Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6
Discussion
AstonZagato said:
SNP "Lies on austerity"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-st...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/572547/SNP-auster...
They talk about ending austerity but the reality of their plans is rather different.
So the SNP will be a Scottishifying, solid right-wing influence on the forthcoming Labour government.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-st...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/572547/SNP-auster...
They talk about ending austerity but the reality of their plans is rather different.
Kerching
Welshbeef said:
Problem they have is that as part of the UK mobility is very easy - sell up move a few miles over the boarder job done pay rUK taxes which then means a bigger tax revenue gap than they had previously.
Explain the downside to this for the SNP and its supportersThey kick all the rich NO voting scum out and they win
Don't forget stroppy has already said it is the SNP plan to drive business and investment out of scotland to increase poverty to bring more YES voters
Stolen from another forum regarding IFS report on all the parties fiscal policy
SNP commended for being the only party not relying on unreliable recovery of tax avoidance, it's summary conclusion isn't exactly glowing. The Tories get it in the neck the hardest as the IFS suggest they are at risk of giving "giving a misleading impression of what public service spending under a Tory government would look like" and for banking too much on receipts from cracking down on tax avoidance. Labour gets criticised for the lack of detail as to their desired level of borrowing reduction. Lib Dems get praised for the amount of detail but again seem to be relying too much on tax avoidance crackdowns to tart up the figures.
SNP Summary
The SNP plans appear to be underpinned by a specific plan for total spending, social
security and tax policies for the next parliament. In marked and positive contrast to the
other parties, they have not predicated their fiscal plans on achieving any additional
revenues from uncertain and unspecified anti-avoidance measures. However, unlike the
other parties, the SNP have not made any clear statement about what level of borrowing
they would be comfortable with in the medium- and longer-term.
The SNP’s recent rhetoric when announcing their fiscal plans states that they would be
less austere and, in particular, cut spending by less than the main Westminster parties.
For example their manifesto states that “We reject the current trajectory of spending,
proposed by the UK government and the limited alternative proposed by the Labour
Party”. There is a considerable disconnect between this rhetoric and their stated plans for
total spending, which imply a bigger cut to spending by 2019–20 than Labour’s plans.
Tory Summary
The Conservatives have provided a firm commitment to eliminate the entire budget
deficit and have been fairly specific about the speed at which they wish to achieve this.
But they have not provided anything like complete details of the measures they would
implement in order to eliminate the deficit. Beyond current government policies their
stated commitments imply:
 An increase in tax revenues of 0.2% of national income, yet their detailed tax
announcements are a net giveaway of 0.1% of national income.
 A reduction in social security spending of 0.6% of national income, yet their detailed
policies bring in only just over a tenth of that amount.
 A reduction in departmental spending of 2.5% of national income, yet their policies
imply (relative to a real freeze) an increase in spending of 0.3% of national income.
It might be unreasonable to expect the Conservatives to have set out full details of their
departmental spending plans throughout the next parliament. However, by providing so
much detail on the areas where they plan to increase spending (such as the NHS), while
providing no hint of the need for cuts elsewhere, they risk giving a misleading impression
of what public service spending under a Conservative government would look like.
Labour's summary
Labour’s detailed policies do potentially provide a fuller description than the
Conservatives of what they need to do to reduce the deficit sufficiently to meet their
aspirations. Their detailed policies would boost rather than reduce tax revenues, and they
have been clear that some cuts to unprotected departments would be required. But we
can only say ‘potentially provide’ because the Labour Party has provided disappointingly
little information on exactly how much they would borrow if they were in government
after the next election. They have committed to only borrowing to invest by the end of the
parliament, but they have been less than clear about when they would like to achieve this.
Given the coalition government’s investment plans, it would be consistent with any
reduction in borrowing totalling 3.6% of national income or more. As a result we are not
able, on the one hand, to be certain about how austere Labour are planning to be after
2015–16 nor, on the other hand, are we able to be set out precisely how far they would
seek to reduce debt as a share of national income over the coming parliament.
Lib Dems Summary
The Liberal Democrats have been more transparent about their overall fiscal plans for the
next parliament. But the vast majority of their planned cut to social security spending is
to come from their ambition to reduce fraud and error in the system and to get better at
helping people back into work and off benefits. They have also committed to raising a
substantial £10 billion from what they deem to be tax avoidance by the end of the
parliament – which is twice as much as the Conservatives and a third more than Labour –
with relatively little in the way of detailed measures to say who will be paying this
additional tax.
