Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

Bannjaax: "the irony is that we didn't even vote tory and yet were still ruled by them"

The other irony is that we didn't vote for GB as PM and yet we are still ruled by him....he's a Scot, I believe.

 

[Banjax]

Bannjaax: "the irony is that we didn't even vote tory and yet were still ruled by them"

The other irony is that we didn't vote for GB as PM and yet we are still ruled by him....he's a Scot, I believe.

 

hmmm so only the English can stand in a UK election now? - is that the line - until full independence don't bitch about us being a United Kingdom 

[Dishevelled Den]

i don't know Zulu, small, independent oil producing countries seem to do OK so why Scotland needs the rest of the UK is beyond me,
always has been but thats not the issue - the tories, quite rightly, will never be elected in Scotland for the forseeable future - you don't destroy heavy industry, manufacturing, shipbuilding and mining and get away with dessimating communities for generations without a bit of payback - of course, the irony is that we didn't even vote tory and yet were still ruled by them, and boy did they not give a monkeys reasoning that they could do what they liked with Scotlands resources, impose the poll tax on us as guinea pigs and it would have no effect whatsoever on them being reelected - so yes, as we are diametrically opposed politically i guess independence would be better.

if you think we're such a drain, then why doesn't Labour or the Tories crave independence from us? is it because, despite the popular line, we actually contribute more than we get back? 

the tories, quite rightly, will never be elected in Scotland for the forseeable future - you don't destroy heavy industry, manufacturing, shipbuilding and mining and get away with dessimating communities for generations without a bit of payback - of course, the irony is that we didn't even vote tory and yet were still ruled by them, and boy did they not give a monkeys reasoning that they could do what they liked with Scotlands resources, impose the poll tax on us as guinea pigs and it would have no effect whatsoever on them being reelected - so yes, as we are diametrically opposed politically i guess independence would be better.

 ……..bj can you bring your analysis up to date and reflect the here and now please. 

Don't forget this cuts both ways as many people in Scotland have never voted for a Labour Government yet find themselves under the rule of one - furthermore many of those people are Scottish Nationalists who seem to have little regard for the Westminster Parliament irrespective of the party in power.


if you think we're such a drain, then why doesn't Labour or the Tories crave independence from us? is it because, despite the popular line, we actually contribute more than we get back?


Insofar as the Tories are concerned they have stated on many occasions that they prefer to see the United Kingdom remain just that - united.

Labour on the other hand could never willingly sever the link as that would result in their Westminster powerbase reducing considerably, with the consequent reduction in their ability to form a majority government.  I suppose it’s rather akin to the turkeys never, if it were at all possible, voting for Christmas.


As for being positive contributors it depends on the source for that positivity;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8065250.stm

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2009/07/barnett-formula-news-analysis/


http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-10-14b.285.0

Jim Murphy (Secretary of State, Scotland Office; Renfrewshire East, Labour)
The Scottish Government will have more money next year than they have this year. That is a remarkable benefit of the economics of the United Kingdom. The fact is that the SNP Scottish Government today have double the budget that Donald Dewar had when he was First Minister. However, the SNP Scottish Government will have to tighten their belt and make some savings in the same way as every family and company in Scotland is doing.



http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-108.pdf


        The first key to understanding Barnett is to remember that the formula determines the amount of additional changes to the expenditure of Scotland and Wales. It applies to the margin, not to the bulk of expenditure as determined by past decisions. Secondly, Barnett only applies to some types of expenditure. In particular large expenditure areas such as welfare payments are outside of the formula’s jurisdiction. Barnett has played very little role in the overall relative level of public sector provision, but simply produces a value for the increase in a single year.
9 ibid
-----------

      There may be valid reasons why it may be appropriate for per capita spending in Scotland and Wales to be higher than in England. For example, the more sparsely distributed populations make the provision of equivalent services more expensive. Larger agricultural sectors imply higher spending on agricultural support. Also, for most of the post-war period, much of Scotland and Wales have experienced declining traditional industries and relatively high levels of unemployment. Hence a more general ‘needs’ analysis should be used instead.

 

[Banjax]

the here and now is that the tories are still to this day deeply mistrusted north of the border - so the point is valid regardless of whether they claim to no longer be the "nasty party of old" (their words not mine)- well forgive us if we wait and see first before voting for them 

[Dishevelled Den]

the here and now is that the tories are still to this day deeply mistrusted north of the border - so the point is valid regardless of whether they claim to no longer be the "nasty party of old" (their words not mine)- well forgive us if we wait and see first before voting for them 

.....I would suggest that mistrust might well be extended to anyone south of the border

[Banjax]

the here and now is that the tories are still to this day deeply mistrusted north of the border - so the point is valid regardless of whether they claim to no longer be the "nasty party of old" (their words not mine)- well forgive us if we wait and see first before voting for them 

.....I would suggest that it might well be anyone south of the border

zulu - we deeply mistrust everyone including friends and relatives - it saves time 

[Marks DTM Calib]

Lol, the scottish oil contributions tailed off some 10 years ago.....

