No 10 denies Scotland spending review
Westminster has no plans to review the system which decides how much public money Scotland gets, Downing Street insisted today.
The move followed reports that Prime Minister Gordon Brown has ordered a review of the Barnett Formula, which calculates how much money goes to the devolved areas.
The Daily Telegraph said Mr Brown had ordered a review at a Downing Street meeting on January 28 attended by Chancellor Alistair Darling, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, and Scottish Secretary Des Browne.
The move was said to be at the prompting of Mr Straw, who said it was needed to deal with concerns from English constituencies about the funding mechanism.
But sources today indicated that Mr Brown had simply asked the Chancellor to prepare a factual paper on the formula.
This is being done with an eye to the fresh look at devolution which Labour had committed to - a process described as a "commission" by Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander, but merely as a "review" by Mr Brown.
A Downing Street source insisted today: "As has been made perfectly clear, there is no plan for a review of the Barnett Formula, now or in the foreseeable future."
In a TV interview last month Mr Brown said: "I think what will happen is that the Treasury will produce a paper on the Barnett Formula and what the Barnett Formula does, but that's a matter for the future as well."
The formula sets Scotland's share of public spending, and results in greater spending per head of population than in England, although it defenders argue that areas like London benefit massively from types of public spending not covered by the formula.
A Number 10 spokesman said: "There are no current plans to change the Barnett Formula.
"It is not the case that the Prime Minister has ordered a review of the Barnett Formula."
The spokesman added: "The Scottish Parliament has recently approved a review process aimed at strengthening devolution.
"As the Government announced to Parliament in January, the Chancellor will lay before Parliament a factual paper on the funding mechanism for the devolved administrations but there are no current plans to change the Barnett Formula."
But the SNP MP Stewart Hosie said: "It is extraordinary that Gordon Brown appears to have agreed to review the Barnett Formula in response to Jack Straw's grievance about spending south of the border."
Mr Hosie, the SNP's Treasury spokesman went on: "It's clear that the Prime Minister was backed into a corner - and the very obvious motivation of Jack Straw is to slash Scottish spending, despite burgeoning North Sea revenues and the fact that the spending settlement was very much worse in Scotland than south of the border.
"This insight into the machinations in Downing Street entirely vindicates the position of the Scottish Government that the only acceptable alternative to the Barnett Formula is full fiscal independence for the Scottish Parliament."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Macuistean, Isle of Tiree on 10:49am Wed 5 Mar 08
A Number 10 spokesman said: "There are no current plans to change the Barnett Formula
Is that ment to make me feel good?
A Number 10 spokesman said: "There are no current plans to change the Barnett Formula
Is that ment to make me feel good?
Posted by: spagan, heisker, scotland on 10:53am Wed 5 Mar 08
Just means that a Review of the Commission has been commissioned. Or maybe the Commission is being reviewed by commissioning a review paper?
Whatever, I have every confidence that Labour will not make a pig's ear of it!
Just means that a Review of the Commission has been commissioned. Or maybe the Commission is being reviewed by commissioning a review paper?
Whatever, I have every confidence that Labour will not make a pig's ear of it!
Posted by: nurse bill, dumfries on 11:51am Wed 5 Mar 08
Too right,Wullie,he looks as constipated as anyone would be coming from Kilmarnock or,as anyone from Ayr would agree,Constipation Central if ever there existed such a place.
Rather than Westminster diving into their own little narrow review of what should be done about Barnett,couldn't this be one of the projects that the resurrected joint ministerial committee,involving all the devolved administrations, could look at with involvement of all parties over a 1 to 2 year period.Input from all,ownership by all!
Too right,Wullie,he looks as constipated as anyone would be coming from Kilmarnock or,as anyone from Ayr would agree,Constipation Central if ever there existed such a place.
Rather than Westminster diving into their own little narrow review of what should be done about Barnett,couldn't this be one of the projects that the resurrected joint ministerial committee,involving all the devolved administrations, could look at with involvement of all parties over a 1 to 2 year period.Input from all,ownership by all!
Posted by: Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow on 11:53am Wed 5 Mar 08
It's a ' revue ' not a review!
How they gonna keep 'em
Down on the farm after they've seen Paris?
It's a ' revue ' not a review!
How they gonna keep 'em
Down on the farm after they've seen Paris?
Posted by: ADAM, GLASGOW, Glasgow on 11:59am Wed 5 Mar 08
Keep it up, Gordon! Not only are you doing a great job for the SNP cause, but after the next general election you will be able to spend more time with your family. And I'm sure they will be thrilled about that!
Keep it up, Gordon! Not only are you doing a great job for the SNP cause, but after the next general election you will be able to spend more time with your family. And I'm sure they will be thrilled about that!
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 12:00pm Wed 5 Mar 08
the information in other media today is quite specific.
taken in comjunction with the 400 mill paid by scottish taxpayers that london wants to claim on top of oil revenues, i think it is obvious that the "british credit card" has been dented by northern rock and requires funding to balance it, or even make the monthly payments.
as the oil has already been hocked to financial institiutions to pay past debt on the never never the IMF [italic]a la healey in the 70's[/italic] cannot be too far away.
the information in other media today is quite specific.
taken in comjunction with the 400 mill paid by scottish taxpayers that london wants to claim on top of oil revenues, i think it is obvious that the "british credit card" has been dented by northern rock and requires funding to balance it, or even make the monthly payments.
as the oil has already been hocked to financial institiutions to pay past debt on the never never the IMF
a la healey in the 70's cannot be too far away.
Posted by: dws on 12:36pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Mmm. This isn't the story in the Telegraph. What a wicked web we weave...
[quote]Gordon Brown has ordered a review of the controversial Barnett formula under which Scottish people receive £1,500 subsidy each a year from English taxpayers, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.
The Prime Minister wants the policy re-examined in an attempt to head off mounting English resentment over the millions of pounds of public money sent to Scotland every year.
[/quote]
Here's the comment I left on the Telegraoh:
[quote]Once again we are witnessing the animosity stirred up between Scotland and England.
I have no problem with the people of England, their having their own parliament and their own national identity.
Ask yourselves this though; If Scotland is such a dead weight around your shoulders, why are Westminster spinning like a top to keep the union together?
The 50 odd Scottish Labour MP's isn't it - what difference would that make in over 600 MP's?
Has anyone heard of the McCrone report? Surpressed under the 30 year rule? It tells of the real story of which way the money has been flowing since the 70's, and it ain't flowing north.
Labour are spinning a different line north and south of the border, trying to perpetuate the lie they invented in the 70's to the people of England, and inventing a new one for the people of Scotland.
People of England, the Scots are not your enemy, we wish you all the best in your independent parliament.
Your (and our) enemy sits at Downing Street with his cronies surrounding him, petrified he's going to lose power on both sides of the border.
