Krackersdave

The council in question seems to be in the hands of councillors not aligned to any of the main parties but under a lose coalition under one bloke called Sandy Park. The second biggest group are the lib-dums.. Ain't democracy odd....

I find the whole concept of the BBC creating a show called Rip Off Britain deeply ironic and amusing...

Again - no help - those are proposed changes for 2010 onwards... No similar helpful statement on WMD's, illegal wars and pointless MOD spending on useless weapons..?

You've not read that report properly have you? You do know that 24.1bln in the expenditure is actually a UK cost generated in Westminster right? Including a percentage of the fecking Olympics because two fecking footy matches will be up here so we get lumped with 9% of the total cost of the fecking event despite any person seeing that 100% of the benefit is for London... Then there's WMD's.... Illegal wars to pay for.... Carriers with no planes and Type 45's with defunct French missles to pay for... All adds up eh? On the plus side - with luck we won't be paying for that type o' shite much longer...

You didn't help at all - GERS does not include all the tax income included in these numbers. Try better.

Ooooh look - Scotland is neutral - quelle surprise - another Brit Nat lie bites the dust. So much for subsidised by England eh? Now then - is all the oil tax counted in Londons numbers or Scotlands??

I can't be arsed reading throught his thread but I take it the higher level of tax income in London is down to all UK corporation tax being paid there?

Came across this wee article on Newsnetscotland and though some might enjoy... Linky "The paradigm is not making sense even, I think, to some of the faithful. The essence of the paradigm was that debt was not a problem because growth would take care of it. All that was required was to stimulate growth and pressing on the ‘Bail out the banks’ bar would take care of that. They have pressed and pressed and it has not delivered. In fact debt has got worse. In ’09 banks would not lend to each other. We were told it was a liquidity problem. Our leaders refused point blank to even listen to any other ideas. They ignored or ridiculed those who said this was a crisis of solvency not liquidity, and ignored as outlandish and dangerous the idea that the reason banks wouldn’t lend to each other is because they all knew they had massive debts and that the assets/income stream underpinning all those debts was a lie. But the truth is the assets were not worth what the banks claimed. And because the banks all knew this to be true they quite reasonably refused to accept each other’s assets as collateral and without collateral they would not loan. Fast forward over two years during which, instead of cutting out the infected tissue of bad debts, we simply fed it all to National banks and what is the result? Now we have nations who won’t lend to each other. We now have a credit crunch at the sovereign level. And it will have the same effect it had last time but larger. Now nations are starved of cash and via them whole national systems of the banks who were infected and starved of cash in 09 are at death’s door again. Only difference we, the peoples of these nations, are trillions more in debt than we were three years ago. Bravo! Bravo! Meanwhile the monkeys in charge still won’t listen to any alternative ideas and are still at their sacred bar pressing it and telling themselves that one day soon it will work as it once did."

I've been waiting for this to start for nearly four years now - still very little sign. Houses are still selling at 2007 prices

Wonder how many of those half million new jobs went to Germans or to non-Germans? Would be good to know how close they are to the UK model of hiring anyone but natives.

[ 10,324 . . . Northern Ireland(1) 7,220 . . . Wales 7,189 . . . Scotland 6,687 . . . North East 6,624 . . . North West 6,377 . . . London 6,273 . . . UK 6,132 . . . West Midlands 6,074 . . . Yorkshire and the Humber 5,987 . . . Total England 5,799 . . . East Midlands 5,795 . . . South West 5,495 . . . East 5,306 . . . South East http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pesa_october_nsa_2011_cra_chapter_a_tables.xls Funny - I clicked on the link and got these figures below!... Now that London spend - thats for an area of 1,572 km2 - Scotland however is 78,772 km2. Now do you think the cost of providing services over such a larger (mainly rugged) area might be more or less expensive... Don't struggle with that one too long eh? Now do you think the London figure includes the cost of the square mile bail out? The MP expenses even which are largely spent in London? Of what about the Olympics? Well the last one is a trick question - the cost of the Olympics is in both the London AND Scottish numbers - even though ALL the benefit is to LONDON! Oddly enough we know from the GERS report I posted earlier that the cost of the Commwealth games is on the Scotland figure alone! Not one penny assigned to the London one?? Eh Shurely not double standards and dodgy book cooking from Westminster??? Maybe just a sign of how the government hides the truth behind statistics - local spends are not classed the same from area to area as the example above demonstrates.. these figures are simply propoganda... "2010-11 outturn" North East 9,501 North West 9,386 Yorkshire and the Humber 8,512 East Midlands 8,098 West Midlands 8,679 East 7,834 London 10,198 South East 7,529 South West 8,096 England 8,634 Scotland 10,165 Wales 9,947 Northern Ireland 10,668 UK identifiable expenditure 8,884

+1 - in the 70's we were a nation - the UK. Then Thatcher proved the truth, that all that matters to the polical elite is the south east of England, everyone else was treated as a second class citizen. Voter loyality switched to the remaining British national party who mattered - Labour. Then came Bliar and Brown, the McCrone report, illegal wars, WMD's, MP expenses corruption, the bail out of the square mile at the expense of the public and lastly the total and complete sell out of the Lib-Dums.. Who would vote for a Brit Nat party now? And sure as hell only a complete idiot in Scotland would vote for them...

Do you actually read what you post? You really should you know cause you're really making yourself look like a little racist idiot...

Wow - look at that level of leeching from England - 35 billion ALONE in 1984!! At the same time Thatcher was destroying every Scottish industry and creating a lost generation whilst lying to us and burying the McCrone report, Westminster was bleeding us at a horrific level. ****** this "union"....

Pfffft - that "for the benefit of Scotland" could be anything from the Olympics to paying for illegal wars and WMD's - and as for the interest payments on UK debt - LOL. Break it down it ain't worth nothing other than English debt dragging us down... Ahh yeah here we go ... Olympics classed as of benefit to Scotland so get included in Scottish public spending but shock horror the Commonwealth games are classed as of benefit to Scotland only so all the cost is listed as a public spend in Scotland... See how the lies are spun? In PESA 2011, HM Treasury classified expenditure on the London Olympics as non-identifiable expenditure. This implies the benefits from the Olympics are shared equally by all UK residents. There is some debate as to whether or not all the expenditures classified as being part of the 2012 Olympics are non-identifiable, and therefore of equal benefit to all UK regions. For example, a significant proportion of spending on the Olympics is for investment in infrastructure and re-development of areas in the east end of London which will have lasting benefits for the city. Previous regeneration schemes have generally been classified in PESA as identifiable to the region in which they occur. Expenditure on the 2014 Commonwealth Games is also reported in PESA. PESA classifies all the expenditure associated with the Commonwealth Games as being identifiable to Scotland. This implies that all the resulting benefits also accrue to Scotland. The classifications used in PESA imply that Scottish residents are the sole beneficiaries of the expenditure associated with the Commonwealth Games, whilst all UK residents benefit equally from the expenditure associated with the London Olympics. This creates an asymmetry in the treatment of the expenditures associated with the two events. GERS

Yeah - it's the same up here with the SNP - they're being called everything from childkillers to nazis and all in between. Problem is that after a while if the target keeps being sensible, speaking plainly and keeping their word the slurs and lies are simply tuned out. I suspect it's the same in the US with Ron.

Given that they are printing money to feed the banks who then use that to buy the nations treasury bonds I'd suspect nope.

Indeed - sold out by "quislings" - and thier ilk still about - strutting around Westminster. Bang on about the USA - seriously doubt it would have won independence but for the hordes of red-coat hating Scots and Irish filling Washingtons ranks. Talk about blow back effect eh? LOL

****** me - you are soooooo wrong on nearly every point.

+1

Lets ask an expert.... Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett is a world class economist who divides his time between George Mason University in Virginia and St Andrews. From 2001 to 2006, he was Professor of Economics at Vanderbilt University (Nashville) and before then at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland. He has been Visiting Professor in Economics at Princeton University, Bundesbank Professor at the Free University of Berlin, and has held visiting positions at the Universities of Warwick, Frankfurt, Rome, Paris X, Cardiff and at the Copenhagen Business School. PROFESSOR HUGHES HALLET, COULD YOU SUM UP YOUR IMPRESSION OF WHAT THE NEW GERS REPORT TELLS US ABOUT THE SCOTTISH ECONOMY DURING THE DEEPEST PART OF THE GLOBAL RECESSION IN 2009-10? The things that stand out are that it has been a rough couple of years, but Scotland had weathered the storm better than the UK as a whole. She has a budget deficit for the first time in half a dozen years but it is a smaller deficit than the UK. So the implicit subsidy to the rest of the UK (RUK) is still there.What’s more, this has been happening in a period when oil prices were low. This is of course a backwards looking exercise (up to April 2010). Those low prices were reversed a year ago, so the implicit subsidy will have increased markedly since then. Note: all my remarks take the revenues/spending actually raised in Scotland, as opposed to those allocated to Scotland by the accounts (which are often quite different). You will appreciate the significance of that difference. Wow - so Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK... well well - who'da thunk it eh? The TRUTH is that without the next 30 years of oil revenue income ENGLAND IS ******ED WELL BEYOND THE STATE OF ICELAND...

You've not even looked at the facts in this have you? Just read the mail and responded as programmed.

Yer - Salmond should watch out for men with umbrellas...

Lots of reasons - oil, renewables, cheap cannon fodder, dumping ground for nuclear waste and WMD's... But lets not forget the unmentioned reasons - it's strategic location controlling huge areas of the North Atlantic and North sea and on top of that - well - will England ever allow another nation on the UK mainland thats not under it's direct control? For hundreds of years Scotland threatened England's ambitions by being able to create it's own alliances with Englands rivals - France for example and raise the prospect of war on two fronts.. England can never be secure if Scotland is free and independent. They will lie (and have for years) to prevent it, but if the people vote then what - claim the vote is non-binding - ignore the result? How far will Westminster go to keep Scotland - armed forces on the streets? Agent provocateurs (we know they do this - even the bloody police are at it with other groups) - false flag terrorist attacks to isolate the nationalists? It's going to be an interesting ride...

Sure - and when the UK gets a referendum on leaving the EU then all the rest of the EU should be part of the same vote right? That IS the logic you are proposing ain't it? See the problem?