Scotland the Knave

I missed St. Andrew’s Day this year. As a St. Andrew’s Day present England could grant Scotland full independence from the United Kingdom. Not for the benefit of the Scots, but the English.

Scotland has sponged off the English for 302 years. When you do the maths, the benefit is almost entirely one-way: from the English, particularly those in the southern half of the country, to Scotland.

It all boils down to the pernicious Barnett Formula. This is the calculation that determines the amount that each region of the UK receives from Westminster. It was drawn up in 1978, under conditions of such secrecy that even MPs were not even told of its existence until it had been in operation for 2 years.

According to The Scotsman Newspaper, the formula dictates that for every pound the UK government distributes for spending around the country, 85 pence goes to England, 10 pence goes to Scotland and 5 percent to Wales. With five million people, Scotland now has 8.3 per cent of the UK population.

A 2008 report written by a former Treasury economist for the Taxpayers' Alliance (TPA) reveals that since 1985/86, public spending in Scotland has been £102 billion higher than if the country was funded at English levels. Government spending on public services in England was £7,535 per person in 2007-08. In Scotland it was £1,644 higher.

Scotland has free services not available in England, like NHS hospital parking, some personal care for the elderly and university courses without up-front fees. This is funded disporportionately by English taxpayers.

It wouldn’t be a problem if all UK taxpayers had the same political representation. After all, Scotland has historically had some greater needs than the rest of the UK, in particular in areas such as housing and healthcare. But Scottish MPs can vote on matters relating exclusively to England, at Westminster, whereas English MPs are excluded from voting on purely Scottish matters as they don’t sit in the Scottish parliament. This refers to ‘The West Lothian Question’ and it has never been satisfactorily answered.

So English taxpayers fund Scotland’s services. As Boris Johnson rightly said, “we give Scotland our money, they give us their Prime Ministers”. He could have added that English taxpayers have also funded the bailout of those Scottish banks, whose incompetence did so much damage to the whole British financial system.

The Scottish Nationalists, narrow-minded as always, claim Scotland would thrive as an independent country. Without England’s billions I doubt it. They point to Ireland’s success as a ‘Celtic Tiger’, ignoring the fact that Ireland’s growth was funded by….handouts and investment from the EU. In today’s climate that is unlikely to come Scotland’s way. In today’s economy, being a small fish is hazardous. Just ask Iceland.

Scottish Nationalists also maintain the fantasy that Scotland’s North Sea oil funds England. But the Taxpayer’s Alliance report exposes this nonsense. Even if Scotland were able to claim the majority of revenue from the North Sea, they calculated, Scotland would only have made a net contribution to the Treasury in five of the last 23 years. "Even taking account of oil, the underlying issue of English taxpayers funding premium public services in Scotland remains, and will become more serious in years to come," said the report’s author, John Denham.

It would be interesting if a study could be carried out to calculate, or at least estimate, the total financial flows from Scotland to England and vice versa since 1707 in total. A gargantuan task for sure, having to take into account tax revenues from all sorts of things, but a look at 18th and 19th century history makes it pretty obvious that Scotland was dragged into industrialisation and development by England.

Scottish nationalism is, of course, rooted in rabid xenophobia and prejudice. No nationalist movement can survive without the mythology of ‘oppression’. It needs ‘the other’ as an object of discontent, to justify its existence and foster a sense of grievance. In Alex Salmond’s case, it’s the English. The high ground of victimhood looks ridiculous though when all the facts point to the economic exploitation being the other way around.

Removed from its English host, an independent Scotland would act like any parasite that has been hacked off – it would wither. They would be reduced to selling haggis and whisky – putrid food and toxic drink. Some economy. It wouldn’t be England’s problem though. Scotland might even become a pool of cheap labour for England, as Mexico has been for the United States. They could forget about their free NHS parking as well, they wouldn’t have the English subsidy to fund it any more.

The Act of Union in 1707 was an act of political skulduggery, the result of economic and military pressure on Scotland by England. There was no referendum in 1707, but if there were to be a referendum now, all the signs are that Scots would vote to stay in the Union. I wonder why? Nothing to do with all the English money, is it? But there’s no reason to wait for them to make a decision. Just expel Scotland from the Union and watch them sink. Och aye.