Vote him out.
P.S. We don't want him back, either.
Send him to Brussells, he'll probably like it there.
[/quote]
...and good riddance.
Mmm. This isn't the story in the Telegraph. What a wicked web we weave...
Gordon Brown has ordered a review of the controversial Barnett formula under which Scottish people receive £1,500 subsidy each a year from English taxpayers, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.
The Prime Minister wants the policy re-examined in an attempt to head off mounting English resentment over the millions of pounds of public money sent to Scotland every year.
Here's the comment I left on the Telegraoh:
Once again we are witnessing the animosity stirred up between Scotland and England.
I have no problem with the people of England, their having their own parliament and their own national identity.
Ask yourselves this though; If Scotland is such a dead weight around your shoulders, why are Westminster spinning like a top to keep the union together?
The 50 odd Scottish Labour MP's isn't it - what difference would that make in over 600 MP's?
Has anyone heard of the McCrone report? Surpressed under the 30 year rule? It tells of the real story of which way the money has been flowing since the 70's, and it ain't flowing north.
Labour are spinning a different line north and south of the border, trying to perpetuate the lie they invented in the 70's to the people of England, and inventing a new one for the people of Scotland.
People of England, the Scots are not your enemy, we wish you all the best in your independent parliament.
Your (and our) enemy sits at Downing Street with his cronies surrounding him, petrified he's going to lose power on both sides of the border.
Vote him out.
P.S. We don't want him back, either.
Send him to Brussells, he'll probably like it there.
...and good riddance.
Posted by: Jimmy the Pie, Orkney on 12:54pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Can anyone add to this list???
PARCEL OF ROGUES
Tony Blair.
Gordon Brown
Lord Levy.
Lord Goldsmith.
Harriet Harman.
Bernie Ecclestone
Ron Davies
Keith Vaz
Geoffrey Robinson
Peter Mandelson (twice)
John Prescott (thrice)
David Blunkett (twice)
Tessa Jowell
Stephen Byers
John Reid
Peter Hain
Wendy Alexander (lost count!)
Peter Watt
Charlie Gordon
Frank Roy
Michael Martin
Matthew Marr
Paul Green
Mike Watson
Lard Foolkes (lost count)
Lee Jasper
Ron Brown
[bold]bold[/bold]
Can anyone add to this list???
PARCEL OF ROGUES
Tony Blair.
Gordon Brown
Lord Levy.
Lord Goldsmith.
Harriet Harman.
Bernie Ecclestone
Ron Davies
Keith Vaz
Geoffrey Robinson
Peter Mandelson (twice)
John Prescott (thrice)
David Blunkett (twice)
Tessa Jowell
Stephen Byers
John Reid
Peter Hain
Wendy Alexander (lost count!)
Peter Watt
Charlie Gordon
Frank Roy
Michael Martin
Matthew Marr
Paul Green
Mike Watson
Lard Foolkes (lost count)
Lee Jasper
Ron Brown
Posted by: Jimmy the Pie, Orkney on 12:56pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Can anyone add to this list???
Parcel of Rogues
Tony Blair.
Gordon Brown
Lord Levy.
Lord Goldsmith.
Harriet Harman.
Bernie Ecclestone
Ron Davies
Keith Vaz
Geoffrey Robinson
Peter Mandelson (twice)
John Prescott (thrice)
David Blunkett (twice)
Tessa Jowell
Stephen Byers
John Reid
Peter Hain
Wendy Alexander (lost count!)
Peter Watt
Charlie Gordon
Frank Roy
Michael Martin
Matthew Marr
Paul Green
Mike Watson
Lard Foolkes (lost count)
Lee Jasper
Ron Brown
Can anyone add to this list???
Parcel of Rogues
Tony Blair.
Gordon Brown
Lord Levy.
Lord Goldsmith.
Harriet Harman.
Bernie Ecclestone
Ron Davies
Keith Vaz
Geoffrey Robinson
Peter Mandelson (twice)
John Prescott (thrice)
David Blunkett (twice)
Tessa Jowell
Stephen Byers
John Reid
Peter Hain
Wendy Alexander (lost count!)
Peter Watt
Charlie Gordon
Frank Roy
Michael Martin
Matthew Marr
Paul Green
Mike Watson
Lard Foolkes (lost count)
Lee Jasper
Ron Brown
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 1:10pm Wed 5 Mar 08
To avoid losing Scotland, Brown has suggested going to transferable vote system to the liberals. That way it would keep the tories out. It works a charm in OZ.
say a party has 46% and another has 40%, the parry on 40 can pick up the balance and win say 52-48 even though they were not as popular.
Tories in oz often are first past the post but lose on green preferences as they flow to labour AUTOMATICALLY. arranged in advance. for greens in OZ read liberals in ENGLAND.
Organise a keep the SNP off your ticket as union parties vote 1,2,3 for each other and even if the SNP have 38% they can end up with next to know seats. And liberals will vote labour first preference in UK so they stay in the game.
Gullible if the Tories fall for it.
Wills has seen how Labour won in OZ despite having a similar first past the post ranking as the Tory equivalent, and would love the same in Britain.
Beware as this is not proprional representation, merely a chance for Tories throughout England to lose a lot of seats.
And Labour to stay in power in Scotland on a reduced vote.
A deal with libs, officially or unofficially, would make sure the tories got screwed. And labour stayed in power effectively forever, even on 35% of the vote. In Scotland as well. Which almost happened in Scotland as we know from Ming, no matter the result we will always stay in charge. Screwed up by SNP minority plans
Beware the Brown, he is a manipulator but I have his match and an understanding of the system and why it should not be introduced.
To avoid losing Scotland, Brown has suggested going to transferable vote system to the liberals. That way it would keep the tories out. It works a charm in OZ.
say a party has 46% and another has 40%, the parry on 40 can pick up the balance and win say 52-48 even though they were not as popular.
Tories in oz often are first past the post but lose on green preferences as they flow to labour AUTOMATICALLY. arranged in advance. for greens in OZ read liberals in ENGLAND.
Organise a keep the SNP off your ticket as union parties vote 1,2,3 for each other and even if the SNP have 38% they can end up with next to know seats. And liberals will vote labour first preference in UK so they stay in the game.
Gullible if the Tories fall for it.
Wills has seen how Labour won in OZ despite having a similar first past the post ranking as the Tory equivalent, and would love the same in Britain.
Beware as this is not proprional representation, merely a chance for Tories throughout England to lose a lot of seats.
And Labour to stay in power in Scotland on a reduced vote.
A deal with libs, officially or unofficially, would make sure the tories got screwed. And labour stayed in power effectively forever, even on 35% of the vote. In Scotland as well. Which almost happened in Scotland as we know from Ming, no matter the result we will always stay in charge. Screwed up by SNP minority plans
Beware the Brown, he is a manipulator but I have his match and an understanding of the system and why it should not be introduced.
Posted by: redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols on 1:17pm Wed 5 Mar 08
the new voting system suggested by brown and his henchman wills, based on oz system, is a cynical attempt to keep labour in power even if they have less votes than the opposition.
labour can have far less votes yet on liberal preferences, transferred automatically, their combined vote would put alabour mp in ahead of either a lib or a tory, but probably a tory every time.
in australia, a party can have 47%, and the two other parties through preferences, such as greens to labour, can come over the top.
labour cannot get the votes themselves, but an automatic transfer of the 10-20% of liberal votes would see the tories shafted.
you may wnat that, but in scotland, the snp would lose almost every seat, againsyt a pro union transferable voter ticket.
be aware, unles the SNP got 45% in a seat it would lose. to aprty that may hav eonly 30%. and which party would that be, well if labour cam ehaead of libs then the lib votes would tranfer so labour could get the majority of seats on a minority of votes, just how they like it.
in england, if libs and tories got together, then brown would lose, but we know about ming and his dodgy dfeals with brown on controlling the elections even if they did not win, last year's paln to shaft the snp in a private deal that did not even include jack mcdonnell shows they were serious.
the new voting system suggested by brown and his henchman wills, based on oz system, is a cynical attempt to keep labour in power even if they have less votes than the opposition.
labour can have far less votes yet on liberal preferences, transferred automatically, their combined vote would put alabour mp in ahead of either a lib or a tory, but probably a tory every time.
in australia, a party can have 47%, and the two other parties through preferences, such as greens to labour, can come over the top.
labour cannot get the votes themselves, but an automatic transfer of the 10-20% of liberal votes would see the tories shafted.
you may wnat that, but in scotland, the snp would lose almost every seat, againsyt a pro union transferable voter ticket.
be aware, unles the SNP got 45% in a seat it would lose. to aprty that may hav eonly 30%. and which party would that be, well if labour cam ehaead of libs then the lib votes would tranfer so labour could get the majority of seats on a minority of votes, just how they like it.
in england, if libs and tories got together, then brown would lose, but we know about ming and his dodgy dfeals with brown on controlling the elections even if they did not win, last year's paln to shaft the snp in a private deal that did not even include jack mcdonnell shows they were serious.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 1:20pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Jimmy the Pie[/bold] wrote:
Can anyone add to this list??? Parcel of Rogues Tony Blair. Gordon Brown Lord Levy. Lord Goldsmith. Harriet Harman. Bernie Ecclestone Ron Davies Keith Vaz Geoffrey Robinson Peter Mandelson (twice) John Prescott (thrice) David Blunkett (twice) Tessa Jowell Stephen Byers John Reid Peter Hain Wendy Alexander (lost count!) Peter Watt Charlie Gordon Frank Roy Michael Martin Matthew Marr Paul Green Mike Watson Lard Foolkes (lost count) Lee Jasper Ron Brown [/quote] AM2
awh
Graham(ski)
PTBS
David Cairns(just make it all Inverclyde MSPs and MP)
LA {only kiddin :o )}
Jimmy the Pie wrote:
Can anyone add to this list??? Parcel of Rogues Tony Blair. Gordon Brown Lord Levy. Lord Goldsmith. Harriet Harman. Bernie Ecclestone Ron Davies Keith Vaz Geoffrey Robinson Peter Mandelson (twice) John Prescott (thrice) David Blunkett (twice) Tessa Jowell Stephen Byers John Reid Peter Hain Wendy Alexander (lost count!) Peter Watt Charlie Gordon Frank Roy Michael Martin Matthew Marr Paul Green Mike Watson Lard Foolkes (lost count) Lee Jasper Ron Brown
AM2
awh
Graham(ski)
PTBS
David Cairns(just make it all Inverclyde MSPs and MP)
LA {only kiddin :o )}
Posted by: Deasún, Glasgow on 1:22pm Wed 5 Mar 08
redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols - Do you have any specific details on the Australian PR system like how many represenatives per counstutency etc? I ask since I lived in Ireland and so am familiar with the Irish varient of STV.
Any links or details welcome!
redc;liffe62, brisbane on hols - Do you have any specific details on the Australian PR system like how many represenatives per counstutency etc? I ask since I lived in Ireland and so am familiar with the Irish varient of STV.
Any links or details welcome!
Posted by: Exiled Aussie, Banff on 1:28pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Poor old [bold]TARTAN TORIES ![/bold]
Need to get out that begging bowl again !
Poor old
TARTAN TORIES !
Need to get out that begging bowl again !
Posted by: Exiled Aussie, Banff on 1:31pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Jimmy the Pie[/bold] wrote:
Can anyone add to this list??? PARCEL OF ROGUES Tony Blair. Gordon Brown Lord Levy. Lord Goldsmith. Harriet Harman. Bernie Ecclestone Ron Davies Keith Vaz Geoffrey Robinson Peter Mandelson (twice) John Prescott (thrice) David Blunkett (twice) Tessa Jowell Stephen Byers John Reid Peter Hain Wendy Alexander (lost count!) Peter Watt Charlie Gordon Frank Roy Michael Martin Matthew Marr Paul Green Mike Watson Lard Foolkes (lost count) Lee Jasper Ron Brown [bold]bold[/bold] [/quote] Yes...the super rogues - Diminutive, Liitle Fish, MacSwindell, Ms Hyacinth and the rest of the [bold]TARTAN TORIES[/bold] !
Jimmy the Pie wrote:
Can anyone add to this list??? PARCEL OF ROGUES Tony Blair. Gordon Brown Lord Levy. Lord Goldsmith. Harriet Harman. Bernie Ecclestone Ron Davies Keith Vaz Geoffrey Robinson Peter Mandelson (twice) John Prescott (thrice) David Blunkett (twice) Tessa Jowell Stephen Byers John Reid Peter Hain Wendy Alexander (lost count!) Peter Watt Charlie Gordon Frank Roy Michael Martin Matthew Marr Paul Green Mike Watson Lard Foolkes (lost count) Lee Jasper Ron Brown
Yes...the super rogues - Diminutive, Liitle Fish, MacSwindell, Ms Hyacinth and the rest of the
TARTAN TORIES !
Posted by: Rodmac, Glasgow, Scotland on 2:22pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Jimmy the Pie,
I see John Prescott is being touted for a new job - isn't life fine and dandy when you're a New Lab grandee. Sorry, should not have used the word "touted" - he was by far the best candidate!!
Jimmy the Pie,
I see John Prescott is being touted for a new job - isn't life fine and dandy when you're a New Lab grandee. Sorry, should not have used the word "touted" - he was by far the best candidate!!
