Friday
May082015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Give us this day our Davey toast
May 8, 2015 Climate: Parliament So there was an election yesterday, an event that has been occupying other people rather more than it has me. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the government always gets in.
Still, it's worth surveying the results so far as regards prominent parliamentary participants in the climate change debate. The good news is that Ed Davey is history, while prominent questioners of the climate consensus such as Graham Stringer, Peter Lilley, Owen Paterson and Douglas Carswell have all retained their seats. Caroline Lucas remains, as do fellow members of the climate-very-concerned contingent Zac Goldsmith and Barry Gardiner.
Reader Comments (71)
It is certainly possible to disagree with the assumptions posted here that Scotland is subsidised. Below is an attempt at a rebuttal. It comes complete with spreadsheet which I have not posted. The posters are economists.
"As we now show, Scotland has actually heavily subsidised the rest of the UK over the period since the introduction of the Barnett formula.
To examine whether an area is being subsidised or not by the rest of the country, one has to look at revenues and expenditures both in the area in question, and in the rest of the country. The determination of whether an area is being subsidised or not is actually not simple: for example, if expenditure is higher than revenue in an area, that does not necessarily mean it is being subsidised – because all areas commonly run deficits, (which are ultimately funded by borrowing). The fact that one area has higher public expenditure than another area does not necessarily mean it is being subsidised – as what it is contributing by way of revenue might be greater.
The acid test of whether an area is being subsidised or not is: suppose that area had not been part of the overall country, then would the rest of the country now be better or worse off? If the rest of the country would be better off, then it has indeed been subsidising the area in question.
On this test, and taking a starting point of 1980, round about when the Barnett formula was introduced, the position is very clear as regards whether the rest of the UK has subsidised Scotland or vice versa. If Scotland had become independent in 1980, and if it had at that point taken over a population share of UK debt, had enjoyed the same level of public expenditure on services now devolved as was funded by Barnett, had experienced the same levels of public expenditure on non-devolved services, (including a population share of services like defence, foreign affairs etc.), then Scotland today would have been at least £150 billion better off: and the rest of the UK would have been worse off by the same amount. In other words, under the Barnett formula, Scotland has subsidised the rest of the UK by at least £150 billion.
The relevant calculation of the subsidy is set out in the attached spreadsheet: which was provided to the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament at their request, (May, 2014). Also attached is a note accompanying the spreadsheet which was also provided to the Finance Committee. A more accessible discussion of the issues involved in this calculation is also attached: this consists of sections 6 and 7 of our paper “Issues surrounding the sharing of UK debt post independence”, published by the Jimmy Reid Foundation, January, 2014."
I wonder why Montford does not do more to discourage the nasty racist remarks of Philip Foster, visible here for around 45 minutes as I write. The NUJ Code of Practice says this:" [A journalist] Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation."
Does Montford ever make a decision about posts that are likely to be in breach of that part of the Code of Practice? Is he equipped to make such a decision by virtue of having had some training on the issues involved.
I doubt if Foster's post is illegal but I wonder whether Montford has any concerns about it. I have seen such dross appear regularly on this site without any attempt at discouragement.It makes me wonder about Montford. Is he a piss-poor journalist? Or is he a racist arsehole? Neither? Why then the appearance of such muck as Foster's without rebuke from the owner of the blog or the resident chorus?
Sam, sam, pick oop tha musket!
sam, is referring to someone as "a racist arsehole" the sort of abuse that you are complaining about?
It just seems a bit confused, to enquire whether someone is a racist arsehole, and accuse them, when you are admitting it is something you are not able to substantiate.
@sam, 9:28 pm: I respectfully suggest that you very, very carefully read and re-read the last three paragraphs of your rant, if you then cannot see it as a major foot-in-mouth moment, then print it out, go and show to your GP and ask to be referred to your local Community Mental Health Unit.
It should not be forgotten that Scottish windfarms are heavily subsidised for their grid connections - at Scottish request. If they wish to see Longannet remain more competitive, then they could re-allocate some of the grid connection charge where it properly belongs - on the wind farms, which are the ones generating the intermittent surplus that has to be exported at great cost to the grid.
I was of course delighted with the news that compulsive liar Davey was ousted - and the irony that it was probably achieved by campaigning by the Green next door, Zac Goldsmith.
JamesG:
There is now a significant generating deficiency relative to demand in the South caused by closure of coal, oil and nuclear stations. New investment in the grid could be saved were those stations to have remained open, and therefore it makes excellent sense to offer an incentive to use the existing grid capacity rather than building new all the way from windfarms in the Highlands. We used to have a grid that had a much better balance between local supply and demand, so the regional interconnections largely acted as backup: now we have long distance movements of power that have to be routed all the way, and additional measures to avoid network congestion en route - as well as the need for much more grid capacity to allow power flows to balance for unreliable renewables.
In fact, the system of grid connection charges far from reflects the true economic costs of our crazy policies, so large chunks are subsidised relative to their economic position on the grid - a truer position would accord a far higher payment to a London area station in consequence.
It was a clear Tory Party Manifesto Commitment, that within 100 days in office, there would be a moratorium on onshore wind farms. I hope they stick to this.
" for example, if expenditure is higher than revenue in an area, that does not necessarily mean it is being subsidised – because all areas commonly run deficits, (which are ultimately funded by borrowing). The fact that one area has higher public expenditure than another area does not necessarily mean it is being subsidised – as what it is contributing by way of revenue might be greater."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there, in a nutshell, is why Western countries are going broke.
Economists, indeed. Do they ever listen to themselves?
johanna, green economists have been designing their evolution into a dead end. By listening to each other, they confirm they are heading in the right direction.
Now that even politicians are waking up to the reality of all things 'Green', the 'precautionary principle' does not recommend trying to stop stampeding lemmings.
golf charlie, I have the honour to know a few economists who understand basic logic, and arithmetic, and they would be horrified by this nonsense.
James G
You're distorting the figures.
You can't look at a UK asset (which is what the oil is) and argue that "Scotland is paying £x to the exchequer." You can argue that without the Scottish share the English exchequer would be £x worse off but what the figure is that would actually accrue to the Scottish exchequer would be a matter for John Swinney.
When I talk about a "chip", I'm talking about a certain Scottish propensity to see only the figures which they want to see and assume that if only "the English" would stop trying to do them down they'd be the richest nation on earth. Maybe.
And since I lived in Scotland for the best part of 50 years I know what I'm talking about.
"It's Scotland's Oil" was only ever a political slogan and a dishonest one at that because it was never "Scotland's" because in terms of international law "Scotland" didn't exist and still doesn't. It was and is the UK's oil and will be until at the time of independence the appropriate part of it becomes Scotland's. Until then it belongs to the UK and the UK government decides how to tax and what to do with the revenue. You might as well argue that Welsh coal belongs to Wales or the coal from the Durham coalfields belongs to Durham.
Whether successive governments spent the proceeds of oil wisely and whether a purely Scottish government would have done any better is another matter altogether!
"nasty racist remarks of Philip Foster"
Oh Gawd,so now it's not only Irish travellers who'll be playing the racist card. Welcome to the thuggish wing of the SNP.
Sam, you're a foul-mouthed wee Jockie and no better - or more interesting - than that.
I won't be surprised if Davey has some Green Cash in his wallet soon maybe from Grantham Inst or something
I won't be surprised if he's been paid to do something on the BBC soon
..maybe they'll give him his own show.
They seem like a narrow clique who look after their own.
Alml the last comments were about Scotland's future politics ..we should have a thread on that sometime.
Is their some kind of time bar on reclaiming Scottish heritage?
Some of the MacDonald clan went on to do well in fast food, and the Campbell's did ok in tinned soup.
I appreciate the two Clans have had their historic differences over rights to self determination, but I am sure that business success has tought them how to bury the sgian dubh without bloodshed.
Godd Lord, you think you've got problems?
