# The TTF 2015 General Election



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Just for fun, an anonymous straw poll amongst forum members as to how they are voting today:


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead (Aug 14, 2011)

VOTE PEDRO!


----------



## sherry13 (Oct 8, 2013)

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead (Aug 14, 2011)

sherry13 said:


> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


A Labour poster?!? In West Hampstead!!!!!! Whatever is the neighbourhood coming to???


----------



## Lollypop86 (Oct 26, 2013)

apparently I'm a stuck up c*** for who I voted for lol and my response when someone said "voting for the rich, nice one".......i said "I am rich....lol"

J
xx


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Depends what your view of who they are appealing to really.

Saw Ed Miliband saying he wants to help working families. Me & the Mrs both work, but I get the impression he wants to screw us on tax, our rental properties, and various other bits, as we get no handouts off the state at all, never have, and if we need then doubt we'd be able to get them anyway.

Love Boris's comment earlier in the week, the leader should be be cleverest person in the room, Ed's not even the cleverest person in his family!

Let's see how it ends up, but I fear it'll be Ed supported (or dominated) by the SNP, who have already stated they only want to do things for that benefit Scotland..


----------



## paulw12 (Mar 31, 2015)

I don't mind paying more taxes to train & employ more British nurses, as opposed to employing Portugese, Spanish, Caribean nurses with job agencies making a killing.....


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I think this confirms that car forums are often a lot more right wing than the general population. I don't understand why though.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Spandex said:


> I think this confirms that car forums are often a lot more right wing than the general population. I don't understand why though.


Work hard, earn money, pay taxes, buy a nice car? Simple!

Probably less Greens on here than a bus or cycle forum as well...


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

sherry13 said:


> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


Spoiler stuck up / broken already? Probably covered under warranty so no worries


----------



## mwad (Oct 11, 2013)

Lollypop86 said:


> apparently I'm a stuck up c*** for who I voted for lol and my response when someone said "voting for the rich, nice one".......i said "I am rich....lol"
> 
> J
> xx


Lol, funny


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Shug750S said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > I think this confirms that car forums are often a lot more right wing than the general population. I don't understand why though.
> ...


A large proportion of the people on this forum (and many other equally right wing forums) are driving what most people would consider a cheap car. Not that I agree 'hard working tax payers' are more likely to be right wing either.

This is a 'car forum' thing, not a 'posh car forum' thing.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Spandex said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


Actually said nice car, not expensive, but whatever...

I bought the TT as it was reasonably priced for what I wanted at the time. Could have spent a lot more on the car but would rather spend money on property that over time increases in value, and is more of a long term asset than a car that loses 20% of it's value as soon as you drive off the forecourt and 50% or so in 3-4 years.

Plus the rent from other properties is now close on my monthly wage, so with luck early retirement approaches.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Then I'm not sure why someone who works hard, earns money, pays taxes and buys a nice car is more likely to be right wing. As I said, it seems to be a common trend on car forums and is backed up in this thread, but I don't really understand why.


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

Oh well, forum picked the winner


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

well I voted SNP .... :lol:

Jus shows. Scotland Voted OVERWHELMINGLY in favour of a left wing party where as England votes in favour of a right wing party... (Scotland is now governed by a right wing party)

to me this points to the union being rather incompatible, No mandate for any referendums etc... but if England voted to leave the EU in Camerons in out referendum and Scotland doesn't I think we will be back with another independence referendum faster than anyone anticipated.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

brian1978 said:


> well I voted SNP .... :lol:
> 
> Jus shows. Scotland Voted OVERWHELMINGLY in favour of a left wing party where as England votes in favour of a right wing party... (Scotland is now governed by a right wing party)
> 
> to me this points to the union being rather incompatible, No mandate for any referendums etc... but if England voted to leave the EU in Camerons in out referendum and Scotland doesn't I think we will be back with another independence referendum faster than anyone anticipated.


Funny how a party with only 4% of the overall vote gets nearly 10% of the seats though. Not a UKIP fan, but they got 3 times the votes as SNP and only one seat.

