Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

dktreesea

Generali wrote: »

Scotland subsidises London :rotfl:

A few weeks of fiscal autonomy for Scotland should be brought in. It would swiftly deal with credulous idiots like this.

If Scotland is charged money for defence that is not directly spent in Scotland then by definition this is spent elsewhere in the UK and is a subsidy of spending elsewhere in the UK.


Any charges Westminster passed onto Scotland should reflect spending made directly in Scotland, employing Scottish people, for the non-devolved service. Westminster shouldn't be charging the ret of the UK for services without spending the equivalent of that amount in those countries.

Thrugelmir

elantan wrote: »

I do agree the talk should be about the floods and what will be done to try and stop it again, and sorting the mess that some people are having to live in... it was pointed out in Scotland the people are getting £1500 a head compared to England with £500 a head ... why have WM chosen to only give the English flood victims £500?

That's unfair to those down south suffering, when are the people of England going to stand up to the poor decisions made on their behalf I wonder

Or is it just another example of media politics? Just like free prescriptions, free university. Money can only be spent once. At a later date underspend in other areas will come the fore. Illusionists always get exposed in the end.

.string.

dktreesea wrote: »

Independence would be awful for Scotland is not a fact - it's just your opinion.

As to whether it is popular in Scotland, given hardly any of the regional areas in Scotland had a majority vote for it last time around, I conclude half the electorate support independence and half don't.

It would become a fact the day after were a Yes Vote to be cast.

Ref your second para, take a look at this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29255449

(cue for some recent Mickey mouse poll)

CLAPTON

dktreesea wrote: »

If Scotland is charged money for defence that is not directly spent in Scotland then by definition this is spent elsewhere in the UK and is a subsidy of spending elsewhere in the UK.


Any charges Westminster passed onto Scotland should reflect spending made directly in Scotland, employing Scottish people, for the non-devolved service. Westminster shouldn't be charging the ret of the UK for services without spending the equivalent of that amount in those countries.

presumably you think scotland should pay directly for all defense related stuff located in scotland and for all scottish members of the armed forces: so trident and all those ships the UK builds should be directly charged to Holyrood.

.string.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Or is it just another example of media politics? Just like free prescriptions, free university. Money can only be spent once. At a later date underspend in other areas will come the fore. Illusionists always get exposed in the end.

Or it may be just an invented statistic. Maybe, maybe not. I had tried the skills of Google and found that £500 was being paid immediately out of council funds to the good citizens of York, to be followed by more when valid claims were submitted.

http://www.minsterfm.com/news/local/1842225/floods---york-flood-victims-to-receive-500-to-help-with-clean-up/

But who can tell where such figures come from, compensation will take time to be sorted and will depend on the context. It would be incredible if summary figures for England were already available.

So I asked elantan for her source. Don't really expect a helpful reply though.

Mistermeaner

dktreesea wrote: »

If Scotland is charged money for defence that is not directly spent in Scotland then by definition this is spent elsewhere in the UK and is a subsidy of spending elsewhere in the UK.


Any charges Westminster passed onto Scotland should reflect spending made directly in Scotland, employing Scottish people, for the non-devolved service. Westminster shouldn't be charging the ret of the UK for services without spending the equivalent of that amount in those countries.

Complete logic fail. Oh dear

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

dktreesea wrote: »

Any charges Westminster passed onto Scotland should reflect spending made directly in Scotland, employing Scottish people, for the non-devolved service. Westminster shouldn't be charging the ret of the UK for services without spending the equivalent of that amount in those countries.

Eh?

So because lets say the central purchasing dept for the MOD is in England, or the armoured vehicle repair workshop is in Wales, Scotland shouldn't be allocated a % cost of that?

Are you really trying to suggest that an indy Scotland's military wouldn't need to fix military vehicles, or buy anything, ever?

What about the percentage contribution towards overseas embassies, diplomatic services, etc? Those can't be in Scotland... Should we not pay for them then?

And to be clear, Scotland is massively, massively subsidised even without things like Trident and to a far greater % of GDP as a deficit than the rUK.

We spend more money than we earn.

And more than we could reasonably borrow.

Simple as that.

.string.

Yes Hamish, I agree. It was a strange notion. I'm not sure that it was meant seriously , so daft it was. Perhaps just a bit of leg pulling.

It's an outcrop of what is called Geographical Distribution which is used in international organisations,where countries get back in proportion to what goes into the common pot. But even in that case not everything is returned to member States, there being management overheads and equipment budgets and other bought in items and services to contend with. So expecting a perfect return for one member state is actually impossible, unless artificially contrived, to the detriment of the other states.

But I wonder how much of such balderdash leeches into the SNP ranks and, repeated often enough, becomes part of the Collective mindset, like joining NATO having kicked out Trident, keeping automatic membership of the EU, and keeping control of the economy when someone else controls the currency.

dktreesea

.string. wrote: »

It would become a fact the day after were a Yes Vote to be cast.

Ref your second para, take a look at this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29255449

(cue for some recent Mickey mouse poll)

I didn't expect the people in Dumfries and Galloway, nor the people in the Scottish Borders, to vote anything but no, because many of them are English, living in Scotland but working across the border. Whenever Salmond was asked what the border controls would be and the details of how they would be affected the answer was, as with many of the issues that were raised and inadequately answered , to "trust the vision".


Even so, I think the independence vote was decided by those sitting on the fence, who might have voted yes except for the "Yes" militants who started being violent to anyone saying they were going to vote No, calling them traitors and even stabbing people. That put a lot of people off voting yes for independence.


The day Scotland votes for independence there will be a huge surge of investment into Scotland from expatriate and descendants of Scots from around the world. When the rest of the world thinks of England, they think of Tony Blair, warmonger, the Knights Templar, the excesses of the British Empire. When they think of Scotland, they think of Sean Connery, James Bond, whisky, fishing, Skye, Kenneth McKellar, the Proclaimers, Scottish Dancing, Beltane, the Gathering of the Clans.

Thrugelmir

.string. wrote: »

So I asked elantan for her source. Don't really expect a helpful reply though.

Spin at 1500 rpm.