okay. >> what you said so far there is you're not going to tear up barnett, and if we didn't have barnett, in any case, we would need some other case of needs assessment. and you have used the word. don't you think there is merit -- everyone is agreed that the barnett formula is overgenerous at the expense of the english. there isn't a single analysis that has concluded otherwise. don't you think, therefore, there is at least a least the na grand commission of some sort of all the nations to look into the question of how best to allocate resources according to need between them? >> well, it's something i'm sure, you know, it does get examined by experts and commissions and i'm very happy for that to continue. i'm just saying i made a commitment. this is not something that is on my horizon and i'm sticking to that. the most important thing is to deliver this fiscal devolution which in itself is an important thing but decreases the relevance of barnett. i'm sure people will argue about it. >> so the answer to that is no really? >> as i've said, it's not on my horizon. >> i would just like t

and scotland and wales is determined by the barnett formula. but as i said, if you didn't have that formula, you'd have to have something else. and it would still then be an accident of geography if you were living just one side of the border or the other side of the border as to which pot your money was coming from. so you've got the national distributions, then you have the distributions within each nation, which should be done by the relevant authorities. >> of course, but coming back to the fact that if you have a larger cake to distribute in first place and that that is a larger cake per head of population, that it's very difficult to make adjustments for that that seem fair across borders, and i think that -- >> on that, i think that's really important. because -- i know, but one more go at this because i think it's important. if scotland and england were exactly the same size and same scale and there was a radically different distribution, it would have more power. i often say to english colleagues who say why don't -- the barnett formul

yet you've told us that reforming barnett isn't on your horizon. could you set out how to puzzle the right that someone is living with heart disease, dementia, arthritis or cancer on one side of the border, there should be so much less of a pot to spend on health care than it would be if the sabres living on the other side of the border? >> i don't think there is so much less of a pot. as i said earlier, if we didn't have the barnett formula we have to come up with some other format that would be stupid but according to need. we would sit around and have a debate about that. what we have with barnett is a system where if we spend more in england, it has a consequence for scotland and that leads to the overall level of health spending money that is available in scotland. the scottish government has to complete power to spend less than that amount of money, more than that of money, were exactly the same. it has that choice. i sort of repeat myself but as you increase the amount of tax revenue that scotland raises, so you increased -- decrease the ski

money between england and scotland is determined by the barnett formula. but as i said, if you didn't have that formula, you'd have to have something else. it would still then be an accident of geography if you were living just one side of the border or the other side of the border as to which pot your money was coming from. so you've got the national distributions, then you have the distributions within each nation, which should be done by the authorities. >> of course, but coming back to the fact that if you have a larger cake to distribute in first place and that that is a larger cake per head of population, that it's very difficult to make adjustments for that that seem fair across borders, and i think that -- >> i think that's really important. because -- i know, but one more go at this because i think it's important. if scotland and england were exactly the same size and same scale and there was a radically different distribution, it would have more power. i often say to english colleagues who say why don't -- the barnett formula, is so unfair. if yo

barnett, we would need some other formula. and you used the word need. don't you think there is merit -- everyone has agreed that the barnett formula is extra generous at an expense. don't you think, therefore, for ais at least a need grand commission of some sort of all the nations to look into the to allocatehow best resources according to need between them? >> it is something, i am sure, does get examined by experts and commissions, and that will continue. i have made a commitment. i will stick to that commitment, and i think most important way is to deliver this fiscal devolution, which is also important but will also decrease the relevance of barnett. >> so the answer to that is no, really. >> it is not on my horizon. >> all right. i would just like to ask one question. that one lordtion has had a question in, as well. one other issue that needs picking up on borrowing. presume, thate, i is more fiscal devolution is granted, there would be spend, or in tax and tax, at least. the evidence suggests that. whatever you do. in