This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- MA English Literature at St Andrews
- Introducing an Eelam flag emoticon on TSR
- Cambridge CS chances
- Modern Studies Higher
- Edinburgh vs Durham
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- how to study for national 5 English
- Calling All Scottish Students!!
- Realistically, do I have a shot of getting into vet med?
- Dentistry Backups?
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- Should I do a nursing college course in S5?
- dentistry
- missing school
- PhD Funding Scottish History/Museums
- Humza Yousaf: I won't resign and I'll fight and win no-confidence votes
- I feel like dropping out sometimes
- University Admissions Advice
- Is it bad that I DON'T want to be an 'independent woman'?
- Official University of Glasgow Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by cowsforsale
"From GERS we know that in 2010-11 the total budget attributed to Scotland by Westminster (ie both the Scottish block grant and the money spent by London “on Scotland’s behalf”) was just under £64 billion, including all debt repayment and other costs. The total tax revenue raised in Scotland over the same period when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included was £53 billion, which left Scotland with an estimated net fiscal balance deficit of £10.7 billion (or 7.4% of GDP).
In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue was a deficit of £136 billion (or 9.2% of GDP). This means that Scotland pays for itself better than the UK as a whole.
But it has an extra burden to carry too. Scotland was allocated a share of that UK deficit, which was added to the nation’s debt balance, on a per-capita basis rather than being related to Scotland’s own finances. The per-capita share amounted to £11.4 billion, whereas as we’ve seen the actual Scottish deficit was £10.7 billion. In other words, £730 million that was not spent by or on Scotland has been added to our share of the UK’s crippling debt, in just one year.
This is an invisible annual subsidy by Scotland to the rest of the UK. It’s a bit like going out to lunch with your friend and getting a £9 main course, while your friend gets one that costs £11. When the bill comes your friend insists you split the bill at £10 each, thereby charging YOU £1 for the meal THEY ate." - Link
"Scotland paid £27bn more than was received in public spending, they suggest that the actual figure was nearer to £31bn" - Link
This is also a good read. Notice how everything is kept on the hush hush?? Scotland could have been as prosperous as Switzerland
In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue was a deficit of £136 billion (or 9.2% of GDP). This means that Scotland pays for itself better than the UK as a whole.
But it has an extra burden to carry too. Scotland was allocated a share of that UK deficit, which was added to the nation’s debt balance, on a per-capita basis rather than being related to Scotland’s own finances. The per-capita share amounted to £11.4 billion, whereas as we’ve seen the actual Scottish deficit was £10.7 billion. In other words, £730 million that was not spent by or on Scotland has been added to our share of the UK’s crippling debt, in just one year.
This is an invisible annual subsidy by Scotland to the rest of the UK. It’s a bit like going out to lunch with your friend and getting a £9 main course, while your friend gets one that costs £11. When the bill comes your friend insists you split the bill at £10 each, thereby charging YOU £1 for the meal THEY ate." - Link
"Scotland paid £27bn more than was received in public spending, they suggest that the actual figure was nearer to £31bn" - Link
This is also a good read. Notice how everything is kept on the hush hush?? Scotland could have been as prosperous as Switzerland
I agree 100% with this.
Original post by L i b
Er, we do, that's EU law. And as for your "live and work" thing, that is factually wrong - it has nothing to do with working status.
What the Scottish Government wants to do is uniquely discriminate against students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Our closest neighbours. A Bulgarian or Maltese student would be entitled to free tuition in Scotland, not not one from across the North Channel in Larne.
What the Scottish Government wants to do is uniquely discriminate against students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Our closest neighbours. A Bulgarian or Maltese student would be entitled to free tuition in Scotland, not not one from across the North Channel in Larne.
Why should they get free tuition fees? They don't live and work here. For example, if I went to study elsewhere but Scotland, where I live and work, I would expect to have to pay for that tuition from my own pocket. Students have to follow the way the system works. Just like when you, for example, apply for a job. You have to accept that you don't always get your own way. You have a pariochial attitude. Unfortunately in this world, we have to accept the realities of the way things are, and this is one of them. I am sorry if that does not work for you, but that is my position, and I stand by it, just like you stand by your position.
Original post by L i b
So you now admit you were wrong to suggest the level of public spending had anything whatsoever to do with the Scottish Government?
I don't follow your point here.
Original post by cowsforsale
In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue was a deficit of £136 billion (or 9.2% of GDP). This means that Scotland pays for itself better than the UK as a whole.
So in other words, the UK Government spends £7 billion more on Scotland than it raises in tax, and you're complaining about it?
But it has an extra burden to carry too. Scotland was allocated a share of that UK deficit
By whom? Where?
This is an invisible annual subsidy by Scotland to the rest of the UK.
No it's not. It's getting £7bn extra sent up here from London. It's getting £1,600 spend on every person in Scotland more than what they get in England.
It’s a bit like going out to lunch with your friend and getting a £9 main course, while your friend gets one that costs £11. When the bill comes your friend insists you split the bill at £10 each, thereby charging YOU £1 for the meal THEY ate."
No it isn't. (On an off-topic note, who would be cheap enough not to split such a bill down the middle?)
Plus, I remind you, the whole point of taxation is to be broadly redistributive. It doesn't matter how much revenue Scotland brings in - that should be utterly irrelevant to how much it gets in public spending.
This is also a good read. Notice how everything is kept on the hush hush?? Scotland could have been as prosperous as Switzerland
It's a lot of crap. Every single estimate and statistic on North Sea oil yields were in the public domain. In point of fact, in 1975 these public figures were actually overly optimistic - actual yields were lower. Nothing was remotely "hush hush".
Original post by L i b
So in other words, the UK Government spends £7 billion more on Scotland than it raises in tax, and you're complaining about it?
The point is that the deficit is far, far lower than the current deficit of the Westminster Government. £7billion is enormously lower than £121billion (or thereabouts).
Original post by Midlander
What do you think of the SNP proposal to discriminate against RUK students in an independent Scotland in defiance of EU law?
What do you think of the SNP proposal to discriminate against RUK students in an independent Scotland in defiance of EU law?
In defiance of EU law?
"Would charging students from the rest of the UK tuition
fees in an independent Scotland be compatible with EU
law?
We believe that the unique and unprecedented position of a
post-independent Scotland will enable us to continue our
current policy in a way which is consistent with the principles
of free movement across the EU as a whole and which is
compatible with EU requirements."
fees in an independent Scotland be compatible with EU
law?
We believe that the unique and unprecedented position of a
post-independent Scotland will enable us to continue our
current policy in a way which is consistent with the principles
of free movement across the EU as a whole and which is
compatible with EU requirements."
Note "we believe" (in other words, their interpretations of the law). They could probably have gotten a definite answer had the rUK bothered to get advice from Brussels directly - which Scotland can't.
"Will students from parts of the EU other than the rest
of the UK pay tuition fees?
Students from other parts of the EU have the same right
of access to education as home students. This means EU
applicants are considered for entry on the same academic basis
as home students and pay the same. This will remain the case
with independence. "
of the UK pay tuition fees?
Students from other parts of the EU have the same right
of access to education as home students. This means EU
applicants are considered for entry on the same academic basis
as home students and pay the same. This will remain the case
with independence. "
What's to stop the government from charging everyone but offering bursary to Scottish residents?
Anyway, all of this stuff is pure waffle. The topic is all about the referendum afterall, not about what SNP will or will not apply if they are in power.
Also, the Scottish Tories have three times as many MSPs as the Lib Dems. I thought Scotland was full of socially aware Good Samaritans and all the evil Tories lived 'doon sooth'?
I'm just as confused. I thought all of us kilt-wearing, haggis-eating, Anglophobic thugs would all vote SNP.By the way, if you do go to Sturgeon's talk, please take a camera with you. It'd be a shame if all of that Anglophobic abuse goes amiss.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Choo.choo
Why should they get free tuition fees? They don't live and work here. For example, if I went to study elsewhere but Scotland, where I live and work, I would expect to have to pay for that tuition from my own pocket. Students have to follow the way the system works. Just like when you, for example, apply for a job. You have to accept that you don't always get your own way. You have a pariochial attitude. Unfortunately in this world, we have to accept the realities of the way things are, and this is one of them. I am sorry if that does not work for you, but that is my position, and I stand by it, just like you stand by your position.
That's because of EU law. Ask the Scottish Government why they want to apply that.
If you support the position of the Scottish Government, I am arguing that you are discriminating against people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If you apply for a job, you don't get discriminated against on the basis of nationality.
I don't follow your point here.
You said "Spending is higher north of the border because of protection of the NHS and so on from devolved powers in the Scottish parliament". When I pointed out that was entirely wrong, you quite properly contradicted it by acknowledging that spending levels in Scotland are set by the UK Government and have nothing to do with the Scottish Government.
I assume you now recognise your original assertion was entirely false?
Original post by L i b
That's because of EU law. Ask the Scottish Government why they want to apply that.
If you support the position of the Scottish Government, I am arguing that you are discriminating against people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If you apply for a job, you don't get discriminated against on the basis of nationality.
You said "Spending is higher north of the border because of protection of the NHS and so on from devolved powers in the Scottish parliament". When I pointed out that was entirely wrong, you quite properly contradicted it by acknowledging that spending levels in Scotland are set by the UK Government and have nothing to do with the Scottish Government.
I assume you now recognise your original assertion was entirely false?
If you support the position of the Scottish Government, I am arguing that you are discriminating against people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If you apply for a job, you don't get discriminated against on the basis of nationality.
You said "Spending is higher north of the border because of protection of the NHS and so on from devolved powers in the Scottish parliament". When I pointed out that was entirely wrong, you quite properly contradicted it by acknowledging that spending levels in Scotland are set by the UK Government and have nothing to do with the Scottish Government.
I assume you now recognise your original assertion was entirely false?
One more time. The UK Government give the Scottish Parliament a block grant. The Scottish Parliament then makes decisions on how that money is spent. It is not rocket science.
"Convergence uplift payments are designed to level the playing field between EU member states by benefiting those parts of Europe with the lowest per hectare payment rates.
However, Defra decided to withhold the full fund from Scotland and share it pro rata across the four nations of the UK. This is despite the fact the UK only qualified for the support fund because of Scotland’s low per hectare payment rates. "
Better Together?
However, Defra decided to withhold the full fund from Scotland and share it pro rata across the four nations of the UK. This is despite the fact the UK only qualified for the support fund because of Scotland’s low per hectare payment rates. "
Better Together?
Original post by cowsforsale
The European Commission has already clearly stated its position many times and through many officials, from the President of the Commission downwards, on issues pertaining to Scottish independence. The Scottish Government rejects their view, preferring to make stuff up.
What's to stop the government from charging everyone but offering bursary to Scottish residents?
Anyway, all of this stuff is pure waffle. The topic is all about the referendum afterall, not about what SNP will or will not apply if they are in power.
Anyway, all of this stuff is pure waffle. The topic is all about the referendum afterall, not about what SNP will or will not apply if they are in power.
That's exactly what it's about. People have legitimate reasons to question why people want Scottish independence and what a separate Scotland would look like.
As for your question - it quite obviously falls into the exact same legal situation. You cannot discriminate against citizens from other EU countries.
Original post by L i b
That's because of EU law. Ask the Scottish Government why they want to apply that.
If you support the position of the Scottish Government, I am arguing that you are discriminating against people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If you apply for a job, you don't get discriminated against on the basis of nationality.
If you support the position of the Scottish Government, I am arguing that you are discriminating against people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If you apply for a job, you don't get discriminated against on the basis of nationality.
It is true that employers don't discriminate on nationality, but you, as a student, or any other student, has to accept the reality of the way the system works. Take the Scottish Government to court, if you disagree with that decision. I do not know the viewpoint of other Scottish parties on tuition fees. If the SNP lose the 2016 election, the party that wins might not offer free tuition fees to anyone. It is something that the SNP believe to be important, i.e. education.
Original post by Choo.choo
The point is that the deficit is far, far lower than the current deficit of the Westminster Government. £7billion is enormously lower than £121billion (or thereabouts).
Believe it or not, but Scotland only has a fraction of the population of the UK...
Original post by L i b
You cannot discriminate against citizens from other EU countries.
Yes you can.
Original post by Choo.choo
One more time. The UK Government give the Scottish Parliament a block grant. The Scottish Parliament then makes decisions on how that money is spent. It is not rocket science.
No, it isn't. So you presumably then admit that your assertion that I've now quoted back at you several times was, in fact, entirely wrong?
Because it was. I know it. Virtually everyone else here knows it. We're just waiting to see how long it takes for you to acknowledge when you say something which is completely inaccurate and misleading. It's already been quite a while...
Original post by L i b
Believe it or not, but Scotland only has a fraction of the population of the UK...
I should add that it will take less time to pay down a deficit of £7billion, than a deficit of £121 billion. The power of independence lies in being able to make decisions to grow the economy, in other words, plugging holes in over spending.
Original post by cowsforsale
"Convergence uplift payments are designed to level the playing field between EU member states by benefiting those parts of Europe with the lowest per hectare payment rates.
However, Defra decided to withhold the full fund from Scotland and share it pro rata across the four nations of the UK. This is despite the fact the UK only qualified for the support fund because of Scotland’s low per hectare payment rates. "
Better Together?
However, Defra decided to withhold the full fund from Scotland and share it pro rata across the four nations of the UK. This is despite the fact the UK only qualified for the support fund because of Scotland’s low per hectare payment rates. "
Better Together?
Really? Will we be getting complaints about the price of stamps next?
Why are we even subsidising farmers in the first place?
Original post by Choo.choo
Yes you can.
That is EU law. If you don't agree with it, you can't be in the EU.
Original post by L i b
No, it isn't. So you presumably then admit that your assertion that I've now quoted back at you several times was, in fact, entirely wrong?
Because it was. I know it. Virtually everyone else here knows it. We're just waiting to see how long it takes for you to acknowledge when you say something which is completely inaccurate and misleading. It's already been quite a while...
Because it was. I know it. Virtually everyone else here knows it. We're just waiting to see how long it takes for you to acknowledge when you say something which is completely inaccurate and misleading. It's already been quite a while...
Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? The Barnett formula is used to calculate Scotland's budget for spending. The Scottish Government make decisions on how to spend the block grant they get from Westminster.
Original post by Choo.choo
I should add that it will take less time to pay down a deficit of £7billion, than a deficit of £121 billion. The power of independence lies in being able to make decisions to grow the economy, in other words, plugging holes in over spending.
No it won't, when your national economy then shrinks to about 8% of the size.
Original post by Choo.choo
Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? The Barnett formula is used to calculate Scotland's budget for spending. The Scottish Government make decisions on how to spend the block grant they get from Westminster.
Both are facts. Neither of which makes any difference to the fact that your statement - "Spending is higher north of the border because of protection of the NHS and so on from devolved powers in the Scottish parliament" - was entirely false. When are you going to admit that?
I've now asked you, what, four times? If you cannot admit a clearly wrong statement is wrong, why on earth should anyone trust you to yield to any other facts?
Original post by L i b
That is EU law. If you don't agree with it, you can't be in the EU.
That is EU law. If you don't agree with it, you can't be in the EU.
Show me where it says that the Scottish Government are discriminating against students on tuition fees. That is the case right now. Scottish students, who live and work in Scotland, get tuition free. Those who don't live and work here have to pay. Scotland is in the EU just now. Why is it not discriminatory right now, but will be if Scotland becomes an independent country?
Original post by L i b
Both are facts. Neither of which makes any difference to the fact that your statement - "Spending is higher north of the border because of protection of the NHS and so on from devolved powers in the Scottish parliament" - was entirely false. When are you going to admit that?
I've now asked you, what, four times? If you cannot admit a clearly wrong statement is wrong, why on earth should anyone trust you to yield to any other facts?
I've now asked you, what, four times? If you cannot admit a clearly wrong statement is wrong, why on earth should anyone trust you to yield to any other facts?
It is fact that spending is higher north of the border than in England, because devolved powers are protecting Scotland from assets which the UK Government could privatise. The UK Government are already pressing ahead with privatisation of the NHS south of the border, but it is still in public hands in Scotland. Because the NHS has not been privatised in Scotland, as just one example, public spending is higher.
Related discussions
- MA English Literature at St Andrews
- Introducing an Eelam flag emoticon on TSR
- Cambridge CS chances
- Modern Studies Higher
- Edinburgh vs Durham
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- how to study for national 5 English
- Calling All Scottish Students!!
- Realistically, do I have a shot of getting into vet med?
- Dentistry Backups?
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- Should I do a nursing college course in S5?
- dentistry
- missing school
- PhD Funding Scottish History/Museums
- Humza Yousaf: I won't resign and I'll fight and win no-confidence votes
- I feel like dropping out sometimes
- University Admissions Advice
- Is it bad that I DON'T want to be an 'independent woman'?
- Official University of Glasgow Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
