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

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

The Barnett formula dictates that the level of funds available for public spending in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is distributed in proportion to the population of each nation. It's not applying Barnett to historic allocations that gives Scotland the advantage.

You really have absolutely no idea of what you are on about.:)

Scotland votes Yes, and instantly Barnett stops ? I think perhaps you're on to a bit of a loser there. I wasn't talking about the mechanism's. I was talking about time and mutual negotiations which would come into play after a Yes vote.

Maybe go back and read again. You're another one who seems to think that HMRC can just reorganise itself overnight in terms of business and individual taxation going into and from the UK Treasury as well as legislate for it. Hopefully it won't take long, but I can assure you that it won't be overnight. Barnett will continue meantime. Again, you'll be wanting Trident back and to get rid of those terribly inefficient ( currently ) oil fields asap I assume ?

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Doesn't Barnett relate to the change in funding year-by-year?

AIUI, the Barnett formula should mean that spending in Scotland per head approaches the level of that in England but as the population of Scotland is growing more slowly than that of her southern neighbours Barnett means that these relative cuts in spending haven't been applied.

This causes a problem with devolution as devolved taxes will tend to grow with GDP, which is partly a function of population, rather than with the formula set out by Mr Barnett. As Scottish GDP isn't growing as fast as England's because its population growth is lower, and more recently because of the price of oil falling, when the UK devolves £100 of taxation and spending to Scotland after a few years it is likely that without devolution something like £150-equivalent of spending and £145-equivalent of taxation will be devolved. The more devolution the greater the problem and of course under maximum devolution, Scotland leaving the Union, the subsidy disappears entirely.

This leads to an interesting end point. Will Scots reject devolution of taxes and spending as it results in lower public spending in Scotland (unless they get busy in the bedroom) or will they get fed up with spending falling and go for the throwing the baby out with the bathwater option of going it alone and losing the London Subsidy altogether?

I don't know how many times it really needs said. But the whole point of the SNP and independence is to get rid of the London subsidy. Everyone that voted Yes 18 months ago did so knowing that would be the case.

Barnett formula arguments are only relevant for a Scotland within the Union, not outwith it and the mechanisms involved have very little to do with independence. If it's cut anytime from here on in though, support for independence will rise in direct proportion. Imo the Tories are playing a bit of scorched earth game at the moment. I don't think they really care either way if Scotland leaves or not apart from the Trident issue. But they do know it's very likely in the near future. I read today that Cameron told Clegg after the referendum that Scotland is Labour's problem now, and to let them deal with it. This pretty much sums it all up for me.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't know how many times it really needs said. But the whole point of the SNP and independence is to get rid of the London subsidy. Everyone that voted Yes 18 months ago did so knowing that would be the case.

Barnett formula arguments are only relevant for a Scotland within the Union, not outwith it and the mechanisms involved have very little to do with independence. If it's cut anytime from here on in though, support for independence will rise in direct proportion. Imo the Tories are playing a bit of scorched earth game at the moment. I don't think they really care either way if Scotland leaves or not apart from the Trident issue. But they do know it's very likely in the near future. I read today that Cameron told Clegg after the referendum that Scotland is Labour's problem now, and to let them deal with it. This pretty much sums it all up for me.

Isn't there a bit of a logic gap in there. If the London subsidy (which I thought you didn't believe in but no matter) is cut then Scots will want it removed altogether.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Isn't there a bit of a logic gap in there. If the London subsidy (which I thought you didn't believe in but no matter) is cut then Scots will want it removed altogether.

You're thinking of the wrong set of voters when you think of people like me that voted Yes. It's previous soft No voters that will swing towards independence if Barnett is cut. That, I should have thought would be pretty logical even to you.

Looks like this SNP Summer push re soft No voters is definitely going ahead anyway.

STEWART Hosie will head a summer initiative targetting No voters across the country in a major drive to put the case for Scottish independence to the electorate...

...Further details are due to be announced after the Holyrood election on May 5 and before the EU referendum on June 23, but it is understood work will be carried out to assess the merits and shortcomings of the 2014 independence campaign as well as come up with cogent responses to questions on issues such as what currency an independent Scotland would use, its membership of the European Union and its economy.The initiative has been intensely discussed at the weekly group meetings of the SNP’s parliamentary group at Westminster and MPs have been putting pressure on the leadership to launch it just after the Holyrood elections and before the EU referendum.

The First Minister made clear the question facing her was not about if she would hold a second independence referendum, but when.
She conceded there were some voters who would never be convinced by the arguments for a Yes vote, telling the 1,400-strong audience she and her party must respect their views, but she underlined there were very many others who reluctantly voted No on September 18 2014.
It is this latter group whom the summer initiative will target.

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/the-national-view-doubters-can-be-won-over-with-cogent-arguments.16729

elantan

Does London subsidise the whole of the UK I wonder ?

Why was WM so desperate to keep Scotland ? If we are too poor to wee and too stupid and rely on the wonderful people of London to survive why would WM want us ... hmmmmm

cells

elantan wrote: »

Does London subsidise the whole of the UK I wonder ?

Why was WM so desperate to keep Scotland ? If we are too poor to wee and too stupid and rely on the wonderful people of London to survive why would WM want us ... hmmmmm

Same reason lots of people don't kick out their stroppy know it all kidaults. We the Scottish.

Also reason #2 is that an independent Scotland could rob the English purse via tax arbitrage. That wouldn't be nice

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland votes Yes, and instantly Barnett stops ? I think perhaps you're on to a bit of a loser there. I wasn't talking about the mechanism's. I was talking about time and mutual negotiations which would come into play after a Yes vote.
...

Scotland becomes independent and you stop getting that £7 billion subsidy, no matter what mechanism you deploy. The mutual negotiations which would come into play after a Yes vote would be based on that little fact. I think perhaps you're on to a total loser if you think that an independent Scotland is going to be a recipient of UK foreign aid.

You are funny.:):)

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're thinking of the wrong set of voters when you think of people like me that voted Yes. It's previous soft No voters that will swing towards independence if Barnett is cut. That, I should have thought would be pretty logical even to you....

In the fullness of time, Barnett will do the cutting for us.

And perhaps, in the fullness of time, you might develop just the slightest inkling of what you are on about.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

....Maybe go back and read again. You're another one who seems to think that HMRC can just reorganise itself overnight in terms of business and individual taxation going into and from the UK Treasury as well as legislate for it. ...

Don't you understand anything?

HMRC will have no need to reorganise itself. Beyond perhaps, putting into effect the existing plans for the relocation of that Cumbernauld operation somewhere warmer. The business of collecting tax from UK resident individuals and corporations will continue as before.

It's Scotland that will have the problem of organising and legislating for the new SRC. You will need one. Nation states do need to fund themselves.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..Hopefully it won't take long, but I can assure you that it won't be overnight. Barnett will continue meantime. Again, you'll be wanting Trident back and to get rid of those terribly inefficient ( currently ) oil fields asap I assume ?

Nah, we want to get rid of all those wind turbines.

elantan

cells wrote: »

Same reason lots of people don't kick out their stroppy know it all kidaults. We the Scottish.

Also reason #2 is that an independent Scotland could rob the English purse via tax arbitrage. That wouldn't be nice

Ah ok then, hope you don't mind but I will add that reply next to the belief in Santa clause and the tooth fairy