It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should England have it's own Parliament?

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Don't believe the hype - free prescription and so-called free education comes at a price.
Yep, that price is subsidised by the taxes from workers in England. What's your point regarding this?
Oh, and how about the Educational Maintenance Allowance of £30 per week for 16-18 yr olds at further education in Wales? My son cannot get it because he had the misfortune to be born in England, yet English taxes fund the Welsh students. Disagree with that?




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Why don't you vote for a party which pledges to spend more in England then, duh.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Why don't you vote for a party which pledges to spend more in England then, duh.
That the best you can contribute? Can I also take from your reply that you agree English taxpayers do in fact subsidise improved services in Scotland, Wales and NI? Lovely to know we see the same disparity, it is something you are of course unable to deny.

*Edit*
These seem on the right track, grassroots at present, but who knows.
If my hard earned taxes pay for things in the place I live without funding extra benefits outside of England then they would get my vote...

www.englishdemocrats.org.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 28-1-2013 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Of course there's a per capita disparity. That's in no small measure because Scotland has one third of the land mass of Britain with one twelfth the population. So unless you're content with people travelling 50 miles to visit a doctor or 100 miles to sign on what on earth do you expect ?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Of course there's a per capita disparity. That's in no small measure because Scotland has one third of the land mass of Britain with one twelfth the population. So unless you're content with people travelling 50 miles to visit a doctor or 100 miles to sign on what on earth do you expect ?
Urm, free prescriptions and university tuition is different to offering travel assistance to people who need medical services or appointments at a job centre...try again, that clearly fails as an argument.

*Edit* Here's a handy population density map of the UK, I live in the SW of England, see much difference?
As I said your argument fails clearly.
www.guardian.co.uk...
edit on 28-1-2013 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


No it doesn't fail, it's actually a good analogy. Because it's obviously going to cost more per capita to build job centres, post offices, doctors surgeries in less populous areas than more populous ones. The only way you could reduce the spend per capita is to reduce provision, by spacing out that infrastructure further and further. But that would mean a longer journey to get to the doctors surgery, the hospital, the school ... Most people would regard that as unfair.

Why should Scotland get 2nd rate services ? They pay the same income taxes and national insurance as everyone else in UK.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by grainofsand
 


No it doesn't fail, it's actually a good analogy. Because it's obviously going to cost more per capita to build job centres, post offices, doctors surgeries in less populous areas than more populous ones. The only way you could reduce the spend per capita is to reduce provision, by spacing out that infrastructure further and further. But that would mean a longer journey to get to the doctors surgery, the hospital, the school ... Most people would regard that as unfair.
I refer the honorable gentleman to the link showing a population density map where edited in my previous reply.


Why should Scotland get 2nd rate services ? They pay the same income taxes and national insurance as everyone else in UK.
Why should English taxes fund preferential services such as free prescriptions, university tuition, and Educational Maintenance Allowance for non-English citizens? Touche.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


I am sorry but I cannot read your map, I'm on my mobile phone right now.

I do wish, however, that you'd quit moving the goalposts. One minute you're talking about how harsh treated England is and when we demolish that argument with simple population density you shift onto how awful things are in the less populous regions of England too ... And I actually agree with you, places like Cornwall, Cumbria face the same problems as many parts of Scotland. There's nothing I can do about that. And if a Tory government can't sort that for you then, well, I don't know what will. Apart from a Labor government, of course, your call. Either way I think you're stuffed.

So, We kind of agree.

Next.

Btw you'd have to be an incurable optimist to expect that the simple repetition of "you clearly fail" in my direction somehow makes you right and me wrong. But hey, God loves a tryer.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Yeah. And how about motorways. Or even dual carriageways. Or even singlecarriageways (ever tried "passing places"?). What world renowned childrens hospitals, cancer care units, what about even an A&E unit within 50 miles of where you live, what about electrification of the railway lines, or even having railway lines or a ferry on a sunday, what about headquartering major government departments, how about steelworks, mines, shipyards, how about tax breaks for corporations down south which produce one jot of return for anyone in Scotland. The list is absolutely endless. Don't dare compare your tawdry tuppence ha'penny ittle EMA awards with that



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by grainofsand
 


I am sorry but I cannot read your map, I'm on my mobile phone right now.
No worries.


I do wish, however, that you'd quit moving the goalposts.
You brought population density into the discussion to justify English taxes subsidising unrelated Scottish services such as free prescriptions and university tuition fees. I simply responded.


One minute you're talking about how harsh treated England is and when we demolish that argument with simple population density
I do not see the demolished argument you appear to.


you shift onto how awful things are in the less populous regions of England too
Obviously in response to the population issue you introduced to the debate.


... And I actually agree with you, places like Cornwall, Cumbria face the same problems as many parts of Scotland. There's nothing I can do about that.
Yet you support the fact that sparcely populated regions of England (such as my own) subsidise sparcely populated areas of Scotland.


And if a Tory government can't sort that for you then, well, I don't know what will. Apart from a Labor government, of course, your call. Either way I think you're stuffed.
And you clearly do not care, but then that would be no surprise as you enjoy the benefits of English taxpayers money while you live in Scotland.


So, We kind of agree.
I am unable to see where we do.


Next.

Btw you'd have to be an incurable optimist to expect that the simple repetition of "you clearly fail" in my direction somehow makes you right and me wrong. But hey, God loves a tryer.
I do not believe in any gods but I support your right to do so.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Yeah. And how about motorways. Or even dual carriageways. Or even singlecarriageways (ever tried "passing places"?). What world renowned childrens hospitals, cancer care units, what about even an A&E unit within 50 miles of where you live, what about electrification of the railway lines, or even having railway lines or a ferry on a sunday, what about headquartering major government departments, how about steelworks, mines, shipyards, how about tax breaks for corporations down south which produce one jot of return for anyone in Scotland. The list is absolutely endless. Don't dare compare your tawdry tuppence ha'penny ittle EMA awards with that

Ah, the emotional response of one who knows they live on the backs of the English taxpayer lol
Check out the treasury figures I quoted in the OP - you cannot defend it at all, and the sooner there is an English parliament, or non-English MP's are banned from voting on English matters, or Scotland votes to leave the union then the sooner English taxpayers get a better deal.
I find it amusing that you are happy to admit that Scotland NEEDS English money



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Tbh I think you're just baiting now. So I'm out.

For the record I pay UK income taxes, national insurance plus French statutory payroll, upfront voluntary income tax deductions plus punitive property tax for an empty house in France. Plus Edinburgh council tax, UK road tax (£270 to be paid by this thursday when it runs out, bargain, not), parking permits, airplane taxes blah de blah.

So don't lecture me on state dependency when so many Brits don't even attempt to get out of bed until mister postman drops le girocheque on the mat. Neither I or my family are dependant on either French or English government largesse.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Tbh I think you're just baiting now. So I'm out.
Nah, you just failed to produce a convincing argument against England having it's own parliament (like Scotland) and English taxes being spent solely in England.


For the record I pay UK income taxes, national insurance
Same for me, how is that relevant to the OP?


plus French statutory payroll, upfront voluntary income tax deductions plus punitive property tax for an empty house in France.
Again irrelevant. The discussion is about English tax distribution.


Plus Edinburgh council tax, UK road tax (£270 to be paid by this thursday when it runs out, bargain, not), parking permits, airplane taxes blah de blah.
Again, irrelevant, I have similar outgoings.


So don't lecture me on state dependency when so many Brits don't even attempt to get out of bed until mister postman drops le girocheque on the mat. Neither I or my family are dependant on either French or English government largesse.
If you live in Scotland then you enjoy services subsidised by English taxes. You may remain in denial but are more than welcome to explain where you think my statement is incorrect. Treasury figures back me up though so good luck



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I'm loving the stars for LeBombDiggity in this thread, they clearly show some members agree with his point of view.
It has to be said though that any support for the arguments against my own position in the OP would be better presented in a reply which I can respond to.
This is a debating forum and I assert that Scotland, Wales & NI relies on English taxes, enjoying an unjustifiable position where their MP's can vote on solely English issues in the UK parliament while English MP's have no say in the distribution of any funds by the devolved administrations. On top of this the per-capita spending on Scottish, Welsh and NI citizens is vastly higher than English taxpayers so the situation is clearly unfair when the administrations offer better services to their citizens than can be afforded to England.

If you disagree then don't just award an anonymous star, please feel free to explain why you think I'm wrong...I relish the debate



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Remember that Scotland has a population of 5,254,800 i.e. circa 1/10 of England's 53,013,000 citizens

More importantly Scotland's 5,254,800 citizens makes up but 1/12 (or 8.33%) of the UK's 62,641,000 people....now look at the table below



It all pretty much evens itself out - Scotland may have more spent per capita on certain public services but, as you can see from the table above, in many instances we pay more than our fair share to cover it.

The Scottish Government



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
In an earlier post I stated that although we get free prescription et al - the Scottish Government has to rob Peter to pay Paul. Something has to give - and at the moment our roads are in one hell of a state.

Also remember that the Scottish Government has to work within a fixed budget - it can only raise more money from we the people (corporation tax powers were not devolved) and unlike the Bank of England our banks can't play that quantative easing trick (printing more paper). For every Scottish bank note that is issued our banks are required to lodge the equivalent in pounds sterling with the BoE.

Our government has made certain populist (not necessarily correct) spending decisions - if you want similar elect different politicians.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 
You've already admitted yourself in this thread that the Barnet formula is unfair, why pull spurious Scottish government stats out of the bag now to imply that they do not rely on English taxpayer subsidy?
You know it, I know it, and even Alex Salmond knows it, per-capita spending on Scottish citizens is far greater than for English counterparts who subsidise their administration.

If need be I'll pull some stats up to counteract the inaccurate impression yours make but it's late now and I'll leave it until tomorrow.

Having seen your linked example though, I ask do you therefore think that Scotland does not rely on the taxes of English workers at all? Honestly?
It is interesting to know your position before I pull stats up myself which may well suggest a different situation.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
In an earlier post I stated that although we get free prescription et al - the Scottish Government has to rob Peter to pay Paul. Something has to give - and at the moment our roads are in one hell of a state.

In the OP I stated this:
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Total public spending per head in Scotland last year was £10,212, compared to £8,588 in England, figures in the Treasury's annual Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses show. The gap widened by 15.2 per cent in a year - from £1,409 to £1,624. In the South East of England, which is responsible for a large share of tax revenues, public spending was just £7,533 per head. Although poorer than Scotland, Wales received £9,829 per person.

Which bit of that do you disagree with, regardless of how the Scottish administration spends the cash?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


You've got 2 fans following you around this thread haven't you ?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


I'm showing you what we pay in - it's the other side of the equation. You cannot possibly have absorbed the implications of that table in this short time. e.g. look at the oil revenue - that's it after it's been handed back to us and divied up to EXACTLY our per capita share. So that table doesn't show everything we put IN.

The point is - if you don't like the status quo - start a campaign to change it. Throwing the toys out the pram gets you nowhere. Anyone stomping their feet screaming 'it's not fair. It's not fair' only looks pathetic to all and sundry.

So, what are YOU going to do about the disparity?




top topics



 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join