Possibly this is a vote by the Scots who were afraid to go it alone, but feel they may now get more if SNP have people at Westminster?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> well I voted SNP .... :lol:
> 
> Jus shows. Scotland Voted OVERWHELMINGLY in favour of a left wing party where as England votes in favour of a right wing party... (Scotland is now governed by a right wing party)
> 
> to me this points to the union being rather incompatible, No mandate for any referendums etc... but if England voted to leave the EU in Camerons in out referendum and Scotland doesn't I think we will be back with another independence referendum faster than anyone anticipated.


Do you think London should also be independent then? Labour seats actually increased there...


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

brian1978 said:


> but if England voted to leave the EU in Camerons in out referendum and Scotland doesn't I think we will be back with another independence referendum faster than anyone anticipated.


Don't think England would, surely any EU referendum would be the whole UK, not just English constituencies?

Thought in last year's Yes / No vote that the Scots had they voted to stay in the UK anyway, so all's fine?


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

brian1978 said:


> well I voted SNP .... :lol:
> 
> Jus shows. Scotland Voted OVERWHELMINGLY in favour of a left wing party.


Suppose it depends on the definition of OVERWHELMINGLY. A majority of those who voted did pick SNP, but is 1.4 million of 4.2 million eligible voters really overwhelming?

Apols for 2 posts but IT challenged, and could work out how to quote twice in same reply :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Also, it was barely the majority. Only 50% voted SNP. If some form of proportional representation was used, SNP seats would have been halved.

Counting seats makes for better PR, but you shouldn't fall into the trap of believing it's directly indicative of the mood of the nation. As much as I dislike that guffawing toff Farage, you can't pretend no one voted for the UKIPs just because they only got one seat.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Maybe there should be a move towards a different system:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

John-H said:


> Maybe there should be a move towards a different system:
> 
> http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems


Think there was actually a PR type count done on the BBC site and funnily enough if Tories & UKIP had decided to work together the outcome would have been a majority collation with about 10 seats over Labour, SNP, liberals, etc.

SNP had 1.4m votes, Lib Dems 2.4m, & UKIP 4.2m, so for the UK the SNP seem to be in about 5th place overall. Also all other parties can work in getting more seats in the future, something that is impossible for the SNP.

Maybe not PR in the future, but more evenly populated constituencies is the answer, so each elected MP has the same population eligible to vote for him / her?


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > well I voted SNP .... :lol:
> ...


in case you didn't notice....

London isnt a country.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Also, it was barely the majority. Only 50% voted SNP. If some form of proportional representation was used, SNP seats would have been halved.
> 
> Counting seats makes for better PR, but you shouldn't fall into the trap of believing it's directly indicative of the mood of the nation. As much as I dislike that guffawing toff Farage, you can't pretend no one voted for the UKIPs just because they only got one seat.


the UKIP popular vote doesn't bode well for the UKs future in Europe.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

I think its safe to assume that Scotland and the rUK are heading in different directions,


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

brian1978 said:


> I think its safe to assume that Scotland and the rUK are heading in different directions,


Agree, rUK will reduce deficit and continue to grow. Scotland, under the lefties, well..... However as we're all UK not sure how it'll be different north of the border.

Head down, await incoming


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Why is the map called "maggy-map.jpg"?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> in case you didn't notice....
> 
> London isnt a country.


I spotted that. But the point I'm making is that the perceived unfairness is an intrinsic part of democracy. There will always be areas that don't get the government they overwhelmingly voted for. Trying to use that fact to demonstrate some sort of 'incompatibility' makes little sense.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > in case you didn't notice....
> ...


yes but comparing a region of one country to a whole country isnt fair.....

imagine the shoe was on the other foot and every time Scotland voted SNP the whole of the UK was governed by them.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

John-H said:


> Why is the map called "maggy-map.jpg"?


believe it or not its because Maggie Simpson.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Shug750S said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > I think its safe to assume that Scotland and the rUK are heading in different directions,
> ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... ction.html

as we say... Aye, nae bother


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Ha! Looks like she's got her hands tied behind her back though :wink:


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Shug750S said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > but if England voted to leave the EU in Camerons in out referendum and Scotland doesn't I think we will be back with another independence referendum faster than anyone anticipated.
> ...


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/f ... ve-eu-poll

i think we will have a clause in the SNP manifesto for 2016 protecting Scotland's interests within the EU.

