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

ChiefGrasscutter

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.

Well you should have tired working in UK exporting then.
We exported all over the World, Asia, Middle East, N and S America etc so you are not talking about a small business here.
The only place we could not get any orders were the core countries of the EU..... Well they had their own manufacturers to support after all. It was never price that was the problem - its was always some mysterious incompatibility with something or other.
The whole EU seems to me more bent than the average coat hanger - summed up by one wag in the business as the French buy from the French, the Germans from the Germans etc..while the UK buys from anyone EXCEPT the UK to prove we are not biased and ends up with a pile of rubbish as a result.

....and I have not yet even started on the additional costs and hoops to jump though that recreational flyers of planes/gliders etc now have to go through once the EU's EASA decided to 'regulate' such private flying and aircraft maintenance rather than the CAA in the UK who have been downgraded to the status of a parish council.
The result of course is people quitting the sports, maintenance places closing down, existing one becoming horrendously expensive as the standards are continually uppped to be at the level of commercial passenger carrying....resulting in more quitting the sport......

The sooner we are out the better!

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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?

1. Yes, the subsidy in Putney is very high which accounts for its low CT figure which is not typical of urban areas in England.
Where i live band H CT is 2670 : but all these figures are easily available online

2. Can you provide a reference to say the cost of changing the formula would be high : lets just reduce Scotland figure by 10% : zero cost to that

yet another made up load of rubbish.

2. the Barnet squeeze: you 'recall' reading some SNP garbage

Maybe show us some real figures for this mythical decrease?

Or is just made up nonsense too
(amasing how you just happen to half remember facts that favour SNP and never half remember anything else)

Maybe show the closing gap year on year over the last 30 years?


Happy to discuss the security situation in NI and the extra funding required.
Are you now suggesting that, under the SNP, that the security situation in Scotland is getting to the stage that extra funding is necessary?

Personally I haven't seen much in the papers about Scottish terrorism but maybe the details are being suppressed by the English press because they hate the Scots so much?

another load of rubbish: Do you ever think before posting?

IveSeenTheLight

I'm getting a little tired of your posts now Clapton.
Just picking some specific points

CLAPTON wrote: »

Maybe show the closing gap year on year over the last 30 years?

You'll see that the relative % of the UK average has reduced from 121% to 115.5% over the years.

The site also states "the Barnett formula steadily erodes that advantage: if a 4% increase is needed in expenditure to cover inflation, Scotland will get an increase of only 3% of its total budget, whereas England will get the full 4% (proportional to population share) – after inflation, that would mean a 1% budget reduction for the Scottish Government.
Opponents of that view claim that these are not cutbacks, merely lower growth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula


While looking for the above, I came across this



Should we talk about the subsidy across the regions and why for the likes of the good people of Yorkshire are subsidised more than the Scottish?

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

....2. the Barnet squeeze: you 'recall' reading some SNP garbage

Maybe show us some real figures for this mythical decrease?

Or is just made up nonsense too
(amasing how you just happen to half remember facts that favour SNP and never half remember anything else)

...

No, the Barnett squeeze as they call it, is very real. Mind you, it's also very long term as well.

I'm quite happy to explain, if you're interested.:)

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Should we talk about the subsidy across the regions and why for the likes of the good people of Yorkshire are subsidised more than the Scottish?

What relevance does GDP have?

The oil price movement in the past year will have materially changed Scotland's %.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What relevance does GDP have?

The oil price movement in the past year will have materially changed Scotland's %.

Indeed it will likely to have done so.

How about the previous 30 odd years? Scotland GVA has for a long time been higher than all of the UK bar London and the South East.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Indeed it will likely to have done so.

How about the previous 30 odd years? Scotland GVA has for a long time been higher than all of the UK bar London and the South East.

Like the old saying. Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king. In many respects GDP is Turnover. Far too simplistic on which to base any fiscal decision.