If Peggy Fitchett lived 160 miles north of her home in Staffordshire, she
would be at least £4,000 a year better off. Not because of different tax or
work - but simply because the Scottish government would spend a lot more on
public services for her than she receives in England.
For Fitchett, it could mean the difference between keeping her sight and going
blind. The 67-year-old discovered last year that she suffers from an eye
disease called “wet macular degeneration”. After the condition was diagnosed
by her optician, an NHS consultant dropped a bombshell.
“He said there was a treatment - a drug called Lucentis - but that it wasn’t
available on the NHS in England,” said Fitchett, who lives near
Newcastle-under-Lyme. “I applied to the local primary care trust, and they
turned me down. I made an appeal just after Christmas but I haven’t heard
anything.”
So far Fitchett has had to spend £4,000 on private treatment to get the drug.
“It’s definitely made a difference,” she said. “I’ve got my colour vision
back and I can now actually make out people’s features, whereas before I
could barely make out the shape of their face.”
To continue treatment she will have to pay thousands of pounds a year. Yet in
Scotland she would receive Lucentis free on the NHS.
It is far from the only difference in public services between the two
countries.
Just north of the border in Annan, Dumfries and Galloway, lives Richard
Barker, who moved from England some years ago. He says his family have saved
thousands of pounds on education. His two sons, Liam, 21, and Sam, 20, went
to college in Scotland - with all the costs met by the state. They left with
no debts. By contrast, their older brother Allan, 22, studied in Lanca-shire
and left university with a £4,000 overdraft.
In addition, Barker’s girlfriend Helen has lung cancer and though it is in
remission she might in future need an expensive drug called Tarceva. “She
has been told it will be available if she needs it,” said Barker. “But the
treatment is not available on the NHS in England. I would never consider
going back to England. We’ve a lot to be thankful for in Scotland.”
He’s right. What Scotland has to be thankful for is the huge subsidy it
receives from English taxpayers. Scotland’s largesse on health, education
and much else is possible because the English are the losers when the
British government dishes out funds for public spending.
The latest figures on public spending per head show that in 2006-7 it was
reckoned at £8,623 in Scotland; £8,139 in Wales; and just £7,121 in England.
(The figures may seem modest, but they are for “identifiable spending” that
differs between regions and do not include items such as defence that are
deemed to be national.)
The Scots, with £1,500 more to spend per person, are lavishing services on
their 5m population. Free care (up to £210 a week) for the elderly, free eye
tests, dental checks and, in future, free prescriptions. Yet in England, it
was announced last week that the prescription charge will rise to £7.10.
In Wales, which has £1,000 per person more to spend than England, the
authorities last week announced plans for free hospital car parking. It
infuriated taxpayers in England.
“It seems that in the UK, the poor relation is England,” said John Cherrett, a
campaigner for pensioners in Dorset, where some hospitals charge £7 a day
for parking. “Whatever way we look at it, public transport, drugs, pensions,
whatever, England is a poor relation. We are the wealth-maker of the four
parts of the UK and we lose out all along.”
In total the TaxPayers’ Alliance pressure group calculates that the “cost of
being English” could amount to more than £7,000 a year – from £3,000 for
university tuition fees to thousands more for care of the elderly, £25 for
an eye test and £15 for each dental check-up.
Last week the issue flared in Westminster, only for Alistair Darling, the
chancellor, to bat it away in typical Labour style. “It is important that we
have [this] debate,” he said, “and I will be publishing something, probably
in the summer, that will contribute to that debate.”
English taxpayers would rather have action, not debate. As they contemplate
higher food and fuel costs, rising council tax and poor services, they
increasingly ask: why should the English get so much less than the Scots,
Welsh and Northern Irish? The way public funds are divided up goes back 30
years to a system created by Joel (now Lord) Barnett, who was chief
secretary of the Treasury in James Callaghan’s Labour government. Barnett
was asked to devise a formula that would provide a fairer distribution of
funds - and combat the rising threat of the Scottish National party (SNP).
The result was that Scotland, Wales and Ireland received proportionately more
than England per head. It was supposed to be a temporary measure, with the
differences eventually eroding. It hasn’t worked out like that.
Even Barnett has come to think it is inequitable. In 2004 he said: “It was
never meant to last this long . . . It has become increasingly unfair to the
regions of England . . . Successive governments have failed to deal with it
for fear of upsetting the Scots.”
The regional discrepancies are even more striking than the national ones. The
latest figures show that eastern England, hardly one of the richest areas,
gets just £6,144 in public spending per head, almost £2,500 less than
Scotland.
The southeast, with its congested roads and overburdened services, gets
£6,304. The East Midlands gets £6,491 and the southwest £6,677. Only the
northeast and London come anywhere near the funding provided for Scotland.
While many ordinary taxpayers are only vaguely aware of the differences, in
Berwick-upon-Tweed some locals are stung by the discrepancies with the scale
of spending over the nearby border.
“The sooner Berwick joins into Scotland the better,” said John White, 55, a
taxi driver. “Scotland has far better social care than England.”
Last month two polls showed that a majority of residents in the town would
prefer it to be part of Scotland, not England.
While England imposes higher education tuition fees of up to £3,000 a year,
Scotland has none; it also plans to scrap a tax levied on students when they
graduate.
For some families the difference may even make the cost of moving worthwhile.
Findlay and Beth Skivington-Jones live in Cornhill-on-Tweed, a village just
south of the border. With a son due to go to university and an elderly
relative in their care, they are planning to move a few miles north into
Scotland.
“I never thought devolution would lead to this,” said Skivington-Jones. “But
the gap is growing wider.”
In Wales the differences are less marked, but enough to make the Welsh smile
at English expense. Nurses are getting a 2.5% pay rise compared with about
2% overall in England. Prescriptions have been free since last year;
pensioners and disabled people can travel on buses free at any time;
children under 16 receive free swimming lessons; and Welsh students who
study locally may be eligible for a grant of up to £1,890 towards their
fees.
“It’s fantastic that we can swim for nothing at the new pool,” said Nicola
Rees, a mother of two in Cardiff, which has a new, multi-million-pound
Olympic-size pool. “And the free prescriptions for everyone are a real boon.”
By contrast the Scots play down the largesse they receive, presumably fearful
of drawing more attention to the £1,500 extra per head they get. “The idea
that England is subsidising Scotland is nonsense,” claimed Elizabeth Duncan,
director of Help the Aged in Scotland. “Elderly people here are not
conspicuously better off.” Robin McAlpine of Universities Scotland echoed
her: “The anti-Scottish sentiment is nonsense. We get the rough end of the
stick for England’s decision to impose top-up fees.”
The defensiveness, though, fails to answer the fundamental question: why
should Scotland get so much more public funding than England?
ENGLISH taxpayers could be forgiven for thinking that the personal prejudices
of the prime minister and his chancellor, both of whom represent Scottish
constituencies, play a part. Such suspicions were summed up by Graham Brady,
MP for Altrincham and Sale West in Cheshire, last year when he asked Brown:
“Why should my constituents pay more tax so that the prime minister’s
constituents pay no prescription charges?”
The suspicions surfaced again last week when George Osborne, the shadow
chancellor, brandished cabinet minutes that he said showed the government
was split on the Barnett formula. He claimed ministers representing English
constituencies want it reviewed, while those from Scottish constituencies
are happy to let the status quo continue.
Meanwhile, the SNP wants to have its cake and eat it. It would like “full
financial independence for Scotland”, including control of North Sea oil
revenues. But failing that, it’s happy to stick with the Barnett formula.
It is a moot point who owns North Sea oil. But the subsidy provided by the
English to the Scots is more than the government’s receipts from petroleum
revenue tax (though less than the total tax received from oil companies). No
wonder the English are restless. Corin Tay-lor, research director at the
TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “It is wrong that English taxpayers are
subsidising so many additional benefits in Scotland that they themselves
don’t receive. If voters in Scotland want these extra services, they should
pay for them directly.”
Frank Field, the former Labour minister and MP for Birkenhead, said: “It’s a
big issue, not just in my own constituency, but with people writing and
e-mailing from all around the country. At some stage it will have to be
faced.”
Field has previously introduced motions in the Commons to reform the Barnett
formula and to prevent Scottish MPs voting on matters that are exclusively
English. They were blocked by the government.
He believes there should be no bias towards different countries in the UK;
funds should be allocated purely on need. “The system should be unified and
based on need, not geography,” he said. “What’s so interesting is that it’s
just like the debate over the [marginalising of the] white working class . .
. there’s a real reluctance to face the issues [in parliament] where they
should be faced.”
As the Edinburgh parliament’s and Cardiff assembly’s largesse towards their
people becomes ever greater, it is an issue that will only grow in
importance in English minds.
Have your say on this issue. Post your comments below
So the Scots want a referendum on independance ...well do the English get one as to whether we want them to stay in the union??? Lets have a vote for all members of the union whether we want them as part of it or not because I will put my shirt on the English will vote to remove these freeloaders!!
Carl , Birmingham,
ha ha. and I thought it was us Scots that were supposed to be the whingers.
the more of this sort of tripe I read the more determined I am that my Country should be free to stand on its own two feet independent of the arrogant English.
Andrew, Rosyth, Scotland
Scots enjoy other Perks too. Water not privatised. Their gas to be cheaper. Bus passes cover all England but English passes don’t. Smaller school classes. Smaller GP lists. 40% working population in public sector. Whisky taxes stable 10 yrs. New BBC offices for Scottish programmes/ not matched in Eng.Regions. Broadcasting Complaints Comm. sited Scotland. Disproportionate representation inUK affairs. Freedom of Information Act exemptions. Scots have Commonwealth Games, but Eng. will pay. Scots want London/Edinburgh WCoast line (with just 2 stops in England). Chancellor Brown eliminated Glasgow City Council housing deficit with £900m public money, but English Councils are financially penalised for overspends. Slough’s budget’s are fixed on outdated resident nos. so new immigration means lack of funds. Following mass emigration of Scots to England (who can doubt it) Barnett formula funding based on earlier resident nos. will surely produce a nice surfeit. No wonder we're envious.
Gill W, Cheltenham, Glos
Whats your point???
Scotland's so-called subsidy is less than revenues from oil companies (which you admit would belong to an independent Scotland). So England are paying Scotland to stay with the union??
Scotland's SPEND per head is higher because they SPEND more per-head. This is not money available, but simply a higher spend. Free education, free healthcare. These are things being wrenched away from the English. England has its own MP's. Tell them about it, rather than blame the prgressive and socially responsible Scots.
This is more a case of Scotland using public money more responsibly than their English counterparts.
I think its time that the Scots ditched the English. They are a shower of whingeing tosserswho always look to blame someone else when they are having a bad time. And while the English may feel happy to be rid of Blair and Brown, so will the Scots, who will be doubly happy that they won't ever have to put up with a Tory government ever again.
Mike, Nottingham, UK
Is it just me or are the stats quoted here very misleading? The graphs show that the vast majority of disproportionate spending is on welfare, compared to relatively small amounts on health, education etc. Given that, it's hardly surprising that high-unemployment areas get more money! This is backed up by the other figures quoted for regional spending as a proportion of GDP: again, areas with low GDP have disproportionately more spent on them. Of course they do, low GDP areas have high unemployment.
Would all the people complaining here about your article be prepared to move to an area where they can't get jobs to "benefit" from these handouts? I doubt it.
Come on Sunday Times, I expect higher standards of journalism than this hyped-up load of tabloid Scot-bashing.
Paul Wilkins, Newcastle,
I live in St Andrews and it is bloody freezing. The winds are enough to eliminate one's asparagus. Absolutely beautiful in the months when there is any daylight whatsoever but the place is full of gloomy visitors on the brink of suicide. Unless you have a particularly sunny disposition, I'd stick to paying that little bit more to secure an ounce of happiness.
Bob Jones, St Andrews, Scotland
Does make me smile when I hear the scots on here moaning about xenophobic and anti-Scottish comments from the English! We English have had 100's of years of anti-English bile directed at us by the Scots (and the Welsh) - but its OK because its just 'banter' when they have a dig at us. Now the tables are turning and you scots start crying. Let's face it, one of the most defining characteristics of the Scots and Welsh is a hatred for the English. It's what you are.
