Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

bigheadxx

Marazan wrote: »

Under current UK spending Scotland has a lower deficit than the rest of the UK, that is, Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK.

You will need a bit more flesh on your argument than that! But the ides that a nation of five million subsidises one of fifty five million is risible. Scotland's total GDP is small change compared to the UK.

ColdIron

Marazan wrote: »

Under current UK spending Scotland has a lower deficit than the rest of the UK, that is, Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK.

The premise is correct but your conclusion does not follow, it is a non sequitur

Scotland's deficit (£3.4) is indeed lower than the UK's (£92.3) but then it is a much smaller country

By proportion its deficit is also lower at 2.3% of GDP compared to 6% for the UK

However it is the case that Scotland still spends more money than it raises

Say you and I go drinking with a tenner each but you spend £12 because you insist on whiskey chasers and I spend £15 as I drink lurid pink cocktails with umbrellas and shrubbery

We both have to borrow that extra money but to say that you are subsidising me is a logical fallacy

Nice try

planteria

markwilkinson wrote: »

I'm biased, of course, I pay tax. A percentage of my tax pays for the Scots who tend to be a miserable race of folks, in my experience.

:rotfl:...and there's me giving the Scottish electorate credit to make sensible decisions.

Marazan

ColdIron wrote: »

The premise is correct but your conclusion does not follow, it is a non sequitur

Scotland's deficit (£3.4) is indeed lower than the UK's (£92.3) but then it is a much smaller country

By proportion its deficit is also lower at 2.3% of GDP compared to 6% for the UK

However it is the case that Scotland still spends more money than it raises

Say you and I go drinking with a tenner each but you spend £12 because you insist on whiskey chasers and I spend £15 as I drink lurid pink cocktails with umbrellas and shrubbery

We both have to borrow that extra money but to say that you are subsidising me is a logical fallacy

Nice try

By identifying that Scotland's percentage deficit is lower then you are saying that without Scotland being there then the UK's percentage deficit would be even higher. If you don't want to call that a subsidy then that's fine - but the indication that it's the rest of the UK that is subsidizing Scotland is even wronger.

In your drinking example you've spent £5 more than the £20 pounds we initially raised so you've spent 25% more than our combined income. If I'd never turned up then you'd have spent 50% more.

TCA

bigheadxx wrote: »

You will need a bit more flesh on your argument than that!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24866266

"If oil revenues are included in GDP figures, Scotland is shown to generate more per head of population than the UK as a whole. For Scotland, it is £26,424 per head compared with £22,336 per head for the UK. If you do not include oil and gas revenues then there is little difference in the figures - GDP per head in Scotland was £20,571 in 2011 and for the UK it was £20,873

Looking at the headline figures, public expenditure per capita in Scotland is higher than the UK average. In 2011, Scotland's public spending per head was £12,100 and for the UK it was £10,900."


There's a tendency to focus on the latter seeing as the expenditure is higher than the UK as a whole, with a disregard for Scotland's revenues which just disappear into HM Treasury's coffers and are not attributed to Scotland.

And that's not the cue for mad rantings on how everything is based on disappearing volatile oil. David Cameron and co are keen enough to want to retain the billions of oil tax revenues.

Heedtheadvice

I've always found these quoted figures on expenditure interesting, only because I find it difficult to understand why there should be such a difference. Apart from the SNP wishing to make a case revenue is hardly ever mentioned.

So expenditure is £1100 higher in Scotland and revenue is over £4000 higher (compared to UK average per capita, as I understand). An understanding of the make up of both is of course required to do a fair comparison as it could easily be argued (as has been the case on this thread) that one area provides a subsidy to another. Having taken the trouble to read some of the underlying statements explaining the make up of the expenditure stats, it is quite clear that we do not have comparative figures overall. Scottish Public service expenditure, for example ought to be higher as it includes Water Authority expenditure (private concern in England) but this will be paid for by the local council tax payers (on the same bill at least) so there would be a corresponding revenue increase. There probably are other similar anomalies but I have no idea if that would account for all or even most of the differences.

My belief however is that using these figures is unfair and does not take into account needs. We are all surely aware that providing similar services does cost more in some places than others: in London owing to high wages and other costs; in rural areas owing to distances/geographic spread and poorer infrastructure. Not everyone, for example, has a major hospital within 10 to 20 miles and often traveling distances for non specialised treatment can be 100 miles or more in some rural areas or involve ferry travel too. Would we deny a slightly higher expenditure to those people, irrespective of national location? Probably no more than we would accept the Thames barrage, extensive motorway network of the S.E. and support to the country's infrastructure repairs following flood and storm damage!

I suspect the revenue figures include Oil and Gas taxation etc. which if attributed to Scotland would make the figure that much higher. Similarly the case for alcohol related taxes. Does anyone know if these revenue streams are attributed to the location of the tax paying head offices or the geographic source of production?

TCA

Heedtheadvice wrote: »

I suspect the revenue figures include Oil and Gas taxation etc. which if attributed to Scotland would make the figure that much higher.

Lies, damned lies and statistics....... As you hinted at, figures can be twisted to reveal whatever viewpoint somebody wishes.

My main point is, that whether people like it or not, an independent Scotland would have considerable oil revenues that are currently not attributed to it in the UK government GERS calculation. Whether the oil runs out next year or not, the continually spouted rhetoric that Scotland is currently subsidised by rUK is not based on fact.

black_taxi_2

S & P gave Scotland AAA without the Oil

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The latest study by polling firm YouGov found 53% of those surveyed wanted Scotland to continue as part of the UK.

Meanwhile 35% of people questioned said that Scotland should be an independent country, according to the research for the Scottish Sun newspaper.

More than one in 10 voters (12%) were undecided about how to vote in the September 18 referendum.

ColdIron

Betfair rock solid at
No : 1.21
Yes : 5.4

Slightly tightening if anything
http://uk.site.sports.betfair.com/betting/LoadRunnerInfoAction.do?marketId=110033387&selectionId=5334892&timeZone=Europe/London&region=GBR&locale=en&brand=betfair&currency=GBP