Scottish friends: Explain how this is fair...

papercorn2000 · June 2007

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

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

Nope, wouldn't know where to start. Why, reckon it doesn't exist?

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

Unknown · June 2007

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

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

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

Nope, wouldn't know where to start. Why, reckon it doesn't exist?

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As the apparatus of government is basically the public sector, perhaps a good starting point would be to compare the relative percentages of the public sector between England and Scotland.

mjones · June 2007

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

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

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

Nope, wouldn't know where to start. Why, reckon it doesn't exist?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It undoubtedly provides some incentive for businesses to locate in the South East, but that isn't a subsidy. Nor is the presence of government significant for all types of business. There is indeed increased public sector expenditure associated with civil servant salaries, and expenditure on SE based contractors, but if you want to use relative terms like "massive" then you've really got to provide some figures to show how it compares with the rest of the SE economy.

There are after all lots of other places where the government spends taxpayers money: rural areas cost more per person to provide public services, farmers get whopping big subsidies, military expenditure is concentrated in certain areas and welfare expenditure is much higher i poor areas than in places like the SE which pay a disproportionate part of the tax bill.

Unknown · June 2007

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

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

The report you quote is 10 years old and full of caveats about estimates.

One difficulty is in apportioning souces of tax revenue. Most companies are headquartered in London and their tax payments will be counted there. For example BAE Systems, Diageo etc have major Scottish presences, are their tax payments apportioned acrossUK or just counted as paid in England? M&S has lots of stores in Scotland but I bet all its taxes are paid in London.

_____________________________________________________________________
Be nice to grumpy old men (or else)

QuickDraw · June 2007

I had assumed that since we were talking about differing spends on devolved areas that your figures were referrring to that. All of the figures quoted here apply to the total amount of public spending across all services not just the devolved areas.

These figures show that poorer areas tend to have more spent on them. That seems perfectly fair to me and, indeed, logical. Areas of high unemployment will need more money to pay benefits etc. It's called society.

The system may be a little crude and lead to slight anomalies but largely government spending goes to where it is needed. How is that unfair?

Unknown · June 2007

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

These figures show that poorer areas tend to have more spent on them. That seems perfectly fair to me and, indeed, logical. Areas of high unemployment will need more money to pay benefits etc. It's called society.

The system may be a little crude and lead to slight anomalies but largely government spending goes to where it is needed. How is that unfair?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Certain of the Scots (and please feel free to disassociate yourself from this position) think it is unfair that that oil revenues from the North Sea go to the UK as a whole and not to Scotland.

spire · June 2007

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

I had assumed that since we were talking about differing spends on devolved areas that your figures were referrring to that. All of the figures quoted here apply to the total amount of public spending across all services not just the devolved areas.

These figures show that poorer areas tend to have more spent on them. That seems perfectly fair to me and, indeed, logical. Areas of high unemployment will need more money to pay benefits etc. It's called society.

The system may be a little crude and lead to slight anomalies but largely government spending goes to where it is needed. How is that unfair?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

All this background intellectualising...[V]

It is unfair because England and Scotland are meant to be part of the same society, yet Scottish kids get a better education than English kids, and it costs Scottish parents and their kids less!

Stop over-complicating the issue and try and understand why it's upsetting the English!

bof · June 2007

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

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

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

Nope, wouldn't know where to start. Why, reckon it doesn't exist?

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The civil service is in fact highly spread out and a lot of it is in areas which have had economic problems (around Blackpool, the North East). Much more so than the private sector, who has tended to move its clerical factories to places like Basingstoke on the periphery of the South East.

This is a good thing but it leads to one big problem which I have seen first hand. A system I was involved in developing was fully capable of removing around 1000 civil servants. It was never properly deployed because those 1000 people would have struggled to find another job in that location. Had it been in the South East or London, the choice would have been a lot easier.

Unknown · June 2007

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

All this background intellectualising...[V]

Stop over-complicating the issue and try and understand why it's upsetting the English!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's dead simple - it's the Barnett formula and it benefits Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at the expense of England.

QuickDraw · June 2007

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

All this background intellectualising...[V]

It is unfair because England and Scotland are meant to be part of the same society, yet Scottish kids get a better education than English kids, and it costs Scottish parents and their kids less!

Stop over-complicating the issue and try and understand why it's upsetting the English!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Believe it or not I am trying really hard to understand what is upsetting you. I'm trying to imagine if the situation were reversed and England were getting smaller class sizes and free higher education. I'd be asking questions of the executive as to why we can't do something similar but since, in this reversed world, none of the Scottish parties mentioned any plans like this in their manifesto what would I complain about?

There is clearly an argument to be had about the fairness of the current funding system but how that budget is spent and any differences between London and Edinburgh are not in themselves unfair even if they've been funded by an unfair system.

btw I'm not sure what background intellectualising is but I'm taking it as a compliment. I'm going to tell my Dad I've been accused of being intellectual, he'll be so proud.[^]

Unknown · June 2007

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

There is clearly an argument to be had about the fairness of the current funding system but how that budget is spent and any differences between London and Edinburgh are not in themselves unfair even if they've been funded by an unfair system.

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

Agree. The constitutional settlement devolved certain spending issues to Scotland and it is entirely up to Scotland how they decide to apportion the money, just as it would be up to a council in the UK to decide to improve education by spending a lot more on their local schools.

spire · June 2007

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

It's dead simple - it's the Barnett formula

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

Yes, that's the explanation, but it's not a moral justification.

spire · 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

All this background intellectualising...[V]

It is unfair because England and Scotland are meant to be part of the same society, yet Scottish kids get a better education than English kids, and it costs Scottish parents and their kids less!

Stop over-complicating the issue and try and understand why it's upsetting the English!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Believe it or not I am trying really hard to understand what is upsetting you. I'm trying to imagine if the situation were reversed and England were getting smaller class sizes and free higher education. I'd be asking questions of the executive as to why we can't do something similar but since, in this reversed world, none of the Scottish parties mentioned any plans like this in their manifesto what would I complain about?

There is clearly an argument to be had about the fairness of the current funding system but how that budget is spent and any differences between London and Edinburgh are not in themselves unfair even if they've been funded by an unfair system.

btw I'm not sure what background intellectualising is but I'm taking it as a compliment. I'm going to tell my Dad I've been accused of being intellectual, he'll be so proud.[^]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Mrs Chav: Why's my little Kylie in a class of forty and why is is going to to cost her a fortune to go to university? Her cousin Agnes says it's much cheaper in Glasgow.

Quickdraw: Ah yes, that'll be because of the Barnett formula and the fact it's a devolved matter.

Mrs Chav: Oh, that's all right then.

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 Patrick Stevens

It's dead simple - it's the Barnett formula

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

Yes, that's the explanation, but it's not a moral justification.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Now, you're starting to sound like redcogs. [:0]He's always quick to decide that it's immoral for someone to more money than someone else. [;)]

gillan1969 · June 2007

spire

councils have different spending priorities

is the concept of local democracy wrong????

www.squadraporcini.com

QuickDraw · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire
Mrs Chav: Why's my little Kylie in a class of forty and why is is going to to cost her a fortune to go to university? Her cousin Agnes says it's much cheaper in Glasgow.

Quickdraw: Ah yes, that'll be because of the Barnett formula and the fact it's a devolved matter.

Mrs Chav: Oh, that's all right then.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yep that about sums it up. I would possibly add by way of expansion on the devolved point that the Scots voted to make education a priority and the English never (not since 1997 anyway).

The solution is not to complain about how unfair it all is it's to lobby your MP for the same system. If the telegraph are to be believed the whole of England will be up in arms and the next election will see the whole thing resolved.

spire · June 2007

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

spire

councils have different spending priorities

is the concept of local democracy wrong????

www.squadraporcini.com
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Mrs Angry in Tunbridge Wells doesn't agree that it's very "locally democratic" for a Scottish Prime Minister to continue to pressure the few local councils that still have grammar schools to close them down.

gillan1969 · June 2007

spire you make me laugh....divide a rule eh???

lets pit the poor sods against each other

Mrs chav: "why is my little Kylie in a class of forty and why is it going to cost her a fortune to go to university? Agnes says its much cheaper in Scotland""

Gillan1969: "mrs chav, successive governments made up of both the rich and priveledged in society have been dragged kicking a screaming to the conclusion that an educated society is good...not for societies own benefit, I may add, but for the economies i.e. the ruling elites benefit. When we we all just factory foodder all they had to do was keep us off the booze, now all they need do is educate us to work call centres. In the not too distant future as capital is free'd up even further....we won't matter at all as their capital can chase returns eleswhere outwith your beloved england....of course you won't be able to chase any returns as strict immigration laws allow capital to travel freely but not labour.

Mrs Chav "ah...so if we had a trading system that was not dominated by the vested interests of those in power I would be in a better position"

Gillan1969 "yes"

Spire " no. no what about cricket on the lawn and bicycling vicars....help help"

www.squadraporcini.com

Bcp · June 2007

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

Yep that about sums it up. I would possibly add by way of expansion on the devolved point that the Scots voted to make education a priority and the English never (not since 1997 anyway).

The solution is not to complain about how unfair it all is it's to lobby your MP for the same system. If the telegraph are to be believed the whole of England will be up in arms and the next election will see the whole thing resolved.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Can't see that happening - the whole reason tuition fees arose was because we can't afford to pay for 50% of all schoolleavers to go onto higher education.

Scotland can make an independent decision because it has a parliament and can distribute its comparitively bigger share of the cake to a relatively small population. But England, with the vast majority of the population, cannot do this unless serious spending cuts are made elsewhere. So the choice is between free media studies and how long you wait for that hip replacement or that new classroom. It seems to me that with recent SNP pronoucements on prescription charges and class sizes the English will end up being sick of it and independence will come from the outside if not within - I hope that Scotland can then still pick up its tab.

spire · June 2007

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

spire you make me laugh....divide a rule eh???

lets pit the poor sods against each other

Mrs chav: "why is my little Kylie in a class of forty and why is it going to cost her a fortune to go to university? Agnes says its much cheaper in Scotland""

Gillan1969: "mrs chav, successive governments made up of both the rich and priveledged in society have been dragged kicking a screaming to the conclusion that an educated society is good...not for societies own benefit, I may add, but for the economies i.e. the ruling elites benefit. When we we all just factory foodder all they had to do was keep us off the booze, now all they need do is educate us to work call centres. In the not too distant future as capital is free'd up even further....we won't matter at all as their capital can chase returns eleswhere outwith your beloved england....of course you won't be able to chase any returns as strict immigration laws allow capital to travel freely but not labour.

Mrs Chav "ah...so if we had a trading system that was not dominated by the vested interests of those in power I would be in a better position"

Gillan1969 "yes"

Spire " no. no what about cricket on the lawn and bicycling vicars....help help"

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

[:D][:D][:D][:D]

Faulty script, should be:

Mrs chav: "why is my little Kylie in a class of forty and why is it going to cost her a fortune to go to university? Agnes says its much cheaper in Scotland""

Gillan1969: "mrs chav, successive governments made up of both the rich and priveledged in society have been dragged kicking a screaming to the conclusion that an educated society is good...not for societies own benefit, I may add, but for the economies i.e. the ruling elites benefit. When we we all just factory foodder all they had to do was keep us off the booze, now all they need do is educate us to work call centres. In the not too distant future as capital is free'd up even further....we won't matter at all as their capital can chase returns eleswhere outwith your beloved england....of course you won't be able to chase any returns as strict immigration laws allow capital to travel freely but not labour.

Mrs Chav "Yer what, mate?"

Unknown · June 2007

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

an educated society is good...not for societies own benefit, I may add, but for the economies i.e. the ruling elites benefit. When we we all just factory foodder all they had to do was keep us off the booze, now all they need do is educate us to work call centres.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

gillan has correctly spotted that the Scots who want a better education system are secretly working to an English capitalist agenda. We need a constant suppy of educated Scots to work for us and keep wage rates down.

