Rachel Reeves has been accused of shortchanging the UK’s devolved nations after leaving the Welsh, Scottish and northern Irish governments with multimillion-pound funding gaps.
The chancellor said the Treasury would fully cover the 1.2% rise in national insurance contributions for employers on salaries above £5,000, which came in on 6 April.
However, Reeves has calculated the amount of money needed by using the Barnett formula, which ensures funding increases proportional to England in terms of population.
Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast – which all operate larger public sectors than England – now say they have been left in the red.
Because they spray more money up against the wall and the English give them more money to spray up against the wall therefore they require more more money from the English to spray up against the wall.
The parricide complaining of being an orphan.
What this means is that the private sector has to fund the increase in employer’s NI in the private sector.
And the private sector has to fund the increase in employer’s NI in the public sector.
c*nts. Utter, utter c*nts.
“We demand independence! It is our human right! And money! You thieving bastards! Give us our money!”
I admit, the logic does somewhat escape me…
“We demand independence! It is our human right! And money! You thieving bastards! Give us our money!”
And take our waste, you bastards.
Another great advertisement for the powers of central planning and no doubt the old adage that there’s nothing so permeant in government as a temporary measure will apply.
Thanks to the Barnett formula, England’s tax surplus (particularly from London) funds the other nations in the union. The net outflow from England to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland is approximately £15–20 billion annually, based on higher per capita spending in the devolved nations and their fiscal deficits.
Were this burden to be shared equally across all English households it would be about £500 a year ….. and intensely unpopular in England, but seen as their “right” across the borders.
Engxit must be looking increasingly attractive. And why not?
Holy Loch and Lossiemouth, as far as I can see. Oh, and that Scotland would no doubt go full Belt & Road when the day after independence Brussels makes it undeniably clear they’re not wanted back.
@Norman
You’re presuming the same Jockish (Taff/Mick) politicians would be running them post Engxit. But those politicians are in office because of the money tap. How long do you think they would last after it was turned off?
It’s a classic Trumpian tactic. Your bargaining adversaries believe they are bargaining from a position of strength. So act unilaterally & show them they aren’t. Now you can dictate the terms, ongoing.
Rachel Reeves is transferring money to the devolved governments to match the cost of funding NI costs for England’s public secror employers, but not England’s private sector employers. If Wales wants to load extra costs onto its private sector employers by having a larger %age employed in the public sector, why should England’s private sector employers have to pay for that?
Ditto for Scotland and Northern Ireland
@Andrew C: I think that you are far to kind. Think about adding the adjective ‘fvcking’ and if you did it twice, then you might get a little closer to my view.
The private sector funds the public sector anyway. The public sector creates little wealth itself: it runs off private sector wealth. Pissing around with public sector NI is just rearranging the deckchairs; it’s all funded from private sector tax, and borrowing.
@ Norman
It is rearranging the deckchairs in a pattern that makes the devolved (left-wing and ultra-left-wing) governments look less incompetent than they are, while demanding an increased subsidy from the English private sector.
The sole justification I can see is Jug Ears keeps the four coats of arms. There’s certainly little benefit for England. So Engxit, unilaterally.
@ bis
Three not four