrastructures are benefiting a percentage of the population and nothing for the Scottish people?

What's that got to do with the price of eggs? Surely UK infrastructure spend goes wherever its most needed. Whether that's another M25, HS2, or Crossrail, not motorways and bridges to nowhere.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The Tories are a majority Government with almost 100 seats more than Labour.

A quick squizz at Wikipedia shows that there were 21 by-elections during the last Government all but 3 of which were held by incumbents (Tories gained 1 and lost 2 to UKIP).

During the previous one (2005-10) there were 16 seats vacated and 14 by-elections of which all but 5 were held by incumbents (2 Tory gains, 1 SNP gain, 1 Lab gain and 1 Lib Dem gain).

2001-2005 there were 6 by-elections, 4 were Labour holds and 2 were Labour losses to the Lib Dems.

1997-2001 there were 17 by-elections, 15 of which were held by the incumbents. 1 was a DUP gain from the UUP and a was a Tory loss to the Lib Dems.

So in 18 years there have been 58 by-elections. 12 of those seats changed hands and apparently in no way that would impact on a small minority.

What is interesting is that there seem to be far more by-elections in Labour seats than any others. 36 seats were held by Labour before the by-election (perhaps they are more likely to vote in old men?). That is against 12 Tory seats (including the 2 defections to UKIP).

I wouldn't get too carried away just yet.

Who was talking about by-elections ? I wasn't. The Tory majority is very small, it would only take a rebellion of 13 of them to make things difficult in 'passing laws and budgets'. There are already serious noises coming through about the scrapping of the Human Rights Act. Go and have a read up about how John Major got on with his between 1990 and 1997. Cameron will have to tread very carefully with his back benchers.

Yes, like I said, I wouldn't get too carried away with the Tories sweeping all before it for the next five years. Based on a slim majority of 12. Major had a majority of 21 and still struggled badly at times.

Major's second honeymoon as Prime Minister following his election win did not last long, as his majority proved too small for effective control over his backbenchers, many of whom were extremely hostile to the European Union....

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

It's almost like she's still gutted that the SNP are going to have the same level of power that the SDP did.

All those votes, about a third of the number that UKIP managed and slightly more than the Greens, and nothing to show for it but bitterness and hurt.

Oh well. There's always the Parish Council and dreams of bankrupting Scotland.

Nice try. I'm happy enough with how things went with this election.