Quote:
Quote by: Forthright  Evidence?
This is actually propaganda and deliberate scaremongering by the Westminster Government over a number of years to undermine the argument for Scottish Independance. It comes from figures published by successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, called GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland) which it was claimed were an independent assessment of the situation produced by civil servants without the political interference of ministers. It has since come to light that this was not the case. An extract from the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Lang, makes this clear:
"The booklet I have had prepared and printed, setting out the details of the Government's expenditure and revenue in Scotland, I judge that it is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain our initiative and undermine the other parties."
The idea that Scotland is a "net burden" on the UK is patently rubbish. According to HM Treasury figures for the period 1975 to 1997 Scotland paid £27 Billion more in taxes than it received in expenditure. A fact which was suppressed by the Government until recently discovered under "Freedom of Information" legaislation.
You also seem completely ignorant of the current situation as to how Scotlands finances are run under devolution, which powers are devolved, which powers are "reserved" ie remain the province of the UK Government, and how the Barnett Formula works.
As an example, Defence is a "reserved" power ie the responsibility of Defence for the whole of the UK rests with the Westminster Government. It is only right therefore that a constituent part of the UK elects members of that Parliament to oversee how that defence is run is it not? This is particularly so when despite the fact that most Scots object to their presence, the UK Government insists on stationing its Trident Nuclear Deterrent on a Scottish river, the Clyde. Thats just one example. Employment. the EU, National Security, Broadcast Policy, Civil Service, Social Security, Constitutional Matters, Energy Policy, Foreign Policy, Transport & Safety Legislation are all reseved matters to be decided upon by a UK Parliament. Are you seriously suggesting that Scots should have no say in any of these matters which clearly affect all Scots? Furthermore, the powers which are devolved, ie purely Scottish matters such as Education, Health, Agriculture & Fisheries etc are funded out of Scottish taxation (The Scottish Parliament has the power to vary the rate of Income Tax above or below what is charged in the rest of the UK) and the Barnett Formula. I will grant that you have a point that MP's representing Scottish Constituencies should not be voting on matters which relate purely to England & Wales (ie Education) but surely this is an argument FOR full Scottish Independance, not against it.
You also don't seem to understand how funding for Scotland works under devolution using the Barnett Formula, or the "Barnett Squeeze" as it is called in Scotland for good reason. This formula is designed to ensure that public expenditure in Scotland goes up by less than it does in the rest of the UK. For example, if public spending in the UK, excluding Scotland, were to rise by say 10% then the yield to Scotland via the Barnett Squeeze would only be 8.1%. The formula is designed to ensure that Scotland gets the same or less than England, not more. |
As I didn't compile the statistics for spending I can't give details as to how they were gathered. However, if your from the UK as I would hazard to guess you are, you have heard the figures given out yourself that, per head, Scotland recieves more than England and Wales. If you wish to take those government figures and lay out how that is false, please do. If those figures are wrong, great, all the more reason for Scotland to leave the Union.
And did the English public receive more or less than they were taxed? I havn't seen figures for that and I'm not prepared to spend a week going through 30 years of tax and spend figures with my exam season coming up. Even so, I will suggest that the English public also lost money over that time because government itself is a net burden, putting less into the economy than it took out. This may be hidden through the public borrowing that goes on, however. Again, if you are right, Scotland should leave.
I am fully aware of how powers have been distributed since devolution, having studied British politics at college and university for over 6 years. I am not in support of devolution, I am in support of independance. Doing so would allow Scots the freedom to dictate policy within their own country in all areas. The only area that
might have cross border importance is defence (as I would still like to see England having the ability to raise regiments from Scotland as we do other areas of the Commonwealth). However, seeing as this would be voluntary joining of a regiment, much like a Brit joining the Foreign Legion, I don't see the need for Scots to have a say in this after independance.
I have not however looked into the Barnett formula. However, that alone does not prove Scotland gets less than the rest of the UK, as it doesn't tell me how much Scotland was recieving prior to its implementation. It may be that it is a long term attempt to bring Scotland into line with the rest of the UK.
However, your just giving me more reason for Scotland to leave again.
In terms of economics however, freed from the bastion of statism England could allow it's economy to grow more rapidly and hopefully halt the growing theft of property through tax.
So despite all your attacks on that one point, you still havn't either improved or attacked the arguments for independance, merely given Scot's more reason for independance than the English. That still makes little difference as England will still gain from releasing Scotland.