| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| azzuri |
Let's Have Home Rule For The Englishwww.the-sun.co.ukThe Sun April 21st 2006 Let's Have Home Rule For The English Fergus Shanahan There's a great line in Braveheart where the slippery King Edward say:” The trouble with Scotland is that it's full of Scots." I have nothing personal against Scots. Some of my best friends are Scots. But I am fed up with the way Scotland is allowed to run England. And as St. George's Day approaches this Sunday, and England rallies proudly around its flag for the World Cup, this is the moment for the English to ask ourselves what we want to do about it. Scotland is a great country. It has always punched above its weight. William Wallace, James Watt, Rabbie Burns, Robbie Coltrane, The Bay City Rollers. But what can you say about a nation that has Donald Where's Yer Trousers as its national anthem? Scotland wants to go its own way. So does Wales. The Scots have their Parliament. The Welsh have their Assembly. Even the Northern Irish are allowed self-government if they can stop squabbling long enough. So why not the English? Battle It's the English who pick up most of Scotland's bills: £10billioin a year of English taxes go in Scot pockets. On average, £1,300 more per person is spent on education, health and social services in Scotland, Wales and Ulster than in England. The Scottish Parliament refuses to charge students tuition fees. Yet Scots Labour MPs helped Blair win the Commons top-up fees battle when English MPs were against it. English MPs voted against foundation hospitals but Blair won with the backing of Scots MPs, even though the Scots Labour Party and the Scots Parliament opposed them. It is not the political issues so much as the principle. Why should Scottish MPs unelected by the English people be able to run England when English MPs cannot run Scotland? And as Blair's authority ebbs away he will become ever more dependant on Scottish support to pass laws affecting England. The unfairness is overwhelming. All Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote on every issue that affects England. But Westminster has hardly any say over Scotland. Scottish MPs can be ministers in London, handing out orders to the English which have no effect on their own constituents. And the Labour Government is stuffed with Scots, from Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling to John Reid and their stooge "Gorbals" Mick Martin, Speaker of the Commons. Gordon Broon subjects English pensioners to means-testing but his Dunferline constituents escape it. Unlike the English OAPs, elderly Scots are not forced to sell their family homes to pay for care. Since the Scots voted for devolution in 1997 they have taken over running nearly all their affairs. But they are quite happy for England to continue to pick up the bills. I say it's time for Scotland to go the whole hog. Let's treble the height of Hadrian's Wall to form a proper boarder, and let Scotland and England be independent nations. The Scots can raise their own taxes to pay their way in the world. There's still a bit of oil left in the North Sea to keep them going. And when that runs out, they can flog some more kilts to the Americans or use their empty oil tankers to ship some water down to the parched farms of Kent and Essex. As for the Welsh, let them have a crack at self-government too. If they run short of fuel, all they have to do is sit Neil Kinnock in front of a wind turbine and he'll generate enough electricity to light the valleys for a thousand years. Why shouldn't England be allowed to get excited about itself as an independent nation? When the Scots and the Welsh and the Northern Irish fly their flag, it is seen as good old-fashioned love of country. But raise the English flag of St. George in your garden and there is an uneasy sense that people may think you are some rabid nutter. Nationalism, which means quite simply the love of your own nation, has been allowed to become a tainted word. Come the World Cup, the English flag will be flying high. Let's keep it that way when the footie's over. It's time England had a new Parliament - for the English. |
||||||||
| Wolf of Badenoch |
Re: Let's Have Home Rule For The English
Whit a lot ae bollocks! Shows ye the level ae intelligence when its brought doon tae fitba` as usual.He talks aboot being seen as a "rabid nutter" if he flies the cross o st george and that nationalism has become a tainted word,its become a tainted word by comments made by the likes ae him,whinging and greeting aboot the unfairness ae it aw and making snide comments.He bangs oan aboot wanting an independent england an then starts shouting aboot the world cup.  ye hear people saying Scotland arenae capable ae gaun it alane.....weel if the rest ae the english wanting their ain country is ae the same standard as yon eejit they`ve nae got a hope in hell.
