Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I don't disagree at all that things have to be fair, but the quotes you give are partial and bearing in mind the unsubstantiated whinging that has been going on continuously from the SNP, especially from Sturgeon, I've no reason to conclude that Scotland is being cheated. Remember it has to be fair to both sides.

I would like to see the detail argumentation, however, before coming to my own conclusion.

For Scotland to have an increase in funding while the UK suffers an identical loss but still has to fund line items is clearly unfair. But I've explained that before.

Well at the very least you're saying it has to be fair. I've already stated that I can't read the Times article, which apparently goes into more detail. But it's very obvious now that there is a huge problem with it. As even the link you quoted states :-

it is impossible to design a block grant adjustment system that satisfies the spirit of the ‘no detriment from the decision to devolve’ principle at the same time as fully achieving the ‘taxpayer fairness’ principle: at least while the Barnett Formula remains in place.

I'm beginning to think that it really won't go through. I'd always assumed there would be some sort of compromise found. But the messages coming from all of those involved, from journalist's with sources such as Farquharson and from Scottish Labour ( who are depending on it for a lot of their manifesto by the looks of it ). Not looking good.

Sturgeon and Swinney have been consistent throughout. They are a lot different from the Tories in terms of policies and just about everything else. But like the Tories, at least you get what's on the tin in terms of intention.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So it would reduce the Westminster subsidy from around £9bn currently to what, around £8.7bn?

This is the path you want to send us down with ever more powers devolved to Scotland and ever less subsidy...

Do you not think it's a good idea for Scottish people to realise just how much they're subsidised by every year, and that there are very hard choices and cuts to be made if we want to move towards a model where Scotland spends only what we earn?

Well, if we're going to relive the referendum let me take you back you your own posts absolutely brimming with praise for Gordon Brown and his speech. I remember them vividly for some reason.

He sent us all down this current path. As did Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. The SNP have had very little input in the Scotland Act. They've gotten nothing they wanted. Those that listened to Brown, didn't vote for Scotland's anything to be cut. And certainly not just to stay in the union.

Where's the 'union dividend' you all promised after the referendum ? Dividend's don't mean cuts Hamish. We're still in the union.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Think I've already explained my position. Therefore will just continue to comment on this thread as and when I choose.

I've also already responded to your question regarding other party polices for the H/R election.

Good, I look forward to reading more of your posts. But don't allude to Nazi ideology when quoting me in thanks.

I must've missed other party policies for the H/R election you posted. In the absence of any manifestos out as yet. What do you feel the Scottish Conservative approach should be re prescription charges, council taxes and tuition fees ? And where do you feel Scottish Labour are going wrong ? Also, do you think there's a chance of the Tories coming in second ?

After all, you're not voting SNP. So it would be good to hear from someone else's perspective why they are voting for other parties. ( And I do mean that genuinely ). Hear about something else rather than the SNP for a change.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well at the very least you're saying it has to be fair. I've already stated that I can't read the Times article, which apparently goes into more detail. But it's very obvious now that there is a huge problem with it. As even the link you quoted states :-

"it is impossible to design a block grant adjustment system that satisfies the spirit of the ‘no detriment from the decision to devolve’ principle at the same time as fully achieving the ‘taxpayer fairness’ principle: at least while the Barnett Formula remains in place."

I'm beginning to think that it really won't go through. I'd always assumed there would be some sort of compromise found. But the messages coming from all of those involved, from journalist's with sources such as Farquharson and from Scottish Labour ( who are depending on it for a lot of their manifesto by the looks of it ). Not looking good.

Sturgeon and Swinney have been consistent throughout. They are a lot different from the Tories in terms of policies and just about everything else. But like the Tories, at least you get what's on the tin in terms of intention.

The difficulty with the Barnett Formula was recognise in the Smith Commission where it was stated (and agreed) as was the principle of no financial loss or gain.

"The Barnett Formula will continue to be used to determine the remaining block grant. New rules to determine how it will be adjusted at the point when powers are transferred and thereafter will be agreed by the Scottish and UK Governments and put in place prior to the powers coming into force. These rules will ensure that neither the Scottish nor UK Governments will lose or gain financially from the act of transferring a power."

So adjustment of the Barnett Formula is built in to the whole process and should not be a principle hindrance. As I wrote before, transfer of powers and responsibilities involve some increases and some reductions of costs on both sides. It should be a matter of accountancy.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Where's the 'union dividend' you all promised after the referendum ? .

We continue to be subsidised by Westminster to the tune of around £9bn a year.

That's the 'Union Dividend'.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

.string. wrote: »

adjustment of the Barnett Formula is built in to the whole process .

Correct.

The transfer of various taxation revenues directly to Scotland will result in a corresponding cut in Barnett and the principle is that Scotland should be no worse off at the time of transfer.

It is then up to the Scottish government to manage that revenue moving forward.

But if they get it wrong (as has happened already with the increase in stamp duty rates bringing in less revenue than the old system), and tax revenues fall, then there is less money to spend in the future.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We continue to be subsidised by Westminster to the tune of around £9bn a year.

That's the 'Union Dividend'.

Clearly there are a lot of Scottish people who just don't believe this.

Leanne demonstrates this on here, in questioning the veracity of the information sources.

Subsidy to me is like deflation in economics. It suppresses aspiration over a drawn out period.

There are thousands of people all over the UK who receive net benefits worth tens of thousands from the state; and yet they feel hard done by. Moreover they hate the state that feeds them. One proven way to reverse the fortunes of debt junkies is to go through cold turkey. Harsh medicine though.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Clearly there are a lot of Scottish people who just don't believe this.

Leanne demonstrates this on here, in questioning the veracity of the information sources..

The SNP controlled Scottish Government doesn't even dispute the figures. In fact they release the figures. So perhaps she should take it up with them.

.string.

Yes, such denials of published data are frequent, and used, I think, as a deliberate stratagem.

When convenient, Scottish Goverment figures are disbelieve, being tainted by their source (the wicked London Establishment or something). A conspiracy to hide "The Facts" has also been suggested in some of the wilder posts.

Another argument is to claim that "others" hold different views and that this means published figures can't be trusted because it's too difficult to decide.

All that builds to assertions that there is no evidence on subsidies, black holes , and so on and so forth. And apparently that garners votes from the gullible.

All that goes hand in hand with avoiding publishing anything to the contrary, with the exception of Polls of course where the fruits of deception can be trumpeted.

All blow and no action.

Tromking

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Correct.

The transfer of various taxation revenues directly to Scotland will result in a corresponding cut in Barnett and the principle is that Scotland should be no worse off at the time of transfer.

It is then up to the Scottish government to manage that revenue moving forward.

But if they get it wrong (as has happened already with the increase in stamp duty rates bringing in less revenue than the old system), and tax revenues fall, then there is less money to spend in the future.

Indeed.
As I read yesterday it seems to be a case of the SNP gaining control of one of the 'levers' and finding it too hot to handle.