Should England's money be spent in Scotland?
Discussion
The Labour Mansion Tax. As admitted by Milliband and Jim Murphy, most of this would be raised in England, in South East England to be more specific. And as confirmed by Murphy, leader of Labour in Scotland, most of it would be spent in Scotland.
Is this acceptable?
My view, as an English conservative (note not Conservative), is that despite the anti-Scots sentiment that is being stirred up by the SNP, that it would be perfectly reasonable in a United Kingdom to shift resources to where they can be of most benefit, regardless of of which part of the UK that happens to be.
I use the analogy of spinning plates. If a plate is in danger of toppling over, do you keep spinning the fast plates faster, or do you divert some attention to the falling plate and speed it up?
Diverting resource north would not only benefit Scotland, but if in the long term it helps Scotland to spin its own plate faster, we all benefit and create a stronger and more unified UK.
Is this acceptable?
My view, as an English conservative (note not Conservative), is that despite the anti-Scots sentiment that is being stirred up by the SNP, that it would be perfectly reasonable in a United Kingdom to shift resources to where they can be of most benefit, regardless of of which part of the UK that happens to be.
I use the analogy of spinning plates. If a plate is in danger of toppling over, do you keep spinning the fast plates faster, or do you divert some attention to the falling plate and speed it up?
Diverting resource north would not only benefit Scotland, but if in the long term it helps Scotland to spin its own plate faster, we all benefit and create a stronger and more unified UK.
Broadly speaking, I agree. However for me there's one big caveat.
Scotland has it's own parliament. With tax raising power, and the ability to set significant levels of policy.
They also already get more spent per capita.
If the challenges are being faced due to the choices the Scot's parliament has made in how cash is spent, then I don't see why those in the rest of the country (whether that be west Wales or west London) should fix them.
The Scots parliament could spend the cash for the NHS. They could easily do this by introducing tuition fees. They've chosen not to.
Scotland has it's own parliament. With tax raising power, and the ability to set significant levels of policy.
They also already get more spent per capita.
If the challenges are being faced due to the choices the Scot's parliament has made in how cash is spent, then I don't see why those in the rest of the country (whether that be west Wales or west London) should fix them.
The Scots parliament could spend the cash for the NHS. They could easily do this by introducing tuition fees. They've chosen not to.
If you change that question to should a wealthy and densely populated part of the UK subsidise a less wealthy less densely populated part of the UK which suffers terrible diseconomies of scale the answer is yes. The Scottish people voted to remain part of the UK. PHers were very very keen at the time that this should be the case.
The Scottish Parliament only has the power to distribute funding allocated by the UK Parliament.
The Scottish Parliament only has the power to distribute funding allocated by the UK Parliament.
I agree OP. Each region of the UK generates revenue at different rates at different times.
Whilst the south east of England is generating huge sums of money, of which no small part of this is simply down to the fact that the south east just happens to be the location of the capital - and this money is being shared throughout the UK (which many in the south east seem to resent) - it hasn't always been thus.
During the industrial revolution, the powerhouse of the UK arguably lay much further north. Indeed Liverpool once contributed more to the exchequer than London did. Wales contributed massively with it's coal and slate mines. The north of england with its coal mines, cotton mills and steel works. Scotland contributed with the north sea oil bonanza etc.
It's all too easy to take a snapshot in time and argue that X region would be better off on it's own or that the revenue being shared is unfair (which was one of my main beefs with the Yes campaign) - but IMO you have to take a broader view over a longer period of time. The UK is as strong as it is now because all parts of it contributed different things at different times as the need arose - and the wealth generated in those areas was shared in areas that were doing perhaps less well.
Whilst the south east of England is generating huge sums of money, of which no small part of this is simply down to the fact that the south east just happens to be the location of the capital - and this money is being shared throughout the UK (which many in the south east seem to resent) - it hasn't always been thus.
During the industrial revolution, the powerhouse of the UK arguably lay much further north. Indeed Liverpool once contributed more to the exchequer than London did. Wales contributed massively with it's coal and slate mines. The north of england with its coal mines, cotton mills and steel works. Scotland contributed with the north sea oil bonanza etc.
It's all too easy to take a snapshot in time and argue that X region would be better off on it's own or that the revenue being shared is unfair (which was one of my main beefs with the Yes campaign) - but IMO you have to take a broader view over a longer period of time. The UK is as strong as it is now because all parts of it contributed different things at different times as the need arose - and the wealth generated in those areas was shared in areas that were doing perhaps less well.
I thought the Scottish claim is they contribute more par capita to the exchequer than the English so they have no need of our dirty Sassenach money.
You might equally claim that we should spend more money where it would deliver the most economic impact. Not saying that we should but that is just as good an argument as yours. Why would we want to subsidise the lifestyle choices of people who wish to live in isolated places.
Like many others in England, I just wanted Scotland to vote in favour of independence and just go away. You are entirely mistaken that a majority on here favoured the union. My only condition would be that the remaining UK would have to be protected from an inevitably bankrupt Scotland coming begging back in a few years time for the rest of us to foot the bill.
You might equally claim that we should spend more money where it would deliver the most economic impact. Not saying that we should but that is just as good an argument as yours. Why would we want to subsidise the lifestyle choices of people who wish to live in isolated places.
Like many others in England, I just wanted Scotland to vote in favour of independence and just go away. You are entirely mistaken that a majority on here favoured the union. My only condition would be that the remaining UK would have to be protected from an inevitably bankrupt Scotland coming begging back in a few years time for the rest of us to foot the bill.
Edited by richie99 on Saturday 28th March 15:54
What about parts of Wales N Ireland Notthern England and South West England these are all poorer and in higher need by all measures than Scotland. If that were different yes but it isn't the case.
Scotland SNP govt choose to spend less on NHS than a England instead the money goes into free Uni education. They make that choice which is fine but then say actually we want more money for the now failing NHS wen they created that situation is have your cake and eat it.
Plus for the last decade plus the Scottish govt has been able to increase income tax by up to 3% up or down to fund areas they would like to spend more on... Not once have they raised it or lowered it instead blame Westminster when they have had all the power they needed all along.
Scotland SNP govt choose to spend less on NHS than a England instead the money goes into free Uni education. They make that choice which is fine but then say actually we want more money for the now failing NHS wen they created that situation is have your cake and eat it.
Plus for the last decade plus the Scottish govt has been able to increase income tax by up to 3% up or down to fund areas they would like to spend more on... Not once have they raised it or lowered it instead blame Westminster when they have had all the power they needed all along.
civicduty said:
No - Looking forward to when England can have a referendum to get rid of Scotland.
Indeed. I live near enough Scotland to have Border ITV, and a constant stream of adverts telling you not to do things like smoke, beat yer partner, eat pies, drive, talk to the rest of the UK, immolate your children and drink. All with a Scots accent.It would appear to be a very strange place.
eldar said:
Indeed. I live near enough Scotland to have Border ITV, and a constant stream of adverts telling you not to do things like smoke, beat yer partner, eat pies, drive, talk to the rest of the UK, immolate your children and drink. All with a Scots Edinbra accent.
It would appear to be a very strange place.
EFA.It would appear to be a very strange place.
eldar said:
Indeed. I live near enough Scotland to have Border ITV, and a constant stream of adverts telling you not to do things like smoke, beat yer partner, eat pies, drive, talk to the rest of the UK, immolate your children and drink. All with a Scots accent.
It would appear to be a very strange place.
That's just not true though, is it? It would appear to be a very strange place.
McWigglebum4th said:
No doudt a nat will be along soon to tell us that you are all dole living scum or millionaire bankers who are all living off scottish oil
I would like to say
Nats are f
king morons
Have you got a semi now you've found another thread to repeat the same old Wiggley nonsense?I would like to say
Nats are f
king moronsEdited by McWigglebum4th on Saturday 28th March 16:15
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff