Public spending by Scotland or public spending in Scotland?
The problem with the Beveridge Review that Jim McCormick carefully analyses in his blog is that it confines itself to public spending controlled by Scottish institutions rather than public spending in Scotland.
This is no mere hair-splitting. What is missing is the public spending in Scotland that is controlled by the UK Government – some £15bn in 2008/9, or almost one-third of the total. Besides the size and scale, this matters for two main reasons.
First, most of this is social security benefit ultimately under DWP control. This is of huge importance to the Scottish population, in particular working-age adults on benefit – the Scottish proportion is, at over 20%, as high as anywhere in the UK. This group is especially vulnerable, but this is also true of child and pensioner poverty. To discuss public spending without discussing what might happen here is seriously lop-sided – and surely at odds with the Review's remit to take into account "the importance of protecting and supporting the most vulnerable in our society".
Second, where has this identification of 'Scotland' as its governing institutions rather than its people come from? Whether a decision taken freely by the Review or imposed upon it, this approach leaves Scottish institutions with no positions on things they don't control. But why shouldn’t they have such views, seeking to pressure the UK government when it comes out with the relevant plans? Why does devolution have to be so deferential?
Author
