Britannist

I "recognise" what you are "actually stating" - you are saying that if the Barnett Formula were changed differences in spending levels between the "the regions of the UK" (your name for England) will still be there.

Possibly true - but the matter of different levels of public spending within England are not the concern of anyone outside England.

As I have written earlier in this thread - if the people of England were not subsidising Scotland (Scotland gets much more out of the UK Treasury than it pays in every year) then there would be much more money for England to reduce any differences in public spending levels in different parts of England.

In other words - in paying you in Scotland £1500 (average) more each year in UK public money than each person in England gets (on average) there is less money for England to use on reducing differences in public spending levels in different parts of England.

Britannist

I do not "concentrate on this one limited issue" (the Barnett Formula). And it is not a "limited issue" for those of us here in England. You call it "limited issue" because you want to reduce its importance in the hope that the issue will go away and your extra £1500 a year in public money (available to you and everyone else in Scotland) from the UK Treasury (denied each person in England) is not stopped.

Scotsman Lord Forsyth - like me a UK Unionist - does not regard this as a "limited issue" as you do. He, rightly, sees the matter of equal treatment for England within the UK as an important one in maintaining the Union of the UK.

You do not. Your stance (of ignoring England) could well cause the UK to fall apart. If you are a UK Unionist (as you claim), you need to change your view on this and recognise that England must have her own Parliament within the UK to match the one you have had in Scotland for almost 9 years.

Britannist

Fairness?

Your current stance on this issue is grossly unfair to the people of England.

Your views on this are the same as your fellow Labourite europhile Scots - Brown, Blair, Falconer, Darling and Douglas and Wendy Alexander - who seek to hold England down. You and they want the status quo to carry on whereby England subsidises Scotland and where Scottish constituency MPs vote on English legislation before the House of Commons but are stopped from voting on Scottish issues. And you and they want to prevent England having her own Parliament to match the one set up in Edinburgh in 1999.

You support the unfair status quo backed by this anti-English UK Labour Government.

Britannist

"Factionalist squabble" (your term above) - that is what your stance (which supports the Labour-backed status quo where England is denied equality within the UK with your land of Scotland and where England is forced to subsidise all Scots in Scotland) could result in.

"Arguments which undermine the Union" (your words above) - you are doing that yourself what with your "ignore the English and make 'em pay" views.

You have absolutely no idea of English public opinion on this matter whatsoever. Already a third of the people of England want England out of the UK according to a recent opinion poll: you stance on this matter could well push that up into majority opinion in England.

When you refer to "undermine the Union", "factionalist squabble" and "regions of the UK spending disparities" - what all that really means is that you just want to hang on to that extra £1500 of UK public money you and everyone else in your land of Scotland get - money which is denied to each and every person England.

As your fellow Scotsman Lord Forsyth (former UK Government Minister) said earlier this month, the Union of the UK could "disintegrate" if England does not get fair treatment.

cassie

I did not know where you live, but I did conclude that your position is not impartial.

I observe that you have been unable to address - let alone dispose of - my point that "speaking of Scotland as an entity whilst making comparisons of one part of England with another is hardly equity of treatment" which is consistent with your facile presumption of what English nationalist opinions include or exclude. I concede that it is pointless making ad hominum arguments with you in particular.

For my part, having drawn attention to the inconsistencies of your feeble attempt to divert attention from differences of treatment between England and Scotland in the matter of funding, I am not interested in debating variations of funding within England within a fundamentally unfair overall framework.

The propensity of Scots to be intolerant of opinions expressed by the English is long established, and accounts for the BBC's practice of ensuring that programmes recorded in Scotland are packed out with Scots. Tonight's edition of "Question Time" recorded in Stirling is a classic case in point: the entire panel comprised Scots - Annabel Goldie, Nichol Stephen, Nicola Sturgeon, George Galloway and Cathy Jamieson. Contrast that with the eclectic panels chosen when the programme takes place in England!

G'day!


__

British-Conservatism

A simple solution would be to make the Scots pay for themselves through income tax and national insurance contributions.

__________________
http://conservativedemocraticalliance.blogspot.com/

cassie

Don't be daft! Much of what we assumed is 'British oil' is 'Scottish oil' according to Alex Salmond!

Funny how they NEVER mention 'English oil' or English money. It's a case of "What's yours is mine, what's mine is my own".


____