Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Tromking

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

LOL, nothing to do with Scotland.
I asked why other parts of the UK was not considered for benefiting from this infrastructure spend

They have been.
Birmingham was a candidate city previously and lost.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Oh Clapton, your'e losing it again.
Please keep up.

I have not inferred that Scotland is disadvantaged in this discussion today. I've been considering that your conjecture that England is disadvantaged, may indeed be balanced or not.

I've clearly stated I don't have the facts but it would be a useful if we did for an open discussion.

You claim to have the facts, but seem unwilling to share them.

Why is that? Is it because the truth is that your stated facts are indeed not fact?

Now then, time to move on unless you are willing to share said facts

whatever facts are given you won't accept them if they don't prove that Scotland isn't disadvantaged : just like your false argument about cost of council services in Scotland.

But since Birmingham has been mentioned in another context I thought it might be fun to quote a Midlands view.

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/regeneration/scotland-dwarfs-west-midlands-infrastructure-6351970

Scotland dwarfs West Midlands for infrastructure spending

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

whatever facts are given you won't accept them if they don't prove that Scotland isn't disadvantaged

Share the facts you claim to have an we'll see.

Until then, it's another falacy from Clapton.

Maybe I should change my signature: -

Now then, time to move on unless you are willing to share said facts

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If I have 9 points on a driving licence and get caught speeding, it does not matter if the time it goes to court, if the points on my licence are lower.

I'm assessed at the time of the incident, hence Carmichael should have been accountable from the time he held the position (IMHO).

He's used his position to promote clear fallacy, which he now meekly offers his apologies for.

This after blatantly knowing he was in the wrong.

Never mind though, he no longer is a member of the cabinet, so we'll just let him off then and see if the constituents remember in 5 years time.

B0llocks to that. He broke the MP's code of conduct and deliberately conned the electorate with a false story.

Morally, he should stand down and re-enter as a candidate if he believes the electorate would re-elect him.

At least that way, it's clear if the electorate in his constituency were willing to trust him going forward?

If we required all MPs (and MSPs) who have deliberately conned the electorate to resign there wouldn't be any left!

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

But since Birmingham has been mentioned in another context I thought it might be fun to quote a Midlands view.

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/regeneration/scotland-dwarfs-west-midlands-infrastructure-6351970

Lets look at two key sentences in your link: -

Government figures reveal that spending on public services in the West Midlands is currently £8,498 per person – compared with £10,152 per person in Scotland.

So Scotland gets £1,654 per head more than someone in West Midlands.

Economic output in Scotland is around £20,571 per person, roughly the same as the UK average, while it is £17,486 per person in the West Midlands.

However Scotland generate £3,085 per head more.

Or you could say that the West Midlands get 48.6% back of what it generates whilst Scotland gets back 49.35%.

Percentage wise, looks pretty balanced to me, unless you want to argue that the percentage needs to be equalised (0.75%)

But I'm also drawn to

Identifiable public spending in the West Midlands is £47.9 billion compared with £53.9 billion in Scotland.

So I'm keen to understand what is and where the unidentifiable spending is?

Is HS2 classed as unidentifiable regional spending, which at £50bn, gives the people of West midlands a huge advantage from that infrastructure spending.

You've not been keen to share the facts before, but I will be keen to see your response to the above from your link.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Indeed, and the good people of Orkney and Shetland may have that alleged deceit in their minds when they come to vote next, or maybe they won`t.:)
Under our system we don't vote for ministers or party officials, we vote for individuals to represent us in parliament for a 5 year term.
Agitators from outside have no say I`m afraid.

Yes, it's just a shame that it will be the MSP's that are standing next year that will carry the can for this I suppose. As for agitators from outside. Hmmm, well he's been referred to the Parliamentary standards committee.. and since the SNP now chair the Scottish Affairs committee. Mabye there are some ( many ) more questions to be asked in due course over this.

IveSeenTheLight

Tromking wrote: »

They have been.
Birmingham was a candidate city previously and lost.

Yes, I see.
This clip mocks how the investment in Birmingham led to the failed bid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGBp8nyPwl8

Maybe they would have been more successful if Westminster had invested more in Birmingham ahead of the bid.

Maybe HS2 will help any future bids for Birmingham

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

whatever facts are given you won't accept them if they don't prove that Scotland isn't disadvantaged : just like your false argument about cost of council services in Scotland.

But since Birmingham has been mentioned in another context I thought it might be fun to quote a Midlands view.

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/regeneration/scotland-dwarfs-west-midlands-infrastructure-6351970

If there's a big pot all UK taxpayers pay into. And Scotland, Wales and NI all get a block grant. With which infrastructure which only concerns that nation/region has to be paid out of ( see Forth Bridge, Commonwealth Games, Bordersrail line, Edinburgh Trams etc )....

Once the block grants have been allocated. Is all that's left in the pot English ? Surely HS2 is an English only project, and should come out of an English only pot. I mean no-one is saying that HS2 shouldn't go ahead, just that if it doesn't extend to Wales and Scotland, that it cannot truly be a UK wide project at all. And therefore, Welsh, Scottish and NI taxpayers shouldn't have to pay anything towards it. They have to pay for their own Scottish, Welsh or NI projects from their own allocations.

At a time where EVEL is about to be introduced, reducing MP's from the three devolved nations having a full say in budgets etc. It's perhaps also time to think about English Cash for English only Projects also. As this project, is clearly an English one, and not a UK wide one.

Time for either an English Parliament. Or for England to be allocated a slice of UK taxpayers money, on exactly the same basis as the other three nations for it's own infrastructure projects. With the rest put towards that which are truly are shared UK services and investments.

( A Welsh MP has also been questioning why Wales should contribute today ).

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Lets look at two key sentences in your link: -



So Scotland gets £1,654 per head more than someone in West Midlands.



However Scotland generate £3,085 per head more.

Or you could say that the West Midlands get 48.6% back of what it generates whilst Scotland gets back 49.35%.

Percentage wise, looks pretty balanced to me, unless you want to argue that the percentage needs to be equalised (0.75%)

But I'm also drawn to



So I'm keen to understand what is and where the unidentifiable spending is?

Is HS2 classed as unidentifiable regional spending, which at £50bn, gives the people of West midlands a huge advantage from that infrastructure spending.

You've not been keen to share the facts before, but I will be keen to see your response to the above from your link.

the facts we agree on

-Scotland gets £1,654 more per head than Midlands (and for other areas of England)
-infrastructure spend is a little more than the Midland
-tax generated is higher in Scotland than the Midlands

we note that the Midlands is not the richest place in the RoUK so one wouldn't expect its tax generation to be particularly high :

However as some-one that believes in fairness and reducing inequality, I believe that it is right to redistribute the riches of our great country fairly : so I would expect the the midlands would receive more than it generates.

Presumably in Scotland the rich central belt doesn't support the poorer highland areas ?

So your conjecture that Scotland gets less infrastructure spending seems not to be so, compared to the Midlands.
Of course you will reject the conclusion to bring in other conjectures : well you find out the facts for yourself and post them up.

kabayiri

It just goes to show how all this allocation business is a confused mess, with historic arrangements in place which are relics frankly.

I suggest we start with a clean sheet.

Scrap HS2.

Scrap the Barnett formula.

Allocate all regions, *including* Scotland, an amount of money based on per capita.

Then have a discretionary pot which different regions can bid for based on need.

Scotland would have a good case for additional temporary support because of the impact from oil revenue drops.

This is both fair AND transparent.