Dump the Scots

overmars

I suppose this article for you is either:

a) 'Lies, damn lies and statistics'
b) Londoncentric nonsense/bias
c) supports your views
d) All of the above (after all, you are depressed)

---

Barnett Formula of 'Scottish subsidy' to face Lords review

The Scotsman
Fri 6 Jul 2007

GERRI PEEV
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

SCOTLAND'S historic spending advantage over England is to be reviewed by the House of Lords in an attempt to end what critics say is an indefensible subsidy.

Lord Barnett, who devised the Barnett Formula in 1978, says he expects to win permission for a House of Lords committee to be established to look at how cash is divided in the regions of the United Kingdom. The move is backed by a growing number of English MPs and peers, who fear Labour is using the cash to shore up votes on the Celtic fringe.

After decades campaigning for a review, Lord Barnett told The Scotsman that he believes his fellow peers will back his calls for a committee. "I have got pretty clear support that the House of Lords wants a select committee on this," he said. "I am convinced that the figures clearly show the need for a review. There are parts of England that are worse off in terms of expenditure per head."

The growing clamour for change seemed to be acknowledged for the first time by the government this week, when one of Gordon Brown's Cabinet ministers told peers that ministers would not block attempts by the House of Lords to set up the special select committee in the autumn.

Amid rising dissatisfaction at Westminster about the so-called "Scots' subsidy" whereby those north of the Border have £1,500 more per head spent on them, the Leader in the House of Lords has agreed to consider setting up a special select committee. Lord Barnett told peers that the House of Lords now had a "unique opportunity" to review the formula through an ad hoc select committee.

Baroness Ashtal, the leader in the Lords, said she would "consider it carefully". She added: "We believe that the Barnett Formula has served us well, but it is reasonable and understandable that from time to time representations are made about whether it should be reviewed."

Her words are a clear departure from the government's previous refusal to contemplate any reviews or changes to the Barnett Formula. Only one ad hoc committee is established in the Lords each year - but there is strong support for it to be focused on the Barnett Formula this time. Peers would grill the First Minister, Scottish Executive officials and leading Treasury civil servants on the funding formula.

A spokesman for Alex Salmond last night said that many of the complaints were based on "ill-informed gripes" as Scotland subsidised the rest of the UK with its oil revenues. He added: "The only way we would support a change is if it was in Scotland's interests, and that would be moving towards fiscal autonomy."

However, in England there is strong pressure for at least a review, if not to entirely scrap the calculations which are based on population rather than need. And Treasury officials this week admitted they could consider a review. As the formula is not set into law, it can be changed by the Treasury without a vote of the House.

It comes after weeks of high-spend policy announcements from the Nationalist administration in Holyrood which have antagonised some English MPs.

Decisions to extend long-term care, scrap the graduate endowment, provide certain medicines on the NHS that are not cleared south of the Border, and the suggestion that students from Northern Ireland would not have to pay to attend Scottish universities while English pupils would, have antagonised many south of the Border.

A Lords committee is expected to take up to a year to conduct its review and come forward with proposals to change the calculations.

Ratkilla

Exactly what I said!!! :roll:

Who funds the 'think tanks'? Who commissions the 'research'?
Surely not organisations that have a vested interest in ensuring that the 'research' arrives at the 'correct' conclusions?! Heaven forfend that these bad people might manipulate the data to suit their own agenda!!

Well, the article is from the Hootsmon which is considered to be a right wing Tory Unionist rag which hardly makes it a popular read in these parts. Unless you are a Tory voting spinster from Troon. Or Major Fu*kwit (retd) form Troon golf club.
What you fail to understand is that whatever source you choose to rip these articles from all of them have an agenda. Political, moral whichever.
Make up your own mind instead of lobbing politically motivated hit pieces into the discussion.
But of course if these views back up your own feel free.

overmars

Ratkilla wrote:

Exactly what I said!!! :roll:

Who funds the 'think tanks'? Who commissions the 'research'?
Surely not organisations that have a vested interest in ensuring that the 'research' arrives at the 'correct' conclusions?! Heaven forfend that these bad people might manipulate the data to suit their own agenda!!

Ratty. Look at the post above yours. Your nothing if predictable.
:

Ratkilla

overmars wrote:

Ratkilla wrote:

Exactly what I said!!! :roll:

Who funds the 'think tanks'? Who commissions the 'research'?
Surely not organisations that have a vested interest in ensuring that the 'research' arrives at the 'correct' conclusions?! Heaven forfend that these bad people might manipulate the data to suit their own agenda!!

Ratty. Look at the post above yours. Your nothing if predictable.
:

?

overmars

Ratkilla wrote:

overmars wrote:

Ratkilla wrote:

Exactly what I said!!! :roll:

Who funds the 'think tanks'? Who commissions the 'research'?
Surely not organisations that have a vested interest in ensuring that the 'research' arrives at the 'correct' conclusions?! Heaven forfend that these bad people might manipulate the data to suit their own agenda!!

Ratty. Look at the post above yours. Your nothing if predictable.
:

?

overmars wrote:

I suppose this article for you is either:

a) 'Lies, damn lies and statistics'
b) Londoncentric nonsense/bias
c) supports your views
d) All of the above (after all, you are depressed)

You embrace an article as supporting your point of view. The next post you dismiss the very same article as being biased!!!! The technical term for that brain teaser is "Duh!"

You're on an emotional rollercoaster where logic is what you want it to be. But I forgive you... 'cos you're depressed.

Ratkilla

You should stay off the lager at lunchtime! I have absolutely no idea what you are on about.
Perhaps you should have a lie down.

overmars

Geezus. You ask for facts. I give facts. You embrace then dismiss those facts and tell me you're going to dismiss whatever source I quote. You tell me to make up my own mind.
How the hell can you make up your mind without an informed opinion? Where the blazes do we get our information from if not the media?

You've gone back and done lengthy re-edits just to suit your view.

You've moved the ruddy goalposts all over the freakin' forum since the ruddy start and you're still ruddy doing it.

Eat My Dust

Don't worry Overmars, he's probably been on the jellies and buckfast again!!

passout

Were the Scots ever really with us (except economically)?

Ratkilla

The 'Union' was only ever about the economic benefit of the few over the many in Scotland.
Hypothetically, it would be similar to a handful of councillors from, say, Canterbury, Ashford and Tunbridge Wells taking a back hander and 'deciding' it would be beneficial for Kent to cede political control to Paris.

hugo 1st

..a neat parallel IMO

[

iainment

Ratkilla wrote:

The 'Union' was only ever about the economic benefit of the few over the many in Scotland.
Hypothetically, it would be similar to a handful of councillors from, say, Canterbury, Ashford and Tunbridge Wells taking a back hander and 'deciding' it would be beneficial for Kent to cede political control to Paris.

I'd vote for that if Plumstead was included.

8)

passout

I think we should go to war over it and give the Arabs a break. After the reaction to Braveheart the Scots are obviously up for it. To start it off we should re-commission Hadrians wall. Winner takes all!

Anonymous

passout wrote:

I think we should go to war over it and give the Arabs a break. After the reaction to Braveheart the Scots are obviously up for it. To start it off we should re-commission Hadrians wall. Winner takes all!

Are you trying to be funny or airing your prejudices?

Eat My Dust

passout wrote:

I think we should go to war over it and give the Arabs a break. After the reaction to Braveheart the Scots are obviously up for it. To start it off we should re-commission Hadrians wall. Winner takes all!

That would be a laugh!!! Who's in charge of the Ministry of Defence? A Scot. Who's his boss? A Scot. Sh*t, even the Queen is half Scottish!!

ivancarlos

It would seem that the prejudices expressed in this argument are the last bastion for bigots. If you replace Scots/English with Paki, black, disabled, etc the thin veneer of justification to your squabbles falls away. You should be ashamed of yourselves

RedAende

theoretically I am for Scottish independence, however as we are all under the thumb of EU it is becoming irrelevant.

All brits piss in the same pot, and whether the ingerlish dont like the Barnet formula, a lot more is being given to EU to subsidise eastern europe.

Petty squabling aside, the people voted to join the EEC in 1973, how come 34 yrs later we are marching towards U S of EU without having a say it.

Focus on the big picture boys and girls. Classic example of "our" ruling classes using the divide and conquer philosophy.

ps; coming from NW Glasgow, Paisley is a dump, and on a parr with the flotsam city by thames.

wildmoustache

RedAende wrote:

theoretically I am for Scottish independence, however as we are all under the thumb of EU it is becoming irrelevant.

All brits wee-wee in the same pot, and whether the ingerlish dont like the Barnet formula, a lot more is being given to EU to subsidise eastern europe.

Petty squabling aside, the people voted to join the EEC in 1973, how come 34 yrs later we are marching towards U S of EU without having a say it.

Focus on the big picture boys and girls. Classic example of "our" ruling classes using the divide and conquer philosophy.

ps; coming from NW Glasgow, Paisley is a dump, and on a parr with the flotsam city by thames.

EU subsidies are a wee-wee in north sea compared to the flood of cash that leaves the south-east for the rest of the uk.

the south-east could abolish income tax and have the same level of public exp. if it didn't prop up the eocnomically useless up and down the land.

passout

ivancarlos wrote:

It would seem that the prejudices expressed in this argument are the last bastion for bigots. If you replace Scots/English with Paki, black, disabled, etc the thin veneer of justification to your squabbles falls away. You should be ashamed of yourselves

I resent this posting.

Firstly this website is not the last bastion, there are plenty of places where bigots can express their opinions - the street, pubs, football matches, day time TV, the Daily Mail, Parliament etc etc. However such opinions obviously do not exist on the pedestal where you reside!

As for your main point - it's clearly 'not' the same as we are talking about nationalities (not race or impairment) & Scottish independence is a real political possibility and in no way equates to the 'send 'em back where they came from' mentality to which you infer (i.e. Bigotry). Perhaps you got confused, so I'll clarify still further - Nationality and Race are NOT the same. Both nationalities in question are multi - ethnic.

Furthermore Scotts & English have had a rivalry for generations - usually a friendly one. We both make glib remarks and make fun of each other. This is harmless and not about victimising a minority as you imply, it's also two way.

Perhaps you need to stop been so pre-occupied with been P.C. and develop both a backbone and a sense of humour. You certainly need to stop throwing such accusations around.

wildmoustache

the rivalry is less friendly north of the border i've noticed !!!(I am scottish so this is not some english pu55y squealing!)

i agree that we should be free to discuss the damn thing ... though there is a lot of bigotry involved in the whole independence issue

the jocks are still a long way from voting for independence IMO ...

the real issue is whether london will declare itself independent. culturally it's nothing like the rest of the uk, with the differences in language, race, habits etc. being more pronounced than between many countries.

i imagine that a lot of the english hatred of london is actually down to it having such phenomenal amounts of immigration ... i've often had out of towners ask me for directions etc. and then comment how nice it was to meet someone who speaks english...

passout

I think that an independent Scotland is a real possibility - it is separate or at least distinct in many ways.

But surely London always has to be the capital of England (if not of the UK as it exists now). London has been the capital of England for well over a thousand years. I'm absolutely sure that the English won't want a 'new' capital. Regional assemblies maybe but not letting London become fully independent.

I don't think that London is hated by the English & it isn't the only part of England with high levels of immigration.

ivancarlos

[quote="passoutI resent this posting.

Firstly this website is not the last bastion, there are plenty of places where bigots can express their opinions - the street, pubs, football matches, day time TV, the Daily Mail, Parliament etc etc. However such opinions obviously do not exist on the pedestal where you reside!

As for your main point - it's clearly 'not' the same as we are talking about nationalities (not race or impairment) & Scottish independence is a real political possibility and in no way equates to the 'send 'em back where they came from' mentality to which you infer (i.e. Bigotry). Perhaps you got confused, so I'll clarify still further - Nationality and Race are NOT the same. Both nationalities in question are multi - ethnic.

Furthermore Scotts & English have had a rivalry for generations - usually a friendly one. We both make glib remarks and make fun of each other. This is harmless and not about victimising a minority as you imply, it's also two way.

Perhaps you need to stop been so pre-occupied with been P.C. and develop both a backbone and a sense of humour. You certainly need to stop throwing such accusations around.[/quote]

Get over yourself. The bile and vitriol previously expressed sounds very much like bigotry and I was not saying this website is the last bastion for bigots rather the Scottish/English thing is when its being dressed up as a bit of fun. Incidently I am neither PC or lacking a sense of humour as long as something is funny. In one of your posts you were vindicating a war FFS! If that was supposed to be tongue in cheek use a smiley :idea: .

nickcuk

I was in Edinburgh at the weekend for a Kaiser Chiefs concert and the scots lassies were the friendliest I have met for a long time

Don't the Scots get about £7 billion a year from the English parliament, even after all the oil taxation nonsense ? Still, that's less than the offshore consultants, PFI, tax avoiders and non-doms so give me a friendly scots lassie anyday.

passout

ivancarlos - 'bile'? Come on, it was tame!

And do you really think I was vindicating a war with Scotland! Most people wouldn't need a smiley to work out that such a comment was said in jest.

We obviously share different senses of humour but you need to stop taking things so seriously......this isn't Question Time.

P.S. I hate smilies but here's one for you. :? - that obviously clarifies everything far more than words. :!:

ivancarlos

passout wrote:

:? - that obviously clarifies everything far more than words. :!:

If you say so

stevechambers34

I do believe much of England hates London and all it stands for, coming from North Derbyshire/South Yorkshire all you hear in local pubs, supermarkets now is the terrible Southern 'quack ,quack accent, many sell up and move here to commute or even live pushing up house prices well beyond the reach of local young peoples reach.Affordable housing in places like Buxton,Matlock in fact just about anywhere in the Peak is unobtanium.
But the most annoying thing by far is the as someone has already said the London centric media, and also that all the shows etc are down there, the Earls Court bike show...who the fu*ks going to travel all that way pay a ridiculous entry price ,pay for crap expensive food etc etc from up here very very few I bet.
London is NOT the centre of England (Morton is allegedly) when the little by little flood comes watch them wriggle their way 'up North', perhaps Hadrian should have put the wall around London!

Eat My Dust

Northern monkey!!

stevechambers34

thank you!

ivancarlos

Well you wouldn't want to be a southern nancy boy

stevechambers34

definately not, a blue eyed decendant of a North European pre Olympic 9th Century rowing champion who wore itchy fur, threw axes and didn't wash a lot thats me, there are similarities now I think about it ! Odin, Odin, Odin.

"beware the Hurricane of the North"