Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Not my first choice either and hugely facetious if I may say so .

Open to any sane suggestions on what could be done to change the direction on the path we are currently on or do you think we should continue down this London centric route?

perhaps we could learn from scotland ?

how are they moving away from a central belt centric economy?

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Not my first choice either and hugely facetious if I may say so .

Open to any sane suggestions on what could be done to change the direction on the path we are currently on or do you think we should continue down this London centric route?

Well you cited Berlin as an example - there are particular historical reasons why Germany has developed in that way - Frankfurt became Germany's financial centre as a direct result of the fall out of WW2 and had that not happened Berlin would no doubt represent a much bigger % of German GDP. The city is designed to accommodate a much larger population than it currently houses and has ongoing unemployment issues as a result of its historic situation.

Paris is perhaps a better comparator and it dominates the French economy in a similar way to London's domination of the UK's economy.

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Paris is perhaps a better comparator and it dominates the French economy in a similar way to London's domination of the UK's economy.

So maybe not a good comparitor for progressive diversified economy.

Your simply promoting that we should be a centric society

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Yet only months ago you were super-duper sure that the Scots were paying a huge subsidy to the English! How can it work one way but not the other?

Have you forgotten your own arguments or are you just assuming that the rest of us are too stupid to remember what you said.

To be fair, the latter seems to be standard SNP debating policy.

Oooh get you old stroppy pants. :rotfl: There needs to be much more in the way of transparency. Too much focus on Scotland over the last few years. Not enough on England and the part the 'region' plays towards the UK in terms of finances. The UK borrows, lets see where the money goes.

GERS is basic and made up using a lot of guesswork. Lets have an English only GERS, then everyone will know where they stand. And we can finally put this issue to bed. And who should pay for an English only HS2.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

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?

No not really. Half the Scottish electorate isn't listening anymore. They don't believe in those 'indisputable facts'.. not when it emanates from Westminster, or from posters like yourself. And certainly not from those who have to use 'guesswork' to justify 'indisputable facts'...like you do.

I know full well how the subsidy junkie thing plays in England. And that's fine by me. Hopefully you'll all be really desperate to get rid before too long.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No not really. Half the Scottish electorate isn't listening anymore. They don't believe in those 'indisputable facts'.. not when it emanates from Westminster, or from posters like yourself. And certainly not from those who have to use 'guesswork' to justify 'indisputable facts'...like you do.

I know full well how the subsidy junkie thing plays in England. And that's fine by me. Hopefully you'll all be really desperate to get rid before too long.

That's true and is why Nicola must use the results of the Scottish elections next year (or any other random issue) as an endorsement of independence and demand a new referendum.

YES result guaranteed this time round.

Tromking

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

When you look at the figures, Scotland's contribution outweighs ALL other regions of the UK other than London and the South East.

Those are the facts.

Why is it England as a whole one minute, then English regions the next?
Isn't the more pertinent comparator, not what some regions pay in, but what they get out?
Anyway, I`m not sure the Scots deserve the 'subsidy' just because its the home of the British oilfields.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They don't believe in those 'indisputable facts'.. not when it emanates from Westminster, or from posters like yourself.

Although those facts were quite telling for some of the 55% in the indyref last year I seem to remember.
The economic case for an independent Scotland was apparently not made palatable to enough of the Scots people I understand.The economic case question in its simplest terms being, stay in the Union and keep the subsidy or go it alone and lose it?
It`s a toughy!

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Although those facts were quite telling for some of the 55% in the indyref last year I seem to remember.
The economic case for an independent Scotland was apparently not made palatable to enough of the Scots people I understand.The economic case question in its simplest terms being, stay in the Union and keep the subsidy or go it alone and lose it?
It`s a toughy!

Yes that's correct. The economic case for an independent Scotland was not made by any of the newspapers, media or government reports. Those who wanted to balance their reading/watching, had to go online and find it for themselves.

However, it seems the economic case was 'flexible' and the facts were not quite 'indisputable' enough ... Because all three leaders went on to offer further powers in order to ensure the vote returned a No. If those facts had indeed been 'indisputable', then nothing further would've been offered. Especially in terms of financial levers for Scotland in terms of raising it's own taxes etc. One of the things that was a big 'can never be done/red line' until about a week before the vote.

( but don't get me wrong, I think the Smith commission is a bad fudge as it stands ).

The next time round, I suspect the newspapers, media and government reports will be making the case most successfully for Scottish independence. As will a fair proportion of the English electorate... ( well those that haven't signed the petition saying #takeuswithyouScotland that is ). And that 55% will disappear, as it already seems to be. As the same pound/EU arguments cannot be re-run either.

Support for Scottish independence has increased since last autumn's independence referendum, with all ages groups except pensioners now in favour of secession, a new poll shows.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-poll-shows-that-more-scots-would-vote-yes-than-at-last-years-referendum-10274406.html

Time, and the Tories in power for the next 5 years will do the rest I daresay.

Froggitt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Why was the Olympics not based elsewhere in the country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_bid_for_the_1992_Summer_Olympics


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_bid_for_the_2000_Summer_Olympics


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_bid_for_the_1996_Summer_Olympics