Bankrupt Britain
Responding to George Osborne's offer to defer 'swingeing cuts' in Scotland for a year, Alex Salmond has complained that it would only mean "double the pain" in 2011/2012.
At least you have the option Alex. The rest of the UK has to start cutting now and will probably have to shoulder the cost of Scotland's deferment.
Meanwhile, John Swinney warned that Scotland could no longer afford to be a part of 'bankrupt Britain'
"Throughout the 1970s and 80s and 90s and the early part of the 21st century, Scotland has been contributing into the UK more than we have been getting back.
"Scotland is a strong and prosperous economy, we can afford to be independent. In fact, we cannot afford to remain part of bankrupt Britain."
The nerve of these people. Is this a deliberate ploy to wind up the English taxpayer, or are they for real? Wasn't it the Scots who played a large part in bankrupting Britain. One such who jumps immediately to mind is the 'spiv and speculator' Fred the Shred, formerly chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, one of two Scottish banks now effectively nationalised. And the other who springs to mind is Scotland's own Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer and latterly Prime Minister, the man who encouraged the credit bubble and financial deregulation that led to the crash, and the man who the Scots voted for in their droves and whose party is far more popular in Scotland than England.
If you want to claim the UK's oil riches as Scottish and by doing so claim that Scotland is in surplus, then fine, by all means vote for independence and take your oil. But take with it Scotland's share of the blame for bankrupt Britain, and the Scottish Labour Party, and Scotland's share of the public debt too.
Trackback URL for this post:
- Login to post comments
Agree, Why should the English
Agree, Why should the English always get treated different to the rest of the so called union.
Warrior
Bit of a strange story. I
Bit of a strange story.
I don’t know the detail of how monies are transferred into the Welsh and Scottish Consolidation Funds but assmuing this happens immediately after the Chancellor’s budget (i.e. we get our full annual budget upfront) does this mean that if Osborne holds an emergency budget which reduces Darling’s 2010-2011 expenditure then the Treasury would be put in the position of having to claw back money from the devolved territories? Is that what Osborne is offering to do - no immediate claw back?
I think the Scottish
I think the Scottish Government have already drawn up their spending plans, so cuts at the centre would mean that they would have to revise them. Potentially it's doing Salmond a favour because it means that Scotland won't feel the full force of public spending cuts until elections to the Scottish Parliament are upon them, and the cuts will be after the proposed date for the Referendum Bill vote.
However, I imagine that Salmond would rather that Westminster takes the timing of Scottish public spending cuts out of his hands so he can get on with the business of blaming Westminster.
Yes, the Secretary of State
Yes, the Secretary of State for Wales (and presumably Scotland/Northern Ireland) by statute has to make a statement regarding the settlement for a financial year no later than four months before the beginning of the financial year. The Welsh Assembly’s budget for 2010-2011 was finalised in December 2009. For that budget to be revised I assume the SoS would have to prepare a revised financial statement and a new budget be drawn up and voted on in the Assembly. Which would give plenty of scope for anti-Tory rhetoric before the 2011 elections!
It’s difficult to ascertain how much the devolved territories would gain. If the Tories intend safeguarding the NHS budget as much as possible (at least initially), that’s one big chunk of the block grant untouched. As for education, the Tories’ plan to take schools out of the control of LEAs is hardly going to be done overnight. And I don’t think it’s going to be a particularly cheap option.
It hadn't occurred to me that
It hadn't occurred to me that the Tories might be trying to protect their own chances in the Scottish elections - I'm so naïve - but you're probably spot on. I think there's probably an element of giving Salmond enough rope to hang himself - as with Calman's 10p tax rate - so the Scottish government shoulders some of the blame that would traditionally go Westminster's way.
What a tangled web devolution has woven.
There's clarification in the
There's clarification in the Western Mail today:
“We recognise that the Welsh Assembly has already voted through the budget for the financial year 2010-11. As a result a Conservative Government would therefore offer the Welsh Assembly the option to delay any in-year spending reductions for 2010-11 until the 2011-12 financial year.
“Whether the Assembly Government chose to do so would be a decision for them and the Welsh Assembly but a Conservative Government at Westminster wants to work with the Welsh Government to get the people of Wales and Britain through this debt crisis.”
In other words Osborne is saying that the devolved institutions don't have to table a supplementary budget motion if they don't want to .. they can 'save up' the cuts for the next budget. Not exactly an enticing offer.
Not an enticing offer because
Not an enticing offer because they will have to take some blame for the consequences of their decision, but on the other hand it may give them some room for political manoeuvre.