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

MouseTrap

zagubov wrote: »

Or equally, that the SE and London are more subsidised. What's your specific beef with scotland?;)

I genuinely don't have a beef with Scotland. I was just pointing out that the statistics ISTL was using were misleading. Also, London and the South East definitely are more subsidised than other regions in England. It's why they have a public transport system that actually works, among other things.

Generali

MouseTrap wrote: »

Also, London and the South East definitely are more subsidised than other regions in England.

They are the only 2 regions of England that put more in tax into the pot than they pay out. The South West 'washes its face', i.e. it takes out what it puts in and the rest of the country is a massive money sink.

The deficit is largely down to the Midlands and North not paying their way.

MouseTrap

That's largely a result of the high proportion of public sector jobs compared to private sector jobs in those regions. Private firms are more likely to start up in London and the SE because of the higher level of investment there, so it goes around.

FYI I live in Greater London so I'm not biased. It's just true.

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

And anyway, the Scots do have to live in Scotland so maybe they should get a bit extra to compensate for that horrendous disadvantage.

What disadvantage is that?

When God had finished creating Scotland, He looked down on it with great satisfaction.

Finally he called the Archangel Gabriel to have a look. "Just see," said God. "This is the best yet. Splendid mountains, beautiful scenery, brave men, fine women, nice cool weather. And I've given them beautiful music and a special drink called whisky. Try some."

Gabriel took an appreciative sip. "Excellent," he said. "But haven't you perhaps been too kind to them? Won't they be spoiled by all these things? Should there not be some drawback?"

"Just wait till you see the neighbours they're getting," said God.

Generali

MouseTrap wrote: »

That's largely a result of the high proportion of public sector jobs compared to private sector jobs in those regions. Private firms are more likely to start up in London and the SE because of the higher level of investment there, so it goes around.

FYI I live in Greater London so I'm not biased. It's just true.

Do you have any data to back that up?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/regional-analysis/changing-regional-economies/changing-regional-economies/index.html

Total income (Gross Value Added) [for the South East] per head generated by economic activity in the region in 2005 was £18,976, compared with £17,677 for the UK as a whole.

Firms start in London and the South East because people from other parts of the country that have a bit about them and want to make a good living tend to move there.

Why do you think that people from all over the world, including bits like Paris that have better infrastructure than the UK, move to London?

IveSeenTheLight

MouseTrap wrote: »

GVA figures include subsidies, so your figures could actually be used to argue that Scotland is being subsidised more than other regions in the UK.

Does it?
Maybe we need to delve into actually what makes up the GVA

My maths show that Scotlands GVA - £1600 still shows a higher output than most of the English regions

How do we factor in subsidies for regional development which are treated as seperate projects and not directly against the regional GDP i.e. the Olympics which was used to regenerate east London?

MouseTrap

Generali wrote: »

Do you have any data to back that up?

Yes - download the excel table from the ONS website - table 6 has a headcount of public sector workers in each region, and also public sector employment as a percentage of total employment.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-248981

You can see that at the end of 2011, London and the SE have 18.3% and 17.2% public sector employment respectively. This is compared to North West (21.8%) North East (24.6%), Yorkshire & Humber (22.4%), West Midlands (20.7%), East Midlands (19.2%) and South West (19.8%). The only region with lower public sector employment is East of England with 17.0%.

Let me know if you don't think this is comprehensive enough.

Total income (Gross Value Added) [for the South East] per head generated by economic activity in the region in 2005 was £18,976, compared with £17,677 for the UK as a whole.

The figures you quoted are GVA again, remember those include government subsidies spent in the region. They're also from 2005.

Generali

MouseTrap wrote: »

Yes - download the excel table from the ONS website - table 6 has a headcount of public sector workers in each region, and also public sector employment as a percentage of total employment.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-248981

You can see that at the end of 2011, London and the SE have 18.3% and 17.2% public sector employment respectively. This is compared to North West (21.8%) North East (24.6%), Yorkshire & Humber (22.4%), West Midlands (20.7%), East Midlands (19.2%) and South West (19.8%). The only region with lower public sector employment is East of England with 17.0%.

Let me know if you don't think this is comprehensive enough.




The figures you quoted are GVA again, remember those include government subsidies spent in the region. They're also from 2005.

I don't understand your argument.

1. There is more private sector employment in London and the SE: I think we both agree on that.
2. Employment derives from investment. Again I think we both agree on that.

After that it all seems to get a bit hazy. I think that there is more private sector investment and thus employment in London and the SE as those workers will produce more output for each £ of capital employed.

You seemed previously to be arguing that private money was following public money. Now you seem to be arguing the opposite. Can you clarify for me?

MouseTrap

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Does it?
Maybe we need to delve into actually what makes up the GVA

My maths show that Scotlands GVA - £1600 still shows a higher output than most of the English regions

How do we factor in subsidies for regional development which are treated as seperate projects and not directly against the regional GDP i.e. the Olympics which was used to regenerate east London?

Yes it does. GVA is basically GDP plus government spending. GVA also doesn't take tax into account which GDP does.

Your point about regional development is a good one. Statistics are misleading. The same goes for both GDP and GVA, they are too easily manipulated.

Generali

MouseTrap wrote: »

Yes it does. GVA is basically GDP plus government spending. GVA also doesn't take tax into account which GDP does.

Your point about regional development is a good one. Statistics are misleading. The same goes for both GDP and GVA, they are too easily manipulated.

I'm not sure you have GVA right.

AIUI, GVA plus taxes on goods and services less subsidies on goods and services = GDP

In other words, GVA is GDP before the market distortions of taxes and subsidies on output. It has nothing to do with Government spending.