Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

SLG · Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:01 pm Post subject:

And what have the poor gannets done to deserve that? Laughing

“Nuair a thig Rocabarra ris, is dual gun tèid an Saoghal a sgrios”.

Aventinian · Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:44 am Post subject:

Morph · Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject:

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
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Aventinian · Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:47 am Post subject:

Economist · Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject:

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.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Economist · Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:24 am Post subject:

Aventinian · Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:44 am Post subject:

Economist · Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:49 am Post subject:

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3793

Neil · Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:21 am Post subject:

Economist · Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:03 am Post subject:

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3793

The Scotsman - now there's an impartial newspaper! Rolling Eyes

_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

SLG · Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:44 am Post subject:

Aventinian · Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject:

Wolf of Badenoch · Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:31 pm Post subject:

Blackleaf · Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject: