Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Agreed. Snp should prove Scotland's ability to go it alone by voluntarily returning the Barnett cash and raising special taxes to cover the gap while they reduce spending.

I'm sure the power is there to do this; they just need to make it happen. Isn't this what the polls say the people of Scotland want?

People need to see a progressive plan.

The way things are going, if they got another referendum in 2021/22 I could see the same old arguments : spurious claims and counter claims as to the importance of oil; income gaps.

Replacing Barnett would be a massive PR step towards showing self reliance.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

People need to see a progressive plan.

The way things are going, if they got another referendum in 2021/22 I could see the same old arguments : spurious claims and counter claims as to the importance of oil; income gaps.

Replacing Barnett would be a massive PR step towards showing self reliance.

The problem is, neither side wants FFA. The SNP don't want it because at anything apart from a record oil price Scotland would be bust and the Tories don't want it for two reasons: if it works the argument for unionism is under a lot of pressure and if (most likely when) it doesn't there will be utter mayhem. What do you think all those patients in Scottish hospitals that are no longer able to get their medicine are going to do when funding is cut off? They'll be on the first bus south. It would be chaos.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think they were talking about start up %'s. Not population numbers. But an improvement whatever. I agree with you. Well done SNP. :beer:

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

Spin it however you wish. But if Glasgow is 6th on a list of UK start ups, but is the UK's 4th largest city by population, then they are trailing their English neighbours by some considerable margin.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No. Have a reread. They weren't mentioned in any funding. Just doing the research on the numbers at companies house. The funding was down to others. Including Scottish Enterprise ( Scottish Govt ). Do check again. .....

I think you need to do a bit of careful reading Shakey. I wrote of an initiative, a UK wide initiative, not actually funding by Startup Britain.

But if we are talking funding. As you point out, the Shot Scope development has been funded by a number of organisations, including Scottish Enterprise, but also Innovate UK which is funded by the UK Government and which was involved at the onset. More recently funding for Soft Scope has come from Equity Gap. Innovate UK and Startup Britain are both part of the complex of initiatives at play in assisting the start up of new businesses in the UK, an initiative which naturally includes Scotland whether you want to admit that or not.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/innovate-uk

Sure the SNP has used some of its funds to support Shot Scope, but it's not the whole story as you seem to think. Better Together Shakey.

.string.

Tromking wrote: »

Independence is a matter for you Guys, and if Swinney`s desperation to keep the subsidy is anything to go by then it ain't happening. He`s not exactly putting forward the notion of a nation-in-waiting with any confidence is he?
The loss of Barnett block grant payments commensurate with amount of income tax you receive via the Scots people seems reasonable to me. I have a feeling that even if the SNP got all the powers they wanted, they still wouldn't feel confident enough to not want a bung from the rUK.
A bit of savage indictment on your ability to go it alone this Shakey.

Yes I think it could well be reasonable to reduce the Block Grant by the amount reassigned to Scotland. That money would otherwise have gone to the UK to help fund activities that the UK is responsible for, inclusive of debt reduction, defence and so on and including some activities directly related to Scotland.

Whether it is reasonable depends on the balance of cost of the responsibilities devolved to Scotland. If for example the newly devolved responsibilities cost the same (*) as the new income raised on income tax etc. then it's not unreasonable that the transfer is taken as cost neutral; but if the transferred responsibilities cost less than those additional funds then they would amount to an additional subsidy and the difference should come out of the Block Grant.

The principle is not that Scotland should not be worse off, it is the neither Scotland nor the rest of the UK should be worse off.

There could be some movement on this, if analysis shows a difference balance of those figures, but we don't know the detail of the discussion and the nuances.

But in summary it ought to boil down to ;

Reduction of the Bloch Grant =
Income raised by new taxes in Scotland which go now go to the Scottish Government - the money no longer spent by Westminster as a result.



(*)- the same as defined by the same standards as pertain in the rest of the uNion; if the Scottish people demand more than the norm then the ability to raise taxes exists to pay for it.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Agree.

Scotland's economy will have to go through a transformation if they are to be ready for independence.

Right now they have a problem with jobs around the oil industry. They have a lot of people working in public sector roles for the whole of the UK; this would go come independence; we would be competing economies. It's only natural rUK would seek to win jobs back.

A period of cold turkey is not a bad thing for any economy. It's a shame this is not the way the SNP thinks.

