 |
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.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Shadowman
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 94
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | Another Scottish myth which should consigned to the dustbin is that Scotland is an equal partner in this Great British union. I mean, as a net contributor to the coffers of the UK we will never host the Olympic Games, or a world cup. Oh I can hear the knockers saying Scotland isn't big enough....blah, blah! Another myth, a unionist one but a myth all the same, an independent Scotland should aspire to such things! |
Scotland has always been a more than equal partner in the union. If we consider that Scotland has always historically been overrepresented in Parliament and (since 1997) in government and gets more than its fair share in spending thanks to the Barnett formula, the idea that Scotland is somehow disenfranchised is unfounded.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2597
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:17 pm Post subject: can |
|
|
| Quote: | | gets more than its fair share in spending thanks to the Barnett formula |
I think you should read up on the Barnet formula!
Scotland gets more per capita spending from central funds because it has higher needs, in the same way that Yorkshire gets more than Oxfordshire or Ayrshire gets more than Perthshire.
The Barnet formula does not affect this, it also does not apply to things like pensions, benefits, health etc.
The Barnet formula is only a calculation for additional spending. AND it is based on population splits so therefore it IS a fair share.
As a rough guide then take health for instance. Scotlands spend is based on Scotlands needs. IF, however the UK treasury announces some EXTRA spendin onhealth then Scotland receives its share based on its perecentage of population.
That is how the barnet formula works. It is often blamed for many things but only because people dont know what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shadowman
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:58 am Post subject: Re: can |
|
|
| Rinty wrote: | | Quote: | | gets more than its fair share in spending thanks to the Barnett formula |
I think you should read up on the Barnet formula!
Scotland gets more per capita spending from central funds because it has higher needs, in the same way that Yorkshire gets more than Oxfordshire or Ayrshire gets more than Perthshire.
The Barnet formula does not affect this, it also does not apply to things like pensions, benefits, health etc.
The Barnet formula is only a calculation for additional spending. AND it is based on population splits so therefore it IS a fair share.
As a rough guide then take health for instance. Scotlands spend is based on Scotlands needs. IF, however the UK treasury announces some EXTRA spendin onhealth then Scotland receives its share based on its perecentage of population.
That is how the barnet formula works. It is often blamed for many things but only because people dont know what it is. |
Perhaps it is not the Barnett formula itself, but it is common knowledge that Scotland gets more than its fair share of public spending. There are some areas in Scotland where the state's proportion of the economy reaches almost Soviet levels.
NB this doesn't take into account private sector jobs which are dependent on the government, such as the yards on the Clyde
I notice you won't address the political overrepresentation point I made... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
azzuri
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 3792
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would in fact say it was the exact opposite. It is in fact NOT common knowledge that Scotland is getting shafted by the so called 'benefits' of the union.
See here for details - http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/biglie.html
It is all compiled with official government figures by a chartered accountant.
I agree with the high levels of state spending - but this is also similiar in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although state spending in Scotland is approx 52%, it's roughly 43% in England. This could be explained by an extremely low population density, it is obvious that Scotland requires higher goverment spend in terms of energy, transport etc.
England's rate of government spending is hardly 'low' in comparison and I agree Scotland's is far too high, but in an Independent Scotland this could be paid for with very little effort. Is it really such a bad thing to have high government spending if the nation can afford it?
_________________
"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/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2597
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:53 am Post subject: eh |
|
|
| Quote: | Perhaps it is not the Barnett formula itself, but it is common knowledge that Scotland gets more than its fair share of public spending. There are some areas in Scotland where the state's proportion of the economy reaches almost Soviet levels.
NB this doesn't take into account private sector jobs which are dependent on the government, such as the yards on the Clyde
I notice you won't address the political overrepresentation point I made... |
Perhaps, now that you know that your view on the barnet formula was wrong, you might consider at least reviewing your ideas about Scotland getting more than its "fair share". In Glasgow, for instance, we can see something like 20% of males unable to work and receiving some form of disability benefit. Are we to tell some of these people "sorry we are only allowed 10% of the UKs disabled so some of you cant get paid".
The reason Scotland can be said to receive more per head is simply that we have more costs from the central pot in some areas.
You other point regarding "some areas in Scotland where the state's proportion of the economy reaches almost Soviet levels." is a different issue altogether. You choose a quote from a Digby Jones about state spending in North Ayrshire. To describe it as almost Soviet is ridiculous given that much of that spending goes directly into the hands of the private sector and that we have a heavily subsidised nuclear power station in the area (state spending straight to a privatised company).
Of course the fact that we have a lower than average amount of jobs in the private sector will make public spending appear higher as a percentage.
I think you should start to read past the headlines and make some sort of argument of your own before spouting outdated spin.
As for the over representation allegation I didnt respond to it because it didnt warrant a response in my opinion. But if you wish, I will address it.
We have 59 MPs from a total of 646 in the house of commons. This gives us 9.1% of the seats in parliament (slightly less than our % in population. Is this over representation? Are you suggesting we have less MPs?
You see, it may be easier to reject your claim of over representation if there was actually a case to answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SLG
Born Again..........and still Scottish!
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 5515
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shadowman, it's about far more than being an equal partner or not on economic terms. There is more to governing a country than pure public expenditure. As rs and rinty have said, no country has an equal tax intake or spend across it. This reflects the different needs based on geography, social needs etc. The difference here is that the UK is not one country and should not be ruled as one country. If Scotland has an under-performing economy and a bloated public sector, then who is to blame? It is the British state which is failing to govern that economy. You can talk about devolution, but it will never provide more than a very weak appendage of the British state.
Scotland was over-represented at Westminster in the past. The reason it was allowed to go on for so long was because it was of such little relevance. Do you think that Scotland being represented by 10.5% of MPs as opposed to 9.1% has had any relevance on the good government of Scotland? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4413
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | Another Scottish myth which should consigned to the dustbin is that Scotland is an equal partner in this Great British union. I mean, as a net contributor to the coffers of the UK we will never host the Olympic Games, or a world cup. Oh I can hear the knockers saying Scotland isn't big enough....blah, blah! Another myth, a unionist one but a myth all the same, an independent Scotland should aspire to such things! |
Oh there's a cheap go.
Net contributor - debatable, and only if you include oil, which isn't actually in the Scottish economic zone, but instead mostly on the UK Continental Shelf. Either way, the practise of saying that one place 'contributes' while another 'takes' is completely denying all reality. If you don't want people taking money off you, campaign to abolish the Welfare State, the NHS and state education. Regardless of where I was in the UK, I'd still be a net contributor to HM coffers.
No, we probably won't host the Olympic Games or the World Cup any time soon - but that would be the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and it's down to them to be able to organise that manner of piss-up in this proverbial brewery. We certainly don't have the facilities at present (we didn't even have enough stadiums between us and Ireland to hold EuroWhateverthebloodyyear) and I imagine the cost would be off-putting and hard to recoup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4413
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rs_azzuri wrote: | | I agree with the high levels of state spending - but this is also similiar in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although state spending in Scotland is approx 52%, it's roughly 43% in England. This could be explained by an extremely low population density, it is obvious that Scotland requires higher goverment spend in terms of energy, transport etc. |
Doesn't explain why, in some areas with normal population density, those levels can reach into the 70%+ region.
I believe spending on health and education is up to 30% higher per capita in Scotland than England. You can hardly account for that in terms of our population density.
The Scottish Executive should get its priorities right.
| Quote: | | England's rate of government spending is hardly 'low' in comparison and I agree Scotland's is far too high, but in an Independent Scotland this could be paid for with very little effort. Is it really such a bad thing to have high government spending if the nation can afford it? |
Definitely yes it is. And no, we can't afford it. Not in the long term anyway. If you want to spend money anyway, throw it in the direction of good architecture and infrastructure. Compared with the achievement of the great civilisations of the world, no one will be looking at contemporary Scotland as having any legacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shagpile
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Aventinian,
I know you dont like it but it is true, Scotland IS a net contributor to the UK, despite a falling population.
