The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

I'm hoping that the rise of UKIP will help bring about PR for Westminster - yes, the swivel-eyed loons might have a use after all.

The price to be paid for that will be some unhealthily large support via PR for UKIP - tho only initially, I think. In much the same way as PR has opened up the political possibilities for Scotland, it will do much the same for Westminster - tho as with Scotland it will take a while to get into its stride with that. So any large UKIP benefit will be short-term.

I can't really see your logic on this one Neil. Unless Ukip get some sort of extraordinary bounce on the back of this result - they are still likely to fare much worse under FPTP than any form of PR where they could easily hold the balance of power. So if anything it would seem to me to reduce even further (from about nil) the likelihood of the Westminster Two countenancing any change.

One of the problems with PR (which I am wholeheartedly in favour of & have been for years) is that its not an issue that gets people excited - & therefore doesn't rally swing votes - it also doesn't help when the only significant party in favour of it have pretty much gone up in smoke!

Sorry.

[Comfy Bean]

" Vote NO to protect your pension ". Better Together, bigger pot, blah blah blah

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11152794/Millions-face-tax-rises-or-derisory-state-pension-report-claims.html

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2514378/Only-Mexico-worse-state-pension-UK.html

Edited October 10, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

Remember the vow......

Labour apparently looking for Scotland to have 40% control over taxes

40% - Brown spoke about home rule and Galloway, speaking for BT at the Hydro night with the kids spoke about super devo max ?

SNP going for the whole home rule thing ( only leaving foreign policy and defense ) that Brown talked about in his speech. Powers over all the tax receipts including oil revenues. Why not give Scotland the full deck in return for not voting on English matters. Heard Swinney saying last week that he has never voted anyway on things that only affect England.

Looks like the SNP will hold the vow makers to account. Labour will be the bad guys. Dave will be pissing himself !

[Comfy Bean]

I think the claims about UKIP winning a seat making waves in UK politics are ridiculous. The Greens won a seat in an actual GE without a by-election and a party-switch by an incumbent and they're still being talked about as irrelevant. I don't think UKIP's influence is much larger. Bigger rise in recent years maybe, but I suspect in share of the vote and seats they'll be pretty similar next year.

It'll still be a 2+1 with a few smaller parties getting the odd seat.

As Neil said earlier, by-elections throw up weird results. The future balance of politics will take at least 3 GEs to swing without an electoral system change (and tbh, it'll probably require 4+ to get another chance at a new voting system).

I agree with you here mate. Was the guy not sitting on a pretty big majority anyway.

Good point about the Greens. Perhaps the BBC will start giving UKIP the same amount of coverage that they are already giving the Greens now they`ve got that first seat

[eFestivals]

Edited October 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[LOCHLAND5]

Scotland the dream is over get used to it!!!!!!

And vote for the tories at the next election raising the ceiling on the 40% tax bracket to £50,000 is an election winner .

[LJS]

There's mean average, and then there's median average. I suggest you look up what the differences are.

The mean average is the figure I quoted. the median house price is £135,000 so bang on the threshold. Perhaps as you are conscious of the importance mean vs. median you should be a bit clearer when talking about average?

You're quoting the one which is over the threshold, the other is under the threshold. More houses in Scotland are sold that are under the threshold than over the threshold (and that applies for the old threshold, not just the new threshold).

What sort of wage do you think newspaper reporters get. Are they hit by this change, which then affects their reporting of it?

Because it's a tax that kicks in at a fairly low level, it will of course hit the more-wealthy middle-classes who are buying higher-price houses.

But it's also giving a tax cut to many more lower-middle-class people.

Ask yourself: how many of the poor that you were posting a year back that you wanted to help buy any house at all?

very few which is why, if you had full tax powers, you wouldn't really be looking at this tax as a means to help the poor. The fact remains that the changes Swinney has made means that those buying the most expensive houses will face an increase in what they pay.

So there is absolutely no benefit to the poorest.

The benefits are collected by those wealthy enough to afford a house, but who buy a house before the threshold hits - a new higher threshold, that benefits those who buy in the gap between the old threshold and the new threshold - who are buying above-average-price houses.

It benefits the middle-classes, but just not everyone who is middle class.

And yet you cheer the wonderful benefits for the poor of the bedroom tax, that has only cost £60M

So plenty can be done with £440M.

In fact, that's around 1.5% of the SG's budget - which is actually an awful lot in what it can do.

That £440M could make up the money that the SNP have cut from Scotland's NHS, in fact.

£440m is not new money £440m is what this tax raises & the block grant will be reduced accordingly so the only way to have extra money is to increase the overall money taken by this tax. It doesn't need much mathematical ability to work out that you would need a pretty dramatic increase to free up significant money for new spending.

It is a shit tax as a tool for wealth distribution - the wealthy only pay it if they move house - so if i'm quite comfortable in my castle it will redistribute precisely fuck all of my wealth to anyone else.

From their perspective it certainly is. Just as in England, political success comes from getting the middle classes on side.

As ever, you enter defensive mode and stop listening, or make it up. You know, the things you accuse me of.

Nowhere have I suggested this is "Thatcherite" or right-wing, I've stated what it is: a tax cut for the middle classes. It's you that have put "Thatcherite" onto that.

It's far far closer to what nuLabour have been about. You know, the nuLabour policies which you say - or used to, anyway (until you moved your own political position) - are bad for Scotland cos they do nothing for the poorest who you said need help.

------

PS: I've just remembered another thing that UKIP and SNP/yes-er supporters share. And that is the thing where they both say "the more you insult/belittle/state-inconvenient-facts-at us the more we'll do the opposite of what you're suggesting".

Yeah, sure... inconveniently for you - your facts are pants neil

It's all about the rejection of those 'old' others, and not true acceptance of what the 'new' party stands for.

Just like you've done above via the pretence that the stamp duty change hits the middle classes, so that you can pretend it helps the poor - when the poor do not buy houses.

Did you mum under-supply you with dot-to-dot puzzles as a kid?

And when all else fails, Neil slings in a gratuitous insult. How clever!

Edited October 11, 2014 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

Scotland the dream is over get used to it!!!!!!

And vote for the tories at the next election raising the ceiling on the 40% tax bracket to £50,000 is an election winner .

I agree that the Tories will be the election winners as I think Labour are a shambles and will get worse in the heat of the campaign. The dream will never die though

Just heard them joking on BBC radio that Scotland should replace Flower of Scotland at the football tonight with the Strawbs - Part of the Union. I did almost smile.....before the tears started !

[Comfy Bean]

So... " The poor do not buy houses " and we should laugh at the help given by the SNP when scrapping the bedroom tax. Dear O` Dear.

Perhaps we should ALL feel poor. How many gazillions are " we " in debt these days ?

Do you regard young people in England as " poor " if they are £1000`s in debt after going on to further education. Should they not be buying houses either ?

Even without Indy, the SNP are covering the education of our young to save them from starting off in life with massive debts and they have scrapped the bedroom tax to protect the poorest in society from more financial hardship.

[LOCHLAND5]

So... " The poor do not buy houses " and we should laugh at the help given by the SNP when scrapping the bedroom tax. Dear O` Dear.

Perhaps we should ALL feel poor. How many gazillions are " we " in debt these days ?

Do you regard young people in England as " poor " if they are £1000`s in debt after going on to further education. Should they not be buying houses either ?

Even without Indy, the SNP are covering the education of our young to save them from starting off in life with massive debts and they have scrapped the bedroom tax to protect the poorest in society from more financial hardship.

Theres no need to be homless theres always a affordable solution i hear on the grapevine there is a thing in scotland called hutting gonna be massive!

check out these affordable homeless options http://www.logcabinslakeland.co.uk/

[eFestivals]

[eFestivals]

the Strawbs - Part of the Union. I did almost smile.....before the tears started !

I posted that very early in this thread.

(PS: you do realise it's actually an anti-Union song, don't you?)

[eFestivals]

So... " The poor do not buy houses " and we should laugh at the help given by the SNP when scrapping the bedroom tax. Dear O` Dear.

Perhaps we should ALL feel poor. How many gazillions are " we " in debt these days ?

Do you regard young people in England as " poor " if they are £1000`s in debt after going on to further education. Should they not be buying houses either ?

Even without Indy, the SNP are covering the education of our young to save them from starting off in life with massive debts and they have scrapped the bedroom tax to protect the poorest in society from more financial hardship.

The poorest DO NOT buy houses.

And I wasn't laughing at the help that Scotland has given around the bedroom tax, I was laughing that an amount seven times bigger was said by LJS to be too small to do anything useful with towards Scotland's poor.

Meanwhile, Scotland has the money to pay for free education off the very backs of those English who have to pay for their education - you know, via the huge amount extra that horrible Westminster gives to Scotland at the expense of other UK citizens.

If England had the same extra to spend on its population, England could afford those things too.

But let's just pretend that it's all about the wonderfulness of Scotland and only Scotland.

[LJS]

The poorest DO NOT buy houses.

And I wasn't laughing at the help that Scotland has given around the bedroom tax, I was laughing that an amount seven times bigger was said by LJS to be too small to do anything useful with towards Scotland's poor.

Meanwhile, Scotland has the money to pay for free education off the very backs of those English who have to pay for their education - you know, via the huge amount extra that horrible Westminster gives to Scotland at the expense of other UK citizens.

If England had the same extra to spend on its population, England could afford those things too.

But let's just pretend that it's all about the wonderfulness of Scotland and only Scotland.

"In colloquial language average usually refers to the sum of a list of numbers divided by the size of the list, in other words the arithmetic mean. However, the word "average" can be used to refer to the median, the mode, or some other central or typical value."

(wikipedia)

Look, you are well aware I have issues with the priorities of the SNP government - I just think this is not a massive opportunity for wealth redistribution - Of course if you are hell bent (as you appear to be) on looking for every opportunity to attack the SNP, you will have a go. Feel free to continue.

And please stop presenting as fact that the rest of the UK subsidies Scotland, unless you can do better than your unlinked figures previously supplied. This is only trus for one year out of the past five (at least in the linked figures i provided!)

[eFestivals]

Look, you are well aware I have issues with the priorities of the SNP government

not the case. You should try actually listening instead of making it up.

I have issues with the number of people who claim that Scotland is a society that wants to desperately do more for the poor, while that same society happily scoops up increased benefits for the middle classes at the expense of the poorest.

I'm merely pointing out the difference between the claims and what actually happens.

I know why it happens. It happens for all of the same reasons that the same Scots claim Westminster to be a failure; pandering to the middle classes, and the middle classes lapping it up.

I just think this is not a massive opportunity for wealth redistribution

It's not a massive opportunity for wealth redistribution, true.

But is it an opportunity for wealth redistribution, wealth redistribution that isn't happening for the poorest, and is instead happening to benefit the middle classes.

It's indicative, again, of most of what the Scottish Government has chosen to do - benefit the middle classes at the expense of the poorest.

The income redistribution from the stamp duty change could have been used to benefit the poor. It wasn't, instead it's being used to benefit the middle classes AND the rentier classes.

Let's correctly call-out these things for what they are, and let's not work via a false pretence.

- Of course if you are hell bent (as you appear to be) on looking for every opportunity to attack the SNP, you will have a go. Feel free to continue.

I will keep pointing out that Scotland is not the society with a hugely different set of priorities to the rest of the UK that is claimed for it.

Because that's the truth. The very fact that you're not bothered when policies benefit the middle classes and not the poor shows things in their true light.

Meanwhile, it's hugely unlikely that any govt will make *HUGE* changes to benefit anyone - because for every winner there's also a loser, and that 'loss' has just as measurable effect as the 'win' and cannot be ignored. That's why any changes are always done in baby steps.

The baby steps that the SNP take benefit the middle classes and not the poor. Let's say what it is, and not pretend a false scenario.

And please stop presenting as fact that the rest of the UK subsidies Scotland

PMSL. We've been thru this. The Scottish Govt itself says that for 16 years of the last 25 years the UK has subsided Scotland.

But that's actually nothing of what I said. You've made it up, again.

I said that Scotland gets more money at the expense of the rUK population - and it does.

If rUK had as much to spend on its population, rUK would have the money to do the same things (or alternative things of the same value).

All I'm doing is pointing out the truth of things, that Scotland is able to do more things for its people with govt money because as a govt it is given more money with which to do more things for its people

unless you can do better than your unlinked figures previously supplied.

PMSL.

Your previous excuse for not understanding those numbers was that you were too busy trying to convert people to indy. You don't have that excuse now.

So now you have the time (less than 5 minutes needed) to put into those figures so that you understand them, so that you can then stop making false claims about Scotland's financial position.

Will you make those efforts? Or will you prefer to keep telling porkies?

And this is where UKIP and the SNP collide . There are no true facts that can convince their supporters that their blind-faith in wrongness is wrong.

Go on, prove you're not just like any UKIP supporter.

Here's that spreadsheet:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/RelatedAreas/LRfiscalbalances2013

Now, are you Nigel Farage, or are you able to handle to the truth?

This is only trus for one year out of the past five (at least in the linked figures i provided!)

Even that statement is wrong.

For 3 of the last five years rUK has subsidised Scotland.

Those years are: 2013-14; 2012-13; and 2011-12.

(the official SG 2013-14 full-year numbers are not yet available, but the poor oil revenues for that year are available, and those make the fact of subsidy from rUK inescapable, because we know what the block grant was and what GDP was).

Edited October 13, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: I'm quite happy to walk you thru what you need to be looking at to understand those numbers LJS.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/RelatedAreas/LRfiscalbalances2013

You need to look at the last two tabs. These are titled:-

SCOTLAND

Public Sector Summary Balances - with GEOGRAPHIC SHARE OF NORTH SEA OIL REVENUES

and

UK

Public Sector Summary Balances - with ALL NORTH SEA OIL REVENUES

It is the last column of each tab you need to compare. These are titled:-

Net Fiscal Balance

and

Net Borrowing

(they have different titles because the SG cannot make its own borrowings, which makes them factually different things but for the same financial effect)

Any year where the UK percentage is a greater number than the Scottish percentage is a year where Scotland has been subsidised by rUK.

It's very easy to understand, and it very easily puts to bed the lie you like to claim. Surely you'd rather be properly informed than be stating wrong information?

Either that, or you're everything the worst UKIP supporter is.

Edited October 13, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PPS: ... you said ....

This is only trus for one year out of the past five (at least in the linked figures i provided!)

This is deliberate mis-information disseminated by WoS.

It pretends that the numbers for 2012-13 are not available when they are.

I wonder why WoS decided to lie to people rather than present them with fully-truthful and fully-accurate data?

Worse still, why have the likes of you chosen to accept what they've said, and not done your own independent research?

But it's only the main stream media who lies, yeah? And those wonderful social media types get to the bottom of everything yeah, and expose the lies?

When one side stops accepting evidence and facts, all chance of a rational debate evaporates. Yes-ers and UKIP-ers are the same, and I demand my five pounds.

Or, perhaps you'll show yourself as better than a UKIP-er?

(I'd love it if you would, but I'm not holding my breath )

Edited October 13, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

PPS: ... you said ....

This is deliberate mis-information disseminated by WoS.

It pretends that the numbers for 2012-13 are not available when they are.

I wonder why WoS decided to lie to people rather than present them with fully-truthful and fully-accurate data?

Worse still, why have the likes of you chosen to accept what they've said, and not done your own independent research?

But it's only the main stream media who lies, yeah? And those wonderful social media types get to the bottom of everything yeah, and expose the lies?

When one side stops accepting evidence and facts, all chance of a rational debate evaporates. Yes-ers and UKIP-ers are the same, and I demand my five pounds.