So, go to it gillan, A is for apple............

Unknown · June 2007

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

Certain of the Scots (and please feel free to disassociate yourself from this position) think it is unfair that that oil revenues from the North Sea go to the UK as a whole and not to Scotland.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have no problem with oil revenues going to UK as a whole.

However it appears that Spire and co want the oil money without letting us decide on our own spending priorities on health, education etc.

_____________________________________________________________________
Be nice to grumpy old men (or else)

gillan1969 · June 2007

spire

i am reminded of an exchange between a journo investigating sectarianism after an england ireland football game in dublin....i think it may have been abandoned after IRA chants and chair throwing????

anyway exchange went something like this (in early days of current tortuous peace process)

journo: so do you belive that the Framework Document has given too much to the nationalists and that this in some way has provoked the ire of the england fans?"

england fan: (tunring to friend) "...what document?..is he taking the pi*s?"

[:)][:)][:)]

www.squadraporcini.com

mjones · June 2007

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

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

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

The report you quote is 10 years old and full of caveats about estimates.

One difficulty is in apportioning souces of tax revenue. Most companies are headquartered in London and their tax payments will be counted there. For example BAE Systems, Diageo etc have major Scottish presences, are their tax payments apportioned acrossUK or just counted as paid in England? M&S has lots of stores in Scotland but I bet all its taxes are paid in London.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Actually you might want to look at the date of the second one, which was rather less than 10 years old. Do you think oil revenues have increased sufficiently since then to close the gap? Indeed, do you think the other factors you memtion are sufficient to close the gap? There are of course Scottish based businesses that trade in the rest of the UK as well.

The fundamental point here is that lots of people have been making the assumption that north sea oil justifies the greater level of public sector expenditure in Scotland. Yet so far, the only real figures anyone has found are the ones I've given above, which show England making a net contribution to Scotland. If you still insist otherwise, then fine, but please can we have some proper evidence to support it?

All that said, spire: the fact remains that how Scotland spends its funding is entirely up to Scotland. Personally I think Scottish voters really ought to question whether spending all that money on subsidising the better of half of society is good value in comparison with all the other things it might have been used for, but then that isn't my problem...

Razcp · June 2007

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

Side aching laughter from this quarter at the very idea of an arch tory like spiro having any concern about fairness. The entire raison de'tre of the tory is organising unfairness to benefit the interests of the rich. Shameless puke making individualism.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Are you poor then? Fairness is one thing, but hypocrisy is another...

Nothing worse than a middle class warrior for the "working classes".....

Edit: Having read some other posts, I realise that lunacy is in order.....

workers_united · June 2007

I'm making no comment- just reporting that the BBC web page today on
- England news is "The average cost of a council tax bill has nearly doubled since Labour came to power, a survey finds."
- Scotland news is "Scotland's council tax bills have risen by more than 50% in the last decade, according to a survey."

redcogs · June 2007

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

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

Side aching laughter from this quarter at the very idea of an arch tory like spiro having any concern about fairness. The entire raison de'tre of the tory is organising unfairness to benefit the interests of the rich. Shameless puke making individualism.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Are you poor then? Fairness is one thing, but hypocrisy is another...

Nothing worse than a middle class warrior for the "working classes".....

Edit: Having read some other posts, I realise that lunacy is in order.....
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Excellent argument - a classic blend of prejudice and ignorance.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Razcp · June 2007

I'm sorry, I don't have the intellectual capacity to deal with what you're saying.... After all - I am working class........

redcogs · June 2007

Very good. One of my friends is a black pudding eating member of the lower orders. He has a ferret, a whippet, a cloth cap and membership of the Trades Club, non of which interferes with his mental capability.

You may be acquainted - he also receives care in the community.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Razcp · June 2007

"Care in the community" in pejorative terms?!!!! You're slipping.........

Scottish friends: Explain how this is fair...

Comments

Categories