Scottish friends: Explain how this is fair...

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by oldwelshman

Incorrect.
The welsh assembly also voted to subsidise welsh student fees by 85% so its only the English who pay [:D] and you conveniently forgot how much money the Norht Sea Oil has contributed to the UK.
...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Indeed, but as per the discussion in the 'middle class wacked' thread: is subsidising the better off half of society to go to 'uni' really the best use that could be made of the rather large sums of taxpayers' money involved?

Educational inequalities begin years before children think about doing a degree; in practice most of those getting the right A levels are able to go to university and end up above averagely well-off. Spending billions to pay people to do something they'd do anyway (if they really want to do it) is not going to solve social exclusion.

Fat Head · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Fat Head

The quicker us Scots and English get political independence from one another the better. Vivre Alec Salmond and independence.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Will you give up your seats in the Westminster Parliament after independence?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Too right. It'll be the English Parliament as far as I'm concerned. Let's sort our own affairs out please!

spire · June 2007

It gets worse and worse (for England):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ols121.xml

SureSureSure · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

It gets worse and worse (for England):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ols121.xml
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As the saying goes:

"If ye dinnae ask, ye dinnae get"

If at first you don't succeed - give in and go for a pint!

Unkraut · June 2007

I don't blame the Scots for wanting to make improvements, but sooner or later the English need to wake up and stop financing this. Political independence must also entail financial independence, but at the moment the Scots are making a quiet killing while they may. This whole devolution thing has not been properly thought through, it seems to me.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Unkraut

I don't blame the Scots for wanting to make improvements, but sooner or later the English need to wake up and stop financing this. Political independence must also entail financial independence, but at the moment the Scots are making a quiet killing while they may. This whole devolution thing has not been properly thought through, it seems to me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Spire is sh!t-stirring again.

The Scottish Executive had decided to make changes to our education system (which is a devolved matter). It has not asked for money from Westminster to fund this nor will it. So. in essence the Scottish Executive has decided to spend its money in a specific way, which it is perfectly entitled to do. If some people in England don't like what we spend our money on, then tough - it is our money.

All these stories in the Daily Torygraph about "English taxpayers once again see the SNP avoiding the logic of their own independence objective. You can't go your own way if you don't pay your own way." are tosh.

_____________________________________________________________________
Be nice to grumpy old men (or else)

Unkraut · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by killiekosmos

Spire is sh!t-stirring again.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm shocked! I cannot imagine spire ever stirring it up, he is far too politically correct. [:D]

spire · June 2007

Sorry KK, but a lot of people are getting very upset about this.

It's all very well go on about "Well, this is a devolved matter blah, blah" but most ordinary English folk will not have a clue what you are talking about. They take a simple view: Brown (a Scot) says we all in the UK together, but our children getting second class treatment at school AND university compared to Scottish children - and that's not fair.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

Sorry KK, but a lot of people are getting very upset about this.

It's all very well go on about "Well, this is a devolved matter blah, blah" but most ordinary English folk will not have a clue what you are talking about. They take a simple view: Brown (a Scot) says we all in the UK together, but our children getting second class treatment at school AND university compared to Scottish children - and that's not fair.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think it comes down to a very simple point. The amount of public spending per capita is about 10% higher for the Scots than it is for the rest of the country. Obviously, it is up to them to decide how they spend it on devolved matters, but they are getting too much in the first place.

Of course, it may be that the Westminster government might decide to let them have less now that they are not meekly returning Labour MPs in return for a bigger share of the pot. [;)]

QuickDraw · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

Sorry KK, but a lot of people are getting very upset about this.

It's all very well go on about "Well, this is a devolved matter blah, blah" but most ordinary English folk will not have a clue what you are talking about. They take a simple view: Brown (a Scot) says we all in the UK together, but our children getting second class treatment at school AND university compared to Scottish children - and that's not fair.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why isn't it fair? Have the English ever voted for a party which stood on a manifesto of providing free higher education and cutting class sizes for the first 3 years of primary school? We did.

Instead of complaining how unfair the system is, shouldn't you be asking your elected representatives, especially the ones from the "Education, Education, Education" party, why they are not putting as high a priority on education?

If this is as big an issue as you seem to think Cameron will do all he can to steal it. If, on the other hand, the real issue is that you don't like that the current constitutional settlement then let's talk about that instead. With 2 different administrations there will always be differences and claiming that every difference is an unfairness is ludicrous. So come on what are the real issues?

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by QuickDraw

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

Sorry KK, but a lot of people are getting very upset about this.

It's all very well go on about "Well, this is a devolved matter blah, blah" but most ordinary English folk will not have a clue what you are talking about. They take a simple view: Brown (a Scot) says we all in the UK together, but our children getting second class treatment at school AND university compared to Scottish children - and that's not fair.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why isn't it fair? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because you have more state money to spend per head than England and Wales.

monty_dogcp · June 2007

So, people in England screw up their education system, watch jealously as their near-neighbours have a different sense of priorities and scream "it's not fair!" If you want to have a pop, have a go at the local governments and educations authorities with their weird sense of priorities and the need for 'results' rather than looking at the quality of the output. I'm amazed at the number of former alumni I bump into on business whilst working in England - we all came from very normal backgrounds, but we weren't dragged down by the comprehensive systems of mediocrity, where actually being good at something meant that you were bullied or marginalised and therefore forced to under-perform for the sake of your 'mates' - start looking at society's values and then you'll realise where the difference is.

QuickDraw · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens
I think it comes down to a very simple point. The amount of public spending per capita is about 10% higher for the Scots than it is for the rest of the country. Obviously, it is up to them to decide how they spend it on devolved matters, but they are getting too much in the first place.

Of course, it may be that the Westminster government might decide to let them have less now that they are not meekly returning Labour MPs in return for a bigger share of the pot. [;)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The main reason Scotland gets more money per capita is simple - oil. Thatcher never attempted to alter the Barnett formula and she certainly wasn't relying on her handful of Scottish MPs to prop up her administration but she knew that the money coming in from the North Sea was worth much more than the "subsidy". Any attempt to reduce the amount of funding to Scotland will automatically increase support for the SNP and lead to a break up of the union and a loss of all that oil money. There will be a tipping point when the revenue from the North Sea isn't worth it but we're not there yet so don't expect any changes soon.

spire · June 2007

We're either one country, with one rule for all...

...or we are two countries, each free to do its own thing.

The current nonsensical, hybrid situation is simply leading to more and more unfairness.

SureSureSure · June 2007

Some interesting facts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Formula

Including this wee gem:

UK-wide per-capita average was a notional 100% then identifiable per-capita expenditure on services was 96% and the Scottish amount 119%. Wales was 112%, Northern Ireland 129%. This comprises all expenditure that can be identified as being to the benefit of a particular country and includes more spending categories than the devolved spending (like spending on pensions and job seekers allowance).

In actual monetary figures, that works out as (per person):[1]

England œ5,940
Scotland œ7,346
Wales œ6,901
Northern Ireland œ7,945


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If at first you don't succeed - give in and go for a pint!

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Monty Dog

have a go at the local governments and educations authorities with their weird sense of priorities <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Unfortunately, all the major decisions are made on a NATIONAL basis, and will shortly be under the control of a Scot to whom the personal consequences of his decisions will not apply!

SureSureSure · June 2007

So, how about we rename the title of this thread to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Friends: Explain how this is fair.........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If at first you don't succeed - give in and go for a pint!

SureSureSure · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spireUnfortunately, all the major decisions are made on a NATIONAL basis, and will shortly be under the control of a Scot to whom the personal consequences of his decisions will not apply!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Will his kids not go to an English School from their English home?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If at first you don't succeed - give in and go for a pint!

gillan1969 · June 2007

steady spire you don't have a very high opinion of your fellow english do you "not have a clue", "take a simple view"

brilliant.....the spire solution dumb democracy down to the lowest common demonianator

maybe if we take this to its logical conclusion we could first remove all education spending and then democracy itself

you've not really got a grasp of this devolution thing at all have you....its quite simple

imagine mrs spire give you œ20 bucks to go to the shops to procure two steaks and a bottle of red...she bases this amount on her last waitrose trip....however states that shes not too fussed what she has and trusts you to make the choice for tea...knowing that the fish van visits on a thursday you, knowing mrs spires penchant for lemon sole (grilled lightly with some butter and sprinkling of pink peppercors and a splash of lime) decide to get some fillets (which are more expensive than the steak you were going to buy) and a Chablis

This spire, in a nutshell, is what has happened...if you had a problem with the œ20 you should have protested at the outset "my dear mrs spire, œ20 is far too profligate for our tea let me only spend œ15 in line with the Stevens' next door. Patrick is a great one for economising and often supplements his shopping with sundry wildlife he has shot such as squirrel and rabbit"

www.squadraporcini.com

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by QuickDraw

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens
I think it comes down to a very simple point. The amount of public spending per capita is about 10% higher for the Scots than it is for the rest of the country. Obviously, it is up to them to decide how they spend it on devolved matters, but they are getting too much in the first place.

Of course, it may be that the Westminster government might decide to let them have less now that they are not meekly returning Labour MPs in return for a bigger share of the pot. [;)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The main reason Scotland gets more money per capita is simple - oil.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So does Wales, but there's no oil here. Northern Ireland gets more money per capita than Wales or Scotland, but there's no oil there either.

