Nine in Ten Scots households take more than they give

[cerbfan]

mrmr96 said:

RDM said:

mrmr96 said:

Why would I pay more tax as a result of cutting off Scotland, a net drain on the public purse?
I recognise that I may not pay less tax, and that Whitehall will just spend it on something else - but at least the "something else" is likely to South of the border.

Further down the article says:
"According to the most recent figures, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending."

So Scotland contributes more in tax than it receives in spending.

Did you read the article...

On the Scottish Gov website it says this:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Brows...

"Net Fiscal Balance: In 2010-11, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £17.9 billion (14.7 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £10.7 billion (7.4 per cent of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.

In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £136.1 billion (or 9.2 per cent of GDP)."

Scotland has a higher deficit than the UK as a whole, and as such the UK public purse would be better off without Scotland.

So on the figures you quote Scotland would be far, far better off on their own as if they gained independence they would be gain a geographical share of the oil fields (which is most of them) so would be left with a 7.4% deficit whereas the UK as a whole had a 9.2% deficit. This would have been greater than 9.2% as well if they lost the majority of the oil revenue which they would.

[RS16i]

sd477667 said:

I'd imagine there are more sweaties down here than English up there, will there be forced repatriation as part of independence?

I very much doubt that there are more of us down there.As for forced repatriation,good idea IMO.

[cerbfan]

Hope not, I'm English and I'd much rather stay up in Scotland instead of massively overcrowded England.

[emicen]

cerbfan said:

mrmr96 said:

RDM said:

mrmr96 said:

Why would I pay more tax as a result of cutting off Scotland, a net drain on the public purse?
I recognise that I may not pay less tax, and that Whitehall will just spend it on something else - but at least the "something else" is likely to South of the border.

Further down the article says:
"According to the most recent figures, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending."

So Scotland contributes more in tax than it receives in spending.

Did you read the article...

On the Scottish Gov website it says this:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Brows...

"Net Fiscal Balance: In 2010-11, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £17.9 billion (14.7 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £10.7 billion (7.4 per cent of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.

In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £136.1 billion (or 9.2 per cent of GDP)."

Scotland has a higher deficit than the UK as a whole, and as such the UK public purse would be better off without Scotland.

So on the figures you quote Scotland would be far, far better off on their own as if they gained independence they would be gain a geographical share of the oil fields (which is most of them) so would be left with a 7.4% deficit whereas the UK as a whole had a 9.2% deficit. This would have been greater than 9.2% as well if they lost the majority of the oil revenue which they would.

Now now, don't go trying to derail mrmr96's arguement by translating what he's posted in to the actual facts of the matter.

Surprised none of the budding statisticians on the thread has pointed out 12% is a lot more like 7 out of 8 (12.5%) than it is 9 out of 10 (10%)...

[London424]

emicen said:

cerbfan said:

mrmr96 said:

RDM said:

mrmr96 said:

Why would I pay more tax as a result of cutting off Scotland, a net drain on the public purse?
I recognise that I may not pay less tax, and that Whitehall will just spend it on something else - but at least the "something else" is likely to South of the border.

Further down the article says:
"According to the most recent figures, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending."

So Scotland contributes more in tax than it receives in spending.

Did you read the article...

On the Scottish Gov website it says this:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Brows...

"Net Fiscal Balance: In 2010-11, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £17.9 billion (14.7 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £10.7 billion (7.4 per cent of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.

In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £136.1 billion (or 9.2 per cent of GDP)."

Scotland has a higher deficit than the UK as a whole, and as such the UK public purse would be better off without Scotland.

So on the figures you quote Scotland would be far, far better off on their own as if they gained independence they would be gain a geographical share of the oil fields (which is most of them) so would be left with a 7.4% deficit whereas the UK as a whole had a 9.2% deficit. This would have been greater than 9.2% as well if they lost the majority of the oil revenue which they would.

Now now, don't go trying to derail mrmr96's arguement by translating what he's posted in to the actual facts of the matter.

Surprised none of the budding statisticians on the thread has pointed out 12% is a lot more like 7 out of 8 (12.5%) than it is 9 out of 10 (10%)...

It's probably easier if you hop over to the Scottish Independence thread as much of this has been discussed.

I'll just leave you with a couple of thoughts though.

If Scotland has a deficit of 7.4%, plus a rather chunky debt (can't forget this) who are you going to borrow from, at what rate and in what currency to service that?

Also don't forget that all of the economies of scale that are currently in play and all the additional public sector jobs that will need to be created (increasing said deficit and debt). E.g. DVLA, Passport office etc.

[emicen]

London424 said:

emicen said:

cerbfan said:

mrmr96 said:

RDM said:

mrmr96 said:

Why would I pay more tax as a result of cutting off Scotland, a net drain on the public purse?
I recognise that I may not pay less tax, and that Whitehall will just spend it on something else - but at least the "something else" is likely to South of the border.

Further down the article says:
"According to the most recent figures, Scotland contributed 9.6 per cent of Britain’s tax take and accounted for 9.3 per cent of public spending."

So Scotland contributes more in tax than it receives in spending.

Did you read the article...

On the Scottish Gov website it says this:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Brows...

"Net Fiscal Balance: In 2010-11, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £17.9 billion (14.7 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £10.7 billion (7.4 per cent of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.

In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £136.1 billion (or 9.2 per cent of GDP)."

Scotland has a higher deficit than the UK as a whole, and as such the UK public purse would be better off without Scotland.

So on the figures you quote Scotland would be far, far better off on their own as if they gained independence they would be gain a geographical share of the oil fields (which is most of them) so would be left with a 7.4% deficit whereas the UK as a whole had a 9.2% deficit. This would have been greater than 9.2% as well if they lost the majority of the oil revenue which they would.

Now now, don't go trying to derail mrmr96's arguement by translating what he's posted in to the actual facts of the matter.

Surprised none of the budding statisticians on the thread has pointed out 12% is a lot more like 7 out of 8 (12.5%) than it is 9 out of 10 (10%)...

It's probably easier if you hop over to the Scottish Independence thread as much of this has been discussed.

I'll just leave you with a couple of thoughts though.

If Scotland has a deficit of 7.4%, plus a rather chunky debt (can't forget this) who are you going to borrow from, at what rate and in what currency to service that?

Also don't forget that all of the economies of scale that are currently in play and all the additional public sector jobs that will need to be created (increasing said deficit and debt). E.g. DVLA, Passport office etc.

Sorry, at what point did I indicate I was pro-independence, thus needing you to tell me things I already know full well?

FWIW, and IMO, public sectors jobs would wash out about even. We have a disproportionately high number of tax offices up here serving UK PLC, half of them would need the boot so their minions could be re-assigned to central admin for our DVLA and passport offices.

Bottom line, I'm the one from some group of eight, who currently pays massively more in tax than I receive back in services of any kind. If the turkeys vote for xmas, I'll be moving to Oslo, Houston or Rio.