How Scotland will be robbed

Thanks to the Barnett Formula, the UK government provides more funding per head in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. Better Together touts this as an extra £1400 in each person's pocket that will be lost if Scotland votes 'Aye' (famously illustrated with Lego). Put to one side the argument as to whether the extra £1400 is a fair reflection of the extra Scotland contributes to the UK economy, through oil and other means. The Barnett Formula is up for renegotiation. Will it be maintained if Scotland votes 'Nay'?

Wings over Scotland lays out the argument that if Scotland opts to stick with Westminster then Westminster will stick it to Scotland.
The Barnett Formula is the system used to decide the size of the “block grant” sent every year from London to the Scottish Government to run devolved services. ...
Until now, however, it’s been politically impossible to abolish the Formula, as such a manifestly unfair move would lead to an upsurge in support for independence. In the wake of a No vote in the referendum, that obstacle would be removed – Scots will have nothing left with which to threaten Westminster.
It would still be an unwise move for the UK governing party to be seen to simply obviously “punish” Scotland after a No vote. But the pledge of all three Unionist parties to give Holyrood “more powers” provides the smokescreen under which the abolition of Barnett can be executed and the English electorate placated.
The block grant is a distribution of tax revenue. The “increased devolution” plans of the UK parties will instead make the Scottish Government responsible for collecting its own income taxes. The Office of Budget Responsibility has explained in detail how the block grant from the UK government to Scotland will then be reduced to reflect the fiscal impact of the devolution of these tax-raising powers.” (page 4).But if Holyrood sets Scottish income tax at the same level as the UK, that’ll mean the per-person receipts are also the same, which means that there won’t be the money to pay for the “extra” £1400 of spending currently returned as part-compensation for Scottish oil revenues, because the oil revenues will be staying at Westminster. ...
We’ve explained the political motivations behind the move at length before. The above is simply the mechanical explanation of how it will happen if Scotland votes No. The“if” is not in question – all the UK parties are united behind the plan.
A gigantic act of theft will be disguised as a gift. The victories of devolution will be lost, because there’ll no longer be the money to pay for them. Tuition fees and prescription charges will return. Labour’s “One Nation” will manifest itself, with the ideologically troublesome differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK eliminated.
And what’s more, it’ll all have been done fairly and above-board, because the Unionist parties have all laid out their intentions in black and white. They’ll be able to say, with justification, “Look, you can’t complain, this is exactly what we TOLD you we’d do”.
This analysis looks persuasive to me, and I've not seen it put so clearly elsewhere. Please comment below if you know sources for similar arguments.

Labels: , ,

If the block grant is reduced from its current value just by the tax receipts the UK government forgoes, then the Scottish government can exactly make that reduction up by leaving tax rates unchanged (i.e. levying a Scottish tax rate of 10%).

I'm sure there'd be scope for the UK government to try to fiddle the figures (and for the Scottish government to complain they're being fiddled whether they are or not) - but as described the Barnett formula would still be the starting point for the block grant.
Ganesh, you are absolutely correct that further devolution could be done in a way that leaves the Barnett formula intact. The point of the article is that further devolution might be used as a smokescreen to eviscerate the Barnett formula---and indeed, are likely to be used that way. 'More powers guaranteed' sounds like a promise, but it is really a threat!
My point is that the article incorrectly claims that this is a plan that's been advertised in advance.
@Ganesh: Yes and No.

You are right, the government has not put in print an unambiguous plan to revoke the Barnett Formula. But they have published a plan for devolving taxes to Scotland that could be used to revoke Barnett, and they have said that Barnett will be up for negotiation. And its not just a Tory plan, all three parties have promised further devolution, and all three have said Barnett will be renegotiated.

If Barnett is revoked via devolution, could the Westminster parties point to the plans already published and say, 'This is exactly what we told you we would do'? Alas, they could.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?