SCOTLAND - ECONOMIC SURPLUS!

[Toggie88]

The Scottish Government today published the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland report (GERS).

 

Including a geographical share of North Sea revenues' date=' the GERS figures show Scotland with a current budget surplus in 2005-06 and 2006-07.

 

In 2006-07, Scotland's current surplus is estimated at ?837 million, or 0.7 per cent of GDP. This compares with a UK deficit of ?4.3 billion, or 0.3 per cent of GDP.

 

GERS also estimates Scotland's fiscal balance - which factors in capital and infrastructure investment for the nation's long term benefit. This also shows Scotland in a substantially stronger position than the UK as a whole. Compared to a UK deficit in 2006/07 of 2.3 per cent of GDP, the Scottish figure is 2.1 per cent - which equates to the OECD average.

 

Commenting on the publication, John Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, said:

 

"The GERS analysis shows Scotland in surplus on the current budget in both 2005-06 and 2006-07.

 

"With a current budget surplus in 2006-07 of over ?800 million - in the context of a UK deficit of over ?4 billion - the flow of resources from Scotland to the rest of the UK is some ?1.2 billion.

 

"This year's GERS publication has been informed by an updated and detailed analysis of North Sea revenues by Aberdeen University, enabling a geographical share to be allocated to Scotland's accounts.

 

"Indeed, as North Sea oil revenues soar, City accountancy firm Grant Thornton estimate that Scotland's surplus would now stand at some ?4.4 billlion.

 

"GERS can only ever be an attempted snapshot of Scotland's finances as a devolved nation.

 

"With the full financial responsibilities of independence, we will have the ability to increase Scotland's wealth even further through policies designed to boost sustainable economic growth - with the benefits felt by families and households in all parts of our country.

 

"Scotland stands on a firm financial footing. And independence holds out the prospect of a flourishing and economically successful Scotland."[/quote']

 

More and more myths being exposed.

[I P Knightley]

GERS also estimates Scotland's fiscal balance

 

Blimmin Old Firm bias.

 

Grrr.

 

etc.

[Commander Harris]

Blimmin Old Firm bias.

 

Grrr.

 

etc.

and Alex Salmond claims to be a jambo too!

[coppercrutch]

Originally Posted by THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT

The Scottish Government today published the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland report (GERS).

 

Including a geographical share of North Sea revenues, the GERS figures show Scotland with a current budget surplus in 2005-06 and 2006-07.

 

In 2006-07, Scotland's current surplus is estimated at ?837 million, or 0.7 per cent of GDP. This compares with a UK deficit of ?4.3 billion, or 0.3 per cent of GDP.

 

GERS also estimates Scotland's fiscal balance - which factors in capital and infrastructure investment for the nation's long term benefit. This also shows Scotland in a substantially stronger position than the UK as a whole. Compared to a UK deficit in 2006/07 of 2.3 per cent of GDP, the Scottish figure is 2.1 per cent - which equates to the OECD average.

 

Commenting on the publication, John Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, said:

 

"The GERS analysis shows Scotland in surplus on the current budget in both 2005-06 and 2006-07.

 

"With a current budget surplus in 2006-07 of over ?800 million - in the context of a UK deficit of over ?4 billion - the flow of resources from Scotland to the rest of the UK is some ?1.2 billion.

 

"This year's GERS publication has been informed by an updated and detailed analysis of North Sea revenues by Aberdeen University, enabling a geographical share to be allocated to Scotland's accounts.

 

"Indeed, as North Sea oil revenues soar, City accountancy firm Grant Thornton estimate that Scotland's surplus would now stand at some ?4.4 billlion.

 

"GERS can only ever be an attempted snapshot of Scotland's finances as a devolved nation.

 

"With the full financial responsibilities of independence, we will have the ability to increase Scotland's wealth even further through policies designed to boost sustainable economic growth - with the benefits felt by families and households in all parts of our country.

 

"Scotland stands on a firm financial footing. And independence holds out the prospect of a flourishing and economically successful Scotland."

 

 

Thing about these reports is we have seen them from both sides. No-one really knows what will happen.

 

As for this 'geographical share' in reality would it be that simple.....

 

I doubt it.

 

Anyway I cannie be arsed with another debate like this.

[Boaby Ewing]

Meanwhile, in London:

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/opinion/columnists/inflation-targets?-i-****-'em-200806171028/

 

WARNING: DO NOT OPEN IF EASILY OFFENDED BY BAD LANGUAGE OR CASUAL RACISM

[coppercrutch]

Meanwhile, in London:

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/opinion/columnists/inflation-targets?-i-****-'em-200806171028/

 

WARNING: DO NOT OPEN IF EASILY OFFENDED BY BAD LANGUAGE OR CASUAL RACISM

 

Saw that yesterday - brilliant. Pretty close to the bone even for that lot !!

 

best thing about the daily mash is it is pretty much the truth, just tarted up to be offensive.

[Therapist]

Toggie is a silly little boy who is creaming his Ys over a report based on airy-fairy assumptions that suit the SNP and don't actually exist. It's on a par with his "100 top businesses that support the SNP" gaffe and should be given similarly short shrift.

 

Togster - I will shortly be heading for Donington for the weekend, but if I return to find you have posted more of your airy-fairy propaganda, I will have no hesitation in resurrecting the top businesses thread when I'm back on here on Monday.

[Craig_]

Look forward to reading about this in my super, soaraway Scotsman tomorrow. Oh, wait hang on a minute...

 

Incidentally, did anyone notice yesterday that the Scotsman's financial 'expert', Prof Midwinter, has actually been outed as one of Wendy the pus' advisors? Cosy...

[Toggie88]

Toggie is a silly little boy who is creaming his Ys over a report based on airy-fairy assumptions that suit the SNP and don't actually exist. It's on a par with his "100 top businesses that support the SNP" gaffe and should be given similarly short shrift.

 

Togster - I will shortly be heading for Donington for the weekend, but if I return to find you have posted more of your airy-fairy propaganda, I will have no hesitation in resurrecting the top businesses thread when I'm back on here on Monday.

 

Propaganda eh?

 

Funny, considering GERS is completely independent.

 

Good to see your unionist mind is as deluded as ever, Therapist.

[Toggie88]

Thing about these reports is we have seen them from both sides. No-one really knows what will happen.

 

As for this 'geographical share' in reality would it be that simple.....

 

I doubt it.

 

Anyway I cannie be arsed with another debate like this.

 

The geographical share is fact.

 

As for the estimate, some estimates can be better than others. I am likely to believe estimations if they are down independently and by experts. They are not even being discredited by Westminster.

[Toggie88]

Oil 'would create budget surplus'

 

Scotland would be in budget surplus to the tune of more than ?800m with a "geographical share" of North Sea revenues, government figures suggest.

 

However, if the country was to receive its per capita share of North Sea revenues in line with the rest of the UK, it would have a deficit of ?6bn.

 

Excluding North Sea revenues entirely would leave deficit of ?6.7bn.

 

The figures are contained in the Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (Gers) report.

 

The report compares government spending with the amount of money raised.

 

Experts from Aberdeen University said a geographical share of North Sea oil revenues would give Scotland 83% of the revenues.

 

That would give the country a budget surplus of ?837m (0.7% of GDP) in 2006/07 - compared with a UK deficit of ?4.3bn.

 

 

It is clear that the flow of resources is from Scotland to the rest of the UK, not the other way round

Stewart Hosie

SNP Treasury spokesman

 

Finance Secretary John Swinney said the report showed Scotland was in surplus.

 

"The flow of resources from Scotland to the rest of the UK is some ?1.2bn," he said.

