England's "boring" budget offers too little for Scotland
Imagine an independent Scotland. The government we elect will control the levers of power and can make decisions that work for the people of Scotland.
Too many years have gone by where Scotland is an afterthought. For example, Chancellor John Healey announced fiscal powers for English Mayors - but no new powers for Holyrood. Holyrood has to wait for England to decide what’s best for it and then throw a few crumbs Scotland’s way - for example a paltry £20 million for two projects in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Too much of Scotland’s funding is determined not on the basis of what Scotland needs but “Barnett Consequentials” of what England decides. Very little thought goes into what Scotland’s distinct circumstances are.
This will not deal with Scotland’s energy poverty gap
Scotland’s rates of energy poverty are almost three times those in England - in part because about a fifth of Scottish households can’t access the gas network and rely on electricity or fuel oil to heat their homes.
So the removal of the gas standing charges and the £100 for households on the lowest council tax bands will do too little to help many Scottish families. People in colder parts of the UK still have to pay more as they use more. So that poverty gap will likely be worsened by this move.
It is unfair that Scots see so little benefit from the fact that the country is such a big producer of renewable energy.
Help on fuel underlines the Grangemouth debacle
There was some help for motorists in terms of reducing tax on petrol and diesel - that is a sore point for Scots. Grangemouth used to produce about 60 per cent of all the petrol and diesel used in Scotland. Now most of that has to be reimported from European traders in a global dollar market - that is pushing prices higher than they would otherwise be. Of course this government chose to step in to save Scunthorpe’s steel plant - but not Scotland’s last refinery.
An independent Scotland would have cheap energy
Under the current UK wholesale electricity market, a single national price is used. That price is frequently set by gas prices, meaning Scottish households and businesses do not benefit
from low-cost local wind generation and currently face high bills and standing charges.
That was acknowledged recently by Octopus Energy when they extended saving sessions to Scottish consumers - they said that actually Scotland rarely has a need to reduce demand because it can easily be met by renewables. It is because we are in a one-UK system that we are so exposed to high gas prices, which often set the cost of electricity.
Scottish families do not benefit at all from the huge amounts of renewable power we export. In fact we pay higher electricity standing charges, 50% higher than London. Many Scottish households face bills that are twice the UK average - the anglocentric system does not help them.
Potential bad news for Scottish renewables hidden in the small print
In his speech, Healey said the UK government will ensure that “we only buy cheap clean power that is ready to connect to the grid.”
That could indicate that most of the 16 offshore projects that were planned via the ScotWind auction will be killed off. That would be awful news for the renewables supply chain and the confidence of the industry in Scotland. It is a consequence of the UK’s decision to refuse to allow lower prices for green energy where it is plentiful, as most other countries do.
That is in itself a consequence of the national grid being fragmented and sold off by governments Scotland didn’t vote for. That meant while other countries invested in national infrastructure, the UK did not and ended up disadvantaging Scotland. It certainly shows - yet again - that the goal of Scotland achieving its renewable energy potential is nowhere near the heart of UK policy.
Defence increased but not in line with Scottish priorities
An independent Scotland would cooperate with the UK on defence - but it would have a seat at the table. As it is a huge and increasing amount of the UK’s defence goes on Trident. Ex-leader of Joint Forces Command General Sir Richard Barrons told the FT last month that the nuclear defence programme was like “a tapeworm”. It is now swallowing so much of the budget that the UK can no longer afford a usable conventional force. And the spending is out of control - the Public Accounts Committee recently found that the MoD could not account for billions of pounds that had been spent on nuclear projects.
Also, its backup communication system was revealed as ineffectual recently, calling into question its usefulness. The UK is far behind on the more modern technology needed for fighting the grey war, for example drones, or boats designed for patrolling the sub-Arctic backyard where Scotland sits.
Scotland, of course, has no say over the UK’s defence policy while it remains in the Union. But if it were an independent country cooperating with its neighbours over defence, the Scottish government very much would have a say and a seat at the table.
Conclusion
This is another Anglocentric budget which mentions Scotland a couple of times and throws a few crumbs while subtly continuing to take from Scotland’s resources. Why should Scotland’s households and businesses pay amongst the highest energy costs in the world? We would not do so as an independent country.
An independent Scotland could deploy its energy wealth directly for its citizens, set infrastructure priorities, and sit at the table on defence as an equal partner. This Budget is yet another reminder that security and fairness will not come from gratefully accepting Westminster’s afterthoughts, but from taking control of Scotland’s future.