Oct 29 2007
Money for Scotland
I was phoned yesterday by Scottish journalists aware of the growing disquiet in England about the more favourable financial settlement they receive north of the border. I was asked if the Conservatives would change the formula.
I see this as a more urgent question than that. It cannot be delayed until after the next election. The anger is real now. The present government has brought this row on, by its botched devolution proposals, and by losing control of the Scottish Parliament. The issue is not what will the Conservatives do tomorrow, but what will Labour have to do today?
The Labour government - and the original architect of the formula- see the need to review it. Labour Ministers are finding it galling to watch as Alex Salmond uses the extra money to spend on eye catching and popular proposals like free prescriptions, free care and less expensive higher education. They realise that to stay in office they need to win the bulk of their seats in England where the bulk of the population lives. English voters are getting sick and tired of paying so much tax, with little in return by way of better public services in their own areas. They find it especially irritating to see Scotland flaunt its better deal.
The main reason Scotland gets so much more per head than England is that the Scottish economy has performed so much worse than London’s economy. More people are on benefit proportionately, there are more people in need of NHS treatment, and the public sector is so much more dominant than it is in southern England.
The government will be looking to find a way of reforming the financial settlement which allows Scotland to meet its legitimate bills brought on by more social need, without giving it such a better deal than England to allow Salmond to claim credit for extra spending. Ministers are well aware that all this just serves to make Alex Salmond more popular, and places them in a tight corner. If they do not find a more convincing answer soon, English anger will translate into a movement away from supporting Labour. If they find the wrong answer it will enable Alex Salmond to twist the knife further in Scotland, threatening Westminster seats Labour need to hold.
I thought it very funny to read Labour’s protestations that the Conservatives were damaging the Union by demanding some justice for England. Surely the people who started to split the Union were those Labour MPs who thought lop sided devolution would work? They are now being hoist by their own petard.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
This is a measured response to an argument which is being fuelled by ignorance in some areas of the English press, thanks very much Max Hastings, and quite deliberately by Alex Salmond in Scotland.
If only we had some Conservative MP’s representing Scottish constituencies we might have a bit more balance. Sadly however, the more this kind of simplified posturing on a very complex issue continues, the less likely we are to correct that imbalance at the next election.
From a small beginning in 1707, the United Kingdom of Great Britain went on to conquer the world and rival the Roman empire in historical terms. It’s been a wonderful 300 years, let’s not take our eyes off the ball at this vital moment.
[Reply]
John,
Fully agree. I also think the issue of fairness should be extended.
‘English votes on English matters’ (EVOEM) will create the chance for a Labour majority in Westminster but with a Conservative English majority on English Matters. Sounds like a recipe for sclerosis. I think a full English Parliament and English First Minister is needed.
The terms of devolution for each of England, Wales, Scotland and NI should be the same.
The per capita public spending should be the same.
Out of interest - Brown is regularly and rightly attacked for being a partisan, self-serving weasel. How would you propose that Cameron plays this to avoid looking similar? (EVOEM will obviously be hugely advantageous politically to the Consevatives).
Reply: David Cameron has to explain the unfairness and propose a solution.
[Reply]
Get off the fence and do what you were elected to do, make a dicision and that is an English Parliament. There is no other solution.
[Reply]
…and another related issue…
Labour benefit enormously from the size and distribution of parliamentary constituencies. Should the EVOEM debate not also address the ‘unfair’ absolute number of MPs from Scotland, Wales and NI?
Is it also fair that Labour have so many MPs from relatively smaller constituencies while the Conservatives have relatively fewer MPs from large ones? Labour got less votes than the Conservatives in England but have over 100 more English MPs.
The recent boundary changes go some small way to redress this imbalance but I would advocate that the Electoral Commission should be forced to reararnge the constituency map every 5 years to ensure that ALL constituencies are no more than a defined (and small) percentage above or below the average size - and if demographic movements change things then the Electoral Commission would have to reallocate wards to rebalance. This would automatically redress both the regional and national inequalities.
Reply: The only kind of proportional representation I believe in is equal sized constituencies.
[Reply]
It is very easy. For the UK as a whole, the pot of money allocated to regional spending gets allocated pro rata.
The rich areas subsidise the poor areas as a consequence.
Everyone knows they get an equal allocation of cash and so it is fair.
The question is they how well does local government spend the money.
They can’t get more by increasing taxation.
The only way they can do more, is by being better at spending the cash.
The democracy is there too. Vote for the party or people who get the most value for money out of the pot.
My take on the Scotish issue is that England would be best off without Scotland, and vice versa. Scotland would very quickly have to adjust. Thtat can only be for the good.
[Reply]
John, an excellent article. However, you say “the Conservatives were damaging the Union by demanding some justice for England.”
Is England not entitled to more than “some justice”? Will the Conservatives finally come out to bat for England’s equality?
Reply: Yes of course England expects… I said Labour was claiming we are damaging the Union, which is a bit rich as they began the trouble with their botched devolution.
[Reply]
As an English resident of the United Kingdom, I am baffled as to how Parliament can condone the apparently racial discrimination against persons of English birth/residence. I pay UK taxes set by HMG and yet in both Education and Health matters my family receives a reduced service, not based on an arbitrary means test, but solely based on the postcode in which we live. How can UK be in a position where the Scottish Parliament can legally charge English residents to study at “Scottish” universities, and yet students from Scotland (and apparently the rest of the EU) can study there for free. Surely this is discrimination under the EU’s freedom of movement!
Likewise with healthcare how/why can it be legal for discrimination on charges based solely on postcode rather than clinical need?
In both cases the money funding this extravagance is raised from general taxation - if it came through the Scottish Parliament raising an additional levy (which they are entitled to do), then I don’t think most English voters would be concerned.
[Reply]
Nick (11:27 am) you are not quite correct, Part IV, section 73 of the Scotland Act, gives the regional executive in Holyrood the power to fix the basic rate for Scottish taxpayers
Alex Salmond should invoke these provisions, for no other reason but to listen to Scottish Labour MP’s with Scottish constituencies squeal like stuck pigs, as their Westminster pay packets take on the extra squeeze.
.
[Reply]
Alex Johnstone MSP
“From a small beginning in 1707, the United Kingdom of Great Britain went on to conquer the world and rival the Roman empire in historical terms. It’s been a wonderful 300 years, let’s not take our eyes off the ball at this vital moment.”
OH, I see.
It is now politically expedient for us to ignore the sensibilities of our ethnic minorities and stop being ashamed of the ‘racist, white, vicious and vile’ British Empire and celebrate it’s very existance.
About time thank you Sir, you have my vote.
[Reply]
Its noticeable that many of those, like Alex Johnstone MSP, who claim the issue is complex, and misunderstood are those who benefit the most from the current status quo.
We also get a procession of Scots and Welsh politicians explaining why the English don’t want any justice or their own parliament.
The English are reasonable people, generous people, patient people, but we are not fools. We have waited for 10 years since New Labour started its botched constitutional experiments, if they can’t finish the job they should resign.
PS You said “From a small beginning in 1707, ” - well at that point Scotland was one of the poorest countries in Europe with a massive public debt - which England took on.
[Reply]
I was phoned yesterday by Scottish journalists aware of the growing disquiet in England about the more favourable financial settlement they receive north of the border. I was asked if the Conservatives would change the formula.
Oh for cying out loud John wake up. What has gone on for the past ten years? Has scottish/welsh/irish/socialist NEW LABOUR’S conduct towards English folk been right or wrong? There is only one answer! You know what it is! So, act upon it! You have many standing with you.
“I thought it very funny to read Labour’s protestations that the Conservatives were damaging the Union by demanding some justice for England.”
You don’t believe that do you? How long have you been in politics? New labour will say and do anything to keep the Englishman/Englishwoman from having equality. It is their obsession John.
New labour have damaged the union. No! They have destroyed the union. It’s all red herrings John.
“Surely the people who started to split the Union were those Labour MPs who thought lop sided devolution would work? They are now being hoist by their own petard.”
Precisely John! They thought the English would roll over! We haven’t! We NEVER will! They are the archaetypal bullies. As long as they’re on top, they’re fine; as soon as the worm turns it’s all hot air and ranting from them. They just can’t take it when the boots on the other foot!
[Reply]
Once an equilibrium has been disturbed it affects every part of it. That is a scientific law and it also applies in politics. What we must do is propose a solution that is seen to be fair to all parties. In my opinion that means each country of the union should be given the same degree of control. That is what Labour did not do and so it has given rise to all the cries of unfairness. I do not think that it would be enough to simply use Rifkind’s idea, as that would be an unequal solution, unless it was applied to the Scots and the Welsh.
[Reply]
There are 2 points - the money Scotland gets & the political power.
Scotland gets more money per head & did so long before devolution largely because the Barnett formula is calculated on population numbers as they used to be. Scotland’s population has been dropping & is now stable while England’s is rising fast. Solve the immigration problem & you have solved much of this. Scotland’s benefit from the Exchequer is less than it seems if you take North sea oil into account though we probably still benefit. On the other hand we do lose the ability to set a lower corporation tax rate to stimulate economic growth (this is SNP policy & worked in Ireland).
The democratic defecit is also something that England suffered vis a vis Northern Ireland for half a century without complaint. I think a Parliament with a UK PM half the week & a different English one would be workable. England should decide if you want a purely English Parliament or not (I would favour a regional system but I, correctly, can express an opinion but don’t get a vote).
It would be cynical to think the Tories want the 2 majorities in Westminster system because it would be unworkable if Labour got in & equally so to believe they oppose a separate Parliament because the pressure for a democratic electoral system would be overwhelming. However sometimes cynicism is justified.
[Reply]
Labour received 60,000 less votes than the conservatives in England at the last general election but got 96 more seats!!!!!
If it had been the other way round the BBC would never have stopped moaning about the unfainess of it all.
Another point; has there ever been a country where a prime minister could impose legislation on another part of his country that did not effect his own constituents? Is this tenable in the long run?
[Reply]