Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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.

Nobody really cares what the West Midlands contributes though? It is obviously subsidised, as are many other small regions of the UK, including Scotland.

Last I checked however the West Midlands did not have a sizable and vocal minority trying to achieve independence and cut themselves off from the Westminster subsidy....

CLAPTON

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 = 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

I have no problem in saying that Scotland contributes more than one (or more) of the poor regions of England.

Unlike you and the SNP I think it fair that the poorer parts of the UK should be subsidised by the richer ones.

I don't think HS2 is value for money and would scrap it today.

Tromking

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

Shakey`s point was about England not the West Midlands specifically.
I wonder where my area, the South West of England comes in the infrastructure spend league table. I too must be due a rebate!:)
As a UK citizen however I`m happy to share the risks and benefits and pay my taxes for the greater good as decided by my elected representatives.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nobody really cares what the West Midlands contributes though? It is obviously subsidised, as are many other small regions of the UK, including Scotland.

Last I checked however the West Midlands did not have a sizable and vocal minority trying to achieve independence and cut themselves off from the Westminster subsidy....

Hmm....are you sure about that?

Doesn't anyone remember the Bald Brummies party?

https://youtu.be/lqdZOGEU1qw?list=RDlqdZOGEU1qw

Shakethedisease

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.

Lets put it this way. If there was an English allocation/pot.. HS2 would be getting paid out of that. Furthermore, if there was an English GERS equivilent.. We could then look forward to acres and acres of graphs from Hamish detailing the English fiscal 'black hole's' and how England would never survive outwith the UK ( as an entity ).

The problem you have, is that you are associating England as meaning the UK. Which it is not. If all four nations had a devolved budget, and English expenditure etc was detailed like the Scottish/Welsh and NI budget allocations are. I think we can safely assume that there would be much less in the way of talk about 'subsidy junkies'. Because English only books would be scrutinised in exactly the same way as the other three. Not simply lumped in and deemed as vague 'UK' finances.

HS2 in the above case, would be a strictly English project. Not something which begins and ends in England but with a union jack slapped on it. In exactly the same way the new Forth Bridge is a Scottish project.

Time for much more transparency all round as ISTL states . Most especially when so many are keen on EVEL which will change how MP's can vote based entirely on their geographic region. And lets have much less in the way of focus on Scotland/Welsh and NI budgets. It's time England knew where it stands as well and stopped confusing/associating itself with the UK re finances. England is not the UK. Nor are it's finances. If Scotland, Wales and NI are net takers from the UK pot. The lets see what England as a whole ( not just London ) is too, under exactly the same criteria.

.string.

Shakey wrote:

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.

It could have been for a number of reasons, for example:
o To damage the SNP/Sturgeon as an aim in itself
o To gain an advantage for the LibDem Party
o To gain an advantage for his own re-election (*)
o To discomfort the Labour Party by showing that the SNP did nto like Miliband and put the LibDem in a better relative standng
o To discomfort the French (probably not)

I know that you want me to plumb for the one marked (*) to help the argument that he derived political capital out of it but while I think that is possible I doubt it since he would know that the leak would have been traced to his area of control and that he could expect some nasty fall-out from it. He would not anticipated, I think, the collapse of the LibDem vote so it is possible that would not have been a large factor.

Whatever - as I wrote, I would have sacked him for that from the job he had. The enquiry should have been done quicker.

But I don't hold with maintaining continual punishment for such things when, as I said, there are such things going on from all sides.

These are all political acts and political accusations and counter accusations. Salmond's recent remarks would be termed libelous outside politics unless he could prove them in a court of law.

As you would possibly agree, there is a sliding scale in spin from presenting of facts through selective presentation through interpretations to extrapolations to outright falsifying. "Un-truths" start at one end and are fully fledged lies at the other. At some stage they become unacceptable, a term which in the end is subjective.

Having said all that I have to admit that I have never voted Liberal (in the UK) - too fluffy by half for my liking. It comes with wooly thinking I reckon.

chewmylegoff

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 = 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

Your calculation of "Westminster contribution" is bizarre. You have taken a figure for GDP per capita and deducted the identifiable public spending per capita and described this as a net contribution to "Westminster".

The reality is that taxes are less than 50% of GDP per capita and that public spending is far higher than tax revenue in both the West Midlands and Scotland. You can sleep easy in the knowledge that Scottish tax payers are receiving a net subsidy and are not making a "Westminster contribution" at all.

kabayiri

Tromking wrote: »

Shakey`s point was about England not the West Midlands specifically.
I wonder where my area, the South West of England comes in the infrastructure spend league table. I too must be due a rebate!:)
...

Would you settle for 3 free prescriptions and a couple of days of free advanced University level Maths tuition?

...as long as you promise not to demand that HS2 starts from Torquay, obviously.

kabayiri

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Your calculation of "Westminster contribution" is bizarre. You have taken a figure for GDP per capita and deducted the identifiable public spending per capita and described this as a net contribution to "Westminster".

The reality is that taxes are less than 50% of GDP per capita and that public spending is far higher than tax revenue in both the West Midlands and Scotland. You can sleep easy in the knowledge that Scottish tax payers are receiving a net subsidy and are not making a "Westminster contribution" at all.

Clearly modelled on the Billy Bleach methodology

https://youtu.be/y6QgHUJIQ5Q

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

If Scotland, Wales and NI are net takers from the UK pot. The lets see what England as a whole ( not just London ) is too, under exactly the same criteria.

What I do know is that all four nations cannot be net takers from the UK pot.:)
I`ll have a guess though that thanks largely to London and the South-East, England (as a whole) subsidises the other three.