Scottish Independence

[DarloRich]

Mod Note: This thread has been split from here.

It will be interesting to see how much they manage once the English tax money dries up!

 

[SkinnyDave]

Yeah will be just as interesting to see what happens to England's economy when the oil dries up too

 

[clc]

It will be interesting to see how much they manage once the English tax money dries up!

There is no English subsidy. Its a common misconception which has been debunked by official govt figures.

 

[SkinnyDave]

There is no English subsidy. Its a common misconception which has been debunked by official govt figures.

Correct

 

[HSTEd]

There is no English subsidy. Its a common misconception which has been debunked by official govt figures.

Actually the figures seem to say there is a subsidy and at the same time there isn't one.
Essentially it depends on how you seperate economies from each other, and how you ascribe costs.
For instance many Scottish nationalists count all petroleum revenue from the North Sea as scottish, even though significant quantities of it would remain with the rest of the UK were the Scots to secede.

It is not entirely clear whether a subsidy does actually exist, while it is certain that Scotland would be significantly poorer if it seceded (thanks to the retrenchment in investment inherent in a separation), and would certainly lose its totemic shipbuilding industry (why would the Royal Navy buy its warships in a foreign country?)

 

[DarloRich]

There is no English subsidy. Its a common misconception which has been debunked by official govt figures.

Of course the Scottish "parliament" will want to try and suggest they are self sufficient as it must be galling to know that deep down they are reliant on the hated English for everything!

However using their own figures it is easy to see that Scotland receives a subsidy from the rest of the UK. They clearly contribute less than they take out. This has gone on for years. They have done very well out of the Barnett Formula!

The basic facts are that Scotland makes up about 8.4% of the total UK population and generates about 8.3% of the UK's total economic output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues. Which is good. However they receive 9.2% of total UK public spending.

Scottish Executive figures show that spending per person in Scotland was £11,370, compared with £10,320 for the rest of UK. Therefore spending in Scotland about £1,030, or roughly 10% higher, per person than the wider UK average.

Consider that in detail for a moment.The population of Scotland in 2011 was c.5.295m and the rest of the UK population was c.57.445m. For the whole of the remainder of the UK which has a greater population, areas with at least the same (if not greater) levels of deprivation, unemployment, poverty and unhealthiness the spending is lower per person per annum. Clearly the money is spread more thinly for the poor in the rest of the UK

The same Scottish Executive figures show Scotland's total non-oil tax revenues in 2009-10 were about £42.7bn or £8,221 per head. Total public expenditure in Scotland was £59.2bn, or around £11,370 per head. Therefore Scotland spent £16.5bn more than it contributed to the total UK economy. This means each Scot received a subsidy payment of about £3,150!

Even taking on board the most favorable numbers the nationalists have been able to conjure up using ALL of the oil revenue ( which is falling and may well continue to fall and is ours anyway) the subsidy was STILL over £2000 per person in Scotland!

So no subsidy at all there then!

Yeah will be just as interesting to see what happens to England's economy when the oil dries up too

You are forgetting we can frack ourselves silly now.

 

[St Rollox]

Think a few posters are slightly confused when it comes to Scotland and railways.
The fact that Scotland has it's own parliament that decides most of it's affairs differentiates it from regions in England.
We have our parliament because as with Wales and Northern Ireland we are seen as a place apart.
Scotland is after all one of the old nations in Europe.
i don't have any problem remaining part of the UK along as long we get our fair share of the profits.
And at the moment we're not getting our fair share.
London at present must have at least two or three stations on every main road.
How many upgrades and add ons has London had in the last 30 years.
Exactly.
Scotland is asking for our fair share, nothing more nothing less.
And fair share isn't a few quid to join Airdrie and Bathgate after a 50 year wait.
Try a couple of billion.

 

[Butts]

Of course the Scottish "parliament" will want to try and suggest they are self sufficient as it must be galling to know that deep down they are reliant on the hated English for everything!

However using their own figures it is easy to see that Scotland receives a subsidy from the rest of the UK. They clearly contribute less than they take out. This has gone on for years. They have done very well out of the Barnett Formula!

