Political Crossfire Forums

[Lucky Luke]

DSwain wrote:

Michael Portillo does not speak for the Conservative Party in ANY capacity. He is not a member of the Shadow Cabinet, policy wonk at CCO, an MP or even a local councillor. He speaks for the Tories in just the same way that I do - as a private citizen. As you haven't been able to source your outlandish claim it has no bearing here.

Michael Portillo commented on TV about what said Alan Duncan regarding a Tory plan recommended by a task force led by Kenneth Clarke and supported by the Tory leader David Cameron.

Quote: Conservative MP Alan Duncan told the BBC it was "absolutely right" to stop MPs voting on issues which did not affect their constituents because they were now decided by the Scottish Parliament.

"I'm beginning to think it is almost impossible now to have a Scottish prime minister because they would be at odds with the basic construction of the British constitution," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5137930.stm

This Tory policy makes sense DSwain and Scotland won't be a burden to you anymore, what is the problem?

Quote: Sunday, 14 May 2006

English voters 'oppose Scots PM'

A majority of English voters think Scottish MPs should be barred from becoming the UK's prime minister, according to a BBC survey.
ICM research spoke to 1,000 people for the poll for the BBC's Politics Show.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4770685.stm

After all it is an English question for you to answer and not to ignore:

Quote: No easy answer to the English question

THE Conservatives’ attempt to play the English, or rather the anti-Scottish, card is in danger of backfiring. At one level, they are right: there is an English question, whose existence is denied by the Government. But not all questions have easy answers, and this is one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2254523,00.html

Cameron is in trouble, he started the ball rolling:

Quote: Law change

Mr Cameron confirmed at the weekend that he wants to change the law to ban Scots MPs from voting on exclusively English legislation in the Commons.

His "English votes for English laws" proposal, which was included in the Tory election manifesto last year, is designed to correct one of the consequences of the 1998 Scottish devolution deal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=393923&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ito=1490

Has Cameron got a reverse gear?
:-D
:-D

[DSwain]

Lucky Luke wrote: DSwain wrote:

Michael Portillo does not speak for the Conservative Party in ANY capacity. He is not a member of the Shadow Cabinet, policy wonk at CCO, an MP or even a local councillor. He speaks for the Tories in just the same way that I do - as a private citizen. As you haven't been able to source your outlandish claim it has no bearing here.

Michael Portillo commented on TV about what said Alan Duncan regarding a Tory plan recommended by a task force led by Kenneth Clarke and supported by the Tory leader David Cameron.

Quote: Conservative MP Alan Duncan told the BBC it was "absolutely right" to stop MPs voting on issues which did not affect their constituents because they were now decided by the Scottish Parliament.

"I'm beginning to think it is almost impossible now to have a Scottish prime minister because they would be at odds with the basic construction of the British constitution," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5137930.stm

This Tory policy makes sense DSwain and Scotland won't be a burden to you anymore, what is the problem?

Quote: Sunday, 14 May 2006

English voters 'oppose Scots PM'

A majority of English voters think Scottish MPs should be barred from becoming the UK's prime minister, according to a BBC survey.
ICM research spoke to 1,000 people for the poll for the BBC's Politics Show.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4770685.stm

After all it is an English question for you to answer and not to ignore:

Quote: No easy answer to the English question

THE Conservatives’ attempt to play the English, or rather the anti-Scottish, card is in danger of backfiring. At one level, they are right: there is an English question, whose existence is denied by the Government. But not all questions have easy answers, and this is one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2254523,00.html

Cameron is in trouble, he started the ball rolling:

Quote: Law change

Mr Cameron confirmed at the weekend that he wants to change the law to ban Scots MPs from voting on exclusively English legislation in the Commons.

His "English votes for English laws" proposal, which was included in the Tory election manifesto last year, is designed to correct one of the consequences of the 1998 Scottish devolution deal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=393923&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ito=1490

Has Cameron got a reverse gear?
:-D
:-D

Finally you've actually read something about the subject - though if you'd read a little more you'd discover that David Cameron has reprimanded Alan Duncan for his remarks about how a Scot representing a Scottish constituency cannot be Prime Minister.

I am in favour of an English grand council at the Commons. However that is not the dissolution of the Union as you appear to be saying. Just as devolution does not represent the dissolution of the Union.

I'm glad that you've acknowledged that Conservative Party policy is not to dissolve the Union merely to address certain issues within it.

[Lucky Luke]

DSwain wrote:

Finally you've actually read something about the subject - though if you'd read a little more you'd discover that David Cameron has reprimanded Alan Duncan for his remarks about how a Scot representing a Scottish constituency cannot be Prime Minister.

I am in favour of an English grand council at the Commons. However that is not the dissolution of the Union as you appear to be saying. Just as devolution does not represent the dissolution of the Union.

I'm glad that you've acknowledged that Conservative Party policy is not to dissolve the Union merely to address certain issues within it.

I understand Cameron has a reverse gear but I am not so sure that he can stop the ball rolling DSwain. The danger for the Conservative party is that Scotland becomes the issue that tears the party apart just like Europe did.

I believe that without regional assemblies in England, the Union is dead.
:-D
:-D

[DSwain]

Lucky Luke wrote: DSwain wrote:

Finally you've actually read something about the subject - though if you'd read a little more you'd discover that David Cameron has reprimanded Alan Duncan for his remarks about how a Scot representing a Scottish constituency cannot be Prime Minister.

I am in favour of an English grand council at the Commons. However that is not the dissolution of the Union as you appear to be saying. Just as devolution does not represent the dissolution of the Union.

I'm glad that you've acknowledged that Conservative Party policy is not to dissolve the Union merely to address certain issues within it.

I understand Cameron has a reverse gear but I am not so sure that he can stop the ball rolling DSwain. The danger for the Conservative party is that Scotland becomes the issue that tears the party apart just like Europe did.

I believe that without regional assemblies in England, the Union is dead.
:-D
:-D

We don't want regional assemblies in England as was shown in the farcical experience in the North East.

The Conservative Party has lots to choose over on what will tear it apart this year and I don't think Scotland is anywhere on that Top 10 list. There was a Scottish grand committee at the Commons before devolution - this is hardly ground breaking stuff.

And from what precisely is David Cameron supposed to be reversing?

[Lucky Luke]

DSwain wrote:

We don't want regional assemblies in England as was shown in the farcical experience in the North East.

The Conservative Party has lots to choose over on what will tear it apart this year and I don't think Scotland is anywhere on that Top 10 list. There was a Scottish grand committee at the Commons before devolution - this is hardly ground breaking stuff.

And from what precisely is David Cameron supposed to be reversing?

Unfortunately the process of devolution designed by John Smith can only work with English assemblies. Bliar sent Prescott to the north of England to start the process while he was busy with his pal Bush drawing the Iraqi constitution. Bliar failed in England, Iraq and Northern Ireland, the John Smith's project for the United Kingdom is dead, Bliar killed it.

Duncan did keep the ball rolling, Portillo followed now Cameron is on full reverse:

Quote: Cameron blocks West Lothian debate

July 07 2006

David Cameron stamped on Tory plans to hold a debate on proposals to bar Scottish MPs from voting on English issues next week amid concerns that the Tories were increasingly in danger of being regarded as an English party.
As the fall-out from the debate on the West Lothian questioned continued, a Labour minister warned newspaper editors that they could pay a price for allowing anti-Scottish sentiment.
Mr Cameron, said to be still incandescent at Alan Duncan, the Tory front-bencher who suggested a Scot could not be Prime Minister, told his colleagues he wanted the issue dropped.
Instead, the Tories will use Wednesday's opposition deb-ate to focus on home information packs and the progress on international aid.
Senior Tories have been shocked at the backlash from the row triggered by Mr Duncan's remark.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/65487.html

Dropped for international aid!
:-D
:-D

[angusrae]

It seems that the constant campaign by Tories against Gordon Brown's Scottishness as a reason to disbar him from the office of Prime-minister and the Gutter Press in England's newly formed Scotophobia has led to a nearly a third (30%) of English people now supporting the principle of the Dissolution of the United Kingdom

