BOM said:-
"What the South East gets from the deal is entirely unclear."
How about higher increases in the value of the main asset of those inhabitants lucky enough to own their own properties? If you bought any house in 1982, on a 25-year repayment mortgage, you'd have a very large capital gain. If you bought a council house with 70% discount, you'd be even better off. All tax free.
You'd know that the lovely view - "visual amenity" from your bedroom window over the green belt or planning-controlled land is yours, free of charge.
If you didn't mind selling up and retiring at least 200 miles away when the time comes, you'd have nice home AND a decent nest egg in realised funds.
What "UK plc" gets from the one nationalisation the neither the Tories nor Labour will ever question - land-use - is also entirely unclear.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown by tax contributions within regions - e.g. how do contributions by more affluent people outside the South East compare with the less affluent in the South East? Are both net beneficiaries, or contributors?
Presumably breaking down Scotland by regions would result in the area that included the North Sea oil being a net contributor (and other areas even greater beneficiaries).
I assume much of the high figure for Northern Ireland is a direct result of The Troubles.
There's also the question of how many individuals who are 'net beneficiaries' really do get more back in terms of value (rather than expenditure) from taxes than they put in... But perhaps that's another, if related, issue.
What the South East gets from the deal is entirely unclear
The 2012 Olympics!!
Please read:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/...006/12/
11100729
"North Sea Revenues
North Sea Oil and Gas revenues are not included in the main GERS results but are included in sensitivity analysis showing the effects of allocating different shares of North Sea revenue/output to Scotland.
In the event of all North Sea revenue being attributed to Scotland, the 2004-05 Net Borrowing would be £6 billion, or 4.8 per cent of the Scottish GDP (including North Sea output)."
Far less than the 11% in the graph.
What does the South East get? House prices beyond belief. Far higher wages. Investment. Olympics.
To name a tiny percentage.
Last week in our local Chronicle I read an article that said our High Schools received approx £3500 per pupil compared to London where the High Schools receive over £7000 per pupil. In an 800 pupil school this resulted in an extra £2.8 million per annum per High School why?
The South acts as a brain drain because of the increased number of opportunities for our bright children. I was pleased that a section of the BBC was moving North (something else I've read you complaining about), it creates opportunities for our home grown talent and will begin like a small pebble to halt the over population of the South.
If southerners think its so great up here why don't you move and cash in on your property gains? You forget all of the resources you have and facilities that you have that just aren't available up here.
Just one other example Wembley Stadium was built in London, why? Most of the better supported teams are North of Watford.
Hi guys
Yes, we Southerners do have higher property prices, but I can't see that's any thanks to the fiscal transfers up North. It presumably reflects the booming economy, overly tight planning restrictions, and mass immigration.
And higher prices are a mixed blessing. For first time buyers it's v bad... unless mummy and daddy can help out... but then they can't cash out and move to Cornwall.
Also, while the transfers are bad enough for the paying regions, it's not obvious they're that great for the recipients either. EG the Economist had some stuff a few months back on how Scotland has suffered from its dependency on English hand-outs. And as long as the North East has 60% of its GDP funded by Southerners it will remain a basket case. Despite all that Viking blood.
Dave- Scotland's oil. Yes, they have a point.
I keep meaning to work out the net benefit of the English subsidy minus the loss of oil revenue. I'm guessing Scotland would have been a 30 year loser, although iirc there has always been a big dispute over how much of the North Sea actually "belongs" to them.
Why don't your Southern children move up here then Wat?
Then when the new buyers dry up down South your prices will drop to reasonable levels again.
What about corporation tax? With most big firms HQs in the SE, the corporation tax is officially located there. But the profits aren't all generated there, are they?
Yes, we Southerners do have higher property prices, but I can't see that's any thanks to the fiscal transfers up North. It presumably reflects the booming economy, overly tight planning restrictions, and mass immigration.
Right. But the South East is as it is in part, due to government tinkering, and intertia, through non-fiscal means. Your piece moans about Northerners and Celts living on hand outs.
Who, from your side of the debate, is going to stand up and argue for selling off the vast tracts of land held by central and local government in the South East, for housing and enterprise?
Who is going to argue for moving government bodies that could be eslewhere (if needed at all) from the expensive south east to the rest of the country.
Who is going to have the courage to say that the South East is the engine room of the UK's economy and, if a free market government came to power, woudl have to sacrifice some of the unpaid-for benefits, (I refered to visual amenity but there's much more), in return for better infrastructure (e.g. easing the crowded roads, or trains, full of people needing to get to, or from the South East)?
Commenting by HaloScan
