Effects of the European Referendum & (yet another) Scot Exit on the UK Economy

Generali

mayonnaise wrote: »

In my opinion....it doesn't make a jot of difference what concessions Cameron may or may not win, the largely anti-EU media will promote a deeply divisive campaign anyway.
We will hear ad infinitum about EU gravy trains, bendy bananas and powerful hoovers, and the plebs will lap it up.

TBH I suspect the opposite. People have heard the anti-EU argument for years: metric martyrs, bent cucumbers (who knew cucumbers had sexuality and isn't that a bit homophobic?) and all that guff.

The papers will be full of that but also people like the IFS will be producing well researched pieces on the costs of leaving.

As I thought with the Scottish referendum, I think this will be a strong vote to stay in. I was right there and also right about the Tories doing much better than the polls suggested.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

We know you are the parrot of the forum and like to keep repeating the same mantra again and again and again and again.

Time to bring some new topics to this discussion board

let's see whether repealing the HRA will be considered a cause for a new referendum;
but no matter, there will be a faux excuse in the next 12 months or so and you will be here justifying it along with all the other acolytes. (and do read up about how council tax works in Scotland so you can expand your very limited knowledge of Scottish institutions.)

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

(and do read up about how council tax works in Scotland so you can expand your very limited knowledge of Scottish institutions.)

Please don't cross threads.
You clearly acknowledged you have no clue

CLAPTON wrote: »

I have no idea how the CT in Scotland works

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Please don't cross threads.
You clearly acknowledged you have no clue

You were happy to compare the CT in Scotland and Putney to 'prove' some rubbish and nonsensical point about the Barnett formula.

Your knowledge of the English CT system was based on your sister's CT in Putney. Your total lack of knowledge of the working of the Scottish one was self evident.

Well, unlike you, I have actually looked up something about the Scottish council tax system and have 'discovered' that, like the English system, the councils spending are subsidised either by Holyrood in a similar way to Westminster.

Clearly, any one honest, decent and with a few brain cells would quickly deduce that comparing council tax between a London council and Scottish council was meaningless and could prove absolutely nothing at all about the unfair and unjust Barnett formula.

However facts have never influenced your judgement and probably never will.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

You were happy to compare the CT in Scotland and Putney to 'prove' some rubbish and nonsensical point about the Barnett formula.

Your knowledge of the English CT system was based on your sister's CT in Putney. Your total lack of knowledge of the working of the Scottish one was self evident.

Well, unlike you, I have actually looked up something about the Scottish council tax system and have 'discovered' that, like the English system, the councils spending are subsidised either by Holyrood in a similar way to Westminster.

Clearly, any one honest, decent and with a few brain cells would quickly deduce that comparing council tax between a London council and Scottish council was meaningless and could prove absolutely nothing at all about the unfair and unjust Barnett formula.

However facts have never influenced your judgement and probably never will.

So in your vast research, is Council Tax subsidy higher than in Putney, hence the vast difference is costs?

If not, do you accept that economies of scale do play a part in managing the costs?

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So in your vast research, is Council Tax subsidy higher than in Putney, hence the vast difference is costs?

If not, do you accept that economies of scale do play a part in managing the costs?

Compare the CT in Lambeth to that in Putney : they are pretty similar London boroughs (I've posted the figures earlier).
You will see that Lambeth is higher than Putney and higher than
Aberdeenshire : which proves absolutely nothing about Barnett formula.

Comparing the total spending in each borough and comparing them may provide more meaningful comparisons.

It is certainly likely that some services are cheaper to provide in a built up area than in a rural area: however, London inner cities have problems of their own that don't exist in rural areas : maybe these are different in the SNP run Scotland which presumably explains why Glascow has such superb services compared to Skye.

In terms of the money distribution formula, I have repeated said it should be based on per capital figures adjusted for need.
The 'need ' formula should be calculated in a non corrupt non political way, that doesn't give more money to one group because they consider themselves are a 'nation' (although none knows what it means).

The Barnett formula is corrupt and has created a wasteful entitlement culture in Scotland.

kabayiri

I believe the EU referendum process will flush out a lot of positions from a wide range of stakeholders.

For example, countries in the EU make grand proclamations about UK staying within the EU, but how much of that is just empty words. This is a chance to find out if they are really that bothered by an UK exit.

To compare with the Scottish independence referendum, I never realised just how big the subsidy to Scotland was. I wonder how many people actually realise what we pay to the EU to be a member state. They might start comparing that to what other countries pay.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

Compare the CT in Lambeth to that in Putney : they are pretty similar London boroughs (I've posted the figures earlier).
You will see that Lambeth is higher than Putney and higher than
Aberdeenshire : which proves absolutely nothing about Barnett formula.

Comparing the total spending in each borough and comparing them may provide more meaningful comparisons.

It is certainly likely that some services are cheaper to provide in a built up area than in a rural area: however, London inner cities have problems of their own that don't exist in rural areas : maybe these are different in the SNP run Scotland which presumably explains why Glascow has such superb services compared to Skye.

In terms of the money distribution formula, I have repeated said it should be based on per capital figures adjusted for need.
The 'need ' formula should be calculated in a non corrupt non political way, that doesn't give more money to one group because they consider themselves are a 'nation' (although none knows what it means).

The Barnett formula is corrupt and has created a wasteful entitlement culture in Scotland.

You still didn't answer the direct question.

Nevermind.

There is no desire from the politicians to adjust the Barnett formula because of two factors
1) The cost and administration to change
2) They know the Barnett squeeze is reducing the difference year on year. I recall reading a 4% increase in spending in England is only reciprocated by a 3% increase in budget for that devolved act.

It seems that the politicians have no desire to change it, knowing it would not be cost effective or efficient to do so and that the difference is contracting.

The only thing it seems it's good for is rolling off politicians tongues as a political gesturing tactic.

Also, Why are you so against the Barnett Formula in Scotland, but have not once argued why NI gets an even higher "subsidy"?
Why do you continue to express you "hatred" towards Scottish people?

kabayiri

Despite what I would consider the relatively generous nature of the Barnett formula, there seem to be many Scots who feel it is not enough?

I'm not clear on the complaint though.

Are they saying there should be more money given to Scotland, or do they want to raise their own via borrowing/taxes/whatever, and ultimately receive less through a Barnett (or replacement).

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

Despite what I would consider the relatively generous nature of the Barnett formula, there seem to be many Scots who feel it is not enough?

I'm not clear on the complaint though.

Who?

The only comment I have read to that effect was to request that there is no Barnett Squeeze i.e. If Westminster increase the NHS budget by 4% in England, that Scotland sees the same increase, whereas currently they would only get a circa 3% increas.

kabayiri wrote: »

Are they saying there should be more money given to Scotland, or do they want to raise their own via borrowing/taxes/whatever, and ultimately receive less through a Barnett (or replacement).

I believe the SNP would ideally want Independence, but failing that Devo Max / FFA