The Dirty Independence Question

[Stash]

47 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Sorry, forgot to mention the 34 year thing. I'm afraid it's true. 

Meant to update on the current unemployment figures and how we are out performing ruk.

Things are not as bad up here as some would have you believe ;-

The reason I call Wings on that, as you well know, is that it is factual horse-manure. It's written in such a way as to make non-thinkers assume that Scotland is in fact propping up the whole UK and is therefore terribly hard done by by those nasty westminster types. 

 

Scotland, as a region of the UK has had better/higher tax receipts than some other regions of the UK. But it by no means outperforms the UK, just the average of all the other regions. However, and here comes the small print,  the analysis of those years mentioned (and you luckily choose oil years in your comparison, i wonder why?) shows that it is only the wider South East (Greater London, the South East and the Eastern Region) that made a positive net contribution to the UK public finances in most of those years, with the Northern regions, the Midlands and the South West joining Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as a net drain on the Exchequer. 

There has been a persistent pattern, throughout the years in your selective sample, of the Southern regions providing fiscal support to the rest of the UK, which is not surprising given the relative strengths of the different regional economies and the broadly redistributive nature of government policies towards taxation and spending. 

However, that doesn't really fit in with your hard done by narrative does it?

 

Aother question that you can duck, just like the last. Why, when you want to disparage the relationship of Scotland and the rUK do you only focus on England, but when you want to show Scotland in a favourable light do you include only comparisons with UK-wide averages?

 

Lastly, no I would not remove Holyrood.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Stash
Punctuation

[Stash]

22 minutes ago, LJS said:

What is this really small vocal minority? We are discussing the Scotland Act which delivers (or attempts to deliver) the stuff promised in the vow. Poll after poll shows the majority of Scots in favour of additional powers being devolved.

That can't be true. Comfy has already clarified that only a small minority of wavering no voters were tempted by the vow

22 minutes ago, LJS said:

If you are talking about Independence, then to describe those in favour as a "really small... minority" is frankly bizarre

 

As a percentage of the population of the country, then yes, its pretty small.

 

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

Comfy doesn't read Wings. 

Pull the other one...

[Comfy Bean]

Sorry stash, why are you calling wings on that....as you put it. Are you saying it's not true. On my phone so can't link. Did you read my post? 

What are you on about with my selective sample.

I answered your previous questions. Mostly in red text.

What selective southern regions are you saying I'm selecting? 

[Comfy Bean]

The majority of Scots in favour of additional powers being devolved is very different from Scots who voted no because of the vow.

Stash these are not the same group of people we are talking about mate.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, Stash said:

That can't be true. Comfy has already clarified that only a small minority of wavering no voters were tempted by the vow

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/what-should-happen-next-if-scotland-votes-no#line

 

For obvious reasons these polls stop at the referendum, however there is no reason to believe that things have changed significantly since then - 4 to 1 in favour of what woudl clearly be more powers for Holyrood. 

1 hour ago, Stash said:

 

As a percentage of the population of the country, then yes, its pretty small.

If by country, you mean the Uk, you are of course correct. 

 

However in the country I live in it is complete bollocks

1 hour ago, Stash said:

 

Pull the other one...

Comfy doesn't read wings. You may disagree with him but he is clearly not a liar & there is no need to stoop to the level of certain other folk on here.

 

& comfy, I am feeling a fair bit better thanks:)

[LJS]

1 hour ago, Stash said:

The reason I call Wings on that, as you well know, is that it is factual horse-manure. It's written in such a way as to make non-thinkers assume that Scotland is in fact propping up the whole UK and is therefore terribly hard done by by those nasty westminster types. 

I read Wings, I certainly read it with the knowledge that it is very one-sided, but certainly no more one-sided than the Daily Mail or the Telegraph & it is very clearly upfront about which side it is on. 

 

To the best of my knowledge it has not engaged in phone hacking or any of the murkier activities of the mainstream media.

1 hour ago, Stash said:

 

Scotland, as a region of the UK has had better/higher tax receipts than some other regions of the UK. But it by no means outperforms the UK, just the average of all the other regions. However, and here comes the small print,  the analysis of those years mentioned (and you luckily choose oil years in your comparison, i wonder why?) shows that it is only the wider South East (Greater London, the South East and the Eastern Region) that made a positive net contribution to the UK public finances in most of those years, with the Northern regions, the Midlands and the South West joining Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as a net drain on the Exchequer. 

We may all be a drain on the exchequer except for London. However there is a good argument to be made that London sucks the life out of all the rest of the UK and if you think the power & influence of the City of London isall good... well you are entitled to your opinion. 

1 hour ago, Stash said:

There has been a persistent pattern, throughout the years in your selective sample, of the Southern regions providing fiscal support to the rest of the UK, which is not surprising given the relative strengths of the different regional economies and the broadly redistributive nature of government policies towards taxation and spending.

 

I believe Scotland comes 3rd after London & the South East. However it is too late at night for me to spend the time referencing this & yes this is only half the story because we spend more up here.

1 hour ago, Stash said:

 

However, that doesn't really fit in with your hard done by narrative does it?

Please don't fall into Neil's trap of tarring those of us on here who argue for Indy with the Grievance brush. I don't think we have been well served by successive Westminster governments but then I don't think Wales & large swathes of the North of England have either. I certainly don't believe Westminster "has it in for us"

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

In other news following hard on the heels of the libdems half baked income tax proposals Labour have come up with some slightly more cooked proposals of their own. 

Half baked?

Why, do you think everyone earning £20k a year couldn't afford to pay just £10 a year more in tax?
(while those earning less pay less tax?)

It seems you've abandoned the idea of everyone that can chipping in for a better Scotland, which means you're not going to get that better Scotland.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Now this looks like a good workaround for the problem that although, at present, any tax rise will be" across the board" i.e. any rise in higher rates will also affect lower rtaes by the same amount and they have no power at all ( & won't if & when the new Scotland Act comes into force) over tax bands.

 

I like this idea in principle and would be perfectly happy to pay the extra taxation involved. 

 

It has been welcomed by Neil's new best mate 

 

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/srit-scottish-labours-proposal.html

 

although he does acknowledge that " There will I am sure be some devil in the detail of administration," but glosses over this & as always produces lots of nice tables & graphs combines with his usual gratuitous jibes at the SNP ( that's why Neil likes him)

Yeah, I like him because he dispises you, and not because he uses solid facts to point out just how far your own head is up your arse.

Once upon a time you used to say how the extra growth of a small nation would be Scotland's salvation. I've not heard that one from you for a while tho, I wonder why?

That nice man chokka pointed out that the thing you placed your trust in would take 120 years by your glorious leader's best reckoning.

Oh dear.

Etc, etc, etc.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

For a more detailed discussion of the devil in the detail stuff, here's your man...

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2016/02/questions-questions.html

It remains to be seen whether Labour has really though this out & have come up with an imaginative solution to the fiscal straightjacket Scotland has been provided with. 

It's a dogs dinner, and with different tax powers coming a year later, I actually prefer to LibDem version because of its simplicity, and the fact the poorest don't pay anyway..

(the Labour version might be worthwhile if it was longer-term, but with such devil in the detail, why bother for just a year?)

After all, there's not a single person earning £20k in Scotland that couldn't afford an extra tenner a year in tax (which is the full impact of that 1% rise after the threshold limits are changed in April), and so none of 'the poor' get hit by extra taxes while getting to benefit from the extra tax that is raised.

Meanwhile, I've seen endless mis-representation of both plans by snippers trying to do them down, and I've seen complaints that the likes of a teacher on £29k would have to pay more.

(I have also seen plenty wondering about the details of the Labour plan for a rebate for the poorest, which is more than fair enough .... but they're far fewer in number than the shouts of "it's for others to do, not us" from those who've spent the last 2 years demanding self-responsibility )

That's how much snippers are believing in social justice today, LJS. Less and less.

(it's of course got nothing to do with snippers waking up to to the fact that they can't have both of indy and social justice, and that the real-world choice is one or the other).

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

The SNP have yet to publish their taxation proposals for the forthcoming Holyrood elections.

As ever, they'll wait for others to publish, then see which way the wind is blowing.

If others didn';t publish their manifestos first, the SNP would only publish a blank piece of paper.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I await them with interest...

How's the 2007 SNP manifesto promise of new local taxes coming along, LJS?

The SNP have been the SG for more than half the time of the SG's existence. How's it going?

Here's a list that's 5 years old:-
http://100snpfailedpromises.weebly.com/

 

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

cutting through all the crap - what is to negotiate is how to put the principle of "no detriment" into practice. You talk as if this had already been agreed & the SNP are trying to move the goalposts, but then you would, wouldn't you?

But it's exceedingly clear to see that changing the basis away from the current Barnet basis in the way Swinney wants is nothing about "no detriment", it's about "what's beneficial".

It's about "no detriment" via the current formula, not about any other imagined detriment Swinney can think of.

Of course Swinney can claim it's detrimental to Scotland if the share of UK money Scotland gets is reduced - but if it's reduced via a population calculation (the current Barnet principle that's to remain unchanged, don't forget) because Scotland's population proportionally reduces against rUK then that doesn't count as detrimental in as far as what Smith said.

As long as Scotland s still getting the same extra percentage per-head (as far as possible within the new tax arrangements) then there's no detriment.

The only argument should be over how much that 10% of income tax represents as an average, and nothing about changed Barnet formulas.

Swinney is going against Smith.

 

13 hours ago, LJS said:

& as for   "It's an asked-for change in Scotland's favour at rUK's expense" the Smith commission was established as the result of an "unasked-for change in the relationship between Scotland & the rest of the UK" offered by the Westminster establishment when they thought they might lose the Indy vote. 

However Smith came about, the SNP agreed to it.

However Smith came about, the SNP signed up to it's conclusions/recommendations.

Now the SNP are going against what they agreed to, because Smith mentioned nothing about a change of basis to the extra money calculation that's beneficial to Scotland.

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I know. Not sure why you are saying this ? Services cut etc has been happening for years. Local Govt cuts, pension cuts changes to the retirement age. I could go on.

Scotland gets a population-based share of UK spending.

If UK spending is reduced, UK taxes are also reduced*, and so Scotland loses nothing.

(* that's if everything is equal, of course. In reality there's no reduction in taxes right now, but that's because the 'reduction' in taxes has happened in advance of now, by us not paying enough taxes and so having a deficit).

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I said the other day ( twice ) that the NHS, local Govt etc will be unrecognisable in years to come. It`s part of why I think your forecasts are little more than guesswork.

You may or may not be right about that - but whatever, it's what the UK (including Scotland) voted for.

You cannot claim "Scotland voted differently", because there is no Scotland within UK govt, and Scotland confirmed it agreed with that arrangement.

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Scotland costs more to run. I know you accept this. What`s our land mass as a % of the UK ? As you say, it`s all down to the geography and more rural nature of Scotland.

No voters are expecting " No detriment ". Yes voters wanted something completely different. I thought you were on the side of these Scots who voted NO 

No detriment is Barnet made on the same basis, and not a changed basis as Swinney wants.

Swinney is trying to guarantee Scotland a fixed share of UK money, when Scotland doesn't have a fixed share of UK population.

 

 

 

[LJS]

I don't have time this morning to address everything Neil has raised. 

I am however curious as to how he thinks the lib dem tax proposals would ensure no one earning under £20k would pay more as there is no mechanism within existing or proposed powers that would achieve this - which is why Labour have had to concoct their slightly odd £100 present to the poor.

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

SCOTLAND stands to lose £3.5billion from its budget within a decade

so that would be approximately a 5% real-terms cut in Scottish funding.

Which would be exactly the same as the approximately 5% real-term cut in UK spending.

FFS.

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Eh ?

As we noted yesterday, the Tories have now put a revised offer on the table. Can you think why they would need to offer a revised deal. Perhaps, just maybe, the original offer didn`t stand up to " no detriment " scrutiny.

An amount (£££s) has to be agreed for what that 10% of Scottish-raised income taxes is.

You could come up with a figure for that via a variety of different ways. For simple examples, you'd get a different number if you took a 5 year average compared to a 10 year average.

The revised offers from the tories are about fixing that figure.

They're not about changing the formula for a Scottish share of UK money.

Try engaging your brain?

 

Quote

Again, this deal is required for the NO voters.

Wrong. It's required for all of Scotland. There is only one Scotland. There is only one Scottish Govt. There is a Scototish Govt at the talks.

 

Quote

YES voters didn`t want this.

True.

You wanted a £10bn cut in funding.

And now you're complaining about getting the same, and are demanding more.

 

Quote

You championed the no voters as you were ( in your view ) fighting for the poor in Scottish society.

Now you appear to walking away from your earlier concerns for them ?

Remember it is only the YES voting Jocks you stand against.......  Just those `orrible snippers not the whole of Scotland.

Whatever the tories are planning to cut is much less than the cuts the SNP would be making now if they'd won the indyref.

The SNP signed up to the continuation of the existing formula for Scottish funding. Now they're demanding that the formula is altered in Scotland's favour.

That's a completely different argument to what needs to be discussed, of how much the 10% raised in Scotland should represent as an average, so that average can be cut from the block grant to match that 10%.

Edited February 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Do you think than in the coming decades the population in the South of England will continue to rise and rise and do you think this will make Scotland less expensive to run ?

If taxes as a percentage of GDP stay the same and so spending stays the same, then Scotland gets an identical amount per-head no matter how its population share might vary.

If taxes as a percentage of GDP fall - which is implicit within your words - and so spending falls as well, then the UK is getting less expensive to run and that includes Scotland.

If Scotland wishes to spend more than the rest of the UK outside of those two possibilities, then (from April 2017) it will have more-than adequate means via which it can raise more and so spend more.

FFS.

 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

We also know that tax revenues per head in Scotland have been higher than in the rest of the UK in each of the last 34 ( thirty four ) years.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Here's the graph again I did for LJS 18 months ago (which by chance I found again yesterday), which details Scotland against whole-UK since 1980 and uses figures from GERS which are using Salmond's approved methodology (so no Olympics, train sets or any of your other favourite words).

edit: I've just realised the graph doesn't have the years on it. Year '1' is 1980. I think (from memory) the last year detailed is 2012 (it was whatever the last available GERS year was at the time I did the graph, tho you can work it out by counting the years thru).

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Do you think Holyrood should be closed down and everything run from Westminster? 

i do, yep.

It only encourages you to go loopy, to make all sorts of bullshit claims.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Sorry, forgot to mention the 34 year thing. I'm afraid it's true. 

Bullshit, see the graph about, all numbers from Salmond-approved GERS.

 

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Meant to update on the current unemployment figures and how we are out performing ruk.

Things are not as bad up here as some would have you believe ;-)

So what you're saying is that Westminster is doing a great job with Scotland, and the whole basis you spout for indy of Westminster mistreatment is a fallacy?

Yep, some of us know.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Comfy doesn't read Wings. 

He does, however, repeat some of its biggest lies.

After all, that's what most snippers do. You included.

Edited February 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, LJS said:

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/what-should-happen-next-if-scotland-votes-no#line

For obvious reasons these polls stop at the referendum, however there is no reason to believe that things have changed significantly since then - 4 to 1 in favour of what woudl clearly be more powers for Holyrood.

Thing is, that can be read in all sorts of different ways.

Cos we know that 45% want those tax and welfare powers plus a £10Bn cut in Scottish spending too, as that's what they voted for.

The most important question is the one that got asked 18 months ago: does Scotland want to be poorer via self-funding, or does Scotland want the safety-net of - other people - the UK. The answer was clear.

Which gets to mean those 'other people' have a say, too. You can't just vote yourself other people's money (even tho Salmond said you could, because it would be anti-democratic to deny it, he said )

[eFestivals]

44 minutes ago, LJS said:

I don't have time this morning to address everything Neil has raised. 

I am however curious as to how he thinks the lib dem tax proposals would ensure no one earning under £20k would pay more as there is no mechanism within existing or proposed powers that would achieve this - which is why Labour have had to concoct their slightly odd £100 present to the poor.

 

It's because of changes in the tax threshold.

Because of those changes, it works out that someone earning £20k would pay 83p a month more, a tenner a year extra.

I'm not exactly sure where the break-even point falls, but it's not going to be very much under £20k given the 83p at £20k.

And of course, those with an income under the break even point will be getting extra in their pay packet - plus the benefit of the extra services from extra tax raised.

It might not be perfect, but it's hardly whipping the poor, either.

edit: a quick and direct calculation in my head tells me the break even point must be at around £19k.

Edited February 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[Stash]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Sorry, forgot to mention the 34 year thing. I'm afraid it's true. 

Meant to update on the current unemployment figures and how we are out performing ruk.

