Scotland: A case of give and take

 

Does Scotland get more out of the union than it puts in?

Talk of a Scottish referendum has revived this very old debate, which is old precisely because it does not allow for an easy answer.

You won't catch me taking a view on the broader question, whether Scotland would be better off leaving the UK - economically, or, er, spiritually. Nor will you find me commenting on the rights and wrongs of a divorce from the standpoint of the English.

But Sir Gus O'Donnell, in almost his last public act as head of the civil service before Christmas, decided to highlight the risk that Scotland would leave the UK in the next few years, and apparently the prime minister has taken the warning to heart.

So it seems a good time to go through the numbers on that narrower question of whether Scotland gets more in terms of public spending than it gives back in revenues.

For readers who'd rather not wade through the statistics: the answer is yes, Scotland does get a net subsidy.

But how large depends heavily on how you account for North Sea oil. And if you define a subsidy as getting more in spending than you put back in revenues, it's worth remembering that we're all being subsidised by the Treasury these days. It's just that when we're talking about the UK we call it a budget deficit.

Now for the numbers part.

The basic facts are that Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues - but 9.2% of total UK public spending.

Scottish Executive figures for 2009-10 show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words, spending in Scotland was £1,030 - or 10% higher - per head of population than the UK average.

What about revenues? The same source shows Scottish total non-oil tax revenues coming in at £42.7bn in 2009-10, or £8,221 per head, which compares with total public expenditure attributable to Scotland of £59.2bn, or £11,370 per head.

Incidentally, these numbers include not just the so-called "identifiable" public spending that took place in Scotland, on schools, roads and the like, but also more amorphous parts of the budget like defense and debt interest.

On this basis, Scotland 'got' £16.5bn more in UK public spending in 2009-10 than it contributed to total UK revenues - or a 'subsidy' of around £3,150 per head.

Now it is customary - even south of the border - to point out that Scotland has greater spending needs than many other parts of the UK, because it has a higher unemployment rate, for example, and higher levels of expensive illnesses like heart disease and cancer.

So it's not necessarily a sign of great profligacy that the Scottish spend more per head. That is one reason why more than half of Scotland's public spending is allocated according to the dreaded "Barnett formula", which for sanity's sake I'm trying not to get into.

But Alex Salmond and his supporters have a more basic objection (phew), which is that the revenue figures for Scotland make no mention of North Sea oil. These are falling, but were still more than £6bn in 2009-10.

If you add in a proportion of those revenues, in line with Scotland's share of the UK population, it makes very little difference to the overall story. But if you say that more than 90% of the oil revenues are Scottish, as Mr Salmond would consider geographically appropriate, then you get Scotland 'putting in' £48.1bn in tax revenues in 2009-10, not £42.7bn.

Put it another way: Scotland provided 9.4% of total UK revenues and got 'only' 9.2% of UK public spending in return.

Now of course, the UK Treasury doesn't agree that the oil revenues belong to Scotland, and it almost certainly never will. In fact, as any Scottish Nationalist will happily tell you, it was the Treasury that helped to invent a new extra-territorial category of national output for North Sea oil, in the 1970s. Treasury statisticians will tell you it made sense to keep the oil sector separate from the broader UK economy. Mr Salmond will tell you it was a Whitehall plot to steal the oil from the Scots.

So there are two numbers to choose from, depending on whether you take a Whitehall view of oil, or the view from Holyrood.

On the Treasury view, the gap between spending and revenues in Scotland for 2009-10 was £3,150 per head. On the Scottish Nationalist view, the gap between spending and revenues was closer to £2,130.

Please, take your pick. All I ask is you bear in mind one other number - related to one other obvious, but very important fact. Namely, that Scotland is not the only part of the UK that is currently spending more than it raises in revenues.

If you apply the same kind calculation to the UK as a whole, the net 'subsidy' for the average person was well over £2,000 last year.

So Scotland and England do have that in common, after all.

 
Stephanie Flanders, Economics editor Article written by Stephanie Flanders Stephanie Flanders Former economics editor

So it's goodbye from me

After 11 years at the BBC, I'm leaving for a new role in the City.

Read full article

Comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 1.

    SF: So there are two numbers to choose from, depending on whether you take a Whitehall view of oil, or the view from Holyrood
    ~ ~ ~
    Can we do a deal & split the difference?

    Westminster has not done well by Scotland on some issues & when the oil & gas run out, independent Scots would have to seek their own funding: Westminster unlikely to pay so more taxes or less services w/be inevitable.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 2.

    Stephanie the difference in the % spend vs % population is so small as to be negligible in the overall scheme of things.

  • rate this
    -7

    Comment number 3.

    No doubt Sean Connery will be willing to chip in a wee bit more tax to balance things up. On public spending infrastructure is more costly but I wonder who started this game and should we start comparing different regions of the UK. I dont think a cost effectiveness argument will resonate with the Scots and anyway that is a snapshot a decision to leave is somewhat strategic!

  • rate this
    +9

    Comment number 4.

    I'm not a Scot: but an EU citizen. You say part of Scotland's expenditure goes towards "defence" and another towards "debt".

    On the first, would a state the size of Scotland need much (if any?) of a defence budget, if it joined the EU?

    On the second, having worked with bureaucrats/politicians who decide the apportionment of budgets/debts to regions, I question the authority of any debt figures.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 5.

    Stephanie. I am amazed. You write a big long article like this and never once did you address the West Lothian question.

    But then to compound matters you did not explain the role of Scottish universities in the Royal accession either.

    Anybody would think the Scots are a mercenary lot.

 

Comments 5 of 195

 

This entry is now closed for comments

Features

  • SyedTanks not toys

    Lyse Doucet on the plight of children in Syria and Gaza


  • Detail from Gin Lane by HogarthMother's ruin

    The time when gin was full of sulphuric acid and turpentine


  • Boy with head stuck in railingsSmall Data

    Heads stuck in banisters - the official statistics


  • Graphic of plane flying across the sunGlobal travel Watch

    Where does the world go on holiday?


  • The two sisters in their bakeryBaking hot

    Why two Spanish sisters started a bakery in the desert


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.