Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

We don't need or want an English version of GERS for each region, it's just spanking more money up the wall for no good reason.

Good attempt at deflection BTW. The point, if you recall, is that it's rather transparently ridiculous to try to claim that Scotland was subsidising the UK when the oil price was high but that the figures are unclear or misleading now oil prices are low.

So what changed? I mean apart from Scotland's fiscal position, if she had one, being entirely untenable.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

What your data show is that the extent of the subsidy to the West Midlands is greater than the subsidy to Scotland. London, as the part of the UK that pays its way, subsidies the rest of the country.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

We don't need or want an English version of GERS for each region, it's just spanking more money up the wall for no good reason.

Good attempt at deflection BTW. The point, if you recall, is that it's rather transparently ridiculous to try to claim that Scotland was subsidising the UK when the oil price was high but that the figures are unclear or misleading now oil prices are low.

So what changed? I mean apart from Scotland's fiscal position, if she had one, being entirely untenable.

What changed ? Hmmm let me think... 6 Westminster MP's to 56 MP's ? The third largest party.. all set to be completely ignored according to you ( 50% of the Scottish electorate, dismissed as irrelevant ). Then there's EVEL, curbing non-English MP's voting rights still further in Westminster.

And then there's things like HS2. Which begins and ends in England only, but Westminster is all set to have it's hand out ready to take the cash off Scottish, Welsh and NI taxpayers anyway. And Trident. Which will be voted in exclusively by English MP's and completely opposed by Scottish ones. Yet renewed on Scottish soil, despite the electorate's wishes. What's changed is what Scotland may or may not be willing to accept within the union. But it's time England started to accept a few things also. Namely, that Scottish taxpayers may not be happy forking out for the Forth Road Bridge ( as Scottish ) AND contributing 3.4+ billion towards HS2 ( which is English only) , but passed off as 'UK wide'.

There's no deflection. It's what people are thinking and making known. If things like HS2 are UK wide, then they should be just that. Otherwise, English taxpayers can get on with it. Just like Scottish ones have to with their own infrastructure projects. England needs a GERS so transparent comparisons can finally be made. The days of riding roughshod and slapping a union jack on trains, Olympic Games, Trident and sewer systems are probably over I'm afraid.

And remember the problems I pointed out Cameron might have with that very slim majority ? Well, would you look at that.

Queen's Speech: David Cameron pledges tax cuts but delays scrapping Human Rights Act

...A succession of senior Conservatives clashed over the manifesto pledge to scrap the Human Rights Act, revealing deep divisions within the party over Mr Cameron’s promise to sever Britain’s ties to the European Court.
The Queen will announce a consultation on the plans but will not commit to bringing forward legislation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/queens-speech/11631597/Queens-Speech-David-Cameron-pledges-tax-cuts-but-delays-scrapping-Human-Rights-Act.html

Generali

The London subsidy helped pay for the A9. Should that start in Finchley?

The SNP aren't being disregarded. Like the SDP before, they are the third largest party and will get a position on every select committee and a chairmanship or two (think it's two, can't remember).

They're certainly not going to get to write the budget or decide defence spending! The Government does that and the SNP aren't in Government. They thought they were going to be but unfortunately Labour were too far right to be electable in Scotland and too far left to be electable in England. Winning Scotland in a UK election is like winning the UK in a Euro election or winning Hackney in the London mayoral race: it's nice to do but doesn't win you the big prize.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What changed ? Hmmm let me think... 6 Westminster MP's to 56 MP's ? The third largest party.. all set to be completely ignored according to you ( 50% of the Scottish electorate, dismissed as irrelevant ). Then there's EVEL, curbing non-English MP's voting rights still further in Westminster.

And then there's things like HS2. Which begins and ends in England only, but Westminster is all set to have it's hand out ready to take the cash off Scottish, Welsh and NI taxpayers anyway. And Trident. Which will be voted in exclusively by English MP's and completely opposed by Scottish ones. Yet renewed on Scottish soil, despite the electorate's wishes. What's changed is what Scotland may or may not be willing to accept within the union. But it's time England started to accept a few things also. Namely, that Scottish taxpayers may not be happy forking out for the Forth Road Bridge ( as Scottish ) AND contributing 3.4+ billion towards HS2 ( which is English only) , but passed off as 'UK wide'.

There's no deflection. It's what people are thinking and making known. If things like HS2 are UK wide, then they should be just that. Otherwise, English taxpayers can get on with it. Just like Scottish ones have to with their own infrastructure projects. England needs a GERS so transparent comparisons can finally be made. The days of riding roughshod and slapping a union jack on trains, Olympic Games, Trident and sewer systems are probably over I'm afraid.

And remember the problems I pointed out Cameron might have with that very slim majority ? Well, would you look at that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/queens-speech/11631597/Queens-Speech-David-Cameron-pledges-tax-cuts-but-delays-scrapping-Human-Rights-Act.html

Hope you're feeling better for having got all of that pent up anger out your system.

Enterprise_1701C

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What changed ? Hmmm let me think... 6 Westminster MP's to 56 MP's ? The third largest party.. all set to be completely ignored according to you ( 50% of the Scottish electorate, dismissed as irrelevant ). Then there's EVEL, curbing non-English MP's voting rights still further in Westminster.

And then there's things like HS2. Which begins and ends in England only, but Westminster is all set to have it's hand out ready to take the cash off Scottish, Welsh and NI taxpayers anyway. And Trident. Which will be voted in exclusively by English MP's and completely opposed by Scottish ones. Yet renewed on Scottish soil, despite the electorate's wishes. What's changed is what Scotland may or may not be willing to accept within the union. But it's time England started to accept a few things also. Namely, that Scottish taxpayers may not be happy forking out for the Forth Road Bridge ( as Scottish ) AND contributing 3.4+ billion towards HS2 ( which is English only) , but passed off as 'UK wide'.

There's no deflection. It's what people are thinking and making known. If things like HS2 are UK wide, then they should be just that. Otherwise, English taxpayers can get on with it. Just like Scottish ones have to with their own infrastructure projects. England needs a GERS so transparent comparisons can finally be made. The days of riding roughshod and slapping a union jack on trains, Olympic Games, Trident and sewer systems are probably over I'm afraid.

And remember the problems I pointed out Cameron might have with that very slim majority ? Well, would you look at that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/queens-speech/11631597/Queens-Speech-David-Cameron-pledges-tax-cuts-but-delays-scrapping-Human-Rights-Act.html

I ask again, who paid out £414,000,000 for a white elephant of a Scottish parliament building, which was so far over budget it was unbelievable, and which in no way shape or form can be considered to be for anyone other than Scotland.

Scotland are not the only ones that have had to pay out for things that are not intended for them.

As for trident, I believe we have a requirement to keep them active to allow us to have NATOs backing. Of course if you want to just hand your front door keys to a resurgeant Russia with Putin sniffing around NATO constantly then that is up to you, just let us defend ourselves.

.string.

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

... As for trident, I believe we have a requirement to keep them active to allow us to have NATOs backing. Of course if you want to just hand your front door keys to a resurgeant Russia with Putin sniffing around NATO constantly then that is up to you, just let us defend ourselves... .

Shaker has stated the she herself does not feel strongly one way or the other on Trident. But when in the grip of a frothy SNP outburst it must be very difficult to express your own opinions as an individual; far easier to let the Whinge Machine take over and the brain into neutral.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Point me out which bit isn't correct and I'll be happy to correct it. There was no cohesion between the three parties over what further powers should be offered to Scotland in the event of a No vote.. until a week before the ref vote.

I'm afraid the heads of the 'branch offices' ie absolutely NO power whatsoever to offer anything, without the say so of their main UK counterparts ( as Jim Murphy found out to his cost later on )... 'mulling things over' doesn't really count as a concrete offer.

Anyway, what was that you were saying about the Queens speech and your own special insider knowledge ? Any thoughts on sharing them ?

I already pointed out what was incorrect so there is no need to respond to deflected arguments.

No have no insider knowledge but unlike you I have the advantage of not being in thrall to any political party.

kabayiri

skintmacflint wrote: »

Hope you're feeling better for having got all of that pent up anger out your system.

I think it's bitterness rather than outright anger.

It's pretty pointless.

Every region in the UK can point to supposed bias towards other regions. This is not an exact science.

Rather than moan about past mistakes the government is doing something about it.

Liverpool port is expanding capacity right now. The talk of a Northern powerhouse is translating into action.

I just hope we spend the money on infrastructure and training, not free prescriptions and free higher education for a select group.

We need to measure the success of *this* UK government at the end of their term, not right at the start.

kabayiri

I think we need to educate people about HS2 and the benefits which massive capital projects accrue, on a wider basis.

The London Jubilee line extension sounds like something which only benefitted London right?

Wrong. The work to modernise the station platform and comms infrastructure extended to firms far outside London.

This technology will work it's way through to all UK stations.