Showing posts with label Newsnet Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newsnet Scotland. Show all posts
Saturday, 7 December 2013
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
WHY DO WE HAVE A TORY GOVERNMENT? WE DIDN'T VOTE TORY!
Una, an ex-Labour party person who got fed up with New Labour... and who wants an independent Scotland so that she can have a Labour, a real Labour government, in a democracy, and who doesn't see why we should have a Tory government, when we didn't vote Tory.
Monday, 17 September 2012
NEVER FORGET THAT THEY DISSEMBLE, OR PUT ANOTHER WAY, TELL LIES
I have lifted this article directly from Newsnet Scotland. (If that causes NNS any problems I will gladly remove it, if they email me.)
I did so because I think it is important to clarify this point on the future of Scotland in the EU that the unionist campaign has latched on to. The more we can show that they simply make things up, the clearer the direction of their campaign will be.
There are of course those, who would be happy to see Scotland outside the EU in 2014/15, and others who see that as dangerous. My hope is that discussion on this article will be on the dangerous misinformation campaign of Better Together, as opposed to the merits or otherwise of EU membership, which have been rehearsed over and again on the blog...
I've highlighted a couple of things which some of the commentators on this matter should definitely have known when they were backing Better Together's claims.
By Bob Duncan
Claims that an independent Scotland would be expelled from the EU have been dealt a blow after weekend reports revealed that the other EU members consider Scotland to be “an asset”.
The Mail on Sunday quotes an EU insider as saying: “People often forget the EU is an incredibly expansionist organisation - there is little doubt that an independent Scotland would be seen as an asset to the EU.”
The Mail on Sunday quotes an EU insider as saying: “People often forget the EU is an incredibly expansionist organisation - there is little doubt that an independent Scotland would be seen as an asset to the EU.”
The report follows AFP journalist Roddy Thompson's comments in the BBC's Good Morning Scotland when he confirmed that there are no provisions in any of the EU Treaties for expelling a nation or part of a nation. Mr Thompson revealed that senior EU legal officials are currently examining ways to secure Scotland's position as an independent member of the EU.
Replying to a question on whether there exist any provisions in any of the EU Treaty's for expelling a nation or part of a nation state, he replied: “Not to my knowledge. They tell me that the head of the legal justice of the council is now in the process of doing a detailed study of the Treaty and how that would be interpreted.
“This would be legal advice that would be given to the council - not the advice that would be given to London or Edinburgh or anyone else.
“This would be, if it ever got to the stage where they needed to brief leaders on what the legal position would be before the leaders ever took the vote.
“They don't have any provisions on if a country or if part of a country leaving. What they do have is provisions for citizenship and rights.”
Both the Mail article and the interview follow clarification from the EU over recent days that the resultant component parts of the former UK would be treated equally following a Yes vote for Scottish independence.
The clarification was in response to Unionist politicians in the UK who had 'misinterpreted' remarks made by European Commission spokesman Olivier Bailly concerning the possible secession of Catalunya from Spain.
The EC spokesman said that comments made last week had been misinterpreted by many and that they wished to make it clear that they would not interfere in the internal affairs of Member States – including on Scottish independence.
Responding, SNP European and External Relations Committee member Aileen McLeod MSP said:
“This high level confirmation that the nations of Europe are ready to welcome Scotland as an equal and independent country confirms what the SNP has long argued and what Scots already know.
“The reality is that an independent Scotland will remain within the European Union, accepting all the treaties and obligations that currently apply to us as part of the UK.”
In a further blow to the anti-independence camp, it emerged that such a situation has already occurred.
In 2003 the tiny Caribbean islands of St Martin and Saint Barthélemy voted to secede from Guadeloupe, which is an overseas region of France and therefor part of the EU. Crucially the newly independent islanders remained EU citizens and the territories inherited all the treaty rights and opt-outs of France and did not have to re-apply for EU membership.
Ms McLeod added: “The fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland are already citizens of the European Union, Scotland has been part of the EU for 40 years, and we will continue our membership as an independent and equal country after a Yes vote - with a voice and votes at the top table to protect and promote our national interests
“This is another blow to the negativity of the anti-independence campaign. Their scaremongering simply doesn't stack up.
“I believe that the people of Scotland will vote to take charge of their own future, and they will not be fooled by the relentless negativity of the No campaign."
(Thanks to Arbroath 1320 for bringing this to my attention.)
