Telegraph calls for end to "Scottish nationalism fed on English taxes"

The main story in this morning's Telegraph is the news that residents of Scotland can expect free prescriptions within four years although residents of England will still have to pay.  Conservative MP Ben Wallace, a Shadow Scotland Minister, said that this was "another example of how devolution is all at one end at the moment."  Labour had not delivered fairness, he said.

Matthew Elliott of The TaxPayers' Alliance got to the heart of the issue in his comment to The Telegraph: "Either Scotland should be made to raise the money it spends or these measures should be rolled out nationwide."  The fact is, as The Telegraph points out, Scotland does not raise the extra money it needs to pay for the extra public services that Scottish voters receive.  The average resident of Scotland receives nearly £1,500pa more per head than the average resident of England from the UK taxpayer.  This is because of the Barnett formula devised in the 1970s which, among other things, takes account of Scotland's special characteristics - including its geographical expanse and rural character which raises the costs of providing public services.

The Conservatives need to proceed sensitively in addressing this issue.  Expressions used by The Telegraph - like "The public services ''apartheid" between England and Scotland" - should be avoided.  We are a Unionist party and we must not take risks with the Union.  We must be pro-Scottish and that is why the party in London should revisit plans to give the Scottish party more autonomy over its affairs.  But we cannot allow a sense of English grievance to grow.  David Cameron has already said that he supports English Votes for English Laws.  It is now time to modernise the Barnett formula.  A subsidy may still be appropriate but it has become too large.  London, in particular, with more than its fair share of very poor communities, should be able to retain more of the tax that its citizens pay.

In a leader, The Telegraph makes the point that many Scots do not even feel the benefits from the England to Scotland subsidy.  The money is eaten by the quangoes and other bloated public sector institutions that have grown fat under Labour.  A reduction in the Barnett formula may be the shock that the Scottish public sector needs to begin reforms that have been delayed for far too long.

Labour will, of course, accuse our party of playing politics with the Union.  We should hit back hard at those suggestions.  Recent evidence shows that Labour has been using UK taxpayers' money to disproportionately benefit its own voters in Wales, Scotland and northern England.  It has been buying votes.  We should consistently use the word used by Ben Wallace: fairness.  More prosperous parts of the UK should be happy to help less prosperous parts but the extent of subsidy has simply become too great.

Comments

[Ken Stevens]

The Union died with devolution. Get over it. We cannot be a unified Britain where the fundamentals of how one is governed vary significantly according to which constituent nation/principality/province one inhabits.

Scrap devolution to restore Union or else move swiftly to federation or full independence.

A sop such as EVEL will be as ineffectual in heading off calls for English independence as was devolution in scotching their desire for independence.

Better proud & friendly neighbours than grumpy bedfellows. Get off the fence and do something positive on this topic, one way or the other. He who sits on fence gets sore crutch!

[Scott]

Achtung - This is vast can of worms. This will only push Scotland and England even further apart.

[Matt Wright]

If I understand this correctly, Scotland has chosen to spend the existing grant they get in a different way. I think articles such as the one in the DT may lead many people in England to think they are paying extra money to Scotland just so they can have free prescriptions, which is not true. The question of the Barnett formula is fine but we should be aware that different parts of the UK do get more money and that includes parts of England. By all means re-negotiate the formula but to do this properly and fairly you need to look at the whole UK. This is not just a Scottish issue. As regards free prescriptions it will lead to increased prescribing and I don't personally see why the rich should be subsidised by the poor especially when there are cancer drugs that are not being used because of costs. A far better approach was to extend the criteria for which those in need get free prescriptions, especially in realtion to certain chronic illnesses. There is no doubt that there are people in these groups going without their medication because of the cost. If they go without, then there is the added cost of trying to deal with them when they become more seriously ill. Finally I am quite disappointed in the DT article, the wording in parts is misleading and inflammatory which tends to make one think it really is beneath them as a serious broadsheet,

Matt

[Iain Stewart]

Sorry to be a pedant, but the Barnett Formula is not the cause of higher per capita public spending in Scotland. In theory, it is designed to reduce differentials.

The cause is historically higher base spending levels plus (most significantly) funding streams agreed outside the Formula.

Therefore, scrapping or amending the Formula would not in itself change the situation. To do so would require a more comprehensive overhaul of the financial arrangements between the different parts of the UK (inlcuding the tax arrangements - which are not currently made on a territorial basis; e.g. most of us pay our income tax through our employment location, not residence).

Also, the per capita spending figures often quoted inlcude items, such as social security payments, which are set by Westminster not Holyrood.

I wrote a (somnia-inducing) book on this a couple of years back. It is a much more complex issue than would first appear!

[IRJMilne]

There is actually a lot of fuss in Scotland presently, because the amount of money given to Scotland has in fact been reduced recently, though Brown/Darling disguised it as a raise (surprise, surprise).

If we want value for money, what about we do something about the EU? Which costs vastly more than susbsidising Scotland(which has to susbsidised for uninhabited roads, greater proportion of population on low incomes, reliance of farming in what appears to be an age of permanent farming crises, etc).

[englandism]

'We must be pro-Scottish and that is why the party in London should revisit plans to give the Scottish party more autonomy over its affairs. But we cannot allow a sense of English grievance to grow.'

ConservativeHome

'That this was made possible, indeed inevitable, by the botched devolutionary settlement enacted by the Labour Government in 1998 is embarrassing enough for the Prime Minister, especially since he holds a Scottish seat whose constituents are immune to many of the follies he and his predecessor have foisted on England’

Daily Telegraph

How's about trying to be pro-English? This does not mean abandoning a ‘nation’ that has already largely abandoned the Conservative party and, latterly, the Labour party but it does mean saying:

'Hey, hold on a minute, OK you can choose to scrub £70 M in prescriptions and heat you old folk and care for them but what you cannot do is discriminate, in written legislation, against the other three component parts of the UK.'

If, as the SNP aspires, Scotland was an independent state within the EU, Holyrood would be prosecuted by the EU for its policy on tertiary education. Plain and simple. English, Welsh and NI students are specifically denied the benefits of 'free' education but any other citizen of the EU qualifies. This is active discrimination:

'Expressions used by The Telegraph - like "The public services ''apartheid" between England and Scotland" - should be avoided.'

If it looks like a fish and smells fishy then it is probably a fish.

Then, now here's a grievance, the Scottish universities are complaining that they are unfairly funded as a result of this discriminatory practice and want another wad of money to travel up the A74 to compensate them.

'But we cannot allow a sense of English grievance to grow.'

So when will the natural party of England realise that the tipping point is almost upon us.

[Deividas]

Health is a devolved issue to Scotland and as such comes out of the devolved budget. People need to understand that - this announcement doesn't cost the English taxpayers one extra penny. It's up to the SNP government to find the money in their budget. If they start asking for more, well, then it becomes an issue.

As someone who lives in Scotland, we recognise there are deficiencies that need to be addressed (the West Lothian Question for one)but it's frustrating to see people like Matthew Elliott either totally unaware of, or deliberately ignoring, the facts. What's been announced here does not cost the English a single extra penny and has the square root of zilch in common with the Barnett Formula.

On the BF - maybe it should be altered. But let's not forget that Northern Ireland gets more than Scotland and London gets almost as much. Break it down by regional area and there are areas in the north east and north west of england than get more cash than Edinburgh, which is where I live.

[Iain]

Trouble is the Conservatives have got little or no view on this or devolution, with Dave calling us 'sour faced little Englanders', an issue on which they should be capitalising on, has with their leader’s utterings on this, or lack of, made them an irrelevance.

Thing is, even though the Libdems have been camp followers to Labour's discriminatory constitutional meddling, all it would take is for their new leader, when elected, to take up this issue, make it their own, give the Libdems a new headline grabbing cause, and as a result make the Conservative MP's and prospective MP's end up looking like a bunch of right Charlies, as they see a policy and campaign which should have been building support for them, go to invigorate their opponents in the Libdem’s.

