To start a thread inspired by, but not about, indyref?

[StatisticallyChallenged]

In the run up to the Scottish Independence Referendum, we had some fabulous, spirited, enlightening and enthusiastic debates on this board. I know I learned a lot from talking with so many politically aware people, and a few people have suggested that we start a thread to try and continue some of the best parts of the discussions.

So this is a thread for us to discuss what we feel is wrong with our country, some possible solutions and how we can do something about it. It's not a thread for debating independence, justifying our votes or for recriminations and anger; more somewhere to chat about some of the underlying issues such as our constitution/political structure, welfare, social justice and equality which concerned people on both sides of the independence debate. I'm also not proposing this as an exclusively Scottish debate although I suspect it will be dominated by us, as many of these are UK-wide issues.

So, what needs to change? How can we make our individual countries and union better?

One of the reasons that the Barnett formula has endured so long, despite the criticism of it being unfair, is the complexity of working out what actually is fair. The capita per head figures demonstrate higher spending/cost in Scotland than Wales or England, but not NI. If you take that as the absolute indicator of what's fair & what isn't, the I'd agree it's a straight forward issue. But, what is the alternative? I've not yet seen anything that has critically analysed the actual needs of each part of the UK to see what could be changed to make it fairer. In terms of the % allocated to the various regions within England, what analysis is there that the % are fair & reasonable? There is certainly a breakdown of the % in areas of England but I've not seen the equivalent breakdown for Scotland. How does the cost of running & maintaining the infrastructure needed in the highlands & Islands impact the cost/spending that Scotland has? If that was broken down, in the same way that England's regions have had their spend in broken down, then I'd be able to see whether the needs argument for the Barnett formula continuation or ending was reasonable or fair etc. London gets more of the % than anywhere else in the UK, and that's got a greater population than Scotland. Is that an argument to reduce their share too?

That's why I said the perceived position of Scotland as opposed to the actual position of Scotland. I'm googling furiously but haven't yet found anything that breaks down Scotland's % spend further than Scotland as a whole, and without seeing that there is no real impact on Scotland's spending/costs in having a sparse population in areas that have high costs associated with maintaining public services for those areas, then I can't say yes it's unfair, or no, it's as fair as we can hope for given the needs of each part of the UK.

Some else posted details elsewhere of the spend per head on transport in London as compared with the NE of England & the disparity there is pretty shocking if accurate. It's apparently £2500 in London per head & £5 per head in the NE. I can't verify that as I'm not sure where that info came from, but I think the arguments over the Barnett formula aren't as clear & straightforward as any of us know for certain.

I'm happy to be corrected in what I've said, but I'm not convinced that the Barnett formula is the core issue in this whole debate - especially when none of the current senior politicians actually in a position to do something about it want to touch it with a barge pole.

One of the reasons that the Barnett formula has endured so long, despite the criticism of it being unfair, is the complexity of working out what actually is fair. The capita per head figures demonstrate higher spending/cost in Scotland than Wales or England, but not NI. If you take that as the absolute indicator of what's fair & what isn't, the I'd agree it's a straight forward issue. But, what is the alternative? I've not yet seen anything that has critically analysed the actual needs of each part of the UK to see what could be changed to make it fairer. In terms of the % allocated to the various regions within England, what analysis is there that the % are fair & reasonable? There is certainly a breakdown of the % in areas of England but I've not seen the equivalent breakdown for Scotland. How does the cost of running & maintaining the infrastructure needed in the highlands & Islands impact the cost/spending that Scotland has? If that was broken down, in the same way that England's regions have had their spend in broken down, then I'd be able to see whether the needs argument for the Barnett formula continuation or ending was reasonable or fair etc. London gets more of the % than anywhere else in the UK, and that's got a greater population than Scotland. Is that an argument to reduce their share too?

That's why I said the perceived position of Scotland as opposed to the actual position of Scotland. I'm googling furiously but haven't yet found anything that breaks down Scotland's % spend further than Scotland as a whole, and without seeing that there is no real impact on Scotland's spending/costs in having a sparse population in areas that have high costs associated with maintaining public services for those areas, then I can't say yes it's unfair, or no, it's as fair as we can hope for given the needs of each part of the UK.

Some else posted details of the spend per head on transport in London as compared with the NE of England & the disparity there is pretty shocking if accurate. It's apparently £2500 in London per head & £5 per head in the NE. I can't verify that as I'm not sure where that info came from, but I think the arguments over the Barnett formula aren't as clear & straightforward as any of us might think.

I'm happy to be corrected in what I've said, but I'm not convinced that the Barnett formula is the core issue in this whole debate - especially when none of the current senior politicians actually in a position to do something about it want to touch it with a barge pole.

Something that is really bothering me is how quickly Salmond resigned. He along with Cameron polarised views so much , how is that he thinks he can walk away from the situation without helping to sort it out ?
No-one else seems to think its odd, but I do.

Also if it is true, and I cannot believe it is so, that a majority of the under 70s backed yes, then I really do think this referendum will be the elephant in the room till it is rerun.

Not 100% sure that the rest of the uk totally wanted Scotland to stay though! and potentially if the WM govt gives us as much as they vowed to do (whatever that is) I expect they will be encouraging us to go for it again.

England is a funny mix - on the one hand you have an almost entirely seperate london and the Home Counties with a totally different economic situation, then you have the rest which is as disenfranchised just about as Scotland. How the politicians will come up with any answers to satisfy a decent majority of the whole of the uk is beyond me.

The trouble with the Barnett formula is it has now been publicly outed as wrong, so there will need to be change here. This might not help a new improved devolved Scotland.

Sorry didn't realise I'd posted that already.

Hello all! Needed an indyref break.

Something that is really bothering me is how quickly Salmond resigned. He along with Cameron polarised views so much , how is that he thinks he can walk away from the situation without helping to sort it out?

I agree with this. His behaviour was shocking- he hid during the morning and sent Sturgeon out to take the flack, and then he threw his toys out of the pram.

However, I am delighted that we will have 3 female leaders in Scotland (even if one is Lamont!). I think it could be a real bonus for women.

I know nobody wants to touch it with a barge pole but they're going to have to as the man who created it knows he created it from out of date figures .

It has been mentioned many tines in heated debate that it wasn't fair - I have defended it in the past but can't really anymore.

ps. bought pram

I worry about getting rid of Barnett, even although it's not fair.

Any cuts to the Scottish budget will galvanise sections of the yes campaign.

What on earth have you got in for the Dutch then?

oh for goodness sake Chelsy, grow up and/or get a grip!

Agreeing with a previous poster that many nations (with the exception of places like Australia and NZ) have little or no concept of the union, do not understand that we're not "just a part of England", that we're not English, does not mean I "have it in for them".

And no, I know very little if anything about Rumania, Moldova or Transylvania. sigh I don't however tell them what nationality they are or who there prime ministers are and aren't. If I knew any I would assume they know better than me what their own nationality is and who their own PM is.

Lucky, my point is, in what way is it not fair, when taking into account the specific needs of each part of the UK & the parts within those areas? I suspect there have been plenty over the years who have tried to tackle it, to come up with something else, but when it comes to trying to figure out an alternative I'd hazard a guess that the formula isn't too far off the mark in terms of allocating according to the specific needs of each area. That might well be a lucky coincidence. But, I think stating that the Barnett formula is basically wrong & unfair, without a reasonable alternative & a clear analysis of what each part/region/country has in terms of need, is a flawed stance to take.

I'm not defending the barnet formula as perfect or correct, I'm simply stating that unless there is a clear alternative that can be demonstrated as more fair & reasonable, while taking into account the needs specific to the various areas of the UK as a whole, then I'm reluctant to say for certain that it's wrong & unfair & should be scrapped. That's not because Scotland appears to do better than other areas, but because I don't know for certain that it's needed because of the specific needs/infrastructure Scotland has in comparison with the rest of the UK.

London does better out of it than any other part of the UK. Call me cynical but I'd say that's got more to do with the continuation of the Barnett formula than any other part of the UK.

SC This is my understanding of the the Barnett Formula & some of the problems.

It relates to the 'block grant' and it doesn't have anything to do with money put into the pot, it's only about money taken out of the pot and given to the devolved administrations.

(As you also said) The BF only relates to changes to the block grant, not to the underlying baseline. [Allocation in Y1, added in Y2 (becoming the baseline for Y3)} It is a per head of population baseline the problem is Scotlands PHP figure was incorrect originally! The baseline has never been reviewed! Barnett knew the figures weren't accurate, but to achieve what he wanted to achieve it didn't matter too much - speed not accuracy was the issue. However, it was NEVER intended to be used long term. It has been and it has caused a lot of resentment. Scotland has been getting a lot more per head, due to not having as many heads as they thought it had. The 2011 census has Scotland at 8.5% of the population, yet you are saying the last spending review has them at 10%. I guess it needs to be decided upon how we define The Population. (It's probably in there somewhere!!).

I don't think 'improved' or 'not improved' has anything to do with the Oil because it's not about what goes IN but what comes OUT. IF we are going to start looking at 'what goes in' v 'what goes out' thus how much each country 'gets' that's a whole other ballgame than the BF.

The West Lothian Question.

England doesn't get any of it's own ££ to spend as we wish because we aren't devolved. All MP's get a say in how the money is spent hence heckles rising when people in Scotland say we get to choose how our NHS money is spent so we could have free prescriptions if only we chose that or free university places - the problem is, WE don't get to choose. I believe it was the Scottish MP's votes that swung the vote for English universities to be fee paid.

I think Devolution for England is a must now.

To replace Barnett they'd need to do a pretty complex needs analysis., but it probably should be done.

Re London doing better - that's more to do with how the "English" share is allocated internally than it is to do with Barnett allocations to Scotland/Wales/NI isn't it?

England is a funny mix - on the one hand you have an almost entirely seperate london and the Home Counties with a totally different economic situation, then you have the rest which is as disenfranchised just about as Scotland. How the politicians will come up with any answers to satisfy a decent majority of the whole of the uk is beyond me.

Regional devolution? ie, dividing roughly into equal areas by population?

But I have no idea about population distribution apart from the obvious London and SE having far more than anywhere else.

LuckyTwo Something that is really bothering me is how quickly Salmond resigned. He along with Cameron polarised views so much , how is that he thinks he can walk away from the situation without helping to sort it out ?
No-one else seems to think its odd, but I do.

It is odd. Really strange. Perhaps he's just a strange man, perhaps there is a good reason. To me, it looks like he's avoiding the flack, and hoping people will interpret it as giving a woman a chance.

But I think he's lacked leadership all along. He didn't put the case for independence competently enough, he didn't advise his supporters on how to behave a bit better. Maybe all he is really interested in is independence, and once that's over "for another generation", his interest wains.

HappyScot I'm beginning to have sympathy with the Dutch...maybe its your "explanations" that are causing the confusion?

This gives a breakdown of overall spending per head by region

Table on Page 2.

NI gets the most per head, then Scotland, then Wales. Followed by London and the North East (very, very close) then North West. The South East actually does the worst.

Wheels Re the Barnett Formula especially when none of the current senior politicians actually in a position to do something about it want to touch it with a barge pole

But surely that's the issue here - making the politicians DO the things we think are fair and reasonable and not just throwing our hands up in the air and saying 'we can't change it'?

You can't compare spending per capita on transport in London and the NE in that way. The people 'living' in London and the people 'working and visiting' are two different things. Public transport is for everyone, not just those living there.

I would say that all of the UK is disenfranchised, just under a third of Londoners are living in poverty, it's not a different economic situation to many areas imo.

One thing I am certain I don't want to see is Regional Devolution in England, we do not need a further split of funding making the postcode lottery even more difficult.

I don't think 'need' comes into it - it can't, you would never reach an agreement that was meaningful or 'fair'. Each of the 4 countries has challenges re rural living, population density & poverty etc. Split the money on a 'per head' basis and allow each of the 4 devolved administrations to do what they think is best with it.

The South East actually does the worst Yes we do - but no one actually believes us! We get less and everything costs more. It's FAB but hey, my friends and family are here, so for now I'm not going anywhere.

Population density by region triggers download

There also seems to be a belief that the south-east is a haven of wealth. There is some serious poverty in the SE, like everywhere else.

As a Scot, I do care about this as much as the poverty in, say, Glasgow.

I'm not sure this is the right thread to discuss our opinions of Salmond, but as it has been raised, my opinion is that Salmond wanted the glory of Independence. That's all. He doesn't care about Scotland, he cares about getting his name in the History books. He was never going to do as he promised and stick around to see this through, either way. He knew it was a lemon but he didn't care. If 'Yes' had won he still would have left, he would have achieved Independence then when it all went down the pan and Utopia wasn't achieve he could have just shook his head and blamed the people/person who took over or WM again.

It's not quite that straightforward I don't think. England certainly has areas of lower population density, but Scotland vs England is significantly less densely populated - we have huge areas of low density population. Average number of people per square km in England is 413. Scotland is 68.

In fairness, I think it was right for him to go. Like every other party, the SNP needs to dust itself down now and move on. There is lots of work to be done by everyone.

I think he made a good decision.

The next few elections in the UK are going to be interesting. All these engaged people and some third rate politicians!