Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Average Scottish wage now £28,300 after five-year boom

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 28 November 2008
SCOTTISH workers earn on average £5,000 more than five years ago, a report published today reveals.
The typical annual full-time salary in Scotland rose by 23 per cent, from £23,080 in April 2003 to £28,296 in April this year, according to Bank of Scotland. Only London experienced higher average earnings growth over the period.

Crucially, infla
tion (as measured by the Retail Prices Index) has risen by 18 per cent over the past five years, meaning Scottish average earnings have increased by 5 per cent in real terms since 2003.

But the figures are inflated by salaries in Aberdeen and Edinburgh which are significantly higher than elsewhere in Scotland.

Aberdeen city workers have enjoyed a 41 per cent rise in average earnings since 2003. Their average salary of £35,959 is the highest in Scotland and 14 per cent more than the UK average salary of £31,500.

This is partly due to high demand for skilled workers in sectors such as oil and gas, said Kate Yuill, policy and communications manager at Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce.

"While we are in the enviable position of having an unemployment rate which is below national average, it does mean we have a shortage of skilled staff. Businesses therefore offer excellent wage packages to attract the staff they need and this clearly has an impact on the average wage scale."

Edinburgh workers are the second-highest earners. The typical full-time worker in the capital earns £33,004, almost a third more than five years ago.

In all, only workers in London, and the east and the south-east of England enjoy average earnings above those in Scotland, the report found.

"The employment and labour market in Scotland has been healthy in the past five years and this reflects that," said Bank of Scotland economist Nitesh Patel.

But that has begun to change and, with the economy heading for recession, salaries are unlikely to rise significantly in the near future, said Gordon Barraclough, founding partner of Glasgow-based business sustainability firm Taradin.

"If you were able to take the same snapshot of salaries today, it would be dramatically different. People are not spending and companies do not know when we will get to the end of the downturn so they are keeping as much cash as they can and reducing overheads."

The situation is made worse by inflation forecasts for the coming months, according to Andrew Addie, tax director at Grant Thornton Scotland. He pointed out that employers who set inflation-busting pay in recent months were worried that inflation could now fall to zero or worse.

"It is the end of the good times and workers face a period of very low earnings growth," said Mr Addie.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 November 2008 11:24 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

cynicalm,

Edinburgh 28/11/2008 00:07:20
Average salary is not a good indicator of family income. The median, 50% more, 50% less, would give a much better idea of the typical Scottish family.
2

Guga II,

Rockall 28/11/2008 04:35:50
This is another case of lies, damned lies and statistics.

What exactly is meant by "average", is it the mean, the mode or the median? Or is it the country's GDP divided by the number of people in full-time employment? Anyone can produce a set of statistics to prove anything they happen to want to prove.

There are a very high number of ordinary working people in Scotland who are earning the minimum wage, or not very much above it. I'm sure that many of them would think all their Christmases had come at once if they were earning the mythical £28,296 per annum.
3

donald,

glasgow 28/11/2008 05:45:38
How many are not earning wages?
4

Colin Wilson,

Aberdeen 28/11/2008 07:00:55
This is just the Scotsman trying to tell us how well off we are, with the country under UK control.

My salary is a bit less than their purported "average" for Aberdeen, but somehow that's still greater than that of most people I know here.
5

gus1940,

Edinburgh 28/11/2008 07:54:59
Does anybody actually believe this figure?
6

ccc,

28/11/2008 08:46:43
I have heard this from a few different sources today. Not one bothers to compare this rise in 'average' salaries to the cost of housing in this country.

So nice to see that in 'real' terms we are all 5% better off than 5 years ago. That is unless you want to buy a house of course. Which for many people is fairly important.... If this is the case we are all probably way less better off than 5 years ago.

All this media/Government telling us how much better off we really are. Seems a little 1984 to me....
7

Number 6,

Germany 28/11/2008 09:45:19
#5 Sadly the unionistas will lap it up.
8

Mcsnagpile,

28/11/2008 10:17:15
People never learn. The old saying ---lies, damned lies, and statistics.
9

Brad,

Glasgow 28/11/2008 10:22:52
#6, is the SNP's intention to cause wages to decrease?
10

Brad,

Glasgow 28/11/2008 10:24:45
#1, neither mean or median wages give much idea about the typical Scottish family. What is "the typical Scottish family" anyway? I think they're quite a diverse bunch.

Otherwise, median and mean together would be better than one or other.
11

Brad,

Glasgow 28/11/2008 10:26:39
#2 "average wage" is fairly unambiguous. Average = mean and wage is what you actually get paid, not GDP per worker, which is something else entirely.

