Burnham wants to “tear up” Holyrood funding

[gagzus 23,011]

 

[gagzus 23,011]

For context for our non-aware companions on here, Scotland has a devolved government with some power (hence why certain services are free in Scotland and not England) and he intends on scrapping the current way and the amount of money they receive and build it from scratch. As he wants the North of England to have better funding and will probably redirect funding from Scotland to the North.

Edited June 23 by gagzus

[River 127,367]

 

3 minutes ago, gagzus said:

For context for our non-aware companions on here, Scotland has a devolved government with some power (hence why certain services are free in Scotland and not England) and he intends on scrapping the current way and the amount of money they receive and build it from scratch. As he wants the North of England to have better funding.

Thanks.

What was the reason behind the funding in the first place? was it some kind of an affirmative action? 

[Bronco 24,919]

1 minute ago, River said:

 

Thanks.

What was the reason behind the funding in the first place? was it some kind of an affirmative action? 

It was a temporary solution the treasury came up with in the 70s to combat the rise of the SNP. 

Its essentially a measure to ensure any funding increase in England is matched in the block grants to the devolved nations. 

There's also funding floors due to percieved need. Wales always gets 115% compared to English spending per capita due to "percieved need". Northern Ireland is set at 124%. 

It has no legal basis though. So can be easily scrapped without effectively doing anything. 

[gagzus 23,011]

15 minutes ago, River said:

 

Thanks.

What was the reason behind the funding in the first place? was it some kind of an affirmative action? 

Basically what Bronco said above, the SNP (Scottish National Party) have already started their conquest for Scottish Independence again over the years to make them their own separate country like the Republic of Ireland is and this is probably gonna spur on another independence referendum if they get less funding.

I’m from what I’d call the actual North of England (Newcastle area) which is even further than where the “North” is to most people in London and I’ve seen our infrastructure and job opportunities wither away after Thatcher’s government in the 80s slowly. 
 

BUT I don’t think decreasing funding of basically an entire country to fund a region is a good idea. I’d prefer he just raise our taxes at that point which is probably a controversial opinion, as I don’t believe our tax system in the UK is THAT bad, id rather pay an extra £40 a month in tax on my wages for instance and have a better transport system, job opportunities and beyond than think I was basically using Scottish tax money I didn’t earn that’s not been returned in funding to their devolved government.

[Natalia Kills 413]

11 minutes ago, River said:

 

Thanks.

What was the reason behind the funding in the first place? was it some kind of an affirmative action? 

It was a way to please separatists, support devolved governments and initially increase vote share/popularity. 
 

It tries to be fair in that it accounts for things being more expensive to build and deliver in Scotland, especially if you think about infrastructure in remote areas.

But it’s seen as unfair in that it comes at the detriment of the rest of the UK.

England is negatively affected by it because it doesn’t have a regional government, despite it in theory having regions that are equivalent to Scotland.

[River 127,367]

14 minutes ago, Bronco said:

It was a temporary solution the treasury came up with in the 70s to combat the rise of the SNP. 

Its essentially a measure to ensure any funding increase in England is matched in the block grants to the devolved nations. 

There's also funding floors due to percieved need. Wales always gets 115% compared to English spending per capita due to "percieved need". Northern Ireland is set at 124%. 

It has no legal basis though. So can be easily scrapped without effectively doing anything. 

 

2 minutes ago, Natalia Kills said:

It was a way to please separatists, support devolved governments and initially increase vote share/popularity. 
 

It tries to be fair in that it accounts for things being more expensive to build and deliver in Scotland, especially if you think about infrastructure in remote areas.

But it’s seen as unfair in that it comes at the detriment of the rest of the UK.

England is negatively affected by it because it doesn’t have a regional government, despite it in theory having regions that are equivalent to Scotland.

2 minutes ago, gagzus said:

Basically what Bronco said above, the SNP (Scottish National Party) have already started their conquest for Scottish Independence again over the years to make them their own separate country like the Republic of Ireland is and this is probably gonna spur on another independence referendum if they get less funding.

I’m from what I’d call the actual North of England (Newcastle area) which is even further than where the “North” is to most people in London and I’ve seen our infrastructure and job opportunities wither away after Thatcher’s government in the 80s slowly. 
 

BUT I don’t think decreasing funding of basically an entire country to fund a region is a good idea. I’d prefer he just raise our taxes at that point which is probably a controversial opinion, as I don’t believe our tax system in the UK is THAT bad, id rather pay an extra £40 a month in tax on my wages for instance and have a better transport system, job opportunities and beyond than think I was basically using Scottish tax money I didn’t earn that’s not been returned in funding to their devolved government.

I didn't know this, thanks for the explanation.

will this decision cause a significant negative impact on Scotland?

[gagzus 23,011]

1 minute ago, River said:

 

I didn't know this, thanks for the explanation.

will this decision cause a significant negative impact on Scotland?

It all depends really, it depends on if it actually goes through in Parliament, how much lower it will be if he indeed is going to transfer the funds to regional governing bodies like local councils for example in the North, and what the alternative is. Scotland may have to tax their citizens more to make up for the funding missing for instance. Only time will tell.

[Natalia Kills 413]

1 minute ago, River said:

 

I didn't know this, thanks for the explanation.

will this decision cause a significant negative impact on Scotland?

Depends how it’s revamped. We don’t know what the exact replacement is and how the Scottish government manage their finances. 

They’ll probably push for Scotland to get the same funding (or slightly more) than devolved regions of England, which have similar populations and economies. 

Probably a low but notable impact.

It’s a double-edged sword because it would pump up Scottish independents, but if it’s too significant then it also signals that Scotland isn’t ready to be independent without a financial hit.

Likewise, it might be a problem for Andy to get Scottish people on side.

[Bronco 24,919]

3 minutes ago, River said:

 

I didn't know this, thanks for the explanation.

will this decision cause a significant negative impact on Scotland?

Devil is in the detail. 

It'll impact Scotland the least as they won't be losing out on the percieved needs uplift & can raise revenue independently through fiscal devolution.

I very much doubt Burnham is intending to cut what the current funding grant is for the 26/27 year, but he's clearly looking to avoid having to commit to funding an increase in the 27/28 fiscal year in the Autumn budget statement. 
It's smart, it'll be popular with the bonds market which may open up avenues for increased borrowing and spending

[Bronco 24,919]

11 minutes ago, Natalia Kills said:

Likewise, it might be a problem for Andy to get Scottish people on side.

I think its a bargining chip.
The SNP have been softening their stance on North Sea Oil expansion, a large chunk of Burnham's backers including the unions want Labour to do the same (and are actively campaigning against Miliband). 
This could force the SNP to back a Burnham government in granting new North Sea Oil licenses. 

Which would help the SNP in key Tory battlegrounds in Northern Scotland like Aberdeen, and bolster Labour in other Scottish seats where they have more of a chance like Glasgow. Would also weaken the SNP in seats where the Scottish Greens are a threat to them (Edinburgh primarily). 

He's got the benefit of time with this. Both Scotland & Wales just had their regional parliament elections, their next ones are after the 2029 election Burnham will be contesting. He can afford to take a gamble now on day 1 and if it pays off, will do him well in 2029. If it fails, well Labour was already ****ed...