BBC Scotland yesterday, trying desperately to distract from the main issue by getting FM John Swinney in bother with this:
Will Swinney face a Holyrood probe?
Let’s not be distracted. Here are the facts again:
He says the triple lock on the state pension will go by 2030, ‘to help pay for a new national care service FOR ENGLAND.’ Will you support that, Scottish pensioners? ‘Barnett! Do you trust that?
On Newsnight, 30 September 2026, the above was clear with the implication that Scottish pensioners will be impoverished to pay a new national care service in England.
Scotland got a mention only when Andy Crap, Prime Minister, had a wee moment telling us about John Swinney’s prediction that Andy would be the last UK PM on the very same day, THE SAME DAY, that Andy’s dad died. How could he? Does the man have no feelings for others?
He didn’t know? That’s no excuse insists Andy’s speech-writer, Lancelot de Windsor. He should check every day before he hurts someone else.
The only other reference to Scotland was in this guy’s title, not in anything he said, wheeled on to do his real job of backing up his boss:
Seriously, folks, the Labour Party? Boak? ‘Andy’ eh? Not ‘the PM?’ No, that nice ‘Andy.’ The one that cried after that John Swinney said something nasty on the day Andy’s dad died. Why can’t that John Swinney be more like that sooky wee teacher’s pet, Douglas?
Seriously though, someone is shouting ‘Barnett.’
Savings from a slower-rising UK-wide pension bill sit in the UK Treasury. If those savings are then spent on extra social-care provision in England, that extra England spending is “comparable” under the Barnett formula. Scotland would therefore receive Barnett ‘consequentials‘ — extra block-grant money it can spend on its own priorities, including care. One report of the speech explicitly noted that. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/26591799.burnham-announces-major-change-pensions-2030/
Is it certain that the Barnett formula would be applied to increase the Scottish block grant given that the UK government can based on other factors of its own choosing simply reduce it?
That outcome depends on Treasury classification and political choice. The UK government could, in principle, classify the spending differently, fund it in a way that does not trigger consequentials, or make an offsetting cut elsewhere.
So, they can present an addition to the block grant as a Barnett consequential to directly compensate Scotland but they could then ‘make an offsetting cut elsewhere.’
Has it done this before?
Yes — not usually as a labelled “clawback of this specific consequential”, but the Treasury has repeatedly used tools that have the same effect: extra money in one comparable English programme is cancelled out by less money in another, or the extra money is simply kept outside Barnett.
Examples:
1. Netting at departmental / spending-review level
Barnett is applied to the net change in a UK department’s budget, not to each announcement in isolation. Extra English social-care spending can be offset by a cut (or smaller increase) elsewhere in the same department or across comparable services. Scotland then only sees the net figure. That is normal Treasury practice, not a rare trick. https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202400404500/
2. Formula bypass (money given without consequentials)
The classic case is the extra £1bn for Northern Ireland after the 2017 Conservative–DUP confidence-and-supply deal. Scotland and Wales got nothing. City deals, some levelling-up pots and other one-off packages have also been allocated outside Barnett. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/barnett-formula
3. Classification
Treasury decides whether a line is “comparable” (triggers Barnett) or reserved / UK-wide (does not). Disputes have happened — for example over 2012 Olympics regeneration spending. If new care spending were classified as something other than straightforward England-only social care, consequentials could shrink or vanish. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/barnett-formula
4. Offsetting through the fiscal framework
If the extra English care spending were funded by a reserved tax rise that does apply in Scotland, or by changes that enlarge Scotland’s block-grant deduction (the BGA for devolved taxes), the net Scottish gain can be smaller than the raw Barnett figure. That is a different mechanism, but it can cancel part of the uplift. https://fraserofallander.org/funding-a-rise-in-social-care-spending-england-implications-for-the-scottish-budget/
So, the UK government has previously arranged funding so that extra English spending did not produce a matching, lasting rise in the Scottish block grant. It could do so again. It is not the default for a large, obvious England-only care programme, but it is within the Treasury’s existing toolkit.
Crowdfunder - https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-talking-up-scotland-keep-going
Bank transfer - JOHN WATSON ROBERTSON Sort Code – 08-91-04 Account 12266421
Discover more from Talking-up Scotland
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Clearly the BBC are yet again ‘gunning for Swinney” on behalf of a (pro) UK party (just as they also did , and still are doing, to former FM’s who were SNP leaders).
That is their BBC 24/7 objective in Scotland.
While surely the real issue here is the ending of the Triple lock Pension and why that decision was taken and so the possible potential consequences it may have for Scotland.
(Also will it then benefit England and their National Care service , in it then freeing up money that was formerly allocated to sustain the Triple Lock pension policy for all UK pensioners?)
So what is the significant issue here for Scotland, that unfortunately , yet again, the BBC have decided to diminish, as a significant part of this argument, in framing the argument to try to frame Swinney as being the villain in yet another British Nationalist concocted #SNPBAD story.
The BBC top story on their Scottish politics page has a headline:
“Swinney defends claims about Scots ‘losing‘ pensions”
“Swinney defends” ( as yet again it is only the SNP who must defend their position while others, including the BBC, are allowed to constantly attack the SNP so then they (others) need not ever be made to “defend” their positions against the SNP).
Also the word “losing” in the headline being in single quotation marks , as written as ‘losing’, to signify what , scepticism ?
As this is the BBC’s usual way of (over) sensationalising any story connected to the SNP, in them really actually suggesting this below in their headline on John Swinney:
‘Are the Scots really ‘losing’ their pensions because of this Labour UK government’s future planned decision or is Swinney lying or just being paranoic and also anti UK’ and so then the BBC are generating doubt in the minds of the readers of this #SNPBAD headline on their website.
The BBC will never sway from (over) using this adopted method of bad journalism , in them always stooping very very low , all in the hope that this will eventually work in it hopefully being successful in turning more people in Scotland against the SNP.
Simples , or so it seems to them, but very very difficult to have to swallow for some of us Scots.
Liz S
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apologies for long comment, if , that is, you read it .
Here is another story linked to another UK party that, so far, the BBC have avoided on their website, yet as a situation it is shocking for Scotland and devolution, but it’s not surprising it’s being neglected by the BBC, as let’s not forget this is the BBC we are talking about (or writing about) and it also relates to the Tories.
So firstly there is this:
On the 1 October JK Rowling responded to someone asking her about Nicola Sturgeon and her new role in giving a masterclass on women’s leadership.
Rowling’s response “I learned not to ask why there was £400k missing from the accounts or why my husband had three coffee machines. I can also teach you how to delete WhatsApp messages, say “no comment” to police and “launch” non-operational ferries! (Pro tip: don’t forget the fake funnels!)’”
Funny that, because coincidentally the UK media seems to have “learned” not to ask why Rowling wrote this below prior to the 2014 Independence Referendum and why it now seems to be proven as being a load of old cobblers.
She wrote:
“ I’ve heard it said that ‘we’ve got to leave, because they’ll punish us if we don’t’, but my guess is that if we vote to stay, we will be in the heady position of the spouse who looked like walking out, but decided to give things one last go. All the major political parties are currently wooing us with offers of extra powers, keen to keep Scotland happy so that it does not hold an independence referendum every ten years and cause uncertainty and turmoil all over again. I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay”.
Because now Scotland is in the precarious position of being punished and not rewarded because we (some of us) voted “to stay”.
Where it now seems that none of the major , or new rogue parties, are currently “wooing us” but many of them are threatening us and our devolution.
In fact “Keeping Scotland happy” does not seem to be at the top of their agenda as that would mean that they actually would have to care about us, which clearly they do not.
As to “uncertainty and turmoil” well if Rowling thinks that there has been certainty and stability since 2014 then I suggest she , like others, is (intentionally) deluding herself , all because she supports the UK State, but also with her vast wealth then she does not experience the same negative impact as us ordinary folk in Scotland so, what with the many cruel and bad decisions that have been taken by various UK governments since 2014.
We , Scotland, are seemingly more “unpopular” and are definitely not in any “position”, as a nation within the UK, to “dictate terms” as clearly the “terms” , of the UK State, are being “dictated” to us, like for example the restrictive (for Scotland) UK Internal Market.
Now it seems that the Tories seem emboldened to actually shout out loud their plans for Scotland and devolution, if , that is , they are elected in the next GE .
Today one of English newspapers that is distributed in Scotland wrote:
“Tory leader (Badenoch) will review Scotland Act” , and that this “move signals the end (of what they say is) the Devolve and forget” system (that they say currently exists) and that they, the Tories, will “Consider withdrawing powers from Holyrood” .
Yesterday at the Tory Conference Andrew Bowie , Shadow Energy Security Secretary aka Tory HQ puppet, declared this:
“A new Tory government will legislate for new nuclear power in Scotland” and he told ministers of the Scottish government to “bring it on” if they “object”.
He also said that in relation to Nuclear power in Scotland that “We will legislate to get it done – no more Mr Nice Guy, no more devolve and forget”.
Obviously Bowie is going through another phase where he seems somewhat ‘mad with power’ , because HQ have singled him out as a YES man , who as a HQ YES man , will do HQ’s bidding irrespective of the negative and detrimental consequences to the country that he was elected in as a constitutional MP, i.e. Scotland.
This also exposes Rowling’s fantasy words prior to the 2014 Scottish independence Referendum as pure hokum, which we all knew anyway, as clearly what is happening to Scotland is that we are being punished for (some of us) voting NO to independence in 2014 , as opposed to us , and our country, being rewarded for that inexplicable and undeniably wrong and bad decision that was made by some in 2014.
Lies , fantasy and project Fear being the order of the day via BT NO’s campaign.
Funny how certain Billionaire’s and their money, think that they can say what they want , whenever they want in order to try to get what they want , yet when it comes to remorse in accepting that they were wrong , well that does not happen, as still they are defiant in then continuing to campaign against the SNP and also campaigning for Scotland to stay within the UK.
Why ?
Well based on what has and is still happening to Scotland , then it is clearly for Scotland to continue to be the abused “spouse who looked like walking out, but decided to give things one last go”.
Though now it seems that the abused “spouse” just has to like it or lump it , as after they “decided to give things one last go” they, as the abused “spouse” are now being kept in this supposed ‘Union’ against their will.
BTW the BBC website , on their main Scotland page and Scottish politics page currently have no articles on Bowie’s speech that included a threat to ride roughshod over devolved powers in Scotland where they as Tories intend to impose nuclear power stations onto Scotland.
Nor does the BBC have anything upon what Kemi Badenoch has declared in what she plans to do to Scotland and our devolved powers , as in remove some of those powers from Holyrood, if the Tories win the next GE .
No surprise that they, the BBC, have omitted to highlight both Bowie’s and Badenoch’s planned dictator like impositions which they intend to thrust upon Scotland, as that is clearly a situation that would then be, for Scots, a very much #ToryBad.
Liz S
LikeLiked by 1 person
*then she does not experience the same negative impact as us ordinary folk in Scotland so
then she does not experience the same negative impact as us ordinary folk in Scotland do
OMG yet more mistakes by me , how useless am I Ha Ha
Liz S
LikeLike
As a former victim of domestic abuse who fled from Spain to Scotland to escape her abuser and who found shelter here, J K Rowling will have known perfectly well that the spouse who stays in an abusive relationship is not in a “heady position” other than having her head bashed in.
She is making amends by funding a shelter for domestic abuse victims. But still no acknowledgment that she lied about Scotland’s prospects of flourishing if people voted NO.
LikeLike