And, this current lot of monkeys have destroyed more industry and manufactuing than any before them

[Banjax]

i don't know Zulu, small, independent oil producing countries seem to do OK so why Scotland needs the rest of the UK is beyond me,
always has been but thats not the issue - the tories, quite rightly, will never be elected in Scotland for the forseeable future - you don't destroy heavy industry, manufacturing, shipbuilding and mining and get away with dessimating communities for generations without a bit of payback - of course, the irony is that we didn't even vote tory and yet were still ruled by them, and boy did they not give a monkeys reasoning that they could do what they liked with Scotlands resources, impose the poll tax on us as guinea pigs and it would have no effect whatsoever on them being reelected - so yes, as we are diametrically opposed politically i guess independence would be better.

if you think we're such a drain, then why doesn't Labour or the Tories crave independence from us? is it because, despite the popular line, we actually contribute more than we get back? 

the tories, quite rightly, will never be elected in Scotland for the forseeable future - you don't destroy heavy industry, manufacturing, shipbuilding and mining and get away with dessimating communities for generations without a bit of payback - of course, the irony is that we didn't even vote tory and yet were still ruled by them, and boy did they not give a monkeys reasoning that they could do what they liked with Scotlands resources, impose the poll tax on us as guinea pigs and it would have no effect whatsoever on them being reelected - so yes, as we are diametrically opposed politically i guess independence would be better.

 ……..bj can you bring your analysis up to date and reflect the here and now please. 

Don't forget this cuts both ways as many people in Scotland have never voted for a Labour Government yet find themselves under the rule of one - furthermore many of those people are Scottish Nationalists who seem to have little regard for the Westminster Parliament irrespective of the party in power.


if you think we're such a drain, then why doesn't Labour or the Tories crave independence from us? is it because, despite the popular line, we actually contribute more than we get back?


Insofar as the Tories are concerned they have stated on many occasions that they prefer to see the United Kingdom remain just that - united.

Labour on the other hand could never willingly sever the link as that would result in their Westminster powerbase reducing considerably, with the consequent reduction in their ability to form a majority government.  I suppose it’s rather akin to the turkeys never, if it were at all possible, voting for Christmas.


As for being positive contributors it depends on the source for that positivity;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8065250.stm

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2009/07/barnett-formula-news-analysis/


http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-10-14b.285.0

Jim Murphy (Secretary of State, Scotland Office; Renfrewshire East, Labour)
The Scottish Government will have more money next year than they have this year. That is a remarkable benefit of the economics of the United Kingdom. The fact is that the SNP Scottish Government today have double the budget that Donald Dewar had when he was First Minister. However, the SNP Scottish Government will have to tighten their belt and make some savings in the same way as every family and company in Scotland is doing.



http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-108.pdf


        The first key to understanding Barnett is to remember that the formula determines the amount of additional changes to the expenditure of Scotland and Wales. It applies to the margin, not to the bulk of expenditure as determined by past decisions. Secondly, Barnett only applies to some types of expenditure. In particular large expenditure areas such as welfare payments are outside of the formula’s jurisdiction. Barnett has played very little role in the overall relative level of public sector provision, but simply produces a value for the increase in a single year.
9 ibid
-----------

      There may be valid reasons why it may be appropriate for per capita spending in Scotland and Wales to be higher than in England. For example, the more sparsely distributed populations make the provision of equivalent services more expensive. Larger agricultural sectors imply higher spending on agricultural support. Also, for most of the post-war period, much of Scotland and Wales have experienced declining traditional industries and relatively high levels of unemployment. Hence a more general ‘needs’ analysis should be used instead.

 

much as i love you zulu - even i don't have the time to plough through a 25 page report from 8 years ago 

but i believe you.


ps how much are the Olympics costing 

[Marks DTM Calib]

Th Olympics are costing to bloody much but hey, its the civil service running it 

[Dishevelled Den]

much as i love you zulu - even i don't have the time to plough through a 25 page report from 8 years ago 

but i believe you.


ps how much are the Olympics costing 

but i believe you.

...thank you bj, your trust is well placed

ps how much are the Olympics costing

...too bloody much