Not sure whether there is a better way. It is a really complicated issue and you cannot just look at dividing up money allocated on a per capita basis.
Of course there's a better way. Virtually any other process for arriving at a number would at least have some logic of sense and fairness to it. Basing the numbers off late 19th Century populations, plus a weird modification, is just idiotic.
Socrates
We will put you in charge of coming up with a formula that everyone thinks is fair. You can explain it all the interested parties and put through the legislation.
Always easy to say there is a better way, without explaning what the new system would be, plus coming up with details of actual financial implications.
Ok, fine. An index for each home nation is calculated of population + (0.2 * population below poverty line). The ratios of these indices is used to distribute funds on all devolved matters. That's already a better system than Barnett.
Next.
What is the budget for Englan, N.I, Scotland and Wales based on your system ?
You would have to work out the actual financial settlements, to see whether it would be any better or not.
The more I look at "The Vow" given by Cameron & Co the more grotesque it seems. This more than anything could be Cameron's Waterloo. Unless he wakes up UKIP will grab the issue and run with it for all its worth.
Not sure whether there is a better way. It is a really complicated issue and you cannot just look at dividing up money allocated on a per capita basis.
Of course there's a better way. Virtually any other process for arriving at a number would at least have some logic of sense and fairness to it. Basing the numbers off late 19th Century populations, plus a weird modification, is just idiotic.
Socrates
We will put you in charge of coming up with a formula that everyone thinks is fair. You can explain it all the interested parties and put through the legislation.
Always easy to say there is a better way, without explaning what the new system would be, plus coming up with details of actual financial implications.
Ok, fine. An index for each home nation is calculated of population + (0.2 * population below poverty line). The ratios of these indices is used to distribute funds on all devolved matters. That's already a better system than Barnett.
Next.
That's not that different from the German system for their Laander.
I suppose if London did campaign for independence the economic argument wouldn't be quite the same. London could ptrobably have its own currency - the Boris or something similar.
Stodge's ninth law of politics states "there are fools, damn fools and people who believe canvass returns". It should be easy in an election with only two options as distinct from a contest with four or five candidates where someone who is "anti" your side has alternatives. Unfortunately, the quality of modern canvassing is often exceeded by the duplicity of the electorate.
There are many tales of Conservative canvassers simply not accepting the rejection of 1997 because there was little or no anger on the doorstep but that's how the game works - the British (and I include the Scots) are quite happy to lie to you with a smile.
I suspect both sides in this referendum have not only told lies but been lied to but that's part of the nature of politics. Some seem surprised at verbal and physical intimidation, harrassment and threats - have a read of political campaigns over the past two centuries.
Stodge's tenth law of politics states "If you can't persuade 'em, scare 'em" - fear is a huge political weapon and everyone uses it. Look at even the great WSC in 1945 and then compare and contrast.
I hope Scotland votes Yes and embarks on a path to full independence: own currency, own tax rates, own 'social justice'. Within a generation, emigre Scots will have returned, the dark days of municipal socialism, welfare dependency and victimhood will be over. We will be able to visit a new, entrepreneurial Scotland that will look back with pride at its choice in 2014, but embarrassment at the economic illiteracy of Smith, Dewar, Brown and Salmond. Adam Smith will be proud.
Not sure whether there is a better way. It is a really complicated issue and you cannot just look at dividing up money allocated on a per capita basis.
Of course there's a better way. Virtually any other process for arriving at a number would at least have some logic of sense and fairness to it. Basing the numbers off late 19th Century populations, plus a weird modification, is just idiotic.
Socrates
We will put you in charge of coming up with a formula that everyone thinks is fair. You can explain it all the interested parties and put through the legislation.
Always easy to say there is a better way, without explaning what the new system would be, plus coming up with details of actual financial implications.
Ok, fine. An index for each home nation is calculated of population + (0.2 * population below poverty line). The ratios of these indices is used to distribute funds on all devolved matters. That's already a better system than Barnett.
Next.
What is the budget for Englan, N.I, Scotland and Wales based on your system ?
You would have to work out the actual financial settlements, to see whether it would be any better or not.
I'm not going to go through a lengthy number crunching exercise to appease you. You don't need to do that to see it's obviously a better system. It uses current populations, rather than 19th Century ones, and it also takes some account of need. Your position is the last resort of those defending an indefensible status quo. Even the guy that came up with the system says its unfair and that he's embarrassed to put his name to it. You're just making up requirements for my side of the argument here that you would never do to any other argument on here, because that's literally all you have left to defend your side. It's absurd justificationism.
Not sure whether there is a better way. It is a really complicated issue and you cannot just look at dividing up money allocated on a per capita basis.
Of course there's a better way. Virtually any other process for arriving at a number would at least have some logic of sense and fairness to it. Basing the numbers off late 19th Century populations, plus a weird modification, is just idiotic.
Socrates
We will put you in charge of coming up with a formula that everyone thinks is fair. You can explain it all the interested parties and put through the legislation.
Always easy to say there is a better way, without explaning what the new system would be, plus coming up with details of actual financial implications.
Ok, fine. An index for each home nation is calculated of population + (0.2 * population below poverty line). The ratios of these indices is used to distribute funds on all devolved matters. That's already a better system than Barnett.
Next.
It has some merits as a starting point. There probably also needs to be a weighting to the age/sex adjusted population to account for areas with large retired populations, and also some allowance for geography. Delivering health services in the Highlands (or Cumbria) are made more expensive.
Not sure whether there is a better way. It is a really complicated issue and you cannot just look at dividing up money allocated on a per capita basis.
Of course there's a better way. Virtually any other process for arriving at a number would at least have some logic of sense and fairness to it. Basing the numbers off late 19th Century populations, plus a weird modification, is just idiotic.
Socrates
We will put you in charge of coming up with a formula that everyone thinks is fair. You can explain it all the interested parties and put through the legislation.
Always easy to say there is a better way, without explaning what the new system would be, plus coming up with details of actual financial implications.
Ok, fine. An index for each home nation is calculated of population + (0.2 * population below poverty line). The ratios of these indices is used to distribute funds on all devolved matters. That's already a better system than Barnett.
Next.
That's not that different from the German system for their Laander.
We had two small bets out of the proceeds from ukip in Wythenshawe... I had two tenners on something... Any idea? I've forgotten
I cannot believe Scotland is about to vote YES to this package of lies told by Salmond. Perhaps they know it is all lies, yet do not care?
One of my work colleagues and all round good bloke is from Aberdeen. He fully recognises it'll be freedom n vinegar not freedom n jam. But doesn't care. He's looking 50 years ahead and says so. An unmovable YES voter.
I have really good friends who will be heartbroken if it's a No. I have respect for their vision, even though I am committed to breaking their hearts to avoid a bigger disaster. What drives me mad with frustration are those that think that it will be milk and honey and then rant about freedom and courage.
The Yes campaign have put forward seven reasons for voting Yes, every one of them false. The Better Together's five claims are at the very least defensible. I am not being partisan in this assessment. But if it is Yes, it will be a very narrow win on prospectus that was totally false.
As usual, there seems to be a spectacular lack of a sense of proportion regarding the Barnett formula. Any needs-based settlement would give a broadly similar result. As Cameron said in 2010:
there would be no “pot of gold” for the English if a needs-based system was introduced, and Scotland would still receive “substantial” funding.
To be fair, I also think he's wrong about the referendum. Difficult to objectively differentiate what one wants to happen from what one thinks will happen, but on the whole I'm persuaded that the evidence from Quebec and a shy No vote will deliver an unexpectedly emphatic No - 57/43 wd be my guess.
I found the last time a regional analysis of UK accounts was done. This allocates North Sea oil revenue to Scotland, so no nationalist whingers please. Net contributions:
Scotland: -£2.1bn Northern Ireland: -£7.2bn North East: -£6.8bn North West: -£11.9bn Yorkshire & Humber: -£8.2bn Wales: -£9.3bn East Midlands: -£1.4bn West Midlands: -£5.0bn South West: -£3.6bn East of England: +£5.4bn South East: +£16.3bn Greater London: +£16.0bn
So the government supposedly run in favour of "London and the South East" actually mainly entails taking our money and handing it out to the North, Westcountry and Celtic fringe.
I would point out that oil prices have fallen since this was calculated and output has dropped, so it's likely Scotland will be c. £3bn worse ($110 -> $100, plus 1.4m boe/day -> 1.2m, x average cash tax take of 65%)
Scotland Geogrpahic share of Offshore Corporation Tax (so excluding other minor oil related revenues from 2006-07 to today)
2006-07 5,304 2007-08 4,850 2008-09 8,616 2009-10 4,528 2010-11 6,090 2012-13 7,709 2013-14 3,965 <- record levels of investment into Continental shelf drilling this year
Petroleum Tax revenue is a roughly another billion to a billion and a half a year without much variation (except in 09-10 where it dropped to a mere 650 million)
Not sure whether there is a better way. It is a really complicated issue and you cannot just look at dividing up money allocated on a per capita basis.
The Barnett formula allocates changes in the budget on a per capita basis. True story.
^^This
There is a lot of pish talked about with the Barnett Formula.
In essence it is used to calculate the changes to the block grant based on a £1 per head change to spending in England leading to a £1 per head change in the devolved region. So if spending on education changes by £1 per head in England, then the formula calculates the change to the block grant by £1 per head in devolved region. The purpose of the formula was to harmonise spending across the regions as the percentage change would be lower in the regions by the nature of the higher starting position and the smaller population.
If the Barnett formula was the only thing used to calculate the block grant then the whole process would be open, transparent and on the face of it fair and reasonable.
However, the Barnett formula is only the starting point, there are backroom deals and tweaks to the weighting hammered out and argued over all the time.
The more I look at "The Vow" given by Cameron & Co the more grotesque it seems. This more than anything could be Cameron's Waterloo. Unless he wakes up UKIP will grab the issue and run with it for all its worth.
Two people win whatever happened tomorrow: Salmond and Farage.
Salmond either gets into the history books as "father of the nation" with a statue next to John Knox on the Royal Mile, or gets a great consolation prize of having scared the bejasus out of London and gets lots and lots of new powers to play with and still gets to be able to blame "Westminster" (England) for everything, while welcoming train loads of Barnett formula cash from SE England chuffing into Waverley Station.
Farage, either gets 90% English electorate in the UK, or a huge stick to beat the other three parties with in the shape of "it's all unfair to England" as a slogan.
Cameron, looks tactically inept (though the Tories get a useful consolation prize of a friendlier electorate in a (slightly) smaller country.
Miliband looks like a wet southern lettuce who has looked about as at ease in Scotland as he would on Mars, gasping for breath in an outwardly red atmosphere.
Clegg - well where is he and who the hell cares in Scotland?
Not sure whether there is a better way. It is a really complicated issue and you cannot just look at dividing up money allocated on a per capita basis.
Of course there's a better way. Virtually any other process for arriving at a number would at least have some logic of sense and fairness to it. Basing the numbers off late 19th Century populations, plus a weird modification, is just idiotic.
Socrates
We will put you in charge of coming up with a formula that everyone thinks is fair. You can explain it all the interested parties and put through the legislation.
Always easy to say there is a better way, without explaning what the new system would be, plus coming up with details of actual financial implications.
Ok, fine. An index for each home nation is calculated of population + (0.2 * population below poverty line). The ratios of these indices is used to distribute funds on all devolved matters. That's already a better system than Barnett.
Next.
What is the budget for Englan, N.I, Scotland and Wales based on your system ?
You would have to work out the actual financial settlements, to see whether it would be any better or not.
I'm not going to go through a lengthy number crunching exercise to appease you. You don't need to do that to see it's obviously a better system. It uses current populations, rather than 19th Century ones, and it also takes some account of need. Your position is the last resort of those defending an indefensible status quo. Even the guy that came up with the system says its unfair and that he's embarrassed to put his name to it. You're just making up requirements for my side of the argument here that you would never do to any other argument on here, because that's literally all you have left to defend your side. It's absurd justificationism.
I am not defending Barnett. Just saying that if politicians thought it was easy to change to a different system, they would have done so. The Tories were in power from 1979 to 1997, but I don't remember them looking at any changes. There were debates about it, but that is far as it got.
As with any change, it would be necessary for the number crunchers to work out how this affects budgets.
So does the word "bitch" but I'd still consider it inappropriate as an insult to a woman. Especially one who wasn't doing anything wrong. We have far too few women on here and this sort of abuse doesn't help.
"Afaik it is used for "door knocking" - no point in going round to the homes of people who have already voted - so it will create a list of "no" voters who have not yet voted to encourage them to do so...."
That sounds more interesting. So I will be doing my bit for the union!
Indeed!
Did you catch the Gordon Brown interview last night - worth watching - puts the current generation in the shade....
I'd forgotten about that. This morning I have been blaming the bedtime cheese for last night's amazing dream in which I found myself agreeing with Gordon Brown.
Yes - he was a man transformed on his own turf, eloquent, fluent, persuasive - very different from the brooding sulk in No 10......
LOL.........fanny alert
Fanny has more than one meaning, especially up here, and not just the unfortunate Miss Adams of Alton.
I'm not even sure this Carlotta is a woman. You do realise the name comes from a well-known play ...?
He is a pathetic whinging dumpling. Do we think he is a man just because he uses Socrates as a pet name. Too stupid to believe.
You're one to talk, given your entire existence is one long whinge about how Scotland is so hard done by. Given how much my part of the country subsidises yours, you should really be grateful.
And fair play to him: that's his choice, and entirely worthy of respect. However I suspect he is a small minority of YES voters. Most of them have, I reckon, swallowed Salmond's different and various lies.
It's just a question of whether there is enough of them to carry them over the line. Right now I have a horrible suspicion there is. Two hours ago I was sure there wasn't.
Given "The Vow", I now think that NO is the worst option. I think it will just fuel resentment on both sides of the border. If it was not for that absurdly stupid promise I would favour NO.
The die is cast, Scotland is leaving. The only real question is "when will it happen?"
As usual, there seems to be a spectacular lack of a sense of proportion regarding the Barnett formula. Any needs-based settlement would give a broadly similar result. As Cameron said in 2009:
there would be no “pot of gold” for the English if a needs-based system was introduced, and Scotland would still receive “substantial” funding.
Under the current formula NI does best, closely followed by Scotland, but on most assessments Wales is the most underfunded on the basis of poverty and related factors. Some English regions could possibly be in the same bracket, alongside the Scottish rust belt.
I found the last time a regional analysis of UK accounts was done. This allocates North Sea oil revenue to Scotland, so no nationalist whingers please. Net contributions:
Scotland: -£2.1bn Northern Ireland: -£7.2bn North East: -£6.8bn North West: -£11.9bn Yorkshire & Humber: -£8.2bn Wales: -£9.3bn East Midlands: -£1.4bn West Midlands: -£5.0bn South West: -£3.6bn East of England: +£5.4bn South East: +£16.3bn Greater London: +£16.0bn
So the government supposedly run in favour of "London and the South East" actually mainly entails taking our money and handing it out to the North, Westcountry and Celtic fringe.
I would point out that oil prices have fallen since this was calculated and output has dropped, so it's likely Scotland will be c. £3bn worse ($110 -> $100, plus 1.4m boe/day -> 1.2m, x average cash tax take of 65%)
Scotland Geogrpahic share of Offshore Corporation Tax (so excluding other minor oil related revenues from 2006-07 to today)
2006-07 5,304 2007-08 4,850 2008-09 8,616 2009-10 4,528 2010-11 6,090 2012-13 7,709 2013-14 3,965 <- record levels of investment into Continental shelf drilling this year
Petroleum Tax revenue is a roughly another billion to a billion and a half a year without much variation (except in 09-10 where it dropped to a mere 650 million)</p>
Nominal numbers remember though, so tax revenue everywhere else is going up with inflation.
Philip Davies @PhilipDaviesMP 10h For the record, I will not be voting to maintain an unfair funding settlement for Scotland whatever Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg say
Is the Barnett formula unfair ?
I cannot see Westminster looking to change it, after all these years.
I also reckon Salmond will get his currency union.
This really does strike me as a pivotal moment in Cameron's fortunes. He has now done enough to convince me not to vote for him. By committing to use my money in perpetuity to bribe Scotch Labour scumbags, he has IMO demonstrated appalling judgement and gross, gross irresponsibility, and this was the week he lost my vote. I do not want these sponging f>ckwits in the UK; he has no mandate to bribe them to stay, he does not speak or act for me, and how dare he put that Cyclopean pr>ck Brown in charge.
The EU will have taken careful note of how he has behaved over IndyRef and now know if they did not before that they can stonewall him and he'll fold.
He could and should have used a potential exit vote as a means to extract anything he wanted from the EU. He should be getting ready to act like Scotland has acted so that the EU would give him anything to stay.
No-one can endorse the Barnett formula out of a sense of principles, and no Prime Minister with a sense of democracy can commit to handing home counties money over to Scotland without any input from parliament. He is just willing to say whatever is needed to maintain his power. It was the same with the immigration pledge of getting it down to tens of thousands, when the levels are virtually identical to what they were four years ago. He never had any intention of achieving it. It's the same with the EU: he's not interested in a genuine substantial repatriation of powers. As he told Carswell, he just wants to put on just enough of a show to get an In vote, because he puts staying in with Brussels above getting the best deal for Britain.
Sorry, had to be away last night so couldn't follow this one up.... just intrigued how exactly you think Cameron has excluded Parliament from any future application of the Barnett Formula?
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
Any rUk politician offering a currency union would be as well booking a hall in Sheffield and practicing his "awwwrights". A career death sentence.
I get your point, but it is going to be nasty surprise when the Scottish independence negotiation team find out that politicians have actually told the truth for once. i.e there will be no currency union.
And fair play to him: that's his choice, and entirely worthy of respect. However I suspect he is a small minority of YES voters. Most of them have, I reckon, swallowed Salmond's different and various lies.
One of the more common Yes slogans you'll see is a variant along the lines of "Don't tell me not to buy my dream house just because you don't like the paintjob"
Salmond and the SNP are the paintjob, the house is independence.
I think you'd be surprised about how many people are voting for independence who will then be voting against the SNP at the first available election.
As usual, there seems to be a spectacular lack of a sense of proportion regarding the Barnett formula. Any needs-based settlement would give a broadly similar result. As Cameron said in 2010:
there would be no “pot of gold” for the English if a needs-based system was introduced, and Scotland would still receive “substantial” funding.
This is rubbish. Scotland receives 24% more money per person than the South West does, despite being wealthier. There's absolutely no way that would happen in a needs-based system.
Though I do love that your loyalty to the every word of David Cameron has got to the point where you feel you can use vague partial quotes from him as a fact base for your argument.
Nice piece Mr. T.. I particularly liked the final paragraph,
"No one who has ever done PPE at Oxbridge is ever allowed into the Cabinet ever again...."
An editor might have trimmed the evers …
He might also have noted that a PPE is only offered at Oxford, but I expect the Telegraph can't get the staff.....
I was also aware of that fact, but saying "Oxford PPE" isn't as effective - some people might think that's a car parts company or something. The word "Oxbridge" relays the sense that you're talking about the elite, and about certain universities...
But Oxford-alumni are a far larger fly in the ointment than those from Cambrige...
Philip Davies @PhilipDaviesMP 10h For the record, I will not be voting to maintain an unfair funding settlement for Scotland whatever Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg say
Is the Barnett formula unfair ?
I cannot see Westminster looking to change it, after all these years.
I also reckon Salmond will get his currency union.
This really does strike me as a pivotal moment in Cameron's fortunes. He has now done enough to convince me not to vote for him. By committing to use my money in perpetuity to bribe Scotch Labour scumbags, he has IMO demonstrated appalling judgement and gross, gross irresponsibility, and this was the week he lost my vote. I do not want these sponging f>ckwits in the UK; he has no mandate to bribe them to stay, he does not speak or act for me, and how dare he put that Cyclopean pr>ck Brown in charge.
The EU will have taken careful note of how he has behaved over IndyRef and now know if they did not before that they can stonewall him and he'll fold.
He could and should have used a potential exit vote as a means to extract anything he wanted from the EU. He should be getting ready to act like Scotland has acted so that the EU would give him anything to stay.
No-one can endorse the Barnett formula out of a sense of principles, and no Prime Minister with a sense of democracy can commit to handing home counties money over to Scotland without any input from parliament. He is just willing to say whatever is needed to maintain his power. It was the same with the immigration pledge of getting it down to tens of thousands, when the levels are virtually identical to what they were four years ago. He never had any intention of achieving it. It's the same with the EU: he's not interested in a genuine substantial repatriation of powers. As he told Carswell, he just wants to put on just enough of a show to get an In vote, because he puts staying in with Brussels above getting the best deal for Britain.
Sorry, had to be away last night so couldn't follow this one up.... just intrigued how exactly you think Cameron has excluded Parliament from any future application of the Barnett Formula?
He's made the commitment without consulting his party or parliament.
And fair play to him: that's his choice, and entirely worthy of respect. However I suspect he is a small minority of YES voters. Most of them have, I reckon, swallowed Salmond's different and various lies.
It's just a question of whether there is enough of them to carry them over the line. Right now I have a horrible suspicion there is. Two hours ago I was sure there wasn't.
Given "The Vow", I now think that NO is the worst option. I think it will just fuel resentment on both sides of the border. If it was not for that absurdly stupid promise I would favour NO.
The die is cast, Scotland is leaving. The only real question is "when will it happen?"
You're not the first Conservative on here to be upset at this. This has been a spectacular blunder by Cameron.
I cannot believe Scotland is about to vote YES to this package of lies told by Salmond. Perhaps they know it is all lies, yet do not care?
One of my work colleagues and all round good bloke is from Aberdeen. He fully recognises it'll be freedom n vinegar not freedom n jam. But doesn't care. He's looking 50 years ahead and says so. An unmovable YES voter.
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
As usual, there seems to be a spectacular lack of a sense of proportion regarding the Barnett formula. Any needs-based settlement would give a broadly similar result. As Cameron said in 2010:
there would be no “pot of gold” for the English if a needs-based system was introduced, and Scotland would still receive “substantial” funding.
This is rubbish. Scotland receives 24% more money per person than the South West does, despite being wealthier. There's absolutely no way that would happen in a needs-based system.
Though I do love that your loyalty to the every word of David Cameron has got to the point where you feel you can use vague partial quotes from him as a fact base for your argument.
Quite so - it really is coming to something when Lord Barnett himself admits that his funding formula for Scotland is a "terrible mistake".
I imagine the remarks by Michael Crick and Kelner have spooked punters. They certainly spooked me.
I was fairly sure that NO had edged this, until they spoke up.
I cannot believe Scotland is about to vote YES to this package of lies told by Salmond. Perhaps they know it is all lies, yet do not care?
Its coming, we will soon see if we are to wee too poor and too stupid.
Well don't get upset at the implication, given the sorts of things thrown back in the other direction. I didn't know No voters, all of them, were all just mentally colonized until I read it on here for instance. It's a credit to the leaderships of the two campaigns that for the most part they haven't made the insulting sweeping generalizations about their opponents in as idiotic a fashion as we've all seen online.
Philip Davies @PhilipDaviesMP 10h For the record, I will not be voting to maintain an unfair funding settlement for Scotland whatever Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg say
Is the Barnett formula unfair ?
I cannot see Westminster looking to change it, after all these years.
I ck Brown in charge.
The EU will have taken careful note of how he has behaved over IndyRef and now know if they did not before that they can stonewall him and he'll fold.
He could and should have used a potential exit vote as a means to extract anything he wanted from the EU. He should be getting ready to act like Scotland has acted so that the EU would give him anything to stay.
.
Sorry, had to be away last night so couldn't follow this one up.... just intrigued how exactly you think Cameron has excluded Parliament from any future application of the Barnett Formula?
He's made the commitment without consulting his party or parliament.
I'll forgive him for that. Problems arising from it will be difficult to resolve, but something will come up eventually.
And fair play to him: that's his choice, and entirely worthy of respect. However I suspect he is a small minority of YES voters. Most of them have, I reckon, swallowed Salmond's different and various lies.
It's just a question of whether there is enough of them to carry them over the line. Right now I have a horrible suspicion there is. Two hours ago I was sure there wasn't.
Given "The Vow", I now think that NO is the worst option. I think it will just fuel resentment on both sides of the border. If it was not for that absurdly stupid promise I would favour NO.
The die is cast, Scotland is leaving. The only real question is "when will it happen?"
Whatever happens real damage is done. There is now, like it or not a "political" risk to be built in to all future Scottish assets and investments, even if it's a NO. I would be very unsurprised to see a slow but steady and unheralded trickle of capital and people moving South (or not moving North when they would have) as people hedge their bets over the coming years (if it's a NO, it'll be more sudden if it's a Yes). Nothing dramatic, won't make the papers, but it will be there. I wouldn't buy a house in Scotland, and any job would have to be amazing to make me consider. Now I'm vanishingly unlikely to ever to do either, but it will give others pause for thought as they decide future actions.
I suspect the Yes voters know that Salmond is lying but they want to believe him so they will.
I think they are barmy but if I were Scottish, I would vote Yes anyway. It's a big adventure and worth the pain. But I guarantee my wife (who's Irish anyway) would vote No for the same reason.
Within a generation, emigre Scots will have returned, .
That sounds optimistic - as one myself.
Not all of them, Ghostly Harry, but enough to make a difference, and enough to show the next generation that you don't have to emigrate to make it.
Oh, and you'll need a proper international airport as well. But don't worry there are plenty of banks (mostly based in London, but they're not chauvinist; money's money) who will finance one if Scotland starts to look outwards, rather than inwards.
Not sure whether there is a better way. It is a really complicated issue and you cannot just look at dividing up money allocated on a per capita basis.
Of course there's a better way. Virtually any other process for arriving at a number would at least have some logic of sense and fairness to it. Basing the numbers off late 19th Century populations, plus a weird modification, is just idiotic.
Suppose your objective is to equalise per capita spending in Scotland and England. How would you do that?
You could adjust the spending in the next financial year to do so instantly, but that would be a bad idea, because there would not be the time for Scottish services to adapt to reduced funding and English services to adapt to increased funding.
You could adjust the spending over a fixed time period - perhaps five or ten years. This would be better because everyone would have time to plan for an orderly transition to the new funding levels and you would still have a definite end point by which time parity would have been achieved. The drawback is that it would likely require actual reductions in the Scottish allocation in cash terms, which would provoke opposition.
So what do you do? You turn to our trusty friend inflation. You make sure that from now onwards, any change to the budget is made on a per capita basis. This means that the per capita levels of the respective budgets will converge over time, without having to make any reductions in the nominal level of spending in Scotland.
Since 1979, the action of inflation alone - assuming that there was no real-terms increase in spending - should have reduced the difference in per-capita spending levels to 23% of its level in 1979. It hasn't done so. Why?
One reason is that the population of Scotland has continued to decline relative to that of England. Thus one is attempting to converge to a moving target. The second reason is that the Barnett formula is not even applied in totality, being only the default option when spending decisions are made.
The Barnett formula was a pretty good idea, a very long way from being idiotic, sadly stymied by demographic trends and political meddling. In the absence of a detailed case for extra spending on the basis of dispersion*, it seems obvious to move to a fixed timeframe to equalise spending, with some adjustment to keep that up-to-date to reflect population changes.
* This has always seemed an odd argument, because most of the Scottish and Welsh population live in the densely populated Central Belt or Southern Valleys, and there are some fairly remote areas of England, so it's not obvious that it creates a greater need for spending in Scotland/Wales than in England.
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
For all the rhetoric the US will not want them or if they were to take them they would rip them with massive charges
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
Exactly. The US Trident base is in Georgia, and given these are ocean going boats with limitless fuel designed to be on station somewhere in the N Atlantic, Georgia is just as good a place as Faslane. Only the weather's better.
On the eve of independence, Scotland’s poet laureate pens a valedictory poem to the English people.
“O Arse-lickers chasing gongs, Chicken-hearted tossers. Pathetic creatures scared of your own shadows, Ha ha ha, big gob smacked shut. Sad sack Tory half-wits — You hyenas will chase money anywhere. Come on cretins, you can do it, Ask your mammy to help. You are fanny of the first order, Full of wind and piss. Stick your heads up your erchie, you wittering dimwits, Wobbly chicken-hearted wimps. No wonder England is down the cludgie. Hinge and Brackett are blubbing — Get the Kleenex. Doom and gloom, dread laden drudgery, Are you right in the head? Thick as mince, You turnips!”
Not one of Carol Ann Duffy's better efforts - or was this delegated to Liz Lochead?
I think we on pbc know who Scotland's premier wordsmith is now.
I hope Scotland votes Yes and embarks on a path to full independence: own currency, own tax rates, own 'social justice'. Within a generation, emigre Scots will have returned, the dark days of municipal socialism, welfare dependency and victimhood will be over. We will be able to visit a new, entrepreneurial Scotland that will look back with pride at its choice in 2014, but embarrassment at the economic illiteracy of Smith, Dewar, Brown and Salmond. Adam Smith will be proud.
Yup, all those lazy, dole scroungers will drag their fat erchies, up and out of armchairs, rising en masse to engage with a world of full employment, long lives, and unicorns on every street corner.
One has to ask oneself, what has been holding all these bright sparks and entrepreneurs back? A lack of a 'Yes'? Really? What might they be able to do after a vote for independence, that they can't do now?
I'm reminded of Midnight on New Years Eve - all the build up, and then at the stroke of 12, nothing really happens, the world doesn't change.
I have been thinking about why the referendum is so close.
The economic arguments for remaining in our larger domestic market, the sharing of the risks of the inevitable financial turbulence of the next few years, having the security of effective armed forces and having a position of some weight in the EU are just so overwhelming that this should be an incredibly easy decision.
But, for at least half of Scots it isn't. Why?
What Salmond has achieved is to make this referendum a contest between the Westminster Establishment and the Scottish people. It is a remarkable achievement, especially as he himself has been in power now for a number of years with responsibility for health, education and social services.
Salmond claims that Scots are different because they don't like the Westminster establishment. This, of course, is where he is wrong. Who does? If a vote against the Westminster establishment were possible then most, possibly even all areas of the UK outside London itself would be inclined to vote against it. That is exactly what happened in the Euros where the population were given a free hit to vote against the established parties for a body of minimal perceived consequence in their lives.
To manage to run as anti establishment whilst being First Minister is indeed an incredible achievement but his success shows how much is wrong with our politics and our country. The suspicion is that there will be business as usual (with a twist of further devolution) will follow a no vote but there is an incredible opportunity for anyone who can capture that anti Westminster sentiment. It has proven to be incredibly strong.
And fair play to him: that's his choice, and entirely worthy of respect. However I suspect he is a small minority of YES voters. Most of them have, I reckon, swallowed Salmond's different and various lies.
It's just a question of whether there is enough of them to carry them over the line. Right now I have a horrible suspicion there is. Two hours ago I was sure there wasn't.
Given "The Vow", I now think that NO is the worst option. I think it will just fuel resentment on both sides of the border. If it was not for that absurdly stupid promise I would favour NO.
The die is cast, Scotland is leaving. The only real question is "when will it happen?"
I think that "the Vow" has saved the union, but not as we know it. Over the next few years it will cause UKIP and Tory backbenchers to become more assertive about England's place in the union, which will make us a more federal country with all holding the same devolved powers and only defence, foreign policy and the annual spending envelope set at a UK level. How an English Parliament will work out is what is going to need a lot of debate, the easy option is to just use Westminster and have EP days with the EP government sitting on the green benches regardless of which party is in power on a national level.
If the Tories don't at least propose EV4EL in their 2015 manifesto and campaign on it then UKIP will make a lot of gains at the expense of them in the South East.
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
For all the rhetoric the US will not want them or if they were to take them they would rip them with massive charges
I don't see why they would do that. Our subs go there regularly for maintenance, presumably with their warheads.
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
There are existing warhead stores in England in use now, and others that can be reactivated. Where do you think the weapons are built and maintained?
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
There was a Times report (££) saying the Americans have already made this quiet offer to UK (or the FUK): store your missiles at a US base while Britain builds a new facility in Devonport or Barrow or wherever. America wants Britain to maintain her own deterrent, if at all possible.
So Faslane is not the bargaining chip Salmond hopes. Yet another Nat lie.
Yep, and a boon for jobs with a new naval base in the south.
Not sure whether there is a better way. It is a really complicated issue and you cannot just look at dividing up money allocated on a per capita basis.
The Barnett formula allocates changes in the budget on a per capita basis. True story.
What the formula fails to do is to update the population estimates and incorporate these.
That used to be the case, and mid-1970s population estimates were used until 1999, when Brown changed the system to use annually updated figures.
Within a generation, emigre Scots will have returned, .
That sounds optimistic - as one myself.
Not all of them, Ghostly Harry, but enough to make a difference, and enough to show the next generation that you don't have to emigrate to make it.
Oh, and you'll need a proper international airport as well. But don't worry there are plenty of banks (mostly based in London, but they're not chauvinist; money's money) who will finance one if Scotland starts to look outwards, rather than inwards.
I think the reason that most left (and I know a few) is that other reasons outweighed any great desire to look out over the skyline of Niddrie each morning.
And fair play to him: that's his choice, and entirely worthy of respect. However I suspect he is a small minority of YES voters. Most of them have, I reckon, swallowed Salmond's different and various lies.
It's just a question of whether there is enough of them to carry them over the line. Right now I have a horrible suspicion there is. Two hours ago I was sure there wasn't.
Given "The Vow", I now think that NO is the worst option. I think it will just fuel resentment on both sides of the border. If it was not for that absurdly stupid promise I would favour NO.
The die is cast, Scotland is leaving. The only real question is "when will it happen?"
I think that "the Vow" has saved the union, but not as we know it. Over the next few years it will cause UKIP and Tory backbenchers to become more assertive about England's place in the union, which will make us a more federal country with all holding the same devolved powers and only defence, foreign policy and the annual spending envelope set at a UK level. How an English Parliament will work out is what is going to need a lot of debate, the easy option is to just use Westminster and have EP days with the EP government sitting on the green benches regardless of which party is in power on a national level.
If the Tories don't at least propose EV4EL in their 2015 manifesto and campaign on it then UKIP will make a lot of gains at the expense of them in the South East.
Yet when the inevitable change to the outdated and unfair Barnett formula happens, the nationalists will have much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how it proves nothing said by the In campaign in any future referendum can ever be trusted. It was sheer stupidity by all three UK leaders, but especially Cameron. He's sold out his own base in the home counties, taking their money via an unfair mechanism to bribe the Scots to stay in.
And fair play to him: that's his choice, and entirely worthy of respect. However I suspect he is a small minority of YES voters. Most of them have, I reckon, swallowed Salmond's different and various lies.
It's just a question of whether there is enough of them to carry them over the line. Right now I have a horrible suspicion there is. Two hours ago I was sure there wasn't.
Given "The Vow", I now think that NO is the worst option. I think it will just fuel resentment on both sides of the border. If it was not for that absurdly stupid promise I would favour NO.
The die is cast, Scotland is leaving. The only real question is "when will it happen?"
Whatever happens real damage is done. There is now, like it or not a "political" risk to be built in to all future Scottish assets and investments, even if it's a NO. I would be very unsurprised to see a slow but steady and unheralded trickle of capital and people moving South (or not moving North when they would have) as people hedge their bets over the coming years (if it's a NO, it'll be more sudden if it's a Yes). Nothing dramatic, won't make the papers, but it will be there. I wouldn't buy a house in Scotland, and any job would have to be amazing to make me consider. Now I'm vanishingly unlikely to ever to do either, but it will give others pause for thought as they decide future actions.
I fear you may be proved correct – even in the event of a NO vote, there will remain a lingering whiff for future instability within Scotland. – Certainly enough to give pause for thought of any large company seeking to move or invest there. The damage is already done, the only unknown is to what extent.
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
There are existing warhead stores in England in use now, and others that can be reactivated. Where do you think the weapons are built and maintained?
Is that one off the M4 still used? Just before/after Reading (IIRC).
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
There was a Times report (££) the other day saying the Americans have already made this quiet offer to UK (or the FUK): store your missiles at a US base while Britain builds a new facility in Devonport or Barrow or wherever. America wants Britain to maintain her own deterrent, if at all possible.
So Faslane is not the bargaining chip Salmond hopes. Yet another Nat lie.
The US do not wish to be the only member of NATO with nuclear weapons. The missiles (without warheads) come from a shared pool anyway, and the USN use facilities and berths in the UK.
Salmond's going nowhere with this. Unless he wants to really piss off the Yanks, with all the trade consequences.
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
For all the rhetoric the US will not want them or if they were to take them they would rip them with massive charges
"the plan would ensure that our four Trident missile-carrying Vanguard submarines would not remain in the hands of a Non-Nato foreign country and deprive Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond of any “leverage” in post -independence negotiations.
The call, which one senior US politician last night said would be “overwhelmingly supported” in Congress"
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
There are existing warhead stores in England in use now, and others that can be reactivated. Where do you think the weapons are built and maintained?
Is that one off the M4 still used? Just before/after Reading (IIRC).
You might be thinking of a US store, further West?
The UK manufacturing and development sites south of Reading are undergoing massive upgrades.
The more I look at "The Vow" given by Cameron & Co the more grotesque it seems. This more than anything could be Cameron's Waterloo. Unless he wakes up UKIP will grab the issue and run with it for all its worth.
Yeah, I think so. It may not be many people who are irate about this but given where the GE polls are it could be enough.
The French are wavering, the Prussians are arriving, but the actual collapse is proximately triggered by Wellington's spectacularly timed and wholly unexpected general advance.
I think that "the Vow" has saved the union, but not as we know it.
But will it be a union worth having?
I have always been of the opinion that a marriage is over when one of the couple says "I want a divorce". The subsequent legal process is a formality. When the committment has gone then the marriage is over. I feel that the SNP and the YES brigade have fatally damaged the union and that "The Vow" will simply add momentum to the YES cause from this side of the border.
Over the next few years it will cause UKIP and Tory backbenchers to become more assertive about England's place in the union, which will make us a more federal country with all holding the same devolved powers
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much...
I view our politicians as lazy and short-sighted. They will do only what is needed to stem the crisis and then will await the next crisis before they take any action. I do not think that they will voluntarily move to EV4EL or a Federated legislature.
What really annoys me is the fact that this monetary rabbit was pulled out of the hat without any consultation beforehand. A massive open-ended commitment rewarding a nasty campaign.
If the Tories don't at least propose EV4EL in their 2015 manifesto and campaign on it then UKIP will make a lot of gains at the expense of them in the South East.
The real problem is that all the major parties signed up to this nonsense so no matter who we vote for we wind up supporting one of these culpable ninnys.
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
There are existing warhead stores in England in use now, and others that can be reactivated. Where do you think the weapons are built and maintained?
Is that one off the M4 still used? Just before/after Reading (IIRC).
You might be thinking of a US store, further West?
The UK manufacturing and development sites south of Reading are undergoing massive upgrades.
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
For all the rhetoric the US will not want them or if they were to take them they would rip them with massive charges
"the plan would ensure that our four Trident missile-carrying Vanguard submarines would not remain in the hands of a Non-Nato foreign country and deprive Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond of any “leverage” in post -independence negotiations.
The call, which one senior US politician last night said would be “overwhelmingly supported” in Congress"
AND rUK is much happier to have them based in rUK than leave them in Faslane -in fact the Scots were much keener on leaving them at Faslane than rUK voters were.
I have been thinking about why the referendum is so close.
The economic arguments for remaining in our larger domestic market, the sharing of the risks of the inevitable financial turbulence of the next few years, having the security of effective armed forces and having a position of some weight in the EU are just so overwhelming that this should be an incredibly easy decision.
But, for at least half of Scots it isn't. Why?
What Salmond has achieved is to make this referendum a contest between the Westminster Establishment and the Scottish people. It is a remarkable achievement, especially as he himself has been in power now for a number of years with responsibility for health, education and social services.
Salmond claims that Scots are different because they don't like the Westminster establishment. This, of course, is where he is wrong. Who does? If a vote against the Westminster establishment were possible then most, possibly even all areas of the UK outside London itself would be inclined to vote against it. That is exactly what happened in the Euros where the population were given a free hit to vote against the established parties for a body of minimal perceived consequence in their lives.
To manage to run as anti establishment whilst being First Minister is indeed an incredible achievement but his success shows how much is wrong with our politics and our country. The suspicion is that there will be business as usual (with a twist of further devolution) will follow a no vote but there is an incredible opportunity for anyone who can capture that anti Westminster sentiment. It has proven to be incredibly strong.
I think the obsession with devolution and europe is going to dominate the next parliament, while the real issues are ignored.
There is an anti-politics feeling that is quite dangerous to democracy, but the politicians answer is just to argue and create more jobs for themselves in Westminster/Brussels/Holyrood.
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
There are existing warhead stores in England in use now, and others that can be reactivated. Where do you think the weapons are built and maintained?
Is that one off the M4 still used? Just before/after Reading (IIRC).
You might be thinking of a US store, further West?
The UK manufacturing and development sites south of Reading are undergoing massive upgrades.
Looks like I'm thinking of RAF Welford.
The Septics are still there. Wouldn't know if they look after any canned sunshine now, but locals always reckoned that Cruise were really based there, and not Greenham, hence the motorway access.
Whatever happens real damage is done. There is now, like it or not a "political" risk to be built in to all future Scottish assets and investments, even if it's a NO. I would be very unsurprised to see a slow but steady and unheralded trickle of capital and people moving South (or not moving North when they would have)
It is already happening. We have seen the banks and other businesses already starting to do this. Smaller businesses too.
And fair play to him: that's his choice, and entirely worthy of respect. However I suspect he is a small minority of YES voters. Most of them have, I reckon, swallowed Salmond's different and various lies.
It's just a question of whether there is enough of them to carry them over the line. Right now I have a horrible suspicion there is. Two hours ago I was sure there wasn't.
Given "The Vow", I now think that NO is the worst option. I think it will just fuel resentment on both sides of the border. If it was not for that absurdly stupid promise I would favour NO.
The die is cast, Scotland is leaving. The only real question is "when will it happen?"
I think that "the Vow" has saved the union, but not as we know it. Over the next few years it will cause UKIP and Tory backbenchers to become more assertive about England's place in the union, which will make us a more federal country with all holding the same devolved powers and only defence, foreign policy and the annual spending envelope set at a UK level. How an English Parliament will work out is what is going to need a lot of debate, the easy option is to just use Westminster and have EP days with the EP government sitting on the green benches regardless of which party is in power on a national level.
If the Tories don't at least propose EV4EL in their 2015 manifesto and campaign on it then UKIP will make a lot of gains at the expense of them in the South East.
Yet when the inevitable change to the outdated and unfair Barnett formula happens, the nationalists will have much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how it proves nothing said by the In campaign in any future referendum can ever be trusted. It was sheer stupidity by all three UK leaders, but especially Cameron. He's sold out his own base in the home counties, taking their money via an unfair mechanism to bribe the Scots to stay in.
Then let them wail and gnash. In a federal system with almost all powers devolved they would get what they want, independence and staying in a stronger nation. Whatever the outcome tomorrow, the Barnett formula is not sustainable regardless of what Dave has vowed. His backbenchers will go through another bout of regicide before allowing more money to pour into Scotland and drain out of their heartlands. The drum beats have already started and by Friday I expect the recriminations will begin. It is going to be too difficult for these guys to sell more money for Scotland on the doorstep when UKIP will offer a federal system with England, Wales, Scotland and NI spending their own money.
The Devo-Nano proposals of the Vow don't give any more money to Scotland - the effective result of giving control over income tax to Scotland is in all likely hood probably to decrease Scotland's budget because getting your hands on one income stream without control of the others is damaging.
A yearly fluctuation that saw Income Tax decrease and other taxes increase to resulting in Scotland gave the same fiscal contribution to the UK would mean a budget cut for Scotland - if the same thing happened in reverse - income tax spiked but other taxes crashed then that becomes a perverse budget increase.
YES will be a giant clusterfu<k of Venezuelan proportions for the Scots - but also a release for England. England would get EVFEL by default, an improved deficit picture, less frequent bouts of socialism to spend all the money - and an identity. The markets would settle and England would be set free on a more outward facing, business friendly trajectory.
NO will now mean a very angry and disempowered England and an ever more entrenched and unlistening Westminster elite. Our cash will go north but not our students. PM Miliband will screw us up royally using his Scottish votes to rub our noses in it. We face a divided and unhappy 'union'. YES will be alot cleaner.
The only route towards relative calm after NO will be to see EVFEL in the 'Vow' legislation.
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
There are existing warhead stores in England in use now, and others that can be reactivated. Where do you think the weapons are built and maintained?
Is that one off the M4 still used? Just before/after Reading (IIRC).
You might be thinking of a US store, further West?
The UK manufacturing and development sites south of Reading are undergoing massive upgrades.
Looks like I'm thinking of RAF Welford.
The Septics are still there. Not sure if they look after any canned sunshine now, but locals always reckoned that Cruise were really based there, and not Greenham, hence the motorway access.
As I boy I always wondered what road works were taking so long up there.. then I realised what the red border meant!
I have been thinking about why the referendum is so close.
The economic arguments for remaining in our larger domestic market, the sharing of the risks of the inevitable financial turbulence of the next few years, having the security of effective armed forces and having a position of some weight in the EU are just so overwhelming that this should be an incredibly easy decision.
But, for at least half of Scots it isn't. Why?
What Salmond has achieved is to make this referendum a contest between the Westminster Establishment and the Scottish people. It is a remarkable achievement, especially as he himself has been in power now for a number of years with responsibility for health, education and social services.
Salmond claims that Scots are different because they don't like the Westminster establishment. This, of course, is where he is wrong. Who does? If a vote against the Westminster establishment were possible then most, possibly even all areas of the UK outside London itself would be inclined to vote against it. That is exactly what happened in the Euros where the population were given a free hit to vote against the established parties for a body of minimal perceived consequence in their lives.
To manage to run as anti establishment whilst being First Minister is indeed an incredible achievement but his success shows how much is wrong with our politics and our country. The suspicion is that there will be business as usual (with a twist of further devolution) will follow a no vote but there is an incredible opportunity for anyone who can capture that anti Westminster sentiment. It has proven to be incredibly strong.
I think the obsession with devolution and europe is going to dominate the next parliament, while the real issues are ignored.
There is an anti-politics feeling that is quite dangerous to democracy, but the politicians answer is just to argue and create more jobs for themselves in Westminster/Brussels/Holyrood.
I posted a link earlier to a Soton Uni article on anti-politics - unfortunately it didn't cover the SNP.
This is rubbish. Scotland receives 24% more money per person than the South West does, despite being wealthier. There's absolutely no way that would happen in a needs-based system.
Though I do love that your loyalty to the every word of David Cameron has got to the point where you feel you can use vague partial quotes from him as a fact base for your argument.
I just keep a sense of proportion, one of the very few here who seem capable of doing so. Your very own figures, quoted upthread, show how insane your hysteria on this is (not just yours, I accept):
I found the last time a regional analysis of UK accounts was done. This allocates North Sea oil revenue to Scotland, so no nationalist whingers please. Net contributions:
Scotland: -£2.1bn
So maybe it should be £1.5bn, or even 0. So what? it's hardly the biggest anomaly in the UK. Meanwhile, any sane person knows that providing public services in a sparsely-populated and remote part of the country will have higher costs.
Yes, the Barnett formula is arbitrary and out of date. Replacing it might be a good idea in the abstract, leading to a marginally different settlement. This is the United Kingdom. There are all sorts of anomalies, of which this is a minor one.
So does the word "bitch" but I'd still consider it inappropriate as an insult to a woman. Especially one who wasn't doing anything wrong. We have far too few women on here and this sort of abuse doesn't help.
"Afaik it is used for "door knocking" - no point in going round to the homes of people who have already voted - so it will create a list of "no" voters who have not yet voted to encourage them to do so...."
That sounds more interesting. So I will be doing my bit for the union!
Indeed!
Did you catch the Gordon Brown interview last night - worth watching - puts the current generation in the shade....
I'd forgotten about that. This morning I have been blaming the bedtime cheese for last night's amazing dream in which I found myself agreeing with Gordon Brown.
Yes - he was a man transformed on his own turf, eloquent, fluent, persuasive - very different from the brooding sulk in No 10......
LOL.........fanny alert
Fanny has more than one meaning, especially up here, and not just the unfortunate Miss Adams of Alton.
Rumours that pb.com is going to have all women threads are completely baseless...
For shame! I'm sure me and Beverley C could have a very interesting conversation about shoes!!!
Philip Davies @PhilipDaviesMP 10h For the record, I will not be voting to maintain an unfair funding settlement for Scotland whatever Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg say
Is the Barnett formula unfair ?
I cannot see Westminster looking to change it, after all these years.
I also reckon Salmond will get his currency union.
This really does strike me as a pivotal moment in Cameron's fortunes. He has now done enough to convince me not to vote for him. By committing to use my money in perpetuity to bribe Scotch Labour scumbags, he has IMO demonstrated appalling judgement and gross, gross irresponsibility, and this was the week he lost my vote. I do not want these sponging f>ckwits in the UK; he has no mandate to bribe them to stay, he does not speak or act for me, and how dare he put that Cyclopean pr>ck Brown in charge.
The EU will have taken careful note of how he has behaved over IndyRef and now know if they did not before that they can stonewall him and he'll fold.
He could and should have used a potential exit vote as a means to extract anything he wanted from the EU. He should be getting ready to act like Scotland has acted so that the EU would give him anything to stay.
No-one can endorse the Barnett formula out of a sense of principles, and no Prime Minister with a sense of democracy can commit to handing home counties money over to Scotland without any input from parliament. He is just willing to say whatever is needed to maintain his power. It was the same with the immigration pledge of getting it down to tens of thousands, when the levels are virtually identical to what they were four years ago. He never had any intention of achieving it. It's the same with the EU: he's not interested in a genuine substantial repatriation of powers. As he told Carswell, he just wants to put on just enough of a show to get an In vote, because he puts staying in with Brussels above getting the best deal for Britain.
Sorry, had to be away last night so couldn't follow this one up.... just intrigued how exactly you think Cameron has excluded Parliament from any future application of the Barnett Formula?
He's made the commitment without consulting his party or parliament.
You're not the first Conservative on here to be upset at this. This has been a spectacular blunder by Cameron.
:-)
I am not really a conservative although I have voted for them in the past. I have also voted Lib Dem and Green and endorsed Lib Dem candidates forms to allow them to stand. One of my friends is married to a Labour PPC. The upshot is that I have very little party loyalty.
But yes - I regards "The Vow" as an enormous blunder.
We could do with poll on PB, as to whether Scotland would get a sterling currency union.
I don't think Scotland will get a currency union with the BoE as a central bank. I suspect that an independent Scotland would end up having the Euro in about 2022, after using their own currency.
It will be quid pro quo on Trident for deal to 2020
Don't see we can't store our warheads in the US while a suitable facility is built in the rUK. That'd be much more desirable than a currency union.
There was a Times report (££) the other day saying the Americans have already made this quiet offer to UK (or the FUK): store your missiles at a US base while Britain builds a new facility in Devonport or Barrow or wherever. America wants Britain to maintain her own deterrent, if at all possible.
So Faslane is not the bargaining chip Salmond hopes. Yet another Nat lie.
I'm not sure it was ever much of a chip. If you are absolutely convinced you want an electric oven, it's pointless to be offered 20% off a gas oven. And even if you are minded to haggle, it's no good if your partner would leave you if you bought a gas oven.
Remember the public polls are consistently very anti-Trident (apart from one or two very strange ones recently). If there is a Yes then Trident becomes, for want of a better word, a 'foreign' weapon system. Also and quite independently (!), SLAB will have to cut loose from London.
Then Labour will instantly revert to its very strong historic opposition to Trident (cue no longer embarrassing speeches and articles by Ms Lamont et al of old). Hooray, a chance for revenge on Alicsammon AND for once doing the populist thing!! Add the Greens, indeps, some SNP, LDs and perhaps even some Caledonian Tories v2.0 and you have an instant defeat for any SNP government which tried to keep Trident 'unreasonably' long. What that 'unreasonable' would mean I don't know, but IIRC Mr S did say the end of the first post-indy term of pmt, and so anything more than about 2020 would be pushing luck. I'm not even sure that is politically achievable in Scotland, whatever engineering genius and MoD planning make of the physical timetable.
There is, of course, a Scottish election coming - but not till May 2016 (ironically bumped when Westminster changed the rules without asking to make room for UKGE). After the target (so to speak) indyday.
Edit: in practice the negotiations team for the indy talks with EWNI would be cross-party, but the same underlying dynamics would control that - and therefore any disagreement within the negotiating group.
This is rubbish. Scotland receives 24% more money per person than the South West does, despite being wealthier. There's absolutely no way that would happen in a needs-based system.
Though I do love that your loyalty to the every word of David Cameron has got to the point where you feel you can use vague partial quotes from him as a fact base for your argument.
I just keep a sense of proportion, one of the very few here who seem capable of doing so. Your very own figures, quoted upthread, show how insane your hysteria on this is (not just yours, I accept):
I found the last time a regional analysis of UK accounts was done. This allocates North Sea oil revenue to Scotland, so no nationalist whingers please. Net contributions:
Scotland: -£2.1bn
So maybe it should be £1.5bn, or even 0. So what? it's hardly the biggest anomaly in the UK. Meanwhile, any sane person knows that providing public services in a sparsely-populated and remote part of the country will have higher costs.
Yes, the Barnett formula is arbitrary and out of date. Replacing it might be a good idea in the abstract, leading to a marginally different settlement. This is the United Kingdom. There are all sorts of anomalies, of which this is a minor one.
As RCS rightly pointed out, that calculation was with higher oil prices and output. Today's figure is likely much larger than that.
Katie Hopkins (@KTHopkins) 17/09/2014 10:22 Shaun Wright wrote to Keith Vaz to 'supplement the answers he gave' under oath. Is supplement a new word for change?
The funding question is very complicated and practically no-one understands it. The Barnett formula only makes up a small part of the apparent 10% extra spending per head in Scotland.
First thing to clarify: all this applies only only as long as Scotland is in the Union. If we leave, we have to find the money somewhere because Scotland is a more expensive country to run, per head of population.
The Scottish Government gets all its funding from a block grant. It has limited tax raising powers, which it doesn't use, and it's largely prevented from raising money on the markets. This may change in the case of devomax. The grant is calculated from the money that the UK government spends on the same activities in England as are devolved to Scotland. The actual amount is calculated via the Barnett formula, which is near to a population share, but not quite.
The original aim of the Barnett formula was to eventually equalise the spending per head across the UK. At the time it was introduced Scotland was receiving much higher public spending than England. The Barnett formula applies the per head calculation, not to the total grant, but to any changes to the original amount. So if public spending goes up, the spending per head in each country normalises to a similar amount. Substantial inflation since the 1970’s has resulted in the formula mostly doing what it was intended to do. The technical issue with the Barnett formula is that it doesn’t keep up with change, so other changes can cause the spending per head to drift apart again. In particular the lower population growth in Scotland, compared with England. Incidentally, Lord Barnett’s objection to his own formula, apart from a lack of transparency, is that the principle is wrong. He doesn’t believe in equalising spending on a population share. Instead, he says it should be needs-based.
To repeat, the Scottish Government is largely prevented from spending more per head than the UK government.
The 10% extra “identifiable” spending in Scotland mostly comes from UK government spending where the amounts are allocated the same way across the UK. For example a pensioner in Berwick gets the same as a pensioner in North Berwick. There are more pensioners in Scotland than England, but Scots don’t have a reduced pension to make the national budgets match up. Another example is UK farm subsidies: these are allocated per acre. There are more acres of farming land per head of population in Scotland. Another difference is that unlike in England water is a public resource in Scotland. We still have to pay for it, but anything on the Scottish Water's debit register counts as “identifiable” public spending
Comments
Our very own little ray of sunshine
You would have to work out the actual financial settlements, to see whether it would be any better or not.
And so the excitement builds...apparently.
I suppose if London did campaign for independence the economic argument wouldn't be quite the same. London could ptrobably have its own currency - the Boris or something similar.
Stodge's ninth law of politics states "there are fools, damn fools and people who believe canvass returns". It should be easy in an election with only two options as distinct from a contest with four or five candidates where someone who is "anti" your side has alternatives. Unfortunately, the quality of modern canvassing is often exceeded by the duplicity of the electorate.
There are many tales of Conservative canvassers simply not accepting the rejection of 1997 because there was little or no anger on the doorstep but that's how the game works - the British (and I include the Scots) are quite happy to lie to you with a smile.
I suspect both sides in this referendum have not only told lies but been lied to but that's part of the nature of politics. Some seem surprised at verbal and physical intimidation, harrassment and threats - have a read of political campaigns over the past two centuries.
Stodge's tenth law of politics states "If you can't persuade 'em, scare 'em" - fear is a huge political weapon and everyone uses it. Look at even the great WSC in 1945 and then compare and contrast.
Within a generation, emigre Scots will have returned, the dark days of municipal socialism, welfare dependency and victimhood will be over.
We will be able to visit a new, entrepreneurial Scotland that will look back with pride at its choice in 2014, but embarrassment at the economic illiteracy of Smith, Dewar, Brown and Salmond.
Adam Smith will be proud.
The Yes campaign have put forward seven reasons for voting Yes, every one of them false. The Better Together's five claims are at the very least defensible. I am not being partisan in this assessment. But if it is Yes, it will be a very narrow win on prospectus that was totally false.
there would be no “pot of gold” for the English if a needs-based system was introduced, and Scotland would still receive “substantial” funding.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7745702/Barnett-formula-given-stay-of-execution.html
2006-07 5,304
2007-08 4,850
2008-09 8,616
2009-10 4,528
2010-11 6,090
2012-13 7,709
2013-14 3,965 <- record levels of investment into Continental shelf drilling this year
Petroleum Tax revenue is a roughly another billion to a billion and a half a year without much variation (except in 09-10 where it dropped to a mere 650 million)
There is a lot of pish talked about with the Barnett Formula.
In essence it is used to calculate the changes to the block grant based on a £1 per head change to spending in England leading to a £1 per head change in the devolved region. So if spending on education changes by £1 per head in England, then the formula calculates the change to the block grant by £1 per head in devolved region. The purpose of the formula was to harmonise spending across the regions as the percentage change would be lower in the regions by the nature of the higher starting position and the smaller population.
If the Barnett formula was the only thing used to calculate the block grant then the whole process would be open, transparent and on the face of it fair and reasonable.
However, the Barnett formula is only the starting point, there are backroom deals and tweaks to the weighting hammered out and argued over all the time.
Salmond either gets into the history books as "father of the nation" with a statue next to John Knox on the Royal Mile, or gets a great consolation prize of having scared the bejasus out of London and gets lots and lots of new powers to play with and still gets to be able to blame "Westminster" (England) for everything, while welcoming train loads of Barnett formula cash from SE England chuffing into Waverley Station.
Farage, either gets 90% English electorate in the UK, or a huge stick to beat the other three parties with in the shape of "it's all unfair to England" as a slogan.
Cameron, looks tactically inept (though the Tories get a useful consolation prize of a friendlier electorate in a (slightly) smaller country.
Miliband looks like a wet southern lettuce who has looked about as at ease in Scotland as he would on Mars, gasping for breath in an outwardly red atmosphere.
Clegg - well where is he and who the hell cares in Scotland?
Awful, innit?
As with any change, it would be necessary for the number crunchers to work out how this affects budgets.
The die is cast, Scotland is leaving. The only real question is "when will it happen?"
Salmond and the SNP are the paintjob, the house is independence.
I think you'd be surprised about how many people are voting for independence who will then be voting against the SNP at the first available election.
Though I do love that your loyalty to the every word of David Cameron has got to the point where you feel you can use vague partial quotes from him as a fact base for your argument.
Which is crazy for multiple reasons - exit polls are a bulkward against election fraud.
http://www.spf.org.uk/2014/09/spf-media-release-independence-referendum-2/
Hills opened up 1/50
I admit I backed ukip at 5/2 and hills went 10/1, so haven't exactly covered myself in glory
But 1/50 has to be one of the worst prices ever
I suspect the Yes voters know that Salmond is lying but they want to believe him so they will.
I think they are barmy but if I were Scottish, I would vote Yes anyway. It's a big adventure and worth the pain. But I guarantee my wife (who's Irish anyway) would vote No for the same reason.
Oh, and you'll need a proper international airport as well. But don't worry there are plenty of banks (mostly based in London, but they're not chauvinist; money's money) who will finance one if Scotland starts to look outwards, rather than inwards.
You could adjust the spending in the next financial year to do so instantly, but that would be a bad idea, because there would not be the time for Scottish services to adapt to reduced funding and English services to adapt to increased funding.
You could adjust the spending over a fixed time period - perhaps five or ten years. This would be better because everyone would have time to plan for an orderly transition to the new funding levels and you would still have a definite end point by which time parity would have been achieved. The drawback is that it would likely require actual reductions in the Scottish allocation in cash terms, which would provoke opposition.
So what do you do? You turn to our trusty friend inflation. You make sure that from now onwards, any change to the budget is made on a per capita basis. This means that the per capita levels of the respective budgets will converge over time, without having to make any reductions in the nominal level of spending in Scotland.
Since 1979, the action of inflation alone - assuming that there was no real-terms increase in spending - should have reduced the difference in per-capita spending levels to 23% of its level in 1979. It hasn't done so. Why?
One reason is that the population of Scotland has continued to decline relative to that of England. Thus one is attempting to converge to a moving target. The second reason is that the Barnett formula is not even applied in totality, being only the default option when spending decisions are made.
The Barnett formula was a pretty good idea, a very long way from being idiotic, sadly stymied by demographic trends and political meddling. In the absence of a detailed case for extra spending on the basis of dispersion*, it seems obvious to move to a fixed timeframe to equalise spending, with some adjustment to keep that up-to-date to reflect population changes.
* This has always seemed an odd argument, because most of the Scottish and Welsh population live in the densely populated Central Belt or Southern Valleys, and there are some fairly remote areas of England, so it's not obvious that it creates a greater need for spending in Scotland/Wales than in England.
Candidate selection primaries might achieve the same....
One has to ask oneself, what has been holding all these bright sparks and entrepreneurs back? A lack of a 'Yes'? Really? What might they be able to do after a vote for independence, that they can't do now?
I'm reminded of Midnight on New Years Eve - all the build up, and then at the stroke of 12, nothing really happens, the world doesn't change.
Good luck Scotland. You'll need it either way.
The economic arguments for remaining in our larger domestic market, the sharing of the risks of the inevitable financial turbulence of the next few years, having the security of effective armed forces and having a position of some weight in the EU are just so overwhelming that this should be an incredibly easy decision.
But, for at least half of Scots it isn't. Why?
What Salmond has achieved is to make this referendum a contest between the Westminster Establishment and the Scottish people. It is a remarkable achievement, especially as he himself has been in power now for a number of years with responsibility for health, education and social services.
Salmond claims that Scots are different because they don't like the Westminster establishment. This, of course, is where he is wrong. Who does? If a vote against the Westminster establishment were possible then most, possibly even all areas of the UK outside London itself would be inclined to vote against it. That is exactly what happened in the Euros where the population were given a free hit to vote against the established parties for a body of minimal perceived consequence in their lives.
To manage to run as anti establishment whilst being First Minister is indeed an incredible achievement but his success shows how much is wrong with our politics and our country. The suspicion is that there will be business as usual (with a twist of further devolution) will follow a no vote but there is an incredible opportunity for anyone who can capture that anti Westminster sentiment. It has proven to be incredibly strong.
If the Tories don't at least propose EV4EL in their 2015 manifesto and campaign on it then UKIP will make a lot of gains at the expense of them in the South East.
Salmond's going nowhere with this. Unless he wants to really piss off the Yanks, with all the trade consequences.
The UK manufacturing and development sites south of Reading are undergoing massive upgrades.
The French are wavering, the Prussians are arriving, but the actual collapse is proximately triggered by Wellington's spectacularly timed and wholly unexpected general advance.
I have always been of the opinion that a marriage is over when one of the couple says "I want a divorce". The subsequent legal process is a formality. When the committment has gone then the marriage is over. I feel that the SNP and the YES brigade have fatally damaged the union and that "The Vow" will simply add momentum to the YES cause from this side of the border. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much...
I view our politicians as lazy and short-sighted. They will do only what is needed to stem the crisis and then will await the next crisis before they take any action. I do not think that they will voluntarily move to EV4EL or a Federated legislature.
What really annoys me is the fact that this monetary rabbit was pulled out of the hat without any consultation beforehand. A massive open-ended commitment rewarding a nasty campaign.
The real problem is that all the major parties signed up to this nonsense so no matter who we vote for we wind up supporting one of these culpable ninnys.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-flimsy-fantasy-politics-of-the-yes-campaing/15803#.VBlfIclwaBY
I think the obsession with devolution and europe is going to dominate the next parliament, while the real issues are ignored.
There is an anti-politics feeling that is quite dangerous to democracy, but the politicians answer is just to argue and create more jobs for themselves in Westminster/Brussels/Holyrood.
A yearly fluctuation that saw Income Tax decrease and other taxes increase to resulting in Scotland gave the same fiscal contribution to the UK would mean a budget cut for Scotland - if the same thing happened in reverse - income tax spiked but other taxes crashed then that becomes a perverse budget increase.
YES will be a giant clusterfu<k of Venezuelan proportions for the Scots - but also a release for England. England would get EVFEL by default, an improved deficit picture, less frequent bouts of socialism to spend all the money - and an identity. The markets would settle and England would be set free on a more outward facing, business friendly trajectory.
NO will now mean a very angry and disempowered England and an ever more entrenched and unlistening Westminster elite. Our cash will go north but not our students. PM Miliband will screw us up royally using his Scottish votes to rub our noses in it. We face a divided and unhappy 'union'. YES will be alot cleaner.
The only route towards relative calm after NO will be to see EVFEL in the 'Vow' legislation.
4.9 now.
I found the last time a regional analysis of UK accounts was done. This allocates North Sea oil revenue to Scotland, so no nationalist whingers please. Net contributions:
Scotland: -£2.1bn
So maybe it should be £1.5bn, or even 0. So what? it's hardly the biggest anomaly in the UK. Meanwhile, any sane person knows that providing public services in a sparsely-populated and remote part of the country will have higher costs.
Yes, the Barnett formula is arbitrary and out of date. Replacing it might be a good idea in the abstract, leading to a marginally different settlement. This is the United Kingdom. There are all sorts of anomalies, of which this is a minor one.
EDIT: Me Wrong, some more cash has appeared. However for a market with 9.6 million bet on it the liquidity is rather thin just now.
I am not really a conservative although I have voted for them in the past. I have also voted Lib Dem and Green and endorsed Lib Dem candidates forms to allow them to stand. One of my friends is married to a Labour PPC. The upshot is that I have very little party loyalty.
But yes - I regards "The Vow" as an enormous blunder.
This is fun
Remember the public polls are consistently very anti-Trident (apart from one or two very strange ones recently). If there is a Yes then Trident becomes, for want of a better word, a 'foreign' weapon system. Also and quite independently (!), SLAB will have to cut loose from London.
Then Labour will instantly revert to its very strong historic opposition to Trident (cue no longer embarrassing speeches and articles by Ms Lamont et al of old). Hooray, a chance for revenge on Alicsammon AND for once doing the populist thing!! Add the Greens, indeps, some SNP, LDs and perhaps even some Caledonian Tories v2.0 and you have an instant defeat for any SNP government which tried to keep Trident 'unreasonably' long. What that 'unreasonable' would mean I don't know, but IIRC Mr S did say the end of the first post-indy term of pmt, and so anything more than about 2020 would be pushing luck. I'm not even sure that is politically achievable in Scotland, whatever engineering genius and MoD planning make of the physical timetable.
There is, of course, a Scottish election coming - but not till May 2016 (ironically bumped when Westminster changed the rules without asking to make room for UKGE). After the target (so to speak) indyday.
Edit: in practice the negotiations team for the indy talks with EWNI would be cross-party, but the same underlying dynamics would control that - and therefore any disagreement within the negotiating group.
It will be forgotten by the end of next week, but even if that weren't the case, don't you think your comment might be a tad over the top?
17/09/2014 10:22
Shaun Wright wrote to Keith Vaz to 'supplement the answers he gave' under oath. Is supplement a new word for change?
First thing to clarify: all this applies only only as long as Scotland is in the Union. If we leave, we have to find the money somewhere because Scotland is a more expensive country to run, per head of population.
The Scottish Government gets all its funding from a block grant. It has limited tax raising powers, which it doesn't use, and it's largely prevented from raising money on the markets. This may change in the case of devomax. The grant is calculated from the money that the UK government spends on the same activities in England as are devolved to Scotland. The actual amount is calculated via the Barnett formula, which is near to a population share, but not quite.
The original aim of the Barnett formula was to eventually equalise the spending per head across the UK. At the time it was introduced Scotland was receiving much higher public spending than England. The Barnett formula applies the per head calculation, not to the total grant, but to any changes to the original amount. So if public spending goes up, the spending per head in each country normalises to a similar amount. Substantial inflation since the 1970’s has resulted in the formula mostly doing what it was intended to do. The technical issue with the Barnett formula is that it doesn’t keep up with change, so other changes can cause the spending per head to drift apart again. In particular the lower population growth in Scotland, compared with England. Incidentally, Lord Barnett’s objection to his own formula, apart from a lack of transparency, is that the principle is wrong. He doesn’t believe in equalising spending on a population share. Instead, he says it should be needs-based.
To repeat, the Scottish Government is largely prevented from spending more per head than the UK government.
The 10% extra “identifiable” spending in Scotland mostly comes from UK government spending where the amounts are allocated the same way across the UK. For example a pensioner in Berwick gets the same as a pensioner in North Berwick. There are more pensioners in Scotland than England, but Scots don’t have a reduced pension to make the national budgets match up. Another example is UK farm subsidies: these are allocated per acre. There are more acres of farming land per head of population in Scotland. Another difference is that unlike in England water is a public resource in Scotland. We still have to pay for it, but anything on the Scottish Water's debit register counts as “identifiable” public spending