Reply to: The end of London as a financial centre?

[expat]

When Scotland has its own revenue through its own taxes and can only have expenditure related to that and thus gets nothing from England I will be a happy man. At the moment they are getting subsidies from us and this is not only grossly unfair but also greatly unappreciated by them.

Bring on independence !!

BBC - Brian Taylor's blog

John Swinney [Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Finance] has published a Scottish Government review of the options for change:
...
there is a notable warmth shown to the concept of "devolution max" - whereby Scotland would raise and control most taxation, while sending a subvention to London for shared services like defence.

This what you mean?

I'm OK with it so far, though I note that it does still condemn the Scottish taxpayer to pay his share of funding farces like the London government's Iraq adventures, regardless of whether the Scottish voter might think that part of the defence of Scotland or not.

[DimPrawn]

At least it's a nice place to live, even without City jobs.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...x183_popup.jpg

[Bagpuss]

And you think I didn't provoke him?

[expat]

Don't expect an on topic reply

Thanks for the heads-up

[EternalOptimist]

When Scotland has its own revenue through its own taxes and can only have expenditure related to that and thus gets nothing from England I will be a happy man. At the moment they are getting subsidies from us and this is not only grossly unfair but also greatly unappreciated by them.

Bring on independence !!

The French get their own revenue from their own taxes but they still manage to get subsidies from us

[Cyberman]

OK, I know you're just trolling, but I'll rise to it. The Barnett formula does not "give Scotland 20% per head more in public funding than the English per head", what it does is adjust some public spending so that increases in that spending in England are followed by similar increases in Scotland (inter alia).

It is a kludge, just a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and nobody really likes it. But its purpose is not to give Scotland more, rather to follow changes in England with changes in Scotland.

And I am in favour of Scottish MPs not voting on English issues; or in England at all.

When Scotland has its own revenue through its own taxes and can only have expenditure related to that and thus gets nothing from England I will be a happy man. At the moment they are getting subsidies from us and this is not only grossly unfair but also greatly unappreciated by them.

Bring on independence !!

[Bagpuss]

Don't expect an on topic reply

[expat]

It's about time that the Barnett formula which gives Scotland 20% per head more in public funding than the English per head, is scrapped. Cameron has already said that they will stop Scottish MPs voting on english issues, so this will be the next logical step.

OK, I know you're just trolling, but I'll rise to it. The Barnett formula does not "give Scotland 20% per head more in public funding than the English per head", what it does is adjust some public spending so that increases in that spending in England are followed by similar increases in Scotland (inter alia).

It is a kludge, just a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and nobody really likes it. But its purpose is not to give Scotland more, rather to follow changes in England with changes in Scotland.

And I am in favour of Scottish MPs not voting on English issues; or in England at all.

[Mich the Tester]

People live in London because that's where the big bucks are. If that goes, many people (and hence the businesses that support them) will go too.

It would be an utter catastrophe if the City of London lost it's cachet as a financial centre.

if?

[Cyberman]

Yes ok but apart from free university and free prescriptions, what have the londoners ever really done for us?

It's about time that the Barnett formula which gives Scotland 20% per head more in public funding than the English per head, is scrapped. Cameron has already said that they will stop Scottish MPs voting on english issues, so this will be the next logical step.

[Moscow Mule]

Everybody who lives in London genarates GDP every time they eat. Etc. Much of this would not necessarily follow the City financial institutions down the tubes.

People live in London because that's where the big bucks are. If that goes, many people (and hence the businesses that support them) will go too.

It would be an utter catastrophe if the City of London lost it's cachet as a financial centre.

[Churchill]

So, half of that 500bn is needed to sure-up the Royal Bank of Scotland, the other half is Lloyds because it rescued HBOS - or Halifax Bank of Scotland as it is known.

I rest my case.

Oi Gonzo, the term I believe is to "shore up".

[Churchill]

Depends on the trader. If it is AtW then yes it is.

Are you two not in love anymore?

The way I understood the relationship, it was purely a sex thing.

[Gonzo]

Yes, London that generates wealth, like another 500bn of liabilities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7906922.stm

So, half of that 500bn is needed to sure-up the Royal Bank of Scotland, the other half is Lloyds because it rescued HBOS - or Halifax Bank of Scotland as it is known.

I rest my case.

[expat]

From memory, the City of London generates about 4% of the UK GDP, and London as a whole generates 20%. That will be one big hole to fill unless the Brits are prepared to live with a permanent decrease in their standard of living.

As you know, "generating GDP" is not the same as generating wealth or income. For a start, the government's huge orientation towards London generates huge GDP in London. Oil from the North Sea generates GDP in London, because it is accounted for in the London offices. Everybody who lives in London genarates GDP every time they eat. Etc. Much of this would not necessarily follow the City financial institutions down the tubes.