Scotland after the vote
Discussion
pcvdriver said:
simoid said:
Well, in fairness, Westminster has given Scotland around £40,000,000,000 more to spend than its received in taxes for the past 5 years.
That was nice of them.
Just how much has Westminster given themselves more to spend that it actually has raised in taxes over the same period?That was nice of them.
My point is that Scotland is spending far beyond its means at present, and there is no acceptance of this from the yes campaign or our government.
pcvdriver said:
barryrs said:
If only Scotland had the power to raise additional taxation if it chose to.........
....And where does that tax go? That's right, HM treasury!!! Aye good one Barry.Westminster would just say "Thanks Scotland" and we'd have no net gain.
s2art said:
Nope. Any tax raised by the Tartan Tax mechanism is merely collected by HM treasury and then made available to the Scottish government. Note that this is completely different in 2016, and that idiot Salmond actually let the Tax raising powers lapse in 2010 and it took another couple of years to re-instate it.
But of course this brings me to one of the main reasons I see leaving the UK as a futile attempt at "independence". And also why Salmond's adviser John Kay says independence is "largely symbolic" and "inescapably limited" for countries like Scotland:If we lower our tax rates, you are effectively borrowing more money since it takes time for the benefits of the cut (higher spending/growth) to take effect. Also, the UK will simply match it and we'll be poorer.
If we raise our tax rates, we lose business.
pcvdriver said:
I didn't say that the Scottish Parliament doesn't control the budget - I am saying that the overall amount we get in our block grant IS affected by the Barnett Formula. If Westminstar chooses not to spend as much on the NHS in England, then due to Barnett, pro rata belt tightening happens in Scotland. If we don't get as much in the block grant from one year to the next due to Westminster cuts, then obviously cuts have to be made elsewhere.
.......it's simple arithmetic - I thought you understood the concept, obviously not though
This is surely all the proof needed that the whole thing is nonsense........it's simple arithmetic - I thought you understood the concept, obviously not though
The SNP can already raise taxes itself to pay for increased services above those in rUK if desired. It has chosen not to, but that is not the fault of Westminster, it is down to Holyrood.
Now, the SNP may then protest that it is unable to borrow more to pay for this instead of raising taxes - but claim it could do that post independence. But here is the rub, the SNP want a CU with the rUK, and the rUK could never allow different borrowing behaviours. This is why a CU where Holyrood can borrow what they like is utter nonsense, and why it will never be agreed to by the rUK. This renders all the Swinney "we'll borrow more" statements as patently nonsense - he is basically saying we'll have a CU but borrow what we want on the rUKs credit card. Absolute non-starter for the rUK, its obvious.
None of these arguments make sense - it's simple common sense. It is obvious many Yesers don't understand the concept.
Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 17th July 22:11
barryrs said:
I apologise if im incorrect but I believe the only reason additional taxation raised in Scotland wont stay in Scotland is because YOU were to tight to pay for the HMRC IT systems.
If Scotland had followed through on a Scottish Variable Rate and funded the IT systems required the additional taxation could have been identified and allocated to the Scottish government upon collection.
I think the Government here will have taken the view that it simply wasn't going to be worth the expenditure, given that come September, we'll be making plans for a new Government here in Scotland.If Scotland had followed through on a Scottish Variable Rate and funded the IT systems required the additional taxation could have been identified and allocated to the Scottish government upon collection.
pcvdriver said:
I think the Government here will have taken the view that it simply wasn't going to be worth the expenditure, given that come September, we'll be making plans for a new Government here in Scotland.
Awaaaaay, Salmond doesn't believe there will be a yes vote! Surely nobody actually believes there will be a yes vote...
pcvdriver said:
barryrs said:
I apologise if im incorrect but I believe the only reason additional taxation raised in Scotland wont stay in Scotland is because YOU were to tight to pay for the HMRC IT systems.
If Scotland had followed through on a Scottish Variable Rate and funded the IT systems required the additional taxation could have been identified and allocated to the Scottish government upon collection.
I think the Government here will have taken the view that it simply wasn't going to be worth the expenditure, given that come September, we'll be making plans for a new Government here in Scotland.If Scotland had followed through on a Scottish Variable Rate and funded the IT systems required the additional taxation could have been identified and allocated to the Scottish government upon collection.
Fact is Scotland has had additional tax raising powers that it could have used and which would have resulted in the taxes raised going 100% to the Scottish exchequer. The spend for the IT was minor in comparison to the potential uplift in revenues that that extra 3p in income tax could have raised. The fact that the SNP would not proceed with it tells you all you need to know - namely that the SNP preferred to play politics ahead of it's duties to care for the people of Scotland.
simoid said:
pcvdriver said:
simoid said:
Well, in fairness, Westminster has given Scotland around £40,000,000,000 more to spend than its received in taxes for the past 5 years.
That was nice of them.
Just how much has Westminster given themselves more to spend that it actually has raised in taxes over the same period?That was nice of them.
My point is that Scotland is spending far beyond its means at present, and there is no acceptance of this from the yes campaign or our government.
