Scotland and the UK...

Now, first off, let me say I'm no fan of Scotland becoming fully independent, but I have some issues with the way the whole thing is set up and now and I am beginning to think that maybe they should leave the UK, just to see how truly "independent" they can be...

Firstly, there is the Government spend per head in Scotland, as opposed to England. Scots get around £1500 MORE per head than their counterparts in England to spend. This is due to the Barnett Formula. The spending for each of the home nations per head is detailed below:

* England £5,940
* Scotland £7,346
* Wales £6,901
* Northern Ireland £7,945

Now, is it any wonder that in Scotland they can have free University places, free prescriptions and whatever else they get (happens in Wales too), whilst in England we are expected to pay TOP UP FEES (despite a previous manifesto pledge not to introduce them.....) for University and increasing costs for prescriptions.

Secondly, Scotland gets it's own Parliament, but England remains tied to Westminster, where Scottish MP's can vote on matters that only affect England and Wales?

Now, people have attempted to explain how a seperate Parliament for England would just be adding another layer of Government blah blah blah, which is fair enough and not what I want either, but...

Would it be so hard to tell Scots MP's they CANNOT vote on ENGLISH matters? After all, we do not vote on Scottish matters, or even have a representation in the Scottish Parliament, understandably.

And finally, my last grip is thus...

Why is it, especially with Labour over the past few years, that Cabinet is so top heavy with Scots? It's no wonder they refuse to answer the "Midlothian" question. After all, not only do they benefit from Scots Labour MP's voting in support of matters that are of only English concern, but why would they care anyway, all being Scots themselves?

Solution?

If Scotland wants it's own parliament, then it needs to be funded by Scottish money. Not English money. God knows we need that money ourselves anyway! It is completely unreasonable that they should get £1500 more per head spend than England AND get to have free Uni and Prescriptions..

If they want independence, give it to them. Without any payments of any kind and damn well without the North Sea platforms. After all, they were built with BRITISH investment, so if anything, they can have a revenue share, but not all of it by any means. We'll see how long they last whilst paying for FREE Uni and Prescriptions without English Tax money.

England doesn't want or need it's own Parliament, but at the very least, the Scots should NOT be allowed to vote on English matters at Westminster. No problem with them voting on matters pertaining to the whole of the UK, but they need to stay out of our affairs like they have demanded of us! And on that note, there needs to better representation of the whole nation in Cabinet, not having Scots running affairs in England.

You cannot have it both ways. Some people go "Well, we're all the UK, so does it matter?". But on the other hand, Scotland wants autonomy. Cannot have it both ways. Seems to me that they like being in the UK as they get best of both worlds. A nice subsidy and autonomy from England, whilst at the same time, having a say in affairs that have naff all to do with them.

Alot of English are getting fed up with this situation and many more have yet to learn of the huge rip-off that is happening with regards to Scotland and England. It's not a hard situation to sort out, but because the Government is controlled by Scots, they're not likely to shoot themselves in the foot and make the Scottish people realise they have been sold a lie.

After all, they;re not even as independent as they like to believe. Their precious Scottish parliament can be taken away on a whim.... But that's another story...

we must be mind linked or something Stu!!!

In total agreement with you on this one.

It annoys me that Scottish MPs can vote on matters than impact England and Wales, yet no English or Wales MP can vote on university fees for Scotland. And I think you have hit the reason on the nail. The Government needs the votes of Scottish MPs to drive its program.

It is interesting that the heavyweights in the Labour party are coming more and more from Scotland. Maybe this is a returning to the traditional values of the Labour party and the grass roots feel that those in England have lost the passion and vision for a workers party, and that Scotland is now the last heart land for the Labour party.

While I agree with Stu, can the genie be put back in the bottle?

Simply....NO

I just find the blatant hypocrisy sickening, to be honest. The SNP bang on about how great Scotland is, with it's free this and that, but it's being paid for by England! Without this extra £1500 per PERSON, I bet they wouldn't be giving stuff away so easily.....

Sminkey once said the reason for this was the wider dispersion of the communities and having to upkeep rural roads. I think that is such a wishy-washy reason to give them an extra £1500/person. Surely rural roads cost less to maintain?

And how, exactly, does Scotland afford free Uni and prescriptions? They're not as economically active as England and their GDP is much lower....

With English money.....

Ist of all I am not going to fully comment on what you have posted here stu. Going read more later, then get back to you.

For 1:

Now, first off, let me say I'm no fan of Scotland becoming fully independent,

So what do you want to see? The Scottish Parliement, Welsh Assembly, N/I ASSEMBLY closed, all authority given back to westminster? Dont think so. But I agree England should have its own Parliament.

If they want independence, give it to them. Without any payments of any kind and damn well without the North Sea platforms.

Now there you will have a fight on your hands, those platforms belong to scotland not england. If you want to go down the line of a civil war,
you are going the right way about it. Excuse me, British yes, than mean english, scottish and welsh investment, not just english investment.

Im not going to comment until later, feels that this thread is going to inflame members from both scotland and england. Rather than members having a civil debate.....

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Ist of all I am not going to fully comment on what you have posted here stu. Going read more later, then get back to you.

No worries.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
So what do you want to see? The Scottish Parliement, Welsh Assembly, N/I ASSEMBLY closed, all authority given back to westminster? Dont think so. But I agree England should have its own Parliament.

Didn't say that, did I?

Is Scotland independent now? No.

Autonomous, yes.

I'm happy with that. Carry on, no probs. As you can see from my later comments, that is not the issue.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Now there you will have a fight on your hands, those platforms belong to scotland not england. If you want to go down the line of a civil war,
you are going the right way about it. Excuse me, British yes, than mean english, scottish and welsh investment, not just english investment.

Er, kind of proving my point there. emphasis mine. So why should Scotland get them? If Scotland went independant and kept the platforms, your depriving the UK (England, Wales and NI) of it's money. They're not Scottish platforms.

Your civil war comment is rather amusing. Even if the remotest possibility of that happening existed, you wouldn't fare to well and it would be a waste. I have no desire to to Scotland and England at War, or even Scotland to leave the Union. I just have issues with the way Scotland is leeching off England, yet all the while, the SNP laud it about town as if Scotland is the best place on earth.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Im not going to comment until later, feels that this thread is going to inflame members from both scotland and england. Rather than members having a civil debate.....

Why? It's just a couple of really simple points, why should it inflame you, unless you know the points to be true and you don't want it to change?

Why should Scotland be subsidised by England (the Barnett Formula)?
Why should Scottish MP's get to vote on matters dealing solely with England?

If you feel threatened or offended by the raising of the two above points, then there is some serious issues there.

We'd like some satisfactory answers why the situation is the way it is. No need to get into a flame war over it though.

[edit on 14/7/07 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
Sminkey once said the reason for this was the wider dispersion of the communities and having to upkeep rural roads. I think that is such a wishy-washy reason to give them an extra £1500/person. Surely rural roads cost less to maintain?

Sounds like a somewhat decent explanation. For comparison the U.S. federal dollars flowing to states per capita ranged from a high of $12,200 in Alaska to only $5,000 per person in Nevada in 2004.

I think the only way to fix this is to adopt a federal system with England having its own parliament to deal with English-only issues and have the current parliament deal with only UK-wide laws.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Sounds like a somewhat decent explanation. For comparison the U.S. federal dollars flowing to states per capita ranged from a high of $12,200 in Alaska to only $5,000 per person in Nevada in 2004.

It may go some way to explain it, as I agreed with Sminkey at the time. But a difference of £1500 per head is not needed to maintain hardly used rural roads.

I would buy that argument if it weren't for two mitigating factors.

Scotland has Free University places AND prescriptions, whereas in the UK, you pay tuition fees and top-up fees, plus we get fleeced for our prescription drugs as well.

If all was fair and the rural road argument bore out, we would see either both England AND Scotland having Free University places AND prescriptions or neither of them.

