I am being asked on Twitter by some followers for a personal guarantee that the Scottish NHS won't be in some way destroyed by Westminster following a No vote in Thursday's referendum.
I'm not convinced I'm the right person to ask, given that I am a writer, not a politician. But it seems to me to be pretty obvious that the only group that can destroy Scotland's already ropey NHS is the Scottish government. Why? Because management of the NHS has been completely devolved to Scotland for many years.
The money Scotland spends on its NHS comes from the Barnett Formula. Whenever funding rises in the UK, Scotland gets a proportionate share which it can spend on devolved services (of all sorts) as it likes.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
The Scottish government does not have to use private providers just because the UK government does, nor does it have to spend any particular proportion of its block grant on the NHS.
Clearly, spending cuts across all of the UK mean that the block grant gets cut too (albeit by rather less than total UK spending thanks to the Barnett Formula). But that again doesn't mean that Scotland has to cut spending.
It can either reallocate money from other areas to the NHS or use its tax raising powers to reject at least some austerity for Scotland.
Under the Scotland Act 2012, the Scottish Parliament will be responsible for stamp duty, land taxes and 10p in the pound of income tax and can raise or cut rates at will.
A 1% rise in income tax would do the trick (bringing in something like £400m). I am told that this would mean "the Scottish would pay for the NHS twice." But this is numerical nonsense.
If Scotland wants a better/different NHS that costs more than the UK one, why is raising the tax to pay more for it paying twice? It is surely just paying for the extra.*
The whole point of budget cuts is to keep current and future taxation in the UK down even at the expense of some services.
Devolution, and the Scotland Act in particular, mean that Scots have a choice about whether to go along with this: if they want to spend more than the rest of the UK, they can raise the taxes to do so.
So, there you go. Only Scotland can cut the budget of the Scottish NHS and only Scotland can introduce privatisation to the Scottish NHS.
Readers who think Scotland is different might like to note that it has already done both. England has been raising spending on the NHS even as it faces real budget cuts in other areas. But Scotland, despite its older population has not.
From 2002/03 to 2009/10, spending rose 43% in England and 29% in Scotland in real terms. In the years 2009/10 to 2015/16, it will have risen another 4% in England and fallen, yes fallen, 1% in Scotland (Institute of Fiscal Studies).
Those numbers tell you that Scotland is already using its discretion as to how to spend its block grant as it has been able to for many years now.
I mention the cuts above, but the priviatisation is there too: the Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board has recently outsourced its obesity work to Weight Watchers, an American-listed company.
* One of the best double-speak conversations of my referendum so far has been on how privatisation might mean a fall in the block grant. Surely, I was asked, "privatisation will mean the NHS budget in England falls?"
"Why would it do that?" I replied. "Privatisation doesn't mean the private sector pays for the NHS. It just means the NHS pays private companies to do its job. The idea is to make it better value".
"But if it works, then the NHS in the UK will cost less and we will get less money."
"OK, I say, let me get this straight. Your worry is that privatisation will make the NHS better and less expensive, so you want to avoid it at all costs?"
-
Beating inflation takes more luck than skill – but are we about to get lucky?Opinion The US Federal Reserve managed to beat inflation in the 1980s. But much of that was down to pure luck. Thankfully, says Merryn Somerset Webb, the Bank of England may be about to get lucky.
-
Rishi Sunak can’t fix all our problems – so why try?Opinion Rishi Sunak’s Spring Statement is an attempt to plaster over problems the chancellor can’t fix. So should he even bother trying, asks Merryn Somerset Webb?
-
Young people are becoming a scarce resource – we should value them more highlyOpinion In the last two years adults have been bizarrely unkind to children and young people. That doesn’t bode well for the future, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
Ask for a pay rise – everyone else isOpinion As inflation bites and the labour market remains tight, many of the nation's employees are asking for a pay rise. Merryn Somerset Webb explains why you should do that too.
-
Why central banks should stick to controlling inflationOpinion The world’s central bankers are stepping out of their traditional roles and becoming much more political. That’s a mistake, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
How St Ives became St Tropez as the recovery drives prices sky highOpinion Merryn Somerset Webb finds herself at the epicentre of Britain’s V-shaped recovery as pent-up demand flows straight into Cornwall’s restaurants and beaches.
-
The real problem of Universal Basic Income (UBI)Merryn's Blog April employment numbers showed 75 per cent fewer people in the US returned to employment compared to expectations. Merryn Somerset-Webb explains how excessive government support is causing a shortage of labour.
-
Why an ageing population is not necessarily the disaster many people think it isOpinion We’ve got used to the idea that an ageing population is a bad thing. But that’s not necessarily true, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