The only way Scotland can go through a 'transformation' is through independence itself. There are no 'trial periods'. Any more than there would be a 'trial period' before any possible Brexit.

Scotland can't act like it's independent, until it is.

Shakethedisease

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Agreed. Snp should prove Scotland's ability to go it alone by voluntarily returning the Barnett cash and raising special taxes to cover the gap while they reduce spending.

I'm sure the power is there to do this; they just need to make it happen. Isn't this what the polls say the people of Scotland want?

Again. That would be full independence. And you're in la-la land if you think Scotland is going to take all of the downsides of independence while still part of the union with so many matters still reserved. With none of the upsides and Westminster setting economic policy.

One or the other. Returning 'Barnett cash' means Scots taxpayers don't pay into the UK Treasury anymore = independence.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

Spin it however you wish. But if Glasgow is 6th on a list of UK start ups, but is the UK's 4th largest city by population, then they are trailing their English neighbours by some considerable margin.

As was I ( being sarcastic ). An improvement is an improvement. Well done SNP.... as you said. Fifth and Sixth on the % of new start ups throughout Britain is hardly 'trailing English neighbours' by some considerable margin until you define exactly what you mean by that.

As I said. A step in the right direction.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I think you need to do a bit of careful reading Shakey. I wrote of an initiative, a UK wide initiative, not actually funding by Startup Britain.

But if we are talking funding. As you point out, the Shot Scope development has been funded by a number of organisations, including Scottish Enterprise, but also Innovate UK which is funded by the UK Government and which was involved at the onset. More recently funding for Soft Scope has come from Equity Gap. Innovate UK and Startup Britain are both part of the complex of initiatives at play in assisting the start up of new businesses in the UK, an initiative which naturally includes Scotland whether you want to admit that or not.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/innovate-uk

Sure the SNP has used some of its funds to support Shot Scope, but it's not the whole story as you seem to think. Better Together Shakey.

Your post was insinuating that 'Start up Uk' was responsible for all Scottish start up improvements, and that Scots should be 'grateful' as we're Bettertogether. Talk about a superiority complex.

You made a mistake. It's best just to admit it and move on. The above post is virtual back peddling to a bewildering degree. The Scottish Govt is boosting innovation and business start ups at a considerable rate of knots. Getting universities and other bodies involved, providing mentoring and subsidised office space to those with credible ideas and plans, who need help and a punt up the ladder.

That's to be commended.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Yes I think it could well be reasonable to reduce the Block Grant by the amount reassigned to Scotland. That money would otherwise have gone to the UK to help fund activities that the UK is responsible for, inclusive of debt reduction, defence and so on and including some activities directly related to Scotland.

Whether it is reasonable depends on the balance of cost of the responsibilities devolved to Scotland. If for example the newly devolved responsibilities cost the same (*) as the new income raised on income tax etc. then it's not unreasonable that the transfer is taken as cost neutral; but if the transferred responsibilities cost less than those additional funds then they would amount to an additional subsidy and the difference should come out of the Block Grant.

The principle is not that Scotland should not be worse off, it is the neither Scotland nor the rest of the UK should be worse off.

There could be some movement on this, if analysis shows a difference balance of those figures, but we don't know the detail of the discussion and the nuances.

But in summary it ought to boil down to ;

Reduction of the Bloch Grant =
Income raised by new taxes in Scotland which go now go to the Scottish Government - the money no longer spent by Westminster as a result.



(*)- the same as defined by the same standards as pertain in the rest of the uNion; if the Scottish people demand more than the norm then the ability to raise taxes exists to pay for it.

The block grant is a 'formula' applied each year... not a set amount. The stalling point for the Scotland Bill, (as far as I can ascertain), .. going through at the moment. Is that no one seems to know how to readjust the formula, progressively each year going forward.. after the first year.

'Reducing the block grant' is too simplistic, as it's not a set amount. It's based on many variables. The problem with the Scotland Bill is that these variables are changing... Oh and that the Vow/Smith promised that Barnett would continue and all would be good.

At the end of the day. You, and other blinded SNP bashers, are stating that a No vote result, should potentially cost folks like Hamish dear in progressive losses to the yearly Scottish block grant. Potentially resulting in all sorts of public service cuts, higher taxes etc etc ( the very thing Hamish keeps warning about re independence ).

Solely, I repeat solely...in order to 'stick it to the SNP' !!! .. Jolly good... You carry on with that.