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
Would an independent Scotland be financially sound?
I've lifted this entire article from Newsnet . I hope they will forgive me. It seemed to good to not be shared. There are nearly 300 comments, many worth reading.
279 COMMENTS
By John Jappy 
As a civil servant in London, and being part of the establishment, I always accepted the general view that an independent Scotland would not be able to survive on its own without financial help from the London Exchequer.
However, when in 1968 I was able to examine the so-called "books" for the first time, I was shocked to find that the position was exactly the opposite and that Scotland contributed much more to the UK economy than its other partners. This was, of course, before the oil boom.
As a civil servant in London, and being part of the establishment, I always accepted the general view that an independent Scotland would not be able to survive on its own without financial help from the London Exchequer.
However, when in 1968 I was able to examine the so-called "books" for the first time, I was shocked to find that the position was exactly the opposite and that Scotland contributed much more to the UK economy than its other partners. This was, of course, before the oil boom.
I realised that the Treasury would wish to keep this a secret, as it might feed nationalistic tendencies north of the border, which at that time were very weak. I took the decision to keep an eye on the situation to see how long it would take for the true facts to emerge, which I felt would only be a short time. However, the Treasury and the Establishment did an excellent job, aided and abetted by the media, to keep the myth about Scotland alive.
In fact it took another 30 years before the first chink in their armour started to appear. This came unexpectedly on 13 January 1997 when, in reply to a series of questions put by SNP Leader in the Commons, Alex Salmond MP to the then Tory government, Treasury Minister William Waldegrave admitted that Scotland had paid a massive £27 billion more to the London Exchequer than it had received since the Tories came to power in 1979. Statistically this works out at £5,400 for every Scot.
There were no attempts to refute these figures, which caused much embarrassment to the Tory Government of the day. However, the facts were quickly covered up by the Unionist controlled media.
Then a year later with a Labour government now in power came a further bombshell. Following further promptings by the SNP, on 21 August 1998, Mr Salmond received a letter from the House of Commons Library (ref. 98/8/56 EP/rjt) which gave a table showing that based on Scotland's GDP per capita, Scotland would occupy 7th place in the world's wealth league. The UK was at 17th Place.
When the Labour government came to power it announced a 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax. From my detailed knowledge of income tax, I felt that this was the worst possible thing that they could do, as extra monies would be needed following on from the Thatcher era, if they were to fulfil even a fraction of their promises to the electorate. I came to the conclusion, and I still feel that I was right, that this was done by Labour to prove to the voters of Middle England that they could match the Tories in tax cuts.
Despite the disclosures of 1998, attempts to deceive the Scottish electorate did not end there. In March 1999 a Labour Party leaflet appeared which said that if the SNP were to forego Gordon Brown's 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax, every family in Scotland would be £250 worse off. This became the major topic of a TV debate between Alex Salmond and Donald Dewar. Salmond tried to point out to Dewar that he was using the wrong figures. Watching the debate, I saw Dewar's eyes roll in his head for a few moments but he carried on regardless.
After the debate it took the Labour Party a whole week to admit that they were wrong. There was in fact a whole chain of errors which the Labour Party tried to blame on "printing mistakes". However Labour could not deny the fact that in their calculations the UK average figure, which included the high wage earners in the city of London and the booming economy in the South East corner of England (which if I may say so were the result of the selfish policies of Mrs Margaret Thatcher), the figure used was almost double those of the average Scottish wage which at that time stood at £17,000 per year.
Looking closely at the figures and taking the year 2006 as a benchmark, I found that Scotland had an annual relative surplus of £2,8 billion, which works out at £560 for every man, woman and child. In contrast the UK had a deficit of £34.8 billion.
In November 2006, the U.N. published its annual "Human Development Index". For the sixth year running, oil rich Norway topped the list, and won on such factors as generous welfare payments, education, high income and a long life expectancy. Norway wisely created an "oil fund" in 1995 which in 5 years reached a total of £250 billion, so that Norway sailed through the Credit Crunch.
Who are the real subsidy junkies?
Any lingering doubt that Scotland more than pays its way, or survives on subsidies, was dispelled by a new report published in October 2007. Whilst the Daily Mail, which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as a supporter of Scottish nationalism, devoted a whole page to the analysis of the report which was based on tax paid per capita as against spending, Northern Ireland received £4,212 more than it paid in tax, North East England £3,133, Wales £2,990, N.W. England £1732, South West England £978, West Midlands £931, East Midlands £185 and lastly Scotland £38. Only the South East corner produced a small surplus due to tax paid on the high wages within the city of London at this time (pre-Credit Crunch).
Analysis
It is no longer refuted that Scotland exports more per capita than the rest of the UK. In 1968 when I first discovered that Scotland was in surplus in relation to the rest of the UK, its exports could be broken down into whisky, meat, timber, fish, and of course tourism which is a huge hidden income. Those exports are supported by a population of only 5,000,000 as against 45,000,000 for the rest of the UK, quite a substantial advantage.
In fact it took another 30 years before the first chink in their armour started to appear. This came unexpectedly on 13 January 1997 when, in reply to a series of questions put by SNP Leader in the Commons, Alex Salmond MP to the then Tory government, Treasury Minister William Waldegrave admitted that Scotland had paid a massive £27 billion more to the London Exchequer than it had received since the Tories came to power in 1979. Statistically this works out at £5,400 for every Scot.
There were no attempts to refute these figures, which caused much embarrassment to the Tory Government of the day. However, the facts were quickly covered up by the Unionist controlled media.
Then a year later with a Labour government now in power came a further bombshell. Following further promptings by the SNP, on 21 August 1998, Mr Salmond received a letter from the House of Commons Library (ref. 98/8/56 EP/rjt) which gave a table showing that based on Scotland's GDP per capita, Scotland would occupy 7th place in the world's wealth league. The UK was at 17th Place.
When the Labour government came to power it announced a 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax. From my detailed knowledge of income tax, I felt that this was the worst possible thing that they could do, as extra monies would be needed following on from the Thatcher era, if they were to fulfil even a fraction of their promises to the electorate. I came to the conclusion, and I still feel that I was right, that this was done by Labour to prove to the voters of Middle England that they could match the Tories in tax cuts.
Despite the disclosures of 1998, attempts to deceive the Scottish electorate did not end there. In March 1999 a Labour Party leaflet appeared which said that if the SNP were to forego Gordon Brown's 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax, every family in Scotland would be £250 worse off. This became the major topic of a TV debate between Alex Salmond and Donald Dewar. Salmond tried to point out to Dewar that he was using the wrong figures. Watching the debate, I saw Dewar's eyes roll in his head for a few moments but he carried on regardless.
After the debate it took the Labour Party a whole week to admit that they were wrong. There was in fact a whole chain of errors which the Labour Party tried to blame on "printing mistakes". However Labour could not deny the fact that in their calculations the UK average figure, which included the high wage earners in the city of London and the booming economy in the South East corner of England (which if I may say so were the result of the selfish policies of Mrs Margaret Thatcher), the figure used was almost double those of the average Scottish wage which at that time stood at £17,000 per year.
Looking closely at the figures and taking the year 2006 as a benchmark, I found that Scotland had an annual relative surplus of £2,8 billion, which works out at £560 for every man, woman and child. In contrast the UK had a deficit of £34.8 billion.
In November 2006, the U.N. published its annual "Human Development Index". For the sixth year running, oil rich Norway topped the list, and won on such factors as generous welfare payments, education, high income and a long life expectancy. Norway wisely created an "oil fund" in 1995 which in 5 years reached a total of £250 billion, so that Norway sailed through the Credit Crunch.
Who are the real subsidy junkies?
Any lingering doubt that Scotland more than pays its way, or survives on subsidies, was dispelled by a new report published in October 2007. Whilst the Daily Mail, which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as a supporter of Scottish nationalism, devoted a whole page to the analysis of the report which was based on tax paid per capita as against spending, Northern Ireland received £4,212 more than it paid in tax, North East England £3,133, Wales £2,990, N.W. England £1732, South West England £978, West Midlands £931, East Midlands £185 and lastly Scotland £38. Only the South East corner produced a small surplus due to tax paid on the high wages within the city of London at this time (pre-Credit Crunch).
Analysis
It is no longer refuted that Scotland exports more per capita than the rest of the UK. In 1968 when I first discovered that Scotland was in surplus in relation to the rest of the UK, its exports could be broken down into whisky, meat, timber, fish, and of course tourism which is a huge hidden income. Those exports are supported by a population of only 5,000,000 as against 45,000,000 for the rest of the UK, quite a substantial advantage.
With the oil boom, Scotland's economy was transformed. Scottish oil has to date funded the Treasury with £300 billion, which has pushed Scotland up from 7th place in World Wealth rankings, had it been in control of its own resources, to 3rd place.
On 29 May 2008, Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling admitted in a back-handed way, that Scotland's oil revenue had been underwriting the UK's failure to balance its books for decades. There is still 30 years of oil supply left in the North Sea (some 150 million barrels) valued at 2008 prices at 1 trillion dollars. This excludes the new fields being brought into production in deeper waters west of Shetland.
Meantime whisky exports, which I listed in 1968 as one of Scotland's top assets, have risen at a phenomenal rate. For example, whisky exports to China amounted to £1 million in 2000/2001, by 2007 they had risen to £70 million. They have continued to rise, although I don't have more recent statistics.
On the economies of Independence, Scotland has also 18 times its requirements in North Sea gas, which on current trading is more expensive than oil. The country exports 24% of its surplus electricity south of the Border, with much of the back-up by Hydro Electric unused.
On 29 May 2008, Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling admitted in a back-handed way, that Scotland's oil revenue had been underwriting the UK's failure to balance its books for decades. There is still 30 years of oil supply left in the North Sea (some 150 million barrels) valued at 2008 prices at 1 trillion dollars. This excludes the new fields being brought into production in deeper waters west of Shetland.
Meantime whisky exports, which I listed in 1968 as one of Scotland's top assets, have risen at a phenomenal rate. For example, whisky exports to China amounted to £1 million in 2000/2001, by 2007 they had risen to £70 million. They have continued to rise, although I don't have more recent statistics.
On the economies of Independence, Scotland has also 18 times its requirements in North Sea gas, which on current trading is more expensive than oil. The country exports 24% of its surplus electricity south of the Border, with much of the back-up by Hydro Electric unused.
Even if nuclear is excluded, the future looks bright, the new Glen Doe hydro station on Loch Ness which was opened by Scotland's First Minister last year can produce enough electricity for 240,000 homes. Further projects down the Loch which have now reached the planning stage will increase this to over 1,000,000 homes. Wind and wave energy will also contribute significantly in the future.
No doubt as the time draws nearer to the referendum on Scottish Independence, politicians will do their best to distort the figures, but the truth is something that never varies.
Before retiring, John Jappy was a senior civil servant in the Inland Revenue, working for the Accountant & Comptroller General's Branch based at Somerset House in London. His duties involved liaising closely with Treasury officials to prepare accounts and financial information for UK government ministers.
No doubt as the time draws nearer to the referendum on Scottish Independence, politicians will do their best to distort the figures, but the truth is something that never varies.
Before retiring, John Jappy was a senior civil servant in the Inland Revenue, working for the Accountant & Comptroller General's Branch based at Somerset House in London. His duties involved liaising closely with Treasury officials to prepare accounts and financial information for UK government ministers.
Sunday, 27 November 2011
THIS IS THE KIND OF ARGUMENT WE MUST PUBLICISE SO THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THE ECONOMIC FACTS
By a Newsnet reporter
According to a study published this month in the prestigious economics journal The Journal of Economic Growth, Scotland and the Basque Country would enjoy substantial economic benefits from independence. The study also predicted that independence for both nations is quite likely. The study was carried out by an international team of researchers from the Carlos III University of Madrid, the Toulouse School of Economics in France, the Southern Methodist University of the USA and the New Moscow School of Economics.The study, entitled The Stability and Break Up of Nations: A Quantative Analysis, did not specifically examine the pros and cons of Scottish or Basque independence. According to the researchers, their aim was to create a mathematical tool to determine whether a state would break into its constituent parts or whether neighbouring states might be better off in a union.
In devising the model the international team of economists examined pairs of countries in order to develop a mathematical model for determining how any two countries or group of countries would fare economically with greater independence or greater union between them and how likely such scenarios were. The study ignored geopolitical factors, and instead concentrated on the economic case for independence or union.
The study also examined which EU member states would be better off from closer financial and political integration at the EU level. The researchers found that Finland, Spain, and Greece would all enjoy an economic boost as a result of greater EU integration, but that the benefits for Germany and France were less clear cut.
Using the same model, the researchers came to the conclusion that the Basque Country and Scotland would financially benefit by leaving Spain and the UK respectively. According to the study the amount available for public expenditure in Scotland would increase substantially after independence, the same finding was made for the Basque Country. The study also predicted that both countries are likely to become independent in the future.
However the same findings were not repeated for other countries in Europe which seek greater autonomy from the state they are a part of. The study concluded that Lapland would be better off financially remaining a part of Norway and independence was unlikely. The study also found that Sardinia would benefit economically from independence from Italy, but that Sardinia was far less likely to gain independence than Scotland or the Basque Country.
The study is based in part upon a previous study, published in 2006, which noted a correlation between poor economic performance and "artificial" states, whose borders do not correspond to those of single historical nation. The UK and Spain are the two prime examples of such states in Western Europe.
The novel feature in this new mathematical model is that it is based not only on the economic potential of the countries but also their cultural identity, which is more original. The model includes expected factors such as a country's wealth and other economic indicators, alongside size and cultural differences.
According to lead researcher Professor Ignacio Ortuño Ortín of the Economics Dept of Carlos III University, the most difficult aspect to quantify when making predictions is the 'measurement' of countries from a cultural point of view. The study uses genetic differences as a proxy measurement of cultural difference. Professor Ortuño claims that this is the most original part of the study, saying:
"We take population genetics data and then use it to support the fact that such genetic distance between regions can be used as a good tool when approaching cultural distance.
Professor Ortuño clarifies: "This does not suggest that genetics explains culture but that there is a correlation between the two. This means that populations that have mixed more display greater cultural similarity. We are not saying that genes explain the way a person thinks."
Using genetic data in an economic model may be controversial. The study explains:
"Instead of relying on genetic distances as a proxy for cultural distances, an alternative would be to use data from social surveys on individuals' values. However, the answers to many questions in opinion polls are arguably biased by short term events, such as the political business cycle. Since we are interested in long-term decisions - secessions or unifications - information gathered from surveys or opinion polls may not be the most appropriate. Nevertheless, we do explore this type of information, and find a strong correlation between distances based on social surveys and genetic distances."
Cultural differences are often the decisive factor in whether a country becomes independent. After applying the model to the former Yugoslavia, the research team noted: "Cultural differences, though small, were essential for the country's disintegration. Economic differences, though large, were not enough to cause the breakup of Yugoslavia."
When applied to the Scottish situation, the model predicts that the diverging political culture between Scotland and the rest of the UK will be the key factor leading to Scottish independence. The model also predicts that Scottish independence is very likely to occur and that Scotland will benefit economically as a result, but does not offer a timetable.
The study will give a further boost to those who argue that Scotland will benefit financially from independence, and directly contradicts those who argue that independence would damage Scotland economically.
In devising the model the international team of economists examined pairs of countries in order to develop a mathematical model for determining how any two countries or group of countries would fare economically with greater independence or greater union between them and how likely such scenarios were. The study ignored geopolitical factors, and instead concentrated on the economic case for independence or union.
The study also examined which EU member states would be better off from closer financial and political integration at the EU level. The researchers found that Finland, Spain, and Greece would all enjoy an economic boost as a result of greater EU integration, but that the benefits for Germany and France were less clear cut.
Using the same model, the researchers came to the conclusion that the Basque Country and Scotland would financially benefit by leaving Spain and the UK respectively. According to the study the amount available for public expenditure in Scotland would increase substantially after independence, the same finding was made for the Basque Country. The study also predicted that both countries are likely to become independent in the future.
However the same findings were not repeated for other countries in Europe which seek greater autonomy from the state they are a part of. The study concluded that Lapland would be better off financially remaining a part of Norway and independence was unlikely. The study also found that Sardinia would benefit economically from independence from Italy, but that Sardinia was far less likely to gain independence than Scotland or the Basque Country.
The study is based in part upon a previous study, published in 2006, which noted a correlation between poor economic performance and "artificial" states, whose borders do not correspond to those of single historical nation. The UK and Spain are the two prime examples of such states in Western Europe.
The novel feature in this new mathematical model is that it is based not only on the economic potential of the countries but also their cultural identity, which is more original. The model includes expected factors such as a country's wealth and other economic indicators, alongside size and cultural differences.
According to lead researcher Professor Ignacio Ortuño Ortín of the Economics Dept of Carlos III University, the most difficult aspect to quantify when making predictions is the 'measurement' of countries from a cultural point of view. The study uses genetic differences as a proxy measurement of cultural difference. Professor Ortuño claims that this is the most original part of the study, saying:
"We take population genetics data and then use it to support the fact that such genetic distance between regions can be used as a good tool when approaching cultural distance.
Professor Ortuño clarifies: "This does not suggest that genetics explains culture but that there is a correlation between the two. This means that populations that have mixed more display greater cultural similarity. We are not saying that genes explain the way a person thinks."
Using genetic data in an economic model may be controversial. The study explains:
"Instead of relying on genetic distances as a proxy for cultural distances, an alternative would be to use data from social surveys on individuals' values. However, the answers to many questions in opinion polls are arguably biased by short term events, such as the political business cycle. Since we are interested in long-term decisions - secessions or unifications - information gathered from surveys or opinion polls may not be the most appropriate. Nevertheless, we do explore this type of information, and find a strong correlation between distances based on social surveys and genetic distances."
Cultural differences are often the decisive factor in whether a country becomes independent. After applying the model to the former Yugoslavia, the research team noted: "Cultural differences, though small, were essential for the country's disintegration. Economic differences, though large, were not enough to cause the breakup of Yugoslavia."
When applied to the Scottish situation, the model predicts that the diverging political culture between Scotland and the rest of the UK will be the key factor leading to Scottish independence. The model also predicts that Scottish independence is very likely to occur and that Scotland will benefit economically as a result, but does not offer a timetable.
The study will give a further boost to those who argue that Scotland will benefit financially from independence, and directly contradicts those who argue that independence would damage Scotland economically.
Sunday, 21 February 2010
WHY IS THE COST OF RUNNING THE SCOTLAND OFFICE INCREASING?
I recently received a newsletter from Newsnet Scotland, and was interested in an article on the Secretary of State for Scotland using his position to promote himself and Labour. The following quote is from the minutes of the Joint Management Board at Dover House:
"The Secretary of State is still working hard to raise and maintain his public profile and has been doing well in the media so far. He continues to look for opportunities to promote his own position and the role of the UK Government in Scotland."
I didn’t know that the Scotland Office was funded from the Scottish block grant, assuming that as it is part of the “federal” government, it would be the UK that paid for it. Surely, given that, we need to ask if these funds have been used by Murphy for the “promotion” alluded to in the minutes. This would undoubtedly violate the ministerial code which states: 'ministers must not use government reso
urces for party political purposes'.
"The Secretary of State is still working hard to raise and maintain his public profile and has been doing well in the media so far. He continues to look for opportunities to promote his own position and the role of the UK Government in Scotland."
I didn’t know that the Scotland Office was funded from the Scottish block grant, assuming that as it is part of the “federal” government, it would be the UK that paid for it. Surely, given that, we need to ask if these funds have been used by Murphy for the “promotion” alluded to in the minutes. This would undoubtedly violate the ministerial code which states: 'ministers must not use government reso
urces for party political purposes'.Newsnet also revealed that the running costs for the Scotland Office increased by 27% in 2007-2008 with staff levels increasing by over 9.5% on the previous year.
This seems an odd situation given that the role of the Scotland Office has not increased and overall the UK government has expressed a desire to downsize its staffing. It couldn’t be, could it, that Labour prefers to spend the Scottish Block Grant on staffing in its Dover House Offices in London, than have the money spent in Scotland?
Staffing levels, as reported by Newsnet and shown here in the first line, are showing a strange trend, as are costs (shown in line 2):
• 2005-6 -9.6%; 2006-7 -3.70%; 2007-8 +9.50%
• 2004-5 -10.3%; 2005-6 -0.9%; 2006-7 +1.5%; 2007-8 +27.3%
It seems that since the SNP government was elected, the cost of running Labour's Scotland Office has increased.
The SNP's Angus MacNeil said: "Since devolution the remit of the Scotland Office has shrunk but its staffing levels have mushroomed. The £7m spent on the Scotland Office annually would be much better invested in services the Scottish people actually need - not in a New Labour anti-Scotland spin machine that specialises in doing Scotland down."
However, it is the decrease in staff and costs in the Labour years in Scotland, and the increase since the SNP took over that I find difficult to understand, unless Labour's idea is to waste as much of our budget as possible.
The role of the Secretary of State, a very small one since devolution, is to promote the devolution settlement and to act as guardian of it and to promote partnership between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. Well, there’s a laugh!
It is an interesting thought that £7 million is coming out of our budget in any case, but very worrying that some of it may be used to do down our own government. In any case it needs investigation.
You can get a copy of Newsnet delivered to your mailbox here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)