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

Fran_Klee

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm sure it'll all be detailed before the referendum in an updated white paper.

Where's the details for Brexit, 3.5 years after the referendum?

You don't realise that the UK has it's own currency? :doh:

Explain please how you can give details for the unknown?
When the terms of Brexit are agreed you'll see details.

Herzlos

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

In what way are the Tories subsidising the rich?

Inheritance tax reductions, stamp duty threshold increases, Help To Buy, raising income tax threshold, potentially raising higher-rate tax to £80k. They don't really do much to subsidize the poor (they've been slashing those as fast as they can). So why would they want to subsidize Scotland? We're a pain in the rear.

Fran_Klee wrote: »

You don't realise that the UK has it's own currency? :doh:

Explain please how you can give details for the unknown?
When the terms of Brexit are agreed you'll see details.

Ah, you're talking only about currency, and not any greater plan? We'd presumably have our own currency that tracks GBP for a while. Or we could go for the Euro and take advantage of seamless trade with the 500m people in the Eurozone.

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

Note the words 'because we actually provide more'.

Directly preceeded by "I suspect it's". It's a theory, not a statement of fact.

So, just to clarify, do you actually believe what everyone else doesn’t, that Scotland actually subsidises the rest of the UK?

It's the only thing that makes sense, and I can certainly see it being possible, that Scotland is providing more value to the UK than it takes out. I suspect it'd be pretty much impossible to prove because I don't have the accounting/tax expertise, access to all the documentation or time to trawl though it all.


Why else would Westminster want to keep us when we're such a nuisance?

baldelectrician

Tromking wrote: »

I hate to break it to you, but theres not much difference between servicing the needs of 66 million people and 60 million. The need to cut jobs(if indeed there is one) to reflect the smaller U.K. population will be dwarfed by the repatriation of U.K. state employees out of Scotland. We’ve already talked about the 12,000 people that rely on the Royal Navy’s presence in Scotland, but it’ll be the hundreds of jobs at places like the Student Loans Company in Glasgow that’ll hit home if Scotland does decide to alone.
You’re right to flag up that jobs will have to be created to run a newly independent Scotland, any idea yet on the set up costs for that? The last I heard the SNP were engaged in another of there fantasy economics episodes with their quoted figure for that.

May I remind you that the previous promises made to Scots.

• Bonanza of jobs, 22 frigates or so, lots of Glasgow ship building. Now 3 max and the rest up for re-bid (after being 'guaranteed')
• Voting NO would save HMRC jobs (then sacking over 2000 people in Scotland and moving jobs south)
• Carbon capture and storage- Peterhead was cancelled under George Osbourne
• Wanting Scotland to 'lead' UK not leave then showing utter disdain for Scots politicans (Labour leaders in SNP pockets, walking out en masse when SNP politicains start talking)
• Voting NO to independence would 'guarantee' Scotland stayed in EU

baldelectrician

Tromking wrote: »

You’re right to flag up that jobs will have to be created to run a newly independent Scotland, any idea yet on the set up costs for that? The last I heard the SNP were engaged in another of there fantasy economics episodes with their quoted figure for that.

The cost would be FAR outweighed by the benefit of skilled jobs in Scotland where the people employed would benefit the LOCAL area and not London and the South East.

And I dare say Scotland could do a better job than Westminster in running places like the DWP and the Foreign Office.

Moe_The_Bartender

Herzlos wrote: »

Inheritance tax reductions, stamp duty threshold increases, Help To Buy, raising income tax threshold, potentially raising higher-rate tax to £80k.

By what bizarre logic can taking less tax from people be described as a subsidy?

Malthusian

Moby wrote: »

The problem is your post is predicated on the fact/hope that people make decisions based on economics. Sometimes they do but in relation to Scottish independence, other forces are in play now, the same forces that destroyed Labour in Scotland. I think Scotland will go independent for the same reasons Ireland did in 1922. If a group of people consider themselves a nation state, they will want to govern themselves no matter what the consequences. Ireland suffered years of economic hardship in the years following independence, did you hear a clamour in Ireland to return to being part of the UK, no you didn't.

Almost every single adult in the civilised world makes a decision to trade short-term wealth for independence at around age 18-21, when they leave their parents' home. It is not a surprise that they are happy to make the same choice on a collective level. Unless you have spent your whole life living in your mum's basement.

"Mum, bring me another sandwich and a can of Monster, somebody closed a factory and I need to write another two thousand words on how this means you can only want independence if you're a racist moron."

Of course not all Remainers are living in their mum's basement. Some of them are just psychologically still living there, which is even sadder, as they are spending money on independence without valuing it, which is the worst of both worlds. Remain is a political manifestation of the old Freudian desire to return to the womb.

The options should more accurately be called "Go back" and "Stay out" rather than "Remain" and "Leave". The existence of a referendum on independence means independence has already been conceded. If the populace wanted to Remain then the referendum would never take place as it would be a complete waste of time. No State wants to lose territory so a referendum is only held due to overwhelming popular pressure. The rest is just paperwork and admin, waiting for the populace's stamp of approval.

A victory for Remain in the referendum is still possible, as the subconscious desire for independence still has to be translated into a vote for change, and in any referendum the status quo is on home ground. But a Remain victory is transitory: if there was enough desire for a first referendum then there will be even more desire for a second, as Scotland is now proving. A victory for Leave by contrast is permanent. As Moby said, there wasn't any desire to attempt to rejoin Eire to the UK.

Malthusian

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

By what bizarre logic can taking less tax from people be described as a subsidy?

Herzlos evidently subscribes to the HMRC Weltanschauung that 100% of everyone's earnings belong to the state, which then benevolently gives some of your earnings back to you. As opposed to everyone's earnings belonging to them, some of which they have to pay in tax.

This is usually justified on the basis of "well if society didn't exist people wouldn't be able to earn millions moving its money around or ensuring that its laws were followed, therefore society earns all the money and all your earnings belong to the collective". Basically, the idea is that if I run a small one-man consultancy and employ a cleaner to sweep my office on the weekends, I'm the one whose earnings depend on the cleaner, rather than vice versa. After all no clients would visit me if I had a dirty office.

mollycat

Malthusian wrote: »

A victory for Remain in the referendum is still possible, as the subconscious desire for independence still has to be translated into a vote for change, and in any referendum the status quo is on home ground. But a Remain victory is transitory: if there was enough desire for a first referendum then there will be even more desire for a second, as Scotland is now proving. A victory for Leave by contrast is permanent. As Moby said, there wasn't any desire to attempt to rejoin Eire to the UK.

The bit I've bolded leads me to believe you don't live in Scotland; apologies if I've got that wrong

There is no great desire for a 2nd referendum here, only a huge sense of relief at a bullet dodged in 2014.

There is a noisy minority forever being portrayed on the UK news media, saying otherwise but the over exposure of Sturgeon/Blackford etc is down to the BBC et al's misplaced concern that if they do not pander to the idea of independence they are somehow disrespecting the scottish people.

The analogy of the 18-21 year old sounds like it should fit, but it doesn't

The 18-21 year old who leaves home presumably has the means/skills/motivation to earn enough money to make his/her way in life, enjoying the product of his/her labours.

Any iScotland, has no means of earning the type of income required to care for it's people.....the balance between net contributors and net beneficiaries puts paid to that.

Eire?? The last thing people in any iScotland could stomach is a 2 tier health system where many people pay for treatments.

I'm not sure about your view that any Scot who wishes to remain in the union is somehow psychologically repressing their "desire" for independence; 55%-60% of us that enjoy the benefit of living in the same country as yourself and others throughout the UK will hopefully find this amusing rather than insulting

Herzlos

It depends on your bubble I guess. The pro IndyCar protests drown out the anti, by orders of magnitude. I know a few people who've switched No to Yes, but none the reverse.

If you're so sure noone wants it, then another referendum will completely kill it. Why are SNP dominating the political posts of theres no support for it though?

Malthusian wrote: »

Herzlos evidently subscribes to the HMRC Weltanschauung that 100% of everyone's earnings belong to the state, which then benevolently gives some of your earnings back to you. As opposed to everyone's earnings belonging to them, some of which they have to pay in tax.

Not at all, but if you spent more time attacking the arguments instead of me you'd potentially notice that.


I subscribe to the ideal that everyones earnings belong to them but some contributions are required for running of a community. I'd also argue that in real terms no-one really cares if they were given £10 more or had £10 less taken off them for their contributions, and that the Tories only really seem to do things to benefit the rich whilst doing all it can to decimate support for the poor. Maybe it's not technically a subsidy, so I'll withdraw that idea.



Why do you think the Tories are so keen to keep Scotland under the thumb?

Tromking

The NHS is a UK construct and I don't see it lasting too long 'as is' in an iScotland. The massive pressure to balance the books in the first decade or so will inevitably see the creation of a right wing, low tax, small government Tory style political party in Scotland, and I can see a lot Scots looking at the Eire model and thinking it would suit a small country like Scotland better.
The myth that Scotland is uniquely in a UK context more progressive in its politics than the rUK will be tested big time come the time when Scotland's 'free stuff' will no longer be subsidised by the rUK.