Can anyone say if

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AuldYin

Two out the three candidates have alleged the vote is rigged, no matter where it's reported clearly something's not right.

---

According to the same article in yesterday’s Sunday Times the three candidates were surprised that so few voting papers were sent out online.
They including ‘the chosen one’ Humza must have assumed that the SNP still had at least 104,000 members instead of the current 72,000 members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deeranged

'It is reported in yesterday's Sunday Times' i.e. 'it is rumoured by.....' or 'it is made up by......'

I suppose if it's in a Tory rag it has to be true. I mean it's not like any opposition aligned paper would deliberately print an unsubstantiated rumour just to try to derail the process is it?

Kind of akin to rumours of Rangers about to make a bid for three players from the next team they play in the Scottish Cup don't you think?

'if correct' even though you know it isn't.

---

Yesterday I purchased my Sunday Times as usual and the article in question is in the News section of the newspaper.
It will be interesting to see what the pro SNP newspaper The National are saying about the SNP leadership vote allegedly being rigged.
There will probably blame everyone else in the Media or say nothing.

Watched Loose Women today! Mrs Murrell fitted in perfectly. Just a pity she spent so long as a politician in Holyrood.

Sorry to bring this thread back but I see there are comments in the Letters page of the Courier that Scotland sends more money to Westminster than it gets in direct grant for Holyrood to distribute. I still think the SNP are completely wrong in trying to make this point but perhaps I have missed something.

Should not have said wrong in the previous text. Mistaken would have been a better word, as the implication is that Holyrood would make different spending choices. I think the money that goes to you and me as a pension is ours to spend and does not need Holyrood politicians to tell us how much we should receive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCram

Sorry to bring this thread back but I see there are comments in the Letters page of the Courier that Scotland sends more money to Westminster than it gets in direct grant for Holyrood to distribute. I still think the SNP are completely wrong in trying to make this point but perhaps I have missed something.

---

Think it is true bcram , there is money held back for things like defense spending etc that is spent by the uk as a whole , and there is things like hs2 , London crossrail and London underground that's funded as uk wide , undoubtedly Scotland does very well out the barnett formula, but London and the South East does well , out of all the central government jobs based in Westminster.

I thought all the taxes raised in Scotland was a smaller figure than the sum given to the Scottish Government. Don't think HS2 etc comes into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCram

I thought all the taxes raised in Scotland was a smaller figure than the sum given to the Scottish Government. Don't think HS2 etc comes into it.

---

Believe around a third of the barnett formula funding , is held back for uk spending , like defence , uk embassies etc , sure I read somewhere scotland contributed around £3 billion to London crossrail as it was classed as national infrastructure, same as as hs2
The uk spends around £55 billion on defence , so pretty sure that burden could fall on English taxpayers alone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mainlanddee

Think it is true bcram , there is money held back for things like defense spending etc that is spent by the uk as a whole , and there is things like hs2 , London crossrail and London underground that's funded as uk wide , undoubtedly Scotland does very well out the barnett formula, but London and the South East does well , out of all the central government jobs based in Westminster.

---

I remember reading an article in the Sunday Times newspaper over a year ago that London and the south east area raises the greatest amount of taxes and they are subsidising the other regions throughout the U.K. including Scotland.
From memory before the Scottish Independence referendum it was stated that an independent Scotland would have to pay if they wanted to part of the U.K. defence services to transfer to the control of the Scottish government otherwise they would have to set up their Scottish Army, Navy and Air Force.
Fortunately it never happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCram

I thought all the taxes raised in Scotland was a smaller figure than the sum given to the Scottish Government. Don't think HS2 etc comes into it.

---

You are correct.
I was recently stated that every person in Scotland receives about £1,400 in extra public spending per head compared with people in England and Wales.
Public spending per head is higher in Northern Ireland as it something to do with financing the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
In the current financial year the Scottish Government is receiving £59 billion from Westminster under the rules of the Barnett Formula which also includes consequential funding.
If the U.K. chancellor of the exchequer announces that he will be allocating an extra £100 million in funding for the NHS in England, the Scottish Government receives about 10% of this total in Barnett Consequential funding but the £10 million of extra funding is not ‘ring fenced’ for NHS Scotland.
It can be spent on anything such as new ferries to be built at Ferguson’s Shipyard.
Shona Robison was complaining about the chancellor of exchequer reducing the National Insurance rate charged by 2% because the Scottish Government did not get any Barnett consequential funding as a result of the Chancellor’s latest Autumn spending review.
It is time for the Scottish Government to cut their cloth accordingly and stop squandering money on their own ‘pet projects’.