Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Because other cities tried and failed to bid for the Olympics.

London bid and succeeded. One of the reasons is that the IOC was worried about how a million people would get about on public transport. For TfL that's less than the drop off in business they see every August as a result of Londoners taking holidays.

As Lord Coe said on a phone-in I listened to regarding the hosting of the Olympics. Why else would it be, Poole?

I absolutely agree, but what does that say about the governments distribution of the infrastructure throughout the UK?

If they had improved the infrastructure in other cities appropriately, then potentially other parts of the UK could have a chance outside the M25

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I absolutely agree, but what does that say about the governments distribution of the infrastructure throughout the UK?

If they had improved the infrastructure in other cities appropriately, then potentially other parts of the UK could have a chance outside the M25

Are you serious? Do you honestly expect Edinburgh with a population of less than half a million to be able to shift the same quantity of people as a city with a population of well over 8 million plus a heck of a lot of commuters.

Note that the largest number of passengers carried on the tube in a day has been surpassed since the Olympics:

The capital's masses need to get around and London Underground set new historic records for passenger numbers at the end of last year - a record 4.725m in one day during November, beating the 4.5m recorded during the London 2012 Games.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-31056626

Why on earth would Edinburgh need a mass transit system capable of transporting 9 times her population in a day? It would be madness and an utter waste of money.

Look at the cities that have had the Olympics of late. All bar Athens (which got it for obvious reasons) are massive cities. Edinburgh for all its charms is not a massive city.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And I think anyone ( from my perspective ) who wants a serious debate or discussion on anything to do with this topic.. well do you know that sound that used to come on when you switched the telly off in years gone past.... as soon as the words 'English largesse' and 'English taxpayers' are mentioned. Tend to switch off themselves.

Just because the English cry of subsidy junkie has to your ears become hackneyed and wearisome doesn't make it any less true.
Its a very powerful counter argument in England whenever the Scottish grievance culture is reported in the media Shakey, you do know that don`t you?
By "switching off" do you mean closing your eyes, sticking fingers in your ears and going la la la laa in the face of indisputable facts?

Tromking

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Fine. You have no issue with the Barnett Formula then, glad to put that to bed.

Happy to put it to bed, if you admit that Barnett is a democratically arrived at subsidy that isn`t based on need.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Are you serious? Do you honestly expect Edinburgh with a population of less than half a million to be able to shift the same quantity of people as a city with a population of well over 8 million plus a heck of a lot of commuters.

Who mentioned Edinburgh? Why not Manchester where it would have been more centralised in the UK?

On saying that, you bring up a great point about London already being extremely busy

Alternatively, why not spread the events throughout the UK.

The Glasgow commonwealth was not just held in Glasgow

Are people really unable to think outside the box and come up with alternative options which could offer a better solution all round and offer better distribution all round?

IveSeenTheLight

Tromking wrote: »

Happy to put it to bed, if you admit that Barnett is a democratically arrived at subsidy that isn`t based on need.

It's difficult to define "need" as I am not privvy to how the formula was derived.

Is need, just a financial context or does it consider remoteness

The simplest argument is that the democratically elected MP's STILL want to run with the Barnett Formula, else the parties would have manifested for a change.

The purpose of Barnett is to fairly distribute funds in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland based on the spend in England factored in with proportional population and a factor of the comparison between the devolved services and the English departmental programme

That said, Barnett also clearly advocated it was not based on need

No account is made of the amounts raised by taxation in each of the home nations, nor the relevant fiscal need (based on factors such as sparsity of population, cost of travel, unemployment rates, health, age distribution of the population, road lengths, recorded crimes, and numbers of sub-standard dwellings) in each area. The Barnett formula never claimed to address these issues and was a basic calculation on the basis of proportions of the population.[15][16]

Specifically related to "needs" though: -

A Needs Assessment Study was undertaken by the Treasury in 1979 in preparation for planned devolution, to assess the relative needs just with respect to the policy areas which were to be devolved (i.e. excluding non-devolved Government spending such as social security). This study was updated in 1993. Both studies found the highest need for devolved services in Northern Ireland, followed by Scotland, then Wales, and finally England.

Which would seem to justify the Barnett Formula on the basis that Northern Ireland gets the highest proportion, followed by Scotland, Wales and the England.

So yes, I agree that the Barnett Formula is not needs based, but subsequent studies have verified that the formula does apportion correctly in terms of the subsequent needs based studies.

Can we agree on that?

Enterprise_1701C

I have a question. Who paid for the Scottish parliament building? £400 odd million?

Tromking

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So yes, I agree that the Barnett Formula is not needs based, but subsequent studies have verified that the formula does apportion correctly in terms of the subsequent needs based studies.[/B][/COLOR]

Can we agree on that?

LOL.
As long as you concede that for Scotland`s needs to met you a require a bung from the English!

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Who mentioned Edinburgh? Why not Manchester where it would have been more centralised in the UK?

On saying that, you bring up a great point about London already being extremely busy

Alternatively, why not spread the events throughout the UK.

The Glasgow commonwealth was not just held in Glasgow

Are people really unable to think outside the box and come up with alternative options which could offer a better solution all round and offer better distribution all round?

The London Olympics were similarly not actually confined to the Olympic park or indeed even to Greater London. There were several venues used outside London - the football for instance was spread over the whole country (including Scotland and Wales); sailing was based at Poole; rowing was done in Buckinghamshire somewhere.

chewmylegoff

I see Sturgeon has made a speech demanding that the UK government must pay attention to the will of the Scottish people and abandon austerity policies.

Given that Scotland is already running a deficit which is greater as a % of GDP than the UK as a whole (roughly 8% in 13/14 including a geographical share of North Sea oil revenues vs. About 5.5% for the UK as a whole), the UK government seems to already be doing its bit. Meanwhile a UK government has been democratically elected on the basis of "austerity".

So, why then does Sturgeon not use her democratic mandate in order in impose addition taxes on the Scottish "rich", using the tax raising powers she already has, in order to fund more public spending? Why is the only option for the UK govt to borrow even more money and give it to Scotland to spend?