Journalist in 'doesn't understand Barnett formula' shocker
Discussion
I dare say there may be strong opinions here on the rights and wrongs of the Barnett formula, but it was set up on the basis that ministering to the populace of Scotland is more expensive per head than doing the same in Englandshire; the Scots live further apart so stuff costs more. What this has to do with social care is unclear to me. If there is inequity of provision due to cost variation, it is caused by the rural/urban divide and has little or nothing to do with Scotland or the Union. Bringing the Barnett formula into it is a distraction.
I'm sure this is slightly off-topic, but if scotland gained independence:
1. Would labour ever get in again in England?
2. Which (if either) country would be represented in Europe?
3. Would Scotland have to apply separately to Europe - and if it did, would it?
4. If it didn't apply, would we have a border control?
1. Would labour ever get in again in England?
2. Which (if either) country would be represented in Europe?
3. Would Scotland have to apply separately to Europe - and if it did, would it?
4. If it didn't apply, would we have a border control?
Vytalis said:
I'm sure this is slightly off-topic, but if scotland gained independence:
1. Would labour ever get in again in England?
2. Which (if either) country would be represented in Europe?
3. Would Scotland have to apply separately to Europe - and if it did, would it?
4. If it didn't apply, would we have a border control?
1 Every single time tony blair won an election in the UK he had a larger majority then scotland has MPs1. Would labour ever get in again in England?
2. Which (if either) country would be represented in Europe?
3. Would Scotland have to apply separately to Europe - and if it did, would it?
4. If it didn't apply, would we have a border control?
2 Will it be here next year
3 See number 2
4 I hope so then we can keep out the english off the nice highland roads with their bloody caravans
hidetheelephants said:
I dare say there may be strong opinions here on the rights and wrongs of the Barnett formula, but it was set up on the basis that ministering to the populace of Scotland is more expensive per head than doing the same in Englandshire; the Scots live further apart so stuff costs more. What this has to do with social care is unclear to me. If there is inequity of provision due to cost variation, it is caused by the rural/urban divide and has little or nothing to do with Scotland or the Union. Bringing the Barnett formula into it is a distraction.
Have you actually read the articleThe journalist is well aware of the justification for the Barnett formula but does not believe the most efficient way of calculating need is on a country by country basis rather than county by county.
Parts of Scotland are very urbanised. How does it cost more to deliver services in Glasgow and Edinbrough than it does in Manchester and Liverpool?. The level of funding obviously exceeds that needed due to difficulties in service delivery as evidenced by all the services that are free in Scotland which are charged for in England.
thinfourth2 said:
1 Every single time tony blair won an election in the UK he had a larger majority then scotland has MPs
2 Will it be here next year
3 See number 2
4 I hope so then we can keep out the english off the nice highland roads with their bloody caravans
1. Legitimate or gerrymandered?2 Will it be here next year
3 See number 2
4 I hope so then we can keep out the english off the nice highland roads with their bloody caravans
2. Assume it is (euro unlikely, EU probably will still be here)
3. See number 2
4. Agreed- if I was an mp I'd make a new law which requires all caravans to be safety tested with molten lava straight out of the factory <clarkson> To Destruction <\clarkson>
Vytalis said:
I'm sure this is slightly off-topic, but if scotland gained independence:
1. Would labour ever get in again in England?
2. Which (if either) country would be represented in Europe?
3. Would Scotland have to apply separately to Europe - and if it did, would it?
4. If it didn't apply, would we have a border control?
What Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales, does is to keep the conservatives more towards the centre. Remove the Scottish labour/liberal vote and move England/Wales to the right.1. Would labour ever get in again in England?
2. Which (if either) country would be represented in Europe?
3. Would Scotland have to apply separately to Europe - and if it did, would it?
4. If it didn't apply, would we have a border control?
Despite the absolute mess that labour left, the conservatives, albeit one which was very right wing, still failed to get an overall majority.
What the block labour vote in the north gives is a limit to how far to the right conservatives can go. Post separation what will happen is that the (various groups within) the conservative party will realign and become more right wing. Labour will probably also move to the right to an extent although if they don't then there will be a middle ground vacuum. What we can say is that we'll never get Brown back of course.
Scotland will lurch to the left, at least initially. How far is open to considerable doubt of course. Much of Scottish politics, at least UK wide, seems to be responding to the English/Welsh. One wonders if they will move to the right after the first heady days and years of not paying for anything.
The SNP will probably collapse as its raison d'etre, that of saying how badly they are treated by the English, would be gone. So what would happen then? Labour might well be rejuvenated although that is not a given.
There will be a considerable period of 'readjustment' for the Scots and a much more limited one for England/Wales.
Scotland will need to remain in the EU. It is unlikely to choose the other option, that of becoming a tax haven or such. The Barnett Formula is one that the EU might well have to consider so allowing Scotland to be a net taker from the EU rather than contributor.
It will have to negotiate its membership and contributions.
England/Wales will renegotiate as well, the threat of a right wing conservative majority might be enough to gain favourable terms. If not then it will probably change status within the EU or leave altogether.
The Scots will be able to put in border controls if they wish should England/Wales leave the EU, a greater possibility if the Scots separate. They probably will not want to as they will need the English/Welsh tourists, at least for a while. Any obstruction might put people off.
The main problem will be, if history teaches us anything, that England/Wales and Scotland will compete. The antagonism with Scotland cost the English/Welsh a great deal, putting back the empire by some years. Once the Union came about both countries flowered. It was, without a doubt, the best thing that could have happened. The UK could then concentrate on beating the 'others'.
Had the Union not taken place then the Scots historical friendliness with the French (despite being let down by them time and again) would probably have allowed a rampant Napoleon onto the island and Britain would probably have been part of the first EU experiment.
Scotland has had a massive political influence on the UK, one considerably greater than the size of its electorate should have allowed. What will happen to the UK once it is gone is unknown but might be a fundamental change. Every decision the cabinet makes has to take into account the separate effect on the Scots.
The one beneficiary in the whole matter might well be Wales. At the moment it can safely be ignored, its influence negated by the Scots. It will become essential to the labour party and might well be courted.
An independent Scotland will destabilise the British Isles, maybe at a time when everyone needs allies. It will probably hurt every country involved. Like it or not, Scotland’s massive influence on the UK will be lessened considerably. Decisions in Westminster need no longer take them into consideration. If they get uppity then they could then be considered to their cost.
Small countries can experience problems. Look at Eire. I know it is fantasy but work out what the UK would be like if it included all of Ireland. It would certainly be a much bigger power block and one that would rival the French and Germans.
I’ve been brought up with Scots and a few Welsh. I’ve worked with them. A shift without its two or three Scots would seem weird. I think Union should stay.
Vytalis said:
thinfourth2 said:
1 Every single time tony blair won an election in the UK he had a larger majority then scotland has MPs
2 Will it be here next year
3 See number 2
4 I hope so then we can keep out the english off the nice highland roads with their bloody caravans
1. Legitimate or gerrymandered?2 Will it be here next year
3 See number 2
4 I hope so then we can keep out the english off the nice highland roads with their bloody caravans
2. Assume it is (euro unlikely, EU probably will still be here)
3. See number 2
4. Agreed- if I was an mp I'd make a new law which requires all caravans to be safety tested with molten lava straight out of the factory <clarkson> To Destruction <\clarkson>
2 The answer is irrelevant as this will turn into another scotland bashing thread
3 See 2
4 We can agree
Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales, has had a massive influence on British politics.
PMs since more modern times:
Gladstone – MP Midlothian, PM various times, around 14 years from 1880 to 94. Was English MP for a while. Born in Liverpool of Scottish parents, thought himself as Scottish.
Campbell Bannerman – MP for Stirling and PM for three years. Born Glasgow. Replaced by:
Asquith – MP for East Fife, PM for 14 years. Born Yorkshire.
(Lloyd George, Welsh – PM 6 years)
Bonar Law – Glasgow. 1 year as PM.
Ramsay MacDonald – PM for half a dozen years or so. Whilst represented a Welsh constituency he was born in Scotland. The first labour parliament in 1924.
Hume – Only a couple of years as PM but a Scottish land owner
(Callaghan – Welsh, PM 3 years)
Then GB for three years.
There have been any number of Scots MPs in the cabinet, although their influence depended on who was PM. Certainly in the Atlee’s government and the war years Scots were a major force in parliament. Some of the great Scottish parliamentarians who provided a (dare I say it?) stirling service.