Whether the people who produced or reported these figures understand that, we may never know.
12

Brad,

Glasgow 28/11/2008 10:27:57
#5, yes-ish.
13

ccc,

28/11/2008 10:37:44
#9

I have no idea what the SNP's plan is. I simply think a story like this is misleading.

There is one reason people 'feel' like they are better off today - DEBT.

How many people can actually afford the cars, houses or handbags they have ? Not many.
14

Brad,

Glasgow 28/11/2008 11:03:28
#13, sorry, I had meant my SNP comment at #9 for #7 (who confusingly calls him/herself "Number 6" (although their comment was "Number Two").

The article doesn't say that people are, or feel, better off, how indebted they are, or whether they can afford their handbags. It says wages have risen, which isn't the same thing. It says they have risen faster than RPI, which includes some measure of housing costs.
15

sdfsdfs\fwaf,

the tail of the distribution 28/11/2008 11:18:48
cynicalm has it spot on.

If the averages given in the article are means (and it doesn't even say!) then they are misleading.

Salaries have a highly skewed distribution, with most people earning moderate salaries (say 20-30k), a big number earning a low salary (under 20k) and a small number earning very high salaries (100s of k). The small number of high earners pull the mean up. Hence the mean does not reflect a typical salary.

It is incorrect to say that a "typical worker earns" the mean. Imagine a company where the boss earns a million, and 100 workers earn 10k each. Does a typical worker earn around 20k? If the boss earns 2 million next year, then is it sensible to report that the average has increased by 50% to around 30k?

What we need to know is the median -- i.e. the salary that half of us earn more than, and half of us earn less than. It's also useful to know some quantiles, e.g. if you are in the top 10% then how much to you earn, versus the bottom 10%.

It's pretty poor journalism not to give the correct figures or make any attempt to distinguish them.
16

ccc,

28/11/2008 11:46:14
#14

I think the headline is misleading. It uses the word 'Boom' to indicate good times. I am not sure the last 5 years have been good times. They are the cause of all the mess we see today.

As for RPI that includes housing interest costs only. If it had included housing capital costs, which also have to be paid, then we would have seen the RPI rate at nearer 10% over the last few years. Of course that would have meant interest rates would have had to rise. This was not acceptable to a Government intent on continuing the borrowing binge for as long as possible. Hence they chose to keep the capital amount out of these figures.

In short - I think we have all be scammed into feeling like we are better off, when in fact most ar worse off than 5 years ago.
17

techpunk,

28/11/2008 11:58:05
twot alert!
twot alert!

(we all know who we are talking about here, don't we?)

back to the article:

I have heard this from a few different sources today. Not one bothers to compare this rise in 'average' salaries to the cost of tunnocks tea cakes in this country.


18

ccc,

28/11/2008 12:03:52
#17

Instead of spouting nonsense maybe you can point out what in my reply is not relevant or not a decent point.

Thanks.
19

techpunk,

28/11/2008 12:07:40
#18

sure.

because you are literally a vacuum. go suck yourself.

Thanks.
20

Brad,

Glasgow 28/11/2008 12:28:11
If people are really interested in this topic, there is plenty data (and metadata) available from National Statistics.
21

Brad,

Glasgow 28/11/2008 12:34:26
#16, "most ar worse off than 5 years ago".

Maybe not as much better off as the (any) Government would like us to think but I'm not sure "most" are worse off, either intuitively or statistically. Wider measures of living standards suggest relative stability/stagnancy the past couple of years after earlier growth but there will be lots of variation in that. A lot of people will feel a bit pessimistic at the moment, even if they aren't going to lose their jobs (most won't) and prices and interest rates are falling. No-one says it but recessions aren't always bad for a lot of people...
22

ccc,

28/11/2008 13:02:25
#21

Fair point - On reflection I would probably agree our living standards have been pretty flat for the last 5 years. However these times have been described as a continued 'boom'. Surely our living standards should have 'boomed' as well ?

Also how many people are dependent on debt to attain their living standards of today ? When this debt has to be paid back, and it will, then surely these people will suffer a serious drop in their own living standards ?

Sadly I think for the next 5 years - the only way is down.
23

Snuffy Ivy,

Aberdeen. 28/11/2008 21:10:25
#22 The article doesn't pertain to "living standards" it pertains to "average income" and there is a vast difference between the two. However, you are probably correct in your assumption regarding the debt ratio to living standards. But the old idea of debt used to be called "never never" meaning only in rare cases is debt actually fully settled.
I join the numbers of posters who would be really interested in knowing how this "income" number was calculated and by whom.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.