Things are not as bad up here as some would have you believe ;-)

As you well know and LJS has conceeded, this 34 year outstripping UK taxes is an absolute joke of a figure and deserves nothing but derision. It's an absolute wings-esque type argument and fails to even consider part of the overall picture. 

I've no intention of doing this for 34 years, but the figures attached show population & taxation figures for the last year I could locate official matching reports, 2013. It clearly shows several other UK regions outstripping Scotland's tax income and also shows relative populations, even with oil revenues included for Scotland. 

Rather than helping your grievance laden argument, it actually shows how the UK working together is stronger than the individual components of the UK. Also don't forget that what is not shown is that thanks to Barnett, Scotland is getting back £1.2 for every £1 collected. Sounds like a good deal to me.  

 

 

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, LJS said:

Please don't fall into Neil's trap of tarring those of us on here who argue for Indy with the Grievance brush. I don't think we have been well served by successive Westminster governments but then I don't think Wales & large swathes of the North of England have either. I certainly don't believe Westminster "has it in for us"

How can you get that to stand up against the facts?

Scotland gets a significant percentage extra per-head of UK spending over the UK average.

As a result, Scotland performs at around the UK average economic performance.

So much so, that in the last 24 hours comfy has boasted about how Scotland is doing better than the UK average.

FFS.

[Stash]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

How can you get that to stand up against the facts?

Scotland gets a significant percentage extra per-head of UK spending over the UK average.

As a result, Scotland performs at around the UK average economic performance.

So much so, that in the last 24 hours comfy has boasted about how Scotland is doing better than the UK average.

FFS.

To put the tax advantages question to bed, a good comparison would be Scotland vs the South West in the figures shown above for 2013. 

Scotland & the south west have comparible populations and tax incomes: 

Scotland

5,327,700

8.3%

11,300

7.2%

South West

5,377,595

8.4%

11,000

7.0%

Yet Treasury statistics expose how the South West region is massively short-changed by Barnett as every Scot gets £10,152 spent on them, while the figure is just £8,219 in the South West.

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Please don't fall into Neil's trap of tarring those of us on here who argue for Indy with the Grievance brush. I don't think we have been well served by successive Westminster governments but then I don't think Wales & large swathes of the North of England have either. I certainly don't believe Westminster "has it in for us"

Just how the line in bold above tallies with the numbers presented and the grievance politics loved by the SNP, I will never understand!

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Stash said:

Just how the line in bold above tallies with the numbers presented and the grievance politics loved by the SNP, I will never understand!

Yep.

Everything about the need for indy is based in fallacies.

The fallacy that it's hard done by.

The fallacy that Scotland is self-funding.

It's all the same noises as UKIP - blame the 'other', cos everything bad that happens is someone else's fault.

I've got to say that such an attitude is absolutely the most perfect attitude to have when demanding self-responsibility.

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Complete and utter bullshit.

Here's the graph again I did for LJS 18 months ago (which by chance I found again yesterday), which details Scotland against whole-UK since 1980 and uses figures from GERS which are using Salmond's approved methodology (so no Olympics, train sets or any of your other favourite words).

edit: I've just realised the graph doesn't have the years on it. Year '1' is 1980. I think (from memory) the last year detailed is 2012 (it was whatever the last available GERS year was at the time I did the graph, tho you can work it out by counting the years thru).

 

Which is all very well but Comfy's point was specifically about tax revenues so your graph while very pretty is completely irrelevant.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

Which is all very well but Comfy's point was specifically about tax revenues so your graph while very pretty is completely irrelevant.

ahhh, my apologies.

I hadn't realised he was playing the old laughable deceptive LYING chestnut of referencing revenues without reference to spending. It is tho the current snipper favourite (© w*nkers over sense), so I shouldn't be surprised.

I hadn't thought he was that dumb, particularly when one of his posts in the last 24 hours was stating the fact that Scotland is significantly more expensive to run. Quite why I often credit you and him with the intelligence to join up the dots into a coherent whole I've no idea, because you'[re both always quick to prove me wrong.

And anyway, if his claim about revenues (with no reference to spending) is true for the last 34 years, it's all coming to an end sometime soon when the next GERS is published. It was 11th March last year.

i'm looking forwards to it,. Are you?

Edited February 3, 2016 by eFestivals