Output and transfers between the regions of the UK

In the light of the Scottish financial settlement I am offering these important maps taken from National Statistics. (ONS publications) The first  shows just how much more public spending per head Scotland and Northern Ireland receive compared to England, especially south east England. It  illustrates the extent of the regional transfers of money around the UK.

The second map shows just how much bigger London, the south east and East Anglia have become as a result of more rapid economic and population growth than the rest of the country. These three parts of the UK now represent almost one half of our economic output. This is displayed graphically by the redrawing of the map in line with economic output. As a result we see a very large London, and a large south east and East Anglia.

It appears that the latest financial settlement for Scotland gives the SNP all they asked for. The grant to Scotland has to be adjusted for the extra responsibilities the Scottish Parliament now has, and for the extra revenues they now control. The formula allows adjustments to be made for the likely slower growth of population in Scotland than the rest of the UK, the main thing the SNP insisted on.

Variation from UK average map.02.03.16


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. stred
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 5:38 am | Permalink

    Judging from this map, could we not just tell Scotland to go away and Cornwall to stay because we need holidays?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

      Scotland is firmly attached to the rest of the island, and even if we hired all the tugs in the world they would not have the power to break it off and tow it away.

      So the question for the English is whether they would prefer to have Scotland under the control, and protection, of a Union Parliament dominated by the MPs they elect in England, or they would prefer to have a sovereign independent Scotland making its own alliances even they were alliances with powers hostile to England.

      • Know Dice
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

        Scotland can stay connected if they wish, but I would prefer a lot less of their (SNP) whining and a rapid reduction of the £1600 per head per year extra Block Grant that they get over most of the rest of England.

        An don’t forget the English Parliament what you were pushing for in the recent past 🙁

        A bit more parity in favour of the English would go down well here…

        • JoolsB
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

          Unfortunately Know Dice, our host has never been in favour of an English Parliament. Sadly, not one of the main parties, not even the one that gets most of it’s support from England, i.e. The Tories, believes in equality for England, either constitutionally or financially.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 7, 2016 at 8:25 am | Permalink

          I still want an English Parliament, a devolved Parliament like the one the Scots have had for nearly 17 years now, and I still want it to have its powers devolved from a federal Union Parliament for the whole of the UK including Scotland. Nothing has changed there.

          What has changed, for the time being, is any possibility of claiming that the extra public spending in Scotland from the UK Treasury is more or less matched by the oil revenues which only flow to the UK Treasury because Scotland is part of the UK.

      • stred
        Posted March 7, 2016 at 9:30 am | Permalink

        Geologically, Scotland north of the Grand Glen belongs to Newfoundland. It was left behind for some reason when America drifted off. The Highlands were subject to the Clearances in ‘the most efficient ethnic cleansing in Europe, perpetrated by Anglicised homosexual clan chiefs and landlords, assisted by police, the army, Church of Scotland and MPs.’ re The English. J.Paxman p 43. This explains the deep hatred that around 50% of the Scots have for the Sassenachs. Perhaps they should take account of the fact that many Scots are decended from the ‘wrong’ side. The Scottish James Naughtie recently found his DNA was English and it would be a good idea for other SNP mountpieces to do the same. I visited the Glen with a Scots friend and tactfully refrained from pointing out that his mum was English.

        Unfortunately, the main population centres have moved south of the Glen and the opportunity for a partition between the deeply divided decendents of the clans along the geological lines has been lost.

        • bluedog
          Posted March 8, 2016 at 6:11 am | Permalink

          Stred, not quite sure where you are heading and why. Many people of Scottish descent, particularly Lowlanders, would show Germanic DNA for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the Kingdom of Norway held sway over much of Scotland until the mid 1400s.

          But moving on to the Highland Clearances, if you wish to go further try the book of that name by John Prebble. His work is reviewed: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/03/preb-m21.html

          Prebble was extremely influential in SNP circles.

      • Andy
        Posted March 7, 2016 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

        Scotland has always been ‘hostile to England’ and before 1603 thought nothing of jumping into bed with England’s enemies. I’m sure the SNP would do so again given half a chance.

  2. The Active Citizen
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 5:49 am | Permalink

    Superb, JR. I don’t know who produced these graphics but they work brilliantly.

    My only suggestion is that they be updated from 2014. Surely Scotland would shrink even more if 2015 figures were used, as the oil price fell?

    Osborne and Cameron’s settlement with Scotland got very little serious coverage in the mainstream media. However all was revealed when Ms Sturgeon and the Parliament-dominating Scottish Nationalist MPs proclaimed themselves happy with the deal. When in the history of humankind have the SNP ever been happy with anything? If they’re happy and aren’t whingeing, it means the English were well and truly screwed.

    I hope you’re going to push these out pro-actively to all the media.

    • Horatio
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

      Great titbit from Andrew Neil today:

      The remain campaign states that the EU will impose tarrifs of 10% but also that a result of Brexit would be that the £ slumps 20%. Scary no?

      However this would, logically, mean that the UK economy will be 10% more competitive than it is now. 😉

      • Jerry
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

        @Horatio; Duh?! Your suggestion “that the UK economy will be 10% more competitive” is good and dandy all the time we only import from the EU, but what about all the non EU imports, they will be 20% more expensive

        • Know Dice
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

          And our Exports would be 20% more competitive…

          • Jerry
            Posted March 7, 2016 at 6:08 am | Permalink

            @Know Dice; Except that we import far more than we export…

        • Anonymous
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

          Jerry – When the pound is strong we are told that it puts other countries off buying our goods.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

        If the remain campaign states that the EU will impose tariffs of 10% then the remain campaign must think that our lovely European partners are stupid or spiteful or both, so why does the remain campaign believe that we should allow these stupid and/or spiteful people to make half our new laws and determine swathes of our national policies?

        Even taking just what the Tory leadership said about the Lisbon Treaty, for example what Hague said in the Commons on November 12th 2007:


        “Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that the best time for a referendum is now, so that the British people can have their promised say. If we did not succeed in forcing a referendum in this House, if we failed to win in another place, if all other EU member states implemented the treaty and if an election were held later in this Parliament – that is a lot of ifs – we would have a new treaty in force that lacked democratic legitimacy in this country and in our view gave the EU too much power over our national policies. That would not be acceptable to a Conservative Government and we would not let matters rest there; the right hon. Gentleman can be assured of that.”

        So if Cameron thought then that the Lisbon Treaty “gave the EU too much power over our national policies”, why has it now become acceptable for a stupid and/spiteful EU to have that excessive control?

        • Jerry
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

          @Denis Cooper; They might well be “stupid or spiteful or both” in your own and perhaps many others opinion but just as the UK has other markets from which we can buy (and sell) they also have other markets to whom they can sell (and buy) – are BMW’s not also popular in those BRIC nations, for example? It will be very foolish for the Brexit side to take anything for granted, just as it is for the BSE side.

