Scots enjoy £1,600 extra per head than their English counterparts

Graham_Devon

The chasm between the amount of public money lavished on Scots and that spent on the English has widened still further, Treasury figures reveal.

The average Scot now enjoys £1,600 more in state spending every year compared with their neighbours south of the border.

The year before, 2010/11, the gap was £1,490.

What is more, in England public spending per head plummeted twice as quickly last year than it did in Scotland.

For every £4 spent on an English person, £5 is now spent on a Scot – despite the fact that those south of the border pay far more in tax than those to the north.

Free personal care when older, no tuition fees, no prescription fees, free eye tests, double the amount of nurses & midwives per 1,000 patients etc.

How long can it realistically go on for? And how do these sort of figure help the independance issue?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article-2226056/State-gives-Scot-1-600-English-public-spending-south-border-plummets-twice-quickly.html

PaulF81

Just proves scotland would be a third world wasteland without the uk's donations in the form of the barnett formula. It needs cutting to whatever the equivalent is in the uk.

Why shoould jocks get more than the equivalent englishman?

IveSeenTheLight

LOL, what's the spend on all "regions" in the UK and what are their contributions?

IveSeenTheLight

To give some perspective.
GVA by region: -

Scotland19 744 ($30,468)
East of England18,591 ($28,689)
South West England18,211 ($28,102)
East Midlands17,349 ($26,772)
North West England17,263 ($26,639)
West Midlands16,788 ($25,906)
Yorkshire and the Humber, England16,569 ($25,568)
North East England15,621 ($24,106)

Only Greater London and South East England contribute more than Scotland.

Greater London34,200 ($52,776)
South East England20,923 ($32,287)

The OP's report is quite interestingly comparing their "neighbours".

Does that mean they are comparing Scotland with North East England.

I think you can see the contribution of Scotland outweighs that of it's "neighbours"

Maybe explains why Cameron and Co are so keen to hold on to Scotland.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

LOL, what's the spend on all "regions" in the UK and what are their contributions?

IIRC, the North East has the worst position of any region of the UK. London (unsurprisingly) the best.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

IIRC, the North East has the worst position of any region of the UK. London (unsurprisingly) the best.

See post 3 ;o)

Nice journalism comparing Scotland to it's Neighbours

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

See post 3 ;o)

Nice journalism comparing Scotland to it's Neighbours

Even (maybe especially) during the boom years, the NE region of England had a level of GDP that came from Government spending that was equivalent to places like Czechoslovakia and Hungary under Communism.

I believe that Northern Ireland was in much the same position but clearly the fact that there was a Civil War going on there from the early-mid 1970s to the early 2000s would be a large factor in that.

zagubov

I was reading this thread and started wondering again if medical science is working hard enough to find a cure for deja vu.

Loughton_Monkey

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

To give some perspective.
GVA by region:

Isn't GVA simply an output measure?

I looked at ONS http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Regional+GVA

Page 2 says: GVA oer head: England £20,974, Scotland, £20,220.

Take off the extra £1,600 per head 'cost', makes Scotland £18,620 - or 11% below England.

But after half a bottle of single malt, who cares? If you think Scotland is subsidising the rest of UK, you should seriously consider a "Yes" vote. You know it makes sense.

IveSeenTheLight

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

you should seriously consider a "Yes" vote. You know it makes sense.

My reasons have nothing to do with who subsidises who, but I will be voting yes.

Makes you wonder why Cameron, Milliband, Clegg and all want us to vote no..

zagubov

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

My reasons have nothing to do with who subsidises who, but I will be voting yes.

Makes you wonder why Cameron, Milliband, Clegg and all want us to vote no..

Because they're too young to be politicians. They've no experience (check their ages) but no principles either which is often a compensation some young politicians have.;)