Paying for the bill
Quick question for you all to ponder about the Scotland Bill - are the new tax powers an opportunity or a threat?
Supporters of the Bill say they are an opportunity - that they would incentivise Scotland to enhance the income tax take and so bolster the money available to Holyrood.
Detractors - including those of a Nationalist persuasion - find it a threat.
They say that it matches a long-held Treasury aspiration - which is to cut Scotland's cash as currently available via the Barnett Formula.
How so? How to explain the difference?
Consider the basics. Scotland would take charge of half the basic rate tax (10p out of 20p) and a lower proportion of the upper bands. (Still 10p, but out of 40p and 50p.)
During an interim handover period, starting in 2015, there should be minimal potential variation, either way.
The Treasury would calculate a notional tax take from the product of 10p in Scotland.
So if Scotland reinstates the whole 10p then the entirety of the cash would be reinstated too.
The opportunity/threat emerges when the calculation is founded upon actual tax revenues in Scotland. That might be, say, four or five years after 2015 implementation.
Then Scotland receives what Scotland actually earns in income tax. Supporters say that would incentivise Holyrood and the Scottish Government to bolster income tax. Hence, the opportunity.
Detractors say there is a deflationary problem inherent in the system: partly because income tax revenues are currently depressed but, more fundamentally, because Scotland would gain a relatively limited proportion of the upper tax bands where, arguably, growth would be highest.
Further, those detractors say that growth would be hard to sustain without being able to deploy the full range of economic and fiscal levers - including other taxes.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~10~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
afternoon Brian, interesting blog today with you obviously at an advantage as I can't find the actual document anywhere YET.
having learned the lesson from last weeks press release from the SofS re the tartan tax I note you don't go anywhere near what powers Westminster want back in exchange and the little sting in the tale re the income tax system.
did Mr Moore forget to tell you that bit at your breifing or did you think telling us about the income tax system would be more than enough to be getting on with?
Sid
Complain about this comment
any word yet on the charge by HMRC for the privilege?
any guarantee from HMRC that they will have a working system available to all businesses with employers or pensioners in Scotland that will actually work at the appointed hour?
other than that, yes of course it is a unionist sop to try and detract from a move away from the union, but one that simply gives with one hand and takes with the other - no doubt the MSM in Scotland, with all their vested interest whther by licence fees or promises of free papers, will play the hand with their usual impartial card.
Complain about this comment
I cannot find the documents - but I worry that what we are looking at
is a false internal market in that assumptions and estimates have to
made at all stages.
The suspicion in any such system is that it is weighted to one
side - more tax but less income in Scotland, or the reverse depending
on who is grinding what axe and who had the power to set the rules.
Full fiscal autonomy would not end such arguement but shift it
to what contribution to 'centralised' costs Scotland should pay as
opposed to what pocket money should be disbursed.
Complain about this comment
We all know, Brian, that the only reason the unionist parties support Calman over Fiscal Autonomy is out of fear of what comes next.
Complain about this comment
Brian
This looks terrible. No actual news about these proposals yet posted on the BBC and here you are guiding us as to what to think about them. Is this a new BBC policy that they should not actually tell us the news but only what the British, whoever they are, think we should know. What happened to Nation shall speak truth unto Nation?
Complain about this comment
Would be nice to be able to see the detail of these proposals. As yet, as Sid has said, no sign of the document for the poor punter to peruse. Not even bothered to put it on the Scotland Office site. Be interesting hearing Andy Kerr pontificating on macro economic matters later on. One thing Brian doesn't mention is the supposed availability of borrowing powers for the Scottish Government, with no abilitity other than cranking up income tax rates in order to fund the repayments. Like to see Westminster try such a trick.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I really don't see how these tax powers "would incentivise Scotland to enhance the income tax take", for the following reasons:-
1. There is no ACTUAL hypothecation of the resultant income to Scotland. As far as I know, it is all going to be based on Treasury estimates. After the 40-year deception on Scotland's contribution to the UK's finances, and in particular the 30-year suppression of the McCrone report on North Sea Oil, forgive me if that doesn't fill me with confidence.
2. There is no ability to vary many of the fundamentals of income tax eg. personal allowance or threshhold for higher-rate tax, or to change one rate but not the other. So, it's very inflexible. It means that a leftie government couldn't raise higher rate but not basic rate. It means that a right-wing government couldn't lower higher rate or merge the two rates into a flat tax. (In particular, it doesn't appear to include any power over the 'temporary' 50p rate, which I would regard as a missed opportunity for Scotland - Scotland could easily scrap that (very few Scots pay it) and make us an attractive place for private equity houses, hedge funds etc. to locate).
3. Due to the reason set out in item 1, no Scottish Government will reduce the rate, because the Treasury will not give us all the proceeds. Likewise, no Scottish Government will raise the rate as it would be enormously politically unpopular. So, the power will never be used.
The only tax power which can really change the Scottish economy is corporation tax - which, if slashed, would allow us to poach a whole load of FTSE companies from London. Which is why they haven't given us that power!
The whole thing is a Unionist plot to reduce the funds sent to Scotland, and rip us off even more than we are being ripped off already. Shame on the "Scottish" politicians trying to impose it on us.
A final thought - is a "borrowing power" really a "borrowing power" when you have to get Treasury permission to use it? And is a "tax power" really a "tax power" when the Treasury can charge you whatever they want to implement it?
CC
Complain about this comment
"So if Scotland reinstates the whole 10p then the entirety of the cash would be reinstated too."
Not so, Brian. The cost of collection in Scotland will come out of the total.
On a related matter, I understand a well-known website is advocating using the AV referendum as a referendum on independence in Scotland. You know where to look.
Complain about this comment
If "they" want us to remain in the union then nothing less than FFA will do. Not a pretendy FFA - full fat FFA, including all corporate tax, all domestic tax, VAT, crown estates revenue et al. Until and unless it is totally transparent that Scotland raises ALL its own taxes, and that we can be satisfied that Westminster has been stopped from stealing from Scotland by the underhand means that it has used for decades, then the only other choice is independence. This unionist fudge is just another stitch-up and should be decried. I personally would prefer that Scotland just went its own way and forget the union altogether. I don't consider foreign rule satisfactory for a sovereign country.
Complain about this comment
Will we have a referendum as this is a constitutional change?
Complain about this comment
Some really good posts on here folks
Complain about this comment
Brian,
In all your reports over the last couple of days you have specifically failed to mention the tax powers proposed by Calman, but not in this bill. Why?
These are not even as far as the miniscule powers offerd by Calman. The Unionist parties have obviously decided that the SNP is on the wane, so they don't need to give us anything. They have decided that they cvan fob us off with meaningless proposals.
Disgusting.
John
Complain about this comment
Does this mean that Scotland will be getting half the Oil tax revenues too?
Complain about this comment
As Glasgow and Edinburgh Students rally outside our Parliament today, there is an interesting mood developing. Hundreds will protest outside the Scottish Parliament against the tuition fees proposals of the Westminister Governemnt. This is political anger from the next generation directed towards London.
How does this relate to the finance above? Well the current mood between unionist and nationalist factions is at an interesting stage - these measures being proposed are going to effect all of society.
Do the SNP have the strength to argue for the real benefits of fiscal autonomy? ie. that we could have reformed free higher education?
If the Scottish education response is simply 'we'll have to make do with current funding - and this means less - no one will be inspired towards the SNP.
However, if the decision is left until after May by all parties (and this would equally be a shame and shameful for our democracy) then the winners of that election will face a Scottish backlash for not speaking straight truth to the electorate.
It's not simply that the people need to know what 'Scottish solutions' to our funding dilemma looks like, it's that the political debate rests upon the Scottish response.
Will SNP and Green leaders take to the streets? Be bold, argue the merits of fiscal autonomy and people will be ready to follow.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Presumably the 'govt' in scotland won't choose to lower tax as they'd lose income. And won't raise tax as it would be massively unpopular (save with the masses of inner city layabouts that don't work) is it really that big a deal to argue and whine over powers that won't be used.
Much like in fact... the ones that were being whined about last week?
Complain about this comment
Someone has come up with the interesting idea of writing "Independence" on the SVR referendum voting paper on 5th May. This would spoil the paper but you could always count the spoiled papers.......?!
Complain about this comment
Calman would be a disaster.
Labour know it, the LibDems know it, even the Tories know it.
The intent is to disable Scotland politically and depress the economy.
NB All Scots who support our country’s independence are urged to write the word INDEPENDENCE in bold letters across the AV Referendum voting slip on 5th May, 2011.
Complain about this comment
Detractors - including those of a Nationalist persuasion - find it a threat
Detractors = those that have Scotland's future at heart
Nationalist persuasion = patriots fed up with Scotland being ripped off.
Threat = likely to reduce Scotland's economic potential.
Complain about this comment
Why can't we have fairness in taxation?
UK responsibilities funded by taxation levied and raised at a UK level, Scottish responsibilities (principally relating to devolved powers) funded from Scottish taxation.
Oh, silly me, I can see why not.
Once we saw how little of our taxes actually go to benefit the Scottish nation, the cause of independence would become unstoppable.
... and we can't have that, can we, Brian?
Complain about this comment
No doubt there will be plenty of commentary and like others I haven't seen the actual proposals. Is it too much to ask that the BBC reports this accurately and does not mislead the public? This from the story on the BBC website 'The Scotland Bill, launched in Edinburgh, follows the findings of the Calman Commission review of devolution, which recommended Holyrood should be allowed to raise half of income tax.' er no, half of the BASIC rate of income tax i.e. the 20% band. This follows the shocking reporting on this subject on the BBC television news at the weekend that informed us that this was ' a key power allowing Scotland to raise half its income'. Not half its income tax, not half the basic rate of tax but half of its income. BBC reporting is a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
Mr Taylor,
You wrote:
"Detractors say there is a deflationary problem inherent in the system: partly because income tax revenues are currently depressed but,..."
And why are they depressed? Nothing to do with the current economic situation which has arisen because of policies of the UK Government by any chance? Unlessthe Scottish Parliament has full control of all revenues and the power to enact policies that can maximise these revenues then the system wont be of any benefit.
The flaw, or at least one of them, is that the Scottish Parliament has few if any powers to influence the tax revenues. The greatest influence on tax evenues in Scotland lies with the UK Government and the policies it pursues with regard to the economy as can be seen in our current economic circumstances which are due to the (mis)management of the UK's finances by the UK Government. But these policies have had a huge effect on employment and hence income tax revenues in Scotland.
Giving limited fiscal autonomy of this type is no sort of answer.
Just as you cannot be a little bit pregnant, so you cannot be a little bit fiscally autonomous. It is either all or nothing.
Complain about this comment
The ONLY logical and defensible options are to maintain the status quo - all UK citizens pay Westminster-determined tax levels, collected at UK levels - or for Westminster to send a bill to Holyrood for our proportion of UK expenses, and to leave it to the Scottish Government to decide how to raise the amount payable together with the sun needed for Scotland's internal needs. All taxation within Scotland should be determined by the Scottish Government.
There is a good reason why the horse goes in front of the cart, in order to see where it is going.
Complain about this comment
Are the new tax powers an opportunity or a threat?
A threat to the Union - having differential rates of income tax within a notionally unified 'country' would be grotesquely unfair - and hence an opportunity to move towards independence.
Scottish taxes for Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Calman = Heads Westminister gains Tails Scotland loses. Its a none starter.
Complain about this comment
18. minuend
"All Scots who support our country’s independence are urged to write the word INDEPENDENCE in bold letters across the AV Referendum voting slip on 5th May, 2011."
I'm all for that!
Complain about this comment
18 minuend
"All Scots who support our country’s independence are urged to write the word INDEPENDENCE in bold letters across the AV Referendum voting slip on 5th May, 2011."
Sounds like a great idea - let's get the word out.
Thank You, London!
A campaign to utilise the coalition government’s AV referendum in order to hold a ‘referendum’ on Scottish independence has been announced today.
The plan, which involves asking supporters of independence to write the word ‘independence’ on their electoral reform ballot slip on May 5th is a defiant gesture towards Unionist parties who have consistently refused to allow Scots any say in the nation's constitutional future.
The campaign is being co-ordinated by the team behind the respected Bella Caledonia political blog. A spokesman for the campaign team said:
“The London government has decreed that the second ever British-wide national referendum will take place on 5th May 2011.
“This referendum will be on whether or not to move to AV voting in each constituency. In reality it is a minor electoral change to the Westminster system which will do very little to move towards genuine proportional representation.
“If the London government propose tokenistic tinkering with their electoral system then fine, that’s up to them.”
The spokesman urged those who are in favour of Scottish independence to grasp this opportunity to make their views known and added:
“Let’s make sure the piles of “spoilt” ballot papers rejecting the British electoral system – and rule from London - are greater than those voting Yes or No.
“This way we can finally have our first national referendum on Scottish Independence.”
Scotland has a troubled history when it comes to referendums. The infamous 1979 ‘Home Rule’ referendum witnessed a high turnout of 67% and a majority win for the ‘Yes’ vote. However the Westminster Parliament had rigged the election using the infamous 40% rule and over-ruled the majority decision of the people of Scotland.
The timing of the AV vote, on the same day as the Holyrood elections, has also been attacked as an attempt at undermining the Scottish election campaign. The SNP criticised the date clash calling it disrespectful and said: “It just shows that the Tory-led coalition government with the LibDems is treating the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland with contempt.”
Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, has already stated that the Scottish election will be fought primarily on the case for Scottish Independence.
The recent announcement of a Royal Wedding date just one week before the Scottish election also caused more concerns that the Holyrood campaign could be overshadowed.
The audacious bid to ‘hi-jack’ the AV referendum may well be a masterstroke. As the campaign team themselves say “This way we can finally have our first national referendum on Scottish Independence. The beauty of this initiative is that the London government will fork up their own cash to print and distribute a voting slip to every person in Scotland. Which is very generous of them. Thank you London!”
Complain about this comment
18. minuend
"All Scots who support our country’s independence are urged to write the word INDEPENDENCE in bold letters across the AV Referendum voting slip on 5th May, 2011."