          • miami.mode
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 11:50 pm | Permalink


            I think you’ll find that currently the B and R have financial problems which will preclude them from buying a lot of BMWs.

      • hefner
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

        “The UK economy will be 10% more competitive than it is now”, theoretically yes, but as pointed out by Anonymous below, most (70%) of what could be exported are services, and these are the rather “easier” bits of activities, which could be handled by other EU countries. I would think that people at Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Santander, BNP, … could find people on the continent to replace what will not be done anymore in the City.

        And don’t dream on, there are continental people right now doing exactly that. It is fine and dandy on this blog to congratulate each other day after day on how clever we all are, on how “stupid” the other side is, but it might be useful to think that it is not only a question between two groups of British people. There are also other people elsewhere preparing contingency plans (and that whatever the outcome of 23/06).

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

          But not in Whitehall, we have been told. Wilson had contingency plans prepared in case he failed to dupe the British people to vote to stay in the EEC – they are in the National Archives – but Cameron is so confident that he can play us for mugs that he hasn’t bothered.

          • Jerry
            Posted March 7, 2016 at 6:13 am | Permalink

            @Denis Cooper; So we are told, do you really believe everything the government or civil service say?! Wasn’t that one of the reasons such (low level) Whitehall papers were kept under lock and key for at least 30 years after the event, to protect those who might have been ‘economical with the truth’?…

      • Mockbeggar
        Posted March 7, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink

        When the EU decides to impose a 10% import tariff on British exports following Brexit, they cannot possibly imagine that we would have the cheek to impose a similar tariff on their exports, can they?

      • Andy
        Posted March 7, 2016 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

        The upside of Brexit would be less BMW’s, Merc’s and VW’s on the roads. Sure the Germans will love the 10% Tariff.

  3. Jerry
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 5:53 am | Permalink

    Many might argue that the imbalance shown in the first map is due to the imbalance shown in the second map, that the UK is far to reliant on finance and such service sectors centred in and around London. At one time both Scotland and N.Ireland were industrial power houses, as was Wales and the North of England – and not so many years ago, certainly within living memory.

    • Anonymous
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:22 am | Permalink

      Jerry – And those industrial power houses are no longer so by decisions to sell-off and outsource made by the finance sectors.

  4. Mark B
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    WHAT !!!!!!

    How much am I contributing to this lot without an equivalent say ?

    This is only the tip of the iceberg. Our kind host has not included the fact that they also receive additional government and EU grants. And remember, the EU grants are in fact UK grants twice over as we are a NET contributor.

    What also must be taken into account is the number of Public Sector jobs the UK Government employs in all Scotland, Wales and Ulster.

    And another thing. Scotland’s biggest trading partner is England. So we pay for Scottish industry (what’s left) as well.

    To hell with the EU referendum, when does England get its referendum from the UK ? I want OUT and OUT again !

    • bluedog
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 9:12 am | Permalink

      Silly, silly. Scotland is essential to the defence of the island of Britain. Without Scotland under the same political control as England, the defence of England as the hegemonic power within the British Isles is threatened. Northern Ireland ensures control of the straits between the island of Britain and the island of Ireland. Did they teach you any history at school? If so you have completely misunderstood the reasons for putting the UK together.

      • mickc
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 11:04 am | Permalink

        Who is it you believe will represent a military threat to England, or indeed the UK? And for what reasons?

        • bluedog
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

          Currently there is no obvious threat, excepting the possibility of a provocative Russian lodgement on a remote isle. If Scotland were to leave the UK that threat would be dramatically amplified and the Shetlands could be at risk.

          If Britain leaves the EU, which is rapidly moving towards the formation of its own defence forces, other possibilities beckon. What if the EU demands that Ireland provide EU forces with a naval base? What is the EU demands that its navy use the old fleet anchorage at Scapa Flow, even with Britain still in the EU?

      • Mark B
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

        No need to be rude.

        If they taught you any history then you would have known that most of the problems England has faced have either come from Scotland, Ireland, France, the Vatican, Spain or a combination of.

        The defence of the UK in the last century has come through membership of NATO. I would imagine that an independent Scotland would also seek to be a member, as they would seek to be a member of the EU. So I do not see an independant Scotland as either being a threat too the UK or, the loss of which somehow compromising our security.

        I also seem to remember that we had to send a warship all the from England, not Scotland, too the North Sea to monitor a Russian Warship passing through. Our problems are home grown as we are spending, as I am sure you can see from the graphs, on countries that are taking more than they contribute.

        I am all for sharing and helping, but when I am denied a say in how my country, England is run, I entitled to question whether or not this so called Union is a partnership of equals. Equals not in economic terms but in basic rights.

        Oh and you do know that our oldest enemy is France and that Scotland oldest ally is also, wait for it – France !

        • bluedog
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

          By way of repetition, your thoughts run counter to everything that our blog host has done and achieved recently. It was John Redwood who tirelessly, calmly and patiently put the arguments for retaining Scotland within the UK. It was he who devised and negotiated EVEL so that you do have a say in how your country is run. Now we see John providing extraordinary intellectual leadership in the the campaign to prise the UK out of the EU. What you and those of a similar little Englander mind-set are saying is a massive distraction to the task at hand. Success comes through ruthless focus, not whinging on the fringes of the debate.

        • David Fraser
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

          You seem to have forgotten about the small matter of The Reformation. Since 1560 Scotland’s official religion has been Presbyterian. There has been no affiliation with The Vatican. Scotland’s alliance with France ended at around this time as well.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

        Absolutely correct, and given the unpredictability of the future there is no need for you to answer the question posed by mickc.

    • Stephen Berry
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

      Mark, we have to be careful where this argument leads. Just as different regions contribute more to the state as they become economically relatively more successful, so do individuals as they become wealthier. Although I am a keen supporter of someone paying minimal tax and generally managing their own affairs, I don’t think this position should be used to divide people.

      At different points in British history different regions have been economic leaders. Now it’s London and the south-east which lead. In the 19th century the industrial revolution saw northern England, south Wales, Glasgow and Belfast advance dramatically. What would have happened if these regions had clubbed together in order to be free of ‘those sponging Southerners’?

      In many countries, the last 50 years has seen a decline in heavy industries. The Ruhr used to be the powerhouse of the German economy. Today it is a shadow of its former self and Bavaria is the German economic equivalent of London and the south-east. But people in the Ruhr did not suddenly become loafers and Bavarians decide to emulate Steve Jobs.

      Economic leadership often switches within a country and indeed, between countries. Not all the reasons for this are well understood. In the words of an old song:

      The slow one now
      Will later be fast
      As the present now
      Will later be past
      The order is
      Rapidly fadin’
      And the first one now
      Will later be last
      For the times they are a-changin’.

  5. David Price
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    But how much of London’s “output” is actually dependent on the rest of the country?

