Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Leanne1812 wrote: »

And here's an interesting article for those who keep banging on about FFA.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/5-reasons-full-fiscal-autonomy-will-create-jobs-grow-scotlands-economy/

I didn't dare post that because I couldn't be bothered with the 'bias' accusations. But further powers like that would sure be useful.

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

And here's an interesting article for those who keep banging on about FFA.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/5-reasons-full-fiscal-autonomy-will-create-jobs-grow-scotlands-economy/

Well it's an interesting piece and you can't argue against it in general terms.

The problem really with it are two-fold. The author is really arguing two points.

1. Changing the tax regime can increase employment growth
2. Reducing taxation can increase economic activity

#1 is iffy at best. Centuries of economic study has shown that the market is bar far the best allocator of scarce resources except in a limited number of circumstances (mostly so-called 'natural monopolies' such as utilities).

If, for example, a tax was put on automatic bottling machines, you'd imagine that distilleries would employ people to fill the bottles by hand. What is more likely however is that the inefficiencies caused would lead to breweries sending the whisky to be bottled overseas or cause them to close down entirely.

#2 is undoubtedly true. If you tax something you get less of it so if you cut the taxes on something you get more of it. That's very simple economics and plain common sense. However if you're at the bottom of a fiscal hole you are going to struggle to cut taxes as in the short term you need to finance the gap until the economic activity picks up and increases the tax take whilst probably cutting welfare expenditure.

There may be some areas of taxation that are better for the UK as a whole than for Scotland. For example, tax on fuel are likely to fall disproportionately on Scotland due to colder weather, dark winter nights and more far-flung communities. I'd want to see some evidence to show that this is having a dramatic impact on the economy rather than just an assertion though. Anyone can say 'Taxes set by London are bad for Scotland' just as they can also say, 'Taxes set by London are good for Scotland'.

According to the Scottish Government, tourists spend £9bn in Scotland in 2013 supporting 200,000 jobs or 8.5% of the workforce.

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Business-Industry/Tourism

According to the Irish Government, tourists spent EUR5.9bn (£4.3bn) and supported 137,700 jobs or 7.3% of the workforce in 2013.

http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/3_General_SurveysReports/Tourism-facts-2013.pdf?ext=.pdf

Actually the Scottish tourist industry is doing much better than Ireland's. From that I would argue that Scotland's tourist industry is in fine shape and doesn't need selective tax cuts as it will just encourage inefficient rent seeking.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

Reducing taxation can increase economic activity

The problem is that the SNP under Sturgeon have explicitly ruled out reducing corporate taxation to increase economic activity.

Tromking

Is Salmonds "without detriment" FFA tantamount to a subsidy BTW?:)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Tromking wrote: »

Is Salmonds "without detriment" FFA tantamount to a subsidy BTW?:)

Yes.

The SNP have spent the last two years claiming that Scotland is not subsidised when they were campaigning for indy, but are now very careful to insist on the Smith commission finding supported by all the other parties that any changes to devolution should not disadvantage Scotland (at the time of change, whatever happens after that due to changing circumstances becomes our problem).

So at the moment, they'd only take FFA-light, and require the rest of the UK to continue subsidising the £14.2 bn annual deficit in Scotland, which is £7.6bn bigger than a population share of the UK deficit would be.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes.

The SNP have spent the last two years claiming that Scotland is not subsidised when they were campaigning for indy, but are now very careful to insist on the Smith commission finding supported by all the other parties that any changes to devolution should not disadvantage Scotland (at the time of change, whatever happens after that due to changing circumstances becomes our problem).

So at the moment, they'd only take FFA-light, and require the rest of the UK to continue subsidising the £14.2 bn annual deficit in Scotland, which is £7.6bn bigger than a population share of the UK deficit would be.

Time for the nationalist to man up and absolutely refuse one penny more that the people of Yorkshire.
They know it is the moral thing to do and entirely in line with their vision of a 'fairer' and more 'equal' society:
also it will help them to lose the dependency culture for when independence merciful releases them from the benevolence of the English.

Instead of talking about the Celtic arc of afluence and in praise of Fred the Shred, then can start talking about the triangle of socialist intolerance : Scotland, Greece and Russia and in praise of their sole mate Putin and that the path to wealth is massive more borrowing backed by oil.

Generali

An interesting if rather long read:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=816197151794309&id=664987453581947

How The Postal Ballot Was Rigged
The only way the above ‘McTernan’ plan could have worked is if a UK Government Agency such as MI5 carried it out. You or I, or any political party, could not have done this, but for MI5 it was child’s play. Of course, this means accepting that senior politicians in the UK who control MI5 were prepared to treat Scotland’s democratic institutions with utter contempt and act behind our backs in this despicable way. Yes we think that is entirely possible where the stakes are high enough.
So how was it done? MI5 have access to Government and Local Government computer files (as well as many others) Therefore when the process began on the 26th to the 28th of August the ‘main’ PB papers were sent out. MI5 would have had the computer file records of that.
After a few days each count area would have arranged PB Opening Sessions, not to count the votes, but to check the validity of the papers returned. These would all have been checked and recorded (on computer) So after the first 10 days the local count areas (and MI5) would have a list of those who had voted so far, and therefore those who hadn’t.
On the 4th of September a second posting of PB papers were sent out, these were all the late additions and would be highly likely to vote so they would be of less interest to MI5, however following this posting there would be another three days of PB Opening sessions, and again records updated and recorded (on computer).

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sorry, but there's one other thing in that Business for Scotland puff piece that is so grossly inaccurate it needs pointing out.

Their article stated that....

Labour are feverishly promoting the £7.6bn black hole scare-story to put people off FFA but it’s a myth; firstly because it assumes oil prices won’t ever recover, and even a moderate increase to $70/80 would wipe out any additional deficit.

Now, I understand many of this threads readers are not economically illiterate, and so will know that statement is an outright lie.

But for the SNP supporters, here's an explanation of why....

Scotland has only run a smaller deficit than the UK in per capita terms in 3 of the last 15 years.



In order for the deficit to be the same as the rest of the UK's if you include oil revenue, we need total North Sea oil revenues in excess of £10.1bn.

That has only happened in 3 of the last 15 years as well.



Revenue is of course not only determined by price, but also by quantity of production, and tax rates set on that production.

Regardless of price, production is declining, and that's simply a result of geology.

The North Sea is a mature area, and the easy/cheap oil is gone.

That's why the Yes campaign kept insisting there were mythical new and giant secret oil fields being hidden until after the referendum. Which as it turned out was a complete fantasy.

Because even with oil at over $110 a barrel, the decline in production means ever increasing taxes are requires just to stand still on the revenue front. But higher taxes result in less production, which requires higher taxes, which results in less production, and well, you get the idea....

Other than during very occasional oil blips to near record highs, Scotland's oil revenue is simply not enough to compensate for the increased spending required by our rural nature and keep our deficit to the same levels as the rest of the UK's.

That's why we have been subsidised for many years, and continue to be subsidised today, by the taxpayers in the rest of the UK.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

The problem I have is increasing inequality does not seem to be getting tackled. All we hear is stories of rich getting richer & poor getting poorer. The poorest being penalised while a blind eye is turned to the big tax evaders. I want the gap to be narrowed.

The thing is though, that is complete rubbish.

'Inequality' is nothing more than the politics of envy.

The poorest are immeasurably richer today than they were even a few decades ago.

That the rich have become even more rich should not bother anyone, if the poor are getting better off and the rich are also getting better off why is that a problem?

But putting that aside for a moment, it's not even true in the last recession or under the current coalition government.

The richest fifth of households income has fallen by 6.8% since the last recession.

In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth of households has grown over this period by 6.9%.

All the trickling down is not happening is it? The system is not working for the majority and it appears we will vote for the SNP as they seem to want to at least try to tackle this.

What is it you want them to tackle?

Scottish unemployment is better than UK unemployment, and amongst the lowest in the developed world.



And just 4.3% of the Scottish workforce is on minimum wage.

I'm no economist but neither are the vast majority of voters.

Yes, we know, which is why you and they are so susceptible to believing the lies peddled by the SNP and Indy movement.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Is Salmonds "without detriment" FFA tantamount to a subsidy BTW?:)

No, its a transitional mechanism.