EU comes to Greece's rescue

[HairyArsedBloke]

One of my clients thinks that EUR/USD is going to around 1.25 - 1.28 by the end of Q3. I disagree, but I do expect it to be below 1.34 soon and maybe to 1.30, but I don't see below.

[Jog On]

One of my clients thinks that EUR/USD is going to around 1.25 - 1.28 by the end of Q3. I disagree, but I do expect it to be below 1.34 soon and maybe to 1.30, but I don't see below.

I read something similar about 1.30. USD is supposed to be getting a bit weaker which could make life a bit more interesting - but I'll believe that when I see it!

[Tarquin Farquhar]

Expenditure

In 2003-04, the total expenditure for Scotland is estimated at £45.3 billion or 10 per cent of the UK total. This includes devolved and reserved spending in Scotland.

Revenue

In 2003-04, total receipts (the main contributions coming from Income tax, Corporation tax, VAT, Social Security contributions, Local Authority revenues) in Scotland are estimated at £34 billion, equivalent to 8.2 per cent of total UK receipts. This excludes North Sea oil revenues.

I'm assuming Wales is similar.

I'd like references for that. My figures are different.

Figures for 2006-7 taken from the UK Treasury Statistics website http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/econom...pub_pesa06.cfm and compiled by Niall Aslen give a figure for taxation revenue for Scotland of £54.7 billion. 10.6% of UK income, from 8.6% of the population. Expenditure in and for Scotland, including a share pro rata population for UK expenditure, comes to £50 billion.


Other, earlier figures, for 2002, tell a similar story:

Scotland has 8.6% of the UK population yet raises 10.41% of all UK tax revenues. (Source Treasury red Book 2002). The total figure is £42.7 billion for 2002.

http://www.cranntara.org.uk/union7.htm

Actually the story is quite consistent wherever you look. And it is no surprise to historians: larger countries that rule smaller countries almost always see themselves as doing good for the smaller, but in reality they almost always exploit them.

Given that large areas, and lots of people, in Scotland actually are poor, their contribution to the UK exchequer and the London snouts in the trough is heroic. Or slavery.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

This is something I've often wondered. Why are the main parties so opposed to cutting Scotland loose?

Scared to. It leads to the really unedifying sight of people proclaiming at one and the same time that they subsidise Scotland and it could never survive on its own, and that they don't want it to be free. Slaveowners must have sounded like that when they whinged about how hard their lot was.

[sasguru]

I'd like references for that. My figures are different.

Figures for 2006-7 taken from the UK Treasury Statistics website http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/econom...pub_pesa06.cfm and compiled by Niall Aslen give a figure for taxation revenue for Scotland of £54.7 billion. 10.-% of UK income, from 8.6% of the population.


Other, earlier figures, for 2002, tell a similar story:

Scotland has 8.6% of the UK population yet raises 10.41% of all UK tax revenues. (Source Treasury red Book 2002). The total figure is £42.7 billion for 2002.

http://www.cranntara.org.uk/union7.htm

Actually the story is quite consistent wherever you look. And it is no surprise to historians: larger countries that rule smaller countries almost always see themselves as doing good for the smaller, but in reality they almost always exploit them.

Given that large areas, and lots of people, in Scotland actually are poor, their contribution to the UK exchequer and the London snouts in the trough is heroic. Or slavery.

That may be so but I'd like to see the equivalent figure for London.

On an aside about exploitation - I recently read that before the British took over India, the principalities that comprised the Indian subcontinent were responsible for 25% of world GDP, by 1947 that was 3%.

[Churchill]

That may be so but I'd like to see the equivalent figure for London.

On an aside about exploitation - I recently read that before the British took over India, the principalities that comprised the Indian subcontinent were responsible for 25% of world GDP, by 1947 that was 3%.

I think the fact that most of the world's merchant fleet had been destroyed in the war might have had something to do with that...

[doodab]

I'd like references for that. My figures are different.

Figures for 2006-7 taken from the UK Treasury Statistics website http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/econom...pub_pesa06.cfm and compiled by Niall Aslen give a figure for taxation revenue for Scotland of £54.7 billion. 10.6% of UK income, from 8.6% of the population.


Other, earlier figures, for 2002, tell a similar story:

Scotland has 8.6% of the UK population yet raises 10.41% of all UK tax revenues. (Source Treasury red Book 2002). The total figure is £42.7 billion for 2002.

http://www.cranntara.org.uk/union7.htm

Actually the story is quite consistent wherever you look. And it is no surprise to historians: larger countries that rule smaller countries almost always see themselves as doing good for the smaller, but in reality they almost always exploit them.

Given that large areas, and lots of people, in Scotland actually are poor, their contribution to the UK exchequer and the London snouts in the trough is heroic. Or slavery.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...05/12/14094600

You may also like

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corpo...my+2007-08.htm

[Tarquin Farquhar]

That may be so but I'd like to see the equivalent figure for London.

On an aside about exploitation - I recently read that before the British took over India, the principalities that comprised the Indian subcontinent were responsible for 25% of world GDP, by 1947 that was 3%.

It is almost impossible to calculate (as William the Conquerer found out). Too many figures are not easy to find, or decide on.

For example, does every company in the UK with a registered head office in London really count all its income as London income? That would be farcical. Even whisky companies have head offices in London, but it's not London that makes the whisky.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...05/12/14094600

You may also like

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corpo...my+2007-08.htm

That's 2003-4.

2006-7 GERS figures, with North Sea Oil included, are £49.885 billion income, £49.884 expenditure. A modest surplus but a surplus nonetheless.

[DodgyAgent]

It is almost impossible to calculate (as William the Conquerer found out). Too many figures are not easy to find, or decide on.

For example, does every company in the UK with a registered head office in London really count all its income as London income? That would be farcical. Even whisky companies have head offices in London, but it's not London that makes the whisky.

What happens when EVERY currency collapses?