Is Scotland subsidised by England?

Answer 1

No, in fact it is the other way around, Scotland is the only net contributor to the UK fiscal. Without the occupation of Scotland the rest of the UK would be in a financial mess. All of "the Uk's" oil and 85% of it's gas is in fact Scottish. If Scotland were to leave the Union and take it's rescources with it the UK would become a European Ntaion in the same division as Greece. There are various studies that show (Adam Smith insitute, fraser Of allander Institute) tat show being part of the UK has a negative economic impact on Scotland, even discounting the oil and Gas Scotland goes a substiantial way to supporting the rest of the UK. Per captia it's cobntrbution is far greater. On top of this Scotland contributes more in terms of sscientif reasearch and development, education and culture

Answer 2

We are told “Scotland contributed £57bn of the UK’s taxes, but received about £65bn in spending”
The trouble with such a statement given by the No camp and oft quoted in the Media is that it comes with the tacit implication that the difference, £8bn, somehow represents a subsidy by rest of the UK to Scotland.
It doesn’t – it’s just our fiscal deficit. Darling Cameron and the rest know this perfectly well, and omit to mention that the rUK runs a deficit too, as does virtually very developed country (Norway being the significant exception), and that rUK’s deficit is larger than ours, per capita.
This is a typical “Better Together” technique – just give half a fact, and invite the general public to draw an erroneous conclusion.
The reality is that we subsidise them, because we pay the whole of the interest on our own deficit and part of the interest on theirs too.
The equivalent figures are:
Total UK Tax £573bn; Spending £694bn; Deficit £121bn
For the remaining part of the UK without Scotland, the figures are:
Total rUK Tax £516bn; Spending £629bn; Deficit £113bn


The figures quoted above are from GERS, for 2012. The problem with these figures is that they ascribe to Scotland a proportionate share of UK “national” spending, on defence, foreign affairs etc, but also interest on the UK debt, resulting from the accumulation of these deficits.
Looking at these figures, going back to 1980, we can broadly match up many of these and other published figures, such as the UK’s £1.1 trillion debt (in 2012). We can also identify the £64bn which Scotland has paid as its population share of interest on UK debt.

The point is that if we look at Scotland’s figures going back to 1980, and the significant surpluses we were running, then we would have quickly extinguished our debt, had we run our own finances, using the GERS data. Therefore we wouldn’t have paid anything like £64bn interest. It is likely we would have paid about £2.5bn in the early 1980s, and nothing since, because we would have been in surplus throughout, even now.

But that ignores the fact that we would have been earning on our surplus (call it our “oil fund”). We could have lent our cumulative surplus to the UK, rather than just giving it to them free, which is what we actually did. The UK government borrows by issuing Government Stock and paying interest on it, so that is what Scotland could have done with our surplus. The articles in the Times and Scotsman mention that we could have had a £50bn surplus. But it would most likely have been much more than that. Looking at the rates paid by the UK Government on borrowing over the years, which were typically 10-12% in the 1980s and early 1990s, we could have earned £224bn interest on our growing surplus, and we would now have a surplus of £230bn.

Answer 3

The oil money goes latgely to the shareholders of the companys, not taxes. The revenue from Income Tax is larger in England, because the population is larger. The UK makes more tax from the 'invisible service' industries, largely based in London. So yes, Scotland does receive top-up funding from London, and is perfectly entitled to it.

Answer 4

Sorry to digress but I'd just like to point out to 'James T' that the Republic of Ireland did not get it's independence from Britain in 1916 but in 1949 under President de Valera. Jimmy if your Irish you should have stayed awake in your history class. If not read 'History of the Republic of Ireland'.

Answer 5

Yes. The Economist had an excellent cover story this year about the decline of Scotland. England pays for Scotland's free university tuition, and gets abuse in return. The Scottish Parliament has been a damp squib, and it's folly to pretend somehow giving it more power and turning off the cash flow from the south will make things better.

Answer 6

No, England's been dragging us down for long enough!! If Scotland was an independent nation, we'd have the means to support ourselves, i.e North Sea Oil. What has England got to support itself? Nothing!! Bunch of moochers!!

Answer 7

The financial aspects of the countries are tied together, with wales and northern ireland in the "united kingdom" so in some respects it's difficult to know if the money generated by each country is distributed back in the same ratios.

Answer 8

well for the person who said london makes the most well he is wrong as the work for the economy is actually done in investing in other countrys and its interest they pay back that keeps england afloat...altho they still owe over 200 billion to the americans for world war 2.....scotland governs itself and spends its own money and its backed up by the E>U not england...and wales is going the same way...i am in Dublin( republic of ireland) and hope that scotland and wales get independance from england.just like we did in 1916...happy days.

Answer 9

No but the south east of England is subsidised by the rest of the U.K.

Answer 10

I beg your pardon, what about the oil that Scotland produces. So no England does not subsidise Scotland and neither are they better