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1036442006

Indeed it seems that dispite some politicans saying that the Union is safe we now see that The political union of Great Britain now faces a challange to it's survival from every nation within it's umbrella

[Lucky Luke]

angusrae wrote: It seems that the constant campaign by Tories against Gordon Brown Scottishness as a reason to disbar him from the office of Prime-minister and the Gutter Press in England's newly formed Scotophobia has led to a nearly a third (30%) of English people now supporting the principle of the Dissolution of the United Kingdom

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1036442006

Indeed it seems that dispite some politicans saying that the Union is safe we now see that The political union of Great Britain now face challange to it's survival from every nation within it's umbrella

Bliar did it, you can't start a complicated process of devolution and stop half way through. You either finish it or see the Union collapse.

:-D
:-D

[DSwain]

angusrae wrote: It seems that the constant campaign by Tories against Gordon Brown's Scottishness as a reason to disbar him from the office of Prime-minister and the Gutter Press in England's newly formed Scotophobia has led to a nearly a third (30%) of English people now supporting the principle of the Dissolution of the United Kingdom

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1036442006

Indeed it seems that dispite some politicans saying that the Union is safe we now see that The political union of Great Britain now faces a challange to it's survival from every nation within it's umbrella

So the vast majority of the English - by a 2-1 majority in fact - wish to maintain the Union.

[thundertaker]

If I was Dave-o I'd drop Alan Duncan from the front bench like a sack of spuds. It's not for a man in his position to make remarks that undermine the position of the Tory Party in Scotland......

[DSwain]

thundertaker wrote: If I was Dave-o I'd drop Alan Duncan from the front bench like a sack of spuds. It's not for a man in his position to make remarks that undermine the position of the Tory Party in Scotland......

I'd say 'watch this space' on that one

[angusrae]

DSwain wrote: angusrae wrote: It seems that the constant campaign by Tories against Gordon Brown's Scottishness as a reason to disbar him from the office of Prime-minister and the Gutter Press in England's newly formed Scotophobia has led to a nearly a third (30%) of English people now supporting the principle of the Dissolution of the United Kingdom

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1036442006

Indeed it seems that dispite some politicans saying that the Union is safe we now see that The political union of Great Britain now faces a challange to it's survival from every nation within it's umbrella

So the vast majority of the English - by a 2-1 majority in fact - wish to maintain the Union.

DSwain before devolution you and I both know the Indepedance for Scotland was a non-issue in England now 91% of people who responded to a question on it by pollster's have an opinion. That in itself should show that far from pushing the independance question to the backwaters of British politics it has push it into a greater prominance not only in Scotland but in England. Support is on the rise in polls conducted in the last few weeks in Scotland close to 55% of people ask supported Scottish Independance. Those people included supporters of all the main parties Labour and the Conservitives included (I shall attempt to find these for you)

[DSwain]

angusrae wrote: DSwain wrote: angusrae wrote: It seems that the constant campaign by Tories against Gordon Brown's Scottishness as a reason to disbar him from the office of Prime-minister and the Gutter Press in England's newly formed Scotophobia has led to a nearly a third (30%) of English people now supporting the principle of the Dissolution of the United Kingdom

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1036442006

Indeed it seems that dispite some politicans saying that the Union is safe we now see that The political union of Great Britain now faces a challange to it's survival from every nation within it's umbrella

So the vast majority of the English - by a 2-1 majority in fact - wish to maintain the Union.

DSwain before devolution you and I both know the Indepedance for Scotland was a non-issue in England now 91% of people who responded to a question on it by pollster's have an opinion. That in itself should show that far from pushing the independance question to the backwaters of British politics it has push it into a greater prominance not only in Scotland but in England. Support is on the rise in polls conducted in the last few weeks in Scotland close to 55% of people ask supported Scottish Independance. Those people included supporters of all the main parties Labour and the Conservitives included (I shall attempt to find these for you)

I'm sure that there is substantial opinion in favour of independence and I take your word for it re the 55% figure in recent polls. Personally I think that if the SNP tops the poll at the next elections to Holyrood then there'd be a strong case for a referendum. I would support such a referendum. Although I believe in the Union I wouldn't want any nation of the UK to be kept within if a majority was against it. But no smokescreens, please, about what the English want! As your post makes clear, a clear majority of the English still believe in the Union.

