Who is bogging off after the YES vote?

Who is bogging off after the YES vote?

Author
Discussion

simoid

19,772 posts

157 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
gwm said:
Cozmcrae sums up a lot of Yes voters. Even though he says he's bailing Scotland altogether. So unhappy with their lot and disillusioned, that they see the independence vote as a chance for real change. They don't want to accept any hard stats or independent opinion, as it pisses on their only avenue for getting the change they so desperately want.
Nat said:
Vote for CHANGE!
Questioner said:
What the fk is change?
Nat said:
Who knows, but life is st just now. Therefore change is good. Why would you possibly argue against change?
Difficult to argue against change without coming across as a stick-in-the-mud negative bd, but I try smile

footsoldier

2,251 posts

191 months

Sunday 20th April 2014
quotequote all
gwm said:
Cozmcrae sums up a lot of Yes voters. Even though he says he's bailing Scotland altogether. So unhappy with their lot and disillusioned, that they see the independence vote as a chance for real change. They don't want to accept any hard stats or independent opinion, as it pisses on their only avenue for getting the change they so desperately want.
Ok. Give us some hard stats to show why no is better vote..? Happy to listen.

simoid

19,772 posts

157 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
footsoldier said:
Try driving from Edinburgh to Newcastle,( or to Liverpool) or Aberdeen to Inverness. A good infrastructure between those cities would add many millions in trade I'm sure, but we still have single track roads. Then compare that to the money being spent on Crossrail or HS2 - that tells you all about priorities.

The Scottish government doesn't even have the power to borrow money to put in place our own infrastructure - the priorities in that, and in so many other areas are those of others, and just reinforce the imbalances and cement the status quo, which does not maximise our potential.

Same with the economy - a large chunk of Scotland's is indigenous - oil, whisky, tourism, renewables, farming, fishing etc. it's not going anywhere else. Yet, economic policy is tilted to City of London, which has to compete against other jurisdictions on taxes, (or lack of), mobile money etc, and which time and again has given us boom and bust without any notion of changing, (the latest London "super-bubble" is actually the most distorted yet - wonder how that will pan out?).

I think we can all see from the respective parliaments that our political priorities are different. not necessarily better, just different? i don't see it as impossible that we could design economic policy which suits our specific economy and then delivers the society most people in Scotland want - at least to a better degree than we can now. We already generate more tax per head than UK average, even with a skewed set of economic priorities, decided by others.

When I play blackjack, I prefer to make my own decisions on stick or twist, not let the guy next to me call my hand...
Well, luckily enough, the Scottish Parliament makes most of the decisions that affect our daily lives and there are definite new powers over borrowing, taxation and spending coming into force in 2016.

And, Scotland has spent £50bn more than it's received in taxes in the past 5 years - so we're borrowing stloads. One has to question how long this can continue - especially if you remove the advantages of our central bank creating money, and introduce more uncertainty and significant costs of setting up an independent Scotland's infrastructure.

simoid

19,772 posts

157 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
footsoldier said:
Ok. Give us some hard stats to show why no is better vote..? Happy to listen.
Here's one:

Economies of scale in terms of taxation for companies that operate across the UK - vote no and they have 1 set of accounts, 1 corporation tax bill, 1 PAYE system, 1 VAT bill, etc. Vote Yes, you double that.

footsoldier

2,251 posts

191 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Yes, Scotland has receieved more than it's raised in taxes over the last few years, but so has the UK. That's why we (UK) have a deficit. It's just that ours (iScotland) would be comparably less.

The Scotland Act makes the Scottish Parliament responsible for raising c15% of the money it spends (up from c7% now). However, this will be deducted from the block grant - we can't generate "more".

Scottish Govt Borrowing powers proposed in Scot Act are limited to £2.2bn. Projected cost of HS2 is £50bn, projected cost of Crossrail is £15bn. By population share of 8.3% we will incur notional debt of c£5.4bn in order to pay for these alone. ( The cost of Aberdeen ring road is £775m.)

On borrowing - Savings and Poor have said that an independent Scotland would qualify for highest level of investment grading, even without oil. I'll dig out the link if you need it.







Edited by footsoldier on Monday 21st April 00:23

footsoldier

2,251 posts

191 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
simoid said:
Here's one:

Economies of scale in terms of taxation for companies that operate across the UK - vote no and they have 1 set of accounts, 1 corporation tax bill, 1 PAYE system, 1 VAT bill, etc. Vote Yes, you double that.
Unfortunately that's not a fact, it's a supposition. Many, many companies operate across different jurisdictions and they have different ways of dealing with it, depending on their circumstances. Why would a Scottish HQ'd company have to prepare accounts for the UK, or make VAT returns or py corporation tax twice? They'd carry out fiscal obligations where they have to - its perfectly normal. If they have employees in other countries, then no doubt the income tax would apply, just as it does now. Between European countries, (assuming rUK stays in Europe), there is VAT treaty which means no charging of VAT anyway.

One small fact on corp tax - in 2012/13, 24% of all UK corporation tax came from North Sea. That tells me two things - we'd have a pretty strong tax base, and secondly, the City of London doesn't pay it's share of tax.

ViperPict

10,087 posts

236 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
simoid said:
ViperPict said:
simoid said:
simoid said:
What do I "butter up" as certain that isn't?
Well, 'Pict?
I'll refer you to the 'other' thread... One of the many editions of it... Same old unionist rhetoric going round and round for 2 years now!
Third chance, try not to look a tool this time:

What do I claim is certain, but isn't?
The one who resorts to insults has subliminally accepted they've lost the argument.

ViperPict

10,087 posts

236 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
footsoldier said:
simoid said:
Here's one:

Economies of scale in terms of taxation for companies that operate across the UK - vote no and they have 1 set of accounts, 1 corporation tax bill, 1 PAYE system, 1 VAT bill, etc. Vote Yes, you double that.
Unfortunately that's not a fact, it's a supposition. Many, many companies operate across different jurisdictions and they have different ways of dealing with it, depending on their circumstances. Why would a Scottish HQ'd company have to prepare accounts for the UK, or make VAT returns or py corporation tax twice? They'd carry out fiscal obligations where they have to - its perfectly normal. If they have employees in other countries, then no doubt the income tax would apply, just as it does now. Between European countries, (assuming rUK stays in Europe), there is VAT treaty which means no charging of VAT anyway.

One small fact on corp tax - in 2012/13, 24% of all UK corporation tax came from North Sea. That tells me two things - we'd have a pretty strong tax base, and secondly, the City of London doesn't pay it's share of tax.
There is no point in trying to argue against Simoid's emotionally-based unionist rhetoric. He believes in the union as a result of what the football team he supports tells him to think. End of.

Dryce

310 posts

131 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
footsoldier said:
On borrowing - Savings and Poor have said that an independent Scotland would qualify for highest level of investment grading, even without oil. I'll dig out the link if you need it.
It's Standard and Poor.

The report is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/209646043/Standard-and-P...

It is carefully qualified - which is the way these agencies work - though that is easily glossed over so people can choose to read into it what they might want and that's not S&P's responsibility.

It basically says the obvious - that Scotland's economy could be the equivalent of say NZ but then adds that there are considerable risks it wouldn't if things don't quite work out.

"The challenge for Scotland to go it alone would be significant, but not surpassable"

That's not really the way it has been presented by those who just see the letters A, A, and A combined with the wortd Scotland.

simoid

19,772 posts

157 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
footsoldier said:
Yes, Scotland has receieved more than it's raised in taxes over the last few years, but so has the UK. That's why we have a deficit. It's just that ours would be comparably less.

The Scotland Act makes the Scottish Parliament responsible for raising c15% of the money it spends (up from c7% now). However, this will be deducted from the block grant - we can't generate "more".

Scottish Govt Borrowing powers proposed in Scot Act are limited to £2.2bn. Projected cost of HS2 is £50bn, projected cost of Crossrail is £15bn. By population share of 8.3% we will incur notional debt of c£5.4bn in order to pay for these alone. ( The cost of Aberdeen ring road is £775m.)

On borrowing - Savings and Poor have said that an independent Scotland would qualify for highest level of investment grading, even without oil. I'll dig out the link if you need it.
We cannot make comparisons between Scotland's share of past borrowing as part of the UK, and what our deficit would've been if we were independent, since conditions would be totally different. Similarly, we cannot use previous figures as part of the UK to estimate the future. For obvious reasons, these are apples and pears and oranges.

I remember the S&P report, I think the general conclusion was that it would be tough, but doable. They also pointed out various risks to an independent Scotland. That's my main problem with the Yessers - they forget to mention the risks, or just assume that the risks and problems will be sorted out... WITHOUT considering the consequences.

All they see is silver linings with a yes vote, and clouds if we vote no.



OlberJ

14,101 posts

232 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
If there is a yes vote, will Westminster campaign against pulling out of the EU to save hassle for companies?

I like how it's portrayed that rUK would block a currency union and cause heavy costs for businesses just because they can but campaign against independence on the fact that it would cost companies money.


simoid

19,772 posts

157 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
ViperPict said:
simoid said:
ViperPict said:
simoid said:
simoid said:
What do I "butter up" as certain that isn't?
Well, 'Pict?
I'll refer you to the 'other' thread... One of the many editions of it... Same old unionist rhetoric going round and round for 2 years now!
Third chance, try not to look a tool this time:

What do I claim is certain, but isn't?
The one who resorts to insults has subliminally accepted they've lost the argument.
There's no argument - you're not debating. You're clearly flat-out refusing debate, although I will offer you a fourth chance to explain yourself:

What have I claimed is certain, which is actually uncertain?

simoid

19,772 posts

157 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
OlberJ said:
If there is a yes vote, will Westminster campaign against pulling out of the EU to save hassle for companies?

I like how it's portrayed that rUK would block a currency union and cause heavy costs for businesses just because they can but campaign against independence on the fact that it would cost companies money.
If Westminster refures a currency union, there is no cost to business.

There is a cost to business if Scottish companies use a different currency.

simoid

19,772 posts

157 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
ViperPict said:
There is no point in trying to argue against Simoid's emotionally-based unionist rhetoric. He believes in the union as a result of what the football team he supports tells him to think. End of.
Careful now.

I am emotionally indifferent (or even marginally favourable) to Scottish independence, but my education and experiences tell me that Scotland is better in the UK smile

footsoldier

2,251 posts

191 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
simoid said:
We cannot make comparisons between Scotland's share of past borrowing as part of the UK, and what our deficit would've been if we were independent, since conditions would be totally different. Similarly, we cannot use previous figures as part of the UK to estimate the future. For obvious reasons, these are apples and pears and oranges.

I remember the S&P report, I think the general conclusion was that it would be tough, but doable. They also pointed out various risks to an independent Scotland. That's my main problem with the Yessers - they forget to mention the risks, or just assume that the risks and problems will be sorted out... WITHOUT considering the consequences.

All they see is silver linings with a yes vote, and clouds if we vote no.
Not me. I think there are risks and there is some uncertainty, but having looked at it in detail, I'm sure the opportunity outweighs those, and I'm also confident we can do better objectively, not to mention the subjective benefits on the national psyche. That's what you do in business - analyse the opportunity, plan for the risks, and deal with the ups and downs. Better to have the levers to do so in our own hands, IMO, given the underlying strengths of our economy,

What facts do you suggest we use, if you're saying that previous figures don't count? People ask for facts - but then if they don't like them, they backpedal.

Throw some of your counter facts (real ones though) at me - happy to deal with them.

simoid

19,772 posts

157 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
footsoldier said:
simoid said:
Here's one:

Economies of scale in terms of taxation for companies that operate across the UK - vote no and they have 1 set of accounts, 1 corporation tax bill, 1 PAYE system, 1 VAT bill, etc. Vote Yes, you double that.
Unfortunately that's not a fact, it's a supposition. Many, many companies operate across different jurisdictions and they have different ways of dealing with it, depending on their circumstances. Why would a Scottish HQ'd company have to prepare accounts for the UK, or make VAT returns or py corporation tax twice? They'd carry out fiscal obligations where they have to - its perfectly normal. If they have employees in other countries, then no doubt the income tax would apply, just as it does now. Between European countries, (assuming rUK stays in Europe), there is VAT treaty which means no charging of VAT anyway.

One small fact on corp tax - in 2012/13, 24% of all UK corporation tax came from North Sea. That tells me two things - we'd have a pretty strong tax base, and secondly, the City of London doesn't pay it's share of tax.
They wouldn't pay anything twice.

They'd have to apportion which tax was due to the Scottish exchequer, and which was due to the "rUK" exchequer. Just now, they just count it and (hopefully wink) pay it to the UK exchequer. Voting yes = a carry on.

Dryce

310 posts

131 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
footsoldier said:
One small fact on corp tax - in 2012/13, 24% of all UK corporation tax came from North Sea. That tells me two things - we'd have a pretty strong tax base, and secondly, the City of London doesn't pay it's share of tax.
Quoting simplistic numbers like this is usually misleading.

I believe the figure for 2012/13 is 12%.

It's worth noting that CT represents about 6% of UK net tax income.

So in terms of total tax that 12% becomes about 0.8%.

It can vary significantly year on year (I mentioned this several pages of posts back).

Also bear in mind that the CT is more mobile than the petroleum revenue tax. So after separation Scotland wouldn't necessarily gain this CT - a large proportion of it may well be still collected in London.

footsoldier

2,251 posts

191 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Dryce said:
It's Standard and Poor.

The report is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/209646043/Standard-and-P...

It is carefully qualified - which is the way these agencies work - though that is easily glossed over so people can choose to read into it what they might want and that's not S&P's responsibility.

It basically says the obvious - that Scotland's economy could be the equivalent of say NZ but then adds that there are considerable risks it wouldn't if things don't quite work out.

"The challenge for Scotland to go it alone would be significant, but not surpassable"

That's not really the way it has been presented by those who just see the letters A, A, and A combined with the wortd Scotland.
No - I was specifically replying to the borrowing costs point, which is where AAA is entirely relevant.

I agree with S&P on the wider point - significant but not unsurpassable (you forgot the prefix...). The opportunities are also significant and not unattainable!



simoid

19,772 posts

157 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
footsoldier said:
Not me. I think there are risks and there is some uncertainty, but having looked at it in detail, I'm sure the opportunity outweighs those, and I'm also confident we can do better objectively, not to mention the subjective benefits on the national psyche. That's what you do in business - analyse the opportunity, plan for the risks, and deal with the ups and downs. Better to have the levers to do so in our own hands, IMO, given the underlying strengths of our economy,

What facts do you suggest we use, if you're saying that previous figures don't count? People ask for facts - but then if they don't like them, they backpedal.

Throw some of your counter facts (real ones though) at me - happy to deal with them.
Figures for Scottish fiscal positions as part of the UK obviously don't represent the future finances for an independent Scotland. I'd like to see some estimates about the future from economists, wouldn't you? Surely the Scottish Government has a rough idea what will be taxed and spent when (;)) we go independent in less than 2 years time? Why haven't they showed us? You can guarantee they've had a guess, and if it looked good, they'd tell us.

I assume if you want Scottish hands on the economic levers, you'll not be wanting a currency union with the UK?

footsoldier

2,251 posts

191 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Dryce said:
Quoting simplistic numbers like this is usually misleading.

I believe the figure for 2012/13 is 12%.

It's worth noting that CT represents about 6% of UK net tax income.

So in terms of total tax that 12% becomes about 0.8%.

It can vary significantly year on year (I mentioned this several pages of posts back).

Also bear in mind that the CT is more mobile than the petroleum revenue tax. So after separation Scotland wouldn't necessarily gain this CT - a large proportion of it may well be still collected in London.
I'm pretty sure you'll find it was 24%, according to Ed Davey, UK secretary. I'll check tomorrow
Anyway - the if you think those numbers are simplistic, (even before you simplify then...), then just stick to the macro UK govt figures which show Scotland has contributed more than UK average in total taxes for each of the last 30 years.

CT is already collected (and allocated) in London because it is allocated where company's HQ's are, rather than where it's generated, (other, funnily enough than oil, which is allocated spuriously to the continental shelf, rather than Scotland).

Simplistically enough, Scotland's per capita GDP is 99% of UK's even without oil, and c118% with. Viable - Yes!

Goodnight...