Barnett's Beastly Treatment of Barnet

Rhoda Klapp

Unionism, that is enthusiasm about the union rather than sufferance, is a pretty hard sell in England right now, and do oyu know it just does not matter a damn how much you might be able to explain how unfair even the present system is on poor little Scotland, you can't sell that story in England. The truth of it (or not) is not even an issue. The idea here is that whatever we give them they won't stop moaning. Unfair, maybe. Untrue, hmmm. But that is the way it is.

Dave B

>over time Barnett is designed to actually reduce differences in spending allocations.

That's not what Lord Barnett said.

"Lord Barnett said there was nothing scientific about the system, which he revealed was based on "approximate" population figures for the regions of the United Kingdom in the 1970s."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1584283/Lord-Barnett-admits-scheme-is-not-formula.html

FF

Actually, local government spending is included in the "identifiable government spending" figure.

Scotland's higher identifiable spending due in part to heftier Council Tax rates. So more spending, but not necessarily subsidised by the English.

"Identifiable government spending" is complicated because you're not comparing apples to apples. Ultimately it's a nonsense because it doesn't measure what you really want to know: how much money is each country or region getting from the big pot. Scotland's grant allocation is more or less in proportion to its population through the Barnett Formula. I think it would be better to make it exactly in proportion, so everyone knows where the situation stands.

DavidDP

Mainstream Conservatism (sic) is whatever Tim believes in. That way, other Tories can be portrayed as alien.

Victor Southern

Since London is the capital of the UK one would expect a high level of government spending there. Relate it to the amount delivered to the fiscus and one would see a very different picture.

Rather more relevant would be the per capita central government subsidy [gross or nett] between Brighton and Dundee or between Guildford and Aberdeen.

Cabbie

DaveB is correct about what The Lord Barnett has said.

@FF these are precisely the problems we will face with more Localism-of which I support- the Scots take on average £1500 per year more in global subsidy per person than the 'average' person in England so they can afford their Socialist policies-for now. Full fiscal freedom and abolishing the 'complex global settlements' will promote more accountability. I cannot see Middle England continuing to countenance this for much longer especially with the paradox created with the tuition fees?

FF

Cabbie, I need to correct you. Scots don't get £1500 of additional subsidy per person per year. That's the point I'm trying to make. The identifiable spending figures don't tell us what people think they tell us, and what they actually want to know: how much of the global tax take goes to each administration.

I agree that there is a much smaller subsidy from England to Scotland, due to approximations within the Barnett Formula. I don't how big the subsidy is because as far as I know the figures aren't published. I suggest, not that the figures should be published, but that allocations should be done on a strict equality per head basis. As a Scot, I would lose out a bit, but it seems to me to be simple and fair.

A couple of anomolies with the identifiable spending figures as an example - there are plenty more. Agricultural subsidies are paid by the UK Government according to the same formula to all UK farmers. Scots farmers get the same as English ones, but because Scotland is relatively underpopulated, this will show up as higher identifiable spending relative to the non-agricultural population.

Scottish Water is state owned, unlike the privatised English water services. Scots pay for water services just like the English. The Expenses side of Scottish Water's P&L statement shows up as identifiable spending however. There is no equivalent in England.

Kittler

Not sure about your spending figure for London Alex. I have seen per capita put at 180% above the average. There is big money spent there, £16 billion crossrail, the olympics....

Rhoda Klapp

Anyone like to identify a borough in London, or a country in the union come to that, where the extra spending does poor people any good? All this apportioning and adding up makes for a pretty daft debate. Outcomes matter, minor differences do not. And fair comparisons are impossible.

Cabbie

FF I do agree with you re the whole of support for Local Government being more transparent and equitable. This should be achievable with more Localism, I can't agree about your interpretation of your overall understanding of the net level of subsidy to the Scots! I'm referring to the overall Local Government settlements each year and added up for a region or country. And a large part of these complex settlements come from the UK as a whole, not Council taxpayers,

I am involved in LG and have been for many years. In the NE region of England we also benefit disproprtionately for the same reasons as do the Scots.We do so when we add everything in the the final settlement.

When an across the Board 10% cut is made to all Authorities in the UK, my own loses out far more than all those in Surrey per head for example because we benefit so much from all of the extra add on grants and additional funding in the overall settlement.

Across the NE Regional Authorities as a whole it is the same. As it is for the Scots. In the NE we have been benefiting to the detriment of more affluent Counties in Southern England. It is not due to population counts or other random aspects of Barnett-it is because the overall settlement contains a lot of hidden funding associated with social deprivation etc etc and has been introduced by several governments to continue to pander to the public sector and allow the local tax take to be kept artificially low.

Thanks for providing the two interesting examples you have regarding agriculture and water but when adding all of the subsidies together for LGovernment,as well as the devolved government per head of population .It is higher than the same for England per head even though there are regions such as my own which are in a similar position without the devolved government.

In the NE England we are being subsidised by the South and so are the Scots, We need to lose some of this and so do the Scots.

FF

Thanks, Cabbie. This document explains the funding mechanism for devolved administrations in painful detail: cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sr2010_fundingpolicy.pdf. The Barnett Formula is explained on page 39. To work out the overpayment to Scotland you would need to add up the totals of all the figures in the second column from pages 40 to 58 multiplied by the percentage in the third column. This is the amount England spends on matters that are devolved to Scotland. Then multiply this total by 10.03% (which is Scotland's population relative to England's). Then compare this with the block grant to the Scottish Government. Then you get the subsidy, which as I say you don't get from identifiable government spending figures.

The Telegraph reporter who interviewed Lord Barnett (link above) totally misunderstands the way the Barnett Formula works, which confuses things. Lord Barnett disagrees with his own Formula, not because he believes it subsidises one region at the expense of another. He thinks some regions should get a greater allocation because their needs are greater due to social deprivation etc. In other words, the Formula associated with him doesn't subsidise enough.

James Matthews

On Barnett, esoteric (and unprovable) arguments about the formulaic deficiencies of calculations of identifiable public expenditure really do not convince. The headline rate of the Scottish advantage is around £1500 per head. On that, Scotland can clearly afford expensive services not available in England. It looks like a subsidy and it quacks like a subsidy. Few outside Scotland will doubt that it is a subsidy.

Where does Unionism fit into mainstream conservatism? Well the Union agreed in 1707, which provided that it should be governed by one parliament, fitted in to it quite comfortably. That Union ceased to exist in 1998. Mainstream conservatism is now, belatedly, react to a new situation. Acceptance of an asymmetrically divided Union does not fit with any kind off conservatism, mainstream or not

CalumCW

There is a simple solution to this, which I think Alex was getting at. Full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, including oil and whisky revenues. Then the issue is solved. If Scotland is either subsidised or not fulfilling her potential, either way the truth will out.

Sven

Over a quarter of the population of Scotland is from England, Wales, NI or Ireland, so am not sure where some of the comments on Scots getting more subsidy than some English do is going - it is your own people that is getting the money.

FF

James Matthews: On Barnett, esoteric (and unprovable) arguments about the formulaic deficiencies of calculations of identifiable public expenditure really do not convince. The headline rate of the Scottish advantage is around £1500 per head.

James, the calulations may be esoteric, but they are proveable. And no dount you are correct when you state, "Few outside Scotland will doubt that it is a subsidy."
However, the Spectator is an intellectual paper and we should try to get to the facts, rather than just accept assertions that people believe. On that basis I re-iterate again that England does not subsidise Scotland to the tune of £1500, because that figure doesn't measure subsidy.