After about 100 years of being a mendicant State (i.e. one that took more than it got from other States) - suddenly Western Australia became wealthy because of a minerals boom. Straight away, they started complaining about "subsidising other States", and they haven't stopped since.
The politics of envy (including in reverse) can operate at even the highest levels.
As C P Snow shrewdly observed, gratititude is not an emotion, but the expectation of it is a very lively one.
In his post Philip Foster says "It looks like the Scottish Scare did it. All of Scotland went SNP with shouts about the hated English, and England responded by all voting Conservative to shore up their defences. Last time the Scots invaded in 1745 they got as far as Derby..."
This is nonsense. It was the Conservative Party that used the prospect of a large number of SNP MPs to put voters off the possibility of support by the SNP for Labour. Support for the SNP had already been running at high levels (between 45% and 50%) for months in advance of Cameron's scare tactics. There were no shouts about the "hated" English and a fair number of English people voted for the SNP. I know a number of them. Who, in Scotland, hates the English? I don't know any of them. I followed the election campaign closely and saw no expressions of hatred towards the English or anyone else.
It is Foster's belief that England and Wales voted Conservative as a defence against the SNP. This seems likely to be more nonsense. The opinions of the English and Welsh that I read and heard all pointed to the perception that Miliband was not seen as good material for PM.
"Just wait till Cameroon throws them the right to raise income tax in Scotland and see how quickly 'the Highlanders' will retreat from the SNP (as they did from Derby!), when they discover how expensive it is to have free tuition, old age care, haggises etc. which seemed oh so 'progressive' when paid for by the English ... Just why is spending more and more of other people's money called 'progressive'?"
Pay attention to the tone - "throws them the right to raise income tax in Scotland" and the reference to the Jacobite Invasion of England in 1745. " 'The Highlanders' will retreat...".
Then there are the claims that the English are paying for free tuition, old age care, haggises in Scotland and, of course, spending more and more of other people's money. The Scots contribute more income tax to the UK Treasury than any area in England other than the East and South East.We pay more per head too than the Northern Irish and the Welsh. The Scots get less health spending per head than the North East and North West of England and the Scots get less spent per person on education than London. So where does this Foster live? I want to know because it is possible that the Scots are subsidising him.
I have seen enough of the kind of crap that Foster writes. It dominates the English and occasionally the Scottish media also. Andrew Montford lives in Scotland. For years he described himself as an Englishman living in Scotland. He may still. As a journalist living and working in Scotland he should be willing to discourage the inaccuracies and intolerance of Mr Foster and others on this site. He steps in to protect Richard Betts from pelters but he won't discourage abuse on ethnic grounds. Nor does he write accurately about the SNP. Energy is not a devolved matter. SNP energy policies are no more than aspirations.
sam, you still haven't explained the absolute shite you originally posted about subsidies. According to your worldview, if all other taxpayers throw money at you, it isn't a subsidy if your area produces X amount of "revenue" (but not taxes). Besides, running at a deficit is normal - oh look, squirrell! Because you can always borrow.
Holy crap.
MCourtney
Climate and energy were not the issue in this election.It was all about the end of the UK.And both Scotland and England voted in favour of not wanting the other.
Sigh.
I don't think that this element of the election result has sunken in for most. But you are correct. In a divorce, both partners get a say.
I suspect that there could be a second referendum soon and the Scots will not be invited. If they wanted independence then they had the opportunity. The independence that they have just voted for is not on the cards.
2010 Scotland voted to STOP the Tories, 2015 : Scotland voted to STOP the Tories
There has NOT been a big change in Scotland voters thinking
Let me explain : In the UK people don't vote FOR a party they are more likely to vote to STOP the party they FEAR the most.
In Scotland 80% of people are basically voting to STOP the Conservatives
80% - 2010 result : "Only five years ago Labour took 42% of the Scottish vote, taking 41 seats, with the SNP a distant second on 19.9% winning only six seats." Lib Dems 18.9%, Conservative 16.7%, Others 2.5%
80% - 2015 result SNP 50.0%, Labour 24.3%, Conservative 14.9%, Liberal Democrat 7.5%, UKIP 1.6%, Scottish Green 1.3%
"oh my god, half the country has voted for the Scots national party they won almost every seat in Scotland".
Illusion 1 size context : Scotland makes up 50% of the map yet only 8% of UK population. Actually it is less than HALF London City in size of population and economy.
Illusion 2 Scotland is pro Scot's Nationalist : No you can see from the 2014 referendum 55% voted NO
rather what is true is that 50% of Scotland is anti-Tory.
The Labour to SNP flip : So last time the anti-Tory vote went to Labour, but 1. Labour is out of favour due to it opposing independence and 2. Once people realised Labour could not win the UK outrigh they realised Scotland would have more leverage if the UK gov was a Labour /SNP coalition they so Labour vote went to the SNP, even tho those voters may oppose independence themselves
Illusion 3 "everyone" the zero to all flip effect (that you get with the first past the post voting system) : If a cause eg SNP is getting around half the vote 50% in a seat then one day they get less than 50% and don't get the seat, another day they get more and they win the seat.
Illusion 4 : Cameron has to fear SNP getting bigger : No, cos it can't they can't go from almost 100% of the Scotland seats to almost 200% in the 220 election
Also since The SNP already governs in Scotland as it controls the Scottish parliament .. It has activated Green loony policies so it gets all the Green vote.
..the next Scottish state election is in 2016
And in England there is an obvious reason why the Labour Party lost, they forgot the Tony Blair trick of pretending to be a little bit Tory, whereas the Tories stopped people voting AGAINST them by trying to outbid Labour on Health spending.
- I do like the "you can't say it's Scotland's Oil" idea, cos being a bit of a Lefty I think people should be rewarded for the work they put in ..and Lottery wins like sudden finding of natural resources gold, oil, diamonds etc. should be shared with the whole of humanity. Not that people should live in luxury cos their birthplace wins a lottery.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Winston Churchill.....So democracy is the LEAST WORST system.
- and I argue that in practice since MANY people are voting out of fear to STOP their WORST fear government, we end up with the LEAST WORST government, in the average opinion of the people.
johanna,
I am a supporter of Scottish independence, not necessarily a supporter of the SNP - except as the best means of obtaining independence.
I have a number of reasons for hoping for Scottish independence, all of which have to do with the repeated incompetence of Westminster politics.
There is no sustainable economic model. Bust follows boom as night follows day.
Oil revenues have been wasted and energy management, particularly of the oil and gas sector, is so incompetent that the DECC, having commissioned the Wood Review, then found that the main recommendation of the review was that DECC was not fit to regulate the oil and gas industry.
I invite you to read the academic research on the causes of health inequalities. Scotland suffers from these to a somewhat greater extent than the areas of England that have become de-industrialised though these English areas are also affected by health inequalities - early, premature deaths.
There are interesting studies by Everson into the effects of hopelessness on the carotid arteries of depressed Finnish men. Adversity in life, at any stage of it, affects health. Childhood is a particularly important period. Repeated adversities affect the likelihood of early heart attacks. Adversities may be dysfunctional families, abuse, drug or alcohol abuse within the family - the things that people coping with poverty turn to escape the effects of poverty.
Adversity in childhood prevents normal brain development. Longitudinal studies in New Zealand show the effects of chaotic lives in children as they progress to adults. They are more likely to carry weapons, more likely to get pregnant early, more likely to engage in drug and alcohol abuse and to die earlier.
It is bad politics that causes health inequalities. The remedy requires the re-distribution of wealth, income and power. To do that the Scottish government needs either devo-max or independence. It needs control of the economy and welfare.
The Westminster government has run a deficit for some time. That means we are all being subsidised. Curiously, it is only the Scots that get a mention. Oh, and it plays on a racial sterotype - the "thrifty" Scot.
I chose my words about Montford with care. I did not state that he was one thing or another. I wanted to see if Foster's post would receive any criticism, knowing that mine would. To no surprise no one objects to what Foster says.