As it stands, Scotland is quite clearly benefiting from the increase in per capita spending by providing them with services not available in England.

Not to mention the fact that Scottish MP's vote in England on those exact same things and other matters dealing with only England, plus the Government stabbed us in the back by introducing top-up fees despite an election promise not too, using Scottish MP votes!

See my gripe?

The Scots tried to leave before. Then England decided that wasn't best for them.

Tried to do that with America too, and plenty more.

Originally posted by Johnmike
The Scots tried to leave before. Then England decided that wasn't best for them.

Tried to do that with America too, and plenty more.

Thats not quite what happened, is it?

Act of Union, 1707 ring any bells? I know your pretty anti-British, Johnmike, judging by your previous postings, but lets not ignore history shall we?

May I step in here?

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Er, kind of proving my point there. emphasis mine. So why should Scotland get them? If Scotland went independant and kept the platforms, your depriving the UK (England, Wales and NI) of it's money. They're not Scottish platforms.

No offence but so what? Almost all of the oil rigs are in scottish waters HOWEVER, a large amount of GAS rigs are off the english coast. Those waters and anything IN those waters is ours, and before anyone brings up the whole "it was piped in england first" arguement I will just say that its pointless. The rigs inside scottish waters have been piping out of aberdeen for decades , and most probably were piped thier first....unless they really just wanted to bring back the british pipe making industry...

Your civil war comment is rather amusing. Even if the remotest possibility of that happening existed, you wouldn't fare to well and it would be a waste. I have no desire to to Scotland and England at War, or even Scotland to leave the Union. I just have issues with the way Scotland is leeching off England, yet all the while, the SNP laud it about town as if Scotland is the best place on earth.

I dont know mate, we have quite a large force north of the border and I doubt either side would in ANY position to fight anyone for the next couple of years wouldnt you agree? I also have issues with he SNP mate, they are a nasty orginisation with one hook that attracts almost every scot: Independance.

Why should Scotland be subsidised by England (the Barnett Formula)?
Why should Scottish MP's get to vote on matters dealing solely with England?

Because frankly mate your country has not been taking an intrest in its own governing, you've let yourself get into this situation and frankly I doubt that any scots MP is going to complain about england getting its own parliment now are they?

We'd like some satisfactory answers why the situation is the way it is. No need to get into a flame war over it though.
[edit on 14/7/07 by stumason]

Noble ideas mate, not so easy to do on a website such as this though is it? There are always those who act before thinking and those just act to inflame others, you've seen what happens in this end of the boards.

Originally posted by Johnmike
The Scots tried to leave before. Then England decided that wasn't best for them.

Tried to do that with America too, and plenty more.

Yeah? Maybe you should check your history mate rather than reading those nice american books.

All I can say to you remember 1812.

Originally posted by devilwasp
May I step in here?

I suppose you may

First off, let me reiterate that I am not anti-Scot independence or anything. fair play to you. All i ask is some addressing of points that seem unfair.

The Gas/Oil issue is only something that would bear out in a Full Independence debate. This is not what I am querying.

You say this:

Because frankly mate your country has not been taking an intrest in its own governing, you've let yourself get into this situation and frankly I doubt that any scots MP is going to complain about england getting its own parliment now are they?

England doesn't want it's own Parliament. The Midlothian question has been raised in Parliament, however and has been shot down by a Scots dominated Government as "irrelevant". It is not and is a big bug bear with alot of English. To say we're not politically active is to ignore something that is raised time and again, but ignored by Government.

All I am asking is that we get fair treatment.

Scots MP's to butt out of English only votes in Westminster.

And

The formula providing huge amounts of tax revenue up North be looked at. It is creating a void between Scotland and England.

Sometimes it seems designed to do that, for some politically expedient reason I should imagine. Why is it you get FREE university AND Free prescriptions, when we don't, yet we fund your Government with OUR money?

The issue of independence is not the debate I want to have. I want to see us all remain united. But with issues that are as divisive as this, something has to give.

One has to wonder what Scotland would do if they went down the path of independence? You certainly would not be able to afford all the luxuries afforded to you right now.

Originally posted by stumason
First off, let me reiterate that I am not anti-Scot independence or anything. fair play to you. All i ask is some addressing of points that seem unfair.

Mate I know you aint anti scottish independance and I wouldnt mind if you were.

England doesn't want it's own Parliament.

Why not though is the question I ask though? All other members of the union have thier own government, why not you?

The Midlothian question has been raised in Parliament, however and has been shot down by a Scots dominated Government as "irrelevant". It is not and is a big bug bear with alot of English. To say we're not politically active is to ignore something that is raised time and again, but ignored by Government.

All I am asking is that we get fair treatment.

Scots MP's to butt out of English only votes in Westminster.

No offence mate but how do you solve the problem? A considerable amount of the MOD is in scotland mate and it cannot be contorlled from scotland and frankly we aint just ready to hand you over the keys without having a say as how and where those boys and girls are going. If we stopped scottish MP's taking part in the UK parliment then that would mean we have no say in our military and the majority of our laws. The other solution is to remove our parliment which I doubt would go down well and frankly I wouldnt like it. We are a region of theUK and should have the right to make up our own regional laws.

The formula providing huge amounts of tax revenue up North be looked at. It is creating a void between Scotland and England.

Sometimes it seems designed to do that, for some politically expedient reason I should imagine. Why is it you get FREE university AND Free prescriptions, when we don't, yet we fund your Government with OUR money?

I cant speak for the economic matters int he uk because well I am terrible at money and all that counting buisness, 2 add 2 is still 5 right? But I must say that its not "your" money. We all put money in the pott and we all take our share out, some shares are bigger than others. I cant speak for the reasons why they are bigger I can simply say that your not the only people putting money in.

One has to wonder what Scotland would do if they went down the path of independence? You certainly would not be able to afford all the luxuries afforded to you right now.

I dunno, irelands done not bad for iteself and I would be interested to see if we could actually do it but frankly I agree with you. I want to stay with us and we are in no position to break away and frankly why should we? I have yet to have 1 single good reason for scotland to break away, seriously ! And to the matter that I do NOT want an SNP run scotland, I like having a defence force no matter what size it is and I do not want to end up like switzerland or norway with no forign policy to speak of.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah? Maybe you should check your history mate rather than reading those nice american books.

All I can say to you remember 1812.

What about 1812 are you referring to, precisely?

DW, don;t have time to reply properly, as I have to dash, but I'm not saying Scots MP's should not attend Westminster or votes pertaining to matters of NATIONAL importance, like Defence. That is a given, show up, I say!

But on a vote, for example, on whether Fox hunting should be banned in England, Scottish MP's should not have say. See what I mean? Seems rather unfair that Scottish MP's can vote on matters that only apply in England.

I wouldn't mind an English parliament, but it's just another layer of Government isn't it, and God knows we've got enough Politicians! As long as Scot MP's don't vote on English ONLY matters, then I'd be happy with that arrangement. But the Labour Government doesn't want to know!

quote: Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Er, kind of proving my point there. emphasis mine. So why should Scotland get them? If Scotland went independant and kept the platforms, your depriving the UK (England, Wales and NI) of it's money. They're not Scottish platforms.

D/W Dude, Can you sort your quote, I did not post that, folks might think I did but I didnt, thanks in advance..

Your civil war comment is rather amusing. Even if the remotest possibility of that happening existed, you wouldn't fare to well and it would be a waste. I have no desire to to Scotland and England at War, or even Scotland to leave the Union. I just have issues with the way Scotland is leeching off England, yet all the while, the SNP laud it about town as if Scotland is the best place on earth.

What makes you think we wouldnt fair well, in a civil war between England and Scotland??? It inflames me cause you are basically saying, that I sponge money from english taxpayers? Where I do not sponge money from english taxpayers at all. I pay my taxes like anyone else in the UK. What about those in wales or Northern ireland dont they sponge money also, i dont see you commenting about that.

Not to mention the fact that Scottish MP's vote in England on those exact same things and other matters dealing with only England, plus the Government stabbed us in the back by introducing top-up fees despite an election promise not too, using Scottish MP votes!

If it just dealt with English matters, then I would say oks, scottish MP's should not have a vote, same should apply to welsh mp's and n/i mp's. When it comes to national debates, Such as defence and laws, then yes they should have a vote. After all the defence off the UK is controlled by London, same with the Laws.If you have gripe with Scottish mp's voting, what about Welsh mp's, or N/I MP's dont you have gripe with them also or is it just Scottish MP's?


Edited_fixing spelling



[edit on 14-7-2007 by spencerjohnstone]

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
What makes you think we wouldnt fair well, in a civil war between England and Scotland???

Not getting into that one. It's bad enough that we "wang-measure" with the Yanks...

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
It inflames me cause you are basically saying, that I sponge money from english taxpayers? Where I do not sponge money from english taxpayers at all. I pay my taxes like anyone else in the UK. What about those in wales or Northern ireland dont they sponge money also, i dont see you commenting about that.

Take into account all the tax revenues collected within a region and then tally up the actual spend/capita and England's tax revenues are the overwhelming majority of the funds sent North. England has the lowest spend/capita in the Union.

Have you read about the Barnett formula or are you just here to start an argument? You don't seem to be addressing either of the points I raised in any of your posts.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
If it just dealt with English matters, then I would say oks, scottish MP's should not have a vote, same should apply to welsh mp's and n/i mp's. When it comes to national debates, Such as defence and laws, then yes they should have a vote. After all the defence off the UK is controlled by London, same with the Laws.If you have gripe with Scottish mp's voting, what about Welsh mp's, or N/I MP's dont you have gripe with them also or is it just Scottish MP's?

Wales and NI are a different kettle of fish and, on the whole, Laws passed in Westminster for England apply to Wales too. So I should think the welsh probably have a gripe with you also.

But yes, it's not just Scottish MP's, but those from all the home nations. It annoys the hell out of me that England is the only country not to have it's own Parliament or any other independent recourse for passing it's Laws, but rather all it's Laws are passed with votes from MP's who do not even represent the population.

Parliamentary Sovereignty

English votes on English laws would break that part of our constitution. So, it's illegal.

The only reason why the Tories are calling for it, is because they cannot gain MP's in Scotland and Wales.

Plus, majority of English laws and jointly passed alongside Welsh.

Show me, infinite.

I doubt that you can, seeing as we don't actually have a constitution to break.

EDIT: yes, I know some welsh law comes from Westminster. Please read my posts.

[edit on 15/7/07 by stumason]

Just read an article on the "West Lothian Question" (namely, Scots MP's voting on English matters) and I am incensed, to be honest.

University top up fees in England were passed with a slim majority, with the backing of Scottish MP's. Without those MP's from Scotland, the proposal would have been rejected.

What is a real slap in the face is that the Scottish Parliament voted against Top-up fee's!!! So, it's good enough for England, but woe betide the Scots having to pay more!

And you know what the former Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine (a Scot, incidentally....) said about the repeated calls for an answer to the West Lothian Question was?...

"Stop asking the question!!"

The cheek of it! A Scot telling us that we should stop asking the question!

This is why there are constant and repeated calls for change in England. But they fall on deaf ears, as displayed by Lord Irvine's asinine comment above.

Both the Tories and Lib Dems support resolving this issue, but the Scots dominated Labour won't hear of it.

In an ICM poll, 52% of people didn't want a PM who's constituency was in Scotland.

Yet we now have a Scottish PM leading the Government who was unelected by the people, seeing as he has proposed sweeping changes, it stands to reason he should seek a new mandate, as he is diverging from Labour policies they were elected on.

even with his proposed "constitutional reform", he refuses to answer the question of Scots MP's..

I wonder why....