Britannist

The figures you give about different levels of UK public expenditure within England are well known here in England already.

As for your words (regarding higher UK public spending per head of population in Scotland than in England) "only if you view those figures from the perspective of an English Nationalist" are not fair. I am viewing things from the "perspective" (your word) of fairness and from the "perspective" of trying to establish a fair Union of the UK and not the one we have now (where Scottish constituency MPs are voting on English legislation in the Commons but where English constituency MPs in the Commons are prevented from voting on Scottish matters).

The simple fact is that a poor person in Scotland gets more UK public money spent on him/her than does a poor person in England - just because the poor person is living in Scotland. This is not acceptable; English voters are aware of this unfairness and, unless this Labour shower in power at Westminster change it anti-UK feeling in England will rise further.

As a pro-England UK Unionist I feel it my duty to support policies and views which will reduce anti-UK feeling in my nation of England.

Smidgey

Ah, but independence wasn't even in the top 10 things voters were voting for (if I remember correctly). So it can hardly be described as that.

I have to say, the Scottish Conservatives seem to be more intent on running the country without fear of separation (they will never vote for the referendum) than to lose all their votes by engaging in petty politics like what Labour and the Liberal Democrats have done.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

blank_frackis

Of course they aren't, my entire argument is that there is disparity in public expenditure across the whole of the UK - not just Scotland and England - and that if it's unfair that Scotland as a whole receives more public expenditure per head than England, then it is also unfair that certain English regions receive more public expenditure than others. I am fully aware that you don't want to recognise that extension of your own logic, because your intention here is to make a nationalist point about English taxpayers subsidising Scotland.

The London deficit is a different issue, we're talking about public expenditure and how it ranges across the UK. The London deficit is about London receiving less public expenditure than it puts into the economy in taxation. The fact that London (and just about every major city) puts more money into the economy than it receives doesn't negate the fact that London receives an above average amount of public expenditure. Either you advocate every region of the UK receiving the same amount of public expenditure per head of population or you advocate each region of the UK receiving a proportionate amount with respects to the taxation they pay into the British economy. You cannot advocate both.

It's strange that you would mention Wales given that Wales receives £1,000 more per head than England - not as much as Scotland receives, but surely just as unfair in principle. I'm not really sure what distinguishes Wales from Scotland in this situation other than the degree of disparity.

If you're approaching the issue from the perspective of "fairness" then you must concede that it is just as unfair for say... the North-East of England, to receive significantly more public expenditure than the rest of England. Either you believe that all areas of the United Kingdom should receive a similar level of public spending per head of the population or you don't.

Britannist

Please use my name when quoting me (i.e. your posting number 23 to this thread - apart from it being good manners to do so your failure to do so may confuse some readers. They will wonder who the quotes you are using were made by.

Regarding your above comment (quote) my intention here is no more to "make a nationalist point" (your words) about "English taxpayers subsidising Scotland" (your words) than presumably yours is to be here to make a "nationalist point" about Scotland.

By the way the Barnett Formula results in not just English taxpayers subsidising Scotland - it results in Welsh taxpayers doing so too.

Britannist

You were saying earlier that London got more UK public money - now, a few hours later, you have changed your mind.

London does not get its fair share of UK public money and one reason for that is because UK public money which London (which has the poorest boroughs in the UK) should get is being sent to Scotland for spending on public services there instead in a UK Labour Government attempt to try to stop the Scottish so-called 'National' Party (SNP) from winning Labour constituencies at both Westminster and in the Edinburgh Parliament.

Britannist

What do you mean 'region of the UK' (quote above)? Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not 'regions' - they are nations within the UK. No one talks of 'regions' of the UK. This Labour shower in power at Westminster talk of "the nations and regions of the UK" as do their friends at the BBC. When Labour and the BBC refer to nations and regions - they mean Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as the nations and England as regions.

Why should England be 'regions' and the rest of the UK nations? Your country of Scotland is not a 'region' and neither is my country of England

England is a nation just like Scotland - and the people of England and Wales are getting less per head of population from the UK Labour Government in public money than Scotland is per head of population.

A voter and taxpayer in poverty in the east end of London is subsidising a prosperous voter in one of the well-off parts of Edinburgh.

Britannist

Wales is subsidising Scotland under the terms of the Barnett Formula as is England. So Scotland (which has her own Parliament unlike the people of Wales and England) gets subsidies from the taxpayers of Wales and England for no reason that I can think of.

Lord Barnett said in the House of Lords at the start of this month of the unfairness of England subsidising Scotland "There is an urgency about his because if something is not seen to be done soon people in England will start to demand separation."

Britannist

You keep trying to break up England into areas and 'regions' (quote above) in a way that no English posters to this forum have done so far with your country of Scotland (which is almost as large as England in land area). Perhaps in discussing "the north east" of England rather than England as a whole you feel you are deflecting attention from the fact that - per head of population - England gets less UK public money than Scotland does?

I do not suppose that it has occurred to you that if England were not subsidising your country of Scotland (£1500 extra of UK public money per head of population in Scotland compared to spending of UK public money on each person in England) we here in England would have more money to pay to those areas of England you call 'regions' which presently get less than what you say the north-east of England does now?

Let me inform you of what a well known politician in your nation of Scotland said on this subject earlier this month: the former MP for Stirling, Conservative Lord Forsyth stated: "Resentment in England will rise at free prescription charges in Scotland - the UK could disintegrate." He added "The Barnett Formula which gives Scotland £1500 a year more per head of population should be reformed."

Britannist

Either you believe in a fair UK and fair treatment for England and financial and constitutional equality for England with Scotland within the UK or you don't. And on the basis of what you have written on this subject so far - you don't. And, if this is the case, it is your attitude which is partly responsible for a decline in support for the Union of the UK here in England.

rjt

Many thanks that is what I was refering to, I worded it that way as Salmond had said victory for the SNP would show a clear mandate for indepndance the elctions showed nothing of the kind and of course it is to unionists detriment that they are sustining his vile administraton in power.

__________________
Mr Delors said that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community, The Commission to be The Executive and The Council Of Ministers The Senate. NO! NO! NO!
(Margaret Thatcher 30 Oct 1990)

Ignore List: The Prophets of ST Al the Unelectable.