A comfortable Yes win came out of a debate in which the most-respected argument belonged to the losing side. That No case, a mechanical one, said "Tax money doesn't pay for the royals", and described a Crown Estate surplus handed to the government, with a much smaller sum returned to the King.
The most-respected Yes case was blunter and angrier: "Time to call time on the pigs in the trough", citing Andrew's housing and security and urging the monarchy to stand on its own finances. A more polished Yes voice argued that "Clinging to feudal opacity does more damage to the Crown than transparency ever could". Another Yes voter wanted a review that counted tourism, heritage and diplomacy as well as costs, so long as it was a genuine assessment of value for money.
No voters mostly argued that the scrutiny already exists. One pointed out that the National Audit Office audits the Grant and Parliament's Public Accounts Committee then examines it, so a new body would be doing the same job twice. Another called the campaign "death by a thousand cuts". Yes voters, for their part, offered little direct reply on the existing audits, preferring to talk about Duchy wealth, tax and perks.
The argument sits inside the wider question of value for money in public spending. One No voter wanted MPs' finances audited instead, while a Yes voter held that anybody receiving taxpayers' money should be reviewed and overseen.
The two sides disagreed less about the money than about whether looking again counts as accountability or as pressure.
32 Opinions
Tax money doesn't pay for the royals. They get a lump sium from the crown estates. They give this to the govt. The govt gives the King back a much smaller amount, on which he pays tax. He then pays for all the royals. This is a massive gain for the treasury.
Time to call time on the pigs in the trough. Andrew another 3 hundred grand !! House ! Security! Surely time like BBC to stand on own finances, we are no longer a empire !!
Look, if you don't want a King, just get rid of him but this constant nitpicking about money is death by a thousand cuts.
The Sovereign Grant cover the maintenance of Royal Residences, staff, official duties, state visits, etc. That, along with their finances have transparency and accountability in their expenditure. I see no need for an independent review.
this seem quite cheap to be honest- it would not run a city's health services for more than a couple of months for example And yet- royals are making us pay for wind turbines in 'their' sea, rent buildings on 'their' land such as dartmoor prison. More transparency would be helpful.
Rather they did an independent audit of MP finances.
YES Without doubt the country should see just how much the shysters in the heridetry circles are stealing from the public. The taxes they don't have to pay (unlike the rest of us) should also be highlighted along with all the other feebees they get too.. Guarantee if the truth of how they're behaving, taking the p1ss & mugging the British public over came out the monarchy would be toast within a generation Edited
No, there is no place for royal family in the modern democratic country. It should be abolished.
Can I just remind people that this is a pittance compared to how much our profligate government spend. Don't forget, in the BREXIT debate, it was said that leaving the EU would enable us to give an extra £350 million PER WEEK to the NHS. The monarchy brings in revenue, government does not.
The National Audit Office already audits every penny of the Sovereign Grant. After that, Parliament's Public Accounts Committee goes over it with a fine-tooth comb. Creating a brand new independent review wouldn't make things any more transparent; it would just be doing the exact same job twice.