If there had been any doubt that there was concern on the Westminster benches over how much money is allocated to Scotland via the Barnett formula it can now be removed with this quote from Wolverhampton Labour MP Rob Marris during a debate on funding for the Forth Road Bridge:
"Could you assure me the government will hold firm? Scotland already gets shedloads of money under the Barnett Formula.
"They are entitled to raise their own taxes and this government should stand firm against this bridge where they want even more money."
Coming in the week when a decision was taken that free care for the elderly would not happen in England and Wales (senior citizens may have to pay up to £20,000 upon retirement to cover social care costs) it is clear that the funding of devolved Scotland will be a thorny issue for some time, no doubt gathering in intensity as the General Election approaches.
The funding of the Forth Road Bridge could well prove to be the main topic under discussion given the relatively long lifetime of the project and the huge sums required to pay for it.
Rather than "stand firm", Westminster should increase its flexibility on the matter and not just because politically it is the astute thing to do. Capital projects of this magnitude need more than the status quo to implement. The 2012 Olympics building costs saw London raiding Scottish charities to pay for them so it has to be a two-way street.
No extra money is being asked for by the Scottish Government so the "shedloads of money" comment is somewhat misplaced but spreading the costs over a longer period would help absorb the capital spend much easier which, during these tough times, is surely of paramount concern.
The Barnett formula does indeed need to go and Scotland probably does get a little more money than it needs but on this issue of the Forth Road Bridge, it is Westminster that should blink first.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
"scotland probably gets a little more money than it needs"
Apparently a needs based system would actually mean a rise in money going to Scotland. The question about such a barnet alternative is who determines 'needs'?
A tory government in London?
Fiscal Autonomy is the only way forward.
"Scotland probably does get a little more money than it needs"
This is a surprising comment. On What unobfuscated ground is it based?
The only certainties we have on this subject is:
Scotlands actual fiscal position can be clarified at any time through full fiscal control as a minimum.
A solution that those who speculate or even insist that we get more than our fair share refuse to contemplate at any and every occasion.
Instead of Fiscal accountability and the responsibility that goes with it, Scotland gets Barnett fag packet economics and obfuscation.
Until this system is changed nothing of value can be said about Scotlands funding except that it is unclear and entirely obfuscated and is unaccountable.
The people maintaining an obfuscated system of finance for an entire country since decades must have strong reasons for doing so. What could they be?
The holtham commision has just repoted on funding for wales, which shows that wales is underfunded compared to English Regions - which are not subject to Barnet. London is the costliest region of the UK by far, receiving 120% of the uk english average.
There is a very good analysis of the arguments here
Which includes an enlightening interview wiht the Welsh Secretary basically saying that wales are doing ok, and he will not be pressing for more mmoney for Wales, which is of course his job!
I fully agree that fiscal autonomy is the way forward, every other scenario just doesn't stack up in my eyes.
With Cameron stating there will be no changes until at least 2015, the battleground is pretty much set.
David, I find it ironic that you use the word obfuscation (or a vairant) 4 times. It's getting in the way of me understanding what you mean!
Scotland's budget has doubled since 1999, we seem to be able to afford a lot more than our neighbours down south and there have even been years when our Government of the day has had to hand money BACK to Westminster cos it couldn't get rid of it. A £500m underspend one year if I am not mistaken.
However, as I say, I agree with you that the best way forward is through fiscal autonomy.
Hi Sionnyn,
Thanks very much for the link, looks like interesting reading (and watching).
Not sure I agree that a country's leader's job is to maximise money for its country above all else but I see your point that Hain has left the door wide open for you!
The Barnett battle is just getting going I'm sure.
Pob lwc! (good luck)
Hi Jeff,
Yeah, I was a bit OTT on the 'obfuscation' talk.... just be glad I didnt also go into 'identifiable' expenditure too ;)
Mind you it is interesting that you conclude that a government that cannot spend a fixed budget equates that we get too much? Been in the army?
Still I think you could be right. If I am not mistaken, I'm sure I saw a stretch of something that people in Europe call a Motorway. With all that cash, whatever next?
Since when did the Scottish Government finance the army?
Whatever gave you that idea? Not my post.
No, the army was famous for using up their budget at year end to make sure it did not get cut in subsequent years. The reason was that top brass would assume their budget was too high if it was not all used.
You appear to have reached the same conclusion for the SP. Not all is spent, ergo we get too much.
Really?
Jeff - Peter Hain is NOT the county's leader - Rhodri Morgan is. Hain the Vain, or the Haineous one is our representative in the UK cabinet, and as any other cabinet member, he is responsible for ensuring that his porfolio is properly funded. He is basically abdicating that responsibility.
To hell with that. If the Scots want some improvement in Scotland's transport onfrastructure then the Scots should pay for it.
I suggest independence for England might focus Scottish minds.
As I understand it, Scotland ARE paying for the bridge out of their capital budget.
It would be a good idea if London bore the brunt of the olympics instead of raiding funds intended for charities and sports organisations in regions of the UK that will see absolutely no benefit from it.
I thought there was something up with that link when it said Peter Hain.
I had assumed it must have just been a common name in Wales and there was two of them!
Only one man - many epithets - we do that in Wales you know.
Anyway - what about the daylight robbery of the Olympics?
Wales and Scotland would love to see England independent.
Reparations for Scotish oil and Welsh Coal and Water would, of course, have to be agreed.
Transit fees for LNG which represent 25% of gas supplies to the UK would also have to be agreed. Fees for the Mint and the DVLA would have to be agreed. And that is only Wales! Wait till Scotland bring the bill to the table!
Jeff - I actually found your post rather patronising and offensive, but I am willing to forgive you as you are obviously either English (nothing wrong with that per se) or a Celtic apologist for the English- and there is a lot wrong with that!
It is between you and your conscience. And I hope your conscience wins!
PS I'm only joking!
Post a Comment