Chief amongst those was Sir Edward Leigh, who got cheers from the crowded SNP benches for his comments.
He said that, for example, not devolving the income threshold (i.e. the personal allowance) at which workers pay income tax would mean that Westminster can change the rule overnight with a consequent effect on Scotland's finances. The effect is to not make Holyrood a responsible parliament, denying it the full tax-varying powers that Westminster so dearly values. Far better to have FFA (Full Fiscal Autonomy, i.e. Home Rule).
He also quoted the finance figures that really puts the whole devolution debate into perspective:
"Scottish Parliament spends £37 billion and raises £30 billion - quite responsible, actually. The UK spends £732 billion and raises £648 billion."
Thus, he argued, giving Scotland full fiscal responsibility is unlikely to upset the UK's fiscal responsibility because Scotland's budget is so small by comparison.
Indeed, £37 billion divided by £732 billion is just 5%. Scotland's budget is 5% of the UK's. This, one notes, is below Scotland's population share. But if the numbers are so small, one wonders why English MPs make such a fuss over them. Simply give Scotland Home Rule and make a promise that if we fall short of a billion or two, the UK will bail us out.
If I was the Tory Prime Minister, it's what I'd do to solve the "Scottish problem." It would highlight whether Scotland could go it alone or not. If it survives, then UK finances benefit; if it fails, then UK bails it out and Unionists win their case.
Even if Scotland needed a bailout of £10 billion, this is only £10/£648 = 1.5% of what the UK raises, the equivalent of a parent earning £100 per week tossing their favourite child an extra £1.50 to go buy that extra bag of sweets in the shops.
A cheap, quick solution for us all.
Why are we even debating this? What on Earth is the problem? Simply give Scotland Home Rule now and the West Lothian problem is put to bed forever.
We're debating it because it's not the full picture. The GERS report are skewed to London i.e. London gets monies that are attributed as national spend and not recorded against London. Likewise Westminster 'hides' its revenues under all sorts of categories that GERS does not pick up.
ReplyDeleteWhy did Britain want to cling on to its Empire for as long as possible? Because the Empire provided money to the Treasury. Imports, fishing rights and geographical assets etc. everything made its way back to Westminster. Do you think that Westminster would have fought to keep India if it was making a loss there? No - it would have let it go and damn quick too!
Scotland is a cash cow. They can't give Scotland home rule and charge of its finances. Westminster wants Scotland's money. Worse, with the UK economy being so bad; Westminster needs Scotland's money!
The figures do make you stop and wonder. If it really cost that little to solve Scotland, I'd do it if I was an English PM. I guess the fact they don't says a lot. When Labour go on about 'pooling and sharing' I guess they mean Westminster wants to continue taking Scots cash...
ReplyDelete