I see Jim McColl Clyde Blowers is backing snp ?

[BEARGER 339]

The notion that Scottish public services are subsidised by English taxpayers has become so commonplace in UK politics that not even David Dimbleby, the supposedly neutral presenter of BBC Question Time, thinks twice about repeating it. During an exchange on a recent show with Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson about her decision to vote as a Scottish MP to impose tuition fees on English students, Dimbleby said, "You voted for England to have fees, whereas Scotland, as we know, with the amount of money that comes from England, doesn't need to have them."

　

This view is based on the discrepancy between levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland and England. According to the Treasury's latest Public Expenditure Statistics, Scots gets an average of £10,212 spent on them every year by the UK government, compared with around £8,588 -- £1,624 less -- for people in England.

In line with narrative of the Scottish welfare subsidy, the extra cash allows Scotland to provide its students with free higher education, its elderly with free personal care and concessionary travel, and its sick with free prescription medication, while their English equivalents are forced to go without.

　

This so-called "Union dividend" is also used by many London-based journalists and politicians -- many of whom would describe themselves as social democrats -- who argue that current levels of public expenditure in Scotland would be unsustainable were it to break away and become an independent country.

　

Yet, if the London commentariat took the time to examine the figures a little more closely, they would discover what a large number people north of the border already know: not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation.

　

Let's tackle the subsidy charge first. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.

　

Second, there's the claim that Scotland's "bloated" welfare state could not be sustained outside the Union. This is nonsense. Including its per capita share of revenues from North Sea oil and gas production, Scotland's public expenditure probably does not exceed the OECD average and is almost certainly lower than that of the Scandinavian social democracies. The fact that the Treasury cynically refuses to class those revenues as part of Scotland's overall annual economic output inflates the level of public sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP relative to that of the private sector.

　

Finally, one of the most common -- and least well-considered -- claims made by supporters of the Union is that the 2008 global financial meltdown shattered the economic case for independence. How, they argue, would the economy of tiny, independent Scotland have been able to cope with the burden of debt needed to rescue its financial sector from collapse? It wouldn't, of course, but according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland would only have had to take on a proportion of the total cost of the bail-out based on the subsidiaries and business operations of HBOS and RBS in Scotland. This would probably amount to no more than 5 per cent.

　

For the sake of argument, nationalists might also wish to note that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was, at 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would, at around $1.8bn per year in line with Nordic average, be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf.

　

But why should Unionists let the economic facts ruin the image they have built up of Scotland as a nation of selfish, indulged welfare "mendicants"?The subsidy myth is too politically useful to be simply abandoned. Of course, if they ever do come to terms with the reality that Scotland could survive on its own - and even prosper - it will probably be too late anyway.

----------------------------

Last figures are for 2009/10.

Every Scottish resident (5.2 million) received £10,400.

Every Londoner (8 million)got £10,655

Who's the 'subsidy junkie' ?

Table 9.4

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pesa_2011_chapter9.pdf

There's always the smart arse who comes on and spoils the thread with facts.

[1690 Posts 71]

The notion that Scottish public services are subsidised by English taxpayers has become so commonplace in UK politics that not even David Dimbleby, the supposedly neutral presenter of BBC Question Time, thinks twice about repeating it. During an exchange on a recent show with Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson about her decision to vote as a Scottish MP to impose tuition fees on English students, Dimbleby said, "You voted for England to have fees, whereas Scotland, as we know, with the amount of money that comes from England, doesn't need to have them."

　

This view is based on the discrepancy between levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland and England. According to the Treasury's latest Public Expenditure Statistics, Scots gets an average of £10,212 spent on them every year by the UK government, compared with around £8,588 -- £1,624 less -- for people in England.

In line with narrative of the Scottish welfare subsidy, the extra cash allows Scotland to provide its students with free higher education, its elderly with free personal care and concessionary travel, and its sick with free prescription medication, while their English equivalents are forced to go without.

　

This so-called "Union dividend" is also used by many London-based journalists and politicians -- many of whom would describe themselves as social democrats -- who argue that current levels of public expenditure in Scotland would be unsustainable were it to break away and become an independent country.

　

Yet, if the London commentariat took the time to examine the figures a little more closely, they would discover what a large number people north of the border already know: not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation.

　

Let's tackle the subsidy charge first. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.

