Oct 27 2007
The treatment of Scotland and England
Alex Salmond has reason to feel pleased with his work. He has found a series of issues where Scotland can be given better treatment than England, based on the more favourable financial settlement. His intention is to use these issues to make English voters angry about the injustice of the Union settlement, so there is pressure for English - and therefore by definition for Scottish - independence from south of the border. It is beginning to have an impact.
It takes a certain kind of swagger to go further and claim that the current Scottish financial settlement is unfair to Scotland, based on some curious figures about the tax take on “Scotland’s oil”. There is the issue over whether the English/Scottish border in the North Sea should follow the line of the land border or not. If it did it goes out into the oil and gas fields in a north easterly direction, leaving more of the hydrocarbon on the English side. There is the more important issue of how we tax oil. Most of the tax paid on “Scottish” oil is paid by English consumers when they buy the final products.
The truth is a Labour government which believes it can buy votes by spending taxpayers money has no wish for Scotland to have a favourable settlement now that many issues are under the day to day control of the SNP. That is why Labour sources are beginning to question the wisdom of the Barnet formula which allows Scotland to spend more per head than England, and why there are no tears being shed in Downing Street that Alex Salmond thinks he is short of money.
The problem for Downing Street, needing the Union to keep both the PM and the Chancellor in office, is that none of this helps either the Union or their popularity in their native Scotland. Alex Salmond has a strong hand and so far he has played it skillfully. Gordon Brown has a weak hand, and so far has played it poorly. The more the question of England becomes central to debate south of the border, the more Alex Salmond will fuel it, and the weaker Gordon Brown will become.
The more higher taxes bite into English incomes, the more there will be resentment of both waste and unfair direction of the cash. Gordon Brown needs to come up with an answer to the problem of England quickly. As some of us warned at the time, one sided devolution was always going to weaken the Union, not strengthen it. Linking one sided devolution to more EU control, and to more unelected regional government in England, makes the position far worse.
England is angry about the imposition of unelected regional government. It is furious that Gordon Brown ignored the result of the North East referendum, by carrying on with unelected regional government there . England is angry about the absence of the promised referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty. Now England is angry about the threat of Parliamentary mechanisms to try to sell regionalism to the English, when we want an answer to the problems created by unfair and one sided devolution.
RSS Feed
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
On the face of it there does seem to be a “Scottish mafia” running both the Westminster parliament and England.
Labour, it seems, take a great deal of delight in bashing England and the English at every opportunity. Is this by design I wonder? Do they wish to see the break-up of the UK? Is this classic “Divide and Rule” tactics in operation? Will the break-up of the UK make it easier for the EU to take over our countries in the form of a large socialist super state?
The type of Nationalism we see displayed by the SNP has in effect stirred the English into action. Sadly though, we see anti-Scottish sentiment expressed often by the English in the street and via blogs and newspaper letters pages. We also see the Scots reacting to this expression through similar means. We have in fact become two very separate and divided nations. I believe the SNP have jumped on this and have in effect thrown petrol onto the fire they have created…..as you say, very cleverly from their point of view. I see signs of similar resentment against the Welsh as well, especially in regards to NHS prescription charges.
I can see why the SNP leadership appear to have encouraged this hostility from the English, I feel that any proposal to break-up the UK would need to be approved by all parties concerned including the English and as there are more English than all the other “Local nationalities” put together, their vote is crucial. It seems the English are being provoked into saying to the Scots, yeah go your own way.
I believe the SNP are misleading their fellow countrymen regarding the nett worth and income of “Scottish” oil. I have read that the income from the oil falls short of the funding they receive through the Barnet formula. Any shortfall would need to be made up for by Scottish taxation, and given the size of their population; this would be a sizeable burden on individual Scots.
I would also wonder what would happen when the oil runs out, which of course it will. Some commentators have likened it to a divorce, I think this sums it up fairly well however, with any divorce it is always the financial split and the sharing of the assets that causes the most pain and suffering.