All parties get it in the neck for their uncosted gaps. The SNP has the smallest gap (0.3% of national income), Tories the highest (2.3% of national income), Lib Dems (1.0%) and Labour (0.4%)
The Conservatives’ unspecified policies – or gap – totals 2.3% of national income (even
assuming they deliver a freeze to all unprotected areas of departmental spending for
three years). This comprises a £5 billion increase in tax revenues through largely
unspecified tax avoidance measures, around £10 billion of unspecified cuts to social
security, and a £30 billion cut in real terms to ‘unprotected’ departmental spending
between 2015–16 and 2018–19. The Liberal Democrats’ ‘gap’ amounts to 1.0% of
national income: including a £7 billion increase in revenues from largely unspecified anti-avoidance
measures, £2 billion of cuts to social security spending by tackling fraud and
getting more benefit claimants back to work, and a £12 billion cut to ‘unprotected’
departmental spending between 2015–16 and 2017–18. The SNP need to provide further
details of a £6 billion cut to ‘unprotected’ departments (between 2015–16 and 2019–20)
– to fill their 0.3% of national income ‘gap’. Meanwhile, Labour would be able to fill the
‘gap’ in their plans (0.4% of national income) by spelling out more detail on their
proposed anti-avoidance measures and a small real terms cut to ‘unprotected’
departments.
SNP commended for being the only party not relying on unreliable recovery of tax avoidance, it's summary conclusion isn't exactly glowing. The Tories get it in the neck the hardest as the IFS suggest they are at risk of giving "giving a misleading impression of what public service spending under a Tory government would look like" and for banking too much on receipts from cracking down on tax avoidance. Labour gets criticised for the lack of detail as to their desired level of borrowing reduction. Lib Dems get praised for the amount of detail but again seem to be relying too much on tax avoidance crackdowns to tart up the figures.
SNP Summary
The SNP plans appear to be underpinned by a specific plan for total spending, social
security and tax policies for the next parliament. In marked and positive contrast to the
other parties, they have not predicated their fiscal plans on achieving any additional
revenues from uncertain and unspecified anti-avoidance measures. However, unlike the
other parties, the SNP have not made any clear statement about what level of borrowing
they would be comfortable with in the medium- and longer-term.
The SNP’s recent rhetoric when announcing their fiscal plans states that they would be
less austere and, in particular, cut spending by less than the main Westminster parties.
For example their manifesto states that “We reject the current trajectory of spending,
proposed by the UK government and the limited alternative proposed by the Labour
Party”. There is a considerable disconnect between this rhetoric and their stated plans for
total spending, which imply a bigger cut to spending by 2019–20 than Labour’s plans.
Tory Summary
The Conservatives have provided a firm commitment to eliminate the entire budget
deficit and have been fairly specific about the speed at which they wish to achieve this.
But they have not provided anything like complete details of the measures they would
implement in order to eliminate the deficit. Beyond current government policies their
stated commitments imply:
 An increase in tax revenues of 0.2% of national income, yet their detailed tax
announcements are a net giveaway of 0.1% of national income.
 A reduction in social security spending of 0.6% of national income, yet their detailed
policies bring in only just over a tenth of that amount.
 A reduction in departmental spending of 2.5% of national income, yet their policies
imply (relative to a real freeze) an increase in spending of 0.3% of national income.
It might be unreasonable to expect the Conservatives to have set out full details of their
departmental spending plans throughout the next parliament. However, by providing so
much detail on the areas where they plan to increase spending (such as the NHS), while
providing no hint of the need for cuts elsewhere, they risk giving a misleading impression
of what public service spending under a Conservative government would look like.
Labour's summary
Labour’s detailed policies do potentially provide a fuller description than the
Conservatives of what they need to do to reduce the deficit sufficiently to meet their
aspirations. Their detailed policies would boost rather than reduce tax revenues, and they
have been clear that some cuts to unprotected departments would be required. But we
can only say ‘potentially provide’ because the Labour Party has provided disappointingly
little information on exactly how much they would borrow if they were in government
after the next election. They have committed to only borrowing to invest by the end of the
parliament, but they have been less than clear about when they would like to achieve this.
Given the coalition government’s investment plans, it would be consistent with any
reduction in borrowing totalling 3.6% of national income or more. As a result we are not
able, on the one hand, to be certain about how austere Labour are planning to be after
2015–16 nor, on the other hand, are we able to be set out precisely how far they would
seek to reduce debt as a share of national income over the coming parliament.
Lib Dems Summary
The Liberal Democrats have been more transparent about their overall fiscal plans for the
next parliament. But the vast majority of their planned cut to social security spending is
to come from their ambition to reduce fraud and error in the system and to get better at
helping people back into work and off benefits. They have also committed to raising a
substantial £10 billion from what they deem to be tax avoidance by the end of the
parliament – which is twice as much as the Conservatives and a third more than Labour –
with relatively little in the way of detailed measures to say who will be paying this
additional tax.
All parties get it in the neck for their uncosted gaps. The SNP has the smallest gap (0.3% of national income), Tories the highest (2.3% of national income), Lib Dems (1.0%) and Labour (0.4%)
The Conservatives’ unspecified policies – or gap – totals 2.3% of national income (even
assuming they deliver a freeze to all unprotected areas of departmental spending for
three years). This comprises a £5 billion increase in tax revenues through largely
unspecified tax avoidance measures, around £10 billion of unspecified cuts to social
security, and a £30 billion cut in real terms to ‘unprotected’ departmental spending
between 2015–16 and 2018–19. The Liberal Democrats’ ‘gap’ amounts to 1.0% of
national income: including a £7 billion increase in revenues from largely unspecified anti-avoidance
measures, £2 billion of cuts to social security spending by tackling fraud and
getting more benefit claimants back to work, and a £12 billion cut to ‘unprotected’
departmental spending between 2015–16 and 2017–18. The SNP need to provide further
details of a £6 billion cut to ‘unprotected’ departments (between 2015–16 and 2019–20)
– to fill their 0.3% of national income ‘gap’. Meanwhile, Labour would be able to fill the
‘gap’ in their plans (0.4% of national income) by spelling out more detail on their
proposed anti-avoidance measures and a small real terms cut to ‘unprotected’
departments.
Stocky you missed at least one key point.
SNP need to provide details of the £9billion gap it is not 0.2% of National income it is nearly 15% of Scottish total taxation revenue. The SNP deficit is nothing to do with rUK unless you are expecting rUK to pay for your overspending again.
Hmm think so
SNP need to provide details of the £9billion gap it is not 0.2% of National income it is nearly 15% of Scottish total taxation revenue. The SNP deficit is nothing to do with rUK unless you are expecting rUK to pay for your overspending again.
Hmm think so
Strocky said:
Stolen from another forum regarding IFS report on all the parties fiscal policy
All parties get it in the neck for their uncosted gaps. The SNP has the smallest gap (0.3% of national income), Tories the highest (2.3% of national income), Lib Dems (1.0%) and Labour (0.4%)
So tory scum will spend the most thenAll parties get it in the neck for their uncosted gaps. The SNP has the smallest gap (0.3% of national income), Tories the highest (2.3% of national income), Lib Dems (1.0%) and Labour (0.4%)
Wombat3 said:
And how many times smaller is Scotland than the UK population wise, oh sage one?
>>>>Less than 10%
And how much infrastructure spend do we get back pooling and sharing resources?
>>>> You get the highest per capita public spending in the country - £11k per head versus about £7.5K down in the south (where the money comes from) so Scotland doesn't have taxpayers then? Scotland generates £1700 per head in Tax Revenues and gets £1200 back from Westminster
How much Supermarket VAT do we generate for English Postcodes?
>>>>> WTF? Doubtful its much more per head than in the rest of the country
The point I'm making is Scottish contribution of VAT isn't reflected in the GERS figures because the large Supermarkets generate VAT from their head offices Down South when the Scottish consumer purchases locally, it's estimated £450m in VAT for Scotland
How much Whisky Duty is generated in English Ports?
>>>>> The Whiskey industry generates SALES of about £4 or 5Bn . Profits, taxes & duty therefore considerably less than this....its a miniscule amount
£1Bn in UK duty is minuscule?
When did they stop pumping oil in the North Sea?
>>>>> They didn't. The amounts however are significantly down & forecast to fall further.
Prices have rise 38% since January, can't imagine a finite resources selling price declining long term can you?
What's Scotland's share of the UK deficit?
>>>>> Debt/Deficit share would reasonably be equated to percentage of the UK population.
See SG's own figures for Scotland's deficit with & without oil revenues. Remove Barnett subsidy and its a horror story.
>>>>Less than 10%
And how much infrastructure spend do we get back pooling and sharing resources?
>>>> You get the highest per capita public spending in the country - £11k per head versus about £7.5K down in the south (where the money comes from) so Scotland doesn't have taxpayers then? Scotland generates £1700 per head in Tax Revenues and gets £1200 back from Westminster
How much Supermarket VAT do we generate for English Postcodes?
>>>>> WTF? Doubtful its much more per head than in the rest of the country
The point I'm making is Scottish contribution of VAT isn't reflected in the GERS figures because the large Supermarkets generate VAT from their head offices Down South when the Scottish consumer purchases locally, it's estimated £450m in VAT for Scotland
How much Whisky Duty is generated in English Ports?