The basic facts are that Scotland makes up about 8.4% of the total UK population and generates about 8.3% of the UK's total economic output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues. Which is good. However they receive 9.2% of total UK public spending.

Scottish Executive figures show that spending per person in Scotland was £11,370, compared with £10,320 for the rest of UK. Therefore spending in Scotland about £1,030, or roughly 10% higher, per person than the wider UK average.

Consider that in detail for a moment.The population of Scotland in 2011 was c.5.295m and the rest of the UK population was c.57.445m. For the whole of the remainder of the UK which has a greater population, areas with at least the same (if not greater) levels of deprivation, unemployment, poverty and unhealthiness the spending is lower per person per annum. Clearly the money is spread more thinly for the poor in the rest of the UK

The same Scottish Executive figures show Scotland's total non-oil tax revenues in 2009-10 were about £42.7bn or £8,221 per head. Total public expenditure in Scotland was £59.2bn, or around £11,370 per head. Therefore Scotland spent £16.5bn more than it contributed to the total UK economy. This means each Scot received a subsidy payment of about £3,150!

Even taking on board the most favorable numbers the nationalists have been able to conjure up using ALL of the oil revenue ( which is falling and may well continue to fall and is ours anyway) the subsidy was STILL over £2000 per person in Scotland!

So no subsidy at all there then!



You are forgetting we can frack ourselves silly now.

If you examine the figures you will find that Northern Ireland has a higher "spend per head" than Scotland.

Scotlands figure is higher due to the dispersal of the population outwith the Central Band. ie it is more expensive to provide services in rural areas for fewer people.

I suspect if you took London/South East out of the English figures I think you would get a shock as that area generates most of the money spent in Darlington and other Northern Areas. of England.(and Scotland as well !!!!)

 

[clc]

Of course the Scottish "parliament" will want to try and suggest they are self sufficient as it must be galling to know that deep down they are reliant on the hated English for everything!

However using their own figures it is easy to see that Scotland receives a subsidy from the rest of the UK. They clearly contribute less than they take out. This has gone on for years. They have done very well out of the Barnett Formula!

The basic facts are that Scotland makes up about 8.4% of the total UK population and generates about 8.3% of the UK's total economic output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues. Which is good. However they receive 9.2% of total UK public spending.

Scottish Executive figures show that spending per person in Scotland was £11,370, compared with £10,320 for the rest of UK. Therefore spending in Scotland about £1,030, or roughly 10% higher, per person than the wider UK average.

Consider that in detail for a moment.The population of Scotland in 2011 was c.5.295m and the rest of the UK population was c.57.445m. For the whole of the remainder of the UK which has a greater population, areas with at least the same (if not greater) levels of deprivation, unemployment, poverty and unhealthiness the spending is lower per person per annum. Clearly the money is spread more thinly for the poor in the rest of the UK

The same Scottish Executive figures show Scotland's total non-oil tax revenues in 2009-10 were about £42.7bn or £8,221 per head. Total public expenditure in Scotland was £59.2bn, or around £11,370 per head. Therefore Scotland spent £16.5bn more than it contributed to the total UK economy. This means each Scot received a subsidy payment of about £3,150!

Even taking on board the most favorable numbers the nationalists have been able to conjure up using ALL of the oil revenue ( which is falling and may well continue to fall and is ours anyway) the subsidy was STILL over £2000 per person in Scotland!

So no subsidy at all there then!

Most of the figures you quoted don't include Scotland's geographic share of North Sea Oil revenues. You are also making the mistake of equating Scotland's deficit with English subsidy. Scotland is currently spending more than it raises in tax but so is the UK. However, the UK has an even bigger deficit than Scotland proportionate to GDP. Scotland is liable for it's share of the UK's national debt so there is no basis for claims of English subsidy.

 

[HSTEd]

Almost all fo the transport improvements in London are the result of BCR calculations.
Spending elsewhere just can't generate good BCR figures.

This is not about "fair shares" for "old nations in Europe" this is about getting the greatest benefits from the smallest amount of money. Improvements in the south east tend to pay for themselves, meaning that they do not cost the taxpayer much money at all.

If you want to get London level public transport then you have to pack the entire population of Scotland into roughly one thousand square kilometres.
Which translates as 1.3% of its land area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Most of the figures you quoted don't include Scotland's geographic share of North Sea Oil revenues. You are also making the mistake of equating Scotland's deficit with English subsidy. Scotland is currently spending more than it raises in tax but so is the UK. However, the UK has an even bigger deficit than Scotland proportionate to GDP. Scotland is liable for it's share of the UK's national debt so there is no basis for claims of English subsidy.

Yes, the oil revenues that will have to dissapear if the Scottish government is serious about decarbonisation.
They can't have it both ways, demanding a "green economy" while clinging on to oil production using frankly rather optimistic production and pricing statistics. (Oil production is currently falling off a cliff and the figures suggesting a rebound are preliminary at best, and depend on strengthening in oil prices which is unlikely to occur thanks to the massive upswing of shale oil production in the US)

Additionally you have to account for various inequalities in defence spending and the like (I would like to see how Scotland pays to maintain all those beloved battalions of the RRoS, or handle the economic depression caused in Argyll and Bute caused by the forcible closure of Faslane and Coulport as demanded by the SNP).
That and the projected total loss of surviving Scottish shipyards could put tens of thousands of well paid staff out of work.

Additionally as to the fact that the UK is deficit spending "more" than Scotland, you have to account for various cyclical measures, it would appear that the depression had less of an impact in Scotland than in England, and thus that the deficit in Scotland will tend to be longer lasting than the one in England.
That means that deficit spending that is sustainable for the UK as a whole in the short-to-medium term will not be sustainable in Scotland alone because it is likely to take longer to recover without the massive tax revenues produced by the City of London.

 

[tbtc]

Scotlands figure is higher due to the dispersal of the population outwith the Central Band. ie it is more expensive to provide services in rural areas for fewer people

...which is why infrastructure investments in large English urban areas often have better business cases. People can't have it both ways.

(the "Borders" line being more about politics than economics)

 

[Butts]

Most of the figures you quoted don't include Scotland's geographic share of North Sea Oil revenues. You are also making the mistake of equating Scotland's deficit with English subsidy. Scotland is currently spending more than it raises in tax but so is the UK. However, the UK has an even bigger deficit than Scotland proportionate to GDP. Scotland is liable for it's share of the UK's national debt so there is no basis for claims of English subsidy.

The biggest suprise to me is that no Scottish Government of whatever complexion has ever used it's powers to increase/decrease the basic rate of income tax by 3 pence.

They complain they do not have enough control over finances yet don't use the powers they have.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...which is why infrastructure investments in large English urban areas often have better business cases. People can't have it both ways.

(the "Borders" line being more about politics than economics)

I agree any part of the UK not confined within the borders of the M25 can forget it.....

However as this area raises the most revenue then.......

 

[tbtc]

The biggest suprise to me is that no Scottish Government of whatever complexion has ever used it's powers to increase/decrease the basic rate of income tax by 3 pence.

They complain they do not have enough control over finances yet don't use the powers they have.

True.

I voted YES/ YES fifteen(ish) years ago, thinking that if the Parliament were going to be a success then it needed the power over finances.

Now we are headed for independence so that Scotland can have more power, when its never used the power that it already has.

As you say, it's surprising.

 

[Butts]

True.

I voted YES/ YES fifteen(ish) years ago, thinking that if the Parliament were going to be a success then it needed the power over finances.

Now we are headed for independence so that Scotland can have more power, when its never used the power that it already has.

As you say, it's surprising.

Didn't realise they got a vote in Sheffield (on the devo )

Seriously Scotland is not headed for independence any time soon - we know when we are on to a good thing

Back to Railways I would like to see Scotrail Trains operating throughout the UK with the livery on some decent rolling stock....it would be great to see "Greenbacks" face if a Scotrail service pulled into Llanelli

 

[St Rollox]

I suppose at the end of the day Scotland will get it's little odds and ends and be grateful for them.
Remind me to doff my cap in about 40 years.

 

[Butts]

I suppose at the end of the day Scotland will get it's little odds and ends and be grateful for them.
Remind me to doff my cap in about 40 years.

We've been "doffing them" for 200 Years -why stop now

 

[clc]

The biggest suprise to me is that no Scottish Government of whatever complexion has ever used it's powers to increase/decrease the basic rate of income tax by 3 pence.

They complain they do not have enough control over finances yet don't use the powers they have.

The tax powers are too narrow. The SG could cut income tax to stimulate the economy. Consumer spending would increase and so would receipts of Vat and other taxes. However, those extra receipts would accrue to the Treasury, not the SG, which would be financially worse off.

 

[Butts]

The tax powers are too narrow. The SG could cut income tax to stimulate the economy. Consumer spending would increase and so would receipts of Vat and other taxes. However, those extra receipts would accrue to the Treasury, not the SG, which would be financially worse off.

If they increased the rate of Income Tax they would have money to spend as that revenue would go to them and not Westminster.

People always say they would pay higher taxes for better services

 

[DarloRich]

Most of the figures you quoted don't include Scotland's geographic share of North Sea Oil revenues. You are also making the mistake of equating Scotland's deficit with English subsidy. Scotland is currently spending more than it raises in tax but so is the UK. However, the UK has an even bigger deficit than Scotland proportionate to GDP. Scotland is liable for it's share of the UK's national debt so there is no basis for claims of English subsidy.

even taking ALL of the oil revenue the subsidy is still £2k plus per person in Scotland

If you examine the figures you will find that Northern Ireland has a higher "spend per head" than Scotland.

Scotlands figure is higher due to the dispersal of the population outwith the Central Band. ie it is more expensive to provide services in rural areas for fewer people.

I suspect if you took London/South East out of the English figures I think you would get a shock as that area generates most of the money spent in Darlington and other Northern Areas. of England.(and Scotland as well !!!!)

I dont disagree, Northern Island gets the most subsidy. Scotland get a lot to, regardless of population spread.

When Scotland chuffs off into the distance we will have an extra £1697925000 to spend plus we will be down by a good 1/4 of the national debt - dont let the door hit you on the way out chaps!

THAT is why you have a decent railway in Scotland!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Think a few posters are slightly confused when it comes to Scotland and railways.
The fact that Scotland has it's own parliament that decides most of it's affairs differentiates it from regions in England.
We have our parliament because as with Wales and Northern Ireland we are seen as a place apart.
Scotland is after all one of the old nations in Europe.
i don't have any problem remaining part of the UK along as long we get our fair share of the profits.
And at the moment we're not getting our fair share.
London at present must have at least two or three stations on every main road.
How many upgrades and add ons has London had in the last 30 years.
Exactly.
Scotland is asking for our fair share, nothing more nothing less.
And fair share isn't a few quid to join Airdrie and Bathgate after a 50 year wait.
Try a couple of billion.

what a bitter (scots?)man - you do very well on the investment front, in fact you get MORE than your fair share!

 

[clc]

If they increased the rate of Income Tax they would have money to spend as that revenue would go to them and not Westminster.

People always say they would pay higher taxes for better services

I dont think the politicians believe the public when they say that. The SNP's 'Penny For Scotland' didn't go down too well.

 

[clc]

Yes, the oil revenues that will have to dissapear if the Scottish government is serious about decarbonisation.
They can't have it both ways, demanding a "green economy" while clinging on to oil production using frankly rather optimistic production and pricing statistics. (Oil production is currently falling off a cliff and the figures suggesting a rebound are preliminary at best, and depend on strengthening in oil prices which is unlikely to occur thanks to the massive upswing of shale oil production in the US)

Additionally you have to account for various inequalities in defence spending and the like (I would like to see how Scotland pays to maintain all those beloved battalions of the RRoS, or handle the economic depression caused in Argyll and Bute caused by the forcible closure of Faslane and Coulport as demanded by the SNP).
That and the projected total loss of surviving Scottish shipyards could put tens of thousands of well paid staff out of work.

Additionally as to the fact that the UK is deficit spending "more" than Scotland, you have to account for various cyclical measures, it would appear that the depression had less of an impact in Scotland than in England, and thus that the deficit in Scotland will tend to be longer lasting than the one in England.
That means that deficit spending that is sustainable for the UK as a whole in the short-to-medium term will not be sustainable in Scotland alone because it is likely to take longer to recover without the massive tax revenues produced by the City of London.

There is a lot of investment planned in the North Sea, quite a few big announcements recently. Long term oil prices are predicted to be strong.

Defence spending would increase in an independant Scotland, there's a £1 billion annual underspend at the moment. And of course not having to contribute to Trident replacement will save a few billion.

Scotland has generated more tax revenue per head than the rest of the UK in each one of the past 30 years. With full fiscal powers I'm sure we'd see improvements in economic growth rate.

 

[Butts]

There is a lot of investment planned in the North Sea, quite a few big announcements recently. Long term oil prices are predicted to be strong.

Defence spending would increase in an independant Scotland, there's a £1 billion annual underspend at the moment. And of course not having to contribute to Trident replacement will save a few billion.

Scotland has generated more tax revenue per head than the rest of the UK in each one of the past 30 years. With full fiscal powers I'm sure we'd see improvements in economic growth rate.

What would have happened in an independent Scotland when RBS went belly up ?

 

[Eagle]

Considering that most of their business is south of the border (as NatWest) I wonder which government they'd have appealed to...

 

[Butts]

Considering that most of their business is south of the border (as NatWest) I wonder which government they'd have appealed to...

But their registered Head Office is in Edinburgh , so the SG would be in the firing line

 

[clc]

What would have happened in an independent Scotland when RBS went belly up ?

Given that RBS is also England's biggest bank and would have destroyed England's financial system had it been allowed to collapse, a joint UK/Scotland rescue would have been the outcome I believe.

 

[HSTEd]

There is a lot of investment planned in the North Sea, quite a few big announcements recently. Long term oil prices are predicted to be strong.

That was before the explosion of land based shale oil, even the Barnett shale oil deposits have a lower production price than the new North Sea Oil discoveries that are topping $70/bbl.
The fact that oil prices appear to be slipping over the fast 18 months puts lie to this belief that they will stay high (it will likely drop below $100/bbl for Brent Crude pretty soon).

Defence spending would increase in an independant Scotland, there's a £1 billion annual underspend at the moment. And of course not having to contribute to Trident replacement will save a few billion.

You do realise that the Trident replacement programme will be about 3% of the defence budget over the time concerned? It really is not expensive at all considering it is by far the most important component of our defence capability for actually defending Britain.
It is likely that independence woudl result in the Trident programme being a net disbenefit for scotland as it is likely that the SNP will demand the closure of Coulport and Faslane, destroying the sixteen thousand well paid jobs isupports in Scotland and moving them all south of the border. In any case it is certain that no new infrastructure to support the programme would be constructed there, ensuring that it will gradually be run down over the lifetime of the succesor programme.

Scotland has generated more tax revenue per head than the rest of the UK in each one of the past 30 years. With full fiscal powers I'm sure we'd see improvements in economic growth rate.

Scotland would have no control of monetary policy, since it will either be part of Sterling or the Euro with no control over either's central bank.
Interest rates would be set to suit conditions in England or Germany, not to suit Scotland which would inevitable de-integrate from the economy of the remainder of Britain.

Then, as expected, the EU demands they give up any and all opt outs that the UK has, such as an exemption from Schengen, we can expect the deployment of border controls along the border with England and any number of other nightmares.

And if Scotland tries to stay out of the EU to avoid this fate then it being in the Common Travel Area is likely troublesome thanks to problems with VAT reporting.

And before anyone says that the EU making them give up opt outs is just nonsense spouted by the anti independence movement.... the only precedent we have involves UN memberships, with breakaway states being required to join the UN again in every case I know of, (see the breakups of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union - the Ukraine was already a member of the UN in its own right and had been since it was founded and so did not have to rejoin) additionally France and Spain have a vested interest in requiring Scotland to rejoin seperately to discourage their own seperatist movements.

So yeah, it would not end well for Scotland.

 

[michael769]

However using their own figures it is easy to see that Scotland receives a subsidy from the rest of the UK. They clearly contribute less than they take out. This has gone on for years. They have done very well out of the Barnett Formula!

Not true. The Westminster Treasury has admitted that Scotland contributes more revenue per head to the treasury than does most of England (only London "beats" us).

What is true is that The North of England suffers very badly form spending relative to the rest of the UK, mainly because London sucks investment out of the rest of the country. The main benefit of the Scottish Parliament has been that spending decisions are being made by people who are capable of recognizing that the country does not stop at Watford Gap, and the sole benefit of independence would be that we would no longer have to subsidize London's bloat.

 

[SkinnyDave]

the SNP won't demand the removal of trident, around 85% of Scotland will demand its removal.
16000 well supported jobs a claim as to how much this will have an effect on Scottish jobs is still up for debate as a lot of the 16000 are MOD.

Oil revenues being quoted on here and elsewhere is all smoke and mirrors from all sides which leads me to think if we go for somewhere in the middle that will be about right.
Ship building, there are more customers in the world than England
If it will end up badly for Scotland then why are Westminster hell bent on keeping Scotland? and it all comes back to the North Sea every time.
Currency is only concern for me and I agree with HST to an extent and there are committees and business leaders calling to look at own currency which has its own can of worms.

If independence is achieved I think it will be great for the UK as a whole as England will no longer be able to sustain a London led economy and I would vote for regional assembly's.

 

[ainsworth74]

Ship building, there are more customers in the world than England

Ship building in the UK is predicated on the sale of warships, I can't remember the last major order for civilian ships and especially for civilian ships sold abroad. There is the odd order for patrol boats to overseas buyers but there hardly the kind of thing that could support two full shipyards like Govan and Scotstoun. The only major customer for ships from Scottish yards for the last decade or more has been the Royal Navy.

But if independence happens then I doubt, in the long term, that the Royal Navy will continue buying from Scotland. So who else could they sell ships to? Well the European market is incredibly competitive and mostly sown up by either multi-nationals or home suppliers. Further most nations fleets are fairly modern at this point having been upgraded over the last ten years or so. It would be a tough market to break into. Other major buyers like the US, India, China, Japan or former buyers like Australia, New Zealand and Canada all have their own warship building industries and they're not likely to look to the UK to replace a home industry.

Most everyone else tends to either buy second hand or two or three ships sporadically. Hardly the kind of market that the Scotland could romp into and sustain a successful industry on the back of.

The SDF could probably sustain it in the short term. The few Type 23s it inherits could reasonably be replaced in the first few years after independence and they might reasonably want a few extra patrol ships to help police Scotland's EEZ. But that work will dry up around 2025 I'd imagine and it's doubtful it could keep both yards busy. So who do you sell to after the SDF is modernised?

As for selling civilian ships I can't see it. Again the civilian market is either supplied by local shipyards or is sown up by Chinese/Korean and similar yards. All of whom will build ships at a far lower cost that Scotland could manage.

All this is to say that yes, there are other buyers out there other than the rUKs Royal Navy but I'd be fascinated to know who you think would actually buy Scottish warships? Do you envisage that this prospective buyer will be able to supply enough business to keep two shipyards open? If not which will close? And how does a shipyard closing end up being a good thing for Scotland? Especially considering if Scotland remained in the Union that yard and it's jobs would have remained?

Finally it's worth remembering that a lot of the detailed design and most importantly weapons/electronic systems integration is handled by rUK facilities and companies. It's possibly dangerous to assume that an independent Scotland would retain access to this knowledge base. So it's possible that Scotland wouldn't actually have a warship building industry at all, at least not without partnering with someone else to supply the value added items.

 

[DarloRich]

Not true. The Westminster Treasury has admitted that Scotland contributes more revenue per head to the treasury than does most of England (only London "beats" us).

What is true is that The North of England suffers very badly form spending relative to the rest of the UK, mainly because London sucks investment out of the rest of the country. The main benefit of the Scottish Parliament has been that spending decisions are being made by people who are capable of recognizing that the country does not stop at Watford Gap, and the sole benefit of independence would be that we would no longer have to subsidize London's bloat.

That isn't my point.

My point is you take out more than you give back and you get more money per head than the rest of the UK combined. The figures clearly show this. Your own executives figures clearly show this. Why cant you admit it?