And as for 'oor oil' we should change the current north sea maritime boundaries back so that they don't contravene international maritime convention. Then much of what's left of it would be English again.
Independence for England!
Johno, Basingstoke, England
All of this and still there's a depopulation problem! How much have you got to pay people to live there? Perhaps it's the weather.
i.e., Norwich, Great Britain
I've heard Alex Salmond has said that he would use oil revenues to maintain current levels of spending. I've heard Alex Salmond has said that he would use oil revenues to create a post oil fund like Norway's.
You can't argue with logic like that. With that 'have cake and eat it' argument, you can't wonder there's an obesity problem in Scotland. Sounds as economically competent as Gordon Brown.
i.e., Norwich, Great Britain
Stuff this, I'm moving. Let the mass emigration to Scotland begin!!
Gav C, Hessle, East Yorkshire
England Scotland Wales and N.Ireland should all have an independence referendum. Each country can then decide to either remain in the Disunited Kingdom or leave it.
I want England to declare independence.
Derek, Southampton, England
paul H Edinburgh airport. When a plane is full of Scottish you can be sure that the English have paid for the ticket!
Derek, Southampton, England
I think we need to encourage as much independance for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as possible. The sooner we resolve these issues and free ourselves of what is largely a population of whinging, welfare spongers the sooner we can get on with taking advantage of our position as one of the top ten largest economies in the world. Lets face it England doesnt have a need for Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland so why subsidise them? We need to get on with the business of driving our own nation forward rather than supporting our neighbours. England is a sufficiently populated nation to be a player on the world scene without the others who have clearly indicated through parliaments and assemblies that they want nothing to do with us either. Let them go and send them home!
Tim, Leicester, England
It is very disappointing that the only allegiance some 'english' show to their country is governed by money.
John, Oadby
John Hall, Oadby, England
You can always tell when a plane is full of English- when the engines is shut down the whinning noise goes on.
paul h, Edinburgh airport,
Independance for Scotland, good idea let them raise their own taxes to pay for the "extras" the Scottish economy is dependant on the UK, finance (Scottish Widows, RBS etc) the defence industry over represented in Scotland, oil they keep talking about their oil, a drop in the North Sea compared to the money that the city of London raises. Its time for English nationilism! Gordon Brown is a joke even compared to TB so they can have him back and good luck to them They will have to crawl to the EU for their handouts and compete with the Poles and the Irish.
Jackson, Leeds, Yorkshire
I say give the Scottish their independence if they really want it?? If they don't want it, we should re-negotiate the financing of the Union.
There's hardship in parts of Scotland and these areas should still get extra help from central government but the pendulum has swung too far.
Free university education, free retirement care for the elderly, free prescriptions for everyone. I've worked in Scotland and lived in a small town where every two hundred metres there were Lollipop people even though the main street seemed almost deserted in the morning, there wasn't that much traffic either. These jobs were artificially created by local government but who's paying for it??
Give Scotland it's indepenced and its income may increase for a while but North Sea Oil production is in decline and BP have announced that it will be cutting it's workforce by 10%
and expect oil production to be nonviable by as early as 2012.
Independence for Scotland OK.
Graham, St Albans, uk
i know we have better health services that much of the world but the NHS could be better!!! no questions. frankly if the scottish government can affort to supply scottish people with better health services good on them, and cleaerly they are doing something that the english are not.... we all pay the same tax's and national insurance!
Dan Brown, bournemouth,
Seems its a case of where you come from that colours your thoughts on this.In Scotland we see England putting her hand in our wallet and we have to subsidise England.The only solution would be for both countries to go their own way,though I'm not sure how long England could survive as they seem to need Scots to govern them even if the likes of Brown and Darling are seen as failures in Scotland.
We keep our money you keep yours.The comments about the SNP are way off the mark,they want rid of the barnett formula as we would be better off keeping our own money.And the SNP don't get involved in English matters at Westminster as they don't consider it any of the SNPs business
John Shaw, Aberdeen, Scotland
Scotland was once a proud nation - now its a nation of scroungers - the only reason we have labour governments is because of the Scottish vote - unfair is a polite way of putting it - but what can we do about it with so many of these Scottish ministers enjoying the good life with their tax free expenses and English houses etc. etc. at our expense - would I be sorry to see Scotland dumped from the union - yes in a way, because the Scots have not always been as they are today, but bringing back all the jobs we have exported to Scotland, would be good for English employment - and who needs the expense and agro that these people give us?
Marty, London, England
Time for Scotland to go.We have had to subsidise England for years and its time England stopped bleeding Scotland's resources dry.
John Ross, Dundee, Scotland
Clearly services provided across the U* should be provided by general taxation from the entire U*; that's only fair. If the devolved administrations wish to administer their services in a different way, which would be entirely in *eeping with the spirit of devolution, then the same per capita funding could be provided.
However, as part of the devolution settlement, the Scottish Parliament can raise or lower income tax up to 3p on the pound. If Scots want extra services, it should be Scottish taxpayers who pay for them, by the Scottish Parliament exercising that power.
Of course, such a simple equitable solution is highly improbable, so it seems to me things will remain the same as they've been, until some demagogue south of the border raises hell about it, and probably pushes Scotland into a rancorous split from the Union; if Scotland is going to become independent a bitter row about the Barnett formula is not the way to go about it.
Guy, Oxford,
"Didn't hear any mention of the mega expense to the UK .... of the new Channel Tunnel link to St Pancras, The London Olympics, the Millennium Dome"
You think we asked for these things? You think they're a public benefit? No they're just "eye catching initiatives" which Blair wanted his name linked to. There's only there because Blair needed his ego regulary puffed up, everyone else prefers to do without the expense. If Scotland wasn't part of the UK we wouldn't have had this wasteful expenditure foisted on us. Independence for Scotland, Wales and Northen Ireland is what we want. That way we'll never have a socialist government again.
John Small, Faversham, UK
Of course, due to the relative population sizes, if spending were evened out across the UK, Scotland and Wales would suffer massive cuts while England would receive only small gains; it doesn't cost England much to subsidise her neighbours. On a fair settlement, everyone in the UK would be in the same predicament as those in England, not Scotland; no-one would get expensive drugs on the NHS.
Tim, Oxford,
I'm disgusted by comments such as "Gordon Brown go back to Scotland" and "It's time we ditched this lot of spongers" . These and many other comments left as well as the resistance to the EU perfectly represent the appalling xenophobia of the English people.
The sooner we get our independence the better.
Lynsey, Glasgow, Scotland
It's long overdue that this issue came to the top of the political agenda, closely followed by the inequitable voting system which has delivered this appalling incompent government a large majority which does not reflect the wishes of the electorate.
England voted for the conservatives in 2005 and it adds insult to injury that we are treated with such contempt,
by a largely Scottish - led government with no legitimacy south of the Border.
Lily, Truro,
To Derek Armstrong, Broseley, Shropshire - Nowhere in my comment suggests a hatred of English - only a response to the jingoism that is sadly all too common amongst many English these days. Yet your tone and many comments from your compatriots stoop to language like 'spongers' etc. to describe Scotland. So I guess that's OK then, nothing derogatory or remotely offensive there then? Only someone one with nationalistic hatred on their mind would have interpreted my comment like you have.
Paul, Edinburgh,
"Meanwhile, the SNP wants to have its cake and eat it. It would like “full financial independence for Scotlandâ€, including control of North Sea oil revenues. But failing that, it’s happy to stick with the Barnett formula."
In what way is this wanting your cake and eating it? Full Fiscal Independence (i.e. the same sort of independence that Holland enjoys from Germany (same currency and no border controls, but no cross subsidy either)) is a perfectly reasonable solution to this.
If this article was simply about the perfectly resonable English gripe about the current situation then this paragraph would not have featured. This paragraph shows that not only is it an article about the perfectly reasonable English gripe about the current situation, it is also a unionist article which refuses to consider any solutions to the current situation except a rolling back of the devolution settlement. Not going to happen - it's time for independence.
Dave C, Edinburgh, Scotland
It's all about the Celts grabbing England's money for themselves. London, thanks to the City, and tourism, creates more wealth than the entire Austrian Republic, over £50 billions per year, whereas so-called 'Scottish oil' is around £12 billions per annum.
England has no -one routing for it any more: England needs its own parliament, which could replace the current House of Parliament, with all the Celtic MPs only allowed to sit in their own national parliaments: then the House of Lords can finally become a proper upper house for the entire United Kingdom. The response from Paul of Edinburgh, is sadly typical of many Scots, who love parading their hatred of the English: so do what I do, and boycott all Scottish products and services.
Derek Armstrong, Broseley, Shropshire
It's time the English found their back bones and stood up for themselves. Today's generation are weak, lazy and spineless.
Peter Fordham, Pego, Spain
firstly , persuade Frank Field to cross over to the Conservative Party.
secondly, get the Conservative, Liberal Party'', and any English man who will donate, to take out a National advertising campaign setting out to everyone this complete injustice to the English Nation.
And trust that those Labour 'English m.p's, who should be loyal, but who are more interested in their own jobs, shamed into supporting their fellow country men.
This is a national disgrace against the English perpetrated by Brown & Darling and the rest of the Scottish M.P's who should certainly not be allowed to vote on English matters. They are not concerned with the rights of the English but are frightened of Alec Salmon and the SNP.
Publish the names of all M.P's who vote against ' fairness to the English ' I suspect such action will make them think about the people who elect them.After all take the population of any Constiuency, multiply the number by £ 1,502.00 add in the various perks,result, mind change.
Graham Brown, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire
It is about time that politicians took on board that the English are getting fed up with subsidizing Scotland etc. Let them look after themselves for once. Break up the UK and let England be England again. Give us back our self respect and stop treating the English like the least important citizens of the UK.
Richard, Manchester,
why do we have scottish mps at westminster and no english mps in scotland gorden brown michael martin etc go to scotland
sue, west yorks, uk
Thank-you to the Sunday times for publicising this issue - please stick with it.
The current workings of the Barnett formula are outdated and its outcomes indefensible with a modern democratic nation.
Labour will not address the issue because it needs the votes that the £1500 per head buys to maintain its Westminster seats. The same goes for the Liberals. However the position of the Conservative party is beyond all reason.
I have corresponded frequently with my Tory MP on this issue and it is clear they do not want to take it onboard. They are happy to talk about the constitutional issues but not about what really matters - namely £1500 per head and all that it buys!
Remind me - how many Westminster seats do the Tories have in Scotland!!
If one of the major mainstream parties does not take this issue onboard the BNP will!
David Jephson, Hazlemere, Bucks
Independant England. Free from europe, free from the uk. A free and sovereign nation. Looking after its own affairs. Led by people who have the courage to stand up for this country, who love this country and call it home.
Paul , Shropshire, England
The mass unemployment caused by the idiotic incompetence of the Thatcher regime left millions of people in the UK with broken lives and no hope. Hundreds of thousands of hard-working scots found themselves without the means to live- sometimes for years.
Now I don't think it's completely unreasonable to even out the score.
Now they need to target the millions of northerners, welsh, midlanders, northern Irish etc who were also punished by the amateurish politics of the Thatcher years.
And by the way, I live in London, and I am not a Scot, but I find it disgusting when well-off Londners moan about this.
Kingkerouac, London,
It's time we ditched this lot of spongers and sent all the Scottish MPs back to Scotland. If they want to spend taxpayers money on themselves then let it be their own. I may have to move there myself.
Carol Smithies, Bradford, Yorkshire
It is not Scottish Oil, it is drilled in INTERNATIONAL WATERS further than 12 miles off the coast.
England needs a referendum on Independence from subsidised Scotland NOW.
It is Scottish Labour MP's which keep Labour in UK power that is bankrupting England and creating this inequality in public services.
George, London,
Didn't hear any mention of the mega expense to the UK (including Scotland) of the new Channel Tunnel link to St Pancras, The London Olympics, the Millennium Dome, London's Tube system and Cross Rail, all the Royal and Government buildings and jobs in the south east, all the subsidised arts organisations and galleries in London etc etc.
It's also fair to say that regardless of costs, the Celtic nations have a more caring approach to public services and hate the semi or complete privatisation models favoured in England.
So the playing field is much more level than you make out.
Robert Burns, Kilmarnock, Scotland
Ask yourselve why Westminster is trying to hang on to Scotland,
It is'nt the measly number of MPs we send to Westminster, fiftyish in total, not all of them Labour.
