Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

At it's most basic, you're asking my dad. An old dyed in the wool shop steward union man Labour till I die voter, who cannot stand the SNP and voted No... to consider once again voting No only to have Boris Johnson or George Osborne dish out 'hand outs' and stage every General Election as if 'Scots are pickpockets', and no Scottish MP will ever be PM again because of EVEL.
Which way do you think he'll go next time if the Conservatives are in power 2020 ?

I think he'll do what most of his ilk did last time and vote for the economic stability that comes with the sharing of risk and the pooling of resources with the rUK. If he's switched on he'll hold his nose as regards Boris and Osborne and opt to keep the £1700 per capita 'bung' every Scot receives courtesy of nasty Westminster.

Generali

Apropos of nothing, I've been having a squizz at the OBR data regarding the UK, Scotland and Wales.

As usual, Scotland tends to be around the average of the UK. Maybe slightly poorer but about the same in the round.

http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/Devolved-taxes-forecast.pdf

UK unemployment rates, GDP per head and GVA per head are about the same as a rule. Spending per head is higher though and, crucially, tax take per head is lower. It was that last bit that I couldn't understand but I've finally got it: Scotland has a different income distribution than England. There are a similar proportion of lower earners in England and Scotland higher earners in Scotland are disproportionately likely to earn £30-50k and very unlikely to earn over £100,000.

As much as oil, that will be an possible independent Scotland's fiscal problem. While we all like to think that the idle rich are a bunch of tax avoiding rentiers, the reality is that the rich pay the vast majority of income tax. I forget the actual numbers but the top 1% of earners pay something like 30% of income tax and the top 20% pay about 50% of income tax.

For an independent Scotland to bring in more tax will effectively mean that they have to put the burden on those upper middle earners; the employed professionals and successful small businesswomen that are in demand in pretty much every part of the world and are highly mobile.

Chart 2.3 tells you all you need to know.

Mistermeaner

Don't engage much in this circular thread anymore but still read it. Don't care if the Scots want to shaft themselves but find ignorance frustrating in the same way I disagree with communism in Russia or racism in america even if it doesn't directly affect me. My summary of this thread:


Scottish desire to be independent seems to be based on xenophobia if not racist hatred of the mystical 'Westminster' beast.

There seems to be complete ignorance as to the consequences and the only objective is to tip polls until a referendum can be called.

Almost every attempt to reason the benefits of the union for Scotland is countered with a poll showing that the snp is popular and about half of Scotland supports independence.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And @string... you'll LOVE this one..

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14190417.Could_a_devolved_Scotland_effectively_stay_in_the_EU_after_Brexit_/

Ah - the Scottish Global Forum - a think tank? More a Wishful thinking Factory. Long may the befuddled befuddle the befuddled.

They have history on this subject:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/08_Scottish_Global_Forum.pdf


Anyway. they are dressing up a hypothetical situation into another.

IF, repeat, IF there is a Brexit, there will be extended negotiations going on between the UK and the EC and I can't imagine your Mr Salmond being given permission by either the U.K. or the EU to make a separate negotiation with the EU. I don't really think the UK will be in a position to obtain particularly wonderful exit settlements ( any more than I think Natland would achieve very much negotiating with the UK over separation) but it would be a whole lot better deal than Natland would achieve in isolation, repeat in isolation.

Rinoa

Generali wrote: »

UK unemployment rates, GDP per head and GVA per head are about the same as a rule. Spending per head is higher though and, crucially, tax take per head is lower. It was that last bit that I couldn't understand but I've finally got it: Scotland has a different income distribution than England. There are a similar proportion of lower earners in England and Scotland higher earners in Scotland are disproportionately likely to earn £30-50k and very unlikely to earn over £100,000.

As much as oil, that will be an possible independent Scotland's fiscal problem. While we all like to think that the idle rich are a bunch of tax avoiding rentiers, the reality is that the rich pay the vast majority of income tax. I forget the actual numbers but the top 1% of earners pay something like 30% of income tax and the top 20% pay about 50% of income tax.

For an independent Scotland to bring in more tax will effectively mean that they have to put the burden on those upper middle earners; the employed professionals and successful small businesswomen that are in demand in pretty much every part of the world and are highly mobile.

Many of those middle income earners will be in public sector jobs.

