Scotland’s state dependent economy
The Scotsman on a report written by economists at Scottish Enterprise:
The astonishing extent to which state spending is propping up Scotland’s economy is laid bare in new figures which suggest the ballooning public sector is strangling wealth creation.
The findings show that in some areas, three-quarters of the local economy is made up solely of the billions of pounds pumped in by the government.
I think I might replace the sentence ’state spending is propping up Scotland’s economy ‘ with something a lot closer to the truth - such as, ’state spending is propping up Labour’s tartan vote block’. Our tax-and-spend government maintains artificially low unemployment by moving unemployed onto disability benefit and by buying public sector jobs - as if the country needs them.
Such is the size of the public sector in these areas, business chiefs and economists fear it is swallowing up private enterprise, hoovering up talented workers and making it nearly impossible for companies to prosper.
The findings shed fresh light on Scotland’s chronic dependency culture - in which the economy is becoming increasingly reliant upon state handouts to provide wages for the ever rising army of public sector workers.
Some of the findings are pitiful. Just how does a person have any pride in a town or area when all that it is has been provided by tax-payers - via the government?
In Argyll and Clyde, 76% of the economy is generated from the state, in the form of spending by councils, health boards and through other forms of government activity. In Ayrshire and Arran, the figure is 74%. In Lanarkshire, it is 72%.
Only in oil-rich Grampian (35%) and finance-friendly Lothians (39%) do the figures fall below comparable English levels. Across the UK, state spending accounts for approximately 40% of the economy.
The figures have almost certainly been boosted by the rocketing sums spent by Scotland’s government since devolution. By 2008, Scottish Executive spending will be double that of 1999. Scotland’s benefits bill has also rocketed. Scottish Enterprise claims that total public spending in Scotland in 2002-03 reached £40bn, or 55% of Scotland’s total economy.
The warnings are stark - and probably set to be ignored:
Business chiefs warned that the high levels were ruining hopes of boosting growth.
Alan Mitchell of CBI Scotland said: “To have that much of the economy generated by wealth spending rather than wealth creating can’t be good for the Scottish economy long term.
“It has a major effect on the ability of companies to recruit and retain staff. Their margins are tight and they cannot compete in terms of holidays, pensions, childcare and all the other add-ons that the public sector can offer. If we don’t have ambitious small to medium size businesses growing then we aren’t going to develop that economy long term.”
Even the Scottish National Party is concerned:
Jim Mather, enterprise spokesman for the SNP said high levels of public spending would leave Scotland dangerously exposed when government funding was cut back.
Which is plain common sense (if you’re not a card-carrying member of the Blairite Tendency).
No wonder the Scottish National Party only secured 6 seats in the May General Election. Independence is just what Scotland doesn’t want.
[Thanks, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]

Since I live in Scotland, I have been getting into argument after argument with the Scots about this issue. It seems nearly every Scot I talk to does not realise that having an economy dependent on government spending is insane. The only credible pro-business party is the Conservative and Unionist party, but very few people voted for them (14% of those who voted in 2003). If “first past the post” was the only system in use, the Tories would only have 3 seats (compared to 2 seats for independent candidates, out of 75 FPTP seats). Luckily for the Scottish Tories, they received 15 further seats due to “proportional representation” (out of 56). The Scots care not for the rich - and business owners, entrepreneurs and corporate giants are all classed as being rich.
What is worse is the Scot’s foolhardy sense of nationalism. More than a quarter of them voted for the left-leaning nationalist parties (there are two, one of which is verging on communism and received nearly 5% of the vote), whose main policy was to make Scotland independent. This would put an end to the Barnett formula - the gravy train that is paying for this extravagant government spending. The net transfer of money into Scotland from England is billions per year. No one bothered to ask how the independents would afford their socialist agendas without the South-East’s chequebook. It never occurred to the Scottish media (and hence voters) to ask. You complain about the media being infected with left-leaning journalists, yet Scotland has it 10 times worse - they have stupid, far-left, pro-Scottish-independence buffoons up here.
Think yourself lucky - Scotland is 5/6 “governed” by left wing politicians and a sizable number are on the extreme socialist/communist side of the left.
I was seriously thinking about getting involved in politics (initially by the same route you have decided to take), but there is no point in Scotland. I am not a Scot. Even if I was a Scot, I wouldn’t stand a chance standing for the only party I would consider joining, as the socialist rott is too far into Scottish culture (in fact the reason I haven’t joined is I do not want my neighbours knowing my political views. We don’t get on with them very well and we don’t want to take the risk of them seeing the literature being delivered).
Ironically, I will most likely join the party when I move to another country.
Comment by lascivious — October 12, 2005 @ 8:56 pm
Oops - there are 73 FPTP seats.
Comment by lascivious — October 12, 2005 @ 10:04 pm
Scotland and New Labour are, between them, a walking advertisment for the destructive effects of state management of… well, anything.
Lascivious, why not make that other country England?
Comment by Gary Monro — October 13, 2005 @ 5:09 pm
Because I want:
1) A safe, clean and affordable environment in which to bring up my daughter. A bilingual city (neither language being English) will give her the best start in life.
2) A culture and political climate where people take responsibility for their own actions and local decisions remain local (for example, if the village wants to build a new sports centre in their school, they borrow money from the federal government and put village taxes up to pay the loan back).
3) An education system that works without having to pay twice.
4) A job that pays me enough to live well and a low tax rate (25% total tax burden).
5) Public services that I can only dream of now (cheap, reliable regular trains and buses with coordinated timetables and private sector medical care and welfare (you buy private insurance and if you can’t afford it, the state pays for basic cover)).
6) The icing on the cake.
There are a lot more things which make the place I am going to live good, but they are too numerous to go into here. Whilst England would be a good move in some respects, and to be honest I would have moved there if someone offered me a good job, the offer I have received is just too good to say no.
I will get involved in politics at some point in the future (maybe even Swiss politics!). I feel now is a good time to get involved, so I hope I don’t miss the boat by putting it off for a few years.
Comment by lascivious — October 13, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
Switzerland is trilingual officially, quadrilingual unofficially. Official languages are French, German and Italian. There is also a local dialect.
Have a nice time in Switzerland and make sure you report back regularly on how great federalism is so we can use it as a stick to beat the Scottish Raj with.
Comment by wonkotsane — October 13, 2005 @ 7:37 pm
Switzerland is indeed quadrilingual, but in the city I will be living in, there are only two languages (French and German) used commonly. The city is a long way from the regions in which Italian and Romansch are spoken (it’s in the west). I doubt my daughter will learn Italian, but there is always a chance!
I will be certain to pop by and let you know how a real democracy works and whether I think it is better
Comment by lascivious — October 13, 2005 @ 9:20 pm