Originally posted by Cyberman
View Post
The fallacy that you are guilty of yet again is in imagining that:
1. there is balance in receipts and expenditure in each part of the UK, specifically Scotland in this case; and
2. then in pops the Barnett Formula to give Scotland more money.
What actually happens is:
1. Scotland puts in more than it takes out;
2. some expenditure in e.g. London is identified as being in excess of corresponding expenditure in e.g. Scotland; so
3. The Barnett Formula is applied to correct this identified expenditure imbalance.
The Barnett Formula is a complete red herring: it is visible, whereas a much much larger proportion of public spending, which is weighted towards London, is not visible; and of course the receipts from Scotland, which Barnett represents a tiny re-payment of, are not easily visible either.
In fact it is almost designed to mislead the simpler kind of person into thinking that England subsidises Scotland.
Edit: nobody likes the Barnett Formula, least of all Barnett, who described it as a temporary fix calculated on the back of an envelope. The English don't like it because they think that it is a subsidy to Scotland, and the Scots don't like it because they know that it is not and they are tired of overpaying and at the same time being accused of being subsidised.
Leave a comment: