The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Shakethedisease

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

Don't talk nosnsense perhaps there was perhaps there wasn't but one thing is for sure is isn't a fact.

Oh the desperation


Desperate Shakey and Spamming I can't find the light switch! :rotfl:

Well, at least I don't have to resort to accusations of spam and desperation when I don't like or get a bit bored reading your posts. I feel pretty good about that at least.

Salmond was hoping for 20 seats, and the polling showed the SNP could do it too. Then there was a sudden dip two weeks out in SNP support as people engaged. It seemed Cameron might actually beat Brown with the Tories on the up. The SNP ended up very disappointed with just 6. But went on to a total landslide win in Holyrood a year later. See Scots voters have learned to be quite sophisticated in their voting patterns since devolution and it's May they're looking at not Davidson for this election coming.

Shakethedisease

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

While a number of areas of concern were highlighted in a specialist independent report into whether the Scottish Government’s much-criticised IT system for the delivery of farm support payments was fit for purpose, it was claimed yesterday that there was no need to “move to plan B” and start again from scratch.

A stormy meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s rural economy committee danced around the report’s findings, claiming that proper scrutiny of the report had been hampered by the fact that the full findings were being kept under wraps due to “commercial sensitivities”.

Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/business/companies/farming/msps-claim-scrutiny-of-farm-it-fiasco-being-hampered-1-4442792

The very least of their worries at the present time.

Is the price farmers will pay for Brexit really worth it?

First among reasons for this stance was that farming in Europe is heavily subsidised, with direct farm payments under the CAP supporting the majority of UK farms.

Farmers received £2.1 billion in direct payments under CAP in 2015, as well as rural development aid, accounting for 55% of farm income per acre. Some calculations are even more stark: writing in The Times last August, science correspondent Oliver Moody noted that “the average farm made £2,100 from agriculture and £28,300 from subsidies”, though this figure included payments other than the CAP.
But that was then and this is now. Today, the NFU is lobbying the government for the best possible deal for agriculture – and that means fighting to keep what they stand to lose

Even more embarrassing for Leadsom, who was speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference, was that when the audience was asked to put up their hands if they felt her department was ready for Brexit, not a single arm was raised.

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/is-the-price-farmers-will-pay-for-brexit-really-worth-it-1-5001123

cogito

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The very least of their worries at the present time.

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/is-the-price-farmers-will-pay-for-brexit-really-worth-it-1-5001123

Do you have any clue where CAP money comes from? It isn't printed in Brussels you know.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It's entirely possible that a lower rate of corporation tax could attract more businesses and increase revenue.

A pan European tax regime is back on the EU's agenda. Block companies such as Apple using transfer pricing to massage profits to reduce tax liabilities in their European operations.

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

Did you not read this bit


I did read it all.
I deny what is possible? I said that we do not have the full autonomy to make a balance budget and strategic policy.
We have one hand tied behind our backs.

Such as corporation tax as I said earlier.
It's entirely possible that a lower rate of corporation tax could attract more businesses and increase revenue.

Oh.
Is that not against the rules of the EU that you still so dearly want to remain a member of?

IveSeenTheLight

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life wrote: »

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Oh.
Is that not against the rules of the EU that you still so dearly want to remain a member of?

No it's not.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

A pan European tax regime is back on the EU's agenda. Block companies such as Apple using transfer pricing to massage profits to reduce tax liabilities in their European operations.

Old news from last year if I recall correctly.
How likely is the proposal to go through?
All member states would have to sign up to the proposal for it to become law.
I think it will struggle to get agreement with all member states

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Old news from last year if I recall correctly.
How likely is the proposal to go through?
All member states would have to sign up to the proposal for it to become law.
I think it will struggle to get agreement with all member states

The inconvenient truth as they say. Let's not let anything get in the way of the real agenda. Lisbon Treaty makes change increasingly likely.

Shaka_Zulu

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Salmond was hoping for 20 seats, and the polling showed the SNP could do it too. Then there was a sudden dip two weeks out in SNP support as people engaged. It seemed Cameron might actually beat Brown with the Tories on the up. The SNP ended up very disappointed with just 6. But went on to a total landslide win in Holyrood a year later. See Scots voters have learned to be quite sophisticated in their voting patterns since devolution and it's May they're looking at not Davidson for this election coming.

Aye well easy come easy go, perhaps you will be glad of 20 this time round!

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The inconvenient truth as they say. Let's not let anything get in the way of the real agenda.

What does that mean?
It's corporation tax we're discussing as one option to grow an economy and subsequent exports.
It's not global warming

It's a proposal that needs ALL member states to agree to.
With European Corporate tax ranging from 9% to 34% it's going to be difficult to get a common agreement.