A Yes vote means better jobs for young people in Scotland

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'll link the answer

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/news-calman.htm



So Scotland is using some of the powers that it can.

Other reasons range from the costs to set up would potentially outweigh the limited gain it can make. Better to wait for full fiscal autonomy

Other reasons are that the limited powers represent low voter appeal i.e. the SNP once suggested the "penny for Scotland" to override a penny reduction by Westminster. This did not go down well with voters.

Generating tax (as with the UK), politically is better done stealthily rather than the headline tax revenues that Scotland has been given power to do so.

Why is it that only certain limitations have been provided and why those particular options?

The Scottish government has the power to vary the UK rate of income tax up or down by 3p in the pound. It was part of the Scotland Act 1998, which established the Scottish Parliament, but has never been used.

So bring projects forward would cost too much if Scotland paid but not if Whitehall paid :

N1AK

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

or maybe each county in the UK to become an separate state of the UK?

That's certainly what I'd like to see happen. I think a united country with de-evolved regions gives us the best of both worlds:
> The ability to work together on shared priorities, retain influence globally and within Europe etc
> The freedom for the people in regions to enact laws, taxes etc that they wish.

It's one of the reasons I'm on the fence about independence. I think we'd all be better off within a reformed United Kingdom but I have doubts about whether we'll actually reform it enough.

It's clear that the Scots and English have considerably different views on various economic and societal issues that can't be adequately covered by one set of laws and policies. The same is also true of London and Northern Ireland, Northumbria and Oxfordshire etc.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Going ahead as planned, yes, but the Scottish Government wanted to fast track to start early and was stopped by Westminster.



The 300 projects is quoted in a number of sources I linked.
I would understand why they may not list absolutely every project, but the major ones.

In reflection, and reviewing the direct source,: -
Infrastructure projects worth more than £300 million could get underway now if the UK Government gives Scotland the green light

It seems that this was £300 Million of Infrastructure Project being brought forward (as opposed to 300 independent projects) at the request of the Scottish Government which was rejected by Westminster.

Whether this is the right thing to do or not is irrelevant rather than the point that Scotland is being restricted in it's efforts to boost the economy of Scotland and for the people of Scotland..

Those choices need to reside in Scotland hence why we need Independence to be free to make bold choices on what is best for the people of Scotland.

Hmm.

So there was never 300 projects.

Of the 3 of 4 biggies (as stated by the Scottish Government, not me):

1 was actually started in 2012
1 couldn't be started in 2012 as there was a contract in place to keep the initial project in place until 2014
1 was started in 2013

No wonder Yes are losing the battle really. These numbers get put out there as proof positive about how Westminster is ruining Scotland but the reality is that simply isn't true.

N1AK

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Other reasons range from the costs to set up would potentially
Generating tax (as with the UK), politically is better done stealthily rather than the headline tax revenues that Scotland has been given power to do so.

Why is it that only certain limitations have been provided and why those particular options?

I'm not sure saying that the SNP wants more control over more taxes so that it can sneak more stealth taxes onto the typical Scot is a great way to sell indepence to the average Scot

I think Scotland should have considerably more tax setting power. Not least to give them meaningful control over income tax rates, with the current powers being largely useless (having to increase or decrease all bands by the same %).

At the same time I think that some taxes should remain nationalised. Having VAT varying by region will be a administrative nightmare for businesses for example and for very little benefit.

IveSeenTheLight

N1AK wrote: »

I'm not sure saying that the SNP wants more control over more taxes so that it can sneak more stealth taxes onto the typical Scot is a great way to sell indepence to the average Scot

I understand, which is why they are not saying it politically.
Nonetheless, it's true of the Scottish Government and the UK government. Politially it would be suicide.

Just look at stamp duty as an example.

If it had kept pace with HPI, the £125k threshold would actually be circa £200k

That's effective stealth tax

N1AK wrote: »

I think Scotland should have considerably more tax setting power. Not least to give them meaningful control over income tax rates, with the current powers being largely useless (having to increase or decrease all bands by the same %).

I think Scotland should have full autonomy for all income, expenditure and debt it incurs

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I do not know enough to comment on the United States and how its differing states are impacted therefore I am not understanding your point?

Are you in effect detailing a case for a United States of Europe?
or maybe each county in the UK to become an separate state of the UK?

there are about three reasons why one would think you would be better off separate from the UK

- the UK is simply geographically too big to manage for the benefit of all its peoples

- the UK with a population of 64 million is too big to manage for the benefit of all it's people

- the dislike (racist, nationalistic or otherwise ) of the other 59 million people


there seem to be many countries with larger geography and with similar or larger population.

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

there are about three reasons why one would think you would be better off separate from the UK

- the UK is simply geographically too big to manage for the benefit of all its peoples

- the UK with a population of 64 million is too big to manage for the benefit of all it's people

- the dislike (racist, nationalistic or otherwise ) of the other 59 million people


there seem to be many countries with larger geography and with similar or larger population.

That is of course your opinion and your entitled to it.

Many others of course are prepared to examine wider aspects than just this narrow minded consideration.

robmatic

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I guess it depends if people consider that they distrust Westminster, prefer Holyrood and consider that this is an opportunity to address that.

The polling consistently shows that they don't.

robmatic

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Surely only an independent Scotland can make the decisions which benefit the Scottish people best

Why? You only have to look at the Edinburgh tram project to see an example of locally elected politicians making an absolute shambles.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That is of course your opinion and your entitled to it.

Many others of course are prepared to examine wider aspects than just this narrow minded consideration.

what other than these do you consider relevant : other, of course, that you are different from other as you are Scottish

mind you, if your mate gets his wish for unlimited immigration, then at least the Scottish racism will disappear.