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?

Chipping, you absolutely can make comparisons when you have an area that has say a large rural transport system to run, that's too expensive for those at the lower end of the income tables to use if they struggle or lose their job, or are trying to find work, when the spending per capita in the NE is so much less than those in the London area. I didn't make any comment on tourists or visitors so not sure what the relevance of that is.

The NE, like many northern & middle parts of England, seem to be getting the short straw, along with wales. But, you need to factor in the needs of each part as well so if the justification on spending £2495 more on London transport than the NE is that they have more pressing needs for a better, more efficient transport system, then that's fair enough. I can't see how the specific needs of the London area are important but the specific needs of say Scotland or the NE aren't.

You cannot argue that London is getting it's fair share of the block grant, with a population greater than Scotland & and at the same time argue that Scotland is getting an unfair allocation with a smaller population.

I realise im conflating 2 issues -block grant & transport but I think they both point to how tricky the notion of what is fair & equitable is, when it comes to the barnet formula being considered in isolation and on very simplistic terms.

SC that's what I'm saying though. We all have challenges, Scotland's may be the lower population density, NI's might be the fact that they have a much smaller population, Wales' might be they might be that they have a lot of young people and the elderly but not so many in the 25-50 year old group & England's may be that we have a lot more elderly people. Every one of us faces challenges and I don't think a 'fair' agreement could ever be reached because it's like asking which of you children you love most.

I think if you are going to go down the 'fair' route then people will start nit picking over things like England having a lot of healthcare specialists 'on our books' (and the facilities) which NI W & S get to use (at a cost I believe) but they don't have the responsibility of funding them 24/7, the admin cost of it or anything else. They get to use a service we maintain. I don't care about that, I think it's right, I think it's good - but if we are going down the 'fair' route all of these things would need to be considered surely?!

Per head of population and let each of the 4 devolved administrations work out where they need to spend the money.

Will it be fair? Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's 'as fair' as it can be.

Wheels

I have family in the NE, in one of the most deprived areas, I spend time there. Their public transport is fantasic & cheap compared to where I live in the SE. There are lots of areas all over the UK that needs better PT North South and in the Middle.

I didn't make any comment on tourists or visitors so not sure what the relevance of that is because people who work (but don't live) in London and visit London need public tranport too! The expenditure on PT in London for people who commute there to work or who visit London is necessary to generate the income it generates for everyone, not just London. Rural transport benefits the few people who live there and doesn't generate any income. It makes sense that more is spent to generate income.

I don't think a transport debate is going to help this debate though :)

I can't see how the specific needs of the London area are important but the specific needs of say Scotland or the NE aren't

I didn't say that.

You cannot argue that London is getting it's fair share of the block grant, with a population greater than Scotland & and at the same time argue that Scotland is getting an unfair allocation with a smaller population

I don't know what you mean by this?

Thank you for starting this SC.

Just checking in as not online much today.

I think for me equality of service and provision is more important. I don't mean absolute equality cos let's face it, a bus every five minutes isn't going to work in a rural area. But some sort of reasonable minimum for each type of area and then work our what proportion of that type of area each country has and go from there

I'm someone from England that is glad Scotland stayed. I identify as British rather than English, and do have slight envy of the proud Scot/Welsh/Irish feeling as it seems it isn't the done thing to be a proud Englishperson and it is not something I've particularly experienced.

I didn't think the SNP made a good case for Independence, and even though they have been around for decades, the White Paper seemed to be a rush job; you'd have thought this would have been something worked on for the entire lifetime of the party if that was its main objective. I did see that quite a few no voters were not opposed to independence as a concept if the case had been made more strongly, so I do wonder if independence is inevitable if devo max (or similar) works out.

I followed lurked the IndyRef threads and thought more about politics than ever before. To be honest I don't use my vote so much, I have no affiliation with any of the three mainstream parties; I like and dislike some things from each of them. I am unsure how I can re-engage in UK politics. My area of Surrey is a tory safe seat by a long way. I hear people mentioning that WM serves the SE and London, but I feel no more 'served' here than in other regions where I have lived in the UK, so I find this perception curious. If StatisticallyChallenged ever stands for office, I'd vote for her.

I don't know enough about the Barnett position for Scotland/UK. I've always thought that servicing the Highlands/rural areas to give the residents the same service as city dwellers just would be more expensive due to the size, which is fair enough; e.g. why should rural folk pay more for their refuse collection, it is right that it is evened out between us all. It isn't clear what English people benefit from above the other UK regions, e.g. as Scottish students get free tuition, what thing(s) are Scottish people losing out on that are 'free' or cost less in England to balance this out? It doesn't seem particularly clear and I think that would be helpful.

