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

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..The SNP cannot say 'ok lets not accept Barrnett' because that would also mean not sending any Scottish taxes to the UK treasury, which in turn would mean UDI or independence. Neither of which has happened. ...

The Barnet formula (only one 'r') is a method of calculating the block grant. It has nothing to do with the collection of taxes.

Scottish taxes (at least stuff like income tax, NI, Corp tax, VAT etc) etc are not "sent" to the UK Treasury. They are collected by HMRC in the same way as HMRC collects taxes from the rest of the UK.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...It's like talking to a child explaining this to be honest. If you need me to type a bit slower do let me know.

It would help if you actually had the faintest idea of what you were trying to explain.:)

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

The Barnet formula (only one 'r') is a method of calculating the block grant. It has nothing to do with the collection of taxes.

Scottish taxes (at least stuff like income tax, NI, Corp tax, VAT etc) etc are not "sent" to the UK Treasury. They are collected by HMRC in the same way as HMRC collects taxes from the rest of the UK.

It would help if you actually had the faintest idea of what you were trying to explain.:)

It would also help if you stopped trying to ascribe independent country responsibilities to a government which doesn't have independent country economic levers to play with.

Scottish taxes go to the UK Treasury, the Scottish Govt ( of any flavour ) gets a block grant back to deal with devolved responsibilities. Remove the block grant/Barrnett, then you remove Scotland from the UK OR you remove Holyrood/The Welsh National assembly and Stormont. There is no inbetween.

It would help if you didn't post complete airy fairy childish nonsense about how the SNP should refuse to take Barnett money. What do you suggest the Scottish Govt use instead to fund devolved areas like the Scottish NHS, Education etc with ? ( at the current time while still a part of the UK ? ).

Barnett has everything to do with collecting taxes and redistrubuting them throughout the UK. You aren't making any sense whatsoever.

cogito

Shakethedisease wrote: »

As long as Scottish taxes go to the UK Treasury, then Barrnett will continue. It's a simple enough premise and one you should grasp before you do all the mental gymnastics and tying yourself up in knots your doing in post like this one.

Scottish taxes -> UK Treasury = Barrnett.

Scottish taxes -> Holyrood = no Barrnett.

You cannot remove Scotland from the Barrnett formula without removing Scottish taxes from the UK Treasury. Removing all Scottish taxes from the UK treasury means independence. There is no middle ground on this one, just the aspects of devolution Holyrood has control over ( ie as now, or as in FFA or a Federal system ).

The SNP cannot say 'ok lets not accept Barrnett' because that would also mean not sending any Scottish taxes to the UK treasury, which in turn would mean UDI or independence. Neither of which has happened.

It's like talking to a child explaining this to be honest. If you need me to type a bit slower do let me know.

OK. do what your beloved SNP has failed to do and tell me how you propose to manage Scottish finances should independence come about. And please do it in words of one syllable.

NCC-1707

Remind me who was gullible enough to start this unnecessary thread when another existed?
If they were that stupid would you now believe anything they type?

Shakethedisease

cogito wrote: »

OK. do what your beloved SNP has failed to do and tell me how you propose to manage Scottish finances should independence come about. And please do it in words of one syllable.

Nope. The problem here is that you cannot seem to tell the difference between Scotland's taxes, finances and economics as an independent country, and Scotland while still a part of the UK.

Knowing the difference and the fact that the SNP cannot in fact 'just refuse' to take the block grant, and would help you greatly while posting on the subject in future.

Independence is an unknown. However the principle that Scotland would be free to make it's own economic and political choices in it's own interests is a sound one. Case in point the Eu ref, Scotland shouldn't have to leave since the electorate didn't vote to do so. But is being forced into leaving anyway. Plus there are many small countries round about the same size or smaller than Scotland who do ok. There is no reason to assume Scotland would be any different.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland shouldn't have to leave since the electorate didn't vote to do so. But is being forced into leaving anyway.

Er, but Scotland voted not to become independent and so lost the opportunity there and then to self-determine Brexit based on local views. The prospect of an EU referendum in the UK was hardly totally unknown when that Scottish vote took place.
Many parts of England voted remain too, but have to follow the overall UK result.
You can't be in a club only when it suits you.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nope. The problem here is that you cannot seem to tell the difference between Scotland's taxes, finances and economics as an independent country, and Scotland while still a part of the UK. ...

Well, yes, running an an independent country would be a bit more expensive. The cost of running your own central bank, and so forth, it all adds up, you know.

But GERS has details of Scotland's fiscal position. For 2015-16, and "including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue" there "was a deficit of £14.8 billion (9.5 per cent of GDP)".

Have you managed to get your brain cell to yet function and work out how this hypothetically independent Scotland is going to deal with that large deficit?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..Knowing the difference and the fact that the SNP cannot in fact 'just refuse' to take the block grant, and would help you greatly while posting on the subject in future. ...

You should take note of that advice. On the evidence of your contributions to this thread you don't know anything, or understand anything at all. You clearly don't have a clue as to how Barnett operates for one thing

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...Independence is an unknown. However the principle that Scotland would be free to make it's own economic and political choices in it's own interests is a sound one. Case in point the Eu ref, Scotland shouldn't have to leave since the electorate didn't vote to do so. But is being forced into leaving anyway. Plus there are many small countries round about the same size or smaller than Scotland who do ok. There is no reason to assume Scotland would be any different.

Yes, but what economic choices are you going to make? You simply can't get away from the fact that Scotland currently receives a multi-billion pound annual fiscal subsidy from (mainly) English taxpayers, and that your independent Scotland would have to find some other way of finding that £8 billion or so.

You must have some idea.

The ritual slaughter of a calf to appease the gods and summon a rise in the price of Brent Crude to $100 a barrel would at least be an idea.:)

cogito

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nope. The problem here is that you cannot seem to tell the difference between Scotland's taxes, finances and economics as an independent country, and Scotland while still a part of the UK.

Knowing the difference and the fact that the SNP cannot in fact 'just refuse' to take the block grant, and would help you greatly while posting on the subject in future.

Independence is an unknown. However the principle that Scotland would be free to make it's own economic and political choices in it's own interests is a sound one. Case in point the Eu ref, Scotland shouldn't have to leave since the electorate didn't vote to do so. But is being forced into leaving anyway. Plus there are many small countries round about the same size or smaller than Scotland who do ok. There is no reason to assume Scotland would be any different.

In other words, you don't know, haven't a clue and will just hope for the best. And you accuse other posters of lack of understanding or failing to make sense.

Shakethedisease

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

Er, but Scotland voted not to become independent and so lost the opportunity there and then to self-determine Brexit based on local views. The prospect of an EU referendum in the UK was hardly totally unknown when that Scottish vote took place.
Many parts of England voted remain too, but have to follow the overall UK result.
You can't be in a club only when it suits you.

That is correct ( though I don't agree with the EU ref being known etc, Labour were ahead in the polls throughout 2014 )... But some posters here are confusing a hypothetical independent Scotland's economy with a real here and now Scotland as part of the UK with devolved responsibilities.

In other words they're asking the Scottish Govt to manage the Scottish economy as if it were independent. Including posting complete waste of time stuff about how the SNP should 'refuse' to take the block grant.

The principle of independence stands. And it's an unknown. None of us here can predict the future, economic or otherwise.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Well, yes, running an an independent country would be a bit more expensive. The cost of running your own central bank, and so forth, it all adds up, you know.

But GERS has details of Scotland's fiscal position. For 2015-16, and "including an illustrative geographic share of North Sea revenue" there "was a deficit of £14.8 billion (9.5 per cent of GDP)".

Have you managed to get your brain cell to yet function and work out how this hypothetically independent Scotland is going to deal with that large deficit?



You should take note of that advice. On the evidence of your contributions to this thread you don't know anything, or understand anything at all. You clearly don't have a clue as to how Barnett operates for one thing



Yes, but what economic choices are you going to make? You simply can't get away from the fact that Scotland currently receives a multi-billion pound annual fiscal subsidy from (mainly) English taxpayers, and that your independent Scotland would have to find some other way of finding that £8 billion or so.

You must have some idea.

The ritual slaughter of a calf to appease the gods and summon a rise in the price of Brent Crude to $100 a barrel would at least be an idea.:)

Not getting into GERS again. Not when a Brexit might change everything in the coming few years.

However, what I will say is that British politics as a whole is just about finished. The Welsh, Scottish and NI administrations all want differing things and Tories/Labour divided also. In Scotland's case it's only going to take one or two political events in order to tip things over the line.

Again, no one knows the economic future of the UK. You only need to read the Brexit thread here to see how clueless everyone is on what's going to happen in the next few years. So let's not pretend you know any different either and at least I'm honest about it. You can pontificate all you like about an independent Scotland, but in the end you don't really know and it's kind of time you admitted it.