The NHS has become a much talked-about issue in the independence debate and, like on many other issues, the information coming from the Scottish Government seems to have taken a U-turn. In September last year, Alex Salmond was certain the Scottish Parliament has the power to keep the NHS in public hands but of late all we hear from the Yes camp is that the NHS reforms that are happening in England will lead to the privatisation of the NHS in Scotland if there is a No vote. I have posted several sources explaining that this is not true, as Scotland receives a block grant from Westminster as a result of the Barnett Consequential which the Scottish Government is then responsible for dividing up and allocating to different areas of public expenditure. PLEASE remember that this is not designed to cover all public expenditure, much of that remains with Westminster, including international relations (e.g. EU membership), defence and citizenship. So remember, these sorts of things get paid for out of the money we pay in taxes to Westminster not Holyrood, so Holyrood does not pay for everything we have in Scotland. This is an important point and Ill get back to it later. The amount of money given to us through the Barnett Consequential is based on public spending in England on each of the devolved issues... BUT WE GET IT AS A TOTAL, BLOCK SUM AND CAN SPEND IT AS WE SEE FIT. This is critical: how we spend our block grant is entirely in the hands of Holyrood, regardless of what Westminster is doing. Yes, they like it if our NHS expenditure is in line with theirs but frankly that is neither here nor there - it is our grant and we spend it as we need to. Another thing to remember is that the Scottish Government has the power to increase income tax by 3p (doesnt sound like much, but it equates to 3% so if you increase tax from 40% to 43% for the highest earners the extra tax raised is a fair chunk per year) which they have never, ever, done despite their complaining about how poor we all are. Back to the NHS proper, it is a DEVOLVED issue and changes in England do not directly affect the NHS in Scotland. So when you hear scare stories about how a No vote will destroy the NHS, please remember that it is in Holyroods hands not Westminsters. Oh, and incidentally for those who are interested, spending on the NHS in England has actually risen and so consequentially the money allocated to Scotland has increased (sources in comments). Furthermore, the use of the private sector in the health service in Scotland has increased. In 2006/2007, spending on private healthcare in the Scottish NHS was £58.67m. In 2012/2013 it was £80.26m, and it is worth remembering that GPs have operated in the private sector ever since the NHS was first established. In addition, many individuals opt for private health care and this is fully within theirs rights to do. Coming back to the Barnett Consequential, and what we pay for and what we dont for a second. The total tax we contributed, according to the Scottish Governments own website, to the UK in the year 2012/2013 was around £53.1 billion (9.1% of UK total public sector revenue) including North Sea oil. Total expenditure on Scottish affairs by the UK Government and the Scottish Government totalled to around £65.2 billion. Never mind the £12 billion deficit for the moment, lets consider what else we would need to pay for if we were independent and not devolved. Total defence spending in the UK was around £57 billion in 2012/2013, so 10% of that is £5.7 billion, on top of having to recruit an army since if we default on the debt we will not be entitled to any of the UKs defence assets. The UK pays around £10 billion (this is an approximation) per year into the EU, so again 10% of that would be £1 billion from Scotland. But hang on, wed need to cover the full cost of EU membership if we were independent and not devolved, wouldnt we? Already we see that our total contribution to the UK treasury does not seem to be outweighing the total spent both directly to our devolved parliament and spent on our behalf by Westminster. This is by no means a comprehensive list, other non-devolved issues include immigration and nationality, energy: electricity, coal, gas and nuclear energy, common markets, trade and industry, competition and customer protection, and some aspects of transport, including railways, transport safety and regulation. Oh and as an aside, the Scotland Act 2012 which kicks in next year post-No gives us more control over the money we raise in taxes while still having numerous aspects of spending covered by pooling across the entire UK taxpaying population. It is worth then remembering that many of the predictions that are being made about indy Scotland really dont seem to pay attention to the sorts of things that are currently taken care of by Westminster, and even when they do they are based on current expenditure and income, disregarding the costs of setting up as an independent nation and the changes (e.g. in taxation) that will need to occur to cover this. And the NHS is being used as a scaremongering tactic by the SNP - see sources below which demonstrate this. In sum, I am as yet unconvinced that the economics of independence add up and therefore I am still saying No.
Posted on: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:29:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015