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

[Matt Wright]

I think there is a lot of confusion in the debates here and especially when pure nationalists of any kind get involved. Firstly most people on this island of Britain want to have effective democracy and arguably many decisions would be better made as close to the people as possible. That would require more localism at the county and especially district and parish level. Secondly most people if asked whether it would be a good idea for the main parts of the British Isles to work together in some form of Union, would say yes. Those that try to paint Wales or Scotland as being against the Union are wrong. The lesson in Wales and Scotland is that while Assemblies can do useful things (given that we have always had tiers of Govt in Britain), there are still parts of those nations that feel and are left out. I have no doubt at all that were an English Assembly to be created in some city in England then other parts of England would very quickly be unhappy - Sunderland saying why should we be run from Birmingham, or the West Country saying why should we be run by Manchester, or everyone saying why should we be run from another bureaucracy in London. We don't need even more bureaucracy, what we need is to devolve power properly to the people. The logical and historical approach is at the sub-regional level with higher level tasks that can't be devolved being done in the capitals.

Matt

[englandism]

‘localism at the county and especially district and parish level.’

Experience indicates otherwise. You may have noticed that since parish councilors were obliged to make a statement of assets the talented have resigned en masse and the self-important have an outlet for doing an impression of Linda Snell. Usually unelected because no one gives a monkeys.

The further down the food chain of politics the less evolved involve.

[Ken Stevens]

Boy Blue | October 22,22:59

You might take my statement that the Union is dead as a little hype (though that is where we are heading). Can't see where else I am open to charges of supposition & hysteria.

I'm married to a Unionist Scot, so we're not actually eager for the Union to disintegrate. I simply believe that it will do so by a combination of minority enthusiasm/majority apathy north of the border and political head-in-the-sand in Westminster.

Where is a party that will produce a pro-active Union stance to enthuse the populace, rather than one with a minimally reactive hope of damping down the mutterings with EVEL? Lukewarm defence of the Union is not enough; it would have to be actively promoted and devolution runs counter to this.

At worst the current devolution arrangements are a democratic insult to England, which is regarded as being governed solely by the UK. A concise example is the British-Irish Council, at which the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have separate representation (yet international relations are a UK reserved matter!).

At best it is a patronising sop to give pretendy parliament etc to the Celtic fringes, whilst the English look on, chuckling benevolently.

Like it or not, things are changing. Only question is whether this process will be properly managed or just take on its own momentum.

[englandism]

Hello Ken

'Only question is whether this process will be properly managed or just take on its own momentum.'

Indeed. Both the Daily Mail (today) and the Telegraph (as above) are driving the English settlement mainstream. Max Hastings is having a full-on rant in the Mail. See ConHome link.

'If David Cameron will not yet say this, the rest of us can. New Labour invited Scotland to board a gravy-train which is now way overdue at the buffers.'

I am at a complete loss as to why the Conservative party is pussy footing about.

[Londoner]

I am grateful to Murdo Fraser MSP for entering the debate on this thread. He says: "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".

I understand that there is no ear-marked extra money for these initiatives. The contention is that the financial settlement has the extra fat in it which allows them. Could he give some examples of where less money (proportionate to population) is being spent on devolved services in Scotland, when compared with England, which could demonstrate that these extras are not being indirectly financed out of the more favourable public expenditure position? If the devolved administration is providing these things, but is not providing X, Y and Z that we get in England, then fine, that is their spending priority and it only remains for us in England to decide whether we prefer X, Y or Z to the extra services/benefits they are providing.

Also, although not a devolved matter, presumably income-rated social benefits must be outside the formula as they are mechanistically related to people's personal circumstances? This is right and proper but, if my assumption is correct that these cost more in Scotland, it should be a strong argument in favour of the Union for welfare-minded Scots.

Scottish Conservative at 17:02 yesterday says that the fact the former Tory seats have been lost to the SNP shows that such lost voters would not see the fairness of English taxpayers not subsidising extra Scottish services (subject to Murdo's answer, if that is what is happening). I do not see that this follows. If they have nationalist tendencies, then surely they cannot support that proud nation being propped up by England? I should think it is Scottish socialists who would object most to any plans to change the situation as that would reduce the scope for State largesse without the inconvenience of paying for it. However, all of this may be confounded if Murdo can convince us that there is an X, Y and Z that the Scots are foregoing. To get really detailed, one would need to see the costs and savings of all the variations in services either way.

