The hidden cost of the Union
We had to be out most of yesterday, so we didn’t have time to cover a story which broke in the morning in several UK papers. 24 hours later, though, we can still find no mention of it in the Scottish media, which remains fully occupied in filling its pages with recycled wittering drivel about the pound.
This is a worrying state of affairs, because yesterday’s story is of direct concern to an awful lot more Scots than a hypothetical scaremongering fantasy about currency.
It appeared in the Independent and Telegraph, and noted a disturbing plan:
“Hundreds of millions of pounds from ring-fenced Whitehall health and education budgets could reportedly be “reclassified” to protect Britain’s Armed Forces from the next wave of Treasury spending cuts.
The Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, who has previously championed increased welfare cuts to protect his budgets, is said to have been in talks with the Treasury over proposals to transfer money earmarked for the Department of Health and Department for Education and use “it to ease the impact of cuts on the Ministry of Defence”.”
It’s a fairly self-explanatory piece, but anyone who’s been paying attention to this website over the last few months will immediately realise the implications for Scotland. Health and education are devolved areas of government, and therefore subject to the Barnett Formula for establishing the Scottish Government’s annual block grant.
In short, Scotland gets 11.76p of block grant for every £1 spent in England on devolved matters. It therefore follows that if half a billion pounds is taken out of the English side and diverted to a non-devolved issue like defence (which generates no Barnett funding for Scotland), the Scottish Government will lose out to the tune of almost £60 million.
This, of course, comes on top of the cuts to the block grant which will result from the increasing privatisation of the English NHS. (A subject you won’t have heard about on the BBC, which is too busy.) The net effect will be hundreds of millions of pounds sucked out of the Scottish Government’s budget – which it will have to make up from elsewhere – and into an area where Scotland already sees hundreds of millions of pounds a year less than its share of spending.
The latest proposals are far from unique. Scotland already contributes billions of pounds to “UK” projects which don’t benefit Scotland in any way yet don’t generate Barnett consequentials in compensation. The Olympics were a high-profile example, but others ignored by the Scottish media have also cost Scotland huge sums.
The money lost to the block grant by UK government chicanery since the 2011 election alone would have funded universal services in Scotland – “free” prescriptions, concessionary bus travel, personal care for the elderly – for years. This week’s revelations are pretty small beer in comparison.
But while the money involved was still significant (it would have been enough, for example, to cover the cost of the bedroom tax to Scotland’s social tenants, with enough left over to set up a Scottish cancer drugs fund), the real story is why you have to come to sites like this in order to read anything about it.
Hopefully the Beeb will be onto this tomorrow. Just kidding.
Graphs on cutting the Scottish budget whilst putting more into UK are important.
Barnett percentages are irrelevant when they are circumvented.
The real union dividend exposed, and this is exactly the message that needs to get out but is deliberately kept from the masses in Scotland by a compliant unionist and anti-Scottish media. There is no credibility in the MSM in Scotland at all as these stories would be dynamite if the union wasn’t threatened by them. We know now that they would keep us in the union at all costs, and that will cost us very dear indeed. Scotland can’t afford to be in the union as long as it’s treated as nothing more than a cash cow for Westminster at the detriment of the Scottish people. There is only one way the UK is going to avoid decades of austerity and bankruptcy and that is the ending of all public services, welfare, pensions and the NHS and these unionist parties and their corrupt buddies will have us tied to this nightmare only for the sake of making themselves richer out of it. The NHS will be privatised fully in this decade and in the next one we’ll see the end of public pensions, welfare and services. The Tories will realise their dream of dragging the UK back into the Victorian age.
So, we’re getting our pocket money cut again.
Hopefully we’ll be able to move out and get a job of our own next year, though.
I have noticed that the average man or woman in the street has hardly even heard of the Barnet formula never mind understanding how it works. Perhaps Yes Scotland could explain in simple terms how it works and the possible negative effect that it can have on Scotland as part of their message to the public.