It was mentioned on the news Wave 102, alittle over a week ago that the UK government have made "mistakes" in the way they have been recording some expenditure in England and wales as UKexpendature. Thus making it look like Scotland is receiving more money. Thatcher, got her fingers rapped by the EU for doing the same with EU money. Any bets on how the money spent on G8 will be recorded?
Btw Scotland is not recognised by the IOC as a competing nation.
Scotland is going to get the Olympic footie, and we dont have a Brittish footie team, explain that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
azzuri
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 3792
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Definitely yes it is. And no, we can't afford it. Not in the long term anyway. If you want to spend money anyway, throw it in the direction of good architecture and infrastructure. Compared with the achievement of the great civilisations of the world, no one will be looking at contemporary Scotland as having any legacy. |
Are you seriously suggesting that 'good architecture' that'll be appreciated in 100 years and leaves a 'legacy' is more important than things such as health spending and solving Scotland's social problems today?
Get a grip.
_________________
"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/
Last edited by azzuri on Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4413
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | I know you dont like it but it is true, Scotland IS a net contributor to the UK, despite a falling population. |
Only as a result of oil, which hardly demonstrates fine economic management.
Anyway, I don't trust any of these figures. An Englishman can easily make it seems as if they're paying and a Scotsman can do the same. In the end, it all means very little to me as I only care what I am contributing.
| Quote: | Btw Scotland is not recognised by the IOC as a competing nation.
Scotland is going to get the Olympic footie, and we dont have a Brittish footie team, explain that? |
Well obviously it isn't recognised as a competing country. It's part of the UK.
There's talk about forming a British football team for the occasion actually. But it's not a huge problem, after all not every country competes in every event.
| rs_azzuri wrote: | Are you seriously suggesting that 'good architecture' that'll be appreciated in 100 years and leaves a 'legacy' is more important than things such as health spending and solving Scotland's social problems today?
Get a grip. |
I believe it is a reflection on us as a civilisation. Right now we're failing. It reflects short-term judgements and poor administration on a general level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
azzuri
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 3792
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What 'fine economic management' has Britain as a whole acheivied in the last decade. Given Britain has record national debt levels I'd hardly say thats 'fine economic management'. In conjunction with a chancellor who bases his economic judgement on how well house prices are doing I'd say Britain in pretty much 'in the s**t' economically at the moment.
You only need to see the massive growth in 'debt consolidation companies' and loan/credit card companies to realise this. If interest rates were to rise by another 2-2.5% the whole country would go into meltdown. It's an absolute joke.
_________________
"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/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shadowman
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rs_azzuri wrote: | What 'fine economic management' has Britain as a whole acheivied in the last decade. Given Britain has record national debt levels I'd hardly say thats 'fine economic management'. In conjunction with a chancellor who bases his economic judgement on how well house prices are doing I'd say Britain in pretty much 'in the s**t' economically at the moment.
You only need to see the massive growth in 'debt consolidation companies' and loan/credit card companies to realise this. If interest rates were to rise by another 2-2.5% the whole country would go into meltdown. It's an absolute joke. |
Britain is far from "in the s**t" currently. Although Mr. Brown hasn't exactly done wonders for the British economy, he should be praised for not acting as previous Labour Chancellors did by not ruining the British economy entirely.
You also talk about record national debt levels. This is simply not true! As recently as 1996 British national debt stood at 53% of GDP, and it is now hovering around 40%. When you see that in 1946 Britain's national debt stood at more than 250% of GDP, you see that we have nothing to worry about in terms of national debt.
Then again, I think that any national debt is too much, and I would support a party that proposed to pay it off and end government borrowing. It would save everyone in Britain £500 a year in interest payments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