[Ekky Thump]

If Scotland cannot tolerate a Union of equals - with a Parliament for each nation and equal funding - then the Union is not a Union and does not deserve preserving.
Tartan Tantrums are costing lives now.
England has thus far been loyal to the Union. This is our thanks.
Well no thanks.

[Ken Stevens]

In today's Telegraph, Alan Cochrane counters the accusations against the Scots:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/10/23/do2303.xml
" Our streets aren't paved with English gold"

Not that I am persuaded & mollified; just noted in the interests of balanced debate!

The essential point remains that a devolved Scottish administration (ditto Wales and NI) has discretion to decide its area priorities but there is not a corresponding exclusive administration for England. An English Parliament would so massively outweigh the other administrations, leaving relatively little for a rump UK government to manage.

That would be a fit & proper conclusion to the devolution process. I acknowledge that we would then effectively become a federation rather than a union but the latter is fast becoming a theory rather than a reality.

DC would be PM of England. GB could stay on as PM of UK, to while away the time until it is his turn to take over as president of the EU -- on the presumption that he and Blair added a codicil to the original Granita agreement on leadership succession.

[Ekky Thump]

Ken Stevens - it is arrogant to assume that England would vote for a Tory government all the time. She does not and never has done.
Cameron has yet to apologise for his anti-English rant in Glasgow, when he was stabbing us in the back and begging for Scottish votes.

[Ken Stevens]

"Ekky Thump"
"..arrogant to assume that England would vote for a Tory government.."
Agreed as a general principle but the described scenario is not an unreasonable presumption as a shorter term probability.

"..anti-English rant in Glasgow.."
An unfortunate manifestation of all politicians' tendency to pander to the Celtic fringes, whilst being blind to the rumblings in the larger portion of their backyard, as the lesser portions stake claims to ownership by 'adverse possession'.

[Murdo Fraser MSP]

Londoner,

If you look at my earlier post, you will see that I accept that Scotland has a historically more generous financial settlement than population alone allows. The effect of the Barnett squeeze will be to reduce this over time. So the current Scottish Government has more to spend per head than does the UK Government, and can be more generous with free school meals or whatever.

However, the Scottish Government can only make these decisions within the envelope of the existing settlement, so more spending in one area will have to mean cuts elsewhere. We'll have to wait for the SNP's budget in November to see where the impact falls.

Hope that this is helpful

[Ekky Thump]

Scotland must be the only nation on earth who can turn their superior funding and preferential treatment into a national whinge.

[Ekky Thump]

Have you seen this?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=190163645015&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=009

[Andy]

While certain commentaters will say that its just clever spin and propaganda,the people of England are starting to get mightily fed up of the scots,fed up of the constant sniping and general dislike that comes out of that country like a wave,the whole "anyone but England" attitude,they should be careful though,hate bounces and England might decide that Scotland will have its independence whether the Scots want it or not.As for myself,Gordon Brown can take his Britishness and shove it up his a**e,since nu Labuor began its relentless attack on England i have totally given up on the union and the sooner it is disolved the better.

[englandism]

Liking the bottle thing Mr Ekky.

http://tinyurl.com/3ced7y

[Scottish Conservative]

Londoner

There are indeed areas where Scotland has had to make changes to X, Y and Z in order to afford other increase in spending. To take but one example from the start of devolution Scotland has had a higher level of business rates than in England which has harmed the competitiveness of business in Scotland. It has also raised over £1billion in extra cash for the Scottish Executive to spend on other matters. Another example is that monies due to Scotland under spending distribution rules hav been cut in areas such as sport have been cut due to a concentration of these resources on the London Olympics. I do not resent this as I delighted the Olympics will be held in London but since u ask this is another instance.

As to the points saying Scotland is the only country that could turn a national subsidy into a national whinge i think this is unfair. At present the politics of greivance and slight is emanating from ppl attacking Scotland in intemperate tones on these websites and the Scots on here are merely mounting a defence against these attacks.

