Rumour of snap GE -announcement 11.15 - Page 93 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Rumour of snap GE -announcement 11.15


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

i don't understand how it could be Barnett.

Northern Ireland isn't treated as UK Government department.

It's not how it works.

We just get a population x devolved attribute share of any up or down for an UK(English) department.  One of the bizarre things about how our services are funded - completely reliant on the needs or otherwise of the English department in question rather than ours. 

In principle the Barnett formula is supposed to balance out public spending in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that each part receives the same proportional share in relation to each other.  As is well known, that's not a pro-rate population share but a needs-based one which means that Scotland, Wales and NI get a per capita proportion higher than England.

In practice, 99% of the time that means that its adjustments in public spending in England that drives Barnett consequentials in Scotland, Wales and NI.  That's mainly because UK Macro economic policy is decided in Westminster as is English public spending so Westminster spending decisions that impact England tend to then impact on the other three.

An increase to the NI block grant should also drive subsequent increases in the other three - including England - as the Barnett ratios will be out of step.

That's the principle, the devil is in the detail over how the Treasury defines whether expenditure falls under Barnett or not.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Davie Roberts in the comments thread has had some formal training in thread derailment. I want to go and play with him but would have to sign up a scotsman account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, aaid said:

In principle the Barnett formula is supposed to balance out public spending in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that each part receives the same proportional share in relation to each other.  As is well known, that's not a pro-rate population share but a needs-based one which means that Scotland, Wales and NI get a per capita proportion higher than England.

In practice, 99% of the time that means that its adjustments in public spending in England that drives Barnett consequentials in Scotland, Wales and NI.  That's mainly because UK Macro economic policy is decided in Westminster as is English public spending so Westminster spending decisions that impact England tend to then impact on the other three.

An increase to the NI block grant should also drive subsequent increases in the other three - including England - as the Barnett ratios will be out of step.

That's the principle, the devil is in the detail over how the Treasury defines whether expenditure falls under Barnett or not.

 

 

Which part of the formula is "needs based"?

I'm pretty sure it's entirely formulaic and has nothing to do with need at all.   In fact, that's one of its flaws or advantages whichever way you look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Which part of the formula is "needs based"?

I'm pretty sure it's entirely formulaic and has nothing to do with need at all.   In fact, that's one of its flaws or advantages whichever way you look at it.

I should have quoted "needs based".  The general principle behind Barnett is that Scotland, Wales and NI get a bigger "share" of public spending because they have greater needs due to a number of reasons.

A good example is that the remote and rural nature of a lot of the population of Scotland means that the provision of a lot of services and infrastructure is more expensive than in areas with high population density.

 

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, aaid said:

That's why I quoted "needs based".  The general principle behind Barnett is that Scotland, Wales and NI get a bigger "share" of public spending because they have greater needs due to a number of reasons.

A good example is that the remote and rural nature of a lot of the population of Scotland means that the provision of a lot of services and infrastructure is more expensive than in areas with high population density.

 

I agree that Scotland, in certain areas, may need a higher level of spending but I don't agree that Barnett is what allows for it and I don't believe it has this as a principle.  The formula just distributes a population share of whatever England does up or down (most of the time).  The only reason we have higher spending is due to the historical baseline being higher before Barnett came in (down to some resolute Scottish Secretaries to be fair); not the Barnett consequentials we receive.

For Wales, they're absolutely done over.  Their baseline was set too low.  They've been arguing for decades for a redress.  If anything Barnett totally punishes Wales.  

A mathematical formula for distribution doesn't think about the Highlands as a principle in its output.

If anything you could argue, mathematically, if we receive a population share rather than a share relative to our previous grant, the eventual effect is that everyone receiving more than a population share in the first place....deep breath..haha.. eventually receives diminishing returns towards the norm.

hahah not sure where this is getting me right enough, it's actually a very simple formula which is probably why it's not been touched.

 

edited to add: I think by sheer luck it's sort of given Scotland more or less what was fair over the last 15 years or so).  But I don't think a grant based on how Sec of State for X department does in his/her battle with HM Treasury should really affect how our budget works.  It really is decisions without consequences (positive or negative).

Edited by PapofGlencoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Toepoke said:

I'm starting to warm to Gideon :-)) 

ozzy.jpg.a514ef04ce81cc6b17237fd2878e7e0

This Tory-DUP deal, unprecedented in my lifetime, social media awash with debate, Gideon getting his oar in, controversy over the Mundell 'U turn' and Ruth Davidson Defender of the Precious Union, posted missing, concerns about the Good Friday agreement.... 

But made the mistake of turning on BBC radio (5) this morning. Stories about NHS archives, tower block landlords, ATMs, the Lions,....

You'd be forgiven for thinking nothing much significant had just happened politically... certainly no Scottish political news out there today...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, exile said:

"this deal shakes the pillars that uphold not just the politics of Britain but the politics of Ireland and Northern Ireland too... The price May has paid for it...will far exceed the £1bn price tag "

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/26/shoddy-dup-deal-cost-theresa-may-more-1bn

This deal is no different to any other deal that political parties make when needs must. The fact that people are bleating about a deal where an extra 1bn is being spent on public services is priceless. oh the irony ! Sturgeon wouldve done just the same to Corbyn if the situation allowed,

As for claims that the deal is risking the good friday agreement again, really ! more money being pumped into northern ireland is going to cause a return to the troubles !!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to warm to Gideon



On the specific issue of the EU I frequently find myself cheering on George Osborne, John Major, Michael Heseltine, Nick Clegg and Tony Blair.
Strange but true - When it comes to Brexit they are all on bang on the money.
The obvious problem Tories have is that Brexit has flushed the sane and rational elements entirely out of the party.
What we have left is lunatic pro-brexit flotsam and jetsum - Boris, Gove, Davies <etc>

Another interesting paradigm shift is that Scottish Secretary of State has now become a defender of the government, rather than a voice for the people of Scotland.
Mundell and Davidson both unavailable for comment on BBC this morning,....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Haggis_trap said:

On the specific issue of the EU I frequently find myself cheering on George Osborne, John Major, Michael Heseltine, Nick Clegg and Tony Blair.
Strange but true - When it comes to Brexit they are all on bang on the money.

Is it maybe because they all love the idea of austerity? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Auld_Reekie said:

Sounds like Nicola Sturgeon making some kind of move today - Im guessing a commitment to no referendum before #brexit but that a referendum should be held once negotiations complete and terms are known. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Haggis_trap said:

Another interesting paradigm shift is that Scottish Secretary of State has now become a defender of the government, rather than a voice for the people of Scotland.
Mundell and Davidson both unavailable for comment on BBC this morning,....

Ross Thomson was a complete car-crash on GMS this morning.

Ross Thomson "We will aways stand up for Scotland"
Gary Robertson "Just not on this occasion".

He - Ross Thomson - is a complete nincompoop.  He was a nincompoop for the short period he was at Holyrood as well.  Beyond belief that the voters of Aberdeen South elected him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, aaid said:

Ross Thomson was a complete car-crash on GMS this morning.

Ross Thomson "We will aways stand up for Scotland"
Gary Robertson "Just not on this occasion".

He - Ross Thomson - is a complete nincompoop.  He was a nincompoop for the short period he was at Holyrood as well.  Beyond belief that the voters of Aberdeen South elected him.

Yeah heard that. Gary Robertson was on the verge of laughter at his answers.

Douglas Ross was about as bad on Scotland Tonight yesterday too.

Difficult to defend the indefensible though. Hence the absence of the Colonel and the SoS.

 

Edited by Toepoke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

Yes I noticed they've been sending out their newly elected minions to defend this deal in the media.

Well we can't have those 'abhorrent' gay people at the forefront of the new era of British politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Och Aye said:

Well we can't have those 'abhorrent' gay people at the forefront of the new era of British politics. 

I get that you're being sarcastic but Ross Thomson is also gay so it kind of ruins your line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Auld_Reekie said:

Sounds like Nicola Sturgeon making some kind of move today - Im guessing a commitment to no referendum before #brexit but that a referendum should be held once negotiations complete and terms are known. 

Isn't that exactly what she's been promising all along?  The MSM and opposition politicians may have distorted that into now is not the time, but Sturgeon has never said we will have an indyref before Brexit negotiations are done and dusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...