Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Voltaire7 wrote: »

That's quite the over-reaction on your part.

Not taken your meds today?

LOL. I love replies like this. What you're actually saying is, "You're right Generali".:money:

Leanne1812

All these anti SNP posts serve to do is confirm the outrage at our audacious
plan to leave.

Well boo bloody hoo!!

We stayed and we are part of this Union, quite how much of an important part is becoming very apparent lately. :-)

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

What utter tosh!

We all know we have higher public spending but no one, NO ONE!! has proved Scotland does not pay her way in the union. Prove it to me please. We've not been infantilised, we've woken up. We're paying attention and researching & investigating claims for ourselves which is very easy due to the Internet.

Our beloved NHS which was only safe remaining in the union is now under such peril. Come on, we're not fools. It's all election tactics and the problem all the parties have now is we seek out information. Jim Murphy has already pulled a video with false stats regarding the current state of the NHS.

So, go on, prove to me we are subsidised.

Around the time of the referendum, any serious analysis of Scottish tax and spend showed that Scotland's fiscal position was basically the same as the UK's as a whole. Since then 'Scotland' has lost £10,000,000,000 of oil revenue.

On that basis it's probably fair to say that England, or more accurately London and SE England, subsidies Scotland.

For example:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-26541575

Scotland raised £800 more per head than the UK as a whole:

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said the data also showed tax revenue was £800 higher per head in Scotland compared with the UK.

However, Scotland enjoys Government spending of £1300 per head more than the rest of the UK:



Of course, that flatters Scotland's true economic position as the oil price has fallen considerably since then. In April 2013, the end of the financial year referred to in the article, the price of Brent Crude was $102. It is now a little over $60.

http://www.investing.com/commodities/brent-oil-historical-data

I can't find a link offhand but I think Hamish has posted one in the past estimating that tax revenues to 'Scotland' have fallen by ~£10,000,000,000 as a result of the falling oil price.

Of course the other problem for Scotland is that getting the oil out of the North Sea is relatively expensive. As a result the industry as a whole made a rather chunky loss last year and so is looking to shed high-paying jobs. That will hit tax revenues further and also increase welfare spending:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-britain-oil26-20150226-story.html

About 1,500 jobs have been lost in offshore oil and gas this year, according to Unite, Britain's largest labor union. Ian Wood, author of a state-ordered report into the needs of the business, warned in an interview on Tuesday that about 15,000 positions relying on the industry could vanish in a few months.

The current rate of exploration drilling is the lowest since 1965, Oil & Gas UK said in its Activity Survey 2015. Cash flows for North Sea operators were a negative 5.3 billion pounds ($8 billion) last year, the worst since the 1970s, as costs rose and revenues fell to a 16-year low, according to the report.

If you're interested in a fuller research paper on Scotland's fiscal position this is a good place to start:

http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_319446_en.pdf

If I were Scottish I'd be extremely pleased that I'd just voted to remain in the Union. The future would be looking rather bleak outside it.

Tromking

Leanne1812 wrote: »

So, go on, prove to me we are subsidised.

You individually pay the same tax as the rest of the UK, but receive more per capita by way of the Scottish block grant.

Leanne1812

Generali wrote: »

Around the time of the referendum, any serious analysis of Scottish tax and spend showed that Scotland's fiscal position was basically the same as the UK's as a whole. Since then 'Scotland' has lost £10,000,000,000 of oil revenue.

On that basis it's probably fair to say that England, or more accurately London and SE England, subsidies Scotland.

Was the fiscal position the same excluding oil revenues? I'm afraid that short paragraph stating 'basically' the same hasn't convinced me.

And it goes without saying it isn't 'Scotland's' oil revenue is it? We pool & share all our resources don't we?

Leanne1812

Tromking wrote: »

You individually pay the same tax as the rest of the UK, but receive more per capita by way of the Scottish block grant.

Can you prove this means we are subsidised though? You know, does Scotland hold her own?

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Was the fiscal position the same excluding oil revenues? I'm afraid that short paragraph stating 'basically' the same hasn't convinced me.

And it goes without saying it isn't 'Scotland's' oil revenue is it? We pool & share all our resources don't we?

I've fleshed out my post somewhat.

Tromking

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Can you prove this means we are subsidised though? You know, does Scotland hold her own?

I think Generali`s excellent post covers it.
The central issue is simple, if we both have the same income and consequently pay the same personal taxes, explain to me what area of Scottish economic activity means you can claim an extra £1k plus per capita for public spending in Scotland only?

CLAPTON

Do people not agree that all the people of the sovereign country should receive similar government funding, adjusted for poverty and need , irrespective of the amount of tax each area provides.

Is is not a good principle that the rich areas of the country subsidise the poor?

Some seem to had taken the view that to the rich shall be given.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Around the time of the referendum, any serious analysis of Scottish tax and spend showed that Scotland's fiscal position was basically the same as the UK's as a whole. Since then 'Scotland' has lost £10,000,000,000 of oil revenue.

You need to say where that 'serious' analysis came from.

On that basis it's probably fair to say that England, or more accurately London and SE England, subsidies Scotland.

For example:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-26541575

Scotland raised £800 more per head than the UK as a whole:
However, Scotland enjoys Government spending of £1300 per head more than the rest of the UK:
Of course, that flatters Scotland's true economic position as the oil price has fallen considerably since then. In April 2013, the end of the financial year referred to in the article, the price of Brent Crude was $102. It is now a little over $60.

Ditto the BBC and it's fancy graphs.

http://www.investing.com/commodities/brent-oil-historical-data

I can't find a link offhand but I think Hamish has posted one in the past estimating that tax revenues to 'Scotland' have fallen by ~£10,000,000,000 as a result of the falling oil price.

Hamish's links tend to be a little biased. Usually culled straight from BetterTogether sites or 'Save our Unity' etc.

Of course the other problem for Scotland is that getting the oil out of the North Sea is relatively expensive. As a result the industry as a whole made a rather chunky loss last year and so is looking to shed high-paying jobs. That will hit tax revenues further and also increase welfare spending:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-britain-oil26-20150226-story.html

Oil eh ? Mabye 100% tax take from $60 a barrel to a Scottish Govt is better than 10% of tax take $60 a barrel as we get from Westminster via Barnett.. ?

And anyway. You've based your entire premise on the fact that no country on the planet could ever be independent or finance itself without oil. Which is just, plainly, wrong.

The Tories bankrolled BetterTogether. And they didn't do that for any sentimental mystical romantic unionist reasons. Nor for political gains considering they have only one MP up here. No.. they could smell money somewhere.. and LOTS of it. With Tories that's generally a given.

If you're interested in a fuller research paper on Scotland's fiscal position this is a good place to start:

http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_319446_en.pdf

If I were Scottish I'd be extremely pleased that I'd just voted to remain in the Union. The future would be looking rather bleak outside it.

Oh look.. both of the authors have Labour stooge written all over them. Bleak for the Scotland.. or bleak for the Labour party ? I think we all know which is the best guess here.

The publishers of the report – Glasgow University’s Centre of Public Policy and the Regions (CPPR) – question the viability of future sovereign oil fund and are described in the first paragraph as “a major independent think-tank”. At no point do The Scotsman flag up the fact that the author of the report, Jo Armstrong (above), was a former advisor to Jack McConnell and a champion of privatisation and PFI/PPP. Strange.


John McLaren, for example, was once an adviser to the Labour First Minister Donald Dewar - not something that is flagged up on television.

http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/2011/02/time-for-some-academic-transparency.html