Liam Fox on the Barnett Formula

Conservative Home appear to be of the opinion that the proposal from the Taxpayers' Alliance to scrap the unfair Barnett Formula should be ignored because it might upset the "Celts" and make them restless.

I don't suppose it will change their minds to share with them the thoughts of Liam Fox, himself a Scot, and now Conservative Shadow Defence Secretary, but it's worth a try:

By making a virtue out of higher public expenditure figures in Scotland, the desirability of increased public spending as an end in itself has been reinforced in the mind of the electorate. This has made current policy for Britain as a whole seem more alien, as well as entrenching Socialist and Nationalist principles in the minds of the voters. It has also reinforced the idea — that Scotland should receive funding based on being Scottish rather than on specifically identifiable needs.

Since 1978, indeed, public spending in Scotland has been allocated on that basis. In this absolutely crucial area Scotland is treated as if it did have a devolved assembly. The formula used to determine public spending was adopted by the Labour Government on the assumption that an assembly would be set up. What is more the formula was based on actual spending in the late 1970s when Scotland was treated with particular generosity. So the formula locks in high provision concealed under Labour. It has helped bring to Scotland levels of public spending which are consistently higher than those in England — 28 per cent higher in the last financial year per capita.

This state of affairs assists Scottish nationalism (which the Labour Party is now attempting to exploit) — not Unionism — and has propagated the deeply damaging idea that even Conservative Secretaries of State have to battle against the ‘English Treasury’ to keep funding for Scotland at high levels. This injects an almost colonial note into Scottish politics, which is wholly inappropriate for a full and equal partner in the Constitutional Union. And it stirs up resentment against Scotland in other regions — particularly the North East — which suffer from similar problems, but which are less handsomely treated by the public purse. Unionism must mean proper equality — both as regards obligations and benefits.

We believe that the concept of funding for nationhood and not needs should disappear, and that public spending should be directed to where it can be most efficiently used, no matter where the border happens to come on the map. (Liam Fox: Making Unionism Positive, 1988)

It seems very straight-forward and honourable to say that "the concept of funding for nationhood and not needs should disappear". So what's the problem Tories; worried that England might benefit and make you look like the English party that you are?

The Tories are as fond as Labour are of Killing Home Rule by Kindness.