|
||||||||
| Blackleaf |
Re: Let's Have Home Rule For The English
The Scots never do that though, do they? I agree with Shanahan. It's time England gained its independence from Scotland. The sooner, the better. |
||||||||
| macnumpty |
English nationalism in and of itself could be a good thing, but not if it's based on reactionary tripe like Shanahan's ramblings. If the premise of English Nationalism is 'aren't the Scots evil?' then we're all in trouble. If it can find a more positive outlook along the lines of an agreement that England and Scotland are different nations with different needs, problems and possible solutions, then the dissolution of the Union can be as amicable as possible. | ||||||||
| Wolf of Badenoch |
Re: Let's Have Home Rule For The English
Aye like a nation ae 5 million are stopping ye fae gaining independence richt enough. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Re: Let's Have Home Rule For The English
Well there's no one in England stopping Scotland from being an independent country either... To be honest, I sit back and watch the criticism of this - whilst thinking that it's exactly the same with nationalists up here, expressed in slightly more civil language. |
||||||||
| Wolf of Badenoch |
Re: Let's Have Home Rule For The English
Never suggested thaur wis onybody in england stopping Scotland fae being independent,every nationalist kens fine weel whae is preventing it. "more civil language" being what exactly? |
||||||||
| Lothian Sky |
Maybe if his two faced "newspaper" hadn't ditched its support for independence a few years ago, he'd have his wish. | ||||||||
| Blackleaf |
Re: Let's Have Home Rule For The English
It's a nation of 5 million that has given England tuition fees and foundation hospitals even though English MPs voted against them and the Scottish MPs didn't want Scotland to have them. |
||||||||
| Wolf of Badenoch |
Re: Let's Have Home Rule For The English
Aye an it wis a nation ae 5 million that voted agin tories an their poll tax but we still got it first[illegally].Lifes s***e Blackleaf yer jist getting whit we hae had tae put up wi for mony years. |
||||||||
| Blackleaf |
It was also thanks to Scots that we have a Labour Government.
The English are tradiationally right-wing Conservative voters, and most people in England voted Tory at the last election. But it was thanks to the Celtic nations that we in England have a Labour Government. Labour is only the second party in England now. |
||||||||
| frank rizzo |
Have to laugh at some of the English now moaning. We had 20 years of an anti Scottish Government, that most of us detested.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly they're not as 'British' as they once thought. There's a simple solution but as we all know, England need us for our resources. |
||||||||
| azzuri |
How does that work then? You're not very good at maths are you? Take away the number of Scottish Labour MPs from Westminster and surprise surprise, Labour still has a majority in Westminster! Now: explain to me again how it's thanks to Scots that there is a Labour Government? Oh and whether more people voted for the Conservatives than Labour is irrelevant - you vote for the candidate in your constituency, not the party! You haven't really thought all of this through, have you? 
|
||||||||
| Wolf of Badenoch |
Blackleaf i`ll ne`er understaun why ye hing aboot oan a Scottish site,whits the point? i need ye tae tell me Blackleaf cos i cannae work oot why ye wid want tae.Its obviously no for intelligent debate aboot onything regarding independence or politics onyways an it cannae be purely tae wind onybody up cos if it is yer no very guid at it.
Maybe yer the english equivalent ae the standard bearer that is Mr Dow.....hes irrelevant tae. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Yes, more English people voted Conservative, but the way the constituencies panned out you'd still have a Labour government even without the MPs from Scotland, Wales and NI. Ah s***e, I was beaten to it. My local council ward voted Tory!! How dare you lot impose your evil Labour government on me! |
||||||||
| SLG |
If you feel that strongly about it, why not campaign for your ward to become Independent. If the majority of your ward are in favour of it and you think your ward has the resources to govern itself efficiently, then go for it. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Do you seriously think it'd ever be allowed?
A friend of mine tried declaring his house independent once. Unfortunately the council tax bill still arrived and the PM never did write back to him... |
||||||||
| SLG |
That's what a lot of folk say about Scots Independence. I don't trust Westminster to allow it to happen and I really hope that they don't get carried away when it does. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Well it couldn't happen without the consent of Westminster.
Would you allow such a thing in your enlightened Scottish nationalist country? |
||||||||
| SLG |
Absolutely. I would grant your household Independence. However I would introduce strict border controls between your house and the rest of the country 
|
||||||||
| Wolf of Badenoch |
Aye an move it tae Rockall. |
||||||||
| SLG |
And what have the poor gannets done to deserve that? 
“Nuair a thig Rocabarra ris, is dual gun tèid an Saoghal a sgrios”. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
That's not very internationalist of you, SLG... |
||||||||
| Morph |
sorry for joining the debate so late, but the only time that scotland has depended upon English, or British when it suits them, handouts was directly after the second world war. Since tehn teh idea of us sponging has been a myth, typical sun | ||||||||
| Aventinian |
Yes, because in 1708 for example we were raking it in financially. I don't care who benefits from who. You're living in a country - someone will always get more than another. I'll be paying 40% tax most of my life so that some spongers down the road can get their dole money or be put on some sort of 'computers for junkies' scheme. Scotland is truly an example of the lunatics running the asylum and if it wasn't for what nature graced us with we'd be fucked. Most other nations are not similarly protected from reality (with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia). |
||||||||
| Economist |
It seems to have developed into an argument for some in England, but really its not England that does the contributing it is London. As most of England is, relatively poorer than much of Scotland in terms of revenue, GDP per capita
Actually if you exclude London and many of its satellite towns, the rest of England actually contributes proportionately less than Scotland. I believe that Aberdeen and Edinburgh contribute more to the economy per head than any other city in Britain apart from London, and contribute vastly more per head than say the likes of East Ayrshire or the Western Isles or the Isle of Arran (sorry to say). It simply is lazy to say the English pay more than the Scots - because in reality that is not generally true. However it is in our interests to let some people believe this. |
||||||||
| Neil |
It is true that in northern England & Wales the gdp is lower than in Scotland so that they contribute less in taxes. Nonetheless Scotland does remarkably well out of the "generous" Barnett formula so that we get more money per head than England. This is why many English are getting restive. | ||||||||
| Economist |
I think it is a moot point whether Scotland does "rather well" out of the Barnett Formula - because I don't think Scotland's economy does well out of it. However considering that Scotland pays more in taxes per head, than large parts of the United Kingdom, and did pay massive fiscal surpluses for most of the last 30 years, I rather think we're entitled to all of our own wealth back, and the ability to use that to our own ends.
And incidentally the fact more is spent on health and education per head in Scotland has absolutely nothing to do with the Barnett Formula, which is designed to give Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland a population based share of any increase in expenditure in England. Journalists and some politicians seem to think spending levels in Scotland and the Barnett Formula are the same thing - they're not. As for home rule for the English, I'd give them independence, just as long as Scotland gets its independence, I don't care how that happens. English independence has the added advantage that they would need to compensate us in terms of the division of national assets, and would bear the costs of independence rather than Scotland. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
That's really a matter for the Scottish Executive rather than the treasury or UK Parliament though...
I do not believe public spending should be apportioned on the basis of who pays the most in, but according to need and other factors. Taxes should be lowered in order to achieve that end - a notion which I fully support.
I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. As far as assets go, the ones presently in Scotland probably account for far more than Scotland deserves - take all the military equipment for example. I think if anyone would have to march things to the border to be handed over, it'd be us. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Of course it's lazy... in fact, it's a complete load of bollocks. Speaking as a Scotsman, I don't want some lazy English Democrat oik telling me I'm a sponger when I'm going to pay hundreds of times more than in him into the treasury over the course of my life; nor, if I was an Englishman, would it appeal having some dole-scrounging Glaswegian do the same. The only reason these figures should be used is to estimate which parts of the country can benefit from greater spending or strategies to improve their economic performance. Not some interprovincial pissing contest. |
||||||||
| Economist |
Scotland certainly does need lower taxes. Perhaps had we not been part of the United Kingdom, and been able to enjoy these massive oil-induced fiscal surpluses, with a high tax take per head we could have had lower taxes. One will never know, especially given that the Scottish Parliament does not have control over most of the taxes that could make a difference eg Corporation tax.
Foreign currency reserves, bills and bonds held at the Bank of England, a share of all of the UK public sector real estate at home and abroad, a share of all UK government investments, assets and liabilities, a share of the assets of the intelligence services, as share of the assets of national agencies like the IND, the DVLA, HMRC. And potentially a repatriation of the costs of national infrastructure projects like Heathrow Airport, the M25 and the Channel Tunnel - after all they were justified quite significantly on the grounds of being UK-wide. Yes we'd be due a share of the military as well. You are quite correct to say that Scotland contributes disproportionately to the military of the UK anyway (in terms of numbers of personnel etc), but it would still be due a share of the capital and assets on independence.
And does it appeal to you that you are sponging benefit scroungers in places like Liverpool or Newcastle or Leeds or even London? |
||||||||
| azzuri |
There would be no marching anything to the border needed - just send the Nuclear Sub as Faslane to Southampton and the debt's repaid! |
||||||||
| Neil |
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=555512005 I That is a lot of money & I do not see "economist" how you can say it is a "moot point" whether it is or not. I will grant that this figure doesn't include oil money but even so we are still about £2.5 billion ahead. The reason more is spent per head in Scotland is precisely because we get more per head which in turn is because of the Barnett formula so you are wrong to say that the one is "absolutely nothing to do with" the other. This is partly because our population is, at best, static & England's is growing so the census figure Barnett is calculated on is always outdated. Scotland does, as you say, need lower taxes to stimulate economic growth & we could afford it & still keep spending higher than England purely because of Barnett. The fact that instead 53% of all economic activity in Scotland is governemnt spending is not the fault of the nasty English but of the incompetent Scots we strill choose to elect. This is the ultimate reason why independence is not feasible. |
||||||||
| Economist |
First of all I don't purport to have the economic solutions for Scotland, but I recognise they will NEVER be accommodated in the current constitutional setup.
As for having fiscal deficit of about £2.5bn (with oil)- oh dear, well that's the end of the world, then, because no country ever runs a deficit, we'd better invite the USA to come join us in Britain seen as they seem to be running and unstable deficit. If we'd had economic growth of 4% instead of 1.8%, that fiscal deficit could quite easily have been ameliorated. Yes, it most certainly doesn't include oil, but the Barnett Formula and spending levels are exclusive of one another. First of all the Barnett Formula only deals with identifiable government expenditure, and not unidentifiable government expenditure. Secondly the Formula works a bit like this (the cookbooks way to understanding it). Scotland gets an annual block grant each year from the government - this year that grant stands at around £26bn, which the Scottish executive gets to spend on what it likes. That grant is made up of two components (a) Historical levels of spending (b) a population based share of the increase in UK government identifiable expenditure spent in ENGLAND. Say in England they decide to build 10 new hospitals at a cost of £10bn - even though that policy has nothing to do with Scotland, because it represents an increase in English spending, Scotland will get a population based share of the £10bn increase or around £1bn, which will be tacked on to Scotland's budget which the Scottish Executive can spend on what they like - education for example (£1bn would go a huge way in Scottish education). Contrary to some speculation there is a brief assessment of needs, and this is taken into account in Scotland's Grant. Ergo the Barnett Formula DOES NOT autnmatically lead to greater per head expenditure - because it doesn't have to. I fail to see how independence is not feasible - it is very feasible, it just needs the majority of the Scottish electorate to be trapped in this hopeless cycle of "we cannae dae it", "we're too poor, stupid and backward" and all the other latent rubbish that floats around on the subject. What is not feasible is having a fiscal arrangement that is detrimental to Scotland in this manner, affords no accountability, gives rise to inefficiency, and leaves us and our economy and fiscal stability to the mercy of others. I agree that spending should be CUT, taxes should be CUT, because that is what Scotland needs - the Scottish Executive's budget has mushroomed from £15bn in 1999, to £26bn today. That is unsustainable. So here we have a public expenditure mechanism which floods Scotland's economy with public expenditure, rather than allowing it to grow - I think that's awful. I'll never stand up for Labour or the LibDems in the Scottish Parliament, but they have as much control over this formula as I do over the weather. Treasury rules stipulate each fiscal year the entirity of it must be spent and cannot be invested for the future. I'll never understand why anyone agrees the Barnett Formula is good for Scotland. I'll also never understand why the electorate of Scotland are prepared to subordinate their own economic interests to the United Kingdom - which quite frankly doesn't care about us. Time for Scotland to act like a grown-up country, stand on its own two feet and yes make a lot of mistakes economically and otherwise, without interference from the rest of the UK. |
||||||||
| Blackleaf |
From The Scotsman itself - English subsidise the Scots by £2,200 per head Scotland’s annual subsidy from England has SHOT UP to a record £2,200 a head – doubling since Labour came into power in 1997 (The Scotsman). Gordon Brown’s spending has pushed Jack McConnell’s budget to Scandinavian levels at a time when Scotland’s tax burden dropped below that of England, Poland and Canada. The Scottish Executive figures sparked a political storm as MSPs asked why the world-class spending has failed to be transferred into world-class public services. In 2003-4 the Government spent £45.3 billion, putting Scotland in a rare club of countries where state spending is more than half of the entire economy. Only £34 billion was generated in tax. The remaining £11.3 billion was subsidised by English taxpayers. scotsman.com |
||||||||
| azzuri |
The Scotsman - now there's an impartial newspaper!
