But the money doesn’t get “distributed accordingly” within the Union, does it? Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland receive lump sums under Barnett regardless of need which is why we have oddities like Scotland receiving £1600 per capita in public spending more than in England, the home nation with the least amount of public money spent on it. If the money was distributed accordingly, English public spending would go up and Scottish and Northern Irish public spending would go down.
I gave you the cite at the bottom of my last post. Their monthly average lead in the polls has been plummeting month-on-month for over a year.
Last time I checked, a bunch of ungrateful Londoners weren’t trying to leave the Union, and to take with them assets that the whole of the Union have created.
Also, I can only imagine that you’re only considering income tax paid in London, when you include all the taxes paid by the financial sector that increases London’s contribution massively. There have actually been calls to return London’s taxes to London, and there’s some merit in that, as there’s areas of London that are massively disadvantaged. And yet that money keeps flowing to Scotland.
Well nearly half of the population of the UK disagree that Scotland is better in the union rather than out. 45% Scots voted so and opinion polls of English voters were similarly inclined. Other beliefs than yours are available.
Of course Nationalists should be allowed in the British National Legislature. Believing in separation does not take away ones franchise, only belief and acts involving breaches of the law.
The Scottish Parliament has used its devolved powers to change the social face of Scotland beyond recognition. I believe that you have no idea how different it feels living in Scotland to living in England!
It is accepted that should separation occur, the oil fields on Scotland’s coastal shelf would belong to the successor state. Get over it.
Boris’s analysis is the same as the SNP analysis of oil revenue. Thanks for conceding the point. So all oil revenue from the Scottish waters may be applied to the Scottish Balance Sheet in the same way that all revenues from the City of London can be applied to the London balance sheet!
In the case of Scotland, net balance is obtained by this formula as Tax Income including oil is high as is spending. In London Tax income is high but direct expenditure is low. However when non-London expenditure on London is added (national cost of the local infrastructure) London benefits massively.
“His argument is akin to Alex Salmond’s view about “Scotland’s oil” and the taxes generated from the Scottish part of the North Sea. If Johnson were successful it would be possible to increase investment in the city’s infrastructure or services and/or to cut local taxation. Elsewhere in Britain the reverse would be the case, generating a headache for the Chancellor.”
No-one who actually understands the finances could believe that Scotland’s better off alone. Any opinions to the contrary are factually incorrect.
That they are legally allowed to be there doesn’t make it right.
Yes, well done, now try keeping that going without the rest of the Union subsidising you. I’d be interested to see how the massive rises in income tax necessary would go down. Oh, my mistake, your “government” refuses to use its power of taxation.
Anyone can make a country look better than its neighbour by spending other people’s money. The challenge would be to do so without.
What separation? What successor state? It was voted against, there’s no mandate or desire for it to happen. The oil belongs to the UK - the only state involved. Scotland has no more moral claim to the exploitation of it than any other part of the UK.
But even if separation did occur, and Scotland had all the tax revenue from the oil, it would still be significantly poorer than it is now, as a member of the UK.
Yeah, except that it’s actually true that London generates more than it spends, and false that Scotland does, even when oil revenue is taken into account.
Not that I necessarily agree with Johnson that it should be returned to London, as you said earlier the money should go where it’s needed. Although if that happened, more would be spent in London and less in Scotland, but more still in northern England and north Wales, where it’s most needed.
I certainly agree that over the past two years Labour’s lead has decreased, but the signs are that evened out and most analysts are now predicting a final vote with Labour and Tories level. Statistics do not usually support straight line graph predictions. No reliable agency has yet suggested that there is any chance of a Conservative majority in four months.
This analysis omits the benefits that the South East gains from National Infrastructure investment from Heathrow Airport to access to National institutions, transport and other direct government expenditure.
Only your opinions appear to be correct. The rest of us must just be stupid fools. I trust you never intend to stand for election on the platform of reforming the public!
HMG has been quite clear that should Scotland gain independence, the Oil revenue would go from Scottish platforms to Scotland and those from English platforms to England. No-one has suggested the sort of immoral land and oil grab that you support.
No, my facts are correct. People who form their opinions based on denial of the facts are, indeed, stupid fools.
It’s a fact that, even with oil revenue accounted for, Scotland takes more money from the Union than it provides, and it’s a fact that no figures provided by the SNP actually show a way to replace that income.
Lots of fog and flak, but no-one seems to want to talk about Labour’s offer to fund the NHS in Scotland by the English mansion tax, or about Miliband’s gentle retreat over disarmament. Let the gentle wooing continue!
False, as has been repeatedly cited in all these threads. Cites, I should add, that mostly date from before the massive fall in oil prices last year.
What “land grab”? The oil belongs to the UK, and as Scotland voted against independence they’ll remain that way.
Yes, after any hypothetical independence they’d probably belong to Scotland, but that would depend on the negotiated settlement. What’s that got to do with anything? Scotland doesn’t want independence, and isn’t becoming independent.
But maybe people who are not died in the wool tories consider other factors then mere national income.
Money is not everything, and I expect that many Scots feel that if there was a financial downside to independence, that might be worth considering.
That does not make them fools, merely means that they value matters differently to you.
I am beginning to wonder whether you are an inexperienced youth as such moral certitude and pigheadedness are rarely found in people of more years and experience.