　

Second, there's the claim that Scotland's "bloated" welfare state could not be sustained outside the Union. This is nonsense. Including its per capita share of revenues from North Sea oil and gas production, Scotland's public expenditure probably does not exceed the OECD average and is almost certainly lower than that of the Scandinavian social democracies. The fact that the Treasury cynically refuses to class those revenues as part of Scotland's overall annual economic output inflates the level of public sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP relative to that of the private sector.

　

Finally, one of the most common -- and least well-considered -- claims made by supporters of the Union is that the 2008 global financial meltdown shattered the economic case for independence. How, they argue, would the economy of tiny, independent Scotland have been able to cope with the burden of debt needed to rescue its financial sector from collapse? It wouldn't, of course, but according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland would only have had to take on a proportion of the total cost of the bail-out based on the subsidiaries and business operations of HBOS and RBS in Scotland. This would probably amount to no more than 5 per cent.

　

For the sake of argument, nationalists might also wish to note that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was, at 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would, at around $1.8bn per year in line with Nordic average, be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf.

　

But why should Unionists let the economic facts ruin the image they have built up of Scotland as a nation of selfish, indulged welfare "mendicants"?The subsidy myth is too politically useful to be simply abandoned. Of course, if they ever do come to terms with the reality that Scotland could survive on its own - and even prosper - it will probably be too late anyway.

----------------------------

Last figures are for 2009/10.

Every Scottish resident (5.2 million) received £10,400.

Every Londoner (8 million)got £10,655

Who's the 'subsidy junkie' ?

Table 9.4

http://www.hm-treasu...11_chapter9.pdf

You have to think the people who still think Scotland is a subsidy junky gets all their information from the Sun newspaper. Or their stupid dad's mates down the pub.

[ray 105]

You have to think the people who still think Scotland is a subsidy junky gets all their information from the Sun newspaper. Or their stupid dad's mates down the pub.

I have never understood Scots who are ashamed to be Scots and would rather be something else, a bit like phil the mcgobbler.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation.

A fully sovereign nation will require a currency they have complete control over.

The SNP cannot sell us the Euro and so must beg Westminster to be allowed to use Sterling.

And, in doing just that, will surrender full sovereignty to another country who will control matters such as money supply, interests rates and so on.

That's no independence in any sense whatsoever. So all that bluster is entirely academic. A fantasy if you prefer.

The SNP have no solution to their currency nemesis. I'm delighted.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

I have never understood Scots who are ashamed to be Scots and would rather be something else, a bit like phil the mcgobbler.

I have a Scottish father and a Welsh mother. Grandparents (and great grand-parents) from all corners of the United Kingdom.

I'm British - but I have zero shame in the Scottish heritage elements.

And that's the case for massive numbers of people all over this great nation of ours. Your argument is seriously flawed.

Can you name a Scot who is ashamed to be so?

[ray 105]

I have a Scottish father and a Welsh mother. Grandparents (and great grand-parents) from all corners of the United Kingdom.

I'm British - but I have zero shame in the Scottish heritage elements.

And that's the case for massive numbers of people all over this great nation of ours. Your argument is seriously flawed.

Can you name a Scot who is ashamed to be so?

I already have as has leggo this morning, you may be British I am Scottish first and everything else second.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

A fully sovereign nation will require a currency they have complete control over.

The SNP cannot sell us the Euro and so must beg Westminster to be allowed to use Sterling.

And, in doing just that, will surrender full sovereignty to another country who will control matters such as money supply, interests rates and so on.

That's no independence in any sense whatsoever. So all that bluster is entirely academic. A fantasy if you prefer.

The SNP have no solution to their currency nemesis. I'm delighted.

So all those countries that utilise the common currency of the Euro have lost their sovereignty ?

Poor poor argument - try again!

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

I already have as has leggo this morning, you may be British I am Scottish first and everything else second.

So who is 'ashamed to be Scots'?

I don't know where you posted it, so obviously have not seen it.

[ray 105]

So who is 'ashamed to be Scots'?

I don't know where you posted it, so obviously have not seen it.

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=237746&view=findpost&p=1060427939

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

So all those countries that utilise the common currency of the Euro have lost their sovereignty ?

I know you are as stupid as they come, but you really asked that question?

Italy, by way of example, has an EEC appointed government running their country you moron. With not a single elected politician on board.

They, Italy, cannot devalue 'their' currency or increase 'their' money supply because they do not have the sovereign powers to do so.

Salmond has already dismissed the Euro as he knows that he cannot sell it to those voting on independence. Cap in hand to the Bank of England - and surrendering sovereignty in doing so.

Non independence is what the SNP are trying to sell. It's all they have to sell.

Their currency nemesis will be enough to destroy their nation-breaking goals.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=237746&view=findpost&p=1060427939

That's your example? Your arguing for Scottishness because of the likes of Phail Ma Ghuba Gin?

[ray 105]

I know you are as stupid as they come, but you really asked that question?

Italy, by way of example, has an EEC appointed government running their country you moron. With not a single elected politician on board.

They, Italy, cannot devalue 'their' currency or increase 'their' money supply because they do not have the sovereign powers to do so.

Salmond has already dismissed the Euro as he knows that he cannot sell it to those voting on independence. Cap in hand to the Bank of England - and surrendering sovereignty in doing so.

Non independence is what the SNP are trying to sell. It's all they have to sell.

Their currency nemesis will be enough to destroy their nation-breaking goals.

You of course mean like westmidden ceding power and authority to the EU parliament.

[theiconicman 2,992]

Most senior politicians want a United States of Europe but will never voice it.

Instead they'll do what they always do, play the long game and by little steps erode each of our sovereign powers until we are U.S.E in everything but name.

[dougie76 15,359]

Most senior politicians want a United States of Europe but will never voice it.

Instead they'll do what they always do, play the long game and by little steps erode each of our sovereign powers until we are U.S.E in everything but name.

This has been the end game for a long time

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

You of course mean like westmidden ceding power and authority to the EU parliament.

No.

I meant that as a response to the moronic comments from the Rangers hater BluePeter9.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

Most senior politicians want a United States of Europe but will never voice it.

Instead they'll do what they always do, play the long game and by little steps erode each of our sovereign powers until we are U.S.E in everything but name.

I suspect that's because what is being so carefully constructed is a United States of Germany.

[ray 105]

I suspect that's because what is being so carefully constructed is a United States of Germany.

We've already got that, adolf's daughter grinding the jackboot, she must laugh every time slippery dave croaks.

[ray 105]

No.

I meant that as a response to the moronic comments from the Rangers hater BluePeter9.

His comments aren't any more moronic than your attempts to discredit a nations ability to be master of its own destiny, with that I will leave you to your ingrained utopian ideals.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

His comments aren't any more moronic than your attempts to discredit a nations ability to be master of its own destiny, with that I will leave you to your ingrained utopian ideals.

Bestie with Bluepeter9 now is it?

Salmond's currency nemesis is enough to kill his attempts to sell something he cannot possibly deliver.

Nae luck, Flecky.

[MaddistonKnight 1,567]

The notion that Scottish public services are subsidised by English taxpayers has become so commonplace in UK politics that not even David Dimbleby, the supposedly neutral presenter of BBC Question Time, thinks twice about repeating it. During an exchange on a recent show with Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson about her decision to vote as a Scottish MP to impose tuition fees on English students, Dimbleby said, "You voted for England to have fees, whereas Scotland, as we know, with the amount of money that comes from England, doesn't need to have them."

　

This view is based on the discrepancy between levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland and England. According to the Treasury's latest Public Expenditure Statistics, Scots gets an average of £10,212 spent on them every year by the UK government, compared with around £8,588 -- £1,624 less -- for people in England.

In line with narrative of the Scottish welfare subsidy, the extra cash allows Scotland to provide its students with free higher education, its elderly with free personal care and concessionary travel, and its sick with free prescription medication, while their English equivalents are forced to go without.

　

This so-called "Union dividend" is also used by many London-based journalists and politicians -- many of whom would describe themselves as social democrats -- who argue that current levels of public expenditure in Scotland would be unsustainable were it to break away and become an independent country.

　

Yet, if the London commentariat took the time to examine the figures a little more closely, they would discover what a large number people north of the border already know: not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation.

　

Let's tackle the subsidy charge first. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.

　

Second, there's the claim that Scotland's "bloated" welfare state could not be sustained outside the Union. This is nonsense. Including its per capita share of revenues from North Sea oil and gas production, Scotland's public expenditure probably does not exceed the OECD average and is almost certainly lower than that of the Scandinavian social democracies. The fact that the Treasury cynically refuses to class those revenues as part of Scotland's overall annual economic output inflates the level of public sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP relative to that of the private sector.

