What The Papers Say - English Government's Budget Leaves Scotland Short-Changed - News

English Government Chancellor, Rishi Sunak MP, short changes Scotland in his budget announcement. 

English Government Chancellor, Rushi Sunak, announced cheaper sparkling wine and draught beer and a policy change to social security payments in his budget announcement stating that the Barnett Formula affecting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would reflect the policy changes. "This delivers the largest block grant for the devolved Scottish administration since the devolution settlement of 1998," he said. He then went on to say that the English government would fund the extreme E race and the 22 Hebrides X-Prix in Scotland.

English government total departmental spending will rise by £150bn by 2024-25.

Mr Sunak said that for many of the lowest paid in society there is a tax on work and that Universal Credit withdraws support as people work more hours. The rate is currently 63%. So for every £1 someone earns their Universal Credit is reduced by 63p. It is a tax on work at a rate many organisations – including the Trade Union Congress, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Resolution Foundation, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Centre for Social Justice – felt was too high. The rate will therefore be cut by 8% reducing the tax to 55p per £1.

The Scottish Government said that the English Budget short-changed Scotland and leaves millions of families hundreds of pounds worse off next year due to cuts and tax hikes. "The English government has short-changed Scotland by billions of pounds. It has broken its pledge to invest in Scottish carbon capture projects, failed to match the Scottish Government's £500 million transition fund, failed to fully replace EU funding for Scottish councils, and failed to compensate Scotland for leaving the EU. The English government expect us to be grateful despite making families poorer and robbing Scotland of investment," it said.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Through The Eyes Of The English Establishment - The Treaty of Union

 The Scots complain A LOT. How dare the English establishment mock our representatives they cry. Only they don't say English. Oh no, that would be to admit the truth that they try so hard to hide from themselves. What they say instead is Westminster and UK. It is the UK Government. The UK Supreme Court, UK law, "unwritten" constitution of UK, reserved to Westminster and yet they will call it an English parliament with a majority of English MPs. They even refer to parliamentary sovereignty and rules of parliament. Neither of which are applicable to the state parliament as they were from the English parliament prior to its abolition. So how do the English establishment see it? Let's look through their eyes. Ever since the Scottish civil wars of the 17th and 18th centuries the Scottish government has sought help from their treaty partner in curbing the unruly Scots and bringing them to heel. So much so that English garrisons were set up all over Scotland and all things S...
Read more

An Inconvenient Truth - Treaty of Union 1707

 What do you do when it is publicly pointed out that there is no Government of Great Britain, no constitution of Great Britain and no parliamentary sovereignty among the myriad other features that are missing from the treaty of 1707? When it is publicly pointed out that the current set up is mere convention and that CONVENTION IS NOT LAW? You quietly go about changing that situation. You rename yourself, publicly, you then set about ensuring that others refer to you by your new name giving you credence. The next step is to change the legal situation. EVEL was brought in to give legitimacy to the English government acting and legislating from within the parliament of Great Britain, in essence treating the parliament as English. Clause 38 had English parliamentary sovereignty written into it. The ability for "UK" government to ratify treaties was written into law. Note that the English government had Crawford and Boyle pen a paper stating that England was UK. To quote them ...
Read more

Going Beyond Theory - The Practical Application of a Scottish State

 Practical application demonstrates how theory is applied. Ifs, buts and maybes are addressed through demonstrating the reality. Where there is uncertainty practical application brings certainty through observation.  The argument from the "independence" movement is that people just need to be persuaded. Proponents have cited "facts" regarding Scotland, its wealth and its resources. They have theorised about how Scotland can do x,y,z better if circumstances were different, if only Scotland had full control of its governance yet that is where their arguments end. If someone came at you and said they were or could do x,y,z would you automatically believe them? If you disagreed, would you be persuaded otherwise through statement alone? Most folk would ask you to prove it. And for 53% of the Scottish population, that is precisely what they are saying. Put up or shut up. Stop harping on about something you cannot or will not prove. And who can blame them? Theory only gets...
Read more