You take the high road...

[Prufrock]

Only this week, in what could be seen as an admission they will lose the vote, they were implying they'll be back and re-ask the question in only a few years. I wonder how so they'd re-ask if they won it ?

On this, I'm sure I read that Salmond had said that if they lost, they wouldn't ask again for another 'generation'. That'll be a word whose definition gets a lot of testing then, I imagine!

[thebish]

Only this week, in what could be seen as an admission they will lose the vote, they were implying they'll be back and re-ask the question in only a few years. I wonder how so they'd re-ask if they won it ?

On this, I'm sure I read that Salmond had said that if they lost, they wouldn't ask again for another 'generation'. That'll be a word whose definition gets a lot of testing then, I imagine!

"generation" = "generation of mayflies", I suspect!

[Beefheart]

How much different would an independent Scotland actually be, given the amount of powers already devolved and taking into account the fact that they won't have any control over monetary policy? I suppose they will be able to set their own tax rates but I don't know how different they could be in reality.

Also, might this reignite the debate about whether more power should be devolved on a regional basis? I remember there being talk about the possibility of a North West parliament some years ago and I guess the population of the region isn't too dissimilar to that of Scotland.

[TANGODANCER]

Wonder whatever happened to our own erstwhile Scotsman, Fatshaft?

[thebish]

i think he went off and founded his own independant scottish TW - but we denied him use of all the famous thread titles - so he's sulking...

[Hoboh]

In the spirit of trying to shed some light on the subject of subsidies here are some numbers that took but a few minutes to find.
The population of Scotland is 5.3 million and the population of England is 53 million. A nice and easy ratio of 1 to 10.
Spending in England for the year 2013 was 456 billion.
So we could expect that spending in Scotland would be 45.6 billion. Spending in Scotland for the year 2013 was 54 billion. So that is 8.4 billion higher than England, pro rata.
In this breakdown of UK tax revenue it would appear that petroleum revenue tax was 1.7 billion (year not obvious).
So Scottish PRT might not buy all the goodies that the Scots imagine.

[Montreal Wanderer]

In the spirit of trying to shed some light on the subject of subsidies here are some numbers that took but a few minutes to find.
The population of Scotland is 5.3 million and the population of England is 53 million. A nice and easy ratio of 1 to 10.
Spending in England for the year 2013 was 456 billion.
So we could expect that spending in Scotland would be 45.6 billion. Spending in Scotland for the year 2013 was 54 billion. So that is 8.4 billion higher than England, pro rata.
In this breakdown of UK tax revenue it would appear that petroleum revenue tax was 1.7 billion (year not obvious).
So Scottish PRT might not buy all the goodies that the Scots imagine.

What do you mean by spending? I presume government spending, not consumer spending. Which government is doing the spending? The UK government or local authorities? If the UK government there could be reasons to spend more in Scotland at a particular point in time - such as oil development. I think your figures are too coarse and general to draw conclusions.

[bobo the clown]

↑↑↑ take cover. Incoming.

[boltonboris]

Probably feck*' Uni subs

[Worthy4England]

In the spirit of trying to shed some light on the subject of subsidies here are some numbers that took but a few minutes to find.
The population of Scotland is 5.3 million and the population of England is 53 million. A nice and easy ratio of 1 to 10.
Spending in England for the year 2013 was 456 billion.
So we could expect that spending in Scotland would be 45.6 billion. Spending in Scotland for the year 2013 was 54 billion. So that is 8.4 billion higher than England, pro rata.
In this breakdown of UK tax revenue it would appear that petroleum revenue tax was 1.7 billion (year not obvious).
So Scottish PRT might not buy all the goodies that the Scots imagine.

What do you mean by spending? I presume government spending, not consumer spending. Which government is doing the spending? The UK government or local authorities? If the UK government there could be reasons to spend more in Scotland at a particular point in time - such as oil development. I think your figures are too coarse and general to draw conclusions.

I don't believe apporoximate figures, made up figures or no figures at all have ever prevented Hobes from drawing some fairly significant conclusions.

[Hoboh]

In the spirit of trying to shed some light on the subject of subsidies here are some numbers that took but a few minutes to find.
The population of Scotland is 5.3 million and the population of England is 53 million. A nice and easy ratio of 1 to 10.
Spending in England for the year 2013 was 456 billion.
So we could expect that spending in Scotland would be 45.6 billion. Spending in Scotland for the year 2013 was 54 billion. So that is 8.4 billion higher than England, pro rata.
In this breakdown of UK tax revenue it would appear that petroleum revenue tax was 1.7 billion (year not obvious).
So Scottish PRT might not buy all the goodies that the Scots imagine.

What do you mean by spending? I presume government spending, not consumer spending. Which government is doing the spending? The UK government or local authorities? If the UK government there could be reasons to spend more in Scotland at a particular point in time - such as oil development. I think your figures are too coarse and general to draw conclusions.

I don't believe apporoximate figures, made up figures or no figures at all have ever prevented Hobes from drawing some fairly significant conclusions.

Actually these are correct

[Montreal Wanderer]

In the spirit of trying to shed some light on the subject of subsidies here are some numbers that took but a few minutes to find.
The population of Scotland is 5.3 million and the population of England is 53 million. A nice and easy ratio of 1 to 10.
Spending in England for the year 2013 was 456 billion.
So we could expect that spending in Scotland would be 45.6 billion. Spending in Scotland for the year 2013 was 54 billion. So that is 8.4 billion higher than England, pro rata.
In this breakdown of UK tax revenue it would appear that petroleum revenue tax was 1.7 billion (year not obvious).
So Scottish PRT might not buy all the goodies that the Scots imagine.

What do you mean by spending? I presume government spending, not consumer spending. Which government is doing the spending? The UK government or local authorities? If the UK government there could be reasons to spend more in Scotland at a particular point in time - such as oil development. I think your figures are too coarse and general to draw conclusions.

I don't believe apporoximate figures, made up figures or no figures at all have ever prevented Hobes from drawing some fairly significant conclusions.

Actually these are correct

I didn't say they were not correct. I said they were too general to draw conclusions from.

[Hoboh]

In the spirit of trying to shed some light on the subject of subsidies here are some numbers that took but a few minutes to find.
The population of Scotland is 5.3 million and the population of England is 53 million. A nice and easy ratio of 1 to 10.
Spending in England for the year 2013 was 456 billion.
So we could expect that spending in Scotland would be 45.6 billion. Spending in Scotland for the year 2013 was 54 billion. So that is 8.4 billion higher than England, pro rata.
In this breakdown of UK tax revenue it would appear that petroleum revenue tax was 1.7 billion (year not obvious).
So Scottish PRT might not buy all the goodies that the Scots imagine.

What do you mean by spending? I presume government spending, not consumer spending. Which government is doing the spending? The UK government or local authorities? If the UK government there could be reasons to spend more in Scotland at a particular point in time - such as oil development. I think your figures are too coarse and general to draw conclusions.

I don't believe apporoximate figures, made up figures or no figures at all have ever prevented Hobes from drawing some fairly significant conclusions.

Actually these are correct

I didn't say they were not correct. I said they were too general to draw conclusions from.

Are you bish's brother?
What’s difficult about Scotland getting 8.4 billion more than the rest of the UK and the much vaunted oil tax contributed 1.7 billion to the treasury? not the massive UK economy depends on our OIL, Salmonds version of things!

[Montreal Wanderer]

In the spirit of trying to shed some light on the subject of subsidies here are some numbers that took but a few minutes to find.
The population of Scotland is 5.3 million and the population of England is 53 million. A nice and easy ratio of 1 to 10.
Spending in England for the year 2013 was 456 billion.
So we could expect that spending in Scotland would be 45.6 billion. Spending in Scotland for the year 2013 was 54 billion. So that is 8.4 billion higher than England, pro rata.
In this breakdown of UK tax revenue it would appear that petroleum revenue tax was 1.7 billion (year not obvious).
So Scottish PRT might not buy all the goodies that the Scots imagine.

What do you mean by spending? I presume government spending, not consumer spending. Which government is doing the spending? The UK government or local authorities? If the UK government there could be reasons to spend more in Scotland at a particular point in time - such as oil development. I think your figures are too coarse and general to draw conclusions.

Actually these are correct

I didn't say they were not correct. I said they were too general to draw conclusions from.

Are you bish's brother?
What’s difficult about Scotland getting 8.4 billion more than the rest of the UK and the much vaunted oil tax contributed 1.7 billion to the treasury? not the massive UK economy depends on our OIL, Salmonds version of things!

It might depend what it was spent on. Furthermore, in any country a central government is likely to spend more per capita in regions which economically produce less. Why not give us the reason for spending more per capita.

[Hoboh]

Sweetners to be in the 'Union', because of the amount of Scottish mp's, because they have the worst health in the Uk, how would I know
Listen to the yes mob and its all bull or better still all fur coat and no knickers!

[KeyserSoze]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-28943041" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

good luck with that.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-28943041

good luck with that.

So, the SNP are arrogant enough to have decided they will be the government and be deciding everything in the event of a yes? Surely an election would appropriate?

[TANGODANCER]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-28943041

good luck with that.

So, the SNP are arrogant enough to have decided they will be the government and be deciding everything in the event of a yes? Surely an election would appropriate?

Make that the S.N.P "government" A.T. National pride (as I was informed on Saturday by a Scot, a good friend) runs very deep. The occasion wasn't right for exploring the topic, but how much does national pride take into account the reality of it all? I'd imagine a fair percentage of Scots are much like us ( or at least me) where politics are involved, with but a basic knowledge. Willie Wallace and co had a case for their independence back in the blue face-paint days, but we're a long way past that now. Salmond and co seem more worried about joining Wallace, Bruce and Rob Roy McGregor in the history books as Scottish national heroes than moving forward as part of an island nation that is Britain. My own limited knowledge of politics sees it that way anyway?

[jaffka]

Not good at the moment, the independence lot are apparently ahead.

I hope that the jocks see sense in September.

[Jakerbeef]

Far be it for me to be facetious (heh) but you guys do like us Scottish folk right?

I mean on the whole.