Posted by: Kinghob, Scotland on 2:26pm Wed 5 Mar 08
The Labour party are the real 'Red' Tories are they not-they have vacated their left of centre credentials to become 'New' Labour all those years ago.
You clever chaps using the 'tartan tories' nonsense to describe the SNP live in denial that the once fine Labour party is basically only the same as the party some of our da's voted for because they have the word 'labour' in their name.
That's it-the choice in Westminster is between 'red' tories of labour and their indistinguishable cheese mechanic partners (who supported Labour on renewal of trident-partners indeed!) the 'blue tories'.
Scotland has a better choice, a better government with no ties to Westminster which will be the future.
Putting 'tartan tory' in bold will not have anybody in Scotland queuing up to have the useless Wendy Alexander et al mucking up Scotland as they did for 8 years in the past.
It's a wee shame that the once great Labour party have gone to pot, but that's what happens when you dump your differences and social conscience to seek the votes of Middle England.
The choice in Westminster is between a red and blue bucket of manure-and Labour have indeed been looking at Barnet for ages, years in fact, and they are absolutely set to shaft Scotland as they did with the woeful budget they 'gave' us using a paltry amount of the taxes we send to the British Treasury.
If a 'labour spokesman' says there are 'no plans' to do something, then guess what?
he's telling porkies!
You heard it here first.
The Labour party are the real 'Red' Tories are they not-they have vacated their left of centre credentials to become 'New' Labour all those years ago.
You clever chaps using the 'tartan tories' nonsense to describe the SNP live in denial that the once fine Labour party is basically only the same as the party some of our da's voted for because they have the word 'labour' in their name.
That's it-the choice in Westminster is between 'red' tories of labour and their indistinguishable cheese mechanic partners (who supported Labour on renewal of trident-partners indeed!) the 'blue tories'.
Scotland has a better choice, a better government with no ties to Westminster which will be the future.
Putting 'tartan tory' in bold will not have anybody in Scotland queuing up to have the useless Wendy Alexander et al mucking up Scotland as they did for 8 years in the past.
It's a wee shame that the once great Labour party have gone to pot, but that's what happens when you dump your differences and social conscience to seek the votes of Middle England.
The choice in Westminster is between a red and blue bucket of manure-and Labour have indeed been looking at Barnet for ages, years in fact, and they are absolutely set to shaft Scotland as they did with the woeful budget they 'gave' us using a paltry amount of the taxes we send to the British Treasury.
If a 'labour spokesman' says there are 'no plans' to do something, then guess what?
he's telling porkies!
You heard it here first.
Posted by: Anne, Glasgow on 2:30pm Wed 5 Mar 08
I heard on Good Morning Scotland that GB had tried to create an coallition with the LibDems in Scotland through Menzies Campbell without even consulting Scottish MSPs. I think that says it all about GB. England are very welcome to him along with David Cairns, Des Browne, Douglas Alexander and the rest of Scottish Labour MPs.
I heard on Good Morning Scotland that GB had tried to create an coallition with the LibDems in Scotland through Menzies Campbell without even consulting Scottish MSPs. I think that says it all about GB. England are very welcome to him along with David Cairns, Des Browne, Douglas Alexander and the rest of Scottish Labour MPs.
Posted by: Wen D, Inversnecky on 2:32pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Article in the Times today re how Gordon Brown tried to subvert democracy in Scotland last May.
And HES A SCOT!
Beggars belief!
Article in the Times today re how Gordon Brown tried to subvert democracy in Scotland last May.
And HES A SCOT!
Beggars belief!
Posted by: stonehaven on 2:38pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Headline:
"No 10 denies Scotland spending review"
Clearly a review is well underway then!
Headline:
"No 10 denies Scotland spending review"
Clearly a review is well underway then!
Posted by: Stewart, Glasgow on 2:49pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[bold]You missed out JOLLY JACkIE BAILLIE on the parcel of rogues!!![/bold]
You missed out JOLLY JACkIE BAILLIE on the parcel of rogues!!! Posted by: jim, Glasgow on 3:24pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Glasgow for bells
,Lithgow for wells,
Falkirk for beans and peas,
Edinburgh for s__te & thieves
Glasgow for bells
,Lithgow for wells,
Falkirk for beans and peas,
Edinburgh for s__te & thieves
Posted by: bairn, falkirk on 3:28pm Wed 5 Mar 08
I think a review has taken place with the result that Scotland does not get a fair deal and should get more.. Gordon will now rush to Scotlands defence and allow the Barnet formula to stand thus saving his seat.then issue a mass of figures showing that barnet works English rebellion will be quelled and our hero will be elevated
to a legend in his life-time and the union will continue being supported by Scotland and the stupid scots
I think a review has taken place with the result that Scotland does not get a fair deal and should get more.. Gordon will now rush to Scotlands defence and allow the Barnet formula to stand thus saving his seat.then issue a mass of figures showing that barnet works English rebellion will be quelled and our hero will be elevated
to a legend in his life-time and the union will continue being supported by Scotland and the stupid scots
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 3:35pm Wed 5 Mar 08
''Mr Brown had ordered a review at a Downing Street meeting attended by Alistair Darling, Jack Straw, and Scottish Secretary Des Browne.''
Thats about 5 braincells in the room. Des Browne , a dead sheep who had a personality bypass on the NHS. Some one will have to shove a fireworks rocket up Des Browne's backside to get him into action.
''Mr Brown had ordered a review at a Downing Street meeting attended by Alistair Darling, Jack Straw, and Scottish Secretary Des Browne.''
Thats about 5 braincells in the room. Des Browne , a dead sheep who had a personality bypass on the NHS. Some one will have to shove a fireworks rocket up Des Browne's backside to get him into action.
Posted by: Carlung, Haddington on 3:46pm Wed 5 Mar 08
You are absolutely spot on, bairn.
I think a review has taken place with the result that Scotland does not get a fair deal and should get more..
Did the Herald not produce an article a couple of months ago to illustrate that Scotland was anything but a "subsidy junkie"?
In fact Scotland contributed more revenue to the Exchequer that it received. It emerged that the true "subsidy junkie" was London!
You are absolutely spot on, bairn.
I think a review has taken place with the result that Scotland does not get a fair deal and should get more..
Did the Herald not produce an article a couple of months ago to illustrate that Scotland was anything but a "subsidy junkie"?
In fact Scotland contributed more revenue to the Exchequer that it received. It emerged that the true "subsidy junkie" was London!
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 3:57pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Reviewing the 'financing' of Devolution but not the Barnett Formula?
[bold]What are they afraid of I wonder?[/bold]
Answers on the back of a Scottish postcard addressed to the occupant of 10 Downing Street, London.
