# Someone please explain Scotland to me



## JustOne (Sep 19, 2014)

In what way(s) are you hard done by?

Would rather hear it from people here than some journalist gumpf on t'internet.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2014)

If we reversed the Barnett formula would you feel hard done by?

The BBC [and STV] Scottish political pundits were very balanced and did a great job.

The London based BBC were surprisingly ignorant and biased towards No.....why was that?
Sgt Bilko [aka Nick Robinson] was disgraceful and should have been sacked. He was pretty awful before the referendum so I suppose it was to be expected.
I will never trust the National BBC again, never thought I would say that.


----------



## North Mimms (Sep 19, 2014)

It gets dark stupidly early in the winter.

As part of DevoMax, Cornwall will have to send 2 hours of daylight to Aberdeen every day from November until February


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2014)

North Mimms said:



			It gets dark stupidly early in the winter.

As part of DevoMax, Cornwall will have to send 2 hours of daylight to Aberdeen every day from November until February
		
Click to expand...

I think you would have to include the temperature with that to make it work:lol:


----------



## North Mimms (Sep 19, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think you would have to include the temperature with that to make it work:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Typical! 
Always wanting more!


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Sep 19, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			If we reversed the Barnett formula would you feel hard done by?

The BBC [and STV] Scottish political pundits were very balanced and did a great job.

The London based BBC were surprisingly ignorant and biased towards No.....why was that?
Sgt Bilko [aka Nick Robinson] was disgraceful and should have been sacked. He was pretty awful before the referendum so I suppose it was to be expected.
I will never trust the National BBC again, never thought I would say that.
		
Click to expand...

Are we going to hear about BBC bias forever?


----------



## JustOne (Sep 19, 2014)

I'm not interested in the Yes/No vote or how it was covered by the BBC but solely on what is wrong with the place such that people feel hard done by in some way.



Doon frae Troon said:



			If we reversed the Barnett formula would you feel hard done by?
		
Click to expand...

Is Scotland hard done by by this 'formula'? you want some free money? put less in and take more out? 

Where would the extra money go?


edit:
Forget the 'bitter talk' what's wrong? Does Scotland have to be like a new Vegas or Monaco? should the streets be paved with gold? are Englands? I'm not sure what we have that you don't, we work hard at this end and pay thru the nose for most things, I'm not up to speed with what it is that disgruntles you so much...and I don't mean you personally, I mean all in general.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 19, 2014)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Are we going to hear about BBC bias forever?
		
Click to expand...

Not on the BBC!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 19, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			If we reversed the Barnett formula would you feel hard done by?

The BBC [and STV] Scottish political pundits were very balanced and did a great job.

The London based BBC were surprisingly ignorant and biased towards No.....why was that?
Sgt Bilko [aka Nick Robinson] was disgraceful and should have been sacked. He was pretty awful before the referendum so I suppose it was to be expected.
I will never trust the National BBC again, never thought I would say that.
		
Click to expand...


It's quite amazing how you are still going on about a television station after a massive judgement day 

Of all the issues within the whole story - the BBC should be right a the bottom of any problems


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's quite amazing how you are still going on about a television station after a massive judgement day 

Of all the issues within the whole story - the BBC should be right a the bottom of any problems
		
Click to expand...

Swept under the carpet as it is an embarrassment to you.
Whatever happened to a free press in the UK ?

Re Barnett formula, as I said why do we not turn it on it's head.
Scotland will keep what it earns and perhaps send a bit down to London if it suits us.
If it is fair one way ,why not the other.


----------



## GB72 (Sep 19, 2014)

I think part of the issue is that very few people feel that they are getting a good deal at the moment. It could very easily be said that many of the English regions are in a similar position to Scotland, they feel that the London based parliament has no understanding of their wants and needs and believe that the country is run for the benefit of the wealthy and that policies are decided based on the needs of the South of England. The difference is that Scotland had the opportunity to do something about it. I suspect that many regions in the UK feel that they would be better served by their own autonomous government. I also suspect that if the nation was prospering, everyone had money in their pockets and jobs were plentiful then the vote would not have been as close as it was. 