 

"This year's Gers publication has been informed by an updated and detailed analysis of North Sea revenues by Aberdeen University, enabling a geographical share to be allocated to Scotland's accounts.

 

"Indeed, as North Sea oil revenues soar, city accountancy firm Grant Thornton estimates that Scotland's surplus would now stand at some ?4.4bn."

 

Total non-North Sea public sector revenue in Scotland was estimated at ?42.4bn in 2006/07, compared with expenditure of ?49.9bn.

 

The figures were produced by government officials, but ministers were not involved in the process.

 

Officials said the figures were the most accurate picture yet of Scotland's fiscal position, with more than 3,000 budget lines having been queried with the Treasury since the last figures were produced.

 

'Crystal ball gazing'

 

The SNP's Treasury spokesman at Westminster, Stewart Hosie, said the report was "game, set and match" for the economics of independence.

 

"Whilst even Gers shows Scotland would be in a far healthier financial position than the UK as a whole, it is clear that the flow of resources is from Scotland to the rest of the UK, not the other way round," he said.

 

"The SNP have long known that Scotland could flourish as an independent country, now Gers shows that Scotland would be a prosperous nation with a budget surplus."

 

But Tory finance spokesman Derek Brownlee voiced reservations about the SNP's position.

 

"As a fuel crisis sweeps the globe, the SNP is trying to build the case for independence on the volatile price and diminishing supply of oil," he said.

 

"The SNP seems to be highly selective in its crystal ball gazing - for example the accompanying study only runs until 2013 and ignores the North Sea oil decommissioning costs, which might well produce much smaller or even negative oil tax revenues in later years."

 

A Treasury spokesman said the department took issue with "various aspects" of the methodology used in the report.

 

He added: "These figures illustrate how important it is for Scotland's economic health to stay within the United Kingdom.

 

"It would be economically damaging for Scotland to become fiscally dependent on North Sea oil and gas receipts given the huge volatility of oil and gas prices, and that production has declined by 42% since 1999 and is forecasted to keep declining by around 5% a year."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7465840.stm

[Jambo66]

More and more myths being exposed.

 

The thing that gets me about the whole independence argument is that it always seems to come back to oil.

 

If Scotland were independent, then it is reasonable to say that the majority of Britain's oil reserves would belong to Scotland. If the oil was underneath the English Channel, the economic outlook for an independent Scotland would appear to be bleak.

 

My question is this, what proportion of those people who support independence would have a different view if the oil wasn't in "Scottish territorial waters"? You see, I just get the feeling that quite a few folk are essentially supporters of independence because they are greedy. Of course, I may be wrong, but when you consider that the vast majority of people do tend to vote on the basis of what they think is best for them and their families as individuals, you will see why I think there may be some truth in it.

 

The other thing that I love is that the SNP always say that because we have a population of about 5m, we would be just like Denmark or Norway. They never suggest that we could be like Nicaragua or Sierra Leone for some reason. To suggest that because we have a similar population to another country is evidence that we would be as successful as that other country is patently garbage. Is the UK as successful as Italy or the Democratic Republic of Congo?

[Coco]

The thing that gets me about the whole independence argument is that it always seems to come back to oil.

 

If Scotland were independent, then it is reasonable to say that the majority of Britain's oil reserves would belong to Scotland. If the oil was underneath the English Channel, the economic outlook for an independent Scotland would appear to be bleak.

 

My question is this, what proportion of those people who support independence would have a different view if the oil wasn't in "Scottish territorial waters"? You see, I just get the feeling that quite a few folk are essentially supporters of independence because they are greedy. Of course, I may be wrong, but when you consider that the vast majority of people do tend to vote on the basis of what they think is best for them and their families as individuals, you will see why I think there may be some truth in it.

 

The other thing that I love is that the SNP always say that because we have a population of about 5m, we would be just like Denmark or Norway. They never suggest that we could be like Nicaragua or Sierra Leone for some reason. To suggest that because we have a similar population to another country is evidence that we would be as successful as that other country is patently garbage. Is the UK as successful as Italy or the Democratic Republic of Congo?

