But to successive Labour, Tory and coalition UK governments, the Barnett largesse is regarded as the ‘Union dividend’ which helps Scotland remain a key part of the United Kingdom.
Ditching what is seen as this “Barnett bounty” for Scotland – due to reach £50 billion this year – would, say Reform’s critics, be a boost for the SNP and its perpetual demand for independence.
David Mundell, the former Conservative Scottish Secretary, said: ‘This proves that Reform isn’t a Unionist Party, instead it’s a populist party that wouldn’t stand up for the Union.”
As I keep saying, let the English have a vote and they’d be gone by lunchtime.
They don’t really want independence though. They want to complain about not having independence. And they get the money as well so the status quo is ideal.
If the only reason the porridge wogs stay in the Union is a large bribe, they should piss off.
The great problem with Barnett is that it is infantilising. It has turned the Scots into a nation of Kevins in kilts. Well, actually, more like tattooed Kevins in fleeces in crack dens.
Teenagers can’t grow up if you won’t let them.
Looking at the history of industrial productivity is Scotland, is there a case for saying that it is the first Western country that socialism destroyed? ISTM that Scotland collapsed before Argentina and Peronism.
I don’t think our esteemed host is correct in his assertion, but I’ll defer to a robust poll, if anyone can provide.
And Martin, the folk here who don’t want indy are different people to the ones who moan about not having it.
The Barnett formula is a great injury to Scotland, because it funds a government that hates them and which is actively doing them harm.
Same as England. We pay our taxes, and then cunts use those taxes to turn our country into an impoverished woke shithole full of LEZ zones and “migrants”, but without affordable electricity or good jobs.
I don’t watch the telly and get most of my news from this blog, people telling me things, and esoteric symbolism in dreams, so has Farage framed the argument this way? We need to flip the script on the false idea that giving our money to the government is somehow pro-Scottish. Javier Milei is a patriot.
My father served in the Royal Scots during WWII and as a child I went with the family to Edinburgh so Dad could celebrate Hogmanay with his mates. All my friends told me to watch out because the Jocks would steal my pocket money they were so stingy. I amazed them by coming home with my short trousers nearly round my ankles because they were loaded with silver coins from my “uncles” and “aunts”. So I’ve been rather partial to Scots ever since. A spell working in Aberdeen 20 years later just confirmed it.
But I was appalled at how the SNP kept getting elected by using the Enoch Powell Playbook against the English…
Dunno. Couldn’t be full independence (including defence), or we’d lose the natural moat. Although, now that I look at the Channel, maybe that argument’s redundant as well?
Scotland gives money to the union because of oil, gas, and whisky. Plus Scotland has huge renewables potential.
Wales gives water to England.
England is running out of water.
Wales and Scotland have plenty of water.
Scotland and Wales are good countries.
Happy – you’ve been bummed again, I see.
Given the propensity of the Shtarmerites to sow division colour me cynical about this.
The whining of the usual lot about the utterly ridiculous Barnett formula would have more credibility if we’d heard the same complaint when revenue from the N Sea was firehosing south during the 40 years of peak N Sea oil.
Instead it was – crickets.
Need to stop acting like the left and complaining only when you’re not getting an advantage
If any of the unionist parties had a brain, they would embrace what the Nats call fiscal autonomy: Scottish taxes fund Scottish government. Once it’s clear they cannot afford the majority of services, they should be returned to the UK Parliament to fund and administer. Now everyone knows who to blame and the ratchet dissappears 🙂
Totally agree with your sentiment Tim.
However, please don’t let it happen under the present government. Can you image how much they’d agree to give away as part of the split and on an ongoing basis? Starmer would probably also insist on trillions in reparations to atone for alleged past misdeeds.
“David Mundell, the former Conservative Scottish Secretary, said: ‘This proves that Reform isn’t a Unionist Party, instead it’s a populist party that wouldn’t stand up for the Union.””
Well, maybe a fucking union is supposed to be a two-way street. You know, now and again, the formula pays us. The world starts buying Edinburgh rock, Simple Minds albums and redhead porn or something and the Scots pay us.
The United Kingdom is a relic of pre-industrial Britain. People who wanted to own lots of farm land. In it’s current form it has only existed for about 100 years. And 1100 years ago, it was Wessex, Mercia, Essex and all that. It’s like my feelings about the Europe. The EEC worked in the 1970s. The world changed, trade changed, the ambitious of the EEC changed, and the EU doesn’t for Britain. So, you fuck off. Italy and Germany have gone through various configurations over the past 200 years.
