It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barnett Formula?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Scaling the political aspects of the web i came across English Democrats a party devoted to English independence, although i'm not a supporter of such an action i did come across a part of their site that put a frown on my face.



In 1996/7, total expenditure per head of population on services in Scotland was 24% higher than in England. That figure is for all public service and welfare spending, including that on social security. If we look at spending in those policy areas which have been devolved to Scotland, it can be seen that spending is on average 31% per person higher in Scotland than in England. Spending in Scotland on health and personal social services was 22% higher; education 31% higher; transport 31% higher; trade, industry, energy and employment 55% higher; housing 87% higher; agriculture 123% higher. This additional funding for Scotland under the Barnett formula amounts to Ł8 billion each year.


I've got nothing against Scotland, its a lovely country with a proud people, but why is more spend on a Scotish citizen, maybe i've misunderstood the reason for the forumla....

any help?




posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
There are sorts of things to bear in mind Wizard.

Before you get into any detail it's simply the case to bear in mine that England did not create the 'UK' for altruistic reasons.
England has benefitted and been enriched enormously from all the 'Home Nations' being peacable neighbours and having economies synched and operating with and through Englands' for centuries.

As regards why the current economics might show a higher spend in Scotland per head? Well one must bear in mind that one is not comparing like with like.

(In fact all accountancy is 'weak' in this regard. The answers sometimes depend on the accounting methods and, most importantly, the results required; it is not as if it stands as some kind of empirical 'truth'.)

But anyhoo; Scotland will always come off badly in this kind of comparison because compared to England it has a much lower population and much lower population density.

(Spending per head in rural England reflects this 'additional expense' too but is rarely talked about.)

The cost per head - of anything - divided by fewer 'heads' (compared to the same 'item' in another place with more 'heads') is always going to come out higher.
Do you see?
In relation to education you might even get into the appalling situation where spend per pupil might appear enormous yet it is actually much less than in a comparable case where there are more pupils and the figure appears lower.

Government economics, talk about complicated.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Thanks for explaining, i knew it proberly wasn't as simple as it looked.
I'd still like a bit more equality though.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Thanks for explaining, i knew it proberly wasn't as simple as it looked.
I'd still like a bit more equality though.


- No problem Wizard.

Always happy to pitch in if I can.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join