During the referendum, I heard a lot about Scotland has more budget due to the oil receipts from its waters. I did often wonder when people would say 'we are taking the oil with us' whether that would that have made so much difference to the UK as it sounds as a good chunk of that money was already being allocated to Scotland anyway under Barnett (and please note I say above that I don't know too much so if I am utterly wrong then I will take that on the chin). I dislike the regional energy thing, as the oil will run out eventually and the natural gas deposits and nuclear energy are mainly in England. At that point, would the English be right to say 'that extra revenue is ours'? I wouldn't think that's right at all; it was UK and private sector investment that funded the infrastructure, not investment from a single UK region.

The Scottish referendum has made me more interested in politics and I would like to be more aware of UK politics going forward. I will be reading the thread with interest and hopefully able to contribute.

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

Chelsy, then perhaps you could provide an explanation that Livingzuid and myself are clearly unable to provide?

Or of course you can just continue to make little personal jibes because you feel this particular subject has no place in this discussion.

Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether you think the problem is my inability to explain things: many people in many countries (with the exception of places like Australia and NZ) do have difficulties understanding that we're not just English.

SC I think for me equality of service and provision is more important. I don't mean absolute equality cos let's face it, a bus every five minutes isn't going to work in a rural area. But some sort of reasonable minimum for each type of area and then work our what proportion of that type of area each country has and go from there

I can't see how that would work?

You would end up with a serious number of calculations (which would be fundamentally floored anyway) over a huge range of things - then have absolutely no say that any of those things had money spent on them?!

I think for me equality of service and provision is more important

I hasten to add, in principle I agree with that, but my view is that if we have devolved so many of those services it's too late to get that for the whole of the UK so each country will have to make it's own decisions on how money is spent, so allocating money on the basis of those things being done is surely flawed?

HappyScot maybe you could find an empty room to have an argument in?

So far, all I have gleaned from you is that the Dutch in particular irritatecause you angst by using the wrong word for "First Minister", many of them misunderstand you when you try to correct them, however this does not irritate you, since you don't live there but know all about the Dutch but do not seem to actually be Dutch or understand Dutch that well?

But since I seem to irritate you as much as the Dutch, it might just be you rather than an entire nation?

Except my experience with Dutch people (and I have lived there as well as in Belgium, Switzerland and Germany whoopee for me you will no doubt say, and have Dutch colleagues) is that no-one has ever actually not heard of Scotland being a different country from England, and while they might hear an accent that denotes a native English speaker, are happy to be corrected when you point it out to them. In fact the Dutch term for the UK is Verenigd Koninkrijk, which if you understand Dutch tells you everything you need.

So unless you have unearthed the most ignorant Dutch on earth, my guess would be that they're having you on, because they know it annoys you so much. And you, of course, never refer to the Netherlands as Holland or the Dutch language as Dutch instead of Nederlands.

Here's a comparison of % spending on broad areas and on spending per head between UK and Scotland. It doesn't match the regional spends I posted the link to as the source is different - this is from the GERS figures that the Scottish govt produces. It gives a good idea though.

There aren't many broad categories where we spend less

I agree it's very difficult Chipping, to some extent it needs someone brave to go back to the drawing and board and say ok what do we need? OK, we want everyone to be within x travel time of a hospital in an emergency - right, what does that cost in a big busy city, in a town, in an area full of villages, in an island where you have to fly people in, etc etc. Then try to do something in terms of proportions from there that can be adjusted in future as the make up of populations adjusts maybe?

You've got parts of Scotland where kids have to board during the week because they're so far from a school for example. Or areas where the local school only has 10 kids, but there are no other kids within a 100 mile radius (places like this in England and Wales too no doubt). On a per head basis providing those children with a decent education will cost more than their big city counterparts - but they should have an equally good (if not identical for practical reasons) education.

How do other federalist countries work it all out?

Are there any kind German, Australian, Canadian or Spanish MNers who can explain it in 3 paras with references to wine, biscuits and naked MPs?

well Chelsy, of course you know the Dutch and Holland and their language and culture better than me! I mean, I have only lived and worked and studied there for more than half of my entire life. lol. I know Holland and the Dutch better than I know Scotland and the Scottish, although I was born in Scotland and have a British passport, and spent around 20 yrs living there.

But of course, you know the Dutch better.

yawn know-it-alls like you always know everything and everyone better.

I apologise unreservedly for having an opinion that differs from yours, as well as for having the audacity to respond to something that someone that wasn't you said. Next time I decide to respond to something someone else (who wasn't Chelsy!) has said, maybe I should run it by you and the rest of the relevancy police first?

SC thank you for those figures.

What does 'Social Protection' cover? Prisons? Social work?

Police I guess come under 'Public order'?

The thing is, though, we could take 10 years to go through all the figures and work out what's fair, what's not, and then argue for another 10 about how much oil money Scotland should get.

But as with the Barnett Formula, in the end we need to come up with a system that a) works efficiently, and only then b) is roughly fair.

So I guess (as you may have noticed) I'm more interested in how the mechanics of a devolved system will work.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as there are democratic processes in place, and checks and balances to avoid the richer areas dominating, then I won't be too worried about every penny being fair or unfair.

I think ...

SC from parliament briefing papers. I can't seem to link it without it including my full name and I don't want to do that here.

In 2012/13, public spending per head in the UK as a whole was £8,788. In England, it was
£8,529 (3% below the UK average). This compares with:
? Scotland: £10,152 (16% above the UK average)
? Wales: £9,709 (10% above the UK average)
? Northern Ireland £10,876 (24% above the UK average).
Among the English regions, public spending per head was lowest in the South East at £7,638
(13% below the UK average) and highest in London at £9,435 (7% higher than the UK
average).

I agree that Salmond resigning was a bit . the excuse that failing to win the referendum meant he had to resign as this was his main issue is a bit thin. The result was closer than expected, but more than that, the SNP are in govt in Scotland, Scotland has been promised further devolution. surely that should have been enough of a reason for him to stay on, at least until January. I think he has handed Nicola Sturgeon a bit of a poisoned chalice (if she does become FM). He appears to have chucked a stick of dynamite in the pond, and has now stepped back to watch the results.

I voted Yes because I think smaller government is the way to go. The SNP seem to think we could be like Norway. I feel we are much more like NZ.

Allocation of funding to the 4 devolved administrations - I think it just has to be a broadsweep approach - we don't have the time, money or other resources to calculate millions of different little bits of information and even if we did, 'fair' is too subjective and there's just no way they'd all agree.

I still maintain that all 4 countries have different issues to face - but I really think a population based calculation is the only workable solution.

Essentially, I believe, the only thing wrong with the Barnett formula is that the incorrect population figures were used in the first place.

Sorry tension wheels my opinion is that Barnett must go now as there is evidence to suggest it is wrong.
I have no idea how it could be replaced, presumably there must be a way to weight rural populations to ensure fairness in the allocation process.
WWFD - I can't see any benefit in regional devolution in England, the costs would surely outweigh any benefit.
I think this is a can of worms.

Reading the list of powers already devolved, it sounds as if most locally governable issues are contained, the exception being to borrow money and tax raising powers. I think there have been tax raising powers already but they've not been used ? I'd guess because that would be an unpopular way to go.

There are some tax powers and some borrowing powers already coming to Scotland via the Scotland act 2012. I'm not sure that more devolution is necessarily the answer -it's more about the underlying issues that people think greater devolution would allow them to solve IYSWIM? I'm not convinced that changing where the money is managed is the answer people hope it will be

Midge as I see it, the problem with comparing Scotland to NZ is that NZ has evolved & grown organically. It has its own currency, it has its own defence, it has its own... - well, everything :)

Without getting to rear facing...

What AS wanted to do was cherry pick what he wanted to share and what he didn't - unfortunately he didn't seem to see that it would be a series of negotiations & not just him going 'Yes we'll take the £, no we wont take the debt, yes we'll expect cross border freedom, yes well stay in the EU, no we wont use the Euro' etc He was deluded. As I posted earlier, my belief is that he was always going to resign, no matter the outcome of the referendum.

A country that has grown independently is a whole different kettle of fish to one that has torn itself away from a union.

No one is saying that with the right preparation Scotland couldn't be independent, but fortunately the majority saw that to do it the way AS was presenting would have been catastrophic.

Many people are also saying that despite being able to do it, they don't want to do it, they don't think it's advantageous and they want to remain in the Union.

SC I totally agree. The problem we are facing now though is the The Three Amigos have promised more devolution and can't not deliver on that in some way. I don't know how much 'say' we can have on it, but there's an election coming up and so they are going to have to try to appease everyone. Good luck with that!

I just think talking about it here gives us the opportunity to work out what's fair, what's not fair and what we think is the best way forward so that we can vote with the hope of getting the best outcome for all.

SC you're probably right, but is that going to be enough for the 45% who wanted independence?

Will the devolved powers that are coming in next year satisfy the desire to have a Scottish-centric system, whereby Scots can ask that x is spent on health, that taxes go up to pay for Y?

Sorry, just thinking aloud.

By the way, I looked at the Scotland Act and it seems to say that the SP cannot differentiate between different tax bands, so a 2% rise in the top rate has to be matched by a 2% rise in all other bands.

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.

I thought it was very quick as well. He was very very divisive and I think this could have been seen as the reason behind many of the No votes. Maybe they need to have someone leading them who would be willing to try and unite the country again but I haven't seen any sign of that in the language coming from the SNP so far unfortunately.