Omega Owners Forum

Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Richie London on 01 September 2011, 19:30:33

Title: british funding
Post by: Richie London on 01 September 2011, 19:30:33
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics/england-bottom-funding-pile-093741093.html

surely these 3 countries that wanted independance should raise there own revenue now instead of england funding it for them. they have there own parliament, with there own laws and better services all provided by the english taxpayer.
Title: Re: british funding
Post by: mantahatch on 01 September 2011, 19:53:40
" apartheid-riddled United Kingdom. " Surely not, we are the UK,that could not happen here (sarcasm off)

What do we expect, they have been ruining (running) the countries since 1997. All the election did was change one for another, another who immediatly ran north of the border to tell them they would be ok (is that more sarcasm)

Title: Re: british funding
Post by: albitz on 01 September 2011, 20:09:02
They havent become independent though, they are still part of the UK.They do have a degree of independence on many issues.
It isnt possible for them to raise all of their own revenues since the decline of heavy industry in this country.
This also applies to much of England - basically the further away from London the more subsidised it is.
Having said all that,imo the balance has swung too far in subsidising the regions and the balance now needs to be redressed somewhat.
I also dont believe in devolved govt. at all for scotland/wales/norn irn - We are british, we live in the UK, we are all subsidised by London and the surrounding area, and we should all be governed from westminster and abide by the same laws etc.
Anyone who doesnt want that should be allowed full independence imo, with all that it implies. ;)
Title: Re: british funding
Post by: doog on 02 September 2011, 00:37:25
I am British   born and live in Scotland
If Scotland ever bacame a seperate state i would have to choose between a Scottish or a British passport.like many others i would like to remain British
pleae dont tar us all with the same brush.
we dont all want independance.

Title: Re: british funding
Post by: Bionic on 02 September 2011, 05:37:12
It is small wonder that there is a mass of discontent when devolution resulted in many areas of subsidies, the cost of prescriptions as one example, being appliede differently between the 'mother' country named as the UNITED KINGDOM comprising of England and its now devolved satellites of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. How the hell can this now be described as a United Kingdom?
One country, one government and one set of rules should be the deciding factor and everyone should pay the same! Devolution was the worst sell out of all by any government of this once decent country.  >:(
Title: Re: british funding
Post by: Varche on 02 September 2011, 11:56:40
This subject really gets my goat. We are all British and things should cost or be the same regardless of where you live.

If Scotland for example really wanted independence then I would expect them to take say a quarter of the national debt, provide their own military, foreign diplomats and embassies and so on.

I blame our weak yellow livered Westminster lot. Just what were they thinking???

 Put it to a vote but with all the real costs included instead of this daft creeping free this, subsidised the other. Oh and I would expect the devoluted country to pay ALL the costs of devolution. I don't see why the other non devoluting countries should pay a penny. And as I have said before we could get the prisoners to rebuild (sympathetically and in keeping) Hadrians Wall (for example) and erect toll booths. :y :y

Title: Re: british funding
Post by: Richie London on 02 September 2011, 12:09:04
the way i see it is if they can afford to give there own people free prescriptions, tuiton fees, better health care, free hospital parking and so on then there money needs to be cut so they pay like the rest of us. they have there own parliaments so there mps have no right being in westminster deciding. they are either belong to a british parliament or independant  the english seem to have to go without so every other tinker can get what they want.
Title: Re: british funding
Post by: tigers_gonads on 02 September 2011, 12:12:50
Quote
I am British   born and live in Scotland
If Scotland ever bacame a seperate state i would have to choose between a Scottish or a British passport.like many others i would like to remain British
pleae dont tar us all with the same brush.
we dont all want independance.

 


I am English  :)
A part of the union of Great Britain.

If the Scots or Welsh want independence, let the UN organise a independent vote and sort it out once and for all.  ;)
Title: Re: british funding
Post by: DaveA on 02 September 2011, 12:52:24
Quote
It is small wonder that there is a mass of discontent when devolution resulted in many areas of subsidies, the cost of prescriptions as one example, being appliede differently between the 'mother' country named as the UNITED KINGDOM comprising of England and its now devolved satellites of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. How the hell can this now be described as a United Kingdom?
One country, one government and one set of rules should be the deciding factor and everyone should pay the same! Devolution was the worst sell out of all by any government of this once decent country.  >:(
   Agree with above
     There also seems to be agenda to erase the words England & English from the dictionary, BBC being the worse. Yesterday David Green was described as a Welsh athlete, which is as it should be. Andy Murrey is called a Scott, Tim Henman was always British, or so it seemed.

    Alex Salmon will, on every occasion speak for Scotland and tell you he is a Scott at every opportunity, wish there were more English MPs
who are willing to do the same for England.      
Title: Re: british funding
Post by: Richie London on 02 September 2011, 13:35:59
Quote
Quote
It is small wonder that there is a mass of discontent when devolution resulted in many areas of subsidies, the cost of prescriptions as one example, being appliede differently between the 'mother' country named as the UNITED KINGDOM comprising of England and its now devolved satellites of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. How the hell can this now be described as a United Kingdom?
One country, one government and one set of rules should be the deciding factor and everyone should pay the same! Devolution was the worst sell out of all by any government of this once decent country.  >:(
   Agree with above
     There also seems to be agenda to erase the words England & English from the dictionary, BBC being the worse. Yesterday David Green was described as a Welsh athlete, which is as it should be. Andy Murrey is called a Scott, Tim Henman was always British, or so it seemed.

    Alex Salmon will, on every occasion speak for Scotland and tell you he is a Scott at every opportunity, wish there were more English MPs
who are willing to do the same for England.
    


there all spineless cowards
Title: Re: british funding
Post by: Entwood on 02 September 2011, 13:53:19
Rather than moaning about things in general .. why not do a little research ??

Funding for ALL parts of the "devolved" UK is done to a formula.. the so-called "Barnett Formula"  which is a complex piece of work, the end result, however is that government has decreed that each "devolved" government will get a certain amount, per head, to spend HOWEVER THEY SEE FIT.

At present those figures are :

    England £7,121
    Scotland £8,623
    Wales £8,139
    Northern Ireland £9,385

per person

There is wide spread criticism of the formua .. but no-one has come up with anything "better" ... it's is fine saying "It's wrong change it" .. but to what ???

There are many areas NOT covered by the formula ... Defence being the biggest, but the devolved governments have decided to use that money to pay for free perscriptions/free tuition etc  what you SHOULD be asking is what are they NOT funding instead ???

EDIT ... if you can't be bothered to google the "Barnett Formula" here is a wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula

Actual long winded decription

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-008.pdf
Title: Re: british funding
Post by: albitz on 02 September 2011, 14:32:33
Quote
It is small wonder that there is a mass of discontent when devolution resulted in many areas of subsidies, the cost of prescriptions as one example, being appliede differently between the 'mother' country named as the UNITED KINGDOM comprising of England and its now devolved satellites of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. How the hell can this now be described as a United Kingdom?
One country, one government and one set of rules should be the deciding factor and everyone should pay the same! Devolution was the worst sell out of all by any government of this once decent country.  >:(
I agree. Another new labour shambles. :y
Title: Re: british funding
Post by: Varche on 03 September 2011, 10:10:22
Quote
Rather than moaning about things in general .. why not do a little research ??

Funding for ALL parts of the "devolved" UK is done to a formula.. the so-called "Barnett Formula"  which is a complex piece of work, the end result, however is that government has decreed that each "devolved" government will get a certain amount, per head, to spend HOWEVER THEY SEE FIT.

At present those figures are :

    England £7,121
    Scotland £8,623
    Wales £8,139
    Northern Ireland £9,385

per person

There is wide spread criticism of the formua .. but no-one has come up with anything "better" ... it's is fine saying "It's wrong change it" .. but to what ???

There are many areas NOT covered by the formula ... Defence being the biggest, but the devolved governments have decided to use that money to pay for free perscriptions/free tuition etc  what you SHOULD be asking is what are they NOT funding instead ???

EDIT ... if you can't be bothered to google the "Barnett Formula" here is a wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula

Actual long winded decription

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-008.pdf


How about the same amount per head regardless of where folk live.

I do appreciate that there are economies of scale for service provision in densely populated areas but surely the people who live in sparcely populated areas (I am one of them so know the pluses and minuses) get a better deal out of life overall.

Just where will the differences in service charges end? It is madness and needs jumping on NOW.