Comments response

Trust it is acceptable to respond en-masse.

Thank you for your the civility of your comments - nice to know we can talk about issues without degenerating into name-calling or abusive language.

I can agree that if the question is a simple Yes or No one, then this could be put solely to the Scots electorate.  However, if the question is expanded to include anything else - such as 'Devo-Max' then that wouldn't be acceptable - the position is fundamentally altered.  Such a question would alter the whole dynamic.  Then the UK electorate would need to be involved.

I do find it interesting to note that the SNP claim that they promised a referendum on independence and yet they now claim to want to obfuscate the issue by adding 'devo-max' in as a choice.  The latter is apparently because 'un-named' others are clamouring for it! 

If they have any kind of mandate around independence, it can really only be for the Yes/No question.

I also worry that the result of a more than 2 part question will 'muddy the waters'.

Say the choice and results are as follows:

Yes   33%
No  33%
Devo-Max 34%

What could we deduce about this?

Anti-independence supporters would say 67% of people voted against independence.

Pro-independence supporters would say that 67% voted in favour of the dissolution of the status quo.

The latest poster, indicated that the SNP want independence and there are many people in Scotland that want it as well.  So Alex and the SNP, let's give them that simple choice.

I have spoken on these blogs as to how an economic split could be effected and to my mind that is a reasonable position.  Leave all of the 'subsidized' or 'not subsidized' arguments to one side as it seems that, anything that comes from statisticians or economists can be used to support any argument.

On Scottish funding, I hold to the view that the use of the Barnett Formula is unfair to the English and must be eliminated and a fairer system, more closely reflecting populations be deployed.

Final point - what do the SNP hope to gain by suddenly enfranchising 16 and 17 year old's for the independence vote?  Okay, so they figure that this demographic may be more pro-independence but why stop at 16?  Do they plan to extend this franchise for all time and all votes?  Other than Brazil, Nicaragua and Cuba, I can't find any other countries where the franchise goes to 16 year olds.  North Korea and Sudan do extend to 17 year olds

Scotland funding is grossly unfair

That is according to the chairman of the Local Government Association.

Local authority funding in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is governed by the so called Barnett Formula.  This was a 'stop-gap' measure introduced, by the then Labour government,  in the late 1970s which has survived until now because politicians have failed to 'grasp the nettle' and address the inherent "unfairness and plain illogicality" of it.

Whenever a English department gets a change to its budget, the other countries of the Union get an automatic share.  The formula is based on population rather than need.

For example, when the UK Government froze council tax for English councils, saying that they couldn't raise additional taxes from local tax payers, the Government softened the blow by giving these councils an additional grant.  Simply, because of the formula, an extra £67.5 million was then given to Scotland.  This even though the devolved Scottish parliament had already frozen council tax in Scotland!

As another example, Scotland and Wales both receive extra money because Crossrail is being built in London.  Even though both of these countries don't have to make  a case for local projects requiring such funding!

Oh!, and when cuts are being made, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, get cut less!

Recent research shows that if the formula was revised there would be an additional £2.6 billion of funds diverted from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to English local authorities.  That would help keep quite a few English libraries open and 'meals on wheels' services running, wouldn't it?

According to the UK Treasury, the Government spend per person, in Scotland was £10,212 last year.  That was £1,624 per person, more than in England.

 Someone not a million miles from Downing Street keeps saying "We're all in this together" but I can't help thinking that those on the Celtic fringe are better protected than the heartland majority.

I can understand Labour protecting the Barnett Formula - it was devised by them and protects their strongholds that have, so far, always returned  lots of Labour MPs.  Why do the Conservatives keep it on?

Time for an equitable change!

Even Lord Barnett, he who devised the formula, says so!

To any English socialists reading this, ask your local MP (whatever party) and your local councilor what they are doing and have already done about this and why they don't highlight this 'unfairness' rather than just bleating on about the 'cuts'.

To the rest of you, speak up about this inequitable situation!