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

elantan

Two bits of news today for Scotland other than the new finances

1) Scotland can intervention on article 50
2) Some drinks firms are taking their case to mother court regarding minimum pricing

An interesting news day so far

Still trying to wade through the common weal stuff but agree with Shake they are very left wing, possibly too left wing ... but I do like them

TrickyTree83

The Tax Gap Continued

It should be noted that it needn't follow that increases in tax
revenue would necessarily be due to increases in tax rates
(especially increases in direct income tax rates) as increases in wage levels, reductions in wage inequality and other impacts of a Scottish tax and expenditure system designed for and by Scotland may take the fiscal balance at least part of the way to the levels identified here. While this would not affect Scotland’s fiscal position at the point of set-up, it provides clear evidence of how tackling inequality and raising wages can boost an independent
Scotland’s budget substantially

You're right, it is very left wing. So much so that the Dr advocates for not increasing taxation, but increasing wages, presumably by force - otherwise why would it not already have happened.

I can only assume what he's proposing with this is to increase the minimum wage. I would also assume that everyone on these forums is aware that raising the minimum wage in the UK whilst remaining outside of the lowest band of tax still doesn't deliver a higher standard of living as costs rise to offset this wage increase. The Dr proposes to increase the wages of Scots to a level at which point they are paying additional tax! So not only will living costs increase in line with enforced wage inflation, but they'll be taxed on it too!!

Classic left wing think right there. Another absolute beauty, an obsession with the equality of outcome rather than the equality of opportunity that's been shown to fail the world over (as it's basically a communist ideal).

Whilst saying nothing about the impact of this on business in Scotland. La-la land.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I certainly hope the majority of Scotland is nothing like this man ! I knew as soon as he opened his gub why he was wearing Orange.

It seems that many here missed that post or perhaps simply did not understand it, so ...........
Why don't you explain to those who may not know just what you mean by the "Orange" comment there, Shakey?
:whistle:

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Theresa May will refuse the Norway model for Scotland.. much to Scottish Labour and Lib Dems disappointment and the SNP's quiet joy, and is unlikely to be going down that route for the UK. Scottish Labour/Lib Dems are still pretending there are options available which need to be taken off the table completely. May will do so.

The Norway business is most curious..

Norway model' under consideration post Brexit
It's feasibility has been, to say the least, put in doubt.
See here
Norway expert casts doubt on Nicola Sturgeon single market plan

But it seems that Sturgeon did not really like it either :
Nicola Sturgeon 'mess' over Brexit after single market proposal attacked in Scottish Government report she introduced

Yeah Yeah - we know the plan - put up a straw man,which you know is infeasible, wait for it to be said to be infeasible and then blame Westminster or May for yet again thwarting the sovereign will of the Scottish people.

The stratagem has gone even beyond being its own parody. It's been going on for years now.

Does Sturgeon take absolutely everybody as fools?

Instead of flying these cynical kites in the hope that she can get some whinge material out of them, why can't she look at what (obviously) should be her Plan B (i.e on behalf of Scotland, not the SNP), which is getting the best out of Brexit and the Union instead of these obsessional diversions.

mollycat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

It seems that many here missed that post or perhaps simply did not understand it, so ...........
Why don't you explain to those who may not know just what you mean by the "Orange" comment there, Shakey?
:whistle:

Popcorn Time!! :rotfl:

TrickyTree83

Beyond GERS

In this section the Dr attempts to bring all of his assertions, he calls them facts no doubt, together to paint a picture of a worst case, middle case and best case scenario. So when you read this bear in mind the farcical points he's made previously when wrapping it all up together to "prove" his point.

In this particular section the Dr claims GERS shouldn't be used, and that it's done what some may call a disservice to the independence argument up until now, because he wrote this (the arrogance).

The Scottish independence debate has been ill served by the focus up till now on GERS alone as an indication and predictor of the finances of an independent Scotland.

But when he proof read this, and if he genuinely has a PhD you'd think he'd do such a thing, he failed to spot what he's done in the following two quotes...

It is therefore necessary to dispense with
the idea of using GERS as a starting point

Note the text highlighted in bold.

The Dr later suggests (not that later, about a paragraph) that when analysing all of his claims together that we should do this...

When estimating an independent Scotland's initial tax revenue, the starting point is taken to be the latest figure of
£53.748 billion estimated by GERS 2015-16 (which includes a
geographic share of oil revenue of £60 million) on to which is
added the additional tax revenue generated by the effects of the
various changes outlined in previous sections.

Hold on a moment Dr! You just said not to use GERS as a starting point when discussing the finances of an independent Scotland - yet that is exactly what you are doing!

(be careful about the last paragraph in bold, where he basically tells you these magical pro-indy figures are based on the wild assumptions, guesswork and quite frankly magical economic modelling of value added civil servants that he proposes earlier in the paper.)

TrickyTree83

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

It seems that many here missed that post or perhaps simply did not understand it, so ...........
Why don't you explain to those who may not know just what you mean by the "Orange" comment there, Shakey?
:whistle:

Being someone who doesn't understand Scottish politics - is it a reference to sectarianism?

mollycat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Being someone who doesn't understand Scottish politics - is it a reference to sectarianism?

Certainly is.

Think AMSJ might be suggesting that some posters think Scotland may only be fit for a certain type of person, and not a country where all races, religions and orientations are welcome, and their views heard.

ps correct me if I'm wrong AMSJ.

.string.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Being someone who doesn't understand Scottish politics - is it a reference to sectarianism?

The Orange Order - bogey men to the SNP

They believe in the Union. (and marching and stuff)

TrickyTree83

Well then.. took an afternoon, whilst working, to deconstruct this new paper on pro-independence finances without looking at the Whyte Paper, Kevin Hague or any other unionist blog/media/publication. I'm sure they'll have a field day with it.

As it appears the Dr is firmly of the left wing variety - which doesn't surprise me given the poisoning of academia by the left - it would appear given his lack of economic understanding that he would have you all live in a social democratic paradise that, with centrally controlled wages that would look very much like other socialist countries around the world.

Like Norway? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/norway/personal-income-tax-rate

Like Venezuela? http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/americas/100000004485562/venezuela-gripped-by-hunger-and-riots.html

Surely they're the two ends of the socialist spectrum in the current world of reality.