Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Scotland 'to escape Tory cuts'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 January 2009
By HAMISH MACDONELL
SCOTLAND will escape the worst of the spending cuts imposed by a future Conservative government, the Scottish Tories claimed last night.
David Cameron announced earlier this week that, if elected, he would institute £5 billion of spending cuts across government departments to help cope with the economic downturn.

Scotland's share of this would normally be about 10 per cent, or £500 million of cuts.

But a Scottish Tory spokesman said last night that the plans had been drawn up in such a way that Scotland would only have to find £28 million of cuts – far short of its £500 million population share.

This is because the Conservatives' plans would affect all departments except health and education, the two biggest devolved budgets.

Most of Scotland's block grant comes to these two big departments so, by keeping these budgets intact, the Conservatives believe that Scotland's overall budget will remain virtually intact as well.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 January 2009 11:45 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Conservative Party
 
1

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 08/01/2009 01:32:42
Why is David Cameron bothering is he not aware that there will be a REFERENDUM on SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE in 2010. The results of which will be that Scotland will be attending the Olympic Games in 2012 as an Independent Country, or is he just daft????????
2

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 08/01/2009 04:32:15
Your proposal has only illustrated how little money gets spent in Scotland except for Health and Education.

Sorry David, but you will still be lucky to get a single seat in Scotland.

Which is good, It will mean that only one Tory will lose his job when we leave.
3

donald anderson it's me,

glasgow 08/01/2009 07:16:26
The only way that Scotland could possibly escape the Tory cuts of the twp main Twin Unionist parties is to declare UDI - and the sooner the better.
4

carrottop,

Dumfries 08/01/2009 08:12:04
Scotland will only become independent when the population has the confidence that its government can actually govern, after fifty years of Labour mediocrity and now an SNP that thinks it can give everything for nothing the people of Scotland may be right to stop and think for a while.
5

mr angry,

ayrshire 08/01/2009 08:42:08
5# AM2 it would be nice if you could publish the real total spending per head rather than the manufactured , made up numbers. Its what is not counted in those numbers that really count , ie all of it spent outside Scotland.
6

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 08:53:30
6 mr angry
So what are the real numbers then? The SNP govt's own analysis shows that 9.5% of UK public expenditure is spent on Scotland when it only has 8.5% of the population. This being the result of the Barnett formula which is well documented and recognised by everyone apart from yourself it would appear.

We all know that people in Scotland have benefits such as free healthcare for the elderly and no university tuition fees which are not available in the rest of the UK. How are these funded?
7

Road to the isles,

08/01/2009 08:59:04
Ugly George

How do you think they're funded? Do you imagine we come down to England and mug folk for the money. It comes out of the 'pocket money' the so-called government deigns to give us. It's not anything extra. If you aint happy then lobby your MP. Numpty.
8

Alan Reid,

Wellington 08/01/2009 09:00:55
If you want a laugh watch this

http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=97

This one is even better

http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=81
9

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 09:04:17
The Scottish Tories are in no position to promise anything?

Public spending decisions are a reserved matter and, IF David Cameron's Tories are returned in England, then
this matter will be decided at Westminster.

The Scots Tories, who are highly unlikely to add to their miserable tally of one Westminster MP at the next UK Election, are desperate to allay the fears of the Scottish Electorate, especially the large numbers who work in the public sector in Scotland.
10

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 09:06:51
8 Road to the Isles
Before you resort to crude insults please answer the essential point I made. The SNP's own analysis shows that public spending per capita is higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK. If they accept that that is the case why don't you? One does not have to have the intellectual ability of Einstein to realise that if you have more funding you can afford more services.

Is calling somebody a "numpty" the limit of your debating powers?
11

Merouane,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 10:29:38
#11. Public spending is higher, but so is the tax intake. Overall we lose out. In addition, these figures are just for a small proportion of government spending. Scotland received a much smaller percentage of the remaining spend than we should expect.

This is what I think RttI was getting at when he said that we just get a little bit of pocket money back each year.
12

Patrick Harris,

Portsmouth 08/01/2009 11:32:27
He just will not learn that no matter what he does, or promises to do, the Scots will not vote Tory, ditto for the Welsh and Norhtern Irish. His voter base is solely in England and what does he say about them? They are sour, uneducated and bigotted little Englanders. His complacency can easily translate into English contempt of all things Tory and if he thinks that exempting tax on savings interest for the war babies he must be bonkers, interest rates are about to drop through the floor.
And will someone please tell him that when he talks of Health, Education, Transport and Law he only speaks for England for these matters have been devolved.
13

Ugly George,

08/01/2009 11:49:51
12 Merouane
"Public spending is higher, but so is the tax intake. Overall we lose out."

On what info do you base this statement. It contradicts all analysis which has looked into this issue.
14

JoeMiddleton,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 12:32:52
#14

You mean it contradicts the bilious propoganda which constantly emanates from London (and their Scots puppets ie the branch offices of Labour, Lib Dems and Tories) on this issue. Scotland is as economically capable as any other country of deciding our own expenditure and our own priorities. When oil revenue is included (as it would be in an independent Scotland) it is very clear who is subsiding who.

The fact unionists constantly resort to dubious innaccurate fear tactics just shows that they have already lost the argument.

Give us a vote and then witness the truth about Scotland's feelings about the British union.
15

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:04:12
15 Joe Middleton
No. It contradicts analysis done by independent analysts such as CPPR at Glasgow University and Oxford Economics.

As far as your comment "When oil revenue is included (as it would be in an independent Scotland) it is very clear who is subsiding who." goes you are mistaken.

CPPR have studied this in detail and demonstrated that over the last 5 years for which figures are available there was a substantial continual deficit in the Scottish budget even if a "geographical" share of oil revenues are taken into account. How can you subsidise somebody with a deficit - an economic imposibility.

Your comments are not substantiated by those who have studied this issue thoroughly.
16

Merouane,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:12:21
#14. Last year's GERS has Scotland contributing 8.7% of the UK's tax intake. Scotland makes up ~8.4% of the UK population. The 8.7% does not include North Sea oil revenues.
17

Merouane,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:15:23
#16. I will try to explain. The UK runs at a deficit. As part of the UK, we (in Scotland) share that deficit. As we are responsible for less of that deficit than the rest of the UK, we can be considered as subsidising spending in the rest of the UK.

Does that make sense?
18

Merouane,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 13:17:19
Can I just reword that. Instead of 'we are responsible for less of that deficit than the rest of the UK' it should read 'we are responsible for less of that deficit per capita than the rest of the UK'
19

puskas,

East kilbride 08/01/2009 13:36:45
No5...

YOU take the biscuit.

Scotland 20,000
England 4,000

Independence changes everything for the Scots..

teaboys never give up trying to feel important.



20

antifa,

08/01/2009 14:17:08
"#16. I will try to explain. The UK runs at a deficit. As part of the UK, we (in Scotland) share that deficit. As we are responsible for less of that deficit than the rest of the UK, we can be considered as subsidising spending in the rest of the UK.

Does that make sense?"

No, it quite clearly does not make sense.

Isn't the simple truth this: that Scotland receives higher public funding per head, but contributes slightly more than the UK average. The latter point is only true if NS oil is included and if the oil price is high.

21

,

08/01/2009 14:33:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

Miss H,

08/01/2009 15:31:45
7 Yawn - it's all abour whether expenditure is identified or not. It's a really boring debate which I can't be bothered going into. But if spending is not identified it is attributed to everyone - for example Scotland has been attributed a share of almost £550 million of public spending on courts in England and Wales. Obviously Scotland has a completely separate legal system, we do not benefit from spending on English and Welsh courts.
23

Merouane,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 16:09:58
#21. No, that is not the simple truth.

The simple truth is that _excluding_ North Sea oil (I'm sure there were also a few other revenue streams excluded, but North Sea oil is the main one) we pay more in tax than the UK average.

If we include North Sea oil, even when the price of oil is very low, we pay much more than we see in return (even taking into account higher spending on public services).

And this is before we even begin to look at the non-identifiable spending.
24

JoeMiddleton,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 18:16:30
We really believe that nice Mr Cameron and have completely forgotten the years of Tory rule where they ignored our views entirely and denied us a Scottish parliament. Every word he utters is obviously filled with honesty and compassion as are his puppets, sorry I mean loyal colleagues like Auntie Goldie. Who could honestly believe that this English owned and controlled party would ever put Scotland last? It's not like they did it for a whole decade is it?
25

Miss H,

08/01/2009 18:23:03
24 Stewart Hosie: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the total administration costs for her core Department are; and whether these are regarded as (a) identifiable and (b) non-identifiable for the purposes of public expenditure statistical analyses. [39841]

Bridget Prentice: The information is as follows.

(a) The total (net) administration budget for the core departments of Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) as per audited Resource Accounts for the financial year ended 31 March 2005 was £915 million, ie:





£ million
DCA Headquarters and Associated Offices 352

Court Service (CS) 547

Public Guardian Office (PGO) 16


(b) For the purposes of 'Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2005' (PESA) published as National Statistics annually by the HM Treasury, the administration budget of DCA HQ and Associated Offices (£352 million) and PGO (£16 million), totaling £370 million were regarded as identifiable. While the CS spending on 'collective services' was regarded as non-identifiable, ie:


£ million
Identifiable costs 370
Non-identifiable 547



The administration expenditure reflects the costs of running the Department. Net administration budget includes administrative staff salaries, accommodation charges, depreciation and associated operating income. (25 Jan 2006 : Column 2153-54W)

One example -if you can be bothered looking there are many more
26

JoeMiddleton,

Edinburgh 08/01/2009 18:26:25
Yes No. 16 you are dead right we must learn to love the beneficial union which is filling us up with money. We should all have our little hearts busting with B-R-I-T L-O-V-E.

The fact that the official GERS figures show a surplus is completely irrelevant. Facts = Lies according to Big Brother Brown in his bunker.

The fact that Labour gave us the tightest financial settlement since devolution means nothing.

The fact HBOS has been taken over by Lloyds will the active connivance of Brown and Darling is a union dividend!

Isn't it wonderful to have such influence in the corridors of power? Isn't it wholyy beneficial to be part of a large failing economy which has just doubled it's national debt?

Who on Earth would want to have a stable currency like the Euro?

Wouldn't it be just terrible to have an oil fund like Norway?

Aren't we Scots just ungrateful, we should love being patronised and told how skint we are without the help of magnificent England.

It is a matter of deep, deep joy to waste billions on unusable Nuclear Weapons....

etc etc...

Just who do you Brits think you are fooling?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Politics

More Politics >>

More Conservative Party

More Conservative Party >>

Features

Paperboy Paperboy Customised news
Scottish Business Briefing Scottish Business Briefing ...Sign up today
Scotsman Hotels Scotsman Hotels

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.