    One of the arguments during the Scottish referendum was that their financial centre depended on the rest of the UK for 80% of it’s business. Admittedly there will be an international business component but London’s financial services economic output must also arise from money flows from other parts of the country, eg investment, banking and pensions.

    Charging a fee on funds as they pass through is hardly economic output, it is a tax. I would be more interest in what the second map looks like if science, technology, manufaturing and engineering output where the criterion.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:26 am | Permalink

      Much of London’s output is dependent on wealth invested overseas, wealthy individuals from overseas investing in London and wealthy nondoms living in London. Osborne foolishly seems determined to slowly kill all this with his absurdly high stamp duties, taxes on landlords and tenants, the lower thresholds higher rates of income tax, his dividend tax and his inheritance tax ratting (which over taxes mainly London and the South East).

      Still at least the dope has backed away from his further pension muggings that were being planned. Even thought this speculation has done much harm already, destroying confidence in the pension regime even further.

      Why should someone living in a tiny flat in London and with a disposable income after housing, comuting and tax have say £150 per week to spend in London yet be paying perhaps £40K in Tax and NI to the government while someone up North might have the same disposable income yet only be paying £1oK in Tax and NI.
      Or someone in subsidised housing perhaps paying almost nothing in tax for this disposable income.

      There should of course not be a job destroying minimum wage at all. It is an infringement on freedom and damages the market, but clearly if there is one it needs to be varied over the country. This as there is such a variation in housing and other costs. Osborne’s plans to raise it are as misguided as nearly everything else he does. Just cut out the endless government waste man! Nor should there be standard national pay levels.

      • Horatio
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:26 am | Permalink

        As someone who, until very recently, was renting in london, I completely agree. To rent a room in a shared house in zone 2 is £750+ pcm in unfashionable areas and more closer in. A Z3 room in shared house is still £600+ pcm. A monthly travelcard is £146 for z3. I was in the 40%band watching many of my staff in subsidised housing pay half my monthly rent for their own whole flat! I should point out that presently many of my staff who qualify for subsidised housing, are furious with all the immigration as there is a massive shortage of properties; look after your own first perhaps?

        As for Scotland, it is all clearly outrageous. All the English money flowing north of the border: English shipyards closed so that Scots yards could survive, free prescriptions, elderly care and universities paid for with English taxes. Another example of CMDs negotiating skills. They could have avoided the bs, insanely costly pledge by allowing Scots in England to vote.

        One day soon, perhaps if the Scots keep us in the EUSSR, the patience of the English might snap.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:47 am | Permalink

          Subsidised housing for some is clearly grossly unfair to others. It is also hugely unfair competition for unsubsidised landlords, the ones Osborne keeps immorally mugging at every turn. What has he got against private sector tenants.

        • JoosB
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

          What is very clear is that Cameron, and most Tory MPs, couldn’t give a toss about England without whom they wouldn’t exist.

        • Qubus
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

          Don’t forget, it is only Scottish and European university students who pay no fees in Scotland, the English have to cough-up the lot.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

            Indeed, perhaps after exit we can return to low fees (and loans) for UK students and market rates for everyone else in the World (EU or otherwise).

            That way our taxes will be be going to provide loans to people often rather unlikely to repay.

        • John C.
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

          I’m quite interested to know whether the results of the June referendum will be announced by region or country or just as 2 numbers, those for Remain, and those for Leave.
          Does anyone know?
          It could actually be very significant. If, for example, the vote of Scotland swung the issue one way or the other, I suspect the English would be, to say the least, somewhat peeved.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

            Indeed you are right. Should the scots who want independence vote for leave as they will get a second chance or will the fact that the Scots voted for Brexit too mitigate against that?

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted March 7, 2016 at 8:44 am | Permalink

            Well, according to Schedule 3 of the referendum Act:


            there will be a Chief Counting Officer and beneath her Regional Counting Officers and beneath them counting officers for local authority areas, so presumably the results will be declared for each local area, then aggregated for each of the EU Regions, then added up for the whole UK.

      • Anonymous
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

        The minimum wage is designed to counter the wage compression and high living costs caused by the policy of mass immigration …to keep wages competitive !

        It is a contradictory policy.

        It is a desperate attempt to hold off the race to the bottom. The natural consequence of unlimited immigration is that it only stops when our standard of living balances with the low levels of elsewhere.

        When that fall in the standard of living actually shows the politicians find themselves compelled to interfere in the labour market or lose office.

        We are moved inexorably towards socialism.

        Welfare rewarding better than the lowest wages, with open borders is actually very cruel.

        • hefner
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

          Yes, socialism with the FTSE100 top executives in the Politburo?

          • Anonymous
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

            Actually Blairism, Hefner.

            That curious mix of socialist capitalism. Low wages for tax avoiding corporations subsidised by the ordinary taxpayer.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

          China, seen by this government as a potentially excellent source for large volumes of cheap and biddable labour, is about two thirds of the way down from us on per capita GDP, while another potential bulk supplier, India, is even further down. So if unlimited immigration “only stops when our standard of living balances with the low levels of elsewhere” then that will be pretty low.

          • Anonymous
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:53 pm | Permalink


            The national debt reflects the amount of can kicking.

            Sooner or later we are going to have to face reality. At the moment it manifests itself in crowded conditions and high floor space costs in dwellings – though on paper salaries and asset values make people look rich, they can’t raise families.

            In reality their quality of life is going down.

            They call their homes ‘bijou’. I call them cramped and over priced.

            This has all the indications of people getting poorer rather than richer, whatever they tell us.

            As someone has said before. Our standard of living has more to do with miniaturisation and good engineering than it does with policy. Imagine how squat a 300k flat in Croydon would be without a flat TV !

        • Lifelogic
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

          Indeed and the higher wages will will just attract more migrants, unless we leave and instigate some quality controls and limits. Cameron’s joke changes to benefits are virtually worthless as a deterrent to migrants, as he must well know. Not even a transparent fig leave.

          • John C.
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

            A “fig leave” would actually be quite a good name.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

            How do I stop this thing from guessing (totally wrongly) what I am trying to type?

          • stred
            Posted March 8, 2016 at 6:52 am | Permalink

            Put Chrome grammar and spell on it.

  6. The Active Citizen
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    JR, it being a Sunday, the Editorial Board (self, dog, cat, wife) of the Cameronish-English Dictionary has just met. The Board approved the following additions to the Official Version first published here in recent weeks.

    The Official Cameronish-English Dictionary – Addendum 1

    “Leap in the dark” – A dangerous manoeuvre. Named after Eton initiation rite which followed lights out in the dorm.
    “A reformed EU” – Children’s fable. No longer quoted.
    “Child Benefit” – Part of British international aid, predominently given to Poland.
    “Patriotic” – Having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for the EU.
    “Europe” – Region where British people take holidays, enjoy good relations, and from which expensive German cars and Mediterranean wines are bought. Not to be confused with ‘European Union’, where failed British politicians take extended holiday jobs, enjoy very good pensions, and are driven around in expensive German limos whilst consuming fine Mediterranean wines.
    “An IDS” – A politician earmarked for Inevitable Definite Sacking.
    “European Arrest Warrant” – Legal procedure enabling British citizens to be sent to corruption-free countries in Eastern and Southern Europe.
    “To Gove” – Transitive verb, concatenation of ‘to go’ and ‘to leave’, used to imply departure with treacherous intent.
    “European leaders” – Prime ministers and presidents of EU countries, temporarily seconded to the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign.
    “Business Leaders” – Directors earning over £150,000 p.a. whose companies employ at least 500 workers on minimum wage.
    “CBI” – Acronym for ‘Confederation for Booming Immigration’. Corporate lobby group for Eastern European workers.
    “A Merkel” – Colloquial term for immigration policy specialist.
    “Francois Hollande” – Honorary British patriot.
    “Stronger, Safer, Better Off” – Phrase using English words originally meaning stronger, safer, and better off.

    It is hoped the additions will assist students of new speeches by the PM. (New readers may request free copies of the complete work.)

    • Jerry
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:25 am | Permalink

      @TAC; I’m sure that the BSE camp could compile a similar, rather silly, list – although they might have more difficulty with the title, as the Brexit camp seem to have more ‘leaders’ and/or figure-heads than troops, never mind that many of the campaigning cats, dogs and horses (simply along for the exercise) often have a more coherent me-ow… sorry, argument than their owners do!

      • Anonymous
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:34 am | Permalink

        Jerry – So there are people from different camps coming to the same conclusion: that the EU is a bad thing.

        Why do you mock this ? It is, in fact, a strength of Brexit that it has such a diverse fan base.

        Why do you suggest that there should be cohesiveness ? It is part of the con that the referendum has been dressed up as a presidential election when it is nothing of the sort.

        “The Out Party is in disarray. It can’t even agree with itself. It is in meltdown.”

        Is what the Ins oft say.

        It’s a cunning tactic – but the public need to be reminded that this is not a party political issue and that the Ins are wrong for having actually formed a de-facto party with figurehead etc.

        • Jerry
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

          @Anonymous; Ever heard an orchestra whilst it tunes up, if anyone mistakes it for the main event they get up and leave, walk out, on the other hand a well conducted orchestra is likely to impress even those who have no real interest in classical music.

          Indeed, as I said to our host only the other day, this is a non party political issue, so all the more reason to play off the same music sheet and not sound like an orchestra that is tuning up!

          • John C.
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

            I’m not sure I agree. Some people will vote to Leave for one reason, some another. Some may be particularly swayed by one prominent Outer, some by quite a different one.
            It wouldn’t matter, because the ticks would all go in the same box. It is perhaps an advantage that there is a wide range of Leave arguments, from the economic to the patriotic. We see the Inners gradually coalescing around project Fear, the fear of the unknown, which strikes me as a two-edged sword.

          • Anonymous
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:10 pm | Permalink


            Nor are they meant to be anything like an orchestra.

            To whose advantage is it to reduce the contest to only two opposing factions ? Why. The Ins’ of course.

            The sooner the people realise that there is, in fact one group, opposed by many the better. I am rather reminded of how the Roman Catholic church coined the word Protestant which gave the impression that there was only one side against them when in fact there were many.

            It’s very clever, but I’m on to it.

          • Jerry
            Posted March 7, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

            @Anonymous; “To whose advantage is it to reduce the contest to only two opposing factions?”

            Err, but this is a contest of only two opposing factions, there will be no “third way”, no third option on the ballot paper!

            The only people who are helping the BSE side are those wishing to create Brexit “factions” that keeps arguing between themselves over what music sheet they should all be playing off.

          • Anonymous
            Posted March 7, 2016 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

            Jerry @1.47

            What are you talking about ???

            There are many reasons to leave the EU and not all leavers will agree with the same ones, however they will all have their own validity.

            This is something which should strengthen the likelihood of coming out, not weaken it. But the BSEs want to make an issue of the Outs not being unified, rather than making a good case for staying in.

            So far so effective but it should be rebutted at every turn – as I do now.

            etc ed

          • Jerry
            Posted March 8, 2016 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

            @Anonymous; “What are you talking about ???”

            I might ask the same of you, there are also many reason to stay in the EU so the BSE group claim, that has not stopped them from campaigning with (in the main) one voice, thus your point is what?

            Far to much of the Brexit campaign seem to be at the moment centred around inter-party rivalry and personalties, I have already had people tell me that they intend to vote to stay in because they don’t trust Mr Farage, don’t think much of Boris, or the Eurosceptic in the Tory party say one thing but UKIP say another, and then the Eurosceptic’s in the Labour Leave group say something that contradicts both and thus confuses still further…

            I suspect the problem is this, whilst the BSE group know that there is no point in such inter-party or policy rivalry as the political power will reside with the eurocrats in Brussels should the UK stay in, for the Brexit ‘factions’ there is much to gain or loose, not helped by UKIP having to effectively also carve a new reason for its existence post the UK re-gaining its Independence – or indeed not.

      • The Active Citizen
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

        Jerry, sorry you find the dictionary silly. The issue is so serious that we need to laugh occasionally or we’d all go mad. As you may have noticed, most of my posts are serious and show facts and figures derived from hours researching the original source data from official bodies.

        There is in fact a serious point behind the dictionary. I despair at the reinvention of the English language by this PM. It’s all part of a concept I call ‘fluid reality’ – the idea that one can abuse the language to such an extent that meaning only exists as a range in some amorphous grey area between right and wrong.

        JR will forgive me for saying that politicians have always used language to suit their own purposes. The problem is that the PM has driven this to new lows, far below what is even remotely acceptable in a civilised society.

        It demeans rational debate and the pursuit of truth, and it diminishes us.

        • Mark B
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

          Good post.

          Yes, it’s all very, Humpty Dumpty isn’t it.

        • John C.
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

          Well, it diminishes him.
          Anyway,I think you’re being too academic. Most people don’t analyse arguments, much less language. They tend to have an instinctive like or dislike, based on an almost subconscious sense of whether the politician is “their sort of chap/woman” and is basically competent or reliable. This is the only possible explanation of Boris’s popularity.
          Cameronspeak, such as you satirize, is basically the empty waffle that politicians have to indulge in to fill the half-hour or whatever they are allotted. You have to be a Gladstone to talk for longer and still make valid and meaningful points. And Cameron is no Gladstone.

          • Jerry
            Posted March 7, 2016 at 6:25 am | Permalink

            @TAC; @Mark B; @Jophn C; et al; Yes and of course if Cameron was fighting the Brexit battle and using the same sort of media-spin language all you lot would be shouting his praise from the roof tops, not trying to make him look like an bumbling idiot.

            What is more you seem to think that the ordinary person in the street, the non politico activist, don’t not see thought your own silly spin never mind his.

    • agricola
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:29 am | Permalink

      Cameron, ad nauseum, refers to a “Reformed European Union”, perhaps our host could elicit an explanation at PMQs. On second thoughts it is possibly a better one for Jacob Rees-Mogg to pose, as he is good at producing the right level of cynicism.

      Is it a desire for reform, or perhaps a prayer for reform. In what form does he hope or anticipate the reformation will manifest itself. Is it just a Cameron sound bite phrase which he feels, if repeated enough, will become a reality in the minds of those who constantly hear it. In a self deluded way perhaps in his own mind.

      Clarification would be of great assistance in the run up to 23rd June as I would not wish the expectations of the UK electorate to be disappointed after the referendum.

      • DaveM
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

        I’ve said here before, this is Cameron’s get out clause.

        If he senses the Leave side is certain to win a couple of weeks before the referendum, he can say:

        ” I wanted the UK to stay in a reformed EU. It is now clear that it hasn’t reformed and is not likely to do so therefore I am now backing Leave.”

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

          He could have done that at that press conference after the EU summit, but he didn’t, and now it’s far too late to do it.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

        Cameron also has the silly phrase “no Brexit, open door migration” so that will just be the standard open door migration then – to the entire and expanding EU!

        • Lifelogic
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

          Or perhaps it was “no Brexit open door immigration” even. It is still open door.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

        Ad nauseam, please Sir

      • graham1946
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

        That question has been asked, by Boris, but only flannel coming from Cameron – he seems to believe it himself. You cannot debate with zealots.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

      Love it! Would make a great book.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      Made me laugh, before I started weeping …

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 9:08 pm | Permalink


  7. Mike Stallard
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    However much we give Scotland, it will never be enough will it.
    It is easy to tell the difference between a sunbeam and a Scotsman with a grievance.

  8. eeyore
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    What’s the source of these maps and the information they contain?

    When will the English twig that by voting Leave they have a second chance of dumping Scotland? Second chances happen rarely in life.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 11:03 am | Permalink

      Indeed and the Scots voting to leave too might also help them get a second change to leave.

      If the remain side vote to leave they will certainly get a better deal offered too. If we vote remain we certainly will not get a better deal.

      No one should vote to stay unless they just hate the UK. We could always rejoin if we were ever stupid enough to want to. We will surely never get another change to escape without much violence if we vote to remain.

      Marr was dreadful today (even by his low standards) this morning. A pathetically wet interview with Schäuble (the UK will have to accept free movement and pay a fee to trade with the EU – the usual complete and utter drivel) and then endless half witted hectoring and interrupting of Boris Johnson. Who managed a good performance despite Marr.

      The man is both daft and hugely biased in usual BBC/Guardian/dim right/greencrap/public school/dimish art graduate manner.

      By his own admission he was (words left out ed) lefty at university. Unlike say Peter Hitchins, he still has not grown up or get any wiser even now, at 56.

      • JoolsB
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

        Yes, even by Marr’s and the BBC’s standards, this morning’s interview with Boris was a disgrace. I have already written to the BBC to complain about his biased, constantly interrupting interview. I would encourage others to do the same. Just log onto ‘complaints to the BBC’ and let them know what you think of this lefty, biased, pro-Europe, past it, overpaid, BBC employee.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

          Was he ever not past it?

      • graham1946
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

        I’m pretty sure Cameron could get more money outside of politics just like Blair, if that’s what he wants, but he comes from money so perhaps it doesn’t mean as much to him. Recent PM’s have all more or less come from little or nothing, and ended up on millionaire’s row just by doing their jobs. Nice work if you can get it. My old dad always warned me not to do anything useful to society as that would never make a man rich, whereas windbagging would. Still holds true today, even after 50 years. Very few like Dyson or Branson about, but plenty of rich talkers. I just never possessed the necessary skills to do it.

    • hefner
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

      All data are from Office of National Statistics http://www.ons.gov..uk

      Particularly relevant, I would think, is the document
      “Regional Gross Value Added (Income approach)” from December 2014.

    • Anonymous
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

      The Scots have had their referendum and the result was to remain unified whatever.

      We leave the EU as one.

      There will be no second referendum if the vote is Remain. And Nicola Sturgeon would be first to deny us it. So she can lump it.

      (Why the Scots would prefer to be ruled BY Brussels than FROM London indicates only one thing.)

  9. DaveM
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    There is a desperate political will from within Westminster to keep the UK together, to the extent that they are prepared to give the SNP pretty much anything it wants. I don’t understand quite what leverage the Scottish Govt has in order to win its demands.

    At the minute, clearly the PM is engaged in Project Fear with regards to the EU (as the leader of the Remain campaign). It would be interesting to do a hypothetical exercise.

    Let’s pretend the English are to be given a referendum on “keeping” or “ditching” Scotland as a partner and that the Govt wants us to keep it. What reasons would they give us for voting to keep Scotland?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

      If you’re making your stand on a ridge in Belgium with Napoleon’s army across the valley, would you rather have the Scottish soldiers on your side or on his?

      • DaveM
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

        I currently work with several Scottish servicemen and clearly I’d rather they were on my side. And in fact as far as an EU or Scottish referendum are concerned, they’re all pro-UK anti-EU.

        However, in view of the fact that the current Govt thinks that national defence consists of listening to phone calls and reading emails, I doubt they’d put defence forward as a reason for us keeping Scotland in the UK.

      • John C.
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

        I’m sure Napoleon would have invited them across, only to regret it when they started whingeing.

  10. Antisthenes
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    If we are to have a union then transfer/redistribution of wealth is a price that has to be paid otherwise there is not much point. Apart from which if not done it would cause friction and resentment and the union would soon fall apart. Although it does cause resentment by those doing the giving but that is largely controllable whilst keeping the union is seen as beneficial.

    England is largely a Conservative right of centre country whilst the other countries in the union are not so perhaps a case for dissolution of the union. As England is more economically prudent than the rest so why should it be saddled with propping up the profligate and incompetent which certainly the Welsh and Scottish governments are. No doubt what I have written here could just as easily be said of the EU and why the UK should not be in a far larger Union. Where not only is England propping up it’s own regions she is now propping up foreign countries as well.The UK signed up to a common market to trade in it not to bank roll it.

    Scotland wants independence and knows that it cannot really support itself so like Greece and others it wants to be bank rolled by someone and the EU is conveniently there to do the bank rolling. So we see why they are ardent supporters of that monstrous money gobbling institution in Brussels.We see entitlement writ large we all want the penny and the bun and the SNP and others have found a way to have it.

    • Mark B
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 9:30 am | Permalink

      Scotland can support itself, just like Norway can, Iceland and the Faeroe Islands. What it cannot so easily do is live the life that it is currently living. ie Free NHS prescriptions, higher education and better funded services.

