New students 'face £23,000 debt'

[Mich the Tester]

This would not have happened under the tories

[OwlHoot]

Just read up on the Barnett formula which gives each Scot an extra 1,000 pounds a year subsidy !!

Worth it to hold the Union together.

[Alf W]

The Scottish pay far more in alchohol and cigarette duty per head of population than the rest of the UK.

[The Lone Gunman]

Well, as I say it's not a simple "let's cut council spending and we can do free uni", it's a whole parliamentary budget, reflecting one hopes the wishes and priorities of the people. I don't know why England does not do it, or where England spends the money instead (if I may put the question that way round?)..

You may put it that way round, that is part of the reason for my question. I do not see it quite a s simply as some and would agree that it is somewhat more complex than simply the English subsidising the Scots.

BTW the Barnett Formula is a Red Herring that Cyberman likes to wave around from time to time. Essentially it exists because some powers, and therefore expenditure, are devolved to Scotland, but the raising of the tax that pays for them remains with Westminster. Before devolution, Westminster taxed and Westminster spent. Now Westminster taxes and Holyrood spends. Therefore Westminster has to give to Holyrood the money that it formerly spent, but now does not itself spend.

It is not a subsidy, it is a movement of funds from taxation to expenditure, become more visible now that they are not done from the same place. Which itself is an anomaly, fixable by independence.

I think your dismissal of Barnett is as wayward as Cyber Tossers incessant ranting about it.
It was meant to be a short term measure and even Barnett (the Scot resposible) states that it is unfair to the English who (in the last set of figures) receive 1.5K per less than the Scots.
The situation is made worse by the fact that some of the monies used in the calculations are only paid by the English. For instance, University top up fees. As the fees paid in England are used to fund Universities the income is included in the Barnett formula when calculating how much to pay the Scots, yet the Scots make no such contribution.

Your dismissal of VAT, duty and NI is also a little disingenious. The rates for these "taxes" are the same across the UK are they not? If you took a standard citizen in either Country who earned 30K and smoked 20 a day and drank 20 pints a week (and all other things equally) then the tax take would be exactly the same from each.

[expat]

You may put it that way round, that is part of the reason for my question. I do not see it quite a s simply as some and would agree that it is somewhat more complex than simply the English subsidising the Scots.

I think your dismissal of Barnett is as wayward as Cyber Tossers incessant ranting about it.
It was meant to be a short term measure and even Barnett (the Scot resposible) states that it is unfair to the English who (in the last set of figures) receive 1.5K per less than the Scots.
The situation is made worse by the fact that some of the monies used in the calculations are only paid by the English. For instance, University top up fees. As the fees paid in England are used to fund Universities the income is included in the Barnett formula when calculating how much to pay the Scots, yet the Scots make no such contribution.

Your dismissal of VAT, duty and NI is also a little disingenious. The rates for these "taxes" are the same across the UK are they not? If you took a standard citizen in either Country who earned 30K and smoked 20 a day and drank 20 pints a week (and all other things equally) then the tax take would be exactly the same from each.

I'm not in big disagreement with you in general; this impression may come from my trying to address you in the same post as Cyberman!

I do think I'm right about the universities though, or rather about the students, since it is not a case of funding the universities (this is the same in both countries) but of funding the students' fees: Scotland chooses to, England chooses not to. Since England won't fund a Scottish student in England, Scotland likewise won't fund an English student in Scotland. My point is that this is not addressed against the English specifically, it is simple reciprocity.

If you think that the UK is and should be one country rather than two, I can see that you won't like this: but it is a predictable consequence of devolution.

Also, I don't dismiss Barnett per se, what I dismiss is the simplistic argument that it is a subsidy pure and simple.

Your are right about the taxes. However, citizens are not standard, and Scots do on average contribute more than their share of these to the Westminster exchequer. Whether that counts for anything usually depends on what point one wants to make; let it go as irrelevant, the point is still there that Barnett is a way to get Scots' tax money back into funds for Scottish expenditure, now that spendng has moved to Edinburgh whil taxation has stayed in London.

The English may well be effectively subsidising the Scots, because of the exact amount of the Barnet payment. I suspect they are, but we can't tell because we don't get our hands on all the figures. My point is that they might be, but they aint necessarily.