Burnham’s 5.1 Million Dollar Question

By Mark E. Saunders of “The Scottish Minuteman” https://www.facebook.com/profile.php/?id=61575625542197

If Westminster politicians have no problem telling the entire electorate of the UK that Scotland is “subsidised” by England, then there are a couple of very simple questions that they should answer.

Official figures show that in England today, around 3.4 million children and 1.7 million pensioners live in relative poverty. That’s a combined total of approximately 5.1 million people. Scotland’s entire population is just under 5.5 million.

If Scotland is really such a financial burden on the UK Treasury, why does it keep carrying that cost? Why is the welfare of Scotland so important to Andy Burnham et al but English children and pensioners are not?

Why will this latest occupant of Number 10 Downing Street not consider granting a section 30 order to allow Scotland to become an independent country — if the people in Scotland and their Parliament want it?

Why not take this golden opportunity to remove what is so often described as a subsidy, and use those ‘new found’ resources to eradicate child and pensioner poverty in England?

Those who say Scotland is “too wee,” “too poor” or “too dependent” to stand on its own cannot have it both ways.

Either Scotland is a terrible financial drain on the UK, in which case independence would relieve English taxpayers of that burden, or Scotland contributes enough to the UK that the constant subsidy argument is hard to sustain.

If the new Prime Minister is “not willing” to even consider Scottish independence while continuing to claim Scotland is subsidised, it inevitably raises the question of whether this argument is driven more by the lingering mindset of a dying British Empire than by the welfare of the actual people it has been elected to protect.

What say you Andy Burnham — especially to the children and pensioners living in poverty in Greater Manchester and throughout the country of your birth?

Introducing the above, the excellent, Mark, wrote:

I’m awfully slow at getting started again — hopefully a mix between holiday, World Cup and recent outside temperatures. On the other hand, you’re unstoppable! 

We’re easily flattered here and have shamelessly adopted the ‘Unstoppable!’

Thanks again Mark.

John, unstoppable but only when sitting down as opposed to weeding a garden.


Discover more from The 'Unstoppable' Talking-up Scotland

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “Burnham’s 5.1 Million Dollar Question

  1. Andy B supports devolution to all corners. Less problems to worry about. Independence for Scotland. Scotland paying £10Billion for the Union.

    On average UK raises £600Billion in taxes. Scotland raises £80Billion without Westminster interference. Westminster borrows £200Billion. Spends it in the rest of the UK. Borrows and spends £100Billion spent elsewhere. Scotland’s lose £10Billion. Scotland has to pay back £5Billion on funds not borrowed or spent in Scotland.

    Scotland pays £5Billion for the military. Too much. 180,000 military personnel. 10,000 based in Scotland.

    Scotland losing £Billions to Brexit. Scotland in surplus in fuel and energy, nearer the source but pays more. No parity.

    Like

    1. Burnham’s plan is to undermine and delegitimise the SNP with his faux ‘devolution for the regions and nations’. It’s clearly a divide and rule, ploy I mean it’s so easy to see that’s what it is. Watch out Scotland!

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Somewhere in England……

    ‘Knock knock… Hi there I am your new Labour PM and want to know if you will continue to vote Labour?

    Householder… Yes but why do we not get all the freebies that the Scots get?

    PM.. well we would like you to get free Prescriptions. end child poverty/ homelessness, free univ education and much more but we have to sadly subsidise these lazy Scots.

    Householder.. then p*ss off.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.