A COLLEAGUE travelled to London last week and was barely out of the railway station when he discovered what the average Englishman apparently thinks of us Jocks. When he tried to buy a sandwich from a corner shop the assistant checked with the owner if it was okay to accept a Scottish £10 note. The friendly conversation that followed went something like this:
Cockney: "Yeah, it's legal tender – this fella's just bringing down some of our oil money."
Scotsman: "Huh, you've had our oil money for 20 years and you've wasted it all."
Cockney: "What the f*** do you mean? You don't even charge your student
s to study!"
Scotsman: "Well, that's because we're a civilised country."
Cockney: "Civilised? That's pretty easy when we're paying for it. Fifteen hundred quid a skull extra, ain't it?"
Who needs Question Time when you can get political debate like this in a north London sandwich shop, complete with relevant statistics? Shouldn't this gladden the heart of politicians everywhere? Not in 11 Downing Street, I suspect. The fact that Scottish public spending is now small talk in NW1 is a disaster for the Chancellor. It could mean his first Budget this week is also his last.
The precariousness of Darling's position in Brown's Cabinet is in many ways unwarranted. The stick he has taken since his appointment last June has not been wholly deserved. The loss of data files containing personal details of 25 million British citizens happened on his watch but could hardly be said to be his fault. Bailing out Northern Rock and ultimately nationalising it was, on balance, the right course of action; first to safeguard depositors' cash, and second to ensure the repayment of some of the billions of pounds of taxpayers' money spent keeping the bank afloat.
True, the Tories have made Darling look flat-footed on issues such as inheritance tax and fleecing rich non-doms, and he got himself in a fankle making promises he couldn't keep on capital gains tax. But despite some difficult judgment calls, Darling has acquitted himself pretty well.
No, the threat to his position as Chancellor is nothing to do with his performance in the job. It stems from a factor over which he has absolutely no control: the fact that he is a dour, grey, fifty-something Scot.
Between now and the general election in 2010, the Prime Minister needs to make some changes. He desperately needs a Cabinet that looks young and dynamic and in tune with swing constituencies in Middle England. Hence the appointment of a fresh-faced 42-year-old Foreign Secretary (David Miliband), a 38-year-old Work and Pensions Secretary (James Purnell) and a 38-year-old Culture Secretary (Andy Burnham).
Darling ticks none of these boxes. In private the Chancellor is a man with a dry and sophisticated wit, but wryness rarely works in politics. Dynamic? The closest to animated we usually see him is a Roger Moore-esque raising of a caterpillar eyebrow.
As for his Scottishness, the Caledonian bank manager image that worked so well for John Smith and Gordon Brown is sadly a devalued currency in an age where the Scots are seen by many in England – rightly or wrongly – as a financial burden.
Which brings us back to North London, and our sandwich shop owner. It might seem curious that he knew the exact difference in public spending per head between Scotland and England. Less so when you consider it was all over that day's newspapers. The front pages told us that Gordon Brown has ordered a review of the amount of public cash Scotland gets from the Treasury through a calculation called the Barnett Formula. Our chirpy Cockney was right: this produces annual public spending per person of £8,623 in Scotland and £7,121 in England.
As always, the key word when looking at any issue of taxation should be 'fairness'. Is it fair that Scotland gets this extra money? This, I believe, is a question that we north of the border should not fear. Any proper review of Scotland's spending needs would have to take account of a wide range of factors – particularly our geographical spread (with 32% of the UK land mass); the problems of providing services to dozens of island communities; and our poor health.
If, after a thorough review, the bottom line was that Scotland received slightly less – or slightly more – who could legitimately argue against it? If you believe that Scotland should be part of the United Kingdom, all you can ask for is a fair share of that country's resources, according to need rather than other factors like population share. But can a Scottish Chancellor oversee such a process and sell it to Middle England? I think not.
It saddens me that the English backlash against Scottish devolution has now arrived. I used to believe England's sense of tolerance and fair play would triumph over those who sowed ill– informed envy and mistrust. But the drip-drip-drip of propaganda from some London newspapers, abetted by some English MPs from both left and right, has had its desired effect.
I still question whether worries about the Barnett Formula would change the vote of the average Englishman, but one thing seems clear: it has certainly changed the mind of a Prime Minister riddled with self-doubt and self-consciousness, who apparently feels he has to compensate for his Scottishness.
The full article contains 912 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