[angusrae]

The polls as promised

http://www.independence1st.com/polls.shtml

[DSwain]

angusrae wrote: The polls as promised

http://www.independence1st.com/polls.shtml

Thanks for posting this angusrae.

Am I missing something here? Why the difference between 'Yes' and 'Yes overall'? Ie, 'Yes' is 46% and 'Yes overall' is 54%; looks to me that all that's been done is to split the 'Don't knows' in half and divvy it up between 'Yes' and 'No'. I've never seen that done in an opinion poll before.

I'm not challenging that a substantial number of Scots as questioned in this poll want independence - it's just that 54% is a much better headline than 46% as you can then say that a 'clear majority' wants independence.

[angusrae]

Scotland and Scots seem to be moving towards the idea the an Independent Scotland is not as scary a idea as most of the British (English) based parties would have them believe.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1339102006

Full Story

Balance of opinion tips dramatically towards independence for Scotland
HAMISH MACDONELL SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR
Poll shows support for independence leading over status quo
Nationalists support six years ago stood at 23%, now at 44%
Labour's current difficulties have produced several inconsistent poll results
Key quote
"These are dramatic and detailed findings which will increase the panic in Scottish Labour. They show Labour is suffering not just because of the Blair-Brown bloodletting but also because of their failures in Scotland." - NICOLA STURGEON MSP
Story in full SCOTLAND would become an independent country if a referendum was held tomorrow, according to a new opinion poll which will reignite the political debate over Scotland's future.
The YouGov poll found that more Scots now want Scotland to become independent than those who want to stay within the United Kingdom.
A total of 44 per cent back independence, with 42 supporting the status quo and 15 per cent undecided.
This is a massive change on the 30 per cent or so who supported the idea of independence through the 1990s and an astonishing turnaround in the fortunes of the Nationalist movement, which could only muster 23 per cent support for independence six years ago.
The survey of 1,200 Scots is a major boost for the SNP which is now building up strong momentum ahead of next May's elections.
The poll also found that voters would like to see Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, as First Minister. He is seen as more honest, competent and likeable and less conceited than Jack McConnell, the Scottish Labour leader, who is regarded as out of touch.
The SNP and Labour are on roughly the same level in terms of popular support - but this represents a big enough shift for the SNP to allow the Nationalists to lead a ruling coalition with the Lib Dems and Greens following next year's Scottish election.
The poll, conducted for the Sunday Times at the height of Prime Minister Tony Blair's difficulties between Tuesday and Thursday last week, showed the SNP on 29 per cent for the first-past-the-post vote and the same level of support for the second, proportional representation vote.
Labour support was 30 per cent and 27 per cent respectively. On this showing, the Nationalists would win 38 of Holyrood's 129 seats, enough to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, Labour's current governing partners, and the Greens.
Labour would narrowly remain the biggest party with 42 seats, down from its current 50.
The survey also revealed that 64 per cent of voters favour at least enhanced powers for the parliament while only 19 per cent favoured the status quo.
Despite the First Minister's high-profile crusade to tackle antisocial behaviour, 58 per cent of Scots believe the problem has got worse since the last Holyrood election. Some 39 per cent said the NHS has got worse and 22 per cent believe standards in schools have deteriorated.
Although the poll is a major success for the Nationalists, it has to be seen in the context of recent Scottish opinion polls, all of which have failed to show any sort of consistent pattern, either of an SNP lead or of a buoyant Labour Party.
However, delighted SNP leaders claimed the poll's findings were "humiliating" for Mr McConnell.
Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP's Holyrood leader, said: "These are dramatic and detailed findings which will increase the panic in Scottish Labour.
"They show Labour is suffering not just because of the Blair-Brown bloodletting but also because of their failures in Scotland.
"As their London colleagues have descended into chaos, Labour in Scotland have been pretending that they could distance themselves from their parent party."
John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University and an election expert, warned that Labour should advocate more powers for the Scottish Parliament to avoid an electoral backlash.
"All of the other parties in Scotland are looking to go into the election wanting to change the devolution settlement and it seems to me that the Labour Party ought to be, too."
A Labour spokesman said: "This poll is one of a number recently, all of which have shown hugely differing results, although all have made clear the electorate faces an important choice in 2007: investment in schools and hospitals with Labour, or breaking up Britain and economic instability with the SNP."

Also read this article.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/69781.html

[The_Right_Honourable]

angusrae wrote: There has been more English discontent over devolution over the last few months. Will this lead to the break up of the UK

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/64358.html

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/64379.html

And if not have Gordon Brown's hopes of becomeing Prime Minister began to falter. :)

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=902282006

The last option is a bit of a joke but it could happen. :lol:

I dont see why it should split up. England is the heart of Britain and the scots and welsh and irish would suffer without us.

But perhaps if a united states of europe came into being then the united kingdom would effectively cease to exist...

[Sawney]

Robin Hood wrote: This is not true, as my debate with you on it, quite a while ago, demonstrated.

I may not post here much, but I actually read that debate and I'm quite sorry, you didn't really demonstrate anything at all that actually proves that “English” money is going north of the border. :?

I have always been puzzled on why a good many English folk actually believe this rubbish that England is the financial be all and end all of the United Kingdom?

Anyone, who has looked at the UK’s finances over the last few decades, will know what a lot of crap that claim really is.

In 2005, the UK, as a whole, had a deficit of £38.9 billion, equivalent to 3.6% of GDP. Then, of course, there is the national debt which stands at £525.9 billion as of 2005.

Perhaps someone could explain to me how England can even subsidise anything when England can't even support herself? Yes, ignoring Scotland and taking Scotland's "hypothesised" deficit away, there remains a big black hole at the centre of the UK's finances. The remaining £22bn is most definitely not attributable to fiscal gaps in Wales and in Northern Ireland.

So, in other words, England also has a fiscal deficit - she can't fund her own expenditure from taxes raised there, far less subsidise Scotland

So how anyone really say that England subsidises Scotland (or indeed anything)? :!?:

The really funny thing, is that the only basis that the British Government have used to prove that Scotland is "subsidised", is via the annual GERS Reports (Government Expenditure Report for Scotland) which really shows a false picture as any amateur economist, after examining it, could easily prove.

For instance, it totally excludes North Sea oil revenues (£11 billion last year, and £12-13 billion estimated this year), which is a curious omission as 97.1% of all North Sea oil fields are located in Scottish territory (Yes, there really is such a thing!) as stipulated by the 1968 Continental Shelf Act. All of these oil fields lie in the area of the North sea that is under Scottish legal jurisdiction, which really makes them Scottish, wouldn't you think? One wonders why oil revenues are excluded from the Scottish tax take?

Also, anyone who has looked at the most recent GERS Report (2005/2006) will know that much the figures are obviously fiddled with. You really should look at how the GERS compliers worked out one aspect of the national allowances' gifted to Scotland from the exchequer: Corporation tax.

Their own reports the GERS authors acknowledges that the calculation for this allocation to Scotland is “exceptionally difficult to calculate“. As a result their estimates for 2004/2005 is 8.2% of the UK total, or £3.12 Billion. Which is a pretty strange claim to make, as I will show.

For instance, Scotland have the Head Offices of the RBS, LloydsTSB, and HSBO banks. Their combined tax liability for 2003 was £4.1Billion. A report on the top 100 Scottish companies in 2004 showed profits of almost £12 billion, with a tax liability of £3.5 Billion. Total exchequer gains from Scottish based companies = £6.6 billion. This is £3 billion less than the amount earned from the top 100 alone.