|
||||||||
| SLG |
Just out of interest Blackleaf, do you post articles like this and the toilet one on English forums? |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Perhaps we could any net receipients of the state's finances while we're at it. There's no philosophical justification behind axeing off (either physically or metaphorically) an area of the country simply because it's under-performing. You're more likely to get a significant kick-up-the-arse for the economy from London anyway, given the present state of affairs and that it quite clear that we'll have a Tory government in a few short years, albeit a watered down one.
Think you've got that sentence muddled a bit, but to answer: no I don't like redistribution of wealth anywhere, the direction of it is, to my mind, totally irrelevant. As for our talk of what is owed to whom, you've rather demonstrated another point: that it'd be a mammoth job in itself (if indeed it was at all possible) to estimate what fraction of the UK's present holdings that its constituent parts would be entitled to and how best to separate them to allow for this.
I agree wholeheartedly that this is an enormous problem which must be addressed. And to be honest I've not heard any of the major parties address it properly. |
||||||||
| Wolf of Badenoch |
Probably been kicked aff ae aw the english forums aroon thats how he/she/it is trolling aboot. |
||||||||
| Blackleaf |
Why do you want to know? It's a fact that the English subsidise the Scots by £2,200 per head. So what's wrong with talking about it? Altogether, we give arounf £10 billion each year to the Scots. And it doesn't bother me if Scots deny it because I know it's true. And apart from subsidise the Scottish, we also subsidise Continental Europeans, such as inefficient French farmers or Greek vineyard owners. |
||||||||
| SLG |
Just curious. I'd find it odd if you post on a Scots forum when you obviously have a great dislike for us. It might be easier if you regularly post on English forums, and just come here occasionally to antagonise folk. I'm also curious to know whether you are propagating the sort of articles you post here on English sites.
It is not a fact. You might at a stretch be able to interpret the figures that way, but it is far from a fact. However, you clearly believe that and are clearly aggrieved by the situation. The next question is what are you doing about it? (Apart from trying to educate us on the matter;)).
Do you post on Continental European forums informing them of this, like you do here? |
||||||||
| Blackleaf |
Are all you Scots brainwashed in some way? Are you ignorant of the world outside of Scotland? After Germany, Britain is the 2nd biggest contributor to the EU budget (one good reason why we need to leave the EU). Thanks to British taxpayers and our contribution to the evil CAP, French farmers are rich for doing no work whatsoever and French cows have more money spent on them than starving children in Africa. The People newspaper once ran a story interviewing rich French farmers (who hardly work) who made money from receiving CAP subsidies. They were pictured sitting next to their swimming pools and sports cars. One of the farmers said: "I can't believe the English are stupid enough to be giving us this money, but I'll gladly receive it." And I can never understand why the Scots are so pro-EU, considering that the EU has destroyed, amongst other things, the Scottish fishing industry. |
||||||||
| azzuri |
I think you'll find very few people here are pro-EU, and why do you think "we Scots" all think the same way?
Everybody is different - you can't just put people's political beliefs in a box so to speak because of their nationalities. And Scots tend to be fairly well travelled, hence why they value their homeland so much. |
||||||||
| IF Convenor |
How does Blackleaf know it is only English tax money which is going to the EU? Is it earmarked in some way? If it is, I'd like to see the figures so we can all know exactly how much of the UK Government's revenue is raised in each part of the UK. | ||||||||
| Blackleaf |
Obviously, the vast majority of it is English money. |
||||||||
| IF Convenor |
But your original statement implied it was all English. | ||||||||