@BikePawl - I think it depends on how much money the treasury gets from Scotland in relation to the rest of the country.
Imagine if the UK's only income was from selling haggis. 100% of UK government spending would be from Scotland, but only 10% would go back in services.
Luked2 I was assuming that per head of population it balanced out, thereby allowing us to measure income by percentage of population.
Strangely BR you have found a possible way to defraud the system and published it, rules will naow and should be changed.
Also do the kids actually want to go into uni, not get worthwhile jobs and study part time at nigh or on block relaease, or even open univercity.
Anyway scotklands bust they didnt have enough salt /grit/snow ploughs, staff unemployed people capable of using a shovel to clear the srtreets, so dont bet your plan will work.
bikepawl
Because if you count money raised in Scotland - tax and oil revenue and subtract money spent in scotland then there is a net flow of money from Scotland to england
So whilst spending per capita is higher than the UK average ( but lower than the highest UK region) it is not at a cost to the English taxpayer.
Also I think his figures are out of date - under barnett the share of the UK CDP going to Scotland falls each year.
Wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula
Scottish Nationalists have also pointed to what has been termed the Barnett squeeze.[12] They say that rather than protecting the favourable spending position of Scotland, that instead the Barnett formula is a method to steadily erode that advantage. They point out that if a 4% increase is needed in expenditure to cover inflation, Scotland will only get an increase of 3% of its total budget, whereas England will get the full 4% (proportional to population share). After inflation, this would mean a 1% budget reduction for the Scottish Executive.
b r - Member
...Each of my children at 16 will go and live there (and continue with their education)
...Any flaws in this?
You realise once they have lived in Scotland 3 years, they'll never want to go south of the border again.... 
And they'll know that Spongebob is talking nonsense.
The oil belongs to the UK, not scotland, so theirs no revenue to grab
Ah! the oil revenue. Are there any other similar revenue streams generated down south to counteract the oil revenue? E.G Banking, motor manufacture.
I doubt that the Scottish fee system will be in place for anything like the long term
If the next Scottish government isn't formed by just the SNP then it's likely to be a coalition involving the LibDems again. Given the main concestion they gained from Labour last time they propped up their regime was to not have University fees, it'll be interesting to see what happens this time.
Means that Scotland puts in 8.3% and gets back 10%
Comparing apples and oranges I'm afraid - 8.3% is population, 10% was spending. If everyone in the UK generated the same amount of government revenue then it'd be correct, however in reality it's more complicated - especially because UK wide tax revenues get booked through London mostly. If you even pro-rated those across the UK then Scotland becomes a net contributer (and that was from the UK Labour government figures)
Bike pawl
Its the total tax take in Scotland plus the oil revenue is greater than the total Scottish spending. No money raised south of the border is being counted
project - MemberThe oil belongs to the UK, not scotland, so theirs no revenue to grab
this is simply factually incorrect. Teh north sea is divided in t 3 main zones - Norwegian, Scottish and English. Most of the poil is in the Scottish sector.
Absolutely cast iron and certain in law.
The oil belongs to the UK, not scotland, so theirs no revenue to grab
Doesn't have to be grabbed by Scotland - only pro-rated across the UK (i.e. not just counted as English tax income).
Its the total tax take in Scotland plus the oil revenue is greater than the total Scottish spending. No money raised south of the border is being counted
project - Member
The oil belongs to the UK, not scotland, so theirs no revenue to grab
this is simply factually incorrect. Teh north sea is divided in t 3 main zones - Norwegian, Scottish and English. Most of the poil is in the Scottish sector.
I'm obviously under a misguided impression that back in 1707 England and Scotland came together to form a Union...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707
And this was due to the fact that Scotland had bankrupted itself - and needed 'saving':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
So if we can have the cash (and interest) back, then you can clear off.
What a surprise - its gone OT.
Anyway back with the plan - not seen any one come up with an real objections yet?