In that time the Scots were essential to the Wilson and Callaghan governments.
PMs since more modern times:
Gladstone – MP Midlothian, PM various times, around 14 years from 1880 to 94. Was English MP for a while. Born in Liverpool of Scottish parents, thought himself as Scottish.
Campbell Bannerman – MP for Stirling and PM for three years. Born Glasgow. Replaced by:
Asquith – MP for East Fife, PM for 14 years. Born Yorkshire.
(Lloyd George, Welsh – PM 6 years)
Bonar Law – Glasgow. 1 year as PM.
Ramsay MacDonald – PM for half a dozen years or so. Whilst represented a Welsh constituency he was born in Scotland. The first labour parliament in 1924.
Hume – Only a couple of years as PM but a Scottish land owner
(Callaghan – Welsh, PM 3 years)
Then GB for three years.
There have been any number of Scots MPs in the cabinet, although their influence depended on who was PM. Certainly in the Atlee’s government and the war years Scots were a major force in parliament. Some of the great Scottish parliamentarians who provided a (dare I say it?) stirling service.
In that time the Scots were essential to the Wilson and Callaghan governments.
Derek Smith said:
Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales, has had a massive influence on British politics.
PMs since more modern times:
Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh, Scotland on 6 May 1953, the second son of Leo and Hazel Blair (née Corscadden). Leo Blair, the illegitimate son of two English actors, had been adopted as a baby by Glasgow shipyard worker James Blair and his wife, Mary. PMs since more modern times:
JagLover said:
Have you actually read the article
The journalist is well aware of the justification for the Barnett formula but does not believe the most efficient way of calculating need is on a country by country basis rather than county by county.
Parts of Scotland are very urbanised. How does it cost more to deliver services in Glasgow and Edinbrough than it does in Manchester and Liverpool?. The level of funding obviously exceeds that needed due to difficulties in service delivery as evidenced by all the services that are free in Scotland which are charged for in England.
More likely what happens is that the Scottish Government make a similar calculation that gives more of the money to the North than to the central belt (it doesn't always feel like it though!) - the Barnett Formula probably averages the cost across the north and the central belt.The journalist is well aware of the justification for the Barnett formula but does not believe the most efficient way of calculating need is on a country by country basis rather than county by county.
Parts of Scotland are very urbanised. How does it cost more to deliver services in Glasgow and Edinbrough than it does in Manchester and Liverpool?. The level of funding obviously exceeds that needed due to difficulties in service delivery as evidenced by all the services that are free in Scotland which are charged for in England.
We don't get services free because we get more money - we get them free because successive Scottish Governments have decided to spend less on other services than England. The quality is often worse or non-existant. More likely than not the Scottish Government is going to realise in a few years that all the various political promises they have made are unaffordable. Last summer there were serious talks of tuition fees being brought back while several parties proposed to curtail free travel for the over 65s.
bigdog3 said:
Derek Smith said:
Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales, has had a massive influence on British politics.
PMs since more modern times:
Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh, Scotland on 6 May 1953, the second son of Leo and Hazel Blair (née Corscadden). Leo Blair, the illegitimate son of two English actors, had been adopted as a baby by Glasgow shipyard worker James Blair and his wife, Mary. PMs since more modern times:
ninja-lewis said:
More likely what happens is that the Scottish Government make a similar calculation that gives more of the money to the North than to the central belt (it doesn't always feel like it though!) - the Barnett Formula probably averages the cost across the north and the central belt.
We don't get services free because we get more money - we get them free because successive Scottish Governments have decided to spend less on other services than England. The quality is often worse or non-existant. More likely than not the Scottish Government is going to realise in a few years that all the various political promises they have made are unaffordable. Last summer there were serious talks of tuition fees being brought back while several parties proposed to curtail free travel for the over 65s.
This is the thing that worries me for Scotland. Independence is going to cause huge financial issues due to the way Scotland is funded at the moment (which is partially to stop independence) and if Scotland is forced to take its share of the national debt it's going to be in even more trouble. We don't get services free because we get more money - we get them free because successive Scottish Governments have decided to spend less on other services than England. The quality is often worse or non-existant. More likely than not the Scottish Government is going to realise in a few years that all the various political promises they have made are unaffordable. Last summer there were serious talks of tuition fees being brought back while several parties proposed to curtail free travel for the over 65s.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff