The current economic argument for Scottish independence.

[Indy]

From the New Statesman:

Enough of the Scottish subsidy myth 　

Scotland pays its way in the Union - it's time the London commentariat acknowledged that.
Scotland subsidy

SNP supprters at the party's conference. Photo: Getty Images

The notion that Scottish public services are subsidised by English taxpayers has become so commonplace in UK politics that not even David Dimbleby, the supposedly neutral presenter of BBC Question Time, thinks twice about repeating it. During an exchange on a recent show with Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson about her decision to vote as a Scottish MP to impose tuition fees on English students, Dimbleby said, "You voted for England to have fees, whereas Scotland, as we know, with the amount of money that comes from England, doesn't need to have them."
　
This view is based on the discrepancy between levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland and England. According to the Treasury's latest Public Expenditure Statistics, Scots gets an average of £10,212 spent on them every year by the UK government, compared with around £8,588 -- £1,624 less -- for people in England.

In line with narrative of the Scottish welfare subsidy, the extra cash allows Scotland to provide its students with free higher education, its elderly with free personal care and concessionary travel, and its sick with free prescription medication, while their English equivalents are forced to go without.
　
This so-called "Union dividend" is also used by many London-based journalists and politicians -- many of whom would describe themselves as social democrats -- who argue that current levels of public expenditure in Scotland would be unsustainable were it to break away and become an independent country.
　
Yet, if the London commentariat took the time to examine the figures a little more closely, they would discover what a large number people north of the border are already know: not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation.
　
Lets tackle the subsidy charge first. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax - equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.
　
Second, there's the claim that Scotland's "bloated" welfare state could not be sustained outside the Union. This is nonsense. Including its per capita share of revenues from North Sea oil and gas production, Scotland's public expenditure probably does not exceed the OECD average and is almost certainly lower than that of the Scandinavian social democracies. The fact that the Treasury cynically refuses to class those revenues as part of Scotland's overall annual economic output inflates the level of public sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP relative to that of the private sector.
　
Finally, one of the most common -- and least well-considered -- claims made by supporters of the Union is that the 2008 global financial meltdown shattered the economic case for independence. How, they argue, would the economy of tiny, independent Scotland have been able to cope with the burden of debt needed to rescue its financial sector from collapse? It wouldn't, of course, but according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland would only have had to take on a proportion of the total cost of the bail-out based on the subsidiaries and business operations of HBOS and RBS in Scotland. This would probably amount to no more than 5 per cent.
　
For the sake of argument, nationalists might also wish to note that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was, at 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would, at around $1.8bn per year in line with Nordic average, be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf.
　
But why should Unionists let the economic facts ruin the image they have built up of Scotland as a nation of selfish, indulged welfare "mendicants"?The subsidy myth is too politically useful to be simply abandoned. Of course, if they ever do come to terms with the reality that Scotland could survive on its own - and even prosper - it will probably be too late anyway.

That IS our current economic argument

[Adeste Fideles]

That is the spin. This is how it really is. Schools in London have over 30% of the pupils that were not born in the UK - often they come from poor third world nations. Teachers have to struggle will some classes having about 10 different languages. The economic argument from the above poster is like a fireman looking at burning building and saying to himself "I'm not going in there its too hot, I can't save those kids , they are going to die".... Its an economic argument based on "I'm all right Jack"... During the Second world war the Clyde Ship builders probably saved the nations economic life. Scots did not think in those days - "Englands finished - lets make peace with the Germans" (well that is apart from a few SNP characters from those days). To day, the UK is on its knees in debt. The SNP point out how Scotland subsidizes the unemployed, the kids from poor backgrounds, the NHS, and a host of other things. This is, in some ways, WW3 - The SNP want to turn their back on the rest of the nation. That is their economic argument. "Its our oil, you lot lot down there can take a running jump". They did not win in 1939 and they will not win now.

[tig]

i stopped reading after your "Schools in London have over 30% of the pupils that were not born in the UK" claim

cause its lies....so the rest of your mini rant is most likely bs too

[Adeste Fideles]

Tig,
I think you need to apologise:
One third of 'Londoners' born abroad - News - Evening Standard

(The Evening Standard is currently owned by a Russian - so he's hardly biased against Scottish separation).

This will be interesting - will a Cyber Nat apologise?

(the paper actually goes into extremely detailed figures of all the different nationalities)....

[tig]

Originally Posted by Adeste Fideles

Tig,
I think you need to apologise:
[

in this case ...no i wont...because
1. articles from newspapers are no proof to anything.
2. it doesnt mention schools at all
3.it doesnt mention languages at all
4.the article is nearly 5 years old.

show me proof that 30% of school kids in London are "foreign"
and that teachers have classes with 10 different languages in them...(even if they had different languages in them they would have to speak english to go to the class in the 1st place...thats how school works...teachers dont do classes in 10 languages)

[Adeste Fideles]

Tig:
this is London Evening Standard 2011:
More ethnic pupils than whites in London schools - News - Evening Standard

BBC: 67% of all school children in inner London
BBC News - Ethnic minority pupils increase by 57% in a decade

It is these children you want to take funds away from. Take from the 3rd world to give to people with Scottish post codes. that my friend is why its like WW3. Times are incredibly hard and the rich part of the UK - Scotland - has people within it who want to let the rest of the UK down.

[Duthill]

Originally Posted by Adeste Fideles

Tig:
this is London Evening Standard 2011:
More ethnic pupils than whites in London schools - News - Evening Standard

BBC: 67% of all school children in inner London
BBC News - Ethnic minority pupils increase by 57% in a decade

It is these children you want to take funds away from. Take from the 3rd world to give to people with Scottish post codes. that my friend is why its like WW3. Times are incredibly hard and the rich part of the UK - Scotland - has people within it who want to let the rest of the UK down.

I would't take too much notice of any newspapers that have journalists and editorial staff who do not know the definition of 'ethnic'.