QuickDraw · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by QuickDraw

Why isn't it fair? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because you have more state money to spend per head than England and Wales.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Take note Spire these are the real issues. Specific claims about how we spend this extra money is just a diversion.

I would argue that we only take out what we need to make the union work. Any less and we'd be voting for independence. This wil change with oil revenues and we will accept less when the oil runs out. So I'd say we are only taking what we're entitled to.

There is no real demand for a break up of the union in England, they seem to quite like it (indeed loads of them can't seem to tell the difference between England and Britain), and it seems prepared to pay the price of the oil to preserve the union. It's all very pragmatic if not at first glance "fair".

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by QuickDraw

There is no real demand for a break up of the union in England,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There's none at all, but if a majority of Scots want independence, then it would be arranged - not least because it would be of huge advantage to a Tory government to get rid of a lot of opposition MPs.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by SureSureSure

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spireUnfortunately, all the major decisions are made on a NATIONAL basis, and will shortly be under the control of a Scot to whom the personal consequences of his decisions will not apply!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Will his kids not go to an English School from their English home?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If at first you don't succeed - give in and go for a pint!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Are you joking! [:0][:D]

Given he can't send them to a private school he's bound to send them to Scotland. This man loves his kids.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by gillan1969

1. steady spire you don't have a very high opinion of your fellow english do you "not have a clue", "take a simple view"

2. brilliant.... the lowest common demonianator

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1. If you think I'm stupid, you should meet the rest of 'em! [:D][:D]

2. Is this some sort of dirty witch? [:p][:p]

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by SureSureSure

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spireUnfortunately, all the major decisions are made on a NATIONAL basis, and will shortly be under the control of a Scot to whom the personal consequences of his decisions will not apply!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Will his kids not go to an English School from their English home?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If at first you don't succeed - give in and go for a pint!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Are you joking! [:0][:D]

Given he can't send them to a private school he's bound to send them to Scotland. This man loves his kids.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I thought it had been made clear enough that Gordon Brown's home is in Scotland and he has accommodation in London where he works during the week. This is pretty much the same for all MPs with constituencies outside London.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

We're either one country, with one rule for all...

...or we are two countries, each free to do its own thing.

The current nonsensical, hybrid situation is simply leading to more and more unfairness.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It is not really all that different from neighbouring councils: one spends it money on some priorities, while others spend it differently. In USA different states spend on different priorities.

How Scotland spends its money is up to its elected representatives. Would you have bothered posting if Scottish Executive had decided to increase class sizes? I don't think so.

You may have a point worthy of debate about funding for Scotland but you have no right to tell us how to spend it.

_____________________________________________________________________
Be nice to grumpy old men (or else)

mjones · June 2007

Re: oil, lots of people do seem to assume that oil revenues justifies the greater per capita public expenditure in Scotland, but no-one has provided any figures. So I've asked the great god google and found this pre-devolution Scottish Office document on Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/docu ... ers-09.htm

It compares Government receipts with expenditure for the UK as a whole and Scotland, calculates the difference, then shows what difference would be made by allocating North Sea oil revenue to Scotland. The figures are for 1996-97, when totalled œ3.56 billion in 1996-97

Here's a quote:
"...if, for example, all oil revenues were attributed to Scotland, the "fiscal deficit" would fall from the central estimate of œ7.1 billion to around œ3.6 billion. With the inclusion of privatisation proceeds, the equivalent figures would be œ6.7 billion and œ3.2 billion, respectively."

So even taking account of oil revenues, there is still a net subsidy of Scotland by English taxpayers.

More recent figures, though expressed differently are given here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 0411/48779

Total North Sea revenues amounted to around œ4.9 billion in 2002-03, Aggregate expenditure in Scotland was œ40.879 billion;
Aggregate receipts œ31.620 bn.
Net borrowing (excluding oil revenue): œ9.260 bn;
Net borrowing (if 100% of oil revenue allocated to Scotland): œ4.370 bn

So, that'll be big "Thank You English taxpayer, we're very grateful" then! [:D]

papercorn2000 · June 2007

I think it's unfair the massive subsidy the South East of England gets due to the apparatus of government being based there. Can't it be spread about a bit?

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by papercorn2000

I think it's unfair the massive subsidy the South East of England gets due to the apparatus of government being based there. Can't it be spread about a bit?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Can you quantify that 'subsidy'?

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

Re: oil, So, that'll be big "Thank You English taxpayer, we're very grateful" then! [:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Possibly not, but it does explain why the Scottish demands for independence are somewhat muted.

Scottish friends: Explain how this is fair...

Comments

Categories