Finally, of course the anti-Scottish sentiment that underpins these comments will harm our electoral prospects in Scotand. If you look at my figures from earlier on it is utterly irrefutable that Scotland provided a massive subsidy to the rest of the UK during the 79-89 period and so if we only took remedial action when a smaller subsidy went the other way of course we would be rightly accused of a one-sided approach to fairness.

On a final note Ben Wallaces remarks of the other day are contrary to Party policy and are especially regrettable coming from our Spoesman For (sic) Scotland. He should either withdraw them or resign and engage in his SNP-style greivance politics from the backbenches.

[David Lindsay]

Quite right, too. Introduce this nationwide and deduct the cost from the block grant to a body which, after all, has fiscal powers of its own, but has never used them. Do the same for school meals, for student feees, for free personal care for the elderly, and for whatever else might come up. Easy.

As for the WLQ, it does not exist, since the Parliament of the United Kingdom can still enact overriding legislation in any policy area it likes. Let it do so, giving full effect to the devolution legislation for the first time. Don't Brown and Darling want to do certain things in their own constituencies? Well, there's nothing stopping them. Let them get on with it. Again, easy.

[Ian Campbell]

When you say that 'we are a Unionist party', you do presumably accept, as all politicians do in principle, that while Parliament may be supreme the people are sovereign (admitted in connection with devolution in the 'Claim of Right for Scotland'). Surely even a Unionist party therefore, especially one that believes that the people are entitled to have a referendum on the EU treaty, should be willing to allow the people to decide in a referendum whether they wish (a) to keep the Union or b) to have an English Parliament within a new federal British state or (c) to have complete independence? The people were after all not asked in 1707 whether they wished to join in Union with Scotland - because the people were not enfranchised at that time. We are now going through a constitutional crisis which is just as important as that which lasted from 1687-1689. It no good just saying that Conservatives believe in the Union: why not put your democratic credentials to the test and ask the people what form of government best suits their needs? The people own the Union, not the politicians.

[Ken Stevens]

Scottish Conservative | October 23, 17:43
"..At present the politics of grievance and slight is emanating from ppl attacking Scotland.."

Not the impression I have gained in following 'The Scotsman' boards for some time! Admittedly the Braveheart/Burns/Rob Roy stuff has lessened and unionists are more in evidence in latter weeks, which is heartening to see.

Ian Campbell | October 23, 19:00

Well said.

Let's sort the matter out one way or another and move onwards from there.
Mind you, if previous poll indications are correct, there would be an interesting conundrum to resolve if the majority in Scotland (and Wales & NI) voted for continued Union, whereas a majority of England opted for independence!

[John Leonard]

Murdo Fraser:

Indeed I should have taken a little longer to research the Barnett formula. I was under certain misapprehensions. So I did some further research.

As you say the squeeze will rectify things. However, what you didn't mention was it will take 30 years before the differential will disappear. Furthermore, I've found there are a number of further criticisms with it:

1. It takes no account of different needs or different costs in different areas.

2. It does not affect existing levels of public expenditure, even if relative population shares change.

3. Since existing levels of public expenditure are not allocated in proportion to population, a particular expenditure decision will lead to different percentage changes in different areas.

4. It does not apply to divisions of expenditure between the different regions of England.

5. It takes no account of different amounts of tax paid in respect of different areas or of changes in these amounts.

6. Neither Barnett nor needs-based spending is incentive-compatible.

7. Neither, that is, gives the territories an incentive to become economically efficient.[6]

So my view is much simpler now. Scrap the Barnett Formula and introduce an equitable funding system that can be applied across ALL the country.

As for the differential that currently exists as a result of Barnett. A subsidy should be provided that reduces to zero over 10 years. By calculations I've read that will mean that Scotland will receive £250 million in subsidy each year.

Scottish Conservative:

Finally, of course the anti-Scottish sentiment that underpins these comments will harm our electoral prospects in Scotand

Yes it is unfortunate but do not blame English Conservatives for this. Instead blame Messrs Brown, Blair, Alexander, Darling, Reid, Murphy and so forth.

