h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It surprises me that with the success of the SNP in Scotland's elections, and the subsequent 'gifts' in terms of Health, Prescriptions and now Education north of the border - all incidentally at the expense of taxpayers priveliged to live south of it - there is hardly a peep on the forum agin it.

At present rates the British Govt Cabinet is going to have significant number of high rankers from Scotland.

It doesn't seem to me to be a good recipe for maintaining the Union.

Novo

Maybe it's not being discussed because it's a nonsense

Scotland get a block grant which the Executive chooses to spend as appropriate. At the moment, it is felt that money is best spent on Education and Health but that will have to be compensated for by cutbacks elsewhere. Probably roads and infrastructure. This does not affect the size of the block grant or the amount anyone pays in taxes.

As to a "significant number of high rankers from Scotland" - so what? It's a British Parliament, these are British MPs working on British issues. Did you raise your voice in the 80's when the Tories had to bus in English MPs to dominate Scottish Committees?

Hmmmm Novo I thought that the tax grant the Scots get is more or less cancelled out by the oil revenues they lose?

I have written to my MP about it - (what a waste of time) - its not a nonsense its disgusting. My children are running up £15K worth of debt to get their degrees, they're working part-time to keep this as low as possible, yet they're expected to contribute from the taxes they pay for the education of their peers.

Novo, let's say you have two kids (Novo II & Novo III) and you give them an equal allowance. Novo II spends it all on clothes and cds, Novo III buys a car. How much sympathy are you going to have with Novo III when he/she starts complaining about a lack of new clothes?

Yes, write to your MP. Write and demand the same tuition fees deal be brought in for England.

42






Well, _someone_ had to say it

I'll just get my coat...

Seems like an inaccurate analogy SWL. Novo II is getting part of Novo III's allowance, is more like it.

I've had a few online discussions with this guy. His arguments are very partisan, and I don't always agree...but he does raise a lot of valid points.

http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/biglie.html

http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/myth1995.html

http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/snoutsinthetrough.html

That puts that one to bed then.

Morning SWL

The answer is NONE. However, in your scenario it is possible that Novo 11 lent CDs' to Novo 111 and that he/she had lifts in Novo 111's car, and in any 'practical' event I would probably do something to redress the balance. As govt's do.

My question was as usual a bit rhetorical. We have had a few debates on the West Lothian question and it's innate unfairness, it seems to me ( an ignorant Englander), that Mr Salmond is playing a clever game here, to irritate more English into calling for an English parliament, so that the SNP do not have to ask for Independance and thus be accused of breaking the Union.

At the end of the day it isn't facts which count, though I accept that it should be; it is the perceived opinion, and the situation I referred to adjusts the perception.

Novo

Oh I agree entirely. Perception carries far more practical weight than facts, in this and so many other areas.

But whilst the London media perpetuate this myth, the Ken Livingstones of the world get to keep repeating the lie.

Having read the links above and seen the figures, do you still feel Scotland is over-subsidised?

To balance up the Sunday Herald quotes this quote is from an Economist article of May 16th 2006:

"The strongest factor that prevents politicians' minds from turning to the size of the state, however, is the fact that they do not have to raise the money to pay for it, or even the 60% of government spending they are responsible for. Over £20 billion simply drops into their hands every year from Whitehall, providing total public spending per Scot of £7,597 (in 2004-05). This is 16%, or £1,034, more than the equivalent figure for the United Kingdom. Scotland's deficit is also out of kilter: net borrowing—which reflects all government spending that benefits the Scots, but excludes North Sea oil revenues—was 13% of GDP in 2003-04, compared with 4% for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Holyrood's politicians can hardly be blamed for this. The block grant gives them the money, and they spend it. They do not overspend; and if they are too lavish on one item they must be stricter on another. They do not, however, suffer the discipline of having to raise their revenue themselves: they are like teenagers on an allowance. And they have no incentive to promote economic growth through taxation.

