The enthusiasm
politicians, local politicians and even some normal people have for
ever more devolution baffles me. Scotland voted to remain in union
with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Largely I suspect thanks to the Barnett Formula. The temporary, believe it
or not, Barnett Formula was drawn up in 1978. In fact Lord Barnett,
who drew it up to end bickering about spending amongst Labour
politicians (remember the days when Labour and Scotland were not
divorced?) anticipated it would last for thirty six years, but even he has
said recently that it is now both unfair to the English and an
embarrassment.
He's dead right and
those canny Scots know when they're on to a good thing. So, they
voted for the union, bribed by a promise that Barnett would continue,
AND that they would get an even greater say in their own affairs.
Naturally the Westminster government of the day didn't want to
preside over the break up of Great Britain, (what a legacy that would
be!) so they promised everything from the family silver to the deeds
to the house.
However, having voted
to stay in union and keep the subsidy our canny northern neighbours
then promptly gave the SNP, a blatantly Nationalist party, virtually
complete control north of the border and a mandate to troop
triumphantly down to Westminster to ensure not only that they receive
all the bribes, but a bit more if possible.
Now, as a matter of
principle promises should not be broken and so David Cameron has to
honour the promises he made. Shipyard workers in Portsmouth to remain
unemployed, Clydeside workers not so, and all the rest. However, the
people of England made no such promise, so lets look at some facts
and then decide whether it's time the English had a say!
The Barnett Formula
doesn't only benefit Scotland, actually the biggest beneficiaries
financially speaking are our cousins in Northern Ireland a country we
continually rebuilt as quickly as the people there blew it up and
killed each other (plus innocent soldiers from other parts of the UK
including a good friend of mine).
The other financial
winners in all this are the Welsh, and what the Scots, Northern Irish
and Welsh all have in common is a devolved parliament. My astute
readers will have picked up my lack of enthusiasm for devolution at
the beginning, so no, I'm not going to argue for a devolved English
parliament, tempting though it is.
Some more facts. The
Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh are all represented at Westminster,
even if some Northern Irish politicians don't avail themselves.
Sorry, yet more facts and figures. The population of Scotland is
circa 5.3 million, the population of Northern Ireland is circa 1.9
million, the population of Wales is circa 3.1 million and the
population of Yorkshire is circa 5.3 million, notice something there?
The population of London is circa 8.6 million and the population of
England as a whole is a little over 53 million. No prizes for working
out where most of the tax revenue comes from then.
So, since Scotland has
has 59 constituencies, N. Ireland 18, Wales 40 and England 533, then
as well as having their own parliament there's an MP elected to
Westminster for approximately every 89,830 Scots, every 105,555
Northern Irish and every 77,500 Welsh. England comes in at one MP for
every 99,437 voting adults, meaning that pro rata the Scots and Welsh
are over represented at Westminster vis a vis the English despite
also having their own parliament as well. Only the Northern Irish are
arguably under represented but then the English population is
growing.
The Northern Irish may
be under represented pro rata at Westminster, although if you have
your own parliament anyway perhaps that's reasonable, however Northern
Ireland does even better than Scotland when it comes to the Barnett
Formula. Public spending in Northern Ireland was £10,876 per head in
the year 2012/13 that's £2,347 MORE per head than in England. The
Scots received £10,152 spend per head, that being £1,623 MORE per
head than the English, to help pay for their free prescriptions and
free university education north of the 'border', a free education not
available to English incomers. The poor old Welsh only had £1,180
per head more spent on them than the English.
I'd like to make
several points from all of this. In the first place more devolution
means more bureaucracy, more expense, more waste. Secondly it's
pretty ludicrous in a country the size of ours, London and Yorkshire
have at least as good a claim to their own parliament, but most
people would think that ridiculous.
The most important
thing is that devolution leads to inequality and injustice. We try
not to discriminate on the grounds of colour, race, religion, belief,
age or gender, so why in a so called United Kingdom do some people
get free prescriptions and others not? Why do some get free
university education and others not? Why do some get thousands more
spent on them each year and others less? Why are some over
represented and others under represented? Why should some have their
jobs artificially protected and others not, simply because of where
they live in this so called United Kingdom the Scots voted to
preserve?
When Scotland joined
Great Britain as we liked to call it in those days Scotland was
bankrupt, largely due to ill advised adventures in Central America,
whilst English merchants and sailors were creating a booming economy
in England. Ship building was virtually non existent on the Clyde,
whilst ship building in Portsmouth, Deptford and other places had a
far longer tradition and was producing great ships in great numbers.
A tradition now eradicated to protect Scottish workers. Anyone notice
the size of the swing to the SNP in Glasgow particularly?
Frankly it's getting
ludicrous. We should be a United Kingdom where everyone is treated
equally, where everyone has equal rights and lives under the same
laws. Clearly that is not happening. The fashion for devolution and
the rise of nationalism, especially in Scotland, has made us a
divided nation. Salmond, Sturgeon and their cohorts have taken three
hundred years of friendship and brotherhood and driven a wedge
through it. Destructive, negative, sad. I would prefer to see it
reversed, but it's unlikely. So what can we do about it? Cameron may
be bound to honour his promise, but the people of England have not
been given a say, yet another inequality.
If we cannot have one
parliament fit for purpose, which is fair and even handed towards all
its citizens, then sadly it's not time for devolving powers to
Yorkshire or anywhere else; that will simply lead to more
diversification, inequality, bureaucracy and expense, more jumped up
local politicians shouting for this and that.
However it is high time
to give the English their voice. Do we want to continue to pay the
most and have the least to say about it? Cameron and the rest of the
politicians may have made promises, but we the people of England did
not, maybe we should have our own referendum on whether we keep
subsidising our already over privileged neighbours through the
Barnett Formula and possibly as well, or instead, a referendum on
whether we actually let them stand on their own two feet like
Lichtenstein, Luxembourg et al, cut them adrift.
Perhaps despite the
years of brotherhood it is actually time to let them go. If they
don't want financial, educational, welfare and judicial parity with the rest
of us, then let them pay for the things they want from their own
labour and their own tax regime; then the powers they and the
overwhelmingly elected SNP seek will be justified, but please, end
this craze for devolution, expense, inequality and injustice now.
