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

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Wish the media commentary would make up their minds. The SNP seem to be doing the impossible here. :rotfl:



You're onto a loser here Hamish with this one. The media is ALL over the place trying to come up with a believable attack line. They've all failed.

Well the SNP are proposing that the 40% rate kicks in somewhere between 15% and 25% below where it does now versus wages so a lot more people will be paying 40% tax.

Now we already established that the SNP voter is far more likely to be poor and stupid than the average Scot so presumably the SNP is hoping that either their voters are too stupid to realise what's going on or too poor to have to pay the extra tax.

Effectively the SNP is saying that the 40p tax rate should kick in at something like £35,000 a year rather than £42,000 a year but that the increase in tax should be phased in real terms and disguised by inflation. People drawn into the top rate by this will feel poorer (because they are) but won't see a drop in the £ figure on their tax bill.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh string. Asking Adam Tomkins for legal advice on Scottish independence would be like me presenting you with documents written by Stewart Hosie or John Swinney as 'proof'.

You'll pardon me if I politely decline to be entertained by anything much Adam Tomkins has to say as unbiased.

The thing is, Shakey, that you offer nothing in terms of researched and reasoned arguments by legal experts, just tittle-tattle, political gossip and innuendo.

The SNP's "New Oil" would come to nothing in any negotiation and I suspect they know that full well but are prepared to put yet another rainbow-coloured lie out there to try and fool the Scottish people. Plus, of course a fig-leaf of an excuse for reneging on Scotland's debts

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

Effectively the SNP is saying that the 40p tax rate should kick in at something like £35,000 a year rather than £42,000 a year but that the increase in tax should be phased in real terms and disguised by inflation. People drawn into the top rate by this will feel poorer (because they are) but won't see a drop in the £ figure on their tax bill.

That's a Gordon Brown style policy. A stealth tax by erosion. Seems clever until reality kicks in with the electorate.

Shakethedisease

HornetSaver wrote: »

Perhaps so. But the SNP have set themselves up as such an anti-Tory party that the media observing similarities between Conservative and SNP policies will do damage to the latter party if it becomes a regular theme.

The Westminster MPs - as much as they'd rather they weren't there in the first place - are acutely aware of this, and thus are voting in ways they wouldn't ordinarily vote purely to distance themselves from the Tories at every opportunity. Given that the SNP have no interest in forming a future British government that's understandable - they don't need to be consistent or have a long term plan (and I don't criticize them for that).

By contrast in Holyrood the SNP's goal is to pave the way for the first independent Scottish government.Therefore they have to pursue policies which get them closer to that objective even if that means sometimes doing exactly the same thing as the Tories.

It's an interesting conundrum for them. But one of the big problems the SNP has always had is damned if they do, damned if they don't in media terms. All the more obvious given the current media coverage of their tax plans. They cannot make up their minds if it's a cut or a rise. So are laughably attacking it as both.

And let's bear in mind there is an election only a few weeks away.

Has been far more entertaining watching the other Scottish parties this time round. Every single one of them is starting to behave as though Westminster doesn't exist anymore ( which to a large extent is true given the lack of MP's they have ). Corbyn didn't even attend the Scottish Labour conference last weekend. John McDonnell was actually in Glasgow on the day and didn't attend. Changed days indeed.

However, while it may suit them currently to 'forget' that Scotland is still part of the UK, and that Scottish Labour/Lib Dems and Conservatives are actually smaller branches of much larger UK wide parties. The voters certainly won't have forgotten. Even if they have, they'll soon be reminded of the fact when it comes to things like votes, for example, on Trident. Scottish Labour can claim to be against it all they like. But unless Corbyn gets his MP's behind him, it's the UK Labour party voting on it which will count on on the day. Ruth Davidson ( Conservative ) was all over the place last night trying to claim she 'spoke out' against Osborne's disability cuts. But in the end it doesn't really matter what she says.

The above is a HUGE problem for the other Scottish parties going forward. Unlike the SNP, they'll always be overruled at at UK level on reserved matters. There's still an awful lot of things reserved. Only Corbyn unifying/taking the Labour party truly leftwards and looking electable will help Scottish Labour. It won't be in time for 5th May though.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Well the SNP are proposing that the 40% rate kicks in somewhere between 15% and 25% below where it does now versus wages so a lot more people will be paying 40% tax.

Now we already established that the SNP voter is far more likely to be poor and stupid than the average Scot so presumably the SNP is hoping that either their voters are too stupid to realise what's going on or too poor to have to pay the extra tax.

Effectively the SNP is saying that the 40p tax rate should kick in at something like £35,000 a year rather than £42,000 a year but that the increase in tax should be phased in real terms and disguised by inflation. People drawn into the top rate by this will feel poorer (because they are) but won't see a drop in the £ figure on their tax bill.

You have to balance that as a Scottish voter in context with the Scottish Lib Dems, and Labour wanting to put a penny on tax across the board now, and then as well as the Greens, introduce a 50p rate from 2017.

I doubt the SNP are too worried about looking like they're the ones gagging to make better off people feel poorer. Scottish Labour and Lib Dems want to make everyone feel poorer. More than likely losing revenue in the process as all those on the 50p rate simply move their tax base south.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's an interesting conundrum for them. But one of the big problems the SNP has always had is damned if they do, damned if they don't in media terms. All the more obvious given the current media coverage of their tax plans. They cannot make up their minds if it's a cut or a rise. So are laughably attacking it as both.

That's the inherent danger when you endlessly criticise Government policy etc. Yet in reality have no real alternatives. Your words come back to haunt you.

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You have to balance that as a Scottish voter in context with the Scottish Lib Dems, and Labour wanting to put a penny on tax across the board now, and then as well as the Greens, introduce a 50p rate from 2017.

I doubt the SNP are too worried about looking like they're the ones gagging to make better off people feel poorer. Scottish Labour and Lib Dems want to make everyone feel poorer. More than likely losing revenue in the process as all those on the 50p rate simply move their tax base south.

There's no need for the SNP to introduce a 50% tax or really ramp up any other taxes for that matter because Scotland is part of the Union and her public spending is therefore not directly related to the amount of tax raised in Scotland. If I was the SNP there is no way I would risk my popularity by slapping a 50% tax on higher earners just for the sake of it - it would not raise a great deal of additional money to be spent in Scotland and just isn't worth it.

Of course if you had all voted for independence then you would probably be staring down the barrel of 30% basic rate (not including NI) and 50% tax above about £50k (sorry, €60k) given the current economic situation in Scotland so thank god you didn't, eh?

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's the inherent danger when you endlessly criticise Government policy etc. Yet in reality have no real alternatives. Your words come back to haunt you.

I said it was a conundrum for them. Not a problem. Is a bigger problem for the other parties. When you've got Maria Eagle saying one thing, and Kezia Dugdale saying another. Never mind words coming back to haunt you.. they're saying completely different things at exactly the same time.

Criticising Tories is run of the mill for Scottish politics, has been going on for decades. Labour only ran into trouble when they stopped and started acting more like them.

Shakethedisease

chewmylegoff wrote: »

There's no need for the SNP to introduce a 50% tax or really ramp up any other taxes for that matter because Scotland is part of the Union and her public spending is therefore not directly related to the amount of tax raised in Scotland. If I was the SNP there is no way I would risk my popularity by slapping a 50% tax on higher earners just for the sake of it - it would not raise a great deal of additional money to be spent in Scotland and just isn't worth it.

They've as much as said they won't implement it while part of the UK. Too easy to relocate and there's only a relatively small number of earners that it would affect.

But try telling that to Scottish Labour and Lib Dems ? Who seem to forget that we can also read Welsh newspapers and can see what the Labour party there is saying.

Of course if you had all voted for independence then you would probably be staring down the barrel of 30% basic rate (not including NI) and 50% tax above about £50k (sorry, €60k) given the current economic situation in Scotland so thank god you didn't, eh?

I disagree. Self governance is never the wrong answer. Ask Clapton about it.

chewmylegoff

So would you prefer full independence with basic rate tax increased to 30% and the current 40% band increased to 50%, but public services receiving the same or even less funding than currently? Would that be a worthwhile price to pay? (Please answer this question rather than saying that it wouldn't happen for whatever reason, we can call it a hypothetical question if that makes it easier).