The union is being endangered by unfair spending allocations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a thinktank has claimed.
The Institute for Public Policy Research's (IPPR) northern branch says in a report published today that the Barnett formula, used to allocate public finances to devolved institutions, needs to be urgently reformed.
It says Northern Ireland and Scotland receive 21 per cent more money per head than the national average, while England receives three per cent per head less than the average.
Wales receives eight per cent more than the average but the report singles out Scotland as lacking the "spending squeeze" the Barnett formula is meant to foster.
Now, of course, more deprived regions should receive more funding than the average but, apparently, in a further breakdown of the report on Channel Four, when a “needs-based” model was applied by the IPPR it turns out thatScotland receives 11% more than it should get, England 1% less than it should get and Wales 14% less than it should get. No mention of Northern Ireland, but I’m fairly confident we’re not being underfunded by the Central Exchequer.
When I’ve got more details, I’ll post them.
Update:
Report in summary or its entirety can be read here.
6 comments:
I could dwell on the obvious that Scotland puts in plenty.......................but, consider for example the underpopulated regions of Scotland. Well we still need bus services and all the other services normal to the length and breadth of the UK. These services need much more subsidies than more populated areas.
On the face of it simple. Oh and we will be more than happy to run our own affairs free of any barnett formula/bribe.
To be fair London is the biggest winner under the Barnett Formula, while most of the rest of England suffers. Why is that?
Tony,
The second set of figures quoted are on a "needs" basis, which would take into account things like public transport provision.
Anonymous,
I don't really follow your line of reasoning; London does very well in many respects out of the rest of England and the UK, but I don't think that's connected with barnett.
I know that Barnett does not include the English regions, but if the regions are included for comparisons sake then Londo does extraordinarily well compared to far poorer areas.
See below...
Nation or Region £ per head % deviation from UK average
London 5,985 +28
Northern Ireland 5,684 +21
Scotland 5,676 +21
Wales 5,050 +8
North East 4,960 +6
North West 4,927 +5
UK 4,679 0
England 4,523 -3
Yorkshire and Humber 4,477 -4
West Midlands 4,430 -5
East Midlands 4,086 -13
South West 3,947 -16
South East 3,874 -17
East of England 3,820 -18
Ahhhh anonymous inconvenient figures for the Britishers. No matter which way they turn their argument is countered. Where did you get those figures from anyhow?
Anonymous,
Couple of points, those are the raw figures and not the "needs basis" ones, I guess with the pockets of poverty that exist in London that second figure might be lower. Also, it's interesting to see that the SE has a minus 17% deviation on the raw figures from average...bearing in mind that a large proportion of the SE actually work or do most of their business in London, then is it not a fairer assumption to say that it's Lomdon's suburban commuters and not the rest of the England which are "subsidising" the city's inhabitants?
Tony,
The figures are from the report I've linked into. And actually, one group of "Britishers", Labour will not be at all pleased with the publication of this report- it seriously damages them in most of their poorer English heartlands.
Post a Comment