Other than wet Tory wankers there are no votes/seats from Union. The Scots vote SNP or Labour anyway. And the English don’t care much. It’s a cold, wet place that costs us money.
There’s nowt so permanent as a temporary political fix. From ChatGPT (Perplexity is similar)
The Barnett Formula was created in 1978 by the UK Treasury under Joel Barnett, then Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It was introduced as a temporary measure to determine the levels of public spending in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (the devolved administrations), in relation to spending in England.
Purpose of the Barnett Formula:
• To provide a mechanical and consistent method for adjusting the block grants to the devolved administrations when public spending in England changes.
• It aimed to avoid protracted negotiations over funding every time the UK government changed departmental spending in England.
• It was not based on need, but rather on population share and the level of comparable spending in England.
Why it was needed:
• In the late 1970s, there were growing demands for devolution, and there was a need to simplify and depoliticise how funding was allocated to the constituent nations.
• The formula was a pragmatic workaround, intended to be a stopgap, but it has remained in place (with criticisms) for decades.
Key criticism:
• The formula has been criticised for being outdated, not needs-based, and for favouring Scotland, since it was based on 1970s spending levels that were already higher per capita in Scotland than in England.
WB – The United Kingdom is a relic of pre-industrial Britain. People who wanted to own lots of farm land.
You keep saying stuff like this, but it’s untrue.
Industrialisation, always and everywhere, leads to a consolidation of wealth and power. The feudal and agrarian state is lightly governed and decentralised by default.
But an industrial state has far greater power to inflict its will on both domestic and foreign provinces. The telegraph, railways and mass production led to the most powerful and centralised governments mankind has ever suffered under. And it enabled these Courageous States to wage warfare on a scale completely unimaginable to 19th century generals, tho Crimea and the American Civil War were a teaser trailer for what was to come.
“It aimed to avoid protracted negotiations over funding every time the UK government changed departmental spending in England.”
But it was the diametric opposite to the correct answer, which was to abolish the Scottish Office and return to governing Great Britain as a single, united, kingdom, as it had been prior to 1885. No special treatment, dispensations, government departments, or legislatures.
But where’s the graft in that?
@ Nessimmersion
When North Sea Oil was funding a noticeable, but small, %age of the UK Budget, Scotland was receiving a disproportionate share of UK government spending. Hence the Barnett formula which permanently (unless Reform gets enough seats in a future Parliament) guarantees a subsidy from England to Scotland.
I don’t remember you moaning when the gas fields in the southern North Sea were funding UK (not just English) government spending. I do remember that when I holdayed in Orkney there was a lot of support for the UK with a secondary (?last resort) support for rejoining Norway if the SNP ever got “Independence”. Zetland has more claim to the oil than Aviemore.
NSHEB was a, completely accidental, success of the Attlee government which created it (and Highland Home Industries) to provide jobs for the younger children of crofters. It continues to provide reliable (unlike the windmills) clean energy – you should concentrate on that and lobby Swinney to develop the three decent sites for Dinorwig-style pumped-storage that will make sense of the scottish windmill cult.
The English need to pay the Scotts in order for the Scotts to be a useful partner?
Seems to me you’d all be better off cutting them loose
England should have a referendum on leaving the UK – it’s ironic that every other possession gets a say but England.
Steve,
“You keep saying stuff like this, but it’s untrue.”
The United Kingdom was created long before industrialisation took off. 1707 and 1800, the acts of union.
Rupert has it right.
If we are to have a Federal kingdom ( which essentially devolution is ) then there should be a Jockoland Revenue which sets and collects taxes. It gives a percentage to the Crown for Federal Stuff ( defence, migrants hotels etc ) and keeps the rest.
It then runs its own education, po-liss, health service. It cannot nationalise industries or have its own trade deals. It could be like Bavaria but kilts instead of lederhosen.
Albeit Bavaria’s rich with pretty mädels and decent beer.
Steve ; I am a heterosexual man. You are a nasty woman who fancies bad boys. You think it is something to be proud of that you fancy bad boys
You dream of visiting prison for the bad boys to satisfy your warped cravings.
Sam ; No way. Would you get rid of devolved county councils?
And cetralised governance is communist..
We need devolution to encourage democratic accountability, and to encourage experimentation.
And if all the power is in London and the South East. Then that means London and the South East will get richer. That inhuman nature.
Devolution is the way forward.
Would you be happy if all the wealth and power of the UK was kept in North West Scotland rather than South East England?
Maybe all power and wealth should be concentrated in South East England.
Everyone else is apparently to stupid and lazy to run devolved parliaments and county councils.
Why would anybody outside of South East England have a problem with all the wealth and power being concentrated in South East England?
Can’t think why?