Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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?

the facts are that Scotland proportionately has more spent on it's infrastructure than the RoUK just as they have more block grant than Yorkshire

Its truely awesome how you, without knowing any facts whatsoever, nevertheless, conjecture that Scotland has no financial advantage.

Next you'll be making up nonsense facts about Scottish council tax .............

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

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.

So you don't think he should resign as an MP for a serious breach of protocol, lying for weeks and then admitting he was lying. And also keeping quiet through a completely needless and expensive tax payer funded inquiry. When even Lib Dem supporters/activists think in the main he should go for the good of the party. He'll cost them dear in trust issues. And this clip is going to haunt them all for the next five years.

http://news.channel4.com/election2015/04/05/update-931/

Fair enough. Then, no I don't think Natalie Mcgarry should resign over a deleted tweet about the oath. And no, I don't think Salmond has crossed the line. He's only saying what a lot of people are thinking. Mainly, that Mundell knew, and Carmichael has been asked to play patsy ( with obvious cross party support, and a media blackout.. in contrast to the hoo-haa when the story broke )..So that Carmichael will keep his seat, and Mundell can slip into SOS for Scotland shoes untainted. And anyway, the Lib Dems are the party of free speech.. they'd be the first surely to support Alex Salmond's right to state his opinion.

The much more interesting question to ask is WHY it was leaked. What do you think string ? What was Carmichael hoping to achieve ? Am very interested in your thoughts on this.

IveSeenTheLight

Froggitt wrote: »

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

Agreed, but you get additional spending and improvements outwith i.e. HS2, London Olympics etc.

Why was the Olympics not based elsewhere in the country?

There are a number of projects over the years and each and every year, which may balance (or more) the distribution through the Barnett Formula.

Like I said, because Westminster chooses to invest in the Millenium Dome whilst Scotland chooses free prescriptions that's the governments choices and may put to bed this perceived mismatch in why Scotland gets the Barnett Formula it does.

Let's get all the facts and figures clear to have an open understanding of where investment comes from and where it is spent.

IveSeenTheLight

Froggitt wrote: »

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.

It has to do with where the revenue is received and the expenditure is spent.

Many are complaining about the Barnett Formula, but if it balances, or potentially is insufficient to balance the proportionate spend in relation to the revenues created, then it is an important factor to consider

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

the facts are that Scotland proportionately has more spent on it's infrastructure than the RoUK

Is it fact?
Please show clearly the facts for us all to see.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Is it fact?
Please show clearly the facts for us all to see.

well, you're sure the opposite is true so show me your facts (and please not like the rubbish about council tax etc which two minutes on the internet would have shown you)

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

well, you're sure the opposite is true so show me your facts (and please not like the rubbish about council tax etc which two minutes on the internet would have shown you)

I clearly stated that "without knowing the figures", I raise a query, I proposed a premise.

You have stated a fact, which I was keen for you to share, hence asked you to do so.

Unless you are as unscrupulous as Alastair Carmichael, I'm sure you'll share these facts

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Agreed, but you get additional spending and improvements outwith i.e. HS2, London Olympics etc.
...

It's unwise to include a once in a generation event like the Olympics as a justification for capital spend allocation.

We might have to wait another 60 years for another to be awarded to UK. Using Barnett of circa £8bn that's 60 * 8 = nearly half a TRILLION pounds of Barnett money before the next 20bn is spent.

We shouldn't forget Glasgow Commonwealth games either.

Perhaps we should reallocate the Barnett money on a round robin basis, moving between SW / SE / Midlands / NW / Yorkshire / NE / NI / Scotland / Wales - many of comparable size in number terms.

This would avoid those pesky Bristol / Leeds / Hull / Manchester / Birmingham / Coventry / Leicester / Hull / Newcastle / Liverpool inhabitants complaining that they never get the Olympics.

Lest we forget at one point Holyrood was the most expensive office block space (per cu foot) in UK. Edinburgh tram system was also very expensive. A new billion pound hospital has just opened in Glasgow.

Nobody is neglecting Scotland.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I clearly stated that "without knowing the figures", I raise a query, I proposed a premise.

You have stated a fact, which I was keen for you to share, hence asked you to do so.

Unless you are as unscrupulous as Alastair Carmichael, I'm sure you'll share these facts

I gave you the facts and figures about the relative values of council tax in Scotland and England

using the logic that you yourself proposed, it showed that the cost of provision of services was higher in England than Scotland, so that there was a good argument that Scotland should receive a lower block grant than England

do you accept the conclusion?

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

It's unwise to include a once in a generation event like the Olympics as a justification for capital spend allocation.

True, but it's location certainly should have been considered.

Why not Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle or Cardiff?
Where other locations considered?
What made London the location of choice?

kabayiri wrote: »

We shouldn't forget Glasgow Commonwealth games either.

Very True, as with the Manchester.

kabayiri wrote: »

Nobody is neglecting Scotland.

I'm not suggesting they are.

I'm suggesting that the spend through Barnett or in other regions of the UK, may indeed be balanced if weighted against the proportional revenue and expenditure of each area.

Hence, why it would be great to see a breakdown of the stats, for total clarity and openness in discussions