Nicola Sturgeon has already said one of the things that would be a mandate for another referendum would be England voting to leave while Scotland votes to stay,.

id honestly like to think that England would see walking away from the EU and the largest free trade zone on earth as madness, but when you see some polls and the rise and rise of UKIP you have to wonder.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> yes but comparing a region of one country to a whole country isnt fair.....
> 
> imagine the shoe was on the other foot and every time Scotland voted SNP the whole of the UK was governed by them.


Why's it not fair? The only difference is that London _can't_ ask for independence. The population of London is significantly higher than that of scotland and they're all stuck with a government they didn't vote for (and one they never vote for, as London is always a labour stronghold).

If the shoe was on the other foot, I'm not sure what you imagine the issue would be. More than 60% of the population of the UK (that voted) didn't vote for the current government, after all.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > yes but comparing a region of one country to a whole country isnt fair.....
> ...


id imagine the issue would be rejection.

again, Scotland is a separate country from England, the UK only ever getting whatever government England votes for is not democratic.

Tory policies are toxic to Scotland and if this country could we would never vote in a Tory leadership, thankfully we do a have a devolved parliament which takes some of the effects of Tory rule away. but not all, Brutal welfare reforms and cuts still blight us here.

but as you say, the UK is one government, I accept that. It is also the reason that I believe independence from the rUK is the best way forward for both countries.

David Cameron seems to be saying he wants to work with Scotland to create a more mutually beneficial agreement , we shall see but im not holding my breath.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

It would only be rejection if it had no basis in democracy. If, somehow, scotland had enough votes to actually install an SNP government in the UK, I don't really see any reason for it not being accepted when it occasionally happened.

As I've said, over 60% of the voting population woke up to a government they didn't vote for on Friday morning and despite probably being a bit depressed by the thought of 5 more years of Tory misery, they all seem able to accept that it's fair, if a little disappointing. That situation wouldn't suddenly be less 'fair' if that government all had Scottish accents, or called themselves the SNP. Fairness comes from the democratic process and is independent of the result.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> It would only be rejection if it had no basis in democracy. If, somehow, scotland had enough votes to actually install an SNP government in the UK, I don't really see any reason for it not being accepted when it occasionally happened.
> 
> As I've said, over 60% of the voting population woke up to a government they didn't vote for on Friday morning and despite probably being a bit depressed by the thought of 5 more years of Tory misery, they all seem able to accept that it's fair, if a little disappointing. That situation wouldn't suddenly be less 'fair' if that government all had Scottish accents, or called themselves the SNP. Fairness comes from the democratic process and is independent of the result.


ok if you say so.......

the bit about "occasionally". since WW2 only twice has the Scottish vote affected the outcome of the election, just sayin,


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I spoke to someone yesterday who complained that because they lived in an overwhelmingly Tory safe seat there was no point in them voting as their vote was wasted and their views were not therefore represented in government.

I made the point that he had the same vote which was counted as everyone elses and that at least was fair but because we have a system of electing a constituency MP there is only one winner. His gripe is that even possibly over half the votes are not therefore for the winner and wasted. In his constituency though he was actually in the minority and of little statistical significance, just as in my case I needn't use my vote in my safe seat either - difference being that many of my views would be represented despite not needing to vote. Having ones views represented is not necessarily connected to voting.

Some of our views are not represented even if we do choose the winning candidate as it's unlikely they agree with everything we do anyway and by the time they get to parliament they are not even necessarily able to enact their views because of everyone else's if they are in the minority, so again we may not be represented by the outcome. They will probably at some point be voting for things that crop up and are not even mentioned in the election campaign - there is no referendum on every issue - just a choice of candidates.

He was arguing for a system of Proportional Representation. Perhaps that, will make people feel more included in elections by having their vote apparently go towards the eventual make up of parliament from it's use outside of the constituency or by allowing more than one vote, or weighted first choice, second choice etc depending on the system.

Another point made was how so many Scottish MPs there are based on such a small percentage of the UK population. Again this is due to constituencies and the boundaries chosen. Should all MPs be backed by the same number of voters? Should MPs evenly represent people or places?

What would be the best system?


----------



## CityBoyAsh (Nov 27, 2013)

sherry13 said:


> Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


Could you have parked any closer to the kurb? Lol


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Shug750S said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe there should be a move towards a different system:
> ...