[Torygirl]

The English taxpayers support the Scots, Welsh and N.Irish, yet we in England are not recognised as a nation. I believe it was Brown himself who said there is no such thing as "English nationality", and no doubt everyone will notice that when filling in a questionnaire, there is no space for declaring that you are English. It is always British, Scottish, Welsh or Irish.

We English have been supporters of the Union since its foundation in 1707, but we are getting fed up of the unfair treatment. The Union will cease to exist if things do not improve.

[Londoner]

Sorry - we were a Unionist Party. The sooner we drop that hang up the better. The Union is now totally irrelevant.

[Jomo]

I am not sure all this money makes much of a difference. Health outcomes are poorer, obesity rates second only to the US, population levels stagnating, continuing emigration of skilled workers.

Scotland remains the perfect example of how international development agencies fail to achieve lasting change.

Of course it also illustrates the case for lower public expenditure in general

[Rod Sellers]

The real grievance remains the 'West Lothian Question' and as long as MP's representing scottish seats (which get a better or different deal than in England) can vote on legislation only affecting England - the greivance will fester.

Scots are increasingly calling the tune but not paying the piper.

[Jake]

"Sorry to be a pedant, but the Barnett Formula is not the cause of higher per capita public spending in Scotland. In theory, it is designed to reduce differentials.
The cause is historically higher base spending levels plus (most significantly) funding streams agreed outside the Formula"

The cause is both the Barnett formula AND "historically agreed spending levels outside the formula "

Leaving aside the question of exactly when it was that anyone in England was ever consulted on this damned foumula
( anwser = never , it was all done in secret )

I think you refer to semi secret political stitch ups including something called "Barnet Plus" and various backroom deals in which "English" MP's and ministers performed their usual act of supine surrender and the Scots just grabbed and grabbed again .

If the entire GDP of the "United" Kindom were spent in Scotland the Scots would still moan about how hard they are done by and there would still be portentious explanations to the English as to how actually its a population based formula , don't you know , and Scotland's money will decline over time and really its all VERY complicated and not to worry etc because to do is divisive and therefore be quiet " for the good of the United Kingdom ".

Whichever way you cut it Scotland gets too much money and has been doing so since 1976 .
Worse the known figures for British government expenditure reveal that they are going to get even more .
Barnet Rules money has only ever gone one way ie FROM England TO Scotland .
This exependiture is done on a NATIONAL basis by the British government ie it is for Scotland and not for anywhere in England . so do not try the usual regional angle to confuse the issue .

At only a cursory estimate of the situation the Scots have had something like £70-80 billion out of England in the last 30 years , not counting opportunity costs etc .
Probably a lot more .

This is simply unsustainable . Any party which aspires to be the British government must adress the situation . Not dodge it , however difficult that may be , face up to it and look into it and come up with some positive answers - and not the usual catalogue of accusations against the English which any such attempt up to now has involved .

There is a way out and it does not involve the chaos of EVOEM .

It is that of national self rule for the nations of the UK in a federal structure .
ie England like Scotland must have her own parliament , executive , PM , civil service and complete fiscal and budgetary independence .

This must be allied with a clear and public initiative by the overarching British government to produce transparent accounts easily available to all .

In this way the component nations of the UK will be able to take publicly argued decisions as where to spend the money of each nation . Thus if one should decide to spend money on free presciptions and another to use their money elsewhere then it should be publicly debated policy in the respective parliament .
No more the years of miserable back room stitch ups , trading on the word British and designed to keep the English confused and ignorant .

This should be Conservative policy . Thanks to Brown's cowardice there is now TIME for such a policy to be introduced , debated and become part of the scenery for the next general election .

Use it .

[Scott]

I often find myself really questioning my Unionist credentials these days.

[englandism]

Hello Deividas

'But let's not forget that Northern Ireland gets more than Scotland and London gets almost as much. Break it down by regional area and there are areas in the north east and north west of england than get more cash than Edinburgh, which is where I live.'

Northern Ireland is re-building and recovering from a civil war (by any other name).

The difference between the North East of England and Edinburgh is that Edinburgh can choose to knock out free prescriptions, for example, in addition to the basic social provision from central funds.

And talking about the North East, can I hop across the border and qualify for a free script when the free for all comes in? Or will Scottish pharmacies be obliged to charge or refuse to dispense to the English patient?

I look forward to testing this.

[Stephen B]

Rod, the Scotland Act 1998 is explicit in stating that "it does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland" - in other words, English MPs still retain the power to legislate on matters affecting only Scotland, the mirror image of the WLQ. The grievance can work both ways.

[Sam Shirley]

Devolution to the counties or nothing at all. Giving powers to Scotland and Wales causes resentment, unfairness, and a democratic inbalance.

People should first want to be British.

[Mark Rigby Edinburgh]

Please do not get carried away by the very well organised media management by the SNP. This is simply playing into their hands.

The majority of people in Scotland do not support independence and it is the job of national parties who have substantial support in Scotland, such as the Conservatives, to stand up for the Scottish majority.

Scotland suffers in spades from the quango state. The seperate legal governance in Scotland (which originates from the special protection given to the Scottish legal profession and dates back to 1707) allows considerable additional opportunities for quangos here. This is reinforced by the EU regional structure.

Dealing with the all the drivers for quangos across the UK will really help Scotland.

[Editor]

Out of interest - can Scottish readers say if their edition of the Telegraph gives the story the same frontpage treatment and attention on the comment pages?

Thanks.

[bosworth]

Wales already has free prescriptions. You can' get an NHS dentist in Wales but millionaires here can get free prescriptions. Mad!

Devolution in Wales and Scotland is doing exactly what many people predicted it would. It has created a politics in Wales and Scotland based overhwlemingly on calling for greater separation from London and clamouring for greater public expenditure. And these forces will become even more entrenched when there is a Conservative government in Westminster.

At that point we can kiss goodbye to the Union.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Of course the UK should put itself and its needs before the EU, they say 'charity begins at home'.

[Comstock]

Looks like Scottish kids are getting free school meals (for all) as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7054334.stm

I'm actually in favour of this stuff, but it isn't fair for English kids not to get the same.

[Scott]

Scottish editions seem entirely different to those south of the border.

[John Leonard]

Tim,

I think you are being skittish on this as are the party leadership. It's time for the party to grasp this issue firmly a come up with a radical solution.

Quite frankly what Clarke has proposed is weak and will not address the issues. It has been said that his Clarke's style is reactive. A reactive style is not good for this issue. We need a visionary.

Given the recent population projections over the next 3 generations this needs to be addressed now and not when the country has become unmanageable.

We need someone who will provide a radical solution which ideally includes the other Home Nations but must address the current discrimination against the English.

Firstly EVEL, is no more than a stop gap. There are too many potential issues around it for it to work for long.

Secondly, none of the current discussions recognise the gross inbalance in representation with the Scottish having 3 times the number of national representatives (Assembly & Parliament) and Wales nearly 4 times the number of national representatives than the English.

Thirdly, the problem is not only that the Barnett Formula uses parts of England as a cash cow but also that the money is spent on making the people of Scotland increasingly dependent on the state. Is it not the case that over 50% of Scots rely on the Scottish Assembly or UK Parliament for their living?

This statist approach means that unless radical action is undertaken the Scottish will continue to demand the same or greater levels of funding for the foreseeable. it must end some time. The Barnett Formula should be given a close down date (25 years time?) with stepped reductions starting in five years.

The Scottish Assembly needs to be given motivation to start making themselves more financially self sufficient by focussing more on revenue generation and less on statism. If the Scottish Assembly do not play ball then cut the money off until such times as it happens. If that causes them to leave the Union then so be it. They cannot be subsidised forever.

I'm less clear on the Welsh situation but the same general approach should apply.

In return for this further powers need to be devolved to the Home nations and England needs its own assembly.

This is not unreasonable as we have an increasing population and as a result a need for greater democratic representation to maintain the same level of representation and co-ordination. Given that representation has not increased in the last 20 years and the population has grown by between 10 & 20 per cent we need more representatives now.

Currently English MP's are increasingly forced to prioritise between their constituency and Parliament. Providing national assembly members to address many of the domestic issues (Health, Education, Transport, Law Enforcement,Local Infrastructure and Council Co-ordination) would provide MP's the time necessary to focus on the most important issues (Economy, National Law Development, Immigration, Defence & National Security, Global Warming, Trade).

Unfortunately, even if we could turn back time and return to the old union it would only address the EVEL issue, It will not address the representation and Barnett Formula issues.

As I said we need someone who has the vision to provide a radical solution. With sufficient skill they may be able to even save the Union in some form or other and that is desirable for numerous reasons.

[Mark R]

Daer Editor, your question

The "Telegraph" on sale in McColl's newsagents in Edinburgh has the same article top front page left and same lead editorial.

Can't say I've ever noticed any difference in the "Telegraph" north and south (I travel to London a lot on private sector business), except for the sport sections. The ones which tend to have a substantial different content/slant sometimes are mainly from the Murdoch stable and the Daily Record (its called the Mirror in England)

[Scotty]

Tim, I will get a Telegraph today to check. This is an appalling piece of journalism which is not factually correct!
I would also add that it is a cynical attempt to attack and undermine the SNP, rather than begin a genuine debate, simple because they are in government in Holyrood and not Labour!
After the disgraceful behaviour of Kelvin (the Sun won't print my column in Scotland) Mackenzie's recent unfair and incorrect tirade.
I could fisk the whole article, but what is the point, it makes a good headline and feeds into the Telegraph's new agenda and prejudices. This is going to backfire badly for Labour and the Union as well, I am increasingly becoming disgusted at this open and often unfair attacks on Scotland and its people just because they had the temerity to vote for aspects of their future and governance.

[Dake]

'On the BF - maybe it should be altered. But let's not forget that Northern Ireland gets more than Scotland and London gets almost as much. Break it down by regional area and there are areas in the north east and north west of england than get more cash than Edinburgh, which is where I live.'

But the north west and north east of england are not governed by their own parliaments and governments.

[Ken Stevens]

Mark Rigby Edinburgh | at 12:17
"..national parties who have substantial support in Scotland, such as the Conservatives.."

- as evidenced by the number of Tory MPs in Scottish seats, presumably?

[Dale]

'Rod, the Scotland Act 1998 is explicit in stating that "it does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland" - in other words, English MPs still retain the power to legislate on matters affecting only Scotland, the mirror image of the WLQ. The grievance can work both ways.'

Thats not true at all. The 'west lothian question' questions the ability of scottish mps to vote on english matters when english mps cannot vote on scottish matters, even if english mps did vote on scottish matters there is nothing stopping scottish mps voting on english matters therfore it isn't a reverse at all, it would make things equal.

To reiterate, nobody is saying that scottish mps should not be able to vote on english matters if english mps could do the same, which they can't.

(I do not consider the fact that the scottish parliament is not sovereign to be an issue, in practice, a constitutional convention is just as effective as legislation, and i would sooner see a constitutional convention on english votes for english issues than a bill)

[Dale]

'Wales already has free prescriptions. You can' get an NHS dentist in Wales but millionaires here can get free prescriptions. Mad!

Devolution in Wales and Scotland is doing exactly what many people predicted it would. It has created a politics in Wales and Scotland based overhwlemingly on calling for greater separation from London and clamouring for greater public expenditure. And these forces will become even more entrenched when there is a Conservative government in Westminster.

At that point we can kiss goodbye to the Union.'

Why , if we opposed devolution to wales and the referendum passed with barely 50% on an extremely low turnout, do we now have a leader in the welsh assembly saying that the welsh assembly is the established will of the people and should gradually change into a 'scottish-style parliament' with full law making powers?

[David]

"it isn't fair for English kids not to get the same."

From the article:

Professor Derek Colquhoun, from Hull University's Centre for Education, carried out research into a similar free school meals scheme in Hull.

So if English Councils wish to do so, they can. Take it up with them.

There's a general theme here of localism and devolving power closer to the people. Where that to happens, there will be differences in services offered. Some of the comments on this thread very much strike me as a similar logical loop as the Daily Mail's call for greater local autonomy for the NHS, followed by complaints about a 'Post Code lottery'.

[Deividas]

Hi Englandism,

No one is denying there is a democratic deficit. As a Scot, I think it is completely unfair that Scottish MPs get to vote on health and education issues and English MPs can no longer do likewise.

What I was saying is that Barnett - imperfect as it is - was designed to give more money to poorer areas of the UK. THIS IS BROKEN DOWN BEYOND JUST ENGLAND/SCOTLAND.

For example, Edinburgh where I live is an affluent area of Scotland, and will receive far less than say, Manchester. The bulk of the extra cash Scotland receives will go to the extremely impoverished areas of Glasgow (Gorbals, Govan etc.) and Central Scotland.

You'd be as well to say that the East Anglian taxpayer subsidises the Scouser, as poorer local authorities in Liverpool would get more than, for example, Ipswich. Not for a second do I think the system is beyond improvement, but to portray it as a Scotland/England issue is too simplistic.

But back to the issue here - my gripe is that people are either not understanding, or choosing to ignore, that BECAUSE HEALTH IS A DEVOLVED ISSUE IN SCOTLAND AND COMES OUT OF A DEVOLVED BUDGET, IT IS NOT GOING TO COST THE ENGLISH TAXPAYER ANYTHING, IT IS UP TO THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT TO REASSESS THEIR FUNDING.

If Alex Salmond starts to ask for more cash to fund this, then as I said before, it becomes a different issue. For now though, the anger shouldn't be directed at Scots for thinking of doing this, but asking why the Westminster government won't do it for England (and yes, I know that government is headed by a Scot!!).

Hope this clarifies where I stand.

Deividas

And talking about the North East, can I hop across the border and qualify for a free script when the free for all comes in? Or will Scottish pharmacies be obliged to charge or refuse to dispense to the English patient?

[Ken Stevens]

David | October 22, 14:35
"..localism and devolving power closer to the people.."

I've no problem with that, per se, but devolution has more to do with separatism than with localism. Now, if devolution was abolished in favour of localism to county/shire level, that would be a different matter.

The Barnett Formula can give the appearance (whether or not it is the reality) of extra funding for the gentry of Edinburgh paid for by the rural less-well-off of England. As I understand it, the formula represents 10% of UK spending, as compared with Scotland's 8ish % of UK population. That is not the same as saying that, e.g. Cumbria is assessed similarly as for Caithness.

Those local governments would get distribution of central government funding according to particular circumstances and without distinction as to nation, principality or province.

[Mark, Edinburgh]

Dear Mr. Stevens,

The Conservatives have about 20% of the Scottish vote, even if they only have one seat. The Edinburgh seats seem rather jerrymandered to me in that they are arranged in wheel spokes from the city centre and so all take in one big sink housing scheme, as opposed to say London, where they seem to be arranged in concentric circles.

Actually I live in a four way marginal constituency (Labour majority about 2000), whereas the local council ward has a more than 50% Tory vote. By the way I'm not a Tory Party member (I used to support the Labour Party) but got more interested in politics, and voted for the Tories at the last election for the first time because of the EU issue and despair over Holyrood waste. I'm now likely going to apply for membership. Honest.

[Londoner]

We have to be careful to distinguish two things here. If you have devolution, it is quite right and proper that devolved administrations may wish to cut the cake a different way, or even increase the size of the cake (the tax take) if they have the tax powers to do so.

What is not acceptable is if under the guise of supposedly objective spending formulae there is consistent evidence that the spending available in Scotland allows extra levels of services and benefits with no extra local taxation, compensating lesser levels of services in other areas, or efficency savings elsewhere. This is not to say that spending levels should be identical - for instance there might be more children in Scotland entitled to free school meals because there are more poor parents. The per capital spend on this item will be higher, but the service is the same.

So, a question for our Scottish friends, and the SNP in particular: in what devolved area is there a lower level of service than in England to compensate for the extra money spent on tuition fees, free presriptions etc etc. If there is no convincing answer to that then England is being taken for a ride and it is not anti-Scottish to suggest that the spending/grant formulae need to be urgently reviewed.

As Labour is probably disinclined to do so, we should take the lead. Our low number of Scots MPs at Westminster gives us a certain disinterest. As it is complicated, perhaps a pledge to set up a Royal Commission to investigate might be the best strategy. Any flack in Scotland would be worth the strong support that acknowledging the issue would engender in the marginal seats we need to win in England. Furthermore, the sort of Scots likely ever to vote for us would immediately recognise the fairness of what we are saying.

[englandism]

Hi Deividas

Thank you for clarifying. This is not about being anti-Scots or about localism.

Here's some advice from the Welsh 'government' about the free scripts available in the 'country' of Wales:

'What happens if a Welsh patient presents their prescription at an English pharmacist for dispensing?

Patients who have their prescriptions dispensed outside Wales will be charged at the rates that apply in that country,'

In that country? This is an assertion of independent status as a nation state much as Holyrood now, incorrectly, describes itself as the Scottish 'government'.

http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/health/nhswales/about/healthinformation/prescriptions/q-and-a/?lang=en

If the 'nations' of Wales and Scotland are discriminating on the basis of nationality, as stated explicitly (Scots education and Welsh prescriptions), then I feel this to be pretty repellent.

Without whingeing on about financing the discrimination.

[scott]

I just don’t think people get this. ‘This’ being the feeling of nationality, not just among nationalists but everyone (even tories), that exists in Scotland. British very rarely, if ever, comes before Scottish. The many people who are vexed with this set up are the ones who, prior to devolution, refused to acknowledge or even realise that the UK is a multinational state. And devolution has forced them to see the, what they consider ugly, reality.

Localism can not work in these multinational conditions. If the Scottish Parliament was removed at our behest in place of localism we would be destroyed once and for all.

Also this hasn’t just begun with the SNP Government. Huge disparities were allowed to be created under the previous two parliaments, but because it was Labour no one really paid to much attention.

There seems to be much ignorance of the Scottish situation south of the border and on this very website.

[Scottish Conservtaive]

Jake at 11.27 said "Whichever way you cut it Scotland gets too much money and has been doing so since 1976."

Perhaps the Jake you would like to explain the relative deficit surplus figures for the UK as a whole vis-a-vis Scotland during the early Thatcher years which have been computed using treasury statistics and House of Commons answers and are presented by Jo Eric Murkens and are as follows:

79-80 -13.84bn +0.61bn
80-81 -18.35bn +1.90bn
81-82 -14.16bn +10.22bn
83-84 -16.68bn +10.06bn
84-85 -20.77bn +10.90bn
85-86 -24.44bn +15.69bn
86-87 -21.92bn +13.67bn
87-88 -14.79bn +3.61bn

[Scottish Conservative]

"Hey, hold on a minute, OK you can choose to scrub £70 M in prescriptions and heat you old folk and care for them but what you cannot do is discriminate, in written legislation, against the other three component parts of the UK.'
Jake then adds in the same post:

If, as the SNP aspires, Scotland was an independent state within the EU, Holyrood would be prosecuted by the EU for its policy on tertiary education. Plain and simple. English, Welsh and NI students are specifically denied the benefits of 'free' education but any other citizen of the EU qualifies. This is active discrimination"

As you should be well aware the Scottish Parliament is prohibited from extending these policies to the other nationals of the UK under EU law - this is emphatically not a decision by the Scottish Parliament to impose this undoubted unfairness on the English, Welsh and Northern Irish out of some kind of nastiness. Indeed all, repeat all, of the scottish parties have said they would extend these benefits to the english students in scotland if they had the power to do so. so b4 you engage in rather bigoted ranting please inform yourself has to the actual cause of the decisions upon which you choose to pass comment.

[englandism]

Hi Scott

'This' being the feeling of nationality, not just among nationalists but everyone (even tories), that exists in Scotland. British very rarely, if ever, comes before Scottish.'

I am not entirely sure who the term British applies to anymore. Brown is plugging it to plug himself into middle-England and to encourage the pro-Union majority in Scotland to save his party's cahones north of Gretna.

Lots of union flags fluttering over town halls and a debate about British values but only in England. The English must be made to feel British but, as you point out, the terms are supposed to be inter-changeable anyway. Alas, no more. We ain't buying it.

It is one way traffic for bigging up Britain and one way traffic for the benefits of the devolutionary settlement. This is reasonably irritating and England is rather tetchy.

There seems to be much ignorance of the English situation north of the border and on this very website.

[Scottish Conservative]

Londoner says "Furthermore, the sort of Scots likely ever to vote for us would immediately recognise the fairness of what we are saying."

mmm yes because if you look at the kind of seats we used to hold in scotland none of those are now held by the SNP now are they?

[Murdo Fraser MSP]

John Leonard says that the Barnett formula is too generous to Scotland and should be phased out. But Barnett gives Scotland an exact population share of UK spending, so over time it will bring Scottish spending exactly into line with England. This is called 'the Barnett squeeze'.

The reason why we have the current discrepancy is that successive pre-Blair Governments, both Labour and Tory, gave Scotland more money over and above Barnett. This generosity has disappeared since devolution.

In the meantime, if the SNP minority Government wants to have free prescriptions, free school meals or whatever, it can only pay for these by cutting budgets elsewhere - no extra money goes north to fund these.

What is going on here is a clever spin by the SNP to London papers to try and stir up anti-Scottish feeling, which fuels their separatist agenda. Surely we Tories are not so daft as to fall for this?

[Scotty]

"In the meantime, if the SNP minority Government wants to have free prescriptions, free school meals or whatever, it can only pay for these by cutting budgets elsewhere - no extra money goes north to fund these."

Any journalists who cares to point this fact out clearly when they highlight a particular policy introduced by Holyrood would gain my respect!!!!

[Scottish Conservative]

here here to murdo fraser very well done indeed sir - i am a fan!!

[Scottish Conservative]

these are exactly the points i made on the spectators coffee house blog although it seems they only publish the comments they like on that blog.

[Boy Blue]

Good to see the Scots out in force here talking sense.

The SNP love it when papers like the Telegraph run this stuff. Unfortunately not too many people engage their brains before rushing to comment.

Sorry, Editor, but you will need to be a bit more sceptical of this stuff in future.

[Scottish Conservative]

these are exactly the points i made on the spectators coffee house blog although it seems they only publish the comments they like on that blog.

[Ken Stevens]

Boy Blue | October 22, 19:10

Do you just wish to mock or do you have a constructive point to make?
If so, then what?
- there is no problem whatsoever with the current scheme of things, perhaps?
Some would disagree with you.

[IRJMilne]

"The SNP love it when papers like the Telegraph run this stuff."

A perfectly intelligent comment, surely?

Regarding the school meals issue, it appears that this is a time-limited experiment in public health, targetted at the worst area in Britain for obesity.

Scotland was experimented on all the time when Mrs Thatcher was in office. Why are you all so determined never to see another Tory gain in Scotland?

Labour constituencies, whether in northern England, the Midlands, or Scotland, or Wales, or central London, always get more money, and especially so when there is a Labour government. This would occur irrespective of devolution.

Scotland receives less per capita than Northern Ireland, doesn't it(Am I wrong?)? But no-one complains about them (rightly). Though we are more likely to win a seat in Scotland than in NI.

[Boy Blue]

Ken Stevens,

I don't deny there are problems with the current system at all, which is why I am a long-standing supporter of fiscal autonomy for Scotland (and Wales and NI too if they want it).

I just think that critics of where we are today, like yourself, would have more credibility if you dealt in facts rather than supposition and hysteria.