Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, its a transitional mechanism.

So a subsidy then.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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....

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 I am sorry to have to point this out to you and Generali after so much effort has been put into all those fancy graphs and stuff. But Barnett is being phased out. End of. Whatever happens.

So all your graphs and predictions are totally meaningless I'm afraid. Certainly by 2020.

There is a problem also with Murphy's promise to keep the Barnett Formula on public spending "today, tomorrow and forever". Under the Smith reforms - which the Tories and Labour will vote for - the Barnett Formula is effectively being phased out. By 2020 it will apply to barely 30% of the expenditure of the Scottish Parliament.

The rest will be raised directly. And even this minimal Barnett will almost certainly be reformed with English devolution.
The days when the Scottish Parliament got a big lump of cash every year, based on a fixed formula of spending in the UK, are gone.

Cybernats aside, the main negatives for Nicola Sturgeon remain the economics of full fiscal autonomy, and the "£7.6bn deficit" identified by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. But the problem here for Labour is that it's not easy to arouse strong passions over something which isn't going to happen.
There is simply no prospect of fiscal autonomy being introduced in Scotland in the foreseeable future because both Labour and the Conservatives have made clear they will oppose it. Devolution of all taxation would require a vote in Westminster.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/can-anyone-stop-the-sturgeonaters-landslide.123554301

The SNP want further powers but not just those included in Smith, they want welfare and other controls as well and below is how they'll negotiate on getting them. Labour really has to decide now. Deal or no deal ? Looks like the SNP is the only party so far to realise just how much the Fixed Term Parliaments Act has changed how things work.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Hamish I am sorry to have to point this out to you and Generali after so much effort has been put into all those fancy graphs and stuff. But Barnett is being phased out. End of. Whatever happens.

So all your graphs and predictions are totally meaningless I'm afraid. Certainly by 2020.
...

So that's your considered assessment then.

"fancy graphs and stuff"

Not, "your figures are wrong Hamish, here are the accurate revenue figures".

Nope, just "fancy graphs and stuff".

No amount of political chicanery can change the fact that you have an economy in Scotland which relies on subsidy unless oil prices boost revenues in your favour...which they have frequently not.

Why not show us a precise plan as to how Scotland will break away dependency on a clearly volatile income source.

Face it. You can't support the socialist spendy lifestyle being promoted.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So a subsidy then.

Hamish, my BMW M5 fund is looking a bit light at the moment.

Can you give me a "transitional arrangement" every year for the next 5 years?

That should cover it nicely

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

So that's your considered assessment then.

"fancy graphs and stuff"

Not, "your figures are wrong Hamish, here are the accurate revenue figures".

Nope, just "fancy graphs and stuff".

No amount of political chicanery can change the fact that you have an economy in Scotland which relies on subsidy unless oil prices boost revenues in your favour...which they have frequently not.

Why not show us a precise plan as to how Scotland will break away dependency on a clearly volatile income source.

Face it. You can't support the socialist spendy lifestyle being promoted.

Fancy graphs and stuff based on the never-ending continuance of Barnett. Which, er, isn't continuing...
A culmination of Smith ( because it will be delivered in full and beefed up), and through the SNP at Westminster.. pushing for even further fiscal powers, levers and responsibilities re welfare, land reform, the crown estate, taxation and many other reserved matters. Is all that's needed in order to show that Scotland can break away from dependency on a clearly volatile income source. Which it absolutely cannot do, while still shackled to Barnett and the status quo as it continues now.

Face it, you were hoping to prove that FFA and it's sums mean that Scotland would have to be dependent on Barnett life support forever and ever, and ever and ever. (cc Jim Murphy, Barnett 'always and forever' ). Things are changing anyway. The block grant is being phased out over a period of time, much of it within the next parliament. With or without 'socialist spendy stuff'.

Instant 2015-2016 SNP implemented FFA ( all going through despite another 600 or so other MP's/House of Lords voting against it ? ) and it's resultant 'black hole' is a campaign tactic. Hamish needs to start taking that on board sometime soon mabye. He's feeding you fantasy posts based on thin air due to his own bias. Which is fair enough. Am sure you think I do the same. Makes for good debate though.

Moby

The thing the graph pedants don't realize is that the Scottish desire for independence is not based on practical economics. In fact whenever I see a graph I scroll on; (lets be frank here I'm hardly going to see one and think geez is that the reality I've misunderstood all this time I'll change my beliefs).

I'm Welsh not Scottish but my 'take' is that the Scottish desire for independence is a an exciting dream, an aspiration which has historical, cultural and political motivations. Economics play a part but many over play this. I saw an interview a couple of days ago. A woman said in response to the assertion that there would be an economic 'black hole'....'Yes we will face many problems, there will be good times and there will be bad times...but they will be our times'!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Moby wrote: »

I saw an interview a couple of days ago. A woman said in response to the assertion that there would be an economic 'black hole'....'Yes we will face many problems, there will be good times and there will be bad times...but they will be our times'!

Yes I saw that interview.

Some poet without the foggiest understanding of economic reality.

It's all very well to have airy-fairy romantic notions of independence but somehow it's got to be paid for.

You can't just spend, spend, spend and keep increasing the debt.

Scotland would certainly survive independence.

Just as Greece will survive it's current 26% unemployment, 50% youth unemployment and crippling austerity.

But who in their right mind would want to pay that sort of price for a new flag and a different coloured passport?

Moby

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes I saw that interview.

Some poet without the foggiest understanding of economic reality.

It's all very well to have airy-fairy romantic notions of independence but somehow it's got to be paid for.

You can't just spend, spend, spend and keep increasing the debt.

Scotland would certainly survive independence.

Just as Greece will survive it's current 26% unemployment, 50% youth unemployment and crippling austerity.

But who in their right mind would want to pay that sort of price for a new flag and a different coloured passport?

...............but every new nation starts from somewhere surely? You wouldn't want to pay the price, nor would I...because I'm a unionist but many feel differently. One of my best friends is a traditional socialist, who has changed to SNP. His arguments are about autonomy and being fed up of policies that are watered down by the prism of Westminster. I point out that Scotland go go right wing in future; he says yes it could but despite this the hatred of Westminster politics is overwhelming.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

...............but every new nation starts from somewhere surely? You wouldn't want to pay the price, nor would I...because I'm a unionist but many feel differently. One of my best friends is a traditional socialist, who has changed to SNP. His arguments are about autonomy and being fed up of policies that are watered down by the prism of Westminster. I point out that Scotland go go right wing in future; he says yes it could but despite this the hatred of Westminster politics is overwhelming.

in what way is scottish politics different to that of westminster?

are they more honest and decent?

have they rejected the grossly unfair and unequal system which gives people of Yorkshire less than the people of scotland?

have they rejected the inequality that gives the Sturgeon household an income of well over 200,000 per year?

have they linked the salary of the first minister to the average scottish wage (say 4 times)?

have they introduced openness into the financial affairs of SNP politicians (i.e. published their income and tax affairs)

have they insisted that any SNP politician who used the right to buy should return the property to the state at the purchase price?

so are they just the same as westminister?

have they ever said what they actually mean by 'fairer' and more equal society?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Moby wrote: »

...............but every new nation starts from somewhere surely? You wouldn't want to pay the price, nor would I....

Here's the thing.

Scotland has a £14.2bn deficit every year at the moment, which is £7.6bn more than a population share of the UK deficit.

If we raised the tax rate for high earners by 10p on the pound that would raise about another £250m a year.

If we scrapped Trident that would be about another £130m a year.

The SNP's own white paper says they only think they can raise £250m from shutting down corporate tax avoidance.

In fact, if we put in place a relatively crippling tax increase for absolutely everybody, including the poorest taxpayers, of 10p in the pound, that would only raise another £2bn a year.

Even putting up VAT to 25% would only raise £2.3bn.

No matter how you cut it, massively higher taxes on everyone, not just the rich, spending cuts for things like Trident, etc, you just can't close the gap...

There is no way to get there without significant cuts to front line services, benefits, public sector employment, etc.

All the things socialists think we'd spend more money on under FFA or Indy, we'd actually have to spend less.

The taxpayers in rUK subsidise us to the tune of £7.6bn a year. That's basically the entire local government budget in Scotland, or about 70% of the Scottish NHS spend.

You just can't cover that gap without making some really painful cuts AND making every last person in Scotland pay a lot, lot more.

If the SNP were honest about that their support would fall off a cliff.

Which is why they lie.