While that's certainly a deeply unpleasant right wing trope, it's become more prominent recently since to counter the SNPs claims about an independent Scotlands economy, a certain degree of exaggeration about how much Scotland gets from England was made.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
While that's certainly a deeply unpleasant right wing trope, it's become more prominent recently since to counter the SNPs claims about an independent Scotlands economy, a certain degree of exaggeration about how much Scotland gets from England was made.
Damn, that was my first mistake!
If I based it off looking at Clegg's withered face, I'd say it was Double Time!
If we all had beers at the start of the week, none of this would be a problem
Oh definitely, no doubt about that. My family in Scotland don't like the SNP, I can't say that I disagree with them. They peddle patriotism and false figures to appeal to national pride rather than sense.
CyclopsRock
Member
Here's the thing I don't get, as an American. OK, so the Scots, (in the views of the English), are self-centered asses who talk about leaving the union all the time and who are stealing English money to spend on whatever despite being an economically destitute region, for a variety of reasons.
To me, that sounds like Mississippi. Or Georgia. Or Arizona. Or one of a ton of states in the US that are net beneficiaries of federal spending because they have lots of poor people. And, yes, sometimes people whine about that, but nobody seriously attacks Mississippi or push's forth the idea that Congressman from Missisippi or Virginia shouldn't vote on matters that are about say, funding a wildlife preservation area in Colorado. I mean, even people like me who point out the disparity in federal money don't mind it, we just want Georgia to stop acting like they've built their current economy on their own bootstraps, when in reality, they're a welfare state. At least Scotland, by their support of a social democratic party, understands that.
I don't think that's how the people of England feel at all. Scotland gets more money for a hilarious archaic reason - because in the 1970's it was decided that, rather than giving out money based on need, it should be done on raw demographics - Scotland had X percent of the population, England had Y etc and it was proportioned like that - and it's never been changed. This is despite some pretty massively changing demographics which now mean that the average public spend per head in Scotland is quite a lot higher than in England. (So is their tax pay, but by less, so they have a net gain). And this has been largely ignored ever since the diversion of the demographics because in a lot of cases, Scotland needs more money - they have a less dense population so public services cost more to provide. But, unlike Georgia, Arizona etc, they don't get more money because they have more poor people (by and large they don't), they get more money because of some weird legislative anomoly from 45 years ago (and which isn't the "fault" of the Scottish people at all, it just is what it is). So then when people in England see that the Scottish government is giving students free university, giving people free prescriptions etc and see that their own tax money is paying to make it so, it's not that hard to see why they're not too impressed. If Scotland has its own tax raising powers then it'd be great - if they want to provide greater levels of public service, they can do so, but then it wouldn't be English people paying for Scottish people to get better public services. Scotland gets the government it wants, England (sort of) gets the government it wants and everyone is, if not happy, at least more likely to get what they asked for.
I completely understand that, but I have two principles when it comes to voting: no bigots and no nationalists
CyclopsRock
Member
In other news, Cam just blew his beans on stage:
I think we call all agree, whoever gets in the police are going to suffer mass cuts, I don't like that. however I love the labour idea to ditch police commissioners, our local one is a nightmare, not only has he used the maximum allowed each year on council tax increases, he has been suspended for expence issues and reinstated.... all he ever goes on about in how he wants more than the 2% each year he is allowed to increase the council tax...
good riddance to him
good riddance to him
JesseEwiak
Member
Ignoring the part where the money is determined, since I doubt the average voter of any party knows how that is figured out, but actually, I mean, that is kind of what happens in the US.
On their own, the poorer states governments couldn't do much with Medicaid. So, it led to insane requirements like a maximum income of $3000/yr to qualify for Medicaid in some states. So, what did we do, as a country? Pass a heath care reform, where we took more in Medicare taxes from everybody, and then send the money to all the states so they all could make sure everybody up to a certain percentage of the poverty level in all states could get Medicaid. Now, just by the very nature of where the money is, that means money from taxpayers in California, New York, and Washington, likely help pay for better public services for people in Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama.
And guess what, nobody in those larger states are saying, "we don't want people in Alabama to get better public services with our money." Sure, there's people who opposed health care reform in total, but now, even conservatives are telling the various states, this isn't going to be repealed anytime soon, so take the money to expand your Medicaid program, because it's right there for you.
I mean, personally, I wasn't pissed that Vermont was going to get a waiver to use federal funds to possibly start up a single payer program. I was jealous that there was a state willing to help their own people.
QuicheFontaine
Member
PJV3
Member
Lol.
The enthusiasm in the crowd is infectious.
"do you want to hear about nothing but the EU for two years?"
CyclopsRock
Member
I understand, but that's not what's happening here. No one cares if Hospitals cost more to run in Scotland because their population density is lower, or that policing costs more in Glasgow because of sectarian football riots, or that their love of all things deep fried means they need 15 Emergency Heart Units compared to Wales and England. What people have a problem with is when people in England are paying so that people in Scotland have better public services than they themselves do - the UK government has made various cuts (the two examples I gave - free university education and free prescription medication - are both things that used to be free in the whole UK but aren't any more as cost saving measures) and the elected representatives of Scotland haven't. That's fine, there's no point devolving responsibility if you're not going to make any changes with it.
But the difference is pretty simple, IMO - funding to different parts of the country should be with a goal of equalising services. If Scotland needs more money, the South East of England needs less, the post-industrial North East needs more etc, that's fine. This is the equivalent of your medicare example. Spend different amounts in different areas if different ares need different amounts. If, however, the voters of Scotland elect a government in the Scottish Parliament that wants to offer better services to the people of Scotland - like free education and prescriptions - then it shouldn't be the rest of the UK that pays for it. Right now, though, the people of Scotland don't have that choice because the Scottish Parliament has no tax raising powers. That's why giving tax raising powers and maintaining this system of funding which has absolutely nothing to do with actual need, is silly and works out poorly for England.
I completely understand that, but I have two principles when it comes to voting: no bigots and no nationalists
All political parties (well except a few old school socialist parties) are nationalist. Fuck the Conservatives use a union jack as a backdrop whenever they get the chance. You just don't like certain forms of nationalism.
I would argue that the Greens aren't nationalist.
Scottish Greens wanted independence. The Green party of England and Wales supported them.
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/...eens-across-europe-show-support-for-yes-vote/
electionsetc are the most Tory leaning predictor a clear mile. I think he factors in a 2% swingback to the Tories on top of current polling.
And getting the Lib Dems and DUP on the same platform will be like herding cats.
never head of them, just saw it on the BBC
Spuck-uk
Banned
97% UKIP makes you at least 80% BNP by association...
I think the moment I put I wanted out if Europe it assigned me like 95% to UKIP
though this might help
Probably quite realistic. The incumbent normally gets a late swingback. The Tories really won't want to rely on the DUP though. An utterly hideous party.
Swingback normally happens before now, it's a process which takes time. You can't just keep adding 2% on top of whatever the polls say.
Electionsetc model is more sophisticated than that, but it also gives a large additional bonus to incumbency especially for the 2010 intake which isn't supported by anyone elses modelling. Hence it always has had the Tories near the 290 mark.
It might be right, we'll find out next week.
I don't know how you'd get much more right wing if you scored so high with UKIP. And are you really that scared of Expats (ask yourself why if we work elsewhere we get called expats, whereas if others come here to work we call them immigrants or migrant workers), the EU and those less fortunate claiming welfare?
You stated that you don't want welfare to be a lifestyle choice, but the reality is that is the case for very few people. An extreme minority. For most it's a choice or avenue because they have no other choice, because unemployment is high where they live, or because they desperately need the help. The whole point of it is that those who are more well off, offer just a tiny bit to ensure those that are far less well off, aren't crippled in to further poverty, homelessness or starvation. That is basically a tenant of any modern and fruitful society, one that is moral and forward thinking.
It's also the reason some of the most successful countries in the world in terms of living standards and wealth inequality (mostly Nordic), also all happen to be among the most liberal, with even more socialist policies, institutes and ideologies than us. Yet for some reason so many strong Right Wingers want to follow ideologies that are statistically and historically more detrimental or less successful.
CyclopsRock
Member
As with most things, it's because it's not just the methods that separate right and left, but the goals. Generally speaking the right cares more about the overall level of wealth - rising tides lifting all boats etc - rather than the differences between them. Equality of outcome isn't a goal for the right, so statistics suggesting that X policy is a good way of achieving that aren't that much use, because that's not what they want to achieve.
Also, I think people fetishise the Nordic countries a bit too much - you can't just grab random aspects of their society and policy and expect to be able to bolt them on to our country, just like you can't air-drop democracy into Iraq. Which isn't to say you can't learn things, obviously.
I appreciate that, but wealth inequality still matters, and it's impacts have been scientifically documented. The correlation between wealth inequality and social issues is evident across multiple developed countries from around the world. At the end of the day it's all a balancing act. I worry that our personal balance is veering a little too much to the right, and wealth inequality and social issues increasing as a result.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Scotland and England have only been in a single state just over 300 years and have independent histories that stretch back long before that. Most of the American states didn't join the union from a position of independence, but were created from it. There will be very few people in the United States who identify with their state before they identify with America - as in, say "I'm not American, I'm Texan!" or whatnot. In contrast, that's the majority position in all four constituent nations of the United Kingdom. This is Europe, we've been hating each other for over a thousand years and cultural memories take a long time to die.
That's more than a little patronising. Of course Labour and the Tories have a perfect record of government and have never made false claims to put them in a more favourable light in order to win an election?
The Union Jack has been all over Labour and Tory campaigning this election and Gordon Brown said scots should 'vote Labour to be true patriots' or something to that effect so the idea that this is only an SNP thing is false.
Ah small world, I used to live on Scotforth Road! That's actually pretty good to hear re: progressive Lancashire! Considering for most things it's anything but.
Watched the debates late last night as was working late. Agreed with others that it was definitely the best format and the questions weren't particularly soft at all. Had to laugh at the guy comparing the economy to having money to buy a pint. I know generally Brits measure everything in pints and their cost, but still.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Eh they didn't peddle the North Sea oil industry as a major back bone and insurance for the country, ignoring the fact it's a very old, well explored field and lot of the production drives used in the wells there were depletion drives (low long term efficiency). This is ignoring that price of oil is being driven down.
Idiots complete an utter idiots if your going to pin all your hopes on an industry you should at the very, least have the common to actually try to understand it.
No in the referendum they repeatedly said that oil wasn't the be all and end all for the Scottish Economy.
It was the No campaign that said it was.
She speaks so confidently and eloquently.
I'm still waiting for that new left party that started up in Manchester a while back to go national *grumble*.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well tbf that's because it kind of is. The only 3 years in the last 15 in which Scotland has paid more tax in the UK than it's received public spending are 3 years in which the oil tax contribution was markedly higher than the others. Averaged out over time, it meant that Scotland was a net beneficiary in terms of tax transfers. This suggests that unless the oil industry performs repeatedly in the way it did exceptionally, an independent Scotland would either have to cut spending or raise greater tax revenue just to maintain its current public spending. In this context, it's hard to see how the oil industry isn't considered pretty vital. The SNP even referred to the oil money as a "bonus" that wasn't needed, but again, this was clearly untrue except for in a handful of cherry picked years.
What party was that? I'm intrigued.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Let me ask you then what do you believe is the major contributor to Scotland's economy, keep in mind the population size and general dwindling manufacturing industry.
I think I was referring to Left Unity. TBH I don't know much about the party, and looking at its website it seems that I'm behind the times (in that it does have branches across the UK), but I remember it seeming positive and intriguing when I first read about it.
There is a genuine gap in England where Labour has vacated for there to be some sort of centre left party. The Lib Dems looked likely to fill it under Charles Kennedy...not so under Clegg. The Greens are....a little too odd. SNP/Plaid occupy that space but as nationalists many cannot or will not vote for them.
We NEED a new Labour party, one that presents a genuine choice and not just two degrees of conservatism.
We NEED a new Labour party, one that presents a genuine choice and not just two degrees of conservatism.
Thornton Reed
Member
a fantastic editorial on the Guardian on why they are supporting Labour
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/01/guardian-view-britain-needs-new-direction-needs-labour
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/01/guardian-view-britain-needs-new-direction-needs-labour
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I get really confused by posts like this. Ed Miliband's Labour party is definitely to the left of both Brown's and Blair's. That's been a struggle. He's been opposed by people within his own party and those outside of it. It's also a very risky move in electoral times like this. What kind of message does it send when, after his party attempts to move to the left, everyone fucks off and votes for the Greens? The attitude will just become "we can't win that base regardless of what we do. At least we can compete for the centre-ground" and they swing back towards where Blair was again.
Honestly, if you're into left politics, this is probably the best time to vote Labour in literally decades because it's the first time they're actually moving leftward in a very long time. Not voting them now and you just entrench the idea in the upper Labour echelons that moving leftward is a bad idea.
Parties react to incentives. You get the parties you vote for.
I do think that by the time of the next election that could happen as the power of old media will be in serious decline (it's already happening of course). Labour will be less frightened of the media and will become more left wing (nothing drastic of course).
I was about to post the exact same article, but you beat me to it. Nicely sums up the reasons why I will be voting Labour come May 7th.
They might be left of them but there's some worrying rhetoric in there about keeping their eyes on the deficit, "getting migration under control" and more.
Where's the old labour stance on letting the railways fall back into national ownership. Where's the promise to undermine the corporate control in TTIP. Now I will be voting Labour because of the fantastic local MP I have (David Winnick. He's sometimes responded personally to my emails within an hour of me sending them, and generally has interesting things to say)....but at best they've been dragged back to the centre from New Labour's Centre Right position.
CyclopsRock
Member
Just had a lovely al fresco dining experience at the pub in Clerkenwell Green and my god, I was surrounded by fucking trots. I mean OK, that is the pub where - rumour has it - Lenin first met Stalin but why were there so many PCS and Socialist Worker placards lying around?! Get out you disgusting creeps.
Edit: I may or may not be posting in this thread for the rest of the afternoon at least a bit drunk. Just FYI.
Edit: I may or may not be posting in this thread for the rest of the afternoon at least a bit drunk. Just FYI.
Psychotext
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked