Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

You seem to have missed quoting the figures for income generation.

Do you agree that Scotland contributes £3,085 more to Westminster than the West Midlands?

Can you therefore accept that even with the Barnett Formula resulting in an additional £1,600 per head, the nett result is that Scotland STILL contributes more to Westminster than the West Midlands

Scotland
Income £20,571 - Expenditure (Barnett) £10,152 = Westminster Contribution £10,419

West Midlands
Income £17,486 - Expenditure £8,498 = Westminster Contribution £8,988

Proportionally, Scotland has paid more towards HS2 than the people of West Midlands who will directly benefit from that "unidentified" public expenditure.

All that with Barnett included, so can you accept that on this basis, the Barnett Formula is fair

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

Just go for FFA

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You seem to have missed quoting the figures for income generation.

Do you agree that Scotland contributes £3,085 more to Westminster than the West Midlands?

Can you therefore accept that even with the Barnett Formula resulting in an additional £1,600 per head, the nett result is that Scotland STILL contributes more to Westminster than the West Midlands

Scotland
Income £20,571 - Expenditure (Barnett) £10,152 = £10,419

West Midlands
Income £17,486 - Expenditure £8,498 = £8,988

Proportionally, Scotland has paid more towards HS2 than the people of West Midlands who will directly benefit from that "unidentified" public expenditure.

All that with Barnett included, so can you accept that on this basis, the Barnett Formula is fair

It is obviously unfair because it does not allow for variations in income; for example a slump in oil revenue.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

It is obviously unfair because it does not allow for variations in income; for example a slump in oil revenue.

Or indeed 34 consecutive years where Scotland contributed more.

Hence why I said, open clear fully inclusive accounts to look at what is generated where and where the expenditure is located.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

Are you sure?
Besides, you can`t be a net taker from the UK pot as Scotland is, and then claim that infrastructure investment in the rUK is not to Scotland`s benefit.

IveSeenTheLight

Tromking wrote: »

Are you sure?
Besides, you can`t be a net taker from the UK pot as Scotland is, and then claim that infrastructure investment in the rUK is not to Scotland`s benefit.

You may have missed the last few posts.

Using Clapton's link, it has been verified that Scotland is a nett contributor to the UK pot when compared to West Midlands, whilst HS2 for example benefits the people of West Midlands significantly more than it benefits the people of Scotland

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Or indeed 34 consecutive years where Scotland contributed more..

Scotland has required a subsidy in all but 3 of the last 15 years, and the subsidy required is currently getting bigger and bigger.

kabayiri

Tromking wrote: »

Are you sure?
Besides, you can`t be a net taker from the UK pot as Scotland is, and then claim that infrastructure investment in the rUK is not to Scotland`s benefit.

The Scottish people would rightly be the first to complain if all the jobs generated by HS2 went to just their English cousins.

Companies from all corners of the UK will be invited to bid for the large number of work packets which make up HS2.

It's just stupid and petty to try and divvy up capital spend on "how it affects me".

I've just dug out my tape measure and done a few checks. I don't think HS1 or the M4 or the M25 benefit me here up in the NW. Can I have my couple of quid back please?

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Scotland has required a subsidy in all but 3 of the last 15 years, and the subsidy required is currently getting bigger and bigger.

No one is arguing that Scotland gets the Barnett Formula, however using the specific example Clapton provided, it is clear that DESPITE Barnett allocation to Scotland, it still contributed more to Westminster Nett than the West Midlands did.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

I've just dug out my tape measure and done a few checks. I don't think HS1 or the M4 or the M25 benefit me here up in the NW. Can I have my couple of quid back please?

No-ones asking for money back, but I believe there was a large contingent questioning expenditure in the NW as well.