It's worth pointing out that the only variance it can make under the existing powers is to _raise_ income taxes - this is why it's never been used. Doing so would be political suicide and see a population drain as those able to would quickly move "next door" to an England with lower taxes.

The Barnett formula determines the size of the block grant, not the spending of it. The Scottish Government spends the grant according to its priorities. At the moment these include: free healthcare (including prescriptions), free higher education, and free care for the elderly.

> free healthcare (including prescriptions),

For people not in the UK: people in England pay for each item on a prescription. The charge is currently £8.05 per item. You can get discounts if you need multiple items. There are a bunch of exemptions - people with a thyroid problem for example - which mean that about 90% of items are free.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-charges-from-april-20...

It should also be pointed out that its not entirely a one way street - for example England has the excellent Cancer Drug Fund, which Scotland doesn't.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/scottish-cancer-patients...

I would strongly disagree with the CDF being "excellent" – it's basically money cut from other NHS budgets and repurposed for expensive individual cancer therapies.

At the very least, an expansion and improvement of the existing equivalent system in Scotland (individual treatment request) would offer a better solution for the need to fund individual specific treatments that haven't been widely approved.

I can think of one particular bit of government spending that a lot of people in Scotland would be absolutely delighted to get rid of.

[Hint: they all begin with V and float]

What?

Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance

The UK Trident submarine fleet based in a sea loch (fjord) quite close to Glasgow, the largest city in Scotland.

Yet the SNP wants to cut corporation tax in Scotland.

I guess it depends on your definition of socialist. It's the common term thats used here - the Labour party which until recently was the dominant force in Scottish politics is a member of the Party of European Socilaists. (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8011001.stm#socialis...)

I'd argue that the vast majority of Scots would be in favour of re-nationalising both the railways and royal mail. In the case of the railways, I think there is fairly broad support across the UK for that too.

Also Railways, Post and other infrastructure are all things that make perfect sense as nationalised industries. They often end up as monopolies anyway in a free market so they might as well be state monopolies with democratic accountability.

I think there is a big difference between a socialist state and socialist policies within the context of a liberal democracy - we're clearly talking about the latter.

As Aneurin Bevan, founder of the NHS said:

"A free health service is pure Socialism and as such it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan

OK< strictly Social Democratic. But the socialist term is widely used in UK discourse.

PS: When I stayed in Glasgow for a short period about 30 years ago, a 'three way fight' in a constituency was Labour, Liberal and Communist.

We have an old Scots phrase: "common weal," meaning both wealth shared in common and for the well-being of all. Sounds fairly close to some definitions of Socialism.

On renationalisation, as noted elsewhere in this thread, the idea of taking Royal Mail back into public control has already been floated and there's support for doing the same with the railways.

Better than not knowing what constructive debate is.

This is why I flag articles about politics, and why they are considered off topic in the guidelines. This is certainly a well-written, interesting article, but the discussions it's generating are going downhill fast.

Socialism is not worker control. It is more like a lot of corporations are managed directly by the state, which apply to a lot of countries.

As opposed to certain other countries where the state is managed indirectly by corporations.