Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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".

So how do they come up with a figure in the first place to apportion to Scotland if they can't identify which region to apportion it to ? And why would the costs of running an embassy not be identifiable ? Surely it's basic maths, or accountancy. All they would have to do is take all of them, and apportion Scotland 9 or 10% of the the costs. Pretty flimsy, easily identifiable stuff there.. It doesn't matter is it doesn't directly benefit a 'single area'. If the total costs are there UK wide, then Scotland at the very least, even if it's guesswork, would have roundabout a 10% share.

Because I can assure you, when it comes to UK debt, and Scotland's share of that and interest costs. The UK Government during the indy ref certainly had that all worked out to the very last penny.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

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.

HS2 is English only. There is no reason for Wales, Scotland or NI to contribute billions out of their budgets/ or take billions in cuts as a consequence to it. It's not a UK wide project.

Institute of Directors calls for HS2 rail line to go to Scotland as planned

Britain's directors want the new high speed rail line to go to Scotland, as was originally planned.
A Institute of Directors (IoD) spokesperson told City A.M. yesterday: “Our members across the country still feel that intercity connectivity and improvements to existing lines – including in Scotland – should be the priority.”
The comments come after reports surfaced over the weekend that the HS2 route to the major Scottish cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh may be now not happen.

The directors’ were backed up by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). Rhian Kelly, CBI director of business environment, said: “Connecting more of the UK to HS2 makes sense, but any extension of the line itself requires a cast iron business case, showing how the long-term benefits exceed the costs.”

http://www.cityam.com/216409/directors-call-hs2-track-north-border

If it comes to Scotland, then no-one here will have any problem contributing. Otherwise, your 'UK' argument just looks greedy and self-serving. There are plenty other things that those billions could otherwise go towards in all three devolved nations. Scotland may have voted No... but that doesn't mean all common sense has been cast aside in the process. If it's a UK project, then it should serve the UK. If not, then don't expect those that don't benefit from it, to be whoopy-dooing about having to pay for it to stop at Birmingham.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

HS2 is English only. There is no reason for Wales, Scotland or NI to contribute billions out of their budgets/ or take billions in cuts as a consequence to it. It's not a UK wide project.

http://www.cityam.com/216409/directors-call-hs2-track-north-border

If it comes to Scotland, then no-one here will have any problem contributing. Otherwise, your 'UK' argument just looks greedy and self-serving. There are plenty other things that those billions could otherwise go towards in all three devolved nations. Scotland may have voted No... but that doesn't mean all common sense has been cast aside in the process. If it's a UK project, then it should serve the UK. If not, then don't expect those that don't benefit from it, to be whoopy-dooing about having to pay for it to stop at Birmingham.

The English help pay for the A9. It should start at Finchley and go via Cardiff and Belfast by that logic. Or be paid for by Scottish money that comes from errm London taxpayers.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The English help pay for the A9. It should start at Finchley and go via Cardiff and Belfast by that logic. Or be paid for by Scottish money that comes from errm London taxpayers.

No it's the 'UK' that pays.. there's no such thing as an English budget. There's where the problem is...The 'UK' as a whole ticket is played in questionable circumstances such as HS2. But the 'English' ticket is then always played in terms of sneering about 'subsidies' given to Scotland by the 'English'. You're trying to have it both ways. It's Uk on the pooling/taking, but 'English largesse' on the giving/sharing..

I daresay HS2 would cost far more than the A9. Pooling and sharing is a good thing in principle. It just seems that in terms of infrastructure, and most especially re London. That there's an awful lot of pooling, and not enough sharing going on.

This isn't an English/Scottish thing. But it really is time to see what England's fiscal 'black hole' is worth. Because we all know there must be one. England, if you're honest with yourself, can't really afford to be subsidising anything ( let alone entire nations/Scotland ) with the amount of debt the UK has at the moment. Only then can true comparisons be made with the other devolved nations.

England is not the UK. And 'unidentifiable spending' is just that. Guesswork.

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So how do they come up with a figure in the first place to apportion to Scotland if they can't identify which region to apportion it to ? And why would the costs of running an embassy not be identifiable ? Surely it's basic maths, or accountancy. All they would have to do is take all of them, and apportion Scotland 9 or 10% of the the costs. Pretty flimsy, easily identifiable stuff there.. It doesn't matter is it doesn't directly benefit a 'single area'. If the total costs are there UK wide, then Scotland at the very least, even if it's guesswork, would have roundabout a 10% share.

Because I can assure you, when it comes to UK debt, and Scotland's share of that and interest costs. The UK Government during the indy ref certainly had that all worked out to the very last penny.

The identifiable costs are apportioned on a regional basis and the non-identifiable costs are just added up and presented as a total figure. Non-identifiable doesnt mean they don't know what the cost is - only that they cannot assign the cost to a region because there is a shared benefit. Debt interest is non-identifiable in this context.

If you like you can add a per capita share of the non-identifiable costs (it works out at about £1,450 per head) on top of the identifiable figure. However that is pretty pointless if you are comparing the amount spent on different regions as you are just going to add the same amount to both figures so the difference between them remains exactly the same.

The most recent figures broken down on this basis that have been released are here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264286/Country_and_Regional_Analysis_2013.pdf

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

'unidentifiable spending' is just that. Guesswork.

no it isn't - it is spending that is known in terms of quantum but isn't focused on a particular region.

.string.

We had a new roundabout in our village last month. It's only a small roundabout but these things cost money.

Thank you, Scotland, for contributing to the cost of the roundabout. We have some valued Scots living in the village so it's a win win situation for everybody.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

HS2 is English only. There is no reason for Wales, Scotland or NI to contribute billions out of their budgets/ or take billions in cuts as a consequence to it. It's not a UK wide project.
...

HS1 was "English only", by that definition.

But...I don't seem to recall the same level of mass hysteria as we now have here over HS2.

Why didn't you/the SNP kick up a fuss then? You're just using HS2 as a political football aren't you?

HS2 is just a focal point for a perceived level of bias towards London spending compared to Scotland.

You need a reality check here. The whole of the UK relies on the income our capital city generates. London is going to continue to grow. This growth needs to be funded.

As a Northerner I would rather HS2 money be spent on further developing the regional city transit systems. Just because HS2 is on the table is not a good enough reason for me to demand the NW become independent.

kabayiri

.string. wrote: »

We had a new roundabout in our village last month. It's only a small roundabout but these things cost money.

Thank you, Scotland, for contributing to the cost of the roundabout. We have some valued Scots living in the village so it's a win win situation for everybody.

I shall make a particular point of planning a journey there soon, travelling hundreds of miles, so that I can navigate this roundabout a few times

After all, I don't want to miss out on my share

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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 ).

The Tories are Unionist, pure and simple, they believe in the Union!
Why is that viewpoint so hard for you to fathom without claiming some sort of nefarious ulterior motive on their part?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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 ?

You're obsessed by the Tories!:)
The subsidy is paid because Scotland is alone in the UK in displaying separatist tendencies. The UK establishment is scared witless that their beloved Union for the want of a bung could be lost.
Enjoy it, you got them by the balls!