As Lord Barnett has publicly stated,the Barnett formula was created as a temporary measure and should be abolished.Why should we ,living in England,have less money per head of the population ?Why can't our children have free University education and everyone have free prescriptions as in Wales and Scotland ?As budgets are cut ours in England should reflect the inequality of expenditure due to this undemocratic formula.
The trouble is , amongst other factors,that not many people realise what is happening- a temporary formula which is still in place after thirty years even though its instigator has said it shouldn't be.Therefore people can't comment about it.I would give this topic a huge airing on tv.Sadly,the politicians haven't a clue how hard life can be financially for even a professional family where two adults are working.No private schooling for their children and hard saving for university fees( in England.) This means that the Old Etonians will continue to be in charge and very bright children who don't go to Oxbridge (they probably won't have the 'silver spoon accent' in most cases ) will not reach their potential.What a waste of talent ! I speak as a long-serving teacher with a very bright grandchild whose parents are in very good jobs and would love to send him to a better school.So much for parental choice in your child's education! I appreciate that I was fortunate,being a 'baby boomer' but there is a now an increasingly large gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots'.We're back to a greatly divided society, so anything that can even out the inequalities would be seen to be fair and democratic.I care .Do those in charge know or even care ?I know that UKIP did express a wish to abolish the Barnett formula !Some one needs to do something as morale is very low amongst the ordinary population.Also,will the slow start to sort out or even initiate Article 50,help to raise our confidence in those who rule,or not !? I rest my case !
The wholearticle and theformula itself are a sham. A con job. What is not mewntioned is that large chunks of UK vovernment expenditure are not taken into account when calculating the expenditure.
The excluded categories all just happen to be spent largely in the SE.
So the statisitcs give a false impression. People assume they cover all aspects of spending - they do not.
People assume that capital expenditure is included. It is not.
People assume that England contributes more per ehad than Scotland to pay for the supposed "extra" to Scotland. They do not. Scotland contributes more per head which offsets the supposed subsidy.
People also assume that the Scottish expenditure figure gets spent in Scotland. It does not. Much gets spent, mostly in the SE , supposely "on Scotland's behalf" whether we will or no and to no economic gain to Scotland. We get the bill the SE gets the benefits.
The main reason the no vote won was due to the additional devolution and Barnett promises, thus it should stay. To go back on these promises would be worse than trickery and shameful.
I understand that continuing and enhancing the Barnet formula was a part of that offered to Scotland before the referendum and indeed certain promises were made by the three main uk political leaders during the campaign,(2 of which were the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and indeed by various others such as Gordon Brown with the full support of the Cameron Clan in Westminster.
If these pledges are false then the Scots will have to decide whether this was the big let down the SNP were saying would happen.How will the Scots compensate for these false promises ?
If the promises made during the election change in any way and Scotland receives less finance and receives not quite as many new powers the pre -referendum pledges offered after the votes have been cast does this then point towards every individual who voted yes being let down ?
As regarding funding.
The uk system is London led and uk funds just flow there from all areas.
The flow of money is like the tide it goes in one direction towards London but the tide never turns.
The taxes paid in Cornwall never flow back in the same amounts paid by the Cornish.
The united kingdom is by far the greatest misnomer there is and there is no such thing,
I write as a Cornishman from the poorest of the Celtic Nations
I understand the reasoning of why this was introduced at the time. However it needs to be scrapped and another policy brought into place.
Rather than giving a set amount to the seperate countries of the UK maybe we can look into the UK as a whole in finer detail i.e. Cities and towns. Then the money can go directly to the areas that are needed. This will help support the Councils, who can in turn do good with the money by spending it on schools, emergency services, hospitals and putting the money into the area to bring it in line with the competitors.
If we dont act soon the UK will not be going to the dogs but will be gone.