The BBC are reporting that the Electoral Reform Society have produced a comparison between our current First Past the Post system result and the same form of Proportional Representation used for European elections. Here's the resulting comparison:










http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

It's interesting that under the PR system Labour could have formed an alliance with the Liberals to outnumber the Conservatives but not with the SNP alone. It's also interesting that in such a situation the will of the Conservative voters would not be represented in decisions forced through by such an alliance - coming back to the point I made earlier; that whichever system is used there will always be voters who do not have their wishes represented. The unrepresented individuals may well be different though and a government more likely to represent a majority of elected candidates resulting from voters' wishes. Whether that also translates to the political views of the electorate, regarding policies they thought they were voting for being carried out, is perhaps a different matter as compromises will need to be made.

I think it's true to say that our present system is more likely to produce strong government but allows a party to enact extreme policies without check - which are more likely to be reversed by a successive swing the other way next time. PR on the other hand is more likely to be balanced by compromise but perhaps a less stable government when agreements break down.

Interesting times ahead over Europe and the integrity of the UK. Tory Euro-sceptics and demanders of English votes for the English are already being asked what their demands are by the media and Cameron has a majority half that of Major. How long will his smile last?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> ok if you say so.......
> 
> the bit about "occasionally". since WW2 only twice has the Scottish vote affected the outcome of the election, just sayin,


It's amazing what you can prove if you set out with an agenda before looking at the data. Shall I choose 59 English constituencies and see how often they've influenced the outcome of an election? Will it show some unfairness in the system, or will it just show that there's 650 seats, so any given 59 seat group can't exert a disproportionate influence? Should we also look at actual population per constituency? Because the hard done by Scots seem to be very well represented in parliament despite forming a relatively small percentage of the population.

You're trying to equate not getting the government you want with unfairness and I just don't buy it. It's like Farage really wanting PR instead of FPTP - it's nothing to do with the inherent fairness of either method, it's just because he knows he'd get more seats with PR. You want things a certain way - fair enough, that's up to you - but don't pretend that not getting your own way demonstrates how unfair it all is.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > ok if you say so.......
> ...


Again you using logic with the assumption that Scotland is a region of the UK not a country within it.

you will just argue till I get bored and stop posting then think you won....... So as the dragons say..... ahm oot.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

John-H said:


> I spoke to someone yesterday who complained that because they lived in an overwhelmingly Tory safe seat there was no point in them voting as their vote was wasted and their views were not therefore represented in government.
> 
> I made the point that he had the same vote which was counted as everyone elses and that at least was fair but because we have a system of electing a constituency MP there is only one winner. His gripe is that even possibly over half the votes are not therefore for the winner and wasted. In his constituency though he was actually in the minority and of little statistical significance, just as in my case I needn't use my vote in my safe seat either - difference being that many of my views would be represented despite not needing to vote. Having ones views represented is not necessarily connected to voting.
> 
> ...


I think the SNP proved that there is no such thing as a "safe seat" on Thursday. you just need the right leadership and the right message and ANY seat can fall, one of the seats the SNP took was labour for 80 years and it took a 34% swing to take it. the BBC "swing'o'meter" only went up to 30%. lol


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

regarding PR vs FPTP..........

I personally think PR is the way to go (even if it would man ukip getting 80 seats)... [smiley=bigcry.gif] [smiley=bigcry.gif] [smiley=bigcry.gif] [smiley=bigcry.gif]

the ironic thing is all the opposition to the SNP bill us as a power hungry facist group, we have been likened to just about every extremist government and group their is, From Nazis to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia its hilarious....

Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond were both portrayed by the media as power hungry megalomanias.... both Nicola and before her Alex are avid supporters of proportional representation, even though this system will see them getting LESS seats on both Scottish and UK elections.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

You are making the point that Scotland is a country so are you saying it should have an equal say to other countries in the UK i.e. all the countries should have the same number of MPs even though it's got a relatively small population? Wouldn't that be unfair for the rest of the UK (whilst and presuming we still have a UK)?

You also say you favour PR but with PR the SNP would have far less seats. Would that be fairer?

It depends whether you draw constituency boundaries based on land mass or population. Which should it be?


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

John-H said:


> You are making the point that Scotland is a country so are you saying it should have an equal say to other countries in the UK i.e. all the countries should have the same number of MPs even though it's got a relatively small population? Wouldn't that be unfair for the rest of the UK (whilst and presuming we still have a UK)?
> 
> You also say you favour PR but with PR the SNP would have far less seats. Would that be fairer?
> 
> It depends whether you draw constituency boundaries based on land mass or population. Which should it be?


yes I favour PR even though it would mean less seats for the SNP, BTW I may not vote SNP in the Scottish elections, I agree with a lot of policies but not all. if the greens were to move away from the tree hugger image I might consider them. I will have tio wait and see the manifestos put forward next year. although if the SNP do as I expect and have a clause for another referendum if we (the uk) vote to leave Europe that would be enough to secure my vote.

of course all countries cannot have the same amount of MPs, that's the way it is and it wont change, hence why I personally believe independence is best for Scotland.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Fair enough. Some are saying that the SNP are quite happy with a Conservative government as this is not what voters wanted and is a good excuse to say that the only solution is independence.

If constituencies are based as they are now, or even on population numbers, Scotland will always be in the minority in a United Kingdom - as would be any similar sized group of constituencies. We don't elect a UK government from a country level but at a constituency level so countries have nothing to do with it. That is what the more "localised" Scottish parliament was supposed to address of course.

The calls for independence has let to calls for English regional sub divided government too. I don't know where it will all end but many are said to have voted Conservative to keep the union, fearing what was said about Labour joining with the SNP but conversely this may lead to the very thing they didn't want.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

And despite what some may think, at least Cameron will try and govern the whole UK, as we all do better together, whereas sure I heard the SNP leaders saying how they were only looking after one small part of the UK, even if not in so many words.


----------



## bigdodge (Apr 22, 2012)

I cant believe no forum member voted for the SNP!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> Again you using logic with the assumption that Scotland is a region of the UK not a country within it.


It's not an assumption, I'm just trying to make the point that whether or not something is 'fair' can't change depending on whether or not you're talking about a country. If getting a government you didn't vote for is unfair, it's unfair for everyone who didn't vote for them - regardless of which side of a border,you happen to live


brian1978 said:


> you will just argue till I get bored and stop posting then think you won....... So as the dragons say..... ahm oot.


Funnily enough, from my perspective you seem to argue till I get bored. It's almost as if we're replying to each other's posts or something.. :wink:


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Trust me Spandex it's till he gets bored with you as we all do.

All one can hope is at least it gives your long suffering boy/girlfriend a break.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

jamman said:


> Trust me Spandex it's till he gets bored with you as we all do.
> 
> All one can hope is at least it gives your long suffering boy/girlfriend a break.


Four pages about the election and nothing from you, but you took the time to write that... :roll:


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Spandex said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> > Trust me Spandex it's till he gets bored with you as we all do.
> ...


You're "special"


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

John-H said:


> Fair enough. Some are saying that the SNP are quite happy with a Conservative government as this is not what voters wanted and is a good excuse to say that the only solution is independence. .


as a member of the SNP I can categorically state that this is not the case.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

The number of seats for MPs needs looking at, scotland has around 10 MPs too many and the number of peers needs more than halving. Politics in the UK costs too much.

Crankies - At least they had some credibility :lol:


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Toshiba said:


> The number of seats for MPs needs looking at, scotland has around 10 MPs too many and the number of peers needs more than halving. Politics in the UK costs too much.
> 
> Crankies - At least they had some credibility :lol:


the number of peers needs reduced to zero, how can we say this is a true democracy when unelected peers have powers in government?

also how does Scotland have 10mps too many, we have 59 out of 650mps and 9.8% of the population, ( and 1/3rd the land mass) if anything we have too few.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Look at places like Yorkshire - bigger population less MPs, pretty simple really.
scotland needs the number of MPs reducing by 10 to maintain regional balance and its only 8% btw and nothing to do with land mass! :roll:

You need two sides of the house to keep a balance.
There's only 70 or so Hereditary peer out of 780 members,.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Toshiba said:


> Look at places like Yorkshire - bigger population less MPs, pretty simple really.
> scotland needs the number of MPs reducing by 10 to maintain regional balance and its only 8% btw and nothing to do with land mass! :roll:
> 
> You need two sides of the house to keep a balance.
> There's only 70 or so Hereditary peer out of 780 members,.


yes sorry its actually 8.2% of the UK.... ( I was confusing what we contribute tax wise per head)

the proportionate amount of MPs is spot on then, if there was only 49 Scottish mps we would be under represented per head of populace.

and you do not need two sides to keep balance, the house of lords could be done away with.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

brian1978 said:


> yes sorry its actually 8.2% of the UK.... ( I was confusing what we contribute tax wise per head.


Mmm, the Institute for Fiscal Studies begs to differ Brian:

North Sea oil and gas aside, tax revenue in Scotland (£7,100 per person in 2012-13) looks much more like that in the UK as a whole (£7,300). Scots do pay £290 per year less in income tax on average, partly because incomes in Scotland are more equally distributed, with fewer of the very high-income individuals who provide such a large share of income tax revenue in the UK as a whole. But Scots contribute slightly more in VAT and in alcohol and tobacco taxes.
Unlike for Wales and Northern Ireland, these patterns were largely known already, since the Scottish government already produces estimates of Scottish revenues (the latest being for 2011-12) in Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) . In most respects HMRC have used a similar methodology and produced similar estimates to those in GERS.
In three areas, however, HMRC attributes somewhat lower revenues to Scotland than GERS does: onshore corporation tax (15%, or £0.4 billion, lower), taxes on North Sea production (12%, or £1.3 billion, lower) and stamp duty on shares (40%, or £0.1 billion, lower).


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Proportions are not spot on, Yorkshire has a greater population but 10 less MPs - hows that right?
But I'm sure this would be viewed as anti scottland, it's just balance other wise its not representative. The number based on averages should be 49MPs. it's nothing to do with land mass.

Do you understand what he HL does? 
might be worth you looking it up... you have to have 2 branches of government, legislative and executive.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/hou ... faqs/role/

I don't agree with your tax number, neither does the ONS. its 8.2%, so approx the same as you claim is the population. Indeed the independence people also concluded the same thing, it was net/net. However, scotland as a region spends more per person (based on what the local region wants to do - i.e. university fees, prescriptions ) vs what the rest of the UK pays for via or due to the "Barnett formula". Indeed IFS concluded scotland spends £1200 more/head than the rest of the UK.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Toshiba said:


> Proportions are not spot on, Yorkshire has a greater population but 10 less MPs - hows that right?
> But I'm sure this would be viewed as anti scottland, it's just balance other wise its not representative. The number based on averages should be 49MPs. it's nothing to do with land mass.
> 
> Do you understand what he HL does?
> ...


and Scotland contributes £1700 per head more, and the extra spend has nothing to do with prescription fees and tuition fees, its because the country costs more to run due to sparse population and area.

prescriptions were made free because it was costing more to administer the charge then it was generating in revenue. about 90% of people getting regular prescriptions were getting them free anyway.

tuition has always been free here, it was free before the Barnet formula was used. The Barnet formula is outdated, id rather have fiscal autonomy than it anyway.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Contribute more and spend more - Hmmm, think you've been brain washed by the scots nazi party..
Think you'll find prescriptions and university tuition was free in England too before the barnet formula! But we now pay for it.. so "we are subsidising" a very small part of the UK, yet again.

Heres a summary of FACTs for you, not SNP propaganda or spin - all public information independent of Westminster or hollyrob that you can just look up!

8.6% of the population and the contribution made is 7.3% of the total income tax generated.
8.2% is contributed in the form of NI (still -0.4% less than the population)
8.3% is contributed in the form of VAT (still -0.3% less than the population)
7.3% is contributed in the form of corp tax (still -1.3% less than the population)
8.3% is contributed in the form of petroleum revenues (still -0.3% less than the population)
6.7% in contributed in the form of a bank levy (still -1.9% less than the population)
8.4% in fuel duty, 6.8% in inheritance tax, 5.7% on Stamp Tax on Shares, 4.2% on stamp duty for land, 0.8% on Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings, Beer duty 7.1%, insurance 6.9%, customs duty 7.8%

But to close on a positive for scotland, Tobacco Duties you actually contribute MORE 11.7%, Spirits Duty 13.2%, gambling 9.1% and 9.2% of the climate change levy.

You also need to take into account customs duties are collected by HMRC on behalf of the EU too and do not form part of the UK public finances. Alex might just have forgot to mention that point!

We'll never agree!


----------