I am not sure that it was about wanting more, just a case of wanting better and wanting representation that understands the needs of the area in question. Thing is, that argument could probably be equally applied to the North East, The North West, the West Midlands, the South West, the list goes on. 

Hopefully the outcome of this will be improved regional representation for all.


----------



## JustOne (Sep 19, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Scotland will keep what it earns and perhaps send a bit down to London if it suits us.
If it is fair one way ,why not the other.
		
Click to expand...

how much does Scotland 'earn' per annum?
how much does England?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 19, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Swept under the carpet as it is an embarrassment to you.
Whatever happened to a free press in the UK ?

Re Barnett formula, as I said why do we not turn it on it's head.
Scotland will keep what it earns and perhaps send a bit down to London if it suits us.
If it is fair one way ,why not the other.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing to sweep under - because it's a non event 

The apparent bias was created to try and divert away from the fact that the yes campaign had no answers to any of the crucial questions 

To constantly go on about allows the Yes campaign to ignore where it went wrong.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2014)

JustOne said:



			how much does Scotland 'earn' per annum?
how much does England?
		
Click to expand...

Per head roughly Â£800 additional in Scotland than England.


----------



## JustOne (Sep 19, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Per head roughly Â£800 additional in Scotland than England.
		
Click to expand...

From what I can tell (so someone can correct me) Scotland earns approx Â£150Bn p/a

England is spending Â£50Bn on a single railway!! on earnings of Â£1.5 TRILLION

If you tried to survive as a nation on Â£150Bn you'd have to eat bread and water or else not have any new infrastructure... ever.
Â£800 per head isn't going to tarmac many roads (at a cost of Â£1M per mile) and that extra Â£800 per head certainly wouldn't end up in your OWN pocket.


and if you're making Â£800 more than those in England then what's your worry? do you want to be making less?


----------



## User62651 (Sep 19, 2014)

JustOne said:



			In what way(s) are you hard done by?

Would rather hear it from people here than some journalist gumpf on t'internet.
		
Click to expand...

Don't feel hard done by in the slightest, never have done, if I did I would have moved. Stereotyping and newspaper spread cobblers....imo

32% land mass with 8% population does mean higher unit costs for services which need more subsidising, don't think that's unreasonable.


----------



## JustOne (Sep 19, 2014)

maxfli65 said:



			Don't feel hard done by in the slightest, never have done, if I did I would have moved. Stereotyping and newspaper spread cobblers....imo
		
Click to expand...

Good to know someone is happy here  :thup:


----------



## JustOne (Sep 19, 2014)

maxfli65 said:



			32% land mass with 8% population does mean higher unit costs for services which need more subsidising, don't think that's unreasonable.
		
Click to expand...

True but with less people using the infrastructure it shouldn't need replacing so often apart from in areas of high population density of course.... and (for example) I don't think ANYONE will allow an 8 lane motorway to be built straight down the heart of the beautiful (probably protected) landscape in the first place. What other services are you referring to?


----------



## woody69 (Sep 19, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			If we reversed the Barnett formula would you feel hard done by?

The BBC [and STV] Scottish political pundits were very balanced and did a great job.

The London based BBC were surprisingly ignorant and biased towards No.....why was that?
Sgt Bilko [aka Nick Robinson] was disgraceful and should have been sacked. He was pretty awful before the referendum so I suppose it was to be expected.
I will never trust the National BBC again, never thought I would say that.
		
Click to expand...

Based on the simple fact the BBC are neutral, those that are in one camp will think they are more bias towards the other. As an example:


----------



## Stuey01 (Sep 19, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			If we reversed the Barnett formula would you feel hard done by?
.
		
Click to expand...

I've been reading up a bit on the Barnett Formula, seems it actually favours the Scots, so not sure what you are on about really?

According to the bloke that wrote it it is the English taxpayers getting a raw deal...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...to-be-tackled-now-but-no-politician-will.html


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2014)

Stuey01 said:



			I've been reading up a bit on the Barnett Formula, seems it actually favours the Scots, so not sure what you are on about really?

According to the bloke that wrote it it is the English taxpayers getting a raw deal...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...to-be-tackled-now-but-no-politician-will.html

Click to expand...

It more or less cancels out the additional income tax the Scots pay per head.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 19, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It more or less cancels out the additional income tax the Scots pay per head.
		
Click to expand...

Isnt the income tax calculate on each single persons earners ? Do Scotland pay extra ?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2014)

Yes, we have more people [per head] working and paying tax.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 19, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Yes, we have more people [per head] working and paying tax.
		
Click to expand...

But each person is still paying the same amount of income tax as everyone else - so you arent being treated any differently.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 19, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Isnt the income tax calculate on each single persons earners ? Do Scotland pay extra ?
		
Click to expand...

Phil you couldn't be further from than the truth. So many people believe the additional tax comes from the Scottish paying income tax. IT DOESN'T!! It comes from tax paid by the oil companies. And Alex Salmond wanted to cut Corporation tax... you couldn't write the idiocy of that one. A budget deficit of Â£135 mill, and cutting Corporation tax... wonder where he was going to balance the budget - oops, scaremongering again.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 19, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			Phil you couldn't be further from than the truth. So many people believe the additional tax comes from the Scottish paying income tax. IT DOESN'T!! It comes from tax paid by the oil companies. And Alex Salmond wanted to cut Corporation tax... you couldn't write the idiocy of that one. A budget deficit of Â£135 mill, and cutting Corporation tax... wonder where he was going to balance the budget - oops, scaremongering again.
		
Click to expand...

I was asking the question from Doon

He was suggesting what you have stated ( Scotland people paying mroe income tax ) hence why i was asking when i though we all paid the same income tax ( well based on earnings )


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 19, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I was asking the question from Doon

He was suggesting what you have stated ( Scotland people paying mroe income tax ) hence why i was asking when i though we all paid the same income tax ( well based on earnings )
		
Click to expand...

Doon stopped answering my questions months ago, hence why I piggy backed on your post. Quite how 2.2 mill Scottish workers pay more tax than almost 15 mill workers in the rUK is beyond my comprehension... sure Doon knows the answer.


----------



## williamalex1 (Sep 19, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			Doon stopped answering my questions months ago, hence why I piggy backed on your post. Quite how 2.2 mill Scottish workers pay more tax than almost 15 mill workers in the rUK is beyond my comprehension... sure Doon knows the answer.
		
Click to expand...

I would imagine it's calculated by the total amount of tax paid by Scottish based companies into the economy, not just by individuals. Then divided by the total available work force. 
Do you really think Westminster wanted to keep Scotland because of our good looks .

Only a guess but sounds about right.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 19, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			I would imagine it's calculated by the total amount of tax paid by Scottish based companies into the economy, not just by individuals. Then divided by the total available work force.

Only a guess but sounds about right.
		
Click to expand...

I don't doubt you're right. But that's a bit different from Doon saying, "we have more people [per head] working and paying tax." Post #23.


----------



## Bobirdie (Sep 19, 2014)

http://youtu.be/1W8cKHcZn60

If you have 40 mins spare watch this.

Breaks down uk and scotlands income expenditure etc

May answer a few of your questions


----------



## Bobirdie (Sep 19, 2014)

As in hard done by??

Ive never felt hard done by.

I want the nuclear subs away from my door step.

Dont like how the country throws endless amounts of money at illegal warfare.

Yet have to cut public sector budgets every year.

I dont have a problem being british, dont have a problem with English, dont have a problem it was a no vote


----------



## Stuey01 (Sep 19, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Yes, we have more people [per head] working and paying tax.
		
Click to expand...

Sooo, more tax per head, given that we are subject to the same tax rates that means on average people in Scotland make more money, aaaand due to the Barnett formula get more back from the government per head than anyone else in the UK... And you feel somehow aggrieved by this? Are you serious?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 20, 2014)

Stuey01 said:



			Sooo, more tax per head, given that we are subject to the same tax rates that means on average people in Scotland make more money, aaaand due to the Barnett formula get more back from the government per head than anyone else in the UK... And you feel somehow aggrieved by this? Are you serious?
		
Click to expand...

You are aware that the Tax income goes to Westminster and not Edinburgh?


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 21, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You are aware that the Tax income goes to Westminster and not Edinburgh?
		
Click to expand...

You are aware that more comes back to Scotland than rUK.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 21, 2014)

Stuey01 said:



			Sooo, more tax per head, given that we are subject to the same tax rates that means on average people in Scotland make more money, aaaand due to the Barnett formula get more back from the government per head than anyone else in the UK... And you feel somehow aggrieved by this? Are you serious?
		
Click to expand...

Luckily Scotland will continue to 'benefit' from the Barnett formula since Cameron has pledged top keep it.  Though of course he might think he is being a smart politician in saying that it'll be kept - but didn't say that though it'll be 'kept' he intended that it should superseded by another funding arrangement.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 21, 2014)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Luckily Scotland will continue to 'benefit' from the Barnett formula since Cameron has pledged top keep it.  Though of course he might think he is being a smart politician in saying that it'll be kept - but didn't say that though it'll be 'kept' he intended that it should superseded by another funding arrangement.
		
Click to expand...

I don't really understand why the Barnett formula has become such a sacrosanct mechanism. It was only ever meant to be a short term solution and as long as a fair method of allocating the budget is derived what difference does it make?


----------



## JCW (Sep 21, 2014)

The younger generation thinks and most likely voted yes and blame the older generation for voting no , sorry but how can a say 17 year old understand how things in life work when they have yet to live any , the vote is over and the result stands so you just have to get on with living , all things happen for a reason and the scots having chosen to remain in the UK


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 21, 2014)

JCW said:



			The younger generation thinks and most likely voted yes and blame the older generation for voting no , sorry but how can a say 17 year old understand how things in life work when they have yet to live any , the vote is over and the result stands so you just have to get on with living , all things happen for a reason and the scots having chosen to remain in the UK
		
Click to expand...

Think that's another myth. 16-17 year olds voted yes, 18-24 voted no.


----------



## JCW (Sep 21, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Think that's another myth. 16-17 year olds voted yes, 18-24 voted no.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure of who or what age group voted what for sure , i mean 100% sure , but the vote was for no so its done now and time to move on to better things and times


----------



## c1973 (Sep 21, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Think that's another myth. 16-17 year olds voted yes, 18-24 voted no.
		
Click to expand...


Yep, that's what I'm led to understand too. The only reason Salmond wanted 16 -17 year olds to vote was the educated gamble on how they would vote. 

Personally I think if they're old enough to pay taxes then they should get a say on who sets them. They shouldn't be used in an attempt to gerrymander the vote though.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 21, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Yep, that's what I'm led to understand too. The only reason Salmond wanted 16 -17 year olds to vote was the educated gamble on how they would vote. 

Personally I think if they're old enough to pay taxes then they should get a say on who sets them. They shouldn't be used in an attempt to gerrymander the vote though.
		
Click to expand...

I always felt that was the case. I have no issue with 16/17 year olds getting the vote but only giving it for the referendum was a highly cynical ploy. "Shameless" in fact, to borrow a quote the outgoing first minister.....


----------



## c1973 (Sep 21, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			I always felt that was the case. I have no issue with 16/17 year olds getting the vote but only giving it for the referendum was a highly cynical ploy. "Shameless" in fact, to borrow a quote the outgoing first minister.....
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. I felt it was shameful as well, but given I feel they should vote anyway I couldn't complain too much. 

It would be interesting to see the result with them taken out. Purely academic of course, it doesn't matter now, but it would be good to see how it would have went with 'actual' (for want of a better word) voters.


----------



## User62651 (Sep 21, 2014)

Shameful and shameless? Really? Term of referendum were agreed by both sides, I would say given their enthusiasm and not being dyed in the wool party voters it was an inspiring thing to do, the UK first past the post general election system is way out of date because it makes so many people not vote, so any change to that antiquated system is good in my book.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 21, 2014)

maxfli65 said:



			Shameful and shameless? Really? Term of referendum were agreed by both sides, I would say given their enthusiasm and not being dyed in the wool party voters it was an inspiring thing to do, the UK first past the post general election system is way out of date because it makes so many people not vote, so any change to that antiquated system is good in my book.
		
Click to expand...

Not disputing that but the failure to extend the franchise to all elections instead of just the referendum was quite a strange decision.


----------



## williamalex1 (Sep 21, 2014)

FairwayDodger said:



			Not disputing that but the failure to extend the franchise to all elections instead of just the referendum was quite a strange decision.
		
Click to expand...

You never know they might, after the success here in Scotland getting younger people involved.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 22, 2014)

On 16/17yr olds voting - very positive IMO.  If their elder (over 18yr olds) voters are worried about the naivety of 16 and 17yr olds then they should darn well make sure that they themselves vote.  Easy.  And if they don't vote then they can't complain.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 22, 2014)

The primary as well as the high schools were all positively involved in the debate.
Over 8000 5th and 6th formers from most of the schools in Scotland took part in the Hydro debate.

I am all for 16 year olds voting in a general election.
If they are old enough to pay tax the should have a say in how it is spent.


----------



## lex! (Sep 22, 2014)

I am English and I lived in Scotland for about 15 years and, apart from the weather and the midges and the horrible beer (cooking lager only), I loved it. The Barnett Formula sends a greater proportion of the UK government public spend to areas of the UK that need it most for logistical reasons, and Scotland is a big net gainer out of this where i think it's about Â£1600 per person per year that gets more public money spent than England. Apart from the central belt, Scotland is a largely a rural economy, and it costs more to fund, for example, public transport and hospitals and schools in rural areas. Similarly, it costs more for Morrisons to run their supermarkets in rural areas as distribution costs are higher, but they currently keep prices the same North and South of the border. Salmond was outraged when Morrisons told him that their prices would have to go up after independence as they would run different operations after the split; as ever, he couldn't cope with fact and bad news that hurt his position and started whingeing about bullying.

The referendum was a thumping rejection of Salmond and the SNP by the people. In the end, his vision of Utopia was not backed up by econoimc reality. How could he fund the reversal of the Barnet Formula? I think there was too much fear of a tax and spend revilution by the SNP.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 22, 2014)

lex! said:



			I am English and I lived in Scotland for about 15 years and, apart from the weather and the midges and the horrible beer (cooking lager only), I loved it. The Barnett Formula sends a greater proportion of the UK government public spend to areas of the UK that need it most for logistical reasons, and Scotland is a big net gainer out of this where i think it's about Â£1600 per person per year that gets more public money spent than England. Apart from the central belt, Scotland is a largely a rural economy, and it costs more to fund, for example, public transport and hospitals and schools in rural areas. Similarly, it costs more for Morrisons to run their supermarkets in rural areas as distribution costs are higher, but they currently keep prices the same North and South of the border. Salmond was outraged when Morrisons told him that their prices would have to go up after independence as they would run different operations after the split; as ever, he couldn't cope with fact and bad news that hurt his position and started whingeing about bullying.

The referendum was a thumping rejection of Salmond and the SNP by the people. In the end, his vision of Utopia was not backed up by econoimc reality. How could he fund the reversal of the Barnet Formula? I think there was too much fear of a tax and spend revilution by the SNP.
		
Click to expand...

Thumping rejection is one description.  Reality of it only being 5 votes in 100 switching sides is another.

You are right about the beer (back in the day)


----------



## Ethan (Sep 22, 2014)

These English regional assemblies are a joke. Waste of money. Anyone who thinks they will bring anything other than hot air is deluded. The point of democracy these days isn't to let the hoi polloi make any decisions, it is to make them think they are making the decisions. More assemblies just means more politicians sticking more snouts in more troughs. 

As for local decision making and accountability, local councils are among the least accountable bodies who make the worst decisions, least approved by their electorates and are the most corrupt. We don't need any more of those, thanks.


----------



## Val (Sep 22, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The primary as well as the high schools were all positively involved in the debate.
Over 8000 5th and 6th formers from most of the schools in Scotland took part in the Hydro debate.

I am all for 16 year olds voting in a general election.
If they are old enough to pay tax the should have a say in how it is spent.
		
Click to expand...

Most don't earn enough to pay tax.


----------



## Val (Sep 22, 2014)

maxfli65 said:



			Shameful and shameless? Really? Term of referendum were agreed by both sides, I would say given their enthusiasm and not being dyed in the wool party voters it was an inspiring thing to do, t*he UK first past the post general election system is way out of date because it makes so many people not vote, so any change to that antiquated system is good in my book.*

Click to expand...

Labour and Conservative will never vote for change on this front though, if we changed to PR we will forever have coalition governments.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 22, 2014)

Valentino said:



			Most don't earn enough to pay tax.
		
Click to expand...

One heck of a lot of the electorate don't pay *any *tax


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 22, 2014)

Valentino said:



			Labour and Conservative will never vote for change on this front though, if we changed to PR we will forever have coalition governments.
		
Click to expand...

What if the UK citizens wanted PR, or do we always do as we are told my our politicians ?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 22, 2014)

Ethan said:



			These English regional assemblies are a joke. Waste of money. Anyone who thinks they will bring anything other than hot air is deluded. The point of democracy these days isn't to let the hoi polloi make any decisions, it is to make them think they are making the decisions. More assemblies just means more politicians sticking more snouts in more troughs. 

As for local decision making and accountability, local councils are among the least accountable bodies who make the worst decisions, least approved by their electorates and are the most corrupt. We don't need any more of those, thanks.
		
Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring the fact that a devolved Scottish government has been very successful.
There is a lot of bad feeling from the English regions towards Westminster control. Do you think that a handful of, towing the party line, Westminster MP's have a better idea of how their region should be run than about 50 locally elected people.


----------



## Ethan (Sep 22, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You seem to be ignoring the fact that a devolved Scottish government has been very successful.
There is a lot of bad feeling from the English regions towards Westminster control. Do you think that a handful of, towing the party line, Westminster MP's have a better idea of how their region should be run than about 50 locally elected people.
		
Click to expand...

I am not ignoring that at all, but the concept doesn't translate to a Yorkshire Assembly or a West Country Assembly just like that, and if you really think the Westminster parliament are going to give over large amounts of control and money, or that locally elected people have any great insight or ability to do something interesting and different with that money, then you don't know local government in England. It will be a talking shop at great cost and just add more snouts for the trough.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 22, 2014)

Ethan said:



			I am not ignoring that at all, but the concept doesn't translate to a Yorkshire Assembly or a West Country Assembly just like that, and if you really think the Westminster parliament are going to give over large amounts of control and money, or that locally elected people have any great insight or ability to do something interesting and different with that money, then you don't know local government in England. It will be a talking shop at great cost and just add more snouts for the trough.
		
Click to expand...

hmmmm not so sure about that!

I worked in local Government in England for 15 years and I can tell you that the Councillors that I worked with were better educated and more in touch with the people and business than the local MP. As well as an MP he was also a consultant to three companies so he was basically part time. At that time the Councilors only received expenses.


----------



## delc (Sep 22, 2014)

Ethan said:



			I am not ignoring that at all, but the concept doesn't translate to a Yorkshire Assembly or a West Country Assembly just like that, and if you really think the Westminster parliament are going to give over large amounts of control and money, or that locally elected people have any great insight or ability to do something interesting and different with that money, then you don't know local government in England. It will be a talking shop at great cost and just add more snouts for the trough.
		
Click to expand...

Scotland already has a very expensive talking shop with elected MSP's who have a say in Scottish affairs. On top of that they also have elected Westminster MP's who can legislate on purely English affairs. Hardly seems very fair when we are also subsidising Scotland via the Barnett formula, which even its author Lord Barnett thinks is now unfair! :mmm:


----------



## williamalex1 (Sep 22, 2014)

delc said:



			Scotland already has a very expensive talking shop with elected MSP's who have a say in Scottish affairs. On top of that they also have elected Westminster MP's who can legislate on purely English affairs. Hardly seems very fair when we are also subsidising Scotland via the Barnett formula, which even its author Lord Barnett thinks is now unfair! :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

If Scotland really  is such a drain on the UK economy why won't Westminster just let us go completely independant. ?????


----------



## delc (Sep 22, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			If Scotland really  is such a drain on the UK economy why won't Westminster just let us go completely independant. ?????
		
Click to expand...

Maybe it's considered worthwhile to keep the UK intact. The Scots now get double representation in both the Scottish Government and Westminster, which we English don't get!


----------



## ger147 (Sep 22, 2014)

delc said:



			Maybe it's considered worthwhile to keep the UK intact. The Scots now get double representation in both the Scottish Government and Westminster, which we English don't get!
		
Click to expand...

You're free to come and stand for election in Scotland as an MSP Del, I'm sure at least everyone here would vote for you.


----------



## williamalex1 (Sep 22, 2014)

delc said:



			Maybe it's considered worthwhile to keep the UK intact. The Scots now get double representation in both the Scottish Government and Westminster, which we English don't get!
		
Click to expand...

How can it be considered worthwhile when you say Scotland is being subsidised too much. ?


----------



## c1973 (Sep 22, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			If Scotland really  is such a drain on the UK economy why won't Westminster just let us go completely independant. ?????
		
Click to expand...

They would...............if we wanted to.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 22, 2014)

c1973 said:



			They would...............if we wanted to.

Click to expand...

That's a good reply.

It did shake them up a bit though, not often you see a Prime Minister close to tears.

Not for the Union, more for losing his job I think.


----------



## williamalex1 (Sep 22, 2014)

c1973 said:



			They would...............if we wanted to.

Click to expand...

They were desperate for us to stay, thats why they all got in bed together to bribe/ offer us more goodies.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 22, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			They were desperate for us to stay, thats why they all got in bed together to offer us more goodies.
		
Click to expand...

They would still have 'let us go completely independent' though, which was my point, as per the agreement. But as we all know, we, collectively, as a nation did not want to. 

Anyway, the arguments have been done to death, points debated, questions answered/unanswered, the votes cast and result announced. Time for everyone to 'accept the will of the Scottish people' (as wee eck kept saying) and move on.


----------



## JustOne (Sep 23, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Anyway, the arguments have been done to death, points debated, questions answered/unanswered, the votes cast and result announced. Time for everyone to 'accept the will of the Scottish people' (as wee eck kept saying) and move on.
		
Click to expand...

Pass that sentiment on to Salmond who is having trouble understanding what 'democratic vote' and 'result' actually mean.


----------



## CMAC (Sep 23, 2014)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That's a good reply.

It did shake them up a bit though, *not often you see a Prime Minister close to tears.

Not for the Union, more for losing his job I think*.
		
Click to expand...

you really post the most stupid and naive comments!


----------

