Scotland: A New Fiscal Settlement

A. Hughes Hallett, A. Scott
{"title":"Scotland: A New Fiscal Settlement","authors":"A. Hughes Hallett, A. Scott","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1585209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Executive Summary Many commentators have criticised the strategy currently used to finance the Scottish Parliament – both the block grant system, and the small degree of fiscal autonomy devised in the Calman report and the UK government’s 2009 White Paper. Nevertheless, fiscal autonomy has now been conceded in principle. This paper sets out to identify formally what level of autonomy would be best for the Scottish economy and the institutional changes needed to support that arrangement. Our conclusions are in line with the Steel Commission: that significantly more fiscal powers need to be transferred to Scotland. But what we can then do, which the Steel Commission could not, is to give a detailed blueprint for how this proposal might be implemented in practice. We face two problems. The existing block grant system can and has been criticised from such a wide variety of points of view that it effectively has no credibility left. On the other hand, the Calman proposals (and the UK government proposals that followed) are unworkable because, to function, they require information that the policy makers cannot possibly have; and because, without borrowing for current activities, they contain no mechanism to reconcile contractual spending (most of the budget) with variable revenue flows – which is to invite an eventual breakdown. But in its attempt to fix these problems, the UK White Paper introduces three further difficulties: new grounds for quarrels between the UK and Scottish governments, a long term deflation bias, and a loss of devolution.","PeriodicalId":265694,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Intergovernmental Relations & Federalism (Topic)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Intergovernmental Relations & Federalism (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1585209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Executive Summary Many commentators have criticised the strategy currently used to finance the Scottish Parliament – both the block grant system, and the small degree of fiscal autonomy devised in the Calman report and the UK government’s 2009 White Paper. Nevertheless, fiscal autonomy has now been conceded in principle. This paper sets out to identify formally what level of autonomy would be best for the Scottish economy and the institutional changes needed to support that arrangement. Our conclusions are in line with the Steel Commission: that significantly more fiscal powers need to be transferred to Scotland. But what we can then do, which the Steel Commission could not, is to give a detailed blueprint for how this proposal might be implemented in practice. We face two problems. The existing block grant system can and has been criticised from such a wide variety of points of view that it effectively has no credibility left. On the other hand, the Calman proposals (and the UK government proposals that followed) are unworkable because, to function, they require information that the policy makers cannot possibly have; and because, without borrowing for current activities, they contain no mechanism to reconcile contractual spending (most of the budget) with variable revenue flows – which is to invite an eventual breakdown. But in its attempt to fix these problems, the UK White Paper introduces three further difficulties: new grounds for quarrels between the UK and Scottish governments, a long term deflation bias, and a loss of devolution.
苏格兰:新的财政解决方案
许多评论家批评了目前用于资助苏格兰议会的策略——包括整体拨款制度,以及卡尔曼报告和英国政府 2009年白皮书中设计的小程度财政自治。尽管如此,财政自治现在已在原则上得到了承认。本文旨在正式确定何种程度的自治对苏格兰经济最有利,以及支持这种安排所需的制度变革。我们的结论与钢铁委员会(Steel Commission)一致:需要向苏格兰移交更多的财政权力。但接下来我们能做的(钢铁委员会做不到的)是,给出一份详细的蓝图,说明如何在实践中实施这一提议。我们面临两个问题。现有的整笔拨款制度可以而且已经从各种各样的角度受到批评,以至于它实际上已经没有可信度了。另一方面,卡尔曼的提议(以及随后英国政府的提议)是行不通的,因为要发挥作用,它们需要政策制定者不可能拥有的信息;而且,由于不为当前活动借款,它们没有机制来调和合同支出(大部分预算)与可变收入流——这将导致最终的崩溃。但在试图解决这些问题的过程中,《英国白皮书》提出了另外三个困难:英国和苏格兰政府之间争吵的新理由、长期的通缩倾向,以及权力下放的丧失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信