Wikipedia Andy? Come on, you know as well as I do that Wikipedia is the authority on nothing.
Here is the link to the Office of National Statistics website where those figures come from. Happy now?
But, lets take your figures anyway, given that you took the time to find them. I assume that these figures include the revenue from North Sea oil? I doubt it somehow, because Westminster don't seem to want to include these figures in any of their national GDP figures. Maybe we could imagine what they would look like, eh?
That's because there is no such thing as Scottish maritime waters from a soverign point of view and as such the oil is in UK waters and is treated as a UK (or
extra regio) income. In a similar way, nationwide expenditure is not broken down for expenditure figures for the regions (defence being a notable point).
You see, both words can mean 'not large' but lesser can also mean ' not so important'. As I said above, Scotland is a smaller country, not a lesser country.
That's for you to worry about. The simple fact is that it was a correct choice of word for the aim. If you want to read more into it then that is your problem.
(Although one could point out that a smaller country with a smaller income and pretty much no chance of a seat on the UN Security Council is lesser on the world stage in the same way that Fiji is a lesser nation than the UK, but that is).
And as the above suggests, England supports the minor nations (whilst London and the South East support the North of England as well as the smaller countries).
Again, as above, I assume that this is based on figures which include North Sea Oil revenue?...........
Let me provide you with some back up of how important this is.
Quote from an article in The Herald, June 2009.
You bemoan me for wiki and you quote a paper and a month with no information about the author or the date (both of which were easy to find from wiki). Some might level an accusation of hypocrisy here, but I shall not stoop so low.
Scotland's public finances would be showing a surplus for the third year in a row if it received its geographical share of North Sea oil revenues, according to a Scottish Government report.
It shows Scotland would be £219m in the black for 2007-8, figures that Finance Secretary John Swinney claimed were "further evidence of the benefits of full fiscal autonomy".
Shock horror! Scottish government minister and member of a party which wants independence claims Scotland would be much better off as it would get to keep all the oil!
In other news there are rumours the Pope is Catholic and there are preliminary reports linking bears and woods
However, without this share of the oil money the deficit for the year is £7.1bn and with capital expenditure taken into account that rises to £11.1bn.
The figures, in the annual Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland (Gers) report, intensified a row between the SNP and Labour over how they should be interpreted.
Mr Swinney said: "Scotland has been in current budget surplus now for three years, to the tune of almost £2.3bn. The Gers figures confirm that Scotland stands on a firm financial footing - firmer than the UK as a whole - and that full fiscal autonomy and independence hold out the prospect of a flourishing and economically successful Scotland.
"To illustrate, in family budget terms, Scotland's current account is in surplus, while the UK is in overdraft. This represents the reality of Scotland's budget position, based on the official figures.
"The figures show more than £7bn of North Sea revenue from Scottish waters flowing into the UK Treasury in the last financial year and that figure is likely to be some £12bn next year emphasising the strength of Scotland's fiscal position."
So going back to those figures you mentioned earlier, this article suggests that Scotland's geographical North Sea Oil revenue is around £7.3 billion. At around the same time, the Scottish government predicted the Scottish population to be 5,168,500 (£1,412 per capita).
Convert that to € at todays rates for the sake of argument gives €1,662, added to Scotland's €17,789 gives a GDP of €19,451, more than England. Just some figures thrown together.[/quote]
You will forgive me for not just accepting the above as face value. Given that there is no agreement of what would or could constitute Scottish waters (do we go by either of the two UK acts of law or move to the UN one?). Also, you are not increasing the England amounts by their percentage (England would still get a percentage of the North Sea and all of the Irish Sea oil fields which would push that up).
And since you want to carve up an
extra regio income do you not think one should also look at
extra reggio expenditure (some 50 billion in 2004 to 2005 (McLean, 2008)?
I will, in rebuttal point you to analysis by the CPPR as reported in the
Times on 28 February 2010.
An independent Scotland would face a £17 billion-a-year deficit and inherit £125 billion of UK debt if Scots voted to break from the union this year, a study has revealed.
Analysis by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions (CPPR), an economic think-tank, suggests an independent Scotland would have one of the highest levels of public debt in the developed world.
...
The report, based on official UK Treasury forecasts, suggests that even taking North Sea oil revenues into account, Scotland’s deficit stands at about £17.7 billion, falling to £16.8 billion in the new financial year.
...
When Scotland’s two major banks collapsed, the fundamental strength of the UK protected the jobs, homes, mortgages and savings of millions from the bankers. The SNP’s crude attempt to rely on oil, which is volatile in price and finite in supply, is flawed and the politics of the 1970s
So basically, oil will not save you and it is funds borrowed on the basis of the UK economy (largely supported by the City of London and Docklands) which has allowed the bail out to save Scotland after its banking sector folded. Let's see you service a debt that size without a triple A rating, then you really could join the economic powerhouses Iceland and Ireland (and now Greece) that Salmond loved so much. My point remains, therefore, that England (and most notably London and the South East, though Leeds and other areas have important financial services areas now) is supporting Scotland and I would be very happy to let them cut free and see how they fare on their own. Oil will not last forever. What will you do afterwards?
Unsurprisingly, the SNP is finding growing support from South of the border
Really? I haven't heard of any. Could you point me in the direction of where I could read up on that?
Just head to the South East and ask people if they agree that Scotland should become independent (at least financially) so that no English monies go into Scotland. Otherwise, just check out the political blogs and the views on the internet.
