Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oil prices aren't enough on their own to remain in the UK for just about 50% of the country's voters already ?

Because most of that 50% have been lied to.

If Nicola Sturgeon sat down to a TV interview and told the truth, that if we vote for Indy it is likely one in four of those voters would lose their jobs, one in ten with mortgages would lose their homes, all of those on benefits would face savage cuts, and everyone both rich and poor would face a lifetime of lower living standards, higher taxes, and higher costs....

How many do you think would vote for Indy then?

If people aren't convinced by the economic case then they really, really don't understand just how bad things would get.

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

OK then....

Here's the (horrific) Danish income tax model.

1. Everyone with work-related income pays the job market contribution of 8 percent.

On the remaining income, the following tax rates will be applied:

2. A health care contribution of 6%.

3. Municipal taxes of 24.9 %.

Then the income tax rates:

4. The bottom-bracket tax is paid on yearly income above DKK 42,800 and is 6.83%

5. The top-bracket tax is paid on yearly income above DKK 488,152 and is 15%.



Are you really suggesting Scots should pay on average 56% of their income to the State in taxes as the Danes do?

Because the Yes campaign went to great lengths to say such drastic and draconian tax rises would not be required in an independent Scotland....

And that's before you factor in indirect taxation... Car ownership tax is ludicrous. Still I'm sure Scots can all ride their bicycles to work like the Danish do so it won't matter.

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Aren't the Danish some of the happiest people in the world ?


I think the point is, that they're happy with how things are in their own country. And they get to chose how their money is spent via the ballot box. That they work off a different model to the UK is par for the course. Most independent countries choose their own paths.

An iScotland wouldn't have to follow either.

Perhaps - but if that is the model that the SNP envisages then shouldn't they tell people that they would be taxed massively more in an independent Scotland rather than arguing that everyone will be wealthier post-independence? I'm not sure that many people would equate massively higher taxes resulting in significantly lower take home pay with their wealth increasing.

Leanne1812

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

OK then....

Here's the (horrific) Danish income tax model.

1. Everyone with work-related income pays the job market contribution of 8 percent.

On the remaining income, the following tax rates will be applied:

2. A health care contribution of 6%.

3. Municipal taxes of 24.9 %.

Then the income tax rates:

4. The bottom-bracket tax is paid on yearly income above DKK 42,800 and is 6.83%

5. The top-bracket tax is paid on yearly income above DKK 488,152 and is 15%.



Are you really suggesting Scots should pay on average 56% of their income to the State in taxes as the Danes do?

Because the Yes campaign went to great lengths to say such drastic and draconian tax rises would not be required in an independent Scotland....

Any idea what the average wage is in Denmark? I've just read an article that a McDonald's worker earns around $45,000. Compare that with salary here & excellent healthcare and education in Denmark. It's all relative isn't it? For all the negatives you post here is the flip side.

Leanne1812

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Because most of that 50% have been lied to.

If Nicola Sturgeon sat down to a TV interview and told the truth, that if we vote for Indy it is likely one in four of those voters would lose their jobs, one in ten with mortgages would lose their homes, all of those on benefits would face savage cuts, and everyone both rich and poor would face a lifetime of lower living standards, higher taxes, and higher costs....

How many do you think would vote for Indy then?

If people aren't convinced by the economic case then they really, really don't understand just how bad things would get.

Do you have a link for these stats please Hamish? I'd like to investigate further.

In my opinion the economic case was the decider and why Yes did lose. However, for many of us we remain unconvinced that it would be dire like you state as there is not one single article or paper published that gives transparency regarding our finances.

You can quote GERS if you like but this can be manipulated to suit as I'm sure you've experienced.

Leanne1812

U

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

But Wings 'Wee Blue Book' was so wrong as to be in fantasyland, while the SNP white paper got it markedly more wrong than the OBR...

I notice this graph is by Kevin Hague. You do know he and wings have a mutual dislike. They both stand by their sums. Again, it's who do you believe, who sits on your side of the fence.

Obviously the oil price crash was not foreseen by anyone.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Because most of that 50% have been lied to.

If Nicola Sturgeon sat down to a TV interview and told the truth, that if we vote for Indy it is likely one in four of those voters would lose their jobs, one in ten with mortgages would lose their homes, all of those on benefits would face savage cuts, and everyone both rich and poor would face a lifetime of lower living standards, higher taxes, and higher costs....

How many do you think would vote for Indy then?

If people aren't convinced by the economic case then they really, really don't understand just how bad things would get.

Hamish you're proclaiming your own take on matters, which is fine. But is a little OTT on the doom front. Kevin Hague isn't the only one with graphs or figures. We've been round and round the mulberry bush with all of this stuff before, several times.

However, despite every single media outlet in the country pushing views, facts and figures similar to your own. widely and loudly, for several years now. Support for independence continues to rise. Now this might not last, and it may peak next week for all we know... but what we do know, is that it's still rising, even after the referendum was lost. ( Which should've killed the SNP as a political force off ).

The SNP have had very little chance to 'lie' to anyone, about anything much. Because all they're ever accused of doing IS lying. Their windows for a pushing any sort of positive case forward for Scottish independence are and have been severely limited. When was the last time you saw a Telegraph, Daily Record, Guardian, Scotsman or even (the daily ) Herald article praising the SNP ?

But the polls are 50/50 now anyway. Despite all of it and years of the economic figures you, many others and just about every media outlet in the UK present to the Scottish public continually . Now 'something' is swinging those polls, most especially over the last few months. It isn't oil prices, it isn't higher taxes, and it isn't black holes. No-one in Scotland surely can be unaware of any of those by now !

It looks like they'll vote SNP in their droves in 2016, not Conservative, or Labour.. even if a referendum clause/trigger is in their manifesto anyway.

How do you explain that ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Go home? What do you mean?

Something along these lines ?

30/11/15

Glasgow Labour councillor announces support for Scottish independence

A Glasgow Labour councillor has come out in support of Scottish independence, putting him at odds with his party’s pro-union position. Russell Robertson, who campaigned against separation in the run up to last year’s referendum, revealed his U-turn in an impassioned Facebook post....


...Writing on Facebook, Councillor Robertson said: “I am fed up to the teeth with London lording over me – the Tories stink, the House of Lords stinks, the establishment stinks, the anti JC (Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Party leader) agenda stinks, the blood lusting to bomb Syria stinks, the rule Britannia mentality stinks.
“We are a nation and must govern ourselves – warts n all.”
Mr Robertson goes on to suggest that Scottish Labour can only survive by fighting for socialist principles “in an independent Scotland democracy”.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14113418.Glasgow_Labour_councillor_announces_support_for_Scottish_independence/

Generali

.string. wrote: »

Go home? What do you mean?

It's the new SNP inclusionist slogan. "Unionists go home, English lovers".

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The convincing won't be based on oil prices, or in fact anything much to do with oil ( before they fell, it was all running out)... Which IS entirely the point. If it was, like I pointed out, the Yes vote wouldn't have gone from barely 25% in some polls to 45%... and still be rising, despite the oil price falls. Support for independence, if based on oil prices.. would've plummeted south along with them. And they haven't.

QED, oil prices aren't a big factor in 'convincing' anyone about independence. Neither for, not against.

I wonder how many of the 45% took a punt on Salmonds estimate of oil revenues and voted Yes as a result? That scenario is just as feasible as yours re. people not being put off despite a tanking oil price. Although the only real test of opinion on this is a indyref not a poll or an election.