Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

.... if Swinney accepts the Scotland Act is it is, Scotland will get new powers over personal income tax, which, even if they are never ever used will cost billions over the next decade. ....

@Shakey - would you please clarify the nature of the loss you write about. If Scotland gets to keep Income Tax generated in Scotland, does the bill Grant them all of the total amount, or just part of it? And if only part of it is some proportion held back or used to reduce the Black Grant? If the Scottish Government raises income taxes do they get to keep all of what they raise?

And what is the mechanism for reducing the Block Grant? A proportion of what amount?

Some explanation we would be useful to understand what the fuss is about.

scott_lithgows

Rinoa wrote: »

I see SNP are refusing to discuss independence at their party conference next month.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/leaked-document-shows-indy-ref-7320330#v3hE5h8o9lGp8h1p.97

Looks like they will remain a small provincial party for the foreseeable future.

DailyRecord...really?

Why bother,vote was to last a generation although a specific period of time would have made things clearer for us all.

Not in SNP but would hope all Scots parties would discuss current issues (and especially eu referendums) and not politics from 2 years ago.

CLAPTON

scott_lithgows wrote: »

DailyRecord...really?

Why bother,vote was to last a generation although a specific period of time would have made things clearer for us all.

Not in SNP but would hope all Scots parties would discuss current issues (and especially eu referendums) and not politics from 2 years ago.

not many observers of scottish politics think that the independence isn't the key issue.

.string.

scott_lithgows wrote: »

DailyRecord...really?

Why bother,vote was to last a generation although a specific period of time would have made things clearer for us all.

Not in SNP but would hope all Scots parties would discuss current issues (and especially eu referendums) and not politics from 2 years ago.

I agree that present issues are the more important if the last Referendum was the end of the business as most of us thought, but from what I understand from our resident SNP Party Members, there will be some weasel-words in the SNP manifesto to allow the SNP to claim a mandate for demanding/holding a Referendum at any time they see fit.

That being the case I would have thought that Independence, another referendum, etc. would be logical thing to discuss.

scott_lithgows

.string. wrote: »

I agree that present issues are the more important if the last Referendum was the end of the business as most of us thought, but from what I understand from our resident SNP Party Members, there will be some weasel-words in the SNP manifesto to allow the SNP to claim a mandate for demanding/holding a Referendum at any time they see fit.

That being the case I would have thought that Independence, another referendum, etc. would be logical thing to discuss.

Why worry about it until it happens?

Scots politics is in danger of deciding the eu referendum on the grounds of what you voted in 2014.

I and many others want an adult discussion on EU membership and not voters voting the opposite of what their most unfavourite Scottish political party advise you to vote

CLAPTON

scott_lithgows wrote: »

Why worry about it until it happens?

Scots politics is in danger of deciding the eu referendum on the grounds of what you voted in 2014.

I and many others want an adult discussion on EU membership and not voters voting the opposite of what their most unfavourite Scottish political party advise you to vote

from the SNP point of view the brexit is becoming irrelevant

they were hoping for a exit vote (or at least the tories supporting exit) so making the case for a new Iscot referendum.

now they have to find another faux reason why a new referendum is essential and brexit isn't worth discussing

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

@Shakey - would you please clarify the nature of the loss you write about. If Scotland gets to keep Income Tax generated in Scotland, does the bill Grant them all of the total amount, or just part of it? And if only part of it is some proportion held back or used to reduce the Black Grant? If the Scottish Government raises income taxes do they get to keep all of what they raise?

And what is the mechanism for reducing the Block Grant? A proportion of what amount?

Some explanation we would be useful to understand what the fuss is about.

Barnett is being recalculated using a different mechanism. The Treasury proposals mean if UK's population rises, Scotland's falls or remains static and personal income tax the only taxation power available. Any future Scots government would have to keep raising personal income tax in order to keep up. There are no other sweeping tax or other powers with which to compensate. Plus everyone would be heading south due to, well, high personal income tax rises.

Scotland wouldn't even need to use the powers over income tax in order to lose out under the mechanism's the UK govt are currently proposing. The losses are built in based on differing population growth between Scotland and rUK cutting Barnett systematically each year. Smith Commission says explicitly that this shouldn't be the case.

Mr Swinney favours a “per capita index deduction” method, which he believes will secure future funding even if, as predicted, the UK’s population grows much faster than Scotland’s. Mr Greg believes a “levels deduction” is best as the UK Government makes clear that UK taxpayers should not have to fund Scottish public services more just because Scotland’s population is not growing as fast as the UK’s. But Holyrood believes this option could leave Scotland £7bn out of pocket over 10 years...


( Hosie )...The Dundee MP added: "The overall level of the block grant, which makes up the bulk of Scotland's funding, is still supposed to be delivered by Barnett. That is agreed by all parties and we cannot have Unionist politicians in the UK Government seeking to undermine that and cut Scotland's block grant in a systemic way, way above anything any devolved tax could compensate for. That's wrong, it's unfair and it breaches the spirit of all the negotiations."


“The fiscal framework must remain true to Smith Agreement which said the Barnett Formula will remain and that Scotland should be no better or worse off as a result of having new powers."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14259647.Mundell__we_won_t_walk_away_from_tax_powers_talks_but_SNP_warn_time_is_running_out/

The last sentence is where the disagreement is coming from. The Treasury mechanism's mean Scotland almost certainly will be. Even if income tax powers don't get used.

Hardly the scenario Gordon Brown, the Daily Record and the Vow were selling to Scots at the time ? Swinney has already announced he's going to publish all documents regarding the talks. One can only assume that if the talks collapse, at best, he wants complete transparency, or at worst, that there's stuff in them that he really wants all Scots voters to see before the May election.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

I see SNP are refusing to discuss independence at their party conference next month.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/leaked-document-shows-indy-ref-7320330#v3hE5h8o9lGp8h1p.97

Looks like they will remain a small provincial party for the foreseeable future.

They don't usually discuss the same issues two conferences in a row. Fracking also bit the dust for discussion this time round as it was debated at the last one. There's a lot more the SNP have to deal with day to day than independence. Such as running Scotland.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Barnett is being recalculated using a different mechanism. The Treasury proposals mean if UK's population rises, Scotland's falls or remains static and personal income tax the only taxation power available. Any future Scots government would have to keep raising personal income tax in order to keep up. There are no other sweeping tax or other powers with which to compensate. Plus everyone would be heading south due to, well, high personal income tax rises.

tell me, within scotland is the block grants to local government based on population atall?
so if one council grew a lot, you don't think they need a bigger share of the available money.
How else would you device a fair and more equal scotland


If the overall UK population rises then the total taxation would rise too.
so although one region may get a smaller PROPORTION the actual amount would not fall.

It is a totally fair system : sadly the benefit junkies in scotland
are used to an unfair system favouring scotland, that have lost their moral compass.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Barnett is being recalculated using a different mechanism. The Treasury proposals mean if UK's population rises, Scotland's falls or remains static and personal income tax the only taxation power available. Any future Scots government would have to keep raising personal income tax in order to keep up. There are no other sweeping tax or other powers with which to compensate. Plus everyone would be heading south due to, well, high personal income tax rises.

Scotland wouldn't even need to use the powers over income tax in order to lose out under the mechanism's the UK govt are currently proposing. The losses are built in based on differing population growth between Scotland and rUK cutting Barnett systematically each year. Smith Commission says explicitly that this shouldn't be the case.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14259647.Mundell__we_won_t_walk_away_from_tax_powers_talks_but_SNP_warn_time_is_running_out/

The last sentence is where the disagreement is coming from. The Treasury mechanism's mean Scotland almost certainly will be. Even if income tax powers don't get used.

Hardly the scenario Gordon Brown, the Daily Record and the Vow were selling to Scots at the time ? Swinney has already announced he's going to publish all documents regarding the talks. One can only assume that if the talks collapse, at best, he wants complete transparency, or at worst, that there's stuff in them that he really wants all Scots voters to see before the May election.

Why shouldn't Scotland "lose out" if Barnett is readjusted for falling or static population in Scotland in comparison to the rUK?