I'm all for that!
oh! so you'll have 3 votes then!
Complain about this comment
MSP Patrick Harvie, of the pro-independence Scottish Greens, said the Scotland Bill was part of a "flawed process, dominated by the interests of political parties rather than Scotland's people".
Well said that man!
So what we have is the combined opposition deciding they don't like the song, so they'll start singing another alongside that of the elected government, (Minority or otherwise).
Look what I've got in my right hand and I hope you don't notice what I have in my left.
Silly me we're all too stupid to figure this out.
p.s. too poor and unambitious as well!!
Complain about this comment
Having now read the command paper, I'd add another issue to my earlier comment - that HMRC, NAO and OBD all play a huge part in deciding all of the key taxation metrics and all, of course, report to Westminster and have no oversight by or responsibility to the Scottish Parliament.
Have you also noticed, Brian, that the Scottish rate of income tax would not apply to savings/investment income?
Have you noticed that the "power to borrow" expressly excludes the issue of bonds, which is how nations typically finance themselves?
Have you noticed that we need Treasury permission to borrow? Not really a power, is it?
Have you noticed that the "power to impose new taxes" is subject to the Treasury agreeing to those taxes? Not really a power, is it?
I could go on.....the bottom line is that there are only two workable solutions. No fiscal power, or full fiscal power. Anything in between is a mess, and a fudge, and won't solve the fundamental problem that we pay a load of tax into the Exchequer and then have to beg them to give us it back.
As a correction to my earlier post, I see that the Scottish income tax rate does apply to the 50% band - but, of course, the same top-up rate must apply to all which prevents us from using the new power for any economically useful purpose (not an accident).
CC
Complain about this comment
29. fasteagle100
"So what we have is the combined opposition deciding they don't like the song, so they'll start singing another"
Thus proving the old Scottish maxim "One singer, one song"! They are "one".
Complain about this comment
The sooner Scots (and us English) fully detach ourselves from the Westmonster elite, the better for all concerned.
The grotesque contortions required to keep the so-called United Kindgom on the political road are reinforced by this latest Bill for Scotland.
I'm now going to open my pocket book of Robert Burns poems at random ...
...
A conscience but a canker -
A correspondence fix'd wi' Heav'n
Is sure a noble anchor.
Complain about this comment
17 bencruachan
Better idea...instead of getting tax raising powers from the Grinch English National Party...why don't the Scottish people take to the streets in protest demanding a referendum on independence before the 5th of May...?
Complain about this comment
Just seen London labour controlled Pauline Mcneil msp saying she agrees with the Tories that Scotlands pocket money should be cut.
This in a unionist con trick, the kiddy on Scots in Holyrood, ie labour tory and the lid/dems are backing london to rip Scotland off.
Shame on them.
Complain about this comment
Well, about time. The Scottish government and the Scottish people must feel delighted at the opporunity.
Scottish people paying their own taxes to fund their own ideals without any English tax-payer subsidies.
Complain about this comment
We need only one statistic in this thread. For every £100 of tax revenue spent on services in Scotland, how much is paid for by the English taxpayer? Once we have that single, simple, figure we can dispense with most of the rhetoric printed to date.
Complain about this comment
My goodness, you posters are very slow off the mark tonight. Let me give you a clue - it is about £20
Complain about this comment
A complete damp squib – deficit of thought and substance from unionist parties, again…………...
Why cloud the issue? Is it not better to empower Scotland to raise and spend all its own tax? Main reason would appear unionists want continued smoke and mirrors on Scotland's financial position.
Just exactly what the union is built upon - smoke and mirrors and Mickey Mouse appointments like Michael Moore, our latest in a long line of pathetic governor generals.
Another disappointing day in Scotland's history!
C McK
Complain about this comment
36. Severn07
About -£10 give or take a bawbee.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#35
Your welcome to your nuclear weapons - please take them back and fund them yourselves.
We'll have our oil back - fair exchange!
C McK
Complain about this comment
33.
Looks like I touched a raw nerve and the beeb machine doesn't like it...I only made a statement saying Scottish voters should take to their feet and march, it's not exactly burning down Westminster is it...?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
37. Severn07
Your assertion may be classified as an argument among Severn Bores, but in Scotland you need to source your argument. What's yours? Daily Mail?
Complain about this comment
Here is the result of the Catalan general election which took place on Sunday: Catalonia 1 Spain 0.
Here it is in more detail:
The party which gained most seats, the moderate right-of-centre Convergence and Union (CiU), led by Artur Mas (62 seats), is just 6 seats short of an overall majority, but it is expected that it will be able to form an administration on its own, relying on a case-by-case basis for support from other parties. On constitutional issues there is a strong nationalist/independentist overall majority, including the pro-referendum left-of-centre republican independentist ERC, led by Joan Puigcercòs (10 seats) and the pro-UDI Catalan Solidarity for Independence (SI), led by Joan Laporta (4 seats).
As the grand old man of the CiU, Jordi Pujol, has been explaining to the international media since the election, relations between Madrid and Barcelona have just about come to the end of the road. In general terms the relationship has been as follows: Spain requires Catalans’ support in one form or another. In return it agrees to cede powers to the Generalitat, the government of the autonomous community of Catalonia. Not having been genuinely eager to cede these powers, it later tries to claw them back.
The last time this happened, when the Spanish Constitutional Court ruled against important elements of the statute of autonomy of 2006 that had been approved by the Catalan and Spanish legislatures and in a Catalan referendum, over a million people protested in the streets of Barcelona, in July of this year. They said no to the Spanish no and asserted the national identity that the Spanish court had declared that they were not constitutionally entitled to: “We are a nation!” they retorted. “We decide!”
What is to happen now? Mr Mas, an economist (like First Minister Salmond of Scotland), who expresses his intentions in French and English as well as Catalan and Spanish, has declared that Catalonia must have complete control over taxation, a claim for which he appears to have considerable popular support, and indeed a mandate. He has stated that he will endeavour to negotiate with the Spanish government with a view to obtaining full fiscal autonomy and a reformed economic relationship with Spain. What happens if/when Spain says no again?
In those circumstances, bearing in mind Mr Pujol’s view that relations between Madrid and Barcelona have just about come to the end of the road, it would appear logical to expect Mr Mas to hold a referendum on independence, for which he should be able to command a majority in the Catalan Parliament, and in those circumstances it is not inconceivable that a majority of voters would opt for independence, which is what Mr Mas said in the course of the election campaign that he personally would do.
If such a turn of events were to eventuate, will historians one day, in looking back at the Catalan general election of 2010, judge it to have been a catalyst for constitutional upheaval in more than one sub-state nation in Europe? If Catalan independence comes, can Scottish independence be far behind?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Brian,
I'm surprised that you don't mention your relief that that BBC Trust member for Scotland won't be appointed directly by the "Scottish Ministers" but merely that "the Scotland Bill includes a clause that requires UK Ministers to obtain the agreement of Scottish Ministers on the selection of the BBC Trust member for Scotland" for the reason that "the appointment is primarily that of a member of a UK body, the BBC Trust, and broadcasting remains a reserved matter".
No chance of BBC impartiality there on questions of home rule, then.
In other respects the bill is as dire or worse than all predicted at the time of the Calman report. I suppose you do merit two cheers for admitting that there are "Detractors" to the minimalist fiscal powers on offer (or to be implemented unilaterally without a referendum, perhaps?) but successive articles on this website provide us with less and less information regarding who those "Detractors" are, or even why they are so churlish as to complain at these crumbs being offered by our masters at Westminster.
Complain about this comment
"45. At 7:10pm on 30 Nov 2010, reincarnation wrote:
37. Severn07
Your assertion may be classified as an argument among Severn Bores, but in Scotland you need to source your argument. What's yours? Daily Mail?"
Barnett Formula - check it out. Look & Learn
Complain about this comment
I've listened to all the drivel from our SoS,from the BBBC and those who also consider themselves our betters,though goodness knows what entitles them to that conceit,and have come to the conclusion that the only way is out of the union.
I will be delighted to write INDEPENDENCE on the AV vote and would encourage everyone to do the same.
A very happy Saint Andrews day to you all and lets raise a glass to a better future.
P.S Good to see John Constable still pops in!
Complain about this comment
49. Severn07
Barnett (and Goschen, which preceded it) refers only to expenditure on a limited number of areas. It is nothing whatever to do with the tax base which funds that expenditure. Your source is, therefore, wholly irrelevant and meaningless.
If that is the limit of your understanding, you really are on the wrong site. However, feel free to try again.
Complain about this comment
#45
I don't see Brother Gray there or was he holding the camera?
Complain about this comment
49. Severn07
Your up the Kyber without a paddle!
Complain about this comment
45 Severn07
"Look & Learn" Aye, a grand educational comic that my parents were happy to buy me when I was 8 (I was dead lucky though, cos my grandpa bought me Batman and Superman on the quiet - best of both worlds)
Unfortunately your argument bears the hallmarks of 8 year old thinking. Does the Barnett Formula exist in isolation? What are the inputs to the funds that Barnett distributes? Discuss.
I think you are going to have to try a little harder, old son. Or did they not cover that bit in the Daily Mail?
Complain about this comment
49 Severn07
Please explain to me how English taxpayers are subsidising everyone else when they do not even generate sufficient tax revenues to cover the day to day costs of England PLC. That is the reason why the Bank of England is printing money (QE) and why the UK National debt currently stands at £ 4.8 TRILLION. As England accounts for +90% of the population you do the math. By all means quote Barnett Formula, but pay attention to the QE and England's £4.2 TRILLION debt then try and convince everyone on here that you are subsidising Scotland.
Complain about this comment
The SNP for their own political posturing reasons did not take part in Calman, yet if they were to have an independence note, which they would lose heavily, they suddenly seem to want to be able to add in middle-way steps so they have something to claim as a victory after the defeat. Of course defeat would mean another 25 year before the next vote, unless they want us to vote every year until they get the result they want (EU style). I presume if they won, they would also let us vote on a regular basis to re-join the UK? For those asking if the oil revenues are included in this deal, if the answer were "yes" would Scotland also take on the mind-boggling debt the Scottish banks have foist upon the UK , thereby resulting in Scotland becoing another Iceland/Ireland? Independence has it's drawbacks too...
Complain about this comment
#22
Exactly.
Only independence actually provides "fiscal autonomy" so lets stop confusing the issue.
Actually it might be a very good idea to write the word "independence" across the ballot paper for the virtually meaningless AV referendum in May.
Complain about this comment
When asked to vote for a devolved parliament I remember voting no for the devolved parliament and yes for the tax changing powers. My point was that I did not want a devolved parliament but given that this was almost a given, I wanted some accountability. As one would expect, we voted in favour of devolution but no to the tax powers, clearly we wanted independence as long as this did not mean giving the parliament real power to screw it up!
So I would like to know, when I was asked if I believed our great Scottish parliament had demonstrated competence to be allowed the powers that we voted against........was it after the fiasco of the parliament buildings, or perhaps the replacement for the Edinburgh number 42 bus?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
tonbar- get it right, pal. The SNP did not take part in Calman because Calman specifically ruled independence from the start.
What makes you so sure that "if they were to have an independence note, which they would lose heavily"?
The question has never been asked.
Bring it on, as "Puddles" Alexander once famously said.
BTW - Give me 3 good positive reasons for Scotland to remain in the Union. Just why are we "Stronger together, weaker apart?"
Go on, we're waiting.......
Complain about this comment
58. Dunstaffnage
Confused!
Complain about this comment
#56 Tonbar
What Scottish banks are you referring to?
There are a couple of banks that have offices in Scotland but they were owned mainly by City based fund managers and their ilk, regulated by the FSA in London and reported to the UK Treasury and BoE also in London that did get into trouble but they're nothing to do with Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Havent had time to read all the other posats so forgive me if someone has brought up this very important point in regards to Calman tax proposals.
I have not read the proposals either but the following must be highlighted and answered.
if the block grant is made up of a multitude of taxes such as income tax fuel duty road tax alcohol duty, and all the other taxes,
if they cut it. to have the Scottish government to raise the shortfall, through income tax alone, then does it not follow that london hives of billions in Scottish paid taxes while we make up our own tax shortfall by paying income tax at a greater rate. I.E. we pay for the block grant twice.
Its a rip off. they keep all the road tax fuel duty alcohol duty cigarette duty death duty etc etc etc, while we pay more income tax
Complain about this comment
#58
We voted FOR tax raising powers by quite substantial margin.
As a matter of interest we are only being offered minimal powers to vary Income tax and a couple of other minute taxxes which provide a very small proportion of Government taxation.
None of the really big and useful taxation powers are being offered
Complain about this comment
64. Wee-Scamp
I think he probably means the banks which delivered huge revenues to the UK Treasury during the bubble years. You remember those revenues? - They went on fighting illegal wars.
Complain about this comment
#56
Tonbar
I presume you are describing Halifax as a Scottish bank. HBOS (as it known only in Scotland) is less than 12% Scottish. RBS (or NatWest as it is known in England) similarly is Scottish mainly in name. These banks were saved because they are by massive percentage English UK banks. Personally I'd have let them go bust. The losers would have been the international spivs and city speculators who actually own them both.
Complain about this comment
tonbar
"BTW - Give me 3 good positive reasons for Scotland to remain in the Union. Just why are we "Stronger together, weaker apart?"
Go on, we're waiting......."
Still waiting.....
Come on, it's not that difficult, is it?
Complain about this comment
50.Diabloandco
"A very happy Saint Andrews day to you all and lets raise a glass to a better future."
Indeed Diabloandco, slainte!
Complain about this comment
67 reincarnation,
No, I'm sure those were UK banks, I don't remember hearing anyone refer to them as "Scottish" before the crash, they were definitely "British".
Complain about this comment
Hang on... Why did Calman give the Scottish Parliament the power to change the national speed limit for cars? Has anyone actually suggested changing it?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Note: a 1 pence increase in Scottish tax = a 1.7% increase in Scottish budget above the block grant. Considering all the taxes we pay to London from VAT, Income Tax to Crown estate etc. It goes to show how little we receive back.
Note 2: We will receive the power to propose New Taxes.
Lots of conditions aside:
I hereby propose a New Scottish income tax that we set and administer ourselves.
Complain about this comment
On the surface the transfer of further powers to Holrood is a 'good thing' but only so far as they are stepping stones to full fiscal and political independence. These proposals are in fact a con.
My worry about these Calman proposals is that they are a sneeky way of trying to show Scots that we cannot really 'afford' independence. They are an attempt to give Edinburgh a 'grown up' sense of fiscal 'responsibility' and to ween us away from our profligate spending of (English) tax-payers money.
The con is that Scotland is still being short-changed in terms of the pocket money we get from London. We pay in more than we get back. Only full independence will provide justice for Scotland in the end.
Complain about this comment
Mr Taylor is rather short on details but other sources such as CalMerc have a bit more. Apparently the power to set speed limits which is to be given to the Scottish Parliament in the Scotland Bill is limited to cars. Other vehicles such as lorries and cars towing caravans will have to conform to limits set by London. So another 'power' that wont be used.
Similarly the 'power' over air gun control is not all it seems.
Complain about this comment
69. Dot_Scotton
"tonbar
"BTW - Give me 3 good positive reasons for Scotland to remain in the Union. Just why are we "Stronger together, weaker apart?"
Go on, we're waiting.......""
Even Einstein can't answer it.
Complain about this comment
72. At 10:24pm on 30 Nov 2010, Wee-Scamp wrote:
"Hang on... Why did Calman give the Scottish Parliament the power to change the national speed limit for cars? Has anyone actually suggested changing it?"
I'm sure I read in some document or other, possibly an imaginary one, that Iain Who wanted all vehicles limited to 17mph, as that is as fast as he can deal with. Oh, and I'm sure he wanted a person (being PC) to run in front of the vehicle waving a red flag.
Complain about this comment
Hmm? We can raise, and keep, up to £12bn of our own income tax - whoopee!
If we do, then, the Westminster Treasury will deduct £35bn off of our grant - yeuk!
An £18bn shortfall. Are we supposed to be impressed, grateful?
Or, am I reading it wrong? Just going by the report on the BBC website!
Complain about this comment
Alex Salmond attacks Scottish Parliament tax plans
Beware the LibDum cometh.
Complain about this comment
56. tonbar
"The SNP for their own political posturing reasons did not take part in Calman..."
Wrong!
Complain about this comment
58. Dunstaffnage
"As one would expect, we voted in favour of devolution but no to the tax powers..."
Wrong!
Complain about this comment
Headline: Radio Scotland Scotland has won the World cup by getting Calman to score all goals with his deft dribbling skills bamboozling the defence about tax raising powers.
Complain about this comment
I see the Iraq Inquiry has been undermined by the Wikileaks. Those who decried it as a whitewash are vindicated. Just goes to show how these government instruments can be hijacked to suit their needs. Many of us believed this to be the case, anyway. Many more will now find their belief in the system shaken. Long live Wikileaks, I for one like this new government transparency. It's time we had more honesty in politics.
Complain about this comment
Newsnicht - I can't believe my ears! Gordon Brewer feeding good lines to Salmond and allowing Mundell to dig himself into a hole. Pity that he didn't ask how much it would cost to have this facility in place though!
Still, he did allow Pauline McNeill and Robert Brown to make fools of themselves too.
Complain about this comment
Newsnicht was indeed surprising, I'm sure it was just a glitch though, 'twill be business as usual tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
E'm confused. I would imagine that one of the items from todays bill that stands a chance of being used is the borrowing item. We will be able to max out our 'flexible friend' for up to £500M a year. I assume we need to use the tax raising powers to pay back the monthly minimum payments, or can we sell off assets we no longer want (the fear is probably that Tories = water for example).
My confusion is - who do we borrow it from? If it is Westminster, what interest are they going to charge us?
* Is it BofE rates?
* Is it the rates given to the Republic?
* Can we approach the Euro zone or the IMF?
* Can we shop around and get the best deal as I can with my personal borrowing?
* Can we open a new account with a friendly state (Norway?) later if the rates offered are better and pay off the original loan say after 2 years.
* Are there any penalties for paying off early?
* Is the interest added at the start of the month or the end?
* Is the rate likely to be a variable rate - if the current UK party also get votes for the Scottish parliament than you get a low rate but if you vote against the ruling UK governemt in Scotland elections the rate goes up as a punishment?
* If someone new comes into power in Scotland is the debt written off because we have an insurance policy with it and is non transferrable or does it pass on the the 'executor of the estate' at the demise of the previous government?
* Do we get a free well known brand of pen even if we just make enquiries about it?
So many questions.
* Should we save £2 coins in one of these bankies you have to break to get it out just in the off chance that we can't make a repayment.
.... Talking of ...
* who bails us out if we miss a payment?
* Can we just send the statement down to Mr Respectful Cameron and ask him to pay it? .... after all it was their choice to impose the bill rather than the current Scottish governments choice to apply for it.
* what are we putting up as security for the loan?
* if we are allowed to borrow money are we also allowed to lend if we have a surplus?
* Therefore could we borrow at a low rate and lend at a higher rate to, say, the Republic so making a nice wee earner while helping out a family friend? After all is this not what the UK is doing. Do they not borrow money to keep going but still lend it out to neighbours?
There again. Going on past performance I can see that dreary My Grey borrowing the full amount possible each year for his train set and then sending the same amount taken from the block grant back as unused capital - leaving us in the same position but with the interest payments still to be paid.
Finally. Yes I know most of the answers are already suspected or completely above my head, but when I ask for a personal credit card I am in the same position and I am still mug enough to go through the process for the golden trinkets dangling at the end of the rainbow.
Complain about this comment
88 The answers to some of your questions are in the PDF on the BBC article.
Loans are via UK Gov or Commercial banks
Page 39/
The Scottish Government will be able to obtain loans from the NLF via the Secretary of State for Scotland for capital expenditure. They will also be able to borrow from additional sources such as commercial banks, subject to the condition that their Accounting Officer is satisfied that this represents good value for money. The Scottish Government will not be able to issue its own bonds;
NLF = National Loans Fund
Overall it is like existing Council borrowing powers + Big Brother.
Complain about this comment
morning all ,#80 wulk, no you are not reading it wrong you also need to remember they are only talking about the "good" bits right now. still no mention of the powers they want back,still no mention of how much HMRC will charge us for this ,still no mention of why the tory's think they can just change the Scotland act when they feel like it still waiting for the S of S to give us the fool story.
Sid
Complain about this comment
Blah,blah,blah.....Our glorified regional council having anither form of tax raising or worse taking out loans we can't afford etc, Hello.........who's still going to be in a job to pay for it, last time I checked the dole line was in an upwardly fashion and the private sector is no where to be seen, their respective hatches have been battened down not just for this winter spell we are experiencing, indeed the private sector has gone into a long term hibernation. Go trying to get the inflation proof breed dipping into their vast wealth to encourage real growth that makes a diffrence to most of us! No that might take a few of them down to their last million....