Or, perhaps you'll show yourself as better than a UKIP-er?

(I'd love it if you would, but I'm not holding my breath )

I have never quoted figures from WOS. The figures I linked to were from the beeb. Is the beeb now a covert front for wings?

& your comparison of Scottish figures including oil with UK figures including all oil isn't relevant is it?

Edited October 13, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

I have never quoted figures from WOS. The figures I linked to were from the beeb. Is the beeb now a covert front for wings?

re-edit.

I fucked up, because one set of bad numbers dropped out as another set of bad numbers came in. My apologies for that.

It is correct that for only one year in the last five has Scotland had a greater deficit (tho only till the 2013-14 numbers are published, which are known to be worse than 2012-13 even now).

And so what you've said from the Beeb is correct - tho by selecting just five years for inclusion it gives a false picture.

For only 9 years between 1990 and 2013 has Scotland not run a bigger deficit than whole-UK - which means that for 14 years in 23 Scotland has run a bigger deficit than whole-UK.

(and that'll be 15 years in 23 when the 2013-14 numbers are published).

That 'good' (not actually very good) position for Scotland is a position that will not be continued into the future, because the oil revenues will only go downwards as an average - cos even if the oil price goes back up, the oil that is able to be extracted has much higher extraction costs than the oil that's been extracted up-til-now.

(do remember that 'the oil revenue' is tax on extraction *profits*, they are not paid on the amount of oil extracted).

& your comparison of Scottish figures including oil with UK figures including all oil isn't relevant is it?

Yes, it is relevant.

If the SG's deficit with geographical oil revenues included is greater than the (whole) UK's deficit with all oil included, then Scotland has been subsidised by rUK.

So go look at that spreadsheet, and see for yourself how bad Scotland's finances are.

(but I know you won't; you're doing the UKIP thing of rejecting facts for fantasies. You're not interested in the facts, you're only interested in 'winning' [and ultimately losing] ... but do feel free to prove me wrong with that, i'll be pleased for you giving up numptie-land if you do)

Edited October 13, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

here's that spreadsheet again, where the Alex Salmond's own govt prove all the yes-er's blind-faith is mis-placed blind-faith.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/RelatedAreas/LRfiscalbalances2013

But who needs the real facts, when you can pick and choose the facts you want to self-justify the position you hold thru blind faith alone?

Edited October 13, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PPS: have you seen the price of oil lately?

It's a long, long, LONG way from the $113 a barrel that makes Salmond's economic projections for scotland work.

Then again, the amount of oil extracted is also a long long LONG way from his projections too.

That means that Scotland now has a bigger deficit than Greece, even with a geographic share of oil revenues.

Oh dear.

[eFestivals]

To make it easy for you LJS, here's the surplus/deficit percentages in easy form. The ones in bold are the ones where Scotland had a better fiscal position than whole-UK.

[ year | Scottish surplus/deficit | whole-UK surplus/deficit ]

1980/81 5.5% -4.8%
1981/82 13.8% -2.3%
1982/83 14.6% -3.0%
1983/84 13.6% -3.7%
1984/85 16.8% -3.6%
1985/86 16.9% -2.4%
1986/87 5.5% -2.0%
1987/88 4.9% -1.0%
1988/89 4.5% 1.3%
1989/90 0.9% 0.2%
1990/91 -1.8% -1.0%
1991/92 -4.5% -3.7%
1992/93 -9.5% -7.4%
1993/04 -9.4% -7.6%
1994/95 -6.7% -6.1%
1995/06 -4.4% -4.6%
1996/97 -2.9% -3.4%
1997/98 -1.4% -0.7%
1998/99 -1.5% 0.5%
1999/00 -1.3% 1.6%
2000/01 2.5% 4.1%
2001/02 -0.8% -0.1%
2002/03 -3.9% -2.4%
2003/04 -5.5% -2.9%
2004/05 -4.8% -3.4%
2005/06 -1.9% -3.0%
2006/07 -2.6% -2.4%
2007/08 -2.9% -2.6%
2008/09 -2.6% -6.9%
2009/10 -10.7% -11.2%
2010/11 -8.1% -9.5%
2011/12 -5.0% -7.9%
2012-13 -8.3% -7.3%

2013-14 will be worse than 2012-13 (this is already known, tho the full numbers are not yet published).

(note: I've added in the 2012-13 numbers onto what is within the spreadsheet.
The 2012-13 numbers comes from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/Q/pno/3)

And do note that the good years for Scotland are nothing to do with anything about Scotland being anything 'better' than the whole-UK. It's simply the luck of some minerals off-shore of Scotland.

Edited October 13, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Hope you've dried yourself out, Neil.

Incontinence is a terrible affliction.

So, what we've established is some years Scotland pays more than its share, sometimes less & oil prices sometimes go down as well as up.

Jolly good.

[eFestivals]

Hope you've dried yourself out, Neil.

Incontinence is a terrible affliction.

and deliberate stupidity is a worse one. Have you looked at and understood that spreadsheet yet?

So, what we've established is some years Scotland pays more than its share, sometimes less & oil prices sometimes go down as well as up.

Ahhh, I see you haven't looked at that spreadsheet, nor joined up the dots of what its pointing out.

Scotland pays more than its share almost never (tho the same is true for whole-UK too). Scotland has the worst deficit in Europe.

Scotland did contribute more than rUK in some years, when there was shit loads of oil (which there isn't now) and when the oil prices were at a record high (which they aren't now).

As there will never again be the high oil revenues that Salmond based his economic projections on (because the oil left to extract costs much more to extract) where he spent the same oil no-money four-times over, Scotland's financial position is only downwards from here.

Edited October 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

The poorest DO NOT buy houses.

And I wasn't laughing at the help that Scotland has given around the bedroom tax, I was laughing that an amount seven times bigger was said by LJS to be too small to do anything useful with towards Scotland's poor.

Meanwhile, Scotland has the money to pay for free education off the very backs of those English who have to pay for their education - you know, via the huge amount extra that horrible Westminster gives to Scotland at the expense of other UK citizens.

If England had the same extra to spend on its population, England could afford those things too.

But let's just pretend that it's all about the wonderfulness of Scotland and only Scotland.

I take your point about who can afford to buy houses these days. It should be said though that young first time buyers or " poor " people ( to borrow your term ) would be unlikely to be affected by these changes to stamp duty so not sure it`s as big a deal as your trying to make out. If it`s to encourage more homes to be built and therefore create jobs then there might be something in it. As I understand it, people who live in the mansions WILL be affected which should generate revenue - no ?

Have you congratulated Salmond yet on bucking the austerity trend with his decision on nullifying and then abolishing the bedroom tax ? If not, why not !

Your last bit in bold is interesting if your up for a blether on this.

I think funding free education is a choice and all about Government priorities ( think Germany are going with free ). Times are hard in Scotland as you love to point out but education remains free as do prescriptions, care for the elderly and as above, removal of unfair taxes on the " poor ". Are you sure England would make the same decisions ? It looks to me that they have different priorities eg a tax CUT for middle englanders earners. It would be easy for me to point at the £100billion to renew Trident that the Scottish Govt wants no part of but that would meaning falling out with the Americans and losing your place as a world player !!

Anyway my point is governments have to make difficult choices and prioritise as they see fit. We clearly live in different Countries.

Another recent example would be how the Scottish Government CHOSE to grant the 1% to ALL NHS staff no matter where they sat on the pay scale hence no strike up here yesterday. A decision made despite us being the poorest country in the world according to some

I`ve never agreed with having our young folks coming out of Uni or wherever saddled with £20000 of debt or whatever it is. Our attitude to debt will be our downfall again soon and the tax cuts Dave announced recently ( his priority / choice ) won`t help get the debt down. It`s as if more than Milliband forgot about it !

Your very last sentence reminded me of Edwina Currie`s brilliant line. She is " fed up funding Scotland`s extravagant lifestyle "