>>>>> The Whiskey industry generates SALES of about £4 or 5Bn . Profits, taxes & duty therefore considerably less than this....its a miniscule amount
£1Bn in UK duty is minuscule?
When did they stop pumping oil in the North Sea?
>>>>> They didn't. The amounts however are significantly down & forecast to fall further.
Prices have rise 38% since January, can't imagine a finite resources selling price declining long term can you?
What's Scotland's share of the UK deficit?
>>>>> Debt/Deficit share would reasonably be equated to percentage of the UK population.
See SG's own figures for Scotland's deficit with & without oil revenues. Remove Barnett subsidy and its a horror story.
Edited by Wombat3 on Tuesday 21st April 13:33[/footnote]
[footnote]Edited by Strocky on Saturday 25th April 11:20McWigglebum4th said:
Explain the downside to this for the SNP and its supporters
They kick all the rich NO voting scum out and they win
Don't forget stroppy has already said it is the SNP plan to drive business and investment out of scotland to increase poverty to bring more YES voters
I said no such thing Wiggles, I've repeatedly pointed out to you that the SNP aren't as far left as you think they areThey kick all the rich NO voting scum out and they win
Don't forget stroppy has already said it is the SNP plan to drive business and investment out of scotland to increase poverty to bring more YES voters
blinkythefish said:
My prospective SNP candidate. Surprisingly, he's found a way to reduce the liklihood of me voting for him (I didn't think it could get any less).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-3...
What a fanny, but at least yes not broke the law unlike this Labour candidatehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-3...
http://news.stv.tv/north/318353-labour-candidate-s...
Welshbeef said:
Stocky you missed at least one key point.
SNP need to provide details of the £9billion gap it is not 0.2% of National income it is nearly 15% of Scottish total taxation revenue. The SNP deficit is nothing to do with rUK unless you are expecting rUK to pay for your overspending again.
Hmm think so
The SNP are standing in a UK election though, hence the IFS figures are based on this SNP need to provide details of the £9billion gap it is not 0.2% of National income it is nearly 15% of Scottish total taxation revenue. The SNP deficit is nothing to do with rUK unless you are expecting rUK to pay for your overspending again.
Hmm think so
Strocky said:
McWigglebum4th said:
arp1 said:
And look, big business is STILL leaving even though they said they wouldn't, so was it scaremongering or lies?
So you are driving away business todayWhat would it be like if you had won
and
And what advantage is there to YOU for that voice to be friendly to england
If the SNP can make keeping scotland a MASSIVE vote loser in england what party will support keeping scotland in the 2018 independence referendum?
Of course you will not answer this as you know i speak the truth
Strocky said:
McWigglebum4th said:
Should scotland have 50% of the MPs in westminster to keep us on equal footing?
No and can't happen anyway, approx 10% representation is the most Scotland can currently get under the current systemMcWigglebum4th said:
Strocky said:
McWigglebum4th said:
Should scotland have 50% of the MPs in westminster to keep us on equal footing?
No and can't happen anyway, approx 10% representation is the most Scotland can currently get under the current systemInteresting article regarding the squeals of it's not fair to democracy if there's a Labour minority government propped up by the SNP
http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2015/04/election-pan...
Strocky said:
Welshbeef said:
Stocky you missed at least one key point.
SNP need to provide details of the £9billion gap it is not 0.2% of National income it is nearly 15% of Scottish total taxation revenue. The SNP deficit is nothing to do with rUK unless you are expecting rUK to pay for your overspending again.
Hmm think so
The SNP are standing in a UK election though, hence the IFS figures are based on this SNP need to provide details of the £9billion gap it is not 0.2% of National income it is nearly 15% of Scottish total taxation revenue. The SNP deficit is nothing to do with rUK unless you are expecting rUK to pay for your overspending again.
Hmm think so
Tell you what if I borrowed £1m for a nice 3bed detached house in Surrey if wager my debt to earnings would be different to you and our combined income yet the only relevant but is my exposure as I'm assuming you'd not be contributing towards my mortgage
Edinburger said:
Strocky said:
I said no such thing Wiggles, I've repeatedly pointed out to you that the SNP aren't as far left as you think they are
But Wiggley has a warped fantasy about "them commies". They badge it up as "only a modest half a percent in real terms" ---- a smart way of saying it to Joe Bloggs. Put numbers against it then it's WOW f
k me I didn't realise it means that + my children pay for this not me... Why is that fair? This is the point if we want it fine lets borrow it all now but then all agre to pay off entirely the what would be £2trillion debt mountain by 2035. 20 years is ample to do so without massively impacting our children. If it's more than that then clearly were saying fk off lets our kids pay we enjoy it they suffer sounds good.....Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff