The Telegraph and Scotland

[Shabbychic]

I came across the following article in the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=XNNRU2PEGESEJQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/10/22/dl2201.xml) and feel they are really trying to stir up things between Scotland and England, and doing a grand job as some of the comments on the article admirally display.

[peter macdonald]

Bit racist in bits perchance?? "and doubtless there is many a curmudgeonly Scot who thinks it a grand joke to see the English forking out for luxuries, such as the abolition of prescription charges, that have already been proved unsustainable in England."

From the comments section "I quote these figures from a report by the London chamber of commerce and industry.
Between 2004/5 the maximum spending per head of population was as follows:

Scotland - £9,300
London - £9,500

These figures of course do not include the billions, which have or are going to be spent on the Olympics, Millennium Dome or the Jubilee Line extension project. But please don’t let actual numbers detract form an inflammatory and inaccurate headline."
PM

[Rheghead]

From the comments section "I quote these figures from a report by the London chamber of commerce and industry.
Between 2004/5 the maximum spending per head of population was as follows:

Scotland - £9,300
London - £9,500



I wonder what the figure for Edinburgh is?:confused Furthermore, I wonder what the figure is for England outside the capital?

[peter macdonald]

Depends who you read When it comes to figures like these New Labour isnt too forthcoming Regarding percription charges I thought a "labour" government would be delighted to see them abolished
Oh silly me I confused "New Labour" and socialism again
PM

[Oddquine]

"and doubtless there is many a curmudgeonly Scot who thinks it a grand joke to see the English forking out for luxuries, such as the abolition of prescription charges, that have already been proved unsustainable in England."


And that is the problem...the words have already been proved unsustainable in England would appear to mean that it has been looked at but with the very much larger population was deemed to be unaffordable.

Because what you spend in one area has to come out of another as it will in Scotland.........but it is easier to rob Peter to pay Paul when you are looking at a population of 5 million........a lot more difficult with a population more than 10 times larger.

[peter macdonald]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7070874.stm
I wonder how the bill for paying for this will be divided up Football grounds new and improved, transport, regeneration of areas (which should have regenerated anyway) Lottery again ??? UK taxes?? Maybe if New Labour didnt spend so much of the tax payers money on the likes of this and the Olympics they might not be trailing behind the Tories in the opinion polls Maybe help a bit with prescription charges too
PM

[karia]

The Daily Telegraph


The Daily Telegraph is Britain’s best-selling quality daily newspaper
It is read by 2,106,000 million adults every day. This is up 143,000 year on year and 438,000 more than its nearest competitor
88.2% read almost always
75% read no other quality daily or mid market newspaper
1,240,000 readers are affluent AB adults. That’s 153,000 more than our nearest competitor
55% are men. This is up 12.3% year on year

This is the demographic of the Telegraph readership....so what do we have?

Affluent males who choose not to read dissenting views and are probably less than concerned with public service issues such as health ...they have BUPA after all.

Not surprising then that the Telegraph should espouse such views...indeed comfortingly true to form.

karia

[Rheghead]

Depends who you read When it comes to figures like these New Labour isnt too forthcoming Regarding percription charges I thought a "labour" government would be delighted to see them abolished
Oh silly me I confused "New Labour" and socialism again
PM

Your London/Scotland figures don't tell the real story. Anyway, I still make out that Scotland received more tax spending per capita than london did.

£9520 Scotland

£9500 London

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=936812007

[karia]

Your London/Scotland figures don't tell the real story. Anyway, I still make out that Scotland received more tax spending per capita than london did.

£9520 Scotland

£9500 London

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=936812007 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=936812007)

It's a bit apples and pears though!

Scotland's parameters are a wee bit different from London's.

How far would that £20 get you from Dumfries to Wick?

Karia

[peter macdonald]

Your London/Scotland figures don't tell the real story. Anyway, I still make out that Scotland received more tax spending per capita than london did.

They are not my figures they are from the London Chamber of Commerce

Well lets see if you add in all the taxes payed by Scots servicemen which are not included in Scots tax revenue that may add a little toward your 20 quid

I notice you havent answered my point about prescription charges or have New Labour become above caring for its citizens ??? especially the Scottish ones who for 50 years kept sending a majority of Labour MPS to Westminster to keep the likes of Tony Blair in power They have a real nerve to be critical of this policy Oh but i forgot the policy maybe termed "socialist" and we cant have that can we
PM

[Rheghead]

Scotland's parameters are a wee bit different from London's.
Karia

My point exactly.


Comparing Scotland to London was just silly.

[Rheghead]

Oh but i forgot the policy maybe termed "socialist" and we cant have that can we
PM

I am afraid that "socialism" in the way I think you mean it has little political power now. That is why the power of the unions have diminished and that the Labour party has become a right wing/authoritarian party. It isn't because they have changed as politicians, it is because the electorate has changed.

[karia]

Okay Rheg,..got your gist!

The figures are skewed by comparing countries with cities, but further by the fact that the Scottish figures are 'capital city' inclusive and the English ones purely based on the capital 'excluding' the rest of the country

Then you have to factor in that while London has the largest population in English terms..Edinburgh does not share this distinction in Scotland and you'd have to look to Glasgow for that.

Sadly you are probably correct about the demise of Socialism...Thatcher taught us to be self centred and folks are too busy protecting what they 'think they own' to fight ...right to buy and instant credit have seen to that..along with a sham of a 'Labour Party'.

Karia

[j4bberw0ck]

Sadly you are probably correct about the demise of Socialism...Thatcher taught us to be self centred and folks are too busy protecting what they 'think they own' to fight ...right to buy and instant credit have seen to that..along with a sham of a 'Labour Party'.

<<Yaaaawn>>

And how exactly did Margaret Thatcher, who wasn't perfect by any manner of means, and whose creed was personal responsibility, teach us all to be self-centred?

I'd suggest that the real architect of self-centredness in the UK today was (unwittingly) William Beveridge, the so-called Father of the Welfare State. Another socialist ideal perverted by cold hard fact and human perversity.

[j4bberw0ck]

Was having a conversation today which was interesting; since the SNP administration took over in Holyrood, the Convenor here believes that the Isles get listened to much more closely than the previous administration ever managed.

That makes sense; Scottish Labour was always the pimple on the left buttock of English Labour, anyway. On the good days it had a sort of septic head on it that could be squeezed and splatted most satisfyingly. The SNP have infinitely more to lose if they're seen not to listen to the regions.

But while Salmond's personal approval rating is quite high (and FWIW, I believe he's doing a better job than the last lot, too), support for independence has never been lower.

Interesting, no?

[Rheghead]

support for independence has never been lower.

Interesting, no?

That is probably because the Union is 300 years old compared with the SNP's promise of a 30 year golden era of prosperity................while North sea oil stocks last.:roll:

[Oddquine]

I think that it has nothing to do with that, Rheghead.

I am amazed on other forums when people talk about Alex Salmond, even if they say they didn't vote SNP, and never would, they still like the way he is, as they see it, sticking up for Scotland.........while NuLab/Lib wasn't into boat rocking.

I think that as long as any Scottish Government can show that they won't brown-nose the Westminster Government...or allow the perception that the UK version of their political party controls them,independence won't happen in the short term..........because Scotland has some of what they want. But the time will come when Westminster puts the foot down.....and then we'll see.

Joke McConnell was guilty of allowing far too many Sewell motions, which would have been much better discussed in Scotland and a Scottish slant applied.........and which made many ask why we got devolution at all.