"I grow increasingly tired of explaining this - but here goes for one more time.
The Barnett formula is a mechanism for reducing the relative advantage enjoyed by Scotland in terms of comparable public spending with England. A similar arrangement applies in relation to Wales and Northern Ireland. The formula operates by allocating to Scotland a proportion of comparable public spending increases on comparable English programmes, that proportion being set at a level which is below Scotland's share in population terms. Accordingly, over time, the Barnett formula will reduce the gap between comparable spending per head in Scotland and
England.
Now it is entirely possible to argue that the Barnett formula is not working quickly enough, in which case it may need to be amended. But simply abandoning the Barnett formula will not achieve anything in itself.Those who argue for a more radical solution to the problem of greater comparable spending in Scotland need to address the much more difficult issue of comparable spending needs. For example, is it equitable to base comparable spending on a simple per head calculation? Scotland is a less heavily populated country than England, so for example it 'needs' to spend more on roads and transport per head to deliver comparable outcomes in terms of public service. Similarly, for historical reasons, Scotland is generally recognised to have more severe health problems than south of the border, thus leading to a need for greater health spending per head. In these circumstances how do we devise a system which is fair to both countries? It is far from easy. In the 1970s, when the Barnett formula was first introduced, they ducked the issue and settled for the formula, which would gradually move the system in what was perceived to be the right direction.
I don't have the answers to the West Lothian Question (or the English question as some of us know it) but I don't think scrapping the Barnett formula is going to help."
21 June 2006
Barnett revisited
Here is my contribution to an ongoing debate at Iain Dales Diary (here) about Alice Thomson's article in today's Telegraph:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Thank you for being bothered to reply, HW. The level of ignorance being peddled by someone like Dale is startling. The comments are not startling. All the things are linked, including the constitutional devolution/federal arrangements, the arrangemnets for fiscal transfers, the tax bases in the respective parts of the UK, the definition of the suffrage in the different parts of the suffrage, the electoral systems used, and so on and so on. One thing that is never mentioned is what the difficult relationship might be between a giant English Parliament/government endowed with no "sovereign" powers (impossible without a constitutional revolution in the UK, to institute a brand new constitutional settlement with constitutionally reserved powers), and a residual UK Parliament/government endowed with all the UK's remaining "national" sovereignty, but potentially almost no economic clout. That is, of course, why we might see the break up of the UK.
PS don't forget to repeat your comment on comment is free when the Dale rubbish appears there.
So done, BW! Here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/iain_dale/2006/06/the_english_should_get_their_o.html
Are you HoWa? Dale's article is just rubbish.
Your points are perfectly correct. Much like first past the post, Barnett is a blunt instrument, but at least it delivers readily understandable results.
Post a Comment