Dear Alex Salmond,
I doubt you’ll be pleased to read about how little impact you have had in trying to force a referendum on the independence of Scotland. Even though it has always been blatantly obvious how much the Scots hate the English, you clearly underestimated how much the Scots enjoy financially free-riding off the back of our Parliament.
Scottish voters still trust Westminster more than they trust Holyrood with their money and do not want tax powers to be transferred to Scotland. What you will also notice in the poll results is that 58% of Scots agreed that they have “the best of both worlds” by having their own Parliament but still remaining part of the UK - what a surprise! Amazingly enough, the Scots quite like getting a block grant from Westminster using the Barnett Formula which gives them an extra £1,500 per head than English people. 54% of Scots agreed that this current arrangement was the right one, while a mere 20% thought it best for Holyrood to raise its own taxes and spend them.
Allow me to make a suggestion: as you’ll never get independence on your terms, how about you start trying to gain more financial independence by getting Scotland to raise and spend its own revenue? Sod the poll ratings - if you’re serious about Scottish independence, I’d like to see you fighting for a more distanced relationship from Westminster in political and financial terms. Anyone who claims to support Scottish independence but is still happy to take handouts from Westminster is a fraud, and I’m beginning to think I should include you in that category.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
13 responses so far ↓
Blue Eyes // April 30, 2008 at 10:15 am
The Scots stand up for the Scots and quite rightly so. When will the English start to stand up for the English?
Letters From A Tory // April 30, 2008 at 10:55 am
I’m not really hearing much from Cameron and Clegg about this, which is at best unsurprising and at worst a neglect of their duties.
‘Standing up for your country’ is noticeable by its absence from British politics, and Alex Salmond is guilty of being incredibly two-faced about this by happily taking our money while championing independence.
irishpisky // April 30, 2008 at 2:03 pm
As an Irishman living in Scotland, who is basically a Tory, I have to make it plain that we, like England, and every other democracy has the Government for which it voted. I may well disagree with the current movement towards a form of independence, but I have to accept that this may be ‘the will of the people’. I would not be happy with it, and I do not believe that it will happen, because I think there will be another reversal at the next election in scotland.
Letters From A Tory // April 30, 2008 at 3:16 pm
From the YouGov poll discussed in the article, it doesn’t look like full independence is particularly appealing to the Scottish public.
Interesting that you think they’ll be a reversal, seeing as Wendy Alexander is getting hammered at the moment!
Richard Thomson // April 30, 2008 at 3:49 pm
You should try to keep up - the SNP has been arguing for more financial powers for Holyrood for years, irrespective as to whether Scotland is independent or not.
Letters From A Tory // April 30, 2008 at 4:07 pm
If you would like to paste a link to an article where Alex Salmond criticises the Barnett Formula on the grounds that Scotland receives an unfair proportion of the funds and the formula should therefore be renegotiated, I would be most grateful - but I think you’ll find it doesn’t exist.
The SNP has only been arguing for a greater share of oil revenues, not for reducing the funding they get from Westminster.
Richard Thomson // April 30, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I think we could probably agree that Scotland gets an unfair share of UK funding - it’s just I think it’s too low because we’re sending more to the Treasury in taxes than we get back, while you most likely take the contrary view. For an example of the SNP calling for full financial independence, see page 10 of the party’s 2005 Westminster manifesto, available here: http://www.snp.org/files/SNP_manifesto_2005.pdf
The SNP doesn’t want the block grant to be renegotiated - it wants it to be scrapped entirely, and for Scotland to retain all tax revenues collected in Scotland (under independence), or as part of the UK, to submit a portion south for shared services such as defence, the FCO etc.
To clarify: Barnett is a convergence formula, designed only to give Scotland an ever decreasing share of future increases in English identifiable spending. It has nothing at all to do with identifiable spending differences of themselves, which it actually reduces over time on those areas of spending to which it applies.
I suspect you’re labouring under the misapprehension that levels of identifiable spending in excess of the UK average equals ’subsidy’. There’s 2 sides to this equation - revenue and expenditure. At present, thanks to record oil prices, Scotland is most likely to be running a healthy surplus of revenue over expenditure. The UK as a whole, on the other hand, is borrowing £40bn this year to balance the books.
Anyway, even if Scottish identifiable spending was cut back to a UK average level, it still wouldn’t put a dent in the differences which exist between the English regions. Take a look at table 9.11, page 131 of PESA 2008 sometime if you don’t believe me:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/A/7/pesa0809_chap09.pdf
Letters From A Tory // April 30, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Alex Salmond is indeed pushing for full independence, but that is never going to happen - even the Scottish public don’t want it.
Evan Davis did some nice calculations recently, which showed that if Scotland were independent it would be running a deficit of £3.5 billion WITH THE OIL REVENUES INCLUDED, which makes the SNP claims of a surplus under Scottish independence look a bit embarrassing. Their assessment of oil revenue and defence spending was shown to be pretty amateurish.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/evandavis/2007/04/the_scottish_gamble_1.html
Yes, there are huge differences in funding for English regions but that doesn’t take anything away from the SNP’s dodgy calculations and Alex Salmond’s refusal to attack the Barnett Formula.
Richard Thomson // April 30, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I know Alex Salmond is pushing for full independence. My point is that the SNP has also made the case for Scotland to have full fiscal powers within the union as a precursor to independence. That would mean an end the block grant and the much misunderstood Barnett Formula.
Yes, there are huge differences in funding for English regions but that doesn’t take anything away from the SNP’s dodgy calculations and Alex Salmond’s refusal to attack the Barnett Formula
You’re confusing the Barnett Formula with the block grant - they’re not the same thing. I can also critique Evan Davis’ approach for you if you like, particularly on defence spending where Scotland receives significantly below the pro-rata share which is often attributed in such studies. Nonetheless, given that we’ll be talking about the difference between two very large numbers (revenue and expenditure) subject to a large degree of estimation, there’s always going to be room for interpretation.
I disagree with some of Evan Davis’ assumptions, but his conclusion is that despite the higher level of identifiable spending, an independent Scotland could sustain present level of spending while running a deficit pretty much in line with that of the UK. In other words, he concludes that Scottish identifiable spending might be above the UK average, but the revenues raised to cover it are above average also. As such, his analysis lends zero credibility to the idea that Scotland is in any way the recipient of Treasury largesse.
The poll you’re referring to on Independence was actually a 3 way question – no change; an undefined option of ‘more powers’ for Holyrood; or independence. A straight independence ‘yes or no’ question from the same polling company last week put the No vote at 40% and the Yes vote at 41%. So, you pays your money and takes your choice…
Alex // April 30, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Save us from all this “convergence formula “eyewash .
The Barnett Formula is not and has never been anything other than a straight forward formula for unequally dividing British governemnt exepnditure on a national basis. Thats what Joel Barnett says it was when he dreamt it up and has specifically decried any other interpretation . Nothing has changed since 1978 .
Richard Thomson // April 30, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Alex - what makes you think Joel Barnett understands the first thing about the formula his name just happened to be given to?
Barnett is a convergence formula - end of. The Block grant to which it is applied is a different matter entirely, but to claim that Barnett of itself gives Scotland some kind of spending advantage, is ‘wash’ from somewhere a bit further down the human body than the eye, I’m afraid…
M Anderson // May 1, 2008 at 4:08 am
Support for Scottish independence is at an all-time low, with fewer than one in five voters north of the Border wanting to break up Britain.
A poll conducted for The Daily Telegraph by YouGov – the most in-depth analysis yet of attitudes to constitutional change – shows that only 19 per cent of Scots would support independence in a three-option referendum.
Firstly, didnt it state… “A poll conducted for The Daily Telegraph by YouGov”. Oh yeah so that can be trusted, right? No! I bet brown eye thought that one up. On seconds thoughts, he’s too thick!
Secondly, why wouldnt the sweats want to maintain what’s going on i.e. the Barnett formula, England having no parliament, the west lothian question, and all the other discriminatory practises againt the English? How else will they pay for their welfare cases?
If they think the Barnett formula doesnt give them any advantage how come they are oh so happy to keep it? What rot they waffle! Of course it gives them more than their fair share otherwise they’d be screaming and carrying on about getting rid of it.
When I was growing up all I heard was how the jocks were oppressed, were victims, and were this, that and the other. Usually it was something about when we get the chance well be independent.
Well obviously this was all a big charade. The jocks, or is it jokes, are obviously quite happy to remain BEGGARS! No integrity! No guts! No morals! YOU ARE BEGGARS!
Well come on, scot free (loader) hasnt become a common saying by accident.
D Forman // May 8, 2008 at 11:29 am
M Anderson
There is no person more miserly than an Englishman.
England has been subisdised by Scotland for years and with energy prices only going up it will continue to be so as Scotland is an exporter of energy.
You keep believing you somehow prop up Scotland and watch as you suffer from drought (again need to import form Scotland) and energy crisis after crisis.
You should read up on the McCrone report - A report commisoined by Westminster which showed that Scotland would have one of the strongest currencies and economies in the world.
England is a sponging state unable to pay for itself. £40bn a year in borrowing sonny. You are the ones doing the begging to the financial markets.
Leave a Comment