Who is bogging off after the YES vote?
Discussion
footsoldier said:
No - I was specifically replying to the borrowing costs point, which is where AAA is entirely relevant.
It's only relevant if you have it.Basically it's about pricing risk and a borrower has to pay that price.
Given the level of inherited debt and likelihood of ongoing deficit this is a fundamentally critical aspect. It makes a huge difference as to whether that debt and deficit are sustainable.
footsoldier said:
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).
CT is collected where it is legitimately accounted for.That may well remain in London.
simoid said:
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.
There's a deficit that needs to be reduced. That tends to mean reducing spending or raising taxes. Those are way less fun to promote than spending promises on things like childcare.Dryce said:
CT is collected where it is legitimately accounted for.
That may well remain in London.
That's funny, because a couple of posts ago we were being told (not by you) that Scottish companies would have to allocate Corp tax to UK, even if legitimately accounted for in Scotland.That may well remain in London.
The UK will also have to tax more, make cuts or borrow (or heaven forbid, create a better economy that increases the overall tax take without increasing rates). The question is, would you prefer those decisions taken here, or by Westminster. If it's the latter - fair enough, but not for me, thanks.
I am now turning off my aye-Pad....
footsoldier said:
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...
I thought you said you weigh up the pros and cons, ups and downs, taxes and revenues?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...
Yet you only tell us about the taxation here - while neglecting to mention the other side of the coin that Scotland spends a lot more than elsewhere in the UK too, and since 1980, Scotland has spent £60bn more than it's taxed (as part of the UK)?
You're not doing a very good job of showing balance here
Dryce said:
simoid said:
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.
There's a deficit that needs to be reduced. That tends to mean reducing spending or raising taxes. Those are way less fun to promote than spending promises on things like childcare.
cozmcrae said:
I'm leaving for non-independence reasons. The only thing that might entice me back would be a YES vote. I'm fed up with the state this country is currently in with all the food banks and poverty.
Well sell your M5 and give the money to the poorPoor little oppressed soul forced to drive a BMW
NEWSFLASH
Poverty is not having an old model iPhone
Poverty is people starving in the streets which i don't see in Scotland
But if you want to move to a better country then do it now before you lose you're oppressive passport
McWigglebum4th said:
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.
Still a football obsessed moron i seesimoid said:
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
For instance, re. the EU, you will choose to quote Barosso but not the other experts who have a differing opinion. You will choose to blindly accept the three stooges 'no means no' mantra re. currency union when it is clear the is not agreement in the Westminster government about that, which you ignore. Just two examples off the top of my head.
Cherry-picking from an emotionally-led unionist.
Edited by ViperPict on Monday 21st April 09:31
simoid said:
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.
J
ViperPict said:
McWigglebum4th said:
ViperPict said:
Self-confessed trolling...
Remind us again why you are your buddy oneblackswan got banned from the thread in NPE?Well post in it dear troll
McWigglebum4th said:
ViperPict said:
McWigglebum4th said:
ViperPict said:
Self-confessed trolling...
Remind us again why you are your buddy oneblackswan got banned from the thread in NPE?Well post in it dear troll
NailedOn said:
Can we get this back on topic? IE Who is bogging off in the event of a Yes vote?
I was enjoying that.
This has become a duplicate of the Indy thread with the same posters using the same arguments.
There a few of the usual suspects here but a lot more people commenting who can actually vote in the referendum. And a split of opinion more in line with the wider debate.I was enjoying that.
This has become a duplicate of the Indy thread with the same posters using the same arguments.
On topic: I repeat that anyone deciding to leave now is just making an emotional knee-jerk decision! And I think 90% bravado.
jith said:
simoid said:
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.
J
ViperPict said:
simoid said:
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
For instance, re. the EU, you will choose to quote Barosso but not the other experts who have a differing opinion. You will choose to blindly accept the three stooges 'no means no' mantra re. currency union when it is clear the is not agreement in the Westminster government about that, which you ignore. Just two examples off the top of my head.
Cherry-picking from an emotionally-led unionist.
Edited by ViperPict on Monday 21st April 09:31
It is a cold hard fact that anybody that means anything in the Westminster government has ruled out being the lender of last resort and sharing monetary policy with a foreign country. One "anonymous source" allegedly suggesting that Trident could stay on the Clyde in return for a currency union does not make clear disagreement in Westminster. Besides, if you want independence from England is your raison d'être, tying yourself to them via a currency union is somewhat going from the frying pan to the fire.
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff