MORE CUTS PROBLEMS?

On a few occasions I have pointed out (along with the Institute for Fiscal Studies) that the Coalition’s cuts disproportionately hurt the poor.

Of course benefits cuts hurt the poor and the sick, because by definition, most benefit recipients are poor and many are sick. But council and government services which will be cut will hurt the poor more too. The poor rely more on the library, free computer access, day centres, youth clubs, old folks entertainment, etc, than the rich who have little need of these things. And of course, given that Mr Cameron’s Big Society depends upon people with the ability to negotiate their way through grant applications, and then the management skills to run whatever it is, it’s more likely that in the leafy suburbs or commuter villages of Edinburgh, there will be businessmen with some spare time (or one of the office staff) to complete applications, and stay at home wives, active pensioners, or people of independent means, than in a inner city council estate.

But there are some things that will affect all of us, or all except the very richest.

Possible cuts to fire fighting is one such area. According to yesterday’s Independent, up to 10,000 fire fighters may lose their jobs given that there will be a cut of 25% in funding. Of course it is likely (although not stated) that this figure applies to England, as all the mainstream media is Anglo centric, but despite the financial acumen of John Swinney, Scotland cannot ride all of these cuts like nothing has happened.

No matter how rich you are, if your house is burning down, you have trouble. And I imagine that the costs of home insurance will increase if there is a greater likelihood of your house being burnt to the ground, rather than damaged in a conflagration.

The other area which will affect all but the super rich is the announcement that people in England will have to wait longer for cancer tests.

The Coalition is to go back on Labour's pledge for all cancer patients to undergo diagnostic tests within a week of being seen by their GP. This could leave 1.8 million people with suspected cancer facing a longer wait for tests over the next five years. During the election campaign the Tories accused Labour of "scaremongering" when they said cancer care would be threatened by a Conservative government.

Unless you can afford to travel abroad for your cancer test, or you have top flight private health insurance, it is unlikely that you will be able to escape this.

Again, this is not a Scottish issue. (I have been unable to unearth how long it takes in Scotland. It may be longer or shorter than in England.) However, despite the ring fencing of the health budget here, it is unlikely that the situation will get any better even if it gets no worse.

I’m told that in France, it is the next day.

Why can’t it be like that here?

Free Scottish services to go south?

I didn't want to blog on the budget, I'm already sick of hearing about it. But it seems that the coalition that "we in Scotland" (to coin a phrase) did not vote for are going to level the playing field between north and south come what may. After all the thought that scrounging Scots should spend England's money on making life in Scotland better for the poorest must be a genuine threat to their precious Onion (oops, I did that on porpoise!). Oh and services going south is metaphorical not literal.

As a result of the coalition budget Scotland is facing a potential £5 billion-plus cut in spending over the next four years, seemingly throwing into jeopardy a range of benefits, including free personal care of the elderly, concessionary travel and free university tuition.

The warning from a leading economist came as the Scottish government also issued a grim forecast that George Osborne’s measures could pitch the country into “a spiral of decline”, threatening economic recovery north of the Border.

The deepening crisis for Holyrood’s spending plans comes as a result of Mr Osborne’s decision to slash unprotected government department allocations across the UK by 25 per cent by 2015.

Economic experts said that it meant spending in Scotland was almost certain to fall by an estimated 16 per cent over the same period — 4 per cent more than predicted by Dr Andrew Goudie, the Scottish government’s chief economic adviser, in an analysis in April, and bringing the annual block grant from the Treasury down from £30 billion a year to around £25 billion.

The reduction would have been even more dramatic without Osborne’s concesssion that health and education spending in England will be protected. The Barnett Formula, which decides the level of Holyrood’s block grant from Westminster, means that Scotland gets a proportion of all new spending in these sectors south of the Border.

However, Professor David Bell, Professor of Economics at the University of Stirling and adviser to Holyrood’s Finance Committee, said that, despite that cushion, the impact on public services in Scotland would be “dramatic”.

He added: “This is going to be difficult to effect with efficiency savings alone. I just cannot see that happening.

“You either have to cut back on services or you start to charge for previously free public services. “My view is that consideration of whether free personal care, concessionary travel and other free services can continue to be delivered cannot now be avoided,”

Professor Bell pointed out that the Scottish government’s Independent Budget Review Group (IBRG), due to report at the end of July, will have to consider the full implications of yesterday’s package.

Not guaranteed to happen I suppose, but puts things under serious strain.