　

Finally, one of the most common -- and least well-considered -- claims made by supporters of the Union is that the 2008 global financial meltdown shattered the economic case for independence. How, they argue, would the economy of tiny, independent Scotland have been able to cope with the burden of debt needed to rescue its financial sector from collapse? It wouldn't, of course, but according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland would only have had to take on a proportion of the total cost of the bail-out based on the subsidiaries and business operations of HBOS and RBS in Scotland. This would probably amount to no more than 5 per cent.

　

For the sake of argument, nationalists might also wish to note that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was, at 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would, at around $1.8bn per year in line with Nordic average, be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf.

　

But why should Unionists let the economic facts ruin the image they have built up of Scotland as a nation of selfish, indulged welfare "mendicants"?The subsidy myth is too politically useful to be simply abandoned. Of course, if they ever do come to terms with the reality that Scotland could survive on its own - and even prosper - it will probably be too late anyway.

----------------------------

Last figures are for 2009/10.

Every Scottish resident (5.2 million) received £10,400.

Every Londoner (8 million)got £10,655

Who's the 'subsidy junkie' ?

Table 9.4

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pesa_2011_chapter9.pdf

much of the above holds no water.

You cannot use the North Sea figures in a look forward way, mainly because they are unstable by their very nature and because I am sure the breakdown during independence would not see it all coming Scotland's way.

Regarding the welfare figures, the whole thing reads like a "he said, she said" argument. The only way it holds Nationalist water is to take into account all the North Sea revenues. Sorry, it will not work that way.

I don't have the time to counter all the points, but here is a good one for all those harking after home rule. What if the Orcadians or Shetland Islanders wanted independence? Would we happily give them it and a nice share of the North Sea revenues? Salmond and his ilk would shite themselves as all their revenues went up the swanny.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I know you are as stupid as they come, but you really asked that question?

Italy, by way of example, has an EEC appointed government running their country you moron. With not a single elected politician on board.

They, Italy, cannot devalue 'their' currency or increase 'their' money supply because they do not have the sovereign powers to do so.

Salmond has already dismissed the Euro as he knows that he cannot sell it to those voting on independence. Cap in hand to the Bank of England - and surrendering sovereignty in doing so.

Non independence is what the SNP are trying to sell. It's all they have to sell.

Their currency nemesis will be enough to destroy their nation-breaking goals.

You cant even make your own argument - your argument is one of sovereign powers - Italy can (but will not) choose to leave the EU - it has negotiated to work withing a common currency frame work. If it wanted to it has the right to leave.

After independance we will work within a common currency - and if the other nations don't want that we will operate our own currency - but I suspect the other nations will want that common currency - all to be negotiated.

Italy has NO loss of sovereignty by being in the Euro - nor have Germany, nor France -etc. etc. but they choose to stay with in a framework.

I am afraid you will have to try harder than that to look for reasons against independance!

[theiconicman 2,992]

Independence is so last century.

The world should be moving closer together, not splitting further apart. I tell you, now would be a good time for aliens to invade whilst we all splinter into smaller units.

[JograBear 1,074]

Thought this forum was about Rangers...

[ray 105]

Bestie with Bluepeter9 now is it?

Salmond's currency nemesis is enough to kill his attempts to sell something he cannot possibly deliver.

Nae luck, Flecky.

No I am Scottish and your inane ramblings are the best advert possible for disentanglement, whilst remaining within the Union.

[ray 105]

much of the above holds no water.

You cannot use the North Sea figures in a look forward way, mainly because they are unstable by their very nature and because I am sure the breakdown during independence would not see it all coming Scotland's way.

Regarding the welfare figures, the whole thing reads like a "he said, she said" argument. The only way it holds Nationalist water is to take into account all the North Sea revenues. Sorry, it will not work that way.

I don't have the time to counter all the points, but here is a good one for all those harking after home rule. What if the Orcadians or Shetland Islanders wanted independence? Would we happily give them it and a nice share of the North Sea revenues? Salmond and his ilk would shite themselves as all their revenues went up the swanny.

An excellent and lucid non appraisal of people shittin themselves, sort of like the Basque separatists meet John Wayne, they wouldn't meet a Scot apparently we are to stupid to be let out on our own never mind run our own hoose , wonder what Carnegie and countless other Scots who shaped the world make or would make of that infantile and insulting pejorative.