The case for abolishing the block grant and giving Holyrood tax-raising powers is increasingly being made, most recently by a Liberal Democrat commission under the parliament first's presiding officer, David Steel. Its report, drawing on the experience of other countries, is a happy exception to the parties' generally dull introspection and poverty of thought. But most Scots, if the opinion polls are right, would be pleased to see tax-raising (and some other powers) brought home. For all their disappointment, devolution is still supported by over 50% of Scots—and, incidentally, about the same proportion of English. Few Scots want to revert to the status quo ante."

I think I'd trust the Economist to be unbiased and factual.

Not North Sea Oil again

Yes it is drawn by rigs geographically nearer to Edniburgh than they are to London, Cardiff or Belfast. However *British* taxpayers paid for the exploration, drilling and all subsequent servicing and safety opertations. What do the Scottish want? Do they want to buy-out the interests of the rest of the British tax payers or do they just want to have it all for free because of where it is?

The Scottish people it appears are on to a good thing. Good luck to them, and they need it. They need it because what they get in Whitehall subsidies that are specific to Scotland is possibly balanced out by huge contaracts that tend to be snaffled up by firms based in London, that's before we even get to the building of stuff like the dome and the Olymipic facilities and infrastructure.

Now if people in other bits of the UK want to benefit from London bias so much they can move to London cant they. Likewise if you want free tution you simply get yourself a postcode which means that you leave university with less debt because taxpayers are picking up more of the costs. Its not a perfect system but its not any fault or fiddling of the Scottish students that is to blame. Neither should this dissallow Scottish MPs from voting on specifically English issues because despite devolution there are still many subjects where Westminster outranks Hollyrood even in Scotland.

<<*British* taxpayers paid for the exploration, drilling and all subsequent servicing and safety opertations.>>

No, they didn't.

Oil Companies pay Governments for exploration licenses.
Oil Companies run their own drilling operations.
Oil Companies pay for their own servicing.
Government makes sure Oil Companies pay for safety operations.

The only way it can be contrived to say that British taxpayers paid for any of this is in that the Govt held shares in some oil companies.

Local infrastructure is paid for by local councils and therefore local taxpayers. Dundee & Aberdeen slogged it out in the early 70s to be the 'Oil Capital of Europe'. Dundee lost because it didn't provide enough incentives.

Scottish MPs should be barred from voting on purely English issues. It's like Birmingham councillors having a say in Torquay Seafront improvements.

Hi SWL

I was a tad concerned when I read the links, then I read WA's extract.

I am in no position to judge the veracity of the articles, but it WA's seemed more 'balanced', and perhaps slightly less hysterical.

All well and good to throw huge numbers of facts into an argument, if they are all true, not based on suppositions,I suppose I will just have to sit on the fence there, whilst believing that Independance might be best all round!

If it isn't, and if block cash fromm Westminster does cover budget deficit, perhaps that is why the SNP have not started down the Independance road themselves?

Novo

I am all in favour of Independance for Scotland - and you can have Brown, Reid, et al screwing up your country.

Who are you going to replace them with? Blears, Johnston & Benn?

As they could agree on anything !

Actually after seeing that post its not really clear that I was saying they were a bunch of bum-kissing yes people.

Take the Scots out and who are you left with?

Chief Whip - Jacqui Smith
Leader of the House of Commons - Jack Straw
Culture, Media and Sport Secretary - Tessa Jowell
International Development Secretary - Hilary Benn
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster - Hilary Armstrong
Education and Skills Secretary - Alan Johnson
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary - David Miliband
Foreign Secretary - Margaret Beckett
Secretary of State for Health - Patricia Hewitt
Leader of the Lords - Baroness Amos
Communities and Local Government Secretary - Ruth Kelly
Northern Ireland Secretary - Peter Hain (Watch out, he's Welsh)
Chief Secretary to the Treasury - Stephen Timms
Minister Without Portfolio - Hazel Blears
Work and Pensions Secretary - John Hutton

I wouldn't rely on any of that lot to run a church fete.