Scotland benefits from Barnett Formula

Sir, I feel I must respond to Norman Duffs comments regarding my letters to the editor.

Firstly I am anything but snide, just simply expressing my opinion to which I am entitled and one which is "totally informed" as oppose to Mr. Duff's opinion to the contrary.

I don’t know where he gets his figures but if they are correct and only 10% of prescriptions are paid for in England, it would mean that more English people paying for prescriptions than there are people living in Scotland.

I don’t know what his nationality is? but it’s obvious he doesn’t consider himself English, regarding the Barnett formula it is he who is uninformed (probably a Daily Mail reader) even the Labour peer who invented the system by which billions of pounds of English taxpayers' money is diverted to Scotland said the system should be scrapped because it is unfair.

The Barnett Formula was designed as a temporary measure but has lasted for more than 30 years. Lord Barnett, then the Labour chief secretary to the Treasury, drew up a system for the division of public spending in 1978 partly to settle rows with other Cabinet ministers about spending allocations, and partly to allow for Scotland's larger physical area, lower average incomes and its particularly acute needs in health care and housing.

The formula dictates that for every £1 the Government distributes, 85p goes to England, 10p to Scotland and 5p to Wales.

With five million people, Scotland now has only 8.3 per cent of the UK population.

That has led to a situation where "identifiable spending" in Scotland on public services is £1,500 higher per person than in England, according to Treasury figures.

The formula was relatively uncontroversial at its origins, but friction has arisen as the wealth gap between Scotland and England has closed. While the annual increase in Scotland's allocation is falling, the historical disparity created in 1978, and Scotland's increasing prosperity has meant the apparent generosity of the Treasury towards Scotland has persisted.

This means that Scotland, which has around eight per cent of the UK population, gets a fixed quota of ten per cent of the cash for public services. Even poor English regions such as the North-East quoted by Mr. Duff, receive less money than prosperous areas of Scotland.

Official figures put public spending per head in

England at £6,762. But in Scotland it was £8,265 per head, a difference of £1,503.

The formula - intended to last for only one year - was kept in place because the

Tories feared even greater unpopularity in Scotland. The ratio10: 5: 85, which roughly reflected the size of the respective populations, ensured that public spending per person in Scotland and Wales would be higher than in England. The formula was adjusted in 2006 to reflect 2005 population levels but it still understated the size of England’s population and overstated Scotland’s population.

Since the introduction of the Barnett Formula there has been no further assessment of relative need. The position now is that Wales receives less public expenditure than it needs to attain the original objective, while Scotland receives too much.

There is a case for helping Wales, which is one of the poorer parts of the UK, but it is plainly unfair to subsidise the entire population of Scotland to the tune of £50 per person per week.

In the financial year 2004/5, identifiable government spending was 21% per person higher in Scotland than in England. By 2005/6 it had increased to 24%, and for Wales it was 17% higher.

The position for England, and especially its most needy areas, is worse than the figures above suggest. The 24% extra that Scotland receives is for all public service and welfare spending, including that on social security.

Spending in policy areas that have been devolved to Scotland has been on average 31% per person higher in Scotland than in England. Spending in Scotland on health and personal social services was 22% higher; education 31% higher; transport 31% higher; trade, industry, energy and employment 55% higher; housing 87% higher; agriculture 123% higher.

This despite Scotland being the third wealthiest region in the UK. (London and the South East were counted as one region in 1995/6) The additional funding for services in Scotland under the Barnett formula amounts to £8 billion each year. It is for this reason that public spending on health and education is higher per person in Scotland than in England.

This has meant, for example, smaller class sizes in Scotland, higher pay for teachers, and the availability of NHS prescription drugs (Free of Charge) that are unavailable in England on grounds of cost.

With regards to St Georges Day, I do celebrate it, but the British Government does stop me celebrating it in true English style, when it falls on a work day as it is not permitted as a public holiday unlike the rest of the UK patron saints.

To answer his questions regarding the National Anthem I simply reply - the British Government (as we don’t have an English one) and we’ve been denied one as a nation but the unofficial one, which patriotic English people sing is Land of Hope and Glory.

David Miller Ba (Hons) Politics & Economics, Rotherham Road, Maltby