      That is why the SNP would willingly jump into bed with the EU if it ever left. It needs someone to fund its largess. If no one is going to fund it, the SNP is as doomed as the Tory’s and now Labour.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

        Conversely, if the UK had already left the EU, or it was well on its way out, then fewer Scots would be duped into voting for “independence in Europe” on the false claim that Scotland would automatically remain in the EU and would continue to benefit from the UK’s opt-outs on the euro, Schengen etc.

        • Mark B
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

          All the more reason to leave.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted March 6, 2016 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

            I have yet to see any sensible reason not to leave.

  11. Antisthenes
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    If the English had their own parliament the UK government could not be so free and easy with England’s money. In fact England could in one fell swoop secede from the UK and the EU and be very much richer for it. What the rest do would be up them. No doubt opt to stay in the EU demanding handouts

    • Horatio
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:29 am | Permalink

      Would love to see an independent Scotland apply to join the EU and be told joining the euro is a condition of entry. As well as a large migrant quota.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

        Once the UK was out of the EU Scotland would unquestionably have to apply through the usual Article 49 TEU, there would clearly be no possibility of it being fast-tracked in as a new member state through Article 48 TEU.

  12. JoeSoap
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    This is an uncertain game.
    It would be interesting to see the effect of the bail-out of banks (financial services) by loading the indigenous population with more debt over the past 8 years. Would you call this a London-centric bail-out (because that is where the dastardly deed was done) or largely a Scottish bail-out (the home to RBS and Brown/Darling)?

  13. alan jutson
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    As I have said many times, graphics are so much easier to understand and so much more powerful with a far greater impact than words..

    After all this, we let the SNP treat US with contempt

    So those living in London and the Southeast have higher living costs to pay out of taxed/earned income, but get supported less when it comes to public expenditure.

    All I can say is well done the Scots, clearly their negotiation skills and the way they used action to back up words (their referendum) clearly shows you can get a better deal when you are up against a weak and poor.negotiating team.

    Next they will be trying to fix the UK referendum with even more demands.

    Time to perhaps suggest they can go on their own, if we vote out. Oh and do not forget their share of the National debt.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

      Cameron is great at making the SNP look good. Sturgeon needs no other help. Don’t worry, she will find a reason whatever it is to have another referendum when the time is right. God help us all.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

        Dear fedup–She will do no such thing for she knows she will lose. Another referendum will be the last, so she will wait for an eternity for some big issue (which never comes) to give her or her successors a cause (as she and they would try to play it) for independence. Don’t confuse the justifiable contempt that the Scots have for the Tories and Labour with a majority for UK break up. There is and will be no such thing.

  14. agricola
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Thank you for the maps/ charts. They are a good illustration of how a currency union works. It would be fascinating to see similar ones for the EU and Euro zone. An addition of an EU chart showing the per capita spread of wealth would be informative. Such could also indicate a solution to the Euro dilemma.

    • John C.
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

      I think these sorts of maps can become simplistic and deceiving. Simple income does not take into account the cost of living in any area, and this would apply throughout Europe, where there would be the added complication of currency conversion.
      Another maps showing hours worked should be superimposed, or another one showing net as opposed to gross income, or another one showing income of pensioners or the unemployed.
      A carworker in Stuttgart would seem to be in a different league from a pensioner in Milan; but is their standard and quality of life so different?

  15. Horatio
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    The SNP is just like the EUSSR. It has no respect for CMD and knows it has nothing to worry about from the quislings at Westminster. No mention of previous oil price expectations these days:
    “Analysis in this chapter is based on..oil prices remain(ing) constant at $110 per barrel”-Sec 3.6 ‘Outlook for Scotland’s public finances and the Opportunities for Independence’.

    I have a feeling that regardless of the referendum result the next General election will see the deselection of many of the lying MPs who have pretended for years to be Eurosceptic. I’m thinking principly of people like Hammond here. I also think English conservative constituency associations will also look very kindly on MPs who vow to put England first.

    Would love to see a proper power of recall.

    • Jerry
      Posted March 7, 2016 at 6:39 am | Permalink

      @Horatio; “Would love to see a proper power of recall.”

      Trouble is, as was shown by their activists in the 1970s, the far left can be very much better at using such powers and/or ‘rule book procedures’ as any moderate or the right-wing are. Your dream of having a proper power of recall, should it ever become a reality, might just become all ours worst nightmare…

  16. hefner
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Nice maps. And by the way, welcome to the 21st century, JR. A graph is usually worth much more than its space in text. And more open to any individual’s interpretation.

    Two interesting if not so surprising contributions by Will Hutton (about George Osborne) and Andrew Rawnsley (about whingeing) in today’s Observer (available from the Guardian website).

  17. bluedog
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Only Jerry has got this one right, Dr JR, and frankly, this is not a group of charts this writer would have published at this precise juncture. The battle at hand is the UK leaving the EU, but the little Englanders are out in force talking about breaking up the UK. Not helpful, in fact completely counter productive to everything that Dr JR has done in the past twelve months.

    On a positive note, did we scrutinise the guest list at the Murdoch nuptials and draw the right conclusion? Cameron should be very afraid, it seems his media support will be the BBC, not much else.

    • Mark B
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

      . . . . but the little Englanders are out in force talking about breaking up the UK.

      What utter rubbish !!!

      I will leave our kind host to explain the reasons, if he so wishes, as to why he posted this. But if have been reading this blog / diary the past few weeks you will have known that our kind host has posted many excellent items about the EU and the forthcoming referendum.

      I assume has chosen to talk about this because it is information that has come to light and that he wishes his readers to be made aware of it and comment. I would also assume that it may have something to do with the SNP’s First Ministers comments concerning the referendum and should the UK vote to leave.

      The graphs are a powerful display of England’s contribution to the UK.

      As to you quite frankly bigoted comment about; “Little Englander’s”, would you say the same about the Scots or those that wish to leave the EU ? Your language belongs to the Europhile camp.

      I do not want the UK broken up as I am sure others here will testify. What I want is fairness for England and the English. If that cannot be, then it is time to consider the alternatives. We will not get what we want from the EU and that is why many I hope will vote to leave that place on the rd June .

      Reply I wish to talk about some other matters as well as the referendum over the next couple of months. This is topical because there has just been a new big financial settlement for Scotland.

      • graham1946
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

        Correct, JR. We need to change things every now and then, the world keeps turning and there is more than one topic of conversation, although the government would probably like to keep it going to take attention away from the forthcoming budget and the parlous state of our finances after 6 years of the Cameron/Osbourne duo. There is already voter fatigue over this matter, just a couple of weeks in. It needs a rest

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

      Swings and roundabouts, which will move differently across different parts of the UK, but on balance I agree this is a tactical error even if it will have little impact.

  18. Pericles Xanthippou
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    It would be interesting to see a similar map reflecting the amount that ought to be levied upon Germany for distribution to Greece, Italy, the Balkan and eastern European countries, France and Britain to compensate for the ‘migrant’ disaster for which she is responsible!


  19. Iain Gill
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    The financial services one kinda misses the fact that the large financial institutions were bailed out to such a massive extent. It also misses out the large ways that the economy has been manipulated in their favour and against other sectors. So your very diagram reinforces the disgust everyone has at the special treatment dished out to financial services.

    Put a map up of regions taking the most deaths of soldiers in recent conflicts.

    Put a map up of regions taking the most asylum seekers.

    Put a map up of regions with the worst cancer survival figures due to rubbish healthcare.

    The underlying problem is far to much of this is all state manipulated, those sectors and regions doing best are simply because our leaders have manipulated the economy that way, far too little power in the hands of individual citizens, and far too little influence of the real free market economy as layers and layers of state interference tilt the outcomes.

    • John C.
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

      I’m inclined to agree with you: such maps show distortion in more than one sense. So much of London’s apparent business come simply from having the vast majority of head offices; the work, the production and the business is elsewhere; the sums are done in London.
      Does anyone know the cost of housing benefits paid in London compared with rest of the U.K.? It would be an interesting figure which would surely redress the balance of Powerhouse London somewhat.

  20. acorn
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    The three regions you highlight JR have risen from an ancestry that coined their own money for trade. Some now call it the original coin zone. The original, circa thirteen, Celtic Tribes of the first century AD. They invented the Foreign Exchange market. The modern financial centre of the planet, now centred on London; is the natural progression of these tribes that invented “credit”. And possibly the “credit default swap based on synthetic collateralised debt obligations of equity tranches”.

  21. Bert Young
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    During the Scottish referendum campaign The Chairman of Standard Life made it clear that he would transfer his HQ to London if the Scots obtained independence . His warning was made because he feared that the regulatory procedures necessary to retain the integrity of its business would be impaired . At the same time the troubled RBS made a similar statement .Scotland is not able to maintain a respected regulatory authority because it does not have the financial and political whack to satisfy and protect investors and customers .

    The maps that John has produced enforce the differences that do exist in the balance of the economy and emphasise the extent that Scotland is not able to maintain a standard of support to its community without English support . The arrogance that is spouted by the SNP is therefore made all the more ludicrous . Even when the price of oil was more competitive ( and I dispute Scotland’s right to claim ownership ) it was unable to balance its books ; today the gap is a glaring one and emphasises why the SNP should play a more careful line . Were it not for the defence issue , Scotland ought to be kicked out of the Union .

    There is no doubt that English voters and taxpayers need protection and an independent voice in the matters affecting them ; they should not be exposed the way they are to Scottish Nationalist opinions . The moves that have been taken so far do not go far enough ; a much more tougher stance ought to be in place .

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      Agree totally with your post Bert. What Cameron forgets is that by giving the SNP whatever they want he is only making them look like a credible option and party. This will eventually lead to voters voting for independence thinking it is a land of milk and honey when it is propped up by England all the time. Most of the Scots think Sturgeon and her cohorts are managing to deliver everything free like prescriptions, eye test, dental tests, university etc because they are wonderful and not because they get spoilt rotten by the English. This is a very dangerous game and one which most Scots are sick of. Making Sturgeon look good does not sit good with many of us.

      • Mark B
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

        Yes. But it keeps Labour out of Scotland. And since the SNP do not canvass votes elsewhere and, the Tory’s all but dead up there its a bit of a win-win

        • fedupsoutherner
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

          That depends on how much the Scots cost England eventually. Don’t forget the hostility shown to English in Scotland now because the SNP have created a hate culture towards the English. Don’t tell me it doesn’t exist. It does!

        • bluedog
          Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

          The Conservatives could easily re-emerge as the most powerful opposition to the SNP within Scotland. 54% of Scots voted against leaving the UK and that is a position supported by the Conservatives. The party was formerly called the Conservative and Unionist party. In the view of this writer, the Scottish franchise of the Conservative Party should be rebranded as the Unionist Party, thus restoring its original raison d’être in clear.

  22. agricola
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    The appalling interview by Marr this morning of Boris Johnson was an all too typical BBC attempt to stifle information it did not wish to be heard. All Marr did was constantly interrupt, mostly with incoherent asides, for the express purpose of preventing a reasoned argument. Marr showed himself to be a self interested producer of white noise, fog on the field of play.

    • Iain Moore
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:41 am | Permalink

      It was an appalling interview. Marr seemed to think his role was to ensure no argument was made for Brexit.

      • bluedog
        Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

        The BBC is a political movement with its own agenda which includes unflinching support for the EU and all its works.

  23. Mick
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    Just been watching the Marr show on bias BBC interviewing Boris Johnson and the amount of times marr interrupted Boris so he couldn’t give his say, I think it’s about time that anybody on the out campaign are being interviewed by any eu bias media that the gloves should come off and the outers just ignore the interviewer and talk over them and to hell with etiquette because we are only going to get one go at it so go for it at all costs

  24. Man of Kent
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    In conversation with an Irish diplomat I asked if Ulster were offered to Ireland what their reaction would be

    The answer was ‘ no – we could not afford it – public services are all manned 110% – grants for public works are excessive – and so on ‘

    Map 1 shows who is paying for all this.

    Ireland in the euro and with its own problems could not cope with all the extra expenditure

    • Man of Kent
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:39 am | Permalink

      Oh I have just noticed ,apparently Ulster does not contribute anything to GDP .

      Is this correct or are the figures depressed/suppressed ?

  25. oldtimer
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    OT: Just watched the Marr programme, where a visibly irritated Marr constantly interrupted Boris Johnson as he argued the case for Brexit. One of BJ’s most compelling points about the EU’s Single market is that it is a single judicial system controlled by Brussels; this is in contrast to other single market arrangements around the world such as NAFTA and ASEAN and others where national sovereignty is maintained by the member countries.

    Between the many interruptions to his answers, BJ made the points that the outcome of Cameron’s recent negotiations clearly revealed that the EU was not open to reform, that the EU remained fully committed to the further centralisation of control set out in the Five President’s report and that it was impossible to recover lost sovereignty from the EU judicial framework under the 1972 Act. He also reminded Marr that Cameron himself said prior to the negotiations that the UK would get on perfectly well outside the EU if they resulted in no agreement.

    Earlier Marr interviewed Lord King who made the point about the arithmetic of the imbalances and tensions of the EZ and the politcal trajectory of the European project. I concluded he does not see it ending well.

    He also interviewed Schauble who said that he hoped to avoid the “catastrophe” of Brexit; he was speaking, of course as the German Finance Minister. Clearly he wants continued UK contributions to the EU budget and access for German products to the UK market.

    These contributions added weight to Boris Johnson’s case for Brexit. It is obvious, as never before, that Marr is incapable of a neutral stance when conducting these interviews or of permitting an answer to be completed, to the point of rudeness, if it does not accord with his opinion. His final, desparate ploy was to claim that BJ’s stance was driven by political ambition not by consideration of the issue at stake.

    • Qubus
      Posted March 7, 2016 at 9:52 am | Permalink

      There is only one good interviewer on the BBC and that is Andrew Neil.

  26. Iain Moore
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Lord Forsyth in the House of Lords debate said the Government had stuffed the Scottish mouths with gold, again.

    The Grand Committee vetoes for English laws has singularly failed to protect our interest here.

  27. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    Yes well…the SNP may need to grow its population because the UK won’t supply sufficient funding and taxes might/could drop. That was Mr Hosie

    I know exactly what the growing bit is about…its an import.

  28. ian
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    Nice one.

  29. ChrisS
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    There is not a cat in hell’s chance that Scottish voters will will be stupid enough to opt for independence if the (First Minister ed) calls another referendum.

    They now know only too well that their economy would become a basket case anytime that oil drops below $80 a barrel. They surely realise what a lucky escape they just had by voting to stay in the UK. As if the oil price shock wasn’t enough, there is also the currency issue. Rejoining the EU would mean the Euro and that would be a sufficient disincentive on its own.

    In the financial settlement with Scotland, yet again, Cameron has underestimated the strength of his hand. What a hopeless negotiator he is.

    I don’t therefore think the SNP will dare to call another independence vote if we vote for Brexit. The whole culture of the SNP is built around grievances with England so were they to lose a second vote, all dreams of independence really will be finished for a generation. Take that away and what other reason is there for the party to exist ?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

      She – really meaning the devolved Scottish government and Parliament – has no legal power to call another referendum, and she implicitly acknowledged that when she signed the Edinburgh Agreement so the last one could be held.

  30. NickW
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    It is the people who vote Labour who suffer most from the negative effects of the EU.

    All those super wealthy Europhiles in Politics, Industry and the Media can afford to live in good areas unaffected by immigration. Because they can afford private health care and private schools, they are unaffected by services overloaded by uncontrolled inward migration. Their wages are unaffected by the presence of a vast pool of cheap labour. Plan B for the senior Labour politician is a job in Brussels.

    F— you, I’m alright jack, is the rallying cry of the staunch Europhile.

    I wonder how many Labour voters will agree with them?

  31. gyges01 (@gyges01)
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    But how much wealth is transferred _from_ the regions to London? I work in Middlesbrough … the profits we make don’t stay in Middlesbrough.

  32. The Active Citizen
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    JR, I hope you’ll allow another in my ‘EU summaries’ series. It’s yet one more designed to shed a little light on the murky world of the EU, which the British people are told so little about.

    EU Summaries For Normal People, No. 7 – The Hidden EU Army and Our Security

    1. Who will defend us in an increasingly integrationist EU future? Last year, Jean-Claude Juncker, President of EU Commission said: “The European Union needs its own army…. Such an army would help us design a common foreign and security policy.”

    2. What he didn’t tell you is that the EU Army is already well on its way. The EU has created: the European External Action Service, the EU Institute for Security Studies, the European Defence Agency, the EU Military Committee, the EU Military Staff, the Eurocorps, and the EU Battle Groups. Discretely, the EU has been building everything it needs to run a combined military under the EU flag.

    3. Even the BBC has said: “The European Union has quietly acquired what might be described as a standing army.”

    4. The above is another example where the British people aren’t being told what the EU is doing. Imagine our defence decisions being taken in Brussels. Imagine the defence of the UK in the hands of an Italian or German general. This is the clear and certain direction of travel if we stay in the EU.

    Vote Leave To Keep British Forces Defending the British People.

    [Sources: Official websites of European External Action Service, EU Institute for Security Studies, Eurocorps, European Union Military Committee, EU External Affairs Sub-Committee House of Lords. Also BBC News 2007, Guardian 2015.]

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:56 pm | Permalink


    • bluedog
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

      Imagine EU naval forces dominating Portsmouth, with the EU flag flying from the topmast of HMS Victory.

      We can look forward to EU troops demanding participation in the Trooping of the (EU) Colour.

      It all lies ahead.

    • stred
      Posted March 8, 2016 at 7:19 am | Permalink

      Suggest add French or Spanish generals.

  33. Denis Cooper
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    We should not be so heavily dependent on financial services. Yes, provided they are well regulated they serve a useful purpose and I’m not against people making a living by their skill in getting capital allocated efficiently and helping to control risks, but it’s too large a part of the economy. It’s hardly contributing to that “march of the makers”, is it?

    • bluedog
      Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

      Excellent point. There is indeed an irony in the situation where an industry that spends so much effort on identifying and managing risk becomes a risk factor in itself. The financial services sector is always attractive because the return on capital employed tends to be very high, although where the business is largely transactional, that merely reflects a high level of risk. Given the high returns on capital, almost certainly higher than the returns on, say, motor manufacturing which has become largely commoditised, one can understand the jealousy of the EU when it looks at the City.

  34. Denis Cooper
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Is she not a politician, then?

  35. ChrisS
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    John, can you please answer a question about our next Prime Minister :

    Is Boris a keen supporter of English MPs sitting as a proper English Parliament ?

    Reply No idea what Boris thinks about English Parliament, and it is too early to guess who will replace Mr C.

  36. Jon
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    What concerns me is that the Barnett formulae was just to be a temporary solution and to end. In it Scotland got shed loads more than the rest.

    This financial solution for Scotland is intended to be temporary, 6 years from now it is meant to stop like Barnett was.

    This is ridiculous, we didn’t need give incentives for devolved powers!

  37. ian
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    I wish people would get a grip of themselves, you’ve only got to say hello and it this is going happen that’s going to happen, your like load of kids.
    No men left everybody living in fear because politician, bankers and media.
    You all ready be invaded and continue to be invaded because of few of your own people like ones above and companies, the country is totally broke, they cannot afford Scotland and should able to do what it want, it only the UK because of the crown and the parliament are separated now.
    The only threat you have is your own people wanting to fully in slave you in or out of the EU, take your money with a bail-in and debases your currency, give your jobs to oversea people and try and get they hands on your house, apart from that there is nothing going on and all down to politician, bankers, media and big companies in other words the establishment and the elite.

    They do nor want much just the shirt off your backs, anything else you hear is all rubbish.

  38. ian
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    The whole idea of cutting your wages and interest rates is so you take out loans over reach yourselves so it make it easy to take thing off of you.

  39. Al Wilson
    Posted March 6, 2016 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    Fancy that. In the decades PRECEDING Barnett, it was Scotland’s slower rate of population increase and Chancellor Goschen’s fixed ‘proportions’ which increased Scotland’s public spending per head to 18.07pc above England and Wales by 1951 and to 22.41pc by 1961.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page