Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Salmond appears to make his own news. Goes on radio to answer questions frankly and guess what he doesn't. Hardly new politics is it. Much like your goodself . Westminster, Tories , Anti austerity. Same old record. Boy does it get boring. One day you'll realise that the UK is marching relentlessly on. While the SNP continue to dig a large hole for themselves. The questions that need answering are very simple.

You misunderstand the SNP worries.

They are concerned that they will have to endure years of domination by effectively a one party state (Conservatives). That's why they want out.

This is *very* different * and *much* more threatening than the situation in Scotland, where 56 out of 59 seats suggests a much more benign and forgiving one party state (SNP).
:rotfl:

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Congratulations.

You've just described the economic reality of independence.

I believe that post independence Hamish you do not get offered a Vow to sweeten the blow.

No, your options are "lump it or leave" according to Shakey.
(I think it's a reference to sugar or something)

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I would prefer the simple approach.

1 Given that income taxes in the UK go at present into the general UK pot, and that some proportion of income tax therefore goes towards the UK-wide responsibilities, then it would be reasonable that the income tax take in Scotland were reduced by that proportion which is no longer being contributed to UK Koffers. I don't know how much that would be but presume it would be in the low percentages (10% or so).

2 Scotland gets to use the bulk of the income tax on carrying out the new responsibilities that they have under the agreement, the remainder either being off-set against extra income derived from point 4 or, in the interests of simplicity Scotland simply gets to keep the lot and item 4 is dropped.

3 If Scotland raises or lowers the income tax in Scotland over or below the common UK rates, then it gets extra money or less money according to its own choice.

4 Given that the cost of exercising those responsibilities will change according to the cost of living, which is not under Scotland's control for a large part, there needs to be an adjustment made, normally an addition, which could simply be an amount calculated on the cost of living.


Presumably it is more complicated than that, but not, I suspect not much more complicated unless people want to make it so.

I want an arrangement which is fair to Scotland and the UK, which the SNP palpably do not (assuming wildly for the moment that they want an agreement). But I don't buy any argument based on keeping Scots in the manner to which the SNP wants them to become accustomed and still expecting the UK to pay for it.

It's very much more complicated than that. And you seem to be slightly confused about Scotland's status within the Union.

Scots in the manner to which the SNP wants them to become accustomed and still expecting the UK to pay for it.

Are we in or out string ? Are Scots a part of the UK or to be treated as a separate entity and nation altogether ? You'll have to make you your mind I suppose on that. But at the moment you seem to wish it both ways.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

The poll was conducted by YouGov and paid for by Scotland in Union.

YouGov ???!!!

Unionist scumbags, they are.

They will be one of the first against the (rebuilt Hadrians) wall.

I bet they used English as well for the questions, yet MORE evidence of bias :mad:

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Congratulations.

You've just described the economic reality of independence.

The problem being of course. That I was describing Scotland within the UK and the new Scotland Bill. You voted No for that ?

Dear me what a chump you must feel after all your protestations of income tax rises, cuts and 'Scotland out of the EU' posts.;)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The problem being of course. That I was describing Scotland within the UK and the new Scotland Bill.

The bigger problem being, of course, that your complaint is we might end up with £3bn to £5bn less out of the £90bn to £100bn subsidy we get from the English over the next 10 years.

That subsidy being on top of the per capita deficit spending that the UK borrows on our behalf.

So if you think having to replace just 5% or so of the Westminster subsidy to Scotland will be so bl00dy hard, requiring, and I quote....

a system whereby Scotland has to produce both economic and population growth at rates never seen before, just to stay as we are

..... What the hell were you planning to do to cover the other 90 odd BILLION POUNDS we'd lose with Indy???:eek:

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The poll was conducted by YouGov and paid for by Scotland in Union.

... and spun by the Herald. 46% don't want referendum before 2021. I'll leave you to do the maths on the other 54 % of respondents. 33% of which are apparently gagging for one. They've spun almost the same figures to show that 'almost half' think Scotland would be worse off. Without mentioning the other 54% which think there would be no change, or an improvement.

More importantly. It shows that the people still obsessed 24/7 with referendums at the moment are unionists. Since they're the one's commissioning polls about them. Scared people imo. The rest of us are quite happy to wait until the time is right. Right after the next Conservative win should do it.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The bigger problem being, of course, that your complaint is we might end up with £3bn to £5bn less out of the £90bn to £100bn subsidy we get from the English over the next 10 years.

That subsidy being on top of the per capita deficit spending that the UK borrows on our behalf.

So if you think having to replace just 5% or so of the Westminster subsidy to Scotland will be so bl00dy hard, requiring, and I quote....



..... What the hell were you planning to do to cover the other 90 odd BILLION POUNDS we'd lose with Indy???:eek:

Oft no Hamish. My complaint is that the Treasury is footering about with what was agreed by everyone via the Smith Commission. And that the footering about is likely to cause a loss while we're in the Union. I don't think that was what was agreed at the time.

Independence is another matter altogether. Conflating the two is perhaps understandable. But this particular issue is in regards to Scotland remaining as part of the UK for the coming years. Little point pointing and shouting 'but independence' every time it's mentioned. It's really not relevant to this Scotland Bill which addresses Scotland's place within the UK.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

is likely to cause a loss while we're in the Union. I don't think that was what was agreed at the time. .

That is exactly what was agreed at the time.

The principle was clear - no detriment at the time of change.

Here's the exact clause:

95 (3): No detriment as the result of the decision to devolve further power; the Scottish and UK Governments' budgets should be no larger or smaller simply as a result of the initial transfer of tax and/or spending powers, before considering how these are used.

I've underlined the important bit.

Nowhere in the Smith report did it say Scotland should both get these taxing/spending powers and have an eternal guarantee of unlimited further subsidy should our revenue then fall at some point in the future.

The simple way to preserve the enormous Barnett subsidy is, unsurprisingly, to preserve the Barnett formula and current taxation/spending responsibilities.

It's not the Unionist/No side who asked for more control over taxes and spending and therefore caused this mess.

antrobus

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...The simple way to preserve the enormous Barnett subsidy is, unsurprisingly, to preserve the Barnett formula and current taxation/spending responsibilities.

Actually, the simple way to get rid of the "enormous Barnett subsidy" is to preserve the so-called Barnett formula. In the long term, it will result in all parts of the UK getting the same per capita amount of money to spend.