If you compare and contrast them, debt solutions in the majority of the UK aren't as good as the solutions that have been put in place in Scotland. Despite the fact that politicians should be applauded for giving Scottish citizens a helpful range of problem-debt resolution methods, insolvency figures in Scotland are two times that recorded in the rest of the UK.
A Scottish trust deed generally lasts for a period of three years; in other regions of the United Kingdom the broadly-equivalent IVA debt strategy tends to last around five years. Scottish residents also have far better access to sequestration and bankruptcy than their other UK counterparts. In all other regions of the UK the type of outcome enabled by a Certificate of Sequestration in Scotland costs £700, meanwhile, in Scotland, it is a mere £100, rendering it easier for Scotch debtors to escape their unfeasible debts. Policy makers in Scotland look to have developed and maintained a system of debt solutions for Scottish people that stands up impressively well against the schemes in the rest of the UK.
At the same time the quantity of debtors applying for sequestration or a protected trust deed in Scotland has increased whilst insolvency in different regions of the United Kingdom is reducing. The most recent set of data included the 2nd highest quantity of Scots going into a protected trust deed ever. Are Scottish or UK government officials to blame for Scotland facing personal debt issues on a level not recorded elsewhere in the UK? Wouldn't debt-related efforts be better concentrating on prevention rather than cure?
Yet blaming the Scottish government for taking on the 'wrong end' of debt isn't fair. In actuality Scotland has lower quantities of average debt than most areas of the United Kingdom (excluding Wales). This means that there is not more debt, but there are more residents equipped to handle the debt that they actually have.
Regularly, unemployment is seen as a central factor in debt problems, is this the root of Scotland's high use of trust deeds? Possibly not. This is because:
-There is minimal difference between UK unemployment figures and those for Scotland
-The United Kingdom in general and Scotland on its own have very similar hourly pay rates
-Mortgages and property expenses are equally not to blame, they are far lower in Scotland
So why are protected trust deed and debt arrangement scheme numbers on the rise? It would appear the economic situation in Scotland, for which politicians are also responsible, is not disproportionately organised to drag Scottish people into debt compared to other regions of the United Kingdom. Who, or what, is creating the issue?
Thousands upon thousands of people in the rest of the United Kingdom are thought to be in debt management plans for which no reliable stats are reported. Would these people have used a protected trust deed with a three year term when a five year IVA just felt too long? Have debtors north of the border been helped to get on with sequestration because a £100 charge is feasible whilst a £700 cost cannot be saved up? Are residents in Scotland opting for the (measured and reported) debt arrangement scheme as opposed to an 'English' DMP that brings few of the positives of the Scottish DAS?
At this juncture, the most plausible answer isn't that Scotland is being hit by a worse insolvency problem, but that Scotland is much better at dealing with the situation directly than the rest of the UK. It is plausible that more debtors would make use of debt management solutions in the United Kingdom if they were more accessible.
At the same time the quantity of debtors applying for sequestration or a protected trust deed in Scotland has increased whilst insolvency in different regions of the United Kingdom is reducing. The most recent set of data included the 2nd highest quantity of Scots going into a protected trust deed ever. Are Scottish or UK government officials to blame for Scotland facing personal debt issues on a level not recorded elsewhere in the UK? Wouldn't debt-related efforts be better concentrating on prevention rather than cure?
Yet blaming the Scottish government for taking on the 'wrong end' of debt isn't fair. In actuality Scotland has lower quantities of average debt than most areas of the United Kingdom (excluding Wales). This means that there is not more debt, but there are more residents equipped to handle the debt that they actually have.
Regularly, unemployment is seen as a central factor in debt problems, is this the root of Scotland's high use of trust deeds? Possibly not. This is because:
-There is minimal difference between UK unemployment figures and those for Scotland
-The United Kingdom in general and Scotland on its own have very similar hourly pay rates
-Mortgages and property expenses are equally not to blame, they are far lower in Scotland
So why are protected trust deed and debt arrangement scheme numbers on the rise? It would appear the economic situation in Scotland, for which politicians are also responsible, is not disproportionately organised to drag Scottish people into debt compared to other regions of the United Kingdom. Who, or what, is creating the issue?
Thousands upon thousands of people in the rest of the United Kingdom are thought to be in debt management plans for which no reliable stats are reported. Would these people have used a protected trust deed with a three year term when a five year IVA just felt too long? Have debtors north of the border been helped to get on with sequestration because a £100 charge is feasible whilst a £700 cost cannot be saved up? Are residents in Scotland opting for the (measured and reported) debt arrangement scheme as opposed to an 'English' DMP that brings few of the positives of the Scottish DAS?
At this juncture, the most plausible answer isn't that Scotland is being hit by a worse insolvency problem, but that Scotland is much better at dealing with the situation directly than the rest of the UK. It is plausible that more debtors would make use of debt management solutions in the United Kingdom if they were more accessible.
