Scottish Independence

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So did the uk govt help fund the railway line in Scotland?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well some it would have come from Barnett, but I think the real answer to your question is that it was funded by taxpayers. And if there was any EU funding involved then some of those taxpayers maybe lived outwith the UK.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They wouldn’t even help with funding for the Queensferry Crossing so I very much doubt it.

So if a railway line is in England we have to contribute but if it’s in Scotland we have to pay for it all? Is that right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your last sentence raises a smile. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Executive prior to that, poured a lot of money into the Bathgate-Airdrie train line and the Borders Railway.

What benefit do you think there was for say, somebody living in Caithness and Sutherland?

A lot of people up there would tell you that what matters to them is a downgrade in services at Caithness General Hospital, meaning that people in Wick and the like, who had a general hospital on their doorstep, now face a two and a half hour drive to Raigmore in Inverness for a number of services. And that's not a fun journey in winter.

But the government in Edinburgh prioritised the railway lines because, I imagine, the cost-benefit analysis was they would be better for the country as a whole, than pouring money into Caithness General to retain the clinical services that were lost. And likewise a bunch of other things would have fallen by the wayside for the sake of those train lines.

To cast up HS2 and Crossrail and say that Scotland somehow loses out as a result is imbecilic and churlish. UK governments take decisions at a UK level. Scottish governments take decisions at a Scottish level. Big capital programmes almost invariably mean there will be money spent that could be put elsewhere and money gravitates towards the centre - Londan and the corridor to the North-West cities at UK level; the Central Belt and unlocking tourist income into the Borders, from Edinburgh, at Scottish level.

First thanks for calling me an imbecile. I've said it before to you that you are a very good debater and pretend to be open minded on independence but that mask just keeps on slipping!!
Secondly can you show me where the railway in Scotland is then accounted for in the Westminster budget? The Scottish government does obviously prioritise for capital projects but doesn't then ask Westminster to take some of that cost. It is part of our laughable block Grant that comes from money raised in Scotland, handed to Westminster, cash skimmed off and then handed back to us. Genius if you can get away with it, which sadly they do!!

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Imbecilic and churlish, you keep funding English only projects while Scotland funds by itself Scottish projects so the likes of Mibbes Ayes can feel good about themselves

What a clever and articulate response

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well some it would have come from Barnett, but I think the real answer to your question is that it was funded by taxpayers. And if there was any EU funding involved then some of those taxpayers maybe lived outwith the UK.

So the answer is no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So the answer is no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You know the funding situation is more complex than a straight yes/no but more importantly that is not the point I was making but the one you are choosing to avoid.

UKG makes decisions about things in its remit like HS2 and Crossrail. Angry posters on here say that doesn't benefit Scotland. It doesn't directly benefit Cornwall or East Anglia much either.

SG makes decisions about Bathgate-Airdrie and Borders Railway. We could quite easily say it doesn't benefit Moray, Angus, Highland, Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Argyll and Bute.

Were they wrong decisions? We will see in time but probably not - they were based on publicised business cases.

Nat voters moaning about HS2 and Crossrail is weak. Government at every level makes choices and there will always be communities of place and of interest that feel short-changed. And money gravitates towards the centre, whether the decision is made in London or Edinburgh. That's just how it tends to be and that is just the point I was making.

[CloudSquall]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You know the funding situation is more complex than a straight yes/no but more importantly that is not the point I was making but the one you are choosing to avoid.

UKG makes decisions about things in its remit like HS2 and Crossrail. Angry posters on here say that doesn't benefit Scotland. It doesn't directly benefit Cornwall or East Anglia much either.

SG makes decisions about Bathgate-Airdrie and Borders Railway. We could quite easily say it doesn't benefit Moray, Angus, Highland, Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Argyll and Bute.

Were they wrong decisions? We will see in time but probably not - they were based on publicised business cases.

Nat voters moaning about HS2 and Crossrail is weak. Government at every level makes choices and there will always be communities of place and of interest that feel short-changed. And money gravitates towards the centre, whether the decision is made in London or Edinburgh. That's just how it tends to be and that is just the point I was making.

So it comes down to whether you see Scotland as a country as the "nats'" do, or as a province like Essex as you do.

Absolute ****ing cringe.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You know the funding situation is more complex than a straight yes/no but more importantly that is not the point I was making but the one you are choosing to avoid.

UKG makes decisions about things in its remit like HS2 and Crossrail. Angry posters on here say that doesn't benefit Scotland. It doesn't directly benefit Cornwall or East Anglia much either.

SG makes decisions about Bathgate-Airdrie and Borders Railway. We could quite easily say it doesn't benefit Moray, Angus, Highland, Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Argyll and Bute.

Were they wrong decisions? We will see in time but probably not - they were based on publicised business cases.

Nat voters moaning about HS2 and Crossrail is weak. Government at every level makes choices and there will always be communities of place and of interest that feel short-changed. And money gravitates towards the centre, whether the decision is made in London or Edinburgh. That's just how it tends to be and that is just the point I was making.

I agree with what you are saying that benefits for infrastructure can be localised. I’m just curious as to why infrastructure in Scotland is funded by the Scottish govt but infrastructure in England is funded by the whole UK?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steven79]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You know the funding situation is more complex than a straight yes/no but more importantly that is not the point I was making but the one you are choosing to avoid.

UKG makes decisions about things in its remit like HS2 and Crossrail. Angry posters on here say that doesn't benefit Scotland. It doesn't directly benefit Cornwall or East Anglia much either.

SG makes decisions about Bathgate-Airdrie and Borders Railway. We could quite easily say it doesn't benefit Moray, Angus, Highland, Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Argyll and Bute.

Were they wrong decisions? We will see in time but probably not - they were based on publicised business cases.

Nat voters moaning about HS2 and Crossrail is weak. Government at every level makes choices and there will always be communities of place and of interest that feel short-changed. And money gravitates towards the centre, whether the decision is made in London or Edinburgh. That's just how it tends to be and that is just the point I was making.

Difference is that we pay for English infrusture that has no gain for any part of Scotland.

No other country in the world would accept this situation.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

First thanks for calling me an imbecile. I've said it before to you that you are a very good debater and pretend to be open minded on independence but that mask just keeps on slipping!!
Secondly can you show me where the railway in Scotland is then accounted for in the Westminster budget? The Scottish government does obviously prioritise for capital projects but doesn't then ask Westminster to take some of that cost. It is part of our laughable block Grant that comes from money raised in Scotland, handed to Westminster, cash skimmed off and then handed back to us. Genius if you can get away with it, which sadly they do!!

I didn't call you an imbecile, I said that claiming Scotland was losing out due to HS2 and Crossrail was imbecilic. Abd churlish. And then pointed out how big capital spending decisions at UK and Scottish level invariably benefitted certain areas over others and that was to be expected and commonplace.

Unfortunately, I think the defensive, grievance and resentment-focused mindset of some on here is that any attempt to take a cool, reasoned look at things is immediately seen as an attack on the SNP. It's not.

I simply am stating that claiming UKG is doing Scotland down by investing in Crossrail is fine, so as long as you accept that equally SG can be accused of doing down a large part of the country by where it has chosen to invest capital funding for rail development.

It's not complicated, it is just fair and accurate.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So it comes down to whether you see Scotland as a country as the "nats'" do, or as a province like Essex as you do.

Absolute ****ing cringe.

I think you are misrepresenting me and really don't understand my posts - and they aren't that complicated.

Your second sentence keeps up your record for being clever and accurate.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I agree with what you are saying that benefits for infrastructure can be localised. I’m just curious as to why infrastructure in Scotland is funded by the Scottish govt but infrastructure in England is funded by the whole UK?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Difference is that we pay for English infrusture that has no gain for any part of Scotland.

No other country in the world would accept this situation.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I will try and answer these both in one. SG has additional powers for raising funding which they have shown a great reluctance to use. They also restricted local government from raising vital additional monies but let's face it, we have discussed that a few times . My understanding is that there are arguments on both sides about whether the money in/money out ratio is equal. Both sides choose the stats that back up their case.

I'm on the record as being clear that I don't think Westminster or Holyrood is the best level of government to represent the public. If this place was full of pro-Westminster types arguing why it was so important to keep it I would probably react when I disagreed.

It's not though, it's mainly pro-SNP or pro-independence types arguing that they are right, or actually, arguing that existing arrangements are wrong. So if I disagree, I will respond to that.

I understand why UKG and SG make a lot of the decisions they do. I understand they are not always equitable. I understand they are often based on benefitting some parts of society at the expense of others.

I am not criticising either for those decisions, at least not all the time. Governing means making tough decisions, often unpopular in some quarters. I am merely pointing out that these decisions will continue to be made at Westminster, Holyrood or your local council headquarters. And that will be the case as long as resources don't match demands, let alone aspirations.

[weecounty hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I didn't call you an imbecile, I said that claiming Scotland was losing out due to HS2 and Crossrail was imbecilic. Abd churlish. And then pointed out how big capital spending decisions at UK and Scottish level invariably benefitted certain areas over others and that was to be expected and commonplace.

Unfortunately, I think the defensive, grievance and resentment-focused mindset of some on here is that any attempt to take a cool, reasoned look at things is immediately seen as an attack on the SNP. It's not.

I simply am stating that claiming UKG is doing Scotland down by investing in Crossrail is fine, so as long as you accept that equally SG can be accused of doing down a large part of the country by where it has chosen to invest capital funding for rail development.

It's not complicated, it is just fair and accurate.

So to be clear if I said that your points are moronic I wouldn't be calling you a moron? I don't think they are and I don't think you are but do you see how saying my point was imbecilic but honestly gov not calling you an imbecile looks?
It's not fair and accurate at all. So please explain why the likes of the Queensferry crossing, dualling of the A9, the Commonwealth games etc have to be paid for by Scotland but HS2, Crossrail London 2012 etc have to be paid for by everyone, I include Wales and NI in that as well. Union of equals?

[RyeSloan]

Can I just point out that Crossrail is 100% not counted in any notional deficit calculations for Scotland...it’s classed as identifiable spending at a regional level in England and therefore not counted.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So to be clear if I said that your points are moronic I wouldn't be calling you a moron? I don't think they are and I don't think you are but do you see how saying my point was imbecilic but honestly gov not calling you an imbecile looks?
It's not fair and accurate at all. So please explain why the likes of the Queensferry crossing, dualling of the A9, the Commonwealth games etc have to be paid for by Scotland but HS2, Crossrail London 2012 etc have to be paid for by everyone, I include Wales and NI in that as well. Union of equals?

If you think I've made a point that is moronic feel free to say so and I may or may not choose to respond.

I'm not sure how I can tell how much of my income tax last month went on the A9 dualling and how much went to Crossrail. Can you tell me?

And then, the government statisticians say that Scotland gets more public spending per head than the UK average. Now I know Indy voters dismiss that as flawed but by the same token, they don't put anything else forward that seems robust.

It comes back to the same old, same old. Grievance and resentment - we're having to pay for HS2, they paid nothing for the new Forth Bridge. You don't win arguments by going negative.

When will we ever actually hear a positive argument?

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can I just point out that Crossrail is 100% not counted in any notional deficit calculations for Scotland...it’s classed as identifiable spending at a regional level in England and therefore not counted.

This is an interesting one, I remember reading the very 1st 'business case' in the papers and it was deemed as part of the common good as people from all over the UK would benefit with improved output of the London economy and of course for those of us that visited London
.
That's, as you say, now being touted as classed as identifiable regional spending although the UK government is still to formally adopt that methodology (there's a link to the proposal on here somewhere). Whether thats 100% regional or not would probably still need to be addressed to ensure the cost benefit still stacked up.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you think I've made a point that is moronic feel free to say so and I may or may not choose to respond.

I'm not sure how I can tell how much of my income tax last month went on the A9 dualling and how much went to Crossrail. Can you tell me?

And then, the government statisticians say that Scotland gets more public spending per head than the UK average. Now I know Indy voters dismiss that as flawed but by the same token, they don't put anything else forward that seems robust.

It comes back to the same old, same old. Grievance and resentment - we're having to pay for HS2, they paid nothing for the new Forth Bridge. You don't win arguments by going negative.

When will we ever actually hear a positive argument?

So building the Queensferry crossing, funded by the Scottish government, under budget and pretty much on time isn't to be viewed as a positive. I think it is a huge positive and shows what can be done in Scotland. Huge capital projects are fraught with potential disasters as can be seen both in Scotland and England but that one was pretty successful I would say.
No grievance and resentment here. I just happen to believe that we could do better by being in control of our own ability to raise and spend funds as we see fit for the overall benefit of the people living in this country.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you think I've made a point that is moronic feel free to say so and I may or may not choose to respond.

I'm not sure how I can tell how much of my income tax last month went on the A9 dualling and how much went to Crossrail. Can you tell me?

And then, the government statisticians say that Scotland gets more public spending per head than the UK average. Now I know Indy voters dismiss that as flawed but by the same token, they don't put anything else forward that seems robust.

It comes back to the same old, same old. Grievance and resentment - we're having to pay for HS2, they paid nothing for the new Forth Bridge. You don't win arguments by going negative.

When will we ever actually hear a positive argument?

I’d like to positively increase our GDP in line with our neighbours in Denmark and Ireland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is an interesting one, I remember reading the very 1st 'business case' in the papers and it was deemed as part of the common good as people from all over the UK would benefit with improved output of the London economy and of course for those of us that visited London
.
That's, as you say, now being touted as classed as identifiable regional spending although the UK government is still to formally adopt that methodology (there's a link to the proposal on here somewhere). Whether thats 100% regional or not would probably still need to be addressed to ensure the cost benefit still stacked up.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

It’s detailed in the GERS calculation notes...a very interesting read if you ever find sleep isn’t coming easily

For those minded to do so though said notes on calculation methodology are actually quite informative and effectively put to bed this false narrative of the UK skimming the Scottish tax payer for billions before sending half back as the block grant. The reserved spending in Scotland section is a particularly ‘interesting’ section.As is the breakdown of just what the non identifiable spending is made up of....a figure that is substantially smaller than is made out and largely understandable as well as being costs that to one level or another an Indy Scotland would still suffer.

Anyway such discussions have been had before and my phone battery is near death so I’ll have to leave this chat here for now....

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not sure how I can tell how much of my income tax last month went on the A9 dualling and how much went to Crossrail. Can you tell me?

My guess ...
If you live in England none of your income tax went towards A9 Dualling.
If you live in Scotland some went on Crossrail and some went on A9 Dualling.

That’s based on the fact that taxes in Scotland are sent to Westminster and they give some of it back as a block grant. Things like Queensferry Crossing, A9 Dualling, Border Rail, etc have to be paid for from the block grant.

[Moulin Yarns]

.@Survation Scotland poll (3/2/20)
Holyrood voting intention (change March 2019)

Constituency
SNP 51% (+8)
Con 23% (-1)
Lab 17% (-5)
LD 7% (-2)

Regional List
SNP 38% (+6)
Con 21% (-1)
Lab 19% (-)
GRN 9% (-2)
LD 9% (-2)

#SP2021 #SP21

[Moulin Yarns]

ON so many levels ... LOLs https://t.co/gAW24TrCUa

[Moulin Yarns]

“The Scottish Government actually runs a balanced budget. Any deficit which does exist, is based on our share of money the UK government spends”. Excellent interview with Stewart Hosie on Sky News (scroll back online to about 8.20am). 🎥 https://t.co/EcBfrQHLDE

https://t.co/o3AArp4Kfz

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’d like to positively increase our GDP in line with our neighbours in Denmark and Ireland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You like to roll out the comparison with Ireland and I'm glad to see you have extended it to our Danish 'neighbours' - but maybe need a wee look at Google Maps

More seriously though, the economic models of Denmark and Ireland aren't similar to each other though, are they? And neither are similar to that of Scotland. It's a nice soundbite and an indirect implication that being part of the UK is a drag, but comparing apples with oranges and lemons to then say apples could be bananas doesn't really add up.

[JeMeSouviens]

So now 3 indy polls this week:

Yougov Y51 N49
Survation Y50 N50
Panelbase Y52 N48

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My guess ...
If you live in England none of your income tax went towards Crossrail.
If you live in Scotland some went on Crossrail and some went on A9 Dualling.

That’s based on the fact that taxes in Scotland are sent to Westminster and they give some of it back as a block grant. Things like Queensferry Crossing, A9 Dualling, Border Rail, etc have to be paid for from the block grant.

Wasn't asking for a guess. Just some hard facts........

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You like to roll out the comparison with Ireland and I'm glad to see you have extended it to our Danish 'neighbours' - but maybe need a wee look at Google Maps

More seriously though, the economic models of Denmark and Ireland aren't similar to each other though, are they? And neither are similar to that of Scotland. It's a nice soundbite and an indirect implication that being part of the UK is a drag, but comparing apples with oranges and lemons to then say apples could be bananas doesn't really add up.

We could be limes. I like limes.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So building the Queensferry crossing, funded by the Scottish government, under budget and pretty much on time isn't to be viewed as a positive. I think it is a huge positive and shows what can be done in Scotland. Huge capital projects are fraught with potential disasters as can be seen both in Scotland and England but that one was pretty successful I would say.
No grievance and resentment here. I just happen to believe that we could do better by being in control of our own ability to raise and spend funds as we see fit for the overall benefit of the people living in this country.

But to get back to the point that this all started - Crossrail benefits some people, not all. Bathgate-Airdrie benefits some people not all. These sorts of decisions happen every day whether at UK level, Scottish level, or council level. To try and turn it into some sort of anti-Unionist trope is scraping the barrel isn't it?

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We could be limes. I like limes.

Probably safest, I like limes too.

And saying apples could be bananas brings in a whole new topic of GM engineering, which we are probably open to, now that Trump is hovering with whatever trade deal BoJo and his acolytes will sign up to

[JeMeSouviens]

Even better news for the Yes movement are reports that a Whitehall review into strengthening the union is going to recommend a higher profile for UK ministers in Scotland.

I’d be imposing Scottish news blackouts if I was them ...