The Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures for 2014-15 were published this morning1. If you've followed Chokkablog then the figures will come as no surprise.
All figures quoted in this blog use the Scottish Government's preferred geographic share definition for allocating oil revenues (Scotland is shown keeping all of "our oil") and have been deflated (put in real £ 2014-15 terms) using the latest UK GDP deflator.
In summary:
- Scotland's total deficit was £14.9bn
- Scotland's deficit was 9.7% of GDP compared with the UK total deficit of 4.9% of GDP
- Scotland's deficit per capita was £2,800 compared with the UK total of £1,400
In simple terms: Scotland was running a deficit in 2014-15 that was twice as large as that we shared with the UK (whether you look at it on a per capita or % GDP basis).
On the basis that we take a population share of debt while we're in the UK, the difference between the amount of debt we accrued by being in the UK as opposed to being independent was £1,400 per capita (the difference between £2,800 and £1,400). Gross that up by our population of 5.3 million and the deficit gap versus the UK is £7.4bn. For the avoidance of doubt: this is not our deficit, it is how much bigger our deficit would be if we were independent (than that we share by being within the United Kingdom).
These figures relate to April 2014 - March 2015 and include £1.8bn of oil revenue for Scotland - this means the onshore deficit gap (i.e. how much worse off we'd be if we didn't have any oil revenues) was £9.2bn.
Given that this year (15-16) oil revenues are predicted to be only c.£0.1bn we will (all else being equal) be looking at a deficit gap of c.£9bn.
It is now clear that, far from scaremongering, those of us who a year ago warned of an £8bn - £9bn annual deficit gap if we voted Yes were pretty much on the money. To put this in referendum propaganda terms: a vote for Yes was a vote to make us immediately £1,400 a year worse off for every man, woman and child in Scotland.
Of course as an independent country we would face a series of new challenges and opportunities that may make that situation better or worse. What's clear - now undeniable - is that the starting point (based on taxes we're used to paying and public spending we're used to receiving) would be £1,400 per person per year worse off than we are by remaining in the UK. That's £2,800 per tax payer.
To understand whether this would really matter - would we need to take drastic action or simply choose to fund this higher deficit with yet more debt? - we need to look at these deficit numbers in context.
It is now clear that, far from scaremongering, those of us who a year ago warned of an £8bn - £9bn annual deficit gap if we voted Yes were pretty much on the money. To put this in referendum propaganda terms: a vote for Yes was a vote to make us immediately £1,400 a year worse off for every man, woman and child in Scotland.
Of course as an independent country we would face a series of new challenges and opportunities that may make that situation better or worse. What's clear - now undeniable - is that the starting point (based on taxes we're used to paying and public spending we're used to receiving) would be £1,400 per person per year worse off than we are by remaining in the UK. That's £2,800 per tax payer.
To understand whether this would really matter - would we need to take drastic action or simply choose to fund this higher deficit with yet more debt? - we need to look at these deficit numbers in context.
Scotland's Deficit in Context
Let's look first at the evolution of this deficit over time. The lower line is our onshore deficit (i.e. excluding any oil & gas income) and the upper line is our deficit including oil & gas.
This highlights a very important dynamic: although our overall deficit is worsening, our onshore (underlying) deficit position has been improving since 2009. As oil declines the lines clearly converge.
Now let's put that in context with the total UK (the red lines)
We can see clearly that oil & gas has a relatively small impact on the UK's total deficit to GDP and that Scotland's onshore deficit (excluding oil & gas) is consistently worse than the UK's (for reasons readers of this blog will understand well, primarily higher expenditure per capita).
The improving trend in onshore (underlying) deficit to GDP tracks the improvement in the UK as a whole. Given the common fiscal approach this is unsurprising. Clearly we don't know what would happen under alternative economic plans, but the current path being pursued by the UK is undeniably leading to a reduction in the scale of the onshore deficit for both the UK and Scotland.
We'll explore the reason why Scotland's onshore deficit is so much worse than the UK's later in this blog, but first let's look at the scale of the deficits we're looking at in an EU context.
It's a bit of an over-kill graph but the following maps each EU country2 against the figures for the UK and Scotland both with and without oil
It's a lot to take in but actually the overall picture is pretty clear;
- With oil, Scotland's deficit/GDP tracked the UK's pretty closely until 2011 ... but the subsequent decline in oil revenues predictably caused Scotland's deficit to worsen despite the UK's improving trend
- The "oil is just a bonus" argument is and always has been nonsense. Without oil the scale of Scotland's deficit would have been consistently the worst in Europe over this period ("beaten" only briefly by Ireland in peak financial crisis and Slovenia last year)
- On the most recent year's data, Scotland would have the worst deficit in the EU even with oil
Remember: not only would we be having to work out how to fund this excessive deficit, we'd be taking these figures to the negotiating table to try and renegotiate our EU membership if we'd voted Yes.
The rather gloriously named "corrective arm" of the EU Stability and Growth Pact "ensures that Member States adopt appropriate policy responses to correct excessive deficits by implementing the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP)" and defines an excessive deficit as 3% of GDP.
Let's just look at the most recent year's data from the graph above to put that in context
Let there be no doubt: if Scotland had voted Yes and we were facing independence, seeking a currency solution, incurring the costs of separation and negotiating EU membership ... we would be forced to take drastic fiscal steps to reduce this deficit. We would inevitably face tax rises and/or far deeper public spending cuts than we're currently experiencing.
As it is - as secured by the fiscal framework agreement - Scotland benefits from a fiscal transfer from the rest of the UK. On the generally accepted assumption that we incur only our population share of the UK's debt this means we are benefiting by about £8bn a year currently as a result of voting No. This is how pooling and sharing works - its the quid pro quo for the massive contribution Scotland made to the UK during the oil boom of the 1980's.
Understanding the Deficit Gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK
Anybody who has read FFA for Dummies will hopefully understand the following graph. Unlike the analysis above which compares Scotland on a % GDP basis with the UK as a whole, this analysis compares us on a per capita basis with the rest of the UK (i.e. the UK without Scotland). As explained in FFA for Dummies: Methodology this approach gives similar answers (particulalry now GDP/Capita is so similar between Scotland and the UK) but has the advantage of putting the numbers in a form people can relate to.
There are three lines:
- The green line shows how much less per capita we raise in taxes in Scotland than the rest of the UK (about £300)
- The black line shows how much more tax we raise per capita when you include oil revenues (in the most recent year this means our total tax generation is in fact at parity with the rest of the UK)
- The red line shows how much more per capita public expenditure we enjoy in Scotland than the rest of the UK (about £1,500)
The figures are almost identical to those we started this blog with: with the most recent year's data now available we see £7.6bn of the £9.2bn onshore deficit gap that exists between Scotland and the rest of the UK revealed by falling oil revenues.
This deficit gap is clearly mainly due the higher spend per capita in Scotland than the rest of the UK. As this blog has covered before (see FFA for Dummies) this is in large part due to Scotland's lower population density, remote communities and unique demographic challenges. None of these would miraculously go away if we were independent.
We really should be thankful we voted No.
Experience tells me it's a good idea to include the following summary table here:
Notes:
1.
As is the way with these things prior years' data have been restated. It's worth noting that there's a material change to TME in 2013-14 leading to a £1bn increase in the reported deficit for Scotland. The UK reported deficit increases by only £3.6bn so this implies an increase in the reported deficit gap between Scotland and the UK which is reflected in this blog. See GERS Appendix B for more detail.
The EU works to calendar years, so our 2014-15 data is mapped here against 2014 EU AMECO data (which is generally the most recent actual year available as of today's date). The definition used for deficit by the EU is:
Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) Government surplus / deficit (net lending/borrowing under EDPThis maps closely with GERS/HMRC defined deficit but there are some technical as well as timing differences. I do not claim to have understood all the technical differences but the following graph comparing UK fiscal year data (from GERS) with EU AMECO data shows they match reasonably well
= net lending (+)/ net borrowing (-) of 'general government' (as defined in ESA 2010)
= National accounts (ESA 2010) net lending (+)/ net borrowing (-)
= total revenue less total expenditure
0 Comments