I have just rechecked the figures. This year it is £48 billion, but will rise to about my £75 billion figure by the end of the next parliament:
Fantastic, Scotland will be asked to pay over £6bn for debt it did not need, never asked for and never wanted. Thanks England.
This "it's not our debt" approach to discussing Scotland's economy is perhaps the biggest piece of gibberish going. In 12 of the last 16 GERS reports we (Scotland) have generated a lower percentage of UK taxation revenue than the percentage of UK spending we've received. The idea that it's not our debt is complete nonsense.
The fact that so many nationalists think we're subsidising the rest of the UK on some grand scale is genuinely frightening.
In every year between 1980 and 2012 Scotland paid more into the UK than it got out. Since 2013 it has moronically been told it paid less. But all of that was paying for London debt. Scotland is not only solvent but it is a permenantly solvent country.
I have just rechecked the figures. This year it is £48 billion, but will rise to about my £75 billion figure by the end of the next parliament:
Fantastic, Scotland will be asked to pay over £6bn for debt it did not need, never asked for and never wanted. Thanks England.
This "it's not our debt" approach to discussing Scotland's economy is perhaps the biggest piece of gibberish going. In 12 of the last 16 GERS reports we (Scotland) have generated a lower percentage of UK taxation revenue than the percentage of UK spending we've received. The idea that it's not our debt is complete nonsense.
The fact that so many nationalists think we're subsidising the rest of the UK on some grand scale is genuinely frightening.
Scotland has paid £222bn into hte UK exchequer over what it has received back since 1980. That's anpit £2.5bn per year or about £500 per year for every man woman and child in Scotland.
On topic is this finally the poll that will make the markets come back to some sort of reality? More importantly, will it finally make the Tories wake up and realise that some Adam Smith style invisible hand is not going to deliver this election to them on a plate with minimal effort.
I think those advocating swing back etc have done them no favours whatsoever. It has persuaded them are winning when they are losing and this has informed their tactics with the debates amongst other factors.
For those paying attention Ed is not much short of an embarrassment and his economic theories are incoherent. But that will not stop him from getting a majority, let alone being the largest party. This election really is Labour's to lose and the Tories are running out of options fast.
What an utterly incoherent post, talk about trying to face two ways on a horse going in one direction! Did you even bother to read your second paragraph before penning the third?! You used to remind me of the Reverend IM Jolly on the economy, now you remind me of the Minister who got caught when the producer poured his gin bottle into the water jug on Scotch and Wry!
On topic is this finally the poll that will make the markets come back to some sort of reality? More importantly, will it finally make the Tories wake up and realise that some Adam Smith style invisible hand is not going to deliver this election to them on a plate with minimal effort.
I think those advocating swing back etc have done them no favours whatsoever. It has persuaded them are winning when they are losing and this has informed their tactics with the debates amongst other factors.
For those paying attention Ed is not much short of an embarrassment and his economic theories are incoherent. But that will not stop him from getting a majority, let alone being the largest party. This election really is Labour's to lose and the Tories are running out of options fast.
This "it's not our debt" approach to discussing Scotland's economy is perhaps the biggest piece of gibberish going. In 12 of the last 16 GERS reports we (Scotland) have generated a lower percentage of UK taxation revenue than the percentage of UK spending we've received. The idea that it's not our debt is complete nonsense.
The fact that so many nationalists think we're subsidising the rest of the UK on some grand scale is genuinely frightening.
Scotland has paid £222bn into hte UK exchequer over what it has received back since 1980. That's anpit £2.5bn per year or about £500 per year for every man woman and child in Scotland.
Link?
There is no question that during the 80s and most of the 90s Scotland was a major net contributor to the UK Treasury as the revenue from the North Sea flowed. But anyone who thinks that Scotland is still doing so is delusional.
The sad truth that so many would not face during the referendum is that the boost of the North Sea has hidden serious structural decline in the Scottish economy over the last couple of decades. We now have a financial services industry based around Edinburgh, a substantial if diminishing services industry based around Aberdeen, some light industry based around Livingstone and the old stand byes of agriculture and whisky. After that you are really into the public sector in places like Dundee, St Andrews and Glasgow based around bodies like the Universities.
This is not a viable economy for 5.3m people. I see the consequence in the Court of Session. There is a derisory amount of commercial litigation in Scotland because there is a derisory amount of commercial activity. This is exggerated by the inclination of North Sea operators to use English based arbitration for their disputes but even so it is a major headache.
Rather than focussing on who can spend the most public money Scotland desperately needs political leadership focussed on how our children are going to earn a living here, not in some fantasy land but in the real world. This means making sure the services industry around Aberdeen is given the support and education to keep it a player as the North Sea becomes a cost centre based on clean up, it means stopping undermining our financial services industry with these absurd independence fantasies, it means providing the infrastructure to allow other businesses and private sector employers to grow and above all it means we need to stop kidding ourselves about the quality of our education.
There is so much to do and we have 2 major parties focussed on who can spend the most on nurses and social care. At the moment I see my children going south for their careers.
What an utterly incoherent post, talk about trying to face two ways on a horse going in one direction! Did you even bother to read your second paragraph before penning the third?! You used to remind me of the Reverend IM Jolly on the economy, now you remind me of the Minister who got caught when the producer poured his gin bottle into the water jug on Scotch and Wry!
On topic is this finally the poll that will make the markets come back to some sort of reality? More importantly, will it finally make the Tories wake up and realise that some Adam Smith style invisible hand is not going to deliver this election to them on a plate with minimal effort.
I think those advocating swing back etc have done them no favours whatsoever. It has persuaded them are winning when they are losing and this has informed their tactics with the debates amongst other factors.
For those paying attention Ed is not much short of an embarrassment and his economic theories are incoherent. But that will not stop him from getting a majority, let alone being the largest party. This election really is Labour's to lose and the Tories are running out of options fast.
It's being so cheerful that keeps me going Fitalass.
But I don't see the incoherence in pointing out that the Tories really need to be much more focussed on how they are going to win this and my opinion of Ed. Refusing head to head debate when your strongest playing card is the Presidential choice between Cameron and Miliband was a mistake. The cautious response in the interviews was a mistake as well although it has to be said Paxo started like Mitchell Starc and it would have put most on the back foot.
The Tories need to start swinging and pointing out the incoherence (to use your word) of Labour's position. If they do not get on the front foot they will lose. At the moment they look complacent to me.
There is no question that during the 80s and most of the 90s Scotland was a major net contributor to the UK Treasury as the revenue from the North Sea flowed. But anyone who thinks that Scotland is still doing so is delusional.
The sad truth that so many would not face during the referendum is that the boost of the North Sea has hidden serious structural decline in the Scottish economy over the last couple of decades. We now have a financial services industry based around Edinburgh, a substantial if diminishing services industry based around Aberdeen, some light industry based around Livingstone and the old stand byes of agriculture and whisky. After that you are really into the public sector in places like Dundee, St Andrews and Glasgow based around bodies like the Universities.
This is not a viable economy for 5.3m people. I see the consequence in the Court of Session. There is a derisory amount of commercial litigation in Scotland because there is a derisory amount of commercial activity. This is exggerated by the inclination of North Sea operators to use English based arbitration for their disputes but even so it is a major headache.
Rather than focussing on who can spend the most public money Scotland desperately needs political leadership focussed on how our children are going to earn a living here, not in some fantasy land but inthe real world. This means making sure the services industry around Aberdeen is given the support and education to keep it a player as the North Sea becomes a cost centre based on clean up, it means stopping undermining our financial services industry with these absurd independence fantasies, it means providing the infrastructure to allow other businesses and private sector employers to grow and above all it means we need to stop kidding ourselves about the quality of our education.
There is so much to do and we have 2 major parties focussed on who can spend the most on nurses and social care. At the moment I see my children going south for their careers.
Ah so you think Scotland should pay £5bn per annum to England to pay for the debt racked up to pay for London Infrastructure. No. Not going to happen.
Without the need to subsidise England Scotland, with all the problems you highlight (and a numbers of strengths you ignore) is breakeven unlike 90% of the countries in this world.
I'd rather be a breakeven country than England with its huge, structural and unresolvable debt mountain. The UK cannot pay its pension burden in the long term. It;s finished and bankrupt. Scotland has a chance. Sure we might screw it all up. But we might not.
rUk has no choice or option. It is already finished.
All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
There is no question that during the 80s and most of the 90s Scotland was a major net contributor to the UK Treasury as the revenue from the North Sea flowed.
:bolleaux:
I can go and find the article from "t'Economist" - oft posted link under the "disqUS" system - that showed the opposite. You are a lawyer so I forgive your misquoted statement.
If Elliot can get a ton there is still a game on and 252 is still not impossible but its very much odds on Australia now. Their bowling and fielding has been outstanding.
All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
Morning Dire,
Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
Morning Dire,
Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
What's your point caller? You want to be subsidised? You expect to be subsidised? Stand on your own two feet.
Out now. At least Guptil managed to get the 10 runs required to pass Sangakara but final looks dead
I am watching GP instead.
As I said, final was dead in the first over. Without a big score from McCullum NZ have looked poor, they don;t have the batsmen behind him and they don't have a remotely useful attack.
There is no question that during the 80s and most of the 90s Scotland was a major net contributor to the UK Treasury as the revenue from the North Sea flowed.
:bolleaux:
I can go and find the article from "t'Economist" - oft posted link under the "disqUS" system - that showed the opposite. You are a lawyer so I forgive your misquoted statement.
All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
Morning Dire,
Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
What's your point caller? You want to be subsidised? You expect to be subsidised? Stand on your own two feet.
All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
Morning Dire,
Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
What's your point caller? You want to be subsidised? You expect to be subsidised? Stand on your own two feet.
Where's that link for your subsidy claim?
I don't recall asking you a question, I asked it of Edin Rokz.
All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
Morning Dire,
Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
What's your point caller? You want to be subsidised? You expect to be subsidised? Stand on your own two feet.
Where's that link for your subsidy claim?
It's from the wonder book of SNP folklore - Fairy Tales from the Arc of Prosperity.
All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
Morning Dire,
Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
What's your point caller? You want to be subsidised? You expect to be subsidised? Stand on your own two feet.
Where's that link for your subsidy claim?
It's from the wonder book of SNP folklore - Fairy Tales from the Arc of Prosperity.
So you believe, as a socialist, which is clearly what you are, that Scotland should be given redistributed money from England?
All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
Morning Dire,
Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
What's your point caller? You want to be subsidised? You expect to be subsidised? Stand on your own two feet.
Where's that link for your subsidy claim?
It's from the wonder book of SNP folklore - Fairy Tales from the Arc of Prosperity.
Since Dair can't back up his fatuous claim, I did a quick google search for "Scotlands £5 billion subsidy to UK' - the first article listed is:
the effective subsidy to Scotland, which at present receives about £5bn more in grants than its population share could justify.....
There is only one way in which the Scottish government’s new freedom to vary income tax can be exercised, and that is to raise it. That was not what the supporters of more devolution had in mind when they asked for additional powers.
Not much movement on betfair in response to this poll. I've been laying the Tories more about 1.52 most seats.
Getting to quite a substantial position now, -2.7k on Tories, + 4.7k on Labour. I think of it as a hedge against my equity investments should Labour win.
Just a depressing outcome for the UK though. Still if thats what people vote for thats what they deserve!
All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
Morning Dire,
Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
What's your point caller? You want to be subsidised? You expect to be subsidised? Stand on your own two feet.
Where's that link for your subsidy claim?
It's from the wonder book of SNP folklore - Fairy Tales from the Arc of Prosperity.
Since Dair can't back up his fatuous claim, I did a quick google search for "Scotlands £5 billion subsidy to UK' - the first article listed is:
the effective subsidy to Scotland, which at present receives about £5bn more in grants than its population share could justify.....
There is only one way in which the Scottish government’s new freedom to vary income tax can be exercised, and that is to raise it. That was not what the supporters of more devolution had in mind when they asked for additional powers.
All this talk of a SNP landslide in Scotland is only going to make a federated system of government more likely. England is going to demand a parliament or assemblies of the regions based out of London.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
For Scotland the most important thing is to end the English subsidy/ £5bn per annum is ridiculous.
Morning Dire,
Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
What's your point caller? You want to be subsidised? You expect to be subsidised? Stand on your own two feet.
Where's that link for your subsidy claim?
It's from the wonder book of SNP folklore - Fairy Tales from the Arc of Prosperity.
Since Dair can't back up his fatuous claim, I did a quick google search for "Scotlands £5 billion subsidy to UK' - the first article listed is:
the effective subsidy to Scotland, which at present receives about £5bn more in grants than its population share could justify.....
There is only one way in which the Scottish government’s new freedom to vary income tax can be exercised, and that is to raise it. That was not what the supporters of more devolution had in mind when they asked for additional powers.
So made up numbers are suddenly the cause of the Brit Nats.
Lol.
You lost.
You took money from Scotland for 30 years and suddenly decided that a couple of years where Scotland was break even you would declare "Scotland needs England".
No-one believes this. You've already lost. Your subsidy is going away and you will have to stand on your own two feet. I feel sorry for you, England is a bankrupt country and would have died in the 70s without Scottish money.
But please, feel free, in fact tell us how useless Scotland is. Make us go away. We want you to want that. Make it happen instead of spending millions on propaganda.
We'll survive.
You won't.
This is incoherent to the point of absurdity. We're talking about basic numbers that are published by the Scottish Government, not by Westminster. Instead of taking them on board you've ignored them and started rambling on about propaganda like a lunatic.
At least try and post some kind of sane argument as a response: e.g. you could have said something like "the nature of our economy might change under independence so our current fiscal position wouldn't necessarily stay the same". You'd still be wrong but at least you'd seem like a reasonable human being who can argue a point properly.
Since Dair can't back up his fatuous claim, I did a quick google search for "Scotlands £5 billion subsidy to UK' - the first article listed is:
the effective subsidy to Scotland, which at present receives about £5bn more in grants than its population share could justify.....
There is only one way in which the Scottish government’s new freedom to vary income tax can be exercised, and that is to raise it. That was not what the supporters of more devolution had in mind when they asked for additional powers.
Perhaps he's misunderstood the direction of the subsidy?
Being reasonable about it, the situation in Scotland is essentially that the relative tax revenues per capita and spending per capita are reasonably close if you include a geographic share of oil (it fluctuates quite wildly year on year depending on oil production and the oil price but if you average it out in the recent period it's close). In the last 16 years (which is as far back as we can go in the current GERS methodology) 12 of those years saw Scotland generating a lower relative revenue per capita than it received in spending, but it's not a massive difference if you compare it to the situation in other regions of the UK.
Given oil production peaked at the end of the 1990s and is on the decline we can expect this position to get worse in future, but the irony is that despite Scottish nationalists and English nationalists arguing until they're blue in the face over which one subsidises the other, Barnett has actually proven a pretty fair way of balancing revenue and spending in Scotland. Of course braindead nationalists (on both sides) aren't particularly interested in the facts and figures, they're just intent on slinging mud at each other.
Comments
I think those advocating swing back etc have done them no favours whatsoever. It has persuaded them are winning when they are losing and this has informed their tactics with the debates amongst other factors.
For those paying attention Ed is not much short of an embarrassment and his economic theories are incoherent. But that will not stop him from getting a majority, let alone being the largest party. This election really is Labour's to lose and the Tories are running out of options fast.
The sad truth that so many would not face during the referendum is that the boost of the North Sea has hidden serious structural decline in the Scottish economy over the last couple of decades. We now have a financial services industry based around Edinburgh, a substantial if diminishing services industry based around Aberdeen, some light industry based around Livingstone and the old stand byes of agriculture and whisky. After that you are really into the public sector in places like Dundee, St Andrews and Glasgow based around bodies like the Universities.
This is not a viable economy for 5.3m people. I see the consequence in the Court of Session. There is a derisory amount of commercial litigation in Scotland because there is a derisory amount of commercial activity. This is exggerated by the inclination of North Sea operators to use English based arbitration for their disputes but even so it is a major headache.
Rather than focussing on who can spend the most public money Scotland desperately needs political leadership focussed on how our children are going to earn a living here, not in some fantasy land but in the real world. This means making sure the services industry around Aberdeen is given the support and education to keep it a player as the North Sea becomes a cost centre based on clean up, it means stopping undermining our financial services industry with these absurd independence fantasies, it means providing the infrastructure to allow other businesses and private sector employers to grow and above all it means we need to stop kidding ourselves about the quality of our education.
There is so much to do and we have 2 major parties focussed on who can spend the most on nurses and social care. At the moment I see my children going south for their careers.
But I don't see the incoherence in pointing out that the Tories really need to be much more focussed on how they are going to win this and my opinion of Ed. Refusing head to head debate when your strongest playing card is the Presidential choice between Cameron and Miliband was a mistake. The cautious response in the interviews was a mistake as well although it has to be said Paxo started like Mitchell Starc and it would have put most on the back foot.
The Tories need to start swinging and pointing out the incoherence (to use your word) of Labour's position. If they do not get on the front foot they will lose. At the moment they look complacent to me.
And Nick also had a 7 increase.
On the back of one opinion poll?
Without the need to subsidise England Scotland, with all the problems you highlight (and a numbers of strengths you ignore) is breakeven unlike 90% of the countries in this world.
I'd rather be a breakeven country than England with its huge, structural and unresolvable debt mountain. The UK cannot pay its pension burden in the long term. It;s finished and bankrupt. Scotland has a chance. Sure we might screw it all up. But we might not.
rUk has no choice or option. It is already finished.
New Thread should be up in the next 30mins.
Westminster can remain as the government of the federal UK, but with a really reduced number of MP's.
As I have mentioned before, Salmond has broken the system of what was the accepted view of the governance of the UK. Sturgeon is continuing the process.
My personal view is that it should be how this change can be managed and which of the potential PM's can handle it appropriately.
Subtle?
Knackered my over 252 bet
I can go and find the article from "t'Economist" - oft posted link under the "disqUS" system - that showed the opposite. You are a lawyer so I forgive your misquoted statement.
Ulster-Jocks + Welsh-Taffs + EU + Scotland = English Subsidy.
-7,000,000,000 + (-11,000,000,000) + (-11,000,000,000) + "5,000,000,000" = -22,000,000,000.
:jockanese-troupe-of-clowns:
Reading the previous comments and responses has shown how incompetent your arguments actually are percieved. Please remove your head from looking at the world through Salmond's navel. You should find the taste of pre-digested curry disappears reasonably quickly from your mouth.
Oops
His strike rate was woeful anyway, barely 1.0
I am watching GP instead.
Cameron: -3 / +8
Miliband: -24 / -41
Those who have yet to make up their minds don't appear to be big Ed fans......
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/323371/140620_UK_oil_and_gas_tables_for_publication_in_June_2014.pdf
Even a lawyer can see the income was very substantial.
the effective subsidy to Scotland, which at present receives about £5bn more in grants than its population share could justify.....
There is only one way in which the Scottish government’s new freedom to vary income tax can be exercised, and that is to raise it. That was not what the supporters of more devolution had in mind when they asked for additional powers.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/74a359b8-7949-11e4-9567-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3VktIrJGy
Perhaps he's misunderstood the direction of the subsidy?
Getting to quite a substantial position now, -2.7k on Tories, + 4.7k on Labour. I think of it as a hedge against my equity investments should Labour win.
Just a depressing outcome for the UK though. Still if thats what people vote for thats what they deserve!
At least try and post some kind of sane argument as a response: e.g. you could have said something like "the nature of our economy might change under independence so our current fiscal position wouldn't necessarily stay the same". You'd still be wrong but at least you'd seem like a reasonable human being who can argue a point properly.
Given oil production peaked at the end of the 1990s and is on the decline we can expect this position to get worse in future, but the irony is that despite Scottish nationalists and English nationalists arguing until they're blue in the face over which one subsidises the other, Barnett has actually proven a pretty fair way of balancing revenue and spending in Scotland. Of course braindead nationalists (on both sides) aren't particularly interested in the facts and figures, they're just intent on slinging mud at each other.