Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

zagubov

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

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.

The current SG argued against that white elephant, and would have preferred to use the much cheaper Royal High School building. However the Labour government of the time decided to secure Scotland's gratitude by giving it to them.

Labour were also the people behind the highly expensive Edinburgh trams. The Scottish electorate do seem to have handed them their jotters so to speak.

Having trident next to where most of the nation's kids are located, well let's just say that's not cool. Speaking of defending Scotland's territory from Putin, it's not so long since posters down south were discussing Putinesque seizures of Faslane and Shetland by Scotland's betters in Westminster and Whitehall. Let's not sink back to that level.;)

IveSeenTheLight

Tromking wrote: »

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.

Who's changing?
Clapton compared the West Midlands with Scotland.
I responded and then expanded to capture all of the regions.

Why do you want to move the goalposts? Is it because you don;t like the statistical facts?

One benefit of looking at the regional differences is that it highlights how London Centric and reliant the whole of the UK is, which is back to my point in how can this not be dispersed better throughout the WHOLE of the UK

IveSeenTheLight

Froggitt wrote: »

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

Thanks.
All 3 failed.
Do you not stop and ask why these venues were unsuccessful?
Do you not question what change is needed to make these venues more likely to succeed?

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

Sturgeon makes a good point about the EU independence referendum.

Scotland should be allowed to stay in the EU if it votes for this, and the rest of the UK votes to leave.

Using the same logic, should Aberdeenshire and Shetlands etc vote No to independence, but central Scotland vote Yes, then they should be allowed to remain in the Union, with whatever assets they might have.

This way Shakey and co get rid of Westminster and Hamish gets his wishes.

Everyone's a winner

Using the same logic, should Germany, France, Greece, Spain etc all be allowed to vote on whether the UK remains as part of the EU?

Some people have a hard job understanding the difference between a Country and a County.
Bit of a moot point as the majority are pro remaining in the EU.

IveSeenTheLight

Froggitt wrote: »

Hypothetical Question. Say the worst 100 roads to be resurfaced are all in England. Should they be resurfaced, or should we pick 90 of them, plus 10 Scottish roads (which in reality are all OK) to be resurfaced?

I understand transport to be devolved, but I certainly see roads all over the UK needs attention.

I find it interesting you presume all Scottish roads are OK. they most certainly are not.

But here's an interesting thought, flip the question around: -

Say the Worst 100 roads to be resurfaced are all in Scotland. Should they be resurfaced or should focus be on resurfacing 90 English roads?

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

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.

Generali,

You seem to have missed my earlier post or are choosing to ignore it

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=68472642&postcount=4149

There are many areas outside London which contribute more than the UK average.

London on it's own, does not subsidise the rest of the UK.

IveSeenTheLight

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I believe we have a requirement to keep them activeto allow us to have NATOs backing.

How many NATO members have Nuclear capability?
Interesting how other members do not have the same requirements

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't want to be in a world if Nuclear weapons are deployed once more.

America got away with it in Japan for Hiroshima and Nagasaki as others did not have the capability at the time and the Americans managed to call their bluff over their own quantity.
It's a totally different situation now and can no longer be used as a threat.

Enterprise_1701C

Surely even Scotland realise that there is no way they would be allowed to join the EU as they are. They could not "stay" in it, they would be forced to reapply, and member states have a veto. Someone like Spain with separatists within their own country would not want it to seem easy for a breakaway country to rejoin.

What I can't understand is why Scotland wants to become independent but then in the same breath rejoin a monstrosity like the eu and have to take on the Euro (which they would be forced to take) and everything that goes with it. They would be subsumed into the mass.

As for nuclear weapons, whilst we still have them there is an implied threat. It might, just might, make Putin think twice before invading a western country as he has his neighbours. He is a power hungry idiot that does not understand why he should not be allowed to rule the world. I do not doubt that if we did not have Trident he would be knocking on our door far more often than he is.

I would not want to be part of a world that deployed such weapons either, but then I would not want to be part of a world ruled by Putin. It is worth keeping Trident as such a deterrent.

Froggitt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I understand transport to be devolved, but I certainly see roads all over the UK needs attention.

I find it interesting you presume all Scottish roads are OK. they most certainly are not.

But here's an interesting thought, flip the question around: -

Say the Worst 100 roads to be resurfaced are all in Scotland. Should they be resurfaced or should focus be on resurfacing 90 English roads?

Of course they should, that's my whole point about infrastructure/A9/M25/HS2/bridges to nowhere.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Thanks.
All 3 failed.
Do you not stop and ask why these venues were unsuccessful?
Do you not question what change is needed to make these venues more likely to succeed?

The last thing that Birmingham and Manchester need are huge White Elephants that will never be filled again and a public transport system that has a capacity 10x the city's needs.

Even Sydney, a city of 6 milllion odd, struggles to deal with the Olympic legacy.

Don't forget, as well as the main stadium there's the volleyball court and the hockey pitch and so on that get beggur all use.

Look at the cities that win, huge places that can move millions. Why should the UK (London) pay for provincial cities to have mass transit systems and sporting facilities that will be massively under used?