To go back to your plan - I suspect you will have to tell a pack of lies in order for it to work.
So if we can have the cash (and interest) back, then you can clear off.What a surprise - its gone OT.
As someone contemplating exploiting the Scots system right now for financial gain it is amusing to see you asking for money back
to the OP... yes there is a flaw... Scottish Uni fees will have (hopefully not) gone up by then.
To go back to your plan - I suspect you will have to tell a pack of lies in order for it to work.
Lies? As long as the rules (made by the Government) are followed then no lies will be needed to be told.
But seriously this is really about ensuring that my children are not saddled with vast debts that will then be 'sequestrated' from them for pretty much their entire working life. And since these debts will be in excess of £50k apiece and (if figures are to be believed) the average gross wage in the UK is less than half that, then vast is the right word.
without an increase in income for scottish universites, which won't be coming from any govt in the short term at least, scottish universities can't remain fee-free for long.
if they do, they'll no longer become desirable universities to go to, because they'll be pants. i wonder how many scottish university principals really believe that free education for scottish students (and in some ways EU students bar the english) is good for their universities in the long term.
another short sighted, vote grabbing SNP policy.
BR - if yor children are only living with their grandparents for a part of the year then I am not sure the rules will be being followed.
Poor troll.
another short sighted, vote grabbing SNP policy.
No fees in Scotland when the English ones were introduced was actually introduced by Labour and the LibDems (it being a LibDem policy).
Numbers to show how in the end, it'll still be the taxpayer involved - but a whole host of costs will have also been created (and profits made):
Grabbed from the Indy.
Question: on average how much would someone have to earn per year to pay back their loan (predicted to be £33,879 for a 3 year course or £11,293 per year) after 30 years?
Answer: their average salary would have to be between £38,000-40,000 per year over the 30 year period.
If on average you earned £1,750 per month (£21,000 per year) you would pay £0 per month (£0 per year), so it wouldn't be repaid in 30 years (at this rate it would never be repaid).
If on average you earned £2,083 per month (£25,000 per year) you would pay £30 per month (£360 per year), so it wouldn't be repaid in 30 years (at this rate it would take 94 years to repay). After 30 years the graduate would have paid off £10,800 or about 32% of their loan.
If on average you earned £2,500 per month (£30,000 per year) you would pay £68 per month (£816 per year), so it wouldn't be repaid in 30 years (at this rate it would take 41.5 years to repay). After 30 years the graduate would have paid off £24,480 or about 72% of their loan.
If on average you earned £3,333 per month (£40,000 per year) you would pay £143 per month (£1,716 per year), so it would be repaid in under 20 years.
If on average you earned £4,167 per month (£50,000 per year) you would pay £218 per month (£2,616 per year), so it would be repaid in under 13 years.
If on average you earned £5,000 per month (£60,000 per year) you would pay £293 per month (£3,516 per year), so it would be repaid in under 10 years.
Question: if only 25% of students are going to be able to pay back their entire student loan then who is going to have to pay the outstanding loans for the 75% who won't earn enough to pay it back?
Answer: the taxpayer.
Question: how much will the taxpayer have to pay?
Answer: if there are 481,854 students, then 361,390 (75%) won't pay back their loans. If none of them contribute to their loan the cost to the taxpayer will be £12,243,531,810 (£12 billion). If they all earn £25,000 per year the cost to the taxpayer will be £8,325,601,631 (£8 billion). If they all earn £30,000 per year the cost to the taxpayer will be £3,428,188,907 (£3 billion).
Thus the taxpayer will have to pay between £3-12 billion per year to make up the shortfall.
And this is all in 'todays' money.
BR - if yor children are only living with their grandparents for a part of the year then I am not sure the rules will be being followed.
What? Aren't you Scots allowed to leave the country, ever? From what I've seen, according to the 'rules' the eligibility is that you've lived in Scotland for the last three years, not that you are a Scot. I wonder how many 'Scots' are doing the same as I'm suggesting?
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