Pro-rata Scotland has 27% more public sector workers than England. A large number of which will disappear when Scotland has to pay for them after independence.

Generali

Rinoa wrote: »

Many of those middle income earners will be in public sector jobs.

Pro-rata Scotland has 27% more public sector workers than England. A large number of which will disappear when Scotland has to pay for them after independence.

I guess so. I hadn't thought of that.

£30-50k is probably what a secondary school head of department earns, even a long serving primary school teacher.

mwpt

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Don't engage much in this circular thread anymore but still read it. Don't care if the Scots want to shaft themselves but find ignorance frustrating in the same way I disagree with communism in Russia or racism in america even if it doesn't directly affect me. My summary of this thread:


Scottish desire to be independent seems to be based on xenophobia if not racist hatred of the mystical 'Westminster' beast.

There seems to be complete ignorance as to the consequences and the only objective is to tip polls until a referendum can be called.

Almost every attempt to reason the benefits of the union for Scotland is countered with a poll showing that the snp is popular and about half of Scotland supports independence.

About the same as my understanding. I won't go too much into my past but I am not a UK native, though some of my ancestors are from here. Some were Scottish. So I really don't have any agenda or emotional ties to a union or otherwise. It would interest me if Scotland chose to go independent because it would be a real life case study, but apart from interest, there would be no other emotion.

What I'm trying to say is that I consider myself a complete neutral. I feel the same way when I watch the Cataland shenanigans.

It strikes me that the independence stuff is a purely selfish ideal based on an intensely emotional, but not rational, idea that somehow it means less to be a Scot inside a union than outside. This ideal is prepared to sacrifice others wellbeing in order to be able to say "we're free". There are some people who may genuinely believe they would be better off outside of the union, but judging from the responses on here, even those people would still want independence if they were wrong and it meant everyone was worse off. As a non patriot and world wide mongrel, I find it quite hard to understand.

HornetSaver

mwpt wrote: »

It strikes me that the independence stuff is a purely selfish ideal based on an intensely emotional, but not rational, idea that somehow it means less to be a Scot inside a union than outside. This ideal is prepared to sacrifice others wellbeing in order to be able to say "we're free". There are some people who may genuinely believe they would be better off outside of the union, but judging from the responses on here, even those people would still want independence if they were wrong and it meant everyone was worse off.

Disagree with the last bit. It was almost certainly people whose hearts said "yes" and wallets said "hell no" that swung the last referendum.

mwpt

HornetSaver wrote: »

Disagree with the last bit. It was almost certainly people whose hearts said "yes" and wallets said "hell no" that swung the last referendum.

Sorry, I was unclear when I said that. What I meant was that there are some pro-indy supporters who would still vote indy even if it meant everyone being worse off.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

Spending per head is higher though and, crucially, tax take per head is lower. It was that last bit that I couldn't understand but I've finally got it: Scotland has a different income distribution than England. There are a similar proportion of lower earners in England and Scotland higher earners in Scotland are disproportionately likely to earn £30-50k and very unlikely to earn over £100,000.

As much as oil, that will be an possible independent Scotland's fiscal problem. While we all like to think that the idle rich are a bunch of tax avoiding rentiers, the reality is that the rich pay the vast majority of income tax. I forget the actual numbers but the top 1% of earners pay something like 30% of income tax and the top 20% pay about 50% of income tax.

For an independent Scotland to bring in more tax will effectively mean that they have to put the burden on those upper middle earners; the employed professionals and successful small businesswomen that are in demand in pretty much every part of the world and are highly mobile.

Chart 2.3 tells you all you need to know.

Yes that's a real problem for Scotland.

The 'soak the rich' mantra does not work very well here.

The Stamp Duty changes targeting the rich have resulted in a serious decrease in tax revenues.

Neither my job nor Mrs McT's job requires us to be located in Scotland and we are both higher rate taxpayers.

And there are many tens of thousands of people like us.

Everyone from Airline Pilots to Regional Managers to Service Techs to Consultants, Creative types, Writers, Business owners, Oil workers, Project managers, etc, etc...

We calculated that a rise in income tax of 5% (or even a 3% rise in income tax and additional stealth taxes elsewhere) for earners like us, would be more than a mortgage payment on a house in Carlisle, so if that's the way the country looks like going many would be better off moving across the border and would do so.