As you can see Westminster gave themselves a whopping £940,000,000,000 compared to our £40,000,000,000.
So you're being more than a little disingenuous to suggest that we are getting a great "deal" from Westminster, as the percentage share of the debt that Scotland has to pay, has been increasing year on year.
andymadmak said:
I don't think you believe that at all.
Fact is Scotland has had additional tax raising powers that it could have used and which would have resulted in the taxes raised going 100% to the Scottish exchequer. The spend for the IT was minor in comparison to the potential uplift in revenues that that extra 3p in income tax could have raised. The fact that the SNP would not proceed with it tells you all you need to know - namely that the SNP preferred to play politics ahead of it's duties to care for the people of Scotland.
You're being more than a little presumptuous aren't you Andy? Please enlighten us all, as to how you have the power of telepathy......or were you on the piss last night before posting? Fact is Scotland has had additional tax raising powers that it could have used and which would have resulted in the taxes raised going 100% to the Scottish exchequer. The spend for the IT was minor in comparison to the potential uplift in revenues that that extra 3p in income tax could have raised. The fact that the SNP would not proceed with it tells you all you need to know - namely that the SNP preferred to play politics ahead of it's duties to care for the people of Scotland.
point is the Scottish goverment could have raised more money they either did not need to or choose not to so they could blame lack of funding on westminster.
Oh an I suspect the 940bn v 40bn is a case of spemnding for all of the uk including scotland i.e. defense etc v jujst scottish spending.
Oh an I suspect the 940bn v 40bn is a case of spemnding for all of the uk including scotland i.e. defense etc v jujst scottish spending.
pcvdriver said:
Simoid, I didn't have time to google it before I went out to work last night - so here you go sourced for you: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt...
As you can see Westminster gave themselves a whopping £940,000,000,000 compared to our £40,000,000,000.
So you're being more than a little disingenuous to suggest that we are getting a great "deal" from Westminster, as the percentage share of the debt that Scotland has to pay, has been increasing year on year.
Where are you getting £940,000,000,000 from?As you can see Westminster gave themselves a whopping £940,000,000,000 compared to our £40,000,000,000.
So you're being more than a little disingenuous to suggest that we are getting a great "deal" from Westminster, as the percentage share of the debt that Scotland has to pay, has been increasing year on year.
Here's the SNP numbers for the fiscal balance in the 5 years up to 2012-13:
Scotland - Including North Sea revenue (geographical share) -4,091 -14,354 -12,322 -8,554 -12,058
UK -99,355 -157,293 -139,199 -117,382 -114,756
As I said, a bit over £40bn for Scotland.
For the whole of the UK, it's about £650bn.
simoid said:
Where are you getting £940,000,000,000 from?
Here's the SNP numbers for the fiscal balance in the 5 years up to 2012-13:
Scotland - Including North Sea revenue (geographical share) -4,091 -14,354 -12,322 -8,554 -12,058
UK -99,355 -157,293 -139,199 -117,382 -114,756
As I said, a bit over £40bn for Scotland.
For the whole of the UK, it's about £650bn.
Here's the SNP numbers for the fiscal balance in the 5 years up to 2012-13:
Scotland - Including North Sea revenue (geographical share) -4,091 -14,354 -12,322 -8,554 -12,058
UK -99,355 -157,293 -139,199 -117,382 -114,756
As I said, a bit over £40bn for Scotland.
For the whole of the UK, it's about £650bn.
Of course added to Scotland's £40 billion is the £65 billion the UK treasury had to stump up to bail out the two Scottish banks, RBS and HBOS. This brings the total to £105 billion. Given Scotland's population being around 9% of UK, I'd say considerably more money has been spent on Scotland than for the rest of the UK. Perhaps in keeping with the SNP's ethos of greater fairness, this bail out cash should have been deducted from the Barnet formula grant.
Walford said:
Why would you want to use someone else is currency, it don't work ask Greece Ireland or Portugal
Their argument is: "it's our currency too."Obviously doesn't hold water because:
- the majority of the UK doesn't want a currency union (politicians and population)
- if there was a currency union, it would be severely restrictive for Scotland's independence and we're back to square one or worse
simoid said:
Walford said:
Why would you want to use someone else is currency, it don't work ask Greece Ireland or Portugal
Their argument is: "it's our currency too."Obviously doesn't hold water because:
- the majority of the UK doesn't want a currency union (politicians and population)
- if there was a currency union, it would be severely restrictive for Scotland's independence and we're back to square one or worse
Walford said:
would have thought HBOS or RBS could print some Scottish rupies
That rather assumes that those banks would remain in Scotland, when in fact there most rational opinion is that they would relocate to London. And in any event, printing the paper aint the problem. It's guaranteeing it that causes the issue, especially if the plan for your new Scotland is slash taxes, spend lots more on free everything, create an oil fund from nowt, whilst running a massive deficit, whilst simultaneously watching a large chunk of your wealth generators (both businesses and individuals) heading south of the border thereby exacerbating further the gap between what you're earning and what you're spending. Of course you could then print even more, which is a very solid strategy as the experiences of Zimbabwe, the Weimar republic and others shows. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff