Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter

Member Info for Bandiera-Rossa


Member Since: Tue, 17th Nov 2009

Number of Share Chat Posts (all time): 581
Number of Share Chat Posts (last 30 days): 0

Last Posted: 14 Feb '14



14 Feb '14


I resent that the vast amounts of stamp duty I have paid over the years on share transactions, is credited to London, further skewing the figures!
14 Feb '14


Thanks. I found the link to the full Financial Times article. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide0 but a bunch more information is available from Business for Scotland on the web or facebook.
14 Feb '14


AntsPants says "You already get more than your fair share via the Barnett formula and many of us south of the border would like to see that arrangement scrapped not beefed up further." However, I would doubt that anybody knows what the Barnett formula is, never mind how much Scotland's fair share is. Even the esteemed gentleman himself.

What the Barnett formula was intended to do, was to address inequalities in service provision because of geography, sparseness of population, poor public health and welfare, lack of suitable housing, length of public roads systems, ferries, number of inhabited islands,(in my former county there are 27 inhabited islands), provision of rural schools and hospitals, distance from markets, effects of severe weather etc. etc.

It was devised in the days when Labour believed in "Regional Policy" unlike today when the market rules, and London sucks the rest of Britain dry. It is simply not possible to provide equivalent services for the same cost, and to argue for per head distribution of financial resources is stupid. What's more, it is blatantly unfair when the amount of tax paid per head in Scotland is hugely in excess of what is paid by those in the rest of the UK.

For the sake of clarity, an analysis of the basic information from GERS, published in the Financial Times, shows that Scotland more than pays its way and has in fact subsidised the rest of the UK for as long as the figures have been available. http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ftyes1.jpg http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ftyes2.jpg
14 Feb '14


I am glad to see that the response to my last post has been in the main measured and reasonable with only a couple of posts about Salmond's and Sturgeon's appearance which reflect the normal standard of the NO campaign. This contrasts with the out and out racism that I have seen from the BNP element on this and most other boards when the subject is raised.

I would like to present some facts on the financial side of the debate which I hope will assist people's decisions about investment in the months and years ahead, but first I offer a short preamble:

About one in ten people, living in Scotland, are English. About one in ten members of the SNP are English and about one in ten of SNP MSPs are English. There is also a Frenchman to represent me! This is not about nationalism as this interview with an English ex. pat. living in Scotland will clarify. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOm5U1Rsvu8

The real reason why we are where we are is that the country is broken and many people believe that it will not be fixed by Westminster. They are also sick to the back teeth with being called "scroungers" by the Daily Mail and most of the main stream media who always only show expenditure and never include income. This has led to an explosion of information on the internet which has engaged a whole generation or two in the debate. CONTD.
11 Feb '14


Cont.d Part 3

Although we absolutely know this wouldn’t have been the case, even if we’d been left with the full bill of £65bn, we could have afforded it. Scotland after all has bailed the UK out to the tune of £89bn in the last 19 years alone. Had Scotland been an independent nation, we would have enjoyed a surplus of £68bn over the last 19 years. Instead we bailed the UK out to the tune of £83bn. That is our contribution to UK national debt interest that an independent Scotland would not have paid. And all of this ignores the question of whether a regulatory system with direct Scottish influence would have allowed RBS and HBOS to over-leverage their balance sheets or that Halifax is actually in Yorkshire!

Conclusion

Next time anyone says Scotland couldn’t have afforded the banking bail out, just ask them why the US Federal Reserve bailed out Barclays to the tune of £552.32bn?

Then explain that the contribution of Scotland’s taxpayers as an independent nation would have been the same as it has been as part of the UK. And remember 80% of the peak losses at RBS derived from its London based businesses.

And next time you hear Alastair Darling, the man who was in charge of our financial system in the lead up to the credit crisis, have the cheek to peddle fear about the handling of a future credit crisis, you’ll know better. He’s the last man we should be listening to on this subject.


Sign up for Live Prices
Top Recommended
Hot Chat Topics
Top recommended posters in the last 30 days
Share Price Spacerseanhunter384 
Share Price SpacerSpikeyj328 
Share Price SpacerIapetus323 
Share Price Spacerspacedog303 
Share Price SpacerJuliandeBosdari280 
Share Price Spacercautioussid268 
Share Price SpacerPoetical259 
Share Price SpacerMarcopolis251 




Member Login

Forgotten your password?
Email:

Password:


Don't have an account? Click here to Register Free!




Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.