Jump to content

Recommended Posts

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They've got a point though


They don't. England/Britain is no different from any other county - Its capital essentially subsidises the rest of the country (or wherever the financial centre of that respective country is)


Moving on, the ad was also littered with really basic inaccuracies. "Scotland get a national holiday for their Saint's day, so should we." Well, that's not true in any way you pillock. You'd think you'd think they'd check these things out before spouting.

They don't. England/Britain is no different from any other county - Its capital essentially subsidises the rest of the country (or wherever the financial centre of that respective country is)


Not Australia. WA and QLD mining is bankrolling the country. Canberra is unproductive (in most senses of the word) and Sydney is like high maintenance dolly bird of a girlfriend. Looks pretty, but is generally useless.

See loads of places.


In the US the bankrollers are California, Texas, New York and Florida in that order. DC is a tiny fraction of those.


Beijing offers very little, you'd need to look at the SARs of Shanghai, Hong Kong and Shenzhen.


It doesn't get away from the fact that wealth generation is usually polarised and less wealthy areas are subsidised. The subsidies are generally supported because either it's convenient or it prevents social breakdown that may impact upon prospects for further wealth generation.


Myopic types often think they can keep the wealth and drop the subsidies - then they can't understand why it's all gone wrong.

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not all economies are based around a centralised

> financial services industry either.


So true - as well as the capital's financial sector, the whole of the UK receives substantial revenue from the Oil & Gas sector (North Sea oil and gas fields, including waters spanning both Scotland and England btw).

I think people may be getting the wrong end on this one!


In the areas that a devolved government does have oversight, then effectively UK parliament only has oversight over what's left anyway. That means in England.


In those decisions there are 533 English MPs, 40 Welsh, 59 Scottish and 19 Morther Irish.


Given the huge disparity in influence, and the fact that devolution is not the same under the same terms in each country, there's no justification for the enormouse expense of running a second UK parliament.


Since most of the proponents of this position are 'small government Tories' then they are either too confused to see this, or just being disingenuous with a hidden agenda.


If we're running scared of those 118 'foreign' MPs, with their blue faces and scary voices, then we're not really the big strong English people we think we are. A bit weedy really.


If in the other hand you're talking about complete devolution in the face of what is clearly a more globalised world where the winning countries in the resource battle are billion citizen trading blocks, then you must be daft - letting petty rivalries ruin your nation.

The Labour Government has relied on its Scottish MPs on occasions to force through legislation in the house of commons that only affects England - this at the minimum is slightly unfair given there is no reciprocity. Now imagine the situation where the Conservatives have an outright majority of seats (not just votes as happend last time round) in England but not a majority government due to Scottish and Welsh seats held by Labour. It soon becomes a mess constitutionally. The Scots and Welsh moaned throughout the 1980's of being governed by London, it doesn't seem unreasonable for similar moans to be made by the English when the reverse is the case.


In any case the number of Scottish and Welsh seats (not sure about NI but probably applies there too) is disproportionate to their respective populations. Hence a neat solution could reduce the number of seats in these countries, and hence minimise their ability to influence policy on England-only matters.

Interesting economic data on this debate (of which VoteEnglish is not worthy, but still)


'Gross Value Added per Capita' is a measurement of productivity. It's the difference of what comes out of a region economically, compared with the resources it consumes:


(this figure is the amount of value added annually in pounds per person)


1 Greater London, Eng 26 192

2 South East England 21 514

3 East of England 19 599

4 Scotland 17 789

5 South West England 17 467

6 East Midlands, England 16 982

7 West Midlands, England 16 583

8 North West England 16 234

9 Yorkshire / Humber, Eng 15 968

10 North East England 15 177

11 Northern Ireland 15 175

12 Wales 14 396


This would appear that before we think about kicking Scotland out, we'd be far better off kicking the West, the Midlands and the North out....

To be fair I think its more the fact that the scots want to leave than vice versa . . . .


I have seen similar stats on government spending per capita by region - think NI is first, but the amount spent on Scotland, Wales and the poorer parts of the UK - Cornwall, North East etc is pretty similar. However, on average Scotland gets more per capita than England. This is not a problem where there is one country and one parliament - Ie UK pre devolution. It becomes a cause of irritation to some once devolution happens.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...