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

MouseTrap

Generali wrote: »

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. Yes.
2. Employment derives from investment. Again I think we both agree on that. Yes.

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. Yes.

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?

It was in response to your post about other regions costing more than they earn. I said that's because so many of the jobs there are public sector, then provided figures to prove this. I think we both agree on this as well.

Private money does follow public money in the sense that there is much more public investment in infrastructure etc. in London & SE. This is investment and separate from the proportion of public sector workers. Historically there have also been various government subsidies/incentives/tax breaks for firms to start up in these regions, although to be fair these are now becoming more common in other regions in order to spread the wealth.

I think we're both pretty much on the same page and I'm not trying to be argumentative! I think it's just hard not to come across like that on a forum

System

Whatever the figures are I don't see much evidence that the Scots are "enjoying" it. They appear to be a dour lot with a lot of weather to be dour about, with short unhealthy life spans.

Generali

MouseTrap wrote: »

It was in response to your post about other regions costing more than they earn. I said that's because so many of the jobs there are public sector, then provided figures to prove this. I think we both agree on this as well.

Private money does follow public money in the sense that there is much more public investment in infrastructure etc. in London & SE. This is investment and separate from the proportion of public sector workers. Historically there have also been various government subsidies/incentives/tax breaks for firms to start up in these regions, although to be fair these are now becoming more common in other regions in order to spread the wealth.

I think we're both pretty much on the same page and I'm not trying to be argumentative! I think it's just hard not to come across like that on a forum

Ok, I see. You had me scratching my head for a while there.

PS Am I also misinterpreting your point about GVA?

MouseTrap

Generali wrote: »

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

It's the other way around. From the wikipedia entry:

"GVA = GDP + subsidies - (direct, sales) taxes"

"Over-simplistically, GVA is the grand total of all revenues, from final sales and (net) subsidies, which are incomes into businesses."

Generali

MouseTrap wrote: »

It's the other way around. From the wikipedia entry:

"GVA = GDP + subsidies - (direct, sales) taxes"

"Over-simplistically, GVA is the grand total of all revenues, from final sales and (net) subsidies, which are incomes into businesses."

Yes, you're absolutely right. As I say, it's GDP without taxes and subsidies only I got the sums wrong.

Time for bed for me I think.

zagubov

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Whatever the figures are I don't see much evidence that the Scots are "enjoying" it. They appear to be a dour lot with a lot of weather to be dour about, with short unhealthy life spans.

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Don't they have the lowest life expectancy in western Europe or something like that. .

Sadly, when you export jobs, you shorten lives. There's a lot of truths people running countries tend to gloss over, but deserve a lot more attention.

John_Pierpoint

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because we'll have to pick up the pieces?

......again.

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

Plus ca change..........................

John_Pierpoint

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Didn't like my post then?! As I said, I don't care which way Scotland goes.

But may I remind you of the investment we ALL made into North Sea Oil?

Oh.....hang on....that doesn't count does it....Scotland wants to keep that to themselves....but we should share anything else Scotland wants to make use of.

Your post highlights the issues that crop up. Everything south of the Scottish border should be shared (apart from the defecit) as Scotland also invested in it. Everything North of the border is Scotlands.

Don't forget that at the border "slopes" up towards the North East it carries on across the North Sea making a large part of the oil English oil.:D

zagubov

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Don't forget that at the border "slopes" up towards the North East it carries on across the North Sea making a large part of the oil English oil.:D

Or, if England is still trading under the brand name Uk or former Uk you might want to call it UK oil.
Just to be consistent with current naming pracise, mind.:D

Graham_Devon

On a personal level, every single one of these Scotland independance arguments, whether it's on here, or in the media, on question time etc....it all leads to the same thing.

Arguing over who owns what, and every Englander being told he/she takes issue with the Scots if they don't agree with the proposals.

This isn't true, and there are few pro independance scotland individuals who appear to see this. As I've said, and others have said, we don't really care if Scotland goes independant or not, what we do care about is sharing the responsibilities. This is something bought on by Scotland and not the UK. Therefore, it stands to reason that it's those in favour who have to make their case, and make it a good case, instead of simply saying "oh you hate us" in retaliation to every issue bought to the table. It's getting tiring.

From what I have seen, the UK is stating fine, but if you go independant, you can't reasonably believe that you are going to be able to keep everything north of the border, but demand a slice of everything south of the border. It really isn't realistic, especially when the investment side is bought in to suggest the Scot's have invested in stuff south of ther border.

The question was raised over the setting of interest rates. Obviously with Scotland independant, we would raise or lower interest rates to suit OUR economy. However, it has already been argued that the UK should not do this, but take into account the Scottish economy too, as they would be pegged to the BOE. I mean, what gives....that's not independance!!

Sure they have invested....but we've invested in stuff north of the border too. Namely north sea oil. It appears to me, and not one argument has yet swayed my view, that the SNP see it as a case of being out for all they can get in terms of infrastructure and civil stuff, while wrapping every tangible asset north of the border in the scottish flag, and simply erecting a fence around the massive elephant in the room...that being the UK defecit.