-
Posts
-
@pete wrote:
Nothing personal but independance for Scotland, that would be finicial disaster without the EU
Which is why I emphasise the current stance of the SNP – ‘Independence Within Europe.’
Can I assume that given your stance against the EU and your insistence that Scottish independence outwith it would be financially catastrophic, that you still want us attached to your lot down in Westminster?
Away and bile yer heid, sassenach eejit. 8)Oh and btw..we’d be the richest little country on the planet if you hadn’t thieved our oil. :twisted:
I want the UK to remain the UK not haggle over ancient battles where their were more Scots in Edwards army than their were in some Italian fop’s (with exactly the same surname as me btw) Highland contingent. 1746 you lost get over it
I personally am not bothered if the Scots and the Welsh get independance i’d have the “you made your bed lie in it” attitude.
The cry for independance surely just highlights part of the problem with the EU, we want benefits but we dont like others deciding what we do‘Unfair’ Barnett formula should be scrapped say Lords
The formula that gives Scots 20 per cent more money per head than England has been branded “arbitrary and unfair” and should be scrapped, an inquiry has said.By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
Published: 7:00AM BST 17 Jul 2009Scotland receives too much money under the Barnet formula which is unfair and needs to be scapped, say Lords Photo: David Cheskin/PA Wire
The House of Lords Committee on the Barnett formula called for the system to be replaced with a fair funding mechanism for the UK’s regions, based on their respective populations and economic needs.While Scotland receives more taxpayers’ money than it should, the committee’s final report concluded that Wales and Northern Ireland do not get enough.
It said the formula, which was introduced as a short-term measure in 1978, was not fit for purpose and should no longer be used to calculate annual grants for the UK’s devolved administrations.
Instead a new Funding Commission should be established to assess the relative spending needs of the UK’s regions and distribute public money accordingly, it said.
The Barnett formula was used to allocate almost £49billion of taxpayers’ money last year, and gives Scotland more than £1,600 per head more of public spending than the UK average.
This has led to complaints that the English are subsidising benefits such as free personal care for the elderly and free dental checks, which are available in Scotland but not south of the Border.
The Government promised to examine the recommendations, but defended the Barnett formula and said there were no plans to replace it.
Unveiling the report, Lord Richard, the committee’s chairman, described the mechanism as a “short-term fix” that had survived because it was easy to administer.
He said: “After thirty years of increasing allocations year on year, and in the light of possible cuts in public spending, it is now time to scrap the formula and replace it with a clear system of determining a grant of funds for each of the devolved administrations based on their actual needs.”
The current system gives Scotland more money “than appears to be justified” when the spending needs of Wales and Northern Ireland are taken into account, he added.
We are Great Britain, the United Kingdom and the countries involved all benefit from that I do not get the call for total independance, and I really do not get the anti English thing at all.
It wont make any difference what any of us want, were in and it’s almost impossible to get out now. Maybe stupid reporting from British media would help the EU’s cause (eg the bananas thing which was complete bollocks and made up with the express purpose of seeing if the UK media would run with it… and they did)Shetland and Orkney are acknowledged as being under Scottish rule since the annexation, the annexation was not entirely legal. Shetland and Orkney were pledged as part of a dowry payment in 1468/9 with the understanding that sovereignty would not be handed over and the islands would be redeemed at a later date when the money could be raised.
The Scottish Crown was fly – even though the Danish/Norwegian Crown made several attempts to regain control of Shetland and Orkney, the Scottish Crown refused. Shetland was increasingly brought under Scottish rule and the issue of sovereignty was never fully addressed.
Under Udal law, outright ownership of land included the seabed – so if Shetland is still legally Scandinavian and Udal law has never been completely replaced, then the seabed around Shetland belongs to Shetland and not to Scotland.
:shock:The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law meaning that 90% of the UK’s oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland.
Recent evidence by Kemp and Stephen (1999) has tried to estimate hypothetical Scottish shares of North Sea Oil revenue by dividing the UK sector of the North Sea into separate Scottish and UK sectors using the international principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) – such a convention is used in defining the maritime assets of newly formed states and resolving international maritime disputes. The study by Kemp & Stephen showed that hypothesised Scottish shares of North Sea oil revenue over the period 1970 to 1999, varied to as high as 98%.Bonnie Prince Petie
We’ll fight ya for it :wink:
Not the old Barnett funding stuff and the Scots again.
A few facts –
· Spending in Scotland, Wales and Ireland is higher than spending across England on average;
· Spending in Northern Ireland is the highest at 10% more than Scotland;
· Wales is about 5% lower than Scotland but significantly higher than England;
· Spending across the English regions is not the same;
· In London, the North East and the North West of England spending is higher than the national average;
· Spending in the North East and North West is comparable to Wales;
· Spending in London is more than Wales and comparable to Scotland;
· Many more people live in greater London than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together; and
· There is an agreed formula for reducing the money Scotland gets over time, but not one for London.Scotland is not the part of the UK with the highest allocation per head (that’s Northern Ireland). It’s also not the part of the country receiving the biggest overall financial advantage (that’s Greater London).
The spending formula predates Barnett and was originally based on population. The only reason Scotland gets more money is because the population of Scotland has grown more slowly than England. This means that Scottish funding per head is being reduced. Barnett is actually the system, which reduces spending in Scotland every time spending increases for the rest of the UK.
Is the system of public spending unfair because different areas get different amounts? Or is it unfair because it doesn’t accurately meet need – you decide?
Oh, and there are three other really important points
· Barnett doesn’t cover all public spending, just certain categories;
· Barnett takes no account of tax take in different parts of the country; and
· Barnett takes no account of natural resources.Forget oil, Scotland contributes a disproportionate amount of water, wind power and electricity to the UK economy, and will continue to for the foreseeable future. London contributes more tourism but gets the large number of jobs that goes with it. Does any of that matter? Probably yes – but what does it all mean?
Complicated. Hell yes. If it was simple it would have been sorted years ago. Westminster didn’t care when they gave the Scots the Poll Tax early.
In truth, Barnett is just an excuse for politicians to moan about the Scots.
Back to the topic though, if the Irish voted against, you shouldn’t really keep asking the question until you get the answer you want. One more time maybe – but this has to be the last.
I’m pro Europe but I don’t support everything the EU does. It’s big, lumbering, not particularly democratic and does some stupid things. Hey hell so does Westminster (although it is more directly democratic). I disagreed with the pace and extent of enormous expansion of the EU recently. It’s all been a bit much.
I don’t however think there is a better alternative.
Vote yes, vote no – it’s your right!
On a purely practical note. Taking a country to poll (either for referenda or general election) is a costly process. How does a country that was just bailed out by the EU, continue to fund such a process or was it a “silent” part of the EU funding agreement that sees it back to the polls, for the answer that the EU wants???
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!