Reviewing the 'financing' of Devolution but not the Barnett Formula?
What are they afraid of I wonder?
Answers on the back of a Scottish postcard addressed to the occupant of 10 Downing Street, London.
Posted by: raibeart, campbeltown on 4:19pm Wed 5 Mar 08
The alleged talks between Gordon Brown and Menzies Campbell prior to the Scottish Election last year just underlines what a control freak Brown really is. Woulcn' t it be great lf we had a newspaper in Scotland which had the honesty and courage to really investigate and publish how Scotland is being being continually undermined and lied to by these quislings.
The alleged talks between Gordon Brown and Menzies Campbell prior to the Scottish Election last year just underlines what a control freak Brown really is. Woulcn' t it be great lf we had a newspaper in Scotland which had the honesty and courage to really investigate and publish how Scotland is being being continually undermined and lied to by these quislings.
Posted by: Luigi, Aberdeen on 5:01pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Wullie[/bold] wrote:
''Mr Brown had ordered a review at a Downing Street meeting attended by Alistair Darling, Jack Straw, and Scottish Secretary Des Browne.'' Thats about 5 braincells in the room. Des Browne , a dead sheep who had a personality bypass on the NHS. Some one will have to shove a fireworks rocket up Des Browne's backside to get him into action.[/quote] Naw,
It will take more than a wee rocket to move him, Wullie.
How about Son of Trident? It may need a new home anyway!
Wullie wrote:
''Mr Brown had ordered a review at a Downing Street meeting attended by Alistair Darling, Jack Straw, and Scottish Secretary Des Browne.'' Thats about 5 braincells in the room. Des Browne , a dead sheep who had a personality bypass on the NHS. Some one will have to shove a fireworks rocket up Des Browne's backside to get him into action.
Naw,
It will take more than a wee rocket to move him, Wullie.
How about Son of Trident? It may need a new home anyway!
Posted by: dws on 5:37pm Wed 5 Mar 08
If anyone's interested the full article from the Scottish Times re Mings recollections (Brown's desperate bid to keep SNP out of power) can be fould in the Herald Forum, State of the Nation, "The true Gordon Brown" or indeed under the same name at Scotsgait.
If there IS a link to the Scottish Times, I can't find it...
If anyone's interested the full article from the Scottish Times re Mings recollections (Brown's desperate bid to keep SNP out of power) can be fould in the Herald Forum, State of the Nation, "The true Gordon Brown" or indeed under the same name at Scotsgait.
If there IS a link to the Scottish Times, I can't find it...
Posted by: clochoderic, renfrashur on 5:40pm Wed 5 Mar 08
I suspect this is a smart move by the SNP. By asking for even a neutral review of Barnett they have prompted the expected pavlovian reaction by Broon - ie. a public guarantee that he will not interfere with finances north of the border.
Job done for the SNP.
I suspect this is a smart move by the SNP. By asking for even a neutral review of Barnett they have prompted the expected pavlovian reaction by Broon - ie. a public guarantee that he will not interfere with finances north of the border.
Job done for the SNP.
Posted by: yawn yawn, Falkirk on 6:38pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Exiled Aussie = [bold]RED TORY[/bold]
Posted by: Rock Lobster, North o the Tay on 7:13pm Wed 5 Mar 08
The article says that Scotland receives more public money per head of population than England.
The public money is not given on per head basis, so why use this method of reporting it.
Areas of England get far more public money than Scotland,and being much smaller geographically.
Can have better, just about everything.
The article says that Scotland receives more public money per head of population than England.
The public money is not given on per head basis, so why use this method of reporting it.
Areas of England get far more public money than Scotland,and being much smaller geographically.
Can have better, just about everything.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 7:45pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Furthermore the massive subsidy to London, it being the centre of the universe, is never fed into the calculation. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. We are not subsidised - quite the reverse.
Furthermore the massive subsidy to London, it being the centre of the universe, is never fed into the calculation. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. We are not subsidised - quite the reverse.
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 8:18pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
Furthermore the massive subsidy to London, it being the centre of the universe, is never fed into the calculation. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. We are not subsidised - quite the reverse. [/quote] pray tell me just what subsidies doe's London get compaired to Edinborough?
Observer wrote:
Furthermore the massive subsidy to London, it being the centre of the universe, is never fed into the calculation. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. We are not subsidised - quite the reverse.
pray tell me just what subsidies doe's London get compaired to Edinborough?
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 8:59pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote: Furthermore the massive subsidy to London, it being the centre of the universe, is never fed into the calculation. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. We are not subsidised - quite the reverse. [/quote] pray tell me just what subsidies doe's London get compaired to Edinborough?[/quote] You'll find that Scotland is responsible for around £49 billion and gets around £30 billion in return.
Spending from the public purse in London is massive but difficult to ascertain an exact amount due to the deliberately obtuse form of spending categorisation. However, it probably attracts by far the biggets investment from the public purse than anywhere in the U.K.
Furthermore, Scotland also has the uncosted natural resources of wave, wind, tidal, coal and water. From the next decade onwards these will dwarf the income from hydrocarbons and, with the exception of coal, are inexhaustable.
England doesn't need Scotland to survive, however Westminster needs us in order to maintain a 'status' on the world stage and to provide that extra income that supports grandiose projects aimed at projecting that 'status'.
scotland only 8% of UK wrote:
Observer wrote: Furthermore the massive subsidy to London, it being the centre of the universe, is never fed into the calculation. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. We are not subsidised - quite the reverse.
pray tell me just what subsidies doe's London get compaired to Edinborough?
You'll find that Scotland is responsible for around £49 billion and gets around £30 billion in return.
Spending from the public purse in London is massive but difficult to ascertain an exact amount due to the deliberately obtuse form of spending categorisation. However, it probably attracts by far the biggets investment from the public purse than anywhere in the U.K.
Furthermore, Scotland also has the uncosted natural resources of wave, wind, tidal, coal and water. From the next decade onwards these will dwarf the income from hydrocarbons and, with the exception of coal, are inexhaustable.
England doesn't need Scotland to survive, however Westminster needs us in order to maintain a 'status' on the world stage and to provide that extra income that supports grandiose projects aimed at projecting that 'status'.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 9:07pm Wed 5 Mar 08
George Alexander[quote]You'll find that Scotland is responsible for around £49 billion and gets around £30 billion in return.[/quote] 8% Idiot - 92% Moron has no interest in the [italic]actual[/italic] statistics - though your elucidation is welcome.
He is interested in crapology peddling in case Scotland leaves the Union and the likes of him stranded. And can't even spell Edinburgh:[quote]compaired to Edinborough?[/quote] Once a moron, always a moron.
George Alexander
You'll find that Scotland is responsible for around £49 billion and gets around £30 billion in return.
8% Idiot - 92% Moron has no interest in the
actual statistics - though your elucidation is welcome.
He is interested in crapology peddling in case Scotland leaves the Union and the likes of him stranded. And can't even spell Edinburgh:
compaired to Edinborough?
Once a moron, always a moron.
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 9:11pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
Furthermore the massive subsidy to London, it being the centre of the universe, is never fed into the calculation. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. We are not subsidised - quite the reverse. [/quote] pray tell me just what subsidies doe's London get compaired to Edinborough?[/quote] Well 100% twit. The subsidies are not going on English education. You have spelled '' Edinborough '' wrong. Time to go back to nursery son.
scotland only 8% of UK wrote:
Observer wrote:
Furthermore the massive subsidy to London, it being the centre of the universe, is never fed into the calculation. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. We are not subsidised - quite the reverse.
pray tell me just what subsidies doe's London get compaired to Edinborough?
Well 100% twit. The subsidies are not going on English education. You have spelled '' Edinborough '' wrong. Time to go back to nursery son.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 9:21pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Oor Wullie[quote] He spelled '' Edinborough '' wrong.[/quote] Almost certainly an American!
Amusing how they eventually "out" themselves. LoL
Oor Wullie
He spelled '' Edinborough '' wrong.
Almost certainly an American!
Amusing how they eventually "out" themselves. LoL
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 9:31pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote]Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 8:59pm today
You'll find that Scotland is responsible for around £49 billion and gets around £30 billion in return.[/quote]
Strange that the SNP dec 2006 budget document states that scotsland raises 50.6 billion and spends 50 billion , showing a surplus of only 600 million
link to original document:
http://barnett-formu
la.com/documents/SNP
DEC2006BUDGET.pdf
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 8:59pm today
You'll find that Scotland is responsible for around £49 billion and gets around £30 billion in return.
Strange that the SNP dec 2006 budget document states that scotsland raises 50.6 billion and spends 50 billion , showing a surplus of only 600 million
link to original document:
http://barnett-formu
la.com/documents/SNP
DEC2006BUDGET.pdf
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 9:42pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote]Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 9:11pm today[/quote]
I visited Loughborough university today, you should see the money being spent on the [bold]Energy Technology Institute[/bold] !
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 9:11pm today
I visited Loughborough university today, you should see the money being spent on the
Energy Technology Institute !
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 9:45pm Wed 5 Mar 08
I visited Aberdeen university today, you should see the amount of money being spent on the spelling institute.
I visited Aberdeen university today, you should see the amount of money being spent on the spelling institute.
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 9:49pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 8:59pm today
[quote]England doesn't need Scotland to survive, however Westminster [bold]needs us in order to maintain a 'status' on the world stage[/bold] and to provide that extra income that supports grandiose projects aimed at projecting that 'status'.[/quote]
For god's sake, scotsland [bold]is only 8% of the UK[/bold] , [bold]the other 92% of the UK[/bold] dosent need a country that has less than [bold]1.1 million[/bold] men in work (and [bold]24%[/bold] of those jobs in the public sector)
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 8:59pm today
England doesn't need Scotland to survive, however Westminster needs us in order to maintain a 'status' on the world stage and to provide that extra income that supports grandiose projects aimed at projecting that 'status'.
For god's sake, scotsland
is only 8% of the UK ,
the other 92% of the UK dosent need a country that has less than
1.1 million men in work (and
24% of those jobs in the public sector)
Posted by: Strathturret, Montrose on 9:55pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Remind me what the UK budget deficit is 8%. If you check you'll see Brown/Darling are spending £40 Billion more than they earn. And that before Northern Rock!
Remind me what the UK budget deficit is 8%. If you check you'll see Brown/Darling are spending £40 Billion more than they earn. And that before Northern Rock!
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 9:58pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Strathturret[/bold] wrote:
Remind me what the UK budget deficit is 8%. If you check you'll see Brown/Darling are spending £40 Billion more than they earn. And that before Northern Rock![/quote] Hmmm , Brown and Darling are scottish, it's a scot's thing.
Strathturret wrote:
Remind me what the UK budget deficit is 8%. If you check you'll see Brown/Darling are spending £40 Billion more than they earn. And that before Northern Rock!
Hmmm , Brown and Darling are scottish, it's a scot's thing.
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 10:03pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Wrong. Brown and Darling are unionist quislings.
Ps. Its way past your bedtime.
Wrong. Brown and Darling are unionist quislings.
Ps. Its way past your bedtime.
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 10:08pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Wullie[/bold] wrote:
Wrong. Brown and Darling are unionist quislings. Ps. Its way past your bedtime.[/quote] What's a true scot then ?
Wullie wrote:
Wrong. Brown and Darling are unionist quislings. Ps. Its way past your bedtime.
What's a true scot then ?
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 10:14pm Wed 5 Mar 08
A true Scot believes in Scottish independence, just as a true Englishman believes that England should be independent.
A true Scot believes in Scottish independence, just as a true Englishman believes that England should be independent.
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 10:21pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Wullie[/bold] wrote:
A true Scot believes in Scottish independence, just as a true Englishman believes that England should be independent.[/quote] Ahhh, Rod Stwert born in London is scottish, 8% who cant stand the sight of scots is also a true scot by your explination :-)
Wullie wrote:
A true Scot believes in Scottish independence, just as a true Englishman believes that England should be independent.
Ahhh, Rod Stwert born in London is scottish, 8% who cant stand the sight of scots is also a true scot by your explination :-)
Posted by: Jake Jay, Toronto on 10:21pm Wed 5 Mar 08
scotland only 8% of UK says "scotsland'.
Is he really as thick as he appears? Or is he trying to **** eveyone off?
scotland only 8% of UK says "scotsland'.
Is he really as thick as he appears? Or is he trying to **** eveyone off?
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 10:28pm Wed 5 Mar 08
How old are you ?
Rod ''stwert'' and ''explination '' and '' scotsland ''
How old are you ?
Rod ''stwert'' and ''explination '' and '' scotsland ''
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 10:32pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[bold]Posted by: Jake Jay, Toronto on 10:21pm today
scotland only 8% of UK says "scotsland'. Is he really as thick as he appears? Or is he trying to **** eveyone off?[/bold]
Does being only[bold] 8%[/bold] of the [bold]UK[/bold] really p**s you off ?
Posted by: Jake Jay, Toronto on 10:21pm today
scotland only 8% of UK says "scotsland'. Is he really as thick as he appears? Or is he trying to **** eveyone off?
Does being only
8% of the
UK really p**s you off ?
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 10:41pm Wed 5 Mar 08
''Does being only 8% of the UK really p**s you off ?''
No, but bad spelling does.
''Does being only 8% of the UK really p**s you off ?''
No, but bad spelling does.
Posted by: frank mcbride, lusitania on 11:01pm Wed 5 Mar 08
There seems, of late, to be a lot of Union Alliance supporters on these threads.
Why , otherwise, would they give 8% an credence?
There seems, of late, to be a lot of Union Alliance supporters on these threads.
Why , otherwise, would they give 8% an credence?
Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 11:09pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 9:11pm today[/quote] I visited Loughborough university today, you should see the money being spent on the [bold]Energy Technology Institute[/bold] ![/quote] I can only imagine you were delivering books or something. You saw all Scotland's money being spent trying to educate more English wasters like yourself.
I travel the world in the Energy field and I can tell you that your countrymen are thin on the ground. Scots, thats another story
scotland only 8% of UK wrote:
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 9:11pm today
I visited Loughborough university today, you should see the money being spent on the Energy Technology Institute !
I can only imagine you were delivering books or something. You saw all Scotland's money being spent trying to educate more English wasters like yourself.
I travel the world in the Energy field and I can tell you that your countrymen are thin on the ground. Scots, thats another story
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 11:11pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]frank mcbride[/bold] wrote:
There seems, of late, to be a lot of Union Alliance supporters on these threads. Why , otherwise, would they give 8% an credence?[/quote] What's your problem it's a fact Scotsland is only [bold]8% of the UK[/bold] , get over it.
frank mcbride wrote:
There seems, of late, to be a lot of Union Alliance supporters on these threads. Why , otherwise, would they give 8% an credence?
What's your problem it's a fact Scotsland is only
8% of the UK , get over it.
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 11:14pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Harry[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote: [quote]Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 9:11pm today[/quote] I visited Loughborough university today, you should see the money being spent on the [bold]Energy Technology Institute[/bold] ![/quote] I can only imagine you were delivering books or something. You saw all Scotland's money being spent trying to educate more English wasters like yourself. I travel the world in the Energy field and I can tell you that your countrymen are thin on the ground. Scots, thats another story[/quote] yeah, Scotland produces [bold]only 7%[/bold] of new UK undergraduates, [bold]7% of scots[/bold] elect to be educated in English universities, [bold]1% of English[/bold] elect to be educated in scots universities.
Harry wrote:
scotland only 8% of UK wrote: Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 9:11pm today
I visited Loughborough university today, you should see the money being spent on the Energy Technology Institute !
I can only imagine you were delivering books or something. You saw all Scotland's money being spent trying to educate more English wasters like yourself. I travel the world in the Energy field and I can tell you that your countrymen are thin on the ground. Scots, thats another story
yeah, Scotland produces
only 7% of new UK undergraduates,
7% of scots elect to be educated in English universities,
1% of English elect to be educated in scots universities.
Posted by: Boggle fey the Bog, North Bank o' ra Clyde jist South o' ra Drum on 11:23pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[bold]8%[/bold]
Methinks not just spelling is your downfall, but also your total inability, to read and interpretate, simple English, for your benefit I reproduce the paragraph beneath that which you stopped reading at.
"This is a static Scottish budget. It reflects Scotland's budgetary position today. When we include Scotland's share of the UK deficit and a range of EU and international transactions, described in PESA as non-Scottish identifiable expenditure, [bold]Scotland's relative position compared to the UK means we have a surplus of £2.8 billion[/bold] . This is equivalent to [bold]every Scot paying an extra £560 a year, over and above the cost of all our Scottish and UK wide public services. [/bold]
That is a high price to pay for a 300 year old Union that is no longer serving the interests of our nation. It means a Scottish family of four is over £2000 worse off because we are still part of Britain."
8%
Methinks not just spelling is your downfall, but also your total inability, to read and interpretate, simple English, for your benefit I reproduce the paragraph beneath that which you stopped reading at.
"This is a static Scottish budget. It reflects Scotland's budgetary position today. When we include Scotland's share of the UK deficit and a range of EU and international transactions, described in PESA as non-Scottish identifiable expenditure,
Scotland's relative position compared to the UK means we have a surplus of £2.8 billion . This is equivalent to
every Scot paying an extra £560 a year, over and above the cost of all our Scottish and UK wide public services.
That is a high price to pay for a 300 year old Union that is no longer serving the interests of our nation. It means a Scottish family of four is over £2000 worse off because we are still part of Britain."
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 11:27pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Boggle fey the Bog[/bold] wrote:
[bold]8%[/bold] Methinks not just spelling is your downfall, but also your total inability, to read and interpretate, simple English, for your benefit I reproduce the paragraph beneath that which you stopped reading at. "This is a static Scottish budget. It reflects Scotland's budgetary position today. When we include Scotland's share of the UK deficit and a range of EU and international transactions, described in PESA as non-Scottish identifiable expenditure, [bold]Scotland's relative position compared to the UK means we have a surplus of £2.8 billion[/bold] . This is equivalent to [bold]every Scot paying an extra £560 a year, over and above the cost of all our Scottish and UK wide public services. [/bold] That is a high price to pay for a 300 year old Union that is no longer serving the interests of our nation. It means a Scottish family of four is over £2000 worse off because we are still part of Britain." [/quote] That report is garbage and you know it, try read down to the scots 6% contribution to the defence budget, 0% to overseas outposts ..
And nothing changes the fact that your 8% of the UK
Boggle fey the Bog wrote:
8% Methinks not just spelling is your downfall, but also your total inability, to read and interpretate, simple English, for your benefit I reproduce the paragraph beneath that which you stopped reading at. "This is a static Scottish budget. It reflects Scotland's budgetary position today. When we include Scotland's share of the UK deficit and a range of EU and international transactions, described in PESA as non-Scottish identifiable expenditure, Scotland's relative position compared to the UK means we have a surplus of £2.8 billion . This is equivalent to every Scot paying an extra £560 a year, over and above the cost of all our Scottish and UK wide public services. That is a high price to pay for a 300 year old Union that is no longer serving the interests of our nation. It means a Scottish family of four is over £2000 worse off because we are still part of Britain."
That report is garbage and you know it, try read down to the scots 6% contribution to the defence budget, 0% to overseas outposts ..
And nothing changes the fact that your 8% of the UK
Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 11:28pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Harry[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote: [quote]Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 9:11pm today[/quote] I visited Loughborough university today, you should see the money being spent on the [bold]Energy Technology Institute[/bold] ![/quote] I can only imagine you were delivering books or something. You saw all Scotland's money being spent trying to educate more English wasters like yourself. I travel the world in the Energy field and I can tell you that your countrymen are thin on the ground. Scots, thats another story[/quote] yeah, Scotland produces [bold]only 7%[/bold] of new UK undergraduates, [bold]7% of scots[/bold] elect to be educated in English universities, [bold]1% of English[/bold] elect to be educated in scots universities.[/quote] Only 1%, no wonder you don't hack it in the real world. I was down at the equator last week on a repair project. Many nationalities, French, Italians, Americans, Canadians, Scots, Danes, Norwegians, Filipinos and a few African people. Only one of your countrymen, and that was one too many as he messed up his task. He tried to blame the French guys, but in the end the rest of us had to engineer a solution around his balls-up.
scotland only 8% of UK wrote:
Harry wrote: scotland only 8% of UK wrote: Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 9:11pm today
I visited Loughborough university today, you should see the money being spent on the Energy Technology Institute !
I can only imagine you were delivering books or something. You saw all Scotland's money being spent trying to educate more English wasters like yourself. I travel the world in the Energy field and I can tell you that your countrymen are thin on the ground. Scots, thats another story
yeah, Scotland produces only 7% of new UK undergraduates, 7% of scots elect to be educated in English universities, 1% of English elect to be educated in scots universities.
Only 1%, no wonder you don't hack it in the real world. I was down at the equator last week on a repair project. Many nationalities, French, Italians, Americans, Canadians, Scots, Danes, Norwegians, Filipinos and a few African people. Only one of your countrymen, and that was one too many as he messed up his task. He tried to blame the French guys, but in the end the rest of us had to engineer a solution around his balls-up.
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 11:31pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote]Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 11:28pm today[/quote]
Dream on, but your still only 8% of the UK
Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 11:28pm today
Dream on, but your still only 8% of the UK
Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 11:36pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 11:28pm today[/quote] Dream on, but your still only 8% of the UK[/quote] Our dream is to be 0% of the UK. It appears to be your nightmare
scotland only 8% of UK wrote:
Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 11:28pm today
Dream on, but your still only 8% of the UK
Our dream is to be 0% of the UK. It appears to be your nightmare
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 11:38pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Harry[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote: [quote]Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 11:28pm today[/quote] Dream on, but your still only 8% of the UK[/quote] Our dream is to be 0% of the UK. It appears to be your nightmare[/quote] you wish, but you know scots wont leave the security of mother england, what with only 1.1 million men in a full time job :-)
Harry wrote:
scotland only 8% of UK wrote: Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 11:28pm today
Dream on, but your still only 8% of the UK
Our dream is to be 0% of the UK. It appears to be your nightmare
you wish, but you know scots wont leave the security of mother england, what with only 1.1 million men in a full time job :-)
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 11:42pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Well with your help we can make it happen.
Well with your help we can make it happen.
Posted by: Kinghob, Scotland on 11:44pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Gawd. Don't feed the troll.
If he wishes rid of the [italic]burden[/italic] of Scotland, he is talking to people who agree with the outcome: an Independent Scotland.
But in reality the guy is talking mince, and he is not representing England rather than being a daftie.
Gawd. Don't feed the troll.
If he wishes rid of the
burden of Scotland, he is talking to people who agree with the outcome: an Independent Scotland.
But in reality the guy is talking mince, and he is not representing England rather than being a daftie.
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 11:46pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Wullie[/bold] wrote:
Well with your help we can make it happen.[/quote] Ohh, well as things are going, your only 8% of the UK now, in a few years you will be 7%, and a few years later .....
Wullie wrote:
Well with your help we can make it happen.
Ohh, well as things are going, your only 8% of the UK now, in a few years you will be 7%, and a few years later .....
Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 11:50pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Harry[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote: [quote]Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 11:28pm today[/quote] Dream on, but your still only 8% of the UK[/quote] Our dream is to be 0% of the UK. It appears to be your nightmare[/quote] you wish, but you know scots wont leave the security of mother england, what with only 1.1 million men in a full time job :-)[/quote] I don't wish, I vote. There will be a lot more jobs when we start counting and spending our own wealth instead of letting London have the gravy.
Don't forget all the Scots who are employed in other countries because of the decimation caused by us being in the lap of "mother england"
scotland only 8% of UK wrote:
Harry wrote: scotland only 8% of UK wrote: Posted by: Harry, Bishopbriggs on 11:28pm today
Dream on, but your still only 8% of the UK
Our dream is to be 0% of the UK. It appears to be your nightmare
you wish, but you know scots wont leave the security of mother england, what with only 1.1 million men in a full time job :-)
I don't wish, I vote. There will be a lot more jobs when we start counting and spending our own wealth instead of letting London have the gravy.
Don't forget all the Scots who are employed in other countries because of the decimation caused by us being in the lap of "mother england"
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 11:59pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote]Don't forget all the Scots who are employed in other countries because of the decimation caused by us being in the lap of "mother england[/quote] "
Really, hehe, maybe you should get them to look on youtube i note only 4,000 bothered to see how the new year came in in edinborough , but 300,000 i presume English did the same for London :-)
Don't forget all the Scots who are employed in other countries because of the decimation caused by us being in the lap of "mother england
"
Really, hehe, maybe you should get them to look on youtube i note only 4,000 bothered to see how the new year came in in edinborough , but 300,000 i presume English did the same for London :-)
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on Thu 6 Mar 08
Who cares.
Posted by: Boggle fey the Bog, North Bank o' ra Clyde jist South o' ra Drum on 12:03am Thu 6 Mar 08
[quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Boggle fey the Bog[/bold] wrote: [bold]8%[/bold] Methinks not just spelling is your downfall, but also your total inability, to read and interpretate, simple English, for your benefit I reproduce the paragraph beneath that which you stopped reading at. "This is a static Scottish budget. It reflects Scotland's budgetary position today. When we include Scotland's share of the UK deficit and a range of EU and international transactions, described in PESA as non-Scottish identifiable expenditure, [bold]Scotland's relative position compared to the UK means we have a surplus of £2.8 billion[/bold] . This is equivalent to [bold]every Scot paying an extra £560 a year, over and above the cost of all our Scottish and UK wide public services. [/bold] That is a high price to pay for a 300 year old Union that is no longer serving the interests of our nation. It means a Scottish family of four is over £2000 worse off because we are still part of Britain." [/quote] That report is garbage and you know it, try read down to the scots 6% contribution to the defence budget, 0% to overseas outposts .. And nothing changes the fact that your 8% of the UK[/quote] Obviously you are incapable of comprehesion, let alone interpretation.
If you care to read the latest available GERS report you will see that Scotland contributes the whole cost of Trident, 1.7 Billion pounds Sterling give or take a few hundred thousand, this on top of our 'Population' share of the defence budget
.
Then of course we have this strange NEW region in the 'UK' called 'Extra-Regio' run from 10 Downing Prospekt, where all the 'Oil and Gas' revenues are attributed to not to mention the 'accredtation' of Corporation Tax, Customs Revenue Duties etc, to London, when
Politics
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (84)
