should England stop subsidising the smaller UK nations
Comments
-
blackpanther wrote:Perhaps some on here would like to see English Taxpayers supporting argentina when the Falklands oil starts to flow??
Last time I checked, Argentina wasn't a small UK nation.0 -
No but to the victor the spoils and all that0
-
It's not a simple as the Barnett formula should be thrown out (flawed as it is) and per capita applied.
Here's a section from the Wiki entry...
"....the continuing distribution of a per-capita amount to each devolved areas higher than that allocated to England still continues to attract calls for the formula to be re-negotiated. Using figures for the financial year 2006/2007[3], if a UK-wide per-capita average was a notional 100% then identifiable per-capita expenditure on services in England would be 97% and the Scottish amount 117%. Wales would be 111% and Northern Ireland 127%. This comprises all expenditure that can be identified as being to the benefit of a particular country. It does not, however, take account of 'non-identifiable expenditure', such as defence and debt interest, which are deemed to be for the benefit of the entire UK, regardless as to where the monies are actually spent.
In actual monetary figures, this will work out as (per person):[4]
* England £7,121
* Scotland £8,623
* Wales £8,139
* Northern Ireland £9,385
As these variations were not ever a consciously decided policy of the Treasury or Parliament this has been cited as a reason for reform. However, as noted earlier these differences are eroded by time, and at current rates of growth in public expenditure they should disappear in thirty years.
The population of England is 80% of the population of the UK. Instant abolition of the Barnett Formula, based on the above figures would result on an average UK expenditure of approximately £7362. This would be a large decrease for each person in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but an increase of less than 4% per person for England.
And here's the bit that become interesting...turns out that London is subsidised...
Although not subject to Barnett, there are significant variations in identifiable spending between the regions of England: [4]
* North East £8,177 - 111% of UK average identifiable expenditure
* North West £7,798 - 106%
* Yorkshire and Humberside £7,188 - 98%
* East Midlands £6,491 - 88%
* West Midlands £7,065 - 96%
* Eastern £6,144 - 83%
* London £8,404 - 114%
* South East £6,304 - 86%
* South West £6,677 - 91%0 -
Alright most money in England comes from London, lets face it. The workforce in London is international but mostly British: Brummies, Scots, Welsh, proper Northerners and even Yorkshire Folk (plus others). Anyway London is full of non-Londoner Brits - Scots etc etc. London benefits from (survives on) the influx of educated outsiders who have been subsidised by England and especially London. London (the absolute heart of our economy) relies on the rest of UK, even the rest of the world to provide its human resources.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0
-
No, still not making any sense.blackpanther wrote:No but to the victor the spoils and all that0 -
johnfinch wrote:Garry H wrote:The majority of the wealth is created in London/Home Counties. Perhaps they should be granted independence from the rest of the UK...
There's a big difference between creating and owning wealth.
I'd like to see the real figures for how much wealth is created by each region, before judging on this matter, because let's be honest, the TPA is not really the most objective organisation on the face of this planet.
Silly billy! Its where the wealth ends up, and not where its created that matters.
If it was true that where the wealth was created mattered most, then having foreign ownership of UK companies wouldn't matter, would it?
Anyway +1 to the original quote.
If we're a single nation then we should help people within that nation, regardless of which region the money comes from!
If we're seperate nations then it becomes a question of foreign aid, and that has to fulfill completely different criteria, and there'll almost certainly be less of it."I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
Seanos wrote:
No, still not making any sense.blackpanther wrote:No but to the victor the spoils and all that
See Nolfs post below for extension0 -
nolf wrote:johnfinch wrote:Garry H wrote:The majority of the wealth is created in London/Home Counties. Perhaps they should be granted independence from the rest of the UK...
There's a big difference between creating and owning wealth.
I'd like to see the real figures for how much wealth is created by each region, before judging on this matter, because let's be honest, the TPA is not really the most objective organisation on the face of this planet.
Silly billy! Its where the wealth ends up, and not where its created that matters.
If it was true that where the wealth was created mattered most, then having foreign ownership of UK companies wouldn't matter, would it?
That's pretty much what I was saying.0 -
my god call the doctor i agree with Nolf and Johnfinch
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:0 -
Born in England with no English blood (European and Celtic), I'm pretty much a Brit. I still feel, despite the tensions that so often challenge the Unions integrity, that we're stronger as a Union than we would be otherwise. Being British doesn't compromise our Scottishness, our Welshness, Englishness or our Irishness - it's up to us individually to choose who we align ourselves with and then to mix freely.
But the last thing I would ever agree to is that we turn what has been one of Europe's strongest, most resourceful and durable Unions into a petty cost-benefit analysis argument that, in the end, represents little more than narrow self interest.
I celebrate the resourcefulness and the creative humour of the individual nations that make up Britain. The friction, the rivalry and the banter between peoples is a great strength.0 -
deptfordmarmoset wrote:I celebrate the resourcefulness and the creative humour of the individual nations that make up Britain. The friction, the rivalry and the banter between peoples is a great strength.
Hear, hear. Now p*ss off all you southern, shandy drinking poofters ;o)0 -
So I'm supposed to infer from your two posts (that didn't make any sense) that you were trying to make the same point as nolf?blackpanther wrote:Seanos wrote:
No, still not making any sense.blackpanther wrote:No but to the victor the spoils and all that
See Nolfs post below for extension0 -
blackpanther wrote:my god call the doctor i agree with Nolf and Johnfinch
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
You know what that means - the liberal-left PC brigade has got one of their implants into you too.
0 -
Garry H wrote:deptfordmarmoset wrote:I celebrate the resourcefulness and the creative humour of the individual nations that make up Britain. The friction, the rivalry and the banter between peoples is a great strength.
Hear, hear. Now p*ss off all you southern, shandy drinking poofters ;o)
Oi, you takin the pîss, are ya? Roight, artside now. Carpahk!0 -
deptfordmarmoset wrote:Garry H wrote:deptfordmarmoset wrote:I celebrate the resourcefulness and the creative humour of the individual nations that make up Britain. The friction, the rivalry and the banter between peoples is a great strength.
Hear, hear. Now p*ss off all you southern, shandy drinking poofters ;o)
Oi, you takin the pîss, are ya? Roight, artside now. Carpahk!
What accent is that you're writing in? It's Brummie, innit? 0 -
Right, Ok, If that's yer game...Then Wales will stop giving you, Charlotte Church, Harry Secoombe, Shirley Bassey, Tommy Cooper, Tom Jones, Eddie Izzard.
Lets see how you like Them Apples !0 -
We can do that?Splottboy wrote:Right, Ok, If that's yer game...Then Wales will stop giving you, Charlotte Church, Harry Secoombe, Shirley Bassey, Tommy Cooper, Tom Jones, Eddie Izzard.
Lets see how you like Them Apples !
DEAL!0 -
Independence for Ross-shire! - Historic gateway to Rockall.
-Spider-0 -
There's a lot of misinformed commentry about 'subsidy junkies' (particularly, although not exclusively, from the Daily Heil and the Telegraph). Here are some links to articles by Niall Aslan’s (Forensic Accountan) that may be useful to try and balance these opinions.
http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/biglie.html (2001)
http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/greatdeception.html (2005)
There is plenty of debate on these issues elsewhere on the internet - agreement will never be achieved as many people (on both sides) believe what they want to believe.
-Spider-0 -
Best just to go with your instinct on this one.
Anything trying to look like "facts" on all sides of the arguement can be summed up in one phrase.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics :twisted:None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0
