Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

baldelectrician

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

In order to "spend 30% of the debt on infrastructure and housing" you'd have had to borrow an additional 30%, on top of the money we already got to subsidise our extra deficit, which was on top of the money borrowed to cover our population based share of the national deficit.

Not really
We could have invested in infrastructure instead of inflating the balance sheets of the banks- you know the banks that would leave and not give tax revenue if we had voted yes (the same banks that pay very little corporation tax this year despite paying vast sums in bonuses)


All about Control (allowing choices to be different), such as not renewing Trident

baldelectrician

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The Scottish deficit is much bigger than our (population based) share of the national debt indicates. The balance is a subsidy from rUK.

The Scottish deficit was around £15bn a year when oil was at $100.

The Scottish deficit (or black hole as unionists refer to it) is a bit of a myth, its all about calculation


Businesses with head offices outside Scotland report their tax, national insurance, VAT, excise duty and corporation tax liability allocated as income south of the border- even though the activity happened in Scotland
Whisky trading is done down south so most of the income is allocated outside Scotland
Upon independence this would lessen the deficit by a large margin making the situation better than the rUK by comparison


One last point- George Osbourne found about £27 Billion down the sofa last month, so I don't really believe many figures put about- I would rather control our own affairs and make better choices.

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

I don't believe you, anti English sentiments oose out everywhere.

If it was just about control the SNP would not be slavering over membership of the EU. Even I, as a supporter of the EU, would not deny that the EU invokes sharing of responsibility between member States on some issues. And since Natland, as a new member, would have to join the EURO, you would kiss goodbye to fiscal autonomy as well, having just 1 vote against whatever it is by now. In any case, your remarks on control just serve to show your rejection of a shared common interest for all of our country (GB in case you have forgotten).

I'd like to know how you get your percentages and what you think the percentages should be

---

110%?

A minority do express anti English sentiments. Are we all to be tarred the same?

Equally there's anti Scottish sentiment right here on this thread. You only need to read one of the posts on this page and the resentment against scots is oozing.

I'll mention trust and transparency. These are two issues that are important. We've never got to the bottom of exactly where all the money is spent. Until we do I don't accept we get a massive subsidy.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

baldelectrician wrote: »

The Scottish deficit (or black hole as unionists refer to it) is a bit of a myth, its all about calculation


Businesses with head offices outside Scotland report their tax, national insurance, VAT, excise duty and corporation tax liability allocated as income south of the border- even though the activity happened in Scotland
Whisky trading is done down south so most of the income is allocated outside Scotland
Upon independence this would lessen the deficit by a large margin making the situation better than the rUK by comparison

That is complete drivel.

The Scottish government GERS figures allocates 100% of the estimated revenue from Scottish economic activity to Scotland no matter where it is currently recorded.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

baldelectrician wrote: »

Not really
We could have invested in infrastructure instead of inflating the balance sheets of the banks- you know the banks that would leave and not give tax revenue if we had voted yes

Can you explain how much of the deficit in 2015 went to 'inflating the balance sheets of the banks'?

.string.

@baldelectrician

I suppose you despise those Scots who do feel British. It rather proves my point. I suppose you think the British Empire still exists.

I suppose you think that the national debt can come down without reducing the deficit.

I suppose you are quite happy to pocket the deficit-increasing subsidy in spite of the fact that it raises the National Debt.

I suppose you believe that borrowing money is a good way to reduce the deficit.

Hamish has explained a few facts of economic life which you should read carefully.

Your sentence about work benefits (What's the point of paying someone to stay on working benefits when you can pay them (a fair wage ) to work? seems to jive pretty well with current Tory Policy, so it's not all bad then.

As for mistakes, I question your judgement on that and reckon that Separation from the U.K. would by far exceed any mistake you fancy others have made.

Rinoa

baldelectrician wrote: »

Not really
We could have invested in infrastructure instead of inflating the balance sheets of the banks- you know the banks that would leave and not give tax revenue if we had voted yes (the same banks that pay very little corporation tax this year despite paying vast sums in bonuses)

You were lucky your banks went bust whilst you were part of the UK.

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

A minority do express anti English sentiments. Are we all to be tarred the same?

Equally there's anti Scottish sentiment right here on this thread. You only need to read one of the posts on this page and the resentment against scots is oozing.

I'll mention trust and transparency. These are two issues that are important. We've never got to the bottom of exactly where all the money is spent. Until we do I don't accept we get a massive subsidy.

On your first point, I don't believe that all the Yes types are oozing anti British or English sentiments. Of course not. On this thread baldelectrician and elanten have voiced anti British Sentiments but not others, with one qualifier. There is an overt anti-British sentiment implied when disparaging remarks are made which amount to accusing Westminster of not looking after Scottish interests. That general theme, used time and time again is manifestly designed to stir up enmity. Also there is much background England Bashing going on within Scotland.

On the anti Scottish thing. Speaking for myself I constantly refer to the SNP and not Scottish, I use Natland instead of Scotland when I remember and if the context is that of a separated Scotland. The purpose of all that us to avoid contributing to the enmity policy (of the SNP). I think most here do that although the heat of the debate causes some slips.

The bottom line is that the policy of abandoning the Union, our family, is not an act of togetherness, but of separation, and the core to that is very clearly a dislike of cohabiting with the English, whichever way you want to dress it up.

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

On your first point, I don't believe that all the Yes types are oozing anti British or English sentiments. Of course not. On this thread baldelectrician and elanten have voiced anti British Sentiments but not others, with one qualifier. There is an overt anti-British sentiment implied when disparaging remarks are made which amount to accusing Westminster of not looking after Scottish interests. That general theme, used time and time again is manifestly designed to stir up enmity. Also there is much background England Bashing going on within Scotland.

On the anti Scottish thing. Speaking for myself I constantly refer to the SNP and not Scottish, I use Natland instead of Scotland when I remember and if the context is that of a separated Scotland. The purpose of all that us to avoid contributing to the enmity policy (of the SNP). I think most here do that although the heat of the debate causes some slips.

The bottom line is that the policy of abandoning the Union, our family, is not an act of togetherness, but of separation, and the core to that is very clearly a dislike of cohabiting with the English, whichever way you want to dress it up.

I've tried to explain on this thread previously string. It seems like part of the problem lies in the fact that some people have taken the referendum too personally. We voted yes so we wanted to leave you - yes, you personally! ( not exclusively only you )

It was about the end of a political union. Some feel an emotional attachment to the union. I've no problem with that. And some don't. It's that simple. I wanted Scotland to be in control of her destiny. A small, peaceful, nuclear free nation. That amongst other things were paramount to me.

I don't want to go round and round on this issue but it is frustrating to hear it endlessly when the reality for most was not breaking away from the English but the political union.

CLAPTON

Rinoa wrote: »

You were lucky your banks went bust whilst you were part of the UK.

don't be silly

although it was a secret prior to 2007/8, everyone after that time really knew the RBS and HBOS had always really been English banks.
Alex himself was confused about the situation when he worked there and became best mates with Fred Goodwin but realised his error after 2008.
Easy mistake to make : Alex has a track record of making friends easily: Trump was also a close mate only a couple of years ago.