Off topic thread (to the tower)

[Churchill]

Rubbish Churchill. London has been generating wealth since the days of Bodicca and possibly before.

I stated that I know our history which included Boadicea she actually attacked and destroyed Roman Colchester and what is now called London the fact remains that what is now called London was a viable centre of trade back then as it is still is

[Thomas]

some voters still don't really know what the "Barnett Formula" is or how it works, so it seemed worth putting together a concise step-by-step guide to how it'll be used to steal billions of pounds from Scots, should they vote next month to leave control of their affairs with Westminster.





1. The Barnett Formula is the system used to decide the size of the "block grant" sent every year from London to the Scottish Government to run devolved services. It's currently a little over £26bn, and being reduced annually under the coalition's austerity programme.



A poll conducted by the Sun in February this year found that only 13% of English people agreed with the (loaded) proposition that "It's worth continuing to give Scotland a higher proportion of public spending to keep it in the UK", with 60% opposed.



2. The reality is that the subsidy is in the other direction – Scottish tax receipts, thanks largely to North Sea oil, more than pay for the higher spending provided by Barnett. Impartial UK research organisation FullFact calculated that over the last three decades the subsidy from Scotland to London has been of the order of billions of pounds every year:



"If we look at how Scotland's total tax receipts since 1980 compare with the UK's, we can see that Scotland has contributed – as Mr Salmond notes – a surplus £222 billion in today's prices."



(The only way of manipulating figures so that Scotland seems to get more back than it pays in is to attribute oil revenue to the entire UK rather than Scotland, ie cheating.

[/i][/b])

"In every single one of the last 30 years, the amount of tax revenues generated per person in Scotland was greater than for the UK as a whole.

[/u][/b]



https://fullfact.org/economy/do-scots-contribute-more-taxes-rest-uk-13582/">https://fullfact.org/economy/do-scots-c ... -uk-13582/">https://fullfact.org/economy/do-scots-contribute-more-taxes-rest-uk-13582/





https://wingsoverscotland.com/how-scotland-will-be-robbed/">https://wingsoverscotland.com/how-scotl ... be-robbed/">https://wingsoverscotland.com/how-scotland-will-be-robbed/

[Thomas]

Really you would want that for a country that has contributed so much to the UK?well it might be your fantasy but it won't be happening and why would anyone wish to see our very near neighbours who have contributed so much suffer that way?



As already stated you know nothing and each further post you make only confirms that.

cromwell alf is just having a wee wind up.



We did all the barnett formula stuff before , when i showed him how with 8.2% of the uk population we contribute 9.6% of revenue without mineral wealth but only get 9.4% of spending and he ran away.



I even showed that you tube interview of the guy on the bbc saying the scottish economy was worth circa £200 billion to the uk , and scotands block grant in only a mere £34.25 billion.Now he is back spouting off the same rubbish as before.



Has he mentioned euthanasia recently? ::



In the upside down world of alf garnetstan , 200 is smaller than 34 and 9.4 greater than 9.6.



wind up merchant , have a laugh at him.

[cromwell]

I am confused here, honestly. The UK would be better off without Scotland, and it would appear Scotland would rather be ruled by the EU than parliament. I honestly think the referendum should be held in England to determine whether or not we want to continue subsiding Scotland, rather than Scotland wanting to leave.  I don't think that people in Scotland appreciate how peeved the English are that the Barnett formula directs so much money per head to Scotland compared to England, and as such they get free further education, and free prescriptions etc etc, albeit their deficit indicates they can't actually afford such luxuries. As well as this, the voting system gives Scotland a disproportionate amount of constituencies taking into account the population, and this in turn gives them far to much power in parliament.



I would love to see Scotland have their Independence, and I would then take great pleasure watching them become Italy or Greece.

Really you would want that for a country that has contributed so much to the UK?well it might be your fantasy but it won't be happening and why would anyone wish to see our very near neighbours who have contributed so much suffer that way?



As already stated you know nothing and each further post you make only confirms that.

[Thomas]

I would love to see Scotland have their Independence, and I would then take great pleasure watching them become Italy or Greece.

England - we would love to see scotland have its independence.



Scotland - can we hold a referendum then and you agree to honour the result through a section 30?



England - No! No no no! :roll:  ::  ::

[Thomas]

I am confused here, honestly. The UK would be better off without Scotland, and it would appear Scotland would rather be ruled by the EU than parliament. I honestly think the referendum should be held in England to determine whether or not we want to continue subsiding Scotland, rather than Scotland wanting to leave.  I don't think that people in Scotland appreciate how peeved the English are that the Barnett formula directs so much money per head to Scotland compared to England, and as such they get free further education, and free prescriptions etc etc, albeit their deficit indicates they can't actually afford such luxuries. As well as this, the voting system gives Scotland a disproportionate amount of constituencies taking into account the population, and this in turn gives them far to much power in parliament.



I would love to see Scotland have their Independence, and I would then take great pleasure watching them become Italy or Greece.

well taking a wild stab in the dark here alf ,i know my eyes are a wee bit better than yours ,  but according to that map the scottish central belt  , the northe east  of scotland, and in england cheshire and the welsh/english marches for example are generating as much wealth as southern england , yet they are among the poorest households in the uk.



So the question becomes then where is all their money going?



..and dinnae keep talking about holding a referendum to end the uk , go out and do it and stop making yourself look silly spouting empty rhetoric.

[Wiggles]

I am confused here, honestly. The UK would be better off without Scotland, and it would appear Scotland would rather be ruled by the EU than parliament. I honestly think the referendum should be held in England to determine whether or not we want to continue subsiding Scotland, rather than Scotland wanting to leave.  I don't think that people in Scotland appreciate how peeved the English are that the Barnett formula directs so much money per head to Scotland compared to England, and as such they get free further education, and free prescriptions etc etc, albeit their deficit indicates they can't actually afford such luxuries. As well as this, the voting system gives Scotland a disproportionate amount of constituencies taking into account the population, and this in turn gives them far to much power in parliament.



I would love to see Scotland have their Independence, and I would then take great pleasure watching them become Italy or Greece.

[Thomas]

I cant take all this shite seriously neither i can . I have lost count of the number of times on the old forum we did this london the centre of the universe shite to death.



i mean it isnt even about scotland , there must be nothing more fullfilling than some scouser geordie or manc having some snotty nosed cockney look down his nose from his high flat ghetto and tell them in a superior and condescending tone he is worthless without london.



it really is laughable shite.



We had graphics like this show where the poorest and richest areas of the uk are currently...



https://www.businessforscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Big-Wealth-Gap.jpg">



and then ones like this showing where all the wealth is being generated...



https://www.businessforscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Screen-Shot-2013-06-19-at-23.53.20.png">



and you can see from the disparity in the two london and the south is draining away all the wealth the rest generate.



we had had many think tanks across the uk , like the jimmy reid foundation among many others point out the wealth drain from the uk economy into london and south east england.



...but london is entitled to it according to del boy and churchill because thats the normal state of affairs since the dawn of mankind. ::  ::  ::

[Thomas]

Rubbish Churchill. London has been generating wealth since the days of Bodicca and possibly before.

Much longer than that borkie , i think it goes back to the hunter gatherers days when cheddar man  laundered his money through the square mile and built stonehenge with the proceeds of his dirty cash transactions , and the rest they say is history.

[Borchester]

London becuase of its geographical situation has been generating wealth since the days of the Vikings ,

Rubbish Churchill. London has been generating wealth since the days of Bodicca and possibly before.

[Thomas]

No my opinion on your behaviour towards me and my fellow English men and women some would call it racism ,

oh ok.  ::



Change is difficult churchy especially for the auld. Thats wether its looking back at change or forward , the idea that once upon a time or in the future the world as they know it wasnt the norm is a shock to their system.



We have the same problem in scotlandshire to be honest too. There is a widely held opinion that edinburgh is and always was the centre of the scottish universe , and it is no more true than the english equivalent about london.



Same auld geographic nonsense and myths get trotted out all the time as well.



Come as a big shock when they find out edinburgh was of little or no importance till this wee guy called david decided to stop the then scottish economies favourite pastime of raping and looting england , and set up merchant burghs in the south east of the country to trade with europe.



Theres even an auld saying in edinburgh musselburgh was a burgh before edinburgh was , and it comes as an even greater shock when they realise edinburgh only became the capital in recent centuries.



oh by the way if you feel my posts are racist , feel free to contact the mods on the offending post and they will ban me.



sorry if you feel that way , but i still say you are talking shite old son over trade and history and londons long term historical importance.

[Churchill]

No my opinion on your behaviour towards me and my fellow English men and women some would call it racism ,

[Thomas]

I have been patient enough with you good manners are wasted on you



Just more or your arrogance and hatred of the English but what else is new, I am not going down to you level, I don't hate the Scots I just don't like most of the ones I have met or had to work alongside of over the years becuase of their aggressive arrogant nature.

sorry churchill but surely this is nothing but a diversion away from the subject?



Correcting your flawed theories on trade and history is hatred of the english and bad manners? ::

My ancestors came to these shores in long ships for land as well as precious metals , they sailed or rowed up the major rivers right across what is now called Great Britain or the UK building settlements from which they traded.

similar to the ancestors of practically all mankind. Not sure what your point is except to go off at a tangent onto an irrelevance to our discussion?

East Coast West Coast Isle of Man Ireland South Coast the Long Ships came the Thames gave them a natural large tidal harbour which was narrow enough to link up with the land South of what later became London which gave them easy routes to Europe and much farther a field, no different to Liverpool and other ports just closer to Europe.

Right but the oldest myths and legends of humans in these islands show the original people as far back as scholastic research can penetrate came to these islands from iberia , to our south west. They sailed up the west coasts , not up the thames so what are you talking about?



Have you never heard the myths of the milesians as the ancestors of the original celts , of the legend of the two spanish brothers who had a race to see who could reach these islands first along the west coast?



History didnt start with the vikings sailing up the thames churchy , the vikings sailed across the north seas and the first place they attacked was north east england , not london.



The anglo saxons wouldnt even live in london after the romans left it was of such little importance to them .

I know my countries history Boadicea, Romans and Normans thank you

You dont appear to mate judging by what you wrote.

[Churchill]

absolute rubbish churchill , so it is. Thats ladybird book of english history stuff right there si it is.



The original trade routes as far back as scholastic research can penetrate was in the west of these islands.



What brought the romans here was the tin trade , tin being a major component in bronze , and cornwall in the south west being one of the few places in europe to produce tin.



The western sea routes  , the sea being the ancient motorways , were the main trade routes .



For centuries the 20 mile stretch of water between england and the continent was a no go area for trade due to the wars between england and france , , london was of little importance between the going of the romans until 6oo years later it became the new capital of england under the normans  , replacing winchester , when it became the administrative capital of england .



The angevins ran england from western france , and the trade route and closest route they used was along again the west coasts.



The idea a sea going nation , that built its economy and empire on the back of its navy , needed a narrow stretch of water to trade with the continent in the south east of england is laughable.



You are making brexiters look silly , why is the usa , that is of course thousands of miles to your west , englands biggest trading partner if geographical closeness is important in trade?

I have been patient enough with you good manners are wasted on you



Just more or your arrogance and hatred of the English but what else is new, I am not going down to you level, I don't hate the Scots I just don't like most of the ones I have met or had to work alongside of over the years becuase of their aggressive arrogant nature.



You may not want to part of the Union but that is your problem the blame lays with your ancestors who took the English gold after the failed Panama venture because Scotland was skint



My ancestors came to these shores in long ships for land as well as precious metals , they sailed or rowed up the major rivers right across what is now called Great Britain or the UK building settlements from which they traded.



East Coast West Coast Isle of Man Ireland South Coast the Long Ships came the Thames gave them a natural large tidal harbour which was narrow enough to link up with the land South of what later became London which gave them easy routes to Europe and much farther a field, no different to Liverpool and other ports just closer to Europe.



I know my countries history Boadicea, Romans and Normans thank you , I also know London is still the Financial Power house of the UK to this day which you as well as I benefit from.

[Thomas]

London becuase of its geographical situation has been generating wealth since the days of the Vikings , not just through banking but because also because of its industrial muscle, Finance raised in London helped build and create our Industrial Revolution right across the UK.

absolute rubbish churchill , so it is. Thats ladybird book of english history stuff right there si it is.



The original trade routes as far back as scholastic research can penetrate was in the west of these islands.



What brought the romans here was the tin trade , tin being a major component in bronze , and cornwall in the south west being one of the few places in europe to produce tin.



The western sea routes  , the sea being the ancient motorways , were the main trade routes .



For centuries the 20 mile stretch of water between england and the continent was a no go area for trade due to the wars between england and france , , london was of little importance between the going of the romans until 6oo years later it became the new capital of england under the normans  , replacing winchester , when it became the administrative capital of england .



The angevins ran england from western france , and the trade route and closest route they used was along again the west coasts.



The idea a sea going nation , that built its economy and empire on the back of its navy , needed a narrow stretch of water to trade with the continent in the south east of england is laughable.



You are making brexiters look silly , why is the usa , that is of course thousands of miles to your west , englands biggest trading partner if geographical closeness is  all important in trade?