Rev. Campbell – when you rightly pose the whereabouts of the “real story” you refer to the “Scottish media” which, of course it isn’t – just like ‘Scottish’ Labour? The “Scottish media” is pretty much the thralldom of union self-interest.
Interesting to see the current skirmishes in the ‘English media’ over UKIP and it’s threat to the Westminster establishment.
“Perhaps Yes Scotland could explain in simple terms how it works and the possible negative effect that it can have on Scotland as part of their message to the public”
See HERE
I think the Yes camp need to be more vociferous re matters such as this.
Scotland’s people really need to be made much more aware of just what this Union is costing Scotland.
On a more positive note: Checked out a link from Soloman on NNS. Hong Kong money changers are trading Scottish pounds at a higher rate than BoE pounds. Scottish notes are trading at $11.50 while BoE notes are trading at $11.30.
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1224903/scottish-independence-gets-boost-hong-kongs-money-markets
On a point of clarity, does the Barnett formula not actually give Scotland 11.76p per £1 spent on England. I’m no expert but that seems to be what’s indicated by the wiki page.
I’d imagine that Jackie Baillie would be bouncing off the walls.
Will Jackie Baillie join Alex Neil in condemning this?
Or, will she blame the SNP for underfunding the Health Service?
@Sneekyboy
Thanks for that. A bit before my time visiting “Wings” I haven’t caught up with all the old posts yet.
A good message to get out!
“Health and education are devolved areas of government, and therefore subject to the Barnett Formula for establishing the Scottish Government’s annual block grant. In short, Scotland gets 13.75p of block grant for every £1 spent in England on devolved matters.”
Like most of the population I haven’t much of a clue about Barnett and how it is operated, it is eyes glazing over stuff. So thanks for the simple explanation above which clearly shows the effects of cuts in England on Scotland. And yes, the YES campaign should be howling about this.
“On a point of clarity, does the Barnett formula not actually give Scotland 11.76p per £1 spent on England.”
Oops, stopped reading too early. Fixed now, ta.
Many people have an almost ostrich-like belief that the NHS will never be privatised despite reports such as this:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/12/virgin-care-children-nhs-devon
Virgin Healthcare taking over core NHS and social services for children and young people in Devon. Every time this happens the Scottish NHS suffers through subsequent funding cuts. This is the future if we vote No and we need to get the message across.
The percentage of English spending coming to Scotland via the Barnett formula has been adjusted downwards on a number of occasions. The current % is 10.23% and no doubt if we vote no it will promptly go down again.
Well we have to realise that one has to fund future middle east military interventions somehow, and the U.S. has already complained that the UK needs to divert funds into conventional forces, but I thought it would have been at the expence of trident!!
Silly me, we should know by now how much wastemonster love their toys and their ”clout” at all costs/
Stu, thank you for bringing this to our attention.
I hope you don’t mind but I’ve taken the liberty of editing your article and submitting to stvnews.stv.tv demanding to know why it, the BBC and other media outlets in Scotland are failing to report on such issues.
I doubt if the state broadcaster would report on it but, if we can get the commercial station to, others may follow.
OT, but latest Comres poll shows only a 6 point gap between Labour (38%) and the Tories (32%). Agrees with the trend of a narrowing gap. UKIP in third place on 13%, with the Libs only on 9%.
Some predictions suggesting UKIP could take 100 seats in the English Council elections. Woocha.
And the sad thing is that Labour’s only got itself to blame for this seemingly inexorable rightward drift in English politics.
@Dcanmore
We know now that they would keep us in the union at all costs, and that will cost us very dear indeed.
Spot on. This includes the threat to the NHS in Scotland, increasing likelihood of withdrawing from the EU, and the resultant effects on social policy (Working Time Directive etc).
@S_S – It looks to me as if this drift to the right in England might result in a Tory/UKIP coalition come 2015. In the event of a no vote next year: Where does stands Scotland then? Well and truly screwed methinks!
The writing on the wall for the “Union” just got a bit more visible!
@Bill C
I’d venture to suggest UKIP taking a decent swath of council seats in England later this week might act as a little push to the Scottish electorate. If UKIP take even more seats in the Euro Elections in May next year, well…
After all, I’d imagine the Scots electorate would rather have thatcher reincarnated and made Queen of Scotland than have Farage at the helm.
You’re probably wrong about the short-term impact of E&W NHS privatisation. It’s the usual privatise profits, socialise losses three-card trick. Unless customers – or patients as most people call them – are charged by private healthcare providers in E&W, the overall cost of healthcare is unlikely to decline. Any savings will be on paper only, the result of carefully redefined measurements, cf. rail privatisation, etc, etc.
Poster this yesterday, but see it’s germain to this discussion too.
One way to approach the dangers of a NO vote is to involve those outside the Independence debate who have not vested interest in the outcome. Two example immediatly springs to mindi) Max Kaiser of the “Kaiser Report”. His recent Thatcher edition is particularly good http://rt.com/shows/keiser-report/keiser-report-rpisode-430-626/ii) On the opposite side of the spectrum there is the so-called “Artist Taxi Driver” from London, who posts daily You-Tube clips on the working mans frustration with UKplc: e.g., privation of the NHS, the corruption of Westminister etc. He has quite a following, and even Max Kaiser has appeared on one of his clips. You have to filter out his blue language, but in a real sense he represents the enormous frustration of many workers in the UK. Today’s installment hits a lot of relevant points. The episode with both Max Kaiser and the Artist Taxi driver is particularly good:
Sorry. Keep having problems with links. The above link is today’s instalment from the Artist, which is also relevant viz-a-viz the NHS, Welfare reform discussion here, but also best watched after the Max Kaiser & Artist Taxi Driver episode titled “This is not a recession, its a robbery” appearing below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0enbw1R1g&list=UUGThM-ZZBba1Zl9rU-XeR-A&index=9
@S_S – What a scary scenario Skier, what do you do in your spare time write horror stories? (wee smiley thing)
Sorry wrong article.
@ Scottish Skier,
I live in the English Midlands and a few friends have told me lately that they will be voting for UKIP from now on! they say that UKIP is the only party that fights for the working man!
I don’t get the feeling that they meen they will only be voting for them in the locals.
A Tory/UKIP coalition is a very real possibility at the next general election.
Ed had an interview that was reported as a car crash down here, as he mumbled his way through an interview in which he refused to answer if the Labour Party would borrow if they came to power. The implication was that if Labour don’t borrow they will need to follow the same austerity programme as George Osborne, or else hike up taxes.
Ed Balls said they would borrow!
I think the right wing press are sensing a split in Labour.
@Angus McLellan
Here’s an interesting comparison of the costs of the NHS (E&W) vs US system.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/14/uk-v-usa-the-basic-healthcare-facts/
There was a pretty devastating summary of how the BBC has studiously avoided reporting on the dismemberment of the NHS over on opendemocracy.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/oliver-huitson/how-bbc-betrayed-nhs-exclusive-report-on-two-years-of-censorship-and-distorti
Apologies if it’s already been linked.
“Apologies if it’s already been linked.”
It’s linked in the first line of a piece I link to in the article. (Which was why I chose that piece to link to.)
DOESN’T ANYONE CLICK ON THE ETC.
I blogged about some of this stuff in early March and it is scary that some of what I feared is coming true. http://grumpyscottishman.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/what-does-no-mean-to-me/ My blog is just a way to try and convinve friends to vote YES but I wll share your link, I do anyway, and hopefully some people will read and take note from my NO friends.
Thanks
Rev, maybe best to make links open in a new page or tab altogether as can be off putting ( laziness? – moi?) to go back and forth between articles in mid read…also opening new tabs\page also gives people time to then further savour the linked site like Ambassador Murrays etc
Desimond/Rev:
If you are using a mouse with a wheel just click with the wheel to open a link in a new tab, very useful when that’s not the default.
Cheers,
Robert