Complain about this comment
morning, very interesting on the radio this morning . if this new bill is mentioned at all it is way down the pecking order as Far as i am concerned that says it all, it tells me it ain't that good and they are really struggling to even put any positive spin on it at all. Maybe all the spin doctors are stuck in the snow!
Sid
Complain about this comment
35. At 6:33pm on 30 Nov 2010, corum-populo-2010 wrote:
Scottish people paying their own taxes to fund their own ideals without any English tax-payer subsidies.
More like being double taxed in a rigged game.
If this is whats wanted south of the border then full fiscal
automony would surely be the aim.
Complain about this comment
10. At 4:14pm on 30 Nov 2010, ai_gin_ray wrote:
Will we have a referendum as this is a constitutional change?
The Scottish Secretary answered your question last night.
"This package got the endorsement of most Scots at the last General Election" - Michael Moore Newsnight 30/11/2010
I don't remember the Scottish people giving either Con or Dem a mandate at the last general election, or any other General Election.
Con Dem have 12 seats from a possible 59.
Con Dem had a 35.6% share of the vote.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Labour = LibDem = Condem = Tory
There is no difference, I notice how they sit hand in hand in total agreement with their anti-Scottish policy; they are nothing more than collaborators against Scotland.
It's funny how the Scottish MSM doesn’t make a big deal of the anti-Scottish Labour/Condem coalition.
Complain about this comment
Is it only the Nats that Blog on this page? as for the Tax what have they to fear once again Salmond and his party are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes listen the SNP have been found out Big Time as will be evident in the Scottish Election
Complain about this comment
97. Mike
" as for the Tax what have they to fear once again Salmond and his party are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes listen the SNP have been found out Big Time as will be evident in the Scottish Election "
Please enlighten us with how you come to that conclusion especially as its your first post, welcome.
Complain about this comment
97. Mike wrote:
"Is it only the Nats that Blog on this page? as for the Tax what have they to fear once again Salmond and his party are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes listen the SNP have been found out Big Time as will be evident in the Scottish Election"
There seem to be few supporters of the union online at all. Unsurprising, as when asked to demonstrate any benefits of the union they usually run a mile. I would suggest that the SNP are the ONLY party that are NOT pulling the wool over the eyes of the Scottish voters. I'd like to know what exactly they have "been found out Big Time" about. The Scottish election will indeed provide the evidence and I think the unionist parties are in for a BIG shock this time. I think the Scottish voters have had quite enough of Westminster and the unionists duplicity. We shall see in April. Bring it on.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sid_T_S
"still no mention of how much HMRC will charge us for this"
Looks like it will be £450M setup fee and £4M per year subs. Bargain or what?
Complain about this comment
According to the Herald today it will be £45 million to set up andthen more than £4 million per year thereafter.
Complain about this comment
102. cwh
"According to the Herald today it will be £45 million to set up andthen more than £4 million per year thereafter."
If past experience is any guide then we can expect the final figure to be close to double this estimate. Unionists often rant about the cost of setting up new institutions in an independent Scotland. They are less keen to talk about the cost of maintaining the union.
Complain about this comment
97 Mike
As I said to tonbar last night
"Give me 3 good positive reasons for Scotland to remain in the Union. Just why are we "Stronger together, weaker apart?"
Despite a reminder, he still hasn't come back with one, let alone three. Can you do any better?
Complain about this comment
News of a Campaign to make Nick Clegg song Xmas number 1...
http://entertainment.caledonianmercury.com/2010/12/01/campaign-to-make-insanely-offensive-anti-clegg-song-number-one/001198
Complain about this comment
The tone of the whole bill is patronising - insulting to the people of Scotland. E.G. you can legislate on air weapons - but not on the really powerful ones. Daddy knows best about these.
You can have control of the landfill tax - but not the aggregates tax.
You can't be trusted to deal with the Crown estates income from the seabed around your coast - so all the renewable energy potential will be drained away.
Sorry - I forgot to tug my forelock.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
102. cwh
"According to the Herald today it will be £45 million to set up andthen more than £4 million per year thereafter."
I see that Herald piece is headlined, ‘The settled will of the Scottish people’. Just when and how did this mess get to be the "settled will of the Scottish people"? If, as the moron Moore claims, the people in Scotland who voted for unionist parties at the last election were actually voting for the Calman proposals, then surely they were voting for the full package as it was at the time. So Moore is effectively admitting that he and the rest of the Tory UK government are actually thwarting the "settled will of the Scottish people" by refusing to implement large chunks of the proposals that we supposedly voted for.
And even if we allow the ludicrous fiction that we "voted for" Calman's dog's dinner, who knew what they were voting for? Who knew, for example, that the already pointless "powers" relating to speed limits and air weapons were actually so ridiculously constrained. If there was consent at all there is no way it can sensibly be represented as informed consent.
The Scotland Act is a constitutional act. That is why it required a referendum. The Scotland Bill must be a constitutional bill because it seeks to amend a constitutional act. Therefore, a referendum must be required.
Complain about this comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11882420
UK World Cup bid? News to me !!!
Complain about this comment
How can they justify a £50 million charge to collect income tax , when we have already paid Westminster to collect it in any case. It could only happen in Scotland, they double dip us regularly and people are still fooled into the great "Union Benefit". How is it possible.
Complain about this comment
109. Alba4eva
"UK World Cup bid? News to me !!!
"
It seems that, according to the BBC, the terms "UK" and "England" are synonymous. And the BBC is, supposedly, an authoritative source.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Don't mention the World Cup!!
I can't stand football and will probably have to leave the country for the duration if England wins cos I know that BBC Scotland will insist on forcing Scotland to watch every darn match!!
Complain about this comment
106. Argyllsheep
"The tone of the whole bill is patronising - insulting to the people of Scotland. E.G. you can legislate on air weapons - but not on the really powerful ones. Daddy knows best about these."
The point is that what we actually get is severely limited control over only certain aspect of the legislation. But this is inevitable so long as we are content to accept whatever crumbs ideological unionists are prepared to afford us. Genuine power will never be given. It must be taken. Fortunately, we have the ability to achieve this by democratic means thanks to the civic nationalism of the SNP.
We now have the first real Scottish government since devolution. Next year we have a choice between voting to destroy that government and go back to the bad old days of British Labour Party/Tory domination and a return to rule from London, or voting to give our real government a real mandate. Do we go backwards? Or do we go forwards? That is the stark choice which will face Scotland's voters on Thursday 5 May 2011.
I know what way I will be going.
Complain about this comment
113. Wee-Scamp
"I can't stand football and will probably have to leave the country for the duration if England wins cos I know that BBC Scotland will insist on forcing Scotland to watch every darn match!! "
Your personal tastes aside, many people in Scotland love football and would want to watch the World Cup regardless of where it was hosted. And wherever it was being held we would still have to put up with the dreadful commentary from people who seem to think England has some divine right to win and who imagine everybody else feels the same way.
Complain about this comment
# 112. At 1:11pm on 01 Dec 2010, you wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Is quoting Blackadder against the House Rules.
Lt. George : I say sir are you supporting the UK bid for the World Cup ?
Cptn. Blackadder: Its 'England' George, not the UK, remember, red cross,
morris dancing, matrons cycling to even'song. Who is using the family
brain cell ?.
Complain about this comment
* 96. At 10:56am on 01 Dec 2010, rog_rocks wrote:
"Labour = LibDem = Condem = Tory
There is no difference, I notice how they sit hand in hand in total agreement with their anti-Scottish policy; they are nothing more than collaborators against Scotland."
yes how dare they express their opinion... Its not like they don't collectively have the backing of the majority of the scottish people.
Complain about this comment
DrK
I asked tonbar and Mike...
"Give me 3 good positive reasons for Scotland to remain in the Union. Just why are we "Stronger together, weaker apart?"
Despite reminders, neither have come back with one, let alone three. Can you do any better?
Complain about this comment
117. DrK
"yes how dare they express their opinion..."
The point that you miss by such an astronomical distance is the collaborative negativity and petty obstructionism of the unionist alliance at Holyrood. The opposition should play a constructive role in a democracy. The BLP/Tory cabal fail those who voted for them and shame the entire nation by their appalling conduct.
Complain about this comment
Mmmm, my suggestion that all these one post wonders possibly come from the same IP address resulted in my post being removed. Wonder why, mods? Is it your IP address?
Complain about this comment
-- SPECIAL 33% OFF --
tonbar, Mike, Dr K
In these testing times is THREE too much? No problem! Give us just TWO positive reasons for Scotland remaining in the Union? Surely between the three of you, there are TWO good reasons you can put forward?
We're waiting.....
But then we are still waiting for that SDS document as well. Thought we'd forgotten about that? Think again.......
Complain about this comment
#108. At 12:51pm on 01 Dec 2010, Electric Hermit wrote:
"I see that Herald piece is headlined, ‘The settled will of the Scottish people’. Just when and how did this mess get to be the "settled will of the Scottish people"?"
I agree and have already left a comment on their site - for once they had the comment section activated.
You cannot extrapolate any PARTICULAR assent for a particular policy from a GENERAL Election especially when other issues dominated. And just how prominent an issue was it in the election? And how much of the detail was set out in the election manifestos of the unionist parties?
This whole thing is a mish mash of half-baked ideas andas you said in response to an earlier post of mine about the cost it will probably work out much more than the reported figure which probably comes from the 'Back of an Envelope' School of Economics.
Complain about this comment
# 117 DrK
"yes how dare they express their opinion..."...Indeed;
No one backed them to form a Labour/Condem Coalition or for the Calman farce to be forced upon us, so they collectively should not, they decided to do that after making other promises to us;
eg
Vote Labour and keep out Tories?
Complain about this comment
Using figures for the financial year 2006/2007, if a UK-wide per-capita average was a notional 100% then identifiable per-capita expenditure on services in England would be 97%, Scotland 117%, Wales 111% and Northern Ireland 127%. This comprises all expenditure that can be identified as being to the benefit of a particular country. It does not, however, take account of 'non-identifiable expenditure', such as defence and debt interest, which are deemed to be for the benefit of the entire UK, regardless as to where the monies are actually spent. Can somebody please explain to me how this is not relevant to the argument about which countries in the union receive subsidies & which do not?
As an aside, I thought 'Look & Learn' was terrific; however, I have moved on & am now looking forward to reading Fred Goodwin's autobiography in due course.
Complain about this comment
I suppose we will have to wait to get the full facts from a certain news media that is not allowed on this blog.
Complain about this comment
I have just had post 59 removed, It was up most of yesterday and no matter how often I read it I cannot find anything offensive or actionable in it. No reson is given for its removal except that it broke house rules. What house rules it broke is not explained.
It did suggest another poster was posting "tripe". Indeed he/she was but apart from that it was merely a list of things indicating that Scotland was economically viable and not receiving English subsidy.
I had another post similarly removed recently.
I think we have nowe reached the stage where posts are removed merely because they are articulate attacks on unionism.
I will be writing to appropriate sources to get an explanation
Complain about this comment
Tax powers we aren't getting any tax powers other than a slight increase on the variation rate. We have no power over taxation that will be retained by London. No collection ability that will be retained by London. London is going to charge us millions to retain control of our taxes. Oh and the employees living in Scotland who work for large English companies or government organisations tax will be classed as English tax.
On to the raft of powers we are getting air guns and speed limits. Wow!
Then onto the fact they are planning to take back powers and responsibilities that have been devolved.
Complain about this comment
""I see that Herald piece is headlined, ‘The settled will of the Scottish people’."
Is any will of any people ever settled? What a moronic title created bt a cretin er journalist er same thing.
Complain about this comment
128. At 5:12pm on 01 Dec 2010, Vakov2000 wrote:
""I see that Herald piece is headlined, ‘The settled will of the Scottish people’."
Its a hijacked quote - used for propoganda, since the contrast with when it was first used could not be greater, in this case not actually asking the Scottish people.
The more accurate one would be ‘The settled will of the Westminster Government’.
Complain about this comment
With Calman we get to ban air weapons, with independence we get to ban nuclear weapons.
- shamelessly stolen from elsewhere but well worth repeating.
Complain about this comment
Severn07 - you are eligible for todays special offer too, since the other 3 one-hit wonders don't seem to want to take advantage.
-- SPECIAL 33% OFF --
tonbar, Mike, Dr K
In these testing times is THREE too much? No problem! Give us just TWO positive reasons for Scotland remaining in the Union? Surely between the three of you, there are TWO good reasons you can put forward?
Let's hear you then......
Complain about this comment
Oh & another thing - re the posts about banking armageddon included within this thread; if you wish to pinpoint the areas of finance sector meltdown in the UK, you can forget Nat West, Lloyds, HSBC & Barclays (i.e the old 'Big Four' clearing banks)- they were all fairly boring & secure in comparison with the senior management of the RBS holding company & decision makers for the property portfolio within Bank of Scotland. The knock-on impact of their actions took Nat West, Halifax & ultimately Lloyds out of the play & into government ownership. Bradford & Bingley & Northern Rock were 'building societies' who made the mistake of playing with the big boys. My point? Which of these culpable organisations were part of the City alleged 'spiv' culture - answer: none of them. Looking forward to hearing counter arguments from north of the Trent.
Complain about this comment
#124 707
Absolutely relevant, however not the whole story. As against your 100% what was the per capita spend in London and / or Cornwall. You may find that their %s are not the same as the 97% "English" spend.
In addition you could look out for the last figure produced by the MoD as to the geographical breakdown of their spend, which statistic they ceased to produce at about that time.
And further you could perhaps look not only at the geographical % for UK Government receipts but also the reason for the somewhat skewed distribution that it gives.
Then come back to this blog and argue the relevance of your figures in the larger picture. Please, it would be very much appreciated by most of the posters to this blog as well as me.
Complain about this comment
133. In response
GVA per capita in pounds
1 England 21 020
2 Scotland 20 066
3 Northern Ireland 16 188
4 Wales 15 237
In addition GVA in London is off the scale high & South West England low (retired impact).
If you combine the Barnett formula distribution of services with the GVA position above (& inherent taxation implications), then England is subsidising the rest of the UK. Counter arguments winging my way? Please don't pull the old oil & gas argument - offshore income is 'offshore'.
Oh & another thing - three reasons why Scotland should remain part of the Union? Great company on social occasions - can't think of any economic ones - sorry.
Complain about this comment
"Great company on social occasions"
Nope
Complain about this comment
Hello 135 (Vakov2000) - you said :- "Great company on social occasions"
'Nope'
Strangest thing. All the Scots I know are great company & buy a pint (forget the stereotypes). Ah, sorry, my mistake, that's not what you meant is it?
Complain about this comment
Severn07
FSA?
Ha ha ha ,
Complain about this comment
#130
Brilliant. Well found. Sums it all up perfectly.
Complain about this comment
137 - Kadok - Come on, be reasonable; everybody knows that FSA employees did not like travelling outside London because they were civil servants & therefore unwilling to travel on business in their own time. Hardly spivs - just not very good.
Complain about this comment
136. Severn07
That would be better!
Complain about this comment
I hope that the [unasked for?] power to vary Scotland's national speed limit is treated with care.
Any territory allowing 'excessive' speed - cf. Mann - is likely to attract the attention of Chipping Norton's best-known self-promoting resident, a certain Jeremy Clarkson.
Well, at least it wouldn't be Jerely Kyle....
Complain about this comment
"Give me 3 good positive reasons for Scotland to remain in the Union."
1. The BBC, which is disproportionately funded for the benefit of Scots - for all of its faults, a Scotland-only enterprise would run the risk of the look and feel of the Outer Hebrides Broadcasting Corporation, of Naked Video vintage.
2. The temperature of 'North Britain' will almost cerainly drop by a degree or two once independence is achieved, with the loss of the renewable resource that is the hot air of indignant nationalism.
3. The most 'dangerous' of Scotland's Labour ranks are kept in the Westminster playpen, tempered by their numerical disadvantage, and unable to run roughshod over a Scotland which apparently doesn't have the sense to turn its face against Labour.
Complain about this comment
#132 707
An interesting take on the solidity of the Big Four; who were the original bidders for ABN Amro? Barclays perhaps? And probably before your time but have you really thought about the Lloyds takeover of TSB so soon after their losses on South American sovereign debt or the losses declared by the Nationwide even after their takeover of the Dunfermline?
#134 707
Not exactly an answer to my argument, for instance why is London's GVA way offscale? It wouldn't have anything to do with e.g. part of the proceeds of the Scotch whisky industry being declared as profit by Diageo in London? I am sure you will find that London's share of Government expenditure is also way off scale and if you were to remove the company profits from the London GVA you might be left wondering why England allows London to remain part of the Union.
Complain about this comment
Slightly off-topic..........Jist watched Reporting Scotland. Re The Gathering Inq and School numbers...
If the SNP lose the next election it wont be because Larry, Mo and Curly AKA Gray,Baillie and Baker won it.It will be because the heavily biased newspapers and the BBC in Scotland won it for them
Complain about this comment
Thankfully Manx you are thankfully Manx!
We need to educate your ignorance.
"I hope that the [unasked for?] power to vary Scotland's national speed limit is treated with care."
We want our parliament that is the Scottish Parliament to have control over everything so speed limits is welcome but hardly enough.
"Give me 3 good positive reasons for Scotland to remain in the Union."
1. The BBC, which is disproportionately funded for the benefit of Scots - The BBC is not disproportionately funded for the benefit of Scots. It actively campaigns against Scotland for the government in London.
One welcome aspect of independence is to be seperated from people with your narrow minded viewpoint.
Complain about this comment
109 think they must have changed something as it doesn't mention UK now
Complain about this comment
131. Dot_Scotton
Three reasons why Scotland must remain in the United Kingdom.
1. It improves the career prospects of Scottish Labour politicians.
2. It improves the career prospects of Scottish Conservative politicians.
3. It improves the career prospects of Scottish LibDem politicians.
Complain about this comment
142. At 7:53pm on 01 Dec 2010, Thankfully Manx wrote:
"Give me 3 good positive reasons for Scotland to remain in the Union."
1. The BBC, which is disproportionately funded for the benefit of Scots - for all of its faults, a Scotland-only enterprise would run the risk of the look and feel of the Outer Hebrides Broadcasting Corporation, of Naked Video vintage.
a) "disproportionately funded for the benefit of Scots" that will be the BBC that raises 8% of its license fee here but spends less than 3% - want to think that through again?
b)You want to go see a doctor about your cringe, pal - what a ridiculous statement. Is broadcasting only of value if it comes from those exciting people in the Metropolis?
2. The temperature of 'North Britain' will almost cerainly drop by a degree or two once independence is achieved, with the loss of the renewable resource that is the hot air of indignant nationalism.
No problem, we'll heat our homes with renewable energy at an affordable price, with no expensive "National" Grid charges to stifle investment.
3. The most 'dangerous' of Scotland's Labour ranks are kept in the Westminster playpen, tempered by their numerical disadvantage, and unable to run roughshod over a Scotland which apparently doesn't have the sense to turn its face against Labour.
Quite happy to have the Labour MPs back up here if they were all working in a Scottish Government. They may be crap, but they'd be OUR crap and I'd have them any day before a Tory.
Note I said 'a' Tory. Its been a long time since we have had to deal with them in the plural.
As someone else said, we're also very thankful you are Manx.
Complain about this comment
Telegraph is saying the 70mph speed limit will be reduced to 60mph.
Any party that proposes that will be slung out on its ear.
Complain about this comment
Telegraph, con dems, labour, liberals, why should Scotland do their bidding?
Scotland or as desert!
Regards
John
Complain about this comment
124. Severn07
Tut tut the UK is broken up into 11 regions not 4 one of which is London getting about c120% or more, its too late in the season for cherry picking as the ones left are sour.
Complain about this comment
149. At 9:36pm on 01 Dec 2010, Wee-Scamp wrote:
Telegraph is saying the 70mph speed limit will be reduced to 60mph.
Any party that proposes that will be slung out on its ear.
Well, if its in the Telegraph, it must be right, huh? I'm sure that Alex Salmond speaks to the Torygraph before any other news organiation.
Meanwhile, in the real world, effective action to reduce the carnage on Scotland's roads would be very welcome IMHO.
Complain about this comment
" Meanwhile, in the real world, effective action to reduce the carnage on Scotland's roads would be very welcome IMHO"
Too true, so let's start with proper driver education, skid pan training, night driving, motorway driving, basic car maintenance as part of the driving test, restricting new drivers to a maximum of one passenger for the first n months after passing the test, compulsory retaking of the driving test every 5 years etc etc.
Whether drink is involved or not, a young driver showing off to a packed car full of pals is where a disproportionate %age of tragedies occur. A blanket reduction of the 70 limit down to 60 won't change that and will please no-one except the looney greens. Note I said the loony greens, not all greens are loonies but they have more than their share of Luddites.
Driving is a privilege, not a right, lets make Scotland's roads safer by producing better drivers, not knee-jerk regulations that only serve to frustrate those who can drive safely.
Oh wait we can't do that, we can only play with the speed limits?
Another poisoned chalice.....
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS