Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

IveSeenTheLight

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It would be great to see what the expenditure was (per head) for London and the South East and compare against its revenue (per head).

Interestingly, I came across this, which states that the South east has the Lowest spend per head
https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.files.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2FSN04033%2FSN04033.pdf&ei=cONlVZ2aC8OSU9Ttg4gC&usg=AFQjCNHlf5eBTNeZ8uuxRYvSmsvDAkFkpw&sig2=YjLmIw4Zy3bXv2hXLNnjQQ

It also seems that London gets 10% above the UK average

So Scotland gets £10,275 per head to cover 78,400 km2 area whilst London gets only £9,866 per head to cover 1.5 km2.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'd still be interested to also understand this "unidentified public spending" which does not seem to be captured in the revenue and expenditure per head stats.

So this "unidentified public spending" would it cover some of this

London gets 24 times as much spent on infrastructure per resident than north-east England

So London's "subsidy" is lower than Scotland (but also higher than the UK average), but they also get a hell of a lot of infrastructure spending which is not captured under the public expenditure

Shakethedisease

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Interestingly, I came across this, which states that the South east has the Lowest spend per head
https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.files.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2FSN04033%2FSN04033.pdf&ei=cONlVZ2aC8OSU9Ttg4gC&usg=AFQjCNHlf5eBTNeZ8uuxRYvSmsvDAkFkpw&sig2=YjLmIw4Zy3bXv2hXLNnjQQ

It also seems that London gets 10% above the UK average

So Scotland gets £10,275 per head to cover 78,400 km2 area whilst London gets only £9,866 per head to cover 1.5 km2.



So this "unidentified public spending" would it cover some of this

London gets 24 times as much spent on infrastructure per resident than north-east England

So London's "subsidy" is lower than Scotland (but also higher than the UK average), but they also get a hell of a lot of infrastructure spending which is not captured under the public expenditure

Ian Bell is making the same case as yourself in The Herald today, about infrastructure investments being far too London centric.

HS2 a multi-billion pound bridge too far for the rest of Britain

Those who live around the quaint branch lines in Scotland, Wales or the north of England will still pay their share for a very expensive piece of infrastructure, of course. That, you will be reminded, is just how the UK works. According to one of the campaign groups attempting to halt the project, Scotland's share will be £3.64 billion. Trains reducing the journey time between London and Birmingham are, says the Government, for the benefit of all.

You need not be a Scot to raise an eyebrow at that. The Welsh, cut out of the loop physically, will pay for HS2. Northern Ireland, geographically apart to begin with, will contribute too. Three regions in the north of England, wondering again where the internal borders of the UK actually lie, will hand over their share and wonder about perspectives.

....The story isn't new. The London Government's 2013 infrastructure plan caused much haggling last year among think tanks and civil servants. The most conservative interpretation, applied to England alone, is that the country's capital gets double the amount of transport infrastructure spending per head than any other English region. Is Newcastle OK with that?

...For Newcastle, as for Dundee, the pressing case is simple. If the UK functions as advertised, why is Crossrail an essential project, one decided and funded without real argument over the vast sums at stake, and why is every other city at the whim of decisions made in London's interest?

For now, the nations and regions of the UK are being charged for the privilege of hearing why they don't matter. That's someone's one-way ticket.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/hs2-a-multi-billion-pound-bridge-too-far-for-the-rest-of-britain.127170030

Leanne1812

Interesting the only posters addressing the 'unidentified' spending seem to be pro SNP.

Everyone else remains convinced Scotland is just a subsidy junkie. I have yet to be convinced and it appears the information to convince me is just not available anywhere at all. Ive been asking for evidence and transparency since the beginning of the whole Indy debate. There was never anything concrete to convince me. That's why when Hamish & others post their graphs I just switch off because it's nothing new or enlightening.

It's all a bit strange.....

I'll revert back to why the union was so desperate to keep this subsidy junkie.

I'll concur with Shakes. It doesn't make sense.

Tromking

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I'll revert back to why the union was so desperate to keep this subsidy junkie.

I'll concur with Shakes. It doesn't make sense.

You're being bribed by the UK establishment to stay in , isn't that obvious?
You're not seriously suggesting that because you get the 'subsidy' there must be some secret reason why you deserve it?

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

You're being bribed by the UK establishment to stay in , isn't that obvious?
You're not seriously suggesting that because you get the 'subsidy' there must be some secret reason why you deserve it?

Well, if we take your view to be the correct one. That only leaves the question as to why Scotland is being bribed to 'stay in' if there is no 'secret reason' she deserves it. Why doesn't/didn't Cameron just campaign to cut Scotland loose when they had the best chance for decades ( it's obvious seat numbers for Labour/Lib Dems played a major part for them ).

Sentiment ?

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sentiment ?

Why not?
Is your perceived sense of grievance now so finely-honed that you cannot countenance a UK politician wanting the Union to continue for reasons other than one that fits a SNP narrative?
Again, the SNP is not Scotland. Do not transfer the antipathy shown toward the SNP to Scotland or the Scottish people.
You are part of a Union desperate to keep you in, and such is its benign intent toward you, it`s discriminating other parts of that Union financially by paying you a subsidy.
You should be pleased.:)

Leanne1812

Tromking wrote: »

You're being bribed by the UK establishment to stay in , isn't that obvious?
You're not seriously suggesting that because you get the 'subsidy' there must be some secret reason why you deserve it?

Why are we being bribed? To house Trident or some other reason?

Why didn't they just cut the subsidy junkie loose to the benefit of everyone else in the UK?

Tromking

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Why are we being bribed? To house Trident or some other reason?

Why didn't they just cut the subsidy junkie loose to the benefit of everyone else in the UK?

I've never quite got the anti-Trident thing as it relates to Scotland, some areas of the UK would see it as a huge boost to the local economy to house Trident. It depends on your mindset I suppose.

.string.

Tromking wrote: »

I've never quite got the anti-Trident thing as it relates to Scotland, some areas of the UK would see it as a huge boost to the local economy to house Trident. It depends on your mindset I suppose.

It's a NIMBY thing.

Leanne1812

Tromking wrote: »

I've never quite got the anti-Trident thing as it relates to Scotland, some areas of the UK would see it as a huge boost to the local economy to house Trident. It depends on your mindset I suppose.

Maybe if, like me, you lived within 20 miles of it you might see it differently.....

Helensburgh, the nearest town is just like many others, bustling 20 years ago but now empty shops abound so the local economy is not booming because Trident is on its doorstep I can assure you.