should England stop subsidising the smaller UK nations

carrock

THE BARNETT FORMULA HAS COST ENGLISH TAXPAYERS £200 BILLION

The TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) presents a new and comprehensive study of the Barnett Formula, the Government system used to calculate the distribution of public spending between the four countries of the UK, that reveals the staggering cost to taxpayers of the spending gap between England and the three better-funded devolved territories (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). The full report can be found here.



In the last week, with the SNP Government in Edinburgh proposing radical tax changes and Gordon Brown pledging an investigation into the financial responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament, the issue of the funding settlement between England and the devolved territories has hit the headlines once again. The TPA's report, written by former Treasury economist Mike Denham, explores the troubled history of that funding settlement, details the burden placed on taxpayers by the Barnett Formula and puts forward the case for an end to the Formula and its replacement with true fiscal decentralisation. The report will be submitted as evidence to the Calman Commission and to the House of Lords committee currently investigating the Barnett Formula.



KEY FINDINGS

Identifiable public spending per head in England is £7,535 pa (2007-08). But in Scotland it is 22 per cent (£1,644) higher, Wales 14 per cent (£1,042) higher, and Northern Ireland an extraordinary 30 per cent (£2,254) higher.
Just over the last two decades (since 1985-86), higher spending in the three devolved territories has cost UK taxpayers a cumulative £200 billion (£102 billion in Scotland; £43 billion in Wales; £57 billion in Northern Ireland).
North Sea Oil has not funded the Scottish spending gap, despite Scottish Nationalist claims to the contrary. In only five of the last 23 years have North Sea Oil receipts exceeded the cost of higher funding paid to Scotland. Even with current high oil prices, the income from the Scottish share of North Sea Oil only just covers the spending gap, and North Sea Oil output is projected to fall by 50 per cent by 2020.
To read the full report, click here.



Mike Denham, a former Treasury economist and author of the report, said:

“The Barnett Formula has a troubled history and has failed to address the extremely unfair situation of English taxpayers heavily subsiding Scotland. Everyone is struggling to make ends meet, and it is long overdue for the Government to lift this burden from taxpayers’ shoulders. English taxpayers want an end to subsidising Scotland, and the Scottish Government wants financial control devolved to Holyrood, so now is the ideal time to consign the Barnett Formula to history.”

Cressers

Yes. If they want seperate govt, legal tender, and legal systems they can pay for them

daviesee

carrock wrote:

THE BARNETT FORMULA HAS COST ENGLISH TAXPAYERS £200 BILLION

The TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) presents a new and comprehensive study of the Barnett Formula, the Government system used to calculate the distribution of public spending between the four countries of the UK, that reveals the staggering cost to taxpayers of the spending gap between England and the three better-funded devolved territories (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). The full report can be found here.



In the last week, with the SNP Government in Edinburgh proposing radical tax changes and Gordon Brown pledging an investigation into the financial responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament, the issue of the funding settlement between England and the devolved territories has hit the headlines once again. The TPA's report, written by former Treasury economist Mike Denham, explores the troubled history of that funding settlement, details the burden placed on taxpayers by the Barnett Formula and puts forward the case for an end to the Formula and its replacement with true fiscal decentralisation. The report will be submitted as evidence to the Calman Commission and to the House of Lords committee currently investigating the Barnett Formula.



KEY FINDINGS

Identifiable public spending per head in England is £7,535 pa (2007-08). But in Scotland it is 22 per cent (£1,644) higher, Wales 14 per cent (£1,042) higher, and Northern Ireland an extraordinary 30 per cent (£2,254) higher.
Just over the last two decades (since 1985-86), higher spending in the three devolved territories has cost UK taxpayers a cumulative £200 billion (£102 billion in Scotland; £43 billion in Wales; £57 billion in Northern Ireland).
North Sea Oil has not funded the Scottish spending gap, despite Scottish Nationalist claims to the contrary. In only five of the last 23 years have North Sea Oil receipts exceeded the cost of higher funding paid to Scotland. Even with current high oil prices, the income from the Scottish share of North Sea Oil only just covers the spending gap, and North Sea Oil output is projected to fall by 50 per cent by 2020.
To read the full report, click here.



Mike Denham, a former Treasury economist and author of the report, said:

“The Barnett Formula has a troubled history and has failed to address the extremely unfair situation of English taxpayers heavily subsiding Scotland. Everyone is struggling to make ends meet, and it is long overdue for the Government to lift this burden from taxpayers’ shoulders. English taxpayers want an end to subsidising Scotland, and the Scottish Government wants financial control devolved to Holyrood, so now is the ideal time to consign the Barnett Formula to history.”

You do realise that there are other revenues on top of the oil, making Scotland a net contributor?

Are you Alex Salmond in disguise?

Just the kind of debate that he wants to have in an election year. :roll:

carrock

There are a number of good points that Alex Salmond makes, to be fair

I think the english would rather like a friendly neighbour, rather than a surly lodger, as he says

The current situation is a fudge- Holyrood is semi-autonomous but still beholden to Barnett and in charge of administering funds it does not raise, and the right wing UK press whips up all this hatred about Scots getting free prescriptions and so on.

Surely the only fair thing is full devolution and independence, for all UK states

Then, I might at some point be able to return to Murrayfield, without being told to feck off home you english bawbag

carrock

You do realise that there are other revenues on top of the oil, making Scotland a net contributor?

Of course- whisky, pringle jumpers and shortbread!!

And the Krankies- Scotland's major contribution to light entertainment :shock:

spen666

carrock wrote:

You do realise that there are other revenues on top of the oil, making Scotland a net contributor?

Of course- whisky, pringle jumpers and shortbread!!

And the Krankies- Scotland's major contribution to light entertainment :shock:

The Scotland football team are the major contributor to comedy- especially at major tournaments- its just a shame the runs are over within 2 weeks :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

softlad

spen666 wrote:

The Scotland football team are the major contributor to comedy- especially at major tournaments- its just a shame the runs are over within 2 weeks :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

not to worry - the welsh rugby team has now taken over that role.....

daviesee

carrock wrote:

You do realise that there are other revenues on top of the oil, making Scotland a net contributor?

Of course- whisky, pringle jumpers and shortbread!!

And the Krankies- Scotland's major contribution to light entertainment :shock:

Actually, you raise a fair point there.
In economic studies, whisky is counted as a UK export.
When was the last time anyone asked for an English whisky? 8)

Lovin' the debate. Once Westminster has taken us fully into Brussels it will all be irrelevant anyway.

Krankies = Orville?

cee

where was that story quoted from?

seems like a small part of a bigger document..

I would very much like to read the whole thing.

ta,
c

bompington

It is true that England is much richer than the other UK nations.
This is probably something to do with the fact that most of our money has to pass through London at some point in its life, where the bankers and the government are free to help themselves to as much as they like.

plowmar

Independence for yorkshire, that'll show em. :twisted:

Seanos

bompington wrote:

It is true that England is much richer than the other UK nations.
This is probably something to do with the fact that most of our money has to pass through London at some point in its life, where the bankers and the government are free to help themselves to as much as they like.

Yeah, that's exactly what happens.
:roll:

rolf_f

daviesee wrote:

In economic studies, whisky is counted as a UK export.
When was the last time anyone asked for an English whisky? 8)

I believe until recently it wasn't legal to distill Whisky in England - to protect the Scottish industry. I did hear someone has started up a distillery in England and it is looking very promising.

Garry H

The majority of the wealth is created in London/Home Counties. Perhaps they should be granted independence from the rest of the UK...

RichN95.

The problem with this debate is that the figures all focus on the present economic situation or at best the very near past. There's scant regard for history.

Take South Wales for instance. About 200 years of Welsh coal (and subsiduary industries) fuelled the industrial revolution and the building of the British Empire, and England did very well out of that. Seeing as the Rhondda Valley isn't very reminiscent of Dubai, I'm guessing the area made a considerable net loss on it's natural resources.

I'm wondering if the English separatists would be so keen to cut funding if they had to 'settle the bill' for the last couple of centuries first.

There are lots of deprived areas of England that can tell the same story and are currently running at a net loss.


(Note: I'm from Berkshire originally, not Cardiff - half Welsh though)

mats

THE BARNETT FORMULA HAS COST ENGLISH TAXPAYERS £200 BILLION

Aye right . later on in your message you have written "UK taxpayers" make your mind up.

but beside that 22% you say ....it should be more, last year I had to down grade from a Range Rover Sport to a poxy Disco'. if things go on like this I will need to to start looking for a job, either that or give up the smack.

nicensleazy

I'm a great believer in a strong Union - however, we should stop giving in foreign aid! Apparently we even give China millions each year!

mats

you can distill whiskey anywhere ( assuming you have HMRC clearance) but " scotch whisky "can only be distilled and matured in Scotland.

carrock

I would very much like to read the whole thing.

http://tpa.typepad.com/home/files/unequ ... ormula.pdf

markyboy2005

RichN95 wrote:

The problem with this debate is that the figures all focus on the present economic situation or at best the very near past. There's scant regard for history.

Take South Wales for instance. About 200 years of Welsh coal (and subsiduary industries) fuelled the industrial revolution and the building of the British Empire, and England did very well out of that. Seeing as the Rhondda Valley isn't very reminiscent of Dubai, I'm guessing the area made a considerable net loss on it's natural resources.

I'm wondering if the English separatists would be so keen to cut funding if they had to 'settle the bill' for the last couple of centuries first.

There are lots of deprived areas of England that can tell the same story and are currently running at a net loss.


(Note: I'm from Berkshire originally, not Cardiff - half Welsh though)

Rich, I was about to write something very similar......This issue cannot be considered out with the context of the last couple of hundred years at least.

Good Post

markyboy2005

mats wrote:

last year I had to down grade from a Range Rover Sport to a poxy Disco'. if things go on like this I will need to to start looking for a job, either that or give up the smack.

skyd0g

Hasn't most of the Scottish oil been used to deep-fry Mars bars?

finchy

RichN95 wrote:

Take South Wales for instance. About 200 years of Welsh coal (and subsiduary industries) fuelled the industrial revolution and the building of the British Empire, and England did very well out of that. Seeing as the Rhondda Valley isn't very reminiscent of Dubai, I'm guessing the area made a considerable net loss on it's natural resources.

True, same story in the North of England, and to be fair, there are a hell of a lot of people living in oil-rich states who haven't exactly benefited from the wealth.

finchy

Garry H wrote:

The majority of the wealth is created in London/Home Counties. Perhaps they should be granted independence from the rest of the UK...

There's a big difference between creating and owning wealth.

I'd like to see the real figures for how much wealth is created by each region, before judging on this matter, because let's be honest, the TPA is not really the most objective organisation on the face of this planet.

carrock

johnfinch wrote:

Garry H wrote:

The majority of the wealth is created in London/Home Counties. Perhaps they should be granted independence from the rest of the UK...

There's a big difference between creating and owning wealth.

I'd like to see the real figures for how much wealth is created by each region, before judging on this matter, because let's be honest, the TPA is not really the most objective organisation on the face of this planet.

Well they represent the UK Tax payer. I assume we are mostly UK tax payers on this forum. Difficult to see how more objective they could be :?:

They could, I suppose, be seen as acting in the interests of the English majority, but given that the English contribute over 80% of the UK taxes, I'd say that's fair enough...

finchy

carrock wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Garry H wrote:

I'd like to see the real figures for how much wealth is created by each region, before judging on this matter, because let's be honest, the TPA is not really the most objective organisation on the face of this planet.

Well they represent the UK Tax payer. I assume we are mostly UK tax payers on this forum. Difficult to see how more objective they could be :?:

They could, I suppose, be seen as acting in the interests of the English majority, but given that the English contribute over 80% of the UK taxes, I'd say that's fair enough...

Er, I said objective, not representative.

And they don't represent the taxpayer. They represent certain taxpayers who share the same ideology, which some taxpayers believe in, others don't.

Billios

And they don't represent the taxpayer. They represent certain taxpayers who share the same ideology, which some taxpayers believe in, others don't.

+1 They certainly dont represent me as a taxpayer.

The problem with this debate is that the figures all focus on the present economic situation or at best the very near past. There's scant regard for history.

Take South Wales for instance. About 200 years of Welsh coal (and subsiduary industries) fuelled the industrial revolution and the building of the British Empire, and England did very well out of that. Seeing as the Rhondda Valley isn't very reminiscent of Dubai, I'm guessing the area made a considerable net loss on it's natural resources.

Backpayment, plus interest..... that'll hurt.

spen666

They do not represent me. Nor are they particularly objective

passout

Money isn't everything........a bit simplistic perhaps but true. I'm proud to be British myself, long may the great union continue. Must go, I'm getting all misty eyed....

blackpanther

Perhaps some on here would like to see English Taxpayers supporting argentina when the Falklands oil starts to flow??

Billios

Whats that got to do with it?