PipFromSlitherine
Posts: 1446
Joined: 6/23/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loki100
quote:
ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine
GERS is indeed pretty clear:
quote:
In 2012-13, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £47.6 billion, (8.2% of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £48.1 billion (8.2% of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.1% of UK total public sector revenue).
In 2012-13, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other parts of the public sector, plus a per capita share of UK debt interest payments, was £65.2 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure.
So that even with the (heavily pro-Yes) geographical share of the oil money, 9.1% of revenue, but took 9.3% of expenditure. Otherwise 8.2% revenue, 9.3% expenditure.
http://scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888
So not sure where your figures are from, perhaps you can cite them.
Cheers
Pip
Hi
first GERS is not pro-yes, one reason I cite it (& use it other research) is its based on an agreed methodology agreed between the statisticians of the Scottish Govt and the UK Office for National Stats. Believe me, they are stats people to their finger tips, they don't do propaganda, they do rigorous work (with assumptions and estimates and all the rest of it).
Second, Oil on a geographic basis is the standard calculation, the alternative makes no sense, but is included to show the assumptions being made.
Third, the ratio shifts from year to year. The last GERS has relatively low tax from Oil as Osbourne messed up in an earlier budget which meant some fields were closed. My 9.6% is an average from 2008.
The basic point, is the expenditure bit (the 9.3%) is generally agreed (you need to make some assumptions such as per capita allocation of activities that happen geographically away from Scotland). The income side seems to vary from 9.1% to 9.8%.
Remember also they are also %s of different numbers, one is % of UK govt expenditure, the other is % of UK fiscal receipts.
Even if the 9.1% is the real income figure (for ever, not just a low point in a wider cycle), that still indicates a rough balance between spend in Scotland and revenues from Scotland. One element in the independence argument is of course we are paying for things we really do not want - such as Trident in that 9.3%. The expenditure also includes our share of servicing the UK national debt.
Roger
While I appreciate that I'm not going to change your mind, the statement that geographical basis for oil is the only one that makes sense doesn't really stand up. I'd also say you can accept their number or not accept their numbers, but you can't just pull 9.6% out of your hat and say you are backed by GERS.
The argument about Trident (or frankly, whatever) is the same one as made by extremists in the US ("I don't want my tax dollars going to X!") and is just as unreasonable. That's how democracy works.
And mentioning it includes a share of the UK national debt - when Scotland IS part of the UK - I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Anyway, the vote is done and we shall see.
Cheers
Pip
_____________________________
follow me on Twitter here |
Printable Version
RE: Scots Are they free - 
would it really make a difference if my country disappeared? Well yes actually it would. All be united under the EU more or less right? Er no. Nothing of the sort. There is no Federal Europe - at least not yet, and hopefully not in my lifetime. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread