Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Academics warn new powers for Scotland may be unworkable

Post Thumbnail

Scotland’s new package of powers may not be workable and could require an entirely new method of funding devolved governments, leading academics have warned.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it is not possible to guarantee the new powers will cause no detriment to Scottish and UK budgets.

A new joint paper, co-written by the University of Stirling and the Centre for Constitutional Change, said the Barnett formula that calculates Scotland’s share of UK spending should be reformed.

This would defy a key recommendation of the Smith Commission that Barnett should be retained – but failure to find an appropriate funding mechanism could cost Scotland a billion pounds a year, IFS said.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has refused to back the Scotland Bill unless it comes with an appropriate funding formula, a stance backed by devolution architect Lord Smith of Kelvin, who said politicians should not sign off the Bill without a working fiscal framework.

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, in a report entitled A Fracturing Union? published on Friday, argues the process for determining the fiscal framework is flawed and that its design principles may not be workable and are not mutually compatible.

IFS said it is not possible to satisfy all of the Smith Commission’s “no detriment” principles.

It also claimed that the precise way in which the remaining block grants are calculated and indexed over time could mean differences of over a billion pounds a year in the Scottish Government’s budget in the space of a decade or so.

If an unreformed Barnett formula remains in place it is impossible to design a system that simultaneously satisfies the Smith Commission’s principles that there should be “no detriment as a result of the decision to devolve a power”, and that post-devolution changes to a devolved tax in the rest of the UK should not affect the amount of public spending in Scotland, IFS said.

David Bell, professor of economics at Stirling University and co-author of the report, said: “The options available for calculating the block grant adjustments and other elements of the fiscal framework will have major effects on the Scottish Government’s budget and the fiscal risks and incentives it faces.

“These issues should be part of the public and parliamentary debate, as much as the tax and welfare powers set out in the Scotland Bill itself have been.”

David Phillips, a senior research economist at the IFS and co-author, said: “It may now be time for a more fundamental reassessment of how the devolved governments are financed: including whether the Barnett Formula should be reformed.

“Reform of Barnett may remove some of the conflicts between the Smith Commission’s principles that we have identified.

“The Smith Commission parked these issues to one side by committing to the current Barnett formula. Making the UK’s fiscal framework sustainable for the long term may require reopening the debate.”