Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

It's a NIMBY thing.

What is NIMBY?

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Who's to say London and the south East are not already getting that subsidy?

From Claptons article: -
We derived that Scotland gets back just under 50% from the revenue's generated.
West Midlands was the same, just under 50%.

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).

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.

No we didn't. You derived a crazy calculation that said (GDP per capita) - (public spending per capita) = "Westminster Contribution".

Tax revenues are much lower than GDP per capita and both Scotland and the West Midlands receive a subsidy from the centre.

chewmylegoff

And "Unidentified" public spending is public spending that cannot be identified as apportionable to any one particular region. The cost of running a hospital in Edinburgh is "identifiable" as benefiting the people of Scotland directly. The cost of maintaining a standing army, or overseas embassies, for instance, do not directly benefit a single area over others and are therefore not "identifiable".

Tromking

Leanne1812 wrote: »

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.

I live within 17 miles of Plymouth, a possible alternative apparently.
I would welcome the vote of confidence in the south-west region housing Trident would bring about. I recall a recent Question Time programme where a Teeside woman felt the same as me.
Why has Trident affected Helensburgh so badly?
I`m curious.

Leanne1812

Tromking wrote: »

I live within 17 miles of Plymouth, a possible alternative apparently.
I would welcome the vote of confidence in the south-west region housing Trident would bring about. I recall a recent Question Time programme where a Teeside woman felt the same as me.
Why has Trident affected Helensburgh so badly?
I`m curious.

I can only say it does not appear to have escaped the fate of many towns up and down the whole of the UK. Trident has not given the local area a thriving economy. From what I understand lots of naval workers stay within the base and don't contribute too much locally.

Leanne1812

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I can only say it does not appear to have escaped the fate of many towns up and down the whole of the UK. Trident has not given the local area a thriving economy. From what I understand lots of naval workers stay within the base and don't contribute too much locally.

I'd also add that Argyle & Bute which encompasses Helensburgh have just elected an SNP MP who is against the renewal of Trident so that's quite telling.

chewmylegoff

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I'd also add that Argyle & Bute which encompasses Helensburgh have just elected an SNP MP who is against the renewal of Trident so that's quite telling.

It would be more telling if all but 3 of the constituencies in Scotland hadn't done the same. The fact that the SNP won that constituency doesn't send a particularly obvious anti trident message from the local community as when compared to any other part of Scotland. If the only SNP MP was in argyle & bute that would be pretty telling.

Leanne1812

chewmylegoff wrote: »

It would be more telling if all but 3 of the constituencies in Scotland hadn't done the same. The fact that the SNP won that constituency doesn't send a particularly obvious anti trident message from the local community as when compared to any other part of Scotland. If the only SNP MP was in argyle & bute that would be pretty telling.

Or possibly the locals realise there's not much to lose. Surely if it was such a big benefit then the electorate would have rejected an anti Trident candidate?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

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

This is a non-argument. People living in the southwest don't get any facility from a hospital in NI. People living in Norfolk will probably never use the Edinburgh tram.

It's part of living in a larger country which, of course, Scotland voted to remain part of. Part of voting No! in the referendum was voting to contribute to the UK hand have the UK contribute to it.

That a particular train doesn't go places where it isn't cost effective for it to go is neither here nor there.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

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.:)

No, I asked what you thought. Is it your opinion that the Tories want to keep the union intact through sheer misty eyed sentiment ? Forget the SNP.. What is it the Tories want from the Union ? ( as opposed to Labour and Lib Dems last Sept having seats they desperately wanted to keep ).

You said bribes were in order in order to keep Scotland in. Why ? Do justify what you post. It's obvious what the SNP want, for all your rambling above. What is rather less clear, is what the Tories get out of it, or why they would want to 'bribe' Scotland with subsidies in order to keep her within the Union ?