I would hate to see similar things happen in the UK that happened during the break-up of the old Yugoslavia along nationalistic lines.
I read today that Northern Ireland may be sitting on substantial gold deposits. Will we see the rise of a group of Northern Irish nationalists along the same lines as the SNP with their eyes on the gold rather than the black gold? Could we see a rise in the efforts of the Eire nationalists to get the six counties back? Could get interesting.
We are constantly being told by Europhile Politicians that we have to solemnly honour our treaty obligations with regard to the European Union.
The UK Government draws up on its LEGAL BASIS from the Act of the Union. (a treaty) Article 4 of the Act of Union states: “That all the subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union
…..”we want an answer to the problems created by unfair and one sided devolution”.
The answer is very simple Mr Redwood. its called an English Parliament, and I suspect that you are slowly coming to realize it.
Shout loud and long enough where it matters (parliament)and you will have election victory assured in England.
Damn the Union.
[...] S James wrote an interesting post today on The treatment of Scotland and EnglandHere’s a quick [...]
I’m very glad that finally the debate has begun in the media, having been nothing more than some frustrated mutterings in Parliament from time to time. Labour could do themselves some serious damage if they try to keep things the way they are in the face of public pressure.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/let-them-have-their-oil-mr-cameron/
[...] tense relationship between Scotland and England, and this was explored during the week by John Redwood (another surprisingly good blog, even if you don’t share his politics) and Beau Bo D’Or, [...]
Cliff you said:
“On the face of it there does seem to be a Scottish mafia
John - for goodness sakes, give it a rest and quit whining about the Scots, will you?
Scotland get a higher IDENTIFIABLE spend than England as a whole, because it costs more to deliver public services in Scotland - caused mainly by us having 1/12 of the UK population spread over 1/3 of the UK landmass. The London ‘region’, despite being a densely populated city, gets an identical level of identifiable spending to Scotland. And that’s before you take into account the
For me the Bigger demon is the EU, if Breaking the union defeats the EU I’m all for it, we can always link up with the Scots and Welsh later….
Whatever it takes, the EU is a Monster that Must be destroyed.
The Scots and Welsh must surely see that Devolution is a lemon, what use is Devolution if 80% of their laws come from Brussels anyway,
the Only way they will have true Independance if that is what they really want is to help us defeat the EU and if that costs the Union (hopefullly only temporarily) then that is a Price worth paying.
With all due respect, John, even if there were a reference in the Stern Report to maritime boundaries or the relative split in tax receipts arising from the various parts of the UK - impressive as his CV might be - it would still have been well outwith both his remit and expertise to have done so.
The ‘curious figures’ used by the SNP are, I presume, a reference to the party’s treatment of North Sea Corporation Tax and Petroleum Revenue Tax in its forecasts - both of which are taxes levied on the basis of where the resource is extracted, and not the location of the final consumer.
It was Prof. Alex Kemp, a noted oil economist from Aberdeen University, who put the estimate of these tax receipts as falling at 95% from the Scottish sector of the North Sea, so the SNP estimate is hardly without foundation. Unlike, dare I say it, your earlier assertion of Scottish advantage when it comes to UK public spending…
Reply: Sorry - had the wrong figures in mind when I wrote the last Reply. The SNP figures do not take account of the geographical location of the oil, which is not 95% offshore Scotland depending on how you draw the boundaries. You also might as well argue that as so much property based tax comes from London London should declare independence and pocket that cash.
John, the figures produced by the University of Aberdeen do take account of the location of oil fields off the east coast of Scotland. In fact they use the principle of equidistance (the median line charting the respective coasts of England and Scotland) and still arrive at 95% of oil fields in “Scottish Waters”. I suggest you read the excellent piece by Professor Alex Kemp - Sclumberger Professor of Petroleum Economics at Aberdeen University.
And as above PRT and North Sea Corporation Tax have absolutely nothing to do with the English consumer or taxpayer