 

Of course it is not just about oil.

 

I would suggest that it would be easier to grow Scotland's economy in the medium term than most other Western European economies. For a start we begin at such a low base level. And the 'medicine' could be clear - cut taxes, cut public spending, cut waste, attract economic immigrants and companies etc. There is not really any shortage of 'space' or available power in Scotland - so it would be possible if the tax situation/skilled worker situation was right - to attract companies.

 

Of course an absolutely horrendous situation could emerge where the current Soviet Bloc era levels of Government share of the economy continue meaning that Scots could get locked into endless misery.

[Carl Spackler]

Meanwhile, in London:

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/opinion/columnists/inflation-targets?-i-****-'em-200806171028/

 

WARNING: DO NOT OPEN IF EASILY OFFENDED BY BAD LANGUAGE OR CASUAL RACISM

That caused me to cry. Funniest thing I've read in a while.

[Pants Shaton]

Oil or not is it not the case that, with the exception of Edinburgh, Scotland is a sh1ddy backwater full of inbred halfwits?

 

If Scotland becomes independent I propose we detach Edinburgh and tow it down the North Sea before reattaching it in the Thames estuary - anyone with me?

[coppercrutch]

Oil or not is it not the case that, with the exception of Edinburgh, Scotland is a sh1ddy backwater full of inbred halfwits?

 

If Scotland becomes independent I propose we detach Edinburgh and tow it down the North Sea before reattaching it in the Thames estuary - anyone with me?

 

I will sort out the tugs just in case.

[coppercrutch]

[

 

Excluding North Sea revenues entirely would leave deficit of ?6.7bn.

 

 

Don't you just love cherry picking.

 

So according to Toggie's own 'independent' report if Scotland had no North Sea revenues we would be royally ****ed.

 

Cheers Toggie. We always thought that anyway.

[Toggie88]

Don't you just love cherry picking.

 

So according to Toggie's own 'independent' report if Scotland had no North Sea revenues we would be royally ****ed.

 

Cheers Toggie. We always thought that anyway.

 

But it does exist.

 

If I had a million dollars, I'd be millionaire...

 

what's your point?

[Guest S.U.S.S.]

But it does exist.

 

If I had a million dollars, I'd be millionaire...

 

what's your point?

 

In America not here.

[coppercrutch]

But it does exist.

 

If I had a million dollars, I'd be millionaire...

 

what's your point?

 

Ehhhhhhh.

 

By your own example of this report Scotland would be royally ****ed without oil. So what happens when the oil runs out. Do you we back with the union coz it suits us...

 

You raised this report Toggie not me.

 

You deal with your oversights you made when forgetting this article actually does not support your cause at all.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Most good budgets are beaten and many show a deficit deliberatly

 

My employer has had a budget deficit for the past 10 years at budget time, its always ended up as a surplus

 

They are deliberatly negative and look for a deficit as it is very hard to source funding etc if your seen to be rolling in it

 

Id be rather concerned if they where making budgets with massive surpluses as it would mean they where failing in there duty and just banking cash as opposed to spending it on there so called goals

[Toggie88]

Ehhhhhhh.

 

By your own example of this report Scotland would be royally ****ed without oil. So what happens when the oil runs out. Do you we back with the union coz it suits us...

 

You raised this report Toggie not me.

 

You deal with your oversights you made when forgetting this article actually does not support your cause at all.

 

Scotland wouldn't be "Royally ****ed without oil" if we invested in the a Norwegian style oil fund - like the SNP suggest.

 

My question is, what will the UK do when the oil runs out? The UK economy has been dependent on oil for the last 20 years. Even with the oil the UK has a defecit of ?30 billion for last year alone.

[Domokun]

'Mon the GERS.

 

Independence for Govan.