Remember the impression of English Conservative Governments on Scotland some years ago and reverse it. Like it or not your Labour brethren are increasingly despised down here now as English Conservatives were in Scotland. This is not limited to Conservative supporters but people across the board.

Blame Blair and Brown they have wrecked our Union and our constitution and in doing so opened the biggest can of worms of the lot - English National Identity

[CCHQ Spy]

Well researched John!

Over to you, Murdo...

Ding! Ding!

[IRJMilne]

"England has thus far been loyal to the Union. This is our thanks.
Well no thanks."

England made the Union, for her own interests, and has gained more from it than Scotland has (though I believe strongly that Scotland has also benefitted from the Union). England therefore owes it to Scottish unionists to support them. In any case, England draws a great deal of benefit from being joined to Scotland to this day.

If England and Scotland received the same amount of money per capita, it would be ludicrous. Uninhabited roads need to be kept in repair. Ex-industrial areas and fishing areas, which dominate Scotland more than England, need reconstruction help. Transport infrastructure is inferior in Scotland to England. Even if half the people on benefits now were cut off from benefits, Scotland would have a higher percentage of people on benefits than England. And Scotland needs some compensation for having her foreign policy (for example) run on chiefly English lines, as England, the largest part of the Union, has the most influence on British policy in most areas.

England would almost certainly elect a Tory government, left to her own devices. All present polls suggest this. Ekky Thump appears to believe that David Cameron should avoid seeking votes in Scotland. "Ekky Thump" would apparently like the Tories to lose elections indefinitely (which would, incidentally, prevent any solution to the West Lothian question).

Cameron has in fact failed to appeal to the Scots enough as yet. I suppose Ekky Thump favours a "core vote" strategy of attempting to increase the Tory majorities in Surrey and Sussex.

The Scots have various anti-Tory grievances - notably, constant Scotland-bashing amongst Tories (see this thread and others similair) and use of Scotland as a sort of "testing ground" during the last Tory administration.

It is worth noting that on no previous occasion have a majority of Scots voted for an anti-Unionist party.

Ian Campbell's comment ("Surely even a Unionist party therefore, especially one that believes that the people are entitled to have a referendum on the EU treaty, should be willing to allow the people to decide in a referendum whether they wish (a) to keep the Union or b) to have an English Parliament within a new federal British state or (c) to have complete independence?") is fair in some respects. But if a referendum was held, I believe that the Tories should campaign against b) and c).

[Matt Wright]

Re John leonard at 21.06. Yes, precisely what I have been saying. This is not about Scotland, it is about how all the areas of the UK are funded fairly. Much of the debate at the moment is woefully misinformed and sometimes almost racist in tone,

Matt

[Scottish Conservative]

Ken Stevens at 20.30

Yes Ken I am the first to admit that there are some ppl in Scotland who fall into that category. However, sine we in the Scottish Conservatives have spent years saying to these ppl that there stereotyping of the English is wrong and missplaced you must understand that it is very disheartening to find that those whom we defended are the very ones now engaging in SNP-style greivance politics in Scotland.

John Leonard

I simply do not accept your parallel between the current governments unpopularity in Engalnd and the unpopularity of previous Conservative governments in Scotland. The overwhelming difference is that the present government has won a majority of seats in England in 1997, 2001 and 2005. We never came close to that at nay GE in Scotland from 1979-1992. I wish neither of the above facts were true but they are. So your parallel is completely false.

[Scottish Conservative]

As per John Leonard's point to Murdo Fraser

Point 2 - "It does not affect existing levels of public expenditure, even if relative population shares change."

The very reason that there is a Barnett squeeze in operation at present with lower levels of public spending increases in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK is precisely because of relative population share changes with Scotland's lower-than-previous population share being reflected in lower-than-average spending hikes.

Noone denies that the Scottish baseline per head spending figure is higher than that for some of the English regions. However, it is important to remember when the Scottish public spending increases which are responsible for this took place. They took place in the Thatcher and Major years. During the Thatcher years there were literally massive Scottish subsidies to the rest of the UK as shown in my post here at October 22nd, 16.54. Thus to assert that the higher Scottish base is unfair you must acknowledge that the higher base is merely compensation for the much larger subsidies going from Scotland to England at that time which more than cancelled out any Scottish advantages under Barnett.

Point 4 - "It does not apply to divisions of expenditure between the different regions of England."

This is indeed true and I for one have no view on how internal-English expenditure is to be distributed and - provided our solution to the WLQ does not replace the present unfairness to England with a new unfairness to Scotland - am quite happy for the English to deal with this themselves.

I have no objection to Barnett being remedied to fix this but obviously this objection does not relate to Scotland's Barnett advantage which is a separate issue.

I do not disagree with objections 5-7 but I think the main reasons I and other Scottish Conservatives feel the constant need to defend Scotland on these angst-ridden websites is not so much due to a particular attachment to Barnett but because of all the Scotland-bashing that underpin these sentiments. I very much suspect this is true for Murdo Fraser as well whose views on this are well-known. I think it is greatly to his credit that he has come on here to defend against unjustified attacks on Scotland when his opinions are well-known. I only wish the Scottish Party would be more public in distancing us from the anti-Scottish bile as there can be little doubt increasing numbers of the Scottish population are aware of it and we really must distance ourselves from it lest our anti-Scottish image be reinforced.

Point 1 - "It takes no account of different needs or different costs in different areas"

No but a needs based assessment would likely still lead to higher spending in Scotland than in most of England anyway.

[Scottish Conservative]

Murdo Fraser's views on fiscal autonomy i mean

[Ekky Thump]

IRJMilne said, "England made the Union, for her own interests, and has gained more from it than Scotland has (though I believe strongly that Scotland has also benefitted from the Union). England therefore owes it to Scottish unionists to support them. In any case, England draws a great deal of benefit from being joined to Scotland to this day.

If England and Scotland received the same amount of money per capita, it would be ludicrous. Uninhabited roads need to be kept in repair. Ex-industrial areas and fishing areas, which dominate Scotland more than England, need reconstruction help. Transport infrastructure is inferior in Scotland to England."

What a load of Unionist rubbish. The facts do not fit and haven't done for many years.

[Terry]

There’s quite a bit of emotion and half truths posted here, so let’s look at the facts regarding Barnett and partial devolution.

1. Scotland received 30% more public money than England
2. Scotland received more money than EVERY SINGLE ENGLISH REGION in 2005/6 and will do for the projected 2007 figures*
3. Scotland is the second richest region (out of 12) yet it receives the second largest handout.
4. This measure will not cost any more money, but it does bring into sharp focus England’s unfair position
5. Since 1998 Scotland has received £60bn more than England**. This would pay for England’s entire schools and universities budget, so think how far it goes in a country a tenth of its size
6. Barnett has been supported by successive Labour and Conservative Governments
7. Cameron has pledged not to alter Barnett because he has “Scottish blood in his veins”***…an extraordinary and outrageous statement
8. Scotland is over represented in Westminster and has its own Parliament too. England has to put up with interferrence from MPs and Ministers with no mandate (see point 11 below).
9. The devolution settlement bent over backwards to ensure the nation of Scotland and Wales remained intact (Scotland is twice the size of Wales and Wales is twice the size of NI) whilst the nation of England is to be balkanised.
10. The Conservatives polled more votes in England than Labour in 2005****
11. Executive powers used by ministers from Scottish seats and votes of MPs from Scottish seats have ensured (amongst others) Foundation hospitals: Top up fees: No Sunday trading: A cut of £2bn for the English NHS.

Why does this situation exist? The only reason I can think of is because everyone is afraid of the SNP and Scottish independance. Can anyone think of any other? Can anyone think why the Conservatives shouldn’t answer the English Question?

* http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/economic_data_and_tools/finance_spending_statistics/pes_publications/pespub_pesa07.cfm
** http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/13532/Scotland
*** http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/how_euro_are_you/5114618.stm
**** http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05/seats.htm

[passing leftie]

Two words - oil revenues. England have done well enough out of the Union.

Many Tories seem to be obsessesed with turning inwards: getting out of Europe regardless of the consequences, chopping up the Union which has served us all so well, until you get your little England, permenantly under Tory rule, keep out the rest of the world, and dream of the dead Empire as we fester into insignificance.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Passing Leftie, are you saying that none of the oil revenue taken from the North Sea should go to England?
You were unable to argue with any of the more Eurosceptic voices on this blog the other day, why not if you believe the current devolution settlement is acceptable tell us why rather than making fatuous observations about the Empire?

[Terry]

Passing leftie, the union is 300 years old and oil has been around for thirty years. Also, if the Union is so precious to you, it is UK oil, not Scottish oil. This is an argument for Scottish independence but not an argument for Barnett.

The Union is under threat (as Major predicted) by partial devolution created by other lefties. It can only be saved by reversing the process, or completing it. I doubt it will be reversed, so we can only complete it with the creation of an English Parliament.

[passing leftie]

Passing Leftie, are you saying that none of the oil revenue taken from the North Sea should go to England?
No, I'm saying that if Scotland had been an independent nation, they would have received a huge proportion of the oil revenue in the 70s, making them very, very rich in comparison. The oil revenue benefits the UK as a whole. See Murkens, Jones & Keating's study, plus Gavin McCrone's report released under Freedom of Information. I think based on that alone, Scotland deserve their current settlement. Scotland has made a massive and disproportionate contribution to British culture, industry and society over the years. I'm not saying the settlement can't be looked at again, but the resentment appears to be based more on the fact that Scotland is generally left wing. If you had a nice little Tory regime ensconsed up there you wouldn't be complaining, any more that you were complaining about the unfair subsidies of Tory councils under the last government.

You were unable to argue with any of the more Eurosceptic voices on this blog the other day, why not if you believe the current devolution settlement is acceptable tell us why rather than making fatuous observations about the Empire?

You stop making fatuous observations about the EU on every thread, and I promise not to mention the Empire.

I said I'd argue about the EU on a thread where it's on topic rather than follow the lead of the anti-Europe brigade and rant on about it under every heading.

[Terry]

Passing leftie, the City of London has, over the past 300 years, contributed far more than Scotland ever could. Should we not then give such a special settlement to the City?

If we had a "nice little Tory regime" up there maybe public spending wouldn't be so high. At 63% of its regional GDP it is far higher than the national average of 44.1 per cent and it is higher than in any EU or OECD country*.

* http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article2625198.ece

[Malcolm Dunn]

'I'm not saying the settlement can't be looked at again but the resentment appears to be based on the fact that Scotland is generally left wing'.
I thought you might at least try to make some sort of defence of the current devolution settlement. Obviously you can't or won't . Thought so.

[Michael McGowan]

Passing leftie, try buying yourself a map. It is very doubtful if most of the oil would belong to Scotland if it were an independent nation, quite apart from the fact that it would have had to pay handsomely for the cutting-edge expertise and technology to get it out of the sea. So your argument falls falt at the first fence.

I have nothing againts the Scots when they stop being chippy and resentful but I must have missed this "massive and disproportionate" Scottish contribution to British culture over many years. What are you talking about? The Bay City Rollers, the deep-fried Mars Bar and Scotland's 1978 World Cup Squad?

[passing leftie]

Malcolm, you simply didn't read what I said. Did you look into the data I pointed you at?

Just something to consider else to consider for Scotland:

YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006
GDP WITH OIL 115.1 118.2 123.9 127.1
GDP WITHOUT OIL 93.8 96.1 98.5 100.4

Michael, rather than take a look at a map, why don't you look at Kemp and Stephen's 1999 study which used the UNCLOS, and determined that between 1970 and 1999, Scotland's share of oil revenues as an independent nation varied between 70-98% of the total oil revenue.

I'm talking about the Scottish contribution to the military, to engineering, to science and politics. Do I really need to list them out?

London is not a nation, so that's a silly argument. In fact, it's a demonstration that in a United Kingdom, richer areas subsidize poorer ones.

If the Scots hate 63% of their GDP being spent in the State sector, then now is the chance for you Tories to persuade them, as the party of the Union, that you can offer them something better, instead of whingeing about the amount of money they are getting.

[Michael McGowan]

Passing leftie, a study which begs the question about who owned the oil and who would actually provide the input to get the oil out?? We can all make confident predictions about a hypothetical future which will never be tested.

Whatever makes you think that the Scottish contribution to the military, engineering, science and politics is so disproportionate? By all means list these achievemnts: it wouldn't take you that long. Sure, the Scots have made their contribution but to describe it as massive and disproportionate is hubristic rubbish. As much of the Scottish military contribution consisted of torching the Highlands, colonising Northern Ireland, putting down the Indian Mutiny and generally building the British Empire by force of arms, it is pretty funny that you of all people regard this as a positive contribution.

It is no sillier to talk of London as a nation than it is to talk of Scotland as a nation. Scotland isn't a single nation. No-one on this blog particularly objects to richer regions subsidising poorer ones. It's just not obvious why the inhabitants of Morningside and the Scotia Nostra of Holyrood deserve a special subsidy from the inhabitants of Sunderland or Tower Hamlets.

[Ken Stevens]

Idle observation:

Considering that many politicians think that WLQ and EU are trivial side issues to be minimised or ignored, it is amazing how much extra comment these topics generate!

Something for them to give a greater amount of thought to, perhaps?

[passing leftie]

This is my last post on this topic.

Scotland, historically has subsidized England. In 1978-1986, this was the case. I refer you to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo970113/text/70113w07.htm#70113w07.html_sbhd0, where William Waldegrave revealed a net subsidy to England over that period.

At the moment, England is subsidizing Scotland (but not, I'd argue, to the extent the GERS report implies) If renewable energy takes off, the situation could well reverse again.

Just one example of disproportionate influence will suffice - depending on how you count them, there have been five to eight Scottish Prime Ministers.

[Bexie]

If Scotland wants to be in the Union then their membership should be balanced to reflect eh same coting levels as the rest of the country.

If Scotland also decides to keep it's parliament it must be funded by the scottish taxpayer not everyone else. Scottish members should also be barred on voting on matters in the rest of the country that have been devolved to Edinburgh.

Otherwise just leave.

[Michael McGowan]

I am not surprised that that was passing leftie's last posting. It was so thin that tactical retreat was the only option. Scotland and the rest of the UK have been one political entity since 1707 at the latest and arguably since 1603. The argument that Scotland has subsidised the rest of the UK for 3-400 years is totally unproven.

Scotland's "massive and disproportionate" contribution to our national wellbeing now seems to have dwindled to providing us with leaders such as Blair, Brown, Bonar Law, Ramsay McDonald and Balfour.

[Scottish Conservative]

michael mcgowan

what are u talking about? if scotland were to become independent then as with any other independent states these resources would be distributed on a territorial basis - there really is no hypothetical quandary with which to concern yourself. thus the vast majority of the oil would lie in scottish waters under the laws of the sea, the equidistance principle and the 200 mile rule all of which are international laws the validity of which have been accepted by the Uk which would be the successor-state post scottish secession. the idea u would get our oil is as absurd as me saying that scotland would get some of the money from the city. of course we wouldnt!!

As for Scotland being no more of a nation than London i mean come on. I think you are failing to distinguish between a nation and a state. Scotland and England are both undeniably nations whereas the UK is the state. And long may that continue!

[Michael McGowan]

Scottish Conservative, are you quite so sure that extending the current border out into the North Sea does place most of the oil under Scottish sovereignty? Even if it did, I rather doubt whether this accident of geography is going to land the Scots with a vast windfall. In any case, the issue is not about "getting" anyone's oil. It is about the great myth that Scotland's supposed birthright, the North Sea oilfields, has been plundered and looted by the feckless, heartless English.

The idea that Scotland is a single nation is dubious. What do the Outer Hebrides and Shetland have in common with Edinburgh and Glasgow? If anything, Shetland has more in common with Norway.

[IRJMilne]

"What a load of Unionist rubbish. The facts do not fit and haven't done for many years. "

I would be delighted to learn which facts do not fit my words, and why my arguments are a "load of Unionist rubbish". Sadly, Ekky Thump, your post ignores every single point I made and appears to be a smokescreen for defeat. Prove me wrong.

As for the views of "passing leftie" - the EU encourages separatism. The object of the EU is to break the Continent and the British Isles into a large number of unhistorical "regions". Nationalist separatism is the first step in this process. I am inclined towards (UK) Unionism and (EU) Secessionism, wheras we are presently heading towards the opposite. Although I disagree with his views on the Union, I agree strongly with Ken Stevens that the future of the Union and the EU are critical issues and by no means trivial.

[Matt Wright]

It is certainly true that the EU wishes to balkanise Britain in its own way for its own ends BUT that should not in anyway cloud what the majority in Britain want to do in terms of structuring themselves. If we become that obsessed with the EU (a federalist adventure which by the way I am totally opposed to) we have lost the plot. Britain has always had different tiers of Govt, its up to us what we want to do. The false regional agenda hit the buffers in the North East and rightfully so. However Britain has for a very long time had a natural order that is closer to the sub-regional level, typically the old shire counties. It would make sense to 1)revisit how we fund all the different parts of Britain fairly, 2) to look at a localism agenda for those powers that can be properly devolved and 3) to ask the people what sort of Union they would like as I have no doubt they do want a Union.

Matt

[Ken Stevens]

Matt Wright | October 24, 21:43

I certainly empathise with your sentiments.

As regards
"3) to ask the people what sort of Union they would like as I have no doubt they do want a Union."
I would want such a question to include the option of abolishing devolution as currently constituted, i.e. as compared with localism on a sub-national basis such as you suggest.
I wouldn't care to forecast the outcome of such a question but that doesn't matter as no-one is going to put it to the electorate, are they?

We can't maintain the present unbalanced position. Going backwards doesn't seem to be an available option, so all that leaves is to go forward. That requires an English parliament, assuming that Scotland doesn't accelerate towards independence and thus resolve most of the present difficulties. A poll indicated that although a minority in Scotland favoured independence, a majority reckoned that it was going to happen anyway.

Being pragmatic about the fact that all any major party is contemplating is EVEL, then how about adding a little twiddly bit:
Westminster MPs of Scottish constituencies have had half their representational job taken off them by parallel Members of Scottish Parliament. Therefore why not double the size of each MP's Scottish constituency to keep them gainfully occupied; i.e. halve the number of Scotland's Westminster MPs ;-)

[IRJMilne]

The problem with reducing the number of MPs they have too much is that Scotland then has almost no say in areas like foreign policy.

[Comstock]

" A poll indicated that although a minority in Scotland favoured independence, a majority reckoned that it was going to happen anyway."

I'd suggest we have the referendum and abide by the result. If it is to be independance, then we may as well get on with it. If not, then the issue can be put to bed quickly.

[M Anderson]

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

Posted by: Scott | October 22, 2007 at 09:50

England and scotland further apart? That is down to the greedy scots in the UK parliament AND the scottish parliament. And, it is also down to the greedy scottish people living in scotland. I have yet to hear them say that the Barnett formula should be scrapped! If they were fair and had integrity they would state this; but they don't so I have to come to the conclusion that they think it's okay that elderly English people cannot afford to pay their heating bills and English cancer sufferers are denied life-saving drugs(whilst scottish people aren't) What other conclusion can I come to? Besides that, why should the scots get fifteen hundred pounds a year more spent on them? Why are they so deserving? And another all people in the UK are supposed to be treated EQUALLY! New labour go on about equality and fairness all the time.

[Ken Stevens]

IRJMilne | October 24, 23:02
"The problem with reducing the number of MPs they have too much is that Scotland then has almost no say in areas like foreign policy."

They'll just have to make do with the Prime Ministership, then !

Seriously, with whipped voting does it actually matter as to the whereabouts of an MP's constituency? Appointments to ministerial positions, parliamentary committees, etc, could take care of any disproportionate imbalance as regards influence on UK-wide matters.

Of course, if devolution were to be abolished, then WLQ and such ramifications solved!

[passing leftie]

So much for the Unionist party. I amazed at all the anti-Scottish rhetoric here- it's truly hateful. No wonder the Scots don't vote for you, like they did when you were the One Nation party.

Become the Little England party if you want, but remember, there is no better way to give the EU more power than to encourage Scottish independence.