Brown as PM for England

Westminster should limit itself to national issues - ie those issues that effect our role in the world community at large and the economic performance of the entire country. They should also oversee localised governance by proportional representation from those regional assemblies. But regional assemblies should be responsible for 'local' issues - employment, standards of living, welfare allocations, allocation of regional resources etc. Smaller communites work better. Distant rule fails. We may ony be a small island or collection of islands but we have a complex social and economic structure. The nature of this country and many others, is that corruption arises through compliance. We accept the corrupt nature of some local authorites because we are so disparate from our governance that we deem it ineffectual. Hence decreases in the amount of people who vote, who absolve themselves of their democratic right because they feel powerless to change. Regional assemblies, though not the be-all and end-all of complacency would encourage a greater sense of empowerment over our economic future. Again in a ideal world....

Originally posted by stumason
Also, spending per capita should be equalised. Currently, Scotland (and every other region for that matter) get's over £2000/capita more than England. That's why Scotland can have free University and Wales and can have free prescriptions, but the English have to pay for it.

Why?

- Because when this stat is wheeled out it is always a case of not comparing like with like.

Scotland is a sparsely populated place and therefore large areas with few people cost more.
If you compare the sparsely populated areas of England the figure is little different.

Obviously low population rural areas require a lot more financial support 'from outside' than those areas of high population density.

Can someone explain (in non Labour-speak - Looking at you Smink) why any of this is fair?

- Well you might not agree with what I've said but I don't think that makes my wording particularly 'Labour-speak'.

If you'd like to let me know what that is so I can avoid it in future, I don't think I use too many odd turns of phrase or non-plain English?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Because when this stat is wheeled out it is always a case of not comparing like with like.

Scotland is a sparsely populated place and therefore large areas with few people cost more.
If you compare the sparsely populated areas of England the figure is little different.

Obviously low population rural areas require a lot more financial support 'from outside' than those areas of high population density.

I fail to see how Population denisty can affect per capita spending by as much as £2000 more, seeing as we're breaking down to the most basic of unit's, ie; a singular person. But I shall look into that none the less.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Can someone explain (in non Labour-speak - Looking at you Smink) why any of this is fair?

- Well you might not agree with what I've said but I don't think that makes my wording particularly 'Labour-speak'.

If you'd like to let me know what that is so I can avoid it in future, I don't think I use too many odd turns of phrase or non-plain English?

Only jesting Smink, sorry @D.. I know your a die-hard Labour fan and do spin some things exactly as Blair & Co do. I prefer cold hard facts, rather than Government opinion, which is invariably spun more than Charlottes Web....

Originally posted by stumason
I fail to see how Population denisty can affect per capita spending by as much as £2000 more, seeing as we're breaking down to the most basic of unit's, ie; a singular person. But I shall look into that none the less.

- It's to do with things like maintaining communications etc for much lower populace numbers etc.

It's things like, for instance, maintaining roads for many widely separated populations of under 20,000 over very many miles as opposed to much much larger populations very much closer together.
The roads cost the same but are much longer and there are far less people there to pay for them, hence the larger 'subsidy'.

I know your a die-hard Labour fan and do spin some things exactly as Blair & Co do. I prefer cold hard facts, rather than Government opinion, which is invariably spun more than Charlottes Web....

- Well I will try & present a POV - & where appropriate one that isn't threadbare of fact too, I would hope.


[edit on 9-4-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- It's to do with things like maintaining communications etc for much lower populace numbers etc.

It's things like, for instance, maintaining roads for many widely separated populations of under 20,000 over very many miles as opposed to much much larger populations very much closer together.
The roads cost the same but are much longer and there are far less people there to pay for them, hence the larger 'subsidy'.

That's an awful example, Smink!

Roads in higher density area's need much more maintainence for starters, so I don't see how Rural roads can account for anything of the £2000 extra the Scots get per head extra a year..

Schools are smaller (cheaper) and have larger catchment area's, healthcare is spread out thinner, so proportionally, a rural set hospital with serve as many people, if not less, than an Urban hospital. Cost of living is much less to, in that the Gov won't actually have to fork out more for teachers or doctor's in the Hebrides, seeing as they could happily survive on 30% less than a London teacher or doctor, if not more.

Nothing the Government provides the people can account for an extra £2000 a year/capita just because they live in the backside of no-where.

Other communications are privately owned, by BT or Thus for example, so would not count in per capita spending by Government.

I tell you what can account for the £2000 extra though....

University fees, for starters! Funny how the Jocks get FREE Uni, isn't it?

(ok, well, it's not free, but considerably cheaper without top-up fees)

Makes you wonder about the all-singing Scots Parliament in that they seem to able to provide much more for the Scottish than they should be able to afford.

Even if your Rural argument held any water, England has a far bigger Rural population that Scotland ever could dream of, so why the disparity?

Stu whetehr you see it or not you're still stuck trying to compare a much more thinly populated and far less productive country with another country that has a much larger population with a more productive and far more wealthy economic/industrial base etc etc.

Like it or not Scotland costs more to run relatively speaking.

England took on that position in the full knowledge that there are also benefits to that situation that go beyond the mere economic (security was one in particular).

Their arrangements with what they do with the money they get are their affair, that's the whole point of devolution, they get to decide their priorities, not England.

It is still Labour party policy that if England wants an English Parliament then England can have one but they have shown precious little enthusiasm for one to date and so they are not in the same position to decide where to prioritise their funding (and have things like deferred Uni costs or 'free' care for the elderly or the free perscriptions the Welsh have just decided upon).

But the idea that Scotland - or Wales or NI - are greatly advantaged when compared to England is sheer fantasy - especially if looked at over any kind of reasonable long-term timescale.

Is it time to change the question?

Does the union still add value to England?

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Is it time to change the question?

Does the union still add value to England?

Yep.

If it did break up, then consider the following:

North Sea oil - could England guarantee this as a secure source of fuel anymore? Depends where the sea boundaries were drawn up, but England would probably end up importing 90%+ of its oil. Not a good thing when the world is such a volatile place. And yes, I'm aware it's running out, but there are also large gas reserves up there too. Not to mention the tax revenues and exports from this too.

Armed forces - there will be a reduction in size and capacity as military bases in Scotland are either closed or handed over to the Scottish government. A new base would have to be found for England's nuclear deterrent, as it could no longer use the current one which is in Scotland. England and Scotland may also have to initially share out military equipment, leading to a further headache.

The English-Scottish border - is it a closed border? Should it be like the US-Canadian border? Should it be completely different? Who's going to pay for all the border crossing points and extra staff needed to police it? Remember, the mainland UK has never really had to worry about anything being smuggled via a land border (very hard to protect fully) since it shares no land borders with any other country. An independent England would now face this situation. Not to mention the potential break-up of families who are split between England and Scotland.

To conclude, a split would simply be an extravagant, nasty, expensive very unpleasant and completely unnecessary headache for both parties involved and its effects would be felt for years to come. Expect higher taxes and a lot of arguing before a steady decline for both England and Scotland into mediocrity at best. Goodbye, Britain - mark my words, in the generations to come people will wonder why we were such idiots and couldn't see beyond the petty nationalism that blinds us today. Because that's what we are - we're blind if we think a split is a good thing.

A relationship between Scotland and England will be like with the UK and Ireland. You wouldn't need a passport.

If Scotland left, the Union would still be in place. North Sea oil is BRITISH not Scottish. Thats the problem the SNP face. If Scotland left the UK, the oil would be in British water under UN treaties.

But if you look over the last 10 years, Scottish independence has risen and fallen over time. The SNP know this. Thats why the independence vote will happen in 2010 (if the SNP gets in).

"Again, what makes Wales and Scotland so special that they can have some of the decisions made locally? "

Well I can only speak for Scotland, but Scotland is a country in its own right.
We have our own laws ect ask the yanks about that one

I for one do not like being dominated by a English/British Goverment

reply to post by Sweevo


An old thread this!

But, until recently (May) the UK was "dominated" (to coin a phrase) by Scottish politicians. For the past 13 years we have had 2 Scottish PM's and the Scots have a much larger share of seats in the UK Parliament in relation to population than the English do.

And all this talk of "domination" makes it sound like some sort of occupation. Lets not forget it's the Scots who asked to Join the Union, did very nicely out of it over the past 300 years (I could go into great detail if you like?) and have generally had a massive say in how the show was run.

Hardly being "dominated", is it?

reply to post by stumason


"The Scots" didn't ask for union, not the everyday Scots in the street at least.

The nation was bankrupted by the Darian scheme, the Scots commissioners cobbled together the union with England mainly because of the parlous state of the Scottish exchequer. Those many doubters in Parliament simply got bought off.

"The Scots", the ordinary people denied any kind of input into the decision, they rioted when the union was signed, such was the level of discontent.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity

"The Scots" didn't ask for union, not the everyday Scots in the street at least.

But Stumason is right in the sense that the pressure for union did not come from the English side.
The English agenda in that situation was that they wanted foreign policy co-operation (ie no more Franco-Scottish alliances), but they thought they already had that with dynastic union. From their point of view, the existing "Union of the Crowns" was all they needed.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Yes, I would agree with that.

Stumason is right, if he means what you say he means.

I wish I could have someone who could interpret what I mean, sometimes I don't even know myself

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


Indeed. I am aware the population of Scotland was not very keen on the idea at all, as well as the English who saw it as bailing out a (often) hostile country. The Union was cobbled together by certain Scots and English who would do very nicely out of it, as most things are.

The man on the street will rarely see any massive benefit, although in this case Union with England saved Scotland from bankruptcy and the economic mire that would follow which would certainly have affected the man on the street.

Never the less, the idea was floated by the Scottish elite and was signed into Law by the Scottish King who sat on the throne of England.

Most of the previous tension between England and Scotland was rarely started by England, who saught nothing more than a secure northern border and not have huge warbands of hairy, skirt wearing, animal-innard munching maniacs burning York down every time the French clicked their fingers, which is the way it had been for several centuries since the 1200's.

There of course land disputes, but these came from ancient claims, such as the extent of the Kingdom of Northumbria which lost land to Scottish invaders, such as Edinburgh (originally an English town...). Not many Scots are aware that their capital was founded by Englishmen!

EDIT: Some of this post is tounge in cheek. Please don't take offence...


[edit on 8/8/10 by stumason]