It has to be something else, now what could that be?
Oil revenue, gas revenue, whisky revenue,all in the coffers at Westminster and not counted as Scotlands tax!
Ask yourselves why London gets 10 billion pounds to play with in the Mayors office.
That is a third of the total block grant for Scotland.
And while on the subject of money, ask yourselves why this Government saved a failing bank with 65 billion and rising, which is double ,and some ,of the Scottish block grant.
Ask yourselves why our SNP government can work for the people and why your localMP seems incapable.
Ask yourselves why wee Wales is managing to do the same.
Disgruntled Dorothy, Glasgow, Scotland
The last time that Scotland was an independant country, it simply couldn't hack it. The Act of Union came about at the request of Scotland because it was insolvent as a nation and needed to be baled out by England.
Matthew, Portsmouth,
Typically uninformed, ill educated comment that suits the belief of English superiority over all others. Do you even know when the Act of Union was Matthew, or the circumstances surrounding its inception, or anything at all about Scotland? Then again, Scottish history hasn't been taught properly in Scottish schools up till now, so what chance of a xenophobe knowing any facts let alone knowing how to spell properly.
Paul, Edinburgh,
Things will never change.we have so many scottish MPs including an unelected prime minister that there must be a conflict of interest.It is time this was addressed.
Twohig .M, Sleaford, Lincs
Both the English and the Scots have benefitted tremendously from the Act of Union. It moved Scotland from a squabbling backwater to a world power. The influence of the Scots on the British parliamentary systems has been equally beneficial.
The only country to invade England since 1066 has been Scotland and vice versa. These stupid wars cost fortunes and lives so if it take £1500 per Scottish person to stop this then it is money well spent.
The oil and natural gas will not last as long as the Act of Union has and once it is gone Scotland will have to look elsewhere for its free presecriptions and university places. Depending on tourism will turn Scotland into something of a theme park, as seems to be happening already, and there are not enough tourists who enjoy being rained on to make it viable.
I was brought up in an area of London with a heady Scottish, Welsh, Irish (me) and English mix. Plese don't deny such fun to generations to come. We're all British, with or without oi
Deek Smith, Brighton, UK
Those (presumably Scots) who state that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK tax coffers (due to oil etc) may well be correct. BUT the article was not about the origins of treasury funds, but about how they are distributed within the UK by our overwhelmingly Scottish politicians - lest ye forget, Jock). This is a totally different issue and the current system is clearly inequitable. If the Government applied the principle of spending taxes proportionally amongst those who contribute the most, as the Scots seem to want, then I for one would be delighted as I would receive 'loooads ov money', but I suspect that the genuinely sick, the elderly, the young in education, the unemployed etc etc would be somewhat disadvantaged. By the way, having been stationed for some years at the Clyde Submarine Base at Faslane, I for one would argue that the associated jobs (and ZERO risk) should come to England as it is the most dreadful place. Freedom and an English parliament NOW!
Sea Dog, Sarlat, France
The Conservatives policy of "English votes for English Laws" will not do. We need our own parliament that will represent the views and wishes of the English people. The present crop of MPs representing English constituencies have failed us. To my knowledge none have ever challenged the PM at PMQs to justify the current system of funding for the constituent parts of the UK.
Perhaps some brave sole my do so during the Budget Debate later this week, but I won't be holding my breath.
Roger Palmer, Rugby, Warwickshire
Where is the rump of the UK going to find a home for "Son of Trident" if Scotland goes its own way ?
Will that area have to be bribed with a Barnett formula ?
Scots of all political parties have always shown that they were opposed to nuclear weapons and there could be no home for them here in an independent Scotland.
John J, Edinburgh, Scotland
Its time to set the record straight.When compiling the figures regarding Scotlands share of public expenditure and contributions, the Westminster government never includes the oil revenues, or for that matter such income as whisky tax.This is because oil is deemed to be a British asset and cannot be attributed to Scotland alone.In reality however,it has been conceeded in the article that the oil revenue and tax on oil companies makes Scotland a net contributer to UK treasury.So it is clearly the figures that are wrong and the English are being lied to.It begs the question; why is this being allowed to happen?
martin, dundee, scotland
Scotland has been a net contributor to the UK union for a considerable period of time. Therefore, Scotland would actually be better off outside the union.That is before Scotland doesn't pay towards wars, nuclear weapons etc.
The primary issues against are that a non-Scotland UK would be tier 2 EU country like Spain or Poland, the loss of the security council seat and the carving up of the overseas territories. Also, there is the minor issue of finding a port for nuclear weapons that Scotland doesn't want.
Mike, Orlando,
As it has been proved time and time again that Scotland is in fact a net contributor to UK funding, any grumblings from English MPs should be concentrated on why Brown etc continue with their absurd Britishness campaign. <p>Labour are only in power because of their large number of Scottish MPs. Take them out of the Westminster count and Labour would be lucky to form a English government in the next 50 years.</p>Frank Field should be carefull what he wishes for.
Finn, Eriador,
The last time that Scotland was an independant country, it simply couldn't hack it. The Act of Union came about at the request of Scotland because it was insolvent as a nation and needed to be baled out by England.
Matthew, Portsmouth,
Joe - Edinburgh
"If England wants to be an independent country the simply let Scotland, Ireland and Wales free from your yoke. "
How do we do it?
When can we start?
No one is going to ask the English so the prerogative is yours.
Please be gone and take your corrosive expats with you.
Tom Taylor-Duxbury, Ludlow, UK
It's not for me to say what is best for the UK and its constituent parts but you may be interested in some features of the Canadian federal system. We have relatively little overlap between federal and provincial legislative powers. This reflects the fact that there are significant regional and cultural differences between provinces and each likes a fair degree of autonomy. Our system recognizes that some provinces need added jurisdiction. On the other hand, while each province has its own taxing powers as does the Federal Parliament, the Federal Government has an obligation to top up, to a limited degree, the revenues of the poorer Provinces so that public services can be sustained throughout Canada. In short we try to maintain both a large degree of Provincial autonomy, fiscal viability and capacity for independant action but only insofar as this doesn't hamstring the capacity of the national Parliament to act in matters of common interest beyond the provincial sphere.
Bob Adamson, Victoria, Canada
It has long been inequitous that the Scots should have a controlling voice in the UK national government and their own devolved parliament, especially with such support for the Scottish National Party. Time for a referendum?
Peter, White River, South Africa
This article is very one sided, first off this is one country not four independent countries and Scotland is a net contributer. You already agree that the tax revenue from the Oil companies exceeds that so generously given to Scotland by the English.
If England wants to be an independent country the simply let Scotland, Ireland and Wales free from your yoke.
Why do you think that the English government does not want anyone to actually have a choice on true independence?
joe, edinburgh, scotland
This is why Scotland should have fiscal independence. Let Scotland tax itself and spend its own money. Then the English won't have anything to complain about - except their even larger deficit.
Marc C, London,
Why is it only the Scottish who can have a say on whether or not Scotland should separate from the UK?
I, as an English tax payer, do not want Scotland to be part of the UK, thus enabling English tax monies to benefit English people.
I would welcome SNP candidates in English constituencies so that I can vote to enable Scotland to be financially independent, and to enable England to be better off.
Roy, Wolverhampton,
The time has come for a federated State with devolved power to England and a unified UK parliament instead of the House of Lords.
Dee, Bournemouth, UK
Independence for England is the answer. Go for it England! You'll find lots of people in Scotland will suport you.
Duns Scotus, The Borders, Scotland
I would advise any young person who is thinking of going to university to think again unless they live in Scotland!. My children are saddled with debts which will take years to clear. Buying a house is out of reach, as is having children. This Government has encouraged young feckless young girls to reproduce whilst penalising the brightest youngsters who try to make something of their lives.
All we can do is vote them out at the next election, but unfortunately that won't help those mired in debt.
sophie, london,
What Frank Field has called for is an English Parliament and not just English votes on English laws as the tories seem to be going along with.
English MP's from all parties over the last 12 years have let England down badly.
When an English Parliament is eventually convened there is little point in sending the same people to represent us.
tally, Durham, England
The Campaign for an English Parliament have been telling people this for years.
Gareth, Lewes, England