If an unbiased assessment was undertaken of ALL GERS calculations, the so-called subsidising of Scotland will be shown to be another English myth. :x

P.S. I might as well mention that there is another great flaw in the GERS calculations especially when it comes to how much is raised through taxation in Scotland and how much is spent in Scotland.

I'll give you an example; a drinks company makes whisky in Scotland but has its corporate headquarters in London. When it declares its profits from its whisky sales, is this money regarded as having been generated in Scotland or in London? Ditto for an oil company based in London.

So do you see what I'm getting at? There's an awful lot of economic activity in Scotland which appears as economic activity elsewhere just because the parent company siphons off the profits and declares them in another jurisdiction. The numpties who compile GERS certainly did not take these factors into consideration, and as such, it really goes to show how reliable the whole GERS report system from its very first inception (From 1992 onwards) to the present day really is.

[DSwain]

Sawney wrote: Robin Hood wrote: This is not true, as my debate with you on it, quite a while ago, demonstrated.

I may not post here much, but I actually read that debate and I'm quite sorry, you didn't really demonstrate anything at all that actually proves that “English” money is going north of the border. :?

I have always been puzzled on why a good many English folk actually believe this rubbish that England is the financial be all and end all of the United Kingdom?

Anyone, who has looked at the UK’s finances over the last few decades, will know what a lot of crap that claim really is.

In 2005, the UK, as a whole, had a deficit of £38.9 billion, equivalent to 3.6% of GDP. Then, of course, there is the national debt which stands at £525.9 billion as of 2005.

Perhaps someone could explain to me how England can even subsidise anything when England can't even support herself? Yes, ignoring Scotland and taking Scotland's "hypothesised" deficit away, there remains a big black hole at the centre of the UK's finances. The remaining £22bn is most definitely not attributable to fiscal gaps in Wales and in Northern Ireland.

So, in other words, England also has a fiscal deficit - she can't fund her own expenditure from taxes raised there, far less subsidise Scotland

So how anyone really say that England subsidises Scotland (or indeed anything)? :!?:

The really funny thing, is that the only basis that the British Government have used to prove that Scotland is "subsidised", is via the annual GERS Reports (Government Expenditure Report for Scotland) which really shows a false picture as any amateur economist, after examining it, could easily prove.

For instance, it totally excludes North Sea oil revenues (£11 billion last year, and £12-13 billion estimated this year), which is a curious omission as 97.1% of all North Sea oil fields are located in Scottish territory (Yes, there really is such a thing!) as stipulated by the 1968 Continental Shelf Act. All of these oil fields lie in the area of the North sea that is under Scottish legal jurisdiction, which really makes them Scottish, wouldn't you think? One wonders why oil revenues are excluded from the Scottish tax take?

Also, anyone who has looked at the most recent GERS Report (2005/2006) will know that much the figures are obviously fiddled with. You really should look at how the GERS compliers worked out one aspect of the national allowances' gifted to Scotland from the exchequer: Corporation tax.

Their own reports the GERS authors acknowledges that the calculation for this allocation to Scotland is “exceptionally difficult to calculate“. As a result their estimates for 2004/2005 is 8.2% of the UK total, or £3.12 Billion. Which is a pretty strange claim to make, as I will show.

For instance, Scotland have the Head Offices of the RBS, LloydsTSB, and HSBO banks. Their combined tax liability for 2003 was £4.1Billion. A report on the top 100 Scottish companies in 2004 showed profits of almost £12 billion, with a tax liability of £3.5 Billion. Total exchequer gains from Scottish based companies = £6.6 billion. This is £3 billion less than the amount earned from the top 100 alone.

If an unbiased assessment was undertaken of ALL GERS calculations, the so-called subsidising of Scotland will be shown to be another English myth. :x

P.S. I might as well mention that there is another great flaw in the GERS calculations especially when it comes to how much is raised through taxation in Scotland and how much is spent in Scotland.

I'll give you an example; a drinks company makes whisky in Scotland but has its corporate headquarters in London. When it declares its profits from its whisky sales, is this money regarded as having been generated in Scotland or in London? Ditto for an oil company based in London.

So do you see what I'm getting at? There's an awful lot of economic activity in Scotland which appears as economic activity elsewhere just because the parent company siphons off the profits and declares them in another jurisdiction. The numpties who compile GERS certainly did not take these factors into consideration, and as such, it really goes to show how reliable the whole GERS report system from its very first inception (From 1992 onwards) to the present day really is.

Very interesting Sawney - thanks for posting that; it's given me some things to think about. But what's your opinion of Barnett?

[Robin Hood]

Sawney wrote: Robin Hood wrote: This is not true, as my debate with you on it, quite a while ago, demonstrated.

I may not post here much, but I actually read that debate and I'm quite sorry, you didn't really demonstrate anything at all that actually proves that “English” money is going north of the border. :?

I have always been puzzled on why a good many English folk actually believe this rubbish that England is the financial be all and end all of the United Kingdom?

Anyone, who has looked at the UK’s finances over the last few decades, will know what a lot of crap that claim really is.

In 2005, the UK, as a whole, had a deficit of £38.9 billion, equivalent to 3.6% of GDP. Then, of course, there is the national debt which stands at £525.9 billion as of 2005.

Perhaps someone could explain to me how England can even subsidise anything when England can't even support herself? Yes, ignoring Scotland and taking Scotland's "hypothesised" deficit away, there remains a big black hole at the centre of the UK's finances. The remaining £22bn is most definitely not attributable to fiscal gaps in Wales and in Northern Ireland.

So, in other words, England also has a fiscal deficit - she can't fund her own expenditure from taxes raised there, far less subsidise Scotland

So how anyone really say that England subsidises Scotland (or indeed anything)? :!?:

The really funny thing, is that the only basis that the British Government have used to prove that Scotland is "subsidised", is via the annual GERS Reports (Government Expenditure Report for Scotland) which really shows a false picture as any amateur economist, after examining it, could easily prove.

For instance, it totally excludes North Sea oil revenues (£11 billion last year, and £12-13 billion estimated this year), which is a curious omission as 97.1% of all North Sea oil fields are located in Scottish territory (Yes, there really is such a thing!) as stipulated by the 1968 Continental Shelf Act. All of these oil fields lie in the area of the North sea that is under Scottish legal jurisdiction, which really makes them Scottish, wouldn't you think? One wonders why oil revenues are excluded from the Scottish tax take?

Also, anyone who has looked at the most recent GERS Report (2005/2006) will know that much the figures are obviously fiddled with. You really should look at how the GERS compliers worked out one aspect of the national allowances' gifted to Scotland from the exchequer: Corporation tax.

Their own reports the GERS authors acknowledges that the calculation for this allocation to Scotland is “exceptionally difficult to calculate“. As a result their estimates for 2004/2005 is 8.2% of the UK total, or £3.12 Billion. Which is a pretty strange claim to make, as I will show.

For instance, Scotland have the Head Offices of the RBS, LloydsTSB, and HSBO banks. Their combined tax liability for 2003 was £4.1Billion. A report on the top 100 Scottish companies in 2004 showed profits of almost £12 billion, with a tax liability of £3.5 Billion. Total exchequer gains from Scottish based companies = £6.6 billion. This is £3 billion less than the amount earned from the top 100 alone.

If an unbiased assessment was undertaken of ALL GERS calculations, the so-called subsidising of Scotland will be shown to be another English myth. :x

P.S. I might as well mention that there is another great flaw in the GERS calculations especially when it comes to how much is raised through taxation in Scotland and how much is spent in Scotland.

I'll give you an example; a drinks company makes whisky in Scotland but has its corporate headquarters in London. When it declares its profits from its whisky sales, is this money regarded as having been generated in Scotland or in London? Ditto for an oil company based in London.

So do you see what I'm getting at? There's an awful lot of economic activity in Scotland which appears as economic activity elsewhere just because the parent company siphons off the profits and declares them in another jurisdiction. The numpties who compile GERS certainly did not take these factors into consideration, and as such, it really goes to show how reliable the whole GERS report system from its very first inception (From 1992 onwards) to the present day really is.

First you say that England can not be propping up Scotland, justifying it with the non-sequitor that the UK (i.e Scotland and the UK) is in deficit.

Drawing from this, as a conclusion, you say that England would be in deficit anyway, which may be true; but is also irrelevant. Since it's quite obvious that it'd be in less of a deficit at least.

Your economic calculations are then based on what? 3 companies. You discredit my figures whilst offering me this!

Quite simply: It's undenied by even the most fervent Scottish Nationalist that England's GDP per capita is significantly higher. Yet the rules of taxation in the two places are pretty much the same. This means that the people in England get taxed significantly more. Even more importantly, though this may be contested, poorer people tend to receive more state money - which means Scotland receives more state money of which it pays less!

Having said that, this system has ruined Scotland. It has allowed Scotland - even forced Scotland - to sink further into stagnant socialism whilst shielding it in a fleeting heroin glow from what may seem like scary economic liberty. If Scotland were independent its necrotizing socialism would have been unsustainable, as in Ireland. Leading to strongly capitalist reforms, as with Ireland, and a resurgnent - perhaps incredible economic growth - as in Ireland.

[Sawney]

DSwain wrote: Very interesting Sawney - thanks for posting that; it's given me some things to think about. But what's your opinion of Barnett?

Thanks for the reply.

If you want to know I really believe that far too much is made about the Barnett Formula and it is really media hype which paints a quite inaccurate picture of it.

The idea that the Scots receives more public spending, needs to be examined a bit more closely.

For instance, the Barnett Formula only applies to ‘identifiable’ public expenditure. Despite a presumption held by most media commentators, the figures presented to us do not accurately record the differential between government spending in Scotland and England. "Identifiable public spending" makes up only about two-thirds of government spending. A considerable proportion of this spending, that is assigned to Scotland (in the annual GERS Reports), is made up of unsupportable assumptions as there are no separate figures for Scotland in many areas (perhaps deliberately so).

Anyways, the other third of government spending – the unidentified bit – is the important part. It comprises, among other things, the huge spending on government jobs concentrated in the Home Counties, the huge domestic procurement programme concentrated in the same area and the even larger defence procurement spending. Scotland gets less than one-third of its proper share of all of this.

As the majority of the ‘unidentifiable’ spending is spent in England, and is it does not factor in the equation of the Barnett Formula, this gives a really false impression of how much of public expenditure total is actually spent in Scotland. If the 'unidentifiable spending' is added to the equation, does that actually mean that the South-East of England the biggest beneficiary of public spending in the UK, not Scotland?

Also, here’s another thing. Do you realise that ‘National’ spending (i.e. For projects considered for the good of all UK citizens) is also excluded from the Barnett Formula, as all parts of the UK are considered in contributing to it.

As that is the case, why do many of these ‘National’ projects been done in the South-East of England? You actually do realise that in the last 10 years alone, the British capital has actually been awarded a jaw-dropping £26 billion for a certain number of projects, stated below:

* London 2012 - £1.75 billion in funding from the lottery or general taxation
* Crossrail - £13.9 billion to £14.8 billion
* Channel Tunnel rail link - £5.2 billion
* Jubilee line extension - £3.2 billion
* British Library - £0.5 billion
* DLR extension - £0.5 billion
* East London line extension - £0.8 billion

A question: What tangible benefits does Scotland (which has a pro-rata population share of these projects) have, when these ‘national’ projects are located so very far away from her own borders?

As both the ‘identifiable public spending’ and ‘National spending’ are not factored when it comes to the Barnett Formula it poses the question: Does Scotland actually do get more public spending?

Lastly, if you do indeed find doubt on the merits of my case and you believe that Scotland does get more public spending than she does deserve, could it actually be that it really is deserved anyway. Could it actually be considered that Scotland actually gives more to the Treasury, pro-rata, and therefore deserves a larger percentage of government funds? :?

As I have shown in my above post, there would be a very good case for the “Scots are subsidised” brigade, if it can be proved that England actually does give Scotland money, but as I hope to have shown above, there really is much doubt if that is the case.