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

TrickyTree83

Just read the article

"Treasury attitude highlights another flaw in the fiscal settlement"

To get a feel for it.

He seems to suggest that because Scotland can't/wouldn't be able to grow as quickly as the rUK that the reduced funding isn't the correct and moral thing to do in terms of the UK as a whole - why? If England, Wales and N.Ireland are paying in more than Scotland, why should Scotland's pot of money increase? These are the realities of tax raising powers. You can't have it both ways.

He also suggests that John Swinney wanting to implement a 'progressive' taxation system, that taxing the rich to pay for the poor would be a good thing, yet fails to understand that the very people you will be burdening with increased tax are the people most able and likely to move, even if it wasn't to another area of the UK.

So in fact what the Treasury have said is indeed correct. That if you become a tax haven, you'll take more in tax because richer people will move to Scotland. i.e. 10% of 1000 is more than 50% of 100.

One paper. It's not looking good.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Just read the article

"Treasury attitude highlights another flaw in the fiscal settlement"

To get a feel for it.

He seems to suggest that because Scotland can't/wouldn't be able to grow as quickly as the rUK that the reduced funding isn't the correct and moral thing to do in terms of the UK as a whole - why? If England, Wales and N.Ireland are paying in more than Scotland, why should Scotland's pot of money increase? These are the realities of tax raising powers. You can't have it both ways.

He also suggests that John Swinney wanting to implement a 'progressive' taxation system, that taxing the rich to pay for the poor would be a good thing, yet fails to understand that the very people you will be burdening with increased tax are the people most able and likely to move, even if it wasn't to another area of the UK.

So in fact what the Treasury have said is indeed correct. That if you become a tax haven, you'll take more in tax because richer people will move to Scotland. i.e. 10% of 1000 is more than 50% of 100.

One paper. It's not looking good.

Scotland doesn't have a wide base of higher rate taxpayers, and in actual fact increasing taxes is exactly what the SNP aren't going to do while part of the union. Swinney understood exactly what you're saying in that it would be too easy for higher rate taxpayers just to 'move' their financial affairs elsewhere within the UK. Extremely easy in fact.

Scottish Labour who do want to raise taxes crashed and burned on the basis of this point. There was a danger nothing significant would be raised at all, and in fact Scotland could lose out over the policy.

But this is within the UK. It's much more difficult to upsticks and move personal affairs within/from and to independent nations. Don't confuse the two. Cuthbert is talking about Smith commission fiscal outcomes. Not independence ones in the above paper. The SNP seem to have come to the same conclusions.

Scotland needs much more immigration among other things in order to widen it's tax bases. While within the UK however, tax raises wouldn't make much difference for the reasons outlined in the paper. The tax raising powers Scotland is getting are over income taxes, little use on it's own in reality given the low numbers of higher rate taxpayers in Scotland, but politically toxic if used. Glad the SNP didn't fall into that particular trap.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland doesn't have a wide base of higher rate taxpayers, and in actual fact increasing taxes is exactly what the SNP aren't going to do while part of the union. Swinney understood exactly what you're saying in that it would be too easy for higher rate taxpayers just to 'move' their financial affairs elsewhere within the UK. Extremely easy in fact.

Scottish Labour who do want to raise taxes crashed and burned on the basis of this point. There was a danger nothing significant would be raised at all, and in fact Scotland could lose out over the policy.

But this is within the UK. It's much more difficult to upsticks and move personal affairs within/from and to independent nations. Don't confuse the two. Cuthbert is talking about Smith commission fiscal outcomes. Not independence ones in the above paper. The SNP seem to have come to the same conclusions.

Scotland needs much more immigration among other things in order to widen it's tax bases. While within the UK however, tax raises wouldn't make much difference for the reasons outlined in the paper. The tax raising powers Scotland is getting are over income taxes, little use on it's own in reality given the low numbers of higher rate taxpayers in Scotland, but politically toxic if used. Glad the SNP didn't fall into that particular trap.

For these people to not move from an independent Scotland they would have to have no claim to citizenship in the rUK and the rUK no incentive (haha!) to want them to move to the rUK. Do you see the conundrum? It doesn't matter if you're independent or not.

I would wager that quite a few people in Scotland who see this progressive regime wanting to impose these taxation systems would have legitimate claim to move to rUK if Scotland became independent. Not only would they have the claim but they are the most able to do so. Some may not be Scottish, some may have non-Scottish heritage, rUK could grant some form of amnesty to allow Scots who don't wish to live in a socialist paradise (or at least pay for the privilege of others to do so).

On the one hand you're saying that the borders won't close and trade will continue, but then in this situation that it will be difficult for people to move to rUK. I would propose to you that the opposite is very possible (dependent of course on rUK > EU trade deals) in an iScotland scenario. Where hard borders are a real possibility and that migration of assets/wealth/skills/people/business out of Scotland is also a real possibility. And this emigration may not be to the rUK, why pay so much tax in iScotland in the EU? Why not move to a warm country with lower taxation?

The agenda of socialism without addressing the gaping economics of running a socialist democracy without endless borrowing - which will eventually lead to the end of such a system - basically means you will either be, or end up like Greece.

I guess what I'm trying to say (I need to stop the waffle and get to the point more) is that rich people won't stay in Scotland just because it's Scotland or because it's an independent Scotland if you're going to take more and more of their money to re-distribute amongst the rest of the populace. If I were one of the people the SNP are going to propose they tax more I would explore all my options to move to give myself more favourable conditions. In the same way many skilled people move to Australia, they have the skills to get in and the weather is great (in places).

.string.

One of the aims that the new Devolution package has is to enable the devolved areas to "do things their way" within the United Kingdom. The SNP approach outlined ignores that freedom for the central issue of Taxation for party political reasons. Deeply held principles mean nothing, merelyolitics of convenience discarded on the altar of Separation. Radical changes which they profess to favour and which they say will help Scotland are not being implemented; always the excuse is the need for more so-called levers, ever more levers; it's all blow and no action.

On this forum there was a nice lady, called Mumof2, if I recall the name exactly who, with her family, moved their business to England because the climate in Scotland was becoming unattractive to her as a result of things done and said during the Scottish Referendum.. I mention this because all the blather in the world will not stop an exodus of people who would otherwise contribute in Scotland elsewhere to seek fulfillment.

I don't know if Mumof2 is still around but if she is it would be good to know how she is getting on; well I hope.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

For these people to not move from an independent Scotland they would have to have no claim to citizenship in the rUK and the rUK no incentive (haha!) to want them to move to the rUK. Do you see the conundrum? It doesn't matter if you're independent or not.

I would wager that quite a few people in Scotland who see this progressive regime wanting to impose these taxation systems would have legitimate claim to move to rUK if Scotland became independent. Not only would they have the claim but they are the most able to do so. Some may not be Scottish, some may have non-Scottish heritage, rUK could grant some form of amnesty to allow Scots who don't wish to live in a socialist paradise (or at least pay for the privilege of others to do so).

Again concerning Scotland you're talking only of people and personal income taxes. An independent Scotland would have control over all taxation currently under Westminster's remit. Corporation, VAT and any old tax they'd like to introduce, get shot of, raise or lower.

Control over income tax - within the UK
Control over ALL taxation - independence.

Vast differences between the two. Anyone who resides in Scotland for a period of time ( and satisfying the criteria ) would be eligible for a Scottish passport should they wish. During the last referendum Westminster announced that anyone with a British passport would still be entitled to keep theirs with only those born/taking citizenship after official independence or wishing to change to a Scottish one could do so. Where that's going to go after a Brexit vote who knows really, but I suspect it will be FAR more difficult to gain an English and Welsh passport in future than a Scottish one should independence occur. We really need the immigrants you see.

Just upping sticks to England and Wales might be a lot more difficult in the future. What with no freedom of movement and governments hell bent on reducing immigration to the least they can get away with. Simple logic there. England and Wales no longer want people moving there from other countries with little scrutiny or if not needed for the workforce.

On the one hand you're saying that the borders won't close and trade will continue, but then in this situation that it will be difficult for people to move to rUK. I would propose to you that the opposite is very possible (dependent of course on rUK > EU trade deals) in an iScotland scenario. Where hard borders are a real possibility and that migration of assets/wealth/skills/people/business out of Scotland is also a real possibility. And this emigration may not be to the rUK, why pay so much tax in iScotland in the EU? Why not move to a warm country with lower taxation?

The agenda of socialism without addressing the gaping economics of running a socialist democracy without endless borrowing - which will eventually lead to the end of such a system - basically means you will either be, or end up like Greece.

I guess what I'm trying to say (I need to stop the waffle and get to the point more) is that rich people won't stay in Scotland just because it's Scotland or because it's an independent Scotland if you're going to take more and more of their money to re-distribute amongst the rest of the populace. If I were one of the people the SNP are going to propose they tax more I would explore all my options to move to give myself more favourable conditions. In the same way many skilled people move to Australia, they have the skills to get in and the weather is great (in places).

Rich people won't be able to move to England and Wales easily after Brexit and if Scottish independence occurs beforehand. There will be all sorts of barriers put in place for everyone from other countries. Probably like you say like Australia, but possibly a bit more strict with quotas etc. Certainly not everyone who wants to, even if rich is going to be able to just go. The comfortably off and middle classes will stay where they are.

But nothing has happened as yet.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

One of the aims that the new Devolution package has is to enable the devolved areas to "do things their way" within the United Kingdom. The SNP approach outlined ignores that freedom for the central issue of Taxation for party political reasons. Deeply held principles mean nothing, merelyolitics of convenience discarded on the altar of Separation. Radical changes which they profess to favour and which they say will help Scotland are not being implemented; always the excuse is the need for more so-called levers, ever more levers; it's all blow and no action.

Sometimes it's just better to face reality. The English left are starting to do just that in terms of commentary, realistic future prospects for their own parties (English Labour, Clive Lewis, deals with SNP ) and a long hard look at the last few years. The English right and Scottish Labour probably never will. Well until Dugdale goes at least.

Fly the flag for Team GB. It may well be the last hurrah for ‘Britain’

The answer is pretty simple. Scotland is now on a fast track to a second independence referendum, and secession is a racing certainty – and in any case, that country is a separate political entity already, bar all but the formalities..

..By 2020 Scotland will probably be gone, and England and Wales will be tied into even more impossible knots. Fly the flag and then fold it away: rarely has the very British notion of the last hurrah been more appropriate.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/03/fly-flag-team-gb-last-hurrah-britain-rio-olympics..

Full article too long to post.

islandannie

"Like I say, I don't want drawn in again personally on GERS. It'll all kick off again in the next month no doubt anyway"

Of course you don`t.Because it`s the one set of figures that destroy the ridiculous arguments of the economically illiterate non contributors to society.

TrickyTree83

I'm on my mobile at the moment so i can't easily type an essay in response. There's a distinct lack of critical thinking in your latest post replying to me Shakey.

You've also focused in particular on the rUK and yet it would be easy peasy for the rich to go anywhere in the EU in iScotland. So no matter the destination the same rules apply. Government takes well-to-do persons money for ideological reasons, person dislikes this, resents the government and decides to move. Available options are - anywhere better than high tax, bad weather, and a reality that's only progressive for those at the bottom of the earnings ladder. That's not fertile ground for the upper or middle class. So if you don't want to destroy the skills base, the tax base, the consumer base (because rich people buy stuff too), you're going to have to choose. Between this socialist approach that is held up as a virtue of the SNP, or a reality of lower public spending to maintain at least a modicum of control on public finances. One outcome of the socialist agenda forces people away, the other attracts people in. And if you're in the EU, you're not going to be expanding any tax base with a socialist welfare state, you'll be expanding claimants, paid for by burdening the rich. No matter whether you're in the UK, EU, or just plain vanilla Scotland. Unless of course they're only advocating Scottish benefits for Scottish people? Is that then nationalist socialism?

Extrapolate the consequences of just one aspect of what you're aspiring for. It's worrying, it worries me as much as listening to people try to explain flat earth theory.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I'm on my mobile at the moment so i can't easily type an essay in response. There's a distinct lack of critical thinking in your latest post replying to me Shakey.

You've also focused in particular on the rUK and yet it would be easy peasy for the rich to go anywhere in the EU in iScotland. So no matter the destination the same rules apply. Government takes well-to-do persons money for ideological reasons, person dislikes this, resents the government and decides to move. Available options are - anywhere better than high tax, bad weather, and a reality that's only progressive for those at the bottom of the earnings ladder. That's not fertile ground for the upper or middle class. So if you don't want to destroy the skills base, the tax base, the consumer base (because rich people buy stuff too), you're going to have to choose. Between this socialist approach that is held up as a virtue of the SNP, or a reality of lower public spending to maintain at least a modicum of control on public finances. One outcome of the socialist agenda forces people away, the other attracts people in. And if you're in the EU, you're not going to be expanding any tax base with a socialist welfare state, you'll be expanding claimants, paid for by burdening the rich. No matter whether you're in the UK, EU, or just plain vanilla Scotland. Unless of course they're only advocating Scottish benefits for Scottish people? Is that then nationalist socialism?

Extrapolate the consequences of just one aspect of what you're aspiring for. It's worrying, it worries me as much as listening to people try to explain flat earth theory.

Your lack of knowledge of Scottish politics is very telling here. ALL parties except the SNP and the Conservatives want to raise income tax now. Right now. Scottish media was in an absolute frenzy of outrage when the SNP announced they would be keeping income tax rates as they are once again the SNP are 'Tartan Tories' etc etc. Kezia Dugdale got some real attention and many breathless plaudits when she announced Scottish Labour plans to raise it this year.

Voters ... hmmm.. not so much, they came third behind the Tories. So lumping the SNP in as socialists is somewhat misleading given the flack they've been taking over recent months in terms of keeping income tax at it's present levels rather than raising it. The SNP is a very broad church in outlook.

What will happen after independence regarding taxation is anyone's guess. There's a view that the SNP will then split into differing left/right wings and it's one I tend to agree with once the common bond of gaining independence is no longer there. There are no flat earth theories here. Only when all taxation is under Holyrood will the real picture become clear. Income tax on it's own as it is currently is a poisoned chalice and the SNP know it fine and well.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Your lack of knowledge of Scottish politics is very telling here. ALL parties except the SNP and the Conservatives want to raise income tax now. Right now. Scottish media was in an absolute frenzy of outrage when the SNP announced they would be keeping income tax rates as they are once again the SNP are 'Tartan Tories' etc etc. Kezia Dugdale got some real attention and many breathless plaudits when she announced Scottish Labour plans to raise it this year.

Voters ... hmmm.. not so much, they came third behind the Tories. So lumping the SNP in as socialists is somewhat misleading given the flack they've been taking over recent months in terms of keeping income tax at it's present levels rather than raising it. The SNP is a very broad church in outlook.

What will happen after independence regarding taxation is anyone's guess. There's a view that the SNP will then split into differing left/right wings and it's one I tend to agree with once the common bond of gaining independence is no longer there. There are no flat earth theories here. Only when all taxation is under Holyrood will the real picture become clear. Income tax on it's own as it is currently is a poisoned chalice and the SNP know it fine and well.

I wasn't talking about the political landscape in Scotland really, just that any idea of increasing taxation on the rich to subsidise the poor will undoubtedly end badly.

The very definition of a social-democratic party, which is what the SNP claims to be, includes the redistribution of wealth through taxation as a pillar of their beliefs. Whichever way you look at doing that, whether it's a direct or indirect tax, it has to be a tax on wealth or there's simply no point in it as it wouldn't get paid.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Party)

They may not be talking about doing it now because it would be detrimental to their raison d'etre, a poisoned chalice. Anyway, back to iScotland.

So if you're going to end up as a social-democracy (see above), someone has to pay for the socialist top-down, central planning re-distribution of wealth, right? Which would relate to my previous posts about it being counter-productive to 'hunt the rich'.

Edit:

Having just looked at this.

SNP income tax policy:

http://www.snp.org/pb_what_are_the_snp_plans_for_income_tax_in_scotland

It does appear to be an attempt to veil/spin tax increases for the rich whilst less taxation for the poor in order to fund government. Which is what I've been saying.

If you end up with a right wing government in an iScotland scenario, what other arguments are there for an independent Scotland if really you're all right wing closet Tories and it'll be the same (probably poorer) than what you've got now in 'years of Tory government'? (who really are kept in check in the UK by swing voters to at least maintain a centre-right position).

I don't buy that independence is the solution to all your ills.

It doesn't appear to work economically, although that's disputed but not particularly well. And if what you're saying in your previous post is correct, Scottish politics is in such dire trouble because of this belief that you'll be better off outside the Union that there's a chance you'll end up exactly where you are right now (right wing government) and being poorer for it. So it may not benefit you politically either.

The only politically material change would appear to be that the Scottish government would be the focus of all this angst instead of Westminster.