On top of the flawed, but still basically sound, Scotland Office demonstration that Scotland's oil revenues (and more) have been spent in Scotland over the years, this graphic in The Economist caught my eye.
Interesting numbers, aren't they?
Sourced from ONS and Treasury data.
I thought I'd a do a little bit of ranking analysis on the figures for GVA (gross value added) and public spending (PS) per head.
GVA Rank PS Rank
East 3 12
E Mids 6 10
Lon 1 2
N East 11 5
NI 10 1
N West 7 7
Sco 4 3
S East 2 6
S West 5 11
Wal 12 4
W Mids 8 9
Y & H 9 8
So what's the problem? Scotland ranks 4th for GVA and 3rd for public spending. Seems about right, and lines up with the other published statistics. Looks like the wily Welsh and Norn Irish are doing much better out of public spending than we are, and the folks in East Anglia and the South-west should be most concerned.
But I hear the cry "Aha! I bet these numbers ignore the North Sea!"
And so they do. Those figures have been calculated excluding the "Extra Regio".
But fear not. Our [irony on] hated Westminster colonial masters are so keen to hide Scotland's true economic situation [irony off] that it is rather easy to compensate for this, from the published data.
If you do that, then Scotland's GVA (assuming a geographic split of North Sea revenue) goes up from £19,200 per head to £24,000 per head.
So, while I can't be sure what the corresponding values for the GVAs for the bits of England & Wales ought to be, the equivalent of the above table would look something like this:
GVA Rank PS Rank
East 4 12
E Mids 6 9
Lon 1 2
N East 11 5
NI 10 1
N West 7 7
Sco 2 3
S East 3 6
S West 5 11
Wal 12 4
W Mids 8 8
Y & H 9 10
Again, what's the problem?
Scotland is more or less given public spending in accordance with its economic contribution - and let's remember that this is just a snapshot for one particular year.
We should also reflect on the wider unionist morality of this. Do the Americans think "let's kick out Mississippi, Arkansas and the like because they get more spending than they contribute in taxes"? No they don't, because they consider them all to be American.
Similarly, do we think we should kick out the Geordies, Welsh and Norn Irish for the same reason? No we don't, because they're Brits too.
Just like us.
10 comments:
Sailing close to the wind here Smee with lots of caveats as usual I see.
"Scotland is more or less given public spending in accordance with its economic contribution"
"a snapshot for one particular year"
"We should also reflect on the wider unionist morality of this"
Can I quote this in future?
It's sublime
"Mississippi, Arkansas"
Ah yes, a state that has a 1-7p variation in income tax and the ability to set the personal allowance.
A 'state' that contol's taxaton over such diverses issues as wrecker and towing services; dry cleaning and laundry; body piercing, tattooing and electrolysis; pest control; security and alarm monitoring; self-storage facilities; boat storage and docking; and pet grooming and kennl services (woof).
Each city & country within the state has the ability to enact additional local 'capped' taxes if supported by by local voters.
The ability to exempt low paid workers from income tax.
Alcohol taxed locally with various rates depending on source.
My good smee, calman could have learned something here.
Now what was that about 'unionist morality'
Property taxes are assessed on real and personal property; only 20% of the value is used as the tax base.
That's concept that Labour might want to think about when looing at council tax alternatives, the home soemone is in isn't necessarily an indicator of their 'personal property', for the 800,000 people who rent in Scotland, it certainly isn't.
Yes, but what were you doing looking at "Brazzers.com" while commenting on my blog?
Did it excite you that much?
But hold on a minute, your saying that the union (which is effectively Barnett for the modern era) isn't failing Scotland.
The Lords are saying that it gives Scotland too much compared to Northern Ireland & Wales.
So as a good unionist and through the logic of your conviction that Scotland has benefited dissproprtionately, you'll support the reduction in spending on Scotland?
n'est-ce pas?
What will you cut Smee?
The Lords committee report (of which I have a copy) is interesting.
One issue it does not touch on is the linkage between higher per capita spending in Scotland and oil revenues.
This has never been formalised and properly put on record, but it's clearly there - look at the references to "Barnett bypass" in the report, and recall that establishing just such an informal linkage was exactly what Gavin McCrone was trying to do in 1974/75.
But that's the past, and the problem is that oil revenue is no longer producing the bonanzas of the mid-80s and the Scottish budget is in deficit, both cumulatively and on an ongoing basis.
(As shown by the recent GERS covering 2007/8. And as will be shown by next year's one, covering 2008/9, despite a near-doubling of oil revenue. The underlying data are available and make that outcome clear.)
So clearly there is pain to come, as there is across the UK. I would expect Cameron's government to set up some sort of independent review body which will look at constitutional and devolved funding arrangements in the first term, but with an explicit proviso that nothing would be implemented until a second term.
And then of course any recommendations would come with a phase-in period, which would be anything from 5 to 20 years.
So I don't see any major impact any time soon.
Sometime in the 2020s a future Holyrood administration will have to think about reintroducing charges for some of the stuff which should never have been made "free" in the first place.
BFD.
Eh? What are you havering on about man ? Scotland is given spending money according to the Barnett formula which was assessed on need and geographical factors. For the record I don't think it's fair as circumstances have changed, and there are other areas of the UK who are more needy than we are.
But in point of fact, since 1997 Scotland has actually been given quite a lot of money to spend. However, and I say this as a dyed in the wool public sector worker and trade unionist, much of it, under Labour, was spent on a load of old ideological rubbish and as a consequence was more or less wasted. I can expand on that at length should anyone wish to be placed in a coma.
I am not convinced by all these graphs and other such nonsense, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. It is what the money is spent on that counts.
OK I've read your answers and you are too damned right that cuts need to be made. And BTW we will all of us be paying higher taxes too.
The consequences of bailing out the banks haven't really hit us, but the govt borrowed more money than is imaginable to the average person, and we have to pay it back or else the IMF will come in.
In actual fact I wish that the IMF would come in, because NO politicians are actually facing the facts here.
What is their phone number ?
Smee
You seem resigned to change, albeit very slow change.
Do you really think that Cameron over the next five years and whoever after that will be able to sit ontop of the Genie's lantern.
It's flown my friend, there is no going back for the Scots.
The realy question is how far should finances to all of the regions and nations of the UK be devolved.
You mentioned Arkansas in this thread, with a population of just under 3million, it has far more control over it's finances than Scotland.
Isn't it time for the Tory unionists to grasp the libertarian mood and push for greater fiscal autonomy and therefore greater fiscal responsibility?
Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland and a new fresh union relationship base don a federal 'payback for UK Issues such as the armed forces, international etc etc....
Your feet dragging will be your undoing.
And by god, we all know you have big feet to drag!
Observer
"Scotland is given spending money according to the Barnett formula which was assessed on need and geographical factors."
No it wasn't.
The Barnett formula was based on the previous Goschen formula, and both of them were more or less made up on the back of an envelope.
Have a look at:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/hlbarnettformula.cfm
What I'm "havering on about" is - ah, already covered in my 19:06. No point me repeating it.
"The realy question is how far should finances to all of the regions and nations of the UK be devolved."
No, the really important question is restoring those finances so that one day there will be anything to devolve!
"No, the really important question is restoring those finances so that one day there will be anything to devolve!"
Ha ha ha ha
Delaying tactics, the truth is Smee, for you it'll never be time to devolve more power, your sweeping it under the carpet, trying frantically to avoid the issue.
The